ML17087A374
| ML17087A374 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 03/28/2017 |
| From: | David Gudger Exelon Generation Co |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| Download: ML17087A374 (69) | |
Text
200 Exelon Way Exelon Generation ff, Kennett Square. PA 19348 www.exeloncorp.com March 28, 2017 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001
Subject:
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69 Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318 License Amendment Request - Refueling Water Tank 10 CFR 50.90 In accordance with 10 CFR 50.90. Application for amendment of license, construction permit, or early site permit," Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) is submitting a request for amendment to the Technical Specification Table 3.3.4-1 and Surveillance Requirement 3.5.4.3. Specifically, the proposed license amendment would: 1) Modify the Refueling Water Tank (RWT) Level - Low (Table 3.3.4-1, function 5a) Allowable Value to reflect a needed increase in the required borated water volume in the RWT, and 2) Modify the minimum volume of borated water required in the RWT to meet the design basis requirements as described in the attachments to this letter.
Change 1) is necessary to accommodate the needed RWT borated water volume increase and to resolve a potential non-conservative Technical Specification per the guidance of Administrative Letter 98-10 "Dispositioning of Technical Specifications That Are Insufficient to Assure Plant Safety." provides a description of the proposed change including the No Significant Hazards Consideration. Attachment 2 contains the existing Calvert Cliffs mark-up Technical Specifications pages. Attachment 3 contains calculation CA10206, Rev O, Refueling Water Tank Level RAS Setpoint Determination.
There are no regulatory commitments contained in this letter.
Exelon requests approval of the proposed amendment by February 12, 2018 with an implementation as follows:
Within 60 days of the end of CC1 R24 which is currently scheduled for February 2018, and Within 60 days of the end of CC2R23 which is currently scheduled for February 2019.
License Amendment Request-Refueling Water Tank Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318 March 28, 2017 Page2 Implementation of this proposed amendment is dependent upon modifications to the level control instrumentation in the RWT. These modifications can only be performed in a refueling outage.
These proposed changes have been reviewed by the Plant Operations Review Committee.
In accordance with 1 O CFR 50.91, "Notice for public comment; state consultation," a copy of this application, with attachments, is being provided to the designated State Official.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on the 281h day of March 2017.
If you should have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Enrique Villar at 610-765-5736.
Respectfully, Da id T. Gudger Manager
- Licensing & Regulatory Affairs Exelon Generation Company, LLC Attachments: 1. Evaluation of Proposed Change
- 2. Marked-up Technical Specifications Pages
- 3. Calculation CA 10206, Rev 0, Refueling Water Tank Level RAS Setpoint Determination cc: NRC Regional Administrator, Region I NRC Senior Resident Inspector, CCNPP NRC Project Manager, NRR, CCNPP S. T. Gray, State of Maryland w/attachments
ATTACHMENT 1 EVALUATION OF PROPOSED CHANGE
Subject:
License Amendment Request - Refueling Water Tank 1.0
SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION 2.0 DETAILED DESCRIPTION
3.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION
4.0 REGULATORY EVALUATION
4.1 Applicable Regulatory Requirements/Criteria 4.2 Precedence 4.3 No Significant Hazards Consideration 4.4 Conclusions
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
6.0 REFERENCES
License Amendment Request -
Refueling Water Tank Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318 Page 1 of 8 1.0
SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90, Application for amendment of license, construction permit, or early site permit, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon), proposes a change to the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications (TS), Appendix A of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69.
Technical Specification Table 3.3.4-1 item 5.a.
This proposed change modifies the Allowable Value of the Refueling Water Tank (RWT) Level-Low (function 5a) from 24 inches above tank bottom to 42.5 inches above tank bottom. This change is necessary to accommodate a RWT volume increase and to resolve a non-conservative TS per the guidance of Administrative Letter 98-10 Dispositioning of Technical Specifications That Are Insufficient to Assure Plant Safety.
Exelon proposes to modify Table 3.3.4-1 item 5a as shown below.
- 5. Containment Sump Recirculation Refueling Water Tank Level-Low SR 3.3.4.2 42.5 inches above SR 3.3.4.4 tank bottom SR 3.3.4.5
- 2. Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.5.4.3 This proposed change increases in the minimum borated water volume required in the RWT to meet the design basis requirements following a modification of the recirculation actuation setpoint as described above. Exelon proposes to modify SR 3.5.4.3 by increasing the minimum borated water volume from 400,000 gallons to 412,350 gallons.
SR 3.5.4.3 Verify RWT borated water volume is
> 412,350 gallons.
In accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Control Program The purpose of the proposed change is to minimize or eliminate air entrainment in the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) during the injection phase following a Loss-of-Coolant-Accident (LOCA). Increasing the amount of water remaining in the RWT when the ECCS pump suction is switched from the tank to the Containment sump minimizes or prevents air entrainment by the ECCS pumps.
Marked up Technical Specification pages are provided in Attachment 2.
License Amendment Request -
Refueling Water Tank Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318 Page 2 of 8 2.0 DETAILED DESCRIPTION
=
Background===
The RWT supports the ECCS by providing a source of borated water for Emergency Safety Feature (ESF) pump operation in the unlikely event of a LOCA. Upon initiation of Safety Injection (SI), two of the three High-Pressure Safety Injection (HPSI) and two Low Pressure Safety Injection (LPSI) pumps start and twelve SI line isolation valves open, injecting water from the RWT into the Reactor Coolant System (RCS).
After sufficient water has been transferred from the RWT to cool and re-flood the reactor core, recirculation from the containment sump is automatically initiated when the RWT level - low RAS setpoint is reached. At this point, the Recirculation Actuation Signal (RAS) generates a signal which opens the isolation valves in the two lines from the containment sump and secures the LPSI pumps; thereby providing a continuous source of borated water by recirculating containment sump water directly to the ESF pumps suction.
During a 2009 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Component Design Basis Inspection, it was noted that the air entrainment values calculated for the ESF pumps under post-accident conditions used the pump manufacturer allowed air entrainment values (4.9-7%) as the design limit, instead of the industry standard value of 2%. This higher allowance of air entrainment has not resulted in any adverse consequences to the operation of the ECCS, since the air entrainment remains within the pump manufacturer allowed values. However, to reduce the air entrainment value to approximately 0%, the RWT Level - Low RAS setpoint must be raised.
During the analysis performed to support this change, it was also determined that the current Allowable Value in TS Table 3.3.4-1 for the RWT Level - Low of > 24 inches above tank bottom was non-conservative. If the RWT were to be drained to this level, the ESF pumps would exceed the manufacturer allowed air entrainment values and the ESF pumps could become inoperable. Despite the TS allowed minimum, the RWT Level - Low Allowable Value has been administratively and physically controlled at 30 +1/-3 inches. This level is sufficient to ensure that the pump manufacturer allowed air entrainment values are met and the ESF pumps remain operable. Therefore, Table 3.3.4-1 item 5a must also be changed to address a TS insufficient to assure plant safety. As part of the setpoint change to address air entrainment, the proposed RWT Level - Low Allowable Value will be raised in excess of the currently controlled value of 30
+1/-3 inches.
Description The Engineered Safety Features Actuation System (ESFAS) is a safety related system that actuates necessary safety systems to mitigate accidents in order to protect the public and plant personnel form the accidental release of radioactive fission products. The ESFAS contains devices and circuitry that generate appropriate signals when the monitored variables reach levels that are indicative of conditions requiring protective action. The allowable values used in TS Table 3.3.4-1 are based on the analytical limits used in the accident analyses in the Updated Safety Analysis Report, Chapter 14. Setpoints in accordance with the allowable values ensure that the consequences of design basis accidents will be acceptable.
License Amendment Request -
Refueling Water Tank Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318 Page 3 of 8 For TS Table 3.3.4-1, Function 5, Containment Sump Recirculation, a RAS must be provided to support continued operability of the ESF pumps. At the end of the injection phase of a LOCA, the RWT is nearly empty; therefore, the source of water for the ESF pumps is automatically switched to the containment recirculation sump. Switchover from the RWT to the containment sump must occur before the RWT empties to prevent damage to the ESF pumps and a subsequent loss of core cooling capability. Additionally, early switchover must not occur before sufficient borated water is injected from the RWT to ensure that the reactor remains shut down in the recirculation mode. An RWT Level - Low trip signal, generated by a level switch, actuates the switchover to the recirculation mode.
CCNPP TS Section 3.3.4, ESFAS Instrumentation, provides the requirements for ESFAS instrumentation. The various functions of ESFAS instrumentation are specified in Table 3.3.4-1, along with Surveillance Requirements, and Allowable Values. CCNPP TS Table 3.3.4-1, Function 5, Containment Sump Recirculation is required to be operable in Modes 1, 2, and 3 with a RWT Level - Low Allowable Value of >24 inches above tank bottom.
The RWT Level - Low signal is initiated from four level switches that provide a digital input to the associated sensor modules. The sensor modules compare the input to the trip setpoint and provide contact output to the actuation logic channels. Upon coincidence of the two-out-of four low water level trip signals the RAS is generated.
The RWT Level - Low Allowable Value in TS Table 3.3.4-1 is raised from its current limit of > 24 inches above tank bottom (controlled at > 30 inches above tank bottom) to > 42.5 inches above tank bottom. This new Allowable Value ensures that enough water remains in the RWT to minimize air entrainment due to vortexing when the water level is at its lowest point prior to the switch to the recirculation phase. The new Allowable Value will continue to ensure sufficient cooling water is available for flow through the core as well as ensuring sufficient water level in the containment sump to provide adequate net positive suction head to the ESF pumps.
The proposed change to the minimum required RWT borated water volume, from 400,000 gallons to 412,350 gallons, reflects the increased amount of water remaining in the RWT due to the increased RWT Level - Low Allowable Value.
TSTF-493 Considerations EGC is aware of the NRC position to encourage TSTF-493 adoption requiring licensees to provide a determination for each instrumentation function proposed for revision falls within the scope of the TSTF. There were several exclusions contained in TSTF-493. TSTF-493 does not require that the associated Notes be applied to functions which derive input from contacts which have no associated sensor or adjustable device, e.g., float switches. The RWT Level - Low instrumentation consists of 4 level switches that are not adjustable devices. Therefore, the proposed TS change for the RWT Level - Low function does not require the TSTF-493 Footnotes.
License Amendment Request -
Refueling Water Tank Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318 Page 4 of 8
3.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION
RAS Allowable Value Increase A design basis calculation has been performed to determine the effect of a higher RWT Level -
Low Allowable Value and the concurrent higher RWT borated water volume on the performance of the ECCS post-LOCA. The calculation is contained in Attachment 3. This calculation has determined that there is no adverse effect of raising the RWT Level - Low Allowable Value or the RWT borated water volume on the performance of the ECCS following a LOCA.
The revised RWT Level - Low calculation concluded the existing TS Allowable Value required revision. The calculation in Attachment 3 determined the limits for the RWT Level - Low to be the following:
Analytical Limit 41.5 inches above tank bottom Allowable Value (TS Table 3.3.4-1) 42.5 inches above tank bottom Nominal Setpoint 45+1 inches above tank bottom RWT Level Increase In order to assure an equal or greater amount of water is transferred from the RWT to containment during a LOCA, additional water volume is needed in the RWT to offset the greater amount left in the RWT because of an increased RWT Level - Low Allowable Value. contains the calculation to determine the volume of water required to be in the RWT in order to perform its safety function.
The minimum borated water volume in the RWT is based on two factors (from the TS Basis):
- 1. Sufficient deliverable volume must be available to provide at least 30 minutes of full flow from the required ESF pumps prior to reaching the RWT Level - Low RAS setpoint switchover to the containment sump for recirculation, and
- 2. The containment sump water volume must be sufficient to support continued ESF pump operation after the switchover to recirculation occurs.
At least 360,000 gallons of borated water from the RWT provides sufficient volume for full flow from the required ESF pumps assuming two HPSI pumps, two LPSI pumps and two Containment Spray pumps are running. After this injection phase, a switch to the recirculation phase occurs based on the RWT Level - Low signal. The containment sump recirculation shifts the suction of the ESF pump headers from the RWT to the containment sump to recirculate the borated water. The water volume assumed for initial injection into the core (360,000 gallons) is consistent with the assumption of the appropriate accident analyses in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). This meets the first design criteria above; to provide sufficient deliverable volume to the ESF pumps prior to the RWT Level - Low RAS setpoint switchover to the containment sump for recirculation.
For the second design criterion, containment sump water volume is supplied by the RWT borated water inventory via injection through the reactor core and spillage into the containment volume. When ESF pump suction is transferred to the containment sump, sufficient water must
License Amendment Request -
Refueling Water Tank Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318 Page 5 of 8 be available in the containment sump to ensure adequate NPSH for the ESF pumps. The minimum RWT borated water capacity must be sufficient to supply this amount of water without considering the inventory added from the Safety Injection tanks or RCS, but accounting for loss of inventory to Containment sub-compartments and reservoirs due to containment spray operation and to areas outside containment due to leakage from ECCS injection and recirculation equipment. The minimum required volume supplied by the RWT is 373,567 gallons.
The change in the maximum RAS setpoint (low level Allowable Value plus margin) at which the RWT is isolated and the water source of the ESF pumps switches to the containment sump is higher than the current value. This new maximum RAS setpoint (nominal setpoint + 1 inch) would leave an additional 12,303 gallons in the RWT. This amount of water is no longer part of the injectable volume and available to provide adequate NPSH to the ESF pumps. To ensure that the minimum required volume is supplied by the RWT to the containment sump, the total minimum volume of the RWT is increased by at least 12,303 gallons to ensure adequate NPSH for the ESF pumps operating following the switch to the containment sump for recirculation.
Therefore, SR 3.5.4.3 is proposed to be changed to greater than or equal to 412,350 gallons above the tank bottom to continue to meet the design requirements.
4.0 REGULATORY EVALUATION
4.1 Applicable Regulatory Requirement/Criteria The proposed change has been evaluated to determine compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. Following implementation of the proposed TS changes, Calvert Cliffs will remain in compliance with applicable regulations and requirements.
Draft General Design Criterion 37 states, Engineered safety features shall be provided in the facility to back up the safety provided by the core design, the reactor coolant pressure boundary, and their protection systems. As a minimum, such engineered safety features shall be designed to cope with any size reactor coolant pressure boundary break up to and including the circumferential rupture of any pipe in that boundary, assuming unobstructed discharge from both ends. This proposed change allows the RWT to continue to meet draft GDC 37 by ensuring adequate borated water remains available to respond to any size Loss-of-Coolant-Accident.
4.2 Precedence None 4.3 No Significant Hazards Consideration The proposed license amendment revises the Technical Specifications to allow for an increase in the minimum required volume of borated water in the Refueling Water Tank (RWT) from 400,000 gallons to 412,350 gallons and to modify the Allowable Value of the ESF Actuation System RWT Level-Low (function 5a) from > 24 inches above tank bottom to > 42.5 inches above tank bottom.
License Amendment Request -
Refueling Water Tank Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318 Page 6 of 8 The purpose of the proposed change is to minimize or eliminate air entrainment in the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) during the injection phase following a Loss-of-Coolant-Accident (LOCA). Increasing the amount of water remaining in the RWT when the ECCS pump suction is switched from the tank to the Containment sump minimizes or prevents air entrainment by the ECCS pumps.
This proposed change modifies the Allowable Value of the ESFAS RWT Level-Low (function 5a) from > 24 inches above tank bottom to > 42.5 inches above tank bottom. This change is necessary to resolve a non-conservative Technical Specifications (TS) per the guidance of Administrative Letter 98-10 Dispositioning of Technical Specifications That Are Insufficient to Assure Plant Safety and to eliminate or minimize air entrainment in the ECCS pumps.
This proposed change also increases in the minimum borated water volume required in the RWT to meet the design basis requirements following a modification of the recirculation actuation setpoint as described above. Exelon proposes to modify TS Surveillance Requirement 3.5.4.3 by increasing the minimum borated water volume from 400,000 gallons to 412,350 gallons.
