ML20216E209
| ML20216E209 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 05/01/1996 |
| From: | Cujko D COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20216E123 | List: |
| References | |
| QDC-3200-I-0113, QDC-3200-I-0113-R01, QDC-3200-I-113, QDC-3200-I-113-R1, NUDOCS 9804160132 | |
| Download: ML20216E209 (50) | |
Text
i Exhildt C
,NEP-1242 Revision 0 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY CALCULATION TITLE PAGE CALCULATION NO. QDC-3200-I-0113 PAGE NO.:
1 of 32 E
SAFETY RELATED D
REGULATORY RELATED D NON-SAFETY RELATED CALCULATION TITLE:
Determination Of The Total Combined Error Associated With' Reactor Pressure Indication And Feedwater Header Pressure Indication I
STATION / UNIT:
Quad Cities /1 & 2 SYSTEM ABBREVIATION: 0600 & 3200 EQUIPMENT NO.:
<!F APPL.)
PROJECT NO.: N/A
\\
PT-1 (2 ) - 064 7-A PT-1(2)-3241-15 PI-1 (2 ) - 064 0 -25A Process Computer REV:0 STATUS: Approved for use QA SERIAL NO. OR CHRON NO. N/A DATE: 03-28-96 PREPARED BY: N.R. Ramiro DATE:
03-27-96 REVISION
SUMMARY
- Initial Issue.
This calculation was developed per Engineering Request (ER) No. 9502417 REVIEWED BY:
R.G. Wunder DATE:
03-28-96 REVIEW METHOD:
Detailed Design Review COMMENTS (C OR NC):
NC APPROVED BY:
P.J. Wicyk DATE:
03-28-96 9804160132 980409 PDR ADOCK 0500025e P
Exhdnt C NEP-12-02 Revision 0 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY CALCULATION REVISION PAGE CALCULATION NO.
QDC-3200-I-0113 PAGE NO.:
2 of 32 REV: 1 STA'IUS : Approved for use OA SERIAL NO. OR CHRON NO.
n/a DATE: 5///96 PREPARED BY:
D.J. Cujko (S&L).) f 8 DATE: 09/r_3/%
REVISION
SUMMARY
Revised to include a 3 month calibration interval for all instruments DO ANY ASSUMPTIONS IN THIS CALCULATION REQUIRE LATER VERIFICATION YES NO X
REVIEWED B [
DATE:
zA f,
N REVIEW METHOD Detailed Review of the Calculation COMMENTS (C OR NC): NC APPROVED SY: I
/
DATE: / g p
REV:
STATUS:
OA SERIAL NO. OR CF1 " NO.
DATE:
PREPARED BY:
DATE:
REVISION
SUMMARY
4 DO ANY ASSUMPTIONS IN THIS CALCULATION REQUIRE LATER VERIFICATION YES NO REVIEWED BY:
DATE:
REVIEW METHOD:
COMMENTS (C OR NC):
APPROVED BY:
DATE:
Exhildt D NEP 12 02 Revision 0 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY CALCULATION TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT NO.
N/A CALCULATION NO.
QDC-3200-I-0113 REV. NO. 1 PAGE 3 OF 32 DESCRIPTION PAGE NO.
SUB-PAGE NO.
TITLE PAGE 1
REVISION
SUMMARY
1 j
TABLE OF CONTENTS 3
CALCULATION 1.O PURPOSE ANIT OBJECTIVE 4
I 2.0 METHODOLOGY AND ACCEPTANCE 4
1 CRITERIA
3.0 REFERENCES
6 4.0 DESIGN INPUTS 7
5.0 ASSUMPTIONS 7
6.0 INSTRUMENT CHANNEL CONFIGURATION 9
7.0 PROCESS PARAMETERS 9
8.0 LOOP ELEMENT DATA 10 9.O CALIBRATION INSTRUMENT DATA 12 10.0 CALIBRATION DATA 13 11.O TRANSMITTER ERRORS - MODULE 1A 14 12.0 INDICATOR ERRORS - MODULE 2A 15 13.O TRANSMITTER ERRORS - MODULE 1B 16 14.0 PROCESS COMPUTER - MODULE 2B 23 15.0 TOTAL LOOP ERRORS 28
16.0 CONCLUSION
S 32
- 1) ATTACHMENTS Verbal Conversation Memo. dated 03-07-96
Exhildt E NEP-12-02 Revision 0 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY CALCULATION NO.
QDC-3200-I-0113 PROJECT NO.
N/A PAGE 4 of 32 1.0 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE The purpose of this calculation is to calculate the total combined instrument uncertainty associated with using the Reactor Pressure Indication Loop and the Feedwater Header Pressure Indication Loop to determine the differential pressure across the Feedwater check valves, 1 (2) - 022 0- 58A and B, and 1(2)-0220-62A and B.
To do this we will reevaluate the results of the Reactor Pressure Indication calculation NED-I-EIC-0052 using the 2a methodology; and perform the loop accuracy for the Feedwater Header Pressure Indication.
As the results of these two evaluations are independent, they will be combined using SRSS to determine the accuracy when using the two loops tn) detennine differential pressure across the Feedwater check valves.
The results of this calculation will be used in the Reference 3.15 calculation to select the " alert / action" levels as the basis of a test procedure for flow testing used to demonstrate that the check valves are operating properly, and will admit adequate flow if the HPCI or RCIC is required to operate.
This calculation applies for each of the following instruments:
PT-1-647-A PT-2-647-A PI-1-640-25A PI-2-640-25A PT-1-3241-15 PT-2-3241-15 Process Computer Process Computer The pressure indicating loops used in this calculation are non-safety related, but the results of this calculation will be used in a safety related test procedure.
Therefore, this calculation is being treated as safety related.
2.O METHODOLOGY AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The results of this calculation will be determined with a 95%
probability and a high degree of confidence.
This is to ensure that the total combined instrument uncertainty associated with using the Reactor Pressure Indication Loop and the Feedwater Header Pressure Indication Loop to determine differential pressure, will bound the actual performance of these loops.
The methodology used in this calculation to obtain a 95% probability and a high degree of confidence, will be to partition the analysis into random and non-random effects. Random effects are added by the SRSS (square-root-of-sum-of-squares) method.
Non-random effects are added algebraically for a conservative value.
Random effects are j
l REVISION NO.
O l
EnhMt E NEP.12 02
^ Revision 0 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY CALCULATION NO.
QDC-3200-I-0113 PROJECT NO.
N/A PAGE 5 of 32 centered on the instrument module (s) performance and are probabilistic.
Non-random effects are oriented to module (s) environmental dependencies, and except for drift are not probabilist-ic.
Both effects are cascaded through the instrument loop from primary element to display / bistable device.
Instrument loop accuracy calculation NED-I-EIC-0052 provides the error analysis for the Reactor Pressure Indication Loop. The methodology used in NED-I-EIC-0052 is based on a graded approach and is calculated to a one sigma (la) probability level.
Data from NED-I-EIC-0052 will be used as design input into this calculation, but the data will be converted from a one sigma probability level to a two sigma probability level.
2.1 The methodology used herein is based on the Comed documents, References 3.2, and 3.3 with the following exception:
a.
The calibration tolerance is assumed to describe the limits of the as-left component outputs.
For a random error, this corresponds to 100% of the population and can be statistically represented by a 3a value.
Per References 3.2 and 3.3, the
" Setting Tolerance" (ST) is defined as a random error that is due to procedural allowances given to the technician performing the calibration.
For this calculation:
ST = (Calibration Tolerance)/3 (la) 2.2 The errors are determined for normal operating conditions.
C 2.3 Temperature, radiation and humidity errors, when available from the manufacturer, were evaluated with respect to the conditions specified in the Quad cities EQ zones. The EQ zone requirements for each instrument were obtainet. from Comed Instrument Database location data and the Quad Cities EQ Zone maps.
2.4 The only temperature induced M&TE errors that were evaluated were those specified by the manufacturer for a specific model number.
This methodology used the most conservative error evaluation by considering the full range of ambient temperature change as specified for the applicable EQ zone.
2.5 No specific acceptance criteria is noted for the existing configuration. The results of this calculation are simply stated as evaluated from the above methodology.
REVISION NO.
O
l Exhtdt E NEP012 02
' Revision 0
~
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY CALCULATION NO.
QDC-3200-I-0113 PROJECT NO.
N/A PAGE 6 of 32
3.0 REFERENCES
3.1 ANSI /ISA-S67.04-1994, "Setpoints for Nuclear Safety Related Instrumentation."
3.2 TID-E/I&C-20, Rev.
O,
" Basis for Analysis of Instrument Channel" Setpoint Error & Loop Accuracy."
3.3 TID-E/I&C-10, Rev.
O, " Analysis of Instrument Channel Setpoint Error and Instrument Loop Accuracy."
3.4 Quad Cities Instrument Surveillance Procedures QCIS 600-2, Rev.
3, Quarterly Reactor Pressure O to 1200 PSIG Indication Calibratfon 3.5 Comed Standard Instrument Tolerance Document, Revision 0, dated
)
05-01-92, for GEMAC Model 551 Electronic Pressure Transmitter 3.6 NED-I-EIC-0052, Rev.2, Reactor Pressure Indication Error Analysis.
