ML17331B093
| ML17331B093 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 12/03/1993 |
| From: | Fitzpatrick E INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG |
| To: | Murley T NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17331B094 | List: |
| References | |
| AEP:NRC:1181C, NUDOCS 9312100055 | |
| Download: ML17331B093 (44) | |
Text
,ACCELERATED ISTRIBUTION DEMO TRATION SYSTEM
<s.
REGULATORY INFORMATION DXSTRXBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)
ACCESSION NBR:9312100055 , DOC.DATE: 93/12/03 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET FACXL:50-316 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2, Indiana M 05000316 AUTH. NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION FXTZPATRXCK,E. Xndiana Michigan Power Co. (formerly Indiana 6 Michigan Ele RECXP.NAME RECIPXENT AFFILIATION MURLEY,T.E. Document Control Branch (Document Control Desk)
SUBZECT: Provides supplemental info re instrument drift in response to NRC request on 930416 TS interval extensions for Cycle 9 to avoid unnecessary shutdown.
DISTRIBUTION CODE: AOOID COPIES RECEIVED:LTR ( ENCL ( SIZE: +
TITLE: OR Submittal: General Distribution=-
NOTES' RECIPIENT COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL PD3-1 LA 1 1 PD3-1 PD 1 1 D WETZEL,B 2 2 INTERNAL: NRR/DE/EELB 1 1 NRR/DORS/OTS B 1 1 D NRR/DRCH/HICB 1 1 NRR/DRPW 1 1 NRR/DSSA/SPLB 1 1 NRR/DSSA/SRXB 1 1 NUDOCS-ABSTRACT 1 1 CB 1 0 OGC/HDS2 1 0 E 01 1 1 EXTERNAL: NRC PDR 1 1 NSXC 1 1 R
D D
~:,r D
NOTE TO ALL "RIDS" RECIPIENTS:
PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTE! CONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK, ROOM P 1-37 (EXT. 20079) TO ELIMINATEYOUR NAME FROM DISTRIBUTION LISIS FOR DOCUMENTS YOU DON'T NEED!
TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR 16 ENCL 14
I t
1 ~
ea "4
Indiana Michip~
Power Comp~
P.O. Box 1663>
Coiumbus, OH 43216 AEP:NRC:1181C Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Docket No. 50-316 License No. DPR-74 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION CONCERNING SURVEILLANCE INTERVAL EXTENSION FOR UNIT 2 CYCLE 9 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555 Attn: T. E. Murley December 3, 1993
Dear Dr. Murley:
In our April 16, 1993, AEP:NRC:1181 letter we requested certain technical specification interval extensions for the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Cycle 9 to avoid an unnecessary shutdown. The purpose of .this letter .is to provide supplemental information regarding instrument drift, as requested by your staff. The-instrument drift data is contained in Attachment 1. We are also providing an update of the technical specifications that require an extension. This information is contained in Attachments 2 through 4.
We believe that the proposed changes will not result in 1) a significant change in the types of effluents or a significant increase in the amount of any effluents that may be released offsite, or 2) a significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
These proposed changes have been reviewed and approved by the Plant Nuclear Safety Review Committee and will be reviewed by the Nuclear Safety Design Review Committee at the next scheduled meeting.
In compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.91(b)(1), copies of this letter and its attachments have been transmitted to Mr. J. R. Padgett of the Michigan Public Service Commission and to the Michigan Department of Public Health.
9312100055 931203 PDR ADOCK05000316 P PDR
I I l v'1
Dr. T. E. Murley AEP:NRCt1181C This letter is submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.30(b), and, as such, an oath statement is attached.
Sincerely, p~)
Vice President Attachments cc: A. A. Blind G. Charnoff J. B. Martin - Region III NFEM Section Chief NRC Resident Inspector J. R. Padgett
Dr. T. E. Murley 3 AEP:NRCfl181C bc: S. J. Brewer D. H. Malin/K. J. Toth/M. I. Terry M. L. Horvath Brldgman w/o attachments J. B. Shinnock w/o attachments W. G. Smith, Jr./S. H. Steinhart/R. C. Carruth J. B. Hickman, NRC Washington, D.C.
B. A. Wetzel, NRC - Washington, D.C.
AEP: NRC: 1181C DC-N-6015.1 w/o attachments
STATE OF OHIO)
COUNTY OF FRANKLIN)
E. E. Fitzpatrick, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the Vice President of licensee Indiana Michigan Power Company, that he has read the forgoing REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING SURVEILLANCE INTERVAL EXTENSION FOR UNIT 2 CYCLE 9 and knows the contents thereof; and that said contents are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~~
day of 19 ~9 NOTARY PUBLIC RlTA D HILL OHIO NOTARY PUBLIC. STATE OF
f L il
~-'~e'
>p
Attachment 1 to AEP:NRC:1181C Supplemental Information on Instrument Drift for Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2 to AEP:NRC:1181C Page 1 The data in Tables 1 (Pressurizer Water. Level Drift), 2 (Pressurizer Pressure Drift) and 3 (RTD Drift) clearly indicate that instrument drift will be within acceptable limits while operating in the requested surveillance extension period.
PRESSURIZER WATER LEVEL CHANNEL CALIBRATION For the Pressurizer Water Level channel calibration, we are only seeking a surveillance extension for one of the three channels, NLP-153, as described in AEP:NRC:1181 (April 16, 1993). NLP-151 and NLP-152 can be calibrated at power without placing the unit in jeopardy. However, we have provided data for .all three sets of instruments since the "as found" data for NLP-153 for the last surveillance was unusable for this analysis. Discussion concerning this data appears at the end of this attachment.
Table 1 provides information on the maximum allowed percent span error (+5.27%,
-3.27%), trip setpoint (92% of span), drift extrapolation methodology, and margin to trip setpoint calculation methodology. Table lA contains the measured "as found" and "as left" data for the past three surveillances. Table 1B lists the results of the drift extrapolation calculations and comparisons to the protective trip setpoints.
As can be seen by examining the extrapolated percent span error results in Table 1B and comparing them to the maximum allowed percent span error at the pressurizer water level high reactor trip setpoint, excess margin exists. The smallest amount of margin (extrapolated to August 13, 1994) at the trip setpoint is +0.06% on NLP-153 based on the August 24'990@ calibration data. All other extrapolations yielded excess margin of at least 1.35% to the trip setpoint.
Based on the results of this analysis, we believe that the drift associated with NLP-153 will be within the required margin to the trip setpoint and will not adversely impact the safe operation of the plant.
PRESSURIZER PRESSURE CHANNEL CALIBRATION For the Pressurizer Pressure channel calibration, we are only seeking a surveillance extension for two of the four channels, NPP-153 and NPS-153, as described in AEP:NRC:1181. NPP-151 and NPP-152 can be calibrated at power without placing the unit in )eopardy.
Table 2 provides information on the maximum allowed percent span error.(f3.25%),
trip setpoint (low setpoint = 1950 psi or 31.25'4 of span; high setpoint = 2385 psi or 85.625% of span), drift extrapolation methodology, and margin to trip setpoint calculation methodology. Table 2A contains the measured "as found" and "as left" data for the past three surveillances. Table 2B lists the results of the drift extrapolation calculations and comparisons to the protective trip setpoints.
As can be seen by examining the extrapolated percent span error results in Table 2B and comparing them to the maximum allowed percent span error at the pressurizer pressure low and high reactor trip setpoint, excess margin exists.
to AEP:NRC:1181C Page 2 The smallest amount of margin (extrapolated to August 13, 1994) at the low trip setpoint is +0.71% on NPS-153 based on the July 25, 1988, calibration data. The smallest .amount. of margin (extrapolated to August 13, 1994) at the high trip setpoint is +0.50%, also on NPS-153 based on the July 25, 1988, calibration data.
