ML20150C154
| ML20150C154 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 12/06/1987 |
| From: | COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150C157 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8803180044 | |
| Download: ML20150C154 (91) | |
Text
-. . _ __ - . . , .-- . _ --
l
[
r s
REACTOR CONTAINMENT BUILDING ,
t i
i :
QUAD-CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION f 1
UNIT ONE !'
DECEMBER 5-6, 1987 :
i .
t t
5 i
I l
t I
i a
r i ;
i 0483H/02142 . ,
i 0803180044 880222
! i PDR i
. P ADOCK 05000254 PDR ~ '-l,
? l
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE AND FIGURES INDEX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 3 INTRODUCTION . ........................... 4 A. TEST PREPARATIONS A.1 Type A Test Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 A.2 Type A Tr^$ Instrumentation. . . .............. 4 A.2.a. iemperature . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 8 A.2.b. Pressure. . . . . ................ 8 A.2.c. Vapor Pressure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 A.2.d. Flow. ... .................... 9 A.3 Type A Test Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 A.4 Type A Test Pressurization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 B. TEST METHOD B.1 Basic Technique ..................... . 12 B.2 Supplemental Verification Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 B.3 Instrutaent Error Analysi s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 C. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS C.1 Test Preparation Chronology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 C.2 Test Preparation and Stabilization Chronology. . . . . . . 15 C.3 Measured Leak Rata Phase Chronology. . . . . . . . . . . . 16 C.4 Induced Leakage Phase Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 C.5 Depressurization Phase Chrc.cology. . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 l
i 0483H/0214Z TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
PAGE D. TYPE A TEST DATA D.1 Measured Leak Rate Phase Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 0.2 Induced Leakage Phase Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 E. T EST CALCULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 F. TYPE A TEST RESULTS F.1 Measured Leak Rate Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 F.2 Induced Leakage Test Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 ,
F.3 Pre-Operational Results vs. Test Results. . . . . . . . . 35 F.4 Type A Test Penalties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 F.5 Evaluation of Instrument Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 F.6 As-Found Type A Test Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 APPENDIX A TYPE B AND C TESTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 APPENDIX B TEST CORRECTION FOR SUMP LEVEL CHANGES . . . . . 47 APPENDIX C COMPUTATIONAL PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 APPENDIX D INSTRUMENT ERROR ANALYSIS , . . . . . . . . 64 APPENDIX E BN-TCP-1, REV. 1 ERRATA ............70 APPENDIX F TYPE A TEST RESULTS USING MASS-PLOT. . . . . . . 74 METHOD (ANS/ ANSI 56.8)
APPENDIX G "AS FOUND" TEST FAILURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 0483H/0214Z 1
TABLES AND FIGURES INDEX PAGE TABLE 1 Instrument Specifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 TABLE 2 Sensor Physical Locations. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 TABLE 3 Measured Leak Rate Phase Test Results. . . . . . . . . 18 TABLE 4 Induced Leakage Phase Test Results . . . . . . . . . . 19 FIGURE 1 Idealized View of Drywell and Torus. . . . . . . . . . . 7 Used to Calculate Free Air Volumes FIGURE 2 Measurement System Schematic Arrangement . . . . . . . 11 FIGURE 3 Measured Leak Rate Phase - Graph of Calculated . . . . 20 Leak Rate and Upper Confidence Limit FIGURE 4 Measured Leak Rate Phase - Graph of Total. . . . . . . 21 Time Measure Leak Rate and Regression Line ,
FIGURE 5 Measured Leak Rate Phase - Graph of .........22 Dry Air Pressure FIGURE 6 Measured Leak Rate Phase - Graph of Volume . . . . . . 23 Heighted Average Containment Vapor Pressure FIGURE 7 Measured Leak Rate Phase - Graph of Volume . . . . . . 24 Weighted Average Containment Temperature FIGURE 8 Induced Leakage Phase - Graph cf Calculated. . . . . 25 Leak Rate
' iGURE 9 Induced Leakage Phase - Graph of Total Time. ....26 Measured Leak Rate and Regression Line FIGURE 10 Induced Leakage Phase - Graph of Volume. . . . . . . . 27 Weighted Average Containment Temperature FIGURE 11 Induced Leakage Phase - Graph of Volume. . . . . . . . 28 Weighted Average Containment Vapor Pressure FIGURE 12 Induced Leakage Phase - Graph of . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Dry Air Pressure FIGURE 13 Graph of Reactor Water Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Through Testing Period FIGURE 14 Graph of Torus Water Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Through Testing Period FIGURE F-1 Statistically Average Leak Rate end Upper. . . . . . . 74 Confidence Limit (ANS/ ANSI 56.8 Method)
FIGURE F-2 Statistically Averaged Leak-rate and Target. . . . . . 75 Leak-rate (ANS/ ANSI 56.8 Method) 0483H/G2142 INTRODUCT10N This report presents the test method and results of the Integrated Primary Containment Leak Rate Test (IPCLRT) successfully performed on December 5-6, 1987 at Quad-Cities Nuclear Power Station, Unit One. The test was performed in accordance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, and the Quad-Cities Unit One Technical Specifications.
For the third time at Quad-Cities a short duration test (less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />) was conducted using the general test method outlined in BN-TOP-1, Revision 1 (Bechtel Corporation Topical Report) dated November 1, 1972. The first short duration test was conducted on Unit One in December, 1982.
Using the above test method, the total primary containment integrated leak rate was calculated to be 0.3194 wt %/ day at a test pressure greater than 48 PSIG. The calculated leak rate was within the 0.750 wt %/ day acceptance criteria (75% of LA). The associated upper 95% confidence limit was 0.3508 wt %/ day.
The supplemental induced leakage test result was calculated to be 1.3491 wt
%/ day. This value should compare with the sum of the measured leak rate phase result (0.3194 wt %/ day) and the inducted leak of 8.79 SCFM (1.0770 wt %/ day). The calculated leak rate of 1.3491 wt %/ day lies within the allowable tolerance band of 1.3964 wt %/ day 2 0.250 wt %/ day.
SECTION A - TEST PREPARATIONS A.1 Type A Test Procedure The IPCLRT was performed in accordance with Quad-Cities Procedure QTS 150-1, Rev. 14, including checklist QTS 150-S1 through S13 and subsections T2, T6, T8, TIO, Tll, and T12. Approved Temporary Procedures 5049, 5088, 5096, 5102, 5107, 5109, and 5123 were written in conjunction with the test. Procedure 5049 was written to facilitate the use of diesel driven air compressors in place of the electric air compressors. Procedure 5088 was written to cover the various manual isolation valves not included in the ILRT valve checslist QTS 150-S5. Procedure 5096 was written to provide a procedure to inject argon gas into the containment for imoroved leak detection. Procedures 5102 and 5107 were written to cover exceptions to the valve line-up QTS 150-SS. Procedure 5109 was written to delete the Rx water level correction. Finally, Procedure 5123 was written to eliminate discrepancies between the pre and post-test valve line-up.
These procedures were written to comply with 10 CFR 50 Appendix J, ANS/ ANSI N45.4-1972, and Quad-Cities Unit One Technical Specifications, and to reflect the Commission's approval of a short duration test using the BN-TOP-1, Rev. 1 Topical Report as a general test method.
A.2 Type A Test instrumentation j Table One shows the specifications for the instrumentation utilized in the IPCLRT. Table Two lists the physical locations of the temperature and humidity sensors within the primary containment. Figure 1 is an idealized view of the drywell and suppression chamber used to calculate the primary containment free air subvolumes. Plant personnel performed all test instrumentation calibrations using NBS traceable standa,'ds. Quad Cities procedure QTS 150-9 was used to perform the calibration.
0483H/02142 1
TABLE ONE INSTRUMENT SPECIFICATIONS INSTRUMENT MANUFACTURER MODEL NO. SERIAL NO. RANGE ACCURACY REPEATABILITY Precision Pressure Gages (2) Volumetrics 846,847 0-100 PSIA 2 015 PSI i.001 PSI 44209 to Burns 44238 RTD's (30) Engineering SP1A1-5 1/2-3A inclusive 50-150*F 1 5*F 1 1*F 5835-1, 5835-2 5835-3, 6084-4, 6084-9, 5835-6 Volumetrics Lithium 6084-7, 6084-8, Dewcells (10) (Foxboro) Chloride 5835-9, 5835-10 20-104*F 11 0*F i.5"F Pal! Trinity Thermocouple Micro 14-T-2H 0-600*F 12 0*F 1 1*F Fischer FIowmeter & Porter 10A3555S 8405A0348A1 1.15-11.10 scfm 1 111 scfm 1
1 Level '
indicator 555111BCAA I LT 1-6468 GEMAC 3AAA 0-60" H 2O 1
0497H l
)
TABLE TWO SENSOR PHYSICAL LOCATIONS RTD NUMBER SERIAL NUMBER SUBVOLUME ELEVATION AZIMUTH
- 1 44233 1 670'0" 180' 2 44210 1 670'0" 0*
3 44211 2 657'0" 20' 4 44212 2 657'0" 197*
5 44123 3 639'0" 70*
6 44214 3 639'0" 255' 7 44215 4(Annular Ring) 643'0" 55' 8 44216 4 615'0" 225' 9 44217 5 620'0" 5' 10 44218 5 620'0" 100*
11 44219 5 620'0" 220*
12 44220 6 608'0" 40' 13 44221 6 608'0" 130' 14 44222 6 608'0" 220*
15 44223 6 608'0" 310' 16 44224 7 598'0" 70' 17 44225 7 598'0" 160*
18 44226 7 598'0" 250' 19 44227 7 598'0" 340' l
20 44228 8 587'0" 10*
21 44230 8 587'0" 100' 22 44232 8 587'0" 190' 23 44233 8 587'0" 225' 24 44234 9(CRD Space) 595'0" 170*
25 44235 9(CRD Space)) 580'0" 170' 26 44235 10(Torus) 578'0" 70' 27 44237 10(Torus) 578'0" 140*
28 44238 10(Torus) 578'0" 210' 29 44229 10(Torus) 578'0" 280' 30 44231 10(Torus) 578'0" 350' Thermocouple (inlet to 11(Rx Vessel) .
clean-up HX) '
DEHCELL NO. SERIAL NUMBER SUBVOLUME ELEVATION AZIMUTH 1 5835-1 1 670'0" 180' 2 5835-2 2,3,4 653'0" 90' 3 5835-3 2,3,4 653'0" 270*
4 6084-4 5 620'0" 0*
5 6084-9 6 605'0" 45' 6 5835-6 7 600'0" 220' 7 6084-7 8,9 591'0" O' 8 6084-8 8,9 591'0" 220' 9 5835-9 10 578'0" 90' 10 5835-10 10 578'0" 270' Thermocoup'3 (Saturated) 11 --- ---
0483H/0214Z .. . .
Ideall:ed View of Orywell and Torus Used to Calculate Free Volumes I
l I
) n ' o" q
(
e w e~ ; ,,,,,..
l _
_ sn's" 1
,... /
k/ ..
_ e w... r..
l *f :21
- y. *
,- ,,/. -
/ 6(,'S" w/,3,F,se=- __g$//41/f;g *U,,,"** 8
- 'I ./ 'i $35'13" l
' lVoIune
- . <rii'lMi7 /u/,_/ / .;
. , , f- (n,l . sws.
-l i
- j' - ,/ s.,; (l'* t i % 6 e
/-j ,
L; /f,/ /. * ../,. ,. 5 9, . 6'-
., /. ./.
a ,. u ,. .
__ .3:, ...t..
.____ l' _ _ _ _ wi" q'J/< 2, . ... ._.M..
i/
\
/
/ / _
,i n "
^
G h '.
__? Y
( M ///////
e// - it,,ie',e,s._.;R
-j \ l
< se 6" :
\v FIGURE 1 0483H - -
- . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .1
A.2.a. Temperature The location of the 30 platinum RTD's was chosen to avoid conflict with local temperature variations and thermal influence from metal structures. A temperature survey of the containment was previously performed to verify that the sensor locations were representative of average subvolume conditions.
The RTD's were manufactured by Burns Engineering Inc. and are M *1 SP 1Al-5 1/2-3A. Each RTD and itt associated bridge network was calibrated to yield an output of approximately 0-100 mV over a temperature range of 50-150'F. Eauh RTD was calibrated by comparing the bridge output to the true temperature as indicated by the temperature standard. Four temperatures were used for the calibration. Two calibration constants (a slope and intercept of the regression line) were computed for each RTD by performing a least squares fit of the RTD bridge output to the reference standard's indicated true temperature.
The temperature standard used for all calibrations was a Volumetrics RTD Model VMC 701-8 used with a Dewcell/RTO Calibrator Model 07782. The standard was calibrated by Volumetrics on July 21, 1987 to standards traceable to the NBS.
The plant process computer scanned the output of each RTD-bridge network and converted the output to engineering units using the calibration constants.
A.2.b. Pressure Two precision quartz bourdon tube, absolute pressure gauges were utilized to measure total containment pressure. Each gauge had a local digital readout and a Binary Coded Decimal (BCD) output to the process computer. Primary containment pressure was sensed by the pressure gauges in parallel through a 3/8" tygon tube connection to a special one inch pipe penetration to the containment.
Each precision pressure gauge was calibrated from 62.8-65.8 PSIA in approximately 0.5 PSI increments using a third precision pressure gauge (Volumetrics Model 07726) that had been sent to Volumetrics for calibration.
The pressure standard was calibrated on July 21, 1987 using.NBS traceable reference standards.
i The digital readout of the Instruments were in "counts" or arbitrary units. Calibration constants (a slope and intercept of a regression lino) were entered into the computer program to convert "counts" into true atmospheric pressure as read by the third, reference gauge. No mechanical calibration of the gauges was performed to bring their digital displays into agreement with true pressure.
A.2.c. Vapor Pressure Ten lithium chloride dewcells were used to determine the partial pressure due to water vapor in the containment. The dewcells were calibrated using the Volumetrics calibrator described in section A.2.a. above and a chilled mirror i dewcell standard (Volumetrics S/N 1263) calibrated on July 21, 1987 by 0483H/0214Z f-Volumetrics. The calibration constants for each dewcell (che slope and intercept of a regression line) were coraputed relating the 0-100 mV output of the signil conditioning cards to the actual dewpoint indicated by the reference standard.
A.2.d. Flow A rotameter flowmeter, Fischer-Porter serial number 8405A0348A1, was used for the flow mea;urement during the induced leakage phase of the IPCLRT. The flowmeter was calibrated by Fischer-Porter on October 16, 1987, to within +11. ~
of full scale (1.15-11.1 SCFM) using NBS traceable standards, to standard atmospheric conditions. ;
Plant personnel continuously monitored the flow during the induced leakane phase and corrected ai.j minor deviations from the indu'ced flow rate of 4 8.90 SCFM by adjusting a 3/8" needle valve on the flowmeter inlet. The flow meter outlet was uniestricted and vented to the atmosphere.
A.3 Type A Test Measurement The IPCLRT was performed utilizing a direct interface with the station process c>mputer. This system consists of a hard-wired installation of temperature, dewpoint, and pressure inputs for the :PCLRT to Oe process -
computer. The interface allows the process computer to scan the inputs and '
send the data, ',till a; a millivolt signal or BCD (binary coded decimal) in the case of pressure, to the PRIME computer with minimal manual inputs and ,
dithout the 6 $ advantages of multiplexers or positioning sensitive electronic !
hardware irside the containment during the test.
The PRIME computer was used to compute and print the leak rate data using (
either the ANSI /ANS mass plot method (ANSI /ANS 56.8), a tot? time method i based on ANd /ANS n45.4, or the BN-TOP-1 method. Key parameters, such as i total time %e rurea leak rate, volume weighted dry air pressure and I temperature, aad absolute piessure were monitored using a Tektronix 4208 terminal and a Tektronix plotter. Plant personnel also ple.ted a large number !
of othec parameters, including reactor water level and temperature, dry air i 4 mass, volume weighted partial pressures and temperature, total time leak rat i statistically averaged leak rate and UCL, and all sensor. outputs in !
engineering units. In all cases, data was plotted hourly and computer !
summaries were obtained at 10 minute time intervals. The plotting of data and i the computer printed st.mmaries of data allowed rapid laentification of any :
problems as they might develop. Figure 2 shows a schematic of the data ,
acquisition system. l l
i I
i 1
0483H/0214Z l
!! l 1
A.4 Type A Test Pressurization 1500 and 1200 SCFM diesel driven oil-free air compressors were used to '
pressurize the orimary containment. The compressors were physically located j ,outside the Reactor Eu11 ding. The compressed air was piped using-flexible
- metal hose to the Reactor Building, through an existing four inch fire header penetration, and piped to a temporary spool place that, when installed, allowed the pressurization of the drywell through the "A" containment spray header. The inboard, containment spray isolation va!ve, M0-1-1001-26A was ,
opan during pressurization. Once the containment was pressurized, the H0-1-1001-26A valve was closed and the spool piece was removed and replaced with a blind flange.
i i
i i
a t
i P
i l
l t
i !
,i .
i l
l !
i- j l
i 5
i l
OtB3H/0214Z ;
Measurement System Schematic Arrangement E M
( 'O LOCAL JuleCT1084 3/C 00145 (8) ,
3/C j {
_ (26) y W
3/C POWA $U* PLY S0X (1)
$/C , 3/C ;
DC' KELL
- 00) ]
I N I Il0V ORYWELL
- '" l TERMillAL
' V I 80X
'" ~
FLO W TER CO CAIhMENT PRESSURE I:iSTRLHE:n ,
Q . RACK
+- I PRES 5URE y SEllSING ,
TU41144 40/C - 40/C l IPCLRT (3) (3)
INSTRUMENT CONSOLE ,
.p, 1
ORYWELL PER$0NNEL lt4TERLOCK BULNIEAD l
RTO & DEWCELL SIGNAL 40/C (2)
CCAOITIONING CAROS PROCESS 32/C (2) COMPUTER
- PRESSURE GAUGES A/D CONVERSIO.N A.VD GCAN I
h 110V PRIMC 8:1-TOP-1 COMPUTER METHOD AND CALCLUTIONS MAS 3 PLOT PETh0D
! FIGURE 2 l 0483H -II-
_y _.,,._____.y_r _,, - . , ,,_--v---w-, ,,c, - - - , - ~ ~ - , -- + . - - + . .
SECT 10N 8 - TEST METHOD B.1 Basic Technique The absolute method of leak rate determination was used. The absolute method uses the iaeal gas laws to calculate the measured leak rate, as defined in ANSI N45.4-1972. The inputs to the measured leak rate calculation include subvolume weighted containment temperature, subvolume weighted vapor pressure, and total absolute air pressure.