Exelon has evaluated the proposed amendment to determine whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.52, Issuance of amendment, as discussed below:
- 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No The proposed amendment increases the required volume of water in the RWT to maintain the existing design requirements. The increase is necessary due to an increase in the RWT Level -
Low RAS setpoint, which allows more water to stay in the tank following a LOCA. The modification to the allowable value of the RWT level-low (function 5a) resolves a non-conservative TS per the guidance of Administrative Letter 98-10 Dispositioning of Technical Specifications That Are Insufficient to Assure Plant Safety.
The RWT is not an accident initiator. The RWT is required to supply adequate borated water to perform its mitigation function as assumed in the accident analyses. With the proposed increase in the minimum required water volume, the RWT maintains its design margin for supplying the required amount of borated water to the reactor core and the containment sump.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
- 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No The proposed amendment increases the required volume of water in the RWT to maintain the existing design requirements. The increase is necessary due to an increase in the RWT Level -
License Amendment Request -
Refueling Water Tank Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318 Page 7 of 8 Low RAS setpoint, which allows more water to stay in the tank following a LOCA. The modification to the allowable value of the RWT level-low (function 5a) resolves a non-conservative TS per the guidance of Administrative Letter 98-10 Dispositioning of Technical Specifications That Are Insufficient to Assure Plant Safety.
The proposed amendment does not impose any new or different requirements. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analyses. The proposed change is consistent with the safety analyses assumptions and current plant operating practice.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
- 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No The proposed amendment increases the required volume of water in the RWT to maintain the existing design requirements. The increase is necessary due to an increase in the RWT Level -
Low RAS setpoint, which allows more water to stay in the tank following a loss-of-coolant-accident. The modification to the allowable value of the RWT level-low (function 5a) resolves a non-conservative TS per the guidance of Administrative Letter 98-10 Dispositioning of Technical Specifications That Are Insufficient to Assure Plant Safety.
The proposed amendment does not affect the design, operation, and testing methods for systems, structures and components specified in applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by the NRC). With the proposed increase in the minimum required water volume, the RWT maintains its design margin for supplying the required amount of borated water to the reactor core and the containment sump. The RWT will continue to meet all of its requirements as described in the plant licensing basis (including the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report and the TS Bases). Similarly, there is no impact to Safety Analysis acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
4.4 Conclusions In conclusion, based on the considerations discussed above, (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commissions regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not inimical to the common defense and security or the health and safety of the public.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
A review has determined that the proposed amendment would change a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component within the restricted area, as defined in 10 CFR 20, or would change an inspection or surveillance requirement. However, the proposed amendment does not involve: (i) a significant hazards consideration, (ii) a significant change in
License Amendment Request -
Refueling Water Tank Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318 Page 8 of 8 the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluent that may be released offsite, or (iii) a significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
Accordingly, the proposed amendment meets the eligibility criterion for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the proposed amendment.
6.0 REFERENCES
None
License Amendment Request - Refueling Water Tank Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318 Marked-Up technical Specification Pages
\\......_)
u u
ESFAS Instrumentation 3.3.4 Table 3.3.4-1 {page 2 of 3)
Engineered Safety Features* Actuation System Instrumentation FUNCTION
- 4. Steam Generator Isolation Signa1<c>
Steam Generator Pressure-Low (d)
- a.
- 5. Containment Sump Recirculation
- a. Refueling Water Tank Level-Low
- 6. Auxiliary Feedwater Actuation System
- a. Steam Generator 1 Level-Low
- b. Steam Generator 2 Level-Low
- c. Steam Generator Pressure Df fference-Hfgh (1 > 2) or (2 > 1)
CALVERT CLIFFS - UNIT 1 3.3.4-6 CALVERT CLIFFS - UNIT 2 SURVEILLANCE
.REQUIREMENTS SR 3.3.4.1 SR 3.3.4.2 SR 3.3.4.3 SR 3.3.4.4 SR 3.3.4.5 SR 3.3.4.2 SR 3.3.4.4 SR 3.3.4.5 SR 3.3.4.1 SR 3.3.4.2 SR 3.3.4.4 SR 3.3.4.5 SR 3*.3.4.1 SR 3.3.4.2 SR 3.3.4.4 SR 3.3.4.5 SR 3.3.4.1 SR 3.3.4.2 SR 3.3.4.4 SR 3.3.4.5 ALLOWABLE VALUE
~ 685 psia
~ 24 inches above tank bottom s -149 inches and
~ -194 inches s -149 inches and
~ -194 inches s 135.0 psid for Unit 1 s 130.0 psid for Unit 2 Amendment No. 227 Amendment No. 201 42.5
SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS SR 3.5.4.1 SR 3.5.4.2 SR 3.5.4.3 SR 3.5.4.4 SURVEILLANCE
NOTE-------------------
Only required to be performed when ambient air temperature is < 40°F.
Verify RWT borated water temperature is
~ 40°F.
NOTES-------------------
- 1.
Only required to be met in MODE 1.
- 2.
Only required to be performed when ambient air temperature is > 100°F.
Verify RWT borated water temperature is
~ 100°F.
Verify RWT borated water volume is
~ 400,000 gallons.
Verify RWT boron concentration is ~ 2300 ppm and ~ 2700 ppm.
CALVERT CLIFFS - UNIT 1 CALVERT CLIFFS - UNIT 2 3.5.4-2 RWT 3.5.4 FREQUENCY In accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Control Program In accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Control Program In accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Control Program In accordance with the Survei 11 ance Frequency Control Program Amendment No. 314 Amendment No. 292 412,350
License Amendment Request - Refueling Water Tank Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318 Calculation CA10206, Rev 0, Refueling Water Tank Level RAS Setpoint Determination
Cale. No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-l)
Design Analysis RWT Level RAS Setpoint D.
A I. C es12n na1ys1s over Sh t ee Last Page No. A25 Revision 0000 Pagel of26 Analysis No.: 1 CA10206 Revision: 2 0000 Major~
MinorD
Title:
3 Refueling Water Tank Water Level RAS Setpoint Determination.
EC/ECR No.: 4 ECP-15-000727 Revision: 5 0001 Station(s): 1 Calvert Cliffs Component(s): 14 Unit No.: a 1and2 1LS4142A 2LS4142A Discipline:
- Mechanical Engineering 1LS4142B 2LS4142B Descrip. Code/Keyword: 10 RWT, RAS 1LS4142C 2LS4142C Safety/QA Class:
11 SR 1LS4142D 2LS4142D System Code: 12 052 Structure: 13 RWT 1TKRWT11 2TKRWT21 CONTROLLED DOCUMENT REFERENCES 15 Document No.:
From/To Document No.:
From/To ECP-15-000727 CA10115 1-94-0003 Is this Design Analysis Safeguards Information? **
VesD No~ If yes, see SY-AA-101-106 Does this Design Analysis contain Unverified Assumptions? 11 YesD No~ If yes, ATl/AR#:
This Design Analysis SUPERSEDES: 11 Not Applicable in its entirety.
Description of Revision (list changed pages when all pages of original analysis were not changed): 1*
Initial Issue of Calculation. This calculation is to determine the setpoint for the Recirculation Actuation Signal (RAS) RWT level Switches to prevent vortex-induced air-entrainment into the ECCS. This calculation was issued as part of ECP-15-000727.
Preparer: 20 Andre S. Drake
{brt,_; J? [) ~
03/16/2017 Print Name Sien Name Date Method of Review: 21 Detailed Review ~ Alternate C&ulations.attached) D Testing D Reviewer: 22 Chris Junge
/f./'-v
" _,,......., /
03/16/2017 Print Name
'Sign Name Date Review Notes: 23 Independent review ~
Peer review D (For External Analyses Only)
External Approver: 24 NA Print Name Sign Name Date Exelon Reviewer: 25 NA Print Name Sidn Name Date Independent 3rd Party Review Reqd? 2*
VesD No~l ~
~~
~\\ '1 lZtJn Exelon Approver: 21 John Haydin Print Name Sien Nallle Date
\\
Cale. No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-l)
Revision 0000.
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision Summary Sheet Revision 0000 Page 2 of26 Initial issue. This report provides the design basis for the RAS setpoint value of 45+/-1" and a value of2'.: 42.5" for the Allowable Value RWT Level-Low value in Table 3.3.4-1 of the Technical Specifications.
Cale. No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-l)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint TABLE OF CONTENTS Revision 0000 Page 3 of26 1
PURPOSE................................................................................................................................ 5 1.1 Scope I Applicability......................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Background....................................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Prevention of Vortexing in The RWT............................................................................... 6 1.4 Containment Sump Water................................................................................................. 6 1.5 Summary........................................................................................................................... 7 2
IN"PUTS................................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 RAS Actuation Functions................................................................................................. 8 2.2 MOY Stroke Times........................................................................................................... 8 2.2.1 MOY Gate Valve Full Closure Time vs Functional Close Time.............................. 8 2.2.2 RWT Discharge MOVs (1(2)-MOV-4142, 1(2)-MOV-4143).................................. 9 2.2.3 ECCS Pump Min-flow Return Line MOVs (1(2)-MOV-659, 1(2)-MOV-660)........ 9 2.3 Determination of RWT Discharge Flows........................................................................ 9 2.3.1 Pre-RAS Flowrates.................................................................................................. 10 2.3.2 Post-RAS Flowrates - Normal Conditions.............................................................. 12 2.3.3 Post-RAS Flowrates - Onr LPSI Pump Fails to Stop.............................................. 13 2.3.4 Time Between RAS and Recirculation Line MOY Closure.................................... 14 2.3.5 Time Between Recirculation Line MOY Closure & RWT Outlet MOY Closure.. 15 2.3.6 Critical RWT Water Submergence Levels.............................................................. 16 2.4 RWT Level Switch Uncertainty...................................................................................... 17 2.5 Volume Per Inch of RWT............................................................................................... 18 2.6 RAS Limiting Trip Setpoint Uncertainty........................................................ 18 3
ASSUMPTIONS.................................................................................................................... 18 4
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................... 18 5
IDENTIFICATION OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS........................................................... 19 6
Methodology.......................................................................................................................... 20 7
NUMERIC ANALYSIS........................................................................................................ 22 7.1 Critical and Available Water Submergence Levels - No Failure Case........................... 22 7.2 Critical and Available Water Submergence Levels - Diesel Failure Case...................... 23 7.3 Critical and Available Water Submergence Levels - LPSI Failure to Stop Case........... 24
Cale. No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-I)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page 4 of26 8
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................... 25 FIGURES Figure 1 -RWT RAS & Associated Setpoints TABLES 7
Table 2.1 - Two Train Operation Maximum Pump Flow 10 Table 2.2 - One Train Operation Maximum Pump Flow 11 Table 2.3 - Two Train Operation Maximum Pump Flows - LPSI Pumps and Mini-Flow On 12 Table 2.4-Two Train Operation Maximum Pump Flows - LPSI Pumps Off, Mini-Flow On.
12 Table 2.5 - Two Train Operation Maximum Pump Flows - LPSI Pumps and Mini-Flow Off 13 Table 2.6 -Two Train Operation Maximum Pump Flows-One LPSI On and Mini-Flow On 14 Table 2.7 -Two Train Operation Maximum Pump Flows - One LPSI On and Mini-Flow Off 14 Table 2.8-RWT Water Level Reduction from RAS to Mini-Flow Line MOV Closure.
15 Table 2.9-RWT Water Level Reduction from Mini-Flow Line MOV Closure to RWT Outlet MOV Closure 16 Table 2.10 - Critical Water Levels in RWT Needed to Prevent Vortexing ATTACHMENTS - Generic Gate Valve Curve of Cv fs. Lift Curve No. 0002 from Velan - Preliminary Alden Lab Comments APPENDIES APPENDIX A Uncertainty Analysis of Magnetrol RWT Level Switches 17
Cale. No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-l) 1 PURPOSE RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page 5 of26 This calculation is to determine the setpoint for the Recirculation Actuation Signal (RAS) initiated by the Engineered Safety Features Actuation System (ESFAS) based on Refueling Water Tank (RWT) Level Switches (also referred as the RAS level switches).
1.1 Scope I Applicability RAS is a function of the redundant Engineered Safety Features Actuation System (ESFAS) actuation logic channels (ZA & ZB) that actuates the components associated with the redundant process safety trains A & B. RAS actuation is initiated by four (4) independent safety related RWT level switches (one for each channel: ZO, ZE, ZF, & ZG). RAS is actuated by coincidence 2-out-of-4 logic of the RWT low level switches or independent manual initiation from the Control Room. The RAS level switches are external to the RWT and are level switches with fixed level setpoints. The level switches are actuated based on the physical location (elevation) of the instruments on the RWT and cannot be adjusted once installed.
The scope of this calculation covers the four level switches for each of the units, specifically:
1-LS-4142A 1-LS-4142B 1-LS-4142C 1-LS-41420 2-LS-4142A 2-LS-4142B 2-LS-4142C 2-LS-41420
1.2 Background
The RAS is part of the plant's Emergency Safety Features Actuation System (ESFAS) which includes the Safety Injection Actuation System (SIAS) and the Containment Spray Actuation Signal (CSAS) that mitigate the consequences of a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA). The Safety Injection System consists of 3 High Pressure Safety Injection pumps (HPSI) and 2 Low Pressure Safety Injection pumps (LPSI). The Containment Spray System consists of 2 Containment Spray (CS) pumps. Typically, each safety train of HPSI, LPSI & CS pumps are actuated upon actuation of SI and the pumps initially draw upon the borated water within the RWT. A third HPSI pump is available should one of the assigned HPSI pumps fails.
The ECCS systems are safety related including the RAS actuation circuitry. Upon detection of a LOCA, the ECCS actuation functions initiate the SIAS and CSAS. Once the SIAS and CSAS are actuated, the RAS monitors the amount of borated water in the RWT and initiates the transfer of the SI and CS pumps suction from the initial borated water in the RWT to the Containment Sump. Each Unit has a single RWT. This RWT has 2 independent discharge lines, one for the ECCS Train A supply header and one for the ECCS Train B supply header. Each discharge line has a dedicated 18" isolation gate valve with a Motor Operated Valve (MOV) actuator that fully opens or fully closes the valves.
Cale. No. CAI0206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-l)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page 6 of26 The RAS level switches are float type level switches that cannot be calibrated which provide high levels of consistency and repeatability. The RWT level switches function through the use of a sealed metallic float with a guided vertical rod that moves up or down based on the level of the fluid within the float chamber. The fluid level in the float chamber is identical to the level of a tank. The rod has an attractive sleeve that causes a magnet based lever and spring that actuates an electric switch contact(s) to open or close based on the level switch's wiring. The float rod is sealed within the float chamber and does not come into physical contact with the lever magnet.
1.3 Prevention of Vortexing in The RWT A primary function of RAS is to maintain sufficient submergence of water over the RWT discharge piping (18"-HC3-1003/2003, 18"-HC3-1004/2004) to prevent vortexing and ensure no air gets into the discharge piping which could impact the SI and CS systems. The selection of the RAS setpoint must also consider the time required for the RWT discharge MOVs to close because the RWT will continue to be the suction source of the operating pumps after RAS due to the higher hydraulic gradient of the RWT as compared to the Emergency Containment Sump.
Therefore, determination of the RAS setpoint must ensure that a sufficient volume of water remains in the RWT after RAS initiation to prevent vortexing during the Post-RAS period defined by the closure time of the RWT discharge MOVs.
1.4 Containment Sump Water In addition to closing the RWT discharge isolation valves, the RAS setpoint must be set to maximize the amount of borated water that can be transferred from the RWT to the Containment Sump (through the SI & CS systems) prior to closure of the RWT discharge MOVs to support the recirculation cooling mode of operation. The RAS actuation initiates the opening of the Containment Sump discharge valves (1(2)-MOV-4144 and 1(2)-MOV-4145) to allow the Containment Sump to become the SI and CS pumps source of water.
Cale. No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-1) 1.5 Summary RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page 7 of26 The results of this calculation are documented in Section 8 and are depicted in Figure 1 of the RWT.