All other extrapolations yielded excess margin of at least 1.61% to the trip setpoints. Based on the results of this analysis, we believe that the drift associated with NPP-153 and NPS-153 will be within our maximum allowed percent span error, be within the required margin to the trip setpoints, and will not adversely impact the safe operation of the plant.
RTD CHANNEL CALIBRATION As described in AEP:NRC:1181, we are seeking relief from all T/S surveillances which are dependent on the RTD channel calibration.
Table 3 provides information on the'maximum allowed temperature deviation (Narrow Range [NR]: 21.2'F and Wide Range [WR): f8.4'F) and on the drift extrapolation methodology. Tables 3A and 3B contain the measured data for the past three surveillance intervals on the Narrow Range RTDs and Wide Range RTDs, respectively. Tables 3C and 3D list the results of the drift extrapolation calculations for Narrow Range RTDs and Wide Range RTDs, respectively.
The data presented in the March 5, 1989, column in Tables 3C and 3D show that all temperature deviations for the NR and WR RTDs are within the maximum allowed deviation. This is significant since the time period between surveillances was approximately 33 months, or seven months greater than the current extension that we are requesting. In the other two surveillance intervals, there are a few extrapolated drift data points with values outside our maximum allowed deviation.
We believe these data points to be insignificant because the RTDs are inherently stable and our application of linear extrapolation to estimate drift is conservative, as follows. As mentioned before, the drift measured over the 33 month interval had no temperature deviations exceeding our maximum allowed deviations. Since that interval was greater than the interval we are requesting (26 months), we did not have to extrapolate any data to estimate the drift.
Also, comparison of the measured data from June 1986 to June 1992 shows that over the six year interval the maximum "drift" for the NR RTDs was 1.08'F (RTD 2-TE-421B at 250'F) and for the WR RTDs was 5.60'F (RTD 2-TE-413B at 527'F), which is well within the maximum allowed deviation. This is an acceptable comparison since the data that is being compared is directly off the RTDs and cannot be adjusted from one cycle to the next. Thus, based on the 33 month interval and a six year interval we show that the RTDs are stable and linear extrapolation of the data is conservative.
Another factor which we believe contributed to the few extrapolated drift data points exceeding the maximum allowed deviations was differences in the individual loop temperatures. This is very apparent upon examination of the WR RTDs at 350'F and 250'F during October 1990, where the individual loops have deviations of similar magnitudes but in opposite directions. All of the extrapolated drift data points which were outside the maximum allowed deviation were affected by the October.1990 data. Note that the measured deviations were all within the maximum allowed deviation for that surveillance.
Il I L
1
(p
~ l (I
'I Attachment 1 to AEP:NRC:1181C Page 3 Finally, the stability of the RTDs is evident in that over the three surveillance intervals, all of the RTDs at 527'F (closest to operating temperature) had an extrapolated drift less than the maximum allowed deviation. Based on the results of this analysis, we believe that the drift associated with the Narrow Range and Wide Range RTDs will remain within our maximum allowed deviation and will not adversely impact the safe operation of the plant.
RVLIS Calibration We cannot provide any drift data on RVLZS since the transmitters were replaced during the most recent, refueling outage as part of its 10 year recommended replacement frequency. Even without the drift data, we believe that we would be aware of excessive drift through the T/S required monthly channel checks performed on the two independent trains of indication.
to AEP:NFIC:1181 C Page 4 Table 1 PRESSURIZER WATER LEVEL DRIFT Seeking an Extension only for NLP-153 (Set III)
MaximumAllowed%S anErrorandTechnicalS ecificaton Tri Set oint Based on WCAP 13801, Table 3-8 Maximum Allowed % Span Error =+5.27%, - 3.27%
Technical Specification Trip Setpoint = 92% of Instrument Span Surveillance Interval Extrapolation Factor (SIEF)
Calibration Date Extension SIEF Instr 8 (N-4) (N-3) (N-2) (N-1) Date (N) (N-3) (N-2) (N-1)
NLP-151 07/01/86 09/03/88 08/24/90 04/21/92 08/13/94 1.0616 1.1722 1.3927 NLP-152 07/01/86 09/03/88 08/24/90 04/21/92 08/13/94 1.0616 1.1722 1.3927 NLP-1 53 07/01/86 09/01/88 08/22/90 04/20/92 08/13/94 1.0656 1.1736 1.3921 Exam Ie: SIEF calculation for NLP-153 in A ril 92 SIEF(N-1) = [N - (N-1)] / [(N-1) - (N-2)]
= [ 08/13/94 - 04/20/92 ] / [ 04/20/92 - 8/22/90 ]
= 1.3921 Calculation of Extra olated% S an Error E = (Sensor Drift) x (SIEF) + Rack Error a 0.51 5 where: Sensor Drift = (As Found - As LeA) / (Span)
Span = 0.4 VDC Rack Error = Measured Rack Error a 0.515 = a [ 0.5 (Max Allowed Sensor M8TE) + 0.015 (Actual Rack M&TE)]
a 0.515 MBTE error is added in "like-sign" direction for each extrapolation Measured Rack Errors Instr. 0 09/88 08/90 04/92 Note: At power monthly channel functional testing NLP-151 -0.125 -0.100 -0.050 performed on Racks as assumed by WCAP 13801.
NLP-152 -0.050 -0.050 0.000 The above data is treated in accordance with the WCAP in a conservative fashion.
Calculation of Mar in to TS Tri Set oint M:
E(92) = [E(1 00) - E(75)] x [92 - 75] / [1 00 - 75] + E(75)
Excess Margin to -3.27%: M = E(92) - (4.27%)
Excess Marglnto+5.27%: M = 5.27%-E(92) where: E(P) = % Span Error at% Span (P)
1 I