As required by the Commission in order to perform a short duration test (measured leak rata phase of less then 24 hou.s), the measured leak rate was statistically analyzed using the principles outlined in BN-TOP-1, Rev. 1. A least squares regression line for the measured total time leak rate versus time since the start of the test is calculated after each new data set is scanned. The calculated leak rate at a point in time, tj, is the leak rate on the regression line at the time t . i The use of a regression line in the BN-TOP-1, Rev. i report is different from the way it is used in the ANSI /ANS 56.8 standard. The latter standard uses the slope of the regression line for dry air ma:s as a function of time to derive a statistically averaged leak rate. In contrast, BN-TOP-1, Rev. I calculates a regression line for the measured leak late, which is a function of the change in dry air mass. For the ANSI /ANS calculations one wuld expect to always see a negative slope for the regresdon line, because the dry air mass is decreasing over time due to leakage from the containment. For the regression line computed in the BN-TOP-1, Rev.1 method the ideal slope is zero, since you presume that the leakage from the containment is constant over time. Since it is impossible to instantaneously and perfectly measure the containment leakage, the slope of the regression line will be positive or negative depending on the scatter in the measured leak rate values obtained early in the test. Since the measured leak rate is a total tice calculation, the values computed early in the test will scatter much more than the values computed after a few hours of testing.
The computer printouts titled "Leak Rate Based on Total Time Calculations" attached to the BN-TOP-1, Rev. I topical report are misleading in that the column titlerl "Calculated Leak Rate" actually has printed out the regression line values (based on all the measured leak rate data computed from the data sets received up until the last time listed on the printout). The calculated leak rate as a function of time (tj) can only be calculated from data available up until that point in time, tj. This is significant in that the calculated leak rate may be decreasing over time, despite a substantial positive slope in the last computed regression line. Extrapolation of the regression line is not required by the PN-TOP-1, Rev. I criteria to terminate a short duration test. What is requireo is that the calculated leak rate be decreasing over time or that an increasing calculated leak rate be extrapolated to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. The distinction between the regression line values and the calculated leak rate as a function of time is made in Section 6.4 of BN-TOP-1, Rev. 1. Calculated leak rates, a: a function of time, are correctly printed out in the "Treds Based on Total Time CalculatWs" computer printouts in Appendix B of BN-TOP-1, Rev. 1.
0483H/0214Z -12
Associated with each calculated leak rate is 1. statistically derived upper confidence limit. Just as the calculated leak rate in BN-TOP-1, Rev. I and the statistically averaged leak rate in the ANS!/ANS standards are not the same (and do not necessarily yield nearly equal values), the upper confidence limit calculations are greatly different. In the BN-TOP-1, Rev. I topical report the upper confidence limit is defined as the calculated leak rate plus the product of the two sided 97.5% T-distribution value (as opposed to the one-sided 95% T-distribution used in the ANS/ ANSI standard) and the standard deviation of the measured leak rate data about the corrputed regression line (which has no relationship to the value computed in the ANSI /ANS standards).
There are two important conclusions that can be derived from cata analyzed using the BN-TOP-1, Rev. I method: 1) the upper confidence limit for the same measured leak rate data can be substantially greater than the value calculated using the ANSI /ANS metnod, and 2) the upper confidence limit does not converge to the calculated leak rate nearly as culckly as usually observed in the latter method as the number of data sets becomes large. With this in mind, the upper confidence limit can bccome the critical parameter for concluding a short duration test, even when the measured leak rate seems to be well under the max 1Nm allowabla leak rate. A graphical comparison of the two methods can be made by referring to 'igere 3 for the BN-TOP-1, Rev. I calculated leak rate and upper confidence limit and to Figure F-1 in Acpe:Idi< F for the statistically averaged leak rate and uppe" confidence limit based on ANSI /ANS 56.8-1981. This data supports the contention of many that BN-TOP 1, while it may not give the best estimate of containment leakage, is a conservative method of testing. The ANSI /ANS 56.8 data contained in Appendix F is provided for information only. The renorted test results are based on GN-TOP-1, only.
B.2 Eupplemental Verification Test The supplemental verification test superimposes a known leak of approxi-mately the same magnitude as LA (8.16 SCFM or 1.0 wt %/ day as defined in Technical Specifications). The degree of detectability of the combined leak rate (containment calculated leak rate plus the superimposed, induced leak rate) provides a basis for resolving any uncertainty associated with measured leak rate phase of the test. The allowed error band is 1 25% of LA -
There are no references to the use of upper confidence limits to evaluate the acceptability of the induced leakage phase of the IPCLRT in the ANS/ ANSI standards or in BN-TOP-1, Rev. 1.
B.3 Instrument Error Analysis An instruaient error analysis was performed prior to the test in accordance with BN-TOP-1, Rev. 1 Section 4.5. The instrument system erro was calculated in two parts. The first was to determine the system accuracy uncertainty.
The second and more important calculation (cince the leak rate is impacted most by changes in the containment parameters) was performed to determine che system repeatability uncertainty. The results were 0.1884 wt %/dhy and 0.0270 wt %/ day for a 6-hour test, respectively. These values are inversely proportional to the test duracion.
The instrumentation uncertainty is used only to illustrate the system's ability to measure the required parameters to calculate the primary containment leak rate. The mathematical derivation of the above values can be found in Appendix 0. The methor' of calculating the equipment uncertainty is in conformance with the method outlined in BN-TOP-1.
0483H/Gcl4Z It is extremely important during a short duration test to quickly identify a failed sensor and in real time back the spurious data out of the calculated !
- volume weighted containment temperature and vapor pressure. Failure to do so can cause the upper confidence limit value to place a short duration test in '
' jeopardy. It has been the stations experience that sensor failures should be i removed from all vata collected, not just subsequent to the apparent failure, in order to minimize the discontinuity in computed values that are relattd to ;
the sensor failure (not any real change in containment conditions). For this j test, no instrument failures were encountered after the start of the test; however, three failures prior to the stant of the test were encountered. Two ,
RTD's in the drywell, 8 and 23, subvolumes.4 and-8 respectively, prior to the i start of the test were locked out. Also a single dew cell 9 in subvolume 10 was locked out prior to the start of the test for reading higher than the dry !
bulo temperature. 1he effects of these failures are analyzed in section F.5 !
of this report. The instrument error' analysis in Appendix 0 reflects these ;
instrvient failures and an unused instrument.
SECTION C - SE0i)ENCE OF EVENTS C.1 Test Preparation Chronology I j The pretest preparation phase and containment inspection was completed on i December 4, 1987 with no apparent structural deterioration being observed.
l Hajor preliminary steps included: !
- 1) Blocking open three pairs of drywell to suppression chamber vacuum r breakers. (
i
- 2) Installation of all IPCLRT test equipment in the suppr,ession chamber. i
- 3) Completion of all repairs and installatim s in the drywell affecting i
1 1
I 4) Venting of the reactor vessel to the drywell by o;,ening the manual head vent line to the drywell equipment drain sump. i 1 !
i 5) Installation of the IPCLRT data acquisition system including computer !
programs, instrument console, locating instruments in the drywell, and i associated wiring. [
- 6) Completion of the pre-test valve line-up. l This test was conducted at the end of the refuel outage. The Station has an exemption to 10 CFR 50, Appendix J requirements to allow performing the tett at the end of tN refuel outage. There was a Type A test performed at 1 the beginning of the refuel outay to test the containment in an "as found" i condition without any repairs or adjustmentc.
j 5
l 4
i 3
0483H/0214Z ,
l
The initial test was peiformed at the beginning of the refuel outage to f test the containment in an "as found" condition. Containment pressurization began at 1615 hours0.0187 days <br />0.449 hours <br />0.00267 weeks <br />6.145075e-4 months <br /> on September 13. 1987. By 0300 hours0.00347 days <br />0.0833 hours <br />4.960317e-4 weeks <br />1.1415e-4 months <br /> on September 14, 1987, it was apparent from the monitored information during stabilization that the containment was leaking more than the allowable (0.75 Ht7./ day). At 0800 hours0.00926 days <br />0.222 hours <br />0.00132 weeks <br />3.044e-4 months <br />, on September 14, 1987, the leakage path could not be identified or quantified at this time, and was probably in excess of the allowed leakage.
The test was considered an "ds found" test failure. At this time, LER No.
87-19 was initiated with the required NRC notification. A copy of this report and a supplement to it can be found in Appendix G of this report.
C.2 Test Pressurization and Stabilization Chronology DATE TIfg EVENT f 12-05-87 0250 Began pressurizing containment. >
At 23 PSIA started araon injection.
0345 0410 Started second cylinder of argon injection.
4 0420 Drywell head and X-4 snooped. No leaks observed. ;
0435 Second cylinder of argon emptied. Cylinder isolated. l 0555 HPCI and RCIC steam exhaust check valves snooped. No i leaks observed. l 0605 Snooped all accessible penetrations in reactor i i building. No leaks observed.
0828 Containment is pressurized to 65 PSIA. Beginning i containment stabilization phase. ;
1055 Attempts are being made to determine the cause of a }
reactor water level drop of approxiuately 1.56 inches i per hour and a torus water level drop of approximately i 0.08 inches per hour. !
1455 Reactor water level drop of approximately 1.56 inches i per hour. Temporary procedure 5109 revised step i F.2.g.(4) of QTS 150-1 to change acceptable level :
criteria from f.25 inches / hour to 2.0 inches / hour. No .
.i vessel level corrections will be used in the !
calculations (see Appendix B). The water leakage from
~
the torus was identified as being due to leakage through I the COS 1A Core Spray loop, which had the manual drains ;
open and 00S. After closing the manual drains and l
- vents, which allowed the 005 piping to fill, leakage
- from the torus stopped. ;
- i l
1 !
! I 0483H/0214Z l
C.3 Heasured Leak Rate Phase Chronology DATE TIME EVENT 12-05-87 1512 Containment temperature stable below 1*F/ hour reactor vessel level drop of approximately 1.56 inches per hour, 1532 Started measured leak rate phase. Base data set #95.
2143 Terminated measured leak rate phase at 6 hour6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> point, base data set #132. Calculated leak rate was 0.3194 wt '
%/ day and decreasing over time. The average measured leak rate over the last five hours was .3190 wt %/ day.
The upper confidence limit was 0.3508 wt%/ day. All other BN-TOP-l', Rev. I criteria for terminating the test were satisfied.
C.4 Induced Leakage Phase Chronology DATE TIME EVENT 12-05-87 2154 Valved in the flowmeter at 8.79 SCFM (80% scale reading). Radiation Protection is collecting a sample of containment air.
2230 Reactor water level increased by temporarily opening l feedwater valve.
2240 Feedwater was re-isolated.
2340 Radiation Protection Department completed sample and gave approval for induced leakage.
12-06-87 0054 Began induced phase of the test. Base data set #151.
The 1-hour stabilization required by BN-TOP-1 was .
complete.
0404 Terminated induced phase. Data indicated successful.
The last data set was #170.
C5 Depressurization Phase Chronology DATE TIME EVENT 12-06-87 0430 Began depressurization using procedure for venting through the Standby Gas Treatment System.
0830 Containment depressurized. .
u I
0483H/0214Z ,
DATE TIME- EVENT .
12-07-87 0440 Technical Staff personnel entered drywell. No apparent '
structural damage and instruments are still in place.
Checked sump levels in Drywell. Sumps were not pumped during the test. Over the duration of the test, Drywell '
Floor Drain Sump level increased from 15" to 21.25".
The Drywell Equipment Drain Sump increased from 14" to '
39.375".
1105 Made initial entry to suppression chamber. No apparent ;
, damage and all instruments still in place.
SECTION D - TYPE A TEST DATA D.1 Measured Leak Rate Phas# Data A summary cf the computed data using the BN-TOP-1, Rev. I test method for a short duration test can be found in Table 3. Graphic results of the test are found i in Figures 3-7. For comparison purposes only, the statistically averaged leak rate and upper confidence limit using the ANS/ ANSI 56.8-1981 standard are graphed in .
l Figure F-1. A summary of the computed data using the ANS/ ANSI standard is found in Appendix F.
i D.2 Induced Leakage Phase Lata l
i A summary of the computed data for the Induced Leakage Phase of the IPCLRT is i found in Table 4. The calculated leak rate and upper confidence limit using the l BN-TOP-1, Rev. I method are shown in Figure 8. The measured leak rate and last 1 computed regression line are shown in Figure 9. Containment conditions during the Induced Leakage Phase are presented graphically in Figures 10-12.
P E
9 I
t a !
I i
f i
i 0483H/0214Z - 17- !
i
l Measured Leak Rate Test Results i TABLE 3 i MEAS. CALC. UPPER i j DATA TEST AVE. DRY AIR LEAK LEAK CONF. !
SET TIME DURATION TEMP. PRESS. RATE RATE LIMIT i
i 95 15:32:56 0.000 89.3 64.4814 --- --- ---
96 15:42:57 0.167 89.3 64.4777 .3335 --- ---
97 15:52:58 0.334' 89.3 64.4740 .3499 .2521 --- !
I 98 16:03:00 0.501 89.3 64.4706 .3180 .3261 .5171 i (3 16:13:01 0.668 89.3 64.4678 .2791 .2909 .3945 !
100 16:23:01 0.835 89.2 64.4636 .3077 .2932 .3763 101 16:33:07 1.003 89.2 64.4611 .2948 .2882 .3529 i 102 16:43:11 1.171~ 89.2 64.4573 .3066 .2913 .3516 [
103 16:53:12 1.338 89.2 64.4552 .2804 .2825 .3344 !
104 17:03:14 1.505 89.2 64.4509 .3215 .2926 .3524 !
105 17:13:16 1.672 89.2 64.4483 .3043 .2938 .3431 i 106 17:23:16 1.839 89.2 64.4451 .3182 .2991 .3536 l 107 17:33:20 2.007 89.1 64.4419 .3183 .3032 .3557 :
109 17:43:21 2.174 89.1 64.4375 .3414 .3127 .3678 ,
, 109 17:53:22 2.341 89.1 64.4356 .3234 .3153 .3677 !
110 18:03:27 2.509 89.1 64.4320 .3150 .3154 .3650 ;
111 18:13:29 2.676 89.1 64.4288 .3373 .3205 .3692 :
- 112 18
- 23:30 2.843 89.1 64.4259 .3323 .3236 .3705 i l 113 18:33:31 3.010 89.1 64.4234 .3187 .3233 .3683 !
114 18:43:31 3.177 89.1 64.4195 .3335 .3259 .3695 !
115 18:53:32 3.344 89.0 64.4169 .3244 .3264 .3684 !
116 19:03:32 3.510 89.0 64.4147 .3166 .3254 .3663 l l
117 19:13:33 3.677 89.0 64.4113 .3298 .3267 .3664 r 19:23:34 3.844 89.0 64.4088 118 .3210 .3265 .3651 119 19:33:36 4.011 89.0 64.4055 .3288 .3275 3650 :
120 19:43:38 4.178 89.0 64.4038 .3271 .3280 .3645 .
121 19:53:40 4.346 89.0 64.4014 .3169 .3270 .3629 !
122 20:03:41 4.513 89.0 64.3977 .3290 .3278 .3629 123 20:13:41 4.679 88.9 64.3962 .3188 .3272 .3616
- 124 20
- 23:42 4.846 88.9 64.3934 .3173 .3264 .3603 125 20:33:43 5.013 . 88.9 64.3914 .3127 .3251 .3587 126 20:43:42 5.179 88.9 64.3888 .3237 .3253 .3582 i 127 20:53:43 5.346 88.9 64.3864 .3170 .3246 .3571 :
128 21:03:44 5.514 88.9 64.3841 .3085 .3231 .3554 129 21:13:46 5.681 88.9 64.3803 .3223 .3232 .3550 l 130 21:23:47 5.848 88.9 64.3795 .3071 .3217 .3534 !
131 21:33:49 6.015 88.9 64.3768 .3030 .3198 .3517 i 132 21:43:50 6.182 88.9 64.3736 .3149 .3194 .3508 4
1 i l
t 4 l i
i i
j 0483H/0214Z l 1 !
i
Induced Leakage Phase Test Results TABLE 4 9
MEAS. CALC. UPPER i DATA TEST AVE. DRY AIR LEAK LEAK. CONF.
SET TIME DURATION TEMP. PRESS. RATE RATE LIMIT ,
151 00:54:24 0.000 88.7 64.3676 --- --- ---
152 01:04:26 0.167 88.7 64.3612 1.0678 --- --- ,
i 1.3338 153 01:14:27 0.334 88.7 64.3540 --- ---
- 154 01
- 24:27 0.501 88.7 64.3474 1.3734 1.4111 2.3049 155 01:34:28 0.668 88.7 64.3402 1.3859 1.4393 1.9164 156 01:44:30 0.835 88.7 64.3343 1.3031 1.3973 1.8467 !
157 01:54:31 1.002 88.7 64.3274 1.3420 1.3932 1.7537 I 158 02:04:32 1.169 88.7 64.3212 1.3301 1.3836 1.6954 i 159 02:14:33 1.336 88.6 64.3149 1.3001 1.3641 1.6493 l 160 02:24:33 1.502 88.6 64.3083 1.3122 1.3550 1.6135 161 02:34:36 1.670 88.6 64.3016 1.3219 1.3518 1.5876 162 02:44:37 1.837 88.6 64.2948 1.3241 1.3497 1.5675 02:54:38 2.004 88.6 1.3373 1.3519 163 64.2874 1.5541
- 164 03:04:41 2.171 88.6 64.2826 1.3079 1.3452 1.5370 165 03:14:41 2.338 83.6 64.2757 1.3264 1.3446 1.5258 166 03:24:41 2.505 88.6 64.2681 1.3319 1.3453 1.5172 167 03:34:42 2.672 88.6 64.2614 1.3371 1.3470 1.5107 168 03:44:43 2.839 88.6 64.2547 1.3394 1.3488 1.5053 '
< 169 03:54:43 3.005 88.6 64.2490 1.3217 1.3464 1.4974 i 170 04:04:43 3.172 88.6 64.2412 1.3453 1.3491 1.4942 l
l -
1 1 - ,
l l
i i
j 0483H/0214Z !
i !