Figure 1-RWT RAS & Associated Setpoints Legend:
L TSP - Limiting Trip Setpoint AF-As Found Value AV-Allowable Value 1(2)LS-4142A, 8, C, D RAS SETPOINT
~
i ---------EJ=-------------
OUTLET PIPES 18" 0.0.
Ma~imum Water Level 498" 46" - Max RAS Actuation
- - - 45" +/- I" - NTSP 43.5" -LTSP 42.5" -Tech Spec Value (Allowable Value) 41.5" -Analytical Limit 18~
NOTE: All defined RWT level values are referenced from the bottom of the RWT unless otherwise noted
Cale. No. CAI0206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-1) 2 INPUTS 2.1 RAS Actuation Functions RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page 8 of26 The primary functions performed by the RAS actuation that impact the RWT levels and the RAS setpoint include:
- 1. The RAS actuation setpoint initiates the transfer of the SI & CS pumps source of suction water from the RWT to the Emergency Containment Sump. The RAS setpoint should be set as low as possible to maximize the amount of water that can be transferred from the RWT to the Emergency Containment Sump while also not allowing vortexing to occur. [Ref. 6]
- 2. The RAS actuation signal also performs the following functions associated with the RAS setpoint: [Ref. 6 & 11]
A. Stops (trips) the LPSI pumps B. Closes the SI and CS pumps minimum flow recirculation line isolation valves C. Initiates opening of the Containment Sump discharge valves:
- a. MOV-4144
- b. MOV-4145 D. Initiates closure of the RWT discharge valves (new Design Function):
- a. MOV-4142
- b. MOV-4143 Note: Function Dis being incorporated per ECP-16-000353 to add automatic closure of the RWT outlet valves upon RAS 2.2 MOV Stroke Times 2.2.1 MOV Gate Valve Full Closure Time vs Functional Close Time MOV Gate Valve Stroke Time (time from full-open to full-close, or from full-close to full-open) is documented in the MIDASCALC MOV Datasheet applicable to that MOV [References 7 &
8]. The RWT discharge isolation valve's manufacturer (Velan) has previously provided a flow coefficient versus percentage open of the valve which shows that the last 10% of the valve closure is Ineffective Movement where the valve disc is in the seat and the flow is zero (see ). Therefore, the time at which the MOVs will be functionally closed (i.e., do not pass any more flow) is equal to 90% of the MOV Stroke Time.
In addition the Stroke Time in the MIDASCALC MOV Datasheets assumes the valve is operating at 60 Hz electric current. For MOV actuated valves that are powered off of the emergency diesel generators, per UFSAR Section 8.4.1.1 and 8.4.2.1 the power frequency will
Cale. No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-1)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page 9 of26 be within 2% of nominal. Therefore the stroke time could be increased by as much as 2% if the diesels are at the maximum under-frequency.
Thus the more appropriate functional close time can be determined by increasing the MOV Stroke Time by 2% to account for diesel under-frequency, and then decreased by 10% to account for the fact that flow has stopped once the valve disc is in the seat.
2.2.2 RWT Discharge MOVs (1(2)-MOV-4142, 1(2)-MOV-4143)
Reference 7a-7d, identifies that the stroke time (open or close) for the RWT discharge MOVs is 66.43 seconds at an input frequency of 60 Hz. Refer to page 4 of the "Datasheet with Essential Parameters" which is a part of each of the MIDASCALCs given in Reference 7.
The functional closure time, as adjusted per Section 2.2.1 is: 60.98 seconds (66.43 x 1.02 x 0.90) 2.2.3 ECCS Pump Min-flow Return Line MOVs (1(2)-MOV-659, 1(2)-MOV-660)
Reference 8a-8d, identify that the stroke time (open or close) for the ECCS Pump minimum flow return line MOVs as:
1-MOV-659 22.98 seconds 2-MOV-659 24.89 seconds 1-MOV-660 22.34 seconds 2-MOV-660 25.21 seconds The above values are based on an input current of 60 Hz. Refer to page 4 of the "Datasheet with Essential Parameters" which is a part of each of the MIDASCALCs given in Reference 8.
The largest functional closure time as adjusted per Section 2.2.1 is: 23.14 seconds (25.21 x 1.02 x 0.90) 2.3 Determination of RWT Discharge Flows The RAS function is generally defined as two parts; Pre-RAS, which begins with the actuation of the SIAS, and Post-RAS that begins with the actuation of RAS. During Pre-RAS, typically both Trains A and B of the HPSI, LPSI, and CS pumps function and draw the borated water out of the RWT. As described in Section 2.1, upon RAS actuation the LPSI pumps are tripped, the Containment Sump discharge MOVs begin to open and the RWT discharge MOVs begin to close.
As defined in Section 2.2.2, the RWT discharge MOVs have a defined time for closure of the valves. As a result, the RWT will continue to provide water to the SI and CS pumps for the time that it takes the MOV s to close after RAS initiation. Determination of the RAS setpoint must ensure that a sufficient volume of water remains in the RWT after RAS initiation to prevent vortexing during the Post-RAS period defined by the closure time of the RWT discharge MOVs.
Cale. No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-1)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page IO of26 The normal Post-RAS functional configuration has two (2) HPSI pumps and two (2) CS pumps (one for each ESF train) with minimum pump flow recirculation water until the minimum flow line isolation valves close. The pump minimum flow line will be effectively closed within 23.14 seconds of RAS (per Section 2.2.3).
The required water level to ensure vortexing does not occur either Pre-RAS, or Post-RAS must be assessed based on the following considerations:
- 1. Normal flow from two trains each with HPSI, LPSI, and CS flow Pre-RAS, and normal flow from two trains of HPSI and CS flow Post-RAS.
- 2. Single-Failure of one train's LPSI to stop.
- 3. The critical water level must be evaluated during the following phases:
Pre-RAS operation, Post-RAS operation with pump minimum recirc-flow, Post-RAS operation with pump minimum recirc-flow secured.
2.3.1 Pre-RAS Flowrates Upon SIAS, both of the ECCS trains are in full operation with each train having HPSI, LPSI and CS pumps. The pump flow rates of Table 2.1 are conservative predictions of pump flows when RWT water level is low and nearing the RAS setpoint. The flow values are from calculation CA04903, Appendix J. [Ref. 3]
Table 2.1 Two Train Operation Maximum Pump Flows Pump 21 Train Flow 21 Train 22 Train Flow 22 Train (GPM)
Min-Recirc (GPM)
Min-Recirc Flow (GPM)
Flow (GPM)
HPSI 731.06 20.88 756.82 19.70 LPSI 3497.38 56.07 3394.10 58.00 Cont. Spray 1866.33 53.38 1800.61 55.74 Total 6094.77 130.33 5951.53 133.44 Total Pump Minimum Flows= 130.33 + 133.44 = 263.77 GPM These results are conservative for evaluation of the HPSI and LPSI flows at near RAS conditions because the numbers are generated using a RWT level near mid-tank height (19.96 feet above tank floor) resulting in pump NPSH close to RAS which occurs at approximately 4 feet above the tank floor.
Cale. No. CAI0206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-l)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page 11 of26 For one train operation with a single HPSI, LPSI, and CS pump operating in one header conservative flow rates are defined in Table 2.2. The LPSI flow will be greater than with both LPSI pumps operating due to the reduced hydraulic resistance in the common discharge piping.
The flow values are conservative derivations of the pump flows from calculation CA04867, Appendix F. [Ref. 2] The pertinent results are as follows:
Table 2.2 One Train Operation Maximum Pump Flows Pump Train Flow (GPM)
Train Mini-Recirc Flow (GPM)
HPSI 773.55 17.99 LPSI 4889.46 41.63 Cont. Spray 1838.76 53.84 Total 7501.77 113.46 These results are appropriate and conservative for evaluation of flows at near RAS conditions because the numbers are generated using a RWT level 5 feet (60 inches) above the tank floor.
The total pump minimum flow recirculation back to the RWT at this condition is 113.5 GPM.
The above tables show that in one train operation HPSI and especially LPSI flow will increase because of the reduced flow losses in the common piping. It is therefore not possible to infer from this data what the HPSI and LPSI flows might be under two train operation at an RWT level of 5.00 feet above the tank floor; therefore, the HPSI and LPSI flow results at a tank level of 19.96 feet above the floor will conservatively continue to be used.
However, except for the common 18" suction header piping having minimal flow losses the Containment Spray flow is independent from the Safety injection flow and the two trains of Containment Spray flow are independent from each other. Therefore, it is acceptable to consider the single-train Containment Spray flow results at a 5.00 ft tank level as this is more near but still conservative with RAS conditions (approximately 4 ft). The flow from 21 Containment Spray flow reduces from 1866.33 gpm to 1838.76 gpm (27.57 gpm reduction) when the RWT level is reduced from 19.96 feet to 5.00 feet. The pump recirculation flow increased by 0.46 gpm. By reducing the 22 Containment Spray pump flow by 27 gpm, and increasing its recirc flow by 0.5 gpm the following revised flow table for two train operation is obtained.
Cale. No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-l)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page 12 of 26 Table 2.3 Two Train Operation Maximum Pump Flows - LPSI Pumps and Mini-Flow On Pump 21 Train Flow 21 Train Mini-22 Train Flow 22 Train (GPM)
Recirc Flow (GPM)
Mini-Recirc (GPM)
Flow (GPM)
HPSI 731.06 20.88 756.82 19.70 LPSI 3497.38 56.07 3394.10 58.00 Cont. Spray 1838.76 53.84 1773.61 56.24 Total 6067.20 130.79 5924.53 133.94 Total Pump Recirculation Flows= 130.79 + 133.94 = 264.73 GPM 2.3.2 Post-RAS Flow Rates - Normal Conditions (Both LPSI Pumps Stop Prior by RAS)
Once RAS is actuated, the LPSI pumps are automatically secured and closure of the pump minimum flow recirculation line is initiated by at least one of the redundant MOV isolation valves.
The results of Appendix G and Hof CA04867 [Ref. 2] demonstrate that securing mini-flow recirculation flow and securing LPSI flow increases HPSI flow by 2.1 GPM. To ensure a conservative assessment of nozzle flows, both HPSI flows in Table 2.4 will be increased to the single-header HPSI flowrate of775.41 from Appendix Hof CA04867, and the higher recirculation flows from CA04903 [Ref. 3] will continue to be used.
Except for the common suction header piping, CS flow is independent from the SI flows. Since the friction losses in the common suction header are minimal as compared to the overall hydraulic loss factors it will be assumed that CS flow does not change after RAS. The Table 2.4 flows are thus modified to yield conservative flows for two-train operation just after RAS with both LPSI pumps off.
Table 2.4 Two Train Operation Maximum Pump Flows - LPSI Pumps Off, Mini-Flow On Pump 21 Train Flow 21 Train 22 Train Flow 22 Train (GPM)
Mini-Recirc (GPM)
Mini-Recirc Flow(GPM)
Flow(GPM)
HPSI 775.41 20.88 775.41 19.70 LPSI 0
0 0
0 Cont. Spray 1838.76 53.84 1773.61 56.24 Total 2614.17 74.72 2549.02 75.94
Cale. No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-l)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page 13 of26 Total Pump Recirculation Flow= 74.72 + 75.94 = 150.66 GPM Comparing Appendix G and Hof CA04867, [Ref. 2] shows that securing the pump mini-flow recirculation line reduces CS flow from 1832.42 GPM to 1821.40 GPM, an 11 GPM decrease.
Reducing the CS flow rates in Table 2.4 by -11 GPM yields the following table for Post-RAS flow rates with mini-flow recirculation secured.
Table 2.5 Two Train Operation After RAS - LPSI Pumps and Mini-Flow Off Pump 21 Train Flow 22 Train Flow (GPM)
(GPM)
0 Cont. Spray 1828 1763 Total 2603.41 2538.41 Total Pump Recirculation Flow = 0 2.3.3 Post-RAS Flow Rates - One LPSI Pump Fails to Stop by RAS As discussed in Section 2.3, a single-failure to be considered the case where a LPSI pump fails to stop prior to or upon actuation of RAS. The need to consider this single-failure was raised as part of Generic Letter 2004-02/GSI-191. As documented in the response to Request for Additional Information Item 13a of Reference 14 Calvert Cliffs responded that failure of a LPSI pump to trip automatically on RAS would be addressed by manually securing the LPSI pumps prior to the receipt of RAS, and if one could not be secured then prior to RAS the flow from this LPSI pump would be throttled to 600 gpm indicated flow. This would ensure that the total containment sump strainer flow rate during containment sump recirculation will stay below the sump strainer design flow rate of 5000 gpm.
In the case of a single-failure of a LPSI pump to stop on RAS Step IV.S. l.a.1(2) of Reference 9 directs that the Operators are to close three of the LPSI flow leg isolation valves and throttle the 4th to an indicated flow of 600 gpm.
Per Section 12.1 of Reference 15 at an actual flow of 800 gpm (32% of 2500 gpm flow span) through one of the LPSI flow loops the uncertainty is 129.50 gpm under normal conditions and 195.25 gpm under accident conditions. Though this throttling would occur prior to RAS and thus be under normal conditions, conservatively using the Accident Uncertainty of 195.25 gpm, the minimum indicated flow would be 604.75 gpm. Therefore at an indicated flow of 600 gpm the actual flow would be no more than 800 gpm.
Cale. No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-I)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page 14 of26 A conservative LPSI flow in this case is the single train throttled flow as discussed in Section 2.3.2. HPSI and CS flows from Tables 2.4 and 2.5 for the LPSI no flow condition will conservatively be used in this case with LPSI flow.
While the failed LPSI pump is throttled to its lowest indicated flow, the uncertainty of the LPSI discharge flow measurements are not highly accurate. Therefore, for this calculation 800 GPM of additional LPSI flow will be included in LPSI Train 21 which is over 30% of the 600 GPM of indicated flow used by the operator.
Table 2.6 Two Train Operation Maximum Pump Flows - One LPSI On and Mini-Flow On Pump 21 Train Flow 21 Train Mini-22 Train Flow 22 Train (GPM)
Recirc Flow (GPM)
Mini-Recirc (GPM)
Flow(GPM)
HPSI 775.41 20.88 775.41 19.70 LPSI 858 58.00 0
0 Cont. Spray 1838.76 53.84 1773.61 56.24 Total 3472.17 132.72 2549.02 75.94 Total Pump Minimum Flows= 132.72 + 75.94 = 208.66 GPM Table 2.7 Two Train Operation Maximum Pump Flows - One LPSI On and Mini-Flow Off Pump 21 Train Flow 22 Train Flow (GPM)
(GPM)
Cont. Spray 1828 1763 Total 3403.41 2538.41 Total Pump Minimum Flows = 0 GPM 2.3.4 Time from RAS to Mini-Flow Recirculation Line MOV Closure The pump minimum recirculation flow Post-RAS can have a significant impact on the level of water required to prevent vortexing and potential air entrainment into the RWT discharge headers. The impact of the pump minimum recirculation flow on the water level at which vortexing begins is a function of the ratio of the pump minimum recirculation flow and the
Cale. No. CAI0206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-l)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page 15 of26 discharge flow rate. Higher pump minimum recirculation flows drive the critical elevation higher as the discharge flow gets smaller.
From Input 2.2.3 the mini-flow recirculation line MOVs will stop flow from passing at 23.148 seconds, or 0.3858 minutes after RAS. The RWT level reduction in 0.3858 minutes is found using the following formula (refer to Input 2.5 for gallon-to-inch conversion):
(Naz 1 Flow+ Naz 2 Flow - Recirc Flow) ~~l x 0.3858 Min Gal m
= L1 RWT Level (inches) 842.07 in The above formula is solved for the three flow conditions of interest.