E I Attachment 1 to AEP:NRC:1181 C Page 5 Table 1A Pressurizer Water Level Measured Data NLP-1 51 Nominal 09/03/88 08/24/90 04/21/92 Scale input H2 VDG As Found As Left As Found As Left As Found As Left p 235 0.1000 0.1131 0.1010 0.0980 0.1012 0.0953 0.1012 25% 312 0.2203 0.2322 0.2200 0.2158 0.2191 0.2153 0.2199 5p 389 0.3406 0.3519 0.3395 0.3350 0.3392 0.3356 0.3399 75% 468 0.4640 0.4760 0.4636 0.4588 0.4635 0.4594 0.4639 100% 491 0.5000 0.5123 0.4999 0.4956 0.4997 0.4954 0.5002 100% 491 0.5000 0.5125 0.5000 0.4950 0.4997 0.4950 0.4998 75% 468 0.4640 0.4759 0.4636 0.4588 0.4636 0.4582 0.4631 50% 389 0.3406 0.3519 0.3399 0.3350 0.3395 0.3345 0.3392 25% 312 0.2203 0.2321 0.2201 0.2158 0.2190 0.2144 0.2194 p 235 0.1000 0.1131 0.1009 0.0980 0.1012 0.0954 0.1006 NLP-152 Nominal 09/03/88 08/24/90 04/21/92 Scale Input H2 VDC As Found As Left* As Found As Left As Found As Left p 244 0.1000 0.1091 0.1010 0.1044 0.1001 0.3012 0.1000 25% 308 0.2000 0.2076 0.2202 0.2222 0.2195 0.4188 0.2193 5p 372 0.3000 0.3060 0.3403 0.3413 0.3396 0.5381 0.3401 75% 436 0.4000 0.4058 0.4647 0.4637 0.4637 0.6626 0.4648 100% 500 0.5000 0.5060 0.5010 0.5007 0.4994 0.6988 0.5018 100% 500 0.5000 0.5060 0.5013 0.5007 0.4997 0.6988 0.5018 75% 436 0.4000 0.4059 0.4646 0.4638 0.4638 0.6624 0.4651 50% 372 0.3000 0.3063 0.3400 0.3413 0.3396 0.5382 0.3401 25% 308 0.2000 0.2077 0.2202 0.2222 0.2194 0.4188 0.2193 p 244 0.1000 0.1090 0.1012 0.1044 0.1001 0.3011 0.1000 NLP-1 53 Nominal 09/01/88 08/22/90 04/20/92 Scale Input H2 VDC As Found As Left As Found As Left As Found As Left p 235 0.1000 0.1069 0.1003 0.0858 0.1002 0.0341 0.1002 25% 312 0.2203 0.2210 0.2198 0.2068 0.2190 0.1371 0.2201 50% 389 0.3406 0.3409 0.3403 0.3290 0.3391 0.2559 0.3402 75% 468 0.4640 0.4664 0.4648 0.4558 0.4630 0.3793 0.4649 100% 491 0.5000 0.5033 0.5006 0.4927 0.5003 0.4153 0.5013 100% 491 0.5000 0.5034 0.5010 0.4927 0.5008 0.4154 0.5008 468 0.4640 0.4677 0.4649 0.4558 0.4640 0.3790 0.4642 5p 389 0.3406 0.3540 0.3405 0.3290 0.3342 0.2550 0.3401 25% -
312 0.2203 0.2313 0.2198 0.2068 0.2190 0.1358 0.2190 0% 235 0.1000 0.1059 0.1004 0.0858 0.1002 0.0341 0.1009
- See following page for comments-
's I
~ ~
Attachment 1 to AEP:NRC:1181 C Page 6 Table 1A (continued)
Pressurizer Water Level Measured Data NLP-152 Calibration Data Change 09/03/88 09/03/88 Original Calibration Data Calibration Data Change Scale Input H2 VDC As Found As Left Scale Input H2 VDC As Left 0% 244 0.1000 0.1091 0.1010 0% 244 0.1000 0.1010 25% 308 0.2000 0.2076 0.2000 30% 321 0.2203 0.2202 5p 372 0.3000 0.3060 0.2994 GQ% 398 0 3406 0.3403 75% - 436 0.4000 0.4058 0.4001 91% 477 0.4640 0.4647 1PQ% 500 0.5000 0.5060 0.5010 100% 500 0.5000 0.5010 100% 500 0.5000 0.5060 0.5013 100% 500 0.5000 0.5013 75% 436 0.4000 0.4059 0.4002 91% 477 0.4640 0.4646 50% 372 0.3000 0.3063 0.2996 60% 398 0.3406 0.3400 25% 308 0.2000 0.2077 0.2001 30% 321 0.2203 0.2202 0% 244 0.1000 0.1090 0.1012 0% 244 0.1000 0.1012 After the Sep 88 calibration, the nominal VDC calibration point for NLP-152 was changed to match that of NLP-1 51 and NLP-1 53 for human factors reasons. Thus, the "as left" data from the Sep 88 calibration, which was measured at the original input water levels, needed to be adjusted to the new input water levels to make it comparable to the Aug 90 calibration data. This was accomplished by linearly interpolating on the "as left" data from Sep 88 for the new calibration input water levels. This provided "as left" data from Sep 88 which could be compared to the "as found" data from Aug 90.
I il I
~ I Attachment 1 to AEP:NRC:1181C Page 7 Table 1B Pressurizer Water Level Extrapolated % Span Error NLP-1 51 Sensor Drift Extra olated% S an Error Scale 09/03/88 08/24/90 04/21/92 09/03/88 08/24/90 04/21/92 0% 3.28% -0.75% -1.48% 3.87% -1.49% 2 62'g 25o/o 2 98 -1 05% -0 95% 3 55% -1.85%
50% 2.82% -1.13% -0 90% 3 39% 1 93% -1.82%
75% 3.00% -1.20% -1.03% 3 57% -2.02% 1 99%
100% 3.07% -1.08% -1.07% 3 65% 1 88% 2.06 100% 3.12% -1.25% -1.18% 3.71% -2.08% 22P 75% 2.97% -1.2Pyo -1.35% 3.55% -2.02% 2.45%
50% 2.82% -1.22% -1.25% 3.39% <<2.05% 2.31%
25% 2.95% 1.08% -1.15% 3.52% -1.88% 2.17%
0% 3.28% -0.73% -1.45% 387% 1 46 2.58
%S anError 92%Tri Set oint 3 63% -1 92% -2.04%
Mar Into -3.27%192%Tri Set oint 6.90% 1.35% 1.23%
Mar into +5.27% 92%Tri Set oint 1.64% 7.1 9% 7 31%
NLP-152 Sensor Drift Extra olated% S an Error Scale 09/03/88 08/24/90 04/21/92 09/03/88 08/24/90 04/21/92 0% 2 28% 0 85% 50 28% 2 88 1.46%
25% 1.90% 0.50% 49.83% 2.48% 1 05%
5p 1.50% 0.25% 49.63% 2.06% 0.76%
75% 1.45% -0.26% 49.73% 2.00% 0.87%
1pp% 1 50% -0 07% 49.85% 2.06% -0 65%
100% 1 50% -0 15% 49 78% 2 06 P 74 1.47% -0.21% 49.65% 2.03% -P.81 5p 1.58% 0.32% 49 65% 2.14% 0.84%
25% 1.93% 0.50% 49.85% 2.51% 1 05%
p
% S an Error II 2.25%
Mar into - 3.27%
0.80%
92% Tri Set oint 50.25%
92% Tri Set oint 2.85%
2.04%
5.31%
1.40%
-0.72%
2.55%
Mar in to +5.27% 92% Tri Set oint 3.23% 5gg xxx = Results not considered for analysis. Discussion at end of attachment.
to AEP:NRC:1181 C Page 8 Table 1B (continued)
Pressurizer Water Level Extrapolated % Span Error NLP-153 Sensor Drift Extra olated% S an Error Scale 09/01/88 08/22/90 04/20/92 09/01/88 08/22/90 04/20/92 p 1 73% -3 63% -16 53 2.10% -5.04%
25% P.1 8% -3.25% -2Q.48% -0.58% -4.60%
50% P P7% -2.82% -2P.8P% -P 69% -4.11%
75% 0.60% -2.25% -20.93% 0.90% '3.43%
100% 0.82% -1 98% 21 25 1.14% -3.11%
100% P.85% -2.P7% -21.35% 1.17% 3 23%
75% 0.92% -2.28% -21.25% 1.25% 3.46%
50% 3 35% 2 88% -19 8Q% 3.83% -4.16%
25% 2.75% -3.25% -2P.8P% 3.20% -4 60%
p 1 48% "3 65% 16 53% 1.84% 5.07% 'XX
% S an Error 92% Tri Set oint 1.07% -3.21%
Mar into -3.27%@92%Tri Set oint 4.34% p p6%
Mar into +5.27% 92%Tri Set oint 4.20% 8.48%
xxx = Results not considered for analysis. Discussion at end of attachment.
1 , ~
p I
~ I Attachment 1 to AEP:NRC:1181C Page 9 Table 2 PRESSURIZER PRESSURE DRIFT Seeking an Extension only for NPP-153 (Set III) and NPS-153 (Set IV)
Maximum Allowed % S an Error and Technical S ecification Tri Set pints Based on WCAP 13801, Table 3-7 Maximum Allowed % Span Error = a3.25%
Technical Specification Trip Setpoint (High) = 2385 psi = 85.625% of Instrument Span Technical Specification Trip Setpoints (Low) = 1950 psi = 31.25% of Instrument Span Surveillance Interval Extrapolation Factor (SIEF)
Calibration Date Extension SIEF Instr ¹ (N-4) (N-3) (N-2) (N-1) Date (N) (N-3) (N-2) (N-1)
NPP-153 07/01/86 07/26/88 08/23/90 04/22/92 08/13/94 1.1151 1.1121 1.3865 NPS-153 07/01/86 07/25/88 08/23/90 04/23/92 08/13/94 1.1152 1.1094 1.3826 Exam le: SIEF calculation for NPP-153 in A ril 92 SIEF(N-1) = [N - (N-1)] / [(N-1) - (N-2)]
= [ 08/1 3/94 - 04/22/92 ] / [ 04/22/92 - 08/23/90 ]
= 1.3865 Calculation of Extra plated% S an Error E:
E = (Sensor Drift) x (SIEF) + Rack Error a 0.25%
where: Sensor Drift = (As Found - As Left) /(Span)
Span = 0.4 VDC Rack Error = Measured Rack Error t 0.25 = (Max Allowed Sensor & Rack M8TE By Procedure) t 0.25 MBTE error is added in conservative direction for each extrapolation Measured Rack Errors Note: At power monthly channel functional testing Instr 4 07/88 08/90 04/92 performed on Racks as assumed by WCAP 13801.
