ML20196A280

Reactor Containment Bldg Integrated Leak Rate Test

ML20196A280
Person / Time
Site:	Brunswick
Issue date:	03/31/1988
From:	Black D CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20196A277	List: ML20196A273 ML20196A280
References
NUDOCS 8806290509
Download: ML20196A280 (65)

Text

. _. ._ _ . _ . . . . _ ._. _. _ .

9 ./

i-BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT UNIT NO. 2 REACTOR CONTAINMENT BUILDING INTEGRATED LEAK RATE TEST MARCH 1988 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Prepared by: David B. Black Reviewed by: k)

ILRT Engine 6r Approved by: //gMpds 8806290509 880624 PDR ADOCK 05000324 p DCD .s

t J i

TABLE OF CONTENTS I

Sect. Iten Title Page 1.0 SYNOPSIS 1

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2 3.0 GENERA L. TECHNICAL. AND TEST DATA 3 l 3.1 GENERAL DATA 3 3.2 TECHNICAL DATA 3 3.3 TEST DATA 4 4.0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 5 5.0 TEST INSTRUMENTATION 6 5.1

SUMMARY

OF INSTRUMENTS 6 5.2 SCHEMATIC ARRANGEMENT 7 5.3 CALIBRATION CHECKS 7 5.4 INSTRUMENTATION PERFORMANCE 8 5.5 VOLUME WEIGHTING FACTORS 8 5.6 SYSTEMATIC ERROR ANALYSIS '9 5.7 SUPPLEMENTAL VERIFICATION 12 6.0 TEST PROCEDURE 14 6.1 PR2 REQUISITES 14 6.2 GENERAL DISCUSSION 14 6.3 TEST PERFORMANCE 16 7.0 METHODS OF ANALYSIS 19 7.1 ABSOLUTE METHOD 19 7.2 STATISTICAL EVALUATION 21 8.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 23 8.1 RESULTS AT Pa 23 8.2 SUPPLEMENTAL TEST RESULTS 25 8.3 AS FOUND ANALYSIS 26 8.4 TYPE B AND C TESTING 27

9.0 REFERENCES

28 i

I m- , - - -- . .

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

t >

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)

APPENDICES A -

SCHEMATIC ARRANGEMENT OF TEST INSTRUMENTATION B -

REDUCED TEST DATA l C -

LEAKAGE RATE TEST GRAPHS D -

COMPUTER RESULTS E -

TYPE B & C TESTING t

l 4 I

, ,w---,~a,-,,--, - , - - - - ,- .-,,--.,,.._,-,,,..n, . _ , , - .--,--,-_.,.,---n..n,.,,~-,,n,-. , ,---n-- , . - . . - - .

f I 1

1.0 SYNOPSIS The Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Unit No. 2 reactor containment building was subjected to an integrated leak rate test during the period of March 26 to March 28, 1988.

The purpose of this test was to demonstrate the acceptability of the building leakage rate at an internal pressure of 49.0 psig (P ).g Testing was performed in accordance with the requirements of 10CFR50 Appendix J, ANSI N45.4-1972, and Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Unit No. 2 Technical Specifications.

The Mass Point method of analysis resulted in a measured leakage rate of 0.307% by weight per day. The leakage rate at the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was 0.312% by weight per day. A correction factor of 0.017% by weight per day for 12 penetrations which were not vented for the test must be added to the test results. Therefore, the leakage rate at the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval is 0.329% by weight per day which is below the allowable leakage rate of 0.375% by weight per day.

Using the minimum pathway leakage analysis to determine the i "as found" reactor containment integrated leakage rate indicates that the acceptance criteria would have been exceeded. This was due to one penetration that could not be pressurized during local leakage rate testing and required maintenance to be performed. i The supplemental instrumentation verification test at P a demonstrated an agreement between measured reactor j containment building integrated leakage rates of 19.6%, i using the Mass Point method which is within the 25%

requirement of 10CFR50, Appendix J, Section III A.3.b.

Testing was performed by Carolina Power and Light Company with the technical assistance of United Energy Services Corporation.

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

2

2.0 INTRODUCTION

The objective of the integrated leak rate test was the establishment of the degree of overall leak tightness of the reactor containment building at the calculated design basis accident pressure of 49.0 psig. The allowable leakage is defined by the design basis accident applied in the safety analysis in accordance with site exposure guidelines specified by 10CFR100. For Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Unit No. 2, the maximum allowable integrated leak rate at the design basis accident pressure of 49.0 psig (Pa) is 0.5% by weight per day (L )*

a Testing was performed in accordance with the procedural requirements as stated in Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Integrated Primary Containment Leak Rate Test Procedure PT-20.5. This procedure received two independent technical safety reviews and was approved by the Manager, Technical Support prior to the commencement of the test.

Leakage rate testing was accomplished at the pressure level of 50.8 psig for a period of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. The 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period was followed by a 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> supplemental test for a verification of test instrumentation.

1 l

3 3.0 GENERAL, TECHNICAL AND TEST DATA 1 3.1 GENERAL DATA Owner: Carolina Power & Light Docket No. 50-324 Location: Southport, North Carolina Type: Mark 1, BWR-4 Containment Steel lined, reinforced concrete,

Description:

' light bulb' shaped drywell with torus shaped suppression chamber connected by a vent system. Vacuum breakers are provided between the suppression chamber and both the drywell and reactor building.

Date Test March 28, 1988 Completed:

3.2 TECHNICAL DATA Containment Het Free Volume: 294,981 cubic feet Design Pressure: 62 psig Design Temperature: 300 F (drywell), 220 0F (suppression chamber)

Calculated Accident Peak Pressure: 49.0 psig Calculated  :

Accident Peak Temperature: 297 0 F l

1 l

l l

I i

l 1

4 3.3 TEST DATA i l

Test Method: Absolute Data Analysis: Mass Point and Total Time l Test Pressure: 65.5 psia Max Allowable Leakage Rate (L a): 0.500 wt % per day Measured Leakage Rate:

Mass Point 0.307 wt % per day Measured Leakage Rate at UCL:

Mass Point 0.329 wt % per day supplemental Test Flow Rate: 0.478 wt % per day '

Supplemental Test Measured Leak Rate:

Mass Point 0.687 wt % per day Supplemental Test and L Agreement:am Mass Point 19.6%

5 4.0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Acceptance criteria established prior to the test and as specified by 10CFR50, Appendix J, ANSI N45.4-1972 and the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Unit No. 2 Technical Specifications are as follows:

1. The measured leakage rate (Lam) at the calculated design accident pressure of 49.0 psig (Pa ) shall be less than 75% of the maximum allowable leakage rate f

(La ) , specified as 0.5% by weight of the building atmosphere per day. The acceptance criteria is determined as follows:

i La = 0.5%/ day l 0.75 La = 0.375%/ day

)

l

2. The test instrumentation shall be verified by means of a supplemental test. Agreement between the containment leakage measured during the Type A test i and the containment leakage measured during the supplemental test shall be within 25% of L

• a 1

6 5.0 TEST INSTRUMENTATION 5.1

SUMMARY

OF INSTRUMENTS Test instruments. employed are described, by system, in the l following subsections, 5.1.1 Temnerature Indicatina System Components:

3. Resistance. Temperature Detectors:

j Quantity 24 l Manufacturer Rosemount Type )

78-S 100 chm O

platinum Range, F 0 to 400 Accuracy, F +/- 0.1 Sensitivity, *F +/- 0.1

2. Digital Temperature Scanner / Printer:

Quantity 1 .

l Manufacturer Fluke Type Model 2285B Accuracy, OF +/- 0.2 Repeatability,, OF +/- 0.1 5.1.2 Dewooint Indicatino System

1. Dewcell Elements:

Quantity 10 Manufacturer Foxboro Type Model 2781 Range, F 0 - 150 dewpoint Accuracy, OF +/- 2 Sensitivity, U F +/- 0.5

2. Digital Temperature Scanner / Printer:

Quantity 1 Manufacturer Fluke Type Model 2285B Accuracy, OF +/- 0.2 Repeatability, OF +/- 0.1

a e l

7 5.1.3 Pressure Monitorina System Precision Pressure Gauges Quantity 2 Manufacturer Heise Type Series 10 (with angular readout)

Range, psia 0 - 75 Accuracy, psia 0.0005% f.s.+0.0065% of reading Sensor sensitivity, psia 0.001% of full scale Repeatability, psia 0.0005% of full scale 5.1.4 Sunclemental Test Flow Monitorina System Flowmeter Juantity 1 Manufacturer Brooks Type Model 1110 Range, scfm 1.0 - 10.0 Accuracy +/- 1% of full scale 5.2 SCHEMATIC ARRANGEMENT The arrangement of the four measuring systems summarized in Section 5.1 is depicted in Appendix A.