Table 2.8 RWT Water Level Reduction From RAS to Mini-Flow Line MOY Closure Case Description Nozzle Flow Table Reduction in RWT level from RAS to Mini-Flow Line MOV Closure Two-Train operation, Both LPSI Table 2.4 2.297 inches Off, Mini-Flow Operating Two-Train operation, One Table 2.6 2.663 inches Throttled LPSI Operating, Mini-Flow Operating One-Train Operation, Both LPSI Table 2.4 1.163 inches Off, Mini-Flow Operating 2.3.5 Time from Mini-Flow Recirc Line MOV Closure to RWT Outlet MOV Closure From Input 2.2.2 the RWT Outlet MOVs will stop flow from passing at 60.983 seconds, or 1.0164 minutes after RAS, and 1.0164- 0.3858 = 0.6306 minutes after the Mini-Flow Recirc Line MOVs close (refer to Input 2.3.4). The RWT level reduction in 0.6306 minutes is found using the following formula (refer to Input 2.5 for gallon-to-inch conversion):
(Naz 1 Flow+ Naz 2 Flow) ~~l x 0.6306 Min
G-a..;...l
- ..;;i..;..;;n _____ = Change in RWT Tank Level (inches) 842.07 in The above formula is solved for the three flow conditions of interest, and the results summarized in the following table.
Cale. No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-l)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page 16 of26 Table 2.9 RWT Water Level Reduction From Mini-Flow Line MOV Closure to RWT Outlet MOV Closure Case Description Nozzle Flow Table Reduction in RWT Level from Mini-Flow Line MOV Closure to RWT Outlet MOV Closure Two-Train operation, Both LPSI Table 2.5 3.851 inches Off, Mini-Flow Secured Two-Train operation, One Table 2.7 4.450 inches Throttled LPSI Operating, Mini-Flow Operating One-Train Operation, Both LPSI Table 2.5 1.950 inches Off, Mini-Flow Secured 2.3.6 Critical RWT Water Submergence Levels To determine the interactions of the RWT water levels and discharge rates, CCNPP had Alden Laboratories develop a scale model of the actual CCNPP RWTs and some piping. Alden tested a number of scenarios to develop vortex data suitable for use in determining the interactions of the various RWT discharge flows and associated levels. The complete Alden RWT vortex testing results are provided in Reference 1.
Testing was performed by Alden Laboratories [Ref. 1] with the purpose of evaluating the critical elevation requirements of the two outlet nozzles installed in the RWT. The critical elevations are the lowest water levels of various individual discharge pipes and their total flows from the SI and CS pumps and supplemental RWT inputs that initiate vortexing into a header(s) and is measured as the difference between the water level and the tank floor.
Table 2-1 of Reference 1 shows the results of the initial 24 vortex tests conducted on the baseline (i.e., actual) plant configuration. Eight cases were removed because they modeled SFP recirculation which is no longer a consideration at near-RAS water levels. Two tests were removed (Nos 5 and 15) because they considered a low nozzle flow rate corresponding to HPSI and Containment Spray flow, but without LPSI flow, and a high mini-flow rate considering flow from all six pumps (with 50% margin added). This configuration is not physically possible, and consequently the results are not included. It is interesting to note that tests 5 and 15 had the two highest water levels at which bubbles were first observed to form. It was learned that the low nozzle flow/high mini-flow condition is believed to have such a high critical submergence because the low nozzle flow results in less flow rate momentum thus allowing the secondary wave patterns set up by the relatively high mini-flow to dominate the near-field flow dynamics around the nozzle inlet so that in these cases the critical submergence level was increased.
Cale. No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-l)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page 17 of26 The remaining 14 cases were placed into one of three groups depending on nozzle flowrate (high, medium, low), and then within each group the tests were arranged from lowest to highest pump minimum-flow recirculation flow rate. The results are summarized in the following table.
Table 2.10 Critical Water Levels in RWT Needed to Prevent Vortexing (Vortex Test Results [refer to Table 2-1 of Reference 1])
Test No.
Nozzle Flow (GPM)
Mini-flow Return (GPM)
RWT Water Level to A
B Prevent Vortexing 1
7400 8900 0
2.89 ft 34.68 in 2
0 8900 0
2.71 ft 32.52 in 14 7400 8900 390 3.65 ft 43.80 in 87 7279.1 8900 390 3.12 ft 37.44 in 7
6600 6400 0
2.88 ft 34.56 in 90 5000 5000 0
2.82 ft 33.84 in 88 6600 6400 195 2.67 ft 32.04 in 92 6600 2800 195 3.14 ft 37.68 in 91 5000 5000 195 2.75 ft 33.00 in 9
6600 6400 390 3.47 ft 41.64 in 11 6600 6400 390 3.40 ft 40.80 in 3
2700 2700 0
2.33 ft 27.96 in 93 2700 2700 0
2.53 ft 30.36 in 10 2700 2700 200 3.09 ft 37.08 in 2.4 RWT Level Switch Uncertainty Appendix A of this calculation addresses the analysis and determination of the repeatability of the RAS activation RWT switches. Using data gathered from Surveillance Test Procedures (STP) previously performed on the existing level switches and vendor data it was determined that the uncertainty of the RAS level switches is +/-1".
Cale. No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-l) 2.5 Volume Per Inch of RWT RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page 18 of26 The RAS actuation will be in the lower portion of the RWT defined as R WT Ring 1. Per 1 003 [Ref. 5], Ringl is 83" in height, and has a defined volume per inch of 842.07 Gal/Inch.
2.6 RAS Limiting Trip Setpoint Uncertainty The RAS Nominal Trip Setpoint defines the as-left tolerance of the RAS setpoint. Based on the review of the significant quantity of RAS setpoint verification data (in Appendix A), it has been determined that the RAS limit switches have a high level of stability and repeatability. Since the RWT Level Switches are physically installed and have no calibration process, they have no true As-Found and As-Left values typically associated with drift and calibration tolerances like electronic setpoints. Therefore, the As-Found and As-Left values are based on the Level Switch uncertainty uncertainty of +/-1" given in Input 2.4. As a result, the RAS only has a Limiting Trip Setpoint. The Limiting Trip Setpoint only has an accuracy value equivalent to the uncertainty of the level switches defined in Section 2.4. The Nominal Trip Setpoint As-Found value therefore must be at least 44" 3
ASSUMPTIONS None Used.
4 REFERENCES
- 1. CAlOl 15 Rev. 0, "Calvert Cliffs RWT Vortex Testing Technical Report", Alden Laboratories
- 2. CA04867 Rev. 2, "Prediction of maximum Flow Rate in an RWT Outlet Nozzle at Low-Water Levels in the RWT"
- 3. CA04903 Rev. 2, "Evaluation of Minimum Time to RAS"
- 5. 1-94-003 Rev. 4, "Refueling Water Tank Level"
- 6. Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), Revision 48
- a. Section 6.3, Safety Injection System
- b. Section 6.4, Containment Spray System
- c. Table 14.20-6, Engineered Safety Features Performance For Loss-Of-Coolant Accident Containment Analyses
- d. Section 7.3.2.1, Equipment Actuated by RAS
Cale. No. CAI0206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-I)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page 19 of26
- 8. Recirculation MOV Datasheets
- 9. EOP-5-1, "Loss of Coolant Accident", Revision 29
- 10. M-92-276 Rev 0, "Evaluating NPSHA If the Strove Time of MOV 4144/4145 Was Increased", Attachment B
- 11. 61058ASH0001, Rev 53 & 63058ASH0001, Rev 53, "ESF Actuation System"
- 12. 1-94-003, Rev. 4 "Refueling Water Tank Levels, as revised by ECP-15-000727
- 14. "Request for Additional Information Regarding Generic Letter 2004-02," from George Gellrich to the NRC dated July 23, 2010.
- 15. Calculation CA00995, Revision 0002, "Loop Uncertainty - LPSI Flow Loops."
5 IDENTIFICATION OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS No new computer modeling was performed for this calculation.
Cale. No. CAI0206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-l) 6 METHODOLOGY RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page 20 of26 The determination of the RAS setpoint is based on satisfying the competing demands of maximizing the volume of RWT borated water transferred to the Containment Sump to support long-term core cooling, and ensuring that the RWT level does not fall below the critical submergence level required to prevent vortexing. Air entrainment due to vortexing could cause the failure of one or more of the SI and CS pumps, and have other deleterious effects on system operation.
The determination of the RAS setpoint to avoid vortexing will be based on the Calvert Cliffs specific vortex testing documented under Reference 1. The necessary results from Reference 1 are provided in Table 2.10 in Section 2.3.6 of this calculation. Since the RWT is at a higher hydraulic gradient than the containment sump the RWT will continue to be the preferred suction source for Safety Injection and Containment Spray pumps after RAS. Therefore, only closure of the RWT outlet MOVs will terminate flow from the RWT. The RWT water level decrease in the time it takes for these MOVs to close must also be considered to ensure that air-entrainment into the RWT outlet headers does not occur after RAS.
The evaluation of the RAS Set point will consider three failure cases.
- 1.
No Failure Case.
This case has the maximum mini-flow recirc flow pre-RAS. The Reference 1 testing shows that the higher the mini-flow recirculation the higher the water level at which bubbles were first observed.
- 2.
LPSI Pump Throttled After Failure of a LPSI Pump to Stop.
This case has the highest post-RAS flow rate and thus will experience the largest RWT draw down prior to closure of the RWT outlet MOVs.
- 3.
Failure of a Diesel/Bus resulting in a Loss of Safety Train.
This is the typical worst-case single failure for ECCS related analyses. This failure is evaluated here to demonstrate that considerable margin against vortexing would exist in this failure scenario.
This calculation evaluates vortexing potential for these three cases at four critical points:
- 2. Just Prior To RAS: Not a limiting phase, but included for completeness.
- 3. Just prior to Mini-flow Valve Closure: Mini-flow recirc still in operation, water level lower than at RAS.
Cale. No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-l)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page 21 of26 In addition, vortexing is also evaluated just after RAS and just after mini-flow valve closure.
Although these points are not limiting with respect to vortexing they are included in the tables in Section 7 to help the reader understand how flows change at RAS and at mini-flow line closure.
The following is to demonstrate that no air-entrainment due to vortexing will occur if RAS actuates at 41.5 inches.
The vortexing evaluation in Section 7 assumes RAS actuation at an RWT Level of 41.5". The Tables in Section 7 were developed by taking the applicable flow rates from Tables 2.2, - 2.7 for each failure scenario, and the Test Case from Table 2.10 having flows which bound these flows, and having the highest required water level of all the applicable tests is then picked to establish water level necessary to prevent vortexing. This is then compared to the available water level to determine if it is sufficient to prevent vortexing.
Next, the reduction in RWT water level from RAS to mini-flow recirc MOV closure from Table 2.8 is subtracted from 41.5 inches to determine the tank water level just prior to mini-flow MOV closure. The flow rates from Tables 2.2, 2.4, or 2.6 for each failure scenario are obtained, and the bounding Test Case from Table 2.10 is selected. The required water level is then compared to the available water level to determine if it is sufficient to prevent vortexing.
Finally, the reduction in RWT water level from mini-flow recirc MOV closure to RWT outlet MOV closure from Table 2.9 is subtracted from the previous water level to determine the tank water level just prior to RWT Outlet Header MOV closure. Again, the flow rates from Tables 2.2, 2.5, or 2.7 for each failure scenario are obtained, and the bounding Test Case from Table 2.10 is selected. The required water level is then compared to the available water level to determine if it is sufficient to prevent vortexing.
Cale. No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-l) 7 NUMERIC ANALYSIS 7.1 No Failure Case RWT Level RAS Setpoint This case considers both trains available, and LPSI flow is secured at RAS.
RWT Description Flow Nozzle Nozzle Recirc Level Table Flow Flow Flow (GPM)
(GPM)
(GPM)
>60" Prepare for RAS 2.3 6067.20 5924.53 264.73
>5' 41.5" Just Prior to RAS 2.4 2614.17 2549.02 150.66 3.458' 41.5" Just After RAS 2.4 2614.17 2549.02 150.66 3.458' 39.203" Just prior to Mini-flow 2.4 2614.17 2549.02 150.66 3.267' MOV Closure (23.148 seconds after RAS) 39.203" Just after Mini-flow MOV 2.5 2603.41 2538.41 0
3.267' Closure (23.148 seconds after RAS) 35.352" RWT Flow Approaching 2.5 2603.41 2538.41 0
2.946' Termination (60.983 seconds after RAS)
Revision 0000 Page 22 of26 Water Acceptable Level to prevent Vortexing 3.65' Yes (Test 14)
(5>3.65) 3.09' Yes (Test 10)
(3.458>3.09) 3.09' Yes (Test 10)
(3.458>3.09}
3.09' Yes (Test 10}
(3.267>3.09}
2.53' Yes (Test 93)
(3.267>2.53}
2.53' Yes (Test 93)
(2.946>2.53}
Cale. No. CAI0206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-l)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint 7.2 Failure of a Diesel I Loss of a Train Revision 0000 Page 23 of26 This scenario assumes the loss of a safety train due to a diesel failure, or a loss of a bus. The operating LPSI pump does stop on RAS.
RWT Description Flow Nozzle Nozzle Recirc Water Acceptable Level Table Flow Flow Flow Level to
{GPM)
(GPM)
(GPM) prevent Vortexing
>60" Prepare for RAS 2.2 7501.77 NA 113.46 3.65' Yes
>5' (Test 14)
(5 >3.65) 41.S" Just Prior to RAS 2.4 1
2614.17 NA 74.72 3.09' Yes 3.458' (Test 10)
(3.458>3.09) 41.5" Just After RAS 2.4 1
2614.17 NA 74.72 3.09' Yes 3.458' (Test 10)
(3.458>3.09) 40.337" Just prior to Mini-flow 2.4 2614.17 NA 74.72 3.09' Yes 3.361' MOV Closure (23.148 (Test 10)
(3.361>3.09) seconds after RAS) 40.337" Just after Mini-flow 2.5 2603.41 NA 0
2.53' Yes 3.361' MOV Closure (23.148 (Test 93)
(3.361>2.53) seconds after RAS) 38.387" RWTFlow 2.5 2603.41 NA 0
2.53' Yes 3.199' Approaching (Test 93)
(3.199>2.53)
Termination (60.983 seconds after RAS)
- 1. Because of the way Table 2.4 was developed use of the maximum train flow is acceptable for single train operation.
Cale. No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-l)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page 24 of26 7.3 Failure of a LPSI Pump to Stop at "Prepare for RAS" Section of EOP-05.
EOP-05 has been revised to manually secure the LPSI pumps at the "Prepare for RAS" phase of EOP-05. This scenario assumes the failure of a LPSI to stop at the "Prepare for RAS" section of EOP-05, and then takes the LPSI flow to be throttled as directed by contingency actions in EOP-05 to an indicated flow of 600 gpm. The actual flow could be as high as 800 gpm plus the recirculation flowrate of 56.07 gpm (refer to Table 2.6). Both trains are operating. The following table evaluates the condition of the highest flow nozzle.
RWT Description Flow Nozzle Nozzle Recirc Water Acceptable Level Table Flow Flow Flow Level to (GPM)
(GPM)
(GPM) prevent Vortexing
>60" Prepare for RAS 2.3 6067.20 5924.53 264.73 3.65' Yes
>5' (Test 14)
(5 >3.65) 41.5" Just Prior to RAS 2.6 3472.17 2549.02 208.66 3.14' Yes 3.458' (Test 92)
(3.458>3.14) 41.5" Just After RAS 2.6 3472.17 2549.02 208.66 3.14' Yes 3.458' (Test 92)
(3.458>3.14) 38.837" Just prior to Mini-flow 2.6 3472.17 2549.02 208.66 3.14' Yes 3.236' MOV Closure {23.148 (Test 92)
(3.236>3.14) seconds after RAS) 38.837" Just after Mini-flow MOV 2.7 3403.41 2538.41 0
2.82' Yes 3.236' Closure {23.148 seconds (Test 90)
(3.236>2.82) after RAS) 34.387" RWT Flow Approaching 2.7 3403.41 2538.41 0
2.82' Yes 2.865' Termination {G0.983 (Test 90)
(2.865>2.82) seconds after RAS)
Cale. No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-l)
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Revision 0000 Page 25 of26 The tables given in Sections 7.1 through 7.3 demonstrate that if RAS actuates at an RWT water Level of 41.5" the available RWT water level will exceed the water level required to avoid vortexing at all times for each failure scenario.