NPP-153 -0.475 -0.250 -0.250 The above data is treated in accordance with the NPS-153 0.075 0.200 0.150 WCAP in a conservative fashion.
Calculation of Mar in to TS Tri Set oint M:
E(85.625) = [E(100) - E(75)] x [85.625- 75] / [100- 75]+ E(75)
E(31.25) = [E(25) - E(50)] x [25 - 31.25] / [25 - 50] + E(50)
Margin to - 3.25%: M = E(P) - (-3.25%)
Margin to +3.25%: M = 3.25% - E(P) where: E(P) = % Span Error at % Span (P)
t '
I eI I I
Attachment 1 to AEP:NRC:1181C Page 10 Table 2A Pressurizer Pressure Measured Data NPP-153 Nominal 07/26/88 08/23/90 04/22/92 Scale Input PSI VDC As Found As Left As Found As Left As Found p 1726 0.1 0.1053 0.0988 0.1012 0.0990 0.0999 25% 1926 0.2 0.2054 0.1988 0.2022 0.1995 0.2040 5p 2126 0.3 0.3056 0.2992 0.3028 0.3003 0.3039 75% 2326 0.4 0.4068 0.4000 0.4034 0.4009 0.4026 100% 2526 0.5 0.5065 0.5000 0.5038 0.5003 0.5018 100% 2526 0.5 0.5065 0.5003 0.5043 0.5015 0.5018 75% 2326 0.4 0.4068 0.4003 0.4034 0.4004 0.4022 50% 2126 0.3 0.3056 0.2994 0.3031 0.2996 0.3026 25% 1926 0.2 0.2054 0.1987 0.2020 0.1990 0.2023 p 1726 0.1 0.1053 0.0984 0.1016 0.0989 0.1014 NPS-153 Nominal 07/25/88 08/23/90 04/23/92 Scale Input PSI VDC As Found As Left As Found As Left As Found 0% 1726 0.1 0.1066 0.1005 0.1000 0.0998 0.0973 25% 1926 0.2 0.2068 0.2066 0.2004 0.2005 0.1980 50% 2126 0.3 0.3071 0.3005 0.3008 0.3011 0.2983 75% 2326 0.4 0.4086 0.4012 0.4018 0.4010 0.3994 100% 2526 0.5 0.5088 0.5010 0.5023 0.5010 0.4996 100% 2526 0.5 0.5092 0.5010 0.5025 0.5018 0.4996 75% 2326 0.4 0.4096 0.4010 0.4020 0.4010 0.3997 50% 2126 0.3 0.3084 0.3000 0.3010 0.2999 0.2990 25% 1926 0.2 0.2078 0.2003 0.2008 0.1999 0.1985 0% 1726 0.1 0.1081 0.0998 0.1009 0.1000 0.0983
C
~ ~ I Attachment 1 to AEP:NRC:1181C Page 11 Table 2B Pressurizer Pressure Extrapolated % Span Error NPP-153 Sensor Drift Extrapolated % Span Error Scale 07/26/88 08/23/90 04/22/92 07/26/88 08/23/90 04/22/92 0% 1.33% 0 60% 0 23% 1.25% 0.67% 0.31%
25% 1.35% 0 85% 1 12% 1.28% 0.95% 1.56%
50% 1 40% 0.90% 0 90% 1.34% 1.00% 1.25%
75% 1.70% 0.85% 0.43% 1 67% 0 95% 0 59%
100% 1.62% 0.95% 0.38% 1.59% 1.06% 0.52%
100% 1.62% 1.00% 0.08% 1 59% 1.11% -0.40%
75% 1 70% 0.77% 0.45% 1.67% 0.86% 0.62%
5p 1 40% 0.92% 0.75% 1.34% 1.03% 1.04%
25% 1.35% 0.83% 0.82% 'l.28% 0.92% 1.14%
p 1 33% 0.80% 0.63% 1 25% 0 89% 0 87%
% Span Error 31.25% Tri Setpoint 1.29% 0 95% 1.12%
Mar in to - 3.25% II
% Span Error @ 85.625% Trip Setpoint 31.25% Tri Set 1 64%
4 54%
0 99%
4 20%
p 56%
4.37%
Mar into +3.25%
Mar in to - 3.25%
Mar into +3.25%
I 31.25% Tri Set.
85.625% Tri Set 85.625% Tri Set.
1.96%
4.89%
1.61%
2.30%
4.24%
2.26%
2 13%
3.81%
2.69 NPS-153 Sensor Drift Extrapolated % Span Error Scale 07/25/88 08/23/90 04/23/92 07/25/88 08/23/90 04/23/92 0% 1 65% -0.13% -0.63% 2.17% 0.31% -0 96%
25% 1.70% 1.55% -0.63% 2 22% -1 77% -0.96%
50% 1.78% 0.08% -0.70% 2.30% 0.53% -1.07%
75% 2.15% 0 15% -0 40% 2 72% 0 62% -0 65%
100% 2.20% 0.32% -0.35% 2.78% 0.81% -P 58 100% 2.30% 0.37% -0.55% 2.89% 0 87% -0 86%
75% 2.40% 0 25% -0 33% 3.00% 0 73% p55 5p 2,1P 0.25% -0.23% 2.67% 0 73% -0.41%
25% 1 95% 0.13% -0.35% 2.50% 0.59% 0 58%
0% 2.03% 0 28% -0 43% 2 58% 0.76% -0.69%
% Span Error 31.25% Trip Set oint 2.54% 0.62% -P 54%
% Span Error @ 85.625% Trip Setpoint 2.75% 0.70% 0 62%
Mar into -3.25%@31.25% Tri Set. 5.79% 3.87% 2 71%
Mar in to +3.25%
I Mar in to +3.25% Q 31.25% Tri Set.
Mar into - 3.25% 85.625% Tri Set 85.625% Tri Set.
0.71%
6.00%
0 50%
2.63%
3 95%
2 55%
3.79%
2 63%
3.87%
to AEP:NRC:1181C Page 12 Table 3 NARROW RANGE and WIDE RANGE RTD DRIFT Maximum Allowed 'F Deviation Procedure Acce tance Criteria:
Narrow Range: k1.2'F Wide Range: a8.4 F Surveillance Interval Extrapolation Factor (SIEF)
Cal Int ension SIEF Temp N-4 (N-3) (N-2) (N-1) Date (N) (N-3) (N-2) (N-1) 527'F 06/21/86 03/05/89 10/11/90 06/08/92 08/13/94 0.8057 1.3607 1.3135 450'F 06/20/86 03/05/89 10/09/90 06/08/92 08/1 3/94 0.8049 1.3654 1.3092 350'F 06/1 9/86 02/28/89 10/07/90 06/08/92 08/13/94 0.8081 1.3584 1.3049 250'F 06/1 8/86 02/28/89 10/06/90 06/06/92 08/13/94 0.8093 1.3641 1.3103 Exam le: SIEF calculation for 527'F in June 92 SIEF(N-1) = [N - (N-1)] / [(N-1) - (N-2)]
= [ 08/13/94 - 06/08/92 ] / [ 06/08/92- 10/11/90 ]
= 1.3135 Exce tion to SIEF N-3 Jun 86 to Feb/Mar 89:
Since SIEF(N-3) is approximately 0.8, a value of 1.0 was conservatively used in the drift extrapolations. In otheNvords, the interval between the measured data (33 months) is greater than the extended interval being requested (26 months).
