View source for RA-23-0015, Response to Request for Additional Information (RAI) Regarding Addition of Feedwater Isolation on Steam Generator Level High-High to Technical Specification 3.3.2

{{Adams
| number = ML23040A426
| issue date = 02/09/2023
| title = Response to Request for Additional Information (RAI) Regarding Addition of Feedwater Isolation on Steam Generator Level High-High to Technical Specification 3.3.2
| author name = Basta L
| author affiliation = Duke Energy Progress, LLC
| addressee name = 
| addressee affiliation = NRC/NRR, NRC/Document Control Desk
| docket = 05000261
| license number = DPR-023
| contact person = 
| case reference number = RA-23-0015
| document type = Letter type:RA, Response to Request for Additional Information (RAI)
| page count = 1
| project = 
| stage = Response to RAI
}}

=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Laura A. Basta H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant Unit 2 Site Vice President Duke Energy 3581 West Entrance Road Hartsville, SC 29550 843 951 1701 Laura.Basta@duke-energy.com Serial: RA-23-0015                                                                       10 CFR 50.90 February 9, 2023 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 H. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-261 / RENEWED LICENSE NO. DPR-23

==SUBJECT:==
Response to Request for Additional Information (RAI) Regarding Addition of Feedwater Isolation on Steam Generator Level High-High to Technical Specification 3.

==3.2 REFERENCES==
: 1. Duke Energy letter, License Amendment Request to Add Feedwater Isolation on Steam Generator Level High-High to Technical Specification 3.3.2 and Update the List of Analytical Methods Used in the Determination of Core Operating Limits, dated September 21, 2022 (ADAMS Accession No. ML22264A149)
: 2. NRC email, Request for Additional Information to Duke's Request for Robinson to Add Feedwater Isolation Function to TS 3.3.2 and Remove Obsolete Content from TSs 2.1.1.1 and 5.6.5.b (EPID L-2022-LLA-0137), dated January 11, 2023 (ADAMS Accession No. ML23011A015)
Ladies and Gentlemen:
In Reference 1, Duke Energy Progress, LLC (Duke Energy) submitted a license amendment request (LAR) to modify the Technical Specifications (TS) for H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (RNP), Unit No. 2. The proposed amendment would add a new function to TS 3.3.2, Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation Table 3.3.2-1 for Feedwater Isolation on Steam Generator (SG) level high-high (i.e., SG overfill protection). In addition, proposed revisions to TS 2.1.1.1 and TS 5.6.5.b were included to reflect the removal of analytical methods no longer applicable for the determination of RNP core operating limits. In Reference 2, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff requested additional information regarding Reference 1.
The Enclosure and Attachments 1 - 6 provide Duke Energys response to the Reference 2 RAI.
The conclusions of the No Significant Hazards Consideration and Environmental Consideration in the original LAR are unaffected by this RAI response.
This submittal contains no new regulatory commitments.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RA-23-0015 Page 2 Duke Energy is notifying the state of South Carolina by transmitting a copy of this letter to the state official.
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, or require additional information, please contact Ryan Treadway, Director - Nuclear Fleet Licensing , at 980-373-5873.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on February 9, 2023 .
Sincerely, Laura A. Basta Site Vice President

==Enclosure:==

Response to Request for Additional Information Attachments:
: 1. RNP-I/INST-1070 , "Steam Generator Narrow Range Level Loop Uncertainty and Scal ing Calculation"
: 2. AD-EG-ALL-1153, "Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Unce rtainty Calculations" (Reference 4.6.6 of Attachment 1)
: 3. FAD-EG-ALL- 1153 , "Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Unce rtainty Methodology and Discussion" (Reference 4.6.6 of Attachment 1)
: 4. Excerpt from RNP Vendor Technical Manual (VTM) 728-012-10, "General l&C SPARES
       - Transmitters, Rosemount Instruction Manual, Product Data Sheets, Procedures" regarding Transmitter Rosemount Model 3154ND2R2F1 E7 (Reference 4.4.3 of Attachment 1)
: 5. Excerpt from RNP VTM 728-589-13, "Instruction Manual for Control and Protection Instrumentation," regarding Comparator Hagan Model 139- 118 (Reference 4.4.1 of Attachment 1)
: 6. Excerpt from RNP VTM 728-589- 13, "Instruction Manual for Control and Protection Instrumentation," regarding Comparator NUS DAM 800 (Heference 4.4 .1 of Attachment 1)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RA-23-0015 Page 3 cc:    (all with Enclosure)
L. Dudes, Regional Administrator USNRC Region II J. Zeiler, NRC Senior Resident Inspector L. Haeg, NRR Project Manager A. Wilson, Attorney General (SC)
R. S. Mack, Assistant Bureau Chief, Bureau of Environmental Health Services (SC)
L. Garner, Manager, Radioactive and Infectious Waste Management Section (SC)

Enclosure RA-23-0015 Enclosure Response to Request for Additional Information

Enclosure RA-23-0015 Page 1 of 4 NRC RAI INTRODUCTION By {{letter dated|date=September 21, 2022|text=letter dated September 21, 2022}}, ([Agencywide] Document[s] Access [and] Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. [ML22264A149]), Duke Energy Progress, LLC (Duke Energy, the licensee), requested a license amendment request (LAR) for the H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (Robinson). The proposed amendment would add a Feedwater Isolation on High-High Steam Generator Level function to Table 3.3.2-1 of Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.2, Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS)
Instrumentation, and remove obsolete content from TSs 2.1.1.1, Reactor Core SLs [Safety Limits], and 5.6.5.b, Core Operating Limits Report (COLR).
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has reviewed the information provided by the licensee. The staff finds that the following additional information is required to complete the review of the LAR.
REGULATORY BASIS Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.36, Technical Specifications, requires, in part, that the TS shall be included by applicants for a license authorizing operation of a production or utilization facility. 10 CFR 50.36(c) requires, in part, that Technical Specifications include items in the following categories: (1) Safety limits, limiting safety system settings, and limiting control settings, (2) Limiting conditions for operation (3) Surveillance requirements [SRs], (4) Design features, and (5) Administrative controls.
10 CFR 50 Appendix A, General Design Criteria (GDC) 13, Instrumentation and control, states in part, that Instrumentation shall be provided to monitor variables and systems over their anticipated ranges for normal operation, for anticipated operational occurrences, and for accident conditions as appropriate to assure adequate safety, including those variables and systems that can affect the fission process, the integrity of the reactor core, the reactor coolant pressure boundary, and the containment and its associated systems. Appropriate controls shall be provided to maintain these variables and systems within prescribed operating ranges.
Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2006-17, NRC Staff Position on the Requirements of 10 CFR 50.36, Technical Specifications, Regarding Limiting Safety System Settings During Periodic Testing and Calibration of Instrument Channels, dated August 24, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML051810077), discusses issues that could occur during testing of limiting safety system settings (LSSSs) and could therefore have an adverse effect on equipment operability. The RIS also represents an approach that is acceptable to the NRC staff for addressing As-Found and As-Left Tolerance Limits for use in licensing actions.
ISSUE Section 3.0 of the LAR stated, in part:
Modules in the high-high SG level setpoint loop considered in the calculation of TLU
[total loop uncertainty] consist of a transmitter and comparator. The negative TLU associated with this setpoint is -16.73% span, which considers effects of reference

Enclosure RA-23-0015 Page 2 of 4 accuracy, calibration tolerance, drift, measurement and test equipment (M&TE) effect, static pressure effect, temperature effect, power supply effect, seismic effect, process measurement effect, and analyzed drift bias. The random component of this loop is
        +/- 2.49% span and the bias component is -14.24% span.
the transmitter/sensor is not included in tolerance calculations for this allowable value (AV) because testing consists of a simulated signal injected in place of the field instrument signal. Therefore, the Group As-Found Tolerance (GAFT) used to calculate the AV consists of only the As-Found Tolerance (AFT) of the comparator. This value is 1.16% span, which includes effects of calibration tolerance, drift, and M&TE uncertainties combined using the SRSS [Square-Root-Sum-of-the-Squares] method.
The NRC staff determined that the LAR did not provide enough detail on how the TLU and AFT were calculated.
INFORMATION REQUESTED
: 1. Provide summary of calculations and relevant supporting information for the following:
: a. The calculated TLU (-16.73% of span) of the transmitter and comparator. The summary calculations should include the effects of reference accuracy, calibration tolerance, drift, M&TE effect, static pressure effect, temperature effect, power supply effect, seismic effect, process measurement effect, and analyzed drift bias. Supporting information should be provided for the values used in the calculations of the random component of this loop (+/-2.49% span) and the bias component (-14.24% span) with any necessary justification.
: b. The calculated AFT (1.16% of span) of the comparator. The summary calculations should address the effects of calibration tolerance, drift, and M&TE uncertainties.
Supporting information should be provided for the values used in the calculation of AFT with any necessary justification.
: 2. Provide the full catalog/part number and vendor performance specification datasheet of the transmitter and comparator, which provides the performance specifications including accuracy, drift, associated drift interval, and any other relevant inputs to the TLU and AFT calculations. If any of these values are not provided in the datasheet, provide a justification for the use of these values in the TLU and AFT calculations.
This information is necessary for the staff to confirm that the calculate[d] values for the guidance listed above are being met for the selection and periodic surveillance of the setpoint, and to understand how the vendor performance specifications were used to establish the as-found, as-left, and AV to address the performance monitoring criteria within RIS 2006-17.
Alternatively, the full setpoint uncertainty calculation may be provided for convenience but is not necessary.
Note: The summary of calculations of TLU and AFT could be similar to the example in Section 6, Determine uncertainty equations, of Reference 15 of the LAR (ISA-RP67.04.02).

Enclosure RA-23-0015 Page 3 of 4 Duke Energy Response to NRC RAI 1 Introductory Information Robinson (RNP) calculation RNP-I/INST-1070, Steam Generator Narrow Range Level Loop Uncertainty and Scaling Calculation, has been included in Attachment 1. Relevant references mentioned in RNP-I/INST-1070 have been included in Attachments 2-6. The calculation methodology is described in Duke Energy procedure AD-EG-ALL-1153, Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Calculations (Attachment 2), and its supporting document FAD-EG-ALL-1153, Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology and Discussion (Attachment 3), which use the International Society of Automation (ISA) methodology ISA-RP67.04.02, Methodologies for the Determination of Setpoints for Nuclear Safety-Related Instrumentation. Attachment 4 contains vendor information for the transmitter and Attachments 5 and 6 contain vendor information for the comparator.
Note that some sections in Attachment 1 mention procedure EGR-NGGC-0153, Engineering Instrument Setpoints (Reference 4.6.1 of Attachment 1); however, EGR-NGGC-0153 has been superseded to AD-EG-ALL-1153 which includes the supporting document FAD-EG-ALL-1153 (Reference 4.6.6 of Attachment 1). To aid in the review of Attachment 1, the discussion below includes the corresponding RNP-I/INST-1070 section numbers in braces. In addition, the relevant instruments are comparators LC-474, LC-475, LC-476, LC-484, LC-485, LC-486, LC-494, LC-495, and LC-496 and transmitters LT-474, LT-475, LT-476, LT-484, LT-485, LT-486, LT-494, LT-495, and LT-496.
Response to NRC RAI 1.a In Attachment 1, the calculated TLU (-16.73% of span) {7.3.1} of the transmitter and comparator is calculated using the Normal Transmitter Total Device Uncertainty {6.6.9}, the Total Device Uncertainty of the comparator {6.7.7}, the Seismic Effect of the transmitter {6.2}, the Normal Process Measurement error at 100% level {6.4.1}, and the Analyzed Drift Transmitter Bias
{6.6.3}. As shown in Section 7.3.1 of Attachment 1, the random component of this loop (+/-2.49%
span) is calculated using the first three terms of the TLU equation and the bias component of this loop (-14.24% span) is calculated using the last two terms of the TLU equation.
The Normal Transmitter Total Device Uncertainty {6.6.9} is calculated from the transmitter Calibration Error {6.6.2}, Transmitter Analyzed Drift {6.6.3}, Normal Temperature Effect {6.6.5},
Normal Static Pressure Effect {6.6.6}, and Analyzed Drift Transmitter Bias {6.6.3}. As discussed in Section 6.6.9 of Attachment 1, Reference Accuracy and M&TE Effect are accounted for in the Transmitter Analyzed Drift. Since the transmitters are powered by regulated instrument buses, the transmitter power supply effect {6.6.8} is considered to be negligible.
The Comparator Total Device Uncertainty {6.7.7} is calculated using Comparator Calibration Tolerance {6.7.2}, M&TE Effect {6.7.4}, Comparator Reference Accuracy Error {6.7.1},
Comparator Drift {6.7.3}, and Temperature Effect {6.7.5}. Since the comparators are powered by regulated instrument buses, the comparator power supply effect {6.7.6} is considered to be negligible.
Response to NRC RAI 1.b In Attachment 1, the AFT (+/- 1.16% span) {6.7.8} of the comparator is calculated using Calibration Tolerance {6.7.2}, Comparator Drift {6.7.3}, and Comparator M&TE Effect {6.7.4}.

Enclosure RA-23-0015 Page 4 of 4 Duke Energy Response to NRC RAI 2 The transmitters are Rosemount Model 3154ND2R2F1E7 differential pressure transmitters (Range Code 2). They are described in RNP vendor technical manual (VTM) 728-012-10, General I&C SPARES - Transmitters, Rosemount Instruction Manual, Product Data Sheets, Procedures. A relevant excerpt from this manual is provided in Attachment 4.
The comparators are Hagan Model 139-118 or NUS DAM 800. These are described in RNP VTM 728-589-13, Instruction Manual for Control and Protection Instrumentation. Relevant excerpts from this manual are provided in Attachments 5 and 6 for the Hagan Model 139-118 and NUS DAM 800, respectively.
The various sections of Attachment 1 relevant to the calculation of TLU and AFT (see response to RAI 1) describe the source of the input values, whether it be from Attachments 4-6 or otherwise justified. See Attachment 1 for justification of the input values.
RA-23-0015 Attachment 1 RNP-I/INST-1070, Steam Generator Narrow Range Level Loop Uncertainty and Scaling Calculation (124 pages follow)

)DFLOLW\&RGH
$SSOLFDEOH)DFLOLWLHV
'RFXPHQW1XPEHU
'RFXPHQW5HYLVLRQ1XPEHU
'RFXPHQW(&1XPEHU
&KDQJH5HDVRQ
'RFXPHQW7LWOH
1RWHV

Steam Generator Narrow Range Level Loop Uncertainty and Scaling Calculation (LT-474, LT-475, LT-476, LT-484, LT-485, LT-486, LT-494, LT-495, LT-496)
Title including structures, systems, and components Calculation Number:        RNP-I/INST-1070                                                                      Rev #    14 System:      3005                                                          DSD List:       Yes    No
[BNP, HNP, RNP] Sub-Type:        IE                                        Microfiche Attachment List:         Yes    No Quality Level     A                                                            Priority E:      Yes    No All           BNP Unit     ______________               CNS Unit     _____________            HNP Unit      _____________
MNS Unit     ______________               ONS Unit     _____________            RNP Unit      _2___________
WLS Unit     ______________               LNP Unit     _____________            HAR Unit      _____________
General Office                            Keowee Hydro Station Originated By                        Design Verification Review By                          Approved By Signature                                 Signature                                   Signature Electronically Signed                     Electronically Signed                       Electronically Signed Verification Method 1      2    3      Other Printed Name                              Printed Name                                Printed Name Vijay Daji                                Brad Hearne                                 Terry Simonson Date                                      Date                                        Date Electronically Dated                      Electronically Dated                        Electronically Dated YES       NO Check Box for Multiple Originators or Design Verifiers (see next page)

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page ii of x LIST OF AFFECTED PAGES RNP-I/INST-1070 Calculation Number:
14 Revision Number:
Body of Calculation (including appendices)                          Supporting Documents Rev. #   Pages Revised Pages Deleted    Pages Added     Rev. #      Type     Pages Revised   Pages Deleted    Pages Added 14       i-x                                           11       Attachment A                1 14       1 - 105                                       3        Attachment B                                 1 3        Attachment C                                 1 3        Attachment D                                 1 11       Attachment E                1 11       Attachment F                                 2 11       Attachment G                                 2 14       Attachment H                                 1

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page iii of x Revision Summary Revision                                            Summary 0     Initial Issue 1     Revised calculation to consider seismic uncertainties. The format of the calculation was revised to follow the calculation methodology presented in EGR-NGGC-0153.
2     Revised calculation to treat static pressure effects as dependent variables as required by EGR-NGGC-0153.
3     Revised to incorporate post uprate parameter values. This revision also implements Westinghouse letters NSAL-02-3 R1 and NSAL-02-4 to address additional error terms. In addition, Westinghouse letter PGN-02-59, SG Water Level Fluid Velocity Effect Term Reduction was incorporated into setpoint analyses in this calculation. Changed recorder to the Yokogawa VR204 to reflect changes from EC 47208.
4     Revised calculation to update reference to HBR2-11260 per EC 3604. Verified containment reanalysis assumptions are included in the calculation.
5     Revised to incorporate changes from NSAL 03-09 and WCAP-161115-P as evaluated in Engineering Change 59047 and incorporate new IR values as determined by RNP-I/EQ-1175.
6     Revised calculation to address NCR 035247 (Hagan Room Temperature issue) as well as the increase in maximum control room temperature (AR 00359636). In addition, the instrument uncertainty calculation for use in EOP setpoint calculations has been modified to address the maximum containment temperature assumed when normal containment setpoints are used in the EOPs. Also since EOP setpoints are rounded to the nearest half division in the conservative direction, the need to include readability errors in the determination of the instrument uncertainty is not necessary. Thus, the readability error has been removed from the uncertainty calculation. The format of the calculation was also modified slightly and is consistent with EGR-NGGC-0017, Rev. 7. This calculation was revised as a portion of EC 83170.
7     High Steam Generator valve interlock setpoint revised to High Steam Generator alarm setpoint on p. 88 of calculation per AR 596218.
8     Revised calculation to support setpoint changes associated with Zachrys Numerical Analysis Division calculation NAI-1664-005 Containment Analysis with GOTHIC. NAI-1664-005 calculates a new maximum containment temperature following an accident, changing the existing assumption in Section 5.2 from 280&deg;F to 340&deg;F. This calculation was revised as a portion of EC 80767, Attachment E. Added Design Input explaining calculation of Specific Gravity. Calculation forms updated to EGR-NGGC-0017 Rev. 8. In Section 6.4.2 Summary, the Negative accPME %Span values for 30% and 50% fluid height were incorrect in Revision 7 (they were not used for any EOP setpoint values); these have been corrected in Revision 8 (the values did not include FRE) (See NCR 620161).
9     Calculation was revised for changes due to EC 75690, Deletion of the Steam Flow/Feed Flow Mismatch Reactor Trip. All information solely for the support of this trip was deleted from the calculation. There were dual output comparators which were changed to single output but no calc changes were required since specifications do not change between the 2 comparators.

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page iv of x 10 For EOP use, the adverse containment setpoints can be based on the maximum temperature expected when the EOP steps containing adverse containment setpoints are reached. This is at least 100 seconds after the reactor trip, so the high containment temperatures (above 280&deg;F) that is documented in the MSLB analysis (EC 80767) will not impact the EOP setpoint. This revision to RNP-I/INST-1070 will add a calculation of the PMA at 280&deg;F for use in the EOP Setpoint calculations. This calculation was revised as a portion of EC 83171 Revision 2.
11 Revised calculation to incorporate change at H. B. Robinson from an 18 month fuel cycle to a 24 month fuel cycle: i) added References 4.2.7, 4.2.8, 4.2.9, 4.5.13, 4.5.15 thru 4.5.21, 4.6.5, 4.7.22, 4.7.23 and 4.7.24, deleted Reference 4.7.6, and updated Reference revision levels; ii) added Design Inputs 5.26, 5.27, and 5.28; iii) added Attachments F and G and deleted Attachments A and E, iv) updated Instrument Identification Table and associated calculation Sections to reflect proper make/model numbers for installed equipment; v) incorporated transmitter and indicator analyzed drift from calculations RNP-I/INST-1212 Rev. 0 and RNP-I/INST-1215 Rev. 0 respectively; vi) re-calculated transmitter, isolator, and indicator TDUs for normal, accident and EOP conditions where applicable; vii) re-calculated indicator, recorder, ERFIS, and AMSAC TLUs for normal, accident, and EOP conditions where applicable; viii) re-calculated Low and Low Low SG Level alarm TLUs, post seismic TLU for the Hi Level Valve Interlock, and Low Low SG Level Rx Trip TLU, all requiring no setpoint changes; ix) listed impact to RNP-I/INST-1103 Rev. 5 EOP setpoints in Section 8.5; and x) performed minor editorial corrections.
12 This revision incorporates ECs 411961, 413069 and 401424 and AR 2231413, which made the following changes:
x EC 411961 replaced level transmitters LT-474, LT-475, LT-476, LT-484, LT-485, LT-486, LT-494, LT-495 and LT-496 with a Rosemount model 3154ND2R2F1E7.
x CMU EC 413069 replaced the FR-488 and FR-498 control room recorders with a DX1004N model recorder (performed under Fleet spec EC 410155). Note that previous EC 407891 replaced the FR-478 recorder with a DX1004N model recorder, but did not update this calculation for conservatism. This revision changes also FR-478 to reflect the DX1004N model that was previously installed.
x EC 401424 revised the containment temperature evaluations listed in RNP-I/EQ-1175, which caused downstream impacts to calculation RNP-I/INST-1070.
AR 2231413 identifed that calculation RNP-I/INST-1070 Section 8 does not identify the UFSAR as a potentially impacted document. This revision revises Section 8 of this calculation to specify the UFSAR as a potentially impacted document.
13 The Plant Parameters Document (PPD) has been replaced by the Safety Analysis Inputs Manual (SAIM) Robinson Nuclear Plant (RNP) starting at Cycle 33. The new SAIM document is not an exact replacement for the PPD, and may not contain all the content once found in the PPD. Historically, PPDs have been previously issued as a Fuels calculation prior to the cycle start date, and end at the beginning of a new operating cycle when a new PPD (Fuels Calculation) is issued for the next operating cycle. The PPDs have been referenced in numerous ways in numerous documents throughout the years, from generic references to specific values listed in specific tables. In some RNP-I/INST and RNP-F/NFSA calculations, the cycle specific PPD calculation may be listed as an affected document as it may provide an input or use an output from the calculation. Starting at R2C33 RNP-I/INST calculations will be updated to clarify references to the new SAIM cycle specific document, or another document if necessary.

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page v of x Revise Reference 4.7.3, RNP-F/NFSA-0230, RNP Cycle 30 PPD, to SAIM RNP-000, NGO Safety Analysis Inputs Manual (SAIM) Robinson Nuclear Plant (RNP).
Updated Amendment for Reference 4.7.2 to 263.
Updated UFSAR Revision to 28 for Reference 4.7.1.
Add Reference 4.7.25 EC 415220 Revision 1, R2C33 Safety Analysis Site Implementation Revised Design Input 5.10, clarified reference to Main Steam Safety Valves versus SG Safety Relief Valves.
Revised Design Input 5.13, clarified the Analytic Limit used in the Safety Analysis for the High Level Valve Interlock Setpoint.
Added Reference 4.7.3 to Design Input 5.15.
Reinstated Attachments on the List of Affected Pages that were inadvertently deleted in previous revision.
Clarified References throughout calculation.
Section 8.0, Incorporated the more conservative Steam Generator Level Valve Interlock Analytic Value (92 % Span versus 97.77% Span in the Margin Calculation.
14 In Revision 14 of this calculation file the High Steam Generator Level Valve Interlock ESFAS trip setpoint (= 75 %) is evaluated against an analytic steam generator level limit of 97%
assumed in the updated RNP UFSAR Chapter 15.1.2, Increase in Feedwater Flow (IFF) transient analysis (Reference 4.2.10), performed in-house using NRC approved Duke methodology. The current UFSAR 15.1.2 IFF analysis (performed by Framatone) did not credit the above trip setpoint and therefore the setpoint is not currently included in the Technical Specifications. A license amendment request (LAR) will be submitted to the NRC to add this trip function to Technical Specification Table 3.3.2-1. Once the LAR is approved plant implementation of the trp function will be initiated.
A Technical Specificaton Allowable Value (AV) is calculated for the High Steam Generator Level Valve Interlock ESFAS trip setpoint in Section 8.0.
A new administrative procedure on uncertainty and setpoint analysis is incorporated via Reference 4.6.6. The former administrative procedure (Reference 4.6.1) is kept due to referenced material not available in the new administrative procedure.

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page vi of x DOCUMENT INDEXING TABLE The purpose of this table is to create document cross-references in the Document Management System and equipment cross-references in the Equipment Data Base.
Document Type      Document Number             Function         Relationship to this           Action Calculation CALC             INST-I/INST-1212             IN                Reference               ADD/RETAIN CALC             INST-I/INST-1215             IN                Reference               ADD/RETAIN PROC                 MST-013                  IN                Reference               ADD/RETAIN PROC                PIC-005-1                 IN                Reference               ADD/RETAIN PROC                PIC-005-2                 IN                Reference               ADD/RETAIN PROC                PIC-005-4                 IN                Reference               ADD/RETAIN PROC                PIC-005-6                 IN                Reference               ADD/RETAIN PROC                PIC-005-8                 IN                Reference               ADD/RETAIN PROC                PIC-005-9                 IN                Reference               ADD/RETAIN PROC                PIC-005-10                IN                Reference               ADD/RETAIN PROC               EOP-ECA-0.0                IN                Reference               ADD/RETAIN PCHG                 EC 97661                 IN                Reference               ADD/RETAIN Document affected by         ADD/RETAIN CALC           RNP-M/MECH-1651               OUT results NF               SAIM RNP-000                IN                Reference               ADD/RETAIN

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page vii of x Table of Contents SEC     DESCRIPTION                                                                                                                 PAGE 1.0 OBJECTIVE ..............................................................................................................................1 2.0 FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................3 2.1 Normal Function ...............................................................................................................3 2.2 Accident Mitigating Function ...........................................................................................3 2.3 Post Accident Monitoring Function ..................................................................................3 2.4 Post Seismic Function .......................................................................................................3 3.0 LOOP DIAGRAM .....................................................................................................................4

==4.0 REFERENCES==
 ..........................................................................................................................7 4.1 Drawings ...........................................................................................................................7 4.2 Calculations .......................................................................................................................7 4.3 Regulatory Documents ......................................................................................................7 4.4 Technical Manuals ............................................................................................................8 4.5 Calibration And Maintenance Procedures ........................................................................8 4.6 Procedures .........................................................................................................................9 4.7 Other References ...............................................................................................................9 5.0 INPUTS AND ASSUMPTIONS .............................................................................................11 6.0 CALCULATION OF UNCERTAINTY CONTRIBUTORS ..................................................19 6.1 ACCIDENT EFFECTS (AE) .............................................................................................19 6.1.1 Accident Temperature Effect (ATE) ........................................................................19 6.1.2 Accident Pressure Effect (APE)................................................................................20 6.1.3 Accident Radiation Effect (ARE) .............................................................................20 6.2 SEISMIC EFFECT (SE) ....................................................................................................20 6.3 INSULATION RESISTANCE ERROR (IR) ....................................................................20 6.4 PROCESS MEASUREMENT ERROR (PME) ................................................................21 6.4.1 Process Measurement Error - Normal Environment .................................................21 6.4.2 Process Measurement Error - Accident Environment ..............................................29 6.4.3 Process Measurement Error - Normal Environment for EOP Use ...........................37 6.4.4 Process Measurement Error - Accident Environment for EOPs ...............................44 6.5 PRIMARY ELEMENT ERROR (PE) ............................................................................46 6.6 Transmitter ......................................................................................................................46 6.6.1 Transmitters Unverified Attributes of Reference Accuracy (RAxmtr)......................46 6.6.2 Transmitter Calibration Tolerance (CALxmtr) ...........................................................46 6.6.3 Transmitter Drift (DRxmtr) .........................................................................................47 6.6.4 Transmitter M&TE Effect (MTExmtr) .......................................................................47 6.6.5 Transmitter Temperature Effect (TExmtr) ..................................................................48 6.6.6 Normal Transmitter Static Pressure Effect (norSPExmtr) ..........................................49 6.6.7 Accident Transmitter Static Pressure Effect (accSPExmtr) ........................................50 6.6.8 Transmitter Power Supply Effect (PSExmtr) ..............................................................50 6.6.9 Normal Transmitter Total Device Uncertainty (norTDUxmtr) ...................................51 6.6.10 Normal Transmitter Total Device Uncertainty (eopTDUxmtr) for EOPs ................51 6.6.11 Accident Transmitter Total Device Uncertainty (accTDUxmtr)...............................51 6.6.12 Transmitter As Found Tolerance (AFTxmtr) ............................................................52 6.6.13 Transmitter As Left Tolerance (AL Txmtr) ..............................................................53

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page viii of x 6.7 COMPARATOR MODULE ...........................................................................................54 6.7.1 Comparators Unverified Attributes of Reference Accuracy (RAcomp) ....................54 6.7.2 Comparator Calibration Tolerance (CALcomp) ..........................................................54 6.7.3 Comparator Drift (DRcomp) .......................................................................................54 6.7.4 Comparator M&TE Effect (MTEcomp) ......................................................................55 6.7.5 Comparator Temperature Effect (TEcomp) .................................................................55 6.7.6 Comparator Power Supply Effect (PSEcomp).............................................................55 6.7.7 Comparator Total Device Uncertainty (TDUcomp) ....................................................55 6.7.8 Comparator As Found Tolerance (AFTcomp).............................................................56 6.7.9 Comparator As Left Tolerance (ALTcomp) ................................................................56 6.8 ISOLATOR MODULE ...................................................................................................57 6.8.1 Isolators Unverified Attributes of Reference Accuracy (RAisol) .............................57 6.8.2 Isolator Calibration Tolerance (CALisol) ...................................................................57 6.8.3 Isolator Drift (DRisol) ................................................................................................57 6.8.5 Isolator Temperature Effect (TEisol) ..........................................................................58 6.8.6 Isolator Power Supply Effect (PSEisol)......................................................................59 6.8.7 Isolator Total Device Uncertainty (TDUisol) .............................................................60 6.8.8 Isolator As Found Tolerance (AFTisol)......................................................................61 6.8.9 Isolator As Left Tolerance (ALTisol) .........................................................................61 6.9 INDICATOR......................................................................................................................63 6.9.1 Indicators Unverified Attributes of Reference Accuracy (RAind) ...........................63 6.9.2 Indicator Calibration Tolerance (CALind) .................................................................63 6.9.3 Indicator Drift (DRind) ...............................................................................................63 6.9.5 Indicator Temperature Effect (TEind) ........................................................................64 6.9.6 Indicator Power Supply Effect (PSEind) ....................................................................64 6.9.7 Indicator Readability (RDind) ....................................................................................64 6.9.8 Indicator Total Device Uncertainty (TDUind) ...........................................................65 6.9.9 Indicator Total Device Uncertainty for EOP Setpoints (eopTDUind) .......................65 6.9.10 Indicator As Found Tolerance (AFTind) ..................................................................66 6.9.11 Indicator As Left Tolerance (ALTind) .....................................................................67 6.10 RECORDER ....................................................................................................................68 6.10.1 Recorders Unverified Attributes of Reference Accuracy (RArec) .........................68 6.10.2 Recorder Calibration Tolerance (CALrec) ...............................................................68 6.10.3 Recorder Drift (DRrec).............................................................................................69 6.10.4 Recorder M&TE Effect (MTErec) ...........................................................................69 6.10.5 Recorder Temperature Effect (TErec) ......................................................................69 6.10.6 Recorder Power Supply Effect (PSErec) ..................................................................69 6.10.7 Recorder Readability (RDrec) ..................................................................................70 6.10.8 Recorder Total Device Uncertainty (TDUrec) .........................................................70 6.10.9 Recorder As-Found Tolerance (AFTrec) ................................................................70 6.10.10 Recorder As Left Tolerance (ALTrec) ..................................................................71 7.0 TOTAL LOOP UNCERTAINTY (TLU) ................................................................................72 7.1 TOTAL LOOP UNCERTAINTY - PLANT NORMAL ...................................................72 7.1.1 Total Loop Uncertainty - Indicator LI-474, 475, 476, 484, 485, 486, 494, 495, &
496.............................................................................................................................72 7.1.2 Total Loop Uncertainty - Input to ERFIS .................................................................73 7.1.4 Total Loop Uncertainty - High Level Alarm ............................................................75

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page ix of x 7.1.5 Total Loop Uncertainty - Low Low Level Alarm ....................................................75 7.1.6 Total Loop Uncertainty - Low Level Alarm .............................................................75 7.1.7 Total Loop Uncertainty - Input to AMSAC ..............................................................75 7.2 TOTAL LOOP UNCERTAINTY - ACCIDENT ...........................................................78 7.2.1 Total Loop Uncertainty - Indicator LI-474, 475, 476, 484, 485, 486, 494, 495, &
496.............................................................................................................................78 7.2.2 Total Loop Uncertainty - Recorder ...........................................................................79 7.2.3 Total Loop Uncertainty - Input to ERFIS .................................................................80 7.2.4 Total Loop Uncertainty - Low Low Level Reactor Trip ..........................................81 7.2.5 Total Loop Uncertainty for use in the EOPs - Indicator LI-474, 475, 476, 484, 485, 486, 494, 495, AND 496 ...........................................................................................82 7.3 TOTAL LOOP UNCERTAINTY - POST SEISMIC ....................................................83 7.3.1 Total Loop Uncertainty - High Level Valve Interlock .............................................83 7.4 LOOP AS FOUND TOLERANCE .................................................................................83 7.4.1 Loop As Found Tolerance - Indicator LI-474, 475, 476, 484, 485, 486, 494, 495, &
496.............................................................................................................................83 7.4.2 Loop As Found Tolerance - Input to ERFIS .............................................................83 7.4.3 Loop As Found Tolerance - Comparators ................................................................84 7.4.4 Loop As Found Tolerance - Recorder ......................................................................84 7.4.5 Loop As Found Tolerance - Input to AMSAC .........................................................84 7.5 GROUP AS FOUND TOLERANCE..............................................................................85 7.5.1 Group As Found Tolerance - Indicator LI-474, 475, 476, 484, 485, 486, 494, 495, &
496.............................................................................................................................85 7.5.2 Group As Found Tolerance - Input to ERFIS ...........................................................85 7.5.3 Group As Found Tolerance - Recorder .....................................................................86 7.5.4 Group As Found Tolerance - Comparators ...............................................................86 7.5.5 Group As Found Tolerance - Input to AMSAC........................................................86 8.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS..................................................................................................87 8.1 Impact On Improved Technical Specifications ...............................................................95 8.2 Impact On Ufsar ..............................................................................................................95 8.3 Impact On Design Basis Documents ...............................................................................95 8.4 Impact On Other Calculations .........................................................................................95 8.5 Impact On Plant Procedures ............................................................................................96 9.0 SCALING CALCULATIONS.................................................................................................97 9.1 Level Transmitter (LT-474, 475, 476, 484, 485, 486, 494, 495, And 496) .......................97 9.2 Isolator Module (LM-474, 474A, 474B, 475, 475A, 476, 476A, 484, 484A, 485, 485A, 485B, 486, 486A, 494, 494A, 494B, 495, 495A, 496, 496A, And 496B) .......................100 9.3 Comparator Module (LC-474, 475, 476, 484, 485, 486, 494, 495, & 496) .....................101 9.4 Comparator Module (LC-474A, 475A, 476A, 484A, 485A, 486A, 494A, 495A, &
496A) ...............................................................................................................................102 9.5 Comparator Module (LC-474B, 475B, 484B, 485B, 494B, & 495B) .............................103 9.6 Indicator (LI-474, 475, 476, 484, 485, 486, 494, 495, & 496) ........................................104 9.7 Recorder (FR-478, 488, & 498) .......................................................................................104

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page x of x LIST OF ATTACHMENTS                                                           PAGES Attachment A - Deleted Attachment B - Comparator Drift                                                      1 Attachment C - Rosemount Drift                                                       1 Attachment D - International Instruments Indicator Data                              1 Attachment E - Deleted Attachment F - NUS Instruments Long Term Drift Test for NUS Modules, Final Report Executive Summary, dated October 26, 2001                2 Attachment G - Email form NUS Confirming Similarity of NUS Isolator Modules, dated, January 15, 2002                                      2 Attachment H - Record of Review                                                      1

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 1 of 105 1.0 OBJECTIVE This calculation computes the loop uncertainties associated with the indication, recording, and trip functions provided by the Steam Generator Narrow Range Level instrumentation loops. The loops addressed in this calculation also provide input to the Emergency Response Facility Information System (ERFIS) and AMSAC. Uncertainties at the input to the ERFIS and AMSAC are calculated. Uncertainties are calculated for normal, accident, and seismic conditions. This calculation develops the Reactor Protection System (RPS) setpoint associated with each instrument loop. This calculation also calculates the Allowable Value for the RPS setpoint addressed in this calculation. Uncertainties associated with the control functions provided by the Steam Generator Level loops are not calculated.
The RNP UFSAR Chapter 15.1.2, Increase in Feedwater Flow (IFF) transient analysis, was performed in-house in calculation file RNP-F/NFSA-0356 (Reference 4.2.10) using NRC approved Duke methodology. The analysis credited feedwater isolation on high-high SG NR level. Since this trip is not currently included in the Technical Specifications, a license amendment request (LAR) will be submitted to the NRC to add this trip to Technical Specification Table 3.3.2-1. The current UFSAR Section 15.1.2 evaluation will remain the licensing basis until the LAR is approved, at which time the analysis in this calculation file will be implemented via the markups documented in Appendices A (UFSAR Markup), B (REDSAR Markup), and C (SAIM Markup) of Reference 4.2.10.
The Duke analysis performed in Reference 4.2.10 credits a conservative High Steam Generator Level Valve Interlock Analytic Value of 97%, i.e. when the level in any steam generator reaches 97% the associated main feedwater regulating valve closes and trips the main feedwater pumps. Section 8.0 of this calculation file is updated accordingly and an allowable value (AV) of the Steam Generator Level Valve Interlock setpoint is determined.
The implementation of this change is managed by Reference 4.7.26.

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 2 of 105 The instrument loops containing the following components are addressed in this calculation:
LT-474                        LT-484                      LT-494 LQ-474                        LQ-484                      LQ-494 L-474                         L-484                       L-494 LC-474                        LC-484                      LC-494 LC-474A                       LC-484A                     LC-494A LM-474                        LM-484                      LM-494 LC-474B                       LC-484B                     LC-494B LI-474                        LI-484                      LI-494 LM-474A                       LM-484A                     LM-494A LM-474B                       LM-484/R                    LM-494/R LM-474/R                      LC-484/R                    LC-494/R LC-474/R                      LC-484A/R                   LC-494A/R LC-474A/R LT-475                        LT-485                      LT-495 LQ-475                        LQ-485                      LQ-495 L-475                         L-485                       L-495 LC-475                        LC-485                      LC-495 LC-475A                       LC-485A                     LC-495A LM-475                        LM-485                      LM-495 LC-475B                       LC-485B                     LC-495B LI-475                        LI-485                      LI-495 LM-475A                       LM-485A                     LM-495A LM-475A/R                     LM-485B                     LM-495/R LC-475/R                      LM-485A/R                   LC-495/R LC-475A/R                     LC-485/R                    LC-495A/R LC-485A/R LT-476                        LT-486                      LT-496 LQ-476                        LQ-486                      LQ-496 L-476                         L-486                       L-496 LC-476                        LC-486                      LC-496 LC-476A                       LC-486A                     LC-496A LM-476                        LM-486                      LM-496 LI-476                        LI-486                      LI-496 FR-478                        FR-488                      FR-498 LM-476A                       LM-486A                     LM-496A LM-476/R                      LM-486A/R                   LM-496B LC-476/R                      LC-486/R                    LM-496A/R LC-476A/R                     LC-486A/R                   LC-496/R LC-496A/R

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 3 of 105 2.0 FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION The Steam Generator provides a heat sink for the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) during normal and accident plant operation. Feedwater occupies about half of the Steam Generator with steam filling the other half. Various events affect Steam Generator level during normal and accident operation. In the event that the normal control system is unable to maintain Steam Generator Level within the normal operating band, protective actions must be initiated to ensure that level remains within design limits during the transient. The instrument loop that is the subject of this calculation provide the following protective functions:
x Low Low Steam Generator Level Reactor Trip 2.1 Normal Function During normal operation, the instrument loops addressed in this calculation provide Steam Generator Level indication (LI-474, 475, 476, 484, 485, 486, 494, 495 & 496), recording (FR-478), and input to the Emergency Response Facility Information System (ERFIS).
These loops also provide Low Low, and High Steam Generator Level alarms, a High Steam Generator Level valve interlock, and provide input to AMSAC.
2.2 Accident Mitigating Function The instrument loop addressed in this calculation provides a Reactor Trip on Low Low Steam Generator Level.
The Reactor Trip on Low Low Steam Generator Level also serves to protect against the loss of the Steam Generator as a heat sink for the RCS. A Reactor Trip and Auxiliary Feedwater System actuation occurs when two out of three Steam Generator Level signals fall below the Low Low Steam Generator Level setpoint. Per Reference 4.7.1, this trip is credited in the Safety Analysis for termination of the following events:
x    Loss of non-emergency power to station auxiliaries x    Loss of normal feedwater x    Feedwater line break 2.3 Post Accident Monitoring Function Per TMM-026, these instrument loops are used for post accident monitoring.
2.4 Post Seismic Function Per Reference 4.7.14, these instruments are seismically qualified to ensure that safety /
protection functions remain operable following a seismic event.

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 4 of 105 3.0 LOOP DIAGRAM Note: Same configuration for loops L-475, 476, 484, 485, 486, 494, 495, and 496 except where noted.

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 5 of 105 TAG NUMBER      FUNCTION    MAKE AND MODEL   LOCATION          REFERENCE LT- 474, 475, 476 Transmitter Rosemount        Containment 4.1.1-8, 4.7.4 LT- 484, 485, 486             3154ND2R2F1E7 LT- 494, 495, 496 LQ- 474, 475, 476 Power       NUS SPS 800      Hagan Rack  4.1.1-8, 4.7.4 LQ- 484, 485, 486 Supply LQ- 494, 495, 496 LM-474/R,         I/V         Hagan Model      Hagan Rack  4.1.1-8, 4.7.4 LC-474/R, 474A/R              3110554-000 LM-475A/R LC-475/R, 475A/R LM-476/R LC-476/R, 476A/R LM-484/R, LC-484/R, 484A/R LM-485A/R LC-485/R, 485A/R LM-486A/R LC-486/R, 486A/R LM-494/R, LC-494/R, 494A/R LM-495/R LC-495/R, 495A/R LM-496A/R LC-496/R, 496A/R LM-474A, 475A     I/I         NUS EIP-E013DD-1 Hagan Rack  4.1.1-8, 4.7.4 LM-476A, 484A     Isolator LM-485A, 486A LM-494A, 495A LM-496A

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 6 of 105 TAG NUMBER     FUNCTION    MAKE AND MODEL         LOCATION          REFERENCE LM-474, 475, 476  V/I        NUS OCA 800             Hagan Rack 4.1.1-8, 4.7.4 LM-484, 485, 486  Isolator LM-494, 495, 496 LM-474B, 485B     V/I        NUS EIP-E013DD-37       Hagan Rack 4.1.1-8, 4.7.4 LM-496B           Isolator LC-474, 475, 476  Comparator Hagan Model 139-118     Hagan Rack 4.1.1-8, 4.7.4 LC-484, 485, 486             Or NUS SAM 800 LC-494, 495, 496             Or NUS DAM 800 LC-474A, 475A LC-476A, 484A LC-485A, 486A LC-494A, 495A LC-496A, 474B LC-475B, 484B LC-485B, 494B LC-495B LI- 474, 475, 476 Indicator  International           RTGB       4.1.1-8, 4.7.4 LI- 484, 485, 486            Instruments 2520VB LI- 494, 495, 496 FR-478, 488, 498  Recorder   Yokogawa DX1004N        RTGB       4.7.4, 4.7.15 L-474, 475, 476   I/V        Hagan Computer          Hagan Rack 4.1.1-8, 4.7.4 L-484, 485, 486              Signal Conditioner L-494, 495, 496              3110552-000 Instrument Identification

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 7 of 105

==4.0 REFERENCES==

4.1 Drawings 4.1.1  5379-03513, Hagan Wiring Diagram, Revision 23 4.1.2  5379-03514, Hagan Wiring Diagram, Revision 25 4.1.3  5379-03515, Hagan Wiring Diagram, Revision 24 4.1.4  5379-03516, Hagan Wiring Diagram, Revision 23 4.1.5  5379-03517, Hagan Wiring Diagram, Revision 25 4.1.6  5379-03518, Hagan Wiring Diagram, Revision 25 4.1.7  5379-03485, Hagan Wiring Diagram, Revision 23 4.1.8  5379-03486, Hagan Wiring Diagram, Revision 23 4.1.9  HBR2-11260, Zone Map For Environmental Parameters Reactor Building Elevation 228 ft, Sheet 5, Revision 6 4.1.10 HBR2-11260, Zone Map For Environmental Parameters, Sheet 8, Revision 15 4.1.11 HBR2-11135, RTGB Panel C - Annunciator Section, Sheet 2, Revision 1 4.1.12 HBR2-11135, RTGB Panel C - Vertical Section, Sheet 3, Revision 2 4.1.13 A-190299, Instrument Hook-Up Detail, Sheet 46, Revision 6 4.1.14 HBR2-10731, Steam Generator Model 44F Upper Steam Drum Field Modifications, Sheet 1, Revision 0 4.1.15 HBR2-10750, #44 Series Vertical Steam Generator Outline, Revision 1 4.1.16 5379-03487, Hagan Wiring Diagram, Revision 23 4.1.17 HBR2-10736, Rev. 0, Steam Generator - Mod. "44F" Feedwater Ring & J -Nozzle Assembly 4.2 Calculations 4.2.1 RNP-E-1.005, 120 VAC Instrument Bus Voltage Evaluation, Revision 4 4.2.2 RNP-I/EQ-1175, In-CV Rosemount Transmitter Loop Accuracy, Revision 3 4.2.3 RNP-M/MECH-1651, Containment Analysis Inputs, Revision 14 4.2.4 RNP-I/INST-1103, Steam Generator Level EOP Setpoint Parameters, Revision 5 4.2.5 RNP-I/INST-1109, Containment EOP Setpoint Parameters, Setpoint M.13, Rev. 7 4.2.6 RNP-M/HVAC-1078, Hagan Room Temperature, Revision 4 4.2.7 RNP-I/INST-1212, Rosemount 1154DP4 and 1154HP5 Pressurizer and Steam Generator Narrow Range Level Transmitters Instrument Drift Analysis, Revision 0 4.2.8 RNP-I/INST-1215, Drift Analysis for International Instruments Model 2520 Indicators, Revision 0 4.2.9 RNP-I/INST-1079, Steam Generator Level AOP Setpoint Parameters, Revision 3 4.2.10 RNP-F/NFSA-0356, Rev. 0, RNP UFSAR Section 15.1.2 - Increase in Feedwater Flow 4.3 Regulatory Documents 4.3.1  Regulatory Guide 1.97, Rev. 3, Instrumentation for Light Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess Plant and Environs Conditions During and Following an Accident

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 8 of 105 4.4 Technical Manuals 4.4.1 728-589-13, Vendor Manual Hagan, Revision 42 4.4.2 728-399-88, Auxiliary Indicating Meters Bulletin Model 2500 2520, Revision 3 4.4.3 728-012-10, Vendor Manual Rosemount, Revision 40 4.4.4 728-208-63. VERTICAL STEAM GENERATOR TECHNICAL MANUAL, Revision 22 4.4.5 DPM 1346.04-0002.001, Yokogawa Recorder Vendor Manual, Revision 0 4.5 Calibration And Maintenance Procedures 4.5.1  PIC-005, Steam Generator A Narrow Range Level Transmitter LT-474 Calibration, Revision 13 4.5.2  LP-027, Steam Generator #1 Narrow Range (N/R) Level Channel 476, Revision 16 4.5.3  LP-028, Steam Generator #2 Narrow Range (N/R) Level Channel 486, Revision 15 4.5.4  LP-029, Steam Generator #3 Narrow Range (N/R) Level Channel 496, Revision 19 4.5.5  LP-030, Steam Generator #1 Narrow Range (N/R) Level Channel 474, Revision 15 4.5.6  LP-031, Steam Generator #2 Narrow Range (N/R) Level Channel 484, Revision 15 4.5.7  LP-032, Steam Generator #3 Narrow Range (N/R) Level Channel 494, Revision 13 4.5.8  LP-033, Steam Generator #1 Narrow Range (N/R) Level Channel 475, Revision 13 4.5.9  LP-034, Steam Generator #2 Narrow Range (N/R) Level Channel 485, Revision 16 4.5.10 LP-035, Steam Generator #3 Narrow Range (N/R) Level Channel 495, Revision 13 4.5.11 MMM-006, Calibration Program, Revision 34 4.5.12 PIC-844, Yokogawa Recorders, Revision 13 4.5.13 MST-013, Steam Generator Water Level Protection Channel Testing, Revision 26 4.5.14 PIC-005-1, Steam Generator A Narrow Range Level Transmitter LT-475 Calibration, Revision 0 4.5.15 PIC-005-2, Steam Generator A Narrow Range Level Transmitter LT-476 Calibration, Revision 0 4.5.16 PIC-005-4, Steam Generator B Narrow Range Level Transmitter LT-484 Calibration, Revision 0 4.5.17 PIC-005-5, Steam Generator B Narrow Range Level Transmitter LT-485 Calibration, Revision 0 4.5.18 PIC-005-6, Steam Generator B Narrow Range Level Transmitter LT-486 Calibration, Revision 0 4.5.19 PIC-005-8, Steam Generator C Narrow Range Level Transmitter LT-494 Calibration, Revision 0 4.5.20 PIC-005-9, Steam Generator C Narrow Range Level Transmitter LT-495 Calibration, Revision 1 4.5.21 PIC-005-10, Steam Generator C Narrow Range Level Transmitter LT-96 Calibration, Revision 0

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 9 of 105 4.6 Procedures 4.6.1  EGR-NGGC-0153, Engineering Instrument Setpoints, Revision 12 4.6.2  TMM-026, List of Regulatory Guide 1.97 Components, Revision 32 4.6.3  MMM-006, Apprendix B-1, Calibration Program, Revision 51 4.6.4  OP-906, Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning, Rev. 72 4.6.5  EOP-ECA-0.0, Loss of All AC Power, Revision 4 4.6.6  AD-EG-ALL-1153, Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Calculations, Revision 0.
FAD-EG-ALL-1153, DETAIL/EXAMPLE, Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology and Discussion, Revision 0.
4.7 Other References 4.7.1  Updated Final Safety Analysis Report - Chapter 15, Revision 28.
4.7.2  Technical Specifications, Amendment 263 4.7.3  SAIM RNP-000, Safety Analysis Inputs Manual Robinson Nuclear Plant 4.7.4  Equipment Data Base (EDB) 4.7.5  ASME Steam Tables, 5th Edition (based on the 1967 IFC formulation) 4.7.6  Deleted 4.7.7  ASME Section II-A, Table TE-1 4.7.8  ASME Section II-A, SA-302/SA-302M 4.7.9  WNEP-8372, Model 44F Steam Generator Thermal and Hydraulic Design Data Report, Revision 3, April 1, 1985 4.7.10 Letter CQL-92-031, S/G Water Level PME Term Inaccuracies, June 18, 1992 4.7.11 a. WCAP-15304, Carolina Power and Light Company H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No.2 LOCA Containment Integrity Analysis.
: b. WCAP-15305, Carolina Power & Light Company H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No.2 Steamline Break Containment Integrity Analysis
: c. Calculation NAI-1664-005 Containment Analysis with GOTHIC
: d. Letter to Progress Energy H.B Robinson Nuclear Plant, LOCA M&E Reanalysis to Address Elevated RWST and Accumulator Temperature Engineering Report and FSAR Markups with Attachment of Westinghouse LTR-CRA-12-19 Engineering Report Engineering Report for H.B. Robinson LOCA M&E Release Analysis, Revision 6 4.7.12 Westinghouse Nuclear Safety Advisory Letters (NSALs)
: a. NSAL-02-3 Revision 1, April 8, 2002
: b. NSAL-02-4, February 19, 2002
: c. NSAL-03-09, September 22, 2003
: d. NSAL-11-5, Westinghouse LOCA Mass and Energy Release Calculation

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 10 of 105 Issues, July 25, 2011 4.7.13 Westinghouse letter PGN-02-59 Rev. 1, dated August 7, 2002 4.7.14 DBD/R87038/SD06, DBD for the Reactor and Safeguards Protection System, Revision 12 4.7.15 EC 47208, Replacement of RTGB Recorders, Revision 16 4.7.16 EC 80767, Correct LOCA Containment Analysis Errors, Rev. 0 4.7.17 EC 59047 Steam Generator Level Instrument Uncertainty, Revision 1 4.7.18 WCAP-16115-P, Steam Generator Level Uncertainties Program (See EC 59047 Attachment A) 4.7.19 SG-85-04-21, Westinghouse Steam Generator Thermal-Hydraulic Report 4.7.20 DBD/R87038/SD36, Rev. 15, Post-Accident HVAC Systems 4.7.21 UFSAR Section 7.5.2.1, Revision 26 4.7.22 EC 97661, Robinson Nuclear Plant Instrument Drift Analysis Methodology in Support of 24 Month Surveillance Interval, Revision 1 4.7.23 NUS Instruments Long Term Drift Test for NUS Modules, Final Report Executive Summary, dated October 26, 2001 (Attachment F) 4.7.24 Email form NUS Confirming Similarity of NUS Isolator Modules, dated, January 15, 2002 (Attachment G) 4.7.25 EC 415220 Revision 1, R2C33 Safety Analysis Site Implementation.
4.7.26 EC 420027, Implement SG High Level Feedwater Regulating Value Interlock.

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 11 of 105 5.0 INPUTS AND ASSUMPTIONS 5.1 The accuracy of a typical test resistor is on the order of r 0.01%. Therefore, the test resistors used during calibration are assumed to have a negligible impact on the overall uncertainty calculation. This is in accordance with the methodology described within Reference 4.6.6.
5.2 Per Reference 4.7.11 (a) and (b), the maximum Containment temperature following an accident is 280qF. Per Reference 4.7.16, the maximum Containment temperature by analysis following an accident is 340&deg;F, which occurs within the first 60 seconds of the transient. The temperature then quickly falls below 280&deg;F. Since the operator would not reach EOP steps that contain adverse setpoints is that short of time (i.e. less than 100 seconds), for EOP setpoint use only, the maximum containment temperature used to compute accident reference leg density effects is 280qF. Per Reference 4.1.9, the minimum Containment temperature during normal operation is 88qF and is assumed to be the minimum Containment temperature following an accident. Therefore, the maximum and minimum Containment temperatures used to compute accident reference leg density effects are 340qF and 88qF respectively for non-EOP applications and 280qF and 88qF respectively for EOP applications. In the event of a single feedwater line break, per WCAP-16115P, the maximum containment temperature is 225&deg;F, which will be used to determine the accident reference leg effects.
5.3 Per Reference 4.1.13, the transmitter reference leg is connected to a condensate pot that is connected to the upper Steam Generator instrument tap. Due to the short piping run from the upper instrument tap to the condensate pot, the change in height from the instrument tap to the condensate pot is assumed to be negligible.
5.4 Per Reference 4.1.13, a portion of the transmitter reference leg is located inside the Steam Generator shield wall. The temperature inside the shield wall is greater than the ambient temperature inside Containment. Per Reference 4.2.3, a maximum Containment temperature of 130qF is used in the Containment analysis. For conservatism, the temperature inside the shield wall is assumed to be 140qF and is used to compute normal reference leg density effects. Per Reference 4.1.9, the minimum temperature inside Containment is 88qF. Therefore, a minimum temperature of 88qF is used to compute normal reference leg density effects.
5.5 Per Reference 4.6.6, reference accuracy typically includes the effects of linearity, hysteresis, and repeatability. The indicator reference accuracy is stated within Reference 4.2.2. The value is given as 2% full scale for a DC meter. Repeatability is listed separately and is stated as being in accordance with ANSI C39.1. Per C39.1 Plate 5 for a Direct Current Application, Edgewise instrument, repeatability is only applicable to the microammeter option. As this is not a microammeter application, the repeatability is

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 12 of 105 taken to be included within the reference accuracy term. The reference accuracy will be taken to include the effects of linearity, hysteresis, and repeatability in accordance with Reference 4.6.6.
5.6 Per References 4.5.2 through 4.5.10, the I/V module is calibrated as part of a string. Per Reference 4.4.1, the I/V module is a resistor. Resistors typically experience negligible drift. Therefore, any resistor drift throughout the fuel cycle is negligible and is accounted for during the string calibration.
5.7 Per Reference 4.2.3, the maximum containment temperature assumed within the containment analysis is 130&#xba;F. Technical Specification 3.6.5 limits containment average air temperature to less than or equal to 120&#xba;F. For the purpose of this calculation, 130&#xba;F will be used as the upper limit of containment temperature. Per review of OSI PI data for Tag CVT0001 Volume Weighted Ave CV Air Temp, it can be seen that the containment temperature trends greater than 60&#xba;F. For the purpose of this calculation, 50&#xba;F will be used as the lower limit for containment temperature.
5.8 The Hagan Room normal operating temperature is 50&deg;F to 82&#xba;F. The low limit of 50&#xba;F is chosen as it is the more conservative value when comparing the 50&#xba;F alarm setpoint
[from Reference 4.6.3] for TS-A42 (HVA-2 Lo Temp Switch) and the 55&#xba;F heater setpoint [from Reference 4.6.4] for TS-A40 (Temperature Switch for EDH-4). The basis for the 82&#xba;F is the Hot Operations Log (TIN R0041). The hot operations log directs the installation of supplemental cooling when Hagan Room temperatures reach 78&#xba;F, and the initiation of an NCR and an operability review when Hagan Room temperatures reach 82&#xba;F. Per Reference 4.6.1 Section 9.4.3, the racks may experience an additional internal 10qF heat rise during operation. Therefore, a change in temperature of 42qF (23.33&deg;C) is used to compute the normal temperature effect associated with rack components in setpoint and normal indication loops.
82qF + 10qF  50qF = 42qF The Hagan Room accident operating temperature is 50&#xba;F to 120&#xba;F. The low limit basis is as noted above. In order to bound a postulated loss of HVAC scenario (as can be induced by a Loss of Offsite Power), a Heatup analysis of the Hagan Room was completed by Reference 4.2.6. The maximum room temperature at the equipment elevation is 110&#xba;F when the SPP-045 controls are applied. For conservatism, the high limit is taken to be 120&#xba;F. As EOP-ECA-0.0 (Reference 4.6.5) requires opening all cabinet doors in the Hagan Room within 30 minutes, an internal cabinet heat rise is not specifically evaluated.
Therefore, a change in temperature of 70qF (38.89&deg;C) is used to compute the accident temperature effect associated with rack components in EOP indicator loops.
5.9 The Westinghouse 3110552-000 Computer Signal Conditioner is a high precision

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 13 of 105 resistor. Based on the high accuracy of the resistor, the resistor has a negligible impact on the overall loop uncertainty computation.
5.10    Per Reference 4.7.3, Table 18, the lowest set pressure of the Main Steam Safety Valves is 1100 psia. Therefore, 1100 psia is the maximum pressure used to compute accident process measurement effects. Following a main steam line break, the Steam Generator will rapidly blow down to ambient Containment pressure. Therefore, a minimum Steam Generator pressure of 15 psia is used to compute accident process measurement effects. Note that Table 18 of Reference 4.7.3 provides the set pressure of the Main Steam Safety Valves in terms of psig.
5.11    Deleted 5.12    Per Reference 4.7.9, Steam Generator pressure is approximately 800 psia at 100%
load and 1020 psia at 0% load. Therefore, the minimum and maximum pressure used to compute normal process measurement effects are 800 psia and 1020 psia respectively.
5.13    Per UFSAR Chapter 15, the High Steam Generator Level valve interlock is not credited in the safety analysis. This setpoint serves to protect against the Steam Generator becoming water solid and feedwater entering the main steam lines. NSAL-02-4 (Reference 4.7.12) identifies a previously unconsidered source of uncertainty.
Due to the void content of the two-phase mixture above the mid-deck plate, the steam generator water level instrument channel(s) will not indicate water level as accurately as presumed when level is above the mid-deck plate. As a result, a high-high level trip (actuation) may not occur, even though the two-phase mixture level may actually be above the upper level tap. NSAL-02-4 provides a means of determining maximum reliable indicated level (MRIL) for steam generators and provides technical input that quantifies the void fraction above mid-deck plate for H. B.
Robinsons steam generators at 11%.
Per NSAL-02-4, MRIL is determined as follows:
MRIL = 100% - (100% Level - Mid Deck Level) (Void Fraction) 100% Level Span = 143 inches (Reference 4.1.15) 100% Level Span with elongation correction = 143.5 inches (Section 9.1)
Distance from Tube Sheet to Lower Tap = 385.625 inches (Reference 4.7.9)
Distance from Tube Sheet to Mid Deck Plate = 500.0675 inches (Ref. 4.7.9)
Void Fraction = 11% (Reference 4.7.12)
Distance from Lower Tap to Mid Deck (MD) = (500.0675 - 385.625) inches
                                                         = 114.4425 inches

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 14 of 105 Thus, MD as a % of Narrow Range Span is:
                 &sect; 114.4425
* MD = &#xa8;               &#xb8;   79.751% of Span
                 &#xa9; 143.5 &#xb9; Therefore:
MRIL = 100%  (100%  MD) (11%)
MRIL = 97.773 % Level This MRIL is conservatively rounded to 97.77% Narrow Range Level. Since this is the upper limit for reliable level indication, the Analytic Limit for the High Level Valve Interlock addressed in this calculation is conservatively chosen at 97% span (Reference 4.2.10).
5.14 Per Reference 4.7.20, the Control Room normal operating temperature is 70&#xba;F to 77&#xba;F dry bulb, inclusive under all modes of operation. Per Reference 4.7.21, the normal ambient design temperature for Control Room located equipment is 75&#xba;F (plus or minus 10&#xba;F), which can also be stated as a temperature range of 65 &#xba;F to 85 &#xba;F. Per Reference 4.7.2, the Control Room Emergency Air Temperature Control (CREATC) maintains the Control Room temperature less than or equal to 85&#xba;F. Therefore, a maximum change in temperature of 20&#xba;F (11.1&#xba;C) is used to compute the indicator and recorder temperature effect.
5.15 The High Steam Generator Level alarm serves to warn the operator that Steam Generator Level is approaching the High Steam Generator Level valve interlock setpoint. Therefore, the limit for this setpoint is set to the High Steam Generator Level valve interlock setpoint of 75% Span (References 4.5.2 through 4.5.10, and 4.7.3, Table 2).
5.16 The Low Steam Generator Level alarm serves to warn the operator that Steam Generator Level is approaching the Low Steam Generator Level Reactor Trip setpoint. Therefore, the limit for this setpoint is set to the Low Steam Generator Level Reactor Trip setpoint of 30% Span (Reference 4.7.2).
5.17 Deleted 5.18 Reference 4.7.12.a identifies a bias effect due to a differential pressure at the moisture separator mid-deck. For the purposes of this calculation, this bias shall be called mid-deck differential pressure bias, or MDDPb. Documented evaluations in Reference 4.7.12.a assert that this MDDPb would be negative (conservative) for a Feedwater Line Break accident and positive (non-conservative) for Loss of Offsite Power and Loss of Normal Feedwater Accidents. The steam flow to be considered in

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 15 of 105 determining the &#xa8;P across the Moisture Separator Mid Deck Plate was increased from 100% to 112% by WCAP 16115P. Per Table 6.1 of WCAP 16115P the value of this
     &#xa8;P increased from 0.17 to 0.19psi This value can be converted to units of % Span using the specific gravity of water, 0.0160454 ft3 / lbm, and the transmitter calibrated span of 108 inches (Section 6.4.1) as follows:
                  &sect; 0.19 pounds * &sect; 0.0160454 ft * &sect; 144 in 3            2
                                                                * &sect; 12 in
* MDDPb       &#xa8;              &#xb8;&#xa8;&#xa8;               &#xb8; &#xa8;
                                                   &#xb8; &#xa8; ft 2     &#xb8;&#xb8; &#xa8;       &#xb8;   5.27 inches
                  &#xa9;      in 2    &#xb9;&#xa9;     pound      &#xb9;&#xa9;            &#xb9; &#xa9; ft &#xb9;
                               &sect; 100% Span
* MDDPb       5.27 inches &#xa8;&#xa8;             &#xb8;&#xb8;   4.88% Span
                               &#xa9; 108 inches &#xb9; For normal (non transient operational conditions, the Mid Deck Plate pressure drop remains as follows:
                   &sect; 0.17 pounds * &sect; 0.0160454 ft   * &sect; 144 in 2   * &sect; 12 in
* 3 MDDPb        &#xa8;              &#xb8; &#xa8;&#xa8;              &#xb8;&#xa8;
                                                    &#xb8; &#xa8; ft 2
                                                                   &#xb8;&#xa8;
                                                                   &#xb8; ft &#xb8;        4.71 inches
                   &#xa9;      in 2    &#xb9;&#xa9;     pound      &#xb9;&#xa9;             &#xb9;&#xa9;        &#xb9;
                               &sect; 100% Span
* MDDPb       4.71 inches &#xa8;&#xa8;            &#xb8;&#xb8;    4.36% Span
                               &#xa9; 108 inches &#xb9; 5.19 Technical information included in Reference 4.4.5 shows the recorder manufacturer does not specify a time dependent drift uncertainty for these digital devices. It is therefore assumed that such drift is negligible and is included within the Reference Accuracy (RA) and Temperature Effect (TE) specification.
5.20 The resolution for a 6 Vdc range digital recorder is 1 mVdc per Reference 4.4.5. For conservatism, a 4 volt range will be used since the input to the recorder is 1 to 5 Vdc.
5.21 Feedwater Ring/Feedwater Ring Supports A combination of recirculation flow and feedwater flows downward past the feedwater ring and the feedwater ring supports. This results in a &#xa8;P across these components. In the Westinghouse Model 44F Steam Generator, the Feedwater Ring and Feedwater Ring Supports are between the Narrow Range Level Taps. As a result of this location the &#xa8;P sensed by the narrow range level instrumentation is impacted.
The value for this effect given by WCAP 16115P is 0.006 psi. The instrumentation is

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 16 of 105 calibrated to inches of water. The instrumentation system measures the level as inches of water and provides an output in % level as a % of the level indication span. For the narrow range level indication the span is 108 inches. The pressure may be converted to inches of H2O (at 500&deg;F, 900 psia) as follows:
1 inch water = 49.03889 lb/ft3 X (1/12 ft/in)3 X 1 in H2O = .02838 psi
             &sect; 1"WATER *
             &#xa8;&#xa8;             &#xb8;&#xb8; 0.006 PSI    0.211INCHES_WATER
              &#xa9; 0.02838 PSI &#xb9; SPAN = 108 INCHES
                                       &sect; 0.211
* FEED RING%SPAN = &#xa8;                &#xb8;100   0.195 % Span
                                       &#xa9; 108 &#xb9; In the case of the High functions, WCAP 16115P recommends an additional error for operation at less than 100% power. Per table 5-1 in WCAP 16115P, the additional error for the feedring &#xa8;P is 0.007 psi (total) for 44F with three primary separators (Tech Manual 728-208-63, sect. 1.1). Using the above methodology, this results in the following:
(1/0.02838) * (0.007) = 0.247 water FEED RING<100% SPAN = 0.23% Span Based on the dimensions provided in HBR2-10750, HBR2-10731, and HBR2-10736, the Feedwater Nozzle is located at 24% span. Since the PMA effects are a result of a submerged feedring, only those alarms and control functions that occur at a level t24% narrow range indicated span will be impacted. The following are the alarm and trip location in % span.
Low-Low Level Reactor Trip; 16% span Low-Low Level Alarm: 35% span Low Level Alarm: 35% span High Level Alarm: 60% span (increasing level setpoint)
High Level Valve Interlock: 75% span (increasing level setpoint)
When the actual level in the Steam Generator is below the feedwater ring and feedwater ring supports this PME = 0. When above the feedwater ring and feedwater ring supports the indicated level will be less than actual level. Therefore, this term results in a negative bias which will only be applied to increasing level setpoints above the feedring elevation of 24%.

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 17 of 105 5.22 Per Reference 4.2.5 for Setpoint M.13, normal containment EOP setpoint values are used up to an assumed containment temperature of 190&deg;F. This impacts the normal containment transmitter temperature effect as well as the PME values. This impacts only EOP setpoint calculations and should not be used for RPS/EFSAS setpoints.
5.23 Setpoint values in the EOPs are always rounded in the conservative direction to a readable value. Therefore, the inclusion of a readability error in the instrument uncertainty calculations for the indicators and recorder are not necessary for EOP setpoint applications.
5.24 Per Reference 4.4.1 in Section 9.5.1, the Westinghouse 3110554-000 I/V is a high precision 250  resistor with an accuracy of +/ 0.01%. Therefore, the Current to Voltage module is taken to have a negligible impact on the overall uncertainty calculation. This is in accordance with the methodology described within Reference 4.6.1.
5.25 For the Cases evaluated in Section 6.0, the Specific Gravity was calculated according to Procedure EGR-NGGC-0153 Engineering Instrument Setpoints Section 9.3.1.(Reference 4.6.1), using the specific volume from the ASME Steam Tables (Reference 4.7.5) in the following equation:
Specific Gravity = specific volume of water @ 68&#xba;F / specific volume of fluid Specific Gravity = 0.016046 / Vf or Vg where Vf = specific volume of fluid Vg = specific volume of steam 5.26  As part of the 24 month fuel cycle project this project, a drift analysis was performed on most of the Technical Specification related transmitters to provide new drift values based on historical numbers. A drift analysis was not required to be performed on the portions of the loop that are tested by a quarterly (92 days) Channel Operability Test (COT) that verifies the rack tolerances. Rather than unnecessarily increase the value of component drift to reflect the longer calibration time, this calculation will take credit for the performance of the COT, which includes adjustments, as necessary, for the tested setpoints. The value for drift over an 18 month period is still conservative, and will not be changed.
5.27 An effect of the Drift Studies performed per EC 97661 (Reference 4.7.22) is that in addition to the component drift (DR), the Analyzed Drift (AD) value includes several sources of uncertainty, including the Reference Accuracy (RA) and Measuring and Test Equipment error (MTE). The As-Found/As-Left technique does not and cannot

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 18 of 105 separate these factors that combine into the AD. Therefore, where the AD exceeds the DR, the results of the drift study may replace the RA, MTE, and DR factors as a single value for determination of the Total Device Uncertainty (TDU) and As-Found Tolerance (AFT). Where the DR exceeds the AD, and if desired to reduce conservatism, the AD may replace the RA, MTE, and DR factors in determination of the TDU and the AFT values. This is in accordance with Reference 4.6.6, which recommends the performance of a drift analysis, but does not specifically call out combining these terms.
5.28 As part of the 24 month fuel cycle project, the nominal calibration interval is being extended to 24 months with a maximum of 30 months (24 months + 25%).