1 t
HEASUREO LEAK RATE PHASE GRAPH OF CALCULATE 0 LEAK RATE AND UPPER CONFiOENCE LIMIT BN-TOP-1 LEAKRATES VS TIM E CALCULATED LEAK RATE Normal Test 95 x UPPER CONFIDENCE LIMIT 0.80 : : : : :
0.69 - --
LIMI T e 0.75 Lp (0.75 wt*&asd 0.57 - --
8 y 0.46 '
uPPE R C.ON FIDE N LG llMLT o
M fY -_
0.34 - s -
N
(_.CALLULATED LEA KR A TC 0.23 - '
O.11 - - -
l 0.00 ' ' ' ' '
O.33 1.17 2.01 2.84 3.68 4.51 5.35 6.18 i (HovRS)
FIGURE 3 MEASURED LEAK RATE PHASE GRAPH OF 70TAL TIME MEASURED LEAK RATE AND REGRESSION LINE l
1 l
I 0.50 : : : : : : 0.80 0.69 --
0.69 0.57 "
--0.57 8 ro rA s. Time M4suRtc t tax R4rc g 0.46 "
--0.46 m.
M 0.34 -
X ^- -- - - -
0.34 vyyy RES,RE 5510 N t- # N K #
0.23
~
"0.23 0.11 "
-0.11 0.00 : : : : : : 0 0.33 1.17 2.01 2.54 3.68 4.51 5.35 6.18 00 HOURS FIGURE 4 ,
1
MEASURED LEAK RAfg PHASE GRAPH OF DRY A8R PRESSURE CONTAINMENT DRY AIR PRESSURE VS TIME Normal Test 64.55 : : : : : '
64.55 -
64.50 "
--64.50 64.45 "
- 64.45 i t P 64.40 -
@ -64.40 64.35 -
" 64.35 i
64.30 -
64.30 t
64.25 "
- 64.25 7 4
64.20 : : : : :
0.00 0.BB 1.77 2.65 3.53 64.20 I 4.42 5.30 6.18 -
{
HOURS ;
i FIGURE 5 i ;
t
. i 3
MEASURED LEAK RA?C PHASE GRAPH OF VOLUME WEIGHTED AVERAGE CONTAINMENT VAPCR PRESSURE i
CONTAINMENT VAPOR PRESSURE VS TIM E Normal Test 0.46 : : : : : : 0.46 .
t 0.46 "
0.46 j i
0.46 "
0.46 l N, !
< 0.45 - I 0,46 :'
0.46 "
-0.46 f 0.45 "
0.45 t, l;
0.45 "
-0.45 0.45 : : : : : :
0
- 0.00 0.85 1.77 2.65 3.53 4.42 5.30 6.18 45
, HOURS i I
l l :
i FIGURE 6 :
l l
[
[
3 MEASURED LEAK RATE PHASE GRAPH OF VOLUME WEIGHTED AVERAGE CONTAINMENT TEMPERATURE I
. CONTAINMENT AIR TEMPERATURE VS TIME Normal Test l
89.40 : : : : :
89.40 ,
89.30 - \ - 89.30 89.20 -
- 89.20 u_
c_:> 89.10 -
- 89.10 '
. 8
--89.00 89.00 - '
88.90 "
-88,90 '
i 88.80 -
- 88.80 J
88.70 : : : : : :
88.70 0.00 0.85 1.77 2.65 3.53 4.42 5.30 6.18 !
i HOURS l r
l l l i
FIGURE 7 l j 0483H
INDUCE 0 LEAKAGE PHASE GRAPH OF CALCULATED LEAK RATE SN-TOP-1 LEAKRATES VS TIM E CALCULATED LEAK RATE Verification Test UPPER AND LOWER BOUNDS 1.70 : : : : :
1.70 -
uPPft 4cerPr4Nec unir 1.60 - t .60 1.50 - - 1.50 l
N g 1.40 0 -
s - ---
rAnscr LCAx R4 rc
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.40 1
- c. w t
b4 1.30 -
1.30 1.20 1.20 L owst Atectrwer umir 1.10 - "1.10
- : : : 1 1.00 : :
1.86 2.24 2.62 3.00 00 0.33 0.72 1.10 1.48 HOURS FIGURE 8 l
fNOUCEO LEAKAGE PHASE GRAPH OF TOTAL TIME MEASURED LEAK RATE AND RECRESSION LINE I
TOTAL TIME LEAKRATES VS TIME CALCULATED LEAK RATE UPPER AND LOWER BOUNDS Verification Test 1.70 : : : -
- : t ,70 UPPER ACCEPTANCf UMIT 1.60 -
1.60 1.50 --
. 1.50 u (REG RCssioN t.INE 5
1.40 - l' .
. ,40 f
1.30 --
d N --
v i
. j ,3g
%Yoral TIME MEAsuRCD t EAK RATE 1.20 --
1.20 LOWER A C C GPT ANCE L JMIT 1.10 --
t 1,j o 0.33 0.72 1.10 1i8 1.h6 2.I4 2.62 3.00' '
HOURS I
i FIGURE 9 l
t IN00CEO LEAKAGE PHASE -
GRAPH OF VOLUME WEIGHTED AVERAGE CONTAINMENT TEMPERATURE i
l
- CONTAINMENT AIR TEMPERATURE VS TIME Verification Test 88.75 ' ' ' ' - -
l 88.70 -
t
- 88.65 - -
i j
j W 88.60 - * --
1 i
- i. 88.55 -- -
i i
88.50 -
i j 88.45 -
1 ;
^
- 88,40 : : : : : :
- l 0.00 0.45 0.91 1.36 1.81 2.27 2.72 3.17 l t
. HOURS .
I 1 :
4 FIGURE 10 d
T i 4
V
,, ,-. - - - - , . . , - , - . , . - - . -- -------->.,e - . - _- , , , , . - - - - - ,
fNDUCEO LEAKAGE PHASE GRAPH OF VOLUME WEIGHTED AVERAGE CONTAINMENT VAPOR PRESSURE d
N CONTAINMENT VAPOR PRESSURE VS TIM E Verification Test l
j 0. M 05 : : : : ; ;
} 0.4400 -
1 j t b 0.4595 -- ,
@ 0.459 0 --
l 0.4585 -- ..
o4560 -- ..
0.4575 -- .-
l l
0.00 0.4'5 0.91 1.36 1.k'. 2. 7 2. 2 3.17 l HOURS i FIGURE 11 l
4
-<v +- w m e -r-
INDUCLO t.EAKAGE PHASr 4 GRAPH OF ORY AIR PRESSURE ,
i 1 e i
J !
i ,
J
\
1, I i !
i CONTAINM ENT ORY AIR PRESSURE VS TIME t Verification Tes- .
i 64.40 :
t 1
64.35 -
-- I 4
1 64.30 -
[
64.25 "
N N
64.20 -
-- f 64.15 -
-- i i !
i ;
64.10 -
t i
i 64.05 : : : : : :
i 0.00 0.45 0.91 1,35 1,81 2.27 2.72 3.17 i HOURS i
\ l j l 1
] FIGURE 12 i
?
a i !
l m- - . , , , - . ,_, ._ . _ , - . _ _ . _ _ _ ~ , _ .-. _.- ..e . _ . - - - - _ . -
~~
QUAJ C S L N ONE IPCLRi REACTOR LEVEL
- Wi[R 1987 9
5 m 9 00' I
W 8 E5~
d8 30' a
m 7 S5~
U 7
0' 6
N 5 3' , 4 0 1 d $ d Y $ d 1' 0
1 1' 1' 1 2 3 4 1'
5 1 1 1 1 d2 2 1 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 TIME (HOURS) tut 0 4 0'00 H0upt LEC S. 198' PIGURE 13 30-
- . _A_.
a f
t l
y t
- ~' t QUAJ C ES U \ ON .
(PCLRT TORUS LEVEL i um im i i i i 0.0 , , , i i
, ,i 1
i
, i i i i
i i
i i
i i
1 i
i i i t i i
I i
I i
I i
I i l
-0.1 - '
m
-0.2 -
!O -0.3 -
I o -0.4 -
z !
o -0.5 - '
> 2 ,
w
-0.6 - \
$ -0.7 - t v1 -0.8 O !
cr _o g . i o
- 1,0 -
- 1.1 -
- 1.2 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0 1 2 .3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 !
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2!
TIME (HOURS) wto,5ex w a3.im /"
l FIGURE 14 l
SECTION E - TEST CALCULATIONS Calculations for the IPCLRT are based on the BN-TOP-1, Rev. I test method and are found in Quad Cities procedure tables QTS 150-T3 and T9. A reproduction of these procedures can be found in Appendix C. In preparing for the first Quad Cities short duration test using BN-TOP-1, Rev. I a number of editorial errors and ambiguous statements in the topical report were identified. These errors are presented in Appendix E and are editorial in nature only. The Station has made no attempt to improve or deviate from the methodology outlined in the topical report.
Section 2.3 of BN-TOP-1, Rev. I gives the test duration criteria for a short duration test. By station procedure some of these duration criteria have been made more conservative and in some cases these changes may be required by regulations.
A. "Containment Atmosphere Stabilization" Once the containment is at test pressure the containment atmosphere shall be allowed to stabilize for about four hours ( 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> required by Quad Cities procedure and actual stabilization: 7 hrs) The atmosphere is considered stabilized when:
- 1. The rate of change of average temperature is less than 1.0*F/ hour averaged over the last two hours.
DATA SET
- AVE. CONTAINMENT TEMP. M 94 89.353 88 89.544 0.191 82 89.630 0.086 average: Q R 5*f/ hour
- Approximate time interval between data sets is 10 minutes.
or
- 2. "The rate of change of temperature changes less than 0.5'F/ hour / hour averaged over the last two hours."
(Not required if A.1 satisfied)
B. Data Recording and Analysis
- 1. "The Trend Report based on Total Time calculations shall indicate that the magnitude of the calculated leak rate is tending to stabilize at a value less than the maximum allowable leak rate (LA) "
l By Quad Cities procedure the calculated leak rate must be less than 0.75 LA . The actual value was 0.3194 LA , stable, and decreasing (no extrapolation required),
a!Ld 0483H/0214Z
- 2. "The end of the test upper 95% confidence limit for the calculated leak rate based on total time calculations shall be less than the maximum allowable leak rate."
By Quad Cities procedure the upper confidence limit must be less :
than 0.75 LA . The actual value was 0.3508 LA-and
- 3. "The mean of the measured leak rates based on Total Time calculations over the last five hours of the test or last 20 data I points, whichever provides the most data, shall be less than the maximum allowable leak rate."
By Quad Cities procedure this average must be less than 0.75 L.A The actual value was 0.3190 LA for the last 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />.
and
- 4. "Data shall be recorded at approximately equal intervals and in no case at intervals greater than one hour."
At Quad Cities data scans are automatically performed on 10 minute 4 intervals. No data sets were missed or lost during the 6 hour6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> test per10d. No computer failures were encountered.
and
- 5. "At least twenty (20) data point shall be provided for proper statistical analysis."
There were 38 data sets taken for this test.
and
- 6. "In no case shall the minimum test duration be less than six (6) j hours."
- Quad Cities' procedure limits a short duration test to a minimum a
of six (6) hours. The data taken during this test supports the argument that a shorter duration test can be conducted. All of the above termination criteria were satisfied in six (6) hours.
! SECTION F - TYPE A TEST RESULTS F.1 Measured Leak Rate Test Results Based upon the data obtained during the short duration test, the following <
results were determined: (LA = 1.0 wt %/ day) !
- 1) Calculated leak rate at 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> equals 0.3194 wt %/ day and declining steadily over time (<0.7500 wt %/ day).
4 l
j 1 0483H/0214Z _
- 2) Upper confidence limit equals 0.3508 wt %/ day and declining (<0.750 wt
%/ day).
- 2) Hean of the measured leak rates for the last 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> (31 data sets) equals 0.3190 wt %/ day (<0.750 wt %/ day).
- 4) Data sets were accumulated at approximately i0 minute time intervals l and no intervals exceeded I hours.
- 5) There were 38 data sets accumulated in 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> measured phase.
- 6) The minimum test duration (by procedure) of 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> was successfully accomplished (> 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />).
F.2 Induced Leakage Test Results A leak rate of d.79 scfm (1.0770 wt %/ day) was induced on the primary containment for this phase of the test. The leak ratcs during this phase of the test were as follows.
BN-TOP-1 Calculated Leak Rate 0.3194 0.3194 :
(Measured Leak Rate Phase) i Induced Leak (8.79 scfm) 1.0770 1.0770 l Allowed Error Band +0.2500 -0.2500 :
1.6464 1.1464 ;
BN-TOP-1 Calculated Leak Rate 1.3491 wt %/ day ;
1 (Induced Leak Rate Phase) '
The inductJ phase of the test has a duration criteria given in Section ;
2.3.C of BN-TOP-1. The test duration requirements are listed below and i were satisfied by the test procedure and the data analysis: l 6
- 1. Containment atmospheric conditions shall be allowed to stabilize for !
about one hour after superimposing the known leak. (actual: I hour 14 !
minutes). -
- 2. The verification test duration shall be approximately equal to half !
the integrated leak rate test duration. (actual: 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> for 6 hour6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> ;
test)
- 3. Results of this verification test shall be acceptable provided the correlation between the verification test data and the integrated leak rate test data demonstrate an agreement within plus or minus 25 ;
percent. (actual: see results above) l 1
i I
, t 0483H/0214Z !
__-. . . . .-- -. O
F.3 Pre-Operational Results vs Test Results Past IPCLRT reports have compared the results of each test with the pre-operational IPCLRT, performed April 20-21, 1971. Over the last 15 years, different test equipment, sensor locations and number of sensors, test methods, and test durttion have been used. This test yielded results that compare favorably with recent tests and demonstrate that there has been no substantial deterioration in containment integrity.
TEST DURATION CALCULATED LEAK RATE STATISTICALLY AVE.
TEST DATA (HOURS) (BN-TOP-1) LEAK RATE (ANSI /ANS)
April, 1971 24 Not Avail. 0.111 February, 1979 24 Not Avail. 0.3175 December, 1982 12 0.4532 0.3796 July, 1984 24 0.4281 0.2297 March, 1986 12 0.2286 0.2286 December, 1987 5 0.3194. 0.3162 F.4 TYPE A TEST PENALTIES During the type A test, there were a number of systems that were not drained and vented outside the containment. The isolation valves for these systems or penetrations were not "challenged" by the type A test. Even though these systems l
would not be drained and vented during a DBA event, historically, penalties for these systems have been added to the type A test results.
l l
i 0483H/0214Z - .
AS LEFT MINIMUM PATHWAY LEAKAGE SCFH HT%/ DAY Primary Sample Valves 0.055 0.001 ACAD 0.00 0.000 RHR A 5.29 0.0108 RHR B 4.495 0.0092 !
Feedwater 6.50 0.0133 '
DWFDS 5.50 0.0112 DHEDS 2.15 0.0044 l RCIC Steam Ex. 0.09 0.0002 RCIC Drain 3.60 0.0074 HPCI Steam Ex. 1.608 0.0033 HPCI Drain 17.0 0.0347 ;
All Electrical Penetrations 3.475 0.0071 i Oxygen Analyzer 2.0 0.0041 ;
Tip Purge Check Valves 8.0 0.0163 CAM-Isolation Valves & Panels 0.8 0.0016
!. 60.563 0.I237 4
i This penalty increases the type A test result to 0.443 wt%/ day with an upper confidence limit of 0.4745 wt%/ day. ;
F.5 EVALUATION OF INSTRUMENT FAILURES Prior to the start of the test, three (3) instrument failures were encountered. RTD No. 8 could not be positioned behind the biological shield. i Since the proper position could not be obtained, the RTD was locked out. RTD No. 23 was declared inoperable due to a failed signal conditioning board ,
during calibration. The RTD position was, therefore, locked out of the t system. The third instrument Dewcell No. 9 failed in the suppresslor. [
chamber. The fat'ure was noted and locked out approximately three hours prior to pressurization of containment for reading higher than the dry bulb temperature, f
. The effects of the instrument failures on the instrument error reported in Appendix D of this report is minimal, t t
The system sc:uracy uncertainty becomes 0.1823 wt%/ day and the system t repeatability uncertainty becomes 0.0272 wt%/ day for a 6 hour6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> test. [
F.6 AS FOUND 1YPE A TEST RESULTS As stated earlier in this report, there was a Type A test performed at the f beginning of the refuel outage prior to performing repairs to the Type B and C valves and penetrations. The results of that test are provided in Appendix l G. The exact root cause of that test failure was not determined. It is i possible that the test failure was due to the test configuration (i.e., valve lineup) or some other cause that would not have been present during a DBA cr t other accident where containment integrity is needed, f i
i l
0483H/0214Z .
Historically, the method used to determine En "as found" Type A test result is to' add a penalty for the "as found minus as left" minimum pathway leakages for all Type B and C tests. In.the past, this method has-been shown ;
to give very conservative estimates of the "as found" condition of the containment. ;
' The Type 8 and C test results contained in Appendix A are summarized below. ,
i
+ MINIMUM PATHWAY (SCFH)
MSIV Leakage Corrected to 48 psig '
41.870 32.770 t Other Type C Tests (valves) 339.470 83.330 1 Type B Tests (Penetrations) 52.925 31.975 l TOTAL 434.265 148.075
) Therefore, the peralty to the Type A test for computing an "as found".
result.ls 286.19 SCFH (434.265 - 148.075), which is equal to 0.5846 wt%/ day.
i This penalty increases the corrected Type A test result given in section F.4 i 4 to 1.0276 wt%/ day (0.143 + 0.5846) at an upper confidence limit of 1.0591 .