Calculation of Extra plated Drift:
Extrapolated Drift = [RTD(n) - RTD(n-1)] x SIEF(n) where: RTD(n) = measured deviation during surveillance (n)
RTD(n-1) = measured deviation during surveillance (n-1) [previous intewal]
C I
I Attachment 1 to AEP:NRC:1181C Page 13 Table 3A Narrow Range RTDs Measured Data
('F Deviation from Average RCS Temperature) 527 'F 450 'F RTD ¹ 06/21/86 03/05/89 10/11/90 06/08/92 06/20/86 03/05/89 10/09/90 06/08/92 2-TE-410A -0.04 0.24 -0.15 0.00 0.09 -0.16 -0.07 0.03 2-TE-410B -0.01 0.23 0.04 -0.16 0.13 -0.23 1.05 -0.09 2-TE-411A -0.02 0.13 -0.08 -0.14 0.07 -0.15 -0.02 -0.07 2-TE-411 B 0.12 -0.40 -0.05 -0.04 -0.20 0.27 -0.96 -0.04 2-TE-420A -0.12 0.04 0.03 0.39 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.41 2-TE-420B -0.18 0.01 0.13 0.03 -0.06 0.01 0.11 0.08 2-TE-421A 0.15 0.03 -0.12 -0.07 -0.18 0.01 -0.10 -0.01 2-TE-421 B 0.20 0.14 -0.01 -0.01 0.22 0.15 0.06 0.10 2-TE-430A 0.14 0.20 0.01 -0.11 -0.01 -0.14 0.01 -0.06 2-TE-430B -0.12 0.00 0.05 -0.04 -0.14 -0.05 0.01 -0.13 2-TE-431A -0.05 0.26 0.05 -0.16 0.05 -0.22 0.02 -0.18 2-TE-431 B -0.01 0.07 -0.10 0.00 -0.07 -0.07 -0.14 -0.02 2-TE-440A 0.00 -0.37 0.10 0.13 -0.01 0.27 0.04 0.06 2-TE-440B -0.08 -0.01 -0.06 0.10 0.14 0.02 0.87 0.01 2-TE-441A 0.04 -0.26 0.04 0.12 -0.06 0.02 0.00 0.03 2-TE-441 B 0.06 -0.38 0.05 -0.04 -0.04 0.33 -0.96 -0.14 350 'F 250 'F RTD ¹ 06/19/86 02/28/89 10/07/90 06/08/92 06/1 8/86 02/28/89 10/06/90 06/06/92 2-TE-410A 0.02 0.01 -0.03 0.08 0.11 0.09 0.00 0.14 2-TE-410B 0.18 -0.21 0.81 -0.06 -0.10 -0.27 0.84 -0.08 2-TE-411A 0.11 -0.11 0.02 0.02 0.25 -0.11 0.02 0.08 2-TE-411B 0.15 -0.01 -0.72 -0.04 0.10 -0.27 -0.44 -0.03 2-TE-420A -0.11 0.20 0.07 0.40 -0.01 0.28 0.00 0.28 2-TE-420B -0.03 0.07 0.06 0.08 -0.21 0.05 -0.04 0.03 2-TEC21A -0.12 0.12 -0.04 0.05 0.08 0.13 -0.05 0.11 2-TE-421 B 0.10 -0.09 0.05 0.09 -1.06 -0.03 -0.11 0.02 2-TER30A -0.11 -0.04 -0.01 0.01 0.10 0.24 -0.11 0.02 2-TE-430B -0.11 -0.10 0.03 -0.18 -0.21 -0.10 -0.07 -0.31 2-TE-431A -0.02 -0.09 0.00 -0.11 0.26 0.03 -0.08 -0.07 2-TE-431 B -0.09 0.09 -0.11 -0.22 -0.21 -0.11 -0.11 -0.28 2-TE-440A -0.01 -0.07 0.01 0.04 0.37 0.04 -0.02 0.07 2-TE-440B 0.07 -0.02 0.63, -0.01 0.03 0.05 0.71 0.01 2-TE-441A -0.06 0.04 -0.03 -0.01 0.28 0.09 . -0.06 -0.01 2-TE-441 8 -0.02 0.15 -0.67 -0.14 0.16 0.00 -0.52 0.01
7 P a
~
I g
Attachment 1 to AEP:NRC:1181C Page 14 Table 3B Wide Range RTDs Measured Data
('F Deviation from Average RCS Temperature) 527 'F 450 'F RTD ¹ 06/21/86 03/05/89 10/11/90 06/08/92 06/20/86 03/05/89 10/09/90 06/08/92 2-TE-413A 1.59 -1.75 0.72 4.87 -1.50 -2.01 0.75 1.32 2-TEP13B -2.43 0.28 -0.19 3.17 3.40 -0.24 -0.13 2-TE423A 0.94 -0.43 -0.19 -4.43 -1.10 -0.82 0.01 0.24 2-TE-423B -0.58 0.82 -0.49 -3.97 0.07 0.03 -0.36 -0.42 2-TE<33A -0.09 0.21 -0.12 3.43 -0.17 -0.31 -0.11 0.50 2-TE-433B 0.34 -0.03 -0.15 3.12 -0.63 -0.67 -0.25 -0.21 2-TE-443A 0.90 -0.05 0.66 -3.12 -0.81 -0.39 0.36 -0.35 2-TE-443B -0.67 0.95 -0.21 -3.87 0.70 0.78 -0.17 -0.94 350 'F 250 'F RTD ¹ 06/1 9/86 02/28/89 10/07/90 06/08/92 06/1 8/86 02/28/89 10/06/90 06/06/92 2-TE-413A 1.25 -2AO -4.70 0.05 0.98 -1.45 -4.39 1.64 2-TE-413B -3.80 3.95 -6.34 -1.29 -4.13 3.27 -6.12 -0.39 2-TE-423A 0.90 -0.70 6.02 1.24 1.13 -0.53 5.88 0.07 2-TE-423B 0.34 0.06 6.04 0.61 0.38 -0.04 5.69 -0.51 2-TE-433A 0.33 -0.43 -6.32 -0.57 1.01 -0.81 -6.22 0.71 2-TE-433 B 1.20 -1.12 -6.73 -1.34 1.15 -1.23 -6.55 -0.48 2-TE-443A 0.54 -0.28 6.09 0.88 0.61 -0.44 5.87 -0.26 2-TE-443B -0.78 0.92 5.94 0.42 -1.14 1.22 5.86 -0.77
f l
l t,
I to AEP:NRC:1181 C Page 15 Table 3C Narrow Range RTDs Extrapolated Drift
('F Deviation from Average RCS Temperature) 527'F 450 F RTD ¹ 03/05/89 10/11/90 06/08/92 03/05/89 10/09/90 06/08/92 2-TE-410A 0.28 -0.53 0.20 -0.25 0.12 0.13 2-TE-4108 0.24 -0.26 -0.26 -0.36 1.75 -1.49 2-TE-411A 0.15 -0.29 -0.08 -0.22 0.18 -0.07 2-TE-4118 -0.52 0.48 0.01 0.47 -1.68 1.20 2-TE-420A 0.16 -0.01 0.47 0.05 -0.04 0.50 2-TE-4208 0.19 0.16 -0.13 0.07 0.14 -0.04 2-TE-421A -0.12 -0.20 0.07 0.19 -0.15 0.12 2-TE-421 8 -0.06 -0.20 0.00 -0.07 -0.12 0.05 2-TE-430A 0.06 -0.26 -0.16 -0.13 0.20 -0.09