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 19 of 105 6.0 CALCULATION OF UNCERTAINTY CONTRIBUTORS 6.1 ACCIDENT EFFECTS (AE)
Per Reference 4.6.2, the indication / recording functions provided by each loop are required post accident, so accident effects are computed for the indication / recording functions.
Per UFSAR Chapter 15, the Low Low Steam Generator Level Reactor Trip is credited in the safety analysis. Per Reference 4.7.2, this trip serves to prevent the loss of the Steam Generator as a heat sink as the result of a loss of power to the station auxiliaries, loss of normal feedwater, and a feedwater line break. A feedwater line break inside containment will create a harsh Containment environment, but not a high radiation environment. Therefore, accident temperature effects are included in the total loop uncertainties for this trip function, but accident radiation effects are not. Per EC 59047 additional effects are evaluated as applicable to the accident condition; Mid Deck Plate P, and Downcomer Subcooling.
The Low Low, and High Steam Generator Level alarms serve to warn the operator that Steam Generator Level is outside the normal control band and are not used for accident mitigation. Therefore, only normal uncertainties are computed for the alarm.
The High Steam Generator Level valve interlock serves to close the feedwater control valves before the Steam Generator is completely full and feedwater enters the main steam lines.
This function serves to prevent turbine damage. Since the main steam lines are not designed to contain water, this function also serves to prevent a possible main steam line break accident. The valve interlock serves as an equipment protection function not a safety function. Therefore, accident effects are not included in the total loop uncertainties for the valve interlock. Seismic uncertainties are included in the total loop uncertainties for this function.
The uncertainty at the input to AMSAC is computed for normal environmental conditions only. AMSAC is a non-safety system that is not required to mitigate a design basis event. Its function is to terminate anticipated transients where a loss of the Steam Generator as a heat sink is possible, and a Reactor Trip is not generated by Reactor Protection System.
6.1.1 Accident Temperature Effect (ATE)
Per EDB, the transmitter in each loop is a Rosemount 3154ND2R2F1E7. Per Reference 4.4.3, the transmitter Accident Temperature Effect (ATExmtr) is given as r 1% Upper Range Limit plus 1% Span. The Upper Range Limit (URL) of a range code 2 transmitter is 250 inwc. Per Section 9.1, the span of each transmitter is 108 inwc. Therefore, the ATExmtr associated with each transmitter is computed as follows:

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 20 of 105 ATExmtr = r {(1.0%)               + 1.0% }
ATExmtr = r 3.32% Span 6.1.2 Accident Pressure Effect (APE)
The transmitter in each loop is a differential pressure transmitter. Therefore, there are no Accident Pressure Effects.
6.1.3 Accident Radiation Effect (ARE)
Per EDB, the transmitter in each loop is a Rosemount 3154ND2R2F1E7. Per Reference 4.4.3, the transmitter Accident Radiation Effect (ARExmtr) is given as r 0.3% Upper Range Limit plus 1.00% Span. The Upper Range limit (URL) of a range code 2 transmitter is 250 inwc. Per Section 9.1, the span of each transmitter is 108 inwc. Therefore, the ARExmtr associated with each transmitter is computed as follows:
ARExmtr = r{(0.3%)                + 1.0% }
ARExmtr = r 1.69% Span 6.2 SEISMIC EFFECT (SE)
Per EDB, the transmitter in each loop is a Rosemount 3154ND2R2F1E7. Per Reference 4.4.3, the seismic effect associated with the transmitter is r 0.50% Upper Range Limit (URL), and the URL of a range code 2 transmitter is 250 inwc. Per Section 9.1 of this calculation, the calibrated span of each loop is 108 inwc. Therefore, SExmtr = r 0.50% (                ))= r 1.16% Span The SE is bounded by the ATE computed in Section 6.1.1. Therefore, the SE is not included in the uncertainty analysis for the indication, recording, alarm functions, or Low Low Steam Generator Level Trip function. Since the Low Steam Generator Reactor Trip and the High Level Valve Interlock do not include accident effects, the seismic effect is included in the uncertainties for this function.
6.3 INSULATION RESISTANCE ERROR (IR)

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 21 of 105 Per RNP-I/EQ-1175, the Insulation Resistance (IR) effect associated with the loop signal cabling inside Containment is a worst case bias of +2.2072% Span for LT-474. Therefore, IR = +2.21% Span 6.4 PROCESS MEASUREMENT ERROR (PME) 6.4.1 Process Measurement Error - Normal Environment Density Effects Per EGR-NGGC-0153 (Reference 4.6.1), the following equation is used to compute the process measurement effects which result from changes in reference leg fill fluid density variations and process density variations from those assumed for scaling:
PME(inwc) = h SG WN  H  h SG SN  H SG RN  'PC
: where, h =    height of fluid (inches)
H =    height of measured level span = 143.5 inches (Section 9.1)
SGWN   = specific gravity of fluid during operation SGSN   = specific gravity of steam during operation SGRN   = specific gravity of reference leg fill fluid during operation
        'PC    = differential pressure associated with a particular level measurement at conditions assumed for scaling.
        'P Span = 108 inwc (Section 9.1)
Therefore,
                      &sect; PME (inwc)
* PME(% Span) = &#xa8;&#xa8;               &#xb8;&#xb8; 100% Span
                      &#xa9; 'P Span &#xb9; Per Section 9.1, the following conditions are assumed for loop scaling:
SGWC = 0.787341 @ 900 psia, 500qF SGSC = 0.032034 @ 900 psia, saturated SGRC = 0.992946 @ 900 psia, 120qF, compressed

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 22 of 105 The differential pressure associated with a particular level measurement is computed with the following equation:
    'PC = h SGWC  H  h SGSC  H SG RC Differential pressures are computed for the specific points of interest across the level span:
Fluid        Fluid Calibrated Height       Height          ' PC
(% Span)         (in)         (inwc) 0.00%         0.00          -138 16.00%        22.96          -121 30.00%        43.05          -105 50.00%        71.75           -84 75.00%       107.63           -57 100.00%       143.50           -30 The process measurement effect accounts for variations in process pressure and reference leg temperature. The following process conditions are obtained from Design Inputs 5.4 and 5.12.
Normal Conditions 800 psia to 1020 psia (Steam Generator pressure) 88qF to 140qF (Reference leg temperature)
A total of four possible conditions are considered for normal operation:
Case I        Reference Leg = 88qF, 1020 psia Process Pressure = 1020 psia, saturated Case II       Reference Leg = 140qF, 1020 psia Process Pressure = 1020 psia, saturated Case III      Reference Leg = 88qF, 800 psia Process Pressure = 800 psia, saturated Case IV       Reference Leg = 140qF, 800 psia Process Pressure = 800 psia, saturated

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 23 of 105 Case I SGRN = 1.000125 @ 88qF, 1020 psia SGSN = 0.036786 @ 1020 psia saturated SGWN = 0.740813 @ 1020 psia saturated The following equations are used to compute the values in the table below:
Actual 'PN inwc h SG WN  H  h SG SN - H SG RN norPME inwc Actual 'PN inwc  Calibrated 'PC inwc
                        &sect; norPME inwc
* norPME % Span        &#xa8;&#xa8;             &#xb8;&#xb8;100% Span
                         &#xa9; 'P Span      &#xb9;
: where,
       'P Span = 108 inwc (Section 9.1)
Calibrated 'PC is computed above.
H = 143.5 inches (Section 9.1)
Fluid     Fluid      Actual     Calibrated Height    Height       ' PN          ' PC        norPME       norPME
(% Span)      (in)      (inwc)        (inwc)        (inwc)     (% Span) 0.00%       0       -138.24         -138          -0.24       -0.22%
16.00%     22.96     -122.07         -121          -1.07       -1.00%
30.00%     43.05     -107.93         -105          -2.93       -2.71%
50.00%     71.75      -87.73          -84          -3.73       -3.45%
75.00%    107.63      -62.47          -57          -5.47       -5.06%
100.00%    143.50      -37.21          -30          -7.21       -6.68%

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 24 of 105 Case II SGRN = 0.988054 @ 140qF, 1020 psia SGSN = 0.036786 @ 1020 psia saturated SGWN = 0.740813 @ 1020 psia saturated The following equations are used to compute the values in the table below:
Actual 'PN inwc h SG WN  H  h SG SN - H SG RN norPME inwc Actual 'PN inwc  Calibrated 'PC inwc
                         &sect; norPME inwc
* norPME % Span         &#xa8;&#xa8;            &#xb8;&#xb8;100% Span
                          &#xa9; 'P Span     &#xb9;
: where,
        'P Span = 108 inwc (Section 9.1)
Calibrated 'PC is computed above.
H = 143.5 inches (Section 9.1)
Fluid      Fluid      Actual    Calibrated Height     Height       ' PN         ' PC       norPME        norPME
(% Span)        (in)      (inwc)       (inwc)        (inwc)     (% Span) 0.00%       0.00     -136.51        -138          1.493        1.38%
16.00%      22.96     -120.34        -121          0.658        0.61%
30.00%      43.05     -106.20        -105         -1.199       -1.11%
50.00%      71.75      -85.99         -84         -1.993       -1.85%
75.00%     107.63      -60.74         -57         -3.736       -3.46%
100.00%     143.50      -35.48         -30         -5.479       -5.07%

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 25 of 105 Case III SGRN = 0.999502 @ 88qF, 800 psia SGSN = 0.028202 @ 800 psia saturated SGWN = 0.768855 @ 800 psia saturated The following equations are used to compute the values in the table below:
Actual 'PN inwc h SG WN  H  h SG SN - H SG RN norPME inwc Actual 'PN inwc  Calibrated 'PC inwc
                            &sect; norPME inwc
* norPME % Span       &#xa8;&#xa8;             &#xb8;&#xb8;100% Span
                             &#xa9; 'P Span      &#xb9; where,
           'P Span = 108 inwc (Section 9.1)
Calibrated 'PC is computed above.
H = 143.5 inches (Section 9.1)
Fluid      Fluid      Actual     Calibrated Height     Height       ' PN         ' PC        norPME       norPME
(% Span)       (in)      (inwc)       (inwc)        (inwc)     (% Span) 0.00%       0.00     -139.38        -138          -1.38       -1.28%
16.00%      22.96     -122.38        -121          -1.38       -1.27%
30.00%      43.05     -107.50        -105          -2.50       -2.31%
50.00%      71.75      -86.24         -84          -2.24       -2.07%
75.00%     107.63      -59.67         -57          -2.67       -2.47%
100.00%     143.50      -33.10         -30          -3.10       -2.87%

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 26 of 105 Case IV SGRN = 0.987446 @ 140qF, 800 psia SGSN = 0.028202 @ 800 psia saturated SGWN = 0.768855 @ 800 psia saturated The following equations are used to compute the values in the table below:
Actual 'PN inwc h SG WN  H  h SG SN - H SG RN norPME inwc Actual 'PN inwc  Calibrated 'PC inwc
                        &sect; norPME inwc
* norPME % Span        &#xa8;&#xa8;             &#xb8;&#xb8;100% Span
                         &#xa9; 'P Span      &#xb9;
: where,
       'P Span = 108 inwc (Section 9.1)
Calibrated 'PC is computed above.
H = 143.5 inches (Section 9.1)
Fluid     Fluid      Actual     Calibrated Height    Height       ' PN          ' PC        norPME       norPME
(% Span)      (in)      (inwc)        (inwc)        (inwc)     (% Span) 0.00%      0.00     -137.65         -138           0.35        0.32%
16.00%     22.96     -120.65         -121           0.35        0.33%
30.00%     43.05     -105.77         -105          -0.77       -0.71%
50.00%     71.75      -84.51          -84          -0.51       -0.47%
75.00%    107.63      -57.94          -57          -0.94       -0.87%
100.00%    143.50      -31.37          -30          -1.37       -1.27%

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 27 of 105 The following table presents the maximum positive and negative process measurement effects computed above for Cases I through IV.
Fluid       Fluid      Positive     Negative Height      Height      norPME       norPME
(% Span)        (in)     (% Span)     (% Span) 0.00%        0.00       1.38%        -1.28%
16.00%       22.96       0.61%        -1.27%
30.00%       43.05        N/A         -2.71%
50.00%       71.75        N/A         -3.45%
75.00%      107.63        N/A         -5.06%
100.00%      143.50        N/A         -6.68%
Fluid Velocity Effects Per Reference 4.7.9, the Steam Generators are model 44F. Per Reference 4.7.10, the fluid flow past the lower tap decreases the differential pressure across the transmitter. Reference 4.7.13 states that this bias uncertainty is bounded by -7.10% Span. Therefore, the following Fluid Velocity Effect (FVE) bias is introduced into the level measurement:
FVE = 7.10% Span Downcomer Subcooling Effects (Normal Conditions)
Per Reference 4.7.9, the Steam Generators are model 44F. Per EC 59047, the subcooling of the fluid in the downcomer region in conjunction with a saturated mixture around the U-tubes introduces an additional bias into the level measurement. Therefore, the following Downcomer Subcooling Effect (DSE) bias is introduced into the level measurement:
DSE = 0.45% Span This PME is only applicable for steam generator levels below a level where downcomer subcooling can occur. Water draining from the moisture seperators will be at saturation.
Only water below the feedring can realistically be at a subcooled temperature. Since the feedring is located at 24% level, only the Steam Generator Low Low Trip (16%) is affected.
Feedwater Ring P (FRE) from section 5.21 FRE = 0.23%
This error is only applicable above the level of the feed ring (~24%) for increasing level

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 28 of 105 setpoints.
Steam Carryunder in the Downcomer Per WCAP 16115P, Table 3.3.3-1, the calculated value of the effect caused by Steam Carryunder in the Downcomer region of the Steam Generator is small enough to be considered negligible. Therefore UCARRYUNDER = 0% Span This effect deals with non-recoverable fluid pressure losses due to Steam Carryunder. This effect should not be confused with Downcomer Subcooling fluid temperature effects discussed above.
Summary The following table presents the total positive and negative process measurement effects with the FVE, DSE, and FRE biases added as appropriate:
Normal PME Fluid        Fluid        Positive     Negative Height       Height        norPME       norPME
(% Span)          (in)      (% Span)     (% Span) 0.00%          0.00         1.83         -8.38 16.00%         22.96         1.06         -8.37 30.00%         43.05         NA           -9.81 50.00%         71.75         NA          -10.55 75.00%        107.63         NA          -12.39 100.00%        143.50         NA          -14.01

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 29 of 105 6.4.2 Process Measurement Error - Accident Environment Density Effects Per EGR-NGGC-0153 (Reference 4.6.1), the following equation is used to compute the process measurement effects which result from changes in reference leg fill fluid density variations and process density variations from those assumed for scaling:
PME(inwc) = h SG WN  H  h SG SN  H SG RN  3C where, h = height of fluid (inches)
H = height of measured level span = 143.5 inches (Section 9.1)
SGWN = specific gravity of fluid during operation SGSN = specific gravity of steam during operation SGRN = specific gravity of reference leg fill fluid during operation
        'PC = differential pressure associated with a particular level measurement at conditions assumed for scaling.
        'P Span = 108 inwc (Section 9.1)
Therefore,
                          &sect; PME (inwc)
* PME(% Span) = &#xa8;&#xa8;               &#xb8;&#xb8; 100% Span
                          &#xa9; 'P Span &#xb9; Per Section 9.1, the following conditions are assumed for loop scaling:
SGWC = 0.787341 @ 900 psia, 500qF SGSC = 0.032034 @ 900 psia, saturated SGRC = 0.992946 @ 900 psia, 120qF, compressed

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 30 of 105 The differential pressure associated with a particular level measurement is computed with the following equation:
    'PC = h SG WC  H  h SG SC - H SG RC Differential pressures are computed for the specific points of interest across the level span:
Fluid        Fluid Calibrated Height        Height          ' PC
(% Span)          (in)         (inwc) 0.00%         0.00          -138 16.00%         22.96          -121 30.00%         43.05          -105 50.00%         71.75           -84 75.00%        107.63           -57 100.00%        143.50           -30 The process measurement effect accounts for variations in process pressure and reference leg temperature. The following process conditions are obtained from Design Inputs 5.2 and 5.10.
Accident Conditions 15 psia to 1100 psia (Steam Generator pressure) 88qF to 340qF (Reference leg temperature)
A total of four possible conditions are considered for accident operation:
Reference Leg = 88qF, 15 psia Case I Process Pressure = 15 psia, saturated Reference Leg = 15 psia, saturated Case II Process Pressure = 15 psia, saturated Reference Leg = 88qF, 1100 psia Case III Process Pressure = 1100 psia, saturated Reference Leg = 340qF, 1100 psia Case IV Process Pressure = 1100 psia, saturated

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 31 of 105 Case I SGRA = 0.997018 @ 88qF, 15 psia SGSA = 0.000610 @ 15 psia saturated SGWA = 0.959345 @ 15 psia saturated The following equations are used to compute the values in the table below:
Actual 'PA inwc h SG WA  H  h SG SA - H SG RA accPME inwc Actual 'PA inwc  Calibrated 'PC inwc
                       &sect; accPME inwc
* accPME % Span       &#xa8;&#xa8;                &#xb8;&#xb8;100% Span
                        &#xa9; 'P Span         &#xb9;
: where,
       'P Span = 108 inwc (Section 9.1)
Calibrated 'PC is computed above.
H = 143.5 inches (Section 9.1)
Fluid       Fluid      Actual     Calibrated Height     Height        ' PA          ' PC       accPME       accPME
(% Span)        (in)      (inwc)        (inwc)       (inwc)     (% Span) 0.00%        0.00     -142.98         -138         -4.98       -4.62%
16.00%       22.96     -120.97         -121          0.03       0.03%
30.00%       43.05     -101.71         -105          3.29       3.05%
50.00%       71.75      -74.20          -84          9.80       9.08%
75.00%      107.63      -39.80          -57         17.20      15.93%
100.00%      143.50       -5.41          -30         24.59      22.77%

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 32 of 105 Case II SGRA = 0.959345 @ 15 psia, saturated SGSA = 0.000610 @ 15 psia saturated SGWA = 0.959345 @ 15 psia saturated The following equations are used to compute the values in the table below:
Actual 'PA inwc h SG WA  H  h SG SA - H SG RA accPME inwc Actual 'PA inwc  Calibrated 'PC inwc
                        &sect; accPME inwc
* accPME % Span        &#xa8;&#xa8;               &#xb8;&#xb8;100% Span
                         &#xa9; 'P Span        &#xb9;
: where,
        'P Span = 108 inwc (Section 9.1)
Calibrated 'PC is computed above.
H = 143.5 inches (Section 9.1)
Fluid       Fluid      Actual      Calibrated Height     Height        ' PA          ' PC       accPME       accPME
(% Span)         (in)     (inwc)        (inwc)        (inwc)    (% Span) 0.00%        0.00     -137.58         -138          0.42       0.39%
16.00%       22.96     -115.57         -121          5.43       5.03%
30.00%       43.05      -96.30         -105          8.70       8.05%
50.00%       71.75      -68.79          -84         15.21      14.08%
75.00%      107.63      -34.39          -57         22.61      20.93%
100.00%      143.50       0.00           -30         30.00      27.78%

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 33 of 105 Case III SGRA = 1.000125 @ 88qF, 1100 psia SGSA = 0.040057 @ 1100 psia saturated SGWA = 0.731025 @ 1100 psia saturated The following equations are used to compute the values in the table below:
Actual 'PA inwc h SG WA  H  h SG SA - H SG RA accPME inwc Actual 'PA inwc  Calibrated 'PC inwc
                       &sect; accPME inwc
* accPME % Span       &#xa8;&#xa8;               &#xb8;&#xb8;100% Span
                        &#xa9; 'P Span        &#xb9;
: where,
       'P Span = 108 inwc (Section 9.1)
Calibrated 'PC is computed above.
H = 143.5 inches (Section 9.1)
Fluid      Fluid       Actual     Calibrated Height    Height         ' PA         ' PC        accPME       accPME
(% Span)        (in)      (inwc)       (inwc)         (inwc)    (% Span) 0.00%       0.00      -137.77        -138            0.23       0.21%
16.00%      22.96      -121.91        -121           -0.91      -0.84%
30.00%      43.05      -108.02        -105           -3.02      -2.80%
50.00%      71.75       -88.19         -84           -4.19      -3.88%
75.00%     107.63       -63.40         -57           -6.40      -5.93%
100.00%     143.50       -38.62         -30           -8.62      -7.98%

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 34 of 105 Case IV SGRA = 0.901967 @ 340qF, 1100 psia SGSA = 0.040057 @ 1100 psia saturated SGWA = 0.731025 @ 1100 psia saturated The following equations are used to compute the values in the table below:
Actual 'PA inwc h SG WA  H  h SG SA - H SG RA accPME inwc Actual 'PA inwc  Calibrated 'PC inwc
                         &sect; accPME inwc
* accPME % Span        &#xa8;&#xa8;              &#xb8;&#xb8;100% Span
                          &#xa9; 'P Span       &#xb9;
: where,
        'P Span = 108 inwc (Section 9.1)
Calibrated 'PC is computed above.
H = 143.5 inches (Section 9.1)
Fluid Height     Fluid Height       Actual       Calibrated       accPME         accPME
(% span)           h (in)      PA (inwc)      PC (inwc)        (inwc)       (% span) 0.00%             0.00         -123.68          -138            14.32         13.26 16.00%            22.96         -107.82          -121            13.18         12.20 30.00%            43.05          -93.94          -105            11.06         10.24 50.00%            71.75          -74.11           -84            9.89           9.16 75.00%           107.63          -49.32           -57            7.68           7.11 100.00%           143.50          -24.53           -30            5.47           5.06

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 35 of 105 The following table presents the maximum positive and negative process measurement effects computed above for Cases I through IV.
Positive                        Negative Fluid Height     Fluid Height accPME           CASE #          accPME          CASE #
(% span)           h (in)
(% span)                         (% span) 0.00%               0           13.26%             IV            -4.62%            I 16.00%            22.96         12.20%             IV            -0.84%           III 30.00%            43.05         10.24%             IV            -2.80%           III 50.00%            71.75         14.08%              II           -3.88%           III 75.00%           107.63         20.93%              II           -5.93%           III 100.00%           143.50         27.78%              II           -7.98%           III Specific Conditions during a Feedwater Break Accident In order to maintain adequate margin of the Low Low Trip Setpoint, the specific conditions of a feed water line break need to be addressed. Per WCAP-16115P, the maximum temperature that the reference legs will see is 225&deg;F. Using the above methodology and the following values:
SGRA = 0.958283 @ 225qF, 1020 psia SGSA = 0.036795 @ 1020 psia saturated SGWA = 0.740776 @ 1020 psia saturated Then, the accPME at 0% level (condition of interest) is:
Fluid Fluid     Actual       Calibrated Height                                              accPME        accPME Height       Pa            Pc
(%                                                 (inwc)      (% Span)
(in)     (inwc)         (inwc)
Span) 0.00            0   -132.23            -138          5.77         5.34 See EC 59047 for additional discussion.
Fluid Velocity Effects Per Reference 4.7.9, the Steam Generators are model 44F. Per Reference 4.7.10, the fluid flow past the lower tap decreases the differential pressure across the transmitter. Reference 4.7.13 states that for HBR2, this fluid velocity effect is bounded by -7.10% Span. Therefore, the following Fluid Velocity Effect (FVE) bias is introduced into the level measurement:

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 36 of 105 FVE = -7.10% Span Downcomer Subcooling Effects (Accident conditions)
Per Reference 4.7.9, the Steam Generators are model 44F. Per EC 59047, the subcooling of the fluid in the downcomer region in conjunction with a saturated mixture around the U-tubes introduces an additional bias into the level measurement. Therefore, the following Downcomer Subcooling Effect (DSE) bias is introduced into the level measurement.
Downcomer Subcooling is unchanged under accident condition so:
DSE = 0.45% Span Feedwater Ring P (FRE) from section 5.21 Feedring Bias is unchanged for accident conditions, From section 5.21 FRE = -0.23% Span Summary The following table presents the total positive and negative process measurement effects with the FVE, FRE, and DSE biases added. Note that the Feedring bias only applies for levels greater than the feedring level of 24%, and that the DSE only applies for levels below the feedring level of 24%.
Positive      Negative Fluid Height    Fluid Height accPME         accPME
(% span)           h (in)
(% span)       (% span) 0.00%               0            13.71%        -11.72%
16.00%           22.96           12.65%         -7.94%
30.00%           43.05           10.24%        -10.13%
50.00%           71.75           14.08%        -11.21%
75.00%           107.63          20.93%        -13.26%
100.00%           143.50          27.78%        -15.31%
Accident PME For a feed water line break, the Positive accPME at the % level of interest reduces to :
Fluid          Fluid     Positive    Negative Height         Height     accPME      accPME
(% Span)          (in)    (% Span)    (% Span)

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 37 of 105 0.00%           0.00      5.79%       -11.72%
6.4.3 Process Measurement Error - Normal Environment for EOP Use As discussed in Design Input 5.22, normal containment setpoint values are used in EOPs up to a containment temperature of 190&deg;F. Therefore, the PME temperature effects are slightly different than the effect calculated in Section 6.4.1. In addition, the SG pressure may range from atmospheric pressure (15 psia) to the lowest SG safety valve setting (1085 psig ) per Design Input 5.10.
Density Effects Per EGR-NGGC-0153 (Reference 4.6.1), the following equation is used to compute the process measurement effects which result from changes in reference leg fill fluid density variations and process density variations from those assumed for scaling:
PME(inwc) = h SG WN  H  h SG SN  H SG RN  3C where, h =     height of fluid (inches)
H =     height of measured level span = 143.5 inches (Section 9.1)
SGWN    = specific gravity of fluid during operation SGSN    = specific gravity of steam during operation SGRN    = specific gravity of reference leg fill fluid during operation
            'PC     = differential pressure associated with a particular level measurement at conditions assumed for scaling.
            'P Span = 108 inwc (Section 9.1)
Therefore,
                          &sect; PME (inwc)
* PME(% Span) = &#xa8;&#xa8;                &#xb8;&#xb8; 100% Span
                          &#xa9; 'P Span &#xb9;

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 38 of 105 Per Section 9.1, the following conditions are assumed for loop scaling:
SGWC = 0.787341 @ 900 psia, 500qF SGSC = 0.032034 @ 900 psia, saturated SGRC = 0.992946 @ 900 psia, 120qF, compressed The differential pressure associated with a particular level measurement is computed with the following equation:
    'PC = h SG WC  H  h SG SC  H SG RC Differential pressures are computed for the specific points of interest across the level span:
Fluid      Fluid Calibrated Height     Height        ' PC
(% Span)       (in)       (inwc) 0.00%       0.00        -138 16.00%      22.96        -121 30.00%      43.05        -105 50.00%      71.75         -84 75.00%     107.63         -57 100.00%     143.50         -30 The process measurement effect accounts for variations in process pressure and reference leg temperature. The following process conditions are obtained from Design Inputs 5.4 and 5.12.
Normal Conditions 15 psia to 1100 psia (Steam Generator pressure) 88qF to 190qF (Reference leg temperature)
A total of four possible conditions are considered for normal containment conditions in the EOP. Note the case numbers are consistent with section 6.4.1 with an e appended. The difference between the cases in Section 6.4.1 and here are the SG pressure assumed for each and the reference leg temperature assumed in cases IIIe and IVe.

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 39 of 105 Case Ie     Reference Leg = 88qF, 1100 psia Process Pressure = 1100 psia, saturated Case IIe    Reference Leg = 190qF, 1100 psia Process Pressure = 1100 psia, saturated Case IIIe   Reference Leg = 88qF, 15 psia Process Pressure = 15 psia, saturated Case IVe    Reference Leg = 190qF, 15 psia Process Pressure = 15 psia, saturated Case Ie SGRA = 1.000125 @ 88qF, 1100 psia SGSA = 0.040057 @ 1100 psia saturated SGWA = 0.731025 @ 1100 psia saturated The following equations are used to compute the values in the table below:
Actual 'PN inwc       h SG WN  H  h SG SN - H SG RN norPME inwc       Actual 'PN inwc  Calibrated 'PC inwc
                         &sect; norPME inwc
* norPME % Span        &#xa8;&#xa8;                &#xb8;&#xb8;100% Span
                          &#xa9; 'P Span         &#xb9;
: where,
        'P Span = 108 inwc (Section 9.1)
Calibrated 'PC is computed above.
H = 143.5 inches (Section 9.1)
Calculated    Calculated Fluid Height     Fluid Height      Actual dP        Calibrated dP eopPME         eopPME
(% span)            (in)           (inwc)             (inwc)
(inwc)       (% span) 0.00%             0.00          -137.77            -137.89                0.12         0.11%
16.00%            22.96          -121.91            -120.55               -1.36         -1.26%
30.00%            43.05          -108.02            -105.37               -2.65         -2.45%
50.00%            71.75           -88.19             -83.70               -4.49         -4.17%
75.00%           107.63           -63.40             -56.60               -6.80         -6.30%
100.00%           143.50           -38.62             -29.50               -9.12         -8.44%

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 40 of 105 Case IIe SGRN = 0.971896 @ 190qF, 1100 psia SGSN = 0.040057 @ 1100 psia saturated SGWN = 0.731025 @ 1100 psia saturated The following equations are used to compute the values in the table below:
Actual 3N inwc h SG WN  H  h SG SN  H SG RN norPME inwc Actual 'PN inwc  Calibrated 'PC inwc
                         &sect; norPME inwc
* norPME % Span        &#xa8;&#xa8;             &#xb8;&#xb8;100% Span
                          &#xa9; 'P Span      &#xb9;
: where,
        'P Span = 108 inwc (Section 9.1)
Calibrated 'PC is computed above.
H = 143.5 inches (Section 9.1)
Calculated    Calculated Fluid Height     Fluid Height    Actual dP     Calibrated dP eopPME         eopPME
(% span)            (in)         (inwc)          (inwc)
(inwc)       (% span) 0.00%             0.00        -133.75         -137.89            4.15         3.84%
16.00%            22.96        -117.88         -120.55            2.67         2.47%
30.00%            43.05        -104.00         -105.37            1.38         1.27%
50.00%            71.75         -84.17          -83.70           -0.47         -0.44%
75.00%           107.63         -59.38          -56.60           -2.78         -2.57%
100.00%           143.50         -34.59          -29.50           -5.09         -4.71%

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 41 of 105 Case IIIe SGRA = 0.997018 @ 88qF, 15 psia SGSA = 0.000610 @ 15 psia saturated SGWA = 0.959345 @ 15 psia saturated The following equations are used to compute the values in the table below:
Actual 3A inwc h SG WA  H  h SG SA  H SG RA accPME inwc Actual 'PA inwc  Calibrated 'PC inwc
                             &sect; accPME inwc
* accPME % Span        &#xa8;&#xa8;               &#xb8;&#xb8;100% Span
                              &#xa9; 'P Span        &#xb9; where,
            'P Span = 108 inwc (Section 9.1)
Calibrated 'PC is computed above.
H = 143.5 inches (Section 9.1)
Calculated    Calculated Fluid Height     Fluid Height    Actual dP       Calibrated dP eopPME         eopPME
(% span)            (in)          (inwc)          (inwc)
(inwc)       (% span) 0.00%             0.00         -142.98         -137.89         -5.09         -4.71%
16.00%            22.96         -120.97         -120.55         -0.42         -0.39%
30.00%            43.05         -101.71         -105.37          3.66         3.39%
50.00%            71.75          -74.20          -83.70          9.50         8.80%
75.00%           107.63          -39.80          -56.60         16.80        15.56%
100.00%           143.50           -5.41          -29.50         24.09        22.31%

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 42 of 105 Case IVe SGRN = 0.968377 @ 190qF, 15 psia SGSN = 0.000610 @ 15 psia saturated SGWN = 0.959345 @ 15 psia saturated The following equations are used to compute the values in the table below:
Actual 3N inwc h SG WN  H  h SG SN  H SG RN norPME inwc Actual 3N inwc  Calibrated 3C inwc
                         &sect; norPME inwc
* norPME % Span        &#xa8;&#xa8;              &#xb8;&#xb8;100% Span
                          &#xa9; 'P Span       &#xb9;
: where,
        'P Span = 108 inwc (Section 9.1)
Calibrated 'PC is computed above.
H = 143.5 inches (Section 9.1)
Calculated    Calculated Fluid Height     Fluid Height    Actual dP      Calibrated dP eopPME         eopPME
(% span)            (in)          (inwc)          (inwc)
(inwc)       (% span) 0.00%             0.00         -138.87         -137.89          -0.98          -0.91 16.00%            22.96         -116.86         -120.55           3.69           3.41 30.00%            43.05          -97.60         -105.37           7.77           7.20 50.00%            71.75          -70.09          -83.70          13.61         12.60 75.00%           107.63          -35.69          -56.60          20.91         19.36 100.00%           143.50           -1.30          -29.50          28.21         26.12

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 43 of 105 The following table presents the maximum positive and negative process measurement effects computed above for Cases I through IV.
Positive      Negative Fluid Height     Fluid Height eopPME         eopPME
(% span)            (in)
(% span)       (% span) 0.00%             0.00         3.84%         -4.71%
16.00%            22.96         3.41%         -1.26%
30.00%            43.05         7.20%         -2.45%
50.00%            71.75        12.60%         -4.16%
75.00%           107.63        19.36%         -6.30%
100.00%           143.50        26.12%         -8.44%

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 44 of 105 6.4.4 Process Measurement Error - Accident Environment for EOPs Section 6.4.2 determined the accPME assuming maximum and minimum Containment temperatures of 340qF and 88qF respectively. For EOP applications the maximum and minimum Containment temperatures should be 280qF and 88qF respectively. See Section 5.2.
Only Case IV in Section 6.4.2 uses the maximum containment temperature. Thus Cases I, II, and III in Section 6.4.2 apply for EOP use. To avoid confusion with the cases presented in Section 6.4.2, the EOP Case IV will include an e after the case number.
Case IVe SGRA = 0.933450 @ 280qF, 1100 psia SGSA = 0.040057 @ 1100 psia saturated SGWA = 0.731025 @ 1100 psia saturated The following equations are used to compute the values in the table below:
Actual 3A inwc       h SG WA  H  h SG SA  H SG RA accPME inwc       Actual 'PA inwc  Calibrated 'PC inwc
                              &sect; acceopPME inwc
* acceopPME % Span         &#xa8;&#xa8;                 &#xb8;&#xb8;100% Span
                               &#xa9;    3 Span       &#xb9;
: where,
         'P Span = 108 inwc (Section 9.1)
Calibrated 'PC is computed above.
H = 143.5 inches (Section 9.1)
Fluid Height     Fluid Height        Actual       Calibrated    acceopPME      acceopPME
(% span)           h (in)       PA (inwc)      PC (inwc)      (inwc)         (% span) 0.00%             0.00          -128.20         -138           9.80            9.07 16.00%            22.96          -112.34         -121           8.66            8.02 30.00%            43.05           -98.46         -105           6.54            6.06 50.00%            71.75           -78.62          -84           5.38            4.98 75.00%           107.63           -53.84          -57           3.16            2.93 100.00%           143.50           -29.05          -30           0.95            0.88

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 45 of 105 The following table presents the maximum positive and negative process measurement effects computed above for Cases I through III in Section 6.4.2 and Case IVe in Section 6.4.4.
Positive                       Negative Fluid Height     Fluid Height acceopPME                      acceopPME
(% span)           h (in)                        CASE #                        CASE #
(% span)                        (% span) 0.00%               0            9.07%            IVe           -4.62%           I 16.00%            22.96          8.02%            IVe           -0.84%          III 30.00%            43.05          8.05%             II           -2.80%          III 50.00%            71.75         14.08%             II           -3.88%          III 75.00%           107.63         20.93%             II           -5.93%          III 100.00%           143.50         27.78%             II           -7.98%          III In addition to the process measurement effect (acceopPME) calculated above, there are three additional process measurement effects that must be considered during accident conditions.
Section 6.4.2 determined the process measurement effects due to fluid velocity (FVE -7.10%), IHHGZDWHUULQJP (FRE -0.23%), and downcomer subcooling (DSE +0.45%).
Summary The following table presents the total positive and negative process measurement effects with the FVE (-7.10%), FRE (-0.23%), and DSE (+0.45%) biases determined in Section 6.4.2 added. Note that the Feedring bias (FRE) only applies for levels greater than the feedring level of 24%, and that the downcomer subcooling bias (DSE) only applies for levels below the feedring level of 24%.
Positive      Negative Fluid Height    Fluid Height acceopPME       acceopPME
(% span)          h (in)
(% span)       (% span) 0.00%             0             9.52%         -11.72%
16.00%           22.96           8.47%          -7.94%
30.00%           43.05           8.05%         -10.13%
50.00%          71.75           14.08%         -11.21%
75.00%          107.63          20.93%         -13.26%
100.00%          143.50          27.78%         -15.31%
Accident PME for EOP use only

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 46 of 105 6.5 PRIMARY ELEMENT ERROR (PE)
There is no primary element associated with the instrument loops addressed in this calculation.
6.6 Transmitter 6.6.1 Transmitters Unverified Attributes of Reference Accuracy (RAxmtr)
Per Reference 4.4.3, the reference accuracy of the transmitter is r 0.2% Span and includes the effects of linearity, hysteresis, and repeatability. Per References 4.5.1 and 4.5.11, the transmitter is calibrated to r 0.50% Span at nine points (5 up and 4 down). Therefore, the calibration procedure verifies the attributes of linearity and hysteresis but not repeatability.
Per Reference 4.6.6, the following equation is utilized to compute the repeatability portion of the transmitter reference accuracy:
RA xmtr      .
Repeatability = r           =r            = r 0.12% Span 3
Therefore, RAxmtr = r 0.12% Span 6.6.2 Transmitter Calibration Tolerance (CALxmtr)
Per Reference 4.5.11, the transmitter is calibrated to r 0.50% Span. Therefore, CALxmtr = r 0.50% Span

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 47 of 105 6.6.3 Transmitter Drift (DRxmtr)
Per Ref 4.4.3, the transmitter drift is given as r 0.10% Upper Range Limit (URL) over a time period of thirty months. Per Reference 4.4.3, the URL for a range code 2 transmitter is 250 inwc. Per Section 9.1, the calibrated span of the transmitter is 108 inwc. Therefore, DRxmtr = r(           )= r0.10%(           )= r 0.23% Span Based on historical As-Found/As-Left data from calibration records, RNP-I/INST-1212 (Reference 4.2.7) determined a bounding 30 month analyzed drift (AD) value composed of a random 2V value term of +/-1.044% Span, and a negative bias term of 0.227% Span. Since the current drift value of +/-0.28% Span does not bound the random term of the AD value for the current calibration interval or the extended 30 month interval, the AD value will be used in this calculation, therefore, ADxmtrr     = r 1.044% Span p
ADxmtrBIAS =  0.227% Span 6.6.4 Transmitter M&TE Effect (MTExmtr)
A DMM, pressure gauge, and the instrument loop test point resistor are used to calibrate the transmitter. Per Reference 4.6.6, the combined (SRSS) accuracy of all the M&TE used to calibrate the transmitter is better than or equal to the calibration accuracy of the transmitter.
For conservatism and flexibility in the choice of test equipment, the MTE term for the transmitter is set equal to the calibration tolerance of the transmitter.
MTExmtr = r 0.50% Span

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 48 of 105 6.6.5 Transmitter Temperature Effect (TExmtr)
Per Reference 4.4.3, the transmitter temperature effect is given as r 0.15% Upper Range Limit + 0.60% Span for a change in temperature of 100qF from the temperature at which the transmitter was calibrated. Per Reference 4.4.3, the Upper Range Limit (URL) for a range code 2 transmitter is 250 inwc, and the calibrated span of each transmitter is 108 inwc (Section 9.1). Per TMM-026, the transmitters are located in Containment and the calibration and maximum Containment temperatures are 50qF and 130qF respectively (Design Input 5.7). Therefore, a maximum change in temperature of 80qF is used to calculate the transmitter temperature effect. Therefore, TExmtr = r(             + 0.60% ()         )
TExmtr = r(0.15%((             ) + 0.60% (()       )= r 0.76% Span Per Design Input 5.22, the maximum containment temperature when using normal containment setpoint values is 190&deg;F. As discussed above, the minimum containment temperature is 50&deg;F. Therefore, a maximum change in temperature of 140qF is used to calculate the transmitter temperature effect. Therefore, eopTExmtr = r(              + 0.60% ()         )
eopTExmtr = r(0.15%(               ) + 0.60% ()        )= = r1.33% Span Note: The transmitter temperature effect computed above is for normal environmental conditions only. For accident environmental conditions, the accident temperature effect is included in the loop uncertainty computation.

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 49 of 105 6.6.6 Normal Transmitter Static Pressure Effect (norSPExmtr)
Per Reference 4.4.3, a static pressure span correction is not required on the transmitter. Per Reference 4.4.3, the static pressure span effect correction uncertainty is r (0.1%  +
0.1%  )per 1000 psi. Per Reference 4.7.9, the maximum normal operating pressure of the Steam Generator is 1020 psia (0% Load). Per Section 9.1, the maximum reading for the transmitter is approximately 138 inwc and the span of each transmitter is 108 inwc.
Per Reference 4.4.3, the static pressure zero effect is r 0.10% Upper Range Limit per 1000 psi, and the Upper Range Limit of a range code 2 transmitter is 250 inwc.
Therefore, the normal static pressure effect for each transmitter is calculated with the following equation:
norSPExmtr = r 0.1%              + 0.1%  + 0.1%(             )
norSPExmtr = r 0.57% Span

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 50 of 105 6.6.7 Accident Transmitter Static Pressure Effect (accSPExmtr)
Per Section 9.1, a static pressure span correction is performed on the transmitter. Per Reference 4.4.3, the static pressure span effect correction uncertainty is r (0.1%  +
0.1%  )per 1000 psi. Per Design Input 5.10, the lowest set pressure of the Steam Generator safety relief valves (1100 psia) is taken as the maximum pressure of the Steam Generator. Per Section 9.1, the maximum reading for the transmitter is approximately 138 inwc and the span of each transmitter is 108 inwc.
Per Reference 4.4.3, the static pressure zero effect is r 0.10% Upper Range Limit per 1000 psi, and the Upper Range Limit of a range code 2 transmitter is 250 inwc.
Therefore, the accident static pressure effect for each transmitter is calculated with the following equation:
accSPExmtr = r 0.1%               + 0.1%  + 0.1%(            )
accSPExmtr = r 0.62% Span Note that due to the pressure range of interest in the EOPs, the accSPExmtr value is also applicable during normal containment conditions when in the EOPs. Thus, eopSPExmtr = accSPExmtr = r 0.62% Span 6.6.8 Transmitter Power Supply Effect (PSExmtr)
Per Reference 4.4.3, the power supply effect associated with the transmitters is given as r 0.005% Span per volt variation in power supplied to the transmitter from the power supplied at the time of calibration. Per EDB (Reference 4.7.4), each instrument loop is powered by an NUS SPS 800 power supply. The power supply is powered by regulated instrument buses per Reference 4.2.1. Therefore, the power supply effect is negligible.
PSExmtr = N/A

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 51 of 105 6.6.9 Normal Transmitter Total Device Uncertainty (norTDUxmtr)
Per Reference 4.6.6, the Total Device Uncertainty for normal environmental conditions is computed using the following equation:
2          2           2        2            2               2 norTDUxmtr = r    (CAL xmtr  MTE xmtr )  RA xmtr  DR xmtr  norTE xmtr  norSPE xmtr
                  + DRxmtrBIAS Per Design Input 5.27, AD may replace RA, MTE, and DR as a single value when calculating the TDU, therefore, 2         2             2               2 norTDUxmtr = +/- CAL xmtr  AD xmtr  norTE xmtr  norSPE xmtr + ADxmtrBIAS norTDUxmtr = r0.50 + 1.044 + 0.76 + 0.57  0.227 norTDUxmtr = +/- 1.50% Span,  0.23% Span 6.6.10 Normal Transmitter Total Device Uncertainty (eopTDUxmtr) for EOPs Per Reference 4.6.6, the Total Device Uncertainty for normal environmental conditions for EOPs is computed using the following equation:
2           2           2        2             2               2 eopTDUxmtr = r     (CAL xmtr  MTE xmtr )  RA xmtr  DR xmtr  eopTE xmtr  eopSPE xmtr
                  + DRxmtrBIAS Per Design Input 5.27, AD may replace RA, MTE, and DR as a single value when calculating the TDU, therefore, 2            2                2 eopTDUxmtr = r     CAL2  AD xmtr  eopTE xmtr  eopSPE xmtr + ADxmtrBIAS eopTDUxmtr = r0.50 + 1.044 + 1.33 + 0.62  0.227 eopTDUxmtr = r 1.87% Span,  0.23% Span 6.6.11 Accident Transmitter Total Device Uncertainty (accTDUxmtr)
Per Reference 4.6.6, the Total Device Uncertainty for accident conditions is computed using the following equation:
2          2           2         2              2 accTDUxmtr = r    (CAL xmtr  MTE xmtr )  RA xmtr  DR xmtr  accSPE xmtr

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 52 of 105
                  + DRxmtrBIAS Per Design Input 5.27, AD may replace RA, MTE, and DR as a single value when calculating the TDU, therefore, 2               2 accTDUxmtr = r CAL2  AD xmtr  accSPE xmtr + ADxmtrBIAS accTDUxmtr = r0.50 + 1.044 + 0.62  0.23 accTDUxmtr = r 1.31% Span,  0.23% Span 6.6.12 Transmitter As Found Tolerance (AFTxmtr)
Per Reference 4.6.6, the As Found Tolerance (AFT) is computed using the following equation:
2         2            2 AFTxmtr = r CAL xmtr  DR xmtr  MTE xmtr AFTxmtr = r0.50 + 0.23 + 0.50 AFTxmtr = r 0.74% Span Per Design Input 5.27, AD may replace RA, MTE, and DR as a single value when calculating the AFT, therefore, 2         2 AFTxmtr = r CAL xmtr  AD xmtr AFTxmtr = r 0.50 2  1.044 2 AFTxmtr = r 1.16% Span Note: The bias portion of the analyzed drift will be captured in the Total Device Uncertainty, the Total Loop Uncertainty, and ultimately included, if appropriate, in the setpoint margin. For conservatism, it will not be included in the AFT.
The current AFTxmtr value of r 0.74% Span is less than, i.e., more conservative than, the above calculated AFTxmtr value of r 1.16% Span. For conservatism, AFTxmtr = r 0.74% Span will be retained.

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 53 of 105 6.6.13 Transmitter As Left Tolerance (ALTxmtr)
Per Reference 4.6.6, the As Left Tolerance (ALT) is computed using the following equation:
ALTxmtr = CALxmtr ALTxmtr = r 0.50% Span Error Contributor                 Value             Type               Section RA                    r 0.12% Span          Random                6.6.1 CAL                   r 0.50% Span          Random                6.6.2 DR                    r 0.23% Span          Random                6.6.3 r 1.044% Span         Random AD                                                                6.6.3
                                   0.227% Span          Bias MTE                   r 0.50% Span          Random                6.6.4 ATE                   +/- 3.32% Span          Random                6.1.1 ARE                    +/-1.69% Span          Random                6.1.3 SE                   +/- 1.16% Span          Random                 6.2 eopTE                  r 1.33% Span          Random                6.6.5 norTE                  r 0.76% Span          Random                6.6.5 norSPE                  r 0.57% Span          Random                6.6.6 accSPE                  r 0.62% Span          Random                6.6.7 As Left Tolerance (ALT)         r 0.50% Span          Random               6.6.13 As Found Tolerance (AFT)         +/- 0.74% Span          Random               6.6.12 Total Device Uncertainty        r 1.87% Span          Random (EOP)                                                             6.6.10
                                   0.23% Span           Bias Total Device Uncertainty        +/- 1.50 %Span          Random (non-accident)                                                         6.6.9
                                   0.23% Span           Bias Total Device Uncertainty        r 1.31% Span          Random (accident)                                                          6.6.11
                                   0.23% Span           Bias Transmitter Uncertainty Summary

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 54 of 105 6.7 COMPARATOR MODULE 6.7.1 Comparators Unverified Attributes of Reference Accuracy (RAcomp)
Per Reference 4.4.1, the comparator reference accuracy is r 0.50% Span. Per References 4.5.2 through 4.5.11, the comparator is calibrated to r 0.50% Span, and the calibration procedure verifies the attributes of linearity and hysteresis but not repeatability. Per Reference 4.6.6, the following equation is utilized to compute the repeatability portion of the comparator reference accuracy:
RA comp      0.50% Span Repeatability = r            =r                = r 0.29% Span 3               3 Therefore, RAcomp = r 0.29% Span 6.7.2 Comparator Calibration Tolerance (CALcomp)
Per Reference 4.5.11, the comparator is calibrated to r 0.50% Span. Therefore, CALcomp = r 0.50% Span 6.7.3 Comparator Drift (DRcomp)
Per Reference 4.4.1, no drift is specified for the Hagan or NUS comparator. Per Reference 4.6.6, if no drift is specified for a device, a default value of r 1.00% Span may be used.
Based on historical data, Hagan comparator drift is r 0.25% Span (Attachment B). If the default value bounds the value obtained through a review of the historical data, the default value of r 1.00% Span may be used for comparator drift (Reference 4.6.6). Therefore, the default value of r 1.00% Span is used for comparator drift for the NUS and Hagan comparators.
DRcomp = r 1.00% Span The comparator is subject to a quarterly COT per MST-013 (Reference 4.5.13). Therefore, per Design Input 5.26, the above drift value is conservative and will be used.

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 55 of 105 6.7.4 Comparator M&TE Effect (MTEcomp)
Per References 4.5.2-10, one DMM with an accuracy of r 0.25% Reading is used to calibrate the comparator. For conservatism, a maximum reading of 5 Vdc is used to compute the accuracy of the DMM as follows:
                                     &sect; 5 Vdc
* MTEcomp = r 0.25% Reading &#xa8;               &#xb8; = r 0.31% Span
                                     &#xa9; 4 Vdcc &#xb9; 6.7.5 Comparator Temperature Effect (TEcomp)
Per Reference 4.4.1, the NUS comparator temperature effect is given as r 0.04% Span per 1qC change in temperature from the temperature at the time of calibration, and no temperature effect is specified for the Hagan comparator. Per EGR-NGGC-0153 (Reference 4.6.1), if no temperature effect is specified for a device, a default value of r 0.50% Span may be used for the temperature effect. Per Design Input 5.8, a change in temperature of 42qF (23.33qC) is used to compute the comparator temperature effect. Therefore,
                             &sect; 23.33qC
* TEcomp = r 0.04% Span &#xa8;               &#xb8;
                             &#xa9; 1qC &#xb9; TEcomp = r 0.93% Span Since either Westinghouse Hagan or NUS comparator may be used, the most restrictive temperature effect (NUS comparator) is used in this calculation.
6.7.6 Comparator Power Supply Effect (PSEcomp)
Per Reference 4.4.1, no uncertainty for the comparator power supply effect is specified.
Since the comparators are powered by regulated instrument buses, the comparator power supply effect is considered to be negligible. Therefore, PSEcomp = N/A 6.7.7 Comparator Total Device Uncertainty (TDUcomp)
Total Device Uncertainty is computed using the following equation:
2          2         2          2 TDUcomp = r     CAL comp  MTE comp        RA comp  DR comp  TE comp TDUcomp = r 1.61% Span

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 56 of 105 6.7.8 Comparator As Found Tolerance (AFTcomp)
Per Reference 4.6.6, the As Found Tolerance (AFT) is computed using the following equation:
2          2          2 AFTcomp = r CAL comp  DR comp  MTE comp AFTcomp = r 1.16% Span 6.7.9 Comparator As Left Tolerance (ALTcomp)
Per Reference 4.6.6, the As Left Tolerance (ALT) is computed using the following equation:
ALTcomp = CALcomp ALTcomp = r 0.50% Span Error Contributor                 Value             Type               Section RA                    r 0.29% Span          Random               6.7.1 CAL                    r 0.50% Span          Random               6.7.2 DR                    r 1.00% Span          Random               6.7.3 MTE                    r 0.31% Span          Random               6.7.4 TE                    r 0.93% Span          Random               6.7.5 As Left Tolerance (ALT)         r 0.50% Span          Random               6.7.9 As Found Tolerance (AFT)         r 1.16% Span          Random               6.7.8 Total Device Uncertainty r 1.61% Span          Random               6.7.7 (non-accident)
Comparator Module Uncertainty Summary

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 57 of 105 6.8 ISOLATOR MODULE 6.8.1 Isolators Unverified Attributes of Reference Accuracy (RAisol)
Per Hagan vendor manual 728-589-13 (Reference 4.4.1), the reference accuracy of the NUS 800 isolator is r0.1% of output full scale, repeatable to +/- 0.05%, with a linearity better than
+/-0.05% of output full scale.
Per Hagan vendor manual 728-589-13 (Reference 4.4.1), the reference accuracy of the NUS EIP isolator is r0.1% of full scale, with a linearity better than +/-0.1% of full scale output.
Per LP-027 through LP-035 and MMM-06 (References 4.5.2 through 4.5.11), the isolator is calibrated to r 0.50% Span, and the calibration procedure verifies the attributes of linearity but not hysteresis or repeatability. Per Reference 4.6.6, the following equation is used to compute the repeatability portion of the NUS EIP isolator reference accuracy:
RA isol     0.10% Span Repeatability = r         =r               = r 0.06% Span 3            3 For conservatism, Repeatability = +/- 0.06% 'P Span will be assigned to both the NUS 800 and NUS EIP isolators.
Per Reference 4.6.6, the following equation is used to compute the hysteresis portion of both the NUS 800 and NUS EIP isolator reference accuracy:
RA isol     0.10% Span Hysteresis = r         =r               = r 0.06% Span 3             3 The NUS 800 and NUS EIP isolator reference accuracy is now determined by combining the attributes of the hysteresis and repeatability calculated above, using the SRSS method.
RAisol = r 0.06 2  0.06 2 RAisol = r0.08% Span 6.8.2 Isolator Calibration Tolerance (CALisol)
Per Reference 4.5.11, the isolator is calibrated to r 0.50% Span. Therefore, CALisol = r 0.50% Span 6.8.3 Isolator Drift (DRisol)
Per Reference 4.4.1, no uncertainty for isolator drift is specified. The default value of r 1.00% Span is used to represent isolator drift [Reference 4.6.6]. Therefore, DRisol = r 1.00% Span

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 58 of 105 NUS 800 Isolator Drift (DR800isol)
Per Attachments F (Reference 4.7.23) and G (Reference 4.7.24), the NUS 800 isolator drift has been tested to be less than +/-0.20% Span for calibration intervals of up to 36 months, which bounds the 30 month requirement for these isolators. For conservatism, DR800isol = r 1.00%
Span will be retained.
NUS EIP Isolator Drift (DREIPisol)
Per Hagan vendor manual 728-589-13 (Reference 4.4.1), no drift uncertainty for the NUS EIP isolator is specified. Per Reference 4.6.6, the default value of r 1.00% Span/18 months is used to represent the isolator drift.
Per Design Input 5.28, as part of the 24 month fuel cycle project, the nominal calibration interval is being extended to 24 months with a maximum of 30 months (24 months + 25%).
Per EGR-NGGC-0153 (Reference 4.6.1), when the calibration interval exceeds the vendor specified drift interval (default value in this instance), treatment of the drift as random and independent with respect to the multiple time intervals is the preferred methodology.
Accordingly, the SRSS method will be used to combine the +/- 1.0% Span/18 month drift intervals.
The number of drift intervals = 30 months/18 months = 1.67.
Calculating DREIPisol ,
2 DREIPisol = +/- 1.67 (1.0)
DREIPisol = r 1.29% Span 6.8.4 Isolator M&TE Effect (MTEisol)
Per References 4.5.2-10, two DMMs are used to calibrate the isolator. Each DMM has an accuracy of r 0.25% Reading. The total MTE term is the SRSS of the individual DMM accuracy terms. For conservatism, a maximum reading of 5 Vdc is used to compute the accuracy of the DMMs as follows:
                      &sect;                     &sect; 5 Vdc *&#xba; *&#xb8; 2
MTEisol = r     &#xa8; 2 0.25% Reading &#xa8;            &#xb8;>>
                      &#xa8; <<&#xac;                   &#xa9; 4 Vdc &#xb9;1/4 &#xb8;&#xb9;
                      &#xa9; MTEisol = r 0.44% Span 6.8.5 Isolator Temperature Effect (TEisol)

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 59 of 105 Per Hagan vendor manual 728-589-13 (Reference 4.4.1), the NUS EIP isolator temperature effect is +/- 0.01% full scale/qC. Per Reference 4.4.1, the NUS 800 isolator temperature effect is less than r 0.50% of output full scale per 50&deg;F for module gains less than 1.7.
Per Design Input 5.8, a change in temperature of 42qF (23.33&deg;C) is used to compute the isolator temperature effect for normal conditions, and a change in temperature of 70qF.
NUS EIP Isolator Temperature Effect for Normal Conditions (norTEEIPisol)
For a temperature change of 42&deg;F (23.33&deg;C), norTEEIPisol is computed as follows:
                                       &sect;     5 Vdc       *&sect; 100% Span *&sect; 23.33qC
* norTEEIPisol = r 0.01% Full Scale &#xa8;                 &#xb8;&#xa8;           &#xb8;&#xa8;         &#xb8;
                                       &#xa9; 100% Full Scale &#xb9;&#xa9; 4 Vdc &#xb9;&#xa9; 1qC &#xb9; norTEEIPisol = r 0.29% Span NUS 800 Isolator Temperature Effect for Normal Conditions (norTE800isol)
For a temperature change of 42&deg;F, norTE800isol is computed as follows:
                                       &sect;     5 Vdc       *&sect; 100% Span *&sect; 42qF
* norTE800isol = r 0.50% Full Scale &#xa8;                 &#xb8;&#xa8;           &#xb8;&#xa8;      &#xb8;
                                       &#xa9; 100% Full Scale &#xb9;&#xa9; 4 Vdc &#xb9;&#xa9; 50qF &#xb9; norTE800isol = r 0.53% Span NUS EIP Isolator Temperature Effect for Accident Conditions (accTEEIPisol)
For a temperature change of 70qF (38.89qC), accTEEIPisol is computed as follows:
                                      &sect;     5 Vdc       *&sect; 100% Span *&sect; 38.89qC
* accTEEIPisol = r0.01% Full Scale &#xa8;                 &#xb8;&#xa8;           &#xb8;&#xa8;         &#xb8;
                                      &#xa9; 100% Full Scale &#xb9;&#xa9; 4 Vdc &#xb9;&#xa9; 1qC &#xb9; accTEEIPisol = r0.49% Span NUS 800 Isolator Temperature Effect for Accident Conditions (accTE800isol)
For a temperature change of 70qF, accTE800isol is computed as follows:
                                      &sect;     5 Vdc       *&sect; 100% Span *&sect; 70qF
* accTE800isol = r0.50% Full Scale &#xa8;                 &#xb8;&#xa8;           &#xb8;&#xa8;      &#xb8;
                                      &#xa9; 100% Full Scale &#xb9;&#xa9; 4 Vdc &#xb9;&#xa9; 50qF &#xb9; accTE800isol = r0.88% Span 6.8.6 Isolator Power Supply Effect (PSEisol)

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 60 of 105 Per Reference 4.4.1, no uncertainty for the isolator power supply effect is specified. Since the isolators are powered by regulated instrument buses, the isolator power supply effect is considered to be negligible. Therefore, PSEisol = N/A 6.8.7 Isolator Total Device Uncertainty (TDUisol)
NUS EIP Isolator TDU for Normal conditions (norTDUEIPisol)
Per Reference 4.6.6, the Total Device Uncertainty is computed using the following equation:
2          2            2                2 norTDUEIPisol = r   CALisol  MTE isol    RA isol  DR EIPisol  norTE EIPisol 2
norTDUEIPisol = +/-   0.50  0.44  0.08 2  1.29 2  0.29 2 norTDUEIPisol = r 1.62% Span NUS 800 Isolator TDU for Normal Conditions (norTDU800isol)
Per Reference 4.6.6, the Total Device Uncertainty is computed using the following equation:
2          2            2                 2 norTDU800isol = r   CALisol  MTE isol    RA isol  DR 800isol  norTE 800isol 2
norTDU800isol = +/-   0.50  0.44  0.08 2  1.00 2  0.532 norTDU800isol = r 1.47% Span NUS EIP Isolator TDU for Accident Conditions (accTDUEIPisol)
Per Reference 4.6.6, the Total Device Uncertainty is computed using the following equation:
2          2            2                2 accTDUEIPisol = r   CALisol  MTE isol    RA isol  DR EIPisol  accTE EIPisol 2
accTDUEIPisol = +/-   0.50  0.44  0.08 2  1.29 2  0.49 2 accTDUEIPisol = r 1.67% Span NUS 800 Isolator TDU for Accident Conditions (accTDU800isol)
Per Reference 4.6.6, the Total Device Uncertainty is computed using the following equation:

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 61 of 105 2          2            2                2 accTDU800isol = r    CALisol  MTE isol    RA isol  DR 800isol  accTE 800isol 2
accTDU800isol = +/-    0.50  0.44  0.082  1.00 2  0.882 accTDU800isol = r 1.63% Span For conservatism, norTDUEIPisol , norTDU800isol , and accTDU800isol will be assigned the accTDUEIPisol uncertainty value of +/- 1.67% Span for both accident and non-accident (normal) conditions.
6.8.8 Isolator As Found Tolerance (AFTisol)
NUS 800 Isolator As Found Tolerance (AFT800isol)
Per EGR-NGGC-0153, the As Found Tolerance (AFT) is computed using the following equation:
2           2          2 AFT800isol = r CAL isol  DR 800isol  MTE isol AFT800isol = r 0.50 2  1.00 2  0.44 2 AFT800isol = r 1.20% Span NUS EIP Isolator As Found Tolerance (AFT800isol)
Per Reference 4.6.6, the As Found Tolerance is computed using the following equation:
2           2          2 AFTEIPisol = r CALisol  DR EIPisol  MTE isol AFTEIPisol = r 0.50 2  1.29 2  0.44 2 AFTEIPisol = r 1.45% Span The current AFTEIPisol value of r 1.20% Span is less than, i.e., more conservative than, the above calculated AFTEIPisol value of r 1.45% Span. For conservatism, AFTEIPisol = r 1.20% Span will be retained.
6.8.9 Isolator As Left Tolerance (ALTisol)
Per Reference 4.6.6, the As Left Tolerance (ALT) is computed using the following equation:
ALT800isol = CALisol = r 0.50% Span

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 62 of 105 ALTEIPisol = CALisol = r 0.50% Span Error Contributor                 Value            Type             Section RA                  r 0.08% Span        Random              6.8.1 CAL                  r 0.50% Span        Random              6.8.2 DR                  r 1.00% Span        Random              6.8.3 DR800isol             r 1.00% Span        Random              6.8.3 DREIPisol             r 1.29% Span        Random              6.8.3 MTE                  r 0.44% Span        Random              6.8.4 norTE800isol            r 0.53% Span        Random              6.8.5 norTEEIPisol            r 0.29% Span        Random              6.8.5 accTE800isol            r 0.88% Span        Random              6.8.5 accTEEIPisol            r0.49% Span         Random              6.8.5 As Left Tolerance (ALT)          r 0.50% Span        Random              6.8.9 As Found Tolerance (AFT)          r 1.20% Span        Random              6.8.8 Total Device Uncertainty r 1.67% Span        Random              6.8.7 (accident)
Total Device Uncertainty r1.67% Span         Random              6.8.7 (non-accident)
Isolator Module Uncertainty Summary Note: RA, CAL, MTE, ALT, and AFT values are equalvalent for both isolators.

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 63 of 105 6.9 INDICATOR 6.9.1 Indicators Unverified Attributes of Reference Accuracy (RAind)
Per Reference 4.4.2, the reference accuracy of the indicator is r 2.00% Span and includes the effects of linearity, hysteresis, and repeatability (Design Input 5.5). Per References 4.5.2 through 4.5.11, the indicator is calibrated to r 2.00% Span at nine points (5 up and 4 down).
Therefore, the calibration procedure verifies the attributes of linearity and hysteresis but not repeatability. Per Reference 4.6.6, the following equation is utilized to compute the repeatability portion of the indicator reference accuracy:
RA ind      2.00% Span Repeatability = r          =r               = r 1.15% Span 3              3 Therefore, RAind = r 1.15% Span 6.9.2 Indicator Calibration Tolerance (CALind)
Per Reference 4.5.11, the indicator is calibrated to r 2.00% Span. Therefore, CALind = r 2.00% Span 6.9.3 Indicator Drift (DRind)
Per Attachment D, indicator drift is specified as r 1.00% Span per year. Per Reference 4.6.6, the time interval between calibrations is 22.5 month (18 months + 25%), and the following equation is used to compute the indicator drift:
                              &sect; 22.5 months
* DRind = r 1.00% Span &#xa8;                  &#xb8;
                              &#xa9; 12 months &#xb9; DRind = r 1.37% Span Based on historical As-Found/As-Left data from calibration records, RNP-I/INST-1215 (Reference 4.2.8) determined a bounding 30 month analyzed drift (AD) value of +/-1.792%
Span, which is to be treated as a random 2V value term with no significant bias term. Since the current drift value of +/-1.37% Span does not bound the AD value for the current calibration interval or the extended 30 month interval, the AD value will be used in this calculation, therefore, ADind = r 1.792% Span

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 64 of 105 6.9.4 Indicator M&TE Effect (MTEind)
Per Reference 4.5.2-10, one DMM with an accuracy of r 0.25% Reading is used to calibrate the indicator. The calibration points are cardinal points on the indicator scale (Reference 4.5.2-10). Therefore, the indicator resolution is not included in the MTE term. For conservatism, a maximum reading of 5 Vdc is used to compute the accuracy of the DMM as follows:
                                  &sect; 5 Vdc
* MTEind = r 0.25% Reading &#xa8;            &#xb8; = r 0.31% Span
                                  &#xa9; 4 Vdc &#xb9; 6.9.5 Indicator Temperature Effect (TEind)
Per Attachment D, the indicator temperature effect is specified as r0.10% Span per 1qC change from the temperature at the time of calibration. Per Design Input 5.14, a change in temperature of 11.1qC is used to compute the indicator temperature effect.
                           &sect; 11.1qC
* TEind = r 0.10% Span &#xa8;          &#xb8;
                           &#xa9; 1qC &#xb9; TEind = r 1.11% Span 6.9.6 Indicator Power Supply Effect (PSEind)
Per References 4.1.1 through 4.1.8, the indicators are not powered by an external source.
Therefore, there is no indicator power supply effect.
PSEind = N/A 6.9.7 Indicator Readability (RDind)
Per Reference 4.6.6, the indicator readability term is 1/2 of the smallest indicator scale demarcation. Per References 4.1.11 and 4.1.12, the indicator has a scale of 0 to 100% with minor demarcations of 2%. Therefore,
              &sect; 2% *&sect; 100% Span
* RDind = r &#xa8;     &#xb8;&#xa8;            &#xb8; = r 1.00% Span
              &#xa9; 2 &#xb9;&#xa9; 100% &#xb9;

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 65 of 105 6.9.8 Indicator Total Device Uncertainty (TDUind)
Per Reference 4.6.6, the Total Device Uncertainty is computed using the following equation:
2          2        2        2         2 TDUind = r    CAL ind  MTE ind       RA ind  DR ind  TE ind  RD ind 2
TDUind = +/-    2.00  0.31  1.15 2  1.37 2  1.112  1.00 2 TDUind = r 3.28% Span Per Design Input 5.27, AD may replace RA, MTE, and DR as a single value when calculating the TDU, therefore, 2        2           2        2 TDUind = r CALind  ADind  TE ind  RD ind TDUind = +/- 2.00 2  1.792 2  1.112  1.00 2 TDUind = r 3.07% Span 6.9.9 Indicator Total Device Uncertainty for EOP Setpoints (eopTDUind)
Per Input 5.20, indicator readability is not required for EOP setpoint applications. Per Reference 4.6.6, the Total Device Uncertainty for EOP setpoints is computed using the following equation:
2         2        2         2 eopTDUind = +/-     CALind  MTE ind        RA ind  DR ind  TE ind 2
eopTDUind = +/-     2.00  0.31  1.15 2  1.37 2  1.112 eopTDUind = r 3.13% Span Per Design Input 5.27, AD may replace RA, MTE, and DR as a single value when calculating the TDU, therefore, 2         2         2 eopTDUind = r CALind  ADind  TE ind eopTDUind = +/- 2.00 2  1.792 2  1.112 eopTDUind = r 2.91% Span

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 66 of 105 6.9.10 Indicator As Found Tolerance (AFTind)
Per Reference 4.6.6, the As Found Tolerance (AFT) is computed using the following equation:
2         2        2 AFTind = r CAL ind  DR ind  MTE ind AFTind = r 2.00 2  1.37 2  0.312 AFTind = r 2.44% Span Per Design Input 5.27, AD may replace RA, MTE, and DR as a single value when calculating the AFT, therefore, 2         2 AFTind = r CALind  ADind AFTind = r 2.00 2  1.792 2 AFTind = r 2.69% Span The current AFTind value of r 2.44% Span is less than, i.e., more conservative than, the above calculated AFTind value of r 2.69% Span. Therefore, for conservatism, AFTind = r 2.44% Span will be retained.