3.7 Quad Cities Instrument Database PT-1-647-A Revision B Verified 03-08-94 PI-1-640-25A Revision A Verified 03-01-94 PT-2-647-A Revision 0 Verified 05-10-91 PI-2-640-25A Revision 0 Verified 05-10-91 PT-1-3241-15 Revision 0 Verified 05-10-91 PT-2-3241-15 Revision 0 Verified 05-10-91 Associated Supplemental Data Sheets (SDS) 3.8 Instrument Tolerances, Quad Cities Instrument Maintenance Memorandum 13, from Dennis M. Cook to IM Department Personnel dated March 5, 1994 3.9 Quad Cities Specification 13524-069-N202, Rev. 4; Response to IE Bulletin 79-01B, Procedure for use of Environmental Zone Maps.
3.10 UFSAR, Section 9.4, Air Conditioning, Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation System 3.11 NED-I-EIC-0255, Measurement and Test Equipment (M&TE) Accuracy Calculation For Use With Comed BWR(s), Rev.,0, CHRON #208597 REVISION NO.
0 J
ExhAWt E NEP 12 02
- Itevision O COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY i
CALCULATION NO.
QDC-3200-I-0113 PROJECT NO.
N/A PAGE 7 of 32 i
3.12 ASME Steam Tables, 2nd Edition, 1967 3.13 Process Computer Analog Input List 3.14 verbal Conversation Memorandum dated 03-07-1996,with Jim Schnitzmeyer regarding Process Computer A/D accuracy and shunt resistor accuracy (Attachment 1).
3.15 QDC-3200-M-0096, Revision 0, Increase In dP Due To Unbalance Feedwater Flow.
l 4.0 DESIGN INPUTS Design inputs are taken to be the resources used herein to evaluate the instrument errors.
5.0 ASSUMPTIONS 5.1 Published instrument vendor specifications are considered to be 2 sigma values unless specific information is available to indicate otherwise.
5.2 Temperature, humidity and pressure (static and ambient) errors have been incorpora*.ed when provided by the manufacturer.
Otherwise, these errors are assumed to be included within the manufacturer's reference accuracy specification.
5.3 Drift error has been assumed to be 0.5% of span per 18 months for electronic devices and it per year for mechanical devices including the addition of 25% late factor, unless specified otherwise by the manufacturer.
The calculated drift error will be adjusted for surveillance intervals of greater or lesser length based on calibration frequency.
REVISION NO.
O
ExhEnt E NEPo12 02
~
Revision 0
~
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY CALCULATION NO.
QDC-3200-I-0113 PROJECT NO.
N/A PAGE 8 of 32 5.4 Radiation induced errors associated with normal environments have been incorporated when provided by the manufacturer.
Otherwise, these errors are assumed to be'small and capable of being adjusted out each time the instrument is calibrated.
Therefore, unless specifically provided, the normal radiation errors can be assumed to be included in the instrument drift related errors.
5.5 It is assumed that instrument power supplies have been designed to function within manufacturer's required voltage.
As such errors associated with power supply / frequency variations are negligible with respect to other error terms during normal conditions.
5.6 There is no QCIS procedure for PT-1(2)-3241-15 instrument loops.
Therefore, METE listed in Section 9.1 are assumed to be the most likely for use in calibrating the instrument loops.
)
5.7 There is no QCIS procedure for PT-1(2)-3241-15.
For the purpose of this calculation, calibration frequencies of 3 months, 18 months, and 24 months will be assumed.
It is also assumed that the instrument loops are calibrated by applying pressure of known accuracy to the input of the transmitter and adjusting the mA output span consistent with the input span.
5.8 Evaluation of M&TE errors is based on the assumption that the test equipment listed in Section 9.1, is used. Use of test equipment less accurate than that listed will require evaluation q
of the effect on calculation results.
5.9 A system directly connected to the reactor vessel is assumed to be 1000 psig at saturation temperature.
5.10 The control room CRT screen (where the PT-1(2)-3241-15 process value will be obtained) has a 4 digit display (Reference 3.14).
It is. conservatively assumed that the 4 digit CRT display is a 3-1/2 significant digit display, Therefore the resolution at the control room CRT display is considered to be 5 psi.
l REVISION NO.
0 1
l ExhitWt E NEP-12-02 Revision 0 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY l
CALCULATION NO.
QDC-3200-I-0113 PROJECT NO.
N/A PAGE 9 of 32 6.0 INSTRUMENT CHANNEL CONFIGURATION Reactor Pressure PT-1(2) -0647-A to PI-1(2) -0640-25A:
The instrument loop consists of a pressure transmitter which provides an input signal to a Control Room Indicator for EOP and RG 1.97 pressure indicator.
Feedwater Header Pressure PT-1 ( 2 ) - 3241 - 15 to Process Computer Point A1043(A2043):
The instrument loop consist of a pressure transmitter which provides an input signal-to computer input point (A1043, A2043).
7.O PROCESS PARAMETERS PT-1(2)-0647A From Assumption 5.9 & Reference 3.12, Process Fluid:
Reactor Water Temperature:
546 *F Pressure:
1000 PSIG (1014.7 PSIA)
PT-1 ( 2 ) - 3 2 41 - 15 From Reference 3.15 C
Process Fluid:
Reactor Grade Water Temperature:
34 0*F Pressure:
1084 psig to 1160 psig REVISION NO.
O
Exhildt E NEPo12-02 Revision 0 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY CALCULATION NO.
QDc-3200-I-0113 PROJECT NO.
N/A PAGE 10 of 32 8.0 LOOP ELEbMNT DATA 8.1 Reactor Pressure (0 to 1200 psig) 8.1.1 Module 1A - Reactor Pressure Transmitter (PT 001 (2 ) - 0 647 - A) l Refer to calculation NED-I-EIC-0052 (Reference 3.6) for loop element data.
i 8.1.2 Module 2A - Reactor Pressure Indicator (PI 001 (2 ) - 0640 -25A) l Refer to calculation NED-I-EIC-0052 (Reference 3.6) for loop element data.
1 8.2 Reactor Feedwater Header Pressure (O To 2000 PSIG) l 8.2.1 Module 1B -
Feedwater Header Pressure Transmitter (PT 001(2)-
[
3241-15)
General Electric Model 50-551032GKZZ2 Pressure Transmitter (Reference 3.7) l From Reference 3.5, Reference Accuracy f0.5% span Sensitivity 0.05% span Deadband 10.05% span Power Supply Effect t0.25% span /107-127 volt variation l
Ambient Temperature Limits
-20*F to 185'F Process Temperature Limit 200*F max.
l REVISMN NO.
0 l
ExhildtE NEP-12-02 Revision O
~
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY l
l
[
i CALCULATION NO.
QDC-3200-I-0113 PROJECT NO.
N/A PAGE 11 of 32 l
I 8.2.1.1 Environmental Data for Transmitter Location Transmitter Location Turbine Building 595' Elev.
1 Panel 2251-5, 2252-9 (Reference 3.7)
From Reference 3.9, Environmental Zone 18 Normal Operating Conditions Max. Temperature 120'F Min' Temperature 65'F (Reference 3.10)
Pressure 14.7 PSIA Radiation
<1.0 x 10' Rad (TID over 40 years)
Humidity 20-90%
8.2.2 Module 2B - Feedwater Header Pressure Process Computer Point (Computer Points A1043 and A2043)
From Reference 3.14, A/D converter Accuracy:
i 0.05% span 20 shunt resistor accuracy:
i 0.1% of process span Resolution of control room o
CRT display:
i 5 psig (Assumption 5.10) 8.2.2.1 Environmental Data for Process Computer Equipment Location Process Computer equipment is located in environmental zone 18a (El. 595') and the control room CRT display is located in Zone 26a (Reference 3.9).
Environmental Zones 18a & 26a Normal Operating Conditions Max. Temperature 80*F Min. Temperature 70*F (Reference 3.10)
Pressure 14.7 PSIA Radiation
<1.0 x 10' Rad (TID over 40 yrs)
Humidity 40-70%
REVISION NO.
O
Exhildt E NEP 12-02 Revision 0 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY CALCULATION NO.
QDc-3200-I-0113 PROJECT NO.
N/A PAGE 12 of 32 9.O CALIBRATION INSTRIDENT DATA Calculation NED-I-EIC-0255, Measurement and Test Equipment (M&TE)
Accuracy Calculation For Use With Comed BWR(s), Rev.
O, Reference 3.11 is used to provide the errors for the calibration instruments noted herein.
The following list of calibration instruments are likely for use based on the pressure range and application (Assumption 5.6). The list provides the errors for these instruments from the above noted calculation.
The list also provides the evaluation parameters used in NED-I-EIC-0255.