= 2-TE-4308 0.12 0.07 -0.12 0.09 0.08 -0.18 2-TE-431A 0.31 -0.29 -0.28 -0.27 0.33 -0.26 2-TE-4318 0.08 -0.23 0.13 0.00 -0.10 0.16 2-TE-440A -0.37 0.64 0.04 0.28 -0.31 0.03 2-TE-4408 0.07 -0.07 0.21 -0.12 1.16 -1.13 2-TE-441A -0.30 0.41 0.11 0.08 -0.03 0.04 2-TE-4418 -0.44 0.59 -0.12 0.37 -1.76 1.07 Max Deviation 0.31 0.64 0.47 0.47 1.75 1.20 Min Deviation -0.52 -0.53 -0.28 -0.36 -1.76 -1.49 Margin to +1.2'F 0.89 0.56 0.73 0.73 -0.55 0.00 Margin to -1.2'F 0.68 0.67 0.92 0.84 -0.56 -0.29 350 'F 250 'F RTD ¹ 02/28/89 10/07/90 06/08/92 02/28/89 10/06/90 06/06/92 2-TE-410A -0.01 -0.05 0.14 -0.02 -0.12 0.18 2-TE-4108 -0.39 1.39 -1.14 -0.17 1.52 -1.20 2-TE-411A -0.22 0.18 0.00 -0.36 0.18 0.08 2-TE-4118 -0.16 -0.97 0.89 -0.37 -0.23 0.54 2-TE-420A 0.31 -0.18 0.43 0.29 -0.38 0.37 2-TE-4208 0.10 -0.01 0.03 0.26 -0.12 0.09 2-TE<21A 0.24 -0.22 0.12 0.05 '-0.25 0.21 2-TE-4218 -0.19 0.19 0.05 1.03 -0.11 0.17 2-TE-430A 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.14 -0.48 0.17 2-TE-4308 0.01 0.18 -0.28 0.11 0.04 -0.31 2-TE-431A -0.07 0.12 -0.14 -0.23 -0.15 0.01 2-TE-431 8 0.18 -0.27 -0.14 0.10 0.00 -0.22 2-TE-440A -0.06 0.11 0.04 -0.33 -0.08 0.12 2-TE-4408 -0.09 0.88 -0.84 0.02 0.90 -0.92 2-TE-441A 0.10 -0.10 0.03 -0.19 -0.20 0.07 2-TE-441 8 0.17 -1.12 0.70 -0.16 -0.71 0.69 Max Deviation 0.31 1.39 0.89 1.03 1.52 0.69 Min Deviation -0.39 -1.12 -1.14 -0.37 -0.71 -1.20 Margin to +1.2'F 0.89 -0.19 0.31 0.17 -0.32 0.51 Margin to -1.2'F 0.81 0.08 0.06 0.83 0.49 0.00 to AEP:NRC:1181 C Page 16 Table 3D Wide Range RTDs Extrapolated Drift
('F Deviation from Average RCS Temperature) 527 'F 450 'F RTD ¹ 03/05/89 10/11/90 06/08/92 03/05/89 10/09/90 06/08/92 2-TE-413A -3.34 3.36 5.45 -0.51 3.77 0.75 2-TE-413B 2.71 -0.64 4.41 -0.04 -4.97 0.14 2-TE-423A -1.37 0.33 -5.57 0.28 1.13 0.30 2-TE<23B 1.40 -1.78 -4.57 -0.04 -0.53 -0.08 2-TE-433A 0.30 -0.45 4.66 -0.14 0.27 0.80 2-TE-433B -0.37 -0.16 4.30 -0.04 0.57 0.05 2-TE-443A -0.95 0.97 P.97 0.42 1.02 -0.93 2-TE-443B 1.62 -1.58 -4.81 0.08 -1.30 -1.01 Max Deviation 2.71 3.36 5.45 0.42 3.77 0.80 Min Deviation -3.34 -'1.78 -5.57 -0.51 -4.97 -1.01 Margin to +8.4'F 5.69 5.04 2.95 7.98 4.63 7.60 Margin to -8.4 F 5.06 6.62 2.83 7.89 3.43 7.39 350 'F 250 'F RTD ¹ 02/28/89 10/07/90 06/08/92 02/28/89 10/06/90 06/06/92 2-TE-413A -3.65 -3.12 6.20 -2.43 -4.01 7.90 2-TE-413B 7.75 -1 3.98 6.59 7.40 -12.81 7.51 2-TE-423A -1.60 9.13 -6.24 -1.66 8.?4 -7.61 2-TE-423B -0.28 8.12 -7.09 -0.42 7.82 -8.12 2-TE-433A -0.76 -8.00 7.50 -1.82 -7.38 9.08 2-TE-4338 -2.32 -7.62 7.03 -2.38 -7.26 7.95 2-TE-443A -0.82 8.65 -6.80 -1.05 8.61 -8.03 2-TE-443B 1.70 6.82 -7.20 2.36 6.33 -8.69 Max Deviation 7.75 9.13 7.50 7.40 8.74 9.08 Min Deviation -3.65 -13.98 -7.20 -2.43 -12.81 -8.69 Margin to +8.4'F 0.65 -0.73 0.90 1.00 -0.34 -0.68 Margin to -8.4'F 4.75 -5.58 1.20 5.97 -4.41 -0.29 to AEP:NRC:1181C Page 17 Discussion of NLP-152 and NLP-153 A ril 1992 Surveillance Data During the Unit 2 1992 refueling calibration, two pressurizer level transmitters, NLP-152 and NLP-153, were found with zero shifts. NLP-152, the protection set II transmitter exhibited a +50% span zero shift, and NLP-153, the protection set ZZZ transmitter showed an approximate -20% span zero shift. The reason for the large zero shifts on the transmitters was never determined. The transmitters were not damaged, and were calibrated to nominal values. It is postulated that only one side's root or instrument valves on the sensing lines to the transmitter were shut, or that leak-by of a root valve may have allowed RCS pressure on one side of the DP cell. This one-sided pressure effect, which could have been a spike or applied over weeks prior to the calibration is postulated to have caused the large zero shifts. The "as found" data and calculated shift are shown in Tables 1A and 1B.
This "as found" data does not reflect the last operational state of the transmitters. Past measured drift data indicates these transmitters normally deviate I2% to f3% of span from the "as left" values over a fuel cycle. In accordance with technical specifications, the channels are compared at the panel indicator every shift. Randomly selected shiftly surveillance data taken by Operations reveals no greater than a 1% deviation from September 1, 1991, to February 18, 1992, just before the Unit 2 shutdown. The Operations shiftly data is shown below for various dates.
Shift Date Instr. 1st 2nd 3rd 09/01/91 NLP-151 51't 51't 50%
NLP-152 51% 51% 50%
NLP-153 50% 50% 49%
11/01/91 NLP-151 52't 52't 52%
NLP-152 52% 52% 52%
NLP-153 51't 51% 51't 12/01/91 NLP-151 52% 52% 52't NLP-152 52't 52% 52't NLP-153 52% 51% 52't 01/01/92 NLP-151 52% 52% 52't NLP-152 52% 52% 52%
NLP-153 51't 51% 51%
02/08/92 NLP-151 42% 42% 42't NLP-152 42% 42% 42't NLP-153 42% 42% 42%
.02/15/92 NLP-151 42% 42% 42't NLP-152 42% 42't 42%
NLP-153 42% 42% 42%
02/18/92 NLP-151 42% 42% 42%
NLP-152 42% 42% 42%
NLP-153 42% 42% 42%
to AEP:NRC:1181C Page 18 The panel indication is an isolated current loop. The isolator and the indicator drift errors were compared over the last three'cycles to discern the relative stability and magnitude of. errors, associated with these components. The errors are summed to provide worst-case values and are shown below.
All drift values in % Span for the values 25'4, 50%, 75%, 75%, 50%, 25% are from the past calibrations.