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 67 of 105 6.9.11 Indicator As Left Tolerance (ALTind)
Per Reference 4.6.6, the As Left Tolerance (ALT) is computed using the following equation:
ALTind = CALind ALTind = r 2.00% Span Error Contributor          Value              Type              Section RA                   r 1.15% Span         Random              6.9.1 CAL                  r 2.00% Span         Random              6.9.2 DR                   +/- 1.37% Span         Random              6.9.3 AD                   r 1.792% Span        Random              6.9.3 MTE                  r 0.31% Span         Random              6.9.4 TE                  r 1.11% Span         Random              6.9.5 RD                   r 1.00% Span         Random              6.9.7 As Left Tolerance (ALT)        r 2.00% Span         Random             6.9.11 As Found Tolerance (AFT)        r 2.44% Span         Random             6.9.10 Total Device Uncertainty       r 2.91% Span         Random              6.9.9 (EOP)
Total Device Uncertainty       r 3.07% Span         Random              6.9.8 (non-accident)
Indicator Uncertainty Summary

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 68 of 105 6.10 RECORDER 6.10.1 Recorders Unverified Attributes of Reference Accuracy (RArec)
Per References 4.1.7, 4.1.8 and 4.1.16, the recorder input span is 1 to 5 Vdc. Therefore, the specifications for a 6 Vdc input range are used to compute the recorder Reference Accuracy.
Per Reference 4.4.5, for a 6 Vdc input range, the maximum resolution of the input is 1 mVdc (0.001 Vdc) and the Measurement Accuracy for the recorder is given as r (0.05% of reading
+ 3 digits). Therefore, the recorder Reference Accuracy (RArec) is calculated as follows:
RArec       = r (0.05% Reading + 3 digits)
RArec       = r (0.05% x 5 Vdc + 3 digits)
RArec       = r (0.0025 Vdc + 0.003 Vdc) = r 0.0055 Vdc RArec       =r(             )100% Span RArec       = r 0.14% Span 6.10.2 Recorder Calibration Tolerance (CALrec)
Per Reference 4.5.11, the recorder is calibrated to r 0.50% Span. Therefore, CALrec = r 0.50% Span

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 69 of 105 6.10.3 Recorder Drift (DRrec)
Per Section 5.19, no recorder drift is specified and recorder drift is assumed to be included in the Reference Accuracy and Temperature Effect specifications. Therefore, DRrec = N/A 6.10.4 Recorder M&TE Effect (MTErec)
Per References 4.5.2 through 4.5.4, one DMM with an accuracy of r 0.25% Reading is used to calibrate the recorder. For conservatism, a maximum reading of 5 Vdc is used to compute the accuracy of the DMM as follows:
                                    &sect; 5 Vdc
* MTErec = r 0.25% Reading &#xa8;              &#xb8; = r 0.31% Span
                                    &#xa9; 4 Vdc &#xb9; 6.10.5 Recorder Temperature Effect (TErec)
Per Reference 4.4.5, the Recorder Ambient Temperature Effect is given as r (0.1% of reading + 0.05% range) for ambient temperature variation of 10qC (18qF). Per EDB, the recorder is located in the Control Room. Per References 4.1.7, 4.1.8 and 4.1.16, the input range of the recorder is 1 to 5 Vdc. Per Section 5.14, a maximum Control Room temperature variation of 20&deg;F is bounding for this application. Therefore, the Recorder Temperature Effect (TErec) is calculated as follows:
TErec       = r (0.1% Reading + 0.05% range) (20qF/18qF)
TErec       = r (0.1% x 5 Vdc + 0.05% range) (20qF/18qF)
TErec       = r (0.005 Vdc + 0.003 Vdc) (20qF/18qF) = r 0.0089 Vdc TErec       =r(              )100% Span TErec       = r 0.22% Span 6.10.6 Recorder Power Supply Effect (PSErec)
Per Reference 4.4.5, the power supply effect for a variation within 90 to 132 Vac is within measurement accuracy. Per Reference 4.2.1, power variation will remain within this band.
Therefore,

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 70 of 105 PSErec = N/A 6.10.7 Recorder Readability (RDrec)
Per Reference 4.4.5, for a 6 Vdc Volt Range recorder minimum recorder resolution is 0.001 Vdc. The recorders have an input span of 4 Vdc (1 to 5 Vdc). Therefore,
               &sect; 0.001 Vdc
* RDrec = r &#xa8;            &#xb8; 100% Span = r 0.03% Span
               &#xa9; 4.0 Vdc &#xb9; Per EGR-NGGC-0153 (Reference 4.6.1), uncertainties less than or equal to 0.05% Span have a negligible effect on the calculation results and may be omitted from the calculation.
Therefore, RDrec = N/A 6.10.8 Recorder Total Device Uncertainty (TDUrec)
Total Device Uncertainty is computed using the following equation:
2         2         2 TDUrec = r     CAL rec  MTE rec     RA rec  TE rec TDUrec = +/-(0.50 + 0.31) + 0.14 + 0.22 TDUrec = r 0.85% Span 6.10.9 Recorder As-Found Tolerance (AFTrec)
Per Reference 4.6.6, the As Found Tolerance (AFT) is computed using the following equation:
2          2 AFTrec = r CAL rec  MTE rec AFTrec = r 0.59% Span

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 71 of 105 6.10.10 Recorder As Left Tolerance (ALTrec)
Per Reference 4.6.6, the As Left Tolerance (ALT) is computed using the following equation:
ALTrec = CALrec ALTrec = r 0.50% Span Error Contributor                 Value              Type              Section RA                   r 0.14% Span         Random               6.10.1 CAL                   r 0.50% Span         Random               6.10.2 DR                        N/A             Random               6.10.3 MTE                   r 0.31% Span         Random               6.10.4 TE                   r 0.22% Span         Random               6.10.5 RD                        N/A             Random               6.10.7 As Left Tolerance (ALT)         r 0.50% Span         Random              6.10.10 As Found Tolerance (AFT)         r 0.59% Span         Random               6.10.9 Total Device Uncertainty r 0.85% Span         Random               6.10.8 (non-accident)
Recorder Uncertainty Summary

RN P-1/1 NST-1070 Revision 14 Page 72 of 105 7.0 TOTAL LOOP UNCERTAINTY {TLU) 7.1 TOTAL LOOP UNCERTAINTY - PLANT NORMAL 7.1.1 Total Loop Uncertainty - Indicator LI-474, 475, 476, 484, 485, 486, 494, 495, AND 496 Per Reference 4.6.6, the total loop uncertainty associated with the indicator is computed with the following equation:
f             2         2          2 TLDind = +/-"norTDU xmtr + TDUisol + TDUind + norPME + ADxmtrBIAS TLUind = +/- 1.50 2 + 1.67 2 + 3.07 2 + norPME - 0.23 TLUind = +/- 3.80% Span+ norPME% Span - 0.23% Span Fluid       Fluid      Random        ADxmtrBIAS      Positive      Negative Height      Height    Uncertainty Uncertainty         norPME        norPME
(% Span)        (in.)   (% Span)        (% Span)      (% Soan)      (% Soan) 0.00         0.00       +/-3.80          -0.23          1.83          -8.38 16.00      22.96        +/-3.80          -0.23          1.06          -8.37 30.00       43.05        +/-3.80          -0.23          NA            -9.81 50.00       71.75        +/-3.80          -0.23          NA           -10.55 75.00       107.63       +/-3.80          -0.23          NA           -12.39 100.00       143.50       +/-3.80          -0.23          NA           -14.01 Combined Uncertainties Fluid         Fluid         Positive        Negative Height        Height          TLU               TLU
(% Span)          (in.)       (% Span)         (% Span) 0.00          0.00           5.63            -12.41 16.00         22.96           4.86            -12.40 30.00         43.05           3.80            -13.84 50.00         71.75           3.80            -14.58 75.00         107.63          3.80            -16.42 100.00         143.50          3.80            -18.04

RN P-1/1 NST-1070 Revision 14 Page 73 of 105 7.1.2 Total Loop Uncertainty - Input to ERFIS Per Reference 4.6.6, the total loop uncertainty at the input to ERFIS is computed with the following equation:
                            /            2           2          2 TLUERFIS = +/--vnorTDU xmtr + TDUisol + TDUisol + norPME + ADxmtrBIAS TLUERFIS = +/- 1.so 2 + 1.67 2 + 1.67 2 + norPME- 0.23 TLUERFIS = +/- 2.80% Span+ norPME3/4 Span - 0.23% Span Fluid         Fluid         Random        ADxmtrBIAS        Positive   Negative Height        Height       Uncertainty Uncertainty          norPME      norPME
(% Span)         (in.)       (% Span)        (% Span)        (% Span)   (% Span) 0.00          0.00          +/-2.80             -0.23          1.83       -8.38 16.00        22.96          +/-2.80             -0.23          1.06       -8.37 30.00         43.05          +/-2.80             -0.23          NA         -9.81 50.00         71.75          +/-2.80             -0.23          NA        -10.55 75.00         107.63         +/-2.80             -0.23          NA        -12.39 100.00        143.50         +/-2.80             -0.23          NA        -14.01 Combined Uncertainties Fluid         Fluid        Positive       Negative Height         Height          TLU            TLU
(% Span)           (in.)     (% Span)       (% Span) 0.00           0.00           4.63         -11.41 16.00         22.96           3.86         -11.40 30.00          43.05           2.80         -12.84 50.00          71.75           2.80         -13.58 75.00         107.63           2.80         -15.42 100.00        143.50           2.80         -17.04

RN P-1/1 NST-1070 Revision 14 Page 74 of 105 7.1.3 Total Loop Uncertainty - Recorder FR-478, 488, & 498 Per Reference 4.6.6, the total loop uncertainty associated with the recorder is computed with the following equation:
I           2           2           2 TLUrec = +/-,vnorTDU xmtr + TDUisol + TDUrec + norPME + ADxmtrBIAS TLUrec = +/- 1.50 2 + 1.67 2 + 0.85 2 + norPME - 0.23 TLUrec = +/- 2.40% Span+ norPME% Span - 0.23% Span Fluid        Fluid       Random         ADxmtrBIAS      Positive     Negative Height     Height       Uncertainty Uncertainty norPME               norPME
(% Span)        (in)       (% Span)        (% Span)     (% Span)      (% Span) 0.00         0.00         +/-2.40           -0.23          1.83         -8.38 16.00       22.96         +/-2.40           -0.23          1.06         -8.37 30.00        43.05         +/-2.40           -0.23          NA           -9.81 50.00        71.75         +/-2.40           -0.23          NA          -10.55 75.00       107.63         +/-2.40           -0.23          NA          -12.39 100.00      143.50         +/-2.40           -0.23          NA          -14.01 Combined Uncertainties Fluid         Fluid        Positive     Negative Height        Height         TLU           TLU
(% Span)          (in)       (% Span)      (% Span) 0.00          0.00         4.23         -11.01 16.00         22.96          3.46        -11.00 30.00         43.05         2.40         -12.44 50.00         71.75          2.40        -13.18 75.00         107.63         2.40        -15.02 100.00        143.50         2.40        -16.64

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 75 of 105 7.1.4 Total Loop Uncertainty - High Level Alarm LC-474, 475, 476, 484, 485, 486, 494, 495, & 496 (switch 2)
Per Reference 4.6.6, the total loop uncertainty associated with the comparators which provide the High Steam Generator Level alarm is computed with the following equation:
2            2 TLUcomp = +/-.JnorTDUxmtr        + TDU comp + norPME@ 75% Level+ ADxmtrBIAS TLUcomp = +/- 1.50 2 + 1.61 2 - 12.39 -0.23 TLUcomp = +/- 2.20% Span - 12.62% Span TLUcomp = + 2.20% Span, -14.82% Span 7.1.5 Total Loop Uncertainty- Low Low Level Alarm LC-474A, 475A, 476A, 484A, 485A, 486A, 494A,495A, & 496A (switch 2)
Per Reference 4.6.6, the total loop uncertainty associated with the comparators which provide the Low Low Steam Generator Level alarm is computed with the following equation:
2 TLUcomp = +/-.JnorTDU xmtr + TDU com/+ norPME @16% Level+ ADxmtrBIAS TLUcomp = +/- 1.50 2 + 1.6l2+ 1.06 - 8.37 - 0.23 TLUcomp = +/- 2.20% Span+ 1.06% Span - 8.60% Span TLUcomp = +3.26% Span, -10.80% Span 7.1.6 Total Loop Uncertainty - Low Level Alarm LC-474B, 475B, 484B, 485B, 494B, 495B Per Reference 4.6.6, the total loop uncertainty associated with the comparators which provide the Low Steam Generator Level alarm are computed with the following equation:
2           2 TLUcomp = +/- .JnorTDU xmtr + TDU comp + norPME @ 30% + ADxmtrBIAS TLUcomp = +/- 1.50 2 + 1.61 2 - 9.81 - 0.23 TLUcomp = +/- 2.20% Span - 10.04% Span TLUcomp = +2.20% Span, -12.24% Span 7.1.7 Total Loop Uncertainty - Input to AMSAC

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 76 of 105 Per Reference 4.6.6, the total loop uncertainty associated with the input to AMSAC are computed with the following equation:
TLUAMSAC = +/- norTDU xmtr + TDUisol + norPME + ADxmtrBIAS 2           2 TLUAMSAC  = +/- 1.50 2 + 1.67 2 + norPME- 0.23 TLUAMSAC = +/- 2.24% Span+ norPME3/4 Span - 0.23% Span Fluid         Fluid         Random        ADxmtrBIAS       Positive    Negative Height        Height       Uncertainty Uncertainty         norPME       norPME
(% Span)         (in.)       (% Span)        (% Span)       (% Span)     (% Span) 0.00          0.00          +/-2.24           -0.23           1.83        -8.38 16.00         22.96          +/-2.24           -0.23           1.06        -8.37 30.00         43.05           +/-2.24          -0.23           NA          -9.81 50.00         71.75           +/-2.24          -0.23           NA         -10.55 75.00         107.63          +/-2.24          -0.23           NA         -12.39 100.00         143.50          +/-2.24          -0.23           NA         -14.01 Combined Uncertainties Fluid          Fluid       Positive      Negative Height         Height         TLU           TLU
(% Span)          (in.)     (% Span)      (% Span) 0.00           0.00         4.07         -10.85 16.00          22.96         3.30         -10.84 30.00          43.05         2.24         -12.28 50.00          71.75         2.24         -13.02 75.00         107.63         2.24         -14.86 100.00        143.50         2.24         -16.48

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 77 of 105 7.1.8 Total Loop Uncertainty for use in the EOPs - Indicator LI-474, 475, 476, 484, 485, 486, 494, 495, AND 496 Per Reference 4.6.6, the total loop uncertainty associated with the indicator, for normal conditions (15 psia to 1100 psia SO pressure) and 88&deg;F to 190&deg;F (Ref Leg temp), is computed with the following equation:
TLUind = +/-eopTDU      xmtr + TDUisol + eopTDUind + eopPME + ADxmtrBIAS 2         2             2 TLDin<l = +/- 1.87 2 + 1.67 2 + 2.91 2 + eopPME - 0.23 TLUm<l = +/- 3.84% Span+ eopPME3/4 Span - 0.23% Span Note: The eopPME values were determined in Section 6.4.3.
Random         ADxmtrBIAS       Positive        Negative Fluid Height Fluid Height Uncertainty     Uncertainty       eopPME          eopPME
(% Span)             (in.)
(% Span)         (% Span)       (% Span)         (% Span) 0.00             0.00           +/- 3.84           -0.23            3.84           -4.71 16.00            22.96           +/- 3.84           -0.23            3.41           -1.26 30.00            43.05           +/- 3.84           -0.23            7.20           -2.45 50.00            71.75           +/- 3.84           -0.23           12.60           -4.16 75.00           107.63           +/- 3.84           -0.23           19.36           -6.30 100.00           143.50           +/- 3.84           -0.23           26.12           -8.44 Combined Uncertainties Fluid         Fluid       Positive    Negative Height        Height        TLU          TLU
(% Span)           (in)     (% Span)    (% Span) 0.00          0.00        7.68        -8.78 16.00         22.96        7.25        -5.33 30.00         43.05       11.04        -6.52 50.00         71.75       16.44        -8.23 75.00       107.63        23.20       -10.37 100.00        143.50        29.96       -12.51

RN P-1/1 NST-1070 Revision 14 Page 78 of 105 7.2 TOTAL LOOP UNCERTAINTY - ACCIDENT 7.2.1 Total Loop Uncertainty - Indicator LI-474, 475, 476, 484, 485, 486, 494, 495, & 496 Per Reference 4.6.6, the total loop uncertainty associated with the       indicator is computed with the following equation:
                                           . 1 + TDU m. d + ATE xm tr + ARE xm tr +IR+ accPME 2           2            2            2 TLUind = +/- accTDU xmtr + TDU 1s0 2
                  + ADxmtrBIAS TLUmd = +/- 1.31 2 + 1.67 2 + 3.07 2 + 3.32 2 + 1.69 2 + IR+ accPME- 0.23 TLUind = +/- 5.27% Span+ IR3/4 Span+ accPME3/4 Span - 0.23% Span Note: The IR value was determined in Section 6.3 and the accPME values were determined in Section 6.4.2, and include FYE, DSE and FRE. Also note the IR effects are a positive bias and thus, not included in the negative TLU calculation.
Fluid       Fluid       Random         ADxmtrBIAS                      Posititve     Negative IR Height      Height     Uncertainty     Uncertainty                      accPME         accPME
(% Span)
(% Span)       (in.)     (% Span)          (% Span)                     (% Span)       (% Span) 0.00        0.00        +/-5.27             -0.23           2.21          13.71         -11.72 16.00       22.96        +/-5.27             -0.23           2.21          12.65          -7.94 30.00       43.05        +/-5.27             -0.23           2.21          10.24         -10.13 50.00       71.05        +/-5.27             -0.23           2.21          14.08         -11.21 75.00       107.63       +/-5.27             -0.23           2.21          20.93         -13.26 100.00       143.5       +/-5.27             -0.23           2.21          27.78         -15.31 Combined Uncertainties Fluid        Fluid          Posititve      Negative Height        Height          TLU             TLU
(% Span)        (in.)        (% Span)       (% Span) 0.00          0.00           21.19          -17.22 16.00        22.96           20.13          -13.44 30.00        43.05           17.72          -15.63 50.00        71.05           21.56          -16.71 75.00        107.63          28.41          -18.76 100.00         143.5          35.26          -20.81

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 79 of 105 7.2.2 Total Loop Uncertainty - Recorder FR-478, 488, & 498 Per Reference 4.6.6, the total loop uncertainty associated with the recorder is computed with the following equation:
2         2 +
2           2           2 TLUrec = +/- accTDU xmtr + TDU isol + TDU rec + ATExmtr + ARE xmtr               IR +
accPME
                  + ADxmtrBIAS TLUrec = +/- 1.31 2 + 1.67 2 + 0.85 2 + 3.32 2 + 1.69 2 + IR+ accPME- 0.23 TLUrec = +/- 4.37% Span+ IR% Span+ accPME3/4 Span - 0.23% Span Note: The IR value was determined in Section 6.3 and the accPME values were determined in Section 6.4.2, and include FYE, DSE and FRE. Also note the IR effects are a positive bias and thus, not included in the negative TLU calculation.
Fluid        Fluid       Random          ADxmtrBIAS                  Positive   Negative IR Height       Height     Uncertainty     Uncertainty                   accPME      accPME
(% Span)
(% Span)        (in.)      (% Span)        (% Span)                   (% Span)    (% Span) 0.00         0.00         +/-4.37           -0.23          2.21         13.71      -11.72 16.00        22.96         +/-4.37           -0.23          2.21         12.65       -7.94 30.00        43.05         +/-4.37           -0.23          2.21         10.24      -10.13 50.00        71.75         +/-4.37           -0.23          2.21         14.08      -11.21 75.00       107.63         +/-4.37           -0.23           2.21       20.93       -13.26 100.00      143.50         +/-4.37           -0.23           2.21       27.78       -15 .31 Combined Uncertainties Fluid          Fluid          Positive       Negative Height        Height            TLU            TLU
(% Span)          (in.)        (% Span)        (% Span) 0.00          0.00             20.29         -16.32 16.00         22.96            19.23         -12.54 30.00          43.05            16.82         -14.73 50.00          71.75            20.66         -15.81 75.00         107.63            27.51         -17.86 100.00        143.50            34.36         -19.91

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 80 of 105 7.2.3 Total Loop Uncertainty - Input to ERFIS Per Reference 4.6.6, the total loop uncertainty at the input to ERFIS is computed with the following equation:
2              2              2                 2          2 TLUERF1s=+/- accTDUxmtr +TDUisol +TDUisol +ATExmtr +ARExmtr +IR+accPME
                  + ADxmtrBIAS TLUERFIS = +/- 1.31 2 + 1.67 2 + 1.67 2 + 3.32 2 + 1.69 2 + IR+ accPME- 0.23 TLUERFIS = +/- 4.60% Span+ IR% Span+ accPME% Span - 0.23% Span Note: The IR value was determined in Section 6.3 and the accPME values were determined in Section 6.4.2, and include FVE, DSE and FRE. Also note the IR effects are a positive bias and thus, not included in the negative TLU calculation.
Fluid        '13J{~}~        *~~~?~'~       '}\])#iti#p(.s,                           2 Posmve      ~~~~tit~
             ~~ight         Ug(!~n:,i.!fy. TJ;~(!~.rta.                             accPME       accPME ini '         0/oS an           9/olS                                             >oz.,<san 0.00           0.00             +/-4.60             -0.23               2.21              13.71        -11.72 16.00         22.96             +/-4.60            -0.23                2.21              12.65         -7.94 30.00         43.05             +/-4.60             -0.23               2.21              10.24       - 10.13 50.00         71.75             +/-4.60             -0.23               2.21              14.08        -11.21 75.00        107.63             +/-4.60             -0.23               2.21              20.93        -13.26 100.00        143.50             +/-4.60             -0.23               2.21              27.78       - 15.31 Combined Uncertainties
                       .~1.~i,q.         Eiuicf,           rg~i~ty;e;/i::,****;  )~t~,tit~
ff~i~~l
                   * {%;Span) ij!i,g~t 'Y~~.~~,!.~!Y
                                       'Jfit1)'         '.(%,Span) 9~~rf!;il~tt
                                                                                 .(?/o$pan) .
0.00              0.00              20.52                 -16.55 16.00            22.96              19.46                 -12.77 30.00             43.05              17.05                 -14.96 50.00             71.75              20.89                 -16.04 75.00            107.63              27.74                 -18.09 100.00           143.50              34.59                 -20.14

RN P-1/1 NST-1070 Revision 14 Page 81 of 105 7.2.4 Total Loop Uncertainty- Low Low Level Reactor Trip Although the Low Low Level Reactor Trip occurs at 16% level, the PME values for 0% level are used below. This is conservative and allows for additional margin.
LC-474, 475,476,484,485,486,494, 495, & 496 (switch 1)
Uncertainties for Feedwater Line Break Accident Per Reference 4.6.6, the total loop uncertainty associated with the comparators that provide the Low Low Steam Generator Level Reactor Trip is computed with the following equation:
TLUcomp = +/-,JaccTDU xmtr 2 + TDU comp 2 + ATE xmtr 2 +IR+ accPME@0% Level
               + ADxmtrBIAS TLUcomp = +/- 1.31 2 + 1.61 2 + 3.32 2 + 2.21 + 5.79- 11.72 - 0.23 TLUcomp = +/- 3.92% Span+ 8.00% Span - 11.95% Span TLUcomp = + 11.92% Span, -15.87% Span The accPME in this case is taken from the specific case for a Feedwater Line Break Accident. This is acceptable as the conditions that result from a Main Steam Line Break (MSLB) are overly conservative and the Low Low Steam Generator Trip is not credited in an MSLB accident.
Uncertainties for Loss of Offsite Power and for Loss of Normal Feedwater Accidents For these accidents, no harsh conditions exist at the transmitter location, so the limiting accident scenario is the post-seismic condition. Per Reference 4.6.6, the total loop uncertainty associated with the comparators that provide the Low Low Steam Generator Level Reactor Trip is computed with the following equation:
TLUcomp = +/-,JnorTDU xmtr 2 + TDU comp 2 + SE xmtr 2 + norPME @0% Level+ MDDPb + ADxmtrBIAS From Section 5.18, MDDPb = +4.88% Span for accident conditions.
TLUcomp = +/- 1.50 2 + 1.61 2 + 1.16 2 + 1.83 - 8.38 + 4.88 - 0.23 TLUcomp = +/- 2.49% Span+ 6.71 % Span - 8.61 % Span TLUcomp =+ 9.20% Span, -11.10% Span This section shows that the bounding scenario is for the feedwater line break resulting in a harsh environment at the transmitter(s).

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 82 of 105 7.2.5 Total Loop Uncertainty for use in the EOPs - Indicator Ll-474, 475, 476, 484, 485, 486, 494, 495, AND 496 Per Reference 4.6.6, the total loop uncertainty associated with the indicator is computed with the following equation. The individual error components, acceopTDUxmtr, TDUisol, TDUind, ATExmtr, and ARExmtr were determined in Sections 6.6.11 , 6.8.7, 6.9.9, 6.1.1 , and 6.1.3 ,
respectively.
2           2          2
                                      . 1 +TDU .tn d +ATE xm tr +ARE xm tr +IR+acceopPME 2           2 TLUinct=+/- accTDU xm tr +TDU 1s0
             + ADxmtrBIAS TLUinct = +/- 1.31 2 + 1.67 2  + 2.91 2 + 3.32 2 + 1.69 2 + IR+ acceopPME- 0.23 TLUind = +/- 5.18% Span+ IR% Span+ acceopPME3/4 Span- 0.23% Span Note: The IR value was determined in Section 6.3 and the acceopPME values were determined in Section 6.4.4, and include FYE, DSE and FRE. Also note the IR effects are a positive bias and thus, not included in the negative TLU calculation.
Fluid       Fluid       Random         ADxmtrBIAS                    Posititve        Negative IR Height      Height     Uncertainty     Uncertainty                  acceopPME        acceopPME
(% Span)
(% Span)       (in.)     (% Span)         (% Span)                    (% Span)         (% Span) 0.00         0.00        +/- 5.18           -0.23          2.21          9.52             -11.72 16.00       22.96        +/- 5.18           -0.23          2.21          8.47              -7.94 30.00       43.05        +/- 5.18           -0.23          2.21          8.05              -9.90 50.00       71.05        +/- 5.18           -0.23          2.21          14.08            -10.98 75.00       107.63       +/- 5.18           -0.23          2.21         20.93            -13.26 100.00        143.5       +/- 5.18           -0.23          2.21         27.78            -15.31 Combined Uncertainties Fluid          Fluid       Posititve    Negative Height          Height        TLU          TLU
(% Span)          (in.)     (% Span)      (% Span) 0.00           0.00         16.91       -17.13 16.00         22.96         15.86       -13.35 30.00          43.05         15.44       -15.31 50.00          71.05         21.47       -16.39 75.00          107.63        28.32       -18.67 100.00          143.5        35.17       -20.72

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 83 of 105 7.3 TOTAL LOOP UNCERTAINTY - POST SEISMIC 7.3.1 Total Loop Uncertainty - High Level Valve Interlock LC-474, 475, 476, 484, 485, 486, 494, 495, & 496 (switch 1)
Per Reference 4.6.6, the total loop uncertainty associated with the comparators which provide the High Steam Generator Level Valve interlock is computed with the following equation:
TLUcomp = r norTDU          2 U xmtr  TDU  U comp  SE xmtr + norPME @ 100% Level + ADxmtrBIAS 2         2 TLUcomp = +/-1.50 + 1.61 + 1.16 + 0.00      14.01 14.01  0.23 TLUcomp = r 2.49% Span p  14.24% Span  p TLUcomp = + 2.49% Span , 16.73%
                                             Span 7.4 LOOP AS FOUND TOLERANCE 7.4.1 Loop As Found Tolerance - Indicator LI-474, 475, 476, 484, 485, 486, 494, 495, & 496 Per Reference 4.6.6, the following equation is used to calculate the indicator Loop As Found Tolerance (LAFTind):
2          2          2 LAFTind = r AFTxmtr  AFTisol  AFTind LAFTind = +/-0.74 + 1.20 + 2.44 LAFTind = r 2.82% Span 7.4.2 Loop As Found Tolerance - Input to ERFIS Per Reference 4.6.6, the following equation is used to calculate the ERFIS Loop As Found Tolerance (LAFTERFIS):
2           2         2 LAFTERFIS = r AFTxmtr  AFTisol  AFTisol LAFTERFIS = r0.74 + 1.20 + 1.20 LAFTERFIS = r 1.85% Span

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 84 of 105 7.4.3 Loop As Found Tolerance - Comparators LC-474, 475, 476, 484, 485, 486, 494, 495, & 496 LC-474A, 475A, 476A, 484A, 485A, 486A, 494A, 495A, & 496A LC-474B, 475B, 484B, 485B, 494B, & 495B Per Reference 4.6.6, the following equation is used to calculate the comparator Loop As Found Tolerance (LAFTcomp):
2         2 LAFTcomp = r AFTxmtr  AFTcomp LAFTcomp = r0.74 + 1.16 LAFTcomp = r 1.38% Span 7.4.4 Loop As Found Tolerance - Recorder FR-478, 488, & 498 Per Reference 4.6.6, the following equation is used to calculate the recorder Loop As Found Tolerance (LAFTrec):
2         2         2 LAFTrec = r AFTxmtr  AFTisol  AFTrec LAFTrec = r0.74 + 1.20 + 0.59 LAFTrec = r 1.53% Span 7.4.5 Loop As Found Tolerance - Input to AMSAC Per Reference 4.6.6, the following equation is used to calculate the Loop As Found Tolerance for AMSAC (LAFTAMSAC):
2         2 LAFTAMSAC = r AFTxmtr  AFTisol LAFTAMSAC = r0.74 + 1.20 LAFTAMSAC = r 1.41% Span

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 85 of 105 7.5 GROUP AS FOUND TOLERANCE 7.5.1 Group As Found Tolerance - Indicator LI-474, 475, 476, 484, 485, 486, 494, 495, & 496 Per Reference 4.6.6, the following equation is used to calculate the indicator Group As Found Tolerance (GAFTind):
2         2 GAFTind = r AFTisol  AFTind GAFTind = r 1.20 2  2.44 2 GAFTind = r 2.72% Span 7.5.2 Group As Found Tolerance - Input to ERFIS Per Reference 4.6.6, the following equation is used to calculate the ERFIS Group As Found Tolerance (GAFTERFIS):
2        2 GAFTERFIS = r AFTisol  AFTisol GAFTERFIS = r 1.20 2  1.20 2 GAFTERFIS = r 1.70% Span

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 86 of 105 7.5.3 Group As Found Tolerance - Recorder FR-478, 488, & 498 Per Reference 4.6.6, the following equation is used to calculate the recorder Group As Found Tolerance (GAFTrec):
2         2 GAFTrec = r AFTisol  AFTrec GAFTrec = r 1.20 2  0.59 2 GAFTrec = r 1.34% Span 7.5.4 Group As Found Tolerance - Comparators LC-474, 475, 476, 484, 485, 486, 494, 495, & 496 LC-474A, 475A, 476A, 484A, 485A, 486A, 494A, 495A, & 496A LC-474B, 475B, 484B, 485B, 494B, & 495B Per Reference 4.6.6, the following equation is used to calculate the comparator Group As Found Tolerance (GAFTcomp):
GAFTcomp = r AFTcomp GAFTcomp = r 1.16% Span 7.5.5 Group As Found Tolerance - Input to AMSAC Per Reference 4.6.6, the following equation is used to calculate the AMSAC Group As Found Tolerance (GAFTAMSAC):
GAFTAMSAC = r AFTisol GAFTAMSAC = r 1.20% Span

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 87 of 105 8.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS High Steam Generator Level Valve Interlock Setpoint - LC-474, 475, 476, 484, 485, 486, 494, 495, & 496 (dual comparator switch 1)
The function of this setpoint is to close the main feedwater control valve before the Steam Generator is full of water. Therefore, the High Steam Generator Level interlock setpoint is an increasing setpoint and is computed using negative total loop uncertainties. Per Reference 4.6.6, the following equation is used to calculate the maximum value for this setpoint:
SPlimit d AL  TLU where, SPlimit = calculated setpoint limit AL = Analytical Limit TLU = Total Loop Uncertainty Per Section 7.3.1 of this calculation, the negative Total Loop Uncertainty associated with this setpoint is 16.73% Span. Per Section 7.3.1, r 2.49% Span of this is the random component.
Per Reference 4.6.6, the random uncertainty may be reduced by applying the single side of interest. Therefore, the random loop uncertainty for this setpoint is r 2.05% span (0.8225 2.49% Span). This results in a negative uncertainty of 16.29% Span (2.05% Span  14.24%
Span). Per Design Input 5.13, the High Steam Generator Level valve interlock setpoint limit is 97% Span. Therefore, SPlimit d 97% Span  16.29% Span SPlimit d 80.71% Span Per References 4.5.2 through 4.5.10, the High Steam Generator valve interlock setpoint is currently set to 75% Span increasing. The Margin (M) associated with this setpoint is computed as follows:
M = SPlimit  Calibrated Setpoint M = 80.71% Span  75% Span M = 5.71% Span Therefore, the current High Steam Generator Level valve interlock setpoint is conservative.

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 88 of 105 Per Section 7.5.4 of this calculation, the Group As Found Tolerance (GAFT) is 1.16% Span.
Per Reference 4.6.6, the Allowable Value (AV) associated with this setpoint is computed as follows:
AV t SP + GAFT, where SP = calibrated setpoint AV t 75% Span + 1.16% Span AV t 76.16% Span The Loop As Found Tolerance (LAFT) of 1.38% Span is computed in Section 7.4.3. Per Reference 4.6.6, the Channel Operability Limit (COL) is computed with the following equation:
COL = SP + LAFT, where SP = calibrated setpoint COL = 75% Span + 1.38% Span COL = 76.38% Span H igh Steam Generator Level Valve Interloc k Setpoint Diagram 97.0%      A n aly t ic L im it (AL )
A d d it io n al Mar gin (M=5 . 7 1 % )
To t al Allo w an c e = TL U + M T o t al L o o p Un c er t ain t y (TL U=1 6 . 2 9 % )
L AFT = 1 . 3 8 %                                                                76.38%     Channnel Operability Limit (COL) 76.16%     A l l owa bl e V a l ue ( A V )
G AFT = 1 . 1 6 %                                                                 75.0%      C alib r at ed Set p o in t (SP )
O p er at in g Mar gin (v ar iab le)
(variable) N o m in al N OTE: Al l SG l evel s a re i n % s pa n.                                                                 N ot Dra wn to Sca l e

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 89 of 105 High Steam Generator Level Alarm Setpoint - LC-474, 475, 476, 484, 485, 486, 494, 495, &
496 (switch 2)
The function of this setpoint is to warn the operator that Steam Generator Level is approaching the valve interlock setpoint which closes the feedwater control valves. Therefore, the High Steam Generator Level alarm setpoint is an increasing setpoint and is computed using negative total loop uncertainties. Per Reference 4.6.6, the following equation is used to calculate the maximum value for this setpoint:
SPlimit d AL  TLU
: where, SPlimit = calculated setpoint limit AL = Analytical Limit TLU = Total Loop Uncertainty The function of this alarm is to warn the operator before the feedwater control valves are closed by the High Steam Generator Level valve interlock, and this alarm is provided by the same dual bistable module that provides the valve interlock. Any uncertainty at the input of the bistable module will offset both the interlock and alarm setpoints in the same direction.
Therefore, the only uncertainties which need to be considered for this setpoint are those associated with the bistable which provides the valve interlock and the bistable which provides the alarm. Therefore, the total uncertainty associated with this setpoint is the square root sum of squares of two bistable uncertainty terms. Per Section 6.7.7, the uncertainty associated with one bistable is r 1.61% Span. Therefore, the total uncertainty associated with this setpoint is
2.28% Span (negative portion of the SRSS of two r 1.61% Span terms). Per Design Input 5.15, the High Steam Generator Level alarm setpoint limit is 75% Span. Therefore, SPlimit d 75% Span  2.28% Span SPlimit d 72.72% Span Per References 4.5.2 through 4.510, the High Steam Generator valve interlock setpoint is currently set to 60% Span increasing. The Margin (M) associated with this setpoint is computed as follows:
M = SPlimit  Calibrated Setpoint M = 72.72% Span  60% Span M = 12.72% Span Therefore, the current High Steam Generator Level alarm setpoint is conservative.

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 90 of 105 Low Steam Generator Level Alarm Setpoint - LC-474B, 475B, 484B, 485B, 494B, & 495B The function of this setpoint is to provide an alarm when Steam Generator level is approaching the Low Steam Generator Level Reactor Trip setpoint. Therefore, the Low Steam Generator level alarm is a decreasing setpoint and is computed using positive total loop uncertainties. Per Reference 4.6.6, the following equation is used to calculate the minimum value for this setpoint:
SPlimit t AL + TLU
: where, SPlimit = calculated setpoint limit AL = Analytical Limit TLU = Total Loop Uncertainty Per Section 7.1.6 of this calculation, the positive Total Loop Uncertainty associated with this setpoint is 2.20% Span. Per Design Input 5.16, the Low Steam Generator Level alarm setpoint limit is 30% Span. Therefore, SPlimit t 30% Span + 2.20% Span SPlimit t 32.20% Span Per References 4.5.2 through 4.5.10, the Low Steam Generator Level alarm setpoint is currently set to 35% Span decreasing. The Margin (M) associated with this setpoint is computed as follows:
M = Calibrated Setpoint  SPlimit M = 35% Span  32.20% Span M = 2.80% Span Therefore, the current alarm setpoint is conservative.

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 91 of 105 Per Section 7.5.4 of this calculation, the Group As Found Tolerance (GAFT) is 1.16% Span.
Per Reference 4.6.6, the Allowable Value (AV) associated with this setpoint is computed as follows:
AV t SP  GAFT, where SP = calibrated setpoint AV t 30% Span  1.16% Span AV t 28.84% Span The Loop As Found Tolerance (LAFT) of 1.38% Span is computed in Section 7.4.3. Per Reference 4.6.6, the Channel Operability Limit (COL) is computed with the following equation:
COL = SP  LAFT, where SP = calibrated setpoint COL = 30% Span  1.38% Span COL = 28.62% Span

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 92 of 105 Low Low Steam Generator Level Alarm Setpoint - LC-474A, 475A, 476A, 484A, 485A, 486A, 494A, 495A, & 496A (dual comparator switch 2)
The function of this setpoint is to provide an alarm when Steam Generator level is approaching the Low Low Steam Generator Level Reactor Trip setpoint. Therefore, the Low Low Steam Generator level alarm is a decreasing setpoint and is computed using positive total loop uncertainties. Per Reference 4.6.6, the following equation is used to calculate the minimum value for this setpoint:
SPlimit t AL + TLU
: where, SPlimit = calculated setpoint limit AL = Analytical Limit TLU = Total Loop Uncertainty Per Section 7.1.5 of this calculation, the positive Total Loop Uncertainty associated with this setpoint is 3.26% Span. Per Design Input 5.17, the Low Low Steam Generator Level alarm setpoint limit is 16% Span. Therefore, SPlimit t 16% Span + 3.26% Span SPlimit t 19.26% Span Per Reference 4.5.2-10, the Low Low Steam Generator Level Alarm setpoint is currently set to 35% Span decreasing. The Margin (M) associated with this setpoint is computed as follows:
M = Calibrated Setpoint  SPlimit M = 35% Span  19.26% Span M = 15.74% Span Therefore, the current alarm setpoint is conservative.

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 93 of 105 Low Low Steam Generator Level Reactor Trip Setpoint - LC-474, 475, 476, 484, 485, 486, 494, 495, & 496 The function of this setpoint is to provide a Reactor Trip before Steam Generator level falls below the Low Low Steam Generator analytical limit. Therefore, the Low Low Steam Generator Reactor Trip setpoint is a decreasing setpoint and is computed using positive total loop uncertainties. Per Reference 4.6.6, the following equation is used to calculate the minimum value for this setpoint:
SPlimit t AL + TLU
: where, SPlimit = calculated setpoint limit AL = Analytical Limit TLU = Total Loop Uncertainty Per Section 7.2.4 of this calculation, the random portion of the Total Loop Uncertainty associated with this setpoint is r3.92% Span, and the positive bias portion under accident conditions is +8.00% Span. Per Reference 4.6.6, the random loop uncertainty may be reduced by applying the single side of interest. Therefore, the random loop uncertainty for this setpoint is r3.22% Span (3.92% Span  0.8225). Therefore, the positive total loop uncertainty associated with this setpoint is 11.22% Span .
Per Reference 4.7.3, Table 2, the Low Low Steam Generator Level Reactor Trip setpoint analytical limit is 0% Span. Therefore, SPlimit t 0% Span + 11.22% Span SPlimit t 11.22% Span Per Reference 4.7.3, Table 2, the Low Low Steam Generator Level Reactor Trip setpoint is currently set to 16% Span decreasing. The Margin (M) associated with this setpoint is computed as follows:
M = Calibrated Setpoint  SPlimit M = 16% Span - 11.22% Span M = 4.78% Span

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 94 of 105 Per Section 7.5.4 of this calculation, the Group As Found Tolerance (GAFT) is 1.16% Span.
Per Reference 4.6.6, the Allowable Value (AV) associated with this setpoint is computed as follows:
AV t SP  GAFT, where SP = calibrated setpoint AV t 16% Span  1.16% Span AV t 14.84% Span The Loop As Found Tolerance (LAFT) of 1.38% Span is computed in Section 7.4.3. Per Reference 4.6.6, the Channel Operability Limit (COL) is computed with the following equation:
COL = SP  LAFT, where SP = calibrated setpoint COL = 16% Span  1.38% Span COL = 14.62% Span Normal (variable)
Operating Margin (variable)
Setpoint (16% Span decreasing)
Group As Found Tolerance (1.16% Span)        Loop As Found Tolerance (1.38% Span)
Allowable Value (t 14.84% Span)
Channel Operability Limit (14.62% Span)
Total Loop Uncertainty (11.22% Span)
Additional Margin (4.78% Span)
Analytical Limit (0% Span)
Low Low Steam Generator Level Reactor Trip Setpoint Diagram Per Reference 4.7.2, RPS Instrumentation, Table 3.3.1-1, item 13, the current Technical Specification Allowable Value is t15.36% Span and the current Technical Specification setpoint is 16% Span decreasing. The current Technical Specification setpoint and Allowable Value are conservative.

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 95 of 105 8.1 Impact On Improved Technical Specifications Based on the results of this calculation, there is no impact to the Technical Specifications.
8.2 Impact On Ufsar Revision 13 of RNP-I/INST-1070 does not impact the UFSAR.
8.3 Impact On Design Basis Documents This calculation impacts no design basis documents.
8.4 Impact On Other Calculations Revision 13 of this calculation does not impact other calculations.
This calculation, revision 12, impacts the following calculations:
: 1. RNP-I/INST-1103 x The instrument uncertainty values used in RNP-I/INST-1103 Rev. 6 (Reference 4.2.4) references this calculation. Due to changes in total loop uncertainties and the revised IR value, calculations for various EOP setpoints within RNP-I/INST-1103 Rev. 6 require change.
: 2. RNP-I/INST-1079 x RNP-I/INST-1079 Rev. 4 (Reference 4.2.9) references this calculation but no AOP setpoints are affected by this revision.
: 3. RNP-M/MECH-1651 x RNP-M/MECH-1651 Rev. 16 (Reference 4.2.3) references this calculation. Due to changes in steam generator water level uncertainty, parameter 14 in Table I of RNP-M/MECH-1651 requires update to revise the TLU from 3.99% to 3.80%.
In addition, calculations RNP-I/INST-1132 and RNP-I/INST-1071 reference this calculation, but are not impacted by the changes made in this revision. Note that RNP-I/INST-1071 is identified as an impacted document by EC 413069, but this is due to the replacement of recorder LR-477. The changes made to RNP-I/INST-1070 under this revision for the replacement of recorders FR-478, FR-488 and FR-498 do not impact RNP-I/INST-1071.

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 96 of 105 8.5 Impact On Plant Procedures The following procedures reference this calculation, although none are directly affected by this revision:
PIC-005, Steam Generator A Narrow Range Level Transmitter LT-474 Calibration, Revision 13 (Reference 4.5.1)
PIC-005-1, Steam Generator A Narrow Range Level Transmitter LT-475 Calibration, Revision 0 (Reference 4.5.14)
PIC-005-2, Steam Generator A Narrow Range Level Transmitter LT-476 Calibration, Revision 0 (Reference 4.5.15)
PIC-005-4, Steam Generator B Narrow Range Level Transmitter LT-484 Calibration, Revision 0 (Reference 4.5.16)
PIC-005-5, Steam Generator B Narrow Range Level Transmitter LT-485 Calibration, Revision 0 (Reference 4.5.17)
PIC-005-6, Steam Generator B Narrow Range Level Transmitter LT-486 Calibration, Revision 0 (Reference 4.5.18)
PIC-005-8, Steam Generator C Narrow Range Level Transmitter LT-494 Calibration, Revision 0 (Reference 4.5.19)
PIC-005-9, Steam Generator C Narrow Range Level Transmitter LT-495 Calibration, Revision 1 (Reference 4.5.20)
PIC-005-10, Steam Generator C Narrow Range Level Transmitter LT-96 Calibration, Revision 0 (Reference 4.5.21)
LP-027, Steam Generator #1 Narrow Range (N/R) Level Channel 476, Revision 16 (Reference 4.5.2)
LP-028, Steam Generator #2 Narrow Range (N/R) Level Channel 486, Revision 15 (Reference 4.5.3)
LP-029, Steam Generator #3 Narrow Range (N/R) Level Channel 496, Revision 19 (Reference 4.5.4)
LP-030, Steam Generator #1 Narrow Range (N/R) Level Channel 474, Revision 15 (Reference 4.5.5)
LP-031, Steam Generator #2 Narrow Range (N/R) Level Channel 484, Revision 15 (Reference 4.5.6)
LP-032, Steam Generator #3 Narrow Range (N/R) Level Channel 494, Revision 13 (Reference 4.5.7)
LP-033, Steam Generator #1 Narrow Range (N/R) Level Channel 475, Revision 13 (Reference 4.5.8)
LP-034, Steam Generator #2 Narrow Range (N/R) Level Channel 485, Revision 16 (Reference 4.5.9)
LP-035, Steam Generator #3 Narrow Range (N/R) Level Channel 495, Revision 13 (Reference 4.5.10)
PIC-844, Yokogawa Recorders, Revision 13 (Reference 4.5.12)

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 97 of 105 9.0 SCALING CALCULATIONS 9.1 Level Transmitter (LT-474, 475, 476, 484, 485, 486, 494, 495, and 496)
Per EDB, each transmitter is a Rosemount model 3154ND2R2F1E7 differential pressure transmitter. Per Reference 4.4.3, a range code 2 transmitter has the following differential pressure ranges 0-25 to 0-250 inwc.
Per Reference 4.7.9, the Steam Generator pressure at 100% load is approximately 800 psia, and the pressure at 0% load is approximately 1020 psia. Per Reference 4.7.5, the Steam Generator temperature at 800 psia is 518qF, and the temperature at 1020 psia is 547qF.
Per Reference 4.1.15, the distance between the upper and lower instrument taps is 143 inches. Per Reference 4.1.14, the Steam Generator is constructed from SA-302 Grade B Plate. This material is defined in Reference 4.7.8 as manganese-molybdenum. Per Reference 4.7.7, the average coefficient of thermal expansion for this material between 500qF and 550qF is 7.73x10-6 in / in / qF. The following equation is used to compute the thermal expansion of the Steam Generator during normal operation (100% load):
Hoperating = Hcold [ 1 + D(Toperating - Tcold)]
Hoperating = 143 inches [ 1 + 7.73x10-6(518 qF - 70 qF)]
Hoperating = 143.5 inches As stated above, the normal operating pressure range of the Steam Generator is 800 psia (100% load) and 1020 psia (0% load). Therefore, the transmitters are scaled for a process fluid of compressed water at 900 psia @500qF and saturated steam at 900 psia. The reference leg contains compressed water at a nominal temperature of 120qF. The following equation is used to obtain the calibration values for the transmitter:
        'PC = h SG WC  H  h SG SC - H SG RC where, h =      height of fluid (inches)
H =      height of measured level span = 143.5 inches SGWC     = specific gravity of fluid = 0.787341 @ 900 psia, 500qF SGSC     = specific gravity of steam = 0.032034 @ 900 psia, saturated SGRC     = specific gravity of reference leg fill fluid = 0.992946 @ 900 psia, 120qF, compressed

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 98 of 105 Therefore, Fluid      Fluid Calibrated Height      Height       ' PC
(% Span)        (in)      (inwc) 0.00%        0.00       -138 16.00%       22.96       -121 30.00%       43.05       -105 50.00%       71.75        -84 75.00%      107.63        -57 100.00%      143.50        -30 Transmitter Calibration Points Per Reference 4.4.3, a static pressure span effect of 0.75% of input per 1000 psi is specified.
This effect is calibrated out by adjusting the calibrated range of the transmitter as follows:
                     &sect; 900 psi
* 0.75% of input &#xa8;&#xa8;           &#xb8;&#xb8; = 0.675% of input
                     &#xa9; 1000 psi &#xb9; For zero percent level, 0.675% (-138 inwc / 100%) = -0.932 inwc
    -0.932 inwc (100% Span / 108 inwc) = -0.863% Span
    -0.863% Span (16 mA / 100% Span) = -0.138 mA 4.000 mA - 0.138 mA = 3.862 mA For 100 percent level, 0.675% (-30 inwc / 100%) = -0.203 inwc
    -0.203 inwc (100% Span / 108 inwc) = -0.188% Span
    -0.188% Span (16 mA / 100% Span) = -0.030 mA 20.000 mA - 0.030 mA = 19.970 mA Therefore, the transmitters are calibrated from -138 to -30 inwc (3.862 mA to 19.970 mA) which corresponds to -137.1 to -29.8 inwc (4 to 20 mA) at zero pressure. At the operating pressure, the span of each loop is 108 inwc.

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 99 of 105 The following equation is used to compute the required transmitter output for a given differential pressure input:
          &sect; 4 Vdc
* EO = &#xa8;             &#xb8; 137.1 inwc - P  1.000 Vdc
          &#xa9; 107.3 inwc &#xb9; Per Section 6.6.12 of this calculation, the As Found Tolerance (AFT) of the transmitter is r 0.76% Span. Per Section 6.6.13 of this calculation, the As Left Tolerance (ALT) of the transmitter is r 0.50% Span. The AFT and ALT are converted to voltage units with the following equations:
                          &sect; AFT(% Span) *               .
AFT(Vdc) = r4 Vdc &#xa8;                    &#xb8; = r4 Vdc(  )= r 0.030 Vdc
                          &#xa9;      100       &#xb9;
                          &sect; ALT(% Span) *              &sect; 0.50% Span
* ALT(Vdc) = r4 Vdc &#xa8;                    &#xb8; = r4 Vdc &#xa8;             &#xb8; = r 0.020 Vdc
                          &#xa9;      100       &#xb9;           &#xa9;     100    &#xb9; The calibration table for the transmitter is as follows:
Required Input       Desired Output        As Found Tolerance       As Left Tolerance (inwc)               (Vdc)                    (Vdc)                   (Vdc) 137.1                1.000               0.970 to 1.030         0.980 to 1.020 110.3                2.000               1.970 to 2.030         1.980 to 2.020 83.5                 3.000               2.970 to 3.030         2.980 to 3.020 56.6                 4.000               3.970 to 4.030         3.980 to 4.020 29.8                 5.000               4.970 to 5.030         4.980 to 5.020 Transmitter Calibration Table

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 100 of 105 9.2 Isolator Module (LM-474, 474A, 474B, 475, 475A, 476, 476A, 484, 484A, 485, 485A, 485B, 486, 486A, 494, 494A, 494B, 495, 495A, 496, 496A, And 496B)
The isolator transfer function is as follows:
EO = EI Per Section 6.8.8 of this calculation, the As Found Tolerance (AFT) of the isolator is r 1.20% Span. Per Section 6.8.9 of this calculation, the As Left Tolerance (ALT) of the isolator is r 0.50% Span. The AFT and ALT are converted to voltage units with the following equations:
                          &sect; AFT(% Span) *              &sect; 1.20% Span
* AFT(Vdc) = r4 Vdc &#xa8;                    &#xb8; = r4 Vdc &#xa8;             &#xb8; = r 0.048 Vdc
                          &#xa9;      100       &#xb9;           &#xa9;     100    &#xb9;
                          &sect; ALT(% Span) *              &sect; 0.50% Span
* ALT(Vdc) = r4 Vdc &#xa8;                     &#xb8; = r4 Vdc &#xa8;             &#xb8; = r 0.020 Vdc
                          &#xa9;      100        &#xb9;          &#xa9;     100     &#xb9; The calibration table for the isolator is as follows:
Required Input       Desired Output         As Found Tolerance       As Left Tolerance (Vdc)                (Vdc)                   (Vdc)                    (Vdc) 1.000                1.000               0.952 to 1.048          0.980 to 1.020 2.000                2.000               1.952 to 2.048          1.980 to 2.020 3.000                3.000               2.952 to 3.048          2.980 to 3.020 4.000                4.000               3.952 to 4.048          3.980 to 4.020 5.000                5.000               4.952 to 5.048          4.980 to 5.020 Isolator Calibration Table

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 101 of 105 9.3 Comparator Module (LC-474, 475, 476, 484, 485, 486, 494, 495, And 496)
Each comparator provides a High Steam Generator Level alarm (switch 2), and a High Steam Generator Level interlock (switch 1). The following equation is used to compute the voltage representation of the comparator setpoints:
                            &sect; Setpoint (%)
* Setpoint(Vdc) = 4 Vdc&#xa8;                 &#xb8;  1.000 Vdc
                            &#xa9; 100% &#xb9; Per Section 8.0 of this calculation, the High Steam Generator Level alarm setpoint is 60%
increasing, and the High Steam Generator Level valve interlock setpoint is 75% increasing.
Therefore, the setpoints expressed in voltage units are 3.400 Vdc (60%) and 4.000 Vdc (75%).
Per Section 6.7.8 of this calculation, the As Found Tolerance (AFT) of the comparator is r 1.16% Span. Per Section 6.7.9 of this calculation, the As Left Tolerance (ALT) of the comparator is r 0.50% Span. The AFT and ALT are converted to voltage units with the following equations:
                          &sect; AFT(% Span) *             &sect; 1.16% Span
* AFT(Vdc) = r4 Vdc &#xa8;                    &#xb8; = r4 Vdc &#xa8;            &#xb8; = r 0.046 Vdc
                          &#xa9;      100       &#xb9;          &#xa9;     100    &#xb9;
                          &sect; ALT(% Span) *             &sect; 0.50% Span
* ALT(Vdc) = r4 Vdc &#xa8;                    &#xb8; = r4 Vdc &#xa8;             &#xb8; = r 0.020 Vdc
                          &#xa9;      100       &#xb9;          &#xa9;     100     &#xb9; The following table provides calibration values for the comparators:
Setpoint      Setpoint     As Found Tolerance        As Left Tolerance
(%)         (Vdc)                (Vdc)                   (Vdc) 75          4.000          3.954 to 4.046          3.980 to 4.020 60          3.400          3.354 to 3.446          3.380 to 3.420 Comparator Calibration Table

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 102 of 105 9.4 Comparator Module (LC-474A, 475A, 476A, 484A, 485A, 486A, 494A, 495A, and 496A)
Each comparator provides a Low Low Steam Generator Level alarm (switch 2), and a Low Low Steam Generator Level Reactor Trip (switch 1). The following equation is used to compute the voltage representation of the comparator setpoints:
                            &sect; Setpoint (%)
* Setpoint(Vdc) = 4 Vdc&#xa8;                 &#xb8;  1.000 Vdc
                            &#xa9; 100% &#xb9; Per Section 8.0 of this calculation, the Low Low Steam Generator Level Reactor Trip setpoint is 16% decreasing, and the Low Low Steam Generator Level alarm setpoint is 35%
decreasing. Therefore, the setpoints expressed in voltage units are 1.64 Vdc (16%) and 2.400 Vdc (35%).
Per Section 6.7.8 of this calculation, the As Found Tolerance (AFT) of the comparator is r 1.16% Span. Per Section 6.7.9 of this calculation, the As Left Tolerance (ALT) of the comparator is r 0.50% Span. The AFT and ALT are converted to voltage units with the following equations:
                          &sect; AFT(% Span) *             &sect; 1.16% Span
* AFT(Vdc) = r4 Vdc &#xa8;                    &#xb8; = r4 Vdc &#xa8;            &#xb8; = r 0.046 Vdc
                          &#xa9;      100       &#xb9;          &#xa9;     100    &#xb9;
                          &sect; ALT(% Span) *             &sect; 0.50% Span
* ALT(Vdc) = r4 Vdc &#xa8;                    &#xb8; = r4 Vdc &#xa8;             &#xb8; = r 0.020 Vdc
                          &#xa9;      100       &#xb9;          &#xa9;     100     &#xb9; The following table provides calibration values for the comparators:
Setpoint     Setpoint     As Found Tolerance        As Left Tolerance
(%)         (Vdc)                (Vdc)                   (Vdc) 35          2.400          2.354 to 2.446          2.380 to 2.420 16          1.640          1.594 to 1.686          1.620 to 1.660 Comparator Calibration Table

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 103 of 105 9.5 Comparator Module (LC-474B, 475B, 484B, 485B, 494B, And 495B)
Each comparator provides a Low Steam Generator Level alarm. The following equation is used to compute the voltage representation of the comparator setpoints:
                            &sect; Setpoint (%)
* Setpoint(Vdc) = 4 Vdc&#xa8;                 &#xb8;  1.000 Vdc
                            &#xa9; 100% &#xb9; Per Section 8.0 of this calculation, the Low Steam Generator Level alarm setpoint is 35%
decreasing. Therefore, the setpoint expressed in voltage units is 2.400 Vdc (35%).
Per Section 6.7.8 of this calculation, the As Found Tolerance (AFT) of the comparator is r 1.16% Span. Per Section 6.7.9 of this calculation, the As Left Tolerance (ALT) of the comparator is r 0.50% Span. The AFT and ALT are converted to voltage units with the following equations:
                          &sect; AFT(% Span) *             &sect; 1.16% Span
* AFT(Vdc) = r4 Vdc &#xa8;                    &#xb8; = r4 Vdc &#xa8;            &#xb8; = r 0.046 Vdc
                          &#xa9;      100       &#xb9;          &#xa9;     100    &#xb9;
                          &sect; ALT(% Span) *             &sect; 0.50% Span
* ALT(Vdc) = r4 Vdc &#xa8;                    &#xb8; = r4 Vdc &#xa8;             &#xb8; = r 0.020 Vdc
                          &#xa9;      100       &#xb9;          &#xa9;     100     &#xb9; The following table provides calibration values for the comparators:
Setpoint      Setpoint     As Found Tolerance        As Left Tolerance
(%)         (Vdc)                (Vdc)                   (Vdc) 35          2.400          2.354 to 2.446          2.380 to 2.420 Comparator Calibration Table

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 104 of 105 9.6 Indicator (LI-474, 475, 476, 484, 485, 486, 494, 495, And 496)
The indicators are scaled to provide an output of 0 to 100% for a 1 to 5 Vdc input.
Therefore, the transfer function for the indicator is as follows:
         &sect; 100%
* IO = &#xa8;        &#xb8; E I  1.000 Vdc
         &#xa9; 4 Vdc &#xb9; Per Section 6.9.10 of this calculation, the As Found Tolerance (AFT) of the indicator is r 2.44% Span. Per Section 6.9.11 of this calculation, the As Left Tolerance (ALT) of the indicator is r 2.00% Span. The AFT and ALT are converted to voltage units with the following equations:
                            &sect; AFT(% Span) *            &sect; 2.44% Span
* AFT(Vdc) = r4 Vdc &#xa8;                    &#xb8; = r4 Vdc &#xa8;             &#xb8; = r 0.098 Vdc
                            &#xa9;    100       &#xb9;           &#xa9;     100    &#xb9;
                            &sect; ALT(% Span) *            &sect; 2.00% Span
* ALT(Vdc) = r4 Vdc &#xa8;                    &#xb8; = r4 Vdc &#xa8;             &#xb8; = r 0.080 Vdc
                            &#xa9;     100      &#xb9;           &#xa9;     100    &#xb9; The following table provides calibration values for the indicators:
Desired Input        Required Output       As Found Tolerance       As Left Tolerance (Vdc)                  (%)                    (Vdc)                   (Vdc) 1.000                   0                0.902 to 1.098           0.920 to 1.080 2.000                   25               1.902 to 2.098           1.920 to 2.080 3.000                   50               2.902 to 3.098           2.920 to 3.080 4.000                   75               3.902 to 4.098           3.920 to 4.080 5.000                  100               4.902 to 5.098           4.920 to 5.080 Indicator Calibration Table

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 Page 105 of 105 9.7 Recorder (FR-478, 488, & 498)
The recorders are scaled to provide an output of 0 to 100% for a 1 to 5 Vdc input. Therefore, the transfer function for the recorder is as follows:
          &sect; 100%
* RO = &#xa8;        &#xb8; E I  1.000 Vdc
          &#xa9; 4 Vdc &#xb9; Per Section 6.10.9 of this calculation, the As Found Tolerance (AFT) of the recorder is r 0.59% Span. Per Section 6.10.10 of this calculation, the As Left Tolerance (ALT) of the recorder is r 0.50% Span. The AFT and ALT are converted to voltage units with the following equations:
                            &sect; AFT(% Span) *              &sect; 0.59% Span
* AFT(Vdc) = r 4 Vdc &#xa8;                    &#xb8; = r 4 Vdc &#xa8;             &#xb8; = r 0.024 Vdc
                            &#xa9;      100      &#xb9;            &#xa9;     100    &#xb9;
                            &sect; ALT(% Span) *              &sect; 0.50% Span
* ALT(Vdc) = r 4 Vdc &#xa8;                    &#xb8; = r 4 Vdc &#xa8;             &#xb8; = r 0.020 Vdc
                            &#xa9;      100      &#xb9;            &#xa9;     100    &#xb9; The following table provides calibration values for the recorder:
Desired Input       Required Output        As Found Tolerance        As Left Tolerance (Vdc)                  (%)                    (Vdc)                    (Vdc) 1.000                   0                 0.976 to 1.024          0.980 to 1.020 2.000                   25                1.976 to 2.024          1.980 to 2.020 3.000                   50                2.976 to 3.024          2.980 to 3.020 4.000                   75                3.976 to 4.024          3.980 to 4.020 5.000                  100                4.976 to 5.024          4.980 to 5.020 Recorder Calibration Table

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 3 ATTACHMENT B        Page 1 of 1 COMPARATOR DRIFT

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 3 ATTACHMENT C        Page 1 of 1 ROSEMOUNT DRIFT

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 3 ATTACHMENT D                    Page 1 of 1 INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS INDICATOR DATA

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 11 ATTACHMENT F                         Page 1 of 2 NUS Instruments Long Term Drift Test for NUS Modules - Final Report, Executive 440 West Broadway  Idaho Falls, ID 83402  Phone: 208-529-1000  Fax: 208-524-9238 October 26, 2001 Pat Hartig FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Beaver Valley Power Station P.O.Box 4 Shippingport, Pa 15077

==Subject:==
Long Term Drift Test (LTDT) Results for NUS modules - Final Report, Executive Summary

==Dear Mr. Pat Hartig:==

NUS Instruments (NUSI), undertook a research and development project in 1996 to re-engineer instrumentation for use as replacements for the obsolete Hagan line of nuclear plant instrumentation. The NUSI replacement modules were designed originally using specifications written by Public Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G). The final specifications incorporated both original Hagan published specifications and new or additional plant-specific requirements. The final agreed upon specification formed the design basis for the NUS Instruments 800 Series product line that has been sold to many nuclear plants including Salem, H.B. Robinson, Turkey Point and Diablo Canyon.
NUSI has been requested by FENOC to supply instrumentation drift specifications for the 800 Series modules. We understand that these numbers are to be used to determine requirements for plant calibration cycles for these modules. The calibration cycle may be extended if it can be shown that the drift of the replacement modules is below specified criteria. This change would result in a significant savings in plant maintenance costs.
NUSI was contracted by PSE&G to conduct a 36-month Long Term Drift Test (LTDT). This test was conducted on four classes of modules with four units of each type for a total of sixteen modules undergoing the test. The four classes of modules consisted of four Dual Alarm Modules (DAM), four One-channel Analog Isolators (OCA), four RTD Amplifiers (RTD), and four Four-Channel Summing Modules (SUM). A loop of instruments was also tested to determine overall loop drift.

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 11 ATTACHMENT F Page 2 of 2 Drift was specified as a percentage of the upper range limit (URL) over an 18-month period.
After 36 months of testing, NUSI can proudly state that all modules performed better than the stated specification. The specification and summary results are given below.
SPECIFICATION                        TEST RESULTS MODULE                   ACCURACY           DRIFT        DRIFT (%URL) 2 sigma DRIFT CLASS RTD                0.5%              0.4%           0.240 %             0.365 %
OCA                 0.5%              0.2%           0.048 %             0.074 %
DAM                 0.5%              0.3%           0.083 %             0.127 %
SUM                 0.5%              0.6%           0.135 %             0.214 %
LOOP                 0.5%         Not specified       0.115 %             0.186 %
NUSI is currently in the process of preparing the final test report which will provide greater details about the test modules and fixture, test procedure and processes, data and sampling intervals, analysis and plots showing the data trends. This data represents over 26,000 hours of testing and over 24,000 individual data measurements. NUSI can make available upon request the Excel 97 workbook that provides the data, analysis, and necessary graphing tools. This report will be available October 31, 2001.
It is also worth noting that several utilities have been conducting their own independent long term drift tests of a instruments installed in their loops. They can independently support that the NUSI 800 Series instruments meet or exceed the long term drift specification.
Please contact NUS Instruments for additional information.
SCIENTECH, Inc., NUS Instruments 440 West Broadway Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402 (208) 529-1000 (LaWanda Wold or Heath Buckland)
Respectfully, LaWanda Wold Facility Manager, NUS Instruments Office Address:               Work Phone: 208.524.9236 SCIENTECH - Broadway          Facsimile: 208.524.9238 440 West Broadway Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402-3638 E-208.524.9200 Front Desk       mail: LWold@scientech.com 208.524.9282 Fax

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 11 ATTACHMENT G                                    Page 1 of 2 Email from NUS Confirming Similarity of NUS Isolator Modules, dated 01/15/02 From: James Siedelmann@scientech.com Sent: Tuesday, January 15,2002 11:54 AM To:bobh@hursttech.com Subj.: Series SC993 and Series 800 Isolators Series SC993 isolators were manufactured by us under the names of Energy Incorporated, EI Electronics, EI Systems and EI International. They are an early version of stand alone isolator intended for electrical isolation of the inputs from the outputs. They were encapsulated and had terminal blocks for connection of power, inputs and outputs. They were single channel devices. The power supply used was an early type of switching power supply that is no longer manufactured. The isolation circuitry was basically the same as is currently used in all NUSI isolators and many of our other instrumentation devices. The actual isolation element, the Burr-Brown 3656 is identical to that used today. All devices manufactured then underwent dielectric withstand testing of 3000 Vdc and at 2500 Vac to ensure their readiness to isolate a potential fault. They also were 100% functional tested. The units were encapsulated with an epoxy and aluminum oxide based compound that made them impervious to virtually all environmental concerns and seismically were considered a "brick". They were qualified simply by their mounting constraints. Internal heating was not a concern as the potting compound used had a very high thermal conductivity. Outputs and power were fused on the top surface of the aluminum chassis. Span and zero adjustments were also mounted there. The device is simple internally and externally. It has many years of reliable performance at several nuclear plants with little or no undue maintenance issues. The only know life issue is the power supplies used (then and now) have aluminum electrolytic capacitors with know life characteristics of about twenty years. Pots should not be adjusted unless the unit is out of tolerance to reduce the wear and tear on them. If a typical maintenance cycle is used, the devices will easily achieve their twenty year life expectancy with no problems. The limited life characteristics will not affect their isolation specifications in any way. These devices had only limited surge protection circuitry (on the inputs) included. Outputs and power ports may be susceptible to damage from surges but will not pass this to the inputs.
NUS Instruments currently manufactures devices that are form, fit and function replacements for the SC993 series. These are the SCA101 devices in the SCA100 series of isolators. These devices differ from the SC993 in the power supply used and that the chassis is 1/16" deeper than the older versions. These devices have surge suppression circuitry and have been surge tested on all ports. Fault testing and other isolation parameter testing has been completed on these devices. All other parameters, including the circuitry and elements used do not differ from the SC993 series.

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 11 ATTACHMENT G                             Page 2 of 2 Series 800 devices were manufactured by us under the names Haliburton NUS, Haliburton NUS Environmental Corp., NUS Corp. and NUS Instruments. They are still in production. These devices include FCA, OCA and FIA versions with series designations 800 and 801. The only differences are the number of channels loaded, test jack size and LED power indicator colors. These devices all use modern switching power supplies in varying numbers dependent upon the output ranges and isolator types. FIA isolators have a separate power supply for each channel to give the outputs isolated commons. The circuit is operationally the same as earlier types and the actual isolation element is still the Burr-Brown 3656. These devices have undergone complete isolation type testing for dielectric withstand of 3000 Vdc and 1000 Vac, and most production units are tested to these values. The devices under went fault type testing to 480 Vac and 140 Vdc applied to all ports in the FIA800 series. Shorts, opens and inter-channel effects have also all been type tested. The devices have also been tested for surge withstand using the waveform specified in IEEE 472. All production units are 100% functionally tested prior to shipment. The chassis and electronics have been seismically proof tested for operation before, during and after the defined DBE with no anomalies. These devices use an aluminum chassis that is intended for rack mounting. The internals are accessible and passive air flow through the chassis removes internally generated heat. Outputs are fused on the rear and power is fused on the front of the devices. Span and zero adjustments are located on the front plate of the devices. These devices have the same life characteristics in the power supplies used but since they are not potted, the power supplies may be replaced allowing for the isolators to have 40 year life expectancies.
All devices are manufactured using a 10CFR50 appendix B quality assurance program and are provided with 10CFR part 21 traceability as basic components.
            -     ***       -       J.E. Siedelmann, P.E.
         **** ***** ****              Sr. Design Engineer
         ** ********* **            NUS Instruments, Inc.
           * *******
* Phone: (208) 524-9246
              . ***** .                Fax: (208) 524-9238
            ** ***** **          jsiedelmann@scientech.com
              ''' * '''         440 W. Broadway, Idaho Falls
                 '                  Idaho 83402-3638

RNP-I/INST-1070 Revision 14 ATTACHMENT H Document: __RNP_I/INST-1070__________________________________ Revision: __14___________
The signature of the Design Verification reviewer confirms:
x   The type of verification method performed x   Technical errors have been resolved and the records have been included, if applicable
_Yes__ Reviewer or ___ Concurrent Reviewer (Type "Yes" to indicate Reviewer type)
Design Verification Review Method (Type "Yes" beside selection to indicate Review Method used)                             (Type "Yes" to indicate if Records attached)
__Yes_ Design Review
___ Alternate Calculation                                     Other Records: ___ Attached
___ Qualification Testing Note:
This Record of Review form may be used to document other reviews, but is only required for Design Verification reviews.
Reviewer (print/sign): Brad Hearne                            Discipline: I&C/Electrical             Date: 9/9/21 Item                       Technical Error                                           Resolution No.
1       Administrative Comments:                              Correction made.
x   Revision bars from previous revision         Based on review of past archived revisions of this should be removed                            calc file indicate that Attachments A, E, F and G x   Duplicate/formatting revision bars should    should be Rev. 11 and Attachements B, C and D be removed                                   should be Revision 3.
x   Attachments do not look like theyre impacted and should stay at their previous revisions (B/C/D reference Rev 1 and E/F/G reference Rev 12) 2       Section 1.0: RNP-F/NFSA-0356 is not yet issued.       This calc file will be processed after RNP-What is the schedule of release for this              F/NFSA-0356 is issued.
calculation? How will this impact the release of this revision to RNP-I/INST-1070?
3       The changes to Section 8.0 include a new              A new administrative procedure on uncertainty calculation using EGR-NGGC-0153. This should          and setpoint analysis is incorporated via to AD-be changed to AD-EG-ALL-1153 and its supporting       EG-ALL-1153 and its supporting document FAD-document FAD-EG-ALL-1153 and updated                  EG-ALL-1153 (both are now Reference 4.6.6).
throughout the calculation.                           The former administrative procedure (Reference 4.6.1) is kept due to referenced material not available in the new administrative procedure.
4       Section 8.0: The diagram for High Steam               Diagram updated as suggested.
Generator Level Valve Interlock Setpoint looks like it was shrunk from the spreadsheet and may need to be re-captured so that all the characters can be seen. An arrow should also be added between the Setpoint and TLU line so that its not confused with the LAFT and GAFT values.
RA-23-0015 Attachment 2 AD-EG-ALL-1153, Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Calculations (Reference 4.6.6 of Attachment 1)
(67 pages follow)

Information Use NUCLEAR OPERATING FLEET ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE AD-EG-ALL-1153 ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS REVISION 0 Effective Dates:
04/29/2021    04/29/2021       04/29/2021    04/29/2021    04/29/2021 Brunswick      Catawba        Harris (HNP)    McGuire        Oconee 04/29/2021    04/29/2021 Robinson        NGO

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                         AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 2 of 67 REVISION 

==SUMMARY==

PRR 2296141 DESCRIPTION This is a new fleet procedure. AD-EG-ALL-1153 supersedes the following existing procedures:
*   [BNP, HNP, RNP] EGR-NGGC-0153, Engineering Instrument Setpoints
*   [CNS, MNS, ONS] EDM-102, Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Calculations
*   [CNS, MNS, ONS] EDM-104, Setpoint Control Program
*   [CNS, MNS, ONS] NSD-408, Testing

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                                                       AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 3 of 67 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION ...............................................................................................................................PAGE 1.0   PURPOSE ......................................................................................................................... 5 2.0   SCOPE .............................................................................................................................. 5 3.0   DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................... 6 4.0   RESPONSIBILITIES ....................................................................................................... 15 5.0   INSTRUCTIONS.............................................................................................................. 17 5.1   Background...................................................................................................................... 17 5.2   Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology .................................................................................. 21 5.2.1        General .............................................................................................................. 21 5.2.2        NRC Implementation Considerations ............................................................... 23 5.2.3        Surveillance Test Acceptance Values .............................................................. 24 5.2.4        Settings of Lesser Importance .......................................................................... 26 5.2.5        Setpoint Control ................................................................................................. 26 5.2.6        Setpoint Databases ........................................................................................... 28 5.3   Loop Uncertainty Analysis............................................................................................... 29 5.3.1        Basic Concepts .................................................................................................. 29 5.3.2        Error Sources..................................................................................................... 31 5.3.3        Loop Analysis .................................................................................................... 32 5.3.4        Error Component Types .................................................................................... 34 5.4   Error Analysis .................................................................................................................. 41 5.4.1        General Discussion ........................................................................................... 41 5.4.2        Summary of Errors ............................................................................................ 42 5.4.3        Error Combination Methodologies .................................................................... 44 5.5   Establishment of Uncertainty Allowances ...................................................................... 49 5.5.1        Overview ............................................................................................................ 49 5.5.2        Graded Approach .............................................................................................. 49 5.6   TSTF-493 Implementation .............................................................................................. 53 5.6.1        TSTF-493 Applicability ...................................................................................... 53 5.6.2        Determination of Technical Specification Trip Setpoints and Allowable Values ............................................................................................... 53 5.6.3        Determination of Surveillance Test As-Found Acceptance Criteria ................ 53 5.6.4        Determination of Surveillance Test As-Left Acceptance Criteria ..................... 54 5.6.5        Use of As-Found and As-Left Acceptance Criteria in Surveillance Tests .................................................................................................................. 54 5.6.6        Response to Surveillance Test Out-of-Tolerance As-Found Results .............. 55

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                                                       AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 4 of 67 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
SECTION ...............................................................................................................................PAGE 6.0   RECORDS ....................................................................................................................... 56

==7.0   REFERENCES==
 ................................................................................................................ 56 ATTACHMENTS 1     Standard Figures ............................................................................................................. 61

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                               AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 5 of 67 1.0   PURPOSE
: 1. This procedure provides a consistent, programmatic methodology for the development of Setpoint and Uncertainty calculations.
: 2. This procedure provides programmatic requirements for control of Setpoints.
: 3. This procedure supports modification activities and evaluation of existing Setpoints on an "as-needed" basis.
: 4. This procedure establishes criteria to support implementation of Technical Specification Task Force document TSTF-493, Revision 4, Clarify Application of Setpoint Methodology for Limiting Safety System Settings, for those specific Technical Specification functions for which TSTF-493 applicability has been committed within an Nuclear Generation Department (NGD) facility's Operating License.
2.0   SCOPE
: 1. This procedure applies to Duke Energy personnel and any company, organization, workgroup or individual (including contract personnel) performing engineering instrument setpoint/uncertainty calculations for the operating nuclear fleet.
: 2. The scope of this procedure includes the methodology to ensure Nuclear Generation Department (NGD) design practices remain compatible with industry practices in this area.
* Specific details and examples related to the use of the methodology are contained in FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE, Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology and Discussion.
* All setpoint/uncertainty calculations shall meet the requirements of AD-EG-ALL-1117, Design Analysis and Calculations.
: 3. This procedure is NOT intended to necessitate backfit of existing calculations performed by Duke Energy, the Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) vendor, or other vendors, which were performed prior to issuance of AD-EG-ALL-1153, Revision 0.
: 4. This procedure is NOT intended to supplant other existing standards or practices regarding instrumentation uncertainty considerations (e.g., ASME PTC 19.1 &
19.5, ASME Section XI).