9.1 Transmitter Input Calibration signal Calibration Instrument MTE Error I1al Evaluation Parameters MTE1A (For Module 1A)
Heise C-12 (0 - 1500 psig) t6.668771 psig 1500 psig, 104 'F Heise CMM (0 2000 psig) i8.215230 psig 2000 psig, 104 *F Druck DPI601 (2000 psig) i4.921016 psig 2000 psig, 104 'F Druck DPI601 (3000 psig) t7.380677 psig 3000 psig, 104 *F MTElB (For Module 1B)
Heise CMM (0 2000 psig) 211.410960 psig 2000 psig, 120 *F Heise C-12 (0-3000 psig) t19.140859 psig 3000 psig, 120 *F Note:
MTE error values for the Druck DPI-601 could be reduced slightly by using the actual calibration limit for reading value. For conservatism,the error values were simply transposed from Reference 3.11.
9.2 Transmitter Output Calibration Signal MTE2A (For Module 1A)
Calibration Instrument MTE Error I1al Evaluation Parameters Fluke 8050A (200 mV) iO.039778 mV e 50 mV, 104 *F MTE2B (For Module 1B)
Calibration Instrument MTE Error I1al Evaluation Parameters Fluke 8050A (200 mV) iO.056886 mV e 50 mV, 122 *F REVISION NO.
O l
Exhtdt E NEP-12 02 Revision 0 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY CALCULATION NO.
QDC-3200-I-0113 PROJECT NO.
N/A PAGE 13 of 32 10.0 CALIBRATION DATA r.
10.1 Reactor Pressure PT-1 (2 ) - 0 647 - A, PI-1 (2 ) - 064 0-25A (From Reference 3.5)
Transmitter Calibrated Range:
10 to 50mV e 14 psig to 1214 PSIG (include 3 14 PSIG head correction)
Calib. Toleranco:
6.0 psig
~
Indicator Calibrated Range:
10 to 50mV e O to 1200 PSIG Scale Range Calib. Tolerance:
i 20.0 PSIG Calib. Frequency:
Existing - Every 3 Months TSUP - Every 18 Months Proposed - Every 24 Months 10.2 Reactor Feed Water Header Pressure (No QCIS Procedure)
PT-1 ( 2 ) - 3241 - 15 Transmitter Calibrated Range:
10 to 50mV e O psig to 2000 psig (Ref. 3.13 & Assumption 5.7)
(does not include head correction)
Calib. Tolerance:
=1 0.5% of span (Reference 3.8) 10.005 (40 mV)
=
i 0.2 mV
=
Computer Indication Calibrated Range:
10 to 50 mA e O psig to 2000 psig (Ref. 3.13) 10 to 50 mV across transmitter test jacks per Assumption 5.7 Calibration Tolerance:
N/A (Reference 3.14)
Calibration Frequency:
Per Assumption 5.7, Every 3 Months Every 18 Months Every 24 Months REVISION NO.
0 1
Exhildt E NEP 1242 Revision 0 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY CALCULATION NO.
QDC-3200-I-0113 PROJECT NO.
N/A PAGE 14 of 32 11.0 REACTOR PRESSURE TRANSKITTER ERRORS - MODULE 1A (PT 1(2) -0647-A)
Module is directly in contact with the process. It has an analog input and analog output.
Therefore, it is classified as an analog module.
11.1 Random Error 2 Normal Operation Per section 12.1.4 of NED-I-EIC-0052 (Reference 3.6), the random input error to the indicator (a2innprop) is due to the pressure 1
trcnsmitter PT-1(2)-0647A random error (aln) and equals i 9.060480 psig (la).
This. error is statistically combined with the random errors of the indicator in section 12.1.5 of NED-I-EIC-0052 4 Reference 3.6), and identified as a2An in section 12.1 of this ca'lculation.
11.2 Non-Random Errors for Normal Operation (Ze1An)
Per section 11.3.12 of NED-I-EIC-0052 (Reference 3.6), the only non-random error associated with the reactor pressure transmitter PT-1(2) -0647A is the drif t term (eld). Three different values of drift were considered.
The 3 month drif t term associated with the current quarterly surveillance procedure (Reference 3.4),
the 18 month drift tenn associated with the TSUP program, and the 24 month drift term associated with the proposed surveillance extension program.
Since eld is the only non-random term, eld is equal to the sum of all of the non-random errors (EelAn).
Therefore,-the total non-random error (EelAn) for all three cases of the calibration a
interval will be' evaluated.
Section 12.3.11 of NED-I-EIC-0052 (Reference 3.6) converts the 1
mvde signal into process units of pressure and identifies these i
units as e2innprop.
Therefore, the pressure units for use in j
this calculation are:
4 3 Month Calibration Interval relAn = t 0.041667 mvdc = i 1.250010 psig (la) 18 Month Calibration Interval relAn - t 0.25 mvdc = i 7.5 psig (la) 24 Month Calibration Interval relAn = i 0.333333 mvdc = c 10 psig (la)
REVISION NO.
0
Exhildt E NEP-12 02 Revision 0 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY l
l CALCULATION NO.
QDC-3200-I-0113 PROJECT NO.
N/A PAGE 15 of 32 12.0 REACTOR PRESSURE INDICATOR ERRORS - MODULE 2A (PT 1(2) -0640-25A)
Module 2A (PI-1 (2 ) - 064 0-25A) has an analog input with analog output scale. Therefore, it is classified as an analog module.
l l
12.1 Calculation of Indicator Random Errors (a2An)
Per section 12.1.5 of NED-I-EIC-0052 (Reference 3.6), the random error (a2n) for the pressure indicator PI 1(2)-0640-25A is i 15.295777 psig.
This value includes the random errors of the pressure transmitter (PT 1 (2 ) - 0647A) which were combined with the random errors of the indicator.
l For this calculation, 02n will be identified as a2An.
Therefore:
a2An = i 15.295777 psig (la) 12.2 Non-Random Errors for Normal Operation (Ze2An)
Per section 12.3 of NED-I-EIC-0052 (Reference 3.6), the only non-random error associated with the reactor pressure transmitter PI-1(2)-
0640-25A is the drif t term (e2D). Three different values of drift were considered.
The 3 month drif t term associated with the current quarterly surveillance procedure (Reference 3.4), the 18 month drift term associated with the TSUP program, and the 24 month drift term associated with the proposed surveillance extension program.
For the methodology being applied in this calculation, e2D is the only s
non-random term.
therefore, e2D is equal to the sum of all of the non-random errors (Ee2An).
The total non-random error (re2An) for all three cases of the calibration interval will be evaluated.
3 Month Calibration Interval re2An = 1 1.25 psig (la) 18 Month Calibration Interval re2An - i 7.5 psig (la) 24 Month Calibration Interval re2An = 1 10 psig (la)
REVISION NO.
0 6
L
f -
Exhildt E j
I NEP-12-02 l
novidon o i~
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY l
i l
CALCULATION NO.
QDC-3200-I-0113 PROJECT NO.
N/A PAGE 16 of 32 13.0 FEEWATER PRESSURE TRANSMITTER ERRORS - MODULE 1B (PT-1 (2 ) - 3241-15)
Module 1B is directly in contact with the process. It has an analog input and analog output.
Therefore, it is classified as an analog module.
13.1 Random Error (alBn) - Normal Operation 13.1.1 Transmitter Reference Accuracy (RA1)
The Transmitter Reference Accuracy is determined by direct application'.of the vendor's specification listed in Section 8.2.1.
The output span of the transmitter is 40mV per Section 10.2.
Therefore, 10.5% span
- RAn,
=
(10.5%) (40 mvde) 10.2 mvde
=
Sensitivity (RAn,),
i0.05% span
- RAn,
=
(i0.05%) (40 mvdc)
=
10.02 mvdc
=
Deadband (RAn)*
c 10.05% span RAn
=
g e
(ic.05%) (40 mvdc)
=
10.02 mvde
=
Total Reference Accuracy (RA1) is determined as follows:
RAln = 1 [ (RAn,) 2 (RAn,) 2 (RAn)3f
+
+
c i[(0.2 mvde)2 (0.02 mvde)2 (0.02 mvdc)23 /2 1
+
+
=
10.201990 mvde
=
The vendor's specification for accuracy is a 2a 5;alue (Assumption 5.1)
(i0.201990 mvde) /2 RAln
= to.100995 mvdc
[la]
I l
1 I
REVISION NO.
O 1
Exhildt E NEP-12-02 Revision 0 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY CALCULATION NO.
QDc-3200-I-0113 PROJECT NO.
N/A PAGE 17 of 32 13.1.2 Transmitter Calibration Error (CAL 1)
Per Assumption 5.7, the transmitter is calibrated by applying pressures of known accuracy to the input, and adjusting the device for proper output. The calibration error consists of three random components:
e the inaccuracy of the calibration standard used to calibrate the measurement and test equipment for the input and output of the transmitter (STD1 & STD2) e the pressure gauge error present at the input of the transmitter (MTE1) e the error of the digital multimeter used to measure the transmitter output during calibration (MTE2)
These quantities will be calculated and combined by the SRSS method.