NLP-15 1 9/88 Calibration 8/90 Calibration 4/92 Calibration Scale I/I LZ Sum LZ Sum LI Sum 25% -0.100 +0.050 -0.050 -0.025 0.000 -0.025 -0.375 0.000 -0.375 50% -0.075 -0.025 -0.100 -0.025 -0.025 -0.050 -0.425 0.000 -0.425 75% -0 '50 +0.100 +0.050 -0.025. -0.125 -0.150 -0.450 -0.400 -0.850 75't -0.050 0.000 -0.050 -0.025 -0.125 -0.150 -0.450 -0.400 -0.850 50% -0.075 -0.375 -0.425 -0.025 -0.125 -0.150 -0.425 0.000 -0.425 25% -0.100 -0.100 -0.200 -0.020 0.000 -0.025 -0.375 0.000 -0.375 NLP-152 9/88 Calibration 8/90 Calibration 4/92 Calibration Scale I/I LI Sum LZ Sum LI Sum 25% +0.050 0.000 +0.050 +0.050 +0.625 +0.675 +0.075 0.000 +0.075 50% +0.075 0.000 +0.075 0.000 +0.125 +0.125 +0.050 0.000 +0.050 75% +0.050 0.000 +0.050 0 F 000 -0.150 -0.150 +0.050 0.000 +0.050 75% +0 '50 0.000 +0.050 0.000 -0.150 -0.150 +0.050 0.000 +0 050 50% +0.075 0.000 +0.075 0.000 +0.125 +0.125 +0.050 0.000 +0.050 25% +0.050 0.000 +0.050 +0.050 +0.625 +0.675 +0.075 0.000 +0.075 NLP-153 9/88 Calibration 8/90 Calibration 4/92 Calibration Scale I/Z LZ Sum LZ Sum LI Sum 25% +0.050 -0.225 -0.175 +0.100 -0.100 0.000 -0.175 +0.450 +0.275 50% +0.075 -0.575 -0.500 +0.100 -0.325 -0.225 -0.150 +0.475 +0.325 75% +0.050 -1.125 -1.075 +0.100 -0.850 -0.750 -0.150 -0.500 ~
-0.650 75% +0.050 -1.125 -1.075 +0.100 -0.850 -0 750 -0.150 -0.375 -0.525 50% +0.075 -0.625 -0.550 +0.100 -0.325 -0.225 -0.150 +0.250 -0.400 25% +0.050 -0.300 -0.250 +0.100 -0.250 -0.150 -0.175 +0.325 +0.150
Attachment 1 to AEPsNRC:1181C Page 19 Comparing the "as found" error data between the three panel indicators at the approximate level for normal operation, 50%, the greatest deviation was 0.75%
yhich was between NLP-151 and NLP-153.. The indicator error for NLP-152 was virtually zero at +0.05%. Thus, the actual calibration difference between the three level transmitters must have been very small. To verify this statement, a realistic scenario was derived to determine the transmitter errors assuming:
NLP-151 = NLP-152 = NLP-153 = 42%
At the two 50% level (pressure applied in an increasing, then decreaseing fashion) readings, the errors are as followss
, NLP-151 transmitter errors: -0.900% -1.250% (from Table 1B)
NLP-151 indicator errors: -0.425% -0.425% (from above)
NLP-152 transmitter errors: unknown unknown NLP-152 indicator errors: +0.050% +0.050% (from above)
NLP-153 transmitter errors: unknown unknown NLP-153 indicator errors: +0.325% -0.400% (from above)
NLP-151 total loop errors to the indicator: >>1.325% -1.675% (transmitter + indicator)
Thus the transmitter errors for NLP-152 and NLP-153 can be solved as follows:
NLP-152 transmitter error = (NLP-151 total error) >> (NLP-152 indicator error)
~ -1.325% - (+0.050%) = -1.375%, and
-1.675% - (+0.050%) ~ -1.725%
NLP-153 transmitter error (NLP-151 total error) (NLP-153 indicator error)
I= -1.325% (+0.325%) = -1.650%, and
-1 '75't (-0.400't) ~ -1.275%.
Therefore, it is readily apparentnotthatattributable the measure transmitter errors of +50% on to drift and the data should be NLP-152 and -20% on NLP-153 are discarded for the drift analysis.
Attachment 2 to AEP:NRC:1181C Update to AEP:NRC:1181 Reasons and 10 CFR 50.92 Significant Hazards Evaluations for Changes to the Technical Specifications for Donald C. Cook Nuclear Pl'ant Unit 2 to AEP:NRC:1181C Page 1 UPDATE TO AEP:NRC:1181 Surveillance extension re ests which ma be removed from AEP:NRC:1181 extension for the intermediate range detector calibration and P-6 interlock The functional testing (Group 11, T/Ss 4 ' 1 1 1, Table 4 ' lg I'tern 5 and 4 ' 1 1 is no longer needed since the surveillance was satisfactorily completed during
')
the forced outage on August 10, 1993. (Replace T/S page 3/4 3-11 from AEP:NRC:1181 submittal with new proposed page 3/4 3-11.)
The extension for the reactor coolant flow calibration (Group 15, T/Ss 4.2.5.2 and 4.3.1.1.1, Table 4.3-1, Items 12 6 13) is not needed since the transmitters were calibrated during October and November 1992. The first transmitters calibration is due August 17, 1994, after the requested extension date. The remainder of the channel can be calibrated at power. (Replace T/S page 3/4 3-11
[same as above) and delete T/S pages 3/4 2-15 and 3/4 3-12 from AEPsNRC:1181 submittal. )
The extension for containment water level calibration (Group 14, T/S 4.3.3.6, Table 4.3-10, Item 18) is no longer needed. It has been determined that this calibration can be performed without entry into lower containment, therefore, we can perform it prior to the refueling outage. (Replace T/S page 3/4 3-47 from AEP:NRC:1181 submittal with new proposed page 3/4 3-47.)
Surveillance extension re ests which need added to AEP:NRC:1181 It has recently been determined that three T/S surveillances were omitted from our original submittal (AEP:NRC:1181 dated April 16, 1993) concerning operation of Unit 2 longer than certain T/S surveillances allow. The surveillances which need interval extensions may be added to existing groups of T/Ss as set forth in AEP:NRC:1181 as follows:
~Gr au T S Affected Descri tion of Chan e Due Date (4) 4.3.2.1.1, Delay calibrations of time 02/05/94 Table 4.3-2, delay relays for 4 Kv bus limiting Items 8.a 6 S.b loss of/degraded voltage due date (5) 4' ' ')
Table 4.3-10, Delay calibrations of incor e thermocouples 04/28/94 Item 15 in mode 3 (14) 4.4.6.1.b Delay calibration of 04/03/94 containment flow monitoring system The remainder of this attachment contains the reasons the interval extensions are being requested, )ustlfications for the extensions, and the significant hazards consideration.
g ~
) f to AEP:NRC:1181C Page 2 4 4 Kv Loss of Volta e and De raded Volta e Time Dela Rela s T/S 4.3.2.1.1, Table 4.3-2, Items 8.a and. S.b require that these time delay relays be calibrated every 18 months. This surveillance should not be performed at power because the components involved (agastats) cannot be isolated from their normal power supply. Performance of the surveillance could cause a power transfer which would result in a challenge to safety related components. Also, since the surveillance would be performed on "live" equipment, personnel safety is at risk. This extension is need from February 5, 1994, until the Unit 2 refueling outage. (Replace T/S page 3/4 3-32 from AEP:NRC:1181 submittal with new proposed page 3/4 3-32.)
The time delay relays involved in this surveillance are electronic and were installed in 1986. Electronic agastats are highly reliable, accurate and repeatable. The reliablity, accuracy and repeatablity of the time delay relays were demonstrated during the previous three channel calibration surveillances where no adjustments were required on the as found conditions. Based on the above, there is no reason to believe that during the extension period these time delay relays would not perform their intended safety function as required.
10 CFR 50.92 Criteria Per 10 CFR 50.92, a proposed amendment will not involve a significant hazards consideration if the proposed amendment does not:
(1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed, (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously analyzed or evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Our evaluation of the proposed change with respect to these criteria is provided below.