Drybulb temperature sensors were placed throughout the reactor containment vessel volume to permit monitoring of internal temperature variations at 24 locations. Dewcells were placed at ten locations to permit monitoring of the reactor containment partial pressure of water vapor.

5.3 CALIBRATION CHECKS Temperature, dewpoint, and pressure measuring systems were checked for calibration before the test as recommended by ANSI N45.4-1972, Section 6.2 and 6.3. The results of the calibration checks are on file at Brunswick Steam Electric Plant. A containment temperature survey was conducted l which verified that there were no unmonitored regional temperature variations.

l The supplemental test at 50.8 psig 1 confirmed the instrumentation acceptability.

l l

l u

)

8 5.4 INSTRUMENTATION PERFORMANCE During the ILRT, one RTD exhibited abnormal behavior and was not used for the test. The remaining 10 dewcells, 23 RTDs, two precision pressure gauges, and flow meter performed satisfactorily throughout the performance of the integrated leak rate test and provided more than adequate coverage of the containment. A post test inspection revealed that the erratic RTD had fallen to the floor and was sensing metal temperature rather than air temperature.

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

Elevation / Temperature Weighting Azimuth Element Factor 93/0 0 0 TE 1 .0528 93/180 0 TE 2 , 0 78/2700 TE 3 .0187 78/900 TE 4 .0187 66/0 TE 5 .0115 66/180 00 TE 6 .0115 54/2700 TE 7 .0136 54/90 0 TE 8 .0136 46/300 TE 9 .0194 46/0 0 0 TE 10 .0194 46/180 TE 11 .0194 33/0 0 0 TE 12 .0500 33/120 0 TE 13 .0500 33/240 TE 14 .0500 16/0 0 TE 15 .0577 16/270 0 TE 16 .0577 16/180 TE 17 .0577 16/90 TE 18 .0577 Torus 00 TE 19 .0701 Torus /60 0 0 TE 20 .0701 Torus /120 TE 21 .0701 Torus /180 00 TE 22 .0701 Torus /240 0 TE 23 .0701 Torus /300 TE 24 .0701 93/2700 0 DPE 1 .0527 78/90 DPE 2 .0489 54/0 0 DPE 3 .0386 46/180 DPE 4 .0583

i 9

5.5 VOLUME WEIGHTING FACTORS (Continued)

Elevation / Temperature Weighting Azimuth Element Factor 33/2700 0 DPE 5 .1502 16/90 DPE 6 .2309 Torus /0 0 0 DPE 7 .1051 Torus /90 DPE 8 .1051 Torus /180 00 DPE 9 .1051 Torus /270 DPE 10 21051 5.6 SYSTEMATIC ERROR ANALYSIS Systematic error, in this test, is induced by the operation of the temperature indicating system, dewpoint indicating system, and the pressure indicating system.

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

Containment leakage determined by the Absolute Method requires accurate measurement of small changes in containment pressure with suitable corrections for temperature and water vapor. Since the Absolute Method utilizes the change in a reading (i.e., pressure and temperature) to calculate leak rate, the repeatability, sensitivity, and readability of the instrument system is c:

more concern than the accuracy. To perform the ISG calculation, the sensitivity error of the sensor and the repeatability error of the measurement system must be used.

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

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

I 4

10 5.6 SYSTEMATIC ERROR ANALYS7F (Continued)

' Utilizing the methods, techniques, and assumptions in l Appendix G to ANS 56.8-1981, the ISG formula was computed for the Absolute Method as follows:

1. Conditions:

La = 0.5 wt.%/ day P = 65.5 psia T = 547.50 R drybulb Tdp = 80.50 F dewpoint t = 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />

2. Total Absolute Pressure: e p No of sensors = 2 Range = 0 - 75 psia Sensor sensitivity error (E )p'= +/- 0.001% of full scale Measurement system error (c p ) = +/- 0.0005% of full scale e p = +/- ((E p)2 + (c )2 p 3 1/2 /[no. of sensors)1/2 ep = +/- ((0.00075)2 + (0.000375)2 3 1/2 / [2)1/2

ep = +/- 0.0006 psia l 4

l b i

T

4 4

. 11 l l

5.6 SYSTEMATIC ERROR ANALYSIS '

(Continued)

3. Water Vapor Pressure: e py No. of sensors = 10 Sensor sensitivity error (Epy) = +/- 0.5 0F Measurement system error (epy) 0 excluding sensor = +/- .1 F At a dewpoint temperature of 80.5 F, the equivalent water vapor pressure change O (as determined from steam tables) is 0.0168 psia / F 0

E py = +/- 0.5 F (0.0168 psia / 0F)

E py = +/- 0.00840 psia c

py = +/- 0.1 F0 (0.0168 psia /'F) c py = +/- 0.00168 psia e py = +/- ((Epy)2 + (g pv)2)1/2/[no. of sensors)1/2 e py

= +/- [ (0. 008 4 0) 2 + (0.00168)2 3 1/2/(10)1/2 L

e py = +/- 0.00271 psia

4. Temperature: eT No. of sensors = 23 l

Sensor sensitivity error (E T) =

+/- 0.1 0F = +/- 0.1 0R Measurement system error (c T) excluding sensor = +/- 0.1 F = +/- 0.1 0R eT " +/- [(ET) + (C T) )/ / (no. of sensors) 1/2 eT = +/- [ (0.1) 2 + (0.1)2)1/2 / (23) 1/2 eT = +/- 0.0294 0R

r 1

q 12 5.6 3YSTEMATIC ERROR ANALYSIS (Continued) 5.

Instrument Selection Guide (ISG):

ep 2 e 2 eT

+ 2( py) 2 1/2 ISG = +/ 2400 (2( p) p + 2( 7) )

+ 2( ' 65.5 ISG = +/ 24 (2( 65.5 ) )

)

+ 2( 547.5)

ISG = +/-100(1.678 x 10-10+3.424 x 10-9+5.767 x 10-9)1/2 ISG = +/- 0.010 wt.%/ day The ISG value does not exceed 0.25 La (0.125 wt.4/ day) and it is therefore concluded that the instrumentation selected was acceptable for use in determining the reactor containment integrated leakage rate.

5.7 SUPPLEMENTAL VERIFICATION

• In addition to the calibration checks described in Section 5.3, test instrumentation operation was verified by a supplemental test subsequent to the completion of the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> leakage rate test.

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

s 13 5.7 SUPPLEMENTAL VERIFICATION (Continued)

During the supplemental test, the measured leakage rate was:

Lc"L# v +L o Where:

Lc = Measured composite leakage rate consisting of the reactor containment building leakage rate plus the imposed leakage rate '

La = Imposed leakage rate L'=

y Leakage rate of the reactor containment building during the supplemental test phase Rearranging the above equation, L'

y = L c -L o The reactor containment building leakage during the Supplemental test can be calculated by subtracting the known superimposed leakage rate from the measured composite leakage rate.

The reactor containment building leakage rate during the supplemental test (L y') was then compared to the measured reactor containment building leakage rate during the preceding 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> test (L to determine instrumentation acceptability. Instrumen$m) at ion is considered acceptable if the difference between the two building leakage rates is within 25% of the maximum allowable leakage rate (La )* ,

{

l I

i l

i s l l

14 i

1 6.0 TEST PROCEDURE  :

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

1. Proper operation of all test instrumentation was verified.

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

3. Portions of fluid systems, which under post-accident conditions become extensions of the containment boundary, were drained and vented to the extent possible or the Type C penalty taken as appropriate.