13.1.2.1 Calculation of STD1 and STD2 Per Reference 3.11, the calibration standard accuracy error of the measurement and test equipment is negligible. Therefore, S'.L.')1 - STD2 = 0 i
13.1.2.2 Calibration Pressure Gauge Error MTE1 The MTE associated with the transmitter input (MTE1) is due to the accuracy of the pressure gauge. From Section 9.1, the greatest pressure gauge error occurs with Heise, model C-12 (MTElB).
MTE1 - MTElB
= 119.140859 PSIG [la)
REVISION NO.
0
l Exhildt E i
NEP 12-02
~
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY CALCULATION NO.
QDC-3200-I-0113 PROJECT NO.
N/A PAGE 18 of 32 13.1.2.3 Propagation of MTE1 The error propagation to the transmitter output due to the pressure calibrator is calculated using the partial derivative method per the Comed methodology (Reference 3.3) as follows:
MTE1 prop - t [ (MTE1) 2 ( 6T,/6X) 2) 0.5 7
The transfer function of the transmitter, T,, from Reference 7
3.3, Exhibit H is:
T, = K (X - X )
+C 7
o Where:
'K
= Transmitter Gain (mV/psig)
X
= Analog Input Signal (psig)
X
- Minimum Value of Calibrated Span (psig) o C
- Transmitter Output Offset (mV)
From the transmitter characteristics listed in Section 10.2, the transfer function of the transmitter can be written as:
i i
(50 mV - 10mV/2000 PSIG - 0 PSIG) (X PSIG - O PSIG) + 10 mV T,
=
7 f
(40 mV/2000 PSIG) (X - O PSIG) + 10 mV
=
The partial derivative of T, with respect to X yields:
7 6T,/6X (40 mV/2000 PSIG)
=
7 6T,/6X 0.02 mV/PSIG
=
7 O
Therefore, MTE1 propagated to the transmitter output is:
MTE1 prop
= i((19.140859 PSIG)2(0.02 mV/PSIG)2)%
= 10.382817 mV
[la) 13.1.2.4 Calibration Digital Meter Error (MTE2)
The measurement error of the transmitter voltage current MTE2, is due to the accuracy of the digital meter. From Section 9.2, the greatest METE digital meter error occurs with the Fluke 8050 (0-200mV e 50 mV).
MTE2
- MTE2B = ib.056886 mV
[la]
REVISION NO.
O
Exhltdt E NEP.12 02 Revision O COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY CALCULATION NO.
QDC-3200-I-0113 PROJECT NO.
N/A PAGE 19 of 32 13.1.2.5 Total Calibration Error (CAL 1)
The total calibration error of the transmitter, CAL 1, is determined by the SRSS of STD, MIE1 prop and MrE2:
2 2
2 i(STD1 + STD2 + MTE1 prop 2 + MTE2)w CAL 1
=
(0.056886 mV) 2)*.
t((0 + 0 + (0.382817 mV )2
+
t0.387021 mV
[la)
=
13.1.3 Transmitter Setting Tolerance (ST1)
From Section-10.2 and Section 2 methodology, the setting tolerance for the transmitter is:
iO.2 mV/3 = t0.066667 mV
[la)
ST1
=
13.1.4 Random Input Errors (alinn)
The transmitter is the first module in the loop.
Therefore:
alinn 0
=
13.1.5 Calculation of Transmitter Random Error (alBn) alBn
= t ( (RAln) 2 2
2
+ CAL 1 + ST12+ alinn )o.5
[(0.100995 mV)2 (0.387021 mV)2 (0.066667mV)2 + 0) 0 5
+
+
=
i0.405499 mV
=
1 REVISION NO.
O
Enhltdt E NEP 12 02 Revision 0 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY CALCULATION NO.
QDc-3200-I-0113 PROJECT NO.
N/A PAGE 20 of 32 13.2 Non-Random Errors for Normal Operation (EelBn) 13.2.1 Humidity Errors (elHn)
There are no Humidity Errors described in the Vendor's specifi-cation for the transmitter.
Per Assumption 5.2, it is assumed that these errors are included in instrument reference accuracy.
Therefore, elHn = 0 1~4.2.2 Temperature Error (elTn)
There are $10 emperature Errors described in the Vendor's specifi-cation for the transmitter.
Per Assumption 5.2, it is assumed that these errors are included in the instrument reference accuracy.
Therefore, elTn = 0 13.2.3 Radiation Error (elRn)
There are no Radiation Errors described in the Vendor's specifi-cation for the transmitter.
Per Assumption 5.4, it is assumed that these errors are included in instrument drift related errors.
Therefore, elRn = 0 13.2.4 Seismic Error (elSn)
A seismic event defines a particular type of accident condition.
Errors induced on the instrument due to seismic vibrations are defined for accident conditions and therefore, are not applicable during nomal plant conditions:
elSn = 0 13.2.5 Static Pressure Effect (elSPn)
Gauge pressure transmitters are not affected by static pressure.
Therefore, elSPn = 0 REVISION NO.
O
ExNtdt E NEP 12-02 Revision 0 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY l
CALCULATION NO.
QDC-3200-I-0113 PROJECT NO.
N/A PAGE 21 of 32 13.2.6 Pressure Error (elPn)
There are no ambient pressure errors described in the vendor's specification for the transmitter (Section 8.2.1).
These errors are assumed to be included in instrument reference accuracy (Assumption 5.2).
Therefore, elPn = 0 13.2.7 Process Errors (elpn)
Per Reference 3.2, change in process density, and its effect on the static head,-is the primary source of process measuremenc errors i
for static pressure measurement applications.
The magnitude of the process error is determined by evaluating the difference between the static heads at the minimum and maximum temperature at the instruments location.
Reference 3.7 provides the following for determination of process error.
Instrument # PT - 1 ( 2 ) - 3 2 41 - 15 i
Mounting Elevation: 597'10" (597.833333')
Process Elevation:
596'11" (596.916667')
From Section 8.2.1.1 and Reference 3.12, water density values at saturation pressures are as follows:
Temperature = 120*F + p = 61.71 #/ft*
Temperature = 65'F + p = 62.34 #/ft*
62.34 #/ft*
Ap 61.71 #/ft*
=
0.63 #/ft*
=
(Mounting Elevation - Process Elevation)Ap elpn
=
elpn = (597.833333' 596.916667) (0. 63 #/f t * ) (f t * /1728 in* )
= 0.000334 psig This error is small and consider to be negligible.
Therefore, elpn = 0 REVISION NO.
O
Exhibit E
~
NE9a1202 Revision 0
~
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY l
CALCULATION NO.
QDC-3200-I-0113 PROJECT NO.
N/A PAGE 22 of 32 13.2.8 Power Supply Effects (e1Vn)
Per Assumption 5.5, the instrument power supplies have been designed to function within Manufacturer's required voltage.
Therefore, errors associated with power supply and frequency variations are considered to be negligible.
elvn = 0 13.2.9 Drift (eld)
From Assumption 5.3, drift is assumed to be
- 0.5% of span per 18 months including an addition of 25% late factor, unless specified otherwise. Tlie transmitter calibration frequencies (SI) considered per Assumption 5.7 are 3 months, 18 months, and 24 months.
3 Month Calibration Interval (t 0.5% span /18 months) - (SI) - (1 + LF) eld
=
l
[i0. 005 (40 mV) /18 months) - (3 month) - (1.25)
=
= i 0.041667 mV 18 Month Calibration Interval (t 0.5% span /18 months) - (SI) - (1 + LF) eld
=
[iO. 005 (40 mV) /18 months] - (18 month) - (1.25)
=
= i 0.25 mV 24 Month Calibration Interval eld (i 0.5% span /18 months) - (SI) - (1 + LF)
=
l
[iO.005 (40 mV) /18 months) - (24 month) - (1.25) l
=
l
= i 0.333333 mV l
\\
13.2.10 Non Random Input Error (elinn)
The transmitter is the first module in the loop. Therefore, elinn = 0 F
REVISION NO.
0 1
4
ExNtdt E NEP.12 01 Revision 0 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY CALCULATION NO.
QDc-3200-I-0113 PROJECT NO.
N/A PAGE 23 of 32 l
l 13.2.11 Non-Random Error for Normal Operation (EelBn)
Ee1Bn
= i(elHn + elTn + elRn + elSn + elSPn + elPn + elpn +
e1Vn + eld + elinn) 3 Month Calibration Interval ZelBn
= 1(0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0.043667 mV + 0)
= iO.041667 mV i
18 Month Calibration Interval EelEn
- t(0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0.25 mV + 0)
'l.25 mV
=
24 Month Calibration Interval EelBn
- i(0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0.333333 mV + 0)
= 10.333333 mV 14.0 Feedwater Header Pressure Process Computer - Module 2B Module 2B has an analog input. Therefore, it is classified as an analog module.