The RAS Nominal Setpoint is selected to be 45". The Limiting Trip Setpoint is adjusted down by 1.5" to allow additional margin for conservatism resulting in a Limiting Trip Setpoint is of 43.5". From Input 2.5 the Level Switch uncertainty is+/- l ". The Maximum RAS Actuation water level based off the Nominal Trip Setpoint is 46". The Minimum RAS Actuation water level based off the Limiting Trip Setpoint is 42.5 ". Thus per Reference 13 the Tech Spec Allowable Value can be no greater than 42.5".
Again, per Reference 13 applying the 1" uncertainty to the Tech Spec Allowable Value, the Analytical Limit can be no greater than 41.5". The analysis in Section 7 used an Analytical Limit of 41.5" and demonstrated that this would prevent vortexing; therefore, 41.5" is an acceptable value to be chosen as the Analytical Limit.
Therefore, the pertinent RAS setpoint definitions are established in accordance with the requirements of TSTF-493 Revision 4 (Reference 13), and are summarized as follows:
Maximum RAS Actuation 46" RAS Nominal Setpoint of:
45" +/-1" (As Found Value) Minimum actuation 44" RAS Limiting Trip Setpoint of:
43.5" RAS Allowable Value (Tech Spec Value):
42.5" RAS Analytical Limit:
41.5" The RAS setpoint and critical elevations are depicted in Figure 1 in Section 1.5.
Conservatisms
- 1. The criteria used in Reference 1 to identify the onset of vortexing was very conservative. The criteria applied was the water level at which a bubble was first observed was taken as the water level at which vortexing initiated. In many cases, especially for the cases with mini-flow recirculation, a random stray bubble was observed and then no additional bubbles would be observed until the test tank water level had been reduced considerably.
- 2. Multiple water level data points were available for each critical juncture for each scenario, and in all instances the highest water level at which bubble formation was observed was used.
Cale. No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-l)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page 26 of26
- 3. The above calculations show that air does not enter the RWT discharge headers. However, even if air were to be entrained in the ECCS header it has a minimum of 272 feet of piping to pass through before it reaches the tie-in point with the Emergency Containment Sump recirculation header.
..i 3
c.J\\O\\.\\BtO) R~-.J.. t/>
Art.~
t~ ~-°!>
A tt({t-lttW\\.. "" t
.+o CAtD1..0 /,
p, ~e. I o~ l Generic Gate Valve Curve of Cv rs. L~ Curve No. 0002, Delivered by John Farrell (Velan) to Andrew L. Hcnni (BO&E).
.,...... ~------.... --~---..-~--....,..... ----..-----..... --...;.._,. ____....,. ________________.........._. _____ -------------.... ~
I.
I I'
It' t r
- I
- I I'
1:;_ !.....-
- I'
~":'
f;
.~~~; Y l-'...,..+-o-i....:..........--t-+-~-+--'~~t-t..._.._'-+_,_~~+-r'*'..,_--i~--"c-t---'--+--.;.~--ir--.:...;"'"+-+-::iiif-..;.-+.---~+-11o-"'~.;....!
I
- ---,-*---r--:-'----:-*~--....
- *=\\*.. :
l
- ---, ----- - ---1---i----.. -
-*i*'---,.1..,
I
- .. ~---~-+-
- -
- - -~~-1,
- r----r---*---a.:.....:-i.... *---+--- *--
- -*...._ r1 o
'. *--~~~. :*~::*~~~~~~~~~~-=:!:=- ~~:~~~;~;~ *::.~.. ~ ~-:--_):.--~~.:.'~.. !*~- -i,.,
- - **r-.::...:.:_*.*---** *.. -
i----
.. __ ---*-***-t--*~+---1--- --- --* -*--***. *-*--. ---l* **--*' l b::-+-*-.-
I
. :---~
~J......:.-1 ' :. -~::-J:
tf
~I i
-:"""'~
-*~--_.,_.-*
. -.. ---"t*------.- -*---:"-
- n. 0 ~
I 0
0 * *
--i-I I
J "I J"'
- ~
- ~---=-=-'--:----*-~-
- -*~-* * - ---:!~ *~- *
- -- ** ~-*
- c::=: +--*--:-----**-,*
T~--;-- *-;-* **-r:*-**r*-* * -f-.- f-- ilaJ-*.. ~ ***
I 1--=-==--~*-------.. *+--~:
I --*i'.-*-** :
-.--~--F.~~ *:r.:-::.:
i-- *-*- _.o:::L.
- *=; t::=~. :
~ -
.. *.. : :~~-...:..
I*
.-J ----*:-~::t===::.J-----t-*** * - --* - *---**l *------*l&. c;ii. **t**-
~- ---.... -....
-.. ;.... _.~.*ca. \\I.a-. -....
! -* * *~* - -~ --* *--*-*- !--*-f------: -----* *** -*---. ***: --*--;---+-:cu>.. :_**
z *o ___ "' 110
- --1--- * * * ***-
- I
--~ *-*-**-t*-* *
'......!.-.l*- * -
- E. i, ~
1-j *:* :~ -~.: : *.. :::T=:~:~:-::-==f.:~~~_;::::~. **-- **-* ;
- -.~~=~* :::~:::~: :~Q-- =..i.-°t
_.i. **.:*'. --:. -i* --. -* :---~-.
. - --'---~. ; '
- =
- )Ml ~0-0/ *.
9' AO*
- .. :.:.:~*** :. ~ *** r";
- ** ~
- .;:.-::_::_:~--.
~-*
I
-*--------=------..,,---+--. -
_, 1:..--l
- .-*.->-.~~,._,~._..
- _;} },L.-~. -_.___
i
- .. -.:* g
- -~,. ~-... I 2
.....;~...;;.-"~=---**=""';..::-C* -----:..
- .~:.,;;.;:.*..
. *.t~:*.. ~~~:~-:~ *~= -~~*. *.:
.. -*i..Jr~~_: ______ _
/
Cale. No. CA 10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-O I)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint ATTACHMENT 2 Revision 0000 Page I of2 Alden comments on the RWT Vortex Test Report conference call 12/20/16 Tnn Hurst From:
~l'.e. Andre S~GenCo-Nuc) ~rv.drake@l!lelonmrp.com>
Tuesday. December 20, 2016 10:16 AM Sent:
To:
Tim Hum Cc
Subject:
~in. John S:(GenCo-Nuc); Santi;igo AMractc. David Baran. Tom SaM>r. Bn!nt Beach Summ;iry of CiiD with Alden Labs Regarding Use of Vortex Test ReporL Hello rm, I spoke with 0.-. Ludwig Haber of Alden Labs today fat" Dbout"" hour repnling the use of the Vortex Test ~ in Cillculation CA10206 which detennines our new RAS set point. Ludwi& will be providing us a chft report by COB Thursday (Dec. 2..2) which will provide his findincs and recommendiltions on how to use the Vortex ~
in CA10206_ The plan is to provide feedbaa on his draft report by Dec 'D, and then he will submit the final report at the end oftheyHr.
The highf""ts at this momin(s Cilll arl!:
lJJcfwic had issues with both venions of CAl.0206 {Rl!v OB providl!d by Andn> and Rev U provided by rm). HI! did see some good in each versian as well.
When mini-flow r@Circulation is involved it is Vf!rf possi:lle to have lower nozzle flowrates {tl!Sts 5 and 15 I require h~er submergellCI! than hi:f!er nozzle flow rates (tests 14 and 87). This is because in the hichef' Froude No. CilSl!S the flowrate momentum dominat8 the near field flow dynamics, whtte in the lowl!r Froude No. ases the sacondary wave p;ittems setup by the return flow Ciln dominate the near-field flow dynamics. Therefore, it is not defendable to disregard Tests 5 and 15 ;u being invafd.
However, Ludwig does her.,_ that Tests 5 and 15 are not appflCilble based on our plant conditions. Prior ta RAS we will hiM! more than 2700 gpm pet' nozzle anytime we have recirnJl;otion flow rates that ellD!ed 200 gpm. Therefore the 2700 gpm noz:zle flowrate and 390 gpm mini-flow rate amdition does not occur.
lucfwic did illf1!!! that il is not appropriate ID amsider 390 g;pm rnin>-llow fat" ases where the actual rnin;.flow might only be 260 gpm, or less. He did not specificall'f comment on interpolating based on minHlowrate, but from my cfiscussion with him I gather that he does not favor this approach. Instead he berreves that appi'/ing a test havW>g a mini-flow rate of 1..95 CPf11 ta act\\Jal concfltions where the mini-flow m~
be 206 eprn is aa:eptab~ without need for furt...... discussian.
Lucfwic does not be61!111! we need ta apply margin to the test results to account for test uncertainty. This is based primarily on the conservatM! cri!l!ria of the first bubble formed as the criteria for vortex fot"mation Other conservatisms muld be used ta bade up this position as well (~
.. air that might be entrained wiD not have time to transport to the pump suction). This~ was discussed at the last WOG...-ting, and the safety loss incum!d by leavin; water in the t.nk outweighs the safety pin by adcfmg margin tD vartlling.
lucfwic believl!S it is not acuptabte to use a test where the toal flow from the two nozzles meets or l!llceeds the total flow from the two nonles in the actual plant concfrticn.
For Post-RAS operation Ludwig believes Test 10 is the ;rpprupriate CilSI! to conslder when thl!re is no t.iilure of lPSI pump to trip, and that Test 92 is the appropriate CilSI! to considl!r when a l.PSI rails to trip.
Based on my cflSCUSSion with Wdwii:, the appropriate pr!HIAS CilSl!to consider would be tl!5ts 14, 87, !I and 11-Averaging these results would be acceptable.
Cale. No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-Ol)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint ATTACHMENT 2 Revision 0000 Page 2 of2 Alden comments on the RWT Vortex Test Report conference call 12/20/16 I don't know if we w.ont to try ;md pt a hsd SCltt on n!vising CA10206.so that when we get Ludwig's repott Thur3diy (prombly will be I~ Thursd;ry) WI! have less to do to get tl11* calculation revised.
Give me a CilU when you get a chance.
Andre This Email message and my attachment may conlain mfimnatl.on that is proprietuy, legally pmileged, confidential and/or subject to copyright be1anging to Exelon Cozporation ar its affiliates ("Exelon")_ This Email is intended solely fur the use of the person(s) to which it is addressed. If you are not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsiole for defu;eiy of this Email to the intended recipient(s), you are~ notified that my dissrnrin*hon, distnbution or copying of this Email is strictly proluoiled. If you have received this message m mer, please immediately notify the senda and~
delete this Email and my copies_ Exelon policies expressly proluoil employees from making defamatory or offeum-e statanenb and infringing my oopytight or my other legal right by Email communication. Exelon will not accept my liability in Iespect of such communicatiom -EXCIP 2
Cale No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-Ol)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page A 1 of A25 Appendix A -- Uncertainty Analysis of Magnetrol Level Switches
- 1. Purpose The purpose of this calculation is to determine the accuracy and repeatability of the RWT Level Switches based on a significant amount of actual switch testing and verification data for the full set of 8 RWT Level Switches. This document addresses the analysis and determination of the repeatability of the RAS activation RWT switches.
2. Background
Analysis of the potential for vortex formation [Ref. 8.7] has identified the need to relocate the RAS activation switches to a higher level in the RWT. The repositioning effectively reduces the total volume of water available in the RWT for accident mitigation. To recover volume lost to repositioning the RAS switches, the existing switches require reanalysis to determine if the setting uncertainty can be reduced from the present +1"/-3".
The RAS switches are fixed float switches that are preset at the factory for activation points.
The open and closing points are marked on the switch by the manufacturer [Ref. 8.2 & 8.9].
The piping design positions the switch activation point at the proper level of the tank being monitored.
Manufacturer's data for the Magnetrol level switch, states that the accuracy of the level switch is +/- 0.25 inch. [Ref. 8.8] The set point has only a small amount of adjustment after installation and has a fixed deadband. The attached photograph in Reference 8.3 shows the falling and rising float activation points, set by the manufacturer of an installed level switch.
These markings are used in the calibration check process.
Analysis of the available switch test data indicates that most terms utilized a standard uncertainty calculation are not applicable to the RAS activation switches. Based on the data an alternative methodology was chosen to establish a 95% inclusive control band based on National Bureau of Standards (NBS) statistical methods.
- 3. Assumptions 3.1. The manufacturer's accuracy data is correct.
3.2. Data collected in Reference 8.4 is accurate and correct.
3.3. A type testing approach is acceptable for analyzing the existing switch calibration check data.
- 4. Methodology 4.1. Data collected in Reference 8.4, Attachment A pages 146-154 were separated into Unit 1 and Unit 2 data sets.
4.2. Within each unit data set, individual channels were isolated and ordered by date (Table 4).
Cale No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-01)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page A2 of A25 Appendix A -- Uncertainty Analysis of Magnetrol Level Switches 4.3. Verify that the Unit-1 data is accurately represented as type testing data per Reference -
8.1 Section 13-3, pages 13-2 through 13.6. This process evaluates data from separate test (experiment) lines to determine if the independent data can be treated as a single data set. A positive result of this test allows a larger representative data set for the analytical setpoint analysis. This approach was chosen because the data collected on the eight level switches represents separate calibration checks with no direct dependence on testing between devices. Evaluation of the data meets the criteria based on an analysis population of 30 samples for treating the individual channel test as a single data set.
4.4. Statistical analysis of the set point calibration check data for Unit-1 channels A - D was performed to establish the basic distribution data for both units. The calibration check process sets the As-Found and As-Left values equal within a single test element.
Therefor the change data between the As-Left and the subsequent As-Found is treated as separate data points.
4.5. Linearity, hysteresis and deadband are not considered because there is only one point of concern, being approached from the lowering direction. [8.10]
4.6. Typical instrument and setpoint determinations combine the multiple uncertainties of an instrument including accuracy, drift, and density of a liquid being measured. Since this calculation is based on a significant set of actual field data over a long period, all of the typical uncertainties are already incorporated in the data values. Therefore specific typical uncertainties are not required to be combined again.
- 5. Analysis Using the methodology described in Section 4, Unit-1 data is analyzed to determine its basic distribution.
The following is basic distribution data for U nit-1:
Table-1 Unit 1 Channel A As Neg Offset from Found Change Change Pas Change 30 29.22 Average
-0.0156
-0.9091 0.8750
-0.8047 1-SD 0.6019 Unit 0.8956 0.5034 0.5276 0.5948 2-SD 1.2039 Unit 1.7913 1.0068 1.0553 1.1896 3-SD 1.8058 Unit 2.6869 1.5102 1.5829 1.7844 (SD= Standard Deviation)
Cale No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-Ol)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page A3 of A25 Appendix A -- Uncertainty Analysis of Magnetrol Level Switches Unit 1 Channel B As Neg Found Change Change Pos Change Offset from 30 29.25 Average 0.0000
-0.5909 0.6932
-0.7617 1-SD 0.4661 Unit 0.6758 0.4073 0.4588 0.4713 2-SD 0.9322 Unit 1.3515 0.8146 0.9176 0.9426 3-SD 1.3984 Unit 2.0273 1.2220 1.3764 1.4139 Unit 1 Channel C As Offset from Found Change Neg Change Pos Change 30 29.08 Average
-0.0078
-0.4500 0.4722
-0.9453 1-SD 0.3277 Unit 0.4040 0.3073 0.1502 0.3633 2-SD 0.6553 Unit 0.8081 0.6146 0.3005 0.7266 3-SD 0.9830 Unit 1.2121 0.9220 0.4507 1.0899 Unit 1 Channel D As Neg Pos Offset from Found Change Change Change 30 29.39 Average 0.0000
-0.4583 0.4583
-0.6172 1-SD 0.3253 Unit 0.4535 0.2575 0.2344 0.3299 2-SD 0.6506 Unit 0.9070 0.5149 0.4687 0.6597 3-SD 0.9759 Unit 1.3604 0.7724 0.7031 0.9896
Cale No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-01)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page A4 of A25 Appendix A -- Uncertainty Analysis of Magnetrol Level Switches Based on the verification in 4.3 the individual channel data is treated as a single data set and the average As Found value and the distribution of the combined data set is determined. The supplied data was separated into two data sets. Data set 1 (As Found) is the raw switch activation values recorded during testing. Data set 2 (CHANGE) is an isolation of the change in values that were found to be less than the nominal switch activation point of - 29.5 inches. These values were isolated because the switch is only tested in one direction and only values below the setpoint value are critical to the safety function.