4. Type B and C testing was completed with a leakage value less than 0.6 L a'

5. Containment pressurization system was operational.

6. Potential pressure sources were removed'or isolated from the containment.

7. An inspection of the accessible interior and exterior surfaces of the containment was completed.

6.2 GENERAL DISCUSSION Following the satisfaction of the prerequisites stated in Section 6.1, the reactor containment building pressurization was initiated at a rate of approximately 6.0 )

1 psi per hour. After the containment was stabilized, leak rate testing was initiated at the 50.5 psig pressure level.

For the duration of the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> leak test and the 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> supplemental test, average internal containment temperature  !

slowly increased due to the Residual Heat Removal (Shutdown l Cooling) System temperature.

a .

15 6.2 GENERAL DISCUSSION (Continued)

During the test the following occurred at 15 minute intervals (see Appendix B - Reduced Leakage Data):

1. Readings indicated by the precision pressure gauges were recorded and entered into the computer.

2. Readings indicated by the 23 RTDs were recorded and entered into the computer. The computer program calculated the weighted average containment building drybulb temperature by use of a weighting factor that was assigned to each RTD. This value was subsequently converted to degrees Rankine for use in the ideal gas law equation to calculate containment building weight of air.

3. Readings indicated by the ten dewpoint temperature sensors were recorded and entered into the computer.

The computer program converted the readings to dewpoint temperatures and then calculated the average containment dewpoint temperature by use of a weighting factor assigned to each sensor. This weighted average dewpoint temperature was then converted to a partial pressure of water vapor. .

The use of water vapor pressure (P ,

the total pressure (P t) is describek)in more detail intemperature (T), and Section 7.1.

Data was entered into an IBM AT Portable Computer located at the leak rate instrumentation room. The ILRT computer program utilized for the test had been previously checked with sample data of known results and certified prior to the test. The computer program then calculated the following at 15 minute intervals:

1. Total weight of containment air.

l l

2. Mass point least squares fit leakage rate.

3.

Mass point 95% upper confidence level leakage rate.

4. Observed total timo leakage rate.

5. Total time mean leakage rate. l

6. Total time least squares fit leakage rate.

7. Total time 95% upper confidence level leakage rate.

s '

16 6.2 GENERAL DISCUSSION (Continued)

A plot of weighted average containment temperature, containment total pressure, containment average dewpoint temperature, and weight of air was performed for each 15-minute data set (see Appendix C).

Immediately following the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> leak test, a superimposed leakage rate was establjoned for a 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> test period.

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

6.3 TEST PERFORMANCE 6.3.1 Pressurization and Stabilization Phase Pressurization of the reactor containment building was started at approximately 1920 on March 25, 1988. The pressurization rate was approximately 6 psi per hour. When containment internal pressure reached 50.5 psig at 0443 on March 26, 1988, pressurization was secured. By 0900, on March 26, temperature stabilization criteria had been met.

6.3.2 Intecrated Leak Rate Testina Phase At 0900 on March 26, 1988, 15 minute frequency test data collection was initiated. Initial indications showed a slowly rising leakage rate of approximately 0.33% by weight per day. However, operations was experiencing problems in maintaining a steady residual heat removal (RHR) temperature which caused fluctuations in the reactor vessel level. This introduced some periodic perturbations in the observed containment mass weight points and in the corresponding mass point leakage rate. Additionally, due to the recent completion of the reactor vessel hydrostatic test, the RHR system temperature was fluctuating in the ,

range of 125 F to 135 F. Since this was substantially higher than the containment ambient air temperature, a heat source existed inside containment. Additional influences on the test data were caused by an operational requirement for two loop RHR shutdown cooling when the reactor' vessel level dropped below 200 inches and an increase in RHR flow from 5,000 gallons per minute to 7,500 gallons per minute.

This caused an additional drop in reactor vessel level resulting in more perturbations of the containment leakage rate.

Leak detection and identification teams were. i dispatched but no major source of containment leakage was l

i

(

=

r 17 6.3.2 Intearated Leak Rate Testina Phase (Continued) identified. Three minor packing leaks were identified on the RHR containment spray valve E11-F021A, containment vacuum breaker valve CAC-V17, and the feedwater B loop injection valve B21-F0328.

At this time (1230 on March 26), no repairs were made. By 1355, the containment leakage rate was 0.35% by weight per day and still increasing slowly. However, regression analysis of containment mass weights recorded between the perturbations caused by RHR temperature and reactor vessel level changes indicated a containment leakage rate of approximately 0.31% by weight per day.

At 0745 on March 27, 1988, a decision was made to terminate the integrated leakage rate test. The containment leakage rate had stabilized at approximately 0.39 to 0.40% by weight per day. Based on the egression analysis described above, it was felt that the actual containment leakage rate was lower than .39 to .40% per day and was probably on the order of 0.31% per day. However, due to the changes in RHR temperature and reactor vessel level, this could not be positively confirmed. By 1035 on March 27, reactor vessel level had been raised to 235 inches, single loop RHR shutdown e Ang had been established, operations had committe aintaining better RHR temperature control and the par' ,

leaks on valves E11-F021A and CAC-V17 had been repai- .

Containment ambient air temperature changes had been vsntinuously monitored and were still within the ,

temperature stabilization criteria. Containment pressure was well above the required 49 psig criteria at  !

approximately 50.3 psig. I The integrated leakage rate test was officially restarted at 1200 on March 27, 1988. The containment leakage rate exhibited a gradual increasing trend, reaching a maximum value of 0.39% per day at 1930 hours0.0223 days <br />0.536 hours <br />0.00319 weeks <br />7.34365e-4 months <br />. Leakage detection and identification was again initiated but no areas of significant leakage were observed. From 1930 on March 27 to 1200 on March 28, the containment leakage rate showed a continual and gradual decreasing trend. The containment integrated leakage rate test was concluded at 1200 on March 28, 1988 with an acceptable measured mass point leakage rate value of 0.307% per day. The leakage rate at the upper 95 percent confidence level was 0.312% by weight per day.

n .

18 6.3.3 Sucolemental Leakace Rate Test Phasg Following completion of the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> integrated leak rate test, a leakage rate of 4.36 scfm was imposed on the containment building through a calibrated flow meter at 1200 on March 28. After a fifteen minute stabilization period, leakage rate data was again collected at 15 minute intervals for a period of 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />. With an imposed leak rate of 0.478% per day, a measured composite leakage rate of 0.687% per day was obtained using the Mass Point method.

This results in a containment building leakage rate agreement of 19.6% of L a with the results of the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> test. This value is within the acceptance limit of 25% of L*a 6.3.4 Dooressurization Phase After all required data was obtained and evaluated, containment building depressurization to o psig was started. A post test inspection of the containment revealed no unusual findings. The RTD which exhibited erratic behavior (TE-2) was found to have fallen from its test location onto the floor. This explains the sudden and large increase in temperature readings from TE-2 since it was then measuring the floor temperature instead of the containment ambient air temperature. ,

1 1

l 1

0

19 7.0 METHODS OF ANALYSIS 7.1 ABSOLUTE METHOD 7.1.1 General The Absolute Method of leakage rate determination was employed during testing at the 49.0 psig pressure level.

The ILRT computer code calculates the percent per day leakage rate using both the mass point and total time methods.

7.1.2 Mass Point Analysis The Mass Point method of computing leakage rates uses the following ideal gas law equation to calculate the weight of air inside containment for each 15 minute interval:

w. 144 PV , EE RT R Where:

W= Mass of air inside containment, Tbm K= "~ ~

14 4 V/R - /' x 10 lbf P= Partial pressure of air, psia T= Average internal containment temperature, R V= 294,981 ft 3 lbf - ft R= 53.35 lbm- R The partial pressure of air, P, is calculated as follows:

P= PT-Pyy i Where: i P

T = Total containment pressure P Partial pressure of water vapor i yy = determined by averaging the nine dewpoint temperatures and converting to partial pressure of water vapor, psia 1

j 1

20 7.1.2 Mass Point Analysis (Continued)

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

E fi i

Ti Where:

Vgi = Volume fraction of the i th sensor Ti = Absolute temperature of the ith sensor The weight of air is plotted versus time for the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> test and for the 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> supplemental test. The ILRT computer code fits the locus of these points to a straight line using a linear least squares fit. The equation of the linear least squares fit line is of the form W = At + B' where A is the slope in Ibm per hour and B is the initial weight at time zero. The least squares parameters are calculated as follows:

N ( i It g IW A= i) -

(

XX B= I I I I II - (E tg Et W i XX Where:

Sxx = N (I ti) - (E t )2 2

i N = Number of data points Wi = Measured mass of containment air ti = Time interval

21 7.1.2 Mass Point Analysis (Continued)

The weight percent leakage per day can then be determined from the following equation:

-2400 A t^'

)

B l

where the negative sign is used since A is a negative slope  !

to express the leakage rate as a positive quantity. I l

7.2 STATISTICAL LVALUATION 7.2.1 General After performing the least squares fit, the ILRT computer code calculates the limits of the 95 percent confidence interval for the mass point leakage rate (Cg ).