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                               AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 6 of 67 2.0   SCOPE (continued)
: 5. This procedure does NOT apply to the applications listed below. However, the statistical analysis techniques outlined in AD-EG-ALL-1153 may be utilized to quantify performance characteristics (uncertainty allowances), if desired.
* Breaker Trip Settings
* Chemistry Instrumentation and Radiation Monitors (area and process) for which setpoints vary with conditions and are procedurally controlled
* Instrumentation Accuracy requirements outlined for ASME Section XI system pressure and pump testing requirements
* Mechanical Safety, Relief Valves or Regulators
* Protective Relays
* Self Contained Regulating Valves
* Time Delay Relays
* Valve Torque or Limit Switches
* Variable Controllers 3.0   DEFINITIONS
: 1. Abnormally Distributed Uncertainty: A term used to denote uncertainties that do not have a normal distribution.
: 2. Accuracy: A measure of the degree by which the actual output of a device approximates the output of an ideal device nominally performing the same function.
* Error, inaccuracy, or uncertainty represents the difference between the measured value and the ideal value.
: 3. Allowable Value (AV): A limiting value that the trip Setpoint may have when tested, beyond which the instrument channel shall be declared inoperable and appropriate action taken to restore the channel to operable status.
: 4. Ambient Temperature: The temperature of the medium surrounding a device.
: 5. Analytic Limit (AL): The limit of a measured or calculated variable established by the safety analysis to ensure that a Safety Limit is not exceeded.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 7 of 67 3.0   DEFINITIONS (continued)
: 6. As-Found: The condition in which a channel, or portion of a channel, is found after a period of operations and before Calibration (if necessary).
: 7. As-Found Tolerance (AFT): The allowance within the Total Loop Uncertainty (TLU) that the channel or portion thereof must be within to ensure the channel is capable of producing a trip prior to reaching the Safety Analysis As-Left.
* Values recorded during a channel As-Found surveillance which are within the As-Found Tolerance would clearly indicate a channel is operating as intended.
* Values recorded during a channel as-found surveillance which exceed the As-Found tolerance would require a more detailed review to determine the effects of the increased uncertainty on the operability of the channel.
* Uncertainty terms which make up the As-Found Tolerance typically include the Square Root Sum of Squares (SRSS) combination of Reference Accuracy, Drift, and Measurement and Testing Equipment (M&TE)Uncertainty effects (e.g., M&TE Uncertainty and Reading Resolution).
: 8. As-Left: The condition in which a channel, or portion of a channel, is left after Calibration or final device Setpoint verification.
: 9. As-Left Tolerance (ALT): The acceptable setting variation about the Setpoint or required reading that the technician shall leave the channel following Calibration.
* Uncertainty terms which make up the As-Left Tolerance for the portion of the channel under surveillance would typically include the Square Root Sum of Squares combination of Reference Accuracy and Measurement and Test Equipment (M&TE) Uncertainty effects (e.g., M&TE Uncertainty and Reading Resolution).
: 10. Bias: A systematic or predictable Uncertainty component that consistently has the same algebraic sign or for which the direction (i.e., sign) is unknown and is expressed as an estimated limit of error.
: 11. Calibration: The comparison of a standard (or device of known Accuracy) with equal or better Accuracy with a device under test to detect, record, or eliminate by adjustment any variation in the Accuracy of the device under test.
: 12. Calibration Span: The actual input and output signal range for which the instrumentation is calibrated.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 8 of 67 3.0   DEFINITIONS (continued)
: 13. Confidence Interval (CI): The range of values which encompasses the area under the normal distribution curve for which the probability or confidence limit applies.
* For a normal distribution and a 95% probability, the confidence interval would be +/- 1.96  of the mean and would represent the interval for which 95% of all observation would be expected to fall within.
: 14. Conformity: Also referred to as Linearity, the closeness that the output of an instrument approximates (or conforms to) a specified pre-programmed curve (e.g., linear, logarithmic, parabolic, cubic).
* This measurement is usually determined in terms of non-conformity, but expressed as conformity (e.g., the maximum deviation between an average curve and a specified curve).
* The average curve is determined after making two or more full range traverses in each direction and is typically performed by the Manufacturer.
* The value of Conformity is referenced to the output, unless otherwise stated.
: 15. Dead Band: The range through which an input can be varied upon reversal of direction without initiating an observable output response.
* Figure 1, Hysteresis and Dead Band, located in Attachment 1, Standard Figures, provides an example of this phenomena.
: 16. Dependent Uncertainty: Uncertainties that are dependent on each other if the uncertainties possess a significant correlation, for whatever cause, known or unknown.
* Typically, dependencies form when effects share a common cause.
: 17. Design Limit: The limit of a measured or calculated variable established to prevent undesired conditions (e.g., equipment or structural damage, spurious trip or initiation signals, challenges to plant safety signals).
* Design Limits are used in setpoint calculations for which there is no true Analytical Limit.
: 18. Drift: An undesired change in output over a period of time, where the change is unrelated to the input, environment, or load.
: 19. Dynamic Response: The behavior of the output of a device as a function of the input; both with respect to time.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                              AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 9 of 67 3.0   DEFINITIONS (continued)
: 20. Effect: A change in output produced by some outside phenomena, such as elevated temperature, pressure, humidity, or radiation.
: 21.   [CNS, MNS, ONS] Engineering Controlled Setpoints: Those Setpoints that represent limits that have been determined by Engineering and are documented in a design document (e.g., EDB, drawing).
* These limits may alert personnel that something is wrong, inform of a changing plant condition, or actuate a piece of equipment.
: 22. Error: The arithmetic difference between the indication or measured value and the ideal value of the measured signal.
* The sign of the error is defined as:
Error = Measured - Actual
: 23. Final Actuation Device: A component or assembly of components that directly controls the motive power (e.g., electricity, compressed air, hydraulic fluid) for actuated equipment. Examples of final actuation devices include bistables, relays, pressure switches, and level switches.
: 24. Harsh Environment:
* Also referred to as the accident environment, an environment expected to become significantly more severe than the environment that exists during normal site operation, including anticipated operational occurrences, due to design basis accidents for which the site shall be designed.
* AD-EG-ALL-1612, Environmental Qualification (EQ) Program, contains additional information on this topic.
: 25. Hysteresis: That property of an element evidenced by the dependence of the value of the output, for a given excursion of the input, upon the history of prior excursions and the direction of the current traverse.
* Figure 1, Hysteresis and Dead Band, located in Attachment 1, Standard Figures, provides an example of this phenomena.
: 26. Independent Uncertainty: Uncertainties are independent of each other if the magnitudes or algebraic signs of the uncertainties are not significantly correlated, and do not share a common source.
: 27. Instrument Channel: An arrangement of components and modules as required to generate a single protective action signal when required by a plant condition.
* A channel loses its identity where single protective action signals are combined.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                              AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 10 of 67 3.0   DEFINITIONS (continued)
: 28. Instrument Range: The region between the limits within which a quantity is measured, received, or transmitted, expressed by stating the lower and upper range values.
: 29. Insulation Resistance (IR) Effect: The change in measurement signal due to an increase in leakage current between the conductors of instrument signal transmission components such as cables, connectors or splices. The increased leakage is caused by the decrease of component insulation resistance due to extreme changes in environmental conditions.
: 30. Lead Wire Effect: The effect on measured Resistance Temperature Detector (RTD) signals due to ambient temperature changes on the RTD signal wire.
: 31. Limiting Safety System Setting (LSSS): For nuclear reactors, the settings for automatic protective devices related to those variables having significant safety functions.
* Where a Limiting Safety System Setting is specified for a variable on which a Safety Limit has been placed, the setting must be so chosen such that the automatic protective action will correct the abnormal situation before a Safety Limit is exceeded, as described in 10 CFR 50 ,
paragraphs 50.36[c][1][i][A] and 50.36[c][1][ii][A].
: 32. Limiting Trip Setpoint (LTSP): The limiting value for the nominal trip Setpoint.
* The LTSP is chosen so that the trip or actuation will occur before the analytical limit is reached, regardless of the process or environmental conditions affecting the instrumentation.
* The LTSP has no margin.
: 33. Loop (or Instrument Loop): The generic name given to a set of instrument devices which perform a specific function.
: 34. Loop Uncertainty: The combined effect of all instrument and device uncertainties in that loop. Depending on the function of the loop, this uncertainty could be an uncertainty in indication or an actuation uncertainty.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 11 of 67 3.0   DEFINITIONS (continued)
: 35. Margin: In Setpoint determination, an allowance added to the Instrument Loop Uncertainty.
* Margin moves the Setpoint farther away from the Analytical Limit.
* An additional expression, operating margin, should not be confused with Margin. Adding or increasing operating margin has the effect of moving a Setpoint closer to the Analytical Limit to increase the region of operation prior to reaching a Setpoint.
: 36. Measurement and Test Equipment (M&TE) Effect: The effect on the Uncertainty of a Device or Loop due to the Accuracy ratings of reference measurement (test) equipment.
: 37. Mild Environment: An environment that would at no time be significantly more severe than the environment that would occur during normal plant operation, including any anticipated operational occurrences.
* Also referred to as the normal environment.
: 38. Module: Any assembly of interconnected components that constitutes an identifiable device, instrument, or piece of equipment.
* A module can be removed as a unit and replaced with a spare, and has definable performance characteristics that permit the Module to be tested as a unit.
* A Module can be a card, a drawout circuit breaker, or other subassembly of a larger device, provided it meets the requirements of this definition.
* For the purpose of this document, a Module is the same as a Device.
: 39. Nominal Trip Setpoint (NTSP): As defined in Technical Specifications:
* The Nominal Trip Setpoint shall be the design value of a Setpoint.
* The trip Setpoint implemented in plant hardware may be less or more conservative than the Nominal Trip Setpoint by calibration tolerance.
Unless otherwise specified, if plant conditions warrant, the trip Setpoint implemented in plant hardware may be set outside the Nominal Trip Setpoint calibration tolerance band, as long as the trip Setpoint is conservative with respect to the Nominal Trip Setpoint.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 12 of 67 3.0   DEFINITIONS (continued)
: 40. Nuclear Safety-Related Instrumentation: That instrumentation which is essential to satisfy the following:
* Provide emergency reactor shutdown
* Provide containment isolation
* Provide reactor core cooling
* Provide for containment or reactor heat removal
* Prevent or mitigate a significant release of radioactive material to the environment (or otherwise essential to provide reasonable assurance that a nuclear power plant can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public)
: 41. Operating Conditions: Conditions such as ambient pressure, ambient temperature, electromagnetic fields, gravitational force, inclination, power supply variation (voltage, frequency, harmonics), radiation, shock, and vibration, to which a device is subjected, other than the variable measured by the device.
* Both static and dynamic variations in these conditions should be considered.
: 42. Primary Element Allowance (PEA): The general term applied to all errors that quantitatively convert the measured variable energy into a form suitable for measurement.
: 43. Process Limit (PL): The System, Structure Or Component (SSC) functional design value for which the Setpoint or indication functions to protect or to provide warning of potentially exceeding a Design Limit.
: 44. Process Measurement Allowance (PMA): The general name given to all errors which affect the basic process measurements.
* The process effects are not instrument related, but are due to characteristics of the process signal received by a sensor and include such things as fluid density variation effects, improper flow development effects, and pressure variation effects.
* Another designation for Process Measurement Allowance is Process Effects.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                              AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 13 of 67 3.0   DEFINITIONS (continued)
: 45. Random: Describing a variable whose value at a particular future instant cannot be predicted exactly, but can only be estimated by a probability distribution function.
* Random Uncertainties are zero-centered and approximately normally distributed.
: 46. Range: The area between the upper and lower limits for which a device is designed to operate.
* A Device may only be calibrated over a portion of its Range (i.e., the Device's span) or calibrated over the Device's entire Range. For the latter case, the span would equal its Range.
* Some vendors provide Uncertainties in terms of span reading or Range.
Clarification should be obtained if vendor information is unclear.
: 47. Reference Accuracy: A number or quantity that defines a limit that Errors will not exceed when a Device is used under vendor specified Operating Conditions.
* Reference Accuracy typically includes the combined effects of Conformity (or Linearity), Hysteresis, Dead Band and Repeatability.
* Other designations utilized for Reference Accuracy include Vendor Accuracy, Rack Reference Accuracy (RRA) and Sensor Calibration Accuracy (SCA), respectively, as described in Figure 2, Reference Accuracy, located in Attachment 1, Standard Figures.
: 48. Repeatability: The closeness of agreement among a number of consecutive measurements of the output for the same value of the input under the same Operating Conditions, approaching from the same direction, for full Range traverses.
* This measurement is usually determined as non-repeatability and expressed as Repeatability in percent of span, as shown in Figure 3, Repeatability, located in Attachment 1, Standard Figures.
* This measurement does not include Hysteresis.
: 49. Resolution/Readability (RES): The least interval between two adjacent discrete details which can be distinguished one from the other.
* Typically applies to indicators, recorders or computer displays.
* Another designation utilized for resolution is Rack Readability Allowance (RRA).

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                    AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 14 of 67 3.0   DEFINITIONS (continued)
: 50. Response Time: The delay in the actuation of a trip function following the time when a measured process variable reaches the actual trip value due to the time response characteristics of the Instrument Loop, including the Sensor.
* Response Time may be expressed as the time taken by a Device or Loop to respond to a selected step input for testing or surveillance purposes.
: 51. Safety Limit (SL): Per 10 CFR 50.36 Section (c)(1)(i)(A), the limit on an important process variable that is necessary to reasonably protect the integrity of physical barriers that guard against uncontrolled release of radioactivity.
* The Safety Limit may not necessarily be specified in terms of the same measured or calculated variables as the Setpoint.
: 52. Sensor: The portion of an Instrument Loop that responds to changes in a plant variable or condition and converts the measured process variable into a signal (e.g., electric or pneumatic).
: 53. Setpoint: A predetermined process value within the allowable Range of an adjustable parameter where a monitoring Device may be set to trigger a positive action (e.g., trip, actuate, initiate, alarm, control) in order to alert, limit or terminate a process prior to exceeding design limits.
: 54. Setpoint Range: An Engineering selected Range used where the actual Setpoint is NOT critical, but keeping the Setpoint within a specific range is critical.
* For any Setpoint within the Range specified, control by site procedure is sufficient.
* Population or revisions of the Setpoint Range must be controlled equivalent to fixed Setpoints.
: 55. Signal Conditioning: One or more Modules that perform signal conversion, buffering, isolation, or mathematical operations on the signal as needed.
: 56. Tolerance: The allowable variation from a specified or true value.
: 57. Uncertainty: The amount to which an instrument channel's output is in doubt (or the allowance made for such doubt) due to possible errors, either random or systematic.
* Uncertainty is generally identified within a probability and confidence level.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                               AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 15 of 67 4.0   RESPONSIBILITIES 4.1   Engineering Managers
: 1. Ensure consistent implementation of guidance in this procedure.
: 2. Establish and coordinate necessary interfaces to implement this procedure.
4.2   Engineers
: 1. Determine and evaluate instrument Setpoints/Uncertainties using this procedure when performing the following activities:
* Preparing new designs or preparing design changes that effect Instrument Setpoints/Uncertainties.
* Evaluating Setpoints/Uncertainties problems.
: 2. Review the fuel vendor's fuel reload analyses and changes to fuel vendor accident analyses via the Nuclear Fuels Section per AD-NF-ALL-0807, Reload Design Process, to ensure the following:
* Identification of impacted instrument Uncertainty and Setpoint calculations.
* Remission of affected calculations, as necessary
* Implementation of revised calculation results into the plant settings as necessary using applicable plant processes, such as the Engineering Change (EC) and procedure change processes.
: 3. Ensure adequate documentation and implementation of instrument Setpoints/Uncertainties takes place commensurate with importance to safety and production.
: 4. Identify specific instrumentation functional requirements assumed or specified within equipment and system calculations, or analyses.
: 5. Ensure performance and maintenance of total loop Uncertainty and Setpoint calculations (outside the jurisdiction of the Safety Analysis group) in accordance with this procedure.
: 6. Verify applicable site procedures are consistent with the Uncertainty and Setpoint calculation input bases and assumptions (i.e., proper Setpoints and calibration practices).

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                              AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 16 of 67 4.2   Engineers (continued)
: 7. Ensure applicable calculations address the effects of gas under pressure in a closed vessel measurement, and include the Safety Injection (SI) accumulator as an example. {7.1.1}
: 8. Adhere to the Duke Energy Nuclear Generation Department Setpoint Control Process as described in this procedure.
4.3   [CNS, MNS, ONS] NGO Safety Analysis Group
: 1. Ensures performance and maintenance of total loop Uncertainty and Setpoint calculations (e.g. RPS, ESFAS, RCS flow) are in accordance with this procedure and the NRC approved methodologies.
: 2. Identifies and transmits the bases and assumptions utilized as design input within instrument Uncertainty and Setpoint calculations to the respective Site Engineering group.
: 3. Provides support and design input regarding equipment and system calculational bases.
: 4. Requests instrument design, performance and Uncertainty specifications from the respective Site Engineering group, as required.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                 AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 17 of 67 5.0   INSTRUCTIONS

===5.1   Background===
: 1. This procedure was developed to provide guidance for preparing Instrument Uncertainty and Setpoint Calculations.
: 2. This procedure should be used to determine the Accuracy of any permanently installed instrumentation and may be used to determine setpoint ranges and allowable values.
: 3. Application of the methodology described in this procedure is appropriate for Limiting Safety System Settings as defined in 10 CFR 50.36, and for operator indications when required by the emergency response guidelines.
* Where Limiting Safety System Settings have been established for nuclear plant instruments by the plant Technical Specifications, the settings are to be chosen so that automatic protective action will occur to protect against the most severe abnormal situation without exceeding analytical safety limits.
* Instruments that are utilized to ensure that these safety limits are not exceeded will provide adequate margins to safety which is to be documented through the use of instrument uncertainty and scaling calculations.
* Approved documentation shall also exist to support instrument uncertainty values used in the determination of indicator driven operator actions specified in the Emergency Operating Procedures when required by the Emergency Response Guidelines.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                  AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 18 of 67 5.1   Background (continued)
: 4. The uncertainty combination methodology described within this procedure is based primarily on ISA RP67-04.02, Methodologies for the Determination of Setpoints for Nuclear Safety-Related Instrumentation.
* The NRC does not endorse ISA RP67-04.02, but finds the information useful.
* Calculations performed by Safety Analysis shall be performed in accordance with the methodology approved by the NRC, which may differ from this procedure.
* Select cases may arise in which it is advantageous to utilize alternate uncertainty combination techniques. However, the method of choice holds solely on the design licensing bases and ISA RP67-04.02 standards.
* Application of the complete methodology outside of the above defined scope may not be warranted and will require engineering experience and judgment on a case by case basis.
* Judgment would typically consider the following:
Instances where existing designs can be justified to prevent equipment modifications.
Situations where settings need to be made with a minimum margin to maintain reliability and it is desired to quantify the margin.
Cases where instrumentation design inadequacies are being evaluated to determine an optimum solution to a specific problem.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 19 of 67 5.1   Background (continued)
: 5. Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.105, Instrument Setpoints for Safety Related Systems, was established to address documentation requirements regarding instrument setpoint analyses, and later (Revisions. 2 and 3) endorsed the use of ISA-67.04.01, Setpoints for Nuclear Safety-Related Instrumentation, for evaluation of setpoints associated with Technical Specification limits.
* ISA-67.04.01 outlined criteria for establishment of safety related setpoints to ensure instrument errors and drift were properly addressed.
* Currently, due to a number of license amendments, the Duke Energy Nuclear sites now have different commitments to different versions of Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) vendor methodologies, RG 1.105 or Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) document TSTF-493 on a per function basis. These individual plant commitments relative to instrument uncertainties and setpoints are discussed in documents such as the UFSAR, Technical Specifications, Licensing Dockets and Design Basis Documents (DBDs).
* Users need to exercise caution as to which version of the RG or TSTF-493 a function may be committed.
* GDC 13 effectively requires that instrumentation (required to assure adequate safety) be provided to monitor variables and systems during normal operation, anticipated operational occurrences and for accident conditions.
: 6. The methodology outlined here-in, is consistent with the intent of ISA-RP67.04.02, Methodologies for the Determination of Setpoints for Nuclear Safety-Related Instrumentation.
* Note that RG 1.105 was expressly written to address the requirements for "establishing nuclear safety-related setpoints for actions determined by the design basis".
* The scope of ISA- RP67.04.02 was written to address all nuclear safety-related instrumentation (i.e., instrumentation that is essential to ensure reactor coolant pressure boundary integrity, to achieve and maintain safe-shutdown, and to maintain offsite dose within 10 CFR 100 limits).

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 20 of 67 5.1   Background (continued)
: 7. In July 2009, TSTF-493 Revision 4, Clarify Application of Setpoint Methodology for Limiting Safety System Settings, was issued.
* TSTF-493 deals, in part, with calculating and managing As-Found and As-Left Setpoint Tolerances for those Technical Specification instrument channels as specified in Appendix A of TSTF-493, Revision 4.
* Section 5.6, TSTF-493 Implementation, establishes criteria to support implementation of TSTF-493 for those specific Technical Specification functions for which TSTF-493 applicability has been committed within a Nuclear Generation Department (NGD) facility's Operating License.
: 8. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) subsequently issued a Notice of Availability of the Models for Plant-Specific Adoption of Technical Specification Task Force Traveler TSTF-493, Revision 4, in 2010. The expectation is that NRC will require adoption of applicable sections of TSTF-493 on any changes to the Limiting Safety System Settings Sections of the Technical Specifications after the 2010 notice of availability.
: 9. Additional methodology is located in technical report ANSI/ISA-TR67.04.08-1996, Setpoints for Sequenced Actions, which supplements ANSI/ISA-67.04.01 and ISA- RP67.04.02 in the area of methods used to determine instrument setpoints for sequenced actions.
* The report provides guidance on the handling of setpoints for sequenced actions in both nuclear safety-related and nuclear power plant non-safety-related instrumentation.
* Note that ANSI/ISA-TR67.04.08-1996 has NOT been endorsed by the NRC. Therefore, the originator and checker should take extra care with regard to the technical rigor in setpoint calculations when using guidance from this document.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                             AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 21 of 67 5.2     Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology 5.2.1   General
: 1. This procedure is to be utilized when preparing instrument Uncertainty calculations for the Nuclear Generation Department (NGD) plants. However, the Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) vendors use their own NRC approved methodology that may have differences from the instructions provided in this document. NSSS vendor approved methods are used when revising vendor calculations.
: 2. Other methodologies may be utilized in-lieu of those outlined here-in, as follows:
: a. Setpoint and Uncertainty data provided by vendors which were established in accordance with accepted industry standards, codes, recommended practices, NRC topical reports, or NRC commitments, and documented under the vendor's approved QA program.
* Other methodologies stipulated in NRC approved topical reports or Duke Energy commitments to the NRC shall take precedence over the methodology outlined in this procedure.
* Applicable calculation and bases shall be obtained, assigned a unique Duke Energy calculation or evaluation number and maintained for future reference in accordance with AD-EG-ALL-1117, Design Analyses and Calculations.
: b. Existing calculations performed in accordance with Duke Energy (DEC/DEP) commitments that are part of the plant licensing bases, such as the NSSS vendor methodology for protection and safeguard applications (e.g., MCM 1201.01-564-001, CNM 1201.01-0494-001).
: 3.    [HNP] Generate results in accordance with the format described in the Technical Specifications Bases (i.e., either 5 column or 2 column, as appropriate) when performing Setpoint calculations for the Reactor Trip System Instrumentation Trip Setpoints (Technical Specifications Table 2.2-1) or the Engineered Safety Features Actuation System Instrumentation Trip Setpoints (Technical Specifications Table 3.3-4).

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                   AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 22 of 67 5.2.1   General (continued)
: 4. Applicable instrument Loops may be either safety-related or non-safety-related and encompass Loops used for protection, control, or indication functions.
: a.      Since this document is intended to address all types of Loops, portions of the methodology may not be applicable to every individual Loop.
* For example, instruments that are NOT safety-related or exposed to a harsh environment, do NOT need to incorporate accident environment Uncertainties into their overall Loop Uncertainty.
* Conversely, instruments used for personnel safety, may need to include additional margins or conservatism not generally applied.
: b.      Each user of this document must evaluate individual Uncertainties for relevance to the user's application. Specific instructions for the application of these criteria are included in the text of this procedure.
: 5. It is NOT the intent of this procedure to supersede any calculations performed previously by NGD or its vendors. Such calculations and analyses were performed in accordance with the methods and assumptions in effect at the time of their development and are considered to be valid.
* Differences in methodology between this procedure and existing calculations that need to be revised due to plant changes should be identified to the appropriate NGD Instrumentation and Control (I&C)
Manager for resolution.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 23 of 67 5.2.2   NRC Implementation Considerations
: 1. For safety-related calculations affecting the current licensing basis, recognize that the current licensing basis for that function is based upon the calculation method that was reviewed by the NRC at time the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) was issued and has the following impacts:
* A change from an NSSS vendor or other methodology to the AD-EG-ALL-1153 methodology may require NRC approval even if there are no changes to the Setpoint or Allowable Values as a result of the calculation change.
* Calculations approved by the NRC to an earlier methodology (e.g.,
calculated Allowable Value using the more conservative of two methods) must retain that method of calculating Allowable Value or obtain NRC approval to use the current guidance in AD-EG-ALL-1153.
* For any future changes to AD-EG-ALL-1153 affecting the methodology of approved calculations, those calculations will likely need to be evaluated for whether NRC approval is required before the latest changes can be used.
: 2. For this reason, it is important to reference the revision number of the AD-EG-ALL-1153 version used in each calculation.
* Automatically implementing the latest AD-EG-ALL-1153 revision for a calculation revision may not be desired in all cases.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                 AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 24 of 67 5.2.3    Surveillance Test Acceptance Values NOTE The following discussion is specific to measurement error allowances for surveillance test acceptance criteria and does NOT impact the recommended instrument loop categorization guidance provided in Table 1, Recommended Instrument Loop Categorization, for determining the appropriate level of calculation detail for a given application or function.
: 1. There is no requirement to include allowances for instrumentation measurement Uncertainty (error) in surveillance limits or values specifically provided in Technical Specifications, the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), or provided in general, unless specifically required by commitment or specific analyses.
* Test acceptance values in procedures should normally be set equal to the limit(s) and value(s) listed within Technical Specification or UFSAR surveillance requirements, unless specifically required to be adjusted by commitment or specific analyses.
: 2. Two cases below represent specific examples where test instrumentation Uncertainty (error) allowance is required to be used directly to determine the test surveillance acceptance values.
: a.      The error analysis requirements for these two cases are based on specific commitments related to Limited Safety System Settings.
: b.      The specified methodologies and requirements for performing and documenting test error analyses and allowance for test errors for these two cases are addressed in the appropriate sections of this procedure and the facility's Operating License.
* Technical Specification Allowable Values (AVs) for Limited Safety System Settings (refer to facility's Operating License).
* Technical Specification Allowable As-Found and As-Left values for Limited Safety System Settings for which compliance with TSTF-493, Clarify Application of Setpoint Methodology for Limiting Safety System Settings, has been committed (refer to facility's Operating License).

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                   AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 25 of 67 5.2.3   Surveillance Test Acceptance Values (continued)
: 3. Voluntary conservative adjustments to test procedure acceptance criteria are generally permitted for the specific purpose of conservatism, unless specifically prohibited by commitment or specific analyses.
: a. If a decision is made to voluntarily include conservatism (e.g., allowances for test instrumentation Uncertainty) in the test acceptance criteria, then the bases for the compensation should be clearly documented (or referenced) to support those changes and to ensure any future changes in the existing compensation are better informed.
* The decision to revise test acceptance criteria could be based on any combination of factors, such as the following:
Analysis sensitivity to changes in the parameter, the expected range of instrument Uncertainty (error)
Margins available in the associated analysis Margins inherent in the analysis methods Test instrument limitations Operating margin concerns
* This recommendation for clear documentation of the bases for compensation is NOT retroactive.
: b. In general, it is considered beneficial to document in a retrievable manner (e.g., condition report, procedure, procedure revision justification, calculation, design basis document, EC Evaluation) decisions and justifications for including (or not including) a test error allowance.
* In some situations, this documentation may be required per the product or process involved in establishing or changing the test acceptance criteria.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                               AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 26 of 67 5.2.4   Settings of Lesser Importance
: 1. Lesser levels of rigor and documentation are expected to be applied to instruments of lesser importance to safety and production.
: 2. Documenting settings of lesser importance generally involves loading setpoint data into EDB.
* Process and documentation requirements are located in AD-EG-ALL-1137, Engineering Change Product Selection.
* Database loading may be accomplished electronically or by using paper forms, as specified by plant procedures.
5.2.5   Setpoint Control
: 1. The Nuclear Generation Department (NGD) Setpoint Control process provides the method for initiating, controlling, implementing and documenting Engineering Controlled Setpoint changes to plant systems and equipment.
: 2. Site Engineering is responsible for ensuring adequate documentation and implementation of Instrument Setpoints occurs commensurate with importance to safety and production.
* The Setpoint Control process includes preparing, reviewing and approving instrument uncertainty/setpoint and scaling calculations for selected instruments, and ensuring results are properly implemented through acceptable maintenance practices and procedures.
* Lesser levels of rigor and documentation are expected to be applied to Instruments of lesser importance to safety and production.
: 3. The intent of the Setpoint Control process is to provide adequate Setpoint change control in order to ensure safe, reliable and efficient operation of the nuclear stations AND maintain adequate configuration control over Setpoints.
* The Setpoint Control process includes preparing, reviewing, approving, and controlling instrument uncertainty/setpoint and scaling calculations for selected Instruments, and ensuring results are properly implemented through acceptable maintenance practices and procedures.
* Lesser levels of rigor and documentation are expected to be applied to Instruments of lesser importance to safety and production.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 27 of 67 5.2.5   Setpoint Control (continued)
: 4. Setpoints under the control of Engineering include both safety-related AND non-safety related Setpoints.
: a.      Setpoints or settings that may be considered Engineering Controlled include the following:
* Annunciators and Alarm Setpoints
* Process Computer Setpoints
* Interlock/Permissive Setpoints
* Protective Function Setpoints (including protective relays)
* Automatic Actuation/Control Logic Setpoints
* Process Control Setpoints
* Controller Process Setpoints (excluding tuning parameters)
* Transformer Tap Settings
* Breaker Setpoints
* Vendor Supplied Control System Setpoints
: 5. Setpoints under jurisdiction of other site groups are specifically excluded (e.g., Radiation Protection setpoints, Operator adjusted setpoints, procedurally controlled setpoints).
* Changes affecting the uncertainty of post-accident indications may impact indication driven operator actions specified in Emergency Operating Procedures or other procedures required by the Emergency Response Guidelines.
: 6. Each Engineering Controlled Setpoint that is a safety-related Setpoint OR a Technical Specification Setpoint shall be traceable to a design output document.
: 7. Each Engineering Controlled Setpoint that is a non-safety related Setpoint within the plant-specific Setpoint document(s) may be traceable to a design document, such as a governing calculation, test or basis document.
: 8. In general, Engineering Controlled Setpoints are documented in the Equipment Database (EDB).

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                               AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 28 of 67 5.2.5   Setpoint Control (continued)
: 9. The basic change control mechanism for initiating, reviewing, documenting, and implementing Engineering Control Setpoint changes is through the appropriate Engineering Change process, as determined by AD-EG-ALL-1137, Engineering Change Product Selection.
* The basis for a Setpoint change for safety-related Setpoints AND Technical Specification Setpoints shall be documented.
* The basis for changes to all other Setpoints should be documented.
* Change control for certain Setpoints are managed through other approved processes (e.g., Process Computer Hi and Lo alarms).
: 10. Engineering Control Setpoint determinations may be made by a variety of methods, including Setpoint Calculated Setpoints, Manufacturer Limitation Setpoints, and Operating Experience Based Setpoints.
5.2.6   Setpoint Databases
: 1. The goal of the electronic Setpoint database is to achieve a single point reference for instrument Setpoints.
* A fully functional Setpoint database may be used by Engineering, Maintenance, and Operations on a continuous basis so that all tasks involving Setpoints are based on the same information and all Setpoint changes are consistently controlled and implemented.
: 2. All types of Setpoints should eventually be captured in, and controlled by, the database.
: a.      To accomplish this goal, it is necessary to systematically load and approve the Setpoint information.
: b.      The recommended method of loading information is to integrate the loading process into the engineering evaluation and change processes, and into the instrument calibration process so that data is routinely entered.
: c.      Database loading may be accomplished electronically or by using paper forms, as specified by plant procedures.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                             AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 29 of 67 5.2.6   Setpoint Databases (continued)
: 3. A routine Setpoint data approval process should exist in Engineering to ensure the data gets reviewed and approved as it is entered to avoid creation of a backlog of unapproved Setpoints.
* The engineering approval process, however, needs to apply a graded approach because the vast majority of Setpoints already exist in approved plant procedures, and have been proven through time in service, making it unnecessary to evaluate each one from scratch.
* If an approved reference document such as a procedure or an EC exists, AND the Setpoint under review is NOT a Limiting Safety System Setting (per 10 CFR 50.36), then no separate calculation or significant review documentation should be required when approving the Setpoint data for database use.
* However, Setpoint changes and new Setpoints shall continue to be evaluated and approved through the appropriate process with the results being loaded into the database.
5.3     Loop Uncertainty Analysis 5.3.1   Basic Concepts
: 1. The typical instrument Loop consists of a field mounted transmitter or Sensor connected by cabling to an instrument process cabinet containing the Loop power supply and other signal conditioning Modules.
* For Loops with remote mounted Devices (such as an indicator), the cabinet would contain Modules to drive the remotely mounted Device.
* Figure 4, Typical Instrument Loop, located in Attachment 1, Standard Figures, depicts a typical instrument Loop containing both a remote mounted indicator and an actuation or Setpoint Device (e.g., Bistable Module).
* Figure 5, Typical Loop Breakdown, located in Attachment 1 shows a block diagram for the typical Loop.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                  AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 30 of 67 5.3.1   Basic Concepts (continued)
: 2. Each Device or component in the Loop can affect the Loop's performance (Accuracy). These Devices include the Loop's power supply and interconnecting cabling.
* In general, the more components that exist in a Loop, the greater the potential Loop Uncertainty since each component has a discrete Uncertainty associated with it.
* In addition, the component Uncertainties can be greatly affected by the ambient conditions under which the components function.
: 3. For Sensors and electronic Modules (e.g., transmitters, current converters, function generators), even small variations in ambient conditions may affect their performance. On the other hand, the Loop signal transmission components (e.g., cable, splices) are generally immune to small ambient variations and only affect Loop performance under extreme conditions.
: 4. Environmental conditions to which the various parts of a Loop are exposed may be different, depending on the location of actual Loop components.
: a.      Two major classifications of environmental conditions (i.e., Harsh and Mild) are typically applicable.
* Refer to Section 3.0, Definitions, for additional information.
: b.      Different ambient conditions exist under each classification, depending on the specific location of a Device.
: c.      The separation between harsh and mild conditions typically occurs somewhere between the field mounted Sensors and the signal processing Modules.
: d.      Usually only the field mounted Sensors and a portion of the signal transmission components will be exposed to harsh environment conditions. However, each Loop must be individually evaluated to identify which components, if any, will be exposed to a harsh environment.
: e.      Only those components which are potentially exposed to a harsh environment need to be considered for other than normal environmental effects in an Uncertainty analysis.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                               AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 31 of 67 5.3.2   Error Sources
: 1. Variations in instrument or Loop Accuracy are the result of a number of different Error components. These Error components can be divided into three major classifications or classes of Error based on the Error source:
* Process Measurement Errors
* Instrument Uncertainties
* Other Errors
: 2. Process measurement Errors are, as the name implies, basic Errors in the actual process signal being detected by the process measurement Device (Sensor).
* These Errors are wholly a function of the characteristics of the measurement process and NOT a function of the performance of the instruments.
* Process measurement Errors include such things as variations in a measurement due to sensing line fluid density changes, process pressure changes, Errors in a head type flow meter measurement due to improper flow profile development or density effects, or temperature variations.
* Process measurement Errors are discussed in detail in FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE, Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology and Discussion.
: 3. Instrument Uncertainties or Errors are the performance limitations (inaccuracies) associated with the actual equipment used to measure and process the measurement signal.
* This class of Errors includes the basic Accuracy of an instrument, its performance versus ambient variations, and its performance over time.
* Instrument Uncertainties are discussed in detail in FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                              AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 32 of 67 5.3.2   Error Sources (continued)
: 4. The class of "Other Errors" is used to account for a number of Error sources that are essentially independent of the actual Loop and its Devices, but that can introduce significant Error.
* This class includes such items as the Uncertainty associated with the instrument calibration process and with the calibration test equipment.
* Additional Errors are introduced into a measurement signal due to performance variations in signal transmission components exposed to a harsh environment.
* FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE discusses the Error sources for the "Other Errors" class.
5.3.3   Loop Analysis
: 1. By expanding the Loop block diagram shown in Figure 5, Typical Loop Breakdown, located in Attachment 1, Standard Figures, a basic instrument Loop Error analysis diagram can be established.
* The diagram presented in Figure 6, Instrument Loop Error Analysis Diagram, located in Attachment 1, shows the relationship of Loop instruments, sources of Errors, and environmental effects for a typical Loop.
: 2. The basic Error analysis block diagram starts with the process Errors which may in a measurement. This is a subset of the process measurement Errors discussed in Section 5.3.2, Error Sources.
: 3. The next block, the primary element block, is included to account for Loops which may have a true primary element, such as a flow nozzle or orifice.
* Any Errors associated with the primary element are considered part of the process measurement Errors since those Errors are integral in the variable being measured by the Loop Sensor.
: 4. The remaining four blocks represent the four major sections of an instrument Loop, as defined above.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                 AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 33 of 67 5.3.3   Loop Analysis (continued)
: 5. Actual Loop Error analysis uses the basic Loop Error analysis diagram as a model for identifying and calculating Error values.
* The Loop Error analysis is done in a step by step calculation which builds the total Loop Error, or Uncertainty, using a combination of the individual Error effects.
* The process starts from the process Error effects and progresses through the Loop to the final output Device of concern.
: 6. In reference to Figure 6, Instrument Loop Error Analysis Diagram, located in Attachment 1, the Loop analysis typically progress from left to right. This also represents the functional flow of the measurement signal through the Loop.
* This format also allows the calculation of Uncertainty values for a Loop that contains multiple signal paths or multiple signal processing.
For example, both a pressure measurement signal and a temperature measurement signal used in a temperature compensated level measurement, may be combined to establish a single level Error value.
* By calculating the individual signal Errors up to the point of combination, the total Uncertainty for the Loop can be calculated.
* The Errors for the individual signal paths are determined using the same basic calculation process and are then combined with any remaining Error terms in the Loop to obtain a final output Error.
* This method is discussed in detail in FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE, Engineering Instrument Setpoint Methodology and Discussion.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 34 of 67 5.3.4   Error Component Types
: 1. Measurement Error:
: a. All measurements have associated Errors.
* The determination of the measurement Error can be accomplished in several ways (e.g., algebraic, statistical, or the combination of the two).
* The various methods for determination of the measurement Error are discussed in more detail in FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE, Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology and Discussion.
: b. The statistical derivation is possible due to the inherent nature of the Errors which exist for instruments and measurements.
* The statistical derivation provides realistic estimates of the Errors which exist.
* A given measurement is composed of two types of Error components, the Random or Precision Error, and the Bias or Fixed Error.
These two Error terms form the bases of instrument Error analysis.
Proper application of these terms is essential to proper Error analysis.
: c. A general discussion of Random and Bias Errors is provided below and defines how these Error types are treated in instrument Error analysis.
* Section 5.3, Loop Uncertainty Analysis, and FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE define the individual Errors which may be present in an instrument or Loop.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                            AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 35 of 67 5.3.4   Error Component Types (continued)
: 2. Random Error:
: a. A Random Error is in itself, a statistical measurement of Accuracy and the basic variation seen in the seemingly identical, repeated measurements of a parameter.
* A Random Error is caused by the culmination of the numerous small Error effects which exist in any action.
* The exact magnitude and sign of a Random Error at a specific point in time cannot be predicted. However, the Error is normally distributed about the true values and a bounding set of limits to its upper and lower value can be established.
* For these types of uncertainties, a 95/95 tolerance limit is considered an acceptable criterion (i.e., a 95% probability that the constructed limits contain 95% of the population of interest for the surveillance interval selected.
: b. Random Errors are independent variations (i.e., NOT dependent on one another or on the same parameters) in a measurement and cannot be eliminated.
* Bounds on the magnitude of a Random Error are established through statistical analysis of these variations.
: c. By obtaining repeated measurements of a parameter, a measure of the Random Error magnitude can be calculated.
* The standard deviation, sigma (), is used as a measurement of the Random Error.
* Standard deviation is defined as:
                                             =1( - )
2
                                      =
Where:
X = Individual measurement values M = Mean of all measurement values N = Number of measurements

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                               AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 36 of 67 5.3.4   Error Component Types (continued)
: d. A group of Random Error measurements will exhibit a bell shaped (normal) distribution about the mean, when plotted as a function of measurement frequency as shown in Figure 7, Measurement Uncertainty, located in Attachment 1, Standard Figures.
* The figure illustrates the typical distribution of measurement deviations associated with Random Errors.
* As recorded deviation from the mean increases, the occurrence of measurements with that particular deviation decreases significantly.
: e. By using the standard deviation term, a statistically acceptable measure of Random Error can be established.
: f. Using normal probability analysis can show that the number of measurements that will vary within one standard deviation of the mean will represent 68.27% of all the measurements.
* In other words, approximately 68% of the time, the recorded measurement will be within one standard deviation of the true value.
* Expressing this in terms of probability, there is a 68% probability that the Error will be less than or equal to one standard deviation.
: g. Industry and the NRC have accepted a minimum level of Random Error probability of 95% for instrument Error analysis.
* This 95% probability means that the Error exhibited by a component or Loop must be less than or equal to its established error at least 95% of the time.
* The 95% probability represents the deviation value from the mean which encompasses 95% of all measurement variations.
* Statistically, the 95% value can be shown to be +/- 1.96 times the standard deviation.
* For various sample sizes, refer EPRI TR-103335, Guidelines for Instrumentation Calibration Extension/Reduction, Table 18-4, to determine the appropriate multiple to be used with the standard deviation.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 37 of 67 5.3.4   Error Component Types (continued)
: h. It is important to identify whether each Uncertainty is 1, 2, or 3 times the standard deviation (sigma) when combining Random Uncertainties.
* The resulting overall Uncertainty will only be statistically equivalent to the least probable Uncertainty. Thus, if one Uncertainty is three sigma and the other uncertainties are two sigma, the combined Uncertainty can only be two sigma.
* For NGD, it will be assumed that published vendor Uncertainties are two sigma, unless the vendor can provide a more conclusive determination. This is based on common industry practice.
: i. As stated above, Random Errors are independent variations with a normal distribution about the mean.
(1)     The following applies when two or more errors are dependent:
* If the Errors are NOT Random, then the Errors are treated as Biases as discussed in Section 5.3.4 Step 3.
* If the combined effect of the Errors is Random, then the Errors may be summed together and treated as a single Random Error, the same as other Random Errors.
(2)     This concept is discussed in more detail in FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE, Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology and Discussion.
: 3. Bias Error:
: a. Bias Errors, also known as correlated or fixed Errors, are systematic deviations in a measurement or output.
* A Bias Error does NOT exhibit normally distributed Random behavior.
* The Bias Error exhibits a generally known behavior with respect to other parameters.
* A measure of total Error for an instrument, or Loop, can be determined by combining its Bias Error terms with its Random Error terms.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 38 of 67 5.3.4   Error Component Types (continued)
: b. There are generally three types of Bias Error terms encountered in instrumentation.
(1)    The first is defined as a Bias with known sign and known magnitude.
* This type of Bias is generally well-defined and predictable.
* An example of such a Bias is the reference leg heat-up effect on a filled reference leg level installation, as discussed in FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE, Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology and Discussion. For a known temperature change, the level signal exhibits a known (direction and magnitude) shift in output. Many Biases of this nature can be calibrated out of an instrument, and thus eliminated.
(2)    A second type of Bias is defined as a Bias with known sign, but unknown magnitude.
* This type of Bias is less predictable due to its variable magnitude but may be quantified by establishing a maximum (worst case) value.
* An example of such a Bias can again be seen in a filled reference leg level installation.
After an event, the reference leg may be exposed to accident temperature conditions which cause Errors in the level signal. The accident temperature, though, is not a known constant change.
The temperature is a variable with a calculated maximum. As a result, the actual effect on the reference leg due to the variation in temperature is not known precisely.
The difference between reference leg heat-up rate and the temperature change causes the exact bias magnitude to be unknown.
* A maximum Bias effect can be determined though, based on the maximum temperature to bound the actual Bias.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                 AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 39 of 67 5.3.4   Error Component Types (continued)
(3)    The third type of Bias is defined as a bias with unknown sign and unknown magnitude.
* This type of Bias is similar to a Random Error due to its unknown sign. However, it cannot be classified as Random since it will not exhibit a normal distribution.
* An example of this type of Bias is the accident environment effect on some transmitters.
When subjected to accident conditions, the transmitters begin to exhibit a shift in output.
The shift may be either negative or positive for a specific transmitter, but once initiated, the shift will remain in the same direction (negative or positive).
The magnitude of the shift will generally increase with the duration and severity of the accident conditions, but its value at a specific time cannot be determined.
Only its maximum Error for the stated conditions can be established.
* Because of the unknown sign, this type of Bias Error must be assumed to contribute to both the negative and positive Uncertainty values.
: c. For the purpose of this document, the type of Error described above will be treated as a Bias.
* Other industry documents may call this an Abnormally Distributed Uncertainty, or some other similar term. However, the name applied to such an Error is not as important as how the Error is combined with the other Uncertainties.
* Both this document and other industry documents combine the Error in the same manner. That manner is to algebraically combine the Error with the positive Random Error and positive biases, and separately to combine the Error with the negative Random Error and negative Biases.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 40 of 67 5.3.4   Error Component Types (continued)
: d. Bias Errors are normally generated by specific effects internal or external to, an instrument.
* The magnitudes and signs of the Errors are decided using known correlations between variations of a parameter and its effect on the output of a Device (e.g., reference leg heat-up, IR effect). Thus, while a number of Bias Errors may have equal and opposite effects on instrument Accuracy, each must be treated separately, and NOT used to offset another.
* Unless specific links exist between Bias Errors, each must be assumed to occur separately.
: e. The Errors which Bias a measurement in the same direction can be combined to establish the worst case Error in a given direction.
* As discussed above, a specific Bias can generally be a value anywhere from zero to its maximum value.
* By combining the maximum Bias values in a given direction, the maximum Error band over which a measurement can vary in that given direction is established.
* This approach usually provides extremely conservative Error values which may not be desirable for all applications.
: f. Figure 8, Total Uncertainty, located in Attachment 1, Standard Figures, illustrates the total Uncertainty of a measurement or instrument output.
* The positive Bias Error (+B) is combined with the positive random Error to define the largest positive Error, while the negative Bias Error (-B) is combined with the negative Random Error to define the largest negative Error.
* Based on the probability of the Random Error term, the Uncertainty interval established will define the total Error to the same degree of probability.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                 AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 41 of 67 5.4     Error Analysis 5.4.1   General Discussion
: 1. The analysis of instrument and Loop Uncertainty requires the application of probabilities and statistics to known instrument and Loop Errors.
* By defining each of the Errors as either Random or Bias, as discussed in Section 5.3.4, Error Component Types, the user is able to apply the science of statistics to establish the cumulative effects of the Errors.
* By using statistical analysis, truer relationships between probable Errors and the resultant effects can be established.
* The statistical analysis of errors allows the determination of a total Error effect based on both the magnitude of individual Errors and the probability of their occurrence over time.
: 2. There are numerous methodologies within the science of statistics for analyzing data (i.e., Errors). These methods include in-depth analysis techniques (e.g., regression, partial derivatives) which are designed to predict the most probable value for a given set of numerical data.
: 3. While the subject of probabilities is not the primary focus of this document, an understanding of the subject is necessary for instrument Error analysis.
: 4. The following sections discuss the primary methodology used in instrument Error analysis.
* This methodology is based on accepted data analysis techniques, and has been endorsed by both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Instrumentation, Systems and Automation Society (formerly Instrument Society of America). [7.3.47]

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                 AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 42 of 67 5.4.2   Summary of Errors
: 1. Before discussing the methodology for combining the individual Error terms, it is helpful to reiterate the individual Error terms, and how the terms are applied.
: 2. Described below is a summary of the types of Errors that should typically be considered for the determination of instrument Loop Uncertainty.
: a. This summary is derived from the discussions presented in FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE, Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology and Discussion.
: b. Other Errors may also be applicable to individual Loops. However, the Errors described below represent the most common Error types.
(1)      Accident Pressure Effect - Consider for each Device within a harsh environment.
(2)      Accident Radiation Effect - Consider for each Device within a harsh or radiation harsh environment.
(3)      Accident Temperature Effect - Consider for each Device within a harsh environment.
(4)      Calibration Tolerance - Consider for each Device within the Loop or Loop as a whole, as appropriate.
(5)      Conduit Seal Effect - Consider for the portion of a Loop within a harsh environment.
(6)      Drift - Consider for each Device within a Loop.
(7)      Insulation Resistance Error - Consider for the portion of a Loop within a harsh environment.
(8)      Measurement and Test Equipment (M&TE)
Uncertainty - Consider for each Device within a Loop that is calibrated.
* Include all M&TE used within the calibration.
(9)      Overpressure Effect - Consider only for pressure transmitters (including d/p).
(10)     Power Supply Effect - Consider for each non-pneumatic device within a Loop.
(11)     Process Measurement Allowance - Consider for each Loop, including any primary elements (e.g., low orifices, venturies).

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                           AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 43 of 67 5.4.2   Summary of Errors (continued)
(12)  Readability - Consider for each indication or recording Device, including local gauges and digital displays.
(13)  Reference Accuracy - Consider for each Device within a Loop.
(14)  Resistance Temperature Detector (RTD) Lead Wire Effect - Consider for two or three wire RTDs.
(15)  RTD Self Heating Effect - Consider for RTDs.
(16)  Seismic Allowance - Consider for each Device within a Loop that is designated Seismic Class 1.
(17)  Static Pressure Effect - Consider for differential pressure transmitters that operate at high pressures.
(18)  Temperature Effect - Consider for each Device within a Loop.
* Does NOT have to be included whenever an Accident Temperature Effect (ATE) value is used, as long as the ATE covers the entire delta-T.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                   AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 44 of 67 5.4.3   Error Combination Methodologies
: 1. There are two primary methods of combining instrument and Loop Uncertainties:
linear addition, and a simple statistical analysis called the Square- Root-Sum-of-the-Squares (SRSS) method.
: a.      By combining these two methods, a third method can be defined such that Random Error terms are combined in the statistical manner and then algebraically summed with the Bias Error terms.
* This third method, or "combined" method, is the primary method used in industry for instrument Loop Error analysis.
: b.      A fourth but rarely used method, is one where individual Device Errors are determined from SRSS and the Error allowance for each Device is added together to yield the Loop Error.
: c.      The three predominant methods are described below.
: 2. Linear Addition:
: a.      Combination of all component Errors by linear addition is by far the most conservative approach to Loop Uncertainty analysis.
: b.      By algebraically summing all of the Error effects of each component for the most severe abnormal situations anticipated, a bounding total Loop Uncertainty can be generated.
* This large Uncertainty, when combined with plant limits, can reduce operating bands to such an extent that it will impact process limits and restrict the operational flexibility of a plant.
: c.      It is true that an instrument Loop will always function within the boundaries established using the linear addition method. However, it is generally not cost effective to take the operational penalties associated with such a conservative analysis.
: d.      The linear addition method essentially treats all Errors as correlated (Bias) terms and does NOT take advantage of the statistical nature of Random Error components.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                 AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 45 of 67 5.4.3   Error Combination Methodologies (continued)
: 3. Square Root Sum of the Squares:
: a. Square-Root-Sum-of-the-Squares (SRSS) is a statistical method of combining multiple Random Errors for a Device or Loop in order to establish the total Error attributable to all of the individual Errors.
* The SRSS method accounts for the individual probabilities of Random Errors.
* The method is based on the knowledge that the probability of a group of Random Errors, each being at their maximum value, and in the same direction (i.e., + or -), simultaneously, as is assumed in the linear addition method, is extremely small.
: b. The SRSS method of combining Random Error terms discussed in ISA-RP67.04.02, Methodologies for the Determination of Setpoints for Nuclear Safety Related Instrumentation, is a methodology accepted by the NCR.
: c. The methodology produces a resultant Error value which has the same level of probability as the individual terms being combined.
* A pure SRSS equation considers that all Uncertainty effects are independent and Random.
: d. Since all component Errors are generally considered independent, personnel doing this type of analysis need only square each Uncertainty term and take the square root of the sum.
: e. The basic SRSS combination of error terms takes the form:
                              = +/-[2 +  2 +  2 +  +  2 ]0.5 Where:
A, B, C, and n are Random and independent Error terms Z is the resultant Uncertainty
: 4. Combined Analysis Method:
: a. The combined method uses portions of both the linear addition and SRSS methods for combining Uncertainties.
: b. For the combined method, the individual Random Error terms are combined by SRSS to establish a single, resultant Random Error component.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                               AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 46 of 67 5.4.3   Error Combination Methodologies (continued)
: c. Linear addition is then used to combine all non-Random (Bias) terms to establish single positive, and negative, Bias Error components.
: d. The total Error or Uncertainty, is obtained by combining the Random and Bias components of Error, as discussed in Section 5.3.4, Error Component Types.
: e. The basic formula for an Uncertainty calculation takes the form of:
                        = +/-[2 +  2 +  2 +  +  2 ]0.5 +  +
Where:
A,B,C, and n are Random and independent Uncertainty terms.
L and M respectively, are the positive and negative Bias Error terms (i.e., terms which are NOT Random and independent, but are dependent Uncertainties, non-Random, correlated).
Z is resultant Uncertainty. The resultant Uncertainty combines the Random Uncertainty with the positive and negative components of the correlated terms separately to give a final total Uncertainty.
: f. The Random and Bias components for each Device in an Error calculation must remain separate and distinct throughout each intermediate calculation step, except when determining a final total Error.
(1)      In addition, the Bias Errors of opposite signs (+ or -) must remain separate, since Biases can contain Uncertainties which vary in magnitude over time.
* In other words, a Bias may not exist at all moments in time, or always be at its maximum value with respect to other Bias terms. Therefore, the positive and negative Bias terms must be kept separate in order to establish a worst case possible Error.
(2)      Bias terms of opposite sign cannot be assumed to offset each other and thereby, reduce total Error. However, certain Bias terms such as head effects, will always be present and are of known sign and magnitude.
* For these cases, the Bias term could be used in the determination of both the positive and negative Uncertainty terms.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                   AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 47 of 67 5.4.3     Error Combination Methodologies (continued)
: g.      In calculating the total Error, the total Bias Error for a given direction is combined with the Random Error in that direction. This establishes a final set of upper and lower bounds of Error for a group of individual Error terms.
* The bounds represent the limits within which the total Error for a group of individual Errors will remain 95% of the time (assuming all Random Error terms were of 95% probability as discussed in Section 5.3.4 Step 2).
: h.      Application of a non-reoccurring Bias term shall NOT be applied so as to decrease a Total Loop Uncertainty (TLU) value.
* Proper application of a Bias would normally result in reduced margin for the Setpoint limit of interest.
* Terms that have an abnormal distribution cannot be SSRS'd with normally distributed terms and must therefore be added as a limit of Error in both directions.
EXAMPLE If a Loop contains the following Error terms, Process measurement Error = +0.5 (Bias)
Transmitter Accuracy = +/-0.25 (Random)
IR Error = -1.2 (Bias)
Indicator Accuracy = +/-0.5 (Random)
The total Loop Uncertainty, TLU, is calculated as:
TLU = +/- [0.252 + 0.52]0.5 + 0.5 - 1.2
           = +/- 0.56 + 0.5 - 1.2
           = + 1.06 / - 1.76 The total Error is between +1.06 and -1.76 of the true value.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                               AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 48 of 67 5.4.3   Error Combination Methodologies (continued)
: i. In determining the Random portion of an Uncertainty, situations may arise where two or more Random terms are not totally independent of each other, but are independent of the other Random terms.
* This dependent relationship can be accommodated within the SRSS method by algebraically summing the dependent Random terms prior to performing the SRSS determination.
* The formula would take the following form:
                                     = +/-[2 +  2 +  2 + ( + )2 ]0.5 +  +
Where:
D and E are Random, dependent Uncertainty terms that are independent of terms A, B and C.
: j. The combined analysis method can be used in the calculation of either a Device Uncertainty or a total Loop Uncertainty.
* The results are independent of the order of combination, as long as the dependent terms and non-Random terms are accounted for properly. For example:
The Uncertainty of a Device can be determined from its individual terms and then combined with other Device Uncertainties to provide a Loop Uncertainty.
OR All of the specific Device terms for each Device in the Loop can be combined in one Loop Uncertainty formula.
* Either way, the result will be the same. The specific groupings of an Uncertainty formula can be varied for convenience of understanding.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                 AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 49 of 67 5.5     Establishment of Uncertainty Allowances 5.5.1   Overview
: 1. All of the potential Error effects for a Loop must be evaluated, and applicable effects incorporated into a Loop Error analysis.
: 2. The analysis may cover the total Loop from process to final output Device, or only that portion of a Loop needed to perform a specific function.
: 3. The Loop Error analysis will establish the total Uncertainty in a Loop's measurement under the conditions of concern.
: 4. From the total Uncertainty, allowances can be established and used to delineate the required control limits.
* These allowances define the boundaries of Uncertainty a Loop can possess under various operating conditions.
* Allowances are used to define the acceptable levels of performance an instrument or Loop must meet to satisfy its functional criteria.
5.5.2   Graded Approach
: 1. The concept behind "Graded Approaches to Setpoint Determination" is that all of the rigor and conservatism established in ISA-RP67.04.02, Methodologies for the Determination of Setpoints for Nuclear Safety Related Instrumentation, is not warranted for all safety-related setpoints in a Nuclear Plant.
: 2. A graded approach uses a less rigorous Uncertainty analyses.
: a.      The level of analyses should be commensurate with the significance of the function performed (i.e., significance to nuclear safety).
* For instance, a pressure switch application which provides charging pump trip on low suction pressure (only in absence of a safety injection signal) is merely an equipment protective function.
Therefore, a graded approach to the Loop Uncertainty calculation might elect only to address reference Accuracy and Calibration Tolerance.
: b.      An additional consideration for the level of rigor applied via a graded approach may be that the setpoint merely represents a nominal design value based on typical industry practice, or past operating history.
: c.      In these cases where an analytical or process limit may not exist, an evaluation based on engineering judgment, which demonstrates adequate system or equipment performance may be more suitable.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                       AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 50 of 67 5.5.2   Graded Approach (continued)
: 3. In general, the minimum Uncertainty analyses via a graded approach would comprise Square-Root-Sum-of-the-Squares (SRSS) combination of a calibration setting Tolerance allowance and published performance specifications for Accuracy (Repeatability) and Drift.
: 4. In lieu of published specifications, reference Accuracy or Drift (calibration interval) could be assumed equal to calibration setting Tolerance.
* ISA TR 67.04.09-2005, Graded Approaches to Setpoint Determination, contains additional guidance on the application of the graded approach.
: 5. Setpoint/Uncertainty analyses for potential trip hazards, personnel and equipment protection may be warranted on a case-by-case basis (although not specifically addressed here-in). However, those analyses have typically been established based on successful operating history and experience, and standard industrial practice.
: 6. The graded approach consists of defining a classification scheme and then establishing a corresponding level of rigor for each of the different classification schemes.
: 7. Table 1, Recommended Instrument Loop Categorization, defines five categories of applications, as well as the appropriate level of detail for calculations falling into the various categories.
Table 1, Recommended Instrument Loop Categorization Category                    Application/Function                    Appropriate Level of Calculation Detail
* Setpoints which initiate reactor protection and      Applications shall have a documented safeguard functions (e.g., RPS, ESFAS)               rigorous calculation basis in accordance
* Setpoints and indications that:                      with this procedure, with the exceptions noted in Section 2.0 Step 5 and as perform an active safety function or whose specified below.
failure could prevent the performance of a safety function 1          are relied upon for the manual performance of a safety function (e.g. Reg Guide 1.97 Type A variables typically relied upon within Emergency Procedures).
These applications would be essential for emergency reactor shutdown, containment isolation, reactor or containment cooling, or to prevent the significant release of radioactive material.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                          AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 51 of 67 5.5.2   Graded Approach (continued)
Category                     Application/Function                   Appropriate Level of Calculation Detail Setpoints or indications required to maintain or verify  Category 2 applications shall have a significant parameters associated with the safety        documented rigorous calculation basis in analyses (typically would encompass the Technical        accordance with this procedure, with the Specification LCO requirements)                          exceptions noted in Section 2.0 Step 5 and as specified below.
* It is acknowledged that some Category 2 applications may not have an explicit limiting value or analytical limit to support rigorous Setpoint determination. Similarly, consideration of instrument Uncertainty may not be 2                                                                  warranted for parameters that would not have a significant effect on the analysis of record, or if the analysis approach included significant conservatisms relative to potential instrument Uncertainty. In these cases, an Uncertainty calculation may not be required, or the application of a graded approach analysis as discussed below may be warranted.
For these cases justification should be provided.
RG 1.97 Type B, C, D, E variables required to monitor:   Category 3 applications should have a performance of a safety function, potential breach of    documented calculation basis via graded 3     fission product barrier, the performance of a safety     approach.
system or system important to operation, and to quantify or assess a potential radioactive release.
Other safety-related instrument applications.
* Vendor skid instrumentation indication or Setpoints which function primarily for equipment protection and are not critical to the operation of the        Category 4 and 5 applications do NOT 4          associated safety system (e.g. a low cooling water  require a calculation, and in many cases, pressure diesel trip interlock, which is overridden could be established based on past during emergency operation).                        operating history and experience, standard industry practice, or engineering judgment.
* Other indication, alarm, interlock, permissive, control functions 5     Other non-safety-related instrumentation applications

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                  AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 52 of 67 5.5.2   Graded Approach (continued)
: 8. Additional guidance is warranted regarding revision to existing calculations, which may have been based on a different methodology, or which may not have been as comprehensive or conservative as the methodology endorsed here-in.
* These instances are reviewed on a case by case basis.
* An objective assessment of the calculation must be performed, whereby the extent of the revision must be considered, in addition to the over-all technical adequacy of the calculation.
* If the calculation revision is minor in scope and the calculation conclusions are technically defensible (i.e., would NOT significantly change in a non-conservative direction if re-analyzed in accordance with the methodology outlined here-in), then a total calculation revision per this procedure would NOT be required.
* If the calculation revision is substantive and the conservatism of the conclusions controversial, then the revision should be in accordance with the methodology outlined here-in, with exceptions noted in Section 2.0 Step 5.
: 9. The determination of what a Setpoint Uncertainty calculation should consider include, but is not limited to the following. The engineer, in conjunction with Engineering management, will make these basis decisions before the calculations are started.
* Safety classification
* Operational aspects
* Consequences of exceeding limits
: 10. Setpoints which should be eligible for less rigorous treatment are those NOT explicitly credited for in statistical or analytic plant design (accident) analyses, but are instead based on utility, industry or vendor experience, consistent with engineering judgment.
: 11. Documentation for the calculation can take the form of a formalized calculation, an Engineering Change (EC) response, or a data sheet that shows the basis for the Setpoints.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                  AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 53 of 67 5.6     TSTF-493 Implementation NOTES
* This section provides criteria to support implementation of Technical Specification Task Force document TSTF-493, Revision 4, Clarify Application of Setpoint Methodology for Limiting Safety System Settings.
5.6.1   TSTF-493 Applicability
: 1. Applicability of the requirements in this section is currently limited to:
* Those specific Technical Specification functions for which compliance with TSTF-493 has been committed within a facility's Operating License
* Those design activities performed in support of pending Licensing Amendment Requests for which TSTF-493 compliance is required.
5.6.2   Determination of Technical Specification Trip Setpoints and Allowable Values
: 1. Technical Specification Trip Setpoints and Technical Specification Allowable Values are determined using the same generic methodology described in FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE, Engineering Instrument Setpoint Methodology/Uncertainty and Discussion.
: 2. No unique or additional requirements are imposed by TSTF-493 applicability.
5.6.3   Determination of Surveillance Test As-Found Acceptance Criteria
: 1. Specific tolerances to be applied as As-Found Surveillance Test acceptance criteria shall be established as directed in FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE, subject to the following clarifications and restrictions:
: 2. The As-Found Tolerance should be based on Reference Accuracy, Drift, and Measurement and Test Equipment (M&TE) Uncertainties.
: 3. No additional margin should be applied, except as permitted per Section 5.6.3 Step 4.
: 4. In cases where unique circumstances suggest inclusion of specific Uncertainty factors (not discretionary margin) in the As-Found Tolerance beyond those permitted in the preceding step, the basis for that inclusion shall be explicitly documented within the calculation.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                 AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 54 of 67 5.6.4   Determination of Surveillance Test As-Left Acceptance Criteria
: 1. Specific Tolerances to be applied as As-Left Surveillance Test acceptance criteria shall be established as discussed in FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE, Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology and Discussion, subject to the following clarifications and restrictions:
: a.      The As-Left tolerance should be based on Reference Accuracy and Measurement and Test Equipment (M&TE) Uncertainties. No additional margin should be applied, except as permitted per Section 5.6.4 Step 1.b.
: b.      In cases where unique circumstances suggest inclusion of specific Uncertainty factors (NOT discretionary margin) in the As-Left Tolerance beyond those permitted in Section 5.6.4 Step 1.a, the basis for that inclusion shall be explicitly documented within the calculation.
5.6.5   Use of As-Found and As-Left Acceptance Criteria in Surveillance Tests
: 1. All Surveillance Test Procedures include acceptance criteria requiring test results to be within Technical Specification Allowable Values. These criteria are unchanged by TSTF-493 applicability.
: 2. For Surveillance Test Procedures subject to TSTF-493, the following additional acceptance criterion shall be applied:
: a.      As-Found trip settings NOT within the As-Found Tolerance band (as specifically established in Section 5.6.3, Determination of Surveillance Test As-Found Acceptance Criteria) shall be evaluated for Operability.
: b.      As-Left trip settings shall be within the As-Left Tolerance band (as specifically established in Section 5.6.4, Determination of Surveillance Test As-Left Acceptance Criteria) around the desired trip setting.
: c.      In the case where a Surveillance Test Procedure does NOT provide separate As-Found and As-Left Tolerances, the single Tolerance specified must be used for both purposes and its magnitude must be less than or equal to the magnitude of the As-Left Tolerance (as established in Section 5.6.4).
* This approach effectively excludes any allowance for potential instrument Drift and should only be utilized in applications that are known to be exceptionally stable. Otherwise, test results might unnecessarily cause entry into the Out-of-Tolerance evaluation and operability determination steps defined in Section 5.6.6, Response to Surveillance Test Out-of-Tolerance As-Found Results.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                                 AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 55 of 67 5.6.6   Response to Surveillance Test Out-of-Tolerance As-Found Results
: 1. Surveillance Test Procedures shall include specific requirements for maintenance technicians to perform the following actions when As-Found results are found to be outside the As-Found Tolerance band:
: a.      Ensure prompt notification to Operations of the initial Out-of-Tolerance test result.
: b.      Attempt to adjust the trip setting to within the As-Left Tolerance.
(1)    If resetting to within the As-Left Tolerance is successful, then consider whether the adjustment activity revealed any unusual Device response or whether any adverse physical or functional conditions are apparent.
(2)    Determine whether the function can be reasonably expected to perform satisfactorily throughout the next surveillance interval.
: c.      Report the results of Step 1.b to Operations.
* This action constitutes a recommendation by Maintenance for use in a determination by Operations regarding whether the function can be declared operable.
: 2. Initiate a Condition Report within the Corrective Action Program describing the Out-of-Tolerance Surveillance Test result for further evaluation by Engineering.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                          AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 56 of 67 6.0   RECORDS No records generated by this procedure.

==7.0   REFERENCES==

7.1   Commitments
: 1.    [RNP] LER 95-009-01, 2/1/96, Condition Prohibited by Technical Specification Due to Inoperable Safety Injection 7.2   Procedures
: 1. AD-DC-ALL-0202, Writer's Manual for Controlled Procedure Manual Procedures
: 2. AD-EG-ALL-1106, Configuration Management and Margin Management.
: 3. AD-EG-ALL-1117, Design Analyses and Calculations
: 4. AD-EG-ALL-1137, Engineering Change Product Selection
: 5. AD-EG-ALL-1216, Surveillance Frequency Control Program (SFCP)
: 6. AD-EG-ALL-1612, Environmental Qualification (EQ) Program
: 7. AD-LS-ALL-0008, 10CFR50.59 Review Process
: 8. AD-NF-ALL-0807, Reload Design Process
: 9. AD-SS-ALL-0001, Control of Portable Measuring and Test Equipment and Plant Tools and Portable Media/Mobile Devices (PMMD)
: 10.   [CNS, MNS, ONS] NSD 219, Instrument and Electrical Device Calibration Out of Tolerance (OOT) 7.3   Miscellaneous Documents
: 1. 10 CFR 50.36, Technical Specifications
: 2. ANSI/ISA-67.04.01, Setpoints for Nuclear Safety-Related Instrumentation, 2018
: 3. ANSI/ISA-TR67.04.08-1996, Setpoints for Sequenced Actions (NOT approved by the NRC)
: 4. ANSI/ASTM E 178-1989, Standard Practice for Dealing with Outlying Observations

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                            AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 57 of 67 7.3   Miscellaneous Documents (continued)
: 5. ANSI N15.15-1974, Assessment of the Assumption of Normality (Employing Individual Observed Values)
: 6. ANSI/ASME PTC 19.1-1985, Part I, "Measurement Uncertainty", Instruments and Apparatus, Supplement to ASME Performance Test Code
: 7. ASME B&PV Code, Sect III Div 1, Appendices, 1986 Edition, Nominal Coefficients of Thermal Expansion, Material Group a, Coefficient C
: 8. ASME MFC-3M-1985, Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using Orifice, Nozzle, and Venturi
: 9. ASME PTC 19.5, Part II, Application of Fluid Meters-Especially Differential Pressure Type
: 10. Basic Statistical Methods for Engineers & Scientists, 2nd Edition, by J.B.
Kennedy & A.M. Neville
: 11.   [CNS] CNM 1201.01-0494-001, Westinghouse Setpoint Methodology for Protection Systems, Catawba Nuclear Station
: 12.   [RNP] CPL-89-634, HBR - The potential for formation of air entraining vortices in the Aux.Feed Pump Suction from the Condensate Storage Tank
: 13. Considine, Douglas M., Process Instruments and Controls Handbook, McGraw-Hill, 1957
: 14. CRC handbook of Chemistry and Physics
: 15.   [HNP] Document 1364-53067, Westinghouse Setpoint Methodology for Protection Systems, Shearon Harris
: 16. EPRI TR-103335, Guidelines for Instrumentation Calibration Extension/Reduction
: 17. FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE, Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology and Discussion
: 18. Flow Measurement Engineering Handbook by R. W. Miller, Third Edition
: 19. Fluid Meters - Their Theory and Application - 6th Edition, 1971
: 20. General Electric Information Letter, SIL No. 470, dated 9/16/88, and Supplement 1, dated 4/20/89
: 21.   [BNP] General Electric Instrument Trending Analysis System (GEITAS),
Version 1.0b

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                           AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 58 of 67 7.3   Miscellaneous Documents (continued)
: 22. Generic Letter 87-02, Enclosure 1, Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report No. 2, on Seismic Qualification Utility Group's Generic Implementation Procedure, Revision 2, Corrected February 14, 1992, for Implementation of GL 87-02 (USI A 46), Verification Of Seismic Adequacy Of Equipment In Older Operating Nuclear Plants
: 23. IE Information Notice 82-11, Potential Inaccuracies in Wide Range Pressure Instruments Used in Westinghouse Designed Plants, April 9, 1982
: 24. IE Information Notice 84-54, Deficiencies in Design Base Documentation and Calculations Supporting Nuclear Power Plant Design, July 5, 1984
: 25. INPO 84-026, Setpoint Change Control Program, Revision 1, Good Practice TS-405, June, 1986
: 26. INPO 85-031 Chapter VI, Setpoint Control
: 27. Instrumentational Measurements for Power and Flow of PWR Reactors, February, 1985
: 28. ISA-RP3.2, Flange Mounted Sharp Edged Orifice Plates for Flow Measurement
: 29. ISA-RP67.04.02, Methodologies for the Determination of Setpoints for Nuclear Safety Related Instrumentation, 2010
: 30. ISA-TR 9, Graded Approach To Setpoint Determination, Draft Revision, dated 12/1/93
: 31. ISA-TR 67.04.09-2006, Graded Approaches to Setpoint Determination
: 32. Liptak, Bela G. and Venczel, Kriszta, Process Measurement Instrument Engineers Handbook, Chilton Book Company, 1982
: 33. Magison, E.C., Temperature Measurement in Industry, Instrument Society of America, 1990
: 34.   [MNS] MCM 1201.01-564- 001, Westinghouse Reactor Protection System/Engineered Safety Features Actuation System Setpoint Methodology, Duke Power Co., McGuire Unit 1, 50-369, dated April 1981
: 35.   [CNS] NCR 1401049 and CA#2, There are several inconsistencies in the UFSAR Chapter 7 discussion of the uncertainty calculations for safety-related setpoints

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                           AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 59 of 67 7.3   Miscellaneous Documents (continued)
: 36.   [CNS] NCR 1547406, Catawba determines many setpoints in calculations and implements them directly in procedures with no documentation in design documentation
: 37. NRC Information Notice 89-68, "Evaluation of Instrument Setpoints During Modifications", September 25, 1989
: 38. NRC Information Notice 91-29, "Deficiencies Identified During Electrical Distribution System Functional Inspections", April 15, 1991.
: 39. NRC Information Notice 91-75, "Static Head Corrections Mistakenly Not Included in Pressure Transmitter Calibration Procedures", November 25, 1991.
: 40. NRC Information Notice 92-12, "Effects of Cable Leakage Currents on Instrument Settings and Indications", February 10, 1992.
: 41. NRC Information Notice 96-22, "Improper Equipment Settings Due to the Use of Nontemperature-Compensated Test Equipment"
: 42. NRC Inspection Report of San Onofre Units 2 & 3, Report Numbers 50- 361/91-01 and 50-362/91-01, dated April 12, 1991
: 43. NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2006-17, NRC Staff Position on the Requirements of 10 CFR 50.36, "Technical Specifications," Regarding Limiting Safety System Settings During Periodic Testing and Calibration of Instrument Channels
: 44. NRC Systems Based Instrumentation and Control Inspection at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Unit 1, Report No. 50-293/91-201, dated January 6, 1992.
: 45. NRC Systems-Based Instrumentation and Control Inspection at the Haddam Neck Plant, Report No. 50-213/92-902, dated April 23, 1992.
: 46. NUREG/CR-3659 - A Mathematical Model for Assessing the Uncertainties of Process Instrumentation Terminology, ANSI/ISA-S51.1-1979
: 47. Regulatory Guide 1.105, Instrument Setpoints for Safety Related Systems, Revisions. 1, 2 & 3, dated November, 1976, February, 1986 & December, 1999
: 48. Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Final Safety Analysis Report.
: 49. Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Technical Specifications Bases.
: 50. Spiegel, M.R., Theory and Problems of Probability and Statistics, Appendix C, Schaums Outline Series, New York; Mcgraw Hill, 1975
: 51. Standards Laboratory Quality Directive, Revision 0, dated 10-12-11.