Tahle-2 UNIT-1 BLOCK As Found CHANGE Data (AL-AF)
Mean 29.23
-0.0059 1-SD Unit 0.31 0.4046 2-SD Unit 0.63 0.8092 3-SD Unit 0.94 1.2138 5.1. Using the results of Unit-1 data, a conservative analytical value for bounding, +/-0.75 inch is used. The +/-0.75 inch value is based on the average of the 2-SD Unit values of the "As Found" and "Change" data in Table-2, (0.72 inch) rounded up to 0.75 inch.
5.2. The manufacturer's published accuracy is added to the results of section 5.1 to establish a calculated Control Band value of, 0.75"+0.25"=+/-1.0 inch (Band Half Width= 1.0).
The value calculated in 5.1 is assumed to include all repeatability differences based on the empirical data generated by the calibration check. The manufacturer's accuracy data is added as a conservative measure.
5.3. Using the bounding data determined in 5.2, Unit-2 data is tested to assure inclusion.
Based on data in Table-1 and calculation CA03771 Rev 3 (Reference 8.6), the actual setpoint is approximately 29 inches. The median setpoint value for the calibration check data used for comparison of Unit-1 and Unit-2 data comparison has been established at 29.5 inches per Table-3.
If the Actual data value is less than the lower band setpoint the data is considered Out Of Band (FALSE). One data point in the Unit 2 data indicates that it is outside of the control band. Review of the raw data indicates that this is probably an anomalous data caused by the calibration check error referenced in Reference 8.6.
Table 3 - Analysis of Unit-2 Results Target Value 29.5" Band Half Width 1"
Data Lower Band Value 28.5 29.56 In Bound TRUE
Cale No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-O 1)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page A5 of A25 Appendix A -- Uncertainty Analysis of Magnetrol Level Switches Target Value 29.5" Data Band Half Width 1"
Lower Band Value In Bound 28.5 29.63 TRUE 28.5 29.67 TRUE 28.5 28.88 TRUE 28.5 30.00 TRUE 28.S 30.25 TRUE 28.5 29.88 TRUE 28.5 29.50 TRUE 28.5 27.50 FALSE 28.5 29.25 TRUE 28.5 28.88 TRUE 28.S 29.63 TRUE 28.5 28.94 TRUE 28.5 29.25 TRUE 28.5 29.56 TRUE 28.5 28.75 TRUE 28.5 29.53 TRUE 28.5 28.56 TRUE 28.5 28.75 TRUE 28.5 29.71 TRUE 28.5 29.06 TRUE 28.5 28.75 TRUE 28.5 29.63 TRUE 28.5 29.56 TRUE 28.5 29.35 TRUE 28.5 29.25 TRUE 28.5 29.50 TRUE 28.5 29.63 TRUE 28.5 29.50 TRUE 28.5 28.90 TRUE 5.4. Data collected post changing the calibration test frequency to once per refueling is analyzed to determine if the data can be considered part of the base data from Reference 8.4 used for analysis. The distribution of the once per cycle test data is within the control bounds established by the analysis in 5.2.
- 6. Results
Cale No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-Ol)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page A6 of A25 Appendix A -- Uncertainty Analysis of Magnetrol Level Switches 6.1. The empirical data collected during the calibration checks indicates that the RAS trip setpoints are stable and agreement between the four channels is sufficient to allow treating the data as type testing data.
6.2. Using Unit-1 as the control data set supports a Control Band of +/-0.75 inches as a conservative value. Data collected from Unit 2 was compared to the Unit 1 data and verified to be in agreement from a distribution perspective.
6.3. To incorporate a further degree of conservativism the manufacturer's accuracy value of
+/-0.25" is added to the empirical 0.75" band to create the+/- 1.0 inch Control Band value.
6.4. Changes of the calibration check interval from quarterly to once per fuel cycle has no impact on the Control Band of+/- 1.0 inch. The +/-1.0 inch Control Band represents the performance of the level switch regardless of the physical switch location.
- 7. Conclusions 7.1. Apply the Control Band value of+/- 1.0 inch to the revised switch location.
- 8. References 8.1. Experimental Statistics, National Bureau Standards Handbook 91, Section 13.3, "Randomized Block Plans" 8.2. Attached Photo of installed level switch showing manufacture's markings 8.3. Magnetrol Switch Installation Dimensions, Drawing 12753-0026 Rev 0. (Attached) 8.4. Calculation 1-93-106 Rev 0, "Drift Analysis for RPS and ESFAS Trip Units Monthly to Quarterly STP Extension" 8.5. Unit 2 Fuel Cycle Trip Point Test Results, Extract from STP M-520G-2. (Attached) 8.6. Calculation Number CA03771, Rev 3 "Determination of Minimum Water Level in Containment During Containment Sump Recirculation" Section 3.8 8.7. Alden Document 1120CCLVTX-Rl-OO, "Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant RWT Vortex Testing Technical Report Revision O" 8.8. 12753-160-1029, Magnetrol VTM, Summary of Device Uncertainty Data 8.9. 12753-160-1007, Magnetrol, General Instructions for Type M-1 and Type M-4 Switch Mechanisms
Cale No. CA10206 Revision 0000 (ECP-15-000727-MU-01)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Page A 7 of A25 Appendix A -- Uncertainty Analysis of Magnetrol Level Switches Table 4 - Calibration Data And Data Analysis UNIT I Calibration Check Analysis Channel A DATE FOUND LEFT Change Negatives Positives Off from set No Change 9/8/1990 30 30 10/8/1990 29 29
-I FALSE FALSE
-I FALSE 12/10/1990 30.5 30.5 1.5 FALSE 1.5 0.5 FALSE 1/10/1991 29.5 29.5
-I
-I FALSE
-0.5 FALSE 2/8/1991 29 29
-0.5
-0.5 FALSE
-I FALSE 3/15/1991 27.75 27.75
-1.25
-1.25 FALSE
-2.25 FALSE 4/12/1991 29.5 29.5 1.75 FALSE 1.75
-0.5 FALSE 5/15/1991 29.5 29.5 0
FALSE FALSE
-0.5 6/25/1991 29.5 29.5 0
FALSE FALSE
-0.5 7/22/1991 29 29
-0.5
-0.5 FALSE
-I FALSE 8/19/1991 28.25 28.25
-0.75
-0.75 FALSE
-1.75 FALSE 9/16/1991 29.5 29.5 1.25 FALSE 1.25
-0.5 FALSE 10/14/1991 29.5 29.5 0
FALSE FALSE
-0.5 1117/1991 27.5 27.5
-2
-2 FALSE
-2.5 FALSE 12/5/1991 29 29 1.5 FALSE 1.5
-I FALSE 1/3/1992 29.5 29.5 0.5 FALSE 0.5
-0.5 FALSE 2/3/1992 29.5 29.5 0
FALSE FALSE
-0.5 7/24/1992 29.5 29.5 0
FALSE FALSE
-0.5 8/21/1992 29 29
-0.5
-0.5 FALSE
-I FALSE 9/21/1992 29 29 0
FALSE FALSE
-1 10/19/1992 30 30 FALSE 0
FALSE 11/1211992 29 29
-I
-I FALSE
-I FALSE 12/11/1992 29 29 0
FALSE FALSE
-I 1/11/1993 29 29 0
FALSE FALSE
-I 2/4/1993 29.5 29.5 0.5 FALSE 0.5
-0.5 FALSE 3/2/1993 29 29
-0.5
-0.5 FALSE
-I FALSE 4/211993 29.5 29.5 0.5 FALSE 0.5
-0.5 FALSE 4/30/1993 30 30 0.5 FALSE 0.5 0
FALSE 6/1/1993 28.5 28.5
-1.5
-1.5 FALSE
-1.5 FALSE 7/211993 29.5 29.5 I
FALSE
-0.5 FALSE 7/26/1993 29 29
-0.5
-0.5 FALSE
-I FALSE 8/24/1993 29.25 29.25 0.25 FALSE 0.25
-0.75 FALSE 912111993 29.5 29.5 0.25 FALSE 0.25
-0.5 FALSE Unit I Channel A Offset from No Change As Found Change Neg Change Pos Change 30 Count 29.22 Average
-0.0156
-0.9091 0.8750
-0.8047 8
0.6019 I-SD Unit 0.8956 0.5034 0.5276 0.5948 1.2039 2-SD Unit 1.7913 1.0068 1.0553 1.1896 1.8058 3-SD Unit 2.6869 1.5102 1.5829 1.7844 0.36233428 As Left Average 29.21969697 Median 29.5 Span 3
Cale No. CA10206 Revision 0000 (ECP-15-000727-MU-O 1)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Page A8 of A25 Appendix A -- Uncertainty Analysis of Magnetrol Level Switches Table 4 - Calibration Data And Data Analysis UNIT I Calibration Check Analysis Channel B DATE FOUND LEFT Change Negatives Positives Off from set No Change 9/8/1990 29.5 29.5 10/8/1990 28.375 28.375
-1.125 FALSE FALSE
-1.625 12/10/1990 30 30 1.625 FALSE 1.625 0
FALSE 1/10/1991 29.5 29.5
-0.5
-0.5 FALSE
-0.5 FALSE 2/8/1991 28.25 28.25
-1.25
-1.25 FALSE
-1.75 FALSE 3/15/1991 29.5 29.5 1.25 FALSE 1.25
-0.5 FALSE 4/12/1991 29.75 29.75 0.25 FALSE 0.25
-0.25 FALSE 511511991 29.5 29.5
-0.25
-0.25 FALSE
-0.5 FALSE 6/25/1991 29.5 29.5 0
FALSE FALSE
-0.5 7/22/1991 29 29
-0.5
-0.5 FALSE
-I FALSE 8/19/1991 29.5 29.5 0.5 FALSE 0.5
-0.5 FALSE 9/16/1991 29.75 29.75 0.25 FALSE 0.25
-0.25 FALSE 1011411991 29.25 29.25
-0.5
-0.5 FALSE
-0.75 FALSE 1117/1991 29 29
-0.25
-0.25 FALSE
-I FALSE 12/5/1991 29 29 0
FALSE FALSE
-I 1/3/1992 28.5 28.5
-0.5
-0.5 FALSE
-1.5 FALSE 2/3/1992 29 29 0.5 FALSE 0.5
-I FALSE 7/24/1992 29 29 0
FALSE FALSE
-I 8/21/1992 29.5 29.5 0.5 FALSE 0.5
-0.5 FALSE 9/21/1992 29.5 29.5 0
FALSE FALSE
-0.5 I
1011911992 29.5 29.5 0
FALSE FALSE
-0.5 11/12/1992 28 28
-1.5
-1.5 FALSE
-2 FALSE 12/11/1992 29 29 FALSE
-I FALSE 1/11/1993 29 29 0
FALSE FALSE
-I 2/4/1993 29.5 29.5 0.5 FALSE 0.5
-0.5 FALSE 3/2/1993 29.5 29.5 0
FALSE FALSE
-0.5 4/2/1993 29.5 29.5 0
FALSE FALSE
-0.5 413011993 29 29
-0.5
-0.5 FALSE
-I FALSE 61111993 29 29 0
FALSE FALSE
-I 7/2/1993 30 30 FALSE 0
FALSE 7/26/1993 29.5 29.5
-0.5
-0.5 FALSE
-0.5 FALSE 8/24/1993 29.25 29.25
-0.25
-0.25 FALSE
-0.75 FALSE 9/21/1993 29.5 29.5 0.25 FALSE 0.25
-0.5 FALSE Unit I Channel B Offset from No Change As Found Change Neg Change Pos Change 30 Count 29.25 Average 0.0000
-0.5909 0.6932
-0.7617 10 0.4661 I-SD Unit 0.6758 0.4073 0.4588 0.4713 0.9322 2-SD Unit 1.3515 0.8146 0.9176 0.9426 1.3984 3-SD Unit 2.0273 1.2220 1.3764 1.4139 0.21727036 29.24621212 Median 29.5 Span 2
Cale No. CA10206 Revision 0000 (ECP-15-000727-MU-01)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Page A9 of A25 Appendix A -- Uncertainty Analysis of Magnetrol Level Switches Table 4 - Calibration Data And Data Analysis UNIT I Calibration Check Analysis Channel C DATE FOUND LEFT Change Negatives Positives Off from set No Change 9/8/1990 29.5 29.5 10/8/1990 29.75 29.75 0.25 FALSE 0.25
-0.25 FALSE 12/10/1990 30.25 30.25 0.5 FALSE 0.5 0.25 FALSE 1/10/1991 29 29
-1.25
-1.25 FALSE
-I FALSE 2/8/1991 29 28.25 0
FALSE FALSE
-1.75 I
3/15/1991 29 29.5 0.75 FALSE 0.75
-0.5 FALSE 4/12/1991 29.25 29.25
-0.25
-0.25 FALSE
-0.75 FALSE 511511991 29 29
-0.25
-0.25 FALSE
-I FALSE 6/25/1991 29 29 0
FALSE FALSE
-I I
7122/1991 28.75 28.75
-0.25
-0.25 FALSE
-1.25 FALSE 8/19/1991 29.25 29.25 0.5 FALSE 0.5
-0.75 FALSE 911611991 29 29
-0.25
-0.25 FALSE
-I FALSE 10/14/1991 29 29 0
FALSE FALSE
-I 1117/1991 29 29 0
FALSE FALSE
-I 12/5/1991 28.5 28.5
-0.5
-0.5 FALSE
-1.5 FALSE 11311992 29 29 0.5 FALSE 0.5
-I FALSE 2/3/1992 29 29 0
FALSE FALSE
-I 7/24/1992 28.75 28.75
-0.25
-0.25 FALSE
-1.25 FALSE 8/21/1992 29 29 0.25 FALSE 0.25
-I FALSE 9/21/1992 29 29 0
FALSE FALSE
-I 10/19/1992 28.5 28.5
-0.5
-0.5 FALSE
-1.5 FALSE 11/12/1992 29 29 0.5 FALSE 0.5
-I FALSE 12/11/1992 29 29 0
FALSE FALSE
-I 1/11/1993 29 29 0
FALSE FALSE
-I 2/4/1993 29 29 0
FALSE FALSE
-I 3/2/1993 29.5 29.5 0.5 FALSE 0.5
-0.5 FALSE 4/2/1993 29 29
-0.5
-0.5 FALSE
-I FALSE 4/30/1993 29 29 0
FALSE FALSE
-I 61111993 29 29 0
FALSE FALSE
-I 7/2/1993 29.5 29.5 0.5 FALSE 0.5
-0.5 FALSE 7/26/1993 29 29
-0.5
-0.5 FALSE
-I FALSE 8/24/1993 29 29 0
FALSE FALSE
-I 9/21/1993 29 29 0
FALSE FALSE
-I Unit I Channel C Offset from No Change As Found Change Neg Change Pos Change 30 Count 29.08 Average