This statistical parameter is then used to determine that the measured leakage rate plus the 95 UCL meets the acceptance criteria.

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

Cg = 2400 t 95 (SA/B)

Where:

Cg = Upper 95 percent confidence limit t Student's t distribution with N-2 95 = degrees of freedom S

A = Standard deviation of the slope of the least squares fit line B = Intercept of the least squares fit line The standard deviation of the slope of the least squares fit line (SA) is calculated as follows:

S "

A (N(I t i2) -

(It)2) 1/2 i

22 7.2.2 Mass Point Confidence (Continued)

Where:

S =

Common standard deviation of the observed weights from the weights on the least squares fit line N u Number of data points ti= Time interval of the ith data point The common standard deviation (S) is defined by:

S =

I (Wi - W)

N-2 Where:

Wi = Observed mass of air W = Least squares calculated mass of air The ILRT computer code calculates an upper 55 percent confidence leakage rate as follows:

UCL = Lam + 2400 t95 (SA /B)

This UCL value is then used to determine that the measured leakage rate at the upper 95 percent confidence limit meets the acceptance criteria.

g a.

23 8.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 8.1 RESULTS AT P a The method used in calculating the Mass Point leakage rate is described in Section 7.1.1. The results of this calculation is a mass point leakage rate of 0.307%/ day (see Appendix D).

The 95 percent confidence limit associated with this leakage rate is 0.005% per day. Thus, the leakage rate at the upper bound of the 95 percent confidence level becomes:

UCL = .307 + .005 UCL = 0.312%/ day Additional leakage rates must be applied to the measured leakage rate at the upper 95 percent con *idence level to account for penetration paths not exposed to the test pressure and for changes in the net free volume of the containment due to water level changes. Penetration paths not exposed to the test pressure and the corresponding leakage rates based on analysis of minimum pathway local leakage rate testing are as follows: ,

Minimum Pathway Containment Local System Isolation Valves Leakace Rate (SCFH)

Drywe21 Drains 2-G16-F003/F004 0 Drywell Drains 2-G16-F019/F020 0 Feedwater (RCIC 2-B21-F032B, O Injection Line B) 2-E51-V88, 2-B21-F010B, Feedwater (HPCI 2-B21-F032A, O Injection Line A) 2-E41-F006, l 2-B21-F010A, '

Reactor Building 2-RCC-V28/V52 0 Cooling Water RXS-SV1222B/C 0 CRD Purge to 2-B32-V24/V22, O Reactor Recirc V30 Pumps 2-B32-V32/V22, 6.35 V30 I

1

s -

24 8.1 RESULTS AT Pa (Continued)

Minimum Pathway Containment Local System Isolation V81YA2 Leakaae Rate (SCFH)

Electrical 101A 0 Penetration Recirc Sample 2-B32-F019/F020 0 RHR Suction 2-E11-F008/F009 0 Reactor Water 2-G31-F001/F004 2.49 Cleanup The total applicable local leakage rate is 8.84 scfh which is equivalent to a leakage rate of 0.017%/ day.

Water level changes in the containment during the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> integrated leakage rate test are summarized below:

Reactor Vessel Water Level:

1200 3-27-88 235 inches .

1200 3-28-88 232 inches Torus Water Level: t 1200 5-19-87 -28.5 inches 1200 5-19-87 -28.5 inches  !

During the test, no makeup water was introduced into the  !

reactor vessel. Therefore, the volume change associated

{

with the change in reactor vessel water level showed an '

increase in the net free volume of 64.8 cubic feet. This corresponds to a reduction in the measured containment leakage rate of 0.022% per day. However, it is conservatively assumed that the water level decrease in  !

l the reactor vessel was not lost out of containment and  !

therefore no change in net free volume occurred. )

l I

)

4

t 0 25 8.1 RESULTS AT Pa (Continued)

The total containment leakage rate at the upper 95 percent confidence level (UCL) is calculated as follows:

UCL = Lam + 95 percent confidence limit +

Type C leakage + changes in net free volume UCL = 0.307%/ day + 0.005%/ day + 0.017%/ day +

0.000%/ day UCL = 0.329%/ day This value is below the acceptance criteria leakage rate of 0.375%/ day (.75La )*

Therefore, the reactor containment building leakage rate, based on the mass point method analysis, at the calculated design basis acceptable.

accident pressure (P a ) of 49.0 psig is 8.2 SUPPLEMENTAL TEST RESULTS After conclusion of the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> test at 49.0.psig (Pa ), the flowmeter was placed in service and a flow rate of 4.36 scfm was established. This flow rate is equivalent to a leakage rate of 0.478% per day. After the flow rate was established it was not altered for the duration of the supplemental test. The measured leakage rate c(L ) diting the supplemental test was calculated to be 0.637% per day using the Mass Point method of analysis.

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

Mass Point hf= Le -L o Ly= 0.687 - 0.478 Ly= 0.209%/ day

26 8.2 SUPPLEMENTAL TEST RESULTS (Continued)

Comparing this leakago rate with the building leakage rate measured during the 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> test yields the following:

L ~L '

Mass Point = am v = .307 - .209 = 0.196 La 0.5 The building leakage rates agree within 19.6% of La using the Mass Point method which is below the acceptance criteria of 25%.

Using the formulation of ANS 56.8-1981, (Lo+Lam - 0.25La) 1 Lc 1 (Lo+ Lam + 0.25La)

(0.478 + 0.307 - 0.125) < Lc 1 (0.478 + 0.307 + 0.125) 0.660 $Lc 5 0.910 Since L was measured to be 0.687%/ day, this value falls within she acceptable range of 0.660% to 0.910% per day.

Therefore, the acceptability of the test instrumentation is considered to have been verified.

8.3 AS FOUND ANALYSIS To determine the as-found containment leakage rate, an t analysis was performed to evaluate any leakage savings from repairs or maintenance to containment isolation barriers.

Leakage savings are realized when containment isolation barrier repairs result in a lower minimum pathway leakage than that which existed prior to the repair or maintenance.

The results of the analysis are presented in Appendix E.

The total leakage savings due to performing Type B and C tests prior to the Type A test indicates that the acceptance criteria (L )awould have been exceeded due to one penetration (Feedwater B Loop Injection) that could not I be pressurized. '

The total as left Type B and C leakage rate is 35.275 scfh which is equivalent to a combined leakage rate of 0.066%

per day. This is well below the allowable value of 0.6 L a or 0.300k per day.

1 27

)

8.4 TYPE B AND C TESTING The results of the Type B and Type C tests conducted during the 1988 Unit 2 refueling outage are shown on Appendix E.

Additional Type B and C tests which were conducted subsequent to the last Type A test on May 5, 1986 are listed below.