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                           AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 60 of 67 7.3   Miscellaneous Documents (continued)
: 52. TSTF-493, Revision 4, Clarify Application of Setpoint Methodology for Limiting Safety System Settings
: 53.   [BNP] User Manual, General Electric Instrument Trending Analysis System (GEITAS), GE-NE-901-010-0293, February 1993
: 54.   [HNP] WCAP-12340, Westinghouse Improved Thermal Design Procedure Instrument Uncertainty Methodology for CP&L Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Station, September 1989

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                            AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 61 of 67 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 1 of 7
                         << Standard Figures >>
Figure 1, Hysteresis and Dead Band

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                        AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 62 of 67 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 2 of 7
                        << Standard Figures >>
Figure 2, Reference Accuracy

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                      AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 63 of 67 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 3 of 7
                        << Standard Figures >>
Figure 3, Repeatability

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                            AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 64 of 67 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 4 of 7
                         << Standard Figures >>
Figure 4, Typical Instrument Loop Figure 5, Typical Loop Breakdown

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                                    AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 65 of 67 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 5 of 7
                           << Standard Figures >>
Figure 6, Instrument Loop Error Analysis Diagram

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                           AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 66 of 67 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 6 of 7
                         << Standard Figures >>
Figure 7, Measurement Uncertainty

ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT                        AD-EG-ALL-1153 SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY CALCULATIONS Rev. 0 Page 67 of 67 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 7 of 7
                        << Standard Figures >>
Figure 8, Total Uncertainty RA-23-0015 Attachment 3 FAD-EG-ALL-1153, Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology and Discussion (Reference 4.6.6 of Attachment 1)
(179 pages follow)

Facility Code :            NGD Applicable Facilities :    BNP;CN;HNP;MC;NGO;ON;RNP Document Number :          FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE Document Revision Number : 000 Document EC Number :
Change Reason :
Document Title :           Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainity Methodology and Discussion Ballard, Samuel C           Preparer                                      4/27/2021 Welch, Edward M.            Reviewer                                      4/28/2021 Hearne, Bradley             Reviewer                                      4/28/2021 Stroupe, Charles            Approver                                      4/28/2021 Notes :

DUKE ENERGY FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE ENGINEERING INSTRUMENT SETPOINT/UNCERTAINTY METHODOLOGY AND DISCUSSION REVISION 0

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                                                                 FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 2 of 178 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION                                                                                                                                                              PAGES 1.0     PURPOSE...............................................................................................................................................................4 2.0     SCOPE .....................................................................................................................................................................4 3.0     DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................................................................4 4.0     RESPONSIBILITIES ...........................................................................................................................................4 5.0     DIRECTIONS .........................................................................................................................................................4 5.1     INSTRUMENT UNCERTAINTIES................................................................................................ 4 5.1.1   REFERENCE ACCURACY (A / RA) .......................................................................................... 5 5.1.2   DRIFT ................................................................................................................................... 6 5.1.3   TEMPERATURE EFFECT (TE) ............................................................................................... 10 5.1.4   STATIC PRESSURE EFFECT (SPE) ...................................................................................... 12 5.1.5   OVERPRESSURE EFFECT (OP) ............................................................................................ 15 5.1.6   POWER SUPPLY EFFECT (PSE) .......................................................................................... 15 5.1.7   NORMAL R ADIATION EFFECTS ............................................................................................. 16 5.1.8   ACCIDENT EFFECTS ............................................................................................................ 16 5.1.9   READABILITY/RESOLUTION (RE. RES. RRA) ...................................................................... 23 5.1.10  SINGLE SIDED SETPOINTS AND 2 REDUCTION .................................................................... 24 5.1.11  VORTEX CONSIDERATIONS FOR TANK LEVELS ..................................................................... 25 5.2     OTHER ERRORS ................................................................................................................. 26 5.2.1   CALIBRATION ERRORS (CE \ CTE \ CAL) ............................................................................ 26 5.2.2   INSULATION RESISTANCE ERROR (IR) ................................................................................. 37 5.2.3   CONDUIT SEAL EFFECTS (CSE) .......................................................................................... 40 5.2.4   RTD LEAD WIRE EFFECTS (LW) ......................................................................................... 40 5.2.5   RTD SELF HEATING EFFECT (SH) ...................................................................................... 41 5.2.6   DYNAMIC FUNCTION EFFECTS ............................................................................................. 42 5.2.7   CONDITIONS FOR WHICH UNCERTAINTY IS D ETERMINED ...................................................... 43 5.2.8   LOOP ERROR DETERMINATION ............................................................................................ 44 5.2.9   UNCERTAINTY ALLOWANCES ............................................................................................... 49 5.3     SETPOINT DETERMINATION ................................................................................................. 55 5.3.1   LIMITS ................................................................................................................................ 56 5.3.2   SETPOINTS ......................................................................................................................... 61 5.3.3   APPLICATION OF MARGIN .................................................................................................... 70 5.3.4   REDUCING OVER-CONSERVATISMS...................................................................................... 71 5.3.5   DEAD BAND AND RESET ...................................................................................................... 72 5.3.6   TIME RESPONSE ................................................................................................................. 73 5.3.7   SETPOINTS FOR SEQUENCED ACTUATIONS .......................................................................... 74

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                                                            FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 3 of 178 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION                                                                                                                                                         PAGES 6.0     RECORDS ............................................................................................................................................................75

==7.0     REFERENCES==
 ....................................................................................................................................................75 7.1     PROCEDURES ..................................................................................................................... 75 7.2     MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS ............................................................................................ 75 ATTACHMENT 1 Desk-Top Procedure and Recommended Calculation Format ................... 77 ATTACHMENT 2 General Guidance and Standard Assumptions ........................................... 82 ATTACHMENT 3 DEP Forms.................................................................................................... 86 ATTACHMENT 4 DEC Modules ............................................................................................... 92 ATTACHMENT 5 DEP Modules ............................................................................................... 94 ATTACHMENT 6 Specific Gravity Determination for Boric Acid Solutions........................... 100 ATTACHMENT 7 Conversion of Error Bias ........................................................................... 104 ATTACHMENT 8 Drift Determination Based on As-Found/As-Left Values .......................... 107 ATTACHMENT 9 Sample Calculation for a Flow Orifice Application.................................... 110 ATTACHMENT 10 Basic Statistical Methods/Techniques ...................................................... 127 ATTACHMENT 11 Process Measurement Error ..................................................................... 137 ATTACHMENT 12 Surveillance Test Acceptance Criteria - Measurement Error ................... 173

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 4 of 178 1.0    PURPOSE The objective of this Functional Area Document (FAD) is to provide specific details and examples related to the use of the methodology described in AD-EG-ALL-1153, Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Calculations, to help ensure NGD design practices remain compatible with industry practices. Use of this document is not required to perform engineering instrument setpoint/uncertainty calculations.
This document is not a procedure, although procedure formatting is used. This document is prepared and revised in accordance with AD-EG-ALL-1176, Preparation of Engineering Documents.
2.0    SCOPE Scope is defined in AD-EG-ALL-1153, Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Calculations.
3.0    DEFINITIONS Definitions are defined in AD-EG-ALL-1153, Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Calculations.
4.0    RESPONSIBILITIES Responsibilities are defined in AD-EG-ALL-1153, Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Calculations.
5.0    DIRECTIONS 5.1    Instrument Uncertainties All instruments have limits on their ability to accurately perform their function. These limits of accuracy, generally expressed as inaccuracies or errors, vary, based on the specific design capabilities of the instrument, and the service within which it is used.
By evaluating the various effects on instrument accuracy, a total uncertainty limit can be established for the instrument.
Each instrument has a basic accuracy established by its manufacturer. In addition, various types of instruments have different parameters which affect their basic accuracy. While one type of instrument may be greatly affected by a change in humidity, another may show no effect. The instrument's basic accuracy, and all of the applicable parameters which can affect its accuracy, must be taken into account in performing loop uncertainty analyses.
The information described below must typically be obtained from the vendor, either through product data sheets, test reports, technical manuals, etc. In order to maintain consistency between calculations that utilize the same types of devices, it is recommended that the vendor data be obtained from the same common sources.
Ideally, the information should come from the plant's vendor technical manuals since

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 5 of 178 these are controlled. However, some information may not be within these reports and other sources may need to be utilized. Whenever possible, the vendor technical manuals should be updated to include any information obtained from supplemental sources. Whenever the vendor is contacted, the information obtained via letter, telecon, telecopy, etc. should be documented and maintained in a manner that will allow subsequent calculations to utilize the same information.
The major parameters which govern an instrument's accuracy are discussed below.
Additional parameters may be identified, by a manufacturer, as having an influence on the specific instrumentation. These parameters, and their effects, would be handled in the same manner as those described below.
Each of the major parameters which affect an instrument's accuracy has been assigned an abbreviation to aid in the identification of error terms within a specific error analysis.
5.1.1 Reference Accuracy (A / RA)
The Reference Accuracy (A / RA) of a device is the base performance accuracy of a device, typically established by the manufacturer. The RA should include the effects of hysteresis, repeatability and linearity for an instrument. Where these effects are not included, the individual effects of the omitted components should be included separately or resolved with the vendor to be not applicable. For example, one instrument's manufacturer may provide separate values for accuracy and repeatability. If the accuracy value does not include the repeatability value, they must be combined to determine the overall reference accuracy. The vendor may provide guidance on how they should be combined, either algebraically or SRSS. If no guidance is given, they should be combined via SRSS.
For some devices such as bistables, no reference accuracy is provided by the vendor. Instead, the vendor may only provide a value for repeatability. If the vendor states that this is the only applicable term for the device, then it can be used as the reference accuracy.
Reference accuracy is considered to be a random error component unless specifically indicated otherwise by a manufacturer and is normally stated in terms of percent of span for the instrument.
The RA is the accuracy that an instrument can meet, and it defines the limits of acceptable performance in normal operation. The RA typically can only be met over a small band of operating conditions specified by the manufacturer.
The RA value is generally established by a manufacturer based on equipment testing. The results of the testing allow a manufacturer to statistically define the performance of an instrument and develop an RA value with a high degree of confidence. While some disagreement exists on the degree of statistical confidence a manufacturer's RA value should have, for the purposes of this document a 95%
confidence factor (or 2) will be assumed. Thus, a vendor should be contacted to

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                 FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 6 of 178 determine whether his published reference accuracy values represent 1, 2, 3, or some other  value. If such information cannot be provided by the vendor, the values will be assumed to be 2. This is based on common industry practice. Refer to Attachment 10 for additional discussions on statistics.
Reference accuracies should be established based on vendor information applicable to the specific equipment. In some cases, the vintage of the equipment at the plants may preclude the identification of equipment specific reference accuracies. For calculations that require more rigor, the use of test data or other means may be more appropriate than using the reference accuracy values as listed in the table below. Where no specific information can be obtained, default values may be used as the reference accuracy. Default values can include, but are not limited to: test data, historical analysis, calibration tolerance, etc. The last resort may be to use the following values as reasonable representations of reference accuracy. However, the calibration tolerance or the default values should be used for the reference accuracy only after a valid effort has been made to obtain specific vendor values.
Table 5-1 Baseline Reference Accuracies Equipment               Representative Reference Accuracies Thermocouples              +/-1.0% of span RTDs                  +/-0.5% of span Pressure transmitters          +/-1.0% of span (incl. d/p)
Recorders                +/-2.0% of span Indicators (Analog -          +/-2.0% of span PWRs)
(Analog - BWRs)             +/-3.0% of span (Digital)              +/-0.5% of span Values are based on References 7.2.18 and 7.2.19, and common industry values.
5.1.2 Drift Drift (DR) is a natural phenomenon exhibited by instrumentation and is caused by the changing properties of instrument components due to aging or other naturally occurring phenomena. The individual elements of an instrument all have characteristics which may vary with time. The culmination of these changes imparts a specific drift characteristic to an instrument. Drift is a measure of an instrument's stability over time and is often referred to as stability by a vendor. Although the magnitude of drift would not be expected to be time dependent, drift uncertainty

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                   FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev.a Page 7 of 178 should be based on the typical or maximum calibration interval, channel check, and/or functional check, with respect to the published drift magnitude per unit time.
For most instruments, drift is typically considered proportional to a given period of time. As more time is allowed, the potential error due to drift increases. Some instrument manufacturers though, are able to put a bounding value on drift. This bounding allows increased time periods without incurring additional inaccuracies beyond a maximum drift value.
In a nuclear power facility, drift for a loop is generally broken into two parts, sensor drift, and signal processing drift. The two are separated to allow periodic verification of loop calibration parameters. Many times, a loop's sensor is inaccessible for calibration/verification during operation while the remaining components are accessible. By maintaining separate drift components, additional flexibility is provided for maintaining accurate instrumentation systems.
Drift is usually specified in terms of a limiting value per unit of time and is considered a random error component unless otherwise indicated by a manufacturer. The actual drift value for a loop must be determined using the anticipated time interval between calibrations for a loop. With regard to surveillances, the Technical Specifications allow a grace period of the nominal frequency, by an amount of 25% of the specified interval. For example, if a surveillance's frequency is specified as each refueling (i.e.
18 months), the actual frequency could be up to 18 +/- 25% months, or 22.5 months.
Therefore, the interval taken as the calibration interval must be the maximum interval allowed by a plant's program, and not just the nominal interval.
In many cases, the drift value specified by a manufacturer may be less than the actual calibration interval. If possible, the manufacturer should be contacted to determine if more recent drift data is available, or if he can provide guidance on how it should be applied to longer intervals than what is published. Otherwise, the drift value should be extrapolated out to encompass the calibration interval.
Linear extrapolation of a published drift specification is expected to yield a conservative estimate, since most electronic modules exhibit the majority of drift during the first few months of operation, after which the output does not drift significantly subsequent to the initial settle in period.
Linear Drift (n periods)  =n
* Drift( one period)
Linear interpolation of a vendor specification should be avoided, since it may not be representative nor conservative. Interpolation of a drift specification may be suitable for cases in which the vendor specification is based on an excessive period of time with-respect to the surveillance interval; however, formal vendor confirmation should be obtained if a drift specification is interpolated.
SRSS extrapolation of drift is based on drift being random-and independent for a given time interval. This is suitable approach for most instrumentation.
SRSS Drift (n periods)  = ~
* Drift (n period)

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                 FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 8 of 178 Linear extrapolation would be more conservative and therefore the preferred approach; however, in some cases (i.e. whereby vendor drift specification is for short interval, e.g. drift for Hydrogen analyzers, may be specified as +/-2%FS/week) an 'SRSS' drift determination may yield a more representative extrapolation value.
The 'SRSS' drift determination is not appropriate for interpolation.
Consider the following example:
Example:
A manufacturer specifies a drift value of +/-0.25% span for 6 months for his device.
The range of the device is 0-500 psig and is calibrated from 0-440 psig. The nominal surveillance interval is 18 months.
The simplest and most conservative approach is to assume that the drift is linear with respect to time. This would provide a drift value of, 18 months +/- 25% = 22.5 months (22.5 months) * (500 psig)
* 0.25% = +/-1.07% cal. span (6 months)        (440 psig)
Note that the manufacturer specified a drift value of +/-0.25% span. Frequently, vendors specify a value in terms of span which correlates to range, not calibrated span. That was the case here. Thus the range of the instrument, 500 psig, is divided by the calibrated span the instrument is used for this application, 440 psig. This factor is frequently referred to as the Turndown Factor (TDF) or turndown ratio.
Anytime a value is being converted from units of range of an instrument to its span, the turndown factor must be applied.
As stated above, treating the drift linearly is a rather simple and conservative approach. A more realistic estimate is that the drift is random and independent with respect to each time interval. Based on this estimate, the drift may be calculated using the SRSS method. Using the SRSS method, the drift would be calculated as follows, 18 months +/- 25% = 22.5 months or, ~ 4 separate 6 month intervals DR = [ (0.25)2 + (0.25)2 + (0.25)2 + (0.25)2 ]0.5 * (500)
(440)
DR = (4)0.5 * (0.25) *        (500)
(440)
DR = +/- 0.57% cal. Span Although either method may be used, the SRSS method is the preferred method for the NGD plants.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 9 of 178 The drift value for a device should primarily be obtained from vendor information.
However, there may be some instances where either vendor data does not exist, or the vendor data is rather conservative and it is desirable to try to use another method. In the absence of, or in place of a vendor drift specification, Attachment 8 provides additional guidance regarding establishment of drift values based on actual calibration data. For electronic modules and indicators, whereby the vendor does not provide a drift specification, a drift magnitude can be assumed equal to the device reference accuracy over the desired time interval. For process sensors drift should not simply be assumed equal to the device reference accuracy, unless the assumption is supported by published drift values for a representative cross-section of similar devices, and/or previous calibration data.
A drift value for a particular device can be inferred from an analysis of the device's calibration history. The overall methodology for calculating drift in this manner is described in Appendix E of Reference 7.2.1. Reference 7.2.9 contains detailed guidelines for analysis of instrument drift based on calibration history. [BNP -
References 7.2.13 and 7.2.14 may be used to analyze historical as-found/as-left data for the purpose of determining instrument drift, either for the existing calibration interval or for interval extension.]
There are several important points which must be understood however, prior to determining drift from as-left/as-found data. First, it should be recognized that the use of as-left/as-found data may actually provide a higher drift value than provided by the manufacturer. Another potential issue is that the analysis may identify that the actual drift for a device is not random, and normally distributed. Thus, instead of being able to SRSS the drift value, it may have to be treated as a bias.
Another factor to consider when assessing whether to determine device specific drift values from as-left/as-found data, is that such an analysis may be rather time consuming. To establish a proper population size often requires collecting numerous surveillance/calibration test results. Each application must also be evaluated for any factors which may cause its data to be different from other applications. As noted in References 7.2.1 and 7.2.9, the as-left/as-found data typically includes uncertainties other than drift, such as temperature effects, humidity, power supply variations, complete M&TE etc. Thus, if possible, such effects should be separated from the as-left/as-found data to provide a value that is more representative of just the drift uncertainty.
When drift values cannot be obtained from a vendor, and analysis of as-left/as-found data is not feasible, default values for drift can be used. However, these should only be used after a reasonable effort has been made to obtain a drift value via another method. Per Reference 7.2.19, typical values which may be assumed for drift are +/-1.0% full scale for 18 months nominal for a sensor and +/-1.0% full scale for 18 months for the total rack, or signal processing equipment.
If default values are used for safety-related applications, then once enough as-left/as-found data is available to calculate a drift value, such data should be used to

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 10 of 178 either validate or replace the default values. If the default value bounds a calculated drift value, the default value can be retained.
Other designations utilized for drift include 'RD' and 'SD' for Rack Drift and Sensor Drift, respectively.
5.1.3 Temperature Effect (TE)
Temperature effect (TE) is the term given to the change in an instrument's accuracy due to changes in ambient temperature. The effect of field ambient temperature fluctuations relative to the instrument calibration temperature, must be considered with respect to instrument performance. Generally, all instruments exhibit some form of TE. The temperature effect is normally stated by a manufacturer in terms of accuracy change per unit change in temperature within the normal operating limits of the device. The TE is caused by changes in temperature between the ambient temperature at time of calibration, and the ambient temperature in normal operation.
The temperature effect is normally stated as an additional percent of span error per unit of temperature. For an instrument transmitter, though, the TE may be stated in terms of the transmitter range. For example, a typical Rosemount Model 1153D transmitter has a TE of, TE = +/-(0.75% Upper Range Limit + 0.5% of span) per 100&deg;F change In this case, the resulting error from the Upper Range Limit (URL), must be calculated and corrected to a percent of span limit before the true TE can be determined. The 1153D transmitter can have any of eight different URLs varying from 30 inches of water to 4000 psi. The proper URL value must be multiplied by 0.75% and divided by the actual span for the transmitter to convert the value to percent of span.
For example, if the URL was 1000 psi and the actual span was 800 psi, the resulting TE would be:
TE =         +/- [(0.75) * (1000) + (0.5)]
(800)
TE =         +/- 1.44% span per 100&deg;F In addition to the TE for normal operating limits, many field mounted devices have an accident temperature effect. The accident temperature effect provides the limits of uncertainty for an instrument when operated outside its normal operating limits. This is discussed further in Section 5.1.7.
The temperature effect is considered a random error term unless otherwise specified by a manufacturer. The TE should be calculated from the maximum range of temperatures for a given location, unless otherwise justified.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology              FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 11 of 178 The temperature band an instrument is normally expected to be exposed to can be determined from the entire design range of temperatures in its location (which is very conservative), or determined from the difference between its assumed calibration temperature and the ranges of temperatures identified in the above documents. For panel mounted enclosed equipment, the normal temperature band for an instrument's location should be considered and may be increased by 10&deg;F, unless it has been determined that minimal heat rise exists, or the heat rise is included in the vendor temperature effect value i.e. (+/-% per 100&deg;F change in ambient). This is to account for the elevated temperatures above the ambient room temperatures inside the racks/panels.
It should be noted that the temperatures identified in the above documents are intended to bound all locations within the stated area. Thus, after further evaluation, these temperatures could potentially be reduced for a specific location.
As an example of how to use the temperature bands and the assumed calibration temperature, consider the Rosemount 1153D transmitter discussed above, located in a Reactor Building. Per nominal temperature band documents, the normal ambient temperature inside the Reactor Building is between 40 and 104&deg;F. An assumed calibration temperature for a sensor, is taken to be 65-90&deg;F. Therefore, the expected normal temperature change for such a transmitter is, T = 90 - 40 =         50&deg;F and, T = 104 - 65 =        39&deg;F The largest expected temperature difference is 50&deg;F and is combined with the vendor specified temperature effect per 100&deg;F determined above to provide the specific normal temperature effect for this application.
TE = +/- 1.44% cal. span * (50&deg;F)
(100&deg;F)
TE = +/- 0.72% cal. span Larger temperature effect errors would be expected under accident conditions when the accident temperature effects at the time of trip are analyzed.
Based on the temperature bands for each of the plants, a typical default value of TE for components and instruments would be +/- 0.50% or +/- 1.00% full scale.
As with the other instrument uncertainties, the TE should be obtained from vendor specific information, combined with the ambient temperature change for a given location. The published 'TE' specifications typically apply to gradual ambient temperature fluctuations within the specified range, and would not be applicable for step changes in ambient temperature (e.g. associated with initial stages of a HELB environment, whereby significant temperature gradients could exist across an instrument cross-section). 'TE' is typically based on the maximum non- accident temperature fluctuation, relative to the potential range of calibration temperatures

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 12 of 178 but can be used for certain accident scenarios where the maximum accident temperature is bounded by the manufacturer specification. Inclusion of the normal temperature effect (TE) with accident environmental allowances (EA) may be overly conservative; however, for ease of calculation, an allowance for both is commonly included. Temperature effect is considered a random-independent term, unless specified otherwise.
Note that in some instances such data may not be available. If, after a reasonable effort has been made to obtain vendor specific data, no such data can be identified, default values can be utilized.
Additional consideration may be necessary if a remote "bench calibration" is performed, and/or if the instrument is rack mounted and subject to significant cabinet heat-rise. Calibration of an instrument at the rack location could effectively account for potential cabinet heat-rise effects, since any potential rack heat- rise would essentially be a fixed magnitude above ambient (i.e. magnitude of heat rise independent of ambient temperature fluctuations in ambient). However, if open rack doors allow the rack to cool down, in-situ calibration would not address rack temperature rise.
Other designations utilized for temperature effect include 'RTE' and 'STE' for Rack and Sensor Temperature Effect, respectively.
5.1.4 Static Pressure Effect (SPE)
Some differential pressure transmitters exhibit an error related to the static pressure (SPE) imposed by the process. This effect is typically treated as a random-independent term, unless specified otherwise. The static pressure effect can cause changes in a transmitter's calibration parameters (at both full and zero span), which affect its basic accuracy. Some manufacturers quote the SPE in terms of basic accuracy changes, while others indicate changes in both a transmitter's zero, and full span calibration parameters. Care must be taken in determining the actual SPE for a transmitter, as it often requires the review of both the manufacturers specifications, and the plant calibration procedures.
The static pressure effect is only applicable to differential pressure transmitters in high static pressure service. For process static pressures less than 200 psi, the SPE is generally not considered, since the resultant error is negligible. If, for a particular manufacturer, the SPE can be determined to be greater than 0.05% of span at less than 200 psi, the effect should be included.
There are three terms that are applicable when considering SPE effects. They are:
: 1) Zero Correction (If not corrected during calibration)
: 2) Span Correction/Process Effect (If not corrected during calibration)
: 3) Span Correction/Uncertainty In the case of Rosemount differential pressure transmitter applications (i.e. where

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                   FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 13 of 178 both the low and high pressure sides of the transmitter cell are exposed to high process static pressure), a static pressure "span correction uncertainty", "zero effect" and "span effect" are specified by the manufacturer. The predictable static pressure span effect would typically be accounted for in the transmitter calibration differential pressure span, whereas the static pressure zero effect must be manually corrected for in the field and is unique to each transmitter. The failure to correct for the static pressure span effect would tend to result in: i) erroneously low flow indication for a flow application, which is most significant at high flows (i.e. the correction is a %input), ii) erroneously high level indication for a reverse acting level application (e.g. SG level), which is most significant at low levels. The static pressure zero effect and span correction uncertainty are specified as "+/-" values and are considered to be random-independent terms, whereas the static pressure span shift is predictable/systematic and must be treated as a bias. The following guidance/clarification is provided:
* If the calibration does not provide for a static pressure span and zero correction, then the static pressure span effect, zero effect and span correction uncertainty must be included in the uncertainty determination.
* If the calibration does provide for a static pressure span and zero correction, then only the static pressure span correction uncertainty need be addressed.
* Commonly the calibration would only correct for the static pressure span effect, whereby the static pressure zero and span correction uncertainty must be included in the uncertainty determination.
Furthermore, if the calibration corrects for static pressure span and/or zero effects, and the instrument function is credited at a point when the process static pressure is different than that for which the correction was based, then an additional uncertainty allowance for the static pressure span and zero effects may need to be considered.
Zero Correction The zero effect occurs at rated pressure with zero input differential to a transmitter. In this case the effects of the static pressure on both the high and low sides tend to cancel each other, but, the slight remaining shift in output is called static pressure effect on zero or zero effect. This effect is a bias error.
While the maximum magnitude of the zero effect is predictable its direction is not. There are two ways to account for this zero effect in pressure loop calibrations.
: a.      Calibrate The Shift Out. The static pressure zero effect can be trimmed out after installation with the unit at operating pressure. Equalize pressure to both process connections and turn the zero adjustment until the ideal output at zero differential input is observed. Another method is to determine the zero effect for a specific instrument via bench testing and then incorporating that value in the scaling calculation or calibration procedure. The uncertainty calculation may

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                 FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 14 of 178 still need to include an additional allowance for variations in system operating pressures different from the assumed reference pressure.
: b.      Account for Shift In Uncertainty Calculations. If the zero effect is neither trimmed out at operating pressure nor specifically bench-measured for a unique transmitter, the manufacturers specified uncertainty effects have to be included in the transmitter uncertainty calculation. As an example, the Rosemount 1153 Series, specifies two effects, +/-0.2% URL per 1000 psi or +/-0.5% URL per 1000 psi, depending on the range code.
Span Correction (Process Effects)
To understand the differential pressure effects for a particular transmitter, one must review that manufacturers data sheets. But, in general when differential pressure is applied to a transmitter the movement is toward zero differential pressure or center position. With this in mind one can see the effect is to decrease output as static pressure is increased. In other words as static pressure increases, a slightly higher differential pressure is required to move the sensing element a given amount. This shift is called static pressure effect on span or span effect, which is systematic or predictable, repeatable, a bias and linear. Because the effect is systematic it can be calibrated out for any given static pressure and span. As an example, the Rosemount 1153 Series this effect is +0.75% of input/1000 psi. This shift can be used in the scaling calculation to adjust the span for the difference between calibration and operating pressures. If this is not calibrated out, this term has to be included in the uncertainty calculation. The uncertainty calculation may still need to include an allowance for variations in system operating pressures different from the assumed reference pressure.
Span Correction (Uncertainty Effect)
The last term to be considered for differential pressure effects is the overall uncertainty value. This number is available from the manufacturer. As an example, the Rosemount 1153 Series is +/-0.5% reading/1000 psi. This term is in the same category as the transmitters reference accuracy, drift, temp.
effects, etc., cannot be calibrated out and has to be included in the uncertainty calculation when appropriate.
When performing an uncertainty calculation for a device and differential pressure is applicable, each of the above three terms have to be considered.
The first two have to be included in the uncertainty calculation if not calibrated out. The third item has to be included in the uncertainty calculation. When any more than one term is used in a calculation, the terms must be treated as dependent terms and added algebraically before being combined with the other uncertainty terms.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 15 of 178 5.1.5 Overpressure Effect (OP)
The overpressure effect accounts for errors in a transmitter's performance after exposure to process pressures in excess of its normal design range. In general, the overpressure effect is not required to be included in loop error analysis. Most loops are designed to operate within their worst case process conditions, which include the worst case process pressure.
Overpressure can affect all types of transmitters. If the process pressure exceeds the URL of the transmitter during Normal or Accident operation of the plant, then the Overpressure Effect needs to be accounted for in the Analysis/Calculation.
Overpressure effects for differential pressure transmitters are not considered to occur from valving the transmitter into service. Plant procedures control the proper method of valving transmitters into service.
5.1.6 Power Supply Effect (PSE)
All electronic instrument loops are powered by low voltage power supplies designed to maintain the loop voltage and current for the loop devices. Power supplies vary from loop to loop with some supplied from unregulated sources while others have precision regulated supplies. Variations in the loop voltage can cause variations in an instrument's accuracy. This variation is called the power supply effect (PSE).
The instrument loops which contain transmitters are generally 4-20 mA current loops, which require a driving potential of 12 to 45 VDC. Selection of the power supply for a specific loop is based on the configuration of the loop, and the required voltages of the individual devices in the loop. Once set, the voltage is generally not changed unless loop performance is unsatisfactory.
The PSE is determined based on the variation in the power supply voltage. Consider the following example, A Rosemount 1153D transmitter has a PSE value of less than 0.005% of output span per volt of change. For an unregulated power supply with a voltage variation of
           +/- 4 VDC, the PSE becomes, PSE = +/- (0.005%) * (4)
PSE = +/- 0.02% output span For instruments with regulated power supplies, the PSE may be negligible because the regulation keeps the voltage variations small. This, coupled with the generally minor effects of the power supply per volt, may allow the PSE to be ignored.Since some loops may have unregulated power supplies, the PSE cannot be totally ignored for all loops. The variations in individual loop power supplies should be determined from the vendor information and/or calculations.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 16 of 178 The PSE is considered a random-independent error due to the generally random variation in actual supply voltage. Where the PSE is found to be less than +/-0.05% of span, the effect can be ignored. Since this is typically the case, if no device specific data for the PSE can be found, it can be ignored. If however, device specific information is found, it should be compared to the +/-0.05% of span to deter/mine whether or not it should be included in the uncertainty calculation. Refer to Attachment 2 for general assumptions.
5.1.7 Normal Radiation Effects In normal operation, radiation effects are small and can be calibrated out during periodic calibrations. The majority of instrument locations would be expected to receive less than 105 rads over a typical refuel period. This dose would not be expected to appreciably affect performance, since the dose would typically have to exceed a high "threshold" value prior to exhibiting any measurable performance degradation. If a specific type of instrument has a known susceptibility to low radiation doses (solid state electronics), or a specific application has demonstrated significant radiation induced performance shifts an allowance for normal radiation effects may need to be considered.
5.1.8 Accident Effects Instruments which can be exposed to severe ambient conditions as a result of an accident, and which are required to remain functional during or after an accident, may have additional accident related error terms which must be considered in a loop accuracy analysis. These additional terms account for the effects of extreme temperature, radiation, pressure, and seismic/vibration conditions.
Environmentally qualified (EQ) instruments make up the largest portion of the instruments exposed to severe ambient conditions. However, additional instruments may also exist, besides just the EQ instrumentation. The effects are generally applied only to the field mounted devices, but some accident related errors may also be experienced by other instruments in the loop. For example, a loop device mounted in a controlled environment which experiences a temperature rise after an accident due to changes in HVAC performance should be included in an accident error analysis.
The accident error effects are a separate set of accuracy values generally derived from the environmental qualification testing of an instrument. Based on this testing, manufacturers establish worst case performance specifications for the instruments, which provides margin above the expected for most nuclear facilities. These specifications are based on generic accident temperature, pressure, and radiation profiles which envelope values at multiple nuclear facilities. As a result, the profiles are worst case conditions which should meet or exceed the specific design requirements at each of the NGD plants. Typically, Engineering will evaluate test data submitted by the vendor during the procurement process to ensure that vendor test data envelops site-specific design requirements.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 17 of 178 The applicability of accident error effects in a specific loop analysis is based on the loop's functional requirements. Accident error effects are time dependent, occurring from the initiation of an accident/event through long term recovery.The effects are normally not instantaneous. Many instrument loops, primarily those in the Reactor Protection System (RPS) and Engineered Safety Features Actuation System (ESFAS), meet their intended function before being significantly affected by accident environmental conditions. For such loops, the accident error effects may not have to be included in the analysis. Care must be taken, though, to ensure that all functional requirements are evaluated against potential accident conditions. Many loops perform accident mitigation functions (not requiring accident effect consideration) initially, and then perform additional post-accident functions which require accident effect considerations.
For most instrument loops, the manufacturer's accident performance specification is utilized for the accident effects. When more specific Accident Effect (AE) data is available, more realistic terms can be developed. Accident error terms can be developed based on the actual qualification test results, and plant specific accident parameters. The extrapolation of accident terms should, where possible, be based on actual test data rather than being based on manufacturer's performance specifications.
However, care must be taken when reviewing, and establishing, specific accident effects based on actual test data. In general, the accuracy of test data is limited by both the number of tests performed, and the sample size (number of instruments tested). These limitations can lead to many unexplained variations in test results and raise questions as to the validity of the test data. The use of actual EQ test data should be limited to cases where sufficient test data exists to clearly substantiate an interpolation/extrapolation.
The format in which the accident error is supplied can vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. One manufacturer may provide an uncertainty based on the consolidation of multiple accident effects (temperature, pressure, humidity, etc.).
Another manufacturer may provide an uncertainty for each accident effect. If the accident effects are consolidated into one uncertainty value, it may be necessary to segregate the accident radiation effects from the other effects. This may be necessary if the device is in a radiation harsh environment only (i.e. it is not exposed to the other effects). It may also be necessary because the total of all accident effects results in an extremely high value and are not all applicable to a specific application.
Following an accident inside containment, all of the accident effects except radiation will be present rather quickly. The radiation effect is typically contingent upon the total integrated dose (TID) rather than the dose rate, but on occasion can be contingent upon the dose rate. For those instances where the radiation effect is contingent on the TID, it may not become a significant factor until quite sometime following the accident. Once the radiation effect does become significant, the other accident effects typically have been reduced to near normal conditions. Therefore, it may only be necessary to incorporate one of these effects, either the accident

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 18 of 178 radiation effect or the combination of the other accident effects.
Evaluating the "timing" of the different accident effects, as discussed above, is normally done for Limiting Safety System Settings within an instrument loop.
This method is employed to prevent inclusion of unnecessarily large uncertainties into the setpoint analysis. When the allowance between a setpoint and an analytical limit is increased to accommodate unnecessarily large uncertainties, the setpoint is moved closer to the normal operating range of the sensed process variable. This makes it more likely that a process transient, process noise, or spurious signal variation will cause an unwanted actuation under normal conditions and challenge plant safety systems increasing the risk of unwanted safety system actuation under normal conditions.
The increased risk of unwanted actuation under normal conditions is larger than any reduction of risk gained by accounting for uncertainties that are not expected to exist at the time of a trip.
If a manufacturer only lists one accident uncertainty and it is not necessary to segregate the individual effects, the effect will be referred to as the accident temperature effect.
: a. Environmental Allowance (EA)
Instrumentation may experience degraded performance due to variations in ambient conditions associated with an accident environment. Environmental effects typically encompass the high temperature, pressure, humidity, radiation and/or steam/spray effects associated with an accident environment. For instrumentation located in a mild environment, 'EA' = 0. Therefore, instrumentation which is exposed to an accident environment, during or after which it is required to function, should include an allowance for 'EA'.
If not specified, values for 'EA' can be determined via the environmental qualification test report data, or from "demonstrated accuracy" calculations which were performed for qualification efforts.
In some cases, the "demonstrated accuracy" calculations established a magnitude for 'EA' via statistical analyses of qualification data to obtain a 95% confidence interval.
The inherent requirements for the qualification program ensured margin above the maximum anticipated for the application, such that "demonstrated accuracy" calculations based on a 95% confidence interval may be overly conservative. An alternative would be to base the 'EA' magnitude on the maximum shift (uncertainty) demonstrated for environmental qualification testing. Based on the instrument functional requirements, it may be possible to further reduce the 'EA' magnitude by: i) focusing on the shift demonstrated during or after the simulated accident testing, ii) determining a representative value based on the required instrument operating time and actual plant

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                 FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 19 of 178 environmental profiles (linear interpolation may not be appropriate based on the dynamics of the profile and/or instrument thermal time response constant, dose-rate, etc.), iii) the instrument may only be exposed to a high radiation or temperature environment, therefore only a portion of the overall accident uncertainty may apply. Due to the limited sample size associated with qualification test programs, this approach would not be expected to provide a statistical confidence interval of 95%.
If not based on a 95% confidence interval, 'EA' should be treated as a bias term, unless behavior to the contrary can be substantiated from qualification testing, actual operating experience and/or vendor data.
: b. Accident Temperature Effects (ATE)
Frequently, the ATE is the largest contributor to an instrument's inaccuracy during an accident. While a field mounted device, such as a transmitter, may be able to perform well under design temperatures of up to 200&deg;F, an accident temperature of near 300&deg;F can cause severe changes in performance. Typical inaccuracies of 5% to 10%
are not uncommon.
The accident temperature effect (ATE) is generally obtained from the manufacturer's performance specifications. For a Rosemount Model 1153D transmitter, for example, the accident temperature effect (given as Steam Pressure/Temperature) is:
ATE = +/-(4.5% Upper Range Limit + 3.5% span)
The specification sheet details the temperature, pressure, and duration of the test accident profile on which the performance is based. The actual worst case error can be calculated by substituting the upper range limit value for a specific transmitter, converting to percent span, then adding the 3.5% span. The temperature profile used by the vendor should be compared with the plant specific accident temperature profiles. The plant's specific profiles should be fully enveloped by the actual test profiles, or differences evaluated for acceptability, for the specification to be valid.
As another example, consider a Foxboro Model N-E11 transmitter, whose specification sheet shows three different error terms related to temperature. Each term is valid at a different temperature, causing the error term to change with time after an event. Based on the functional requirements of the specific loop, the accident temperature effect can be minimized since the error varies from +/-8% to +/-3% over the duration of the test.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                 FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 20 of 178 The acceptability of a particular device's environmental qualification should be documented in a Qualification Package (DEP) or EQ Maintenance Manual (DEC). The applicable qualification documentation should be reviewed to ensure that all assumptions, constraints, etc. documented for the device's qualification are consistent with the device's usage and design basis. The appropriate personnel [site- specific] should be notified if it is suspected that a device is required to operate in an accident environment but does not have a qualification package. If this suspicion is confirmed, then a Condition Report shall be initiated.
The components that have EQ qualification documentation are identified in the Equipment Database (EDB).
The accident temperature effects are considered to be random error terms unless otherwise indicated by a manufacturer. When an accident temperature effect is included in an error analysis, the normal temperature effect (TE) would not be included in the portion of the calculation addressing accident effects. Note that an increase in the temperature may yield a Bias condition in a Reference Leg, for example, that needs to be accounted for.
: c. Accident Pressure Effects (APE)
Accident pressure effects can occur for some instrumentation because of the large increase in ambient/atmospheric pressure associated with an accident. While most instrumentation is not affected by changes in atmospheric pressure, devices which use local pressure as a reference of measurement can be greatly affected. Of primary concern are pressure transmitters which may use the containment pressure as the reference atmospheric pressure. Loop error analysis must take into account the containment pressure over time following an accident for the transmitter. If the transmitter uses a sealed reference, the additional error will be minimized and may be ignored.
Accident pressure effects will generally not be included in an error analysis except for the reason cited above. The accident pressure effect is only to be included if specifically required by an instrument manufacturer. The effect can be treated as either a random error, or bias error, depending on the manufacturer's specifications, and the level of predictability of the error. In other words, for the example cited above, the error would be treated as a bias if it is known that the pressure increase causes the transmitter to read less than actual pressure.
The qualification documentation should also be reviewed and evaluated when identifying the APE, as discussed above for the ATE.
The accident pressure profiles for each plant are identified in the same documents that list the accident temperature profiles, as noted above.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 21 of 178
: d. Accident Radiation Effect (ARE)
High radiation levels caused by an accident are yet another effect which can greatly influence an instrument's accuracy. Electronic instrumentation may be affected by both the rate of radiation, and the total radiation dose to which it is exposed. Accident radiation levels can exceed an instrument's normal life time radiation dose by a factor of 10 to 100. This high radiation exposure can increase instrument error by as much as 10%.
Accident radiation effects are also determined as part of a manufacturer's environmental qualification testing. Generally, the effect is stated as a maximum error effect for a given integrated radiation dose, typically 107 or 108 Rads. The accident radiation levels used for testing are chosen so as to envelope maximum dose levels expected at a large sampling of plants.
Because of the irradiation process used in EQ testing, very little interpolation of error effect versus radiation is possible. When an instrument must function during or following exposure to high radiation levels, the manufacturer's performance specification values should typically be used. Comparison of manufacturer tested radiation levels to the plant specific radiation levels should be made, to ensure the dose rates and TIDs used for the tests envelope the plant profiles.
These profiles are identified in the same documents as noted above that contain the accident temperature and pressure profiles.
The accident radiation effect is considered to be a random error component unless otherwise determined by a manufacturer.
: e. Seismic Allowance (SA)
Instrumentation performance may be degraded during or after a seismic event; therefore, instrumentation required to operate during/after the event should include an uncertainty for Seismic Allowances. Vibration can cause minor changes in instrument calibration settings, component connections and/or sensor response.
The seismic allowance may have different values for seismic and post-seismic events. Some manufacturers publish seismic specifications, which represent worst case performance specifications established during qualification testing.
Some instrumentation experiences a change in accuracy performance when exposed to equipment or seismic vibration. Care must be taken when establishing loop functional requirements so as to establish loop accuracy under the anticipated conditions. Refer to the plants licensing basis concerning design basis accidents caused by or coincident with seismic events. Some of these scenarios are not within

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 22 of 178 the licensing basis of our nuclear plants and therefore, consideration of both accident and seismic effects simultaneously may not be required. For example, Design Bases Accidents (DBA) concurrent with Operating Bases Earthquakes (OBE) or Safe Shutdown Earthquakes (SSE) are not analyzed within the design bases for instrumentation for DEC plants.
The seismic allowance is considered to be a random error term unless otherwise indicated by a manufacturer.
If the vendor specifications give an instrument uncertainty for seismic vibration, this uncertainty should be included in the uncertainty calculation unless the instrument is not used in an application requiring seismic qualification.
If the application does not require seismic qualification, then any seismic vibration induced uncertainty can be ignored.
If an instrument is used in an application requiring seismic qualification but no specific seismic uncertainty is specified by the vendor, values for 'SA' can be determined via the seismic qualification test report data, or from "demonstrated accuracy" calculations which were performed for qualification efforts. In some cases the "demonstrated accuracy" calculations established a magnitude for
                        'SA' based on statistical analyses of qualification test data to achieve a 95% confidence interval. Unless specified by the manufacturer or qualification testing, solid-state electronic modules would not be expected to experience significant performance degradation due to a seismic event.
Furthermore, any potential effect would be expected to be negligible, relative to that for the loop electro-mechanical sensing device.
The inherent requirements for the qualification program ensured margin above the maximum anticipated for the application, such that "demonstrated accuracy" calculations based on a 95% confidence interval may be overly conservative. An alternative would be to base the 'SA' magnitude on the maximum shift (uncertainty) demonstrated for seismic qualification testing.
Based on the instrument functional requirements, it may be possible to further reduce the 'SA' magnitude by focusing only on the shift during or after the seismic testing. Due to the limited sample size associated with qualification test programs, this approach may not provide a statistical confidence interval of 95%.
If not based on a 95% confidence interval, 'SA' should be treated as a bias term, unless behavior to the contrary can be substantiated from qualification testing, actual operating experience and/or vendor data.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                  FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 23 of 178 Assumptions concerning seismic uncertainties should be verified by contacting the instrument manufacturer if the specifications are not clearly understood. As noted earlier, it is essential that test data submitted or published by the vendor be evaluated to ensure that vendor test profiles envelop site-specific design requirements.
5.1.9 Readability/Resolution (RE. RES. RRA)
In instrument loops in which the final output device is an indicator or recorder, the readability of the output device must be taken into account in the analysis. The readability of an analog indicator/recorder is based on the interval between scale demarcations. The indicator's/recorder's scale demarcations, and span, are used to define the readability of the device.
It is important here to differentiate the difference between the readability of the indicator/recorder for calibration purposes and its readability during operation. When calibrating an indicator/recorder, an input test signal will be provided by M&TE and the "output" will be directly read from the indicator/recorder. The output is typically aligned on the scale demarcations during the calibration process. If so, no additional M&TE error must be considered for reading the value. Otherwise, an additional readability error, as discussed below, must be considered for the M&TE error.
For an indicator/recorder, however, there is a separate readability that must be included for its use by an operator. An actual signal will not always line up on the scale demarcations. The operator is forced to interpret the indication as a function of how close the indicated signal is to the demarcations. Operator A may interpret the signal as closer to the higher demarcation, Operator B may interpret the signal to the lower demarcation, and Operator C may take the mean between the demarcations.
Thus, an error is introduced into the total loop uncertainty based upon an individual operator's ability to interpret the indication. This is the readability uncertainty of concern.
For linear analog indicators and recorders, readability (RE) is generally defined as one half of the smallest scale increment, however 1/4 the smallest increment can be used if the increments are 1/2 inch apart or more. For a digital device, RE would be
           +/- 1 the minor scale demarcation.
RE = +/-1/2 smallest scale demarcation             [analog device]              (Eq. 2)
RE = +/-1 smallest scale demarcation               [digital device]             (Eq. 3)
This definition is based on limited interpolation of process values between specific scale markings. This interpolation is limited by scale pointers, potential parallax, and operator judgment.
While some indicators and recorders may allow more detailed interpolation of readings between scale markings, it cannot be ascertained that an operator will accurately perform this interpolation on a consistent basis. The plasma type

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                 FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 24 of 178 indicators are a good example. While the indicators are actually comprised of approximately 200 discrete scaled segments, an operator does not count the segments to determine a reading. Most readings are obtained from a distance which makes the segments indiscernible. Therefore, unless an instrument has a specific evaluation and justification identifying why its readability can be some other value, readability will be considered to be one-half the smallest increment scale.
Consider the following example, A control board indicator displays a pressure signal. The indicator is scaled from 0 to 1000 psi and has minor scale marking every 20 psi. The indicator uses a pointer to show pressure, and it is located somewhere between 520 psi and 540 psi.
Whenever the pointer is between scale markings, an operator reading the indicator generally only has the ability to determine one of three possible values for the parameter, 520 psi, 530 psi or 540 psi. The ability to interpolate more precisely than 10 psi is limited. The operator can judge whether the pointer is closer to the 520 psi mark or the 540 psi mark, or is approximately halfway between the two marks. The readability of the indicator is therefore 1/2 of 20 psi, or, 10 psi.
The readability defines the highest degree of accuracy (smallest error) that a loop can have through an indicator or recorder. That is, the smallest error for an instrument, or loop, cannot be less than the final output device's readability.
Indicators or recorders with digital displays do not follow the same definition of readability as analog displays. Since no scale is used for the digital display, no interpolation is necessary by an operator. The readability of digital displays is equal to the value of the least significant digit in the display.
Readability is typically considered a random error term.
5.1.10     Single Sided Setpoints and 2 Reduction Setpoints which are approached from only one direction may have an adjustment applied which converts the uncertainty determined for a bidirectional approach to a smaller value which still retains the 95% confidence level determined for the bidirectional uncertainty. In these cases the critical region is a region to one side of the distribution, with an area equal to the desired level of confidence. The method to calculate these smaller uncertainty values is as follows.
For normally distributed 95% probability uncertainties, standardized area distribution tables, Reference 7.2.17, shows that 95% of the population will have uncertainties between +/- 1.96 sigma, with 2.5% falling below -1.96 sigma and 2.5% falling above
           +1.96 sigma. If there are increasing and decreasing trip limits, the appropriate limits to use are +/- 1.96 sigma.
For normally distributed uncertainties, the same tables show that 95% of the population will have uncertainties less than +1.645 sigma (50% below the median

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 25 of 178 and 45% between the median and +1.645 sigma) and that 95% of the population will have uncertainties greater than -1.645 sigma. If interest is only in the probability that a single value of the process parameter is not exceeded and the single value is approached only from one direction, the appropriate limit to use for 95% probability is +1.645 sigma or -1.645 sigma as appropriate.
Using this technique, a positive uncertainty that has been calculated for a symmetrical case can be reduced while maintaining 95% coverage of the population when a single parameter is approached from one direction. For example, if the original symmetric value was based on 2 sigma members, the reduction factor is 1.645/2.00=0.8225; if the original symmetric value was based on 1.96 sigma values, the reduction factor is 1.645/1.96=0.839. This adjustment is applicable only to random uncertainties which are normally distributed.
5.1.11      Vortex Considerations for Tank Levels Level measurements can be effected by vortices when they form either by a mixing action such as in a blender, or by suction such as during a draining or pumping operation. When a vortex forms, the level measurement can become in error because the volume of liquid in the tank no longer conforms to the shape of the tank.
If the level measurement depends on the height of liquid above a level tap located on the wall of the tank (DP or Pressure measurement) then a positive level error will exist with a magnitude dependent upon the severity of the vortex. If the level measurement depends on the distance between the sensor and the liquid surface (ultra-sonic beam measurement) then a positive or negative level error could exist, or level detection could be lost, depending on the location of the sensor relative to the vortex. Other types of level measuring systems such as float switches, capacitance probes, or bubblers are similarly affected.
The main concern relating to vortices at nuclear power stations is that air would be sucked into the suction pumps (such as Safety Injection or AFW pumps) causing loss of suction during pumping operations if the switchover from tank supplied water to an alternate water source or makeup to the tank does not occur prior to formation of an air entrained vortex. Since loss of suction due to air entrained vortex formation is not acceptable, it is necessary to determine the level required that prevents vortex formation and then to use this minimum level as the analytical limit when determining low level setpoints for tanks.
Based on the above, it is generally not necessary to include vortex considerations as a level instrument uncertainty, but it is necessary to consider vortex formation when setting analytical limits for tank low level setpoints. See section 5.3.1.2. When this information is required to be generated, the Mechanical discipline should be consulted and an approved input obtained for use as the low level analytical limit because other considerations besides vortexing may apply. The following general relationship is presented for information: (See attachment to letter CPL-89-634, HBR- The potential for formation of air entraining vortices in the Aux. Feed Pump Suction from the Condensate Storage Tank)

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev.O Page 26 of 178 Harleman Equation: Seid= 0.625 FR0.4 where:
Sc = Critical submergence, or minimum level above the top of the intake nozzle which precludes the formation of air entraining vortices.
d = Diameter of the intake nozzle FR= Froude number= V/(gd)1/2 g = Gravitational constant V = Fluid velocity into nozzle 5.2    Other Errors In addition to the basic performance uncertainties of process measurement, external influences on the loop can affect accuracy. These influences are totally independent of loop process and instrument errors but impart an additional level of uncertainty to a loop's measurement, and as such, must be considered in any error analysis calculation.
5.2.1 Calibration Errors (CE \ CTE \ CAL)
The cornerstone of all instrumentation performance, and accuracy, is the calibration process. The instrument and loop calibration(s) establish the baseline parameters necessary for accurate measurement and presentation of information. The calibration process consists of two important facets; 1) the calibration procedure itself, and the tolerances that are allowed in calibrating the device (or loop segment);
: 2) the measurement and test equipment used during calibration. Both of these directly affect the performance of an instrument and/or loop and are discussed in detail below.
NOTE:
CE and CTE terms are specific to DEC sites ONLY CAL term is specific to DEP sites ONLY 5.2.1.1    Calibration Effect (CE)
The Calibration Effect is a convenient grouping of uncertainties which consider the uncertainty introduced due to the calibration method and equipment primarily used in non TSTF-493 related strings (i.e. indicators, recorders, etc.). Typically this includes consideration for Measuring & Test Equipment (M&TE), Calibration (Setting) Tolerance Effect (CTE) and Technician Readability (RES). 'CE' is normally considered to be a random-independent term. The 'CE' determination for an indicator should include consideration for technician readability (resolution) during calibration.
(e.g. CE= M&TE 2 + CTE 2 + RES 2 )

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                 FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 27 of 178 5.2.1.2    Calibration Tolerances (CTE \ CAL)
The calibration process is used to adjust an instrument, or loop, to ensure that it functions within an acceptable set of limits. Calibration tolerances are the defined limits, above and below a desired value, within which an instrument or loop signal may vary and not require adjustment. Calibration tolerances are established to aid technicians in the calibration of instruments, devices, and loops, including setpoint bistable devices. Adjustment to ideal values within the tolerance may or may not be attempted during calibration depending upon the standard calibration methods applied by the technicians.
The Calibration Tolerance Effect corresponds to the maximum allowable as-left calibration band around the desired value, for which the technician can set the device within. A 'CTE' allowance is not required if all attributes of reference accuracy (linearity, hysteresis and repeatability) are addressed by the calibration and 'CTE' is less than or equal to the reference accuracy (A for DEC sites). In the case where 'CTE' is greater than 'A' and all attributes of 'A' are verified by the calibration, then the 'CTE' value could be utilized in-lieu of 'A'.
Typical calibration practice does not verify all attributes of reference accuracy, since the calibration would have to check numerous points across the span, and traverse up and down-scale three times.
For example, if a device has a reference accuracy of +/-0.25%, requiring calibration of the device to a tolerance less than its reference accuracy (say+/-0.1%) cannot increase its accuracy. Since the output of the device may vary continuously by +/-0.25%, calibration adjustment of the device to tolerances set less than the reference accuracy would be futile in that the device cannot maintain calibration to these tight tolerances. Even if possible during the calibration process, the device cannot be assumed to maintain performance to these tight tolerances between successive calibrations. Therefore, the minimum requirement for calibration tolerance should normally be equal to the reference accuracy. In uniquely analyzed applications, As-Left and As-Found (AL & AF) tolerances may be to set at values less than the reference accuracy based on conclusive past calibration data.
Calibration tolerances define for the instrument technician the acceptable band of operation for a device or loop. The calibration tolerance is defined for each calibration point of a loop. Usually, the calibration tolerance included within the loop uncertainty/setpoint calculation is obtained directly from the device's/loop's calibration procedure.
The calibration tolerance does not necessarily have to be limited to a component's reference accuracy. For non-TSTF 493 loops, additional margin or tolerance is acceptable in selected instrument or loop calibrations, as long as the functional requirements can still be satisfied.
Thus, the Calibration Tolerance (CAL) or the Calibration Tolerance Effect

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                 FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 28 of 178 (CTE) can be defined as that uncertainty allowance that is applied to a loop error analysis to compensate for the reference accuracy (RA / A) of the instrument (or loop segment) which is being calibrated, as well as, for any additional potential calibration setting uncertainties allowed. As described above, each plant has its own guidelines for establishing a calibration tolerance. As a general rule, the reference accuracy of measuring and test equipment should be less than or equal to the tolerance of the device/loop being calibrated. While this policy is discussed further below, it directly affects the establishment of the calibration tolerance.
For each calibration, the calibration tolerance is used to account for the reference accuracy of a device. Thus, the reference accuracy of the test equipment should be less than or equal to the calibration tolerance of the device/loop being calibrated. If the test equipment error is higher than the device/loop being calibrated, two options are generally available - either utilize more accurate test equipment, or if this is impractical, increase the calibration tolerance.
Therefore, the guidelines for calibration tolerance should be as follows:
: 1. The measuring and test equipment reference accuracy should be better than or equal to the calibration tolerance of the device/loop being measured.
Note errors allowed for M&TE used to calibrate permanently installed instruments that are used in ASME operational and Maintenance Code Inservice Testing (IST) and other tests important to plant operations are more limiting. Refer to NSD-219 and site specific procedures on permanently installed M&TE for details.
: 2. If the calibration tolerance is greater than or equal to the reference accuracy it may be used in place of the reference accuracy.
One assumption that is inherent in replacing the reference accuracy with the calibration tolerance is that the calibration process verifies all of the attributes of reference accuracy. As previously discussed, the reference accuracy represents the combined effects of linearity, hysteresis, and repeatability. If the calibration checks multiple points along the span of the device, it verifies the linearity. If the calibration checks these points in both an increasing and decreasing direction, it verifies the hysteresis. If the calibration checks the points in both directions several (i.e., three or more) times, it verifies the repeatability.
All of the calibrations used for the NGD plants verify linearity, and most verify hysteresis; however, few verify repeatability. The individual calibration procedure should be reviewed to identify for each calibrated device, which specific attributes are verified during calibration.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                  FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 29 of 178 If all of the attributes are not verified during the calibration, then the attributes that are not verified must somehow be compensated for within the uncertainty calculation. Reference 7.2.20 provides four separate ways of addressing this problem. Although any of the methods described in Reference 7.2.20 may be used, the simplest method is to include both the calibration tolerance and the reference accuracy within the uncertainty calculation. However, this may be too conservative an approach for many devices.             An alternate method would be to assume that each of the three attributes affects the reference accuracy equally such that the SRSS of the three attributes would equal the reference accuracy, RA      =        (x2 + x2 + x2) 1/2                                 (Eq. 4) where x represents each attribute. If the calibration procedure did not verify one attribute, then the value for x could be substituted for the reference accuracy and used with the calibration tolerance. Similarly, if the calibration procedure did not verify two attributes, then the SRSS of x and x could be substituted for the reference accuracy and used with the calibration tolerance.
Consider the following example, A transmitter has a reference accuracy of +/-0.25% and a calibration tolerance of +/-0.50%. The calibration procedure only checks 5 points of the transmitter's span in one direction.
If there is enough margin in the uncertainty calculation, both the reference accuracy and the calibration tolerance should be used. If not, the value that could be substituted for the reference accuracy could be determined as follows,
                              +/-0.25%         =      (x2 + x2 + x2) 1/2 x              =      +/-0.144%
Since the calibration did not verify two attributes (i.e., hysteresis and repeatability), then the substitute reference accuracy term would need to account for both of these attributes.
Substitute RA         =       +/-(0.1442 + 0.1442) 1/2 Substitute RA         =       +/-0.20%
Thus, the uncertainty of the device would be determined by SRSS of the
                 +/-0.20% value for the substitute reference accuracy, the +/-0.50% for the calibration tolerance, and any other applicable device uncertainty terms. It should be noted that not all terms are random. Only random terms are included in the SRSS calculation.
In summary, if the method of calibration or performance verification does not

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                 FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 30 of 178 verify all attributes of the reference accuracy, the potential exists to introduce an offset in the instrument channels performance characteristics that is not identified in the calibration or performance verification of the instrument channel. Usually, the offset is very small; however, the upper limit would be the calibration tolerance. In this case, the reference accuracy and calibration tolerance are separate terms, and, therefore, both should be accounted for in the setpoint uncertainty calculation. Several methods are possible to account for the combination of reference and calibration tolerance. The following discussion provides some example of these methods but is not intended to be all- inclusive:
a) One bounding method is to account for not verifying all attributes of reference accuracy by the calibration or performance verification by including allowances for both in the setpoint uncertainty calculation as explicit terms.
b) Another method is to establish a calibration tolerance that is less than the reference accuracy. If the difference between calibration tolerance and reference accuracy accounts for the uncertainty of the various attributes that are not verified during calibration or performance verification, only reference accuracy would be included in the setpoint uncertainty calculation.
c) A third method is to determine an allowance based on uncertainty algorithms or magnitudes that are known to be conservative. This may result in sufficient margin to provide a bounding allowance for reference accuracy and calibration tolerance without explicit terms for them in the setpoint uncertainty calculation. An example of this method would be to algebraically add the reference accuracy, drift, and M&TE uncertainties for a module rather than taking the SRSS (which assumes that these uncertainties are independent) of these uncertainties. However, the availability of this margin should be demonstrated prior to implicit reliance on this method.
d) A fourth method is to include a specific allowance in the setpoint uncertainty calculation for the attributes of reference accuracy which are not verified in the calibration or performance verification. For example, if the calibration or performance verification does not exercise an instrument channel more than once to demonstrate repeatability, it may be appropriate to include an allowance for repeatability in the setpoint uncertainty calculation. If a channel performs functions in both the increasing and decreasing directions and the calibration or performance verification does not check the accuracy in both directions, it may be appropriate to provide an allowance for hysteresis in the setpoint uncertainty calculation. If the calibration or performance verification does not check accuracy in the area of the trip functions, it may be appropriate to provide an allowance for linearity in the setpoint uncertainty calculation.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 31 of 178 For applications where multiple devices can be calibrated either separately or in a string, caution must be taken to ensure the individual device as-left tolerance values are combined to determine the over-all string as-left setting tolerance.
For those applications where the string includes injecting a signal through dynamic functions (e.g. Lag, Lead, Lead/Lag, etc.) then additional consideration is required for addressing the dynamic performance and the associated setting tolerance for those modules (i.e. Dynamic Function Effects).
               'CTE' is generally considered to be equivalent to the as-left tolerance specified by the calibration procedure. Often, for non-TSTF-493 loops, the as-left tolerance is assumed to be equal to the device reference accuracy. For loops governed by TSTF-493, the as-left tolerance (and by extension the CTE) is typically the SRSS combination of reference accuracy and M&TE uncertainty effects.
Calibration tolerance is a two-sided number and is typically treated as random and normally distributed. If, however, a calibration procedure requires a tolerance such as 50% +4, -0, this tolerance must be treated as a bias since it is not normally zero centered.
5.2.1.3    Measurement and Test Equipment Measurement and Test Equipment is the general name given to all of the equipment required to calibrate instrumentation. The test equipment includes voltmeters, ammeters, resistance decade boxes, test gauges, test point or test resistors, deadweight testers, etc. All test equipment must be controlled and calibrated to known standards. The calibration of test equipment must be done using highly accurate precision standards which are traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), formerly the National Bureau of Standards (NBS). This standardization provides known bases for test equipment accuracy, and allows for the determination of the test equipment effects on plant instrumentation. All test equipment used for the NGD plants is controlled by site-specific programs to ensure that traceability is maintained.
Test equipment is periodically re-calibrated and verified to be within known limits. As a general rule, the reference accuracy of measuring and test equipment should be at least as accurate as the device/loop being calibrated.
For example, if an instrument has a reference accuracy of +/-0.25% of span and is calibrated to +/-0.25% of span, the combined reference accuracies of the test equipment used in calibrating the instrument must be less than or equal to
               +/-0.25% of span.
BNP adopts a conservative approach where the M&TE accuracy equals the reference accuracy of the device being calibrated. This is the minimum accuracy requirement for BNP M&TE per the UFSAR and MNT-NGGC-0050,

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology              FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 32 of 178 however, the M&TE is usually much more accurate.
Note reference accuracies allowed for M&TE used to calibrate permanently installed instruments that are used in ASME operational and Maintenance Code Inservice Testing (IST) and other tests important to plant operations are more limiting. Refer to NSD-219 and site specific procedures on permanently installed M&TE for details.
The reference accuracy of test equipment is generally not documented in relation to the accuracy of the instrument or loop being calibrated. Instead, test equipment accuracy must be converted to an equivalent instrument or loop accuracy value, by factoring in the test equipment range in terms of the instrument (or loop) span.
Consider the following example, A multimeter (MM) with a reference accuracy of +/-0.25% of its range is to be used to calibrate a pressure transmitter. Transmitter span is 4-20 mA. The MM has a 0-20 mA and a 0-50 mA range. The accuracy of the multimeter can vary depending on the MM range used.
MM accuracy = (0.25% of MM Range)/(Transmitter Span)
Therefore, MM accuracy on the 0-20 mA range is, 0.25%
* 20 mA = 0.31% of span 16 mA The MM accuracy on the 0-50 mA range is, 0.25%
* 50 mA = 0.78% of span 16 mA As can be seen, the reference accuracy of the test equipment and the proper selection of test equipment range is important. The final test equipment reference accuracy, expressed in equivalent instrument or loop accuracy units, must have an overall accuracy less than or equal to the accuracy (i.e.,
calibration tolerance) of the device/loop being calibrated. Thus, for this example the calibration tolerance would have to be greater than or equal to 0.31% to account for the multimeter or, a more accurate multimeter used.
The Measurement and Test Equipment Error (MTE) is that uncertainty allowance included in the loop uncertainty calculation, to account for the uncertainty imposed into a loop component, or loop, as a result of the calibration using imperfect measurement and test equipment. The MTE term is, in essence, the uncertainties associated with measurement and test equipment used to calibrate the loop, or component. When a component is calibrated, the reference accuracy errors associated with the

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 33 of 178 test equipment are imposed on the component. That is, reference accuracy errors associated with the test equipment are transferred to the loop component being calibrated. These additional errors bias the future performance of the component, after calibration.
DEP: As such, the MTE error and the CAL, are conservatively treated as random, but dependent, terms. For conservatism, in the uncertainty analysis, these two terms would be algebraically combined with each other before being statistically (SRSS) combined with the other random terms.
DEC: Component accuracies are considered to be independent of the test equipment used to calibrate the component. Therefore, the applicable MTE error is normally SSRS-ed with the CTE error like other loop errors that are random and normally distributed.
In order to determine the MTE for a device/loop, the applicable calibration procedure should be reviewed. The calibration procedure will identify the test equipment to be used for the calibration. The test equipment may be identified specifically via manufacturer and model (i.e., Fluke 289) or only generically as to type of test equipment (i.e., Digital Voltmeter). Typically, the MTE error is determined from the "worst case" accuracy for the types of M&TE specified, in order to provide the I&C technicians the most flexibility in performing the tests. If there is not sufficient margin in the total loop uncertainty to accommodate this flexibility, the MTE error can be calculated for specific M&TE. If this changes the calibration procedure, the plant I&C staff should be contacted and this matter discussed with them to ascertain if any other options are available.
When specific M&TE are required to meet instrument uncertainty needs, the test equipment should be evaluated to determine if it is subject to a temperature effect. This effect is the error caused by temperature on the M&TE accuracy. Some M&TE devices can be affected by the difference in temperature between the shop and the field. When this is the case the M&TE error should include an allowance for this temperature effect.
For new or revised loops, the calibration procedure may not exist prior to performing the uncertainty/setpoint calculation. In this case, the calculation should be developed using assumed test equipment that is used in similar types of existing loops. The assumed equipment must be identified to the preparers of the calibration procedure, so that such equipment, or better, may be incorporated into the calibration.
The listing of measuring and test equipment available for a plant and its associated accuracy, is maintained in the following locations:
[BNP -         Test Equipment Room Bar Code Computer, kept by the Site Test Equipment Room Attendants.]