14.1 Random Error (a2Bn) - Normal Operation 14.1.1 Reference Accuracy (RA2n)
Accuracy of the A/D converter (i0.05% of span) and output span (2000 psig) are given in Sections 8.2.2 and 10.2. Therefore, RA2n = 10.05% (2000 PSIG)
i 1 PSIG From Assumption 5.1, RA2n - (i 1 PSIG)/2
i 0.5 PSIG
[la]
Accuracy of the Shunt resistor (0.1% of span) and output span (2000 psig) are given in Sections 8.2.2 and 10.2. Therefore, RA2%Es = 10.1% (2000 PSIG)
= i 2 PSIG REVISION NO.
0 1
Exhbit E NEPo12 02 Revleion 0 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY CALCULATION NO.
QDC-3200-I-0113 PROJECT NO.
N/A PAGE 24 of 32 From Assumption 5.1, (t 2 PSIG) /2 =
1 1 PSIG
[la]
RA2n aEs Per Methodology Section 2.0, Random errors are combine by the SRSS method. Therfore, I
RA2n
= [ (RA2n) 2 + (RA2n i((O.5 PSIG)2.asj)1 PSIG)2)0.5
=
1 1.118034 PSIG
=
14.1.2 Computer Calibration Error (CAL 2)
Per Reference 3.14, the A/D converter of the process computer cannot be cafibrated because it has no individual input / output adjustment. Therefore, CAL 2 = 0 14.1.3 Setting Tolerance (ST2)
Per Reference 3.14, the A/D converter of the Process Computer cannot be calibrated for individual input points. Therefore, ST2
=0 14.1.4 Random Input Errors (a2 inn)
The random error present at the input to the process computer at normal plant conditions (a2 inn) is due to the transmitter and was calculated in Section 13.1.5.
a2 inn alBn a2 inn t0.405499 mVdc
=
The error propagation to the process computer output is calculated using the partial derivative method per the Comed methodology (Reference 3.3) as follows:
a2innprop - t [(a2 inn )2(6T /6X)2]O 5 pe REVISION NO.
O
Exhildt E NEPo12 02
- Revision 0 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY CALCULATION NO.
Qoc-3200-I-0113 PROJECT NO.
N/A PAGE 25 of 32 The transfer function of the process computer, T,c, from Reference 3.3, Exhibit H is:
T,e = K (X - X )
+C o
s Where:
K
= Process Computer (PSIG/mV)
X
= Analog Input Signal (mV)
X
= Minimum Value of Calibrated Span (mV) o C
= Process Computer Output Offset (PSIG)
From the process computer characteristics listed in Section 10.2, the transfer function of the process computer can be written as:
(2000 PSIG - O PSIG/50mV - 10 mV) (X mV - 10 mV) + 0 PSIG T
=
ec (2000 PSIG/40 mV) (X - 10 mV) + 0
=
The partial derivative of T,c with respect to X yields:
/6X 6T,/6X (2000 PSIG) / (40 mV)
=
OT, 50 PSIG/mV
=
Therefore, a2 inn propagated to the process computer output is:
a2 inn,o,
= i((0.405499 mV)2(50 PSIG/mV)2)0.5 p
t20.274950 PSIG
[la]
=
14.1.5 Calculation of Transmitter Random Error (a2Bn) 2 (RA2n + CAL 22 2
2 a2 inn,op) o.5 a2Bn
+ ST2 +
p c
[ (1.118034 PSIG)2 + (0)2 (0)2 (20.274950 PSIG) 2j o.5
=
+
+
= i 20.305753 PSIG 14.2 Non-Random Errors for Normal Operation (Ee2Bn) 14.2.1 Humidity Error (e2Hn)
Per Reference 3.14, humidity errors are considered to be negligible. Therefore, e2Hn = 0 14.2.2 Temperature Error (e2Tn)
Per Reference 3.14, temperature errors are considered to be negligible. Therefore, e2Tn
=0 REVISION NO.
0
O EnhRdt E NEPo12 02 Revision 0 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY CALCULATION NO.
QDC-3200-I-0113 PROJECT NO.
N/A PAGE 26 of 32 14.2.3 Radiation 3rror (e2Rn)
Per Reference 3.14, radiation errors are considered to be negligible. Therefore, e2Rn - 0 14.2.4 Seismic Error (e2Sn)
A seismic event defines a particular type of accident condition.
Errors induced on the instrument due to seismic vibrations are defined for accident conditions and therefore, are not applicable during normal plant conditions:
Therefore, ;
e2Sn = 0 14.2.5 Static Pressure Offset (e2SPn)
The process computer is an electrical device and as such is not af-fected by static pressure changes. Therefore, e2SPn = 0 14.2.6 Pressure Error (e2Pn)
Per Reference 3.14 ambient pressure errors are considered to be negligible. Therefore, e2Fn = 0 0
14.2.7 Process Error (e2pn)
The process computer is an electrical device and as such is not af-fected by process errors.
Therefore, e2pn = 0 14.2.8 Power Supply Effects (e2Vn)
Per Assumption 5.5, the instrument power supplies have been designed to function within Manufacturer's required voltage.
Therefore, errors associated with power supply and frequency variations are considered to be negligible.
e2Vn = 0 REVISION NO.
O
Exhtnt E NEP 12 02
+
Revision 0 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY CALCULATION NO.
QDC-3200-I-0113 PROJECT NO.
N/A PAGE 27 of 32 14.2.9 Drift (e2D)
Per Reference 3.14, if the computer points drift outside the computer accuracy specification, the computer will initiate an alarm to notify operations. Therfore, e2D
=0 14.2.10 Non-Random Input Error (e2 inn)
The non-random error present at the inpuc to the process computer at normal plant conditions, e2 inn, is due to the transmitter and was calculated in Section 13.2.11 e2 inn
= EelBn
~
3 Month Calibration Interval e2 inn = t0.041667 mV 18 Month Calibration Interval e2 inn = 10.25 mV 24 Month Calibration Interval e2 inn = t0.333333 mV These errors are propagated through the process computer indication per the methodology developed in Section 14.1.4 as follows:
j 3 Month Calibration Interval
[ (e2 inn) 2 ( 6T /6X) 2 1/2 e2innprop 3
=
pe
[ (O. 041667 mV) 2 (50 PSIG/mV) 2) 0.5
=
= i 2.083350 PSIG 18 Month Calibration Interval
= [ (0. 25 mV) 2 (pe/ 6X) 2j 1/250 PSIG/mV)2)o.5
[(e2 inn)2(6T e2innprop t 12.5 PSIG
=
24 Month Calibration Interval
[(e2 inn)2(6T /6X)2)1/2 e2innprop
=
pe
[ (0. 333333 mV) 2 (50 PSIG/mV) 2) 0.5
=
16.666650 PSIG REVISION NO.
0 1
Exhtdt E NEP.1242 Revision 0 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY CALCULATION NO.
Qoc-3200-I-0113 PROJECT NO.
N/A PAGE 28 of 32 14.2.11 Non-Random Error for Normal Operation (Ee2Bn)
Ee2Bn
- i(e2Hn + e2Tn + e2Rn + e2Sn + e2SPn + e2Pn + e2pn + e2Vn
+ e2D + e2 inn) 3._ Month Calibration Interval Ee2B7
- i(0+ 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 2.083350 PSIG)
- t 2.083350 PSIG 18 Month Calibration Interval Ee2Bn
- i(0+ 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 12.5 PSIG)
- t i2.5 PSIG 24 Month Calibration Interval Ee2Bn
- i(0+ 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 16.666650 PSIG)
- i 16.666650 PSIG 15.0 Total Loop Errors 15.1 Reactor Pressure Indication Total Loop Errors Per Reference 3.3, Total Error (TEAn) during normal operation is:
TEAn - 2 (a2An) + EelAn + Ie2An NED-I4EIC-0052 (Reference 3.6), uses the square-root-sum-of-the-squares method (SRSS) as part of the graded approach to combine the non-random errors relAn and re2An.
This calculation does not use the graded appoach, therefore the errors are combined as described in the above formula.
Note that the graduation interval for the indicator (Module 2A) is 20 psig (Section 8.1.2 of NED-I-EIC-0052, Reference 3.6).
The readability of the indicator is 1/4 of the graduation interval.
Therefore, the total error will be rounded to the nearest 5 psig.
15.1.1 Total Loop Error during Normal Operating Conditions (TEAn)
From Section 12.1 the total random error is given by, a2An - i 15.295777 PSIG (la) l REVISION NO.
0 1
1 EndWt E NEP.1242
- Revision O COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY CALCULATION NO.
QDC-3200-I-0113 PROJECT NO.
N/A PAGE 29 of 32 From Section 11.2, the transmitter non-random error (relAn) is given by, 3 Month Calibration Interval relAn = i 1.25 psig (la) 18 Month Calibration Interval
)
reAln - i 7.5 psig (la) 24 Month Calibration Interval relAn = t 1R_psig (la)
From Section 12.2, the indicator non-random error (re2An) is given by, 3 Month Calibration Interval re2An = i 1.25 psig (la) 18 Month Calibration Interval reA2n = i 7.5 psig (la) 24 Month Calibration Interval Ee2An = i 10 psig (la)
Therefore, the total loop error during normal operating conditions (TEAn) is given by 3 Month Calibration Interval TEAn = t 2 (15.295777 PSIG) + 1.25 PSIG + 1.25 PSIG
=1 33.091554 PSIG Rounding up to the nearest 5 PSIG for readability, TEAn
= t35 PSIG 18 Month Calibration Interval TEAn
= 1 2(15.295777 PSIG) + 7.5 PSIG + 7.5 PSIG
= i 45.591554 PSIG (2a) 145 PSIG (2a)
REVISION NO.