Leakage Rato Date Item (scfh) 05/19/86 CRD Hatch 0 05/23/86 Electrical Penetration 0 X102H 06/01/86 N. Torus Hatch 0 06/03/86 Airlock 8.927 06/19/86 CAC-X20A/CAC-V16 0 06/23/86 CRD Hatch 0 >

07/11/86 B32-F019/B32-F020 0 07/13/85 G31-F001/G31-F004 1.039 10/13/86 CAC-SV-4410-4 0 10/13/86 CAC-SV-4410-3 0 10/13/86 CAC-SV-4410-2 0 10/14/86 CAC-V7 ("O" rings) 0 10/14/86 CAC-V5 ("O" rings) 0 10/14/86 CAC-V16 ("O" rings) . 0 10/16/86 CAC-SV-4409-2 0 10/16/86 CAC-SV-4409-3 0 10/16/86 CAC-SV-4409-4 0 10/19/86 B32-F019/B32-F020 WNP 10/19/86 E51-F031 0 10/19/86 E51-F062/E51-F066 1.158 10/19/86 CAC-V9 ("O" ring , 0 10/19/66 E51-F019 0 10/23/86 B32-F019/F32-F020 0 10/24/86 N. Torus Hatch 0 10/24/86 CRD Hatch 0 10/27/86 N. Torus Hatch 0 11/05/86 Personnel Airlock 8.753 06/02/87 E21-F001A 9.035 06/17/87 Personnel Airlock 2.558 WNP = Would Not Pressurize

s '

28

9.0 REFERENCES

1. PT-20.5, Integrated Primary Containment Leak Rate Test.

2. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Unit No. 2 Final Safety Analysis Report.

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

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

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

6. ILRT Computer Code, Gilbert / Commonwealth, Inc.

7. Steam Tables, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, l 1967.

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

l l

f

k C l

l l

1 l

l l

l APPENDICES l

l i

i l

I J

i i

i

s '  !

l APPENDIX A SCHEMATIC ARRANGEMENT OF TEST INSTRUMENTATION r

I i

1

4 APPENDIX A IPCLRT SCHDIATIC ARRANGDtENT (NOT TO SC ALE:

( 3 CO! RESSED ELEV. 93' 0* 180' 270' ELEV. 78' 270' 90' 90' ELEV.66'

-- E11 0- >-

F021A E W .54' TE TE Drt PRECISION ME11 O 7 270' 90' s 3 O,

PRESSURE F016A ELEV. 46' GAUGES TE TE TT Det '

9 10 11 4

' 300' 0* 180' 180' X y ELEY 3' HEADER TE TT TE ort 1 12 13 14 5 '

ROTAMETER 120' 240' 270' 0

TORUS

/ '~#DM@

DR M G '

l i

E LEV, O* . 4 "

k J l

O' 90' 180' 270' 0' 60' 120' 180' 240' 300' TT = TDIPERATtJRE ELDf ENT (RTD)

DPE = DEWPOINT ELD!ENT(DEWCELL)  ;

NOT USED FOR TEST l

(

APPEtIDix g l

REDUCED TEST DATA e

f

9 C

• L t' L t' o 96 t7 ' 9 0 C00G*O 9 6 t'

• S 9 0?id EC ' 6 t'L t 6 0 8 t' ' 9 E 100%*0 9 6 t'

• S ' ' t' '? C I t

• CG L t% CGt

• 78 L00%*0 G60*S7 C. CT CC

• 0 24 t> 6 El t'

• 9 8 C009'O t' 6 t

• 19 1127 0 /.

• 4 G 4 t' 6 OCt'98 C 6 6 t' ' O 26t*G9 0 0 -' '

l o ' I 94 t'e 16C

• 9 8 5 6 6 t'

• 0 C6L*17 .s t I I 86

• G 9 4 t7 a 042.'9G t' 0 6 t' ' O C 6 t' ' 9 7 Of IC t .. . tv,7 a t, 6 Ic.r, a . 'o 06.6L'.O.

w o t' . a7 m. r.s I I ,

e Z ' J4 4 t's GCC'9G G L 6 t'

• C 16t*G9 001C C 9 ' 9. 416 01 '96 2 9 6 t> ' O D o t' * %9 Gt D:

C C ' 004 t'o GOC'90 496b'C O b t'

• G 7 OTOC St>*d E 4 b 6 27:'9E E26t 'O 6 S t' ' G 9 910:

09

• 464 tw GCC'96 GG6t

• 0 6 8 t' ' G 9 0002 t' 6

• D G L t 4, J. I C ' C G Cz6t*0 G B t'

• 5 9 St ol 60*C6406 C61'98 > S t' ' O 48t>*G9 07 I L t ' 96 L t> 6 59I*90 v96b'O G E t' ' S 9 /,1 L t 0 0

• s.,6 4 t 6 BCI*90 t' 96t 'O 9 8 t' ' G 4 006I l

1 E t' ' C 0 0 t> 6 C i I ' c; S C96r*O t' E t' ' E C' 121 E I CE '905t'6 640'90 t' 96t "O COL'G7 OJGI I t2'608r6 290 '5E t' 9 6 t

• 0 C E t ' I,o  %!EI C G

• C I G t'6 tCO*96 0 3 6 t'

• 0 IGL'G9 003i eu *LIBb6 Go6*G6 5C6L *O COL'ZC Gr I f t'

• I C 9 t's GG6'G5 8 G 6 t' ' O 8,_ t'

• G - 0.. . I 0~*1:E06

• 4 2 0

• E,5 6 L 6 t' ' O 4 4 t

• 19 1. I c I C, o ' G C O L-6 LCG'GC GG6t'O G t*G' 00 I l E Z ' t'iG t 6 I GC ' M Lt6t*0 2 b'%' M t. '; ;

00'028b6 v10*GE I t' 6 t*

• 0 I z t ' f,  ?; ' E t' G ' C t' C t o I L'55 C t' 61 ' O e7t'*%4 ., "I 00 ' 9 t' S t 6 LCL*GC ZC6t*0 9 7 t' * / JPi Gb'IGGt I B

• G E Clo t>

• O t> ; t ' J, '  : t.1 e o-a.. c re.-, u

'o , ,

c,i . ,.a Ls p -.n e t' . D. 0 . : . v . ,s us , , ..

50*C9Ct6 izG'98 Z C 6 t> ' O ;Zt *M , I '.4 1 CL

• b 98 t's G C ', ' G C C : s t'

• 0 C'it

• V 01,i 58

• L98 t'e !ir*EE .~ 0 6 t ' O

. E t t ' E ~i ~, i t .

02*G40ta Cc2*C5 .I69'C . t' i ' ' , . 01 i' 1 I '64Ci t IT2*LF 116: 'O -. 21 '76 .itI 0F *TE9t c ' t C 'G5 c I I < , t' ' O 0 21' L's , ,

J I ' 6 C-Ot>e GSI*Z8 c6D0'O C .~ 4

.E t 2

._ac -t. . c, o coc

.... i. . 6 n, t c _ t . U. _ , . ,->- t3i .i 0 2 " C L.C t < . .', o *tR i, L E t

• 0 10 t'

• L, b l ._ '.

LG'ZLClc 6 t'O

• t 2 9 8 E l>

• C' BC E * 'io 00',

l o- 1 e .c. b e. e

. t a .re ,se e., t' . O. c....

2 .; <

a l' . . ,.

t, t. t. ._- o_. i , .s f ,. . ,,

. -cra m t, . C3 -c, - . . t--,

.c I . -r . o t. o c, ,' oc . tm. v.-E . . . es

e. r,-

r -

m ... -.

g, a . ,amst, _u at t, > . .,, tr ja 6 0,9 ,u.-.-- .- -

v L- a L. iv _

1H913M SSVW DAV1 AMd DAVd 3WII 31VG U1VG 1531 1871 G33nG38

i l

l l

l l

REDUCED ILRT TEST DATA DATE T I "' PAVG PWV TAVU MASS WEIGHT 39 65.197 0.9003 85.517 94744.77 15.^97 0.5001 S S . 5 3 d: 94741.'O SS.107 0,5005 86.*55 91737.SG 28 4.8 15.479 0.50l1 06.'777 91734.21 1

. 19 E O.5009 d6

• 91 017!2.21 10 5' .199 0.5010 06.615 90729.80 15 05.1'39 0.5011 86.635 "4726.75 100 :5.500 0.5017 86.656 94722.85 It- 15.501 0.5021 86.670 94720.95 1_O 65.501 0.5021 86.691 94717.22 115 65.501 0.501 86.717 94715.77 200 65.502 0.5027 86.729 94712.02 21 *- 65.502 0.5030 86.740 94708.00 270 65.500 0.5034 86.770 94704.93 245 9.5 . 5 0 1 0.5030 96.787 94703.74 200 65.504 0.5045 86.808 94698.55 L'S 65.505 0.5037 86.828 94697.09 230 65.505 0.5046 86.849 o4693.38