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                  FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 34 of 178
[HNP -         Required Test Equipment Accuracy in MST and LP, as well as guidelines for determining, are in MMM-005, Instrument Loop Calibration Procedure.]
[RNP -         The RNP Test Equipment Shop can provide a listing of the test equipment available at RNP and its associated range and accuracy.]
[CNS -         DPC-1210.04-00-0005, Measurement and Test Equipment (M&TE) Uncertainties Calculation.]
[MNS -         DPC-1210.04-00-0005, Measurement and Test Equipment (M&TE) Uncertainties Calculation.]
[ONS -         DPC-1210.04-00-0005, Measurement and Test Equipment (M&TE) Uncertainties Calculation.]
When multiple measurement and test equipment devices are used in the calibration of a component, the MTE error imposed on the component is determined by combining, using SRSS, the individual MTE errors associated with each individual M&TE device.
Consider the following example, Assume a transmitter, with a reference accuracy (and calibration tolerance) of +/-0.50% of span, is calibrated using a deadweight tester and a multimeter, each with a reference accuracy error equal to +/-0.25%. The MTE error is:
MTE = +/- (0.252 + 0.252) 0.5           = +/- 0.354%
When combining the errors for test equipment, one device that is frequently overlooked is a test resistor. This includes any such resistors that may be installed in the loop to facilitate testing/calibration, as well as any resistors provided by the technician for performing a specific calibration. Whenever any such resistor is used as part of a device's/loop's calibration, it should be evaluated for inclusion in the determination of the MTE term. (Typically, the effect due to resistors accurate to +/-0.01%, will be negligible.)
As an illustration of MTE error, consider a device used to measure an absolute value such as a primary standard, or to measure barometric pressure, at sea level, on a perfect day (29.92 in Hg = 0.000 psig). If this device has an accuracy of +/-0.5% of span, then its output can vary by as much as 0.5% from its ideal value, with the input held at this absolute value.
Therefore, the output has a bandwidth of 1.0% span, centered about the absolute value, see Figure 5-6.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology              FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 35 of 178 FIGURE 5-6 DEVICE ERROR BAND Now, instead of an absolute calibration device, the device is calibrated using test equipment that has a combined error of +/-0.25% of the device's span.
The MTE error can bias the device's accuracy above or below the absolute value to a new reference value. In other words, if at the instant of device calibration adjustment, the test equipment output was +0.25% span, the device's error band would be adjusted such that it was centered on a new reference value -0.25% span below the absolute value. The device's error bandwidth is still 1.0% of span but it is now centered about the new reference value rather than about the absolute value. By superimposing the additional error on Figure 5-6, the result is shown in Figure 5-7. The device output deviates from the ideal by the amount of test equipment error. Note that comparison of Figures 5-6 and 5-7 reveals an increase in the error bandwidth when the effects of MTE are considered.
Like A or RA, MTE error is a random error, but due to the interdependence between MTE and CAL, it may be combined with CAL before being included in an overall error analysis.
MTE error must be considered for each instrument, or device, within a loop, which is calibrated independently. Generally, calibrations are performed device-by-device or by performing "string" calibrations of multiple devices at one time. The method of calibration selected determines how the MTE will be included in the overall loop uncertainty.
For example, if a loop contains 8 devices and each device is calibrated individually, the overall loop uncertainty must include provisions for 8 MTE errors. Each of these would be added to the calibration tolerance of the device and SRSSed with the other uncertainties. Alternatively, the calibration could be performed by a "string" calibration whereby all 8 devices would be treated as one device, with regard to the MTE. For this case, the overall MTE would only have to be applied once, thereby decreasing the total loop uncertainty.
The MTE, when applied to each component, can impose an excessively conservative penalty on plant operations. Implementing partial loop tuning of all components checked during a periodic calibration (i.e., after individual component calibration) or performing just a "string" calibration (i.e., not

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                 FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 36 of 178 calibrating the devices individually) are two viable alternatives. These techniques minimize the number of times the overall MTE must be applied to the total loop uncertainty.
FIGURE 5-7 DEVICE ERROR BAND BIAS In summary, the general rules for calibration error are:
* Calibration error, CAL, is typically equal to the RA for a device/loop, plus any additional tolerance deemed necessary to aid in the calibration of the device/loop.
* DEC: Component accuracies are considered to be independent of the test equipment used to calibrate the component. Therefore, the applicable MTE error is normally SSRS-ed with the CTE error like other loop errors that are random and normally distributed.
* DEP: Component accuracies are conservatively considered to be dependent on the test equipment used to calibrate the component. Therefore, the applicable MTE error is normally algebraically summed with the CAL error prior to being combined with other loop errors.
* All MTE errors must be converted to units consistent with the loop error analysis.
* The MTE error should include the MTEin and MTEout as SRSS terms.
* The MTE error should be applied to each calibrated component, or group of components, in a loop depending upon whether the calibration is performed device-by-device or via a "string"

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                  FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 37 of 178 calibration.
* If all of the attributes of a component's reference accuracy are not verified during its calibration, then the reference accuracy or a portion of the reference accuracy must be included in the uncertainty calculation as a random, independent term. If all of the attributes of a component's reference accuracy are verified during calibration, and the calibration tolerance is greater than or equal to the reference accuracy, then the reference accuracy term can be ignored.
* The MTE reference accuracy should be less than or equal to the CAL error for a component, or group of components.
5.2.1.4    Calibration Temperature The calibration temperature refers to the ambient temperature for an instrument at the time of calibration. The calibration temperature may be used as the initial temperature for determining errors based on temperature variation such as, instrument temperature effects, etc.
For error calculation purposes, an assumed calibration temperature (for example, 65-90&deg;F) may be used on a case-by- case basis. If a calibration temperature is not assumed, the temperature effects are determined from the spectrum of design temperatures for a given location. If calibration procedures record the ambient temperature, then the mean temperature for previous calibrations can be used as the calibration temperature for calculation purposes.
5.2.2 Insulation Resistance Error (IR)
During accident conditions, when temperature, pressure, and humidity are well above their normal operating conditions for certain areas, electrical signal components can experience degradation in their electrical insulation. This phenomenon is known as Insulation Resistance (IR) Degradation, or IR loss.
Such a reduction in IR can cause an increase in current leakage (CL) between conductors, and terminals, of an instrument loop, resulting in potential degradation of loop performance.
Cables, terminal blocks, penetrations, splices, etc. can experience reductions in insulation resistance due to High Energy Line Break (HELB) conditions. 'CL' allowance would be applicable for applications required to function during the HELB event, whereby the change in signal would be non-conservative. The 'CL' effect would be most significant for applications with low signal voltage/current, such as current transmitters, RTDs and thermocouples. Magnitudes for 'CL' values may be found in qualification reports for cables, splices, terminal blocks, etc., and are typically conservative, since the qualification tests profiles were bounding. Detailed examples for calculation of 'CL' effects are presented in

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 38 of 178 Reference 7.2.1, Annex D.
In normal operation, changes in electrical insulation performance are so small that typically no effect on instrument loop performance can be seen. Even as the electrical signal component's (primarily cable, splices, and connectors) IR characteristics change with age, the periodic calibration process corrects the loop to eliminate any effects of leakage currents.
However, plant design basis accidents can impose extreme changes in ambient operating conditions on the components, primarily increases in ambient temperature and radiation. All electrical insulating materials experience some decrease in electrical insulation resistance properties with increasing temperature or radiation. The resulting decrease in electrical resistance, while not generally a concern for power applications can cause significant changes in low level signal wiring or control loops.
The effects of IR can be determined by analyzing the changes in resistance, through the use of equivalent instrument loop circuit models. The following section provides a synopsis of the IR effects on various types of instrument loops.
5.2.2.1    Current Loop IR Effect The insulation resistance degradation of electrical signal components in an ungrounded instrument current loop causes an increase in the apparent signal for the loop. The loop signal current will increase as a result of reduced insulation resistance between the signal conductors of the loop. A leakage current between the conductors causes an increase in the signal current to the downstream loop devices. The magnitudes of this leakage current, and that of the subsequent signal error, are directly proportional to the change in insulation resistance.
The magnitude of the IR error for an ungrounded current loop is directly affected by the following parameters:
* Loop supply voltage - The error is directly related to the value of the loop supply voltage. The higher the voltage, the higher the error is and vice versa.
* Loop load resistance - As the loop load resistance increases, the error is reduced.
* Loop current range - The error current generated is inversely related to the loop current. The highest error occurs at the minimum value of loop current.
* Cable length - The majority of the leakage current comes from the actual length of cable exposed to the accident

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 39 of 178 environment. The shorter the cable length, the lower the IR error effect.
The IR error effect for an ungrounded current loop always causes an increase in current.
Since the IR error has a known effect on instrument performance, the IR error is considered a bias error, and as such, it must always be algebraically added to a loop's uncertainty. However, the IR error is a bias with known sign but unknown magnitude.
Many variables (environmental temperature, cable length, cable type, etc.)
determine the magnitude of IR error, and it cannot be predicted to occur for every type of event. As such, IR error should be calculated as a "worst case" value for "worst case" conditions. [HNP, RNP - Generic IR calculations exist as part of the cable Environmental Qualification Data Packages (EQDPs) and may be used for determining the IR error for the applicable instrument loops.]
The above discussion applies for the typical case where the loop is ungrounded. If, however, the loop is grounded, the IR degradation may cause either an increase or a decrease in the apparent signal for the loop, depending upon the specific circuit configuration.
5.2.2.2    RTD Loop IR The degradation of electrical signal components in an ungrounded resistance temperature detector (RTD) sensing loop causes a different type of error than in the current loop. In the RTD loop, the total resistance of the RTD for a given temperature is known. Changes in the total resistance are assumed to be changes due only to changes in the RTD sensor as a result of temperature change. When the signal wiring also experiences a change in resistance characteristics between conductors, the loop mistakes this change for a change in sensor resistance. Changes in signal wiring IR will have the same effect as changes in sensor resistance. The signal wiring insulation provides a parallel resistance path to the RTD thus causing an apparent decrease in RTD sensor resistance as signal wiring IR decreases.
Therefore as IR decreases, the loop will exhibit a negative error in measured temperature, since RTD resistance increases with temperature.
The magnitude of the IR error for an ungrounded RTD sensing loop is directly affected by the following parameters:
* Cable length - The majority of the leakage current comes from the actual length of cable exposed to the accident environment. The shorter the cable length, the lower the IR effect error.
* RTD values - The higher the RTD ice point resistance (R0,

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 40 of 178 or resistance at 32&deg;F), the higher the error.
* 3-wire RTDs vs. 4-wire RTDs - A 4-wire RTD will demonstrate more IR effect error than a comparable 3-wire RTD, due to the increased leakage paths.
* IR effect error for an RTD loop is always a negative error.
Since the IR error has a known effect on instrument performance, the IR error is considered a bias error, and must always be algebraically combined with a loop's uncertainty. As discussed above for the current loop, the IR error is a bias with a known sign and an unknown magnitude. Thus, its value should be determined for "worst case" conditions.
The above discussion applies for the typical case where the RTD sensing loop is ungrounded. If, however, the loop is grounded, the IR degradation may cause either an increase or a decrease in the apparent signal for the loop, depending upon the specific circuit configuration.
5.2.3 Conduit Seal Effects (CSE)
In certain applications of high ambient temperatures, conduit seals may provide a current leakage path similar to that discussed above for insulation resistance.
Depending on how the IR error is determined, the conduit seal error may be combined with the IR error or determined separately. Like the IR error, it will act as a bias and have the same effect on the loops as the IR error - acting as a positive bias for current loops and a negative bias for RTD loops. Loops susceptible to IR error should also be evaluated for conduit seal effect error.
5.2.4 RTD Lead Wire Effects (LW)
Resistance temperature detectors (RTD) can experience an additional error effect due to changes in the resistance of the signal wiring conductors. The effect, generally known as the lead wire effect (LW), is usually only significant on RTDs which use two (2) wires to sense RTD variation. To a lesser extent, the lead wire effect is apparent on three (3) wire RTDs, but the third lead eliminates most of the error.
In a two (2) wire RTD installation, the resistance temperature coefficient in the signal wiring can cause significant changes in total circuit resistance. This change in resistance appears as a change in sensed temperature. As the temperature of the signal wiring goes up, the wire resistance rises in the same manner as the RTD itself. The wire resistance is directly proportional to the length of the cable as well. Therefore, two (2) wire RTDs should only be used where required accuracy is not critical, or cable lengths are limited to a few feet.
As a general rule, three or four wire RTD's are used in applications requiring accurate temperature measurement. The four wire RTD does not experience any significant lead wire effect since it measures the voltage variation caused by the

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                 FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 41 of 178 RTD.
The relevant points to remember regarding lead wire effects are:
* The lead wire error is a positive bias for the 2 wire RTD and may be either a positive or a negative bias for a 3 wire RTD.
* The magnitude of lead wire error increases with increasing cable length. For example, for a three wire RTD whose wires are all routed and terminated the same, the effect would be determined from the RTD cable length multiplied by three.
* The higher the RTD ice point resistance, the lower the lead wire error, for the same length/size of lead wire.
5.2.5 RTD Self Heating Effect (SH)
The measurement of the resistance of an RTD demands that a current be passed through the resistance element. This current produces heat that raises the temperature of the element and, therefore, its resistance. The self-heating error is the amount of resistance change, converted to degrees, and is typically stated by the manufacturer.
The magnitude of the self-heating error depends on the efficiency of heat transfer from the sensing element to the protective sheath and from the sheath to the medium being measured. The self-heating error is, therefore, much larger when the detector is measuring moving air than when it is measuring moving liquid.
The standard method of determining the self-heating error is to immerse the thermometer in a stirred constant temperature bath, usually an ice bath. The resistance of the bulb is measured at two levels of current and the wattage dissipated at each level of current is calculated. The self-heating error, SH, is then:
SH      =      1 *    (R2 - R1)                                     (Eq. 5)
S      (W2 - W1)
Where, S             =    Average slope of the calibration curve, in ohms/&deg;C at the temperature at which the test is carried out.
R1             =    Resistance at the first level of current, in ohms R2             =    Resistance at the second level of current, in ohms W1              =    Wattage dissipated at the first level of current

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 42 of 178 W2            =      Wattage dissipated at the second level of current The error is calculated in terms of &deg;C/watt and must be converted to units of percent span.
The above discussion characterizes what the self-heating effect is and how it is determined. However, it should be noted that the effect is typically insignificant, relative to the other uncertainties.
5.2.6 Dynamic Function Effects Most instrument strings do not contain functions within electronic cards, modules or code whose output varies as a function of time and therefore are not dynamic in nature. In those instances, slowly varying the input signal and verifying bistable trip setpoints introduces no additional uncertainty.
For those applications where Lag, Lead, or Lead/Lag functions exist, and the calibration procedure tests through these modules in a dynamic manner, additional uncertainties may be introduced due to the behavior of the time domain function itself. For example, if a Lag function was intended to operate at 3 seconds, but in reality operated at 3.2 seconds, then the value of the injected input signal at the front end would be different than expected when the bistable setpoint is reached.
Current calibration of the dynamic cards is performed by injecting a ramp or step input signal to the channel components under test and comparing the card output to a calculated output under ideal conditions. Therefore, the total uncertainty for the components under test will be a combination of the channel components static and dynamic uncertainties.
Safety Analysis currently models dynamic functions in the safety analyses with no allowances for deviation from the nominal value for the time constants. This requires that the time constants be verified to be set conservative with respect to the values noted in the plant Technical Specifications and/or Core Operating Limits Report (COLR). Thus, for lead/lag modules, the calibration "As-Left" condition must be increasing leads, decreasing lags, or increasing lead/lag ratios.
Rate functions must be set with increasing rate values and lag functions must be set with decreasing lag values. Therefore, a nominal lead/lag of 50/5 may be left at 51/4.9, but not at 49/5.1. A rate function with a time constant of 2.0 seconds must be left at  2.0 seconds. A lag function with a time constant of 5.0 seconds must be left at  5.0 seconds.
Since the dynamic uncertainties are not explicitly accounted for in the safety analyses, the uncertainty must be accounted for in the plant setpoint by way of the calibration/surveillance procedures. The time constants or the As-Found/As-Left tolerances for these functions must account for these uncertainties in the procedures to ensure the time constants are not allowed to exceed the nominal

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology              FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 43 of 178 value, considering the direction of conservatism. For example, the surveillance of a time constant for a lag function of 5.0 seconds with a +/- 0.1 second As-Found uncertainty could be adjusted to 4.9 seconds with a +/- 0.1 second acceptance tolerance or the 5.0 second time constant could be surveilled to 5.0 seconds with an As-Found tolerance of + 0.0, - 0.1 seconds.
In a similar fashion, this methodology does not include dynamic effects in the determination of the Allowable Value for these types of channels. The Technical Specification Allowable Value is determined/verified from the static uncertainties alone, while the dynamic effects are accounted for in the surveillance/calibration procedures as described above.
Since the uncertainties which make up the As-Found tolerance typically include the square root sum of squares combination of reference accuracy, drift, and M&TE, the Dynamic Function Effect (DFE) As-Found tolerance must contain these uncertainties as they pertain to the static and dynamic specifications of the equipment and the M&TE used during the surveillance/calibration process.
Similarly, the uncertainties which make up the As-Left tolerance typically include the square root sum of squares combination of reference accuracy and M&TE, the DFE As-Left tolerance must also contain these uncertainties as they pertain to the static and dynamic specifications of the equipment and the M&TE used during the surveillance/calibration process.
To ensure that the dynamic uncertainty allowances are applied such that the safety analyses are supported, the As-Found and As-Left adjusted setpoints must be chosen such that the random uncertainties about the setpoint will be conservative with respect to the leads, lags, and lead/lags used in the safety analyses. Applying the uncertainties in this manner in the surveillance and calibration procedures will assure that the time constants will remain conservative with respect to the non-error adjusted time constants used in the safety analyses.
5.2.7 Conditions for Which Uncertainty is Determined For the NGD plants, three design bases conditions of operation have been established for which instrument accuracy may be be determined. The three conditions, calibration (reference), normal, and accident, define the bases and limits of the plant process, and environmental conditions, under which instrumentation must function. The three conditions are shown pictorially in Figure 5-8.
5.2.7.1    Calibration Conditions The calibration conditions are, essentially, the conditions under which an instrument/loop provides its highest degree of accuracy. Typically, no operational influences are imposed on the loop under these reference conditions. For calibrations, all ambient environmental parameters are considered to be within an instrument's/loop's relatively narrow range of

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 44 of 178 reference operating limits. This accuracy is that of a loop immediately after calibration.
5.2.7.2    Normal Conditions The normal conditions define the environmental conditions under which an instrument/loop must function during normal plant operation. This condition includes anticipated operational occurrences, but does not include design bases accident conditions unless the normal conditions bound those of the accident. The normal conditions are defined as the normal condition maximum values.
5.2.7.3    Accident Conditions The accident conditions define the maximum or worst case process and environmental conditions under which an instrument/loop must function.
This condition includes those uncertainties expected to exist at the time of a trip or indicator based action. The accident conditions are defined in each plant's FSAR.
5.2.8 Loop Error Determination The calculation of instrument loop error must utilize a clear, and straightforward process. The calculation should coincide with a loop's layout from process measurement to the final output device(s) of concern. The terms for each device in a loop must be clearly identified and classified for proper inclusion in the error formula

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology              FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 45 of 178 FIGURE 5-8 DIAGRAM OF INSTRUMENTATION OPERATING CONDITIONS The basic process for calculating loop errors will involve the separate calculation of individual device uncertainties, and the calculation of partial loop error values at the output of each loop device. This process is shown graphically in Figure 5-9.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                 FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 46 of 178 FIGURE 5-9 TYPICAL LOOP ERROR DIAGRAM A loop error analysis should always start with an evaluation for process measurement errors as discussed in Attachment 11. Even if no process measurement error exists, a statement to that affect should be noted in the calculation. The process measurement error (PME), e1, would take the form of, e1 = +/- PME + PMEb+ - PMEb-                                                (Eq. 9)
Where,
                    +/- PME           -       are the random components of PME, if any PMEb            -       are the bias error portions of the process measurement, if any Bias error term abbreviations will use a lower case "b" as a suffix to designate bias. Random error term abbreviations will not have a random suffix designator.
Since PME is the starting point of the loop analysis, PMEo = e1 In general, no additional error will exist between PME and the primary element (PE). Therefore, PEi = PMEo The PE error, e2, would then be calculated, e2 = +/-[RA2 + (other error effects)2]0.5 + PEb+ - PEb-                   (Eq. 10)
Where,

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                 FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 47 of 178 RA      -       is the primary element's reference accuracy PEb     -       are the bias error portions of the primary element, if any.
The PE error, e2, would then be combined with the PEi error to establish the primary element output error, PEo.
PEo = +/- [PEi2 + e 2]0.5 + PMEb+ + PEb+ - PMEb- - PEb-If no additional error is identified between the PE and the transmitter (TRX), then TRXi = PEo The TRX error, e3, would then be calculated from an equation such as, e3 = +/-[(MTE + CAL)2 + DR 2 + TE2 + RA2]0.5 + TRXb+ - TRXb-              (Eq. 11)
The actual error components which make up the total transmitter error will vary based on functional requirements, and reference operating conditions. The individual error components are discussed in AD-EG-ALL-1153. For this discussion, we will assume that no bias error exists for the transmitter, thus allowing the bias terms to be dropped from Equation 11.
The TRX error, e3, would then be combined with the TRXi error to establish transmitter output error, TRXo.
TRXo = +/-[TRXi2 + e 2]0.5 + PMEb+ + PEb+ - PMEb- - PEb-                 (Eq. 12)
The output error of one device will generally equal the input error of the next device in a string. The exception occurs when an additional error term such as IR comes into play between two devices. In this situation, the signal conditioning equipment input (SCi) is, SCi = TRXo + IRb+ (or - IRb-)
In an actual loop analysis, only one IRb component would exist (+ or -) since IR does not exhibit both a positive and negative component for the same loop.
The process of calculating individual device error terms and combining them with the partial loop error term would continue through to the device of concern.
Assuming no bias errors existed for Signal Conditioner (SC) and Indicator (IND), INDo = +/-[INDi2+e 2]0.5 +IRb+ +PMEb+ + PEb+ - PMEb- -
PEb-                                                                 (Eq. 13)
All loop and device error terms shall be expressed in the same basis (i.e. units) prior to combining the error terms. Typically, the simplest basis to express the

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 48 of 178 errors in is percent of span. Careful evaluation of the individual error terms is required to ensure that consistent units are maintained throughout the calculations. Examples of various expressions of error terms and conversion values for percent of span are shown in Attachment 11 and AD-EG-ALL-1153.
Attachment 7 shows techniques for converting from other bases to percent span.
If it is questionable whether a particular module or uncertainty is applicable because it may not have an appreciable amount of error associated with it, the calculation does not need to consider the term as long as acceptable justification is documented within the calculation for the term's exclusion. Due to the statistical nature of combining the errors, if a random independent uncertainty is one-fifth or less than the largest random independent uncertainty, it may be disregarded. However it is important to document within the calculation why it can be disregarded.
When a loop contains a non-linear device, the loop errors must be calculated for specific values of span downstream of the non-linear device.          For a non-linear device, such as a square root extractor, the output error is proportional to the magnitude of the true signal. This non-linearity can be seen in the example below.
EXAMPLE:
Assume we have a flow measurement loop containing a square root extraction module. The loop is calibrated such that an output signal of 0-4000 GPM is generated for an input of 0-100 in WC.
The basic flow to differential pressure relationship is:
F = k(DP)0.5 where, k is a constant for a particular loop.
For this example k is:
k = F/(DP)0.5 = 4000/(100)0.5 = 400 Now if we have an error in the measurement upstream of the square root extractor, this error is seen as a change in the DP input.
Using the basic flow/DP relationship, a table can be made showing the effect of a
             +2% DP span error on the flow measurement.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                  FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 49 of 178 Factual    F (%      D    DP (%    DP+2%    F reading  F error   F error (%
(GPM)      flow)  (inWC) DP span)    error   (GPM)     (% flow    reading)
(inWC)               span) 0          0       0      0         2      565.7      14.1 800        20       4      4         6      979.8       4.5       22.5 2000        50      25     25        27     2078.5       2.0        3.9 3200        80      64     64        66     3249.6       1.2        1.6 4000       100     100    100       102     4039.8       1.0        1.0 Note that as the true flow signal increases, the effect of the constant +2% DP span error decreases due to the basic non-linear function of square root extraction.
Therefore, the error in the output of a non-linear device should be calculated for specific values of output span unless the largest error of the span is used.
5.2.9 Uncertainty Allowances The uncertainties determined to exist in a loop are used to establish allowances for that loop. The allowances define the bounds within which a loop and/or its components can operate and still satisfy their design functions. Multiple allowances exist for each instrument loop. These allowances, also known as tolerances, or performance limits, are provided to aid in the calibration, and maintenance of the instrument loop.
5.2.9.1    Tolerances Tolerances, as discussed in AD-EG-ALL-1153, are allowances established on specific loop components, groups of components, or the total loop, and which are used to aid in the maintenance and calibration of the loop. Tolerances define the limits to which an instrument loop must be calibrated to assure proper loop function. Tolerances allow for the basic inaccuracy of a device, or group of devices, and establish the acceptable level of performance of the components being calibrated. Tolerances are defined under the reference conditions only, since calibration is performed under these conditions. For an instrument loop, the various tolerances are,
* Device Tolerance - the calibration tolerance of a specific component or device within a loop. The device tolerance is equal to the reference accuracy of the device, plus any device setting tolerance.
* Loop Tolerance - the total loop calibration tolerance which defines the basic accuracy of a loop. The loop tolerance is established based on

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 50 of 178 the calibration tolerances of the devices which make up the loop.
* As-Found Tolerance - the generic term given to the bounding tolerance allowed between calibrations of a defined device, loop segment, or loop. The As-Found tolerance establishes the limit of error the defined device(s) can be found to have during surveillance testing, and still be considered to be in calibration. The As-Found tolerance accounts for the calibration tolerances, drifts, and M&TE uncertainties of the device(s) under test. Note that if only the rack instruments through the final device is being tested, the sensor uncertainties should not be included.
* As-Left Tolerance - the generic term given to the calibration tolerance allowed for a defined device, group of devices or loop. For a single device, the As-Left tolerance is the same as the device tolerance discussed above. For a total loop, the As-Left tolerance is the same as the loop tolerance discussed above. The term is also commonly used to define the calibration tolerance allowed in a loop segment which is periodically tested. The As-Left tolerance accounts for the calibration tolerance of the loop segment. The As-Left tolerance establishes the required accuracy band within which the loop segment must be calibrated.
5.2.9.2    Loop Allowances An understanding of the concepts of allowances, and tolerances, in instrument loops is essential to understanding loop performance, and capabilities. The allowances, and their associated limits, establish the performance characteristics of an instrument/loop, which in turn establishes the design relationships between the loops and plant control.
Basic Relationships Figure 5-10 shows the basic relationship of allowances for a typical instrument or loop. In Figure 5-10, the horizontal center line marked "desired value" represents a measurement value without error. This desired value could be the output of any device, group of devices, or loop. The true output will vary about the desired value based on the accuracy of the device(s). This variance is encompassed by the As-Left tolerance for the device(s). For a general measurement process, the As- Left tolerance is typically applied both above, and below, the desired value, since the true output varies randomly about the actual value.
The As-Left tolerance is normally equal to the reference accuracy, or the combination of reference accuracies for the device(s). A device setting tolerance greater than the reference accuracy may be applied for some functions as discussed in Section 5.2.1.2.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 51 of 178 FIGURE 5-10 TOLERANCE RELATIONSHIPS The As-Left tolerance provides calibration personnel with a measurable calibration band, within which the device(s) must be adjusted. In addition, the As-Left tolerance allows a set of acceptable performance limits to be set, against which actual performance can be monitored. The acceptable performance limits are actually beyond the As-Left tolerance by an amount equal to the MTE error effect.
As discussed in Section 5.2.1.3, the MTE error effect is an error due to calibration equipment inaccuracies, which is not discernable to a calibration technician. As such, it cannot be eliminated. Therefore, actual performance limits for the device(s) being calibrated are equal to the As-Left tolerance plus MTE effect. The acceptable performance limits define the true uncertainty in an output for plant reference conditions (i.e. the highest accuracy obtainable).
However, the device(s) must be left within the As-Left tolerance band, as indicated by the technician's MTE. If the performance of the device(s) remains withinthese limits, no further calibration adjustment would be required. Device(s) found outside of the As-Left tolerance would require recalibration to bring the errors back within the tolerance.
Because all devices experience drift, the additional tolerance value of As-Found has been created. The amount of drift applies only to that which can occur between successive periodic calibrations. The As-Found tolerance establishes what can be called "required limits of performance" on the device(s). These required limits define the maximum amount of error allowed during normal plant operation. Any device whose error exceeds the As- Found tolerance should be evaluated for possible corrective action.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 52 of 178 Calibration of instrument loops (or channels) is divided into three major parts due to the general inaccessibility of loop field sensors for calibration during plant operation. In order to be able to verify loop performance, the loop is divided into a section which is required to be tested and a non-testable section.
The section which is required to be tested generally includes the portion of the loop downstream of the sensor, to a specific loop output. The non-testable section generally contains only the field sensor. Actual division of the loop is as defined in the applicable loop calibration procedures.
The section of the loop required to be tested, the individual loop devices, and the loop as a whole make-up the three parts for calibration. Each part has an associated set of tolerances.
Individual device tolerances define the performance requirements for each of the devices within a loop. As discussed in AD-EG-ALL-1153, each device has an As-Left tolerance and may have an actual or implied As-Found tolerance.
The As-Left tolerances are assigned for a device as discussed in AD-EG-ALL-1153. If an As-Found tolerance was to be assigned to a device or simply used in assessing an out of tolerance condition, it would be determined as shown below:
Device Tolerance The As-Found tolerance can provide a means to verify the operability of the device(s), at any time after calibration.
The As-Found tolerance, as indicated, includes the As-Left tolerances (usually equal to the Reference Accuracy), the MTE error, and the drift (DR) of the device(s). If the equipment is tested on a frequency greater than the normally scheduled calibration intervals, the drift can only account for the time between successive surveillance tests. For many safety- related loops, the surveillance test for accessible components, such as those located in the rack, are required to be performed on a periodic basis.
It is important to note that As-Left and As-Found tolerances can be established for a single instrument, or device, a select group of devices, or a total loop. The tolerances only encompass inherent instrument inaccuracies, and do not account for inaccuracies caused by varying external influences (i.e., ambient environment effects, PME, IR, etc.).
Loop Relationships Normally, the As-Found = +/- [(As-Left)2 + (DR) 2 + (MTE) 2]0.5    (Eq. 14)
The tolerances for the section of the loop required to be tested define the requirements for a group of devices. This group can consist of a number of loop devices and is usually defined by the group of devices tested periodically to verify acceptable loop operation. The tolerances for a group of devices is defined as:

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                   FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 53 of 178 Group Tolerance As-Left = +/- [As-Left 2 + As-Left 2 + . . . + As-Left 2]0.5 1            2                  n (Eq. 15)
Where, As-Left1 through As-Leftn represents the As-Left tolerances of the individual devices which make-up the defined group 1 through n.
As-Found = +/-[As-Left 2 + DR 2 + MTE 2 + As-Left 2 +
1       1         1            2 DR 2 + MTE 2. . . + As-Left 2 + DR 2 +
2          2               n       n 2 0.5 MTE ]                         (Eq.16) n Where, As-Lefti, DRi, and MTEi are the As-Left, drift, and MTE error, respectively, for each device 1 through n.
Figure 5-11 shows the relationship of the group tolerances to the final set of tolerances, the loop tolerances. The loop tolerances define the performance requirements for the loop as a whole. The loop tolerances are calculated in the same manner as defined above, for a group of devices, but include all devices from sensor to final loop output device.
The As-Found tolerance for a loop, establishes an important performance limit for safety-related instrument loops. This limit, which we will call the "Channel Operability Limit", is the limit for verifying operability of a safety-related loop. A safety-related loop found outside of its channel operability limit would normally be declared inoperable, and may cause the initiation of a Licensee Event Report (LER) to the NRC.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                    FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev.a Page 54 of 178
                                                             - ~ - - CHANNEL OPERABIUTY LIMIT
                                                                  \
I                                                fupper~
LOOP Cal. Toff3rance
                                                                                            +   Orjft
                             +                                                          LOOP SEGMM r - - - - - - J . Cal. Tolftf8nce
                                                             ----.~--                       +D~
lOOP
                                          +                                              Cal. TofflRlnce g
                          ~
B    t           ...+              r---r---"""    LOOP S!GMcNT
                                     -:=: QJ f"1) E       8 ~                                     Cal. ?olerance
                         !J                      !~
c:i Q
l .e H
                                          '1) p,i   en    ,! ~
                                                ~
                                                 ...   ~                NOMINAL OESIRED VALUE
                                   ~ Q         ~3 fn ti         14 ..             1,1:1
                                                     ....0 ii( .
                                    <.R         ,I(
                                                             --1--- CHANNct OP!FtABfUTY UMlT Dower)
FIGURE 5-11 LOOP TOLERANCE RELATIONSHIPS

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 55 of 178 Setpoint Relationship The application of tolerances, or allowances, in loops containing setpoints, is of particular importance for a nuclear power plant. This is particularly true of the numerous setpoint functions in quality-related applications. For loops containing setpoints, the output of the setpoint device defines the end of a complete loop or channel. This division allows each setpoint/setpoint device to be treated as a separate loop or channel.
The loop is normally divided in the same manner with the setpoint device included in the testable section of the loop. This division allows for the periodic testing of the loop's setpoint actuation value.
The primary function of setpoint loops is to actuate within an acceptable process variable range. This function leads to a slightly different treatment of tolerances for setpoint loops. Instead of being concerned with the accuracy of the loop measurement (i.e., the variance band around the true value), the concern focuses around when the loop will actuate with respect to a true process value limit of concern.
5.3    Setpoint Determination Development and maintenance of setpoints is an essential prerequisite to the safe and efficient operation of plant systems and equipment. Properly selected setpoints provide early warning of pending problems, correct abnormal situations, and protect the public, plant personnel, and equipment, without unduly compromising the operability, or efficiency, of the plant.
Keeping this in mind, the purpose of each setpoint must be satisfied by the final value established. Setpoints for alarms, for example, should have sufficient margin from a system trip point, or safety limit, to allow an operator time to take corrective action. An alarm, coincident with an equipment trip setpoint, may serve no useful function. However, when attempting to achieve this margin, alarm and plant trip points should not be set so close to normal plant operation limits that they cause nuisance alarms and spurious trips.
An instrument loop using many components and functional modules can possess large uncertainties, even though the accuracy rating of the individual components may be reasonable. Therefore, for all instrument loops, and particularly for multi-component instrument loops, setpoints should be located in that portion of the instrument range which has the required accuracy. It is accepted practice that setpoints should generally not be located in the extreme upper or lower portions of the instrument range.
Figure 5-12 shows the relationships between the various parameters that make up, or define, safety-related setpoints and related allowances. Each of these parameters will be discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 56 of 178 5.3.1 Limits The Technical Specifications for each of the NGD plants are governed by 10CFR50.36, which defines two terms, safety limit (SL) and limiting safety system setting (LSSS), and their relation to instrumentation and control design bases. These terms, as well as two other associated terms, are described below.
5.3.1.1    Safety Limit Plant safety limits (SL) are design limits placed on important process variables to maintain the integrity of plant barriers designed to prevent the release of radioactivity. The limits are established by various regulatory requirements, industry design standards, such as ASME, and initial plant design assumptions bases. The actual plant systems and equipment must be designed such that the plant safety limits are not exceeded during the worst case accident conditions.
Safety limits are the absolute limits. To exceed them, risks incurring uncontrolled releases of radioactivity. In order to ensure they are never reached or exceeded, each plant has conducted in-depth analyses of the accidents and transients postulated to occur for that facility. Such analyses are described in Chapter 15 of each plant's FSAR, as well as in supplemental analyses such as reload reports

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion T
Rev.a Page 57 of 178 SAFETY uMrr ANALYTlCAL UMrr CHA~~EL OPERABIUTY llMtT ToW~Qp                         - AU.OWABL& VALUE Vtiact11nt, lMa,vJII, tfMv LOWER Sffi'CINT UMrr OP!RATIONAL UMIT FIGURE 5-12 LOOP/ SETPOINT RELATIONSHIPS The safety limits are specific values of plant process variables, such as pressure or temperature. They may also be defined by directly calculated process conditions, such as the departure from nuclear boiling ratio (DNBR).
5.3.1.2    Analytical Limit The accident analyses conducted for each plant (fuel reload analyses and fuel vendor accident analyses), assume protective trips are initiated at certain conservative values prior to a variable reaching the safety limit.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 58 of 178 Both the assumed values that form the model for such an analyses, and the maximum value that process variables attain in such an analysis, are referred to as analytical limits (AL).
As shown in Figure 5-12, the safety limit is the uppermost limit that cannot be exceeded without risking potential radioactive releases to the public. To prevent safety limits from being reached, analytical limits are established prior to the safety limits, and are obtained from the results of the fuel vendors fuel reload analyses or accident analyses or from fuel vendor assumed values.
The region between the safety limit and the analytical limit is to provide an additional margin of safety and/or to accommodate any rapid "spikes" or transient overshoots beyond the postulated conditions.
It is important to note that there are relatively few safety limits. Typically, there are numerous analytical limits established, for several types of process conditions, to prevent exceeding a single safety limit. Thus, there may be analytical limits established for RCS temperature, pressurizer level, core power, etc. to prevent exceeding the safety limit associated with RCS pressure.
The determination of Analytical Limits (AL) is the responsibility of the Engineering Discipline which is responsible for the plant system associated with the instrument loop. Each analytical limit and its basis, shall be justified through an engineering calculation or other appropriate means.
The value for the analytical limit and the bases for its determination shall be documented in the uncertainty/setpoint calculation.
An evaluation shall be made by the appropriate Engineering Discipline to determine the analytical limit. This evaluation shall take all viable actions necessary to establish the analytical limit and its bases. Such actions may include, but not be limited to - reviewing fuel vendor fuel reload analyses, fuel vendor accident analyses, plant safety analyses, reviewing existing calculations pertaining to the system/instrument loop of concern, reviewing correspondence files with the appropriate vendor, contacting the vendor and/or performing an audit of their files, obtaining and reviewing the original design specifications and/or associated data sheets, contacting other utilities to ascertain what relevant information they may have, and reviewing start-up test reports.
The Technical Specification value may be the only limiting value available. As a last resort, the Technical Specification value could be taken as the analytical limit. However, this would be a very conservative assumption and could result in new setpoints and allowable values closer to the normal operational limits. Moving a setpoint too close to the normal operational limits is a legitimate safety concern.
Thus, using the Technical Specification value as the analytical limit should be avoided, and only implemented after it has been properly evaluated as to its effects on normal operation and plant safety.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                  FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 59 of 178 5.3.1.3    Limiting Safety System Setting The second term discussed in 10CFR50.36 for use within the Technical Specifications is the Limiting Safety System Setting (LSSS). The LSSS is, "Settings for automatic protective devices in nuclear reactors that are related to those variables having significant safety functions. A LSSS is chosen to begin protective action before the analytical limit is reached to ensure that the consequences of a design basis accident are not more severe than the safety analysis predicted."
The LSSS is comprised of two components - the trip setpoint and the allowable value. The trip setpoint is the predetermined value at which a device changes state to indicate that the quantity under surveillance has reached the selected value. The allowable value is the limiting value that the trip setpoint can have when tested periodically, beyond which the instrument channel must be evaluated for operability. Thus, the trip setpoint corresponds to the nominal value at which a device is set and expected to change state.
The allowable value is the maximum region associated about a setpoint that is still considered to be acceptable for the instrument to fulfill its safety function without risking exceeding the analytical limit. The safety limits and LSSSs are typically defined in the Technical Specifications and the analytical limits are typically defined in the fuel vendor fuel reload analyses, fuel vendor accident analyses, or the FSAR.
To further illustrate the relationships between the terms discussed above, the RCS Pressure for Harris will be used as an example (Note - any associated head effects have been ignored in the following example for simplicity of illustration). Technical Specifications 2.1.2 define the RCS Pressure safety limit as 2735 psig.
Within Table 15.0.6-1 of the Harris FSAR, the high pressurizer pressure trip setpoint is assumed to be 2445 psig for the safety analyses. This is the analytical limit. To ensure that the analytical limit is not exceeded, Technical Specifications 2.2 lists the limiting safety system setting. The limiting safety system setting is composed of the trip setpoint and the allowable value. The trip setpoint is identified as 2385 psig and the allowable value is identified as 2399 psig within Table 2.2-1 of the Harris Technical Specifications. Thus, as long as the trip setpoint for RCS Pressure, and other process variables, are maintained below their allowable values, the safety analyses have ensured that the maximum RCS Pressure achievable under accident conditions will be significantly below the safety limit.
The limits discussed above apply to instrument loops with a protective function. The limits associated with control and indication design bases are treated similarly. Since the control and indication functions are typically not included in the accident analyses, no safety limits, analytical limits, or limiting

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                    FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 60 of 178 safety system settings pertain to their settings. However, there is usually a limit associated with control and indication functions and it is frequently referred to as the design limit.
The design limit for control and indication functions is comparable to the analytical limit for protection functions. It is a limit for a measured or calculated variable to prevent undesired conditions such as equipment damage, spurious trips, or challenges to plant safety signals. The design limit may be a calculated value for a particular system or application or it may be a limit specified by the vendor.
The indicated value is like a setpoint except a setpoint results in an automatic action and an indicated value results in a manual action in response to an indication. Depending on the importance of the setpoint or indicated value, corresponding allowable values may also be established similar to the Technical Specification allowable values for the protection functions.
When identifying a limit associated with a particular instrument, it is thus important to understand what that limit represents. It must be clearly understood whether the function is for protection, control, or indication purposes. Once that is confirmed, it must be further clarified as to the type of limit represented by the value and how it relates to the instrument loop's design basis. Otherwise, the design basis may be misinterpreted and/or misapplied.
5.3.1.4    Channel Operability Limit Although not addressed in the Technical Specifications, another limit exists for determining operability of an instrument channel. This limit, called the Channel Operability Limit (COL), is the loop As-Found tolerance (plus any associated margin). It would be added or subtracted from the setpoint in a manner similar to the allowable value.
Per the Technical Specifications, an instrument loop whose As-Found setpoint exceeds the allowable value in a non-conservative direction must be declared inoperable, and corrective actions taken. However, this determination does not always conclusively demonstrate that the actuation would have occurred at a non-conservative value. This is true because the allowable value only accounts for drift in the tested instruments in the loop, which typically does not include the sensor.
The channel operability limit includes the whole loop, from sensor to final actuation device. This limit includes a larger total allowance for drift, which gives rise to the possibility that unused drift in the sensor may offset the drift incurred in the testable portion of the loop. Therefore, if it is feasible to test the entire loop when an allowable value is exceeded, a reportable condition may not exist, as long as, the As-Found allowance for the loop is not exceeded. However, corrective actions must be in accordance with the Technical Specifications when the allowable value is exceeded, regardless of

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                  FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 61 of 178 whether or not the channel operability limit was exceeded.
If it is not feasible to test the entire loop, it may be possible to analytically determine whether the channel operability limit would have been exceeded.
5.3.1.5    Operational Limits These operational limits (OL) are the minimum/maximum values within which a process should be maintained during normal operation. A margin should be maintained between the operational limit(s), and the setpoint limit(s) to allow flexibility for plant maneuvering.
5.3.2 Setpoints Trip setpoints or setpoints (SP) typically refer to an automatic action in response to a process variable achieving or exceeding some predetermined value. An indicated value is similar except that the action taken is manual in response to an indication. The discussions below will refer to the term "setpoint", however, it is intended that such discussions apply to any type of setpoint or indicated value.
5.3.2.1    Types of Setpoints Setpoints are generally characterized as one of three types: rising, falling, and variable. The setpoint is categorized based on (1) the direction from which a process variable approaches the setpoint, and (2) whether the setpoint has a fixed value or varies as a function of another variable (i.e.,
time, power, level, temperature, etc.)
Rising setpoints are associated with a process that has a high limit. Action is initiated when the process variable increases to a point equal to, or greater than, the setpoint.
Falling setpoints are associated with a process that has a low limit. Action is initiated when the process variable decreases to a point equal to, or less than, the setpoint.
Variable setpoints can be of either a rising or falling type. The distinction is that in lieu of a fixed value, the setpoint will vary as a function of another parameter or a preset program. A variable setpoint will always be either a rising or a falling setpoint over its entire range. It cannot change from a rising to a falling, or vise versa. Identification of the setpoint type is an important factor when assessing the impact of setpoint inaccuracies.
Figure 5-13 graphically illustrates both a rising and falling setpoint, and the treatment of loop uncertainties. For a rising setpoint, a conservative setting would be less than the actual limit. Therefore, the loop uncertainties must be subtracted from the analytical limit. For a falling setpoint, a conservative setting would be higher than the actual limit. Therefore, the loop uncertainties

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                     FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion                                                                       Rev.a Page 62 of 178 must be added to the analytical limit.
5.3.2.2    Calculating Setpoints Attachment 11 and AD-ED-ALL-1153 discusses the various components of a loop's uncertainty, as well as describes how to combine those uncertainties to determine a total loop uncertainty (TLU). The TLU is the maximum potential deviation in the positive and negative direction about the true value of a variable which the loop could consider as the true value of the variable. This can be expressed mathematically as:
LV      =      TV+/-TLU                                (Eq. 17)
Where, LV     =      Loop Value TV      =      True Value TLU     =       Total Loop Uncertainty HIGH ANALYTICAL.--~--
UMrr
                                                 ..,.._.. AUOWABLE VAWE         Ar!INC! AcruATION EXAMPLS S!TPOINT t
                                                 ~
SEt'POtNT__...
FAWNG ACTUATION EXAMPLE ALLOWABLE VALUE--tll-_L l.OW ANALVTlCAl, UMIT FIGURE 5-13 SETPOINT TYPES For calculating setpoints, we have determined the total loop uncertainty but we do not know the true value of the process. What we do know, however, is that

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                 FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 63 of 178 the loop value has been analyzed not to exceed a certain value, i.e., the analytical limit (or design limit as applicable). Therefore, we can let the loop value equal the analytical limit, AL:
AL = LV                                                 (Eq. 18)
Substituting into Equation 17, AL = TV +/- TLU                                           (Eq. 19)
For an analytical limit that is higher than the true value of a variable, the equation becomes, AL = TV + TLU                                           (Eq. 20)
Similarly, for an analytical limit that is lower than the true value of a variable, the equation becomes, AL = TV - TLU                                           (Eq. 21)
The true value in both these equations represents the maximum true value that the actual process variable may have, which when combined with the maximum expected deviation, will still not exceed the analytical limit. It also represents the maximum value which a setpoint can be assigned and the process be ensured to respond as it was analyzed. Additional margin may also be used to position the setpoint further away from the analytical limit.
Assuming that no additional margin is used and substituting the setpoint (SP) in for the true value, Equations 20 and 21 can be written as, AL = SP + TLU                                           (Eq. 22) and AL = SP - TLU                                           (Eq. 23)
Rearranging the terms, the setpoint can be determined from the following, SP = AL - TLU                                           (Eq. 24) and SP = AL + TLU                                           (Eq. 25)
Equation 24 represents an analytical limit that is higher than the setpoint and Equation 25 represents an analytical limit that is lower than the setpoint.
Another way of viewing it is that Equation 24 applies to a process that must be

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                  FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 64 of 178 prevented from rising above a certain analytical limit, and Equation 25 applies to a process that must be prevented from falling below a certain analytical limit. Equation 24 applies to a rising setpoint and Equation 25 applies to a falling setpoint. They may also be combined into one equation, SP = AL +/- TLU                                          (Eq. 26)
It is important to understand how the positive and negative terms are used when writing the equation this way. For a rising setpoint, the maximum absolute negative TLU is subtracted (i.e, add the negative value) from the analytical limit. Similarly, for a falling setpoint, the maximum positive TLU is added to the analytical limit.
Figure 5-13 above illustrates both a rising and falling setpoint and the treatment of loop uncertainties. For a rising setpoint, a conservative setting would be less than the limiting value, therefore, the loop uncertainties must be subtracted from the analysis limit. For a falling setpoint, a conservative setting would be higher than the limiting value, therefore, the loop uncertainties must be added to the analytical limit.
Another factor frequently overlooked when establishing a setpoint is the setpoint's proximity to the normal operational limits. If a setpoint is placed too close to the operational limits, it can result in spurious alarms or trips.
Consider an example of the RCS Pressure for Harris. The trip setpoint for RCS Pressure is 2385 psig, however, in actuality the Technical Specifications state the trip setpoint must be = 2385 psig. Selecting the trip setpoint as 2250 psig versus 2385 psig would provide additional conservatism that the analytical limit would not be exceeded. Additionally, it would also increase the probability of spurious plant trips. Besides the economic consequences, such trips unnecessarily cycle plant equipment which is only designed for a given number of such trips. Thus, overall plant safety may actually be degraded by moving the setpoint too far away from the analytical limit.
Another illustration of the potential safety significance of placing setpoints too close to their operational limits involves equipment availability and the potential for common mode failures. Consider two trains of an Emergency Core Cooling System (i.e., HPCI, SI, etc,) with their associated pumps. The pumps would typically have trip functions on low suction pressure. If the setpoint for the low suction pressure was established conservatively away from the limiting suction pressure for the pump, it may be set too close to the expected range of the suction pressure. This could cause an inadvertent trip of the pump. Normally, the setpoints for both trains would be set at approximately the same value. Thus, both pumps could potentially trip due to a common mode failure of establishing the setpoints too close to the normal operational values.
When calculating a setpoint, Equations 24 and 25 describe how to ensure a

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                 FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 65 of 178 setpoint is far enough away from the analytical limit. A similar approach can be used to ensure that it is far enough away from the operational limits. For a rising setpoint, Equation 24 states that the maximum absolute negative TLU should be subtracted from the analytical limit. To ensure the setpoint is sufficiently away from the operational limit (OL), the maximum positive component of the TLU is added to the OL, as follows:
SP = OL + TLU                                        (Eq. 27)
The value for OL in this equation would be the maximum value the process would be expected to achieve under its normal operational conditions.
Similarly, to ensure that the setpoint is sufficiently away from the operational limit for a falling setpoint, the maximum absolute negative component of the TLU would be subtracted from the OL, as follows:
SP = OL - TLU                                        (Eq. 28)
For this equation, the OL represents the minimum value the process would be expected to achieve under its normal operational conditions.
5.3.2.3    Setpoint Tolerances An upper and lower setpoint limit or tolerance should be established for setpoints. The limits should provide a band around the setpoint which, as a minimum, accounts for the reference accuracy of the periodically tested segment of a loop. This would usually be from the output of a transmitter or detector (i.e., where the test input is injected) up to, and including, the device where calibration measurements are periodically taken during surveillance tests.
For a device, the calibration tolerance is normally at least as large as the device's reference accuracy. In some applications, such as when more accurate test equipment is not available, the calibration tolerance may need to be increased beyond the device's reference accuracy.
As a calibration tolerance is widened, it increases its value. This higher value contributes to a higher value for the total loop uncertainty. The higher value for the total loop uncertainty moves the setpoint away from the analytical limit or design limit, as applicable.
Similarly, narrowing the calibration tolerance will move the setpoint closer to the analytical or design limit. Therefore, increasing a tolerance band makes calibrations easier via fewer devices found outside the band and less tuning required to stay within the band. However, increasing the tolerance band also moves a setpoint closer to its operational limits and increases the potential for spurious trips, alarms, etc. Thus, an optimum value should be determined for a device's tolerance and the associated group (i.e. setpoint) and loop tolerances, to allow the most flexibility for both the I&C group to perform their

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                   FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 66 of 178 calibrations, and the operations group to operate their equipment.
One method of potentially providing some flexibility for a device tolerance may be to include a calibration tolerance that is not symmetrical. That is, in the direction of interest (falling or rising) the calibration tolerance may be relatively narrow yet broader in the other direction. For example for a rising setpoint, the negative portion of the TLU will be used to establish the setpoint with respect to the analytical limit. Therefore, the tolerance may be tighter in the negative direction and broader in the positive direction (e.g. +10/-5 psig).
In such a case, different values would need to be calculated for the positive and negative TLU terms using the respective calibration tolerances. Although acceptable, this practice is discouraged because instrument drift and reference accuracies do not typically manifest themselves asymmetrically. In addition, any device that can be reliably maintained within tolerance on the "tight" side of an asymmetrical tolerance should be expected to meet that tolerance symmetrically; and if a larger tolerance is needed, the setpoint should be revised to allow for it instead of revising the tolerance so calibration can be satisfied by "playing the tolerance."
The tolerance band provides calibration personnel with a measurable calibration band within which the device(s) must be adjusted. In addition, the tolerance band establishes a set of acceptable performance limits against which actual performance can be monitored. As long as the performance of the device(s) remains within these limits, no calibration adjustment would be required. Device(s) found outside of the calibration tolerance would require recalibration to bring the errors back within the tolerance and a review would potentially need to be made to determine if the instrument was, and had been prior to its recalibration, operable.
5.3.2.4    Allowable Values NOTE: The following content specific to DEP sites ONLY.
Technical Specifications typically list, along with an instrument's setpoints, another term called the allowable value which provides an allowance to account for the expected drift in the testable portion of the loop. Usually, the Technical Specifications will state that if a setpoint is found to be less conservative than its allowable value, the loop is to be declared inoperable until the setpoint is restored to within the allowable value. An evaluation is usually made to determine how long such a loop may have been inoperable and any plant operations that may have been affected.
The allowable value defines a limit which the setpoint should be maintained within to show that the uncertainties which are present within the loop when it is periodically tested/calibrated, are consistent with the values used within its uncertainty/setpoint calculation. In other words, it provides an acceptance criteria for the setpoint during the required periodic surveillance test, and from which operability determinations can be made.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                  FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 67 of 178 The allowable value (error allowance) can be determined from the As-Found tolerance for that group or loop of instruments periodically tested. If the allowable value is applied to surveillance testing that excludes the sensor, then the group As-Found tolerance is used. If the allowable value is applied to surveillance testing that includes the sensor, then the loop As-Found tolerance is used. In this case, the Channel Operability Limit (COL) should be used as the allowable value. The allowable value can be determined by adding or subtracting the group As-Found tolerance or loop As-Found tolerance, as appropriate, to the setpoint such that the allowable value moves closer to the analytical limit. Note that the drift term in Equation 16 would only account for the interval between successive tests (as few as 30 days for rack components and up to 30 months for sensors).
Thus for a rising setpoint, the allowable value would be determined by, AV = SP + GAFT                        (Eq. 29) and for a falling setpoint the allowable value would be determined by, AV = SP - GAFT                        (Eq. 30)
Where,                AV      = Allowable Value SP      = Setpoint GAFT = Group As-Found Tolerance The channel operability limit is a value established to encompass the drift from the entire loop, inclusive of the sensor. Whenever the drift from the testable portion of the loop exceeds its allowable value, the drift for the entire loop may still be acceptable if the allowable value is not the same as the channel operability limit and the sensor drift is less than predicted. Although the Technical Specifications must still be followed in assessing loop operability, showing that a loop is still within its channel operability limit is one potential method of evaluating safety significance.
The channel operability limit is calculated similar to the allowable value, except the Loop As-Found Tolerance is used in place of the Group As-Found Tolerance. For a rising setpoint it is determined by, COL = SP + LAFT                                  (Eq. 31) and for a falling setpoint the channel operability limit is determined by, COL = SP - LAFT                                   (Eq. 32)
Where,        COL = Channel Operability Limit SP      = Setpoint LAFT = Loop As-Found Tolerance

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                   FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion                                                                Rev.a Page 68 of 178 NOJE* Jbe following content is specific to         pee sites ONLY, The Allowable Value (AV) represents an acceptable benchmark (specified by Technical Specifications) for which periodic calibrations/checks must fall within to ensure operability. As-found data outside of the 'AV' will result in the channel being declared inoperable with appropriate corrective action taken prior to the channel being returned to operable status. The 'AV' determination is based on the expected uncertainty influences for the portion of the loop not tested. Examples of typical uncertainty influences are transmitter reference accuracy, calibration uncertainties and temperature effects, process measurement allowances and biases. The combination of terms for the 'AV' determination should be consistent with that for the 'TLU' value (namely the SRSS).
TLU   = +/-.JRuNT 2 + RUr 2 + Biases (Eq. 33) where           RUNr = denotes uncertainty associated with the portion of the loop not tested during the channel operational test (COT), calibration, etc.
RUr = denotes uncertainty associated with the portion of the loop tested during the channel operational test (COT),
calibration, etc.
Biases= bias/abnormal distribution uncertainties ALLOWABLE VALUE AV= AL+/- (RUNT +/-Biases)= AL+/- [j(TLU - Biases) 2                   - RUr-ca/ - Biases] (Eq. 34) where           AL     = Analytical Limit
                               +/-      = "+" or "-" sign convention dictated by whichever is in the direction of the setpoint (i.e. towards setpoint)
RUr-ca1 = includes uncertainty terms associated with the portion of the loop_tested and for the desired interval.
For example, consider a pressure loop with transmitter & rack uncertainty contributions, with a low pressure protective function for which a quarterly channel operational test surveillance is performed only for the rack portion of the loop (uncertainty term designations defined per Attachment 11) which excludes checking the transmitter and temperature effects of the rack:
EXAMPLE TLU:

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                          FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion                                                                            Rev.a Page 69 of 178 (Eq. 35)
EXAMPLE ALLOWABLE VALUE:
AV =AL+/- RUNT       +/- Biases (Eq. 36)
AV= AL+/- [.J(TLU -Biases) 2      - RUr-ca/ + Biases] (Eq. 37) where:
RUr-caL = A/+ CTE/ + MTER       2
                                                         + DR 2 + TERca1 2 (Eq. 38)
Note: The RUT-cal example above includes a magnitude for temperature (TERca1); however, in actual practice this is commonly omitted for ease of calculation and the fact that the rack is typically located in a controlled environment.
AV=
AL+/-
2
( ( Apr 2
                  + CTEp,' + MTEp,2 +    Dp,2 + TEpr 2
                                                         + Aj +      CTEj   + MTER +2 DR 2
                                                                                               + TER  2
                                                                                                        +EA)- EA)
                                                                                                                       +EA
                                    -U~A_/_+_C_T_E_R_2 _+_M_T_E-R2_+_D_R_
2
_+_T_~-c-al~,y (Eq. 39)
AV= AL+/-        Ap/  +  CTEn 2
                                    + MTEn 2 +  DPT + TEPT + A/ + CTER + MTER 2            2                2          2
                                                                                               +  DR 2
                                                                                                        + TE/    EA
                                          -A/- CTER 2 -MTER 2 - D/- TEncaz2                                    +
(Eq. 40)
Generally, 'AV' and 'AL' values exist only for protection and safeguard functions (RPS/ESFAS). For other applications where an AV is not currently calculated and presented in the Technical Specifications, an AV is not required.
In support of Out-of-Tolerance evaluations, a maximum "As-Found" calibration tolerance band can be determined using methods described in AD-EG-ALL-1153.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                  FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 70 of 178 In some cases, the selection of a setpoint may result in overlap of the 'TLU' within the operational range, in order to ensure protection of the limit (process or Analytical Limit). If at all possible, sufficient margin should also be provided relative to both the analytical/process limit and the normal operational range, to minimize the potential for spurious actuation and/or unnecessary challenges to safety systems.
Once an AV is determined, a comparison between the calculated value and the Technical Specification value shall be made. A calculated AV more limiting than the value presented in the Technical Specification will require that a Corrective Action Program action be initiated and a revision of the Technical Specification be performed. However, a calculated AV less limiting than the value presented in the Technical Specification will not necessarily require a revision. Considerations for adopting a less limiting AV and revising the Technical Specifications may include installation of new equipment, likelihood of current AV producing increased declarations of inoperability, etc. Current Technical Specification AVs should be retained if they can be reasonably expected to be met without undue burden on the plant.
5.3.3 Application of Margin Margin (M) is a term used to describe a general allowance made for determining setpoints. Adding margin has the affect of moving a setpoint further away from the analytical limit (AL) or also known as the design limit (DL). Similarly, removing margin moves a setpoint closer to the analytical limit. Both applications are described in more detail below.
Additional Margin For some loops, the setpoint may be determined to be too close to the analytical limit (or design limit). Such an evaluation may be based on "engineering judgment" or it may be more quantitative. For example, the As- Found values for a given loop may be repeatedly exceeding the allowable value and the loop is continually being evaluated for operability. Regardless of the reason, whenever a setpoint is moved further away from the analytical limit (or design limit), it is referred to as "adding margin". Equation 26 shows that a setpoint is calculated by the expression:
SP = AL +/- TLU By adding margin (M), the equation becomes, SP = AL +/- TLU +/- M                                                (Eq. 42)
When margin is added it has the effect of increasing the conservatism of the setpoint. That is the action initiated by the setpoint will occur prior to where it would have occurred without the margin. Caution must be exercised, however, in that too much margin may also lead to spurious trips, nuisance alarms, etc. Overall plant

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                 FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 71 of 178 performance and plant safety can be degraded because of inadvertent challenges to plant equipment.
Whenever margin is added to a setpoint or determined to be present in an existing setpoint, it should be identified as such within the setpoint calculation. This will assist in any future evaluations of the loop or process system, should modifications be required of the equipment or the safety analyses.
5.3.4 Reducing Over-conservatisms There are several ways of combining uncertainties (linear, SRSS, combinational) that employ varying levels of conservatism. Similarly, there are ways and assumptions used in determining the actual uncertainties that inject varying levels of conservatism. This document has reflected a general approach that may be used efficiently for most setpoints. It is not necessary to fine-tune each setpoint to very precise values. Thus, the methods described up to now may introduce certain conservatisms for the sake of convenience in performing the calculations. Some applications have a very narrow region between the normal operating range and the analytical limit (or design limit).
For these cases, the conservatism must be reduced as much as practical to prevent inadvertent trips. Presented below are some suggestions which may be used on a case-by-case basis to reduce an individual conservatism.
: 1. Review the timing of the setpoint's actuation (or the time needed for an indication) versus the plant specific accident profiles to determine if the loop's design basis trip function occurs prior to a harsh environment forming. Also, the accident temperature effect usually occurs immediately after an accident and then dissipates. The accident radiation effect is frequently not a concern until a significant period following an accident. Thus, only one or the other of the effects may need to be included in the total loop uncertainty instead of both.
: 2. Determine if the specific location of the loop (or components results in a milder environment than that assigned to the general room or building.
For example, a sensor may be shielded by equipment reducing its radiation dose or a sensor may be on the floor of a large open area such that its temperature is less than the average room temperature.
: 3. Determine if a loop calibration can be performed versus a component-by-component calibration. If not, evaluate whether a loop check can be done following the component-by- component calibration. Either of these minimizes the number of times the M&TE uncertainty must be applied.
: 4. Ascertain whether more accurate M&TE is available for performing the calibrations. It may be possible to use more accurate equipment if the device is calibrated in the shop versus in the field.
: 5. Reduce the calibration tolerance for all devices to their minimum acceptable

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 72 of 178 values (typically their reference accuracies).
: 6. Revise the method of calibration to verify all attributes of each device such that only the calibration tolerance must be included in the total loop uncertainty calculation.
: 7. Perform a loop specific insulation resistance (IR) calculation instead of relying on a worst case or assumed IR value.
: 8. Utilize calibration tolerances that are not symmetrical, but are smaller in the direction of interest.
: 9. Determine if the calibration frequency can be increased to approach the interval used by the vendor for his drift value or, to be even more frequent than that assumed by the vendor.
: 10. Investigate whether updated information from the vendor can reduce drift or other uncertainties. Also, evaluate whether or not plant As-Found/As-Left calibration data may be analyzed to determine drift, rather that using the vendor specifications.
: 11. Modify equipment whereby its span is closer to its range, and the turndown factor can be decreased or deleted.
: 12. For indicators and recorders, assess whether another indication (i.e, via the plant computer) may provide a more accurate indication. If possible, scale faces, chart paper, etc. may be changed to reduce the readability error. The substitution of digital displays for analog displays will usually result in a smaller indicator error.
: 13. Evaluate if sensors can be moved to a more moderate environment.
: 14. For differential pressure loops, determine if calibrating the sensor at pressure could reduce the static pressure effect.
: 15. Treat calibration tolerances and M&TE errors as statistically independent terms when combining the uncertainties.
: 16. Reduce the uncertainty values using the "single side of interest" statistical methodology factor, if applicable 5.3.5 Dead Band and Reset Dead band and reset are two interrelated control phenomenon which can affect an instrument loop's performance. Dead Band is the term given to the phenomenon that occurs in all instruments upon the reversal of an input signal (i.e., from rising to falling, or falling to rising). A band of non-response, or dead band, exists for a change in input, where no change in output is seen. Whenever an input signal

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                 FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 73 of 178 changes direction, a discrete amount of reverse signal change has to take place before the output begins to change. This characteristic is inherent in most devices.
Dead band is found in both analog and digital (setpoint) devices. In analog devices, the dead band is part of the basic accuracy of the device, and affects the device's ability to respond to a change in input signal. For digital or setpoint devices, the dead band affects the point at which a device resets after actuation. Generally dead band is an undesirable trait of a control system because of its effect on stability.
Many digital applications, though, rely on dead band as an integral part of the control scheme.
To prevent cycling, chatter and subsequent system instability, it is usually necessary to allow a sufficiently large difference (or dead band) between the actuation and reset point of a setpoint device. Some setpoint devices have only a fixed differential between the actuation and reset point. When selecting such a device, an assessment should be made to ensure that the fixed differential is adequate for the application. For devices which have an adjustable differential, the setting for the reset point should be based on system capabilities and required system performance. A sufficient band must be allowed between a device's setpoint and reset point to prevent cycling, and equipment wear due to normal process system variations.
Knowledge of the functional application and calibration technique are required in order to determine whether a deadband allowance should be included in the uncertainty determination. In general, dead band and reset do not have to be considered in loop error analysis.
Deadband should be included as a bias to the reset function, if a setpoint performs functions both in the increasing and decreasing directions. (i.e. reset constitutes return to normal state for the application, as opposed to a shelf state). The dead band and reset do, however, have to be evaluated during a final setpoint determination.
5.3.6 Time Response The speed, or time response, of both a process, and the I&C system that is monitoring a process, can be an important factor in the selection of setpoints.
Allowances in setpoint values may be necessary to compensate for specific system, or equipment, time responses which affect the operation of a setpoint. A slow time response can cause a setpoint to be actuated too late to prevent damage of equipment.
The lead time needed to correct an abnormal process condition prior to reaching unacceptable levels may need to be determined and factored into a setpoint.
However, most "time response" type setpoint concerns are addressed by either establishing circuitry and system response time requirements that are verified by testing, or by installing "lead circuit" devices in the instrument loop. "Lead circuits" cause output signal increases based on the rate of change of the input signal thus

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 74 of 178 ensuring trip points are reached sooner for fast changes to the input signal. When "time response" is of concern and these methods are used, no time considerations need to be included in the setpoint selection.
Consider the following example where a simple pressure switch is used without a "lead circuit" capability, A setpoint is needed for a pressure switch which serves to maintain a minimum pressure in a system. The pressure switch starts a pump, which requires 5 seconds before it is capable of supplying pressure. If the normal pressure is 100 psi, the system pressure can decrease by 5 psi per second and the absolute minimum pressure to be maintained is 50 psi, the switch would require a setpoint of at least 75 psi. This would ensure that the actual system pressure does not fall below the required minimum before the pump corrects the decrease.
In a similar manner, the time response of an instrument or instrument loop may have to be determined and factored into a setpoint. This happens primarily with processes which have very fast time constraints. Every instrument or loop has a time response, or elapsed time period between the time a process reaches a given setpoint and action is taken. For many instrument loops, this is a matter of a second or less. But for a process condition which could also significantly change within this period of time, a setpoint may have to be lowered or raised to allow for the instrument time response or a "lead circuit" may need to be present in the design.
5.3.7 Setpoints for Sequenced Actuations In some instrument systems, the manual and/or automatic actions must occur in a given sequence. As a case in point, when both a pre-trip alarm action and a trip action are required, the setpoint for the first action must take into consideration the uncertainties associated with both setpoints, as well as the time responses of both equipment and human operators. In other cases, such as a system having both high and low setpoints, the reset deadbands of bistable devices must be considered.
Another case illustrates the need to provide special treatment of setpoints where an initiation trip bistable is bypassed when the system pressure decreases. In such a situation, the initiation bypass is then automatically removed when the pressure increases. This bypass removal must be sequenced to occur after the initiation trip bistable resets, with the applicable uncertainties and other terms properly considered.
For each instrument system where sequenced actions must be addressed, there will be one or more minimum needed separation(s) between the setpoints involved. If two or more of the bistables share the same transmitter and one or more signal conditioner(s), and if the sequenced actions do not involve a traverse of the operating band, only those uncertainties associated with the bistables need to be considered in the calculation(s) of the required minimum separation(s) between the setpoints. Otherwise, some or all of the uncertainties associated with the transmitter and signal conditioners also will need to be used.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology             FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 75 of 178 While the simplest way to calculate the minimum needed separation(s) between setpoints would be to combine all the applicable uncertainty, operational, and reset terms algebraically, the results would be more conservative than necessary.
Therefore, in accordance with the methodology used in Reference 7.2.1, the random independent components of the uncertainty terms will be combined using the square-root-sum-of-squares (SRSS) method, with the bias components of the uncertainty terms and the other applicable bias terms combined algebraically.
A detailed discussion of methods for properly addressing the topic of setpoints for sequenced actions is located in Reference 7.2.10. Illustrative figures and equations for calculating the minimum separations between setpoints in a generalized system are presented; then several typical types of systems are analyzed, with specific numerical examples provided to show how the minimum separations for some actual systems are calculated. The effects of system configuration on the calculated values are also discussed.
6.0    RECORDS No records are generated by this document. Corporate/site specific procedures exist to provide direction regarding the records required to be generated, record format, and approval requirements.

==7.0    REFERENCES==

(Also refer to the references in AD-EG-ALL-1153.)
7.1    Procedures
: 1. AD-EG-ALL-1153, Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Calculations
: 2. AD-EG-ALL-1117, Engineering Calculations/Analyses.
: 3. Nuclear System Directive 219, Instrument and Electrical Device Calibration Out of Tolerance (OOT)
: 4. AD-EG-ALL-1106, Configuration Management and Margin Management.
: 5. AD-EG-ALL-1216, Surveillance Frequency Control Program (SFCP).
: 6. AD-SS-ALL-0001, Control of Portable Measuring and Test Equipment and Plant Tools and Portable Media/Mobile Devices (PMMD)
: 7. AD-EG-ALL-1176, Preparation of Engineering Documents 7.2    Miscellaneous Documents
: 1. Process Instrumentation Terminology, ANSI/ISA-S51.1-1979.
: 2. Basic Statistical Methods for Engineers & Scientists, 2nd Edition, by J.B.
Kennedy & A.M. Neville.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology             FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 76 of 178
: 3. ASME PTC 19.5, Part II, Application of Fluid Meters-Especially Differential Pressure Type
: 4. ANSI/ASTM E 178-1989, Standard Practice for Dealing with Outlying Observations.
: 5. EPRI TR-103335, Guidelines for Instrumentation Calibration Extension/Reduction.
: 6. INPO 84-026, "Setpoint Change Control Program", Revision 1, Good Practice TS-405, June, 1986.
: 7. IE Information Notice 82-11, "Potential Inaccuracies in Wide Range Pressure Instruments Used in Westinghouse Designed Plants", April 9, 1982.
: 8. IE Information Notice 84-54, "Deficiencies in Design Base Documentation and Calculations Supporting Nuclear Power Plant Design", July 5, 1984.
: 9. NRC Information Notice 89-68, "Evaluation of Instrument Setpoints During Modifications", September 25, 1989.
: 10. NRC Information Notice 91-29, "Deficiencies Identified During Electrical Distribution System Functional Inspections", April 15, 1991.
: 11. NRC Information Notice 92-12, "Effects of Cable Leakage Currents on Instrument Settings and Indications", February 10, 1992.
: 12. NRC Information Notice 96-22, "Improper Equipment Settings Due to the Use of Nontemperature-Compensated Test Equipment"
: 13. [BNP - General Electric Instrument Trending Analysis System (GEITAS),
Version 1.0b]
: 14. [BNP - User Manual, General Electric Instrument Trending Analysis System (GEITAS), GE-NE-901-010-0293, February 1993]
: 15. NRC Information Notice 92-12, "Effects of Cable Leakage Currents on Instrument Settings and Indications", February 10, 1992
: 16. NRC Inspection Report of San Onofre Units 2 & 3, Report Numbers 50-361/91-01 and 50-362/91-01, dated April 12, 1991
: 17. NRC Systems-Based Instrumentation and Control Inspection at the Haddam Neck Plant, Report No. 50-213/92-902, dated April 23, 1992
: 18. Magison, E.C., Temperature Measurement in Industry, Instrument Society of America, 1990
: 19. NUREG/CD-3659, A Mathematical Model for Assessing the Uncertainties of Instrumental Measurements for Power and Flow of PWR Reactors, February 1985
: 20. Methodologies for the Determination of Setpoints for Nuclear Safety Related Instrumentation, ISA-RP67.04.02-2010
: 21. ISA Recommended Practice RP 3.2 Flange Mounted Sharp Edged Orifice Plates for Flow Measurement
: 22. ASME MFC-3M-1985, "Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using Orifice,

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology       FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 77 of 178 Nozzle, and Venturi"
: 23. ANSI N15.15-1974, Assessment of the Assumption of Normality (Employing Individual Observed Values)

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                 FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 78 of 178 Attachment 1 Page 1 of 5
                   <<Desk-Top Procedure and Recommended Calculation Format>>
The Desk-Top procedure for uncertainty/setpoint calculation preparation is presented in the subsequent sections. Figure A-1 depicts the basic responsibilities, interfaces and screening requirements. Table A-1 further outlines primary documentation resources, which may be required for the calculation preparation. Attachments 2 & 9 provide general guidance/assumptions and an example flow calculation, respectively.
: 1. Confirm the need for an uncertainty/setpoint calculation. Determine if the application meets the requirements for a Category 1,2, or 3 function (as outlined in AD-EG-ALL-1153). For setpoint calculations, determine that a discrete Analytical/Process limit exists for the application. Understanding the instrument functional requirements is paramount to this determination (refer to reference documentation outlined in Table A-1 below). This determination may require interface with DES and/or the Safety Analyses groups.
: 2. Based on the determination and categorization in Step 1 above, establish the level of analyses rigor required for the application (i.e. rigorous analyses or a graded approach).
: 3. Review historical engineering documentation to determine if there is an existing calculation, which may be defensible. Determine the adequacy of the calculation and whether it can be defended from an over-all technical standpoint (i.e. conclusions would not significantly change in a non-conservative direction if analyzed in accordance with this procedure). In some cases, a minor revision to the calculation may be sufficient to ensure technical adequacy, in lieu of a total revision to satisfy the methodology endorsed by this procedure.
: 4. If a calculation must be prepared/revised, then the preparer shall proceed. The preparer should further review the bases for the existing calibration span to determine if a supporting calculation exists. If a calculation for the calibration span/scaling does not exist, then the preparer should include the span/scaling determination within the over-all uncertainty/setpoint calculation. If possible, the calibration span/scaling determination should support the existing calibration procedure span.
The input assumptions/bases for the span/scaling determination shall be clearly delineated and properly integrated within the uncertainty determination.
: 5. The recommended format for loop uncertainty/setpoint calculations is presented below, along with some specific guidance.
: 6. Typical plant reference documentation sources are outlined in Table A-1.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                  FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 79 of 178 Attachment 1 Page 2 of 5
                   <<Desk-Top Procedure and Recommended Calculation Format>>
Functional

== Description:==

The Functional Description should describe the functions of the loop(s) (i.e., protection, control, and indication), their safety significance, the plant conditions for which the calculation is valid, and the general design basis of the instruments function.
Plant Conditions Requiring Operation:
(i.e. normal operation, seismic/accident operational requirements)
Location and Applicable Environment:
Only the applicable environment conditions for which the instrument is exposed to and during/after which it must function (i.e., it may be exposed to a harsh environment; however, it may not be required to function during or after).
Loop/Block diagram:
A Loop/Block diagram should begin with the loop's relative location to the process, show the primary element or sensor, and progress to each applicable bistable and/or end device. Both the process units being monitored, as well as any electrical units, should be shown together with their associated range. The diagram is intended to be a simplified "block" diagram, and does not need to include individual termination points. A Loop/Block Diagram shall be generated to identify the following:
* Applicable loop devices/layout (including cable, splice, termination details, as applicable if a current leakage determination is required)
* Device location
* Device manufacturing/model number
* Tag number
* Process tap configuration/elevation, as applicable
* Process range/calibration input---output ranges/Upper Range Limit (URL)
* Output function and/or contact logic, as required Calculation of Uncertainties/Setpoints:

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                  FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 80 of 178 Attachment 1 Page 3 of 5
                    <<Desk-Top Procedure and Recommended Calculation Format>>
The Calculation of Uncertainties/Setpoints section should define each individual uncertainty, calculate the total loop uncertainty, and as applicable, calculate the setpoint, allowable value, channel operability limit, and indicated value. State the type of loop uncertainty to be determined (i.e. normal, seismic, LOCA, MSLB, etc). The recommended designations for total loop uncertainty would be TLUNormal,TLUSeis,TLULOCA, etc.
Using the loop diagram as a guide, the process measurement uncertainties should be determined first and progress through all loop components to each appropriate bistable/end device. Error propagation through the loop should be calculated.
As each device in a loop is encountered, the specific error effects for the device should be listed. Following the device information, the resultant device errors shall be calculated. Each facet of the loop that exists should be addressed, even if it is only to explain why an uncertainty value is not applicable. The Setpoint Relationship Form shown in Attachment 3 should be completed for each instrument loop (or group of loops if all information for a loop is common to other channels).
Conclusion/Results
* Summarize Total Loop Uncertainty and Setpoint/Indication Acceptability
: a. The Conclusion section shall provide the specific results of the calculation, by instrument loop and/or function. The status of the plant to which these results apply should be described, along with any other clarifying assumptions/conditions. The relationship of the results to any existing values should be described along with any available margin. If the results necessitate, or potentially necessitate, the change of any existing documents, drawings, procedures, etc., these shall be specifically identified and discussed.
* Outline Maintenance Calibration Data Unitized as Input (e.g. time basis for drift, calibration span and setpoint if determined within calculation, loop/device calibration setting tolerance and/or TSTF-493 ALT, TSTF-493 AFT, M&TE requirements, etc.)
TABLE A-1 UNCERTAINTY CALCULATION DOCUMENTATION SOURCES

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                        FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 81 of 178 Attachment 1 Page 4 of 5
                    <<Desk-Top Procedure and Recommended Calculation Format>>
Calculation               Primary Source Documents/Reference Information Instrument Functional
* Elementary/Loop/Logic/Flow Diagrams Dwgs.
Requirements
* System DBD & TAC Sheets
* UFSAR
* Technical Specifications
* Environmental Qualifications Criteria Manual (EQCM), (PEP for MNS)
* Instrument Functional Data Sheet (Mechanical)
* Emergency Procedures
* Historical Safety Analyses/Mechanical Calculations
* Safety Analysis Inputs Manual (SAIM)
Setpoints
* Equipment Data Base (EDB)
* Applicable maintenance Instrumentation calibration Procedure Instrument
* Equipment Data Base (EDB)
Manufacturer/Model
* Vendor Dwgs.
Device Locations &
* Instrument Details Process Instrument
* Equipment Data Base (EDB)
Elevation
* Instrument Location Dwg.
Rack Locations
* Equipment Layout Dwg.
* General Arrangements
* Vendor rack/panel Dwg.
Environmental Data
* Environmental Qualification Criteria Manual (EQCM), (PEP Exhibit 9.0 for MNS)
* UFSAR Chapter 9.0 (plant HVAC)
M&TE Specifications
* Manufacturer catalogues/Standards Lab Instrument
* I/Ms referenced on Equipment Data Base (EDB) or other vendor manuals Specifications
* Seismic/Environmental Qualification Test Reports
* Historical calibration records
* Vendor dwgs
* Demonstrated Accuracy Calculations performed for EQ
* Vendor Product Literature/bulletins/Catalog Cuts, Etc.
Calibration Data
* Applicable maintenance Instrumentation Calibration Procedure
* Scaling/span calculations
* Instrument & Water Leg Compensation Piping, sense line tap
* Piping Layout Dwgs or isometrics elevations/location
* Instrument installation details

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                                                           FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion                                                                                                    Rev.a Page 82 of 178 Attachment 1 Page 5 of 5
                      <<Desk-Top Procedure and Recommended Calculation Format>>
Desk-top Procedure imd Recommended Calculation Fonnat Figure A:-1 Yes                       ~uh:~gury l or2                                                          Cat(;:gory 3 Sctpoint/lnd,icrifion Ex.is.ling
                                                                                                                ~tpoiut/Judic.utfon,,
Calculation?
No input        Doe!; AnlilyticaVProce.i;s Limit exist?
___.,.{i.e*. ana,lysc;-s value not based on                 1--N_o_ _ _.,
1 uotnini.U design or normal operating vufod).
Yes Site Design Engim;crthg or S~t'i;!ty                                               "Gmded Approach" calculation Armlysis Group input fot* system/                                                 or eVftlutttion, uomuu.~asunHe
                  ~ttt.1ip.tt1enl bai.i.~ ttgurdirtg lit11ic:s and                                    with applicatfon.
i:nstrument requirement.<;.
Pi:.!rfonn rigorous calc1,1.lation, pi:;!r                 lnptit
              ...__ _ _ _ _ _.., .....___         ;mctllodology (or rc\ise cxistiog if necessary.
Verify changes/new c.alih~tl<ln. ~qul~m~~
Incorporated.            *
                                                   - _..._(Conclus ious of Cidculati.ool*e*valuation. With calibration
                                                  ~                         input bw;es and a.ssumpHons.
I  Enter required ac.tjo~ rnto. corre..****.cH\.'C for tra\'.:king.tiri1plcmC"nt~tkm.
                                                                                                                .nc.t:ion program  I Figure A-1 Desk-Top Procedure Flow Chart

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                  FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion                                                               Rev.a Page 83 of 178 Attachment 2 Page 1 of 4
                             <<General Guidance and Standard Assumptions>>
GENERAL GUIDANCE:
: 1. If the M& TE requirements are not explicitly identified, then the following guidance is provided:
a) M&TE scale range should not exceed 3X the loop calibration span (can be more restrictive, but must be specified as a calculation limitation/requirement in conclusions).
b) Where a generic manufacturer of M& TE is specified (i.e. Fluke, Heise, etc.) the specifications for the limiting model (least accurate) available should be utilized.
c) If a generic type test device is specified (i.e. test gauge, measuring device, etc.)
the M& TE reference accuracy and associated setting tolerance should be assumed to be equal to the field device calibration setting tolerance.
: 2. Indicator Resolution/Readability during Calibration The technician's ability to read an indicator and ensure it is within the setting tolerance during calibration of the indicator needs to be included as a calibration effect in the accuracy calculation. This affect is separate from and in addition to the setting tolerance listed in the calibration procedure. Therefore, setting tolerance for indicators in calibration procedures should not include readability/resolution effects.
The readability/resolution of an indicator during calibration of an indication string should be included in the calibration effect as follows:
CE1ND   =  CTE 2 + MTE 2 + RES 2 This is the preferred method.
Indicator readability during calibration may be neglected in the accuracy calculation in certain cases where one of the following criteria is met:
a) the indication outputs in the vicinity of interest (i.e. values in the Tech Spec surveillance point vicinity) checked during calibration are aligned on scale demarcations during the calibration process.
b) the setting tolerance values of all the verified points of interest (i.e. values in the Tech Spec surveillance point vicinity) on the indicator fall on scale demarcations.
For example, a 0-100% indicator with demarcations every 1% and the setting tolerance values in the calibration procedure are +/- 2%. Therefore, the technician verifies the indication is within the setting tolerance values which all fall on demarcations, i.e. 23% & 27%, 48% & 52%, etc.
: 3. Indicator Resolution/Readability during Operation