O
Exhtdt E
{
NEPo12 02 o
Revision 0 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY CALCULATION NO.
QDC-3200-I-0113 PROJECT NO.
N/A PAGE 30 of 32
(
24 Month calibration Interval TEAn
= i 2 (15.295777 PSIG) + 10 PSIG + 10 PSIG
= i 50.591554 PSIG (2a)
- t 50 PSIG (2a) 15.2 Feedwater Header Pressure Indication Total Loop Errors,
Per Reference 3.3, Total Error (TEBn) during normal operations is:
TEBn = 2 (a2Bn) + Ie2Bn Note that the resolution of the control room CRT display for the
~
process computer is 5 PSIG per Assumption 5.11. Therefore, the error will be rounded-up to the nearest 5 PSIG.
15.2.1 Total Loop Error during Normal Operating Conditions (TEBn)
From Section 14.1.5 the total random error is given by, a2Bn = 1 20.305753 PSIG (la)
From Section 14.2.11, the total non-random error (Ie2Bn) is given by, 3 Month Calibration Interval re2Bn
=t 2.083350 PSIG 18 Month Calibration Interval l
Ie2Bn
= i 12.5 PSIG l
24 Month Calibration Interval re2Bn
- i 16.666650 PSIG i
\\
1 REVISION NO.
0 1
)
Exhtdt E NEP 12-02
- Revision 0 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY CALCULATION NO.
QDc-3200-I-0113 PROJECT NO.
N/A PAGE 31 of 32 Therefore, the total loop error during normal operating conditions (TEBn) is given by, 3 Month Calibration Interval TEBn 1 2 (20.305753 PSIG) + 2.083350 PSIG
=
i 42.694856 PSIG (2a)
=
Rounding up to the nearest 5 PSIG for readability TEBn = i 45 PSIG (20) 18 Mdnth Calibration Interval TEBn t 2 (20.305753 PSIG) + 12.5 PSIG 53.111506 PSIG (2a)
=
Rounding up to the nearest 5 PSIG for readability TEBn i 55 PSIG (2a) 24 Month Calibration Interval TEBn 1 2 (20.305753 PSIG) + 16.666650 PSIG
=
=1 57.278156 PSIG (2a)
Rounding up to the nearest 5 PSIG for readability a
TEBn
=1 60 PSIG (2a) 15.3 Total Combined Instrument Uncertainty Associated With Determining The Differential Pressure Reading The total combined instrument uncertainty associated with determining the differential pressure (TEAPn) is detenmined by combining the instrument loop uncertainties for the Reactor Pressure Indication Loop and the Feedwater Header Pressure Indication Loop using the square-root-sum-of-the-squares (SRSS)
Method. This provides a good approximation of the accuracy associated with using two independent instrument loops to determine the differential pressure across the Feedwater check valves.
l REVISION NO.
0 1
Exhbit E NEP 12-02 Revleion 0 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY CALCULATION NO.
QDC-3200-I-0113 PROJECT NO.
N/A PAGE 32 of 32 The formula used is as follows:
[(TEAn)2 (TEBn) 2) 0.5 TEAPn
+
=
PT-1 (2 ) - 0 647A mM PT-1 ( 2 ) - 3 241 - 15 3 Month Calibration Interval TEAPn = i [(35 PSIG)2 + (45 PSIG)2 35 0
=
=
PT-1 (2 ) - 0647A and PT-1 (2) - 3241-15 18 Month Calibration Interval c'fEAPn = i [(45 PSIG)2 (55 PSIG)2)o.5
+
i 71.063352 PSIG
= 1 71 PSIG (2a)
=
PT-1 (2) -0647A and PT-1 (2) -3241-15 24 Month Refuelina Cycle TEAPn = i [ (50 PSIG) 2 + ( 60 PSIG) 2) o.5
=1 78.1024968.PSIG
= i 78 PSIG (2a)
16.0 CONCLUSION
S The total combined instrument uncertainty associated with using the Reactor Pressure Indicating Loop and the Feedwater Header Pressure Indicating Loop, to determine the differential pressure across Feedwater check valves, 1(2) -0220-58A and B, and 1(2)-0220-62A and B when calibrated with the MTE specified in section 9.0 is:
PT-1 (2 ) - 064 7A and PT-1 (2 ) - 3241 - 15 3 Month Calibration Interval TEAPn = t 57 PSIG (2a)
PT-1 (2 ) -0647A and PT-1 (21 - 3241-15 18 Month Calibration Interval TEAPn - t 71 PSIG (2a)
PT-1 (2 ) - 0647A and PT-1 (2 ) - 3241-15 24 Month Calibration Interval TEAPn - i 78 PSIG (2a)
REVISION NO.
0 1
~
(K.32o0-1-oM a Ab f
,& RAW #s"r /
93W / or /
b l..
..IL March 07,1996 Verbal Conversation Memorandum To:
Calculation File QDC-3200-I-0113 From:
N.R. Ramiro x3279 CC:
D.J.
Cujko x3235 J.H. Schnitzmeyer x2822 R.G. Wunder x3129
Subject:
Obtaining Technical Information for the process computer On Thursday, March 7, 1996, I met with
'im Schnitzmeyer to obtain-technical data for the proce, computer that monitor the Rx FW Header Pressure. The following highlights the discussion.
1.
The Technical Manual for the process computer is not available.
2.
The accuracy of the process computer is dependent on the accuracy of its Analog to Digital (A/D) Converter which is 0.05% span.
3.
The field input for the reactor FW header pressure indication is non-safety-related and enters the process computer equipment directly and bypasses signal isolation equipment as indicated on drawings 4E-1855 and 4E-1873.
4.
The process computer measures voltage (20-100 mV) across its a
input terminals.
Therefore a 2 ohm ( 0.1 Tol) shunt resistor is installed across the computer input terminals.
5.
The A/D converter cannot be calibrated because it has no individual input / output adjustments.
6.
The computer monitors its own performance If its performance drifts beyond the accuracy or the A/D converter (t0.05% span), the computer will initiace an alarm to notify operations that a problem exists.
7.
Jim is not aware of any environmental related uncertainties associated with the process computer equipment and considers any environmental effects to be negligible.
8.
The control room CRT display screen (where the process value will be obtained) has a 4 digit display. It is conservatively assumed that the 4 digit CRT display is a 3-1/2 significant digit display, Therefore the resolution at the control room CRT display is considered to be 5 psig.
ATTACHMENT B QUAD CITIES IST PROGRAM RELIEF REQUEST NUMBER RV-03B SVP-98-134 Page 1 of 3 COMPONENT IDENTIFICATION CODE CODE DWG VALVE NUMBER CATEGORY CLASS DRAWING NUMBER COOR Unit 1 0305-132 -RPD*
D 1
M-0041-1 F-4 Unit 2 0305-132 -RPD*
D 1
M-00K3-1 F-3
- Note: The Components listed above are typical of 177 valves per unit, i.e., one for each of the Control Rod Drives.
F, UNCTION (S)
These mpture disks perform a safety function to serve as a pressure boundary to maintain HCU accumulator pressure. The disks also have a non-safety related function to protect the accumulators from over-pressurization due to the effects of external causes (e.g. fire). This is a Code (Section Vill) requirement and they serve no function in the context of reactor safety.
CODE REOUIREMENT (S)
OMa-1988 Part 10, Paragraph 4,4.2
" Rupture Disk Tests" Rupture discs shall meet the requirements for Nonreclosing Pressure Relief Devices of Part 1.
OM-1987 Part I, Paragraph 1.3.3.2 "Nonreciosing Pressure Relief Devices" Class 1 nonreclosing pressure relief devices shall be replaced every 5 years unless historical data indicates a requirement for more frequent replacement.
i l
l
I i
ATTACllMENT B QUAD CITIES IST PROGRAM RELIEF REQUEST NUMBER RV-03B SVP-98-134 Page 2 of 3 i
BASIS FOR RELIEF 10CFR50.55a(a)(6)(i), "im practical" 10CFR50.55a(a)(3)(ii), " hardship" The CRD accumulator rupture disk is physically located on the CRD control block. Over half of Quad Cities Station's CRD control blocks and accumulaton are oriented such that the rupture disk can not be removed without removing and/or disassembling the CRD accumulanr and associated piping. Additionally, the only method to raise the pressure in an accumulator to the bursting point of the rupture disk is during a fue loading event in the immediate vicinity of the accumulator, which would be improbable.