I wt%/ day (0.4745 + 0.5846). j i
g This final correction means that this test must be considered a failed "as !
found" test, since LA in the Quad Cities Technical Specifications is 1.0 wt%/ day. While this test is an "as found" failure, this leakage is well below the 10CFR100 release rate of 2.6 wt%/ day. i b r i
l .f l
t I
i i
i i i i i l
1 l l i i f d
0483H/0214Z l
- i. ;
, i
APPENDIX A TYPE B AND C TESTS Presented herin are the results of local leak rate tests conducted on all penetrations, double-gasketed seals, and isolation valves since the previous IPCLRT in March, 1986. Total leakage for double gasketed seals and total leakage for all penetrations and isolation valves following repairs satisfied the Technical Specification limits.
i t
0483H/0214Z I
REFLIEL OUTAGE LOCAL LE AK RATE TESI SLAAAARY j, f
AS F0tse (SCFH) AS LEFT (SCf H) '
VALVE (5)/ ulNI M inAXIM ulNI M leAxi n '
_L)Epl Pf l0N l __
Pt %iRAi10N DAff TOTAL PATHBAY PAlteAL _DAf f TOTAL PATHWAY __ PAiHB_AY,
'A* usav i Ao to3-1A.: A X- l9D-fd ll.13 i IV. ffS'1 JL/]__11-il.11Ll6HLL.gs' I to 37 i
.stusiv. I Ao 203-18.2e If-// r71 2,301 /./5' L2JP_lf#:))L2._Jp_I of L 2]p _ l
- r_teiv i ao Po3-1c tc If /H/l 1/.(/ I 2.W l V / / 19-/2171 F. // I 2 3t'3'l t' / 7___ l
'o' usiv i 40 203-10.20 if //1713. V61 /,7.1 1.134. th/1?L 32M l_f 71 1 3.4/ I TOTAL 2$.f8 TOTAL Jpd 10iAL LERRECTED
- 4/. P 7 TOTAL (XIRRECTED
- _] 2. 7'/
Et.[omLN_ l uo 270-i. I f // #71 v 0 l J f. ff 1 UJ 1//1y116.D I 0,01 6eR I nuuARv saalt i Ao_rto 44.45 //11/17 i O.// 1 O.Off L8. .// I/H/t 71 0 // 1 0,0ffI O // _ l ,
'A' FittsArtR I cv ??9-jaa 62A 1/v // r71 /1.// I I 19J '1, 79 1111J r71 11.//, I f.3f I 7, 7f_ l
- 8' FEE _DBATER ' l Cv ??o-5882 6?8 If //f71 U8 l /./A Ll/B IfL J L9 1 4. 5' l /./ A 1 fif_I e 10 RADeAstr .Luo_100120ri If-! b'71 ll.0 I /M' I /f 4 If'/f fil 24 0i /0, t/ I/M4 l
'A' De $PnAy 1 uo_1001-23A.?6A
- _ 1/r/'L7L)Mf.1 B.9 I )/. ff I//f_12L.lf / I O.# 1 ff d I
' A' n RE f tsm t uo 1001-tsa l/t /Ft ?! _].0) l 3 02 1 3.01 v etr7s s o? I 3.c3 13.0) I'
- A* TORUS COOL ING SMtAY l _ uo__1001-34.36.37A !/c M f 71 V,f4/ I 2,)7 l IlfY 1/L/11fl '/,fe/1 2,27 l Y, f'/ l
- s. De_sPu s I u0_ Lo01-t38.tsa ifal1110. 701 0. U' I 0.'70 itiLGLA20.L 0 If l 0.70-l
- e' w Rr_Tism I u0 500i tse if2n]l 1.tf1 3 Of 1 JOf .1.1/I:7LlMLL3ff_.!_IdI
's .10 sus. coot iNc/SPMV l u0100134,36.37s_1/gjfL).lLIElf_L.1//. .lfprlL 2 l_I_ L/ Eff_1_ ). Il . !i PAE TOTAL l NA l l f I l NA l l l l (11CEPi usty'$) l _ , , j . . . . L _ . _ _ L _ _. 1.J L_ . . . .l . I f was fv ol: Wl4
,0,,,,,
- ,.,w/ r-7;,,j
. ,,, ,,a h 1 w/re / pw,d, an~foafiw}v.S. ~ u m76 HF//,csr.us u rik.1 r. c . The ''*
REFUit oui AM local LEAA RATE Test S M ARY As. Folst (sCFH). __ ___Asjt F I ( sCF H ) .
vAtvt($ p uiNinaas uA iutas wiNiuuu uAx itaas PAlteAV PATHBAV DATE TOTAL PAlteAV PATHEAT io[sCRI Pi loN____ ____ Pt Nt iRAl ioM DATE TOTAL SHJicoen.__co.ot I NG ..___ _j wo 1001-41250 1/Nt71 0 0 l _ #_._0__1_8, O 1//lf11. f 9. I 8. O l 8, $_ _ l Hun senAy i eqjgo160ms3 1/N t7i B.O I 0, O I F.B 1/t +t 7Lfd i _v2p_. Ld, O l gtt w uP sucisON l e itoi t.s titirs11 fe'21 I /7). Ll* Llfldf_1!111111 f 5l L2d1.f_1._fA \
RCIC sitW SUPPLY l IdD 13oi-16 ir i f-// k71 0,02 1 0,0M'l fd_1f MM_(d_1_C; 0lf' l M'7_ l Acic sit e ExHAusi i cv 1301-41 l9-/lill B./'f I 8.(f I 8 d _lfil_L714d_91 8. 6L_tf/ 0f i Rcac VAc Ptasp E x . I CV 1301-40 if//171 J./ I h/__.1 3,6 If-lldi3,5 Lf] I 3. k _ __ l our. lorus PURM SUPPLY l Ao 160i-2i.72.55.56lf t r71 #ff'l 7,13 i N f3' il)#1LO,'ll 1.fdO5' 1 0 l// I ouncsos PuRm EI l A0 16oi-23,24,60, l l i ei,62,63 lf8s7l /5'.0i 50 i 1 i /f O li///W7li /5'.9 f.O li li /0Oll
' A' icsos vtNT l Ao isoi-roa. l l l 1 l 1 cv isoi-3iA If/7/71 #,V/ l 0,)/J'll 8,V/ lf6VIl i O,4I I
l81 205,1 8, Y I s forus vt=1 l Ao isoi ros. I l if-/7r710.03 1 l
0,0/5'll 0,83 lf/Ml f 6'03 I
l 16'0/5 ,I_1 0'03 lI
_ 1 cv._ iso. n is ge/Lcsospor _ l Ao isoi.sr. seas 1/t5ta /t.o l I,0 l /t, 0 III 8 9 9.7 l /J.f' I 2.J_J os.nooR_ ORA!=_stasP
_ I Ao roo n a v/m71 It.01 3/. O t /6 0_1#W/11 E v 1 f. f _1_41 I ge lo. _ on ._ stasp i Ao rooi-is a s 1// >/ r71 t/. 3 1 2,/f iM___11/(dLEJ._I A// 1 V, __l HPVLsitAu_ supe 1Y l e rao11L__JUDZ131Jil_JA_.t (. TV 10 # f/J .Od 1 0. 0 1. f.# . I
+gtsita U_ LCvJ301-4L _ 10'141/fJfI /Mf_11/ 31. 1/41-f A /,/f/_1../d/L 11/0/. I Heqi tstAiN Poi ti. I cv 2301-34 IfB.12L/2 9_1 /7,0._j J/,9_.19-d Ul_ //w I /74_Ll7.9 i o _PwtmAsic 1 Ao Arto. 4rri Itet ?1 3. / 1 /.5' _t /. 6 [f g $1Lll_1 /T l. / 16 .I PAM ToiAL l__NA _) 22k N0*O
[ kA. l .
- j. l i
10/O lt.8 s ?
e fEFUEL OUTAGE LOCAL LE AA RAIE IC$1 Staat4Rf AS Folse (SCFH) A$ (EFT (ScFH) I !
V AL Vt t s)/
mini e exim vini u "mulu I ll O(5GllPfl0N P(ME TRAll0N Daft total PAimAt pal eA L _DAlf_ fotAL__._PATHWAT PA.iHWA,Y j
_ l o,AnALynn l Ao sootA. se02A l/M 171 0. 0 1 8. 8 1 8f_11Mt/l 0.0 1 8 0 100 l U o,ANA[vyn I ao seois, soo2s 1//-Fr71 1.T 1 8 0 I .i. I' i Ao seoic. soote I// r-r/l 0,0 1 0,9 1 00 1/MllLl 1// 01. 9i 0LJ2,2 L 6,0_L 1 8-l [0_i l g,Amat ytt a o,AnagtEn i no seoio. soo20 1//f t/l 0 0 1 0,0 1 #,8 t/N-t ?L 80 1 0.0 I 6,0 __l 9,Anat Yzia l Ao teo3. esod I//P1716.O i ), f I 7. f 1//1.fr71 Yf I 2, O i d I 1 -
TLP_8AL L,,VA1VE l 733 1 1/Hf 71 0. 0 1 0,0 1 0. 0,_1H fnLJ.0 LM___LG.R__ l TIP BALL WitVE l 733-2 1//-f t / l 0,0 1 8,01 0* E_-_1/Lf)2L6f_LO O I 0,0 _ l flP sALL VALVE _L733-3 1//4 Ol 6,[ l M,[ l Oe [ j[f'_f:1.7 L ddLP2.CL92.[__1 T!P sAJL VALVf i 733-4 1// f f 71 B,9 i v Y l 0, 7 1/Lf_Lil O,f . I f. Y I O,I__l 11P eALL VAlvt L773-5 1/H f'71 0,0 I vO I 0 O ll/Itli 8 0 1 o R _ L_C 6 I flP PtstGf O(cK l 700-743 1// f III f,0 i r,0 1 0 0 _1[lI L/ 1 S,v i f v i f,0 i cAu i so 74M-1A.?A l// if t/l 0,0 I v# I 0. 0 ID V f/l 0,9 I 6,9 i v.O l gau I so re w -ie.?s L//-d r71 0,9 1 0, 0 1 0,0 111W1/1 0,0 1 0. 0 1 0,6 l Am I so 2499-3A.44 Vr-Xf A 0,01 0,0 10.O 1/)ft11 O. O I O. O ioO l car i so 7499-as.e Ev-4171 0,01 0,0 l S. O 1//-vr71 0.0 1 0. 0 1 00 l AqAo i Ao t5ee 2A.73A t/t.1H1 /. I 1 v. # 1 /,6 1/c Atl /,6.1. 0,0 I /d i Agao_ 1 Aon12ea no lu urr 59 1 0. 9 1 49./ IL)/1!LJ 0 1 00 i /01 AGAo_ _ i ao 759e 3A.tAA I/a-nth 0.0 1 00 1 0,O__ltut 4 0.v i 0,0 1 0,0 l AcAo I Ao r$99-3e.74e I/ns-va 0.0 1 00 1 0. 0 te x.a 0.d l 60 iO.0 l AcAo _. L'o_D99-4A 5A I/dfLA0 1 M i_ 0,0_tattiLLy 1 0,9 IJ,0_ i AqAo I Ao 7599 48.se I/c 4,71 7. 0 I v. 0 1 7. O v1]Ll? LAPI00 L 7, O I '
PAGE lotAL MA N.I /2. Y j -
,1, MA. . I 10/0 lt.8 s ,
i l
l l
l
Rif tKL Oui AGE LOCAL LEM RATE Itsi saaenMY Al F0Lae (SCFH! _ _ As(fFI($UH)_ _ __
isAximal l
vAtyt(s)/ WINimal inA Imas_. ulNitam DisOllPTION I Pt NE IRAf t 0N DATE TOTAL PAilelA PATWAY DAff . iOI AL . PA T_HE A T, PATHWAY g0ulma_NT miot 1 x-1 19W1r71 # 0 1 0,0 1 0,6 juif t!! O,0 L_O_,9 1 00 l Os Access stot Ia4 1/-11171 22.0 i N O I 2A8 1/2-f r71 8. 0 l _ G f __ ! #,9 l ge_miot - 1 x-6 1/-il f]l 8.0 1 00 1 8,0 1/)ff 71 0 0 1 00 1 88 l HPJ E_IMil0M l X-35A 1(idd 8,0 l f,# 1 8, O jf !ff /l 8,6 _1 8,0 1 0 U__ l IIP PtW TRAll0N l I-358 If/f f 71 t,0 l 80 10,0 19'4f43 00 1 0,0 i dM l 11P Pt W TRAfl0N l X 35C l f/UTIl 8,9 i OO l O' O l( di t 71 8,0 1 0,M i 0, 9 l IIP Ptu iRAfl0N l X-350 if-/f f 71 0,0 1 09 100 IWr-th 0,0 1 00 1 00 l IIP PtWiiRAf t0m l X-35E 14-N411 /. 0 I d,0 i O, O If Ji 171 0 0 1 0,0 lPO l f_JLPtwiRAT ION l a-35F I f /Bil 0,0 1 0. 0 1 90 l(Wil 0.0 1 00 1 60 l T I P Pt E T RA T I ON_,,,,,, i 1-350 if 1ff)I O. O l 8,0 1 0,0 if ul/l 00 1 00 10,0 l 1_0ms mTot I X-200A If /M 71 0, D I 00 1 00 l/) S T A 0 0 1 00 180 __l torus _H_ALot i 1-?008 ff1/f/l 0 9 l f,0 1 0,0 _ lh1/f3 Bd l_d C 1 (A8 paletti m e 1 ---- I f1)-t71 /. f I 0,( l // I//-> t71 0, 0 1 0,0 1 #8_ll sw AR tug _lNSP _ HAf oi i st-1 1/rfr71 0 0 1 0. 0 1 0,0 l /fff/1 001 0,d I d# l SHitR LUG !NSP, HAfoi l st -2 1/f'ffIl o.M i 0Q l g,0 l/H t /l 08 1 0,0 18,0 l sHtM_tuGINsp ._ HAtot I st-3 1// fill v.9 1 0,0 1 0.0 Ir (1710 0 1 0-0 100 l sHEIRJUG_INSP, HAlot I st-4 [/H 1/10 9 1 p, p l 0, O 1p,f,,ffj 8,0 1 $. 9 1 (,0 l
$HE AA_(UG,1NSP 2 _NAfQt 1 $L-$ t/c ft71 0.D L_.0 0 1 0. O IL/.11/1 # O I o, a 100 l Swin tug _!NSP, MAlot i st-6 t//f f11 0.0 1 M, o 1_ g_O 1/t g f 4 0, O I 0. 0 LO. O l tw An tugjNsP HAtot I st i I/0 117100 1 /,0 1 BJ le, f1]Lp,p_1_p.O 1 00 l SHfjRj uG INSP HAfoi l 51 8 I N -f k p_.,Q _ l P. O l 6.fjfd{11 00 L. 0 0 13____ i PAGE TOTAL _ha b, #' j '
, _kA 1 . ,
10/0It.Ms 4-
, l 1
REFUEL OUTAE LOCAL LE AA RATE TESI StataART I AS F0Lso (SC7Hi A$ (EFI ($CFH)
.. .- VALVE ($)/ WiNIEAd ~MAIInti ~ WINitRAl"iaAxilIRY lPfl0M P(NE TRAT ION DATE TOTAt PATHear PATHear DAff . TOTAL PATHWAT PAlHSA
_p$NEIMit0N w CH l x-7A If-NI A / #/ l 8s 7M i /. k l[ W l/l / V 1 #,28 l/.I_,L l w y wiufica I x-re 19-#I71 /,/ I 0.fr I /. / if #f 71 /. / 1 0,Jr 1_/, / l w m M w fui!ON l x-7C lf-2/ N! 8. O l 8,M i8O l 9-2/f /l /.M l 8. M lOh l w b w iRAfian I x-70 if-Jf r71 0 0 1 8. 0 i f,0 if-//f/1 dv i 40 1od l wot _ MKimitan I X-s If /3 f 71 0. 4/ I S, 2 18.4/ i f-// f/l 0, tr' I 62 188 l wm Mwist:0m I x-sA If-/(471 0.01 #0 1 00 1/-dif/l 00 1 90 100 l ECH. MwTRATION l x-98 f f /l f 71 8,M l [. M i f.O 1f-J3471 0 8 i O0 lMO l wot. Ptwistl0m I x-10 If #f71 0,v i d,0 10.0 if-/rf /1 00 10.0 i dO \
ECH Pf wiMil0N i -11 IfWl/l 8.0 10,0 i F.0 i f # f/l 0 0 10,0 i d, 0 l woi MwiRAfion I x-1? ffdJf71 /0,0 1 40 1 /[O If-11171 /0,0 i f. 0 l /0, D l woi Mwistian 1 x-13A 19-# D1 0 3 1 0,/r i O. 3 If#t21 83 1 0,/f I O.J l wm Mwimfion I x-tas t r-21s a v. o 1 0. 0 100 ir nt/l e.0 10# l00 l woi MwiRAilou 1 x-14 19 /1171 #0 I v9 1 00 i fW8/l 60 1 89 i O. M l woi Mwimfion I x 73 1(yet/l 7, V l /. 7 LJM If
- H I 7 '/ I /7 1 2'/ l w{H Pf wiMil0N l x 24 19-29171 8.9 1 8,0 1 00 1/Wr71 0 0 l C.O 18,0 l w ot M w fRAtl0N l I-75 _lf /) Il 1,5" l /,7f 1 J.[ If gJf/j 7 f I /. /J ' ,j 3. f l mgn Mwtuison 1 x ts if-)] s11 0,0 J C.O I p. O jf);i1l p.0 1 0,0 1 V,0 l wot_Pfw1Mit0m I x 36 f f-)N/I 00 1 0, p 1 0,0 j f,jf/j g,0 j_v. 0 1 6 0, __ l w ot PtwiRAliOu l x 47 if /Drl _0 0 l SO I pg _ jfs/s/j O O,,_j 9 0 1 4 Q_ l woi MwfuiiOn I s-17 Ifis a v.0 i tv l 0. 0 irgepi 0 0 i00 1 00 l wm Mwistion i s isA l# f fl L N _ l v. L_L M _.1//tI/_10.l _1_acI_.1 M_ l PAM 101AL l _kA_j'207'itM i ' 2t'l'.1,,
1 mA _ l 20 7j ' to W [' 20 7 'l 10/0tf A 5 l
1 l
l
I REFUEL OUT ACE LOCAL LE AK RATE TEST StamaARY ;i i!
AS F_0LM) (SCfH) AS LtFT (SCFHJ !i VALVE (S)/ WINI M 16AXI M WINI M 'i4A'fiiOl' ,.