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 84 of 178 Attachment 2 Page 2 of 4
                            <<General Guidance and Standard Assumptions>>
In addition, an operator's ability to read the indicator during operation also needs to be included in the calculation separately because it is a separate use of the indicator. It is combined with the other indicator uncertainties as a random independent term. When the indication uncertainty is applied to an analyzed limit to determine an indicated value in a procedure (i.e. operations surveillance procedure),
the value in the procedure should be achievable based upon the resolution of the indicator. For example, a 0-100 psi indicator with scale demarcations every 2 psi and a surveillance limit including uncertainty is <62.7 psi. The value in the procedure should be 62 psi since the indicator can only be read to the nearest 1 psi.
Another method for analyzing indicator readability/resolution for indication loops used to verify a specific point (i.e. Technical Specification LCO requirements) is to calculate the total loop uncertainty for the indication string without the operator's readability included. Then apply the uncertainty to the analyzed limit and then round to the nearest readable value away from the analyzed limit. Readable value is typically 1/2 the smallest division. For example, a loop is calibrated for 0-1000 psig.
The indicator scale has demarcations every 20 psi, therefore the operator can read to the nearest 10 psi (1/2 the smallest division). The analyzed limit for surveillance is
         >510 psig and the loop has a total uncertainty without readability of +/- 28 psig. After applying the total uncertainty the operator must maintain pressure greater than 538 psig. But since the operator can only read to the nearest 10 psig, the value listed in the surveillance would be 540 psig (538 rounded to the nearest readable value).
If the applicable surveillance procedure merely requires the operator to verify the indication does not fall below or above a certain magnitude and the magnitude corresponds to a scale demarcation, then an operator resolution term is not required within the uncertainty determination.
: 4. Uncertainty determinations for periodic Technical Specification surveillance requirements, (e.g. volume requirements for accumulator level, Boric Acid Tank (BAT) level, diesel fuel oil level, etc.) need not consider seismic and/or accident environmental effects, since the surveillance is anticipated to occur during non-accident, non-seismic conditions.
: 5. With-regard to setpoint evaluations for Technical Specification LCO requirements, it is critical to understand the context of the LCO requirements and the following specific guidance is provided.
a) The Technical specification may state "tank. ... shall maintain a minimum contained volume. ", whereby it is unclear whether this represents a "total" or "usable" tank volume. A significant difference between the terms could be attributed: to pump minimum NPSH and/or vortexing considerations, suction pipe elevation relative to tank bottom, instrument centerline relative to tank bottom (taking into account tank thickness), nominal design versus actual as-built capacities, etc.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology              FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 85 of 178 Attachment 2 Page 3 of 4
                           <<General Guidance and Standard Assumptions>>
b) In many cases, Technical Specification limits were established with an allowance for measurement tolerances already incorporated. The limits typically would have considered measurement uncertainties as necessary to assure safe plant operation, and may have presupposed the tolerances were consistent with normal industry standards (explicit versus implicit determination). If the bases for the Technical Specification limits are unknown, then they should be treated as the analytical/process limit not to be exceeded.
Review of the Technical Specification Bases section, Branch Technical Position, SER, historical mechanical and safety analysis calculations, etc. may be required to ascertain the proper context.
STANDARD ASSUMPTIONS:
: 1. For graded calculations, when reference accuracy is unavailable, it should be assumed to be bounded by calibration tolerance.
: 2. For graded calculations, when reference accuracy and calibration tolerance are both unavailable, then a value for calibrated accuracy should be assumed based on the performance specifications and calibration procedures of similar type devices. For instance, a transmitter calibrated accuracy of +/- 0.5% span might be justified by comparison with typical Rosemount, Foxboro, Baily and Barton transmitter models and calibration procedures. Again a direct pressure analog indicator calibrated accuracy of
                  +/- 2% span might be justified by comparison with typical Helicod Ashcroft, Barton models and calibration procedures.
: 3. AC loop power supply variations are assumed to be within +/- 10% of the nominal supply voltage.
: 4. DC loop power supply variations are assumed to be within +/- 5% of the nominal supply voltage.
: 5. For flow applications, the manufacture, design and relative orientation of the piping, sense line taps, and flow-element are assumed to be in accordance with References 7.2.21 and 7.2.3 [DEC] (excludes recommended upstream/downstream straight pipe diameter considerations) and Reference 7.2.22.
: 6. Undocumented orifice bore manufacturing tolerances are assumed to be +/-
0.001".
: 7. For graded calculations performed at DEC sites, when vendor data is unavailable for process sensors, drift is assumed to be equal to twice the calibration tolerance. This is based on engineering judgment that we have

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 86 of 178 Attachment 2 Page 4 of 4
                            <<General Guidance and Standard Assumptions>>
comparatively few cases where devices are found to be outside twice their calibration tolerance (2xOOT). In addition, NSD219 requires notification to Engineering when a device exceeds twice its calibration tolerance. When vendor information is not provided at DEP sites, personnel determine the drift value by analyzing a devices calibration history.
: 8. All components function as designed. Therefore, additional components in a current loop do not affect the loop current, and additional components tied to a voltage point do not affect the voltage.
: 9. There are no known dependencies between loop component uncertainty terms. Therefore, they will be treated as independent.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 87 of 178 Attachment 3 Page 1 of 6
                                               << DEP Forms>>
These forms are provided to assist in the calculation of total loop uncertainty, setpoints, allowable values, etc for DEP. The use of these forms are optional and intended to be an aid to the preparer of such calculations and provide the relevant information in a summary format. It is believed that by viewing the pertinent information in a format such as that provided, the overall relationships of the different error and limit terms can be more readily understood. If the user of this document determines that another format is more suitable for their application, then another format can be used as long as the necessary information is documented.
[HNP, RNP - The GAFT is typically used to determine the allowable value.] [BNP - The LAFT is typically used and the channel operability limit is the allowable value.
Therefore, the GAFT need not be shown in the setpoint analysis results.]
Three forms are provided. Form 3-1 is for listing device uncertainties, Form 3-2 is for increasing setpoints, and Form 3-3 is for decreasing setpoints.
Form 3-1 lists potential uncertainties that may apply to a given device. Appropriate values should be inserted for each applicable device error/effect. Under "TYPE", the user should identify what type of error the value represents: random, bias, dependent, independent. If the error is dependent, the dependency should be explained in the "COMMENTS" field. Any other clarifying information may also be included within the "COMMENTS" field. The errors/effects should be combined to determine an overall device uncertainty.
Once all of the uncertainties for the devices have been determined, they should be summarized at the top of Form 3-2 or 3-3, as appropriate. The process measurement errors, primary element errors, and any other applicable errors should be combined with the device uncertainties to determine the total loop uncertainty. The values for the other parameters should be documented on the applicable form, in the spaces provided.
Some values must be obtained from the design bases of the instrument loop, and others must be calculated, as shown.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology             FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 88 of 178 Attachment 3 Page 2 of 6
                                               << DEP Forms>>
Listing Device Uncertainties (Form 3-1)
Device Type                                 Device Name(s)
ERROR/EFFECT                   VALUE                TYPE                COMMENTS Ref. Accuracy Cal. Tolerance (ALT)
M&TE Error Drift Temp. Effect Pwr. Supply Effect Readability Environmental Effect Seismic Effect Acc. Temp. Effect Acc. Press. Effect Acc. Rad. Effect Insul. Resist. Effect Other Total Device TDU = + /-
Uncertainty (TDU)
Note: All errors/effects must be converted to the same basis (i.e. units) prior to entering their values onto the form.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology             FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion                                                           Rev.a Page 89 of 178 Attachment 3 Page 3 of 6
                                               << DEP Forms>>
Increasing Setpoint (Form 3-2)
PE                                                Bias1 PME                                               Bias2 TDUsensor                                         Bias3 TDU1                                              Total Bias TDU2 TDU3 2                       + TDU/ + TDUl? + Total Bias TLU = (PE 2 + PME + TDUsenso/ + TDU/
TLU Margin GAFT =(ALT/+ DR/+ MTE/ + * * *+ALT/ +DR/+ MTE/)1/2 GAFT 2
LAFT = (GAFT + ALTsenso? + DRsenso? + MTEsenso?)1/2 LAFT Increasing Setpoint (Form 3-2)

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                     FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion                                                                     Rev.a Page 90 of 178 Attachment 3 Page 4 of 6
                                                        <<DEP Forms>>
Safety Analytical Limit = (          )
LAFT Allowable Value /
                                              .,.0.,                 Channel Operability Limit = (
TLU=
LAFT
(       )
(             )                . n.
GAFT Allowable Value = (
GAFT
(     )
Allowable Setpoint = {
                      ~
Margin
(         }
                         ..                                             Setpoint= (
Operating Margin
                      ~r Normal

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology              FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev.a Page 91 of 178 Attachment 3 Page 5 of 6
                                                <<DEP Forms>>
Decreasing Setpoints (Form 3-3)
PE PME TDUsensor Total Bias TOU3 2
TLU = (PE + PME2 + TDUsensor2 + TDU? + TDUi + TDUs2)1/2 + Total Bias TLU Margin 2
GAFT =(ALT/+ DR/+ MTE/ + * * *+ALT/ +DR/+ MTE 0 )1/2 GAFT 2
LAFT = (GAFT + ALT       sense? + DRsenso? + MTEsensor2)1/2 LAFT

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                 FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev.a Page 92 of 178 Attachment 3 Page 6 of 6
                                                     <<DEP Forms>>
Decreasing Setpoints (Form 3-3)
                       ,i..         Norma Operating Margin       .,.                                         Setpoint= (
a, Margin=
(          )
                       .,..                                        Allowable Setpoint = (
LAFf=                  GAFT=
(             )        {      )
TLU=                                              "'"'   GAFf Allowable Value = (
(         )
                                               ,i, LAFT Allowable Value I Channel Operability Limit = (
Analytical Umit =
Safety Limit

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion                                                               Rev.a Page 93 of 178 Attachment 4 Page 1 of 2
                                              <<DEC Modules>>
NOTE; Attachment 4 is specific to QEC sites ONLY, It is further noted that ISA-RP67.04.02 presents two different types of equations for uncertainty propagation (i.e. for module input uncertainties being either all random, or all biased terms). The equations presented in Table A4-1 below, reflect only those for which the module inputs are all random uncertainties**and represent a normal distribution (refer to Reference ISA-RP67.04.02 for the equations based on module inputs as biases). The symbols utilized within Table 4-1 are defined as follows:
A,B,D = module inputs C = module output eA,es, eo = uncertainty associated with the module input signal e c = uncertainty in module output K, K1, K2, K3 = module input constants TABLE A4-1 TRANSFER FUNCTION EQUATIONS Module Type                          Transfer          Propagation of Uncertainty Function          Equation Fixed Gain Amp                      [C  = K(A)]       ec = K(eA)
Summer                              [C = K1(A) +      ec =  (K1eA)L      (K2 e8 ) 2 K2(8)]
Multiplier                          [C = K1A(K28)]    ec ~ K1 K2 ,J (AeB) 2    (BeA)z Divider                             [C  =(K1A)/(K28)] ec ~ (Ki/K2)(,J(e8A) 2 + (eAB) 2/B 2)
Logarithmic                         [C = K1+ (K2*Log ec ~ (K2
* Log(e)/A)(eA)
Amplification <1>                   A)]
Square-module      1
                        <>                [C  =A 2]         ec == 2A(eA)
[C = K(AB)/D]
r Multiplier-Divider                                    ec I
K (eABfD)2     + (e 8 A/D) 2 + ~ABf 2
                                                            ~     ~
Square-rooter (1)                    [C =(A) 112]     ec ~  eAf(2vA)

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                  FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion                                                                 Rev.O Page 94 of 178 Attachment 4 Page 2 of 2
                                              <<DEC Modules>>
Module Type                 Transfer Function            Propagation of Uncertainty Equation Square-root                 [C = K(AB) 112]              ec ~ K/2.j[(eAB) 2  - (eBA) 2 ]/(AB) w/Multiplier Notes:
: 1. Propagation of uncertainty equation is valid only if the input errors are sufficiently small (i.e. only if input error is small relative to output signal), such that the output error distribution is nearly normal. Output errors can then be combined with other normally distributed error terms via 'SRSS' method.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology              FAD-EG-ALL-1153 EXAMPLE/DETAIL and Discussion                                                             Rev. 0 Page 95 of 178 Attachment 5 Page 1 of 6
                                              <<DEP Modules>>
NOTE: Attachment 5 is specific to DEP sites ONLY.
Instrument/Device Uncertainty Equations Using the basic analysis methods discussed above, the uncertainties introduced into a loop measurement signal, by the individual instruments/devices within a loop, can be determined. The effect that a device has on a measurement signal is dependent on both the mathematical relationship between the input and output signals, and the amount of additional error the device imparts on the signal due to its own inherent error effects.
Loop devices such as amplifiers, multipliers, and square root extractors each impart a predictable level of error into a measurement. Non-linear devices, such as a square root extractor, not only increase potential error but can cause extreme variations in total error, due to mathematical manipulation of input error as part of the signal.
To aid in the development of actual loop error analysis, instrument/device uncertainty equations have been developed for the common devices. The equations define the output error, or uncertainty of a device based on its function, input error, input signal, and accuracy. These equations are intended to be used in the development of specific loop error analyses for the plants, as needed.
In the uncertainty equations contained in this section, the following variables are used:
A, B =         Input signal(s) to the device a, b =         Uncertainty in the input signal(s)
C       =      Output signal from the device c       =      Uncertainty in the output signal e       =      Inherent uncertainty of the device k1, k2 =       Gain of the device inputs TABLE A5-1 TRANSFER FUNCTION EQUATIONS Module Type               Transfer Function                     Propagation of Uncertainty Equation (1)                                        2    2 0.5 Signal Converter             C=k*A                   c = +/- (a + e )
Linear Signal                C=k*A                   c = +/- [(ka)2 + e2]0.5 Devices(2)
Multiplier                   C = (k1A)(k2B)          c = +/- [(k1k2Ab)2 + (k1k2aB)2 +
(k1k2ab)2 + e2]0.5

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                FAD-EG-ALL-1153 EXAMPLE/DETAIL and Discussion                                                               Rev. 0 Page 96 of 178 Attachment 5 Page 2 of 6
                                               <<DEP Modules>>
Divider                       C = (k1A)/(k2B)          c = +/- k1/k2B(B2-b2) [(aB 2)2 + (abB)2
                                                            + (ABb)2 + (Ab) 2 + e2]0.5 Square Root                   C = (A) 0.5              c = +/- [(a/2C)2 + e2]0.5 Extractor (3)
Summing Amplifier             C= k1A + k2B             c = +/- [(k1a) 2 + (k2b)2 + e2]0.5 Characterizer                 k0[k1A1 + k2A2 + . . . c = +/- [(k0 k1 a1)2 + (k0 k2 a2) 2 +...+
(Function                     + knAn]                  (k0 Kn an)2 + e2]0.5 Generator) (4)
Notes:
: 1. The output uncertainty equation is applicable to any component having a gain (k) equal to 1.0. All errors are expressed in terms of percent span.
: 2. The statistical uncertainty equation is applicable to any component having a fixed gain, where gain, k, is expressed a multiple or fraction of 1.0, or unit gain. All errors are expressed as percent span. Any errors associated with the function of the device are included as part of the inherent device.
: 3. The user of this equation should be aware that better error models are available and may be applicable for use.
: 4. A characterizer module approximates a nonlinear mathematical function using multiple straight line segments. To operate on each segment of the nonlinear input, an adjustable gain (k1, k2, kn) control is provided each segment, and a separate gain (k0) is provided for the output amplifier. Segment input (A1, A2, An) is defined as the total input value minus the low breakpoint value of that segment.
It is important to note that when a specific function segment is in operation, only the gain for that segment of the function curve is to be used for error quantification. All other segments are not in operation, and thus the gains are zero.
For a characterizer, the errors associated with the segmented curve fit are included as

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology              FAD-EG-ALL-1153 EXAMPLE/DETAIL and Discussion                                                             Rev. 0 Page 97 of 178 Attachment 5 Page 3 of 6
                                              <<DEP Modules>>
part of the device error term (e).1. Signal Converter The term, "signal converter" alludes to any loop transducer having an overall gain equal to unity (1.000), and an error free transfer function of:
Output = (k)[Input]
C=k*A The output uncertainty (c) for signal converters is expressed as:
c = +/- (a2 + e2)0.5 The output uncertainty equation is applicable to any component having a gain (k) equal to 1.0. All errors are expressed in terms of percent span.
Typical applications are transmitter, indicator, and isolation/buffer amplifier output uncertainties.
: 2. Linear Signal Devices These are single input, fixed gain devices such as a common amplifier or ratio station.
Linear signal devices have an error free transfer function of:
Output = (k)(Input)
C=k*A The output uncertainty (c) for linear devices is expressed as:
c = +/- [(ka)2 + e2]0.5 This statistical uncertainty equation is applicable to any component having a fixed gain, where gain, k, is expressed as a multiple or fraction of 1.0, or unity gain. All errors are expressed as percent span. Any errors associated with the function of the device are included as part of the inherent device uncertainty (e).
: 3. Multiplier This type of device not only changes the amplitude of the input by a factor of the gain, but also by a factor proportional to the amplitude of a second input. The module has individual gains for each input. The module has an error free transfer function of:
Output = (k1)(Input 1)(k2)(Input 2)
C = (k1A)(k2B)
The output uncertainty (c) for multipliers is expressed as:

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 EXAMPLE/DETAIL and Discussion                                                              Rev. 0 Page 98 of 178 Attachment 5 Page 4 of 6
                                              <<DEP Modules>>
c = +/- [(k1k2Ab)2 + (k1k2aB)2 + (k1k2ab)2 + e2]0.5
: 4. Divider A divider is used for applications such as a differential pressure signal which needs to be corrected for density changes in the flowing fluid, or liquid level. The error free transfer function of a divider is:
Output = (k1)(Input 1)/(k2) (Input 2)
C = (k1A)/(k2B)
The output uncertainty (c) for dividers is expressed as:
c = +/- k1/k2B(B2-b2) [(aB2)2 + (abB)2 + (ABb)2 + (Ab)2 + e2]0.5
: 5. Square Root Extractor A square root extractor module has a fixed gain of unity, and its output is the square root of its input. The error free transfer function of this module is:
Output = (Input)0.5 C = (A)0.5 The output uncertainty (c) for square root extractors is expressed as:
c = +/- [(a/2C)2 + e2]0.5 The user of this equation should be aware that better error models are available and may be applicable for use.
: 6. Summing Amplifier A summing amplifier is a very high gain operational amplifier with a summing junction (resistor network) connected in front of its input. The gain factor (k1, k2, etc.) for an individual input is controlled by selecting an input resistor such that the feedback resistor value divided by the input resistor value provides the desired gain. The error free transfer function of a two input summing amplifier is:
Output = (k1)(Input 1) + (k2)(Input 2) C = k1A + k2B The output uncertainty (c) for summing amplifiers is expressed as:
c = +/- [(k1a)2 + (k2b)2 + e2]0.5 The output uncertainty equation is applicable to any device required to add, subtract or compare two or more input signals. As a summer, the output signal will be equal to the

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 EXAMPLE/DETAIL and Discussion                                                             Rev. 0 Page 99 of 178 Attachment 5 Page 5 of 6
                                              <<DEP Modules>>
algebraic sum of the input. In the case of a comparator (bistable), one signal (A) is a constant or variable (setpoint) with polarity opposite that of the process variable signal (B). The switching device is energized or de-energized when the two opposing signals the same amplitude.
: 7. Characterizer (Function Generator)
A characterizer module approximates a nonlinear mathematical function using multiple straight line segments. To operate on each segment of the nonlinear input, an adjustable gain (k1, k2, . . . kn) control is provided for each segment, and a separate gain (k0) is provided for the output amplifier. Therefore, the error free transfer function is:
Output     =          k0[k1(Input to segment 1) k2(Input to segment 2) +. .
kn(Input to segment n)]
                        =
k0[k1A1 + k2A2 + . . . + kn where, segment input (A1, A2, . . . An) is defined as the total input value minus the low breakpoint value of that segment.
It is important to note that when a specific function segment is in operation, only the gain for that segment of the function curve is to be used for error quantification. All other segments are not in operation, and thus the gains are zero.
The output uncertainty (c) for characterizers is expressed as:
c = +/- [(k0 k1 a1)2 + (k0 k2 a2)2 +...+ (k0 Kn an)2 + e2]0.5 For a characterizer, the errors associated with the segmented curve fit are included as part of the device error term (e).
: 8. Controllers Controllers by nature of their function, continuously correct a process to eliminate what they see as errors between a measurement and a setpoint. The basic purpose of a controller is to force the measured variable to match the setpoint value, such that the setpoint minus measured value is equal to zero. Controllers will normally not impart additional significant error uncertainty into a loop unless improperly calibrated or tuned.
The controller uses both internal and process measurement feedback to continually adjust its output signal, and related control elements to force the detected error to zero.
Error in the measured variable used by the controller can cause significant errors in a controller's final control point. However, the error present in the measured variable signal cannot be detected by the controller. Therefore, it becomes a proportional error in the final control point. If a measured variable contains a +1% error, the controller will

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology             FAD-EG-ALL-1153 EXAMPLE/DETAIL and Discussion                                                           Rev. 0 Page 100 of 178 Attachment 5 Page 6 of 6
                                              <<DEP Modules>>
decrease the variable by an amount equal to the error (-1%), and vice versa, due to negative feedback. Once corrected, the final control point will be -1% below the actual desired point of control. The error could not be reduced unless a separate measurement loop, with no error, were available to check the actual control point.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion                                                              Rev. 0 Page 101 of 178 Attachment 6 Page 1 of 4
                     <<Specific Gravity Determination for Boric Acid Solutions>>
The most common chemical composition affecting the density of water in Light Water Reactors is boric acid. Boric acid is typically provided in either units of "parts per million (ppm)" or "weight percent (%wt)". The Method 1 discussion below provides one convenient means of correlating such values to an equivalent specific gravity that can then be used in making the appropriate corrections for density in the process measurement determination. Alternate methods are acceptable if a documented basis is provided. For example, Method 2 below (based on CR3 calculation I 0006) develops the following equations for boric acid density in terms of ppm boron and percent weight of boric acid.
Method 1 (Simplified technique):
A solution of boric acid (B.A.) will have a certain percent by weight (%wt) of boric acid according to the relationship, 1 %wt B.A. =         1 pound B.A.
100 pounds of solution By definition, 1 ppm B.A. =           1 pound B.A.
1,000,000 pounds of solution Combining these two equations produces, 1 %wt B.A. =         1 pound B.A.
* 1,000,000 pounds of solution 1 ppm B.A.         100 pounds of solution          1 pound B.A.
Simplifying the relationship produces, 1 %wt B.A. = 10,000 ppm B.A.
Since concentration is normally stated in ppm boron (B), not ppm B.A., the equation must be modified. Boric acid is H 3BO3 with a molecular weight of 61.83. Boron's atomic weight is 10.81. Thus, the correction factor becomes, 10.81 ppm B 61.83 ppm B.A.
Using this correction factor, the above relationship for boric acid is revised to, 1 %wt B.A. = 10,000 ppm B.A.
* 10.81 ppm B 61.83 ppm B.A.
1 %wt B.A. = 1748 ppm B Another way to state this is, 1 ppm B = 0.000572 %wt B.A.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology              FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion                                                            Rev. 0 Page 102 of 178 Attachment 6 Page 2 of 4
                     <<Specific Gravity Determination for Boric Acid Solutions>>
This is the derived conversion factor that will be used in concentration conversions.
Next, the conversion factor will be used to determine the Specific Gravity (S.G.) of a solution. The S.G. of a solution of B.A. can be defined by the equation, S.G. of solution = [(%wt H 2O)(S.G. of H2O)] + [(%wt B.A.)(S.G. of B.A.)]
100 To find the S.G. of a particular boric acid solution with a known concentration (in ppm Boron) at a certain temperature, follow these steps,
: 1. Convert the ppm B to %wt B.A. using the derived conversion factor determined above.
: 2. Determine the water's S.G. (from appropriate tables) for the given temperature.
: 3. Substitute the values into the equation for the S.G. for a solution.
Consider the following example, EXAMPLE Find the S.G. of a 2300 ppm B solution at 100&deg;F.
From steam tables, the S.G. of water at 100&deg;F is determined as 0.99544. From the CRC handbook of Chemistry and Physics, the S.G. of B.A. is determined as 1.435.
Using the conversion factor, the ppm B is converted to %wt B.A. as follows, 2300 ppm B
* 0.000572 %wt B.A. = 1.3156 %wt B.A.
ppm B The %wt of water (H2O) is determined by subtracting the %wt of B.A. from 100%, or
                       %wt H 2O = 100 - 1.3156 = 98.6844 Substituting the values into the equation for the S.G. for a solution produces, S.G. of solution = [(98.6844)(0.99544)] + [(1.3156)(1.435)]
100 S.G. of solution = 1.0012 It should be noted that the S.G.of boric acid is 1.435 at 15&deg;C (about 60&deg;F). Due to the small amount of boric acid in the solution, the density change of the boric acid due to temperature is negligible. The density change of the water due to temperature is

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion                                                             Rev. 0 Page 103 of 178 Attachment 6 Page 3 of 4
                     <<Specific Gravity Determination for Boric Acid Solutions>>
included.
Method 2 (based on CR3 calculation I        0006) For boric acid density in terms of ppm boron:
C2 = [(1.973 x 10-6 x ppm B) + 1] x 1 and C4 = [(2.2305 x 10-6 x ppm B) + 0.9991] x 1 where, 1      = density of water in lbm/ft3 ppm B = parts per million of boron C2     = density of boric acid solution for <3497 ppm B (2% weight) solutions in lbm/ft3 C4     = density of boric acid solution between 3497 and 6994 ppm B (2 and 4% weight) solutions in lbm/ft3 For boric acid density in terms of percent weight of boric acid:
C2 = [(0.00345 x %Wt) + 1] x 1 and C4 = [(0.0039 x %Wt) + 0.9991] x 1 where, 1      = density of water in lbm/ft3
                     %Wt     = % weight of boric acid C2    = density of boric acid solution for <2% weight (3497 ppm B) solutions in lbm/ft3 C4     = density of boric acid solution between 2 and 4% weight (3497 and 6994 ppm B) solutions in lbm/ft3

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology         FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion                                                       Rev. 0 Page 104 of 178 Attachment 6 Page 4 of 4
                     <<Specific Gravity Determination for Boric Acid Solutions>>
The results from the above CR3 calculation may be used by all NGD sites in lieu of the simplified Method 1 described below

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion                                                               Rev. 0 Page 105 of 178 Attachment 7 Page 1 of 3
                                      <<Conversion of Error Basis>>
The error basis which provides the most flexible and useful information is "percent of span". However, different devices may have their error expressed in different bases.
The following methods are provided for the user to convert from typical bases to "percent span". Many of these methods have been described in examples throughout the design guide. However, they are summarized here for the user's convenience.
1     Upper Range Limit The upper range limit is associated with an instrument which has an adjustable range, and the upper range limit represents the maximum possible range of the instrument. To convert from upper range limit (URL) to percent span, use the following relationship, Error in % cal. span = (Error in % URL)(URL)
(Span)
For example, if the drift accuracy of a transmitter is +/-0.5% URL, the span is 0-100 psig, and the URL is 0-400 psig, determine the error in % span.
Error in % cal. span = +/- (0.5%) (400 psig)
(100 psig)
Error in % cal. span = +/- 2.0%
2     MTE Ranges Measurement and test equipment (MTE) frequently has a range which is different from an instrument's range. Thus, the error for the MTE is given in terms of % of its range and must be converted to % of the instrument's span. This is done using the following relationship, Error in % cal. span = (MTE Error in % of range)(MTE Range)
(Equivalent Instrument Span)
For example, a pressure transmitter has a span of 0-100 psig. It produces an equivalent signal of 4-20 madc. This is dropped across a 250 ohm resistor at the test point to produce a 1-5 vdc signal. A digital multimeter has a voltage range of 0-25 vdc and an MTE error of +/-0.2% of its range. Determine the multimeter's error in % span of the transmitter.
The transmitter has a range of 0-100 psig which also corresponds to 4-20 madc.
Instead of measuring the current, however, the multimeter measures the equivalent voltage across a 250 ohm resistor, or 1-5 vdc. The transmitter's equivalent range is then 1-5 vdc, or 4 vdc (i.e., 5 - 1 = 4 vdc). Substituting this into

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion                                                              Rev. 0 Page 106 of 178 Attachment 7 Page 2 of 3
                                       <<Conversion of Error Basis>>
the above equation produces, Error in % cal. span = +/- (0.2%)(25 volts)
(4 volts)
Error in % cal. span = +/- 1.25%
[Note:     This is just the error of the multimeter and does not include the error of the resistor, which would also need to be determined for the MTE error.]
3 M&TE Error as a Percentage of Reading For some MTE, its error may be expressed as a percentage of its reading. This is especially common for digital meters. To convert to an error expressed in terms of % span of the instrument, the following relationship is used, Error in % cal. span = (Error in % reading)(Reading)
(Equivalent Instrument Span)
For example, a piece of test equipment has an accuracy of +/-0.3% of reading for all scales. The transmitter's span is 0-100 psig, producing an equivalent signal of 4-20 madc. The test equipment measures this signal as a 1-5 vdc signal across a 250 ohm resistor. The transmitter's setpoint is 50 psig. Determine the test equipment's error in % span.
At the setpoint of the transmitter, the test equipment should read 3 vdc. This is because the 50 psig setpoint is equal to one half of the transmitter's span of 0-100 psig. At 50 psig, the transmitter will output a signal of 12 madc (halfway across the 4-20 madc span) which will be monitored by the test equipment as 3 vdc (halfway across the 1-5 vdc span). The equivalent instrument span is 1-5 vdc, or 4 vdc (5 - 1 vdc). Substituting these values into the above equation produces, Error in % cal. span = +/- (0.3%)(3 vdc)
(4 vdc)
Error in % cal. span = +/- 0 . 2 3 %
[Note:     This is just the error of the test equipment identified and does not include the error of the resistor, which would also need to be determined for the MTE error.]
4 Bias of a Known Maximum Magnitude Many times a bias of a known maximum magnitude, must be converted to % span

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion                                                              Rev. 0 Page 107 of 178 Attachment 7 Page 3 of 3
                                       <<Conversion of Error Basis>>
of the instrument loop. The bias will typically be expressed in terms of units of the process. This is converted to terms of error in % span by the relationship, Error in % cal. span =       (Bias)
(Span)
For example, the temperature bias in the reference leg of a level transmitter can cause a maximum error of 2 in WC. The transmitter has a span of 250 in WC.
Determine the bias error in % span.
Error in % cal. span =       (2 in WC)
(250 in WC)
Error in % cal. span =      0.8%
5 MTE Error with Rounding of Least Significant Digits Digital meters have an error associated with rounding off to the least significant digit displayed. If the meter displays four or more digits, then the error caused by rounding off to the fourth digit will not add an appreciable amount of error. For meters that display three or fewer digits, the error is equal to half the value of the least significant digit displayed by the digital meter.
For example, a digital multimeter has an error of +/- 0.2% of its range plus the error associated with rounding off to the least significant digit. If the meter is used to read 0-20 vdc to +/-0.1 vdc, the error for the round-off would be, Error (in vdc)                    = 1/2(+/-0.1 vdc)         = +/-0.05 vdc Error (in % of meters range) = 100% * (0.05vdc)        = +/-0.25%
(20vdc)
Thus, the total error for the multimeter would be +/-0.2% + 0.25% or +/-0.45%. This would then be converted to error in % span of the instrument as described in Section 2 of this Attachment.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                   FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion                                                                Rev. 0 Page 108 of 178 Attachment 8 Page 1 of 3
                       <<Drift Determination Based on As-Found/As-Left Values>>
In lieu of utilizing published vendor specifications or in the absence of published specifications, determination of drift can be established based on historical calibration data. Albeit, actual "as-found" and "as-left" plant calibration data is not a true indicator of drift, since it would include the effects of other potential influences for the installed application (temperature, M&TE, power supply, etc.). Based on the forgoing, drift values simply based on the observed shift between calibrations would be expected to be conservative; however, may not provide a 95% confidence interval. Therefore, two alternative approaches are provided for acceptable drift determination based on calibration data. The second approach is the most rigorous and is recommended only for applications which initiate protection and safeguards functions.
: 1. If drift data is not published for a device, then a drift value can be based on the average or maximum shift demonstrated between successive "as-found" and "as-left" calibration data (preferably based on data for several cycles). This approach shall be documented as a calculational assumption, and be based on a typical calibration interval.
: 2. In lieu of utilizing published drift data, or if drift data is not published, then a statistical value for drift based on a 95% confidence interval can be established from actual calibration data. This approach would be expected to provide a conservative estimate. Caution is warranted, in-that this approach would not be suitable if the data represented a severe non-normal distribution. The approach outlined in the example below is based on the statistical techniques outlined in Attachment 10:
A drift magnitude with a 95% confidence interval is to be established for the data presented in Table 8-1. For simplicity only one data point (16 mA) is presented, although in many devices five data points would be available for 0, 25, 50, 75 & 100
     %span values.
TABLE 8-1 SAMPLE DRIFT DATA Sample           As-Left       Date       As-               Date         #Months      % Span Point            (mA)                      Found                                       Error 22.5 (mA)                                        Months (1) 1                16.05         7-1-93     16.11             1-1-94       6            + 1.41 2                16.00         7-2-92     16.15             6-30-93      12           + 1.76 3                15.95         6-30-91    15.90             7-1-92       12           - 0.59 4                15.95         10-6-90    15.80             6-30-91      9            - 2.34 5                16.05         5-2-89     16.09             10-5-90      17           + 0.33 Note:
: 1. The demonstrated drift was normalized to a monthly basis and conservatively extrapolated for 22.5 months based on a linear relationship, as follows (using sample pt.
1 as an example):

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                      FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev.a Page 109 of 178 Attachment 8 Page 2 of 3
                      <<Drift Determination Based on As-Found/As-Left Values>>
____Drift       = + [16.11
                          - - --16.05] -- x -        - = + 141 22.5       . O'-i'O span.
22.5 months       -           20 -4             6     -
In lieu of linear extrapolation, an 'SRSS' approach could be utilized, e.g. for point 1, drift for 22.5 months would be 16.11-16.05]
Drift                      [
22 .5 mont s h = +/- v 22.5 x
                          .r::;;;-;:      2o-4 6
                                                    = +/- 0.30 % span .
Furthermore, if sufficient data points were analyzed to substantiate a drift magnitude independent of time (refer to Reference EPRI TR-103335), then the mean and standard deviation could be established irrespective of time.
* The sample mean and standard deviation are determined first, based on the equations presented in Attachment 10:
sample mean x = + 0.114 sample standard deviation = s = 1.65
* Review of the data points for rejection of potential outliers (in accordance with Attachment 10) indicates that none of the data points should be rejected, since for all data points  t =[Ix m - x l/(s) < 1. 764]
where: 1. 764 is the maximum allowable sample deviation for n=5 and a 1 %
significance level (from Attachment 10, Table F-2).
x m= the maximum or minimum sample pointvalue
* Review of the data for normality in accordance with the W-test, presented in Attachment 10 indicates the following:
S 2 = (n-1)s 2
                                                      = (5-1)1.65 2 = 10.89 For n=5 (odd), set k=(n-1 )/2=2, then "b" can be determined as follows, where ordering the manipulated test data x1=-2.34, x2 = 0.59, X3 = 0.33, X4 = 1.41 & xs = 1.76 (coefficient from Attachment 10,Table F-3):
b = 0.6646 [ 1.76-(-2.34)] + 0.2413 [ (1.41-(- 0.59)] = 3.21 Next compute W:

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                 FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 110 of 178 Attachment 8 Page 3 of 3
                      << Drift Determination Based on As-Found/As-Left Values >>
W = b 2 / S 2 = 3.21 2 / 10.89 = 0.9462 Then since the computed value of W is greater than the tabulated value of 0.762 from Table 10-4 (see Attachment 10) for n=5 with a 95% confidence level, there is no bases to reject the assumption of normality.
* The magnitude of drift for which 95% of all observed values will be expected to fall within (95% confidence interval) is determined in accordance with the statistical techniques outlined in Attachment 10 , as follows:
                                    +/- drift based on a 95% confidence interval =D= x +/- (t)s where: t = random magnitude of t based on (n-1), the degrees of freedom = v = (n-1), =
5-1 = 4 and for a level significance of .05 t (=.05, v=4)=2.776 (from Attachment 10, Table 10-1)
D = x +/- t(s) = +0.114 +/- (2.776)1.65 The drift interval is therefore [ +4.69,-4.47 ] or +/- 4.58% span around the mean of +0.114
     %span.
Reference 7.1.5 describes the Surveillance Frequency Control Program (SFCP) which provides controls for the evaluation, implementation and management of risk-informed surveillance frequencies [DEC]. Drift allowances must be evaluated for their impact on the uncertainty analysis for any extended surveillance frequencies proposed under the SFCP. [DEC].

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 111 of 178 Attachment 9 Page 1 of 17
                          << Sample Calculation for a Flow Orifice Application >>
The following is a sample calculation for a flow application and does not depict a standard format, but is an example of a calculation that meets the suggested AD-EG- ALL-1153 requirements. NOTE: ALL REFERENCES ARE FOR THIS ATTACHMENT AND DO NOT REFER TO ATTACHMENTS OF THE BODY OF THIS PROCEDURE.
1.0    STATEMENT OF PROBLEM/PURPOSE 1.1    Purpose The purpose of this calculation is to determine the applicable loop uncertainty for the McGuire Unit 1 and RHR Mini-Flow instrumentation (1 & 2NDPS-5040 & -
5050). The calculation further documents the acceptability of the existing setpoints, and identifies specific calibration requirements which were utilized as input for the loop uncertainty determination.
1.2    Analyzed Instrument Loop Function The function of the instrumentation is twofold: i) to protect the RHR pumps from damage due to cavitation at low flow, ii) to ensure auto-closure of the mini-flow recirc line on high flow. These functions are achieved via pressure (flow) switch interlocks with the RHR mini-flow recirc valves (1&2ND67A & 68B), which facilitate valve auto-open and auto-closure functions on low and high header flows, respectively.
1.3    Plant Conditions Requiring Operation The subject instrumentation must function during normal operation for surveillance testing, during hot/cold shutdown conditions, during/after a seismic event and for LOCA/SBLOCA/MSLB events [ Reference 5.e (Exhibit 9.1), FSAR Chapter 6.3, 15.6 ]. Refer to DESIGN INPUT 6.2.1 thru 6.2.4 for more detail.
1.4    Location and Applicable Environment The environmental parameters for which the switches are exposed and required to operate (based on Section 1.3 requirements, above) are specified in Table D-1 Table D-1 Environmental Data (See Note 1)
Environmental           PS Location Parameter               (refer to Figure 7-1)
Temperature(&deg;           45-120 &deg; F(Normal) 189&deg;F (SBLOCA, Section 6.2.4) (2)
F)
Radiation               < 8.8E2 Rad/40 yr. (Normal); 2.8E2 Rad/hr max. rate (LOCA)
(Rads)                  < 6.8E3 Rad TID (LOCA 1 year); < 2.5E3 Rad (1 day LOCA
                               + 40 yr norm)
Pressure                 ambient

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology              FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev.0 Page 112 of 178 Attachment 9 Page 2 of 17
                         << Sample Calculation for a Flow Orifice Application >>
Notes:
: 1) Environmental data are limiting values (Reference 5.e).
: 2) The pipe rupture zone indicates 212 &deg;F ambient and 350&deg;F spray are possible; however, the switches are located in the entrance hallway to the Residual Heat Removal (ND) Pump Rooms and therefore are shielded from any direct spray effects (Reference 5.i). Furthermore, the room temperature decays back to ambient within 150 minutes (Reference 5.e, f, 6.1) 2.0    RELATION TO QA CONDITION This calculation was designated "QA Condition 1" since the subject instrumentation functions to protect the safety related RHR pumps from damage due to low flow conditions, and further assures adequate injection flow via auto-closure on high ND header flow.
3.0    DESIGN CALCULATION METHOD The methodology employed by this calculation is based on Reference 5.a. The methodology accounts for random-independent (x,y), random dependent (w,u) and bias/abnormal distribution (v,t) uncertainty terms differently in determining the total loop uncertainty (TLU), as follows:
TLU  = +/--Jx + y 2 + (w + u) 2 +/- v +/- t 2                               [EQUATION 3-1 Typical uncertainty terms and terminology follows:
Uncertainty Terms:
A- Device/rack accuracy.                                  PEA - Primary Element Allowance.
CL - Current leakage.                                     PMA - Process Measurement Allowance CTE - Calibration tolerance                               PSE - Device Power Supply Effect.
CE - Calibration Effects (including M&TE and CTE)                RES -
Resolution/Readability REP - Repeatability.                                      D - Device drift.
SA - Seismic Allowance                                    DB - Deadband.
SPE - Static Pressure Effects.                            EA- Environmental allowance TE - Device/rack Temperature effect.                      MTE - Measuring & test equipment Terminology/Abbreviations:

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology             FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 113 of 178 Attachment 9 Page 3 of 17
                         << Sample Calculation for a Flow Orifice Application >>
AL - Analytical Limit.                 PL - Process Limit.
AV - Allowable value.                  SP - Nominal Set Point.
OL - Operating Limit.                  SL - Safety Limit 4.0    UFSAR/TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION APPLICABILITY a) Unit 1 & 2 McGuire FSAR, Sections 5.5.7 & 7.4.1.5 b) Unit 1 & 2 McGuire Technical Specifications Sections 3.5.2 & 3.5.3 (Amendments 141 & 112, respectively).

==5.0    REFERENCES==
a) EDM-102, Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Calculations.
b) Maintenance Work Orders 94051197-01, 92112355-04, & 90349448-02.
c) McGuire Unit 1 & 2 I & C Lists for ND system (Rev. 8 and Rev. 4, respectively) d) McGuire Instrumentation Location Dwg., MC-1499-01.03/Rev.22.
e) McGuire Plant Environmental Parameters Manual/Rev. 20.
f) McGuire Unit 1 & 2 Instrumentation Details:
MCID-1499-ND.01/Rev. 9                MDIC-2499-ND.01/Rev. 1 g) Design Basis Document, MCS-1561.ND-00-0001/Rev.3.
h) Barton Manual, MCM 1210.04-271-001/dated 10-31-89 (ITT manual 86E7) and Barton Product Bulletin 288A/289A-4, dated 1986.
i) Piping layout and Flow diagrams:
MC-1414-04.40-00/Rev. 18 MCFD-1561-01.00/Rev. 0 MC-2414-04.40-00/Rev. 15 MCFD-2561-01.00/Rev. 2 j) Maintenance Procedure, Barton Model 288A and 289A D/P Switch Calibration, IP/O/A/3204/01 (dated 5-28-92).
k) Vickery Simms Vendor Drawing for FE-610 & 611, MCM-1399.03-257-001/ Rev.
DB & MCM-1399.03-257-002/Rev. DE, Westinghouse Vendor Drawing for FE-610 & 611 flow orifices, MCM-1399-03-0255 /dated 12-13-73.
l) ASME PTC 19.5, Part Two-Application of Fluid Meters-Especially Differential Pressure Type.
m) Flow Measurement Engineering Handbook, Second Edition, 1989.
n) Mark's Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers, Ninth Edition o) Westinghouse letter, DAP-87-637 (dated 10-9-87, to E.W.Fritz, from L.L.
Williams), RHR Pump Miniflow Switch Setpoint.
p) EQ Maintenance Manual, EQMM-1292.01-N01-02/Rev. 0.
q) ISA-RP3.2-1978 (Flange Mounted Sharp Edged Orifice Plates for Flow Measurement) and Drawing ICS-A-22.01/Rev. 0, McGuire 1 & 2, Thin-plate Square Edged Orifice Specification Sheet.
r) McGuire Unit 2 & 1 calculations, MCC-1223.11-00-0019/Rev.1 (with attached Ingersol Rand RHR Pump Minimum Flow Evaluation, dated 9-18-89) & MCC-1223.11-00-0021/Rev.1 (respect.), ND Pump Miniflow Line Addition.
s) MCM 1210.04-0270-001, Barton 288A/289A Qual. Test Reports.
t) McGuire modifications NSM MG-12343 and 22365, Addition of RHR

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 114 of 178 Attachment 9 Page 4 of 17
                          << Sample Calculation for a Flow Orifice Application >>
(Continuous) Mini-flow Lines.
u) Radiation and Seismic Allowances for ITT-Barton 288A and 289A Differential Pressure Switches, DPC 1210.04-00-0003/Rev. 0.
v) ITT-Barton FAX dated 6-30-94, to B.D. Meyer from Derek Kanno (Attachment 1, 1 page).
w) McGuire Unit 1 & 2 Emergency Procedures:
Post LOCA Cooldown & Depressurization EP/1A5000/ES-1.2/Rev. 0 Post LOCA Cooldown & Depressurization EP/2A/5000/ES-1.2/Rev. 0 Safety Injection Termination EP/1/A/5000/ES-1.1/Rev. 0 Safety Injection Termination EP/2/A/5000/ES-1.1/Rev. 0 Loss of Reactor or Secondary Coolant EP/1/A/5000/E-1/Rev. 0 Loss of Reactor or Secondary Coolant EP/2/A/5000/E-1/Rev. 0 x) Elementary Diagrams: MCEE-0141-00.08/Rev.0 & -00.09/Rev. 6, MCEE-0241-00.08/Rev. 3 & -00.09/Rev. 3.
y) Calculation for Plant Field Calibration Temperatures & Various M&TE Uncertainties.
MCC-1210.04-00-0053/Rev. 0.
z) Westinghouse Process Instrumentation Specification, 1399.03-0054-001.
6.0 ASSUMPTIONS/DESIGN INPUT 6.1 ASSUMPTIONS 6.1.1 The reference accuracy and setting tolerance associated with the pressure gauge utilized for calibration were each assumed to have a magnitude of +/- 0.25 %span. this is reasonable, since a typical Heise gauge has an accuracy of +/- 0.1 % Full Scale (and is maintained as such by the calibration lab), for which 0.25% would correspond to a Heise range of 250 in-Water Column or >3X the calibration span of 70". The field calibration will conservatively require M&TE range to be <3X the calibration span. This is intended to simplify the calculation and conservatively encompass M&TE drift and temperature considerations.
6.1.2 The manufacture, design and relative orientation of the piping, sense line taps and orifice are assumed to be in accordance with ASME recommended practice (References 5.k, l &
q, refer to 'PMA' for straight piping run considerations).
6.1.3 The tolerance for the piping header inside diameter (ID) was assumed to be within +/- 0.05..
This is reasonable, based on the precision of the nominal ID dimensions (7.981").

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 115 of 178 Attachment 9 Page 5 of 17
                          << Sample Calculation for a Flow Orifice Application >>
6.1.4 Switch drift was not specified and was assumed to be  +/- 1.5 % FS P over a typical cycle.
This was based, in part, as Reference 5.p, which requires corrective action if the switch drifts in excess of +/- 1.5% over 12 months. This is further supported as conservative based on historical calibration data (Reference 5.b.).
6.1.5 It is assumed that the switch does not experience any significant temperature gradients across its cross-section at time equals 1 hour after a SBLOCA. This is reasonable, since the room temperature is decaying slowly at this point in time.
6.2 DESIGN INPUT 6.2.1 For SBLOCA, the switches function to support ND pump recirc. phase (pumps auto-start on
           'SI' signal), until Reactor Coolant (NC) pressure and temperature have sufficiently decayed for RHR initiation (References 5.g & 5.e). Reference 5.e (Exhibit 9.1 & note 23) specifies the required SBLOCA operating time for the switches as 1 day, and that the switch functions to prevent damage to the ND pumps due to minimum flow. Based on the foregoing discussion, only the auto-open function is required (initially assured via switch contact shelf state) for SBLOCA, for which maximum NC flow requirements would not be required. Review of the Emergency Procedures further indicates that the operator trips the ND pumps if NC pressure is above 286 psig (Reference 5.w), such that the operator is credited with manually initiating ND operation during post accident conditions after NC pressure sufficiently decays.
6.2.2 For the large break LOCA, ND injection is immediate and the ND mini-flow recirc. capability is not required; however maximum RHR flow would be required, therefore, only the auto-close setpoint must function (since initial switch shelf state would have opened recirc.
valve). Failure of the low switch contact to open (@750 gpm) due to instrument uncertainty, prior to/after actuation of the high flow auto close switch @1400 gpm is not deemed credible (would require the respective high and low flow switch uncertainties to be
           @maximum magnitudes in opposite directions). It is further noted that Reference 5.e (Exhibit 9.1) did not credit the mini-flow switch operation for the LOCA; however, ND mini-flow recirc. auto-closure was, in-fact, credited in the safety analyses as a nominal value.
6.2.3 The LOCA accident uncertainty for the mini-flow switches will not be determined, here-in because: i) it would be conservatively enveloped by the seismic uncertainty and/or SBLOCA uncertainty, ii) the recirc auto- close function would be achieved immediately for a large break (once ND pump achieved speed), prior to accumulation of a harsh dose (reference Section 1.4), iii) the switches are located in the entrance hallway and shielded from the effects of radiation and spray, iv) the inherent switch thermal time response constant and shielded location would limit any immediate effects due to accident temperature effects.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 116 of 178 Attachment 9 Page 6 of 17
                          << Sample Calculation for a Flow Orifice Application >>
6.2.4 For the limiting SBLOCA, ND could not be initiated until NC pressure decayed to  300 psia (Reference 5.w), which would take in excess of 1 hour based on extrapolation of FSAR Figures 15-140 & -142 (i.e. at 1 hour NC pressure >@350 psia). Therefore, the ambient temperature for the switch location can be derived by interpolation from PEP Figure 6.0-1 (Reference 5.e) at time equal to 1 hour for a maximum normal temperature of 120 &deg;F (Reference Section 1.4), TSBLOCA@1hr.=189&deg;F 7.0    Calculation Based on the required function (Sections 1.2 & 1.3), the environmental conditions (1.4) and DESIGN INPUT 6.2.3, the worst case TLU will be determined for normal, seismic and accident conditions (TLU norm,TLUseis& TLUsbloca, respectively),
utilizing EQUATION 3-1.
7.1    Block Diagram Figure D-1 depicts the typical flow switch configuration.
Figure D-1 Loop Diagram (See Notes 1 and 2)
Notes:
: 1. Data from References 5.c,d,f & k, unless specified otherwise.
: 2. Switch contacts depicted in shelf state. Min-flow valve opens on pump start, and the low flow switch contact is set to close at 750 gpm decreasing. Valve auto-close occurs via closure of the high flow switch at 1400 gpm increasing (Reference 5.x).
7.2    Device/Loop Uncertainty Term Identification

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology              FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 117 of 178 Attachment 9 Page 7 of 17
                          << Sample Calculation for a Flow Orifice Application >>
PS Specifications from Ref. 5.h, unless stated otherwise.
A-        Switch accuracy is not specified (only accuracy for indication +/- 1 % FS  P and for indication at point of actuation +/- 1.5 %FS), see REP below.
D-        Drift assumed to be +/- 1.5 %FS  P (Assumption 6.1.4).
DB -       +/- 5% max. full scale differential pressure; however, the calibration verifies actuation of the high and low switches in the increasing and decreasing  P directions, respectively (Reference 5.j). Therefore, deadband need not be included.
REP-      Switch repeatability +/- 0.2 %FS  P (References 5.h & 5.z).
SA -      Reference 5.u determined the seismic effect to be +/- 6.5 % span based on a 95% confidence interval from Reference 5.s test data; therefore, this will be treated as a random independent term.
TE -      Temperature effect was provided as +/- 1%/50 &deg;F (Reference 5.v) within the range of -40 to 180 &deg;F (interpreted as %FS P). The calibration temperature range for the switch location is 60-106 &deg;F (Reference 5.y), which for the location design temperature range (Table D-1, 45 - 120 &deg;F), the max. normal temperature effect is as follows:
TE = +/- (120-60)/50 = +/- 1/2%FS P EA -      Accident radiation effects are EA SBLOCA- RAD = +/- 4.0 %span for a dose of 3.0E6 Rads (Reference 5.u & s), and was based on qualification testing for a 95%
confidence interval. The accident temperature contribution for the earliest SBLOCA ND initiation would be based on 189 &deg;F (DESIGN INPUT 6.2.4) relative to the maximum normal temperature of 120 &deg;F (Section 1.4). This temperature is slightly outside the range for the normal temperature specification; however, the normal specification (+/- 1%FS P/50 &deg;F) will be utilized since there is no direct spray, ambient temperature would be decaying at a uniform rate and significant temperature gradients would not be present across the switch cross-section (Assumption 6.1.5). The accident temperature contribution is as follows:
EASBLOCA-Temp= +/- (189 - 120)/50 = +/- 1.38%FSP

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology              FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 118 of 178 Attachment 9 Page 8 of 17
                         <<Sample Calculation for a Flow Orifice Application >>
The total EA SBLOCA contribution will be conservatively based on dependent temperature and radiation effects and this overall term treated as a random-independent term, since the radiation term was based on a 95% confidence interval.
EA=EASBLOCA - Temp +EASBLOCA -RAD = 4.0 +1.38 = +/- 5.38%FSP PEA The accuracy associated with an orifice utilized in a fluid application is primarily dependent on errors associated with bore/piping diameter, discharge coefficient, and piping configuration (References 5.l & m and Assumption 6.1.3).
The field configuration and ASME recommended upstream and downstream straight pipe runs are presented below in Table 9-2 (specified in terms of the 8 header pipe diameter, Reference 5.i & 1):
Table 9-2 ASME Straight Length Requirements Upstream                                Downstream Flow Element        AMSE(2)             Field           ASMSE(2)             Field (FE) 1INDFE5040          20.8D               21.5D           4D                   6.3D 1INDFE5040          20.8D               21.5D           4D                   13.9D(1) 2INDFE5040          20.8D               21.5D           4D                   6.3D 2INDFE5040          20.8D               21.4D           4D                   14.1D Note:
: 1. Dimension approximate & scaled from the piping layout (Reference 5.i).
: 2. From Reference 5.1 based on a orifice beta of 0.78 and a long radius elbow. The upstream elbow is in same plane and the downstream elbow is in different planes.
The Table 9-2 above indicates the piping configuration satisfies the ASME recommended upstream and downstream straight pipe requirements; therefore a piping configuration uncertainty of +/0.5% rate will be algebraically added to the discharge coefficient uncertainty (Reference 5.1), therefore these two terms are considered random dependent terms Therefore, the accuracy of the orifice plate can be reasonably determined in accordance with Reference 5.l & m, as presented in Table 9.3 (the bore diameter, pipe diameter, and combination of discharge coefficient and piping configuration are all random independent):

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                 FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 119 of 178 Attachment 9 Page 9 of 17
                           <<Sample Calculation for a Flow Orifice Application >>
Table 9-3 Determination of Process Element Allowance Property                    %Tolerance (U)         Sensitivity             [(U) X ] 2 Coefficient X(4)
Orifice bore                0.003/62828 = +/-        Xd = +2/1- 4) = 3.25   0.03 (2) diameter                    0.05 Piping diameter (1)         +/- 0.05/7.981           XD = -24/(1 - 4) = -  0.62
                                 +/- 0.63                 1.25 Disch. Coef.                +/- 1(3)                 1.0 Piping Configuration +/- 0.5                         1.0                     2.25 2
PEA = {[(U)X] }% measure rate                    +/- 1.70 Notes:
: 1. Refer to Assumption 6.1.3 for orifice & piping bore tolerances.
: 2. Reference 5.q (ICS-A-22.01) specifies orifice tolerance of +/- 0.0005" per inch of bore (8" schedule 40 pipe), which for the given bore is +/- 0.003". Furthermore the orifice was manufactured per ISA-RP3.2 (Reference 5.k&q), which requires bore tolerance of +/- 0.0005"/inch for dia.>5".
: 3. Reference 5.z stated that for the MNS Unit 1 flow elements the "accuracy of K" was +/- 1%, and would also apply the Unit 2 orifices since they were procured under the same purchase order and time-frame. The discharge coefficient (C) tolerance is further supported based on interpretation of References 5.l & m for a 8" schedule 40 pipe, flange taps and =0.787 both references indicated the
              'C' tolerance became significantly greater for low Reynolds numbers (i.e. below that for turbulent flow).
Reference 5.m (Table 9.54) stated the practical limitation or "accuracy" associated with calculational determination of the 'C' was +/-  % based on a within 0.6 to 0.75 and a Reynolds number of 104 to 107.
Reference 5.l (Table II-III-2.C, page 203; Section II-III-7, pages 200 & 208) indicates that for a calculational determination of 'C' (in-lieu of an actual calibration), "it is believed that the tolerances applicable to the coefficients above and to the right of the heavy stepped lines in Tables ...II-III-2... do not exceed +/- 1.0 percent." For Table II-III-3 (8" pipe, flange taps, square edged orifice) this applies for 's of 0.35 to 0.75, provided Reynolds number >100,000. Our application has a slightly outside of this range and a minimum Reynolds number at 500 gpm as follows:

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                  FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 120 of 178 Attachment 9 Page 10 of 17
                           <<Sample Calculation for a Flow Orifice Application >>
Re = VD/&#xb5; = (D/&#xb5;)(Flow/Area) = (Flow)/[ &#xb5;(D/4)]
                        =(55.6692 lbm/ft3)(1/32.17ft - lbm/lbf - s2)(4)(500gal/min)x (1/7.48%ft3/gal)(1/60 min/sec)/[  (7.981/12 ft) (20.92x10-6 lbf-s/ft2]
Re = > 330,000 where:
              &#xb5; conservatively based on nearly 70&deg;F from Reference 5.n Table 3.3.3, conservatively page 3-37 and  conservatively based on orifice reference conditions of 350&deg;F/400 psig from Reference 5.k.
Further review of Reference 5.l Table II-III.C. Section II-V and page 208 implies the 1% tolerance on 'C' would not apply for some applications, depending on the magnitudes for  and Reynolds number; whereby, Table II-V-1 should be utilized (i.e. "...applications which fall below and to left of the heavy stepped lines represent extrapolations outside the range of test data"). It is important to note that for  above 0.3, the heavy stepped line of Table II-III-C becomes vertical at a Reynolds number magnitude of 100,000. Although our  falls slightly outside this range, the minimum Reynolds number would fall to the far right of the extrapolated heavy stepped line in Figure II-III-C of Reference 5.l; therefore, it is expected that the tolerance of less than +/- 1.0% for 'C' is applicable. In addition, for our flow range of interest, 500- 1500 gpm (based on more representative &#xb5;
              =5.827x10-6 lbf-s/ft 2) @212&deg;F, Reference 5.n), Reynolds numbers range from 1x10-6 to 3.5x106 for which 'C' would be expected to remain within +/- 1%.
: 4. From Reference 5.m, Table 9.56 & Figure 9.10. The sensitivity factors are effectively derived from the orifice flow equation (i.e. based on the exponential &
proportionality dictated by the flow equation).

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                 FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 121 of 178 Attachment 9 Page 11 of 17
                          <<Sample Calculation for a Flow Orifice Application >>
Process Measurement Allowances (PMA)
Process errors would primarily result due to process temperature variations (orifice thermal expansion and density variations) (Assumption 6.1.2).
Process temperatures variations can alter the orifice/piping bore due to thermal expansion and can be addressed by the equation below, provided the pipe and orifice are similar materials (Reference 5.m, Assumption 6.1.2):
flow correction multiplier = Fa = 1 + 2 FE(Tx-68)
FE(304SS) = 9.9x10-6in/(in - &deg;F) (Ref. 5.n,p.6 - 11)
Fa = 1 + 2(9.9x10-6)(Tx - 68) where Tx = reference temperature in &deg;F Standard practice provides for the 'Fa' correction within the  P vs. flow relationship provided by the vendor (i.e. already corrected based on orifice reference conditions). Therefore, the thermal expansion effect uncertainty would apply only as process temperature decreases below 350&deg; F (orifice reference temperature and ND maximum entry temperature), and would result in indicated flow higher than actual (bore diameter decreases at lower temperatures, therefore P increases).
Normal or SBLOCA initiation of ND is at a NC temperature of  350 &deg; F ;
however, during a LOCA ND operates in the injection mode, where suction is from the RWST; therefore, the minimum ND temperature is taken as  68&deg;F.
For the orifice reference temperature of 350&deg;)F, the positive flow error due to the minimum ND temperature of 68&deg;F is  Fa =1.0056, for which the thermal expansion effect would be a +0.56 %rate bias.
Process density variations would be bias effect, determined with respect to the orifice reference condition. The transmitter calibration was based on fixed differential pressure at the orifice reference conditions; however, the actual element  P in the field will vary with density changes; therefore, an uncertainty allowance must be included. The "sensitivity factor" for density variations is 1/2 (derived from the general flow equation, Reference 5.l & n) and applicable specific gravity values, follow (Reference 5.n):

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                     FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev.a Page 122 of 178 Attachment 9 Page 12 of 17
                           <<Sample Calculation for a Flow Orifice Application>>
VReference = v350&deg;F/415 psia = 0.1796 ft 3/lbm v 68&deg;F/415 psia    = 0.01603 ft 3 /lbm density%11. =   [PACTUAL -PREFERENCE)/( PREFERENCE)]100
                                          = [(VREFERENCEfVACTUAL) -1]100 - + 12.04%
                           %Flow Rate error= (1/2) (+12.04%) = + 6.02% rate The effect is a positive bias because the higher density results in a higher actual 11.P (flow), relative to the fixed switch calibration based on reference 11.P.
The process temperature effects for thermal expansion and density considerations are dependent and move in same directions. Based on the foregoing, the net 'PMA' terms would be:
PMA3so&deg;F = 0.0% rate(bias)
PMA70&deg;F = + (6.02 + O + 0.56)/ + 6.58% rate bias Calibration Effects (M&TE and CTE):
The loop 'M& TE' and 'CTE' considerations are as follows:
CTE -The switch calibration setting tolerance is specified as "+/- 1. 5%" (Reference 5.j), which is interpreted to be+/- 1.5 %FS 11. P based on the vendor manual (Reference 5.h).
MTE -The switch calibration (Reference 5.j) requires a pressure gauge to monitor the applied differential pressure. For ease of calculation, M& TE effect will only include conservative values of 'A' and 'CTE' (Assumption 6.1.1 ). The Total M& TE effect is as follows:
Aaauge = CTEaauge =     +/- 0.25% span MTE   =+/-    AGauge 2
                                                              + CTEGauge 2
                                     = +/-0.25 2 + 0.25 2 = +/- 0.35% span The effects of M& TE and CTE will be combined into a total calibration uncertainty such that the over-all loop calibration effect can be determined as follows:
CE  = +/- CTE 2      M&T &#xa3; 2  = +/-.J 1.5 2   0.35 2  = +/- 1.54% span.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                    FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev.a Page 123 of 178 Attachment 9 Page 13 of 17
                            <<Samplefalculation for a Fl~w Orifice Application>>
7.3    Total Loop Uncertainty Determination The total pressure switch uncertainty must be determined as % of measured differential pressure span, as follows:
TU PS-NORM = +/-.J,--D_                  _+_T_E_2 2 _+_R_E_P_2_+_CE_2
                                               = +/- 1.5 2 + 0.2 2 + 1.542 + 1.22
                                               = +/-2.47% LlP span Then the"% ~P span" error must be applied to the ideal differential pressure at setpoint, within the general equation for flow (flow= kW, where k = 1500 gpm/70"WC), to determine the respective flow error at setpoint, as follows:
TUrs-NORM@7so = (1500/v'?O) [.J17.5 +/- (2.47 /100)70]- 750 = -38/+36 gpm TUps-NORM@1400 = (1500/\/70)        [ 61.2 +/- (2.47 /100)70]- 1400 = -17 /+22 gpm TUps-sEIS  = +/-jTUps-NoRM 2 + SA2 = +/-6. 95% LIP span TUps-sms@7so = (15OO/v'?O)       [ 17.5 +/- (6.95/100)70]-           750       = -113/+98 gpm TUps-sE1s@1400 = (15OO/ill) [-J61.2 +/- (6.95/100)70]- 1400                     = -54/+57 gpm TUps-sBLOCA   = +/-jTUps-NoRM 2 + EA2 = +/-5. 92% LIP span TUps-SBLOCA@750 =(1500/\/70)        [ 17.5 +/- (S.92/100)70]- 750 = -96/+85 gpm TUps-SBLOCA@1400= (15OO/ill) [.J61.2         +/- (5.92/100)70]-        lf4OO = -46/+49 gpm Similarly, the error values for the orifice PEA and PMA terms are based on a "%
measured rate% and the correSf)onding flow error can be determined as follows:
PEA@ 750 = +/- (1.70/100)750 = +/- 13 gpm PEA @1400+ = +/- (1. 70/100) 1400 = +/- 24 gpm
                                  +PMA @75o+ = +(6.58/100)750 = +49 gpm
                                 +PMA @1400+ = +(6.58/100)1400 =+92 gpm

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev.a Page 124 of 178 Attachment 9 Page 14 of 17
                         <<Sample Calculation for a Flow Orifice Application>>
For ease of calculation the maximum switch gpm error will be utilized as a "+/-" value.
TLUNaRM@7So     = +/-jTUps-NRM@7so 2 + PEA2 + PMA
                                          = +/- -38 2 + 13 2 + ( +49)
TLUNoRM@750      = -40/+89 gpm TLUNORM@1400    = +/-.J-22 2 + 24 2 + (+92)
TLUNoRM@ 1400   =   -33/+125 gpm TLUsE1s@1so   = +/-jTUrs-sE1s@1so 2          + PMA
                                           +/-.J-113 2 + 13 2 + ( +49)
TLUsms@1so    =   -114/+ 163 gpm

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion                                                             Rev.a Page 125 of 178 Attachment 9 Page15of17
                          <<Sample Calculation for a Flow Orifice Application>>
TLUsErs@Hoo   = +/- -57 2 -124 + ( +92)
TLUsEIS@t4oo = -62/+154 gpm TLUssLocA@1so    = +/-jTUps-sBLOCA@1so 2 + PEA2 + PMA
                                            +/- -95 2 + 13 2 + (+49)
TLUseLOCA@ 750   =  -96/+145 gpm TLUssLocA@14oo   = +/- -49 2 + 24 + (+92)
TLUsBLOCA@t4oo    = -55/+147 gpm 7.4    Setpoint Analyses/Acceptability The low flow switch shelf state facilitates recirc. valve auto-open upon ND pump start (after a given time delay); therefore the low flow setpoint only functions to ensure recirc. valve auto-open on decreasing ND flow (i.e. low flow switch reset on increasing is essentially an arbitrary value, since valve is already open or going open). to assure the pump minimum flow of 500 gpm, the maximum potential positive uncertainty was applied. The recirc. valve auto-close function must occur prior to exceeding 1500 gpm actual flow and premature actuation is of little consequence, (provided low flow switch has reset), therefore the maximum potential negative uncertainty was applied. Figure 8- 2 indicates the existing loop setpoints are acceptable to satisfy the foregoing requirements.
1500 GPM Max Range
                                                                -TLA = -68 1400 gpm _____ _
stop-recirc 750 gpm ------------------
auto-recirc                   +TLA = + 167 1f
_ _ _,.___ __..___ 500 gpm minimum allowable RHR pump flow

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology              FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 126 of 178 Attachment 9 Page 16 of 17
                           <<Sample Calculation for a Flow Orifice Application >>
Figure 8-2 Setpoint Evaluation Diagram (See Notes 1 and 2)
Notes:
: 1. The recent installation of the continuous mini-flow upstream of the ND Heat Exchanger (HX) via valves ND103 & 104 (References 5.t), has altered the significance of the pump mini-flow limit of 500 gpm, with-respect the NDPS5040 &
5050 loops. the new recirc lines provide an additional flow of  300 gpm back to each respective pump suction (upstream of NDFE5040 & 5050). This effectively would reduce the analytical limit for the auto-open setpoint; however, credit for this system modification was not included here-in. Furthermore, the 500 gpm minimum flow rate is a nominal design value, as supported by the Ingersol Rand RHR Pump Minimum Flow Evaluation (attached to Reference 5.r), which stated short term operation  500 gpm could be allowed.
: 2. The auto-close at 1400 gpm is an arbitrary point to assure closure prior to exceeding the loop range. At the time of RHR initiation (normal or accident operation), the operator has sufficient time to manually isolate the recirc. line if the recirc valve does not close @1400 gpm (), or he can choose to manually isolate prior to reaching the 1400 gpm recirc stop setpoint. The manual capability is only contingent on the low flow switch reset at 750 gpm.

==8.0     CONCLUSION==
S/RESULTS 8.1     Loop Uncertainty/Setpoint Results TABLE 8-4 summarizes the uncertainty terms and the over-all loop uncertainty for the McGuire Unit 1 & 2 RHR Mini-Flow Loops (NDPS- 5040 & -5050). The existing high and low setpoints of (750 & 1400 gpm, respectively) are acceptable to ensure adequate RHR flow and to preclude pump damage for all modes of operation.
Table 8-4 Loop/Device Uncertainty Data (See Notes 1 and 2)
Uncertainty Term                     FE (%Rate)                 FS ( +/- % P span)
D                              N/A                             +/- 1.5 PEA                             +/- 1.70                            N/A PMA                          + 6.58(bias)                         N/A REA                              N/A                             +/- 0.2 TE                              N/A                             +/- 1.2 CE(3)                            N/A                            +/- 1.54 EA                              N/A                            +/- 5.38 SA                              N/A                             +/- 6.5

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology             FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 127 of 178 Attachment 9 Page 17 of 17
                          <<Sample Calculation for a Flow Orifice Application >>
TLU NORM @ 750 = -40/+89gpm TLU NORM @ 1400 = -33/+125gpm TLU SEIS @ 750 = -114/+163gpm TLU SEIS @ 1400 = -62/+154gpm TLU SBLOCA @ 750 = -96/+145gpm TLU SBLOCA @ 1400 = -55/+147gpm Notes:
: 1. Values are random - independent as denoted by "+/-", unless noted otherwise.
: 2. The effects of PSE & CL are not applicable to this device, since there is no associated signal. Furthermore, the vendor did not specify any static pressure effect, therefore, SPE is zero.
: 3. Includes loop considerations for M&TE and CTE 8.2    Calibration Data Utilized as Input The calibration data utilized as input to the uncertainty analysis is listed below:
* Device calibration setting tolerance within +/- 1.5 %  P span.
* M&TE gauge shall have a range  3x calibration range.
* Calibration interval based on a typical refuel cycle.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 EXAMPLE/DETAIL and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 128 of 178 Attachment 10 Page 1 of 10
                                <<Basic Statistical Methods/Techniques >>
For a limited sample size an estimated interval can be established utilizing statistical analyses, whereby 95% of all magnitudes would be expected to fall within. This is sometimes referred to as a 95% confidence interval or a 5% level of significance. The general approach is the "Student-t" method, and does not require a normal distribution for sample points; however, it cannot be used on a severe non-normal distribution.
Equations for the "Student-t" method are subsequently presented in Reference 7.2.2 .
In addition, techniques are also presented for outlier identification and for normality tests. The outlier and normality techniques are based on References 7.2.4 and 7.2.23 ,
respectively. Reference 7.2.5 further endorses some of the techniques presented herein, and further outlines additional techniques for determination of outliers and for normality tests.
i=n sample mean  x = (1/n)  i=1 (x i)

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                   FAD-EG-ALL-1153 EXAMPLE/DETAIL and Discussion                                                                  Rev.a Page 129 of 178 Attachment 10 Page 2 of 10
                                  <<Basic Statistical Methods/Techniques >>
L<xt-x n        -
                                                                             )2/(n-l) sample standard deviation= s =       t=1
                   +/- magnitude for 95% confidence interval =        z= x   +/- t(s) where; n = number of sample points xi = magnitude of each sample("+" or"-" value) v = (n-1) degrees of freedom t = value from Table 10-1 based on v Note: The sample mean and standard deviation are estimates based on a limited sample size for the true mean and standard deviation (&#xb5; & a, respectively, based on an infinite sample). The sample standard deviation differs from the true standard deviation by a factor known as the Bessel Correction = '-[n /(n -1)]
10-1 RANDOM DISTRIBUTION OF T 1  1 TABLE
* Degrees of              Value of 't' (for      Degrees of                 Value of 't' (for Freedom                    Level of            Freedom                       Level of V =  (n-1)          Significance a= .05        V  = (n-1)               Significance a =
or for a 95%                                   .05 or for a 95%
confidence interval)                                   confidence interval) 1                   12.706                       18                      2.101 2                    4.303                       19                      2.093 3                    3.182                       20                      2.086 4                    2.776                       21                      2.080 5                    2.571                       22                      2.074 6                    2.447                       23                      2.069

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology         FAD-EG-ALL-1153 EXAMPLE/DETAIL and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 130 of 178 Attachment 10 Page 3 of 10
                                <<Basic Statistical Methods/Techniques >>
7                   2.365                  24                 2.064 8                   2.306                  25                 2.060 9                   2.262                  26                 2.056 10                   2.228                  27                 2.052 11                   2.201                  28                 2.048 12                   2.179                  29                 2.045 13                   2.160                  30                 2.042 14                   2.145                  40                 2.021 15                   2.131                  60                 2.000 16                   2.120                 120                 1.980 17                   2.110                                    1.960

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                 FAD-EG-ALL-1153 EXAMPLE/DETAIL and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 131 of 178 Attachment 10 Page 4 of 10
                                 <<Basic Statistical Methods/Techniques >>
Outlier Rejection The method for outlier determination is from ANSI/ASTM E 178 (endorsed by EPRI TR-103335) and can be utilized for both small and large sample sizes. Other techniques exist for identification of potential outliers (refer to Reference EPRI TR-103335, which can be utilized in lieu of that outlined here-in. The failure to identify and exclude outliers would result in a conservative estimate of drift magnitude and could cause the normality assumption to be rejected. If sample points are determined to be outliers, then the mean and standard deviation values should be re-calculated, omitting the identified outliers.
* The T-test states that a sample point can be rejected as an outlier if it has a deviation from the mean greater than that corresponding presented in Table 10-2.
Table 10-2 provides values for a two-sided T-test where there is interest in outliners occurring on either side, but do not believe that outliners can occur on both sides of the mean simultaneously. For more information about this methodology, refer to ANSI/ASTM E 178 T = l xn - x l / s where T = test criterion where xn = magnitude of suspected outlier sample point(s) (+/- maximum or minimum) x  sample mean s  sample standard deviation Sample point is outlier, if the calculated sample variance > maximum variance from Table 10-2.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 EXAMPLE/DETAIL and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 132 of 178 Attachment 10 Page 5 of 10
                                <<Basic Statistical Methods/Techniques >>
TABLE 10-2 'T' - TEST LIMITING VARIANCE.
(for 1% and 5% level of significance (  ), for n > 30 refer to ANSI/ASTM E 178)
Sample             Max.             Max.        Sample Size        Max.           Max.
Size (n)       Variance        Variance           (n)         Variance      Variance 
                          = 1%             = 5%                          = 1%            = 5%
3             1.155           1.155           17            2.894           2.620 4             1.496           1.481           18            2.932           2.651 5             1.764           1.715           19            2.968           2.681 6             1.973           1.887           20            3.001           2.709 7             2.139           2.020           21            3.031           2.733 8             2.274           2.126           22            3.060           2.758 9             2.387           2.215           23            3.087           2.781 10              2.482           2.290           24            3.112           2.802 11              2.564           2.355           25            3.135           2.822 12              2.636           2.412           26            3.157           2.841 13              2.699           2.462           27            3.178           2.850 14              2.755           2.507           28            3.199           2.876 15              2.806           2.549           29            3.218           2.893 16              2.852           2.585           30            3.236           2.908

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                          FAD-EG-ALL-1153 EXAMPLE/DETAIL and Discussion Rev.a Page 133 of 178 Attachment 10 Page 6 of 10
                                     <<Basic Statistical Methods/Techniques >>
Normality Test ('W'-Test)
* The W-Test can be utilized on either "raw" data or "transformed" data (i.e.
transformed via mathematical manipulation, such as drift determination based by manipulating as-found/as-left data into units of %span). The test serves to evaluate the assumption of normality and provide a basis for rejection of the assumption. If the sample points are close together and subsequently fail the W-Test, then normality may be supported via a graphic analyses and/or additional assessment.
ANSI N15.15 and EPRI TR-103335 present other techniques for evaluation of the normality assumption, which can be utilized in lieu of that outlined here-in. The W-Test is presented in the three steps which follow (taken from ANSI N15.15 and endorsed by EPRI TR-103335).
: 1. The sample data is first arranged in order of increasing magnitude (e.g.x1, x2, X3, ... xn), then the following equation is applied to determine the unbiased estimate of the population variance:
S2 = (n-1)s 2 wheres= sample standard deviation Where; n = number of sample points Xi= magnitude of each sample ("+" or"-" value) x = sample mean
: 2. Then if 'n' is even, set k = n/2 and for 'n' odd, set k = (n-1)1/2. Determine "b" as follows, where coefficient values for "a" are from Table 10-3:
b = 8n(Xn -    X 1) + Bn-dXn X2} + 8n-2(Xn-2 -X3) ... +an-k + 1 (Xn-k+t-Xk) k b=    L a n-i+1 (Xn-i+1 -Xi) i=l

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology              FAD-EG-ALL-1153 EXAMPLE/DETAIL and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 134 of 178 Attachment 10 Page 7 of 10
                                <<Basic Statistical Methods/Techniques >>
: 3. Based on results from 1) & 2) above, compute W:
W = b2/S2 Then if the computed value of W is greater than the tabulated value (Table 10-4) based on 'n' for the desired level of significance, the assumption of normality is valid (i.e. should not be rejected).