Since the CRD accumulator environment is nitrogen, the material condition of the rupture disks would not be expected te degrade significantly over the twenty years of smice life experienced to date. Thus, Quad Cities removed several originally installed accessible rupture disks for quantitative metallurgical analysis and destructive testing. This testing has shown that no degradation has occurred in the metallurgical characteristics, which would impact the disk's ability to burst at the correct pressure. Destructive burst pressure testing of the sample disks taken from the CRD system has verified the analysis conclusions.
Replacing each accumulator rupture disk on a five year periodicity would be a significant hardship on Quad Cities without a commensurate increase in the level of quality and safety.
PROPOSED ALTERNATE TESTING Quantitative metallurgical analysis and destructive burst tests have shown that no degradation has occurred in the metallurgical characteristics which would impact the disk's ability to burst at the correct pressure. Quad Cities is confident that the rupture disks will retain their pressure retaining integrity for the life of the plant. The rupture discs will only be replaced on an as-needed basis.
)
i APPLICABLE TIME PERIOD Reliefis requested for the 3rd ten (10) year interval.
l l
l J
(
l ATTACilMENT H QUAD CITIES IST PROGRAM RELIEF REQUEST NUMBER RV-03B SVP-98 134 Page 3 of 3 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR RELIEF REQUEST RV-03B l
including:
1.
B. Joe, GE Nuclear Energy to D. Schumacher, Comed, dated 11/16/94 2.
Quad Cities P&lD "M-0041, Sheet 1" 3.
Quad Cities P&ID "M-0083, Sheet 1" l
l l
l l
l
[
1 i
l I
l r
1llt GENucle:r Energy a
ge't leC? : L:"rar,
- une ~ne :.c ;se enon November 16, 1994 i
l To:
Mr. Dave Schumacher Commonwealth Edison Company l
Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station l
22710 206th Avenue North l
Cordova, IL 61242
~
From:
Mr. Bertram W. Joe g#^
l j
GE Nuclear Energy 408-925-6022 Mail Code: M/C 571
Subject:
Evaluation of CRD System HCU Accumulator Ruptura l
Discs With 20 Years of Service
References:
1.
Purchase order Number 352864, HCU Rupture Disk Replacement criteria, Commonwealth j
Edison Company / Quad Cities, January 10, 1994 2.
B. D. Frew to B. W. Joe, Hydraulic Control Unit Rupture Disk Metallurgical Evaluation, GE Nuclear Energy, August 9, 1994 (attached) 3.
C.
Ellis, Burst Testing and Visual Inspection
)
of Three Returned Rupture Disc Assemblies From G.
E. Nuclear, Fike Metal Products, l
TR94011, July 12, 1994 (attached)
The following evaluation regarding the commonwealth Edison Company (Ceco) Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2 l
control Rod Drive System hydraulic control unit scram accumulator rupture discs was performed in accordance with purchase order number 352864 (Reference 1).
Please contact me if you have any j
questions.
Verification for this report is contained in DRF C11-00302.
page 1 of 8 i
3E Nucseari::eroy IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING CONTENTS OF TEIS REPORT Please read carefully The only undertakings of General Electric Company respecting information in this document are contained in the contract between the customer and General Electric Company, as identified in the purchase order for this report, and nothing contained in this document shall be construed as changing the contract.
The use of this information by anyone other than the customer or for any purpose other than that for which it in. intended, is not authorized; and with respect to any unauthorized use, General Electric Company makes no representation or warranty, and assumes no liability as to the completeness, accuracy, or usefulness of the information contained in this document.
i i
page 2 of 8 J
GE Nuclear Energy
SUMMARY
A sample of Control Rod Drive (CRD) System Hydraulic Control Unit (HCU) scram accumulator rupture discs from the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2 were examined and tested to determine their condition after 20 years of service.
The rupture discs are pressure relief devices for the HCU scram accumulators and are installed in head assemblies connected to the nitrogen side of the accumulators.
There is one rupture disc / head assembly for each accumulator.
The burst function of the rupture disc is for protecting the HCU scram accumulator from overpressure during a fire and is not a safety function.
The safety function of the rupture disc is to retain the 1100 psig nominal nitrogen pressure of the charged scram accumulator for the CRD scram function.
A metallurgical evaluation of a used HCU rupture disc with approximately 20 years of service and a new rupture disc was performed.
It consisted of 1) an examination of the surface by scanning electron microscopy (SEN), 2) an optical metallographic examination, and 3) a hardness examination.
Additionally, a chemical analysis for nitrogen content was performed for the rupture disc with 20 years of service.
Three used ruptura discs were tested for burst pressure.
The testing was performed with the rupture discs installed in their original head assemblies.
The rupture disc / head assemblies were removed from the HCUs intact so that the rupture discs would not be disturbed, which may affect the burst pressure.
page 3 of 8
}5%
JE Nec;2:rinsrW The results of the metallurgical evaluation were as follows:
The rupture disc with 20 years of service showed no anomalous conditions consistent with service induced degradation.
(
The properties of the rupture disc with 20 years of service j
were similar to those of a new rupture disc.
l The burst tests indicated that the burst pressure of the three
{
used rupture discs meet the manufacturing tolerances for burst pressure.
Although there may be an increasing trend in the burst pressure, the safety function of the rupture disc (pressure retention) is not adversely affected by this postulated trend.
Also, the non-safety function (pressure relief) is not adversely affected since the burst pressure of the HCU accumulator is significantly higher than the rupture disc burst pressure.
l In summary, the results of the metallurgical evaluation and the burst tests indicate that the HCU rupture discs at Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 are acceptable for a 40 year service life.
METALLURGICAL EVALUATIgg i
The following is a brief description of the metallurgical evaluation.
Additional details are described in Reference 2.
Scannina Electron Microscony l
The stainless steel surfaces of the used and new rupture discs were examined by SEM.
The examination of the used rupture disc revealed a uniform surface with a characteristic of a pickled page 4 of 8
?
]ENuclearinergy stainless steel.
The surface showed no indications of anomalous conditions or service induced degradation.
An energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) evaluation identified the material type as Type 316 stainless steel.
The examination of the new ruptura disc revealed a uniform surface with what appeared to be flow lines from the forming process.
The EDS evaluation identified the material type to most likely be Type 316 stainless steel.
Ontical Metalloaranhv The used and new rupture discs were sectioned for an optical metallographic examination of the interior structure of the stainless steel.
The examination of the used disc revealed a structure of fine grains (ASTM #15) along the disc surfaces and a coarser grain structure (ASTM #10) in the interior region between the surface layers.
There were no anomalous features found.
The exeaination of the new rupture disc revealed rolling banding and a faint ziicrostructure, typical of Type 316 stainless steel.
f The grain sizm isce determined to be ASTM #10.
Hardnesp The sectioned uswd and new rupture discs were tested for hardness using a Knoop nicrohardness tester with a log load.
Measurements were made on the external surface of the disc and on the interior material between the two external surfaces.
The two rupture discs were found to have similar average hardness values which were within the normal range for austenitic stainless steel.
The average hardnesses of the surface and intorior for the used rupture disc were Rockwell B 97 and B 92, respectively.
The page 5 of a
3EMucssarinerqY i
average hardnesses of the surface and interior for the new rupture disc were Rockwell B 96.5 and B 91, respectively.
1 Nitrocan Analysis The used rupture disc was analyzed for nitrogen content to determine if the disc had absorbed a significant amount of nitrogen during the approximately 20 years of service.
The results indicated an average nitrogen content of 0.078%, which is typical for 300 series stainless steel.
Therefore, an insignificant amount of nitrogen was absorbed by the rupture disc and material properties would not be significantly affected by this mechanism.
RUPTURE DISC BURST TESTS The following is a brief description of the metallurgical evaluation.
Additional details are described in Reference 3.
Burst tests were performed with a sample of three HCU ruptura discs.
Each one was contained in its original safety head and had approximately 20 years of service.
Each disc was pressurized l
at a rate of 50 psig per second from 0 to approximately 1000 p'ig.
A pressurization rate of 20 psig per second was then s
utilized until the disc ruptured.
The rupture pressure was then adjusted for a temperature of 150' F since the test was performed at a temperature of 72* F.
i The burst pressures were 2270, 2297 and 2316 psig at 72* F.
Adjusting for the temperature, the burst pressures were calculated to be 2156, 2182 and 2200 psig at 150* F.
The temperature adjustment calculation is based upon approximately 50 page 6 of 8 j
l 1
JENuc:eari::eroy years of test data.
All three met the manufacturing requirements of 1900 to 2100 psig 15% at 150* F.
1 CONCLUSIONS The results of the metallurgical evaluation indicate there were no anomalous conditions consistent with service induced degradation, and the properties of the 20 year old used rupture disc were similar to those of a new rupture disc.
Based upon these results, the HCU rupture discs are expected to operate up to their 40 year design life without significant changes to their metallurgical properties.
If it is assumed that the burst pressure was originally 2000 psig at 150* F (ths midpoint of the 1900 to 2100 psig requirement),
then the present burst pressures of 2156, 2182 and 2200 psig at 150* would indicate that the burst pressure may be increasing slightly.
(The actual original burst pressures are not known.)