_DE SOll Pf l0N P(NETRATION DATE TOTAL PATWAT PATWAT DATE TOTAL PAT WAY PATM AY cot Pf M TRATION l X-188 IfWI)I /281 i , $' I / 2 O If W l/l /7 0 1 9,I l /7. 0 l l'
QECTRICAL Pt W TRA110N l 1-100A 19ff3 C. O l O. O l O,O If 2rtil a01 00 l v. O l 1; ELECTRICAL MieETRAT_ ION l X-100s r7-n"-r2 0 01 0.0 I O,0ffwt71pp l 0,0 100 l ELECTRICAL PENETRATION l X-100C IfR f71 0.0 I /> 0 l /AO lf11 A?l 8 0 I8O I 8,8 l ELECTRICAL Pf MEIRAllCN lX-1000 l l l l l l l l ,
(uNil OW ONty) 1 11 17771 0.0 l n.0 1 D,0 1/a t?! v9 1 00 1 . 0,0
)
ELECTRICAL PfM IRAil0N l I-100( 17 2 3-13 /.lf I O, f H' l /.I If-ll f ?! l Y l O* III l /. Y l BECTRICAL PtWTRAil0N l A-1QOF f f-))-f71 0 01 0. 0 l O,@ if'#f ? ! M O l M* O l 8,0 l OfGLRICALP(NElRAJ10N l X-1QOG jf'dM71 ODl f p.p_l O.O ff")M /l 8,M l 8O l d.O l QEQiRIQAL Pt W1 Rail 0N l X-101A Ifd171 3, 7 1 /. 6 1 3, 7 ff-H t71 1,7 1 /. ff i 1. 7 ~ l -
uf CTRICAL Pf ME trail 0N l X-1018 KoR t71 0,01 001 0,0 if # 171 0,0 1 0,0 1 0,0 l l E L E GTR LCAL,Pf ME TRAHON l X-101D If2?fA O,01 0,01 0,0_ If-J2t)I 0,01 0,0 10,0 l Q, ,
ELECTRICAL P(NETRAll0N 9-21s7lO*SOlO25l0.50llJH 050 l025" 'l O 5 l X 10?8 l l l l l l l l ~l (Las s i tuo ONL Y) i I M i i i i I l l Q[QiRICAL_PfMTRAROM l X-103 If-M1 0 01 0,01 0. 0 lf)J R o,0 1 0,0 1 0, O l ELECTRICAL Pt WTRATION lX-104A l _ l_ l _,,,,,_ l- l ,,,,,,, l ,,,,,, l _l ~l ILself iso Oestv) l I l l l l l l l l UECTRICAL P(WTRAil0N I X-1Q48 If#17] O,0 1 0.0 i O,0 lf-Jrt)1 00 1 0. 0 l o ,,,
ELECTRl_QAl g W TRATt0N l X-104C li-]f f 7[ O.Q j U,0 1 Ogh lf2 Mil o, O i o. 0 i 0. g l PAGE TOTAL NA
- 8
- NA 10 / O ltJe s 6 i
i i
MFUEL OuiAE LOCAL LE AA RATE TEST St4 MARY AS F0tto (SCFH_) AS L I F T ( $cF Hl _ __,
V Alvt ( $)/ WINI M Mall M_ _ _ _. Wiki n hAXI j,
_DE SCRIPil0N PfisEtRAMON DATE TOTAL PATWAv PAfWar DATE TOTAL pal isAf l PAT -
ELECTRICAL PENETRAil0N lK.1040 l l _ l _ l l_l _ l - l -l '
Jijwit too antv) 1 i l l 1 l l L. I I ELE _QIRiCAL Pf wTRAll0N I X-10AF 4-2)-f71 M.nl D.D l D.O If'/H 1 8 0 l 8,0 i B, O l ELECTRICAL PENETRAll0N l I-105A (mii Ow outri i lf-Ws7,l i
p,p il 0,0 li QO lf i>yr7, 0,0 li O.0 l
li 0, O l, ELECTRICAL PENETRA110N lX-1058 l l l l l l l l 1 ml1_0w 0mti) _1 1$*)] t11 0 01 0,0 1 Oo 0 lf*23t11 00 1 00 1 0. O ll ELECTRICAL P{NE_TRATION 1 x-105C 19-)J-f/l /. # l 0 ff I /,7 1[H)3 /. 9 l C.f[ l / 9 __ l ELECTRICAL PENEIRAil0N lX-1050 l l l l sm,i ou Oua> 1 l1-ns1 15.0l 1 1 l f,0 1 M.0lIn,11 0 01 0*Ol0.0 1 I ll ELECTRICAL PtNETRAil0N lX-106A l l l l l
, _ l _ l l - l Jtssil te0_ontv) i I i i I i l l I _l ELECTRICAL PENETRATION lx-1066 l l l l,l ~l -l (uNii te0 0mtv)
UgTRLcAtPEuluj.!ON i I~ l l_I _
l 1 1
_ l 1 l i 1 x-191A-- INM71 d D1 0J! O Olf JLU1.0,0 1 o,0 1 0, O l ELECTRICAL PENEIRATION JuNif Tu0_ontv) lX-1078 l
l l _l _ l _
l~ l, l _ l M5 I I i ! I L_1 1 _l T0nus_Pt wfufiON ignus Pi=tutiON 1 x-rnA II W1 v O l 00 1 a o i#Ll)_110 1 O_d _L_OS _ l i -nf8 _f H v 11 N 1 0. O i o, d 11>I-01 00 1 0 0 _ L o p _.i
- An0nus_1EvtL F4 AEFS I ---- _ lld 171 0.d I d 0 1 6- [2.ll)-fjlLftd _ l 0 Q_l _9. Q l I I i i I PAGE 101AL l N4_,1 e S lI9J_l @b l NA j /,1 Ij O. f.r l /, 78 l l 10/0Ith 7-i
\
REFLEL OUTAGE LOCAL LE AA RATE ILS1 StaasARY A$ FOAO ($C7H) A$ (IF T ($CJH)
Winimai insiliaaf
_pt_50llPil0N VAL VE (5)/ '~W initaaf iiiiitani~
PflW1RAliON DAff TOTAL Palmar PAimAv PATE _1gtAL PATHuAv pat mar
's' TOWS _ Livil FL ANGE$ l ---- L'Hh d 80 l l'.M i 8 h 1/)*/[H 6<$ 1 #d i O. d l
$seule ruur l--- l l _ l ,,,, l _ l _ l._. 1 l - l
_luu t t te0 0mt v ) - I l 1 i l i [ l i l 1/M171 /2<) 1 7 k _ l /7, a2 lih f 71 /22 l (f /
f1RS000f t thifMLO@ X 7 l X-7 I /2 A l H#/0#IDilIORileG Sv$iEM l----
go3at 3 l l j//#t/g 8,(' l 8 $'
l l 8'I l
l g/2/M g 8 f gl 8' I l g'g l l l P - ,0,At L.
ln.ol u l ie.o l . Dwl u l n.o l
,,$, ,0,At . . l uo lw l vo ..l . lwne.x4nnl J
'Io deiereine ihe correcied leakage of the MSIV'. (4. i f ihey had been is.ied at 44 PSiG), awliiply by 1.58. l l
"shen ihe mas sam path sy leakage encoed. 0.6 La (293.7$ SCFH). er 6ie an LER samedisiely.
l
.in. .. i.i.i 4. ih. .. es n i.i.i. so ihe esua n.i (.. cia. usiv . iro. .p ie.i i.iai.i. :
Reference:
018150-8. "Detereinai6on of toisi Coniairmeni look Raie."
l (Ip = aM'elertine) I
( i s r.a l )
10/01t43 3 !
l l
1
- .; 6 -
APPENDIX B J TEST CORRECTION FOR SUMP LEVEL CHANGES 1
f d
i 1
i
]
1 j
i 1
l
}
(
t 0483H/0214Z .47 i
I l, i
. i
! The total time measured leak rate, given by equation 3 in QTS 150-T9 (see i j Appendix C), assumes that the containment free air space <1s 280,327.5 ft3 at k j a water level in the reactor of 35" and that any change in reactor water level l l 1s due to a water leakage from the containment changing the free air volume. ;
If the water leakage is from the containment and due to the operation of the f I
shutdown cooling mode of RHR to maintain reactor water temperature, this !
j leakage would not be representative of accident conditions when shutdown ;
4 cooling would be isolated. [
l During the stabilization phase of the test considerable effort went into !
trying to reduce the rate of level decline from the 1.56 inches / hour (39.06 i ftJ/hr or 4.87 GPH) that was experienced during the test Since the leakage j !
could not be reduced further and level indication for the suppression pool l j indicated that most of the water leaving the reactor was entering the j suppression pool, not leaving the containment, the computer program option for !
not including the vessel level in the leak rate calculation was selected. [
t To do so was conservative in that it increased the leak rate value and, if i some of the water was leaking from the containment, the actual air leakage was I less than the computed value. The test verification during the induced phase f of the test demonstrates the accuracy of this model and the change was t completely explained to the NRC inspector witnessing the test. j
]
A hand calculation, using a complete water balance, it included in this Appendix to show that the leak rate reported is not significantly affected by a more detailed analysis, including changing subvolume free air space due to water leaking from the reactor vessel to the drywell sumps and suppression ,
pool. }
1 To perform a leak rate calculation with a changing contair, ment free air space, the dry air mass for each containment subvolume is calculated using the 4
following equation:
)
i Hj - 2.6995 X Pt X Vj l i
1 1 (ij + 459.69) where Pj = dry air pressure in ith subvolume, ;
j Vj free air space in the i th subvolume, and l T - average temperature in the i th subvolume, j The total containment dry air mass is given by the sum of the dry air l i
masses for all of the subvolumes. I l
l 11 j
wt.Iwi 1-1
- l 0483H/0214Z :
4
The computed leak rate will be the total time leak rate and is given by:
f Lt = - 2400 X Nt~
w+
H W' where W' = dry air mass of the containment at the start of the test, Wt = dry air mass of the containment at time t, ;
H = duration of the test from start to time t in hours, and t
Lt = total time leak rate at time t. !
There are 3 subvolumes to consider in evaluating the effects of water [
1eakage from the vessel: the vessel itself (subvolume 11), the suppression ;
pool (subvolume 10), and the subvolume for the drywell equipment drain sump l' (OWEDS) and the drywell floor drain sump (DNFDS) (subvolume 9). Any water leaking from th& vessel in excess of that added to the sumps and suppression i pool will be assumed to have leaked from the containment through the shutdown :
cooling mode of RHR. ,
j DATE. TIME DWEDS* DWFDS* j 12/05/87 0250 14" 15" f' i 12/06/87 0830 39.375" 21.25" t 4
! Rate of level change .8553 .2107 [
j (in/hr) l'
]
Rateoffrgeairvol -3.267 .8048 t change (ft /hr); [
] *The sumps are assumed to have filled at a constant rate during the period f when the containment was fully pressurized. Each sump holds 1200 gallons and .
is 42" deep. ;
The following table gives the extrapolated values of the subvolume free j l air spaces using the above data: .
l l
6 HOUR TEST INDUCED TEST ;
SUBVOLUME NO. (1) Vi t=0 yg t-6 vg t=0 yg t=3 I !
1 10,550 10,550 10,550 10,550 2 9,596 9,596 9,596 9,596 .
3 10,990 10,990 10,990 10,990 !
4 3,783 3,783 3,783 3,783 ,
5 24,125 24.125 24.125 24,125
- 6 32,265 32,265 32,265 32,265 !
- 7 27,618 27,618 27,618 27,618 l
! 8 26,071 26.071 26,071 26.071 ,
! 9* 8.738 8,713 8,700 8,687 .
j 10* 120,198 120,007 119,887 119,767 !
a 11* 5,489 5.736 5.547 5,669 l l l 1 0483H/0214Z j i !
V9 - 8,901 - DWFOS X 1200 X .13368 - DHE05 X 1200 X .13368 42 42 Vi o - 119,268 - 363.75 (ft3 ) X Torus level (in)
In V11 - 6571.0 - 25(Level -35)
Using the subvolume vapor pressure subvolume temperature, and the subvolume free air space, the dry air mass for each subvolume can now be calculated. The followin9 table gives the necessary data for the start of the test as 15:32:56 on 12/5/87 (Data Set No. 95).
ORY AIR SUBV0LUME SUBVOLUME VAPOR PRESSURE PRESSURE TEMPERATURE DRY AIR MASS NO. (PSI) (PSIA) _
'F (Ibs. mass) 1 .660 64.279 96.410 3291.94 2 .553 64.386 108.984 2932.93 3 .553 64.386 106.229 3375.35 4 .553 64.386 106.677 1160.95 5 .432 64.507 104.586 7445.02 6 .474 64.465 102.173 9993.29 7 .435 64.504 93.874 8687.49 8 .358 64.581 83.917 8361.05 9 .358 64.581 84.626 2798.65 10 .371 64.568 77.529 38998.38 11 2.147 62.792 128.486 1581.88 11 H'- I Hj = 88,626.93 11 The following table gives the necessary data for the end of the 6 hour6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> test at 21:43:50 on 12/5/87 (Data Set No. 132).
DRY AIR SUSVOLUME SUBVOLUME VAPOR PRESSURE PRESSURE TEMPERATURE ORY AIR MASS NO. (PSI) (PSIA) 'F (1bs. mass) 1 .643 64.192 95.540 3292.64 2 .568 64.267 108.734 2928.80 3 .568 64.267 106.327 3368.52 4 .568 64.267 106.726 1158.70 5 .456 64.379 104.661 7429.26 6 .502 64.333 102.182 9972.67 7 .456 64.379 93.886 8670.47 8 .368 64.467 83.450 8353.31 9 .368 64.467 84.322 2787.28 10 .359 64.476 76.642 38945.23 11 2.156 62.679 128.637 1649.66 W6- 88,556.54 0483H/02142 I
The leak rate for the 6 hour6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> test is:
L6th - - 2400 X 88.556.54 - 88.626.93 f' 6.182 88,626.93 l
L6hr .3083 wt 1. / day (compared to .3149 computed assuming constant reactor water level and ignoring ;
sump level changes) 1 The following table gives the necessary data for the start of the induced i phase of the test at 00:54:24 on 12/6/87 (Data Set No. 151). l t
DRY AIR SUBVOLUME i SUBVOLUME VAPOR PP. ESSURE PRESSURE TEMPERATURE ORY AIR MASS !
NO. (PSI) (PSIA) 'F (1bs. mass) ,
I .629 64.199 94.900 3296.80 i 2 .569 64.259 108.488 2929.70 ;
3 .569 64.259 106.288 3368.34 4 .569 64.259 105.292 1161.50 ;
5 .455 64.373 104.625 7429.04 .
6 .506 64.322 102.135 9971.80 l 7 .461 64.367 93.815 8669.96 !
8 .371 64.457 83.278 8354.82 !
9 .371 64.457 84.209 2783.26 10 .356 64.472 76.435 38918.90 f 11 2.125 62.703 128.111 1597.35 l start i W = 88481.47 ;
induced i J
The following table gives the necessary data for the end of the induced I phase of the test at 04:04:43 on 12/6/87 (Data Set No. 170). i ORY AIR SUBVOLUME i SUBVOLUME VAPOR PRESSURE PRESSURE TEMPERATURE ORY AIR MASS !
NO. (PSI) (PSIA) 'F (Ibs mass) I 1 .622 64.079 94.532 3292.82 2 .565 64.136 108.331 2924.90 ;
3 .565 64.136 106.288 3361.89 '
4 .565 64.136 106.726 1156.34 ;
5 .460 64.241 104.618 7413.90 ?
6 .504 64.197 102.115 9952.77 !
7 461 64.240 93.729 8654.20 !
8 .374 64.327 83.148 8339.96 I 9 .374 64.327 84.130 2773.90 :
10 .355 64.346 76.306 38813.29 l 11 2.125 62.576 128.111 1629.17 i End !
W = 88313.14 !
Induced I
f 0483H/0214Z The leak rate for the induced phase is L (induced) -- 2400 X (88313.14 - 88481.47) 3.172 88481.47
- 1.4394 wt % / day (compared to 1.3453 computed assuming constant reactor water level and !gnoring sump level changes)
The above calculations show that the leakage from the reactor vessel did not significantly affect the reported leak rate. The difference between the leak rates computed using a complete correction for free air volume changes ;
due to water leakage and the values computed ignoring the changes is 2-7%. '
l l
f I
l f
?
I I
0483H/02142 ,
1
t 5
APPENDIX C COMPUTATIONAL PROCEDURE E
k i
i i
r 0483H/02142
. = . . _ _ _ - _- =-.
D. INPUT PROCESSING Calculations perfomed by the software are outlined below:
D.1 Average temperature of subvolume #1 (ft )
= The average of all RTD temps in subvolume #1 1 N ii= E Tt ,j
! N j=1 where N = The number of RTDs in subvolume #1 0.2 Average dew temperature of subvolume #1 (Ot )
= The average of all dew cell dew temps in subvolume #1 1 N Ot= E Dt ,)
N j=1 where N = The number of RTDs in subvolume #1 I D.3 Total corrected pressure #1, (P1 )
C1 First correction factor for raw pressure #1, (from program initialization data set). ;
Mt Second correction factor for raw pressure #1, (from program initialization data set). ,'
I t
Prg Raw prissure #1, from BUFFILE.
P1 = Cg + Mg Prt/1000 l D.4 Total corrected pressure #2, (P2) i C2 First correction factor for raw pressure #2, (from program initialization data set.
M2 Second correction factor for raw pressure #2, (from program
) initialization data set.
Pr2 Raw pressure #2, from BUFFILE.
P2=C2+M2 Prg/1000 l l
I 1
I WP+/WSD/41/13 1
i D.5 Whole Containment Volume Weighted Average Temperature, (fe) !
t Approximate N '
Method te = E ft it tal 1
te =
Exact !
Method N
E ft [
11 11 i where: I
< f t= The volume fraction of the ith subvolume '
i N = The total # of subvolumes in containment D.6 Average Vapor Pressure of Subvolume 1, (Curve fit of ASMC steam 4
1 tables.) (Pvg)
Pvt = 0.01529125 + 0.001653476 O t !
- 1.44734 X 10-6 ($ 132 + 7.081828 X 10-7 (01)3 r
- 2.28128 X 10-9 (01 )4 + 3.03544 X 10-11 (Ot)5 l D.7 Whole Containment Average Vapor pressure, (Pve )
Approximate N L
] Method i Pvc= E ft Pvt 3
i=1 [
i Exact N
ft Pvt i
Method Pye = te E f t.t it !
t r
- N = The total of subvolumes in containment t t
f ia Volume fraction of the ith subvolume
- D.8 Whole Containment Average Dew Temperature, (Oc ) t Approximate N t
1 Method De- E fg Di !
i=1 I t
- Exact Method The whole containment average vapor pressure. (Pve) -
j calculated with the exact method is used to find D.
I e An initial value of Oc is guessed and used I 4
with the equation in D.6 to calculate Pye. This j value is then compared to the known value from ,
D.7. A new value of De is guessed and the process {
is repeated until a value of De is found that q results in aofcalculated
.0001 psia value the value from of Pvc that is within D.7 j I
t i
l l
i
- WP+/NSD/41/14 i
-. - - ~. -_
l 1
i 1
.9 t Average total containment pressure,(P)
I !
j .
Pa (Pt+P2)/2 s
]
Average total containment dry air pressure, (74 ) 4 i P4 = 7 - Pye I D.10 Total containment dry air mass, (M) t i
Pd Ve 4
Type 1: M=
R te )
i i where R = perfect gas constant. Ve
- Total containment free volume. i
{ I
- Type 2: Type 2 dry air mass accounts for changes in Reactor Vessel level. !
i >
For uncorrected dry air mass. (Type 1) the below definitions !