-0.0078
-0.4500 0.4722
-0.9453 13 0.3277 I-SD Unit 0.4040 0.3073 0.1502 0.3633 0.6553 2-SD Unit 0.8081 0.6146 0.3005 0.7266 0.9830 3-SD Unit 1.2121 0.9220 0.4507 1.0899 Variance 0.133877841 29.06818182 Median 29 Span 2
Cale No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-Ol)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page AlO of A25 DATE 9/8/1990 10/8/1990 12/10/1990 l/10/1991 2/8/1991 3/15/1991 4/12/1991 5/15/1991 6/25/1991 7/22/1991 8/19/1991 9/16/1991 10/14/1991 1117/1991 12/5/1991 l/3/1992 2/3/1992 7/24/1992 8/21/1992 9/21/1992 10/19/1992 11/12/1992 12/11/1992 l/l l/1993 2/4/1993 3/2/1993 4/2/1993 4/30/1993 6/1/1993 7/2/1993 7/26/1993 8/24/1993 9/21/1993 Appendix A -- Uncertainty Analysis of Magnetrol Level Switches Table 4 - Calibration Data And Data Analysis UNIT l Calibration Check Analysis Channel D FOUND 29.5 29.75 30.25 29.5 28.5 29.5 LEFf 29.5 29.75 30.25 29.5 28.5 29.5 Change Negatives Positives Off from set No Change 29.75 29.5 29.5 28.75 29 29.75 29.5 29.25 29 29.5 29.25 29.25 29.5 29.5 29 29.5 29.5 29 29.5 29.5 29.5 29.25 29.5 29.5 29.5 29 29.5 As Found 29.75 29.5 29.5 28.75 29 29.75 29.5 29.25 29 29.5 29.25 29.25 29.5 29.5 29 29.5 29.5 29 29.5 29.5 29.5 29.25 29.5 29.5 29.5 29 29.5 Unit I Channel D 29.39 Average 0.3253 I-SD Unit 0.6506 2-SD Unit 0.9759 3-SD Unit 0.25 0.5
-0.75 FALSE FALSE
-0.75 0.25
-0.25 FALSE 0.5 0.25 FALSE FALSE
-0.5 FALSE
-1 l
0.25
-0.25 0
-0.75 0.25 0.75
-0.25
-0.25
-0.25 0.5
-0.25 0
0.25 0
-0.5 0.5 0
-0.5 0.5 0
0
-0.25 0.25 0
0
-0.5 0.5
-1 FALSE FALSE
-0.25 FALSE
-0.75 FALSE FALSE
-0.25
-0.25
-0.25 FALSE
-0.25 FALSE FALSE FALSE
-0.5 FALSE FALSE
-0.5 FALSE FALSE FALSE
-0.25 FALSE FALSE FALSE
-0.5 FALSE FALSE 0.25 FALSE FALSE FALSE 0.25 0.75 FALSE FALSE FALSE 0.5 FALSE FALSE 0.25 FALSE FALSE 0.5 FALSE FALSE 0.5 FALSE FALSE FALSE 0.25 FALSE FALSE FALSE 0.5
-1.5
-0.5
-0.25
-0.5
-0.5
-1.25
-1
-0.25
-0.5
-0.75
-1
-0.5
-0.75
-0.75
-0.5
-0.5
-1
-0.5
-0.5
-I
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.75
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-1
-0.5 Offset from Change Neg Change Pos Change 30 0.0000
-0.4583 0.4583
-0.6172 0.4535 0.2575 0.2344 0.3299 0.9070 0.5149 0.4687 0.6597 l.3604 0.7724 0.7031 0.9896 FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE l
FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE l
No Change Count 8
0.105823864 Median Span 29.38636364 29.5 l.75
Cale No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-Ol)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page All of A25 Appendix A -- Uncertainty Analysis of Magnetrol Level Switches Table 4-Calibration Data And Data Analysis UNIT 1 Calibration Check Analysis Per Reading Average DATE Average Change Variance STD 9/8/1990 29.63 0.063 0.217 10/8/1990 29.22
-0.41 0.441 0.575 12/10/1990 30.25 1.03 0.042 0.177 1/10/1991 29.38
-0.88 0.063 0.217 218/1991 28.50
-0.69 0.125 0.306 3/15/1991 29.06 0.44 0.766 0.758 411211991 29.56 0.50 0.057 0.207 5/15/1991 29.38
-0.19 0.063 0.217 6/25/1991 29.38 0.00 0.063 0.217 7/22/1991 28.88
-0.50 0.021 0.125 8/19/1991 29.00 0.13 0.292 0.468 9/16/1991 29.50 0.50 0.125 0.306 10/14/1991 29.31
-0.19 0.057 0.207 11/7/1991 28.69
-0.63 0.641 0.693 12/5/1991 28.88 0.19 0.063 0.217 1/3/1992 29.13 0.25 0.229 0.415 2/3/1992 29.19 0.06 0.057 0.207 7124/1992 29.13
-0.06 0.104 0.280 8/21/1992 29.25 0.13 0.083 0.250 9/21/1992 29.25 0.00 0.083 0.250 10/19/1992 29.25 0.00 0.417 0.559 11/12/1992 28.88
-0.38 0.396 0.545 12/11/1992 29.13 0.25 0.063 0.217 1/11/1993 29.00
-0.13 0.000 0.000 2/4/1993 29.38 0.38 0.063 0.217 3/211993 29.38 0.00 0.063 0.217 4/2/1993 29.38 0.00 0.063 0.217 4/30/1993 29.31
-0.06 0.224 0.410 6/1/1993 29.00
-0.31 0.167 0.354 7/2/1993 29.63 0.63 0.063 0.217 7126/1993 29.25
-0.38 0.083 0.250 8/24/1993 29.13
-0.13 0.021 0.125 9/21/1993 29.38 0.25 0.063 0.217 UNIT-1 BLOCK RAW LEVEL CHANGE Average 29.23
-0.0059 1-SD Unit 0.31 0.4046 2-SD Unit 0.63 0.8092 3-SDUnit 0.94 1.2138
Cale No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-01)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page A12 of A25 Appendix A -- Uncertainty Analysis of Magnetrol Level Switches Table 4 - Calibration Data And Data Analysis UNIT 1 Calibration Check Analysis Once Per Refueling Data Date Value Average STD A
8 c
D 9/22/2004 29.5 28 30.25 29.5 29.31 0.94 911912005 29.75 29.5 29.5 29.25 29.50 0.20 8/16/2006 28.25 28.25 28.75 29.25 28.63 0.48 9/18/2007 29.5 29.25 29.63 29.75 29.53 0.21 9/22/2008 28.75 29 28.75 27.5 28.50 0.68 912912010 28 29 28 28.5 28.38 0.48 9/12/2011 29.75 28.75 29.25 29 29.19 0.43 11/13/2012 29.5 29 28.75 29.25 29.13 0.32 9/12/2013 29.5 29 29 29.5 29.25 0.29 9/24/2014 29.5 29.5 29 29.5 29.38 0.25 9/1/2015 29 28 29 28 28.50 0.58 Unit-I Once Per Outage Average 29.03 I-SD Unit 0.44 2-SD Unit 0.87 3-SD Unit 1.31
Cale No. CA10206 Revision 0000 (ECP-15-000727-MU-O 1)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Page A 13 of A25 Appendix A -- Uncertainty Analysis of Magnetrol Level Switches Table 4 - Calibration Data And Data Analysis UNIT 2 Calibration Check Analysis Channel A DATE FOUND LEFT Change Negatives Positives Off from set No Change 3113/1991 29.5 29.5 4/18/1991 29.5 29.5 0
FALSE FALSE
-0.5 5/23/1991 29.5 29.5 0
FALSE FALSE
-0.5 6/20/1991 29 29
-0.5
-0.5 FALSE
-I FALSE 7/19/1991 30 30 I
FALSE 0
FALSE 8/20/1991 30 30 0
FALSE FALSE 0
9/17/1991 29.75 29.75
-0.25
-0.25 FALSE
-0.25 FALSE 10/15/1991 29.5 29.5
-0.25
-0.25 FALSE
-0.5 FALSE 11/1411991 27 27
-2.5
-2.5 FALSE
-3 FALSE 1211111991 30 30 3
FALSE 3
0 FALSE 1/8/1992 28.5 28.5
-1.5
-1.5 FALSE
-1.5 FALSE 21511992 29.5 29.5 I
FALSE
-0.5 FALSE 3/5/1992 29 29
-0.5
-0.5 FALSE
-I FALSE 4/6/1992 29.5 29.5 0.5 FALSE 0.5
-0.5 FALSE 4/30/1992 29.75 29.75 0.25 FALSE 0.25
-0.25 FALSE 5/29/1992 29 29
-0.75
-0.75 FALSE
-I FALSE 6/27/1992 29.5 29.5 0.5 FALSE 0.5
-0.5 FALSE 7/28/1992 27.5 27.5
-2
-2 FALSE
-2.5 FALSE 8/24/1992 29.5 29.5 2
FALSE 2
-0.5 FALSE 9/1711992 29.5 29.5 0
FALSE FALSE
-0.5 10/16/1992 28.5 28.5
-I
-1 FALSE
-1.5 FALSE 11/20/1992 28 28
-0.5
-0.5 FALSE
-2 FALSE 12/22/1992 29.5 29.5 1.5 FALSE 1.5
-0.5 FALSE 1115/1993 29.5 29.5 0
FALSE FALSE
-0.5 2/12/1993 29.5 29.5 0
FALSE FALSE
-0.5 5/28/1993 29.5 29.5 0
FALSE FALSE
-0.5 6/22/1993 29.5 29.5 0
FALSE FALSE
-0.5 7/20/1993 30 30 0.5 FALSE 0.5 0
FALSE 8/18/1993 29.5 29.5
-0.5
-0.5 FALSE
-0.5 FALSE 9/16/1993 29.3 29.3
-0.2
-0.2 FALSE
-0.7 FALSE Channel A Offset from No Change As Found Change Neg Change Pos Change 30 Count Average
-0.006896552
-0.870833333 1.138888889
-0. 748275862 8
I-SD Unit 1.090357423 0.74634209 0.893650441
- 0. 722777722 2-SD Unit 2.180714846 1.49268418 I. 787300882 1.445555444 3-SD Unit 3.27107227 2.23902627 2.680951324 2.168333166 29.26 Median 29.5 Span 3
Cale No. CA10206 Revision 0000 (ECP-15-000727-MU-O 1)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Page A14 of A25 Appendix A -- Uncertainty Analysis of Magnetrol Level Switches Table 4 - Calibration Data And Data Analysis UNIT 2 Calibration Check Analysis Channel B DATE FOUND LEFT Change Negatives Positives Off from set No Change 311311991 29.5 29.5 411811991 29.25 29.25
-0.25 FALSE FALSE
-0.75 FALSE 5/2311991 29.75 29.75 0.5 FALSE 0.5
-0.25 FALSE 6/2011991 27 27
-2.75
-2.75 FALSE
-3 FALSE 711911991 30 30 3
FALSE 3
0 FALSE 8/2011991 30 30 0
FALSE FALSE 0
9/1711991 29.5 29.5
-0.5
-0.5 FALSE
-0.5 FALSE 1011511991 29 29
-0.5
-0.5 FALSE
-I FALSE 1111411991 28 28
-I
-I FALSE
-2 FALSE 12111/1991 29 29 I
FALSE
-I FALSE 1/8/1992 29 29 0
FALSE FALSE
-I 2/511992 30 30 FALSE 0
FALSE 3/5/1992 28.5 28.5
-1.5
-1.5 FALSE
-1.5 FALSE 4/6/1992 29 29 0.5 FALSE 0.5
-I FALSE 4/3011992 29.5 29.5 0.5 FALSE 0.5
-0.5 FALSE 5/29/1992 28.5 28.5
-I
-I FALSE
-1.5 FALSE 6/27/1992 29.8 29.8 1.3 FALSE 1.3
-0.2 FALSE 7/28/1992 29 29
-0.8
-0.8 FALSE
-I FALSE 8/24/1992 27.5 27.5
-1.5
-1.5 FALSE
-2.5 FALSE 9/1711992 30.6 30.6 3.1 FALSE 3.1 0.6 FALSE 1011611992 29 29
-1.6
-1.6 FALSE
-I FALSE 11/20/1992 28 28
-I
-I FALSE
-2 FALSE 12/2211992 30 30 2
FALSE 2
0 FALSE 1/1511993 29.5 29.5
-0.5
-0.5 FALSE
-0.5 FALSE 211211993 29.5 29.5 0
FALSE FALSE
-0.5 5/28/1993 29.5 29.5 0
FALSE FALSE
-0.5 6/2211993 29.5 29.5 0
FALSE FALSE
-0.5 7/2011993 29.5 29.5 0
FALSE FALSE
-0.5 8/1811993 29.5 29.5 0
FALSE FALSE
-0.5 9/16/1993 28.5 28.5
-I
-I FALSE
-1.5 FALSE Channel B Offset from No Change As Found Change Neg Change Pos Change 30 Count Average
-0.034482759
-1.1375 1.433333333
-0.848275862 7
I-SD Unit 1.296843933 0.638579745 1.034408043 0.805281978 2-SD Unit 2.593687866 1.27715949 2.068816087 1.610563956 3-SD Unit 3.8905318 1.915739235 3.10322413 2.415845934 29.16333333 Median 29.5 Span 3.6
Cale No. CA10206 Revision 0000 (ECP-15-000727-MU-O 1)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Page Al5 of A25 Appendix A -- Uncertainty Analysis of Magnetrol Level Switches Table 4 - Calibration Data And Data Analysis UNIT 2 Calibration Check Analysis Channel C DATE FOUND LEFT Change Negatives Positives Off from set No Change 3/13/1991 29.5 29.5 4/18/1991 30.25 30.25 0.75 FALSE 0.75 0.25 FALSE 5/23/1991 29.688 29.688
-0.562
-0.562 FALSE
-0.312 FALSE 6/20/1991 29 29
-0.688
-0.688 FALSE
-I FALSE 7/19/1991 30.5 30.5 1.5 FALSE 1.5 0.5 FALSE 8/20/1991 30.5 30.5 0
FALSE FALSE 0.5 911711991 30.25 30.25
-0.25
-0.25 FALSE 0.25 FALSE 10/15/1991 29.5 29.5
-0.75
-0.75 FALSE
-0.5 FALSE 11/14/1991 28 28
-1.5
-1.5 FALSE
-2 FALSE 12/11/1991 28 28 0
FALSE FALSE
-2 1/8/1992 29 29 FALSE I
-I FALSE 2/5/1992 29.5 29.5 0.5 FALSE 0.5
-0.5 FALSE 3/5/1992 29.25 29.25
-0.25
-0.25 FALSE
-0.75 FALSE 4/6/1992 29 29
-0.25
-0.25 FALSE
-I FALSE 4/30/1992 29.5 29.5 0.5 FALSE 0.5
-0.5 FALSE 5/29/1992 29 29
-0.5
-0.5 FALSE
-I FALSE 6/27/1992 29.5 29.5 0.5 FALSE 0.5
-0.5 FALSE 7/28/1992 28.5 28.5
-I
-I FALSE
-1.5 FALSE 8/24/1992 29 29 0.5 FALSE 0.5
-I FALSE 9/17/1992 29.5 29.5 0.5 FALSE 0.5
-0.5 FALSE 1011611992 29.5 29.5 0
FALSE FALSE
-0.5 11/20/1992 29 29
-0.5
-0.5 FALSE
-I FALSE 12/22/1992 29.5 29.5 0.5 FALSE 0.5
-0.5 FALSE 1115/1993 29.5 29.5 0
FALSE FALSE
-0.5 2/12/1993 29.5 29.5 0
FALSE FALSE
-0.5 5/28/1993 29 29
-0.5
-0.5 FALSE
-1 FALSE 6/22/1993 29.5 29.5 0.5 FALSE 0.5
-0.5 FALSE 712011993 29.5 29.5 0
FALSE FALSE
-0.5 8/18/1993 29.5 29.5 0
FALSE FALSE
-0.5 9/16/1993 28.5 28.5
-I
-I FALSE
-1.5 FALSE Channel C Offset from No Change As Found Change Neg Change Pos Change 30 Count Average
-0.034482759
-0.645833333 0.675
-0.674551724 7
I-SD Unit 0.656484284 0.373433658 0.334373377 0.614969894 2-SD Unit 1.312968569 0.746867316 0.668746755 1.229939788 3-SD Unit 1.969452853 1.12030097 4 1.003120132 1.844909682 29.33126667 Median 29.5 Span 2.5