'45 65.506 0.5037 86.860 94693.85

<100 65.bO7 0.5047 86.885 94689.20 415 65.508 0.".043 86.908 , 94686.75 430 65.508 0.5054 86.920 94684.19 445 55.509 0.5044 86.939 94583.56 900 65.510 0.5051 36.961 94679.79 515 65.511 0.5018 86.97' 94679.18 530 65.511 0.5052 86.993 94676.22 515 65.512 0.5057 G7.019 94672.69 600 65.513 0.5054 87.033 94671.59 515 65.514 0.5060 87.047 94669.10 6?O 65.514 0.5058 87.065 94667.20 643 65.515 0.5061 87.086 94664.17 700 65.516 0.5066 87.100 94662.22 715 65.517 0.5064 87.120 94660.02 730 65.517 0.5074 87.136 94656.94 745 65.518 0.5078 87.160 94653.32 800 65.519 0.5079 87.177 94651.19 815 65.520 0.5087 87.199 94648.47 830 65.522 0.5086 87.216 94647.89 845 65.523 0.5089 87.236 94646.26 900 65.524 0.5094 87.253 94644.23 915 65.526 0.5090 87.273 94642.98 930 65.526 0.5092 87.292 94639.93 945 65.527 0.5097 97.309 ?4637.30 1000 65.527 0.5101 87.326 94634.84 1015 65.528 0.5095 87.346 94633.25

e 1

I l

REDUCED ILRT TEST DATA DATE TIME PAVG PWV TAVG MASS WEIGHT

'-20-56 10:0 65.529 0.5105 87.367 94629.27 1045 65.529 0.5099 97.393 94629.00 1100 63.570 0.5110 87.104 74e24.43 1115 65.532 0.5110 97.425 94e22.39 1170  !:5.572 0.5109 87.444 "4620.33 1145 S 'f . 3 3 0.511, 87.460 94617.69 1:U0 2-5.'05 0.5116 97.482 o4615.91 VERIFICATION TEST DATA 1215 65.577 0.5117 87.503 o4609.49 LJ30 55.530 0.5118 97.519 94602.85 1 .'4 5 65.529 0.5121 87.541 04596.48 1300 h5.526 0.5125 87.558 94599.63 1315 65.524 0.5130 87.576 94582.49 1330 55.522 0.5131 37.604 94574.16 1345 65.520 0.5123 87.619 94570.11 1400 63.510 0.5127 87.640 94563.21 1415 65.516 0.5140 87.662 94554.00 1930 65.514 0.5137 87.685 94548.52 1115 65.512 0.5140 87.700 94542.20 1500 55.510 0.5143 87.722 94535.29 1515 65.508 0.5153 87.743 94527.45 1530 65.506 0.5144 87.763 94522.00 1545 65.504 0.5153 87.784 94514.42 l 1600 65.502 0.5149 87.800 94509.51 l In15 65.501 0.5157 87.828 94500.68 I 1

1

e I i

l APPENDIX C LEAKAGE RATE TEST GRAPHS I

l l

wn 24 HOUR TEST

---

---- r -, -- . , ,.,-,- , , - - - - - - , - - -v-n ~- , - - - - ,,--,.e.,. .. , veww, e- ,,ea- -a,--w,-

DEGF AUGDRYBULBIEMPERATUREvsIIME PLOIIED:

87 7 -

04/07/88 11:41:52 n

u n8,m+m,+m 87,g .

mu fI uw a

w S aw8w kg I

unw~~s 1 ,.

86,p .

w,m

,.n

,.,.,u.

85,y .

,.1 E07

,/

/ NIN0139 89,1 .#

/

l l l l l l l ! I I l 1 I I I I i l l l I I iil i l i I I I I 1200 1200 IIME i

PSIA AUGPRESSUREvsIIME PLOTTED:

04/06/88 07:05:02 s**s+

65.50 -

• • • • +**+*****m****m IESI s ***f**+ SIARIED:

g3/27/88

/p + -

12:00 65,45 -

[

/

l

/ HAJOR 65.40 -/

INCREMENT

/ 45

'/

i MINUIES 65,35 -/

i 1200 1200 IIME i

4

DEGF AUG DEW POINT TEMPERATURE vs TIME PLOTTED:

80.5 -

04/06/88 07:05:02 i

, shg.v 80 0 -

<* IEST

. //^,'3.,44# STARTED:

03/27/88

,+4.ee+#"#

12:00 79.5 -

4 /#

,.sp++f'sgJA p1 79,0 /+'V MAJOR INCREMENT

/ 45 t' MINUIES 78.5 /

D I I I I i l i i iiil I iI I iil I I I f I I I I ! l ! I I I e

1200

! 1200 l

TIME

Thott LBM MASSWEIGHTvsIIME PLOIIED: .

04/08/88 95.1 -

15:16:37 1

95'0 ' IEST STARIED:

03/27/88 12:00 94.9 g% -

94.8 '

\  %+g_

MAJOR INCREMENI 45 i

9;;*~4+%+-

+

MIHUIES IR;g%

! 94.7 '

.t++.

I I I ! I I I i il i I I I I I I I ! ! I I ! l ! l ! I I t "T ..,

1200 . 200 IIME i

X/ DAY MASS POINI LEAKAGE RATE vs IIME PLOIIED: .

0.5 - 04/08/88 15:16:37

+*" IESI 0'4 -

. . . . , . L++e*++.@t:*w . SIARIED:

yy

~mQ lg8 0.3 - /# ****

7/

i/

0,2

// MAJ0R h

// INCREMENI d5

'I/ SINUIES 0.1 t#'

f l

! I I I i ! I I ! ! ! ! l ! I I l ! I I i i i i ! ; i l i l l l

13N -

.200 IIME 1

e I

4 HOUR VERIFICATION 1

DEGF AUG DRYBllLB IEMPERAIURE vs IIME PLOIIED: .,

88.0- 04/29/88 l 08:35:50 87'9 '

IESI I

SIARIED:

03/28/88 12:15 87.8 '

.-- MAJ0R INCREMENI 87.7 ' '

15

.,- MINUIES

~~~

87.6 '

i_

--e

i  ; e i i i i i i i ,

i

_! i  :

1215 -

1615 l IIME

PSIA AUGPRESSUREvsIIME PLOITED: ~

04/29/88 07:51:46 65.54 ,

IEST SIARIED:

03/28/88

+..

. 12:15 65.53 -