{ apply. j i E N
l Ve a l i E Vi and ft " V t/Vc t=1 !
i '
4 i 1
I where vi is the user entered free volume in subvolume 1. l
) i, For corrected dry air mass. (Type 2) the same definitions for Ve l
- and i '
I t apply, except that one of the vis is corrected for changes i
in vessel level. If k is the subvolume number of the corrected !
, subvolume then:
I i
Vk*Yko - a(C - b) i 1
where:
a is the number of cubic feet of free volume per inch of vessel level. l l
~
b is the base level of the reactor vessel, in inches. t
}
C is the sctual water level in the reactor vessel, in inches. l V
ko is the volume of the subvolume k when C equals b. !
t The volume fractions (ft ) are then calculated with the !
corrected volume, and all other calculations are subsequently )
performed as previously specified for Type 1 dry air mass.
i I l I
! I i
i i l
1 l )
j WP+/WSD/41/15 I 1 )
D.11 Leaktate Calculations using Mass-Plot Method:
This method assumes that the leakage rate is constant during the testing period, a plot of the measured contained dry air mass versus time would ideally yield a straight line with a negative slope.
Based on the least squares fit to the data obtained, the calculated containment teakage rate is obtained from the equation:
M = At t B Where M = containment dry air mass at time t (1bs.)
B = calculated dry air mass at time t=0 (1bs.)
A = calculated leakage rate (1bs/hr) t = time interval since start of test (hours) t a M
(1bs) t (hours) s The values of the constants A and B such that the line is linear least squares best fitted to the leak rate data are:
A=
N!(t t)(Mg) - (Itg) (I Mg)
N!(tt)2 - (Itg )2
, IMt Altg W
WP+/WSD/41/16
i
)
1 By definition, leakage out of the containment is considered I positive leakage. Therefore, the statistically averaged least squares 4
containment leakage rate in weight percent per day is given by: .
L = (-A) (2400)/B (weiskt %/ day)
In order to calculate tha 95% confidence limit of the least i squares averaged leak rate, the standard deviation of the least 3
j squares slope and the student's T-Distribution function are used as follows: ,
I j
- 1/
N!(Mt )2 -
(IMt )2
-A2 /2 (2400) (weight %
1 (N-2) per day)
NI(tt)2 -
(It t)2 . 3 i
UCL
- L + c (T)
}
j 1.6449(N-2) + 3.5283 + 0.85602/(N-2) where T = T= -
4 (N-2) + 1.2209 - 1.5162/(N-2) 1 i
1 W = Number of data r,uts '
a c
tt
=
test duration at the ith data set (hours)
=
standard deviation of least squares slope (weight %/ day)
- T Value of the single-sided T-Distribution i function with 2 degrees of freedom -
i L =
calculated leak rate in weight %/ day ,
'y UCL = 95% upper confidence limit '
a = (%/ day) calculated containment dry air mass at time t=0 (1bs.s -
D.12 Point to Point Calculations i
l This method calculates the rate of change with respect to time of !
dry air mass using the Point to Point Method. i i
i i a
i d
1 l i
l I
i i
I WP+/NSD/41/11 l
- c. . , . , . , - . . - -
For recent, the most every data set, the rate of change of dry att mass between (t t) and the previous time (t t 1) is calculated using the two point method shown below:
2400 At= (1 . ng/gg ,g)
(tt - ti.1)
Then the least square fit of the point to point leaktates is calculated as described for dry air masses in section D.11 0.13 Total Time calculations This method calculates the rate of change with respect to time of dry air mass using the Total Time Method Initially, a reference time (t ) ris chosen. For every data set the rate of change of try air mass between t rand the most recent time, ti is calculated using the two point method shown below, 2400 (1 - M t/Mr ) i et = (tt-tr )
Then the least squares fit and 95% UCL of the total time leakrates are calculated as shown below:
B= Ehi E(tt )2 . E t t ERttt N E (tt)2 . (E tt)2 A= (NEti hi-Ett ERt) ,
N I (tt )3 - (I tt)2 i j
L= B + At i
{
T= 1.6449(N-2) + 3.5283 + 0.85602/(N-2) !
(N-2) + 1.2209 - 1.5162/(N-2) i 1
i Note: N is the number of data sets minus one.
1 WP+/WSO/41/18
r.
1 (tp - ! (t )t / W)2 l N I (t t)2 . ( t eg 32 /w
/ /
/ r /
e ,/ ___
,/ I (A t)2 . a g g . g g g, gg
\/ W \/
Ort v L + To Wote:
This ecuation is calculated for information only from the stort of the test up to 24 housn. th6a it becemes the
- official letkretes for fue" - '.ines.
0.14 BW-TOP-1 This method calculates the rate . change with respect to the time of dry air mabs untng the Total time Method.
initially, a reference time (t ) ris chosen. For every data not the rate of chango of the data item between t r and the most te ~ >a?
time, (tt) is cateuteted using the two point method shown belov; 2400
$1 = (1 - Mt/Mr )
(tt-tr)
Then the least nqueres lit of the Total Time Inaktatew and the BW-TOP-1 95% UCLs Art calculated as shown below.
I 4= ( Iht 1(tt)2 .
ggg ggg gg3 N I (tt )d - ( Itt )-
1 Notet W is the number of data sets minus one, i i
l 1
4 ,
I
- i i
i l
I V7+/Ns0/41/19 l
1
- x. (NIti si - It i I si )
N I (t )2 - (I t )2 t i L= B + At 2.37226 2 8225 T = 1.95996 + - +
(N - 2) (N - 2)2
- r=
1 1 + ___ + (tp - I (t )i / N)2 N
I (ti)2 - (I ti)2 /N
/ /
/ F /
8 */
f
,/ I (8 )2 - B I si - A I Atti 1
\/ N \/
UCL = L + To Note:
This equation is calculated for information only from the start of the test up to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, then it becomes the official leakrates for future times.
D.15 Temperature stabilization checking per ANSI 56.8-1981 Ti Weighted average containment air temperature at hour 1.
t ien Rate of change of weighted average containment air temperature over an n hour period at hour 1, using a two point backwards difference method, t ,n = Ti Ti -n n
~ ~
WP+/NSD/41/20 t
l Zi is the ANSI 56.8-1981 Temperature stabilization criteria at hour 1, Zi = l t i,4 t i,1 l 1 must be > 4.
per ANSI 56.8-1981, Z must be less than or equal to 0.5 0F/hr NOTE:
If.the data sampling interval is less than one hour, then:
Option #1 Use data collected at hourly intervals Option #2 Use average of data coliected in previous hou for that hour's data.
D.16 Calculation of Instrument Selection Guide, (ISG)
TSG = 2400 / 2 (ep/p)2 + 2 (8r/T)2 + 2 (ed/p)2 t \/ Np Nr Nd whore: t is the test time, in hours p is test pressure, psit T is the volume weighed average containment temperature, OR Np is the number of pressure transmitters N~r is the number of RTDs Nd is the number of dew cells ep is the combined pressure transmitters' error, psia e r is the combined RTDs' error, OR ed is the combined dew cells' error, OR e /
p = \/ (S p)2 + (RPp + RS )2 p
where: S p is the sensitivity of a pressure transmitter 1
RP p is the repeatability of a pressure transmitter RS p is the resolution of pressure transmitter er* /
\/ (S r) + (RPr + RSr )
where: Sr is the sensitivity of an RTD RPr is the repeatability of an RTD RS p is the resolution of an RTD wp+/NSD/41/21
6P y ed = l /
ATd lTd \/ (S d) + (RPd + RSq)2 where: Sd is the sensitivity of a dew cell RPd is the repeatability of a dew cell RSd is the resolution of a dew cell 6P y l change in vapor pressure oTQIl Td change in saturation temperature The above ratio is from ASME steam tables and evaluated at the containment's saturation temperature at that time.
D.17 BN-TOP-1 Temperature Stabilization Criteria Calculation A.
The rate of change of temperature is less than 1 'F/Hr averaged over the last two hours.
K1 = ITi - Ti -il K 2 = lTi_1 - Ti-2I K1 listedandinK2 A. must both be less than 1 to meet the criteria B. }he rate of change of temperature changes less than 0.5 F/ hour / hour averaged over the last two hours.
K1 = (T i - Ti _1)/(ti - t i_t)
K 2 = (Ti _1 - Ti _2)/(ti_1 - t _2) i Z = l(K1 - K 2 )/(ti + t i-1)I Z must be less than 0.5 to meet the criteria listed in B.
E. OUTPUTS E.1 OUTPUT DEVICE TYPES: The below output devices shall be supported.
There are no special constraints on output device locations.
PRINTERS:
PRIME High Speed Line Printer OKIDATA 2410 OKIDATA 93 LA120 PLOTTERS:
Hewlet Packard 7475A 8.5" X 11" Hewlet Packard 7585A 8.5" X 11" Hetflet Psckard 7585A 11" X 17" CRTs: Wyse Wy75 View Point 60 Ampex Dialogue 80 & 81 PRIME PT200 GRAPHICS TERMINALS: RamTech 6200 RamTech 6211 Tektronix 4107 Tektronix 4208 Tektronix 4014 WP+/NSD/41/22
APPENDIX D INSTRUMENT ERROR ANALYSIS 0483H/02142 . _ - __._ _ - . _ - _ . .
IPCLRT SAMPLE ERROR ANALYSIS '
FOR SHORT DURATION TEST A. ACCURACY ERROR ANALYSIS l Per Topical Report BN-TOP-1 the measured total time leak rate (M) in weight percent per day 1: computed using the Absolute Method by the formula:
TE M (1. / DAY) 2400
- 1_ 1 N (1)
H T P l N 1 .
where: P1 - total (volume weighted) containment dry air pressure (PSIA) at the start of the test; j PN - total (volume weighted) containment dry air pressure !
(PSIA) at data point N after the start of the test; H - test duration from the start of the test to data point N :
in hours; i T1 - containment volume weighted temperature in *R at the i start of the test-TN = containment volume weighted temperature in *R at the I data point N. t The following assumptions are made:
A A !
P1-P_N-P where P is the average dry air pressure of the -
containment (PSIA) during the test; i A A T1-TN-T where T is the average volume weighted primary containment air temperature (*R) during the test-t P1=PN where P is the total containment atmospheric pressure (
(PSIA),
t Pyj - PVN Where Py is the partial pressure of water vapor in :
the primary containment.
0483H/0214Z -
I Taking the partial derivative in terms of pressure and temperature of (1) equation and substituting in the above assumptions ylelds the following equation found in Section 4.5 of BN-TOP-1 Rev. 1:
e e X eg - 2 2400
- 2( p )2 +2( t )2 H A A P T where ep - the error in the total pressure measurement system, ep - 1 [(epT)* + ('PV)2 ] 1/2; ePT - (instrument accuracy error) / / no. of inst, in measuring total containment pressure; epy - (instrument accuracy error) / / no. of inst. In measuring vapor partial pressure; eT - (instrument accuracy error) / / no. of inst. In measuring cor.tainment temperature; .
eg - the error in the measured leak rate; H - duration of the test.
NOTE Subvolume #11, the free air space above
. the water in the reactor vessel, is treated separately from the rest of the '
containment volume. The reason for the separate treatment is that neither the air temperature or the partial pressure of water vapor is measured directly.
The temperature of the air space is assumed to be the temperature of the reactor water, as measured in the shutdown cooling or clean-up demineralizer piping before the heat exchangers. The partial pressure of i water vapor is computed assuming saturation conditions at the temperature of the water. Volume weighting the errors for the two volumes (Subvolume #11 and Subvolumes #1-10) is the method used. -
0483H/0214Z :
- 8. EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS FLOHMETER THERMXOUPi.E INSTRUMENT RTO (*F) PPG (PSIA) DEWCELL (*F) (SCFM) ('F)
Range 50-150 0-100 20 - 104 1.15-11.10 0 - 600 Accuracy .50 2 015 1 1 111 10 2
Repeat-abi11ty 1 10 .001 .50 2 02 2 10 C. COMPUTATION OF INSTRUMENT ACCURACY UNCERTAINTY
- 1. Computing " er "
l Volume Fraction for Volume #11 = .02344 l
Volume Fraction for Volumes #1-10 .97656 eT = 1 (.97656 * .50 + .02344
- 2 )
/28 /1 e7 = 1 1392*R l l
- 2. Computing " epi " l l
1 ePT = 1 015
/2 ePT = 1 0106 PSIA
- 3. Computing " epy "
At a dewpoint of 65'F (assumed), an accuracy of 1 l'F corresponds to 1 011 PSIA. For subvolume #11 at an average temperature of 140*F, an accuracy of 2 2*F corresponds to 1 150 PSI.
epy - 1 (.97656 * .011 + .02344 * .150 )
- 9 /I' l
)
epy - i .0071 PSIA 1 i
- 4. Computing " ep "
ep = 1 [ (.0106): + (.0071)2 J 1/2 ep = 1 0128 PSIA 0483H/02142 - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- 5. Computing total.. instrument accuracy uncertainty " eM A X' eg -
1 2400
- 2* .0128)2 +2* .1392 2 H 4.4/ 548.
A assuming P - 64.4 PSIA A
T = 548.8*R Therefore, for a 6 hour6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> test (H),
eH = 2 1823 wt 7. / DAY !
D. COMPUTATION OF INSTRUMENT REPEATABILITY UNCERTAINTY i
- 1. Computing " ei "
eT = 1 10
/29 ei = 1 0186*R
- 2. Computing " epT "
ePT = 1 001
- _2 J
ePT = 1 0007 PSIA
- 3. Computing " epy "
epy - (.97656 * .006 + .02344 * .008 )
- 9 /1 epy = .0021 PSIA ;
- 4. Computing " Op "
ep - [ (.0007)2 + (.0021)2 11/2 ep - t .0022 PSIA l
0483H/0214Z !
1 R
- 5. Computing the total instrument repeatability uncertainty " eg" R X eH - 2400
- 2 .0186 H .0022}a+2 64.4 548.8}2 Therefore, for a 6 hour6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> test, R
eg - 2 0272 wt % / DAY E. COMPUTING TOTAL INSTRUMENT UNCERTAINTY A R eg - 1 2 * [ (eg): ,(eg): ) 1/2 eg - 1 2 * [ (.1823)2 + (.0272)2 ]1/2 eg - 1'.3686 weight % / DAY for a 6 hour6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> test.
4 J
1 l
I i
0483H/0214Z l 1
APPENDIX E BN-TOP-1, REV. 1 ERRATA the Station uses the general test method outlined topical report. , Rev. I in the B The primary difference between that method and the ones petviously used is in the statistical analysis of the measured leak rate data .
Without making any judgments concerning the validity of this test method The intent here is notcertain errors in the editing of the mathematical expressions wer to change the test method, but .
method errors arein listed a mathematically below. precise mannar that allows its implementation.rather The to EQUATION 3A, SECTION 6.2 Reads:
Lg=A+Bt g Should Read:
Lg=Ag+Bg t g
Reason:
The calculated leak rate (L ) at time t is computed using the regression line e nstants A , B. computed using equations 6 and 7). The summation sikas kn(equation 6 are o
defined as I =i=1 1, where a is the number of data sets up until t time t !
newdaka. The regression line constants change each time a set is received. !
linear function of time. The calculated leak rate ts not a !
PARAGRAPH FOLLOWING EQ. 3A, SECTION 6.2 Reads: t
' The deviation of the measured leak rate (M) from the calculated :
leakisrate and (L) is shown expressed as: graphically on Figure A.1 in Appendix A Deviation = M g -L t
Should Read: i The deviation of the measured leak rate (M ) from the regression !
line (N ) isas:
expressed shown graphically on Figure A.1 in Appendix A and ts
(
Deviation = M -N i 4
where N. t
=A +B
- t.,
P P 1 A,B =
E E Pegression line constants computed from all data sets available last data set atfrom timethe t start of the test to the t
g
= time from the start of the test to tne ich data set.
i i
[
Reason: The calculated leak rate as a function of time during the test is based on a regression line.
The regression line constants, A. and B., are changing as each additional data
- set is* received.
Equation 3A is used later in the test to compute l the upper confidence limit as a function of time.
For the purpose of this calculation, it is the deviation from the last computed regression line ,
at time t that is important.
P ;
EQUATION 4, SECTION 6.2 i
Reads:
SSQ = I (M. i - L()2 Should Read: SSQ = I (M - N )2 ,
Reasoo: Same As'Above EQUATION 5, SECTION 6.2 Reads: SSQ=I(M -
(A + Bt )]2 Should Read: SSQ = I [ M i -
(A +B
- t )]2 P P i Reason: Same As Above EQUATION ABOVE EQUATION 6, SECTION 6.2 Reads: B = ("i
~
)( i ~
)
1(t -
t)3 Should Read: B = II(D i
~
)("i ~
)l I(t g -
t)3 Reason: Regression li.ne constant B. changes over time (as a function of t as each additional data set is recetved. BEr) of"t" left out of denominator.
Summation signs ornitted.
EQUATION 6, SECTION 6.2 Reads: B =
- I 'i d i
~
(I 't) (I "i) n It.' 1
- (I t.)3 1
Should Read: B =
- I 't i
~
(
'i) ( "i) n It.' 1
- (I t.)3 1
Reason: Same As Above 1
1
i EQUATION 7, SECTION 6.A Reads: A=5-St Should Read: A g=5-B g t
Reason: Same As Above EQUATION 10, SECTION 6.2 Reads: A=( ' i) ( 't ) * (I 't) (I 'i M) i n I t.3 -
(I t.)3 L 1 Should Read: A g=. ( "i) (I 't ) ~ II ti) (I C M) i i nit 3g - (I tg)3 Reason: Same As Above EQUATION 13, SECTION 6.3 Reads: e2=s2 (1+1+(o"
}
}
(tg - t)2 Should Read: oz=32 [i , 1" , (t p- E)2 ]
I (tg - T)2 where t =
P time from the start of the test of the last data set for which the standard deviation of the :neasured leak rates (Mt ) from the regression line (Ng ) is being computed; t =
time from the start of the test of the i th set; data o =
number of data sets to time t ;
a I e I ; and i:1 I=
fit .
Reason:
Appears to be error in editing of the report.
Report does a poor job of defining variables.
EQUAT80N 14, SECTXON 6.3 Reads: a= s ( 1 + 1 + ('p ~ ') ]
(t g -
t)2 Should Read: a= s [ 1 + 1 + ('p ~
)
]
I (t.
L t)2 Reason: Same As Above EQUATION 15, SECTION 6.3 Reads: Confidence Limit = L 2 T Should Read: Confidence Limits = L 2 T x a where L = calculated leak rate at time t ,
T= T distribution value based on n, the number of i data sets received up until time t ;
o= standard deviation of seasured leak rate values !