It is believed that this postulated increasing trend is caused by work hardening due to HCU accumulator pressure changes from control rod drive (CRD) scram / scram reset and from accumulator nitrogen discharging / charging from HCU maintenance.
The burst function of the rupture disc is for protecting the HCU accumulator from overpressure during a fire and is not a safety function.
The HCU nitrogen bottle and accumulator each have a design pressure of 2000 psi, a proof pressure of 3000 psi and a burst pressure of 8000 pai.
When compared to the design of the HCU accumulator, the effect of the postulated increasing trend on the ruptura disc burst pressure is small.
It is anticipated, therefore, that the HCU rupture discs will continue to satisfactorily perform their non-safety pressure relief function up to their 40 year design life, page 7 of 8
NM GENuctear L,eroy The safety fur.ction of the ruptura disc is to retain the 1100 psig nominal nitrogen pressure of the charged scram accumulator for the CRD scram function.
The postulated increasing trend in the rupture disc burst pressure has no detrimental effect on this function.
Since the pressure retention function of the ruptura l
disc is not adversely affected by the postulated increasing burst l
pressure, it is anticipated that the HCU rupture discs will continue to satisfactorily perform their safety pressure i
retention function up to their 40 year design life.
In summary, the results of the metallurgical evaluation and the burst tests indicate that the HCU scram accumulator rupture discs at Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 are acceptable for a 40 year service life.
I Verified by:
N I
l
- 47. A. Zidak l
l i
cc:
L. Y. Chang, GE l
B. D. Frew, GE C. Ellis, Fike Metal Products E. Y. Gibo, GE A. F. Gonzaga, GE J. Kincade, Fike Metal Products J. M. Oroni, GE
)
G. H. Pratt, GE J. A. Steininger W. A. Stotts, GE l
page 8 of 8 l
i
)
GENuclect Energy Generedec:r:Cwcany
- 75 Curtner kenue 5sn ase. CA 9512S DRF Cl1-00302 August 9,1994 To:
B.W. Joe 4
Subject:
Hydraulic Control Unit Rupture Disk Metallurgical Evaluation l
Two hydraulic control unit (HCU) rupture disks were received for a metallurgical evaluation to verify the properties after 20 years of service. One disk had seen senice for approximately 20 years at Quad Cities station (Disk 1),
while the other disk evaluated was the current replacement (Disk 2). The two disks were examined by the following techniques: scanning electron microscopy, optical metallography, microhardness and chemical analysis.
J l
Sc==nine Electron Microscopy (SEM) l Both disks were examined by SEM for any unusual surface features. Figure 1 is a 100X view of the surface of Disk 1. The surface is uniform and does not have any evidence of anomalous conditions. A higher magnification view (Figure 2; 1000X) shows a surface characteristic of a pickled stainless steel. No i
i evidence of senice induced degradation was observed. The surface of Disk 2 l
can be seen in Figure 3 (100X). This shows a uniform surface with what appears to be flow lines from the forming process. A 1000X view of the surface (Figure 4) shows the flow lines more clearly.
- As part of the SEM evaluation, energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) was.
performed on the rupture disks to identify the material type. Disk I was identified as Type 321 stainless steel, while Disk 2 was most likely Type 316.
i These results are consistent with the drawing specifications.
i l
Optical Mermilorraphy Disks 1 and 2 were sectioned to obtain samples for optical metallographic examination. A typical cross section of Disk I (Figure 5; 800X) shows a structure of f'me grains on the edges (ASTM #15), with a coarser grain 1
structure (ASTM #10) in the core region. This type of structure most likely resulted from the forming operation. No anomalous features were noted.
Disk 2 can be seen in Figure 6; this 400X view clearly shows rolling banding and a faint microstructure, typical of Type 316 material. The grain size was determined to be ASTM #10. The section change and Dow lines observed were consistent with the manufacturing process.
Microhardness Hardness measurements were taken on both optical metallographic samples using a Knoop microhardness tester with a 10g load. The results are shown in Table 1.
The average hardness values in the center of the samples for Disks 1 and 2 were Rockwell B 92 and 91, respectively. The corresponding values for the surface regions of bisks 1 and 2 were Rockwell B 97 and 96.5, respectively.
These values were within the normal range for austenitic stainless steel. Since the two materials have similar hardnesses, it was reasonable to expect that the disks would have similar mechanical properties.
Niu s p s A== bsis Sample material from the used rupture disks were analyzed for nitrogen content to determine if the disks had absorbed a significant amount of nitrogen during the approximately 20-year service life. The average nitrogen content of the used rupture disks was determined to be 0.0785 This value was typical for 300 series stainless steels, and as such, would not significantly affect the material properties.
Conclusions i
Metallurgical evaluation of the used rupture disks did not observe any anomalous conditions consistent with service induced degradation. Based on a comparison with a replacement disk, the used disk from Quad Cities had properties similar to the new disk.
Prepared by:
B.D. Frew, Engineer Materials Applications Verified By: N,., //I/'m-R.R. Milian-Rodriguez, Senior Engineer Materials Applications i
\\
TABLEI MICROHARDNESS MEASUREMENTS KNOOP,10 g LOAD DISK 1 DISK 2 CENTER Knoop Rockwell B Knoop Rockwell B 190 211 211 224 211 190 214 207 222 192 211 Average 11Q 21 20fi 21 1
SURFACE 224 230 224 231 249 241 247 228 247 219
. Average 23fi 21 LH Sfid
..Td3 d.9ENT
- r]
~
}
2,P p:{qip gy j
5 5 -
i i
' Gt3.#
,.,.IE
.g
, r} i 1
.g_
0026 25KU X100 100pm WD13 Figure 1: Surface of Disk 1; no degradation is observed.
- ^
~C.Y *C:r.
95 it'iN..
- W
!g j':E&.
- 4W,kt -
ff
- ~gy1W.T.%,g2
^ * " "
d.
. ~ m
- s
_{hhpf.:l' t
h
.. x Figure 2: Higher magnification view of Figure 1.
,,]i'
\\,'.[.
. A,. q.
t,.o, s
,, a,,3. V,
B. y, p,k hk', ^' \\p ins 3,. x... K,,. v. p.g v.
2 [ '
. '"[
[f.
Y,h[. -
v,
- \\ '. t. 'p.
r
...a.
,.4 L.
- .. ;;k f # lL' $ Q:
v#
.s:. 3 r.'F s.
C ll.: G j.-
,. ! l:: s'.s. ' i 3 h y t 9; Q
- p L'.
i 9
O ts. s.' T g ', 4 {1. -.
.,s
-,, s'
- ' s :.,i i t
,,',; ;. lg ' _ Ag, g.,, J '; gy9 )e; 4,f,. l e
~ } 'l ;; )..
~
y
.y.
.,. b.,,
3
...s, u o f,_
K ?_ '. Y.' N
.,.;)
2.
A 0033 25KV X100 100Pm WD12 Figure 3: Surface of unused rupture disk; note flow lines.
a x
.,~=..
y 3'
.w 3\\ $ ^
M.'
- e
.+
t
't
, ig'
'(
w(g
%; g 4
+.
. [*,~,..
kI d'i
'Ng '(fN, h
,}
L'
.;..y
'y i
,j
- h. h'. z. [ M fM(';
0039 25KU X1,000 10pm WD12 Figure 4: Higher magnification view of Figure 3.
..--.4A..,.,
.,.z.._.
._,,._I.
u ;i2.x.... %s..,.,..
"*6 e..
e
.. =...
.-.w*
'A.
s.
-Qc;+p.;
.C:.W-T....E.bM. :*. :- sr.'.
....:==59:u,.;r h
. m'.
8:
cc-;;;c
.f-
'.3.
. v. - p. < c 4Wp%'..
..' M_ + T.*M~L z 1
s.= _# ;: w
,.y.,
,. k--
\\, ?. '
\\. ',
-:-~~~~~~~
- 4~
~
4'- <.
t..
a, n e... s.
E W Q T. N n C W i,3,f, N.,. S-,..,
+=..
.y r
..'. M. w -:, ' 'n, &... W -
M.i.
- y..14.A,a.,
x ac.
- r. :
800X Figure 5: Cross sectional view of Disk 1; no unusual features observed.
?
'5.
k' y @. y- ;;.. 4:
r-;ew 4,* :.-
n.'.< +',~.x...>m e. -
+
~
~.g
_m p$5@% [,:.:g%p%; %m.C@T N %
.y
,~
~ -.
~ ~m@
~~
s w
~
t,/ y e-ginY g.: :g:
- w c' p;. % Y u g
.g W
-.p
~. y
.= s
- s. ' J. g N. **g*.:.,'. :
-jsF
.,=. r f, Li-.:.
., W....y.
gn..a
.,N v '-
===*~e~ -
$ d - I.,. N. 4 y,..
~-
w N
Y=..%.k.N s
s p.
. r.. sa.
.. e,%,,
n+
.,,.,. I-- 4 w'.(q,.
.J*p,
' w".t.
L.<1,.
n.
400X Figure 6: Microstructure of Disk 2; lines are from the forming process.
i I