~~~+. MAJ0R 65.52 -

~~~+

_ INCREMENI

~~ ,_ 5

~*

_ MINDTES

+_

~~-

65.51 - *

!  !  ! I  ! f f .) l f f 1215 -

1615 IIME

DECF AUG DEW POINI IEMPERAIllRE vs IIME PLOITED: .

04/29/88 07:51:46 ln,

/

80'50 .

i. IEST

.'. i

. SIARIED:

c' \J 03/28/88 j '

12:15 80,45 - '

j e i

/ MAJOR 80,40 -

/ IHCREMENI

, ~~ . [ 15

\

./ / MINUIES

/ \ >

80.35 -

/ \'

v

./

/

t'~  ! I I I I I '  ! I I I I i ' I 1215 -

1615 IIME i

Thott LBM MASS WEIGHI vs IIME PLO!IED:

~

04/29/88 0?:51:46 94'79 .

IESI SIARIED:

03/28/88 12:15 94.65 -

"~~~ Nbdhb 94,60 '~~~

._ IHCREnERI

, 15

.., MllulIES

- " t". ,

3

~~

4_

~

' i i i t , i 1 1 i t t '

i .a 1215 .

1615 s 11ME i

l

X/ DAY MASS POINI LEAKAGE RAIE vs IIME PLOIIED: '

04/29/88 0.76 -

07:51:46 i .

A IESI 0,74

/.

SIARIED:

.  ! 1 03/28/88

/ i 12:15

\

3 0,72 -

/ .

/ A . _+

! /.\' *- -

MAJOR

/

d

! 0,70 - .

IHCREMENI

/ ., '- _ _ . - - 15

/ -

i 4

_ . , HIHillES Q,f$ -

b

! l 1615

!ME t

APPENDIX D COMPUTER RESULTS e

f l

e 8 24 HOUR TEST l

l

a a ItlTEGRATED LEAF. RATE TEST RESULT 5 by GILPERT/ COMMONWEALTH INC.

CURRENT DATE : 04-06-1988 CURRENT TIflE : 17:Ge 1IME OF LASf READING : 1200

+*A l>t A S S f=' C3 I N T A N (-T L Y G 1 5 ***

T I:1E UP5. HEIGHT GES. t!IN. CALC.

r N itEP'.'fR (LG) (LG) 9 04P95.64 5.005141 3 04: O 17 7.556677 94GC4.84 10.26D94

.m 94hM4.21 12.S6671 1 04893.57 15.01601 1.25 94292 16.51594 1.5 94891.13 18.67123

1. T ': 91890.13 19.70152 7 94882.2 15.80211 2.25 94979.13 15.1699 2.5 04G75.21 14.97206

2. '5 94867.88 10.58047 7 '4864.78 10.50919 3.25 94960.05 8.G05102

'.S 4855.C3 '.7182 3.75 04951.45 6.271924 4 94846.8 4.645959 4 . .' " 94842.84 3.723119 4.5 o4838.8 2.70653

4. 75 94834.58 1.513065 '

S G4825.05 -1.076649 9 Ci 04825.5 -1.499489 5 94821.44 -2.531704

5. '5 94815.79 -5.149856 6 o481.T.88 -4.02582 S.25 94809.34 --5.542409

6. 5 94906.82 ~5.027749

6. 7" o4802.48 -6.341214 94799.81 -5.982903 7 25 94796.47 -6.288456

.5 94792.09 -7.640982

'.'5 94788.84 ~7.860697 8 94787.64 -6.025724 9.25 94784.45 -6.182939 8.5 94780.23 -7.771403 9.75 94776.62 -7.958305 9 94772.30 -9.170207 9.25 94769.32 --9.194609 9.5 ?4765.88 -9.609636 9.75 94761.91 -10.54029

. e l

l 10 ?4757.7 -11.72975 10.25 94754.2 -12.19847 10.5 94752.41 -10.94943 10.75 94749.28 -11.05196 11 94747.26 21 0 . 0 4 5 1 1' 11.25 94744.77 --9.499201 11.5 94741.7 -4.54704 11.7" 94737.83 -10.32?23 12 94734.24 10.93959 1 s . .,. ,. .; y a. ,, . .s . n 1

. o. . e.3

, . . 4. ,1,,, ,.

l ,. e.) .

q ,1 1.,.c . a= . .. a . .,.. ,. -,), - a 14 -

7. a 4 . ,3 5 .

,e. _9. a q eg,i- .a 13 o 4~'22. 55 --1 0 . 2 0 0 0 3 1.- . a. n. - c :1,. ,nu. o. c. .o 0 9 a.s ,3,1 m._

t7. r, O, 4 7,1 * . <.n _7 eN, 7, Q 1 7_ 1 7 13.'S '34715.7 9.201159 14 91?!2.02 -9.91606 '

i 1. '5 9170-3 -9.909212 14.5 '4704.93 o.94024 14.75 91703.74 -G.106454 15 04699.55 -10.27148 15.25 +1697.03 9.604,21 15.5 94693.38 -9.374972 15.75 o4693.85 -5.375937 16 94689.2 -7.494089 16.25 94636.73 --6. ?!255 4 L6.5 74684.le -e.456955 16.75 04623.56 -4.043959 17 94679.79 -4.78701 17.25 91673.19 -2.365099 17.5 94676.22 -2.296752 ,

17.75 94672.69 -2.805529 18 04671.59 .86.11806 19.25 04669.1 .3230827 le.5 94667.2 .eee7653 18.75 94664.17 .8070008

!? 94612.22 1.884961 19.25 94660.02 2.719934 19.5 o4656.94 2.664282

,e ,,

12. . a ,l a, a..

a .,a . 0,1, .,,

a,3 i

l 1

1 i

-e m

, n~ a5b.)t.19 ~ a, i-1 3 ty< ., . . .

.~. 0 . m e.>

~

- :3 _1. L..4 p ,1. 9.. . m es

. au. t .-1_g a

..g.na .q e 4 ,. . _a 4.

< , . < , s,

_ o e. .. 3 9

.g. 9 4 %n; <. v ., .. ,

+ . -

- ,7 . - . : -ap. .,. ,..

>1 g 3 , q a . -

3,

.. a_ . .i -1, qL ,,

.%.L.

4 .: . *3 1Hw

• k +'.m. 3 Q

' ')

Q-.

e - R .t ! ?J..

...1 . aJ a

g .} r's, *

• g . "j 7 s*r_;Q 7r,*

a .'t . 6, . - .

1 . ' '" c .15 2.': . : L to.:0404

- u .u_ _. ,. t . ,i< .

s m...:r,-

~. ,a

~~e

.,k.,.s . . ..

1 ., . .. .L>.,: c, >n ,

?

c_, . , } ,.L .- t',

-. j .i . _t r pc .1 ,q _.:,

.; 2 . l '- '1 129 !2.12040

. , . , 1.u. . 1. 1 _ . c . a_ r.1 17

.._....r -

e a .1. ....a *

1. . cz.

_ ..7 1 .c 3

.2 c, . ..

. s. _v . . . .

4 4 . e ,,

. . c , , .

. ? . 7" L4 a 1 ," 14.o.;' 11

.i 1 a. . i t. . _ .i c. . c1

. e . 1, n_1 - .

L p.a = 9 03cso .- :S w:<51 c 11 LO t.11 - - ! .; . l '1 1119 31 B ue LD/HR l E. m, ..e. r cx. 5: .cs rc.. w

. c c.. o. n. o.v.

.. .. . . e. , s,4. . . . . .

UFRER LIMI! GF THE LS*. CONFIDENCE LE'/EL = 5.eO4446E-03 ' ' . PEF DAY UPPER LIMIT OF THE 95*. CONF IDENCE LE'/EL - .3122537 % PER DAY

.. t 5r r t i-.,')E's2

'c.

w ._ r". I .' f". m u RP ^1l%.c i e

i 1

I l

l l

l

f5 '

i l

l

)

4 HOUR VERIFICATION

(

{

1 i

(

l l

I l

l l

s

f IhlEGRATED LEAF: RATE TEST RESULT 5 by GILBERT / COMMONWEALTH INC.

CUPRENT DATE : 04-06-1989 CURRENT TIME : 13:14 TIME GF LAST READING : 1615

• • • 1*t A G S I ' C3 I INI T (AlslAI__Y G I S (k *

• TIME UDO. 'c1E 10H T 085. MIN. CALC.

l I N T E R'.'A L (LD) (LD)

J 9460'i.40 .148ZG43

.2 o1602.95 -2.054611E-02

.) 94596.48 .!aC6246 75 91539.63 .2996178 i '4502.49 M.48314oE-02 1.3 045:'1.15 -1.612406

'.5 74570.11 1.079982 1.75 04563.21 9490081 2 9 a S'i4 . 9 1 .6898787

2. 2'f 91548.52 .209579 i

'.'. 5 94542,31 .!479477 '

2 . '/ 't 9153S.29 9. 2.7 7 ~.'4 4 E -0 2 3 v4527.45 .9669884 l 2 . _, ,=; a.4. .,,

.. . . 4,3., ,1 o, o, 3.5 04514.42 .4615117

3. 7 '5 91509.51 1.392789 4 94500.t2 .6669731 l WO ,

94609.S404713137'. LD W1 = -27.07345281862745 LD/HR I i

l l

1.EAFAGE EATE = .385787 ". FER DAY UFPER L il11 T OF THE 95'/. CONFIDENCE LEVEL = 6. 9 4 2185E--03 '. PER DAY UPPER L IMI T OF THE 9 5 . CONFIDENCE LEVEL = .6937252 ' ' . PER DAY

' INCLUDES LE A'k AGE R ATE) i 1

APPENDIX E TYPE B & C TESTING I

}

TYPE B ANALYSIS MINIMUM PATH ANALYSIS As Left As As Pen As As i Pen Valves Found Left Leakage Found Left Savings NOTES 100A ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 100B ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 100C ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 103A ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 100D ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 104A ELECTRICAL 1.616 0 0 1.616 0 1.616 102A ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 104B ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 102B ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0- 0 101A ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 (a) i 101C ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 105D ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 105E ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 102C ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0- 0 104C ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 10SH ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 105G ELECTRICAL 0 0 'O O O O 102E ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 104E ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 100F ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 100E ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 100G ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 100H ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 102F ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 104F ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 103B ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 104G ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 102H ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ w -- < v.- -. - - , - . w - ___m