(Mg ) about the regression line based on data from the start of the test until time t .
P Reason: Same As Above i EQUATION 16, SECTION 6.3 Reads: UCL = L + T Should Read: UCL = L + T
- a Reason: Same As Above EQUATION 17, SECTION 6.3 Reads: LCL = L - !
l Should Read: LCL = L - T
- a i I
Reason: Same As Above I I
APPENDIX F TYPE A TEST RESULTS USING MASS - PLOT HETH00 MEASURED LEAK RATE PHASE i
I
?
I l
i 0483H/02142 '
l - _ .
l t
-GL-l l
l l
l 00+3?T?E*0 00+3?9tE*0 GO+346780G99'O ?91*9 OG86G801 E90 ECT 00+3eTTE'O 00+399tE*0 G0+316971990'0 G10*9 6986980T E90 TET 00+309?E*0 00+316TE*0 20+3068E1999'O 999 *G 4986E801 E90 OCT 00+309?C'0 00+3EI?C*0 50+396GETO99*0 189'S 9986?tei COO 6?!
00+309?E*0 00+3T I?E *0 GO+306ELIO99*0 tiG *G 49861801 COO 9?!
00+3@9?C'O 00+3EEEE'O GO+3G?941980'O 99E 'S E986080T COO L?!
00+3?6?E*0 00+3E*TE*0 GO+346E01989'O ELi'S '?986St60 E90 971 0@+396?C'0 00+3?9?C*0 Ge+392EEFOBO'O E10*G E9864860 E80 GET 00o3EIEE*0 00+3?9?t*0 G0+3EG9EF989 'O 990'4 7986E860 E90 921 00+36?EC'O 00+3442C*0 GO+3091Gi990*O 6L9 9 19862860 E90 ETT 00+3G4EE*0 00+306?t*0 GO+3904GF980'O EIG'4 19861860 E80 FET t
00+314EC'0 00+3?9?E*0 GO+306E62999'O 99E 'y 09860860 E90 TPI 00+3?9EE*O 00+3?0EE*0 GO+31046?O99'O 841*9 BE86G890 000 021 00+3G9CE*0 00+300EE*0 GO+349G TE999 'O T 10
- 4 9E869890 E90 6TI 00 3?9EE*0 00+3E6EE*0 GO+34994E690'O 940 *E 9E86Et90 E80 911 00+364EC'O 00+3E0EE*0 50+3999GE999*0 449 'E EEt62880 COO LIT 00+394EE'O 00+326EE*0 GO+39ET6E989'O O T G 'E EEt61890 E80 911 00+3E09E'O 00+391EC'O GO+36T209999*0 99E *E FE860880 E90 Git 00+3919E '0 00+372EE*0 GO+39G119999'O LL i 'E TE869840 EB0 911 00+3109E'0 00+3862E'O S0+36G999999'O OT0 *C ICI69840 E90 EIT 00+31E9E*0 00+341EC*0 GO+3909G4999'O E40 '2 OE86E840 E80 Fil 00+3919E*0 00+316EE*0 GO+369699999'O 949 'F 62862840 E90 tii 00+3?9EE*0 00+3GEFE*0 GO+3GatIG999'O 60G*? 4?86T840 E80 011 00+346EE*0 00+3FGTE*0 GO+36SE3G989 'O T 4E *? 22860840 E90 601 00+3E09E*0 00+39E2E*0 G0s3906?G989'O #L i '2 1286Gt90 E90 901
, 00+36S?E*0 00+3121E*0 GO+34EL9G989'O 400 *F 02869890 E80 LOT 00+3EE?E*0 00+3440E *0 GO+3BIL8G889*0 6EO*1 9186E890 E90 901 00+3091E'O 00+3fl0E*0 GO+349GI9988'O 249'I 91862893 E80 G01 00+30l?E'O 00+3100E*0 GO+3699E9999 'O GOG *i 4T8618E0 E80 901 00+3GE0E*0 00+39G8?*0 GO+300G99999'O BCE
- T 21860*%3 E80 COI 00+3E91E*0 00+32968*0 GO+396049999*0 TLi *i Tit 6G8GO E90 EOT 00+3f9fC'O 00+3G062*0 GO+34E9E9999*0 E00*T 408698G0 E80 TOT 00+368EE'O 00+3?t6?'O GO+3G490L999'O GE8 'O 1086E8GO EB0 OOT 00+3609E'0 00+3EG92*0 20+3984EL989'O 999'O 108628G0 E90 66 00+390LE*0 00+30EEE*O GO+34894L999'O T OG *O 008618G0 E80 96 00+3?IE4*0 00+3669E*0 GO+379094089'O #EC 'O 858908G0 E90 46 GO+392E94999'O 49 t *0 LGt8st90 E80 96 GO+316E09999'O 0 00 *O 99899890 E80 G6 (0/%) *1IWI7 (G/%) (W87)'SS0W (HH) '3WII SS WW HH A00 # 135 dNO3 dn %GE '3108 HO37 810 AHQ IS31 3WII 135 0100 0100 35YHd 31YB W37 03805Y3H 00H13H 10ld - SSYH DNISn 5110538 1531 Y 3dA1 3 X10N3ddY
TYPE A TEST RESULTS USING MASS - PLOT METH00 INDUCE 0 LEAK PHASE DATA DATA SET TIME TEST DRY AIR LEAK RATE, 95% UP CONF SET # DAY HH MM SS TIME, (HR) MASS,(LBM) (%/D) LIMIT, (%/D) 151 083 14:10:24 0.000 0.88827734E+05 152 083 14: 20:26 0.167 0.88821125E+05 153 083 14: 30:27 0.334 0.88811234E+05 3.1334E+01 0.2649E+01 154 083 14:40:27 0.501 0.88802281E+05 0.1396E+01 0.1625E+01 155 083 14: 50:28 0.668 0.88793484E+05 0.1414E+01 0.1522E+01 156 083 15:00:30 0.835 0.88787453E+05 0.1356E+01 0.1452E+01 157 083 15:10:31 1.002 0.88777969E+05 0.1355E+01 0.1419E+01 158 083 15:20:32 1.169 0.88770187E+05 0.1346E+01 0.1393E+01 159 083 15:30:33 1.336 0.88763453E+05 0.1325E+01 0.1367E+01 160 083 15: 40:33 1.502 0.88754765E+05 0.1319E+01 0.1353E+01 161 083 15:50:36 1.670 0.88746031E+05 0.1320E+01 0.1347E+01 162 083 16:00:37 1.837 0.88737703E+05 0.1321E+01 0.1343E+01 163 083 16:10:38 2.004 0.88728547E+05 0.1327E+01 0.1347E+01 164 083 16:20: 41 2.171 0.88722625E+05 0.1321E+01 0.1339E+01 165 083 16:30: 41 2.338 0.88712953E+05 0.1322E+01 0.1338E+01 166 083 16: 40:41 2.505 0.88704266E+05 0.1325E+01 0.1340E+01 167 083 16:50: 42 2.672 0.88695515E+05 0.1329E+01 0.1342E+01 168 083 17:00: 43 2.839 0.88687015E+05 0.1333E+01 0.1345E+01 169 083 17:10: 43 3.005 0.88680734E+05 0.1330E+01 0.1341E+01 170 083 17:20:43 3.172 0.88669797E+05 0.1335E+01 0.1346E+01 MASS PLOT LEAKRATES VS TIM E CALCULATED LEAK RATE Normal Test 96 x UPPER CONFIDENCE LIMIT 0.80 l -
- 0.80 0.69 -
0.69 i
0.57 --
--0.57 5
g 0.46 "
0.46 a
M 0.34 -
_=_ _- _
0.34 0.23 -
0.23 0.11 -
0.11 1
O.00 : : : : : : 0 O.33 1.17 2.00 2.54 3.68 4.51 5.35 6.18 *00 ;
HOURS FIGURE F-1 :
I I
MASS PLOT LEAKRATES VS TIM E CALCVLATED LEAK RATE Verification Test UPPER AND LOWER BOUNDS 1.70 : : :
- 1.70 UPPGR LIM I T 1.60 -
- 1.60 1.50 -
-1.50 w
w 1.40 -,A----- x --
t . >.0 M ,
'N
- / 'N s__ _
1.30 --
-1.30 1
} CALC.VLAYKO L [4K R4 Tf j 1.20 -
-1.20 Lowcn umir 1.10 -
-1.10 !
] 0.33 0.74 1.1 + 1.55 1.96 2.36 2.77 3.17 '
HOURS FIGURE F-2 l
l 1
APPENDIX G "AS FOUND" TEST FAILURE w
0483H/02142 ouad Cities Nuclear Power Station O Commonwealth Edison 22710 206 Avenue North Corcova, Illinois 61242 Telephone 309/654-2241 RLB-88-64 February 25, 1988 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk '
Washington, DC 20555
Reference:
Quad-Cities Nuclear Power Station Docket Number 50-254, DPR-29, Unit One Enclosed please find Licensea Event Report (LER)87-019, Revision 01, for Quad-Cities Nuclear Power Station.
This report is submitted in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50.73(a)(2)(ii), which requires the reporting of any event or condition that resulted in the condition of the nuclear power plant, including its principal safety barriers, being seriously degraded.
Respectfully, COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY QUAD-CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION h
. R. L. Bax }
Station Hanager RLB/MSK/e Enclosure cc: I. Johnson R. Higgins INP0 Records Center NRC Region III 0370H/0183Z 80
l
'!CENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER)
Facility Name (1) Dicket Number (2) . Pace (3)
OuAD-CI*IES NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT ONE 01 51 01 of of 21 51 4 1 ofl1 l0 Title (4) Failure of unit One As Found Integrated Leak Rate Test - Cause not Determined l
Event Date (5) LER Number (6) Reoort Date (71 Other Facilities Involved fa).
Month Day Year Year ,/jj Sequential
// / Revision j////j/j Number Month Day Year Faci,ity Names Occket Numberfs)
/// Number di Sl nj 01 of I I
~~~ ~"
019 114 817 817 011 19 0l1 0l2 2 15 al 8 01 Si s_ 01 01 l l Th!S REPORT IS SUBMITTED PuR5uANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF 10CFR (Check one or more of the followinal fil) 20.402(b) ___ 20.405(c) 50.73(a)(2)(iv) ___ 73.71(b)
POWER __ 20.405(a)(1)(1) .__. 50.36(c)(1) _ 50.73(a)(2)(v) _.__ 73.71(c) l LEVEL _ 20.405(a)(1)(ii) 50.36(c)(2) _ 50.73(a)(2)(v11) __._ Other ( Specify (101 0l0 0 _ 20.405(a)(1)(iii) _ _ . 50.73(a)(2)(1) _ 50.73(a)(2)(viii)(A) in Abstract below
/////,///,//,/,/,/,////,////,//,///, _. 20.405(a)(1)(iv) _X 50.73(a)(2)(ii) __ 50.73(a)(2)(vi11)(8) and in Text) l
////7,//7,/7,'j// jj////j///7,/j///j
/ / __ 20.405(a)(1)(v) ___ 50.73(a)(2)(111) _ 50.73(a)(2)(x)
LICENSEE CONTACT FOR THIS LER (121 Name TELEPHONE nut *BER AREA CODE Ken Sturteckv_ Technical Staff Enoineer. Ext. 2184 3 10l9 615141-l212141 l COMPLETE ONE LINE FOR EACH C0 FAILURE DESCRIBED IN THIS REPORT (13)
CAuSE SYSTEM COMPONENT MANuFAC- REPORTA8LE CAuSE SYSTEM COMPONENT MANuFAC- REPORTABLE TURER TO N8RDS TURER TO NPRDS_
l l l I l I i l i I I I I i 1 I I I I l l I l 1 1 I I I y
$UPPLEMENTAL REPORT EXPECTED f141 Expected Montn I Day i Year Submission lyes fif Yes. comolete EXPECTED $UBr4IS$10N OATE) X l No l l1 l Af,STRACT (l.imit to 1400 spaces i.e. approximately fifteen single-space typewritten lines) (16)
On September 12, 1987, Quad Cities Unit One was shutdown for the start of a refuel and maintenance outage. On September 13, 1987, containment pressurization was begun per QTS 150-1, Integrated Primary Containment Leak Rate Test (IPCLRT). On September 14, at 0800 hours0.00926 days <br />0.222 hours <br />0.00132 weeks <br />3.044e-4 months <br />, it was determined that the "as found" containment leakage, although not yet quantified, was probably in excess of the Technical Specification 3.7.A.2.b limit of 0.75 wt 1./ day. NRC notification of this event was completed at 1045 hours0.0121 days <br />0.29 hours <br />0.00173 weeks <br />3.976225e-4 months <br /> to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 50.72.
The exact cause for this failure was not determined. Extensive testing and investigation was performed in an effort to identify and correct the "as found" leakage. The "as left" IPCLRT indicates acceptable containment leakage result, although a definitive cause for the initial IPCLRT could not be determined. This report is provided to comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.73 (a)(2)(11).
81 1067H/03682
LICENSEE EVENT REr0RT fLER) TEXT CONTINUAff0N FACILITY NAME (1) DOCKET NUMBER (2) X NUMBER f6) Pace (3)
Year //p/ sequential
//,
g//
/ Revision
/// Number / Number __
Ouad cities Unit one 0j $10 1010l 21 $! 4 8 l7 -
0 l 1 19 -
0 l1 012 0F 110 TEXT PLANT AND SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION:
General Electric - Boiling Water Reactor - 2511 MWt rated core thermal power. Energy Industry Identification System (EIIS) codes are identified in the text as (XX].
EVENT IDENTIFICATION: While conducting an Integrated Primary Containment Leak Rate Test, the leakage of the containment was observed to be in excess of the allowable leakage per Technical Specification , 3.7.A.2.b.
A. CONDITIONS PRIOR TO EVENT:
Unit: One Event Date: September 14, 1987 Event Time: 0800 Reactor Mode: 1 Mode Name: SHUTDOWN Power Level: 00%
This report was initiated by Deviation Report 0-4-1-87-085 ;
SHUTDOWN Mode (1) -In this position, a reactor scram is initiated, power to the control rod drives is removed, and the reactor protection trip systems have been deenergized for 10 seconds prior to permissive for manual reset.
B. DESCRIPTION OF EVENT: ,
I On September 12, 1987, Unit One was shutdown for the start of a refueling outage.
Preparation began immediately to perform a primary containment (NH] Integrated Leak Rate Test (ILRT) at the beginning of the refuel outage. At the same time as these preparations were in progress, a number of Local Leak Rate Tests (LLRTs) were being performed to measure the leakage of primary containment (NH] isolation valves (ISV) and testable seals (SEAL). Prior to performing the ILRT, the LLRT for the main steam line drain valves (SB, ISV), M0 1-220-1 and M0 1-220-2, was unsuccessful due to an inability to pressurize the volume between the valves. This indicated ;
excessive leakage of one or both of the valves. This occurrence is documented in '
Licensee Event Report (LER) 254/87-016. The LLRT of the main steam line drain valves showed obvious leakage from the valve bonnet-to-body seal ring (SEAL) on the MO 1-220-2 valve, but the test was inconclusive in showing to what extent the inboard valve, MO l-220-1, was leaking, if at all. The decision was made to continue with preparations for the ILRT.
At 1615 hours0.0187 days <br />0.449 hours <br />0.00267 weeks <br />6.145075e-4 months <br /> on SeptJmber 13, 1987 the containment pressurization began in accordance with station procedure QTS 150-1, "Integrated Frimary Containment Leak Rate Test (IPCLRT)". During the pressurization of the containment, station Technical Staff personnel inspected the containment to detect any early signs of excessive leakage. These liispections included containment isolation valves on top of the pressure suppression chamber (NH] and at all levels of the Reactor Building (ngl. In addition, inspections were performed in the Main Steam Isolation Valve (MSIV) [SB) Room and at the drywell (NH] head flange (SEAL). The only significant evidence of leakage noted at the time was some leakage from the MO l-220-2 valve seal ring observed earlier during the LLRT.
1067H/03682
LfCENSEE EVE 47 REPOR? (LER) TEXT CONTINUA?!ON FAC2LITY NAME (1) 00CKEV NUMBER (2) LER NUMBER f6) Dace (1)
Year //
/,/g/
sequential Number
//,/ Revision
/ /// Number Quad Cities Unit One 0 l 5 l0l010 l 21 51 4 8 l 7 - 011 19 - 0l1 013 0F 110 TEXT At 2130 hours0.0247 days <br />0.592 hours <br />0.00352 weeks <br />8.10465e-4 months <br /> on September 13, 1987, pressurization of the containment was complete at a pressure of 65.3 PSIA. As the test procedure requires, the containment was allowed to stabilize for a period of at least four hours prior to the start of data collection to determine the containment leak rate. During the stabilization phase of the test, containment conditions are monitored using the test instrumentation to verify containment temperature and reactor (RCT] water level stability.
By 0300 hours0.00347 days <br />0.0833 hours <br />4.960317e-4 weeks <br />1.1415e-4 months <br /> on September 14, 1987, it was apparent from the point-to-point leak rates, which were monitored for information only during the stabilization phase, that the containment might be leaking more than the allowable (0.75 wt 7./ day). An investigation into the possible cause was begun immediately. This investigation included a temporary valve lineup to close the drains on the Drywell Pneumatic System (LO) receiver (RCV) and moisture separator (SEP). Since the receiver tank did not pressurize, it was determined that the leak did not appear to be through this system. The valves were then returned to the test configuration. A temporary valve lineup change was performed to close the M0 1-220-3, M0 1-220-4, MO 1-220-90A, B C, 0, and the 1-220-103, 104 valves (V). The purpose of this change was to close ;
the vent path for leakage through the main steam line drain valves, the M0 1-220-1, 2 valves. The containment leak rate was monitored to see if the above actions seemed to effect the observed leakage. They did not have a significant effect. At 0600 hours0.00694 days <br />0.167 hours <br />9.920635e-4 weeks <br />2.283e-4 months <br /> on September 14, 1987, it was determined to try opening LLRT test tap valves (TV) located between isolation valves in an attempt to detect the source of the excessive leakage. Between 0600 and 0800 hours0.00926 days <br />0.222 hours <br />0.00132 weeks <br />3.044e-4 months <br /> on September 14, 1987, the test tap valves were opened for the following potential leakage paths:
'A' Main Steam Line
'B' Main Steam Line
'C' Main Steam Line
'O' Main Steam Line Main Steam Line Orain Purge and Vent (6 valve volume)
Reactor Building to Suppression Chamber Vacuum Breakers (VACB]
Orywell Purge Inlet The source of the excessive leakage could not ce determined. In 1ddition, the l drywell head flange and the access hatch on top of the drywell head were inspected alth only small leaks detected. l At 0800 hours0.00926 days <br />0.222 hours <br />0.00132 weeks <br />3.044e-4 months <br /> on September 14, 1987, it was decided that the cause of the containment leakage could not be determined at this time. The "as found" containment leakage, although not yet quantified, was probably in excess of the allowable and the test was considered an "as found" failure. The Region III NRC inspector on site to perform the inspection for the ILRT was notified of the situation. At this time a Licensee Event Report was initiated and the NRC notification required by 10 CFR 50.72 was performed at 1045 hours0.0121 days <br />0.29 hours <br />0.00173 weeks <br />3.976225e-4 months <br />. The NRC inspector was consulted and agreed that four hours of ILRT data would be sufficient to provide an estimate of the containment leakage.