Cale No. CA10206 Revision 0000 (ECP-15-000727-MU-Ol)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Page A16 of A25 Appendix A -- Uncertainty Analysis of Magnetrol Level Switches Table 4 - Calibration Data And Data Analysis UNIT 2 Calibration Check Analysis Channel D DATE FOUND LEFT Change Negatives Positives Off from set No Change 3/13/1991 29.75 29.75 4/18/1991 29.5 29.5
-0.25 FALSE FALSE
-0.5 FALSE 5/23/1991 29.75 29.75 0.25 FALSE 0.25
-0.25 FALSE 6/20/1991 30.5 30.5 0.75 FALSE 0.75 0.5 FALSE 7/19/1991 29.5 29.5
-1
-1 FALSE
-0.5 FALSE 8/20/1991 30.5 30.5 1
FALSE 0.5 FALSE 9/17/1991 30 30
-0.5
-0.5 FALSE 0
FALSE 1011511991 30 30 0
FALSE FALSE 0
11/14/1991 27 27
-3
-3 FALSE
-3 FALSE 12/11/1991 30 30 3
FALSE 3
0 FALSE 118/1992 29 29
-1
-1 FALSE
-I FALSE 2/5/1992 29.5 29.5 0.5 FALSE 0.5
-0.5 FALSE 3/5/1992 29 29
-0.5
-0.5 FALSE
-1 FALSE 4/6/1992 29.5 29.5 0.5 FALSE 0.5
-0.5 FALSE 4/30/1992 29.5 29.5 0
FALSE FALSE
-0.5 5129/1992 28.5 28.5
-I
-1 FALSE
-1.5 FALSE 6127/1992 29.3 29.3 0.8 FALSE 0.8
-0.7 FALSE 7/28/1992 29.25 29.25
-0.05
-0.05 FALSE
-0.75 FALSE 8/24/1992 29 29
-0.25
-0.25 FALSE
-1 FALSE 9/17/1992 29.25 29.25 0.25 FALSE 0.25
-0.75 FALSE 10/16/1992 29.25 29.25 0
FALSE FALSE
-0.75 11/20/1992 30 30 0.75 FALSE 0.75 0
FALSE 12/22/1992 29.5 29.5
-0.5
-0.5 FALSE
-0.5 FALSE 1/15/1993 29.75 29.75 0.25 FALSE 0.25
-0.25 FALSE 2/12/1993 28.88 28.88
-0.87
-0.87 FALSE
-1.12 FALSE 5/28/1993 29 29 0.12 FALSE 0.12
-1 FALSE 6/22/1993 29.5 29.5 0.5 FALSE 0.5
-0.5 FALSE 7/20/1993 29.5 29.5 0
FALSE FALSE
-0.5 8/18/1993 29.5 29.5 0
FALSE FALSE
-0.5 9/16/1993 29.3 29.3
-0.2
-0.2 FALSE
-0.7 FALSE Channel D Offset from No Change As Found Change Neg Change Pos Change 30 Count Average
-0.015517241
-0.806363636 0.7225
-0.595517241 5
I-SD Unit 0.970719859 0.803707319 0.765911519 0.648137916 2-SD Unit 1.941439718 1.607414638 1.531823037 1.296275833 3-SD Unit 2.912159577 2.411121957 2.297734556 1.944413749 29.416 Median 29.5 Span 3.5
Cale No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-01)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page A17 of A25 Appendix A -- Uncertainty Analysis of Magnetrol Level Switches DATE 311311991 4/18/1991 512311991 612011991 7/19/1991 8/20/1991 9/17/1991 10/15/1991 11/14/1991 12/11/1991 i/8/1992 2/5/1992 3/5/1992 4/6/1992 4/30/1992 5/29/1992 6/2711992 7/28/1992 8124/1992 9/17/1992 10/16/1992 11/20/1992 12/22/1992 111511993 2/12/1993 5/28/1993 6/22/1993 7/20/1993 8/1811993 911611993 Table 4-Calibration Data And Data Analysis UNIT 2 Calibration Check Analysis Summary Unit Average Unit Max 29.56 29.75 29.63 30.25 29.67 29.75 28.88 30.5 30.00 30.5 30.25 30.5 29.88 30.25 29.50 30 27.50 28 29.25 30 28.88 29 29.63 30 28.94 29.25 29.25 29.5 29.56 29.75 28.75 29 29.53 29.8 28.56 29.25 28.75 29.5 29.71 30.6 29.06 29.5 28.75 30 29.63 30 29.56 29.75 29.35 29.5 29.25 29.5 29.50 29.5 29.63 30 29.50 29.5 28.90 29.3 Summary Unit Min 29.5 29.25 29.5 27 29.5 30 29.5 29 27 28 28.5 29.5 28.5 29 29.5 28.5 29.3 27.5 27.5 29.25 28.5 28 29.5 29.5 28.88 29 29.5 29.5 29.5 28.5 Average I-SD Unit Spread 0.25 I
0.25 3.5 I
0.5 0.75 I
2 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.5 1.75 2
1.35 2
0.5 0.25 0.62 0.5 0
0.5 0
0.8 0.867333333 0.747787234
Cale No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-O 1)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page A18 of A25 Appendix A -- Uncertainty Analysis of Magnetrol Level Switches Table 4 - Calibration Data And Data Analysis Date 9/12/2011 911/2013 9/12/2015 UNIT 2 Calibration Check Analysis Once Per Refueling Cycle Data Channel trip Lowering A
29.75 B
28.75 c
29.25 D
29.00 A
29.00 B
28.00 c
29.00 D
28.00 A
29.50 B
29.00 c
29.00 D
29.50 Once Per Refueling Cycle Data Average I-SD Unit 28.98 0.538
Cale No. CA10206 Revision 0000 (ECP-15-000727-MU-1)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Page A19 of A25 Appendix A -- Uncertainty Analysis of Magnetrol Level Switches CALIBRATION DATA AND DATA ANALYSIS Unit l and Unit 2 Comparison Analysis Target Value 29.5 Target Value 29.5 Band Half Width 1.00 Band Half Width l SD Unit 0.453481 159 I SD Unit 0.75 UNIT-2 COLLECTED DATA Unit 1 oos Lower oos Lower Band Data Set Band Count Failed Band Data Value Band In Bound 28.50 29.63 29.05 l
FALSE 28.5 29.56 28.75 TRUE 28.50 29.22 29.05 2
FALSE 28.5 29.63 28.75 TRUE 28.50 30.25 29.05 3
FALSE 28.5 29.67 28.75 TRUE 28.50 29.38 29.05 4
FALSE 28.5 28.88 28.75 TRUE 28.50 28.50 29.05 5
FALSE 28.5 30.00 28.75 TRUE 28.50 29.06 29.05 6
FALSE 28.5 30.25 28.75 TRUE 28.50 29.56 29.05 7
FALSE 28.5 29.88 28.75 TRUE 28.50 29.38 29.05 8
FALSE 28.5 29.50 28.75 TRUE 28.50 29.38 29.05 9
FALSE 28.5 27.50 28.75 FALSE 28.50 28.88 29.05 10 FALSE 28.5 29.25 28.75 TRUE 28.50 29.00 29.05 11 FALSE 28.5 28.88 28.75 TRUE 28.50 29.50 29.05 12 FALSE 28.5 29.63 28.75 TRUE 28.50 29.31 29.05 13 FALSE 28.5 28.94 28.75 TRUE 28.50 28.69 29.05 14 FALSE 28.5 29.25 28.75 TRUE 28.50 28.88 29.05 15 FALSE 28.5 29.56 28.75 TRUE 28.50 29.13 29.05 16 FALSE 28.5 28.75 28.75 TRUE 28.50 29.19 29.05 17 FALSE 28.5 29.53 28.75 TRUE 28.50 29.13 29.05 18 FALSE 28.5 28.56 28.75 TRUE 28.50 29.25 29.05 19 FALSE 28.5 28.75 28.75 TRUE 28.50 29.25 29.05 20 FALSE 28.5 29.71 28.75 TRUE 28.50 29.25 29.05 21 FALSE 28.5 29.06 28.75 TRUE 28.50 28.88 29.05 22 FALSE 28.5 28.75 28.75 TRUE 28.50 29.13 29.05 23 FALSE 28.5 29.63 28.75 TRUE
Cale No. CA10206 Revision 0000 (ECP-15-000727-MU-1)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Page A20 of A25 Appendix A -- Uncertainty Analysis of Magnetrol Level Switches CALIBRATION DATA AND DATA ANALYSIS 28.50 29.00 29.05 24 FALSE 28.5 29.56 28.75 TRUE 28.50 29.38 29.05 25 FALSE 28.5 29.35 28.75 TRUE 28.50 29.38 29.05 26 FALSE 28.5 29.25 28.75 TRUE 28.50 29.38 29.05 27 FALSE 28.5 29.50 28.75 TRUE 28.50 29.31 29.05 28 FALSE 28.5 29.63 28.75 TRUE 28.50 29.00 29.05 29 FALSE 28.5 29.50 28.75 TRUE 28.50 29.63 29.05 30 FALSE 28.5 28.90 28.75 TRUE 28.50 29.25 29.05 31 FALSE 28.50 29.13 29.05 32 FALSE 28.50 29.38 29.05 33 FALSE
Cale No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-01)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page A21 of A25 Appendix A -- Uncertainty Analysis ofMagnetrol Level Switches REFERENCES Reference 8.2
Cale No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-01)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page A22 of A25 Appendix A -- Uncertainty Analysis of Magnetrol Level Switches REFERENCES Reference 8.3 1". SW.'
- .::.=.~. "-11' ~*1:
9"
~...
hr:dahe4" w1th All *l.af;~,
in """'""'* t.:1qul.d or v&por I====~ *-1
-i.
or r--316 s.s *.
I.
2.so.*1'. *!"'A>ti.Dr.Jll.
t~per
.:a=~ 'tC o!
haclil~ Liqu!d.
6._750-M* '3~ '3_-17-2:
,.....:B;;;.*;,.:t':i.'-"l'-=t:..I ---1,.,'0l c-C.i: C,_;i-;iM:.T.0-. IJllLl!:SS C'C"Tlro:~*>---------.
i'~.::bfet CofpOr!'-e:i.on A;cut1 ~o:c ;.a.lci...~:c C~s &. ~1.c.::tr1.:
Ste D::i"'1.:.-;
42-~to !ot \\::, '
OJ$'"O\\l::o !:t~ L) _
_..67~50"-'*ll.;..-.;;.3;;.;6)'-----0L't Oll:il'I: ll:l.*~.J.03207
- o_3_-X2.;_-..;~..:...-E;;;Pc;./.;;Vn::;:...*l:;;tl:..4;:;~CY:.:......:..."'.,..t>CL or.-.,u....2:!!..
- Dt~t Dry Con ta* I: llLCZ?o lwl.e<I:
,,~l l :"IG> 1<4\\1::.n _________
D-106<:-_-..2 JAN. 19i>:'
'kl.iStD
~:~O" ~t *.,,.,M,. rh:u. -
n~~C"-!~Jltlt~O l ~~:-
_,_. _,.,~*-,-r. -
J.,;/?,.,,..r:"="'r7:-.J *
,., * ** * ; *1.* *.** ** v.. **
n~c.
12)(
DDCU~IEllT ND. 121S3*l6
Cale No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-01)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page A23 of A25 Appendix A -- Uncertainty Analysis of Magnetrol Level Switches REFERENCES Reference SA Channel A
- Low RWT Level File:RAS2D UNIT 1 Test Date As Found
~... ft Ad}ust*2 Nominal Trio Point Trio Point ReJlface* 1 Setpofn1 09/08/90 30.000 30.000 30.000 10108190 29.000
- 29.000 30.000 12110/90 30.500 30.500 1
30.000 01/10/91 29.500 29.600 30.000 02/08/91 29.000 29.000 30.000 03/16/91 27.760 27.750 30.000 04/12/91 29.500 29.600 30.000 06/16/91 29.600 29.600 30.000 06/25/91 29.500 29.600 1
30.000 07/22191 29.000 29.000 30.000 08/19/91 28.260 28.250 30.000 09/16/91 29.600 29.600 30.000 10/14191 29.500 29.500 30.000 11/07/91 27.600 27.600 30.000 12/05191 29.000 29.000 30.000 01/03/92 29.600 29.600 30.000 02f03/92 29.600 29.600 30.000 07124192 29.600 29.600 1
30.000 08(21/92 29.000 29.000 30.000 09/21.'92 29.000 29.000 30.000 10/19192 30.000 30.000 30.000 11112/92 29.000 29.000 30.000 12/11/92 29.000 29.000 30.000 01111/93 29.000
~.000 30.000 02/04/93 29.600 29.500 30.000 03/02193 29.000 29.000 30.000 04/02193 29.EiOO 29.500 30.000 04/30193 30.000 30.000 30.000 06/01/93 28.600 28.500 30.000 07/0'193 29.600 29.600 30.000 07/26/93 29.000 29.000 30.000 08/24193 29.2150 29.250 30.QOO 09121(93 29.1500 29.500 30.000 Ptae 14' of 185
Cale No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-01)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page A24 of A25 Appendix A -- Uncertainty Analysis of Magnetrol Level Switches REFERENCES Unit-1 Once per Cycle Calibration Check WO Date Bistable Level Lowering Level Rising 20041019-00001 9122104 1-LS-4142A Trip 29.5" 30-7/8" IR4-015-389 1-LS-4142B Trip 28.0" 30-3/8" 1-LS-4142C Trip 30.25" 30.5" 1-LS-4142D Trip 29.5" 31-1/8" 20041019-00001 8/16/06 1-LS-4142A Trip 28.25" 31" IR4-015-389 1-LS-4142B Trip 28.25" 30.25" 1-LS-4142C Trip 28.75" 30.5" 1-LS-4142D Trip 29.25" 30.625" 20081114-00001 9/22/08 1-LS-4142A Trip 28.75" 30.75" 1-LS-4142B Trip 29.0" 30.0" 1-LS-4142C Trip 28.75" 30.0" 1-LS-4142D Trip 27.5" 30.0" C90816181 9/29/10 1-LS-4142A Trip 28.0" 30.5" 1-LS-4142B Trip 29.0" 30.5" 1-LS-4142C Trip 28.0" 30.5" 1-LS-4142D Trip 28.5" 31.0" C91609982 11113/12 1-LS-4142A Trip 29.5" 31.0" 1-LS-4142B Trip 29.0" 31.25" 1-LS-4142C Trip 28.75" 30.5" 1-LS-4142D Trip 29.25" 32.0" C92422807 9/24/14 1-LS-4142A Trip 29.5" 31.0" 1-LS-4142B Trip 29.5" 31.0" 1-LS-4142C Trip 29.0" 30.25" 1-LS-4142D Trip 29.5" 31.25"
Cale No. CA10206 (ECP-15-000727-MU-Ol)
RWT Level RAS Setpoint Revision 0000 Page A25 of A25 Appendix A -- Uncertainty Analysis of Magnetrol Level Switches REFERENCES RWT low level Bistable Set Point Calibration Check The following dulo C; ol>luincd frcm sn> M 520G-2.
1wu
- L>ate Bil>l.,l>h:
L"vel L<iweri!:!!!
Le""' Rl~inP.
c<n1'l.:\\M'!_
- 'l/1)/11 l-LS-4142A lrlp 29.75-31.25" JI-I 5-4 t.42.ll I rip 2!1.75-31-00" 2-LS-41£2C Trip 2!:1.:zs-31~00" 2-1 S-41.a.:lll Trip 79.otr Jl.00" -
C9201:i.820 9/12/l3 2-LS-41.!!2/\\ Trip 2~.5" 31.5~
2-LS-4'1.1:2B Trip
]Q.0" 31.1,-
2-LS-11-'2C Trip 29.0" 31-0~
2 LS 41-<20_ Trip 29.5" 30_{)-
c.'926237'1 9,11/13 2 LS 41L2A I rip 29.0" 32.0"'
2-LS-4~42.U I rip 28.0" 31_0-2-LS-41L2C I r1p 29.0" 32.0-2-LS-41£21) Trip 28.0" 31_0-