F TYPE B ANALYSIS MINIMUM PATil ANALYSIS As Left As As Pen As As Pen Valves Found Left Leakage Found Left Savings NOTES 105J ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 105K ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 101F ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 101D ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 105C ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 105B ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 232B ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 232C ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 232A ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 232D ELECTRICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 EQPT IIATCII O O O O O O 2 LINER SEAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 DW IID BLANK 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 DW IID IIATCII O O O O O O 6 CRD IIATCII O O O O O O 200A S. TORUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 200B N. TORUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 IIEAD SEAL WNP 0 0 0 0 0 (b) 3B V49-0 RING 0 0 0 0 0 0 205 V5-0 RING 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 V6-0 RING 0 0 0 0 0 0 220 V7-0 RING 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 26 V9-0 RING 0 0 0 0 0 0 205 V16-0 RING 0 0 0 0 0 0 205 V17-0 RING 0 0 0 0 0 0

.__. .~ . . . ., -.__ -

[ ,

l r

TYPE C ANALYSIS MINIMUM PATII ANALYSIS As Left As As Pen As As Pen Valves Found Left Leakage Found Left Savings NOTES 3B CAC-49 0 0 CAC-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 7A B21-F022A B21-F028A 16.45 9.53 9.53 7B B21-F022B See Note 3 B21-F028B 7.763 7.763 7.763 See Note 3 l 7C B21-F022C l B21-F028C 19.848 9.558 9.550 7D See Note 3 l B21-F022D B21-F028D 47.697 9.594 9.594 8 B21-F016

, See Note 3 B21-F019 19.829 0 0 9.915 0 '9.915 Tested in parallel B21-F010A WNP 0 9A B21-F032A l E41-F006 4.269 4.269 0 4.269 4.269 0

} B21-F010B WNP O B21-F032B 9B E51-V88 WNP 0 0 WNP E51 -F013 O Indeterminate See Note (c)

G31-F042 0 0 10 E51-F007 E51-F008 16.62 0 0 8.31 0 8.31 Tested in parallel l 11 E41-F002 E41-F003 3.138 0 0 1.569 0 1.569 Tested in parallel 12 E11-F008 ,

! E11-F009 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tested-in parallel l 13A E11-F015A 0 1.32 l E11 -F017 A 0 0 1.32 0 1.32 0 "

1 I

i

? .

I i TYPE C ANALYSIS MINIMUM PATli ANALYSIS As Left As As Pen As As Pen Valves Found Left Leakage Found Left Savings NOTES 13B E11-F015B 0 0 E11-F017B 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 G31-F001 G31-F004 .364 2.49 2.49 .182 1.25 0 Tested in parallel 16A E21-F004A 0 0 E21-F005A 0 .820 .820 0 ,

.820 0 16B E21-F004B 0 0 E21-F005B 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 E11-F022 E11 -F023 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tested in parallel 18 G16-F003 G16-F004 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tested in parallel 19 G16-F019 G16-F020 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tested in' parallel 23 RCC-VS2

& 24 RCC-V28 0 0 0 0 0 Tested in-parallel l CAC-V6, V15 l V-4,V-5 9.849 9.82 9.82 4.925 4.91 .015 Tested in parallel l CAC-V17 X20B 43.146 1.91 1.91 1.91 0 1.91 25 CAC-V16

, & X20A WNP 0 0 0 0 0 205 160, 162, 170 See Note (d) l 1.428 1.428 1.428 *1.428 1.428 0 l 171, 163, 161 0 0 0 0 0 0 55, 56 .824 .824 .824 .824 .824 0 26 CAC-V9 CAC-V10 CAC-V23 34.44 1.422 1.422 17.22 0.711 16.509 Tested in parallel 35A TIP-v1 0 0 0 0 0 0 35B TIP-V2 0 0 0 0 0 0

b )

A' .;

? '

l l l e e e l l l l l l a a a r r r a a a -

p p p n n n i i i d d d S e e e E t t t T s s s O e e e N T T T 1

5 8 s 2 9 S g 7 .

I n 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 S i 1 Y v 1 L a A S N

A 4 7 7 0 H t 1 3 T sf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A Ae 1 P L M

U 1

M 5 4 7 I d 8 2 7 0 9 N n 7 1 3 I su 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

M Ao 1 1 F 1 t e 5 4 7 .

f g 2 2 7 0 _

ena 5 2 8 1 3 3 _

Lek 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pa 1 1

S s e 6 I A L S

Y L 5 4 7 7 A 2 2 7 0 0 N t 5 2 8 1 3 3 A sf 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . 0 . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .

3 _

Ae 1 1 0 0 0 C L 6 _

E P

Y T _

d 5 5 4 7 7 2 sn 2 1 2 7 0 0 2 21 28 _

Au 0 0 0 0 0 7 8 8 0 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 59 o . . . . .

0 0 0 _

F 1 9 1 4 1

42 3 31 K

h C

n B E F 8 C e 0 1 1 9 1 1 2 2 6 7 g 0 6 3 1 3 1 6 2 o AA BB 1 2 2 1 8 8 2 2 5 2 4 2 2 6 s r 61 61 6 7 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 2 90 6 2 2 2 1 1 5 1 1 e t 1 2 1 2 0 0 - - - - 5 1 2 2 4 5 2 4 4 v 3 4 i 00 00 0 0 V V - V V V V - 00 2 2 -

- - 02 5 - -

l V- V- -N FF FF F F S S V V V 33 - V V a - - - - - - -

S S S S V FF V V V S S VV V S S V - S - - - - S - - - - S - - - - S - -

P P P1 1 1 1 1 1 C C - C C C C - 22 2 2 - S S 22 - S S I I I 1 1 1 1 4 4 A A A A A A A A 33 3 3 A T T T EE EE CC CC I CC X X 33 A X X CC I BB BB I R R BB I R R n C D E A B B A E F E A e 5 5 5 9 9 2 9 2 4 4 5 6 B C A D 9B P 33 3 2 1 7 7 8 3 0/

3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 7 7 7 7 82A

~ , j ' ' ;lj l}i 1)l  !)j ,);1

~

TYFE C ANALYSIS MINIMUM PATII ANALYSIS As Left As As Pen As As Pen Valves Found Left Leakage Found Left Savings NOTES 209 RXS-SV-4188 0 0 A/D RXS-SV-4189 0 0 0 0 0 211A E11-F027A E11-F028A 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tested in parallel 211B E11 -F02 7B E11-F028B 1.320 1.320 1.320 .660 .660 0 Tested in parallel 216 E51-F062 E51 -F0 66 1.493 1.493 1.493 .747 .747 0 Tested in parallel 218 E41-F075 E41-F079 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tested in parallel CAC-V22 1.121 1.121 220 CAC-V172 .411 .411 CAC-V7 CAC-V8 1.02 1.02 2.552 .921 .921 0 Tested in parallel

l %k 'n NOTES l

! General

1. All values are given in scfh.

2. The MPL assignment to penetrations that have valves tested in parallel is 1/2 the Type C value unless otherwise noted.

3. Leakage from Main Steam Isolation Valves (MSIV) is considered a separate source term from containment leakage in the accident analyses. Technical specification acceptance criteria for MSIV's is 11.5 sofh per valve.

These valves are not included in the as found analysis.

NOTES Specific

a. Tubing and pressure gauge from test connection on electrical penetration 101A damaged. Connection plugged

for performance of ILRT.

l

b. Visual inspection of seals indicated damage to outer seal but no damage observed to inner seal. Further visual inspection and testing of seals indicated integrity of inner seal was maintained. .

c. As found leakage could not be quantified. Therefore, leakage is assumed to be greater than L a and the as found ILRT leakage would be greater than L

• a

d. Maintenance performed on CAC-V16 only.

I I

l l

l l

l l

l l

l