I 1067H/03682 83
)
_ _ .._ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ ..~ -___ _ _ _ --_ _ -
LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LEst! TEXT CON 71NUATION FAC8LITY NAME (1) DOCKET NuMCIR (2) M MUMBER (6) Oy e (3)
Year /
,/pp/
sequential //j/ Revision
/// Number j///
f Number.
Quad Cities Unit one 0l5 l 0 1 0 1 0 1 21 El 4 al7 - 0l1 l9 -
0l1 014 0F 110 l TEXT i
~
l C. APPARENT CAUSE OF EVENi: i I
This report is submitted to comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.73 (a)(2)(11),
thich requires the reporting of any event or condition that resulted in the condition of the nuclear power plant, including its principal safety barrier, being seriously degraded. !
) A definitive cause for the failure of the as found IPCLRT could not be determined.
Extensive testing and investigation was performed in an effort to identify and i correct the as found leakage. These efforts are described in the CORRECTIVE ACTIONS section of this report. ,
- D. SAFETY ANALYSIS OF EVENT
Over 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> of data was collected beginning at 0700 hours0.0081 days <br />0.194 hours <br />0.00116 weeks <br />2.6635e-4 months <br /> on September 14, 1987.
4 The data was analyzed using the BN-TOP-1, Rev. I total time methodology. Table 1 ;
i gives a summary of the as found leak rate information. The total time leak rate was j approximately 1.82 wt %/ day at an upper confidence limit of 2.13 wt %/ day. A graph 1 of the BN-TOP-1 as found calculated leak rate and upper confidence limit as a function of time is provided in Figure 1.
- i i The "as left" IPCLRT results after repairs showed containment leakage to be 0.3194 e%%/ day (without corrections for nondrained and vented volumes) as analyzed using .
the BN-TOP-1, Rev. I total time methodology. Table 2 gives a summary of the as left !
leak rate information. The total time leak rate was 0.3194 wt%/ day at an upper !
confidence limit of 0.3508 wt%/ day. A graph of the BN-TOP-1 calculated as left leak i rate and upper confidence limit as a function of time is provided in Figure 2. The i calculated containment leakage with the addition of the type "B" and "C" test !
. penalties, required after repairs and adjustments are made, shows the type "A" test 1 result was 0.4430 wt%/ day with an upper confidence limit of 0.4745 wt%/ day (with ;
corrections for nondrained and vented volumes). This test demonstrates that the i containment in the "as left" condition leaked less than the Technical Specification limit and demonstrated that the current condition of the containment is acceptable. I The results of this test are documented in the "Reactor Containment Building ;
fntegrated Leak Rate Test" report to the NRC as required by 10CFR50, Appendix I, ;
I Section III, A.I.(a).
j !
As previously stated the type A test performed at the beginning of the refuel ottage '
i eas prior to performing repairs to the type "B" and "C" valves and penetrati:>ns.
- The results of that test are documented in Appendix G of the "Reactor Containment ;
Building Integrated Leak Rate Test" report to the NRC as previously referenced. The l 4
exact root cause of this failure was not determined. The "as left" test results, !
i however, demonstrated that whatever the cause, the containment leak was repaired. !
i !
l l
106FH/0364z a t, i I .
i
,,._ LtCENSEE EVENT REPnRT (LER1 TEX 9 CONTINUA 7 ION FAC3L1?V NANE (1) ' DOCKET NUMBER (2) LER NUMBER f6) Dage f3)
Year //
ppj/ Sequential // Revision
/// Number
,/,p/
// Number
. Quad cities Unit One 0I$1010 l 0 1 21 El 4 af7 - 0 l 1 19 -
0l 1 015 0F 110 TEXT Historically, the method used to determine an "as found" Type A test result is to add a penalty for the "as found minus as lef t" minimum pathway leakages for all Type 8 and C tests. In the past, this method has been shown to give very conservative estimates of the "as found" condition of the containment.
The Type B and C test results are summarized below.
l MINIMUM PATHWAY (SCFH)
AS FOUND AS LEFT MSIV Leakage Corrected to 48 psig 41.870 32.770 Other Type C Tests (valves) 339.470 83.330 Type 8 Tests (Penetrations) 52.925 31.975 l TOTAL 434.265 148.075 Therefore, the penalty to the Type A test for computing an "as found" result is 286.19 SCFH (434.265 - 148.075), which is equal to 0.5846 otv./ day. This penalty increases the corrected Type A test result to ,
1.0276 wt%/ day (0.443 + 0.5846) at an upper confidence limit of 1.0591 L ot%/ day (0.4745 + 0.5846).
The safety implications of this occurrence cannot be determined for an individual component failure, as no components have been conclusively identified as failing. However, the safety implications of this occurrence utilizing the final test corrections means that this test must be considered a failed "as found" test, since LA in the Quad Cities Technical Specifications is 1.0 wt%/ day. While this test is an "as found" ;
failure, this leakage is well below the Technical Specif h.ation 3.7 bases ,
thich gives the release rate of 2.6 wt%/ day for a Design Basis Accident, consisting of a large break of the recirculation CAD) pump suction line, l before exceeding the 10CFR100 thyroid dose guidelines.
E. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS:
During the course of the refuel outage, many valves and penetrations were tested as required by the Local Leak Rate Test (LLRT) program. Several valves and penetrations were repaired or replaced. The repairs a'.id 4
replacements performed to the primary containment valves and penetrations oill be documented in Revision 1 to Licensee Event Report (LER) 254/87-016 titled, "Leak Rates from all Valves and Penetrations on Unit One in Excess of Technical Specifications." However, the LLRT data does not conclusively identify the leakage path causing the first IPCLRT "as found" test failure. Subsequent investigation of Reactor Building Floor Orain Sump readings, Reactor Building Equipment Drain Sump readings, Radioactive Haste Sump readings, and Control Room Chart Recorder reading.t were
. examined and did not indicate signs of leakage in any of these areas. An
- investigation of outage related work requests also failed to identify any i possible leakage.
J 106?H/03682 85
L2CENSEE EVENT REPOR7 (LER) TEXT CON 72NUATI@N FACli2TY NAME (1) 00CKE7 NUM8ER (2) M NUMBER f6) pace (3)
Year //
p/p sequential / Revisico
/// Number p///p/p/
Number _
Ouad Cities Unit One 015 l010 10 l 21 $1 4 8 17 -
011 19 -
of1 016 0F 110 tex?
Prior to performing the "as left" IPCLRT test as required by 10CFR Appendix J,Section III, A.I.a., the following actions were taken to minimize the possibility of a second failure.
A) A visual inspection of accessible penetrations was performed to identify any possible evidence of damage to containment penetrations.
B) The valve lineup checklist for the first test was verified for proper positions and no discrepancies were found. ,
C) The . computer program leak rate calculations were compared with manual calculations and the results were found to be consistent.
- 0) The valve lineup for the second test was expanded to include many manual isolation valves, consisting of small test tap and penetration root valves, not verified in their normal closed position prior to the first test. '
E) A leak detection device and procedure for detecting containment leaks was available for the second test in the event that leakage was observed in the data. The detection agent was argon gas that was injected into the containment ,
during pressurization.
The aforementioned actions were steps taken to minimize the possibility of a second test failure and to aid in identifying a possible leakage path. '
F. PREVIOUS EVENTS:
Unit One Unit M Reportable Occurrences LER 265/86-015 '
79-03/03L 82-26/03L I
! G. COMPONENT FAILURE DATA:
Through subsequent investigation of the failed IPCLRT "As found" test, no components !
< have been conclusively identified as the cause of the as found test failure.
Component failures for the type "B" and "C" (Local Leak Rate Tests) will be addressed in the LER 254/87-016, Rev. 1.
I 86 l 1067H/03682
LICEN1EE EVENT REPORf (LER) TEXT CONffNUAff04 FACILITY NAME (1) 00CKET NUM8ER (2) LER NUMBER f6) Pace (3)
Year j/jj// $3Quent141 /// Rev1S10n
/// Number /,,/ / Number Quad Cities Unit One 0l 5 10 l0l0 l 21 51 4 9 17 -
0 11 l 9 0 11 017 0F 110 TEXT e eeeeees se e e eeee ee ee ee ee eeStpenaev Pt.0LE 08 LEammaTESeeeeeeeeeee. ......eeeeeeee Qua0 CIftES tes t ? 8 Data SET 128 TMaQueM RSS StattsftCat lek tetg mEga f g CALCu,af ED US IMS f4 >*= f 00-1 a'E rgs DATA 707a6 7tst LSr Op ens-tco TEg? Dev ate LEmmmatte SET e fine.twel anaes, (L gssi ,es/03 LEannetES UCL
.(t/01 4t/0)
Ide e,000 8.84443793E*09 123 8.164 8. 6444445 3E +95 2.5744 la. 0.J35 0. 8 44J44 8 9E *99 8.4470 125 0. 904 9. 6444 349eE *05 !
124 8.2469 f.2643 3.4937 9.649 8.444883598+95 4.alat 2 1794 3.4936 127 0.834 9. 84 79489 3E +95 I
4.2155 2.1476 3.4584 128 1.848 9.44794800E+95 4.0447 129 4.4374 a.3731 1.164 9.84796199E*95 1.6344 1.7944 3.8538 830 3. 3J4 8.847634488+95 338 2.8294 1.4545 a.3764
- 1. 343 8.6474644tE*95 8.to78 1 9496 134 1.670 2. Safe 133
- 0. 44 ? ?Se t SE **S l.5441 L.7344 a.3349 8.837 8. 44 7 64 29 3E + 95 1.5J16 134 4.004 l.6144 a.1789 8.44796459Ee95 1.5477 8 3847 4.0345 135 2.171 8.647473tM +95 134 1.5868 8 4516 4.9370 4.J34 0. 84 7 3444 7E *95 1.5363 4.4477 1.4767 137 8. 30S 0.647363t M +99 134 1.3583 8.3789 8.4 eat a.478 9. 4 4 716444E
- 95 1.5547 4 3594 1.4336 131 4. 4J9 0. 64 786 4 S M + 95 8.6445 1 3JS4 1.4306 tot 3.004 8.8449ealM*05 1.6.34 8.3539 8.4481 tal 3.373 4.4444644 M +95 8.6337 8 3613 3.4578 lag 3.3aC W.4444449ege95 to) 8.6495 8 3700 t.4769 l
- 3. 34 7 4.4445964SE**S 1.6457 8.3777 lee 3.674 1.0912 )
0.644444495+95 8.6718 8.J494 t.9105 161 3. 64 1 8. 64434 3 t M *95 i t46 6.6744 1.4999 B.9478 4.447 8.84444364t*05 4.6874 1.e134 8.1444 I 167 4.875 8.44447459E+99 1.7334 1.*318 8.9499 les 4.344 0. 44 594 5 3 8 E +95 8.7534 8.*Sl4
)
4.9959 '
la9 4. Set 8.6454048 M *95 B.??aS 1.4718 8.0222 ISO 4.476 0. 44544 8 2SE *05 1.7877 151 8.4948 4.4647
- 4. 643 0. 64 SSe l 7M +0S l.79S4 1.31to 2. 86 64 ISA S.Ste 0.44547437t+99 1.74S3 133 1.1477 2.0445 5.t?? 8.4453448tE**S 1.7996 n.Seet 4.lete 156 S.344 8. 8 4 52134M **S iSS t.4119 1.5646 4.6164 5.St4 8 4* S89 79 7E **S 8.8868 1.5768 4.1897 Table 1 1067H/03682 87
LitEN$EE EMENT RE?OR7 fLER) TEXT CONflNUAT20N FACIL2TY NAM (1) 00CKE7 NUM8ER (3) LER NUMBER (61 Dace f31 Year ,/,/p/ SequOntial /// Revision ff j//
/// Number / Number Quad citiet Unit one 0 I $ 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 21 51 4 af7 -
0l 1 19 011 TEXT 018 0F 110 l-BN -TO P - 1 LEAKRATES VS TIME C&LCULATED LEA < RATE 95 Normel Test UPPER CONF 10ENCE LIMIT Allowed Leek Rote 3.50 j = 3.50 l
3.00 3.00 2.50 \ -2.50
['
a g 2.00 5 s
~
2.00 a
1.50 ' ~
1.50 I.00 1.00 0.50 -
O.50 O.33 1.05 1.77 2.44 3.20 3.91 4.43 5.34 '
ma E
QUAtt CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT 1 Figure 1 106?M/03682
LICENSEE EVENT REPORT fLER) TEXT CONTINUATION FACILITY NAME (1) DOCKET NUMBER (3) LER NUMBER f6) paan ( 3)
Year //
p ,/j Sequential jf///j Revision
/// Number /// Number Quad Cities Unit One TEXT 0lEl.Ol010 l 21 51 4 al 7 -
0 l1 19 - 0 l 1 019 0F 110 l'
Heasured Leak Rate Test Results TABLE 2 MEAS. CALC. UPPER DATA TEST AVE. ORY AIR LEAK LEAK CONF.
SET TIME DURATION TEMP. PRESS. RATE RATE LIMIT 95 15:32:56 0.000 89.3 64.4814 --- --- ---
96 15:42:57 0.167 89.3 64.4777 .3335 --- ---
97 15:52:58 0.334 89.3 64.4740 .3499 .2521 ---
98 16:03:00 0.501 89.3 64.4706 .3180 .3261 .5171 99 16:13:01 0.668 89.3 ' .4678 .2791 .2909 .3945 100 16:23:01 0.835 89.2 . 4636 .3077 .2932 .3763 w 101 16:33:07 1.003 89.2 ' 4611
. .2948 .2882 ~.3529 102 16:43:11 1.171 89.2 d4.4573 .3066 .2913 43516
'N" 103 16:53:12 1.338 89.2 64.4552 .2804 .2825 .3344 104 17:03:14 1.505 89.2 64.4509 .3215 .2926 .3524 i 105 17:13:16 1.672 89.2 64.4483 .3043 .2938 .3491 106 17:23:16 1.839 89.2 64.4451 .3182 .2991 .3536 107 17:33:20 2.007 89.1 64.4419 .3183 ,.3032 .3557 108 17:43:21 2.174 89.1 64.4375 .3414 .3127 .3678 109 17:53:22 2.341 89.1 64.4356 .3234 .3153 .3677 110 18:03:27 2.509 89.1 04.4320 .3150 .3154 .3650 111 18:13:29 2.676 89.1 64.4288 .3373 .3205 .3692 112 18:23:30 2.843 89.1 64.4259- .3323 .3236 .3705 113 18:33:31 3.010 89.1 64.4234 .3187 .3233 . 3H3
) 114 18:43:31 3.177 89.1 64.4195 .3335 .3259 .36 3 115 18:53:32 3.344 89.0 64.4169 .3244 51264 ( .3M4 g 116 19:03:32 3.510 89.0 64.4147 .3166 .?2do: iCR v
- 117 19
- 13:33 3.677 89.0 64.4113 .3298 "
. 267. \ 3664
< 118 19:23:34 3.844 89.0 64.4088 .3210 . . W65 .3651 , ,
4 119 19:33:36 4.011 89.0 64.4055 .3288 \,?275 .3650 ~
120 19:43:38 4.178 89.0 64.4038 .3271 .3280 . 3fdf 121 19:53:40 4.346 89.0 64.4014 .3169 .i270 .36s9 122 20:03:41 4.513 89.0 64.3977 .3290 .3373 . 3fd '
123 20:13:41 4.679 88.9 64.3962 .3188 .3272 .?6iS 124 125 20:23:42 20:33:43 4.846 5.013 88.9 88.9 64.3934 64.3914
.3173
.3127
.32 4
.3251
-3bO]
.3bdI
'a' 126 20:43:42 5.179 88.9 64.3888 .323? .3253 .3582 127 20:53:43 5.346 88.9 64.3863 . 317] ' .3246 .3571 128 21:03:44 5.514 88.9 64.3841 .3085 4 3731 .3554 129 21:13:d6 5.681 88.9 64.3803 i
130 21:23:47 5.848 88.9 64.3795- .3223
.3071 N b~.;32Y/3?.3534 j i .3550 131 21:33:49 6.015 88.9 64.3768, .3030 .3198 ' 3517 i
132 21:43:50 6.182 88.9 f4.3736 .314S .3194 .3508
~ . :
i s g, s
( ,
' * ' I '
i
( s
) , 1 i 89 i N* 4
, 106?H/0368:
3 1, :
r
_m LICENSEE EVENT REPORT f LER) TEXT CONTINUATE FACILITY NAME (1) DOCKET CUMBER (2) LER NUMsER f61 Pane til Year / Sequential /// Revt510n
,/,/,/
// Number ,,//p
/
l Number _
Oua d C i t ie.1 Unit one oI110 10 l 0 1 21 El 4 al7 -
0l 1 19 011 110 & 110 TEXT MEASURED LEAK RATE PHASE GRAPH OF CALCULATED LEAK RATE AND UPPER CONFIDENCE LIMIT BN-TOP-1 LEAKRATES VS TIM E CALCULATED LEAK RATE 95 x UPPER CONFIDENCE LIMIT Normal Test 0.50 '
0.80 O.69 -
-0.69 LlMi 7 ' O.75 L4 (0.7S-t 4/04Y) 0.57 -
- - 0.57 a >_
E 0**6 "
e5 'O'#$
cL. vPPE R LonFicENc.G u tm T
% w 0.34
- - l
\ _-
~ -
~
0.34 s
0.23 -
~
CAccuLATED LFA KR ATE
- 0.23 0.11 ,s -
- Sj \ --0.11
,x s
, {
\
(e i 0.00 0.33' l.17
+-
2.01 2.54 3.68 4.51 5.35 6.18 00 0
( s X - ,
, s s
(HOURS)
Figure 2 N
10 tufoutz s 4 x 90 ,(final)
, 3
\ -
.