Criterion 1 Our last three sets of surveillance data on the time delay relays show that they are very reliable, accurate and repeatable. Since they are electronic relays, there is no reason to believe that they would drift outside their acceptable setpoints. Thus, we believe that they would perform their intended function(s) during the extension period. For these reasons, we believe the extension we are requesting will not result in a significant increase in the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated accident, nor will it result in a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Attachment 2 to AEP:NRC:1181C Page 3 Criterion 2
~
This extension wi,ll not result in a change in plant configuration or operation.
Therefore, the extension should not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated or analyzed.
Criterion 3 See Criterion 1, above.
Lastly, we note that the Commission has provided guidance concerning .the determination of significant hazards by providing certain examples (48 FR 14870) of amendments considered not likely to involve significant hazards consideration.
The sixth of these examples refers to changes which may result in some increase to the probability or consecpences of a previously evaluated accident, but the results of which are within limits established as acceptable. We believe this change falls within the scope of this example, for the reasons cited above.
Thus, we believe this change does not involve a significant hazards consideration as defined in 10 CFR 50.92.
$ ~
'I to AEP:NRC:1181C Page 4 5 Incore Thermocou les Core Exit Thermocou les T/S 4.3.3.6, Table 4.3-10, Item 15 requires that a channel calibration be performed every 18 months. Footnote (1) to this T/S requires that a partial range channel calibration for the sensor be performed below P-12 in mode 3. This surveillance cannot be performed during reactor operation since it requires the unit to be in mode 3. This extension is needed from April 28, 1994, until the Unit 2 refueling outage. (Replace T/S page 3/4 3-47 from AEP:NRC:1181 submittal with new proposed page 3/4 3-47. Same page replacement as the one removing the extension request for containment water level surveillance.)
T/S 3 '.3.6, Post-Accident Instrumentation, requires a minimum of 2 core exit thermocouples per core quadrant. Data from 58 incore thermocouples, which are distributed throughout the core in various core locations (13 in Quadrant I, 16 in Quadrant II, 17 in Quadrant III and 12 in Quadrant IV), were reviewed for this analysis.
During reactor operation the core exit thermocouples are required to be channel checked on a monthly bases. We administratively perform the channel check weekly. This surveillance confirms that core exit thermocouples have not changed significantly from the average reading and verifies T/S compliance. If a significant change is noted the associated thermocouple is declared inoperable.
This surveillance would continue to be performed during the extension period and if necessary, appropriate T/S actions taken based on the results of the surveillance.
A review has been performed on this cycle's and the previous two cycle's core exit thermocouple data. The purpose of the review was to determine if a significant drift characteristic was inherent to the core exit therocouples which could lead to several core exit thermocouples becoming inoperable prior to the scheduled refueling outage. Essentialy, no thermocouple drift was observed, thus we expect that compliance with T/S 3.3.3.6 (2 thermocouples/core quadrant) will be assured throughout the rest of the scheduled cycle operation. Based on the above, we believe extension of the core exit thermocouple channel calibration will not adversely impact the ability of this equipment to perform its safety function.
10 CFR 50.92 Criteria Per 10 CFR 50.92, a proposed amendment will not involve a significant hazards consideration if the proposed amendment does not:
(1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed, (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously analyzed or evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
4 V l
~ ~
to AEP:NRC:1181C Page 5 Our evaluation of the proposed change with respect to these criteria is provided below.
Criterion 1 Review of our last three cycle's surveillance data indicated that drift of the thermocouples is not extpected. Also, we administratively perform the T/S required monthly channel check on a weekly basis. This channel check would provide adequate indication if a significant to take number the of thermocouples needed to corrective actions necessary be declared inoperable, thus allowing us to ensure T/S compliance. Therefore, we believe that the incore thermocouples will be capable of performing their intended function during the extension period. For these reasons, we believe the extension we are requesting will not result in a significant increase in the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated accident, nor will it result in a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Criterion 2 This extension will not result in a change in plant configuration or operation.
Therefore, the extension should not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated or analyzed.
Criterion 3 See Criterion 1, above.
Lastly, we note that the Commission has provided guidance concerning the determination of significant hazards by providing certain examples (48 FR 14870) of amendments considered not likely to involve significant hazards consideration.
The sixth of these examples refers to changes which may result in some increase to the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated accident, but the results of which are within limits established as acceptable. We believe this change falls within the scope of this example, for the reasons cited above.
Thus, we believe this change does not involve a significant hazards consideration as defined in 10 CFR 50.92.
I to AEP:NRC:1181C Page 6 14 Containment Flow Monitorin S stem'/S 4.4.6.1.b requires that the containment sump flow monitoring system be calibrated every 18 months. This surveillance cannot be performed during reactor operation since it requires entry into the lower volume of containment. This extension is needed from April 3, 1994, until the Unit 2 refueling outage. (Add new proposed T/S page 3/4 4-14 to AEP:NRC:1181 submittal.)
The containment flow monitoring system is used to monitor and detect RCS leakage.
By knowing the sump pump capacities (flow rates) and how long a pump runs, the leakage rate can be monitored and estimated. The past two surveillances show that the measured pump flow rates have been well above their acceptance criteria as displayed below:
Flow Rate (GPM)
Acceptance
~Pum 1992 Surveillance 1990 Surveillance Criteria Reactor Cavity 56.21 53.7 22 2-PP-059 3A Reactor Cavity 50.98 48.7 22 2-PP-059 3B Lower Containment 140.75 167.3 > 45 2-PP-038 2A Lower Containment 166.21 164.0 > 45 2-PP-038 2B Pipe Tunnel 56.36 53.2 > 45 2-PP-061 2A Pipe Tunnel 43.6 2-PP-061 2B 57.22 57.3 (retest) > 45 The retest on the pipe tunnel pump (2-PP-061 2B) was successful following removal of foriegn material which entered the sump and pump inlet strainers during the outage.
Zf a pump were to degrade, the flow rate would decreaseg thus increasing the run time for the pump to deliver a given amount of water. This would lead to an over estimation of RCS leakage, which is conservative in respect to the T/Ss. The pipe tunnel sump pump typically runs a minute per day, and the reactor cavity and lower containment pumps run less frequently.
Based on the excellent surveillance history of the pumps and the minimal amount of run time accumulated on the pumps, there is no reason to believe that continued operation during the extension period would cause the pumps to become inoperable.
'I I
'I J
C ~
~ i +'
Attachment 2 to AEP:NRC:1181C Page 7 10 CFR 50.92 Criteria Per 10 CFR 50.92, a proposed. amendment will not involve a significant hazards consideration if the proposed amendment does not:
(1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident, previously analyzed, (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously analyzed or evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Our evaluation of the proposed change with respect to these criteria is provided below.
Criterion 1 Our past surveillance history on the containment flow monitoring system has shown the pumps to have capacities well above our acceptance criteria. During the current cycle, the reactor cavity, lower containment, and pipe tunnel sump pumps have run for a minimal amount of time. Thus, the potential for pump degradation is small. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the containment flow monitoring system would not perform its intended function during the extension period. For these reasons, we believe the extension we are requesting will not result in a significant increase in the probability or consequences of a it previously evaluated accident, nor will result in a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Criterion 2 This extension will not result in a change in plant configuration or operation.
Therefore, the extension should not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated or analyzed.
I Criterion 3 See Criterion 1, above.
Lastly, we note that the Commission has provided guidance concerning the determination of significant hazards by providing certain examples (48 FR 14870) of amendments considered not likely to involve significant hazards consideration.
The sixth of these examples refers to changes which may result in some increase to the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated accident, but the results of which are within limits established as acceptable. We believe this change falls within the scope of this example, for the reasons cited above'.
Thus, we believe this change does not involve a significant hazards consideration as defined in 10 CFR 50.92.
Attachment 3 to AEP:NRC:1181C Existing Techni.cal Specifications for Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Marked to Reflect the Proposed Changes