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology           FAD-EG-ALL-1153 EXAMPLE/DETAIL and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 135 of 178 Attachment 10 Page 8 of 10
                                                <<Basic Statistical Methods/Techniques >>
TABLE 10-3 COEFFICIENT VALUES (S EE NOTE) e 10-3 Coefficient Values an-i+1 n
i       3          4           5         6         7          8       9      10       11        12         13       14 1       0.7071     0.6872      0.6646    0.6431    0.6233     0.6052  0.5888 0.5739   0.5601    0.5475     0.5359   0.5251 2                  0.1677      0.2413    0.2806    0.3031     0.3164  0.3244 0.3291   0.3315    0.3325     0.3325   0.3318 3                                        0.0875    0.1401     0.1743  0.1976 0.2141   0.2260    0.2347     0.2412   0.2460 4                                                             0.0561  0.0947 0.1224   0.1429    0.1586     0.1707   0.1802 5                                                                            0.0399   0.0695    0.0922     0.1099   0.1240 6                                                                                               0.0303     0.0539   0.0727 7                                                                                                                   0.0240

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology           FAD-EG-ALL-1153 EXAMPLE/DETAIL and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 136 of 178 Attachment 10 Page 9 of 10
                                                 <<Basic Statistical Methods/Techniques >>
e 10-3 Coefficient Values an+1 n
i        15         16          17        18        19         20      21     22       23        24         25       26 1        0.5150     0.5056      0.4968    0.4886    0.4808     0.4734  0.4643 0.4590   0.4542    0.4493     0.4450   0.4407 2        0.3306     0.3290      0.3273    0.3253    0.3232     0.3211  0.3185 0.3156   0.3126    0.3098     0.3069   0.3043 3        0.2495     0.2521      0.2540    0.2553    0.2561     0.2565  0.2578 0.2571   0.2563    0.2554     0.2543   0.2533 4        0.1878     0.1939      0.1988    0.2027    0.2059     0.2085  0.2119 0.2131   0.2139    0.2145     0.2148   0.2151 5        0.1353     0.1447      0.1524    0.1587    0.1641     0.1686  0.1736 0.1764   0.1787    0.1807     0.1822   0.1836 6        0.0880     0.1005      0.1109    0.1197    0.1271     0.1334  0.1399 0.1443   0.1480    0.1512     0.1539   0.1563 7        0.0433     0.0593      0.0725    0.0837    0.0932     0.1013  0.1092 0.1150   0.1201    0.1245     0.1283   0.1316 8                   0.0196      0.0359    0.0486    0.0612     0.0711  0.0804 0.0878   0.0941    0.0997     0.1046   0.1089 9                                         0.0163    0.0303     0.0422  0.0530 0.0618   0.0696    0.0764     0.0823   0.0876 10                                                             0.0140  0.0263 0.0368   0.0459    0.0539     0.0610   0.0672 11                                                                            0.0122   0.0228    0.0321     0.0403   0.0476 12                                                                                               0.0107     0.0200   0.0284 0.0094 Note: For n > 26 refer to ANSI N15.15

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology         FAD-EG-ALL-1153 EXAMPLE/DETAIL and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 137 of 178 Attachment 10 Page 10 of 10
                                   <<Basic Statistical Methods/Techniques >>
TABLE 10-4 DISTRIBUTION OF THE 'W' TEST STATISTIC FOR  = 0.05 (95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL) n                 P = 0.02                    n            P = 0.02 3                  0.767                     15             0.881 4                  0.748                     16             0.887 5                  0.762                     17             0.892 6                  0.788                     18             0.897 7                  0.803                     19             0.901 8                  0.818                     20             0.905 9                  0.829                     21             0.908 10                  0.842                     22             0.911 11                  0.850                     23             0.914 12                  0.859                     24             0.916 13                  0.866                     25             0.918 14                  0.874                     26             0.920 For n > 26 refer to Reference 7.2.23

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology             FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 138 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 1 of 36
                                      <<Process Measurement Error >>
Process measurement requires the establishment of relationships between variables which enable the detection of changes in these relationships. The measurement of temperature by a mercury thermometer can be used to demonstrate this point. The thermometer measures room temperature by using the known relationship between the volumetric expansion of mercury and changes in temperature. As temperature increases, the volume of a fixed mass of mercury increases by a proportional amount.
By placing the mercury in a tube with known graduations, the change in volume can be identified and correlated to a change in temperature.
The establishment of usable relationships between variables for measurement purposes is generally dependent upon other known influences not affecting the relationship of concern. In other words, only one variable is assumed to change at a time, so that the measured change is due solely to the variation of the parameter of concern.
Using the mercury thermometer illustration again: To isolate the mercury from other influences which could be misinterpreted as a temperature influence, the mercury is enclosed in a vacuum sealed glass tube. By doing this, other parameters which can cause the mercury to vary in volume, such as pressure or humidity, are isolated. Now, the only parameter which can cause the mercury volume to change is temperature. By calibrating the change in volume for a known temperature change, an accurate temperature measurement device is obtained.
In actual process measurement however, the effects of other parameters on a given measurement relationship may not be fully isolated. This can cause errors in the measured parameter. The effects of these other influences must be either accounted for or isolated in order to obtain an accurate measurement.
The effects of these influences are known as Process Measurement Effect (PME) since they are due primarily to variations in ambient and process conditions. The process measurement errors encompass all errors within a process measurement signal prior to the loop sensing device.
In design and calibration of plant instrumentation, uniformity of all pertinent characteristics of the process fluid is assumed. However, there are many applications where uniformity is not a valid assumption. For example, changes in gas density due to pressure varying fluid density or viscosity for a head-type mass flow meter, or thermal gradients in stagnant fluids with a point temperature measurement, can cause significant measurement errors. Many of these problems can be accounted for by providing compensating measurements, proper correction factors, or special calibrations. Others though, may not be correctable and will induce additional error or uncertainty into a measurement.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 139 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 2 of 36
                                      <<Process Measurement Error >>
One of the most common methods for liquid level measurement uses the hydrostatic head (pressure) created by a column of liquid. The measurement of the hydrostatic head usually provides a direct link to liquid level, and it is easily measured by a pressure transmitter/switch, or a differential pressure transmitter/switch. Depending on the specific method of measurement, changes in the density of the measured process liquid, or in the pressure sensing lines can cause errors in the level measurement. This variation in density can be caused by changes in temperature, pressure, and/or chemical composition.
1.0     Open Vessel Measurement The measurement of level in an open vessel is one of the simplest forms of utilization of the hydrostatic head principle.
The actual measurement can be accomplished by use of either a gauge pressure or differential pressure type device. Since the vessel is open, both devices use the local atmosphere as the common reference.
Figure 11-1 shows a typical open tank application. The pressure (P) sensed at the point of connection to the tank can be calculated by:
P = HL
* SG                                                    (Eq. 1)
Where, HL = Height of liquid above the connection point, in inches of water SG = Specific gravity of the liquid P P= Pressure, in inches of water

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                              FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev.a Page 140 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 3 of 36
                                          <<Process Measurement Error >>
tt I-IL PUn, WC,     ~  HL I SG 6 P ::; I-IL~ SG :l.
* SG 1 }
Error ~ % span I ~ HL(SG         :i
* SG' )
* 100%
HLMAx" SG.~
HL = Hejght of l1Quld measured in irn;;ties HLMA-,,,'=- M8ximum height ot llquid SG - Speciii c gravity af lk~uid
                          $G 1
* SG z - Speciftc gravitV ot Uquid at temperature 1 and tern peratu rB 2 respec.1lv&ly P - Ptessun~ sens&d at the bottom of HL in inches of water co~umn.
FIGURE 11-1 HYDROSTATIC LEVEL MEASUREMENT By using the specific gravity to calculate the pressure, the resulting pressure will be in units of inches of water column (in WC). The primary variable in the

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 141 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 4 of 36
                                        <<Process Measurement Error >>
pressure equation, specific gravity, is by definition, the ratio of a fluid's density to the density of water at the standard temperature and pressure of 68&deg;F and 1 atmosphere.
NOTE:       Not all sources of SG use water at 68&deg;F as a reference. Those must be converted to SG referenced to water at 68&deg;F.
SG =      density of fluid density of water @ 68&deg;F In nuclear power plant applications, water constitutes the majority of the fluid applications for which measurements are made. For water, the ASME Steam Tables provide a convenient source of data for the determination of specific gravity. The Steam Tables provide the specific volume for water in its liquid (f) and vapor (g) states at various temperatures and pressures. Since specific volume is the inverse of density, the specific gravity of a fluid can be calculated from the specific volume values by:
SG      =       specific vol. of water @ 68&deg;F specific vol. of fluid
                            =       0.01605 Vf or Vg Two important facts must be noted about the measurement of level using hydrostatic head:
            -       The relationship of hydrostatic head (P) to fluid height (HL) is directly proportional. (see Equation 1)
            -       The hydrostatic head produced by the fluid is dependent upon the temperature of the fluid since the temperature affects the fluid's density.
In the initial design and establishment of calibration parameters for a level loop, a base calibration temperature of the fluid must be assumed. In this example, the base temperature is typically the temperature of the fluid at normal operating conditions. When the actual fluid temperature varies from this assumed value, errors in level measurement occur. This is because the device sensing the hydrostatic head cannot distinguish a pressure change caused by temperature variation from a change in actual level. The error can be calculated, though, by calculating the change in

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 142 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 5 of 36
                                       <<Process Measurement Error >>
specific gravity.
Assume for a temperature of T1, a fluid has a specific gravity of SG1. We will call this the base calibration temperature. The error calculated will be at a different temperature, T2. For temperature T2, the fluid has a specific gravity of SG2. P1 and P2 are the resulting hydrostatic heads at T1 and T2 (assuming level remains constant). Thus, Error (in WC) = P2 - P1 DP    = (HL
* SG2) - (HL
* SG1)
                                          = HL (SG2 - SG1)                          (Eq. 2)
To express this error in terms of level measurement loop span, the error term in Equation 2 must be divided by the span of the loop. The span is typically equal to the difference between the maximum calibrated value and the minimum calibrated value. In this case, the span is equal to HLmax because minimum level is measured from the elevation of the level sensing nozzle (HL=0). To express the span in consistent units (in WC), it must be multiplied by the calibration specific gravity SG1.
Therefore, Error (% span) =      HL (SG2 - SG1)
* 100%              (Eq. 3)
HLmax (SG1)
Notice that the actual error incurred due to temperature change will vary as follows:
: 1.      For T2<T1, SG2>SG1. The error is positive and becomes larger as T2 decreases.
: 2.      For T2>T1, SG2<SG1. The error is negative and becomes larger as T2 increases.
: 3.      The larger the actual level term HL, the larger the level error with the maximum error occurring when HL is equal to HLmax.
The positive and negative error annotations refer to the error with respect to actual level. A positive error will cause a measurement to be higher than actual value, while a negative error will cause a measurement to be lower than actual value.
Temperature may not be the only parameter which varies the density of a

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                   FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 143 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 6 of 36
                                       <<Process Measurement Error >>
fluid. The chemical composition of the fluid can also cause the density to vary. In PWRs, the most common chemically induced variation of water density is caused by the presence of boric acid or Sodium Hydroxide. The effects of boric acid concentration, for example, can be determined using the same formulae developed above (Equations 2 and 3). The concentration of boric acid in water has a similar affect on the density of the water to that of temperature. If the density change is known, the measurement error can be calculated.
Processes for determining the densities of different boric acid solutions are described in Attachment 6.
While open vessels are normally at atmospheric conditions, during certain events this may not be so, thereby introducing measurement uncertainty.
An example was addressed in RNP CR 99-00882, which evaluated an OE item from the DC Cook plant. During review of the Refueling Water Storage Tank vent piping capacity, it was determined that, at the maximum liquid outlet flow rate, a vacuum condition would be established in the tank because the vent flow rate into the tank would be insufficient to maintain atmospheric pressure. This effect would bias the level indication, making it lower than the actual level. Situations like this, involving non-atmospheric conditions in a vented tank during certain events, must be considered and their effect on level measurement uncertainty properly analyzed.
2.0     Closed Vessel Measurement Another common level measurement application involves the detection of level in a closed vessel using the hydrostatic head measurement process. While the basic principles are the same as discussed above, other factors can affect the measurement process.
Figure 11-2 illustrates a typical closed vessel level measurement installation. In a closed vessel, the static pressure of the gaseous volume above the liquid must be taken into account. This requires the use of a differential pressure device which measures the pressure at both the bottom and top of the liquid.
The lower sensing line, called the measurement or variable leg, measures the hydrostatic pressure of the liquid plus the static pressure of the gas. The upper sensing line, called the reference leg, measures the static pressure of the gas above the liquid. The differential pressure device measures the difference in pressure between the measurement and reference legs, such that the resultant output is a measurement of only the liquid's hydrostatic head.
As depicted in Figure 11-2, a common practice of level measurement involves the filling of the reference leg with a liquid, typically the same liquid as found

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                                      FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev.a Page 144 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 7 of 36
                                             <<Process Measurement Error>>
within the vessel or simple ordinary water. This provides both a seal between the contents of the upper portion of a vessel and the transmitter as well as providing a more stable reference leg measurement for certain applications.
t HL j_
DP tin. WC)         = ~HR ., SGRJ - ~HL ~ :SGU
                                !:!.DP Gn, WC) - HFtfSGR .. SGR                  J- H1.mGL .. SGL I 4           3          2:       ~
error%    snan change =
                                                                  -HL11,0,J;
* SGL I HL  = Height ot vessel     Liqi.i it;t m~asuted in inches HR  =: Height of refefence leg Uquid column in inches SGl - Sp ecitic g ravitv of vess~ Ii !'.juid SGrL - Specific 9raviw of reference ieg i iQUid OP  =: Oi1fe:rential pt'essure repre.s-antirig v-ess:,~d HQuid tevel in frn;:he.s ot water S? - Static pres.sure in gas at top         ot vessel SGL 1t SGL 2 ~ Spe-ctfie gra.v-iw        ot liquid a1 t~mpera.ture    1 and 2 resper:tivetv 5GR ~* SGR.:. m Specific gravity of re-ferenca ~eg liquid attemp-~rature .3 a"d 4 t'espectivetv NOTE: It is assumed that tne gn is at negng.ibll;! spec:~fic. gravity ccn-dit!ons in th~s ex.amp~e FIGURE 11-2 WET LEG LEVEL SYSTEM

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                  FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 145 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 8 of 36
                                      <<Process Measurement Error >>
The calculations of hydrostatic head, and associated errors for a level loop, using a differential pressure device, are the same as those for an open vessel, provided that the fluid in the reference leg does not contribute to the hydrostatic head. For reference legs containing a gaseous fluid (dry reference leg), the hydrostatic head in the reference leg will generally be zero. Only when the gas is under very high pressure would the density of the gas cause a significant head effect. In this discussion it is assumed that all gases are at low pressure and do not contribute any significant hydrostatic pressure. For a wet, or filled, reference leg installation, though, the level determination and potential errors in measurement are determined differently.
The basic formula for calculating the hydrostatic head for a wet reference leg system is:
DP (in WC)                    (HR*SGR + SPE) - (HL*SGL + SPE)
(HR*SGR) - (HL*SGL)                   (Eq. 4)
Where, DP                            Differential pressure created by the vessel liquid level, expressed in inches of water HR                            Height of the reference leg liquid column above the lower connection, in inches HL                            Height of liquid in the vessel above the lower connection, in inches HLmax                         Maximum height of liquid which can be measured, in inches SGL                           Specific gravity of the liquid in the vessel SGR                           Specific gravity of the liquid in the reference leg SPE                           Static pressure effect of the gas above the liquid, in inches of water

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                  FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 146 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 9 of 36
                                         <<Process Measurement Error >>
The resulting equation contains two components of potential error, SGR and SGL. As discussed above, the specific gravity is affected by changes in temperature. In order to account for differences in temperatures, assumed calibration temperatures for both the vessel fluid and the reference leg fluid must be established. Variations in actual temperature induce errors into the measured level signal. The error can be calculated by comparing the changes in specific gravity in a manner similar to the computation listed above:
* Assumed base (calibration) temperature T3, with a reference leg fluid specific gravity of SGR3.
* Actual temperature T4, with a reference leg fluid specific gravity SGR4.
If only the reference leg temperature varies, the error is determined by calculating the change (or error) in DP due to the change in reference leg specific gravity, assuming HL and SGL remain constant.
Error (in WC) =     DP(Actual Conditions) - DP(Base Conditions)
DP = HR (SGR4 - SGR3)                                           (Eq. 5)
If both the vessel liquid and the reference leg liquid temperatures vary, the error is: Error (in WC) = HR(SGR4-SGR3) - HL(SGL2-SGL1) (Eq. 6)
If only the reference leg is affected by changes in temperature, the maximum error will occur at the maximum temperature variation. Since HR does not vary, it will not affect the maximum error. Equation 5 reveals that the DP error is negative if T4>T3 (since specific gravity decreases as temperature increases).
To express these errors in terms of level measurement loop span, the error terms in Equations 5 and 6 must be divided by the span of the loop. As was done for Equation 3, the span is equal to the maximum level HLmax, multiplied by the selected specific gravity of the liquid level, SGL1. Thus Equation 5 becomes, Error (% span) = HR (SGR4 - SGR3)
* 100%                        (Eq. 7)
HLmax
* SGL1 And Equation 6 becomes, Error (% span) = HR (SGR4 - SGR3) - HL (SGL2 - SGL1)
* 100%
HLmax
* SGL1                        (Eq. 8)

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 147 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 10 of 36
                                      <<Process Measurement Error >>
If both the reference leg fluid temperature and the vessel fluid temperature vary, the maximum error will occur when one temperature is at a maximum with the other at a minimum.
The above example is for an installation with the "low" side of the transmitter connected to the lower tap, and the "high" side connected to the upper tap. A similar process could be used for a transmitter whose "low" side is connected to the upper tap and whose "high" side is connected to the lower tap.
Note in the example above, that though the DP error is negative for T4>T3, the corresponding % span level error would be positive. This is due to the inverse relationship that exists between differential pressure and the liquid level in the tank. That is, a reduction in DP is equivalent to an increase in liquid level in the tank.
The effects of temperature variation on level measurement can cause significant amounts of error to be introduced into a loop. Thus, it is essential that the effects of process and reference leg temperature changes be considered in an overall setpoint or loop error analysis.
3.0     High Temperature/Pressure Vessel Level Measurement The measurement of level by use of a differential pressure device can become very complex when measuring the level in a vessel containing process liquids at high temperature or pressure, or both. The high temperature causes a portion of the process to become vapor and fill the upper portion of the vessel.
The resultant changes in the density of the vapor, as well as, of the liquid, can have a significant effect on the accuracy of a level measurement. In a similar manner, high pressure can compress the gas in the upper portion of a vessel causing significant changes in gas density, thus affecting the resulting accuracy.
Figure 11-3 shows a typical closed vessel level measurement setup where the area above the liquid contains a fluid whose density can vary. For nuclear power applications the process liquid is generally water, such as in a pressurizer, a steam generator, or the reactor vessel, with the area above the liquid containing saturated steam. For this discussion two examples are presented, in example 1 we will assume the liquid in Figure 11-3 is water and the area above the liquid is steam. In example 2 we will assume the liquid is borated water, the area above the liquid is pressurized Nitrogen, and the reference line is a dry leg of Nitrogen gas.
The basic formula for calculating the differential pressure or level, where the effects of both fluid densities must be included, is:
DP (in WC) =         (HR*SGR + SPE) - (HL*SGL + HV*SGV + SPE)
                                    =     HR*SGR - HL*SGL - HV*SGV           (Eq. 9)

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                 FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 148 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 11 of 36
                                      <<Process Measurement Error >>
Where, HR, HV & HL                  Heights of the reference leg, vapor region, and liquid, respectively, in inches SGR, SGV & SGL               Specific gravity of the reference leg liquid, vapor, and vessel water, respectively SPE                          Static pressure effect within the vessel, in inches of water HLmax                        Measurable level within the vessel, in inches

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 149 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 12 of 36
                                        <<Process Measurement Error >>
For this example, the measurable level (HLmax) within the vessel is equal to the height between the upper and lower sensing connections. This is also the height of the wet leg of concern. Those portions of the sensing lines (high and low) below the lower connection points are not of concern since, they will impart equal and opposite influences which cancel each other, assuming both lines are filled with the same fluid at approximately equal temperatures. Generally, HLmax will not be equal to the reference leg height, but will be at some level below the upper tap of the reference leg. However, for this example, HLmax = HR = HL + HV                                         (Eq. 10)
Substituting Equation 10 into Equation 9 yields DP in terms of HR and HL only.
DP (in WC) = HR*SGR - HL*SGL - (HR - HL)SGV
                                     = HR(SGR - SGV) + HL(SGV - SGL)              (Eq. 11)

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                              FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev.a Page 150 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 13 of 36
                                            <<Process Measurement Error >>
REFl:RENCE LEG (WATER FILLeDI (5Glil Q Q  0    0 T
                                   ~ULl LEVEL       o ,o O 0 0
1                       0 STEAM (100%~
t I
0          0 ISGVI 0           0    HV j_
C   O   &#xa2; 0-OOQ HlM.I..X                                                   HR
                             ~
I                                       t I
                           .L ZERO LEVR WATER                          I
                                       !0%~
(SGLI LO        HI D?
INSTRUMENT EXPLANATlON OF SYMBOLS:
HL - Height af liquid (See note 11 HV
* Heighl ot gas ~r vaoor HR
* Height oi rererem~a leg 1See note 1l SGL - Specifjc graviw ot liquid at saturation 1emoera1ure-SGV
* Soeciflc gravitv of vapor at sa.:uration temperar~rn SGR - Spsciflc ;ravity of referBnce leg OF'
* Oifforenii;al oressure in inchBs of water where DP - HfUSQR.. SGVl      + HUSGV.. SGL)
NOTES:
: 1. All heights {except HVI are referenced above centerjine of lower leVEI sensing notzlB FIGURE 11-3 SATURATED LIQUID/ VAPOR LEVEL MEASUREMENT For the more general case where Hlmax does not equal the reference leg height, Hlmax may be substituted for HL. Provided that the vessel and reference leg conditions (temperature/ pressure) remain the same as the base

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                   FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 151 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 14 of 36
                                      <<Process Measurement Error >>
calibration conditions, the indicated level is a linear function of the measured differential pressure, and no vessel/reference leg density effect errors are created.
To assess the effects of density variations (typically caused by temperature variation) on the level measurement, Equation 11 is rewritten in the form:
DP (in WC) = (HR*SGR) - (HR*SGV) - (HL*SGL) + (HL*SGV)
(Eq. 12)
As in the previous sections, let T1 =    Assumed base temperature of the liquid and vapor T2 =    Actual temperature of the liquid and vapor T3 =    Assumed base temperature of the reference leg T4 =    Actual temperature of the reference leg Each temperature has a corresponding specific gravity value:
SGL1 & SGV1 =         Specific gravity of liquid and vapor at T1 SGL2 & SGV2 =         Specific gravity of liquid and vapor at T2 SGR3              =   Specific gravity of ref. leg liquid at T3 SGR4              =   Specific gravity of ref. leg liquid at T4 The change in differential pressure signal (DP) at the instrument due to a change in density caused by variations in temperature from the assumed calibrated condition, can be determined by:
DP (in WC) =         DP (Actual Conditions) - DP (Base Conditions)
                                   =      HR(SGR4 - SGR3) - HR(SGV2 - SGV1) -
HL(SGL2 - SGL1) + HL(SGV2 - SGV1)
                                   =       HR(SGR4 - SGR3 - SGV2 + SGV1) -
HL(SGL2 - SGL1 - SGV2 + SGV1)             (Eq. 13)
To convert the change in differential pressure, or error value, to error in percent of span, the DP must be divided by the base span of the loop.
Error (% span) = Error (in WC)
* 100%                     (Eq. 14)
DP Span The span is the difference between the full scale (100%) value for level and the zero (0%) value for level. In terms of DP,

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 152 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 15 of 36
                                       <<Process Measurement Error >>
DP span = (DP 100%) - (DP 0%)                            (Eq. 15)
Where, DP0%           = the differential pressure when level is 0%
DP100%         = the differential pressure when level is 100%
Substituting Equation 11 into Equation 15, DP span               [HR(SGR3 - SGV1) - HL100%(SGL1 -
SGV1)] - [HR(SGR3 - SGV1) -
HL0%(SGL1 - SGV1)]
HL100%(SGV1 - SGL1) - HL0%(SGV1 -
SGL1)                              (Eq.16)
From Figure 11-3, HL0 is equal to 0; therefore, DP span        =       HL100%(SGV1 - SGL1)              (Eq. 17)
Therefore, substituting Equation 13 into Equation 14 yields the error equation, expressed in percent of span, of:
DP = HR(SGR4-SGR3-SGV2+SGV1)-HL(SGL2-SGL1-SGV2+SGV1)
HL100% (SGV1-SGL1)
(Eq. 18)
The above formulae for calculating the variation in level can be applied to a number of different types of level loops.
These equations represent the general formulae for calculating differential pressure level measurement error due to variations in density. The equations apply for density variations in any of the fluids which can affect the measurement. By equating the effects of certain specific gravity terms to zero (e.g., SGV1 = SGV2 = 0 in a simple closed vessel), the equations can be shown to be equivalent to those for the open vessel and simple closed vessel.
While many loops only measure level, and are calibrated for specific conditions, other more complicated loops may have automatic temperature compensation circuitry. Such circuitry can adjust a level instrument's calibration parameters to account for the changes in fluid density. Temperature compensation can be used for either process temperature variations, reference leg temperature variations, or both. Utilization of temperature compensation in a level loop will eliminate the errors in measurement caused by density variations.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology              FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 153 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 16 of 36
                                      <<Process Measurement Error >>
The effects of both process and reference leg temperature variations must be considered in the analysis of a level loop's accuracy. Since the magnitude of the error is governed by both the level and the magnitude of temperature change, care must be taken when defining the conditions under which the accuracy must be determined. While the maximum, or worst case, error can easily be calculated for a level equal to 100%, the actual levels of concern may be considerably less than 100% and thereby have much less potential error. In a similar manner, the actual process and reference leg temperatures expected at the time a level measurement is needed may greatly decrease the potential error in comparison to worst case temperature conditions.
Consider the following examples:
Example 1 Calculate the worst case and specific error due to temperature variations in the process and reference leg of the vessel in Figure 11-3. Assume:
* Process and reference leg fluid is water
* Normal and calibrated process temperature = 532&deg;F
* Normal and calibrated reference leg temperature = 120&deg;F
* Distance between level connections (HLmax & HR) = 169 in
* Specific error conditions:
* 40% level
* 500&deg;F process temperature
* 250&deg;F reference leg temperature
* Process temperature minimum 400&deg;F
* Reference leg temperature maximum 280&deg;F
* All conditions are saturated steam/water Using the basic level formula (Eq. 11), the level signals in inches of water at Standard Temperature and Pressure (STP) at 68&deg;F are determined for normal operation using (ASME) Steam Tables (See specific gravity conversion from specific volume above):
DP      =       HR(SGR - SGV) + HL(SGV - SGL)
DP for 100% of level (DP 100):
HL      =       HLmax = 169 in DP100%          =     (169 in)(0.990249 - 0.032047) +

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                 FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 154 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 17 of 36
                                       <<Process Measurement Error >>
(169 in)(0.032047 - 0.755817)
                                    =      (169 in)(0.958202) - (169 in)(0.723770)
                                                = (161.936 - 122.317) in
                                                = 39.619 in DP for 40% of level (DP40%): HL          =
40% HLmax 40% level       = (40%)(169 in) = 67.6 in DP40%           = (169 in)(0.958202) - (67.6 in)(0.723770)
                                    = 113.009 in These represent the calibrated DP values for the loop. No process error would exist in the loop as long as the process temperature remained at 532&deg;F and the reference leg temperature remained at 120&deg;F.
The worst case error within the loop will always occur when level is at a maximum and both the process and reference leg temperatures are at their opposite extremes. The worst case error for this loop is calculated using the general formula for differential pressure change (Eq. 13).
DP = HR(SGR4 - SGR3 - SGV2 + SGV1) -
HL(SGL2 - SGL1 - SGV2 + SGV1)
HL      = 100% = 169 in HR      = 169 in SGR3 = Specific gravity of ref. leg water at 120&deg;F SGR4 = Specific gravity of ref. leg water at 280&deg;F SGL1 = Specific gravity of process water at 532&deg;F SGL2 = Specific gravity of process water at 400&deg;F SGV1 = Specific gravity of steam at 532&deg;F SGV2 = Specific gravity of steam at 400&deg;F DP = (169 in)(0.929449 - 0.990249 - 0.008613 +
0.032047) - (169 in)(0.860837 - 0.755817 -
0.008613 + 0.032047)
                                    =      (169 in)(-0.037366) - (169 in)(0.128454)

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                 FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 155 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 18 of 36
                                       <<Process Measurement Error >>
                                               = -6.32 in - 21.71 in
                                               = -28.02 in WC Therefore, the worst case error causes the measurement by the level loop to be off by 28.02 in WC in the negative direction. Differential pressure level installations that have a wet reference leg have an inverse relationship between DP and actual vessel level.
As the vessel level increases, DP decreases, and as the vessel level decreases, DP increases.
Expressed in percent span, DP Span        =      HL100% (SGV1 - SGL1)
                                   =      (169 in)(0.032047 - 0.755817)
                                               = -122.32 in.
Error           = (-28.02 in)
* 100% = +22.9% of span
(-122.32 in)
Therefore, the negative (or decrease) error of - 28.02 in WC differential pressure represents a level error of +22.9% span. In other words, an indicator would read 123% even though the actual level is only 100%.
The error within the loop measurement at the specific level of concern and conditions would be:
DP            =      HR(SGR4 - SGR3 - SGV2 + SGV1) - HL(SGL2 -
SGL1 - SGV2 + SGV1)
HL             =      40% = 67.6 in HR             =      169 in SGR3           =      Specific gravity of ref. leg water at 120&deg;F SGR4           =      Specific gravity of ref. leg water at 250&deg;F SGL1           =      Specific gravity of process water at 532&deg;F SGL2           =      Specific gravity of process water at 400&deg;F SGV1           =      Specific gravity of steam at 532&deg;F SGV2            =      Specific gravity of steam at 400&deg;F DP            =      (169 in)(0.943549 - 0.990249 - 0.023775 +
0.032047) - (67.6 in)(0.785414 - 0.755817 - 0.023775
                                           +
0.032047)

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                  FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 156 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 19 of 36
                                        <<Process Measurement Error >>
                                    =       (169 in)( -0.038428) - (67.6 in)(0.037869)
                                                 = -6.49 in - 2.56 in
                                                 = -9.05 in WC Error           = (-9.05 in)
* 100% = +7.4% of span
(-122.32 in)
Therefore, the actual error at 40% is -9.05 in WC differential pressure or +7.4%
actual level. Thus, the level loop would indicate 47.4% while actual level would be 40%.
Example 2 Calculate the required span for an Accumulator Level Instrument which measures liquid level in a tank pressurized with Nitrogen to compensate for the effects of the pressurized cover gas.
The differential pressure transmitter is connected with a wet variable leg and a dry reference leg.
Assume that the system is designed to measure a span of 14 physical inches in height with an offset of + 8.5 inches (0% span is 8.5 inches above the transmitter and 100% span is 22.5 inches above the transmitter). For the purposes of this calculation it is assumed that the accumulators are at 104 degrees F and 660 psig.
On one side of the transmitter we have borated water at 104 degrees F and 660 psig. On the other side of the transmitter we have nitrogen at 104 degrees F and 660 psig. Since we are comparing liquid and gas, we will use weight instead of specific gravity in our calculation. The equation for DP with a dry reference leg design is:
DP    =    HL * (Wbw - Wn)
DP    =    differential pressure HL    =    height of vessel liquid (above the transmitter)
Wbw   =    weight of pressurized borated water Wn    =    weight of pressurized nitrogen The differential pressure scaling calculation is as follows:
The specific gravity of the borated water is 1.0001762 at 104 degrees F and 660psig. The weight of water at reference temperature and pressure is 62.3441

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 157 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 20 of 36
                                      <<Process Measurement Error >>
lbs/cu ft therefore:
Wbw = 1.0001762 x 62.3441 = 62.3551 lbs/ cu ft The density of nitrogen at 0 degrees C and 14.7 psia is: 1.2506 grams/liter = 0.0781 lbs/cu ft The general law for gases is:
d0 = d (1 + t) 760/H, solving for d we get: d
                    = d0 (1/(1 + t)) H/760 Where:
d       = density at some temperature and pressure d0      = density at 0 deg. C and 760 millimeters of mercury (14.7 psia)
                           = 0.00367 t       = temperature in degrees C.
H       = pressure in millimeters of mercury Substituting into d = d0 (1/(1 + t)) H/760, we get:
d0      =0.0781 lbs/cu ft t       = 104 degrees F = 40 degrees C H       = 660 psig = 34,892.043 millimeters of mercury d       = 0.0781 lbs/cu ft (1/(1 + 0.00367 x 40)) (34,892.043/760) d
                            = 0.0781 (0.872) (45.9106) d       = 3.1266 lbs/cu ft Therefore the weight of nitrogen at 104 degrees F and 660 psig is: Wn = 3.1266 lbs/cu ft Recalling that DP = HL x (Wbw - Wn), at 100% of transmitter span: HL = 14 + 8.5 = 22.5 inches = 1.875 feet DP = 1.875 ft (62.3551 - 3.1266) lbs/cu ft DP = 111.0534 lbs/sq ft = 1.7791 feet of water
                         = 21.3489 inches of water

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 158 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 21 of 36
                                      <<Process Measurement Error >>
At 0% of transmitter span:
HL = 8.5 inches = 0.7083 feet DP = 0.7083 ft (62.3551 - 3.1266) lbs/cu ft DP = 41.9535 lbs/sq ft = 0.6721 feet of water = 8.0651 inches of water Therefore, the transmitter span, rounded to one decimal place is:
8.1 to 21.3 inches of water    or  13.2 inches of water This method compensates the input pressures for the weight of the pressurized nitrogen on the low side of the transmitter.
4.0     Vessel Growth Large pressure vessels exposed to large temperature changes experience significant thermal expansion called vessel growth. This growth can be as much as 2 inches in BWR reactor pressure vessels and PWR pressurizers. The amount of growth at any point along the vessel depends on the thermal expansion coefficient of the material the vessel is made of, the distance from a reference point (either the bottom of the vessel or the variable leg tap) to the point in question, and the temperature change. There are two types of vessel growth errors of concern: Errors when the condensate pot (top of reference leg) is stationary; and Errors when the condensate pot moves with the vessel upper tap (reference leg tap).
Stationary Condensate Pot When the reference leg condensate pot is stationary, vessel growth effectively moves the variable leg tap upwards resulting in a smaller distance between the variable leg tap and the condensate pot than that which existed under cold conditions. A bias in water level measurement of up to +2 inches (actual water level is lower than the sensed water level) can result, thereby reducing low level setpoint margins. To compensate for this effect, the scaling calculation for the level instrument calibrated range needs to account for the thermal expansion of that portion of the vessel between the variable leg tap and the bottom of the vessel. In other words, determine how much the lower tap will move due to thermal expansion of the vessel material between the variable leg tap and the bottom of the vessel and then compensate the transmitter calibrated range accordingly, (compensated range less than uncompensated).
Moveable Condensate Pot When the reference leg condensate pot is designed to move along with the

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                  FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 159 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 22 of 36
                                       <<Process Measurement Error >>
upper tap on the vessel (reference leg tap), vessel growth that causes the variable leg tap to move upwards is offset by a corresponding upward movement of the condensate pot. However, the condensate pot upward movement is greater than that of the variable leg tap because the condensate pot elevation is effected by the thermal growth of the vessel material between the upper tap and the variable leg tap in addition to the thermal growth of the material between the variable leg tap and the bottom of the vessel. A negative bias in water level measurement of some amount (actual water level is higher than the sensed water level) can result, thereby reducing high level setpoint margins. To compensate for this effect, the scaling calculation for the level instrument calibrated range needs to account for the thermal expansion of that portion of the vessel between the variable leg tap and the reference leg tap. In other words, determine how much the reference leg tap will move due to thermal expansion of the vessel material between the reference leg tap and the variable leg tap and then compensate the transmitter calibrated range accordingly, (compensated range greater than uncompensated). For some applications these errors are significant and should be compensated for in the scaling calculation. In other applications, it may not be necessary to consider this growth in the scaling if sufficient margin exists for it to be accounted for in the uncertainty analysis or, if the distance between the taps is small the effects may be negligible.
BWR specifics In September 1988, General Electric issued Service Information Letter (SIL) 470, titled reactor Water Level Mismatches. Supplement 1 to this SIL was issued April 20, 1989, that provided additional detailed information. This Section covers the design considerations for Vessel Growth in BWRs that was addressed in this SIL 470 and its supplements.
EXAMPLE: BNP Units 1 and 2, an expansion coefficient is obtained from Reference 2.25, when going from 70&deg;F to vessel operating temperature. For consistency, a nominal value of 545&deg;F will be selected as the operating temperature, which produces an expansion coefficient of 0.0413 in/ft or 0.00344 in/in.
5.0 Pressure Measurement The point at which the measurement for a process variable is made must be considered when establishing a setpoint. The point of measurement for a process variable can require an actual setpoint value to be increased or decreased to satisfy the specific setpoint function. Many times, a specific process variable cannot be measured precisely at the point of concern within the process. This is a particular problem for pressure measurements. When a setpoint limit exists for this situation, the pressure effects of process flow and hydrostatic head must be evaluated.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                  FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 160 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 23 of 36
                                        <<Process Measurement Error >>
Fluids flowing through a piping system experience a drop in pressure due to fluid friction. Many factors affect the actual pressure loss including length of piping, number of bends, diameter of piping, fluid viscosity, fluid velocity, etc.
This pressure drop is generally referred to as "line loss".
The line loss at a specific point in a piping system configuration can be determined by analysis of the specific piping system, and the application of standard industry formulae. Line loss effects for a specific application should be calculated. Obtain assistance, as necessary, from other design disciplines.
Hydrostatic pressure effects can exist when the measurement point for an installation is at an elevation different than that of the point of concern. This elevation difference induces a hydrostatic head difference proportional to the height and the specific gravity of the process fluid.
The true measurement point elevation is the elevation of the loop sensing device, and not the elevation of the connection to the process. However, many times this elevation difference is accounted for in the calibration process.
Hydrostatic pressure effects, therefore, can be the result of process piping elevation differences or instrument sensing line elevation differences (from process connection to sensing device), or both.
Therefore, HP             =       EL
* SG                                            (Eq. 19)
Where, HP     =      Hydrostatic head pressure EL     =      Elevation difference SG     =      Specific gravity of fluid

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 161 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 24 of 36
                                       <<Process Measurement Error >>
Consider the following example:
EXAMPLE Referring to Figure 11-4, a low pressure trip is to be initiated on the pump when the pump suction pressure (Point B) falls below 50 psig. The instrument used to monitor suction pressure senses the pressure at a point 35 feet upstream and 15 feet below the actual suction. The instrument itself is 5 feet above the sensing line connection on the pipe.
Process fluid = Water Process temperature = 150&deg;F (Saturated Conditions)
The line loss effect between point A and point B could be calculated from the actual piping and fluid conditions. In this example we will assume a line loss effect of 4.0 psi.
With elevation (EL) for the example being equal to the 10 foot difference between the measurement point elevation and point B, the hydrostatic pressure effect (HP), or head effect, is:
HP    =       EL
* SG
                    =       (10 ft)(0.98183)
                    =       (9.82 ft)(0.433 psi/ft)
                    =       4.25 psi The setpoint for the pressure loop at point A must be corrected for both effects:
Actual setpoint       =   Desired setpoint at B + Line loss effect +
Hydrostatic pressure effect
                                    =   (50 + 4.0 + 4.25) psi
                                    =   58.25 psi This would be the required setpoint at point A to ensure that the pump tripped when actual suction pressure, at point B, was 50 psi. An additional increase of the setpoint may also be included to account for other uncertainty effects in the actual instrument loop.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 162 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 25 of 36
                                      <<Process Measurement Error >>
FIGURE 11-4 LINE PRESSURE LOSS HEAD EFFECT EXAMPLE In the example presented above, the line loss must be added to the 50 psi limit in order to obtain a conservative setpoint. For example, if the line loss were neglected, using a value of 50 psi at point A would not be conservative since the pump trip would occur when pressure at point B was 46 psi, i.e below the 50 psi limit. The head effect also has to be added, as shown above, to effectively take credit for making the desired setpoint less restrictive, since the head pressure above the point of measurement reduces the available pump suction pressure.
NOTE:         The head effect/line loss errors are known fixed error terms. The error must be added, or subtracted, from the desired setpoint depending on the particular circumstances.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                  FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 163 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 26 of 36
                                        << Process Measurement Error >>
As noted above, hydrostatic pressure (head) effects may be accounted for in the calibration process, or in the determination of the overall loop uncertainty. It is important to specify for each application, where such effects are incorporated, either via the calibration process or the loop uncertainty. Otherwise, the effects may not be addressed, or may be addressed twice.
6.0     Flow Measurement The most common form of flow measurement is the head type flowmeter. These flowmeters operate on the principle that placing a restriction in a flowing fluid causes a pressure drop in the fluid across the restriction. By measuring the pressure drop across the restriction with a differential pressure device, flow can be derived. Flow orifices, nozzles, and venturies are all forms of head type flowmeters.
The accurate measurement of flow is affected by a number of design factors.
These factors include the assumed sizing and calibration attributes of the flow meter and piping loop, adherence to installation requirements, and potential process influence. Each of these factors must be reviewed and accounted for in the analysis of a flow loop.
6.1     Basic Flow Accuracy Influences In the initial selection and sizing of a flow meter, design assumptions are made as to the pressure, temperature, flow range and chemical composition of the fluid to be metered. These design assumptions become the bases of a meter's sizing, and the differential pressure profile versus flow characteristics for the meter.
The basic formula for determining the volumetric flow from a head type flowmeter is:
Q              =(K)(C)(Y)(Fa)(d) 2 (h/D) 0.5     (Eq.20)
Where, Q    =       Flow rate K    =       Correction constant for a specific installation C    =       Coefficient of discharge ratio Y    =       Expansion factor Fa   =       Thermal expansion factor d    =       Flow meter orifice diameter h    =       Differential pressure produced across the meter

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                 FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 164 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 27 of 36
                                      << Process Measurement Error >>
D     =      Density of the flowing fluid By varying the above factors in the worst case direction for an application, the maximum and minimum flow rates can be determined for a given differential pressure. Since the flow rate is dependent on many factors (pipe internal diameter, orifice bore, tap location, fluid density, Reynolds Number, etc.) this technique effectively determines one combined error for the Primary Element (PE/PEA) and the Process Measurement Effect or Allowance (PME/PMA).
The correction constant (K) is generally a true constant for a particular flow meter. This factor includes the effects of Beta ratio (orifice size vs. pipe size) and unit conversion values which are fixed values for an installation.
The coefficient of discharge ratio (C) is a correction factor for the pressure sensing taps on a meter. The coefficient of discharge is a function of the Reynolds number calculated for an installation and the specific pressure tap arrangement employed. For most flows at the NGG plants, the Reynolds number is between 10,000 and 1,000,000 and the ratio is a fixed value. It would only require analysis consideration if major changes in the assumed flow conditions take place (e.g., a ten-fold increase or decrease in base flow rate).
The expansion factor (Y) accounts for changes in a meter's performance when metering compressible fluids such as air, steam, and nitrogen. The value is a fixed constant of one (1.0) for non-compressible fluids. In its liquid state, water is considered to be a non-compressible fluid.
The thermal expansion factor (Fa), or area expansion factor, as it is sometimes referred to, is a correction factor which accounts for the thermal expansion of a flow meter orifice due to a change in temperature. The thermal expansion factor is generally a very small value, varying from 1.000 to 1.0187 over a 900&deg;F temperature change. Temperature variations of 200&deg;F have less than a 0.5%
effect on the actual flow measurement. In some applications, it may be considered negligible.
The flow meter orifice size (d) is the diameter of the actual orifice within a flow meter. It is generally considered a constant except for the effects of thermal expansion as discussed above. In some applications though, wear within the orifice may occur, causing the orifice size to change. Meters in severe service conditions should be evaluated for potential wear or erosion, and suitable allowances made.
The differential pressure (h) is the difference in static pressure between the fluid upstream and downstream of the meter. This difference is a function of the square of the flow; therefore, the square root of the signal must be taken to obtain actual flow. A differential pressure device measures this parameter in a flow loop installation.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                 FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 165 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 28 of 36
                                        << Process Measurement Error >>
The density (D) of the flowing fluid directly affects the differential pressure produced by a meter. As discussed above, density may vary due to changes in temperature or chemical composition. The primary cause of a variation in density is the change in temperature of the fluid. However, an evaluation should be made for any possible density changes due to all potential sources.
An important fact to remember when utilizing head flow elements such as an orifice is, that because the flow rate is proportional to the square root of the differential pressure, the rangeability of the device is rather limited. The effective operating range is about 25-100% full flow. This is a limit imposed by the differential pressure meter, not the accuracy of the orifice discharge coefficients.
For example, consider the case where 10% of rated maximum flow produced 1% of rated differential pressure. If the differential pressure transmitter accuracy was +/- 0.5% of full scale differential pressure, the transmitter itself could introduce an error of +/- 25% nominal at the 10% rated flow value.
The measurement of flow with head type flow meters is a well documented, but complicated subject. The specific factors discussed above are the factors which affect a meter's accuracy once it is sized for a particular application. This methodology document will limit its discussion to those factors which affect the accuracy of a meter after installation.
Specific values for the uncertainty of the head flow device should be obtained from the vendor, design specifications, etc. Where no specific values can be located, a typical value for the basic uncertainty of such a device is +/- 1% of differential pressure. Any other process or installation effects, such as those discussed below, would be in addition to the basic accuracy of the device.
6.2     Density Variation Effects Variations in the density of a process fluid to be metered can be the biggest source of potential process measurement error in a flow loop. The density variation is normally caused by variations in the process fluid's temperature. A simplified version of the flow formula will be used to determine the effects of density variation on flow measurement accuracy:
Q       =       k (h/D) 0.5                                      (Eq.21)
Where, k       =       Combined value of all other factors and constants If the volumetric flowrate, Q, is held constant, it is seen that a decrease in density (D), due to an increase in temperature, will cause a decrease in

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                  FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 166 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 29 of 36
                                       << Process Measurement Error >>
differential pressure, (h), thus resulting in an error in the transmitter reading.
This error occurs because the differential pressure transmitter was calibrated for a particular differential pressure corresponding to that flowrate at a lower temperature. The lower "h" value causes the transmitter to indicate a lower flowrate.
Assuming Q remains constant between a base density condition, D1, for which the instrument is calibrated, and an actual process condition, D2, an equality can be written between the base flowrate, Q1, and actual process flowrate, Q2, as shown below:
Q2              =      Q1                                            (Eq.22)
Substituting Equation 21 into Equation 24 yields k(h2/D2)0.5     =      k(h1/D1)0.5                                   (Eq.23) or, h2/D2          =       h1/D1 h2/h1          =       D2/D1 A fluid's density and temperature have an inverse relationship. That is, the density of a fluid decreases as temperature increases and vice versa. As can be seen in Equations 21 and 23, as the density decreases, the corresponding differential pressure must decrease to maintain the relationship. Since the density is the reciprocal of specific volume of fluid (SVF), the equation may be rewritten as, h2/h1         =      SVF1/SVF2                                       (Eq.24)
Therefore, as temperature increases, the differential pressure produced by a meter will decrease for the same flow rate. The opposite is true for a decrease in temperature. The differential pressure error (eh) produced by the change in density can be written as:
eh          =     h2 - h1                                            (Eq.25)

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 167 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 30 of 36
                                       << Process Measurement Error >>
Rewriting Equation 24 as, h2      =       h1(SVF1/SVF2) and substituting this into Equation 25 yields, eh = h1(SVF1/SVF2 - 1)                                             (Eq.26)
It can be observed in Equation 26 (which is the process error equation for density effect on volumetric flow), that the absolute error is maximized when "h1" is maximized. This occurs at the upper end of the calibrated differential pressure span for which the transmitter is calibrated. This is also the maximum calibrated flow. The error varies from negative values for temperatures above the base value (SVF2>SVF1), to zero for temperatures equal to the base value (SVF2=SVF1), and finally to positive values for temperatures below the base value (SVF2<SVF1).
Once the differential pressure error has been determined, the actual flow rate error can be determined. The actual flow rate error will vary for a given differential pressure error due to the square root relationship between "h" and "Q". The error of a flow loop is dependent on the specific flow of concern. While the maximum error of a loop can be calculated at 100% flow conditions, application of this error to lower flows may be overly conservative. The density error should be calculated for the specific flows of concern. The calculated "eh" can then be factored into the differential pressure error for the given flow condition and the true impact on flow evaluated.
Consider the following example:
Example The error in a flow loop due to density effects is to be determined for the following:
Assume an orifice plate is used to measure flow in a water system that is normally at 80&deg;F. The orifice is sized to produce a differential pressure of 100 inches of water for a flow rate of 5000 GPM at 80&deg;F. Assume further that under accident conditions the temperature rises to 200&deg;F at an actual flow of 2000 GPM.
The first step is to determine the relationship between "Q" and "h". Given that, Q       =       k(h/D)0.5 the constant k for the flow/DP relationship at 80&deg;F can be determined from the

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 168 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 31 of 36
                                          << Process Measurement Error >>
design parameters as follows by setting the density term, D=1.
5000 GPM        =      k (100 in WC/1)0.5 k
                       = 5000/10 = 500
: Thus, Q = 500(h) 0.5 Now, using the established constant, and the accident flowrate of 2000 GPM, we can solve for h1, or the differential pressure that would be present for the normal 80&deg;F condition for which the orifice is sized.
Q1 = k(h1) 0.5 Q1
                       = 500(h1)0.5 2000 = 500(h1)0.5 or, h1 = (2000) 2/(500)2 = 16 inches of water Using the thermodynamic steam tables and assuming saturation conditions, SVF1 (at 80&deg;F)       =        0.016072 ft3/lbm SVF2 (at 200&deg;F)      =        0.016637 ft3/lbm Substituting these into the error formulae equation 26:
eh    =      h1(SVF1/SVF2-1) eh    =      16 (0.016072/0.016637-1)
                             =      -0.54 in WC

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 169 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 32 of 36
                                        << Process Measurement Error >>
Therefore, the rise in temperature reduces the actual differential pressure (h2) created by the orifice to, eh       =       h2 - h1 h2       =       eh + h1
                             =       (-0.54 in) + (16 in)
                             =       15.46 in WC This yields an indicated flow of, Q = 500 (15.46) 0.5 = 1966 GPM The error induced by the density change is the difference between the indicated flow at the higher temperature condition (Q2) and the indicated flow at the normal temperature condition (Q1),
Q2 - Q1 = 1966 GPM - 2000 GPM = - 34 GPM This represents an error, expressed in percent of reading, of,
                      -34 GPM
* 100% = -1.7% of reading 2000 GPM or, as expressed in percent of span,
                      -34 GPM
* 100% = -0.68% of span 5000 GPM The density variation effect from a base, or calibration, condition to an actual condition of interest is a known predictable effect. As such, the effect is treated as a bias type error.
6.3     Effects of Piping Configuration The actual installation of a head type flow device can affect the measurement accuracy of a flow loop. Bends, fittings, and valves in piping systems cause turbulence in the flowing fluid. This turbulence can cause errors to be induced into the differential pressure measurement.
ASME has published results of extensive testing of piping systems and guidance for various types of installations. The ASME recommendations provide

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                    FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 170 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 33 of 36
                                       << Process Measurement Error >>
the minimum acceptable upstream and downstream lengths of straight pipe needed for a specific flow meter installation to keep the effects of this turbulence from significantly decreasing a flow meter's accuracy. The piping arrangement showing locations of valves, bends, fittings, piping planes, etc. must be reviewed to verify that an installation meets the minimum requirements.
Typically locations can be obtained from piping isometric drawings.
As established by Reference ASME PTC 19.5, Part II, if the minimum pipe lengths are met, the resultant flow measurement error due to piping configuration will be less than +/-0.5% of reading. If the minimum criteria cannot be met, an additional tolerance of +/-0.5% of reading must be applied to the flow measurement error allowance.
The effects of the piping configuration on accuracy is considered to be a bias error term, since their sign is calculable.
Typically, the minimum pipe lengths for orifices are as follows:
: a.      On the downstream side of the device, five pipe diameters of straight run pipe is sufficient.
: b.      On the upstream side of the device, ten pipe diameters of straight run pipe is sufficient if the disturbance is due to flanges, collars, wide open gate valves, reducers, or bends, elbows, or tees in the same plane. Fifty pipe diameters is sufficient if the disturbance is due to piping angle turns in two planes. Seventy-five pipe diameters is sufficient if the disturbance is due to pressure regulators, valves, or similar apparatus.
To determine the minimum pipe lengths for venturis, flow nozzles, etc., consult either vendor specific recommendations, reference books, or ASME guidelines. The Mechanical Engineering Group should also be contacted, as necessary.
6.4     Thermal Expansion Factor Effect The basic flow equation discussed above includes a correction factor for expansion of the flow meter orifice or primary element due to temperature change. The correction factor is known as the Area Factor, or Thermal Expansion Factor (Fa).
The factor, Fa, is dependent on the material composition of the primary element.
This factor provides for changes in the flow meter orifice size due to the thermal expansion or contraction of the primary element material.
While the thermal expansion of the flow element generally has little effect on the

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                  FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 171 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 34 of 36
                                         << Process Measurement Error >>
flow measurement, the effects of large temperature gradients must be evaluated.
The values of Fa for various materials are shown in Reference ASME PTC 19.5, Part II, Figure II-I-3. For a 300 Series stainless steel flow meter, a 200&deg;F temperature change results in less than a 0.5% change in Fa. Therefore, for most applications, the effects of Fa variation need not be considered for temperature variations less than 200&deg;F. For greater temperature variations, the effects of Fa should be evaluated. Errors induced by Fa are considered to be bias errors since their direction can be determined.
Generally, the orifice plate and the pipe are made of similar materials. Thus, the thermal expansion factor for the pipe will be very similar to that of the orifice plate, and no changes in the d/D, or Beta ratio, will occur. Significant errors may occur if this material conformity does not exist.
The following example is provided to illustrate how errors associated with Fa variation can be established.
Example Determine the percentage error in reading, caused by the Fa factor alone, for the following:
Initial flow rate                  1000 GPM Process calibration temperature    100&deg;F Process accident temperature       300&deg;F Orifice plate material             316 SS From Reference ASME PTC 19.5, Part II, Figure II-I-3, Fa initial      = 1.0005 Fa accident = 1.0042 If all other parameters remain constant, the basic flow formula can be written as, Q = (Fa)(Constant)
Solving for a constant for the conditions defined above, Constant        =   Q1/Fa
                                      =      1000/1.0005
                                      =      999.5 Assuming no other effects on flow are present, the change in flow due to the

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                 FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 172 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 35 of 36
                                       << Process Measurement Error >>
change in Fa is, Q2      =       (1.0042)(999.5)
                            =       1,003.7 GPM or an increase of 3.7 GPM. This corresponds to an error of,
                    % Error = 3.7 GPM
* 100% = 0.37% of reading 1000 GPM 7.0     Temperature Measurement When measuring temperature, we assume that the temperature at the sensor is the same temperature as the gas, liquid, or solid whose temperature we want to know. In most situations, we do not think about whether that assumption is true.
But for some applications it is necessary to ensure that the sensed temperature is really the process temperature. Heat flows from a hot region to a cooler one by conduction, convection, and radiation. An accurate temperature measurement ensures that the amount of heat flowing between the point being measured and the point of concern is not sufficient to cause a significant temperature difference.
Where the differences in temperature within a medium are significant, it is referred to as temperature stratification and can affect the accuracy of the temperature measurement. Consider the measurement of temperature, via a thermocouple, of a stirred liquid in a tank. For practical purposes, we can consider the entire volume of liquid to be at the same temperature. If we insert a thermocouple assembly with a half-inch diameter stainless steel protecting tube into the tank, heat flows along the protecting tube towards the colder thermocouple head. If the tube is immersed only one-half inch, we can sense that the thermocouple junction is probably colder than the liquid because of the temperature stratifying along the protecting tube.
As the depth of immersion is increased, the hot junction temperature more nearly equals the liquid temperature. This is because more of the protecting tube is at the same temperature as the liquid and there is little or no heat flowing in the region of the hot junction. If no heat flows, there is no temperature difference. For this reason, it is generally considered that the depth of immersion of a well or protecting tube in a tank should be at least 10 times its diameter.
The above example shows temperature stratification due to the actual measurement. In other applications, the stratification is a result of the process being monitored. A typical pressurizer for example, may employ two different temperature detectors - one for the pressurizer liquid and one for the pressurizer steam. Both are needed to provide a representative measurement of the actual

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 173 of 178 Attachment 11 Page 36 of 36
                                      << Process Measurement Error >>
temperatures within the pressurizer.
Other examples of where temperature may be stratified are: rooms or large areas of a building, large diameter piping, tanks, piping or vessels that are heat traced or only partially insulated.
Regardless of the reason for the stratification, the potential for it to exist must be recognized and addressed in order to ensure an accurate temperature measurement. Corrections are treated as a bias, similar to head effects, to account for any temperature difference between the point of measurement and the point of concern.
DEP Acronym                    Term               DEC Acronym                   Term Reference or Vendor RA              Reference Accuracy           A, RRA, SCA Accuracy DR                        Drift               D, SD, RD RE                    Readability             RES, RRA          Resolution/Readability Loop As Found LAFT                                               AFT            As Found Tolerance Tolerance Loop As Left LALT                                               ALT             As Left Tolerance Tolerance Primary Element PE                Primary Element                 PEA Allowance Process Process PME                                                PMA               Measurement Measurement Effect Allowance Calibration                               Calibration Tolerance CAL                                                CTE Tolerance                                           Effect N/A                       N/A                      CE              Calibration Effect SE                  Seismic Effect                 SA             Seismic Allowance TE               Temperature Effect         TE, RTE, STE         Temperature Effect

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology                 FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 174 of 178 Attachment 12 Page 1 of 5
                   << Surveillance Test Acceptance Criteria - Measurement Error >>

===Background===
The following discussion supports the Surveillance Testing section of AD-EG-ALL-1153 regarding the documentation and application of test error analysis and test error allowance for periodic test acceptance criteria, as it applies to the uncertainty of instrumentation used for test measurement purposes and test acceptance values. The discussion focuses on the purpose and bases for surveillance limits and the programs in place to ensure reliable, accurate instrumentation for surveillance testing as required.
Plant protective systems are designed to initiate reactor trips (scrams) or other protective actions before selected unit parameters exceed Analytical Limits assumed in the safety analysis in order to prevent violation of the Reactor Core Safety Limits and Reactor Coolant System Pressure Safety Limits from postulated Anticipated Operational Occurrences (AOOs). The Reactor Core Safety Limits and Reactor Coolant System Pressure Safety Limits ensure the integrity of the reactor core and Reactor Coolant System are maintained.
In order to provide for the continued safe and reliable operation of a nuclear station's nuclear safety related structures, systems and components, design control measures commensurate with those applied to the original design are implemented during the operational phase along with required periodic TESTING to assure the quality of such structures, systems and components remains uncompromised.
Periodic testing at the station is primarily performed to meet the surveillance requirements prescribed within the Plant Technical Specifications and/or Final Safety Analysis Report and are established as a means to verify that existing systems, structures and components important to safety continue to function or are in a state of readiness to perform their function.
Surveillance Test Limits and Analytical Margin Per CFR 50.36, surveillance requirements are requirements relating to test, calibration, or inspection to assure that the necessary quality of systems and components is maintained, that facility operation will be within safety limits, and that the Limiting Conditions for Operation will be met. Surveillance test requirements are not specifically written or expected to verify all of the design and/or operational capabilities of the SSC that may have been verified during pre-operational testing, during installation and post installation testing and/or via analysis.
Per CFR 50.36, Safety Limits are limits upon important process variables that are found to be necessary to reasonably protect the integrity of certain physical barriers that guard against the uncontrolled release of radioactivity.

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology              FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 175 of 178 Attachment 12 Page 2 of 5
                    << Surveillance Test Acceptance Criteria - Measurement Error >>
Per CFR 50.36, the Limited Condition of Operation (LCO) portion of plant technical specifications describes in the simplest of terms the lowest functional capability or performance levels of equipment required for safe operation of the facility. The significant process parameters required to preserve the initial condition assumptions of any associated safety analysis are also the subject of the LCO.
Safety analysis input values are different than a measured plant parameter value or surveillance limit value. Safety analysis input values, in many cases, consider applicable instrument accuracy as necessary for the specified safety function, the operating tolerances, and may sometimes consider and include additional margin to bound future operating conditions. In some instances, bounding sets of parameter values are selected in the safety analysis to cover multiple units or similar plant designs. Consequently, a single input parameter may appear to be non-conservative although the set of parameters is known to be conservative.
Technical Specification and FSAR surveillance limits are generally established with allowance (margin) for measurement tolerances incorporated as necessary to assure safe plant operation. Surveillance limits are also typically specified close to system process parameter optimal performance limits so that degraded equipment performance is identified in a timely manner. These practices leave little or no margin of system capability remaining for conservative application of instrument uncertainties or other margin to the surveillance limits listed in Technical Specifications and/or Final Safety Analysis Report; therefore, it is not recommended that surveillance limits listed in Technical Specifications and/or Final Safety Analysis Report be treated as analytical limits for conservatism when specifying test acceptance criteria . Question(s) on the interpretation of safety analysis margin should always be directed to the group responsible for the associated safety analysis.
Control and Accuracy of Instrumentation used for Periodic Testing M&TE and/or Process Instrumentation used for Periodic Testing is selected to assure reliable measurement for the intended application(s) and its accuracy limitations should be understood by the user and those interpreting the results.
Accuracy requirements for measurement instrumentation to obtain data for a given test are established during test procedure development or revision based on any variety of inputs (accepted industry practices, design requirements, regulatory commitments, industry test codes, safety analysis, engineering judgment, and/or operational experience), as applicable.
Instrumentation used to measure parameters to determine test acceptance within a test

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology             FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 176 of 178 Attachment 12 Page 3 of 5
                   << Surveillance Test Acceptance Criteria - Measurement Error >>
procedure is/are identified and specified within testing procedures by the equipment number (for permanently installed instrumentation), and/or a maintenance and test equipment (M&TE) identification number and/or any specific M&TE accuracy requirement (for portable measuring and test equipment).
The organizations performing nuclear safety related work activities have the responsibility to assure the required accuracy of tools, gauges, instruments, radiation measuring equipment, non-destructive testing equipment and other measuring and test devices affecting the proper functioning of nuclear safety related structures, structures, systems and components, in addition to ensuring a program for control and calibration for such devices is provided.
M&TE and/or Process Instrumentation used for Periodic Testing is selected to assure reliable measurement for the intended application(s) and its accuracy limitations should be understood by the user and those interpreting the results.
As stated previously, accuracy requirements may be established by industry test codes in some cases. For example, Inservice Testing of Pumps and Valves is performed in accordance with (ASME OM) Codes which specifies the minimum accuracy requirements for instrumentation used to obtain test data.
In some specific cases the measurement uncertainty of instrumentation used for periodic testing and the impact on test acceptance criteria is required to be calculated and documented in accordance with this procedure. Those specific cases are specified in this section.
Test procedures incorporate or reference the following, as required:
* Instructions and prerequisites for performing the test,
* Use of proper test equipment,
* Mandatory inspection hold points,
* Acceptance criteria Portable M&TE used for Periodic Testing Per the Duke Energy Corporation Topical Report for Quality Assurance portable M&TE is calibrated at prescribed intervals against certified equipment having known, valid relationships to nationally recognized standards or where national standards do not exist, provisions are established to document the basis for the calibration.
The calibration interval for portable M&TE is based on the applicable manufacturer's recommendations. However, if experience shows that the manufacturer's

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology               FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 177 of 178 Attachment 12 Page 4 of 5
                   << Surveillance Test Acceptance Criteria - Measurement Error >>
recommendations are not appropriate for its intended use, the calibration interval is changed as necessary. Status of the calibration for portable M&TE is provided through suitable means to indicate the date recalibration is due or the frequency of recalibration.
Portable measuring and test equipment are calibrated by standards at least four times as accurate as the portable measuring and test equipment, unless limited by the state of the art; while special portable tools such as torque wrenches, calipers, and micrometers are calibrated to be at least as accurate as the application(s) for which it is used, using standards which are at least as accurate as the special tool being calibrated.
In the case of portable measuring and test equipment, the key concern when M&TE is found out of calibration is to identify other instruments to which this accuracy has been transferred and, secondly, to prevent recurrence. Portable M&TE calibration / accuracy affects a wide variety of plant equipment.
Periodic Tests and any other items or processes determined to be acceptable based on measurements made with portable M&TE that subsequently cannot be demonstrated to meet calibration specifications are re-evaluated to determine the validity of previous inspections and test results and the results of the evaluation documented as per AD-SS-ALL-0001 "Control of Portable Measuring and Test Equipment and Plant Tools".
Process Instrumentation used for Periodic Testing Process instrumentation that is used to calibrate, measure, gauge, test, or inspect in order to acquire research, development, test, or operational data to determine compliance with design, specifications, or other technical requirements is distinguished from portable M&TE which is used to calibrate a number of plant instruments. Process instruments may be used to operate equipment, verify surveillance criteria is met during testing, or perform a single design bases monitoring or trip function.
Per the Duke Energy Corporation Topical Report for Quality Assurance installed process instrumentation used for measuring and testing are calibrated at intervals determined for the equipment by the Preventive Maintenance Periodic Testing (PMPT) program. Verification that the device has been left within calibration specifications is documented within the completed calibration procedure for the instrumentation. The installed process instrumentation used for measuring and testing is calibrated by instruments at least as accurate, unless limited by the state of the art.
Periodic Tests determined to be acceptable based on measurements taken with process instrumentation subsequently found outside an assumed tolerance band (may include the accuracy of the M&TE, and the accuracy and drift of the process instrumentation), are re-evaluated to determine if/whether those periodic tests remain valid per AD-EG-ALL-1375,

Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Methodology              FAD-EG-ALL-1153 DETAIL/EXAMPLE and Discussion Rev. 0 Page 178 of 178 Attachment 12 Page 5 of 5
                   << Surveillance Test Acceptance Criteria - Measurement Error >>
Instruments and Electrical Device Calibration Out of Tolerance. This evaluation is in addition to the action to understand and evaluate ways to prevent recurrence of the out-of-calibration condition.
Regulatory Precedence:
Questions regarding acceptable measurement tolerances for the parameter limits listed in Technical Specification have occasionally been received from NRC inspectors. The NRC position regarding acceptable measurement tolerances for Technical Specification parameter limits was documented in NRC Inspection Manual Part 9900 Technical Guidance Standard (STS30T.TG), Technical Specifications Section 3.0 Acceptable Measurement Tolerances for Technical Specification Limits as follows:
Numerical parameter limits are identified in the Technical Specifications of a nuclear facility. Questions regarding acceptable measurement tolerances for the parameter limits have occasionally been received from inspectors. The NRC position regarding acceptable measurement tolerances for Technical Specification parameter limits is as follows:
The TS limits are established with allowance for measurement tolerances already incorporated (i.e., the established limits take into consideration measurement uncertainties as necessary to assure safe plant operation). The stated limit presupposes that the licensees have tolerances consistent with normal industry standards (e.g., ASTM, IEEE, ACI, etc.).
Reference(s):
: 1. NRC Inspection Manual Part 9900 Technical Guidance Standard (STS30T.TG),
Technical Specifications Section 3.0 Acceptable Measurement Tolerances for Technical Specification Limits
: 2. AD-SS-ALL-0001 "Control of Portable Measuring and Test Equipment and Plant Tools".
: 3. Duke Energy Corporation Topical Report for Quality Assurance
: 4. AD-EG-ALL-1106, Configuration and Margin Management
: 5. AD-EG-ALL-1153, Engineering Instrument Setpoint/Uncertainty Calculations (PRR 2296141)
: 6. AD-EG-ALL-1375 (Draft), Instruments & Electrical Device Calibration Out of Tolerance (PRR 2030545)
: 7. NSD-408 R20, Testing and Test Error Analysis
: 8. MCEI-0400-108, Safety Analysis Inputs Manual (SAIM)
: 9. NCR 02347464 RA-23-0015 Attachment 4 Excerpt from RNP Vendor Technical Manual (VTM) 728-012-10, General I&C SPARES -
Transmitters, Rosemount Instruction Manual, Product Data Sheets, Procedures regarding Transmitter Rosemount Model 3154ND2R2F1E7 (Reference 4.4.3 of Attachment 1)
(19 pages follow)

Rosemount 3154N Nuclear Qualified Pressure Transmitter INDUSTRY LEADING PERFORMANCE
* Qualified per:
o IEEE Std 323'-1974/1983/2003 o IEEE Std 344'-1975/1987/2004
* 112 Mrad (1.12 MGy) TIO Gamma Radiation
* 8.5g ZPA Seismic
* 435&deg;F (224&deg;C ) Steam/Temperature
* 0.2% Reference Accuracy Contents Introduction ........................................................................................ page 2 Transmitter Description ......................................................................................... page 2 Operation .............................................................................................................. page 2 Dimensional Drawings .......................................................................................... page 3 Nuclear Specifications .......................................................................................... page 5 Performance Specifications .................................................................................. page 8 Functional Specifications ..................................................................................... page 9 Physical Specifications ........................................................................................ page 11 Ordering Information ............................................................................................. page 14 3539 of 4015 728-012-10

Results Driven by Proven Measurement Introduction                                                    Direct electronic sensing with the completely sealed coplanar capacitance sensing element (see Rosemount 3154N Nuclear Pressure Transmitters                   Figure 1) eliminates mechanical force transfer and are designed for precision pressure measurements problems associated with shock and vibration.
in nuclear applications which require reliable Installation and commissioning are simplified by performance and safety over an extended service compact design, 2-wire system compatibility, and life. The 3154N is qualified per IEEE Std 323'-
non-interacting external span and zero adjustments 1974/1983/2003 and IEEE Std 344'-
for standard calibrations. Wiring terminals and 1975/1987/2004 with radiation exposure to 112 electronics are in separate compartments helping Mrads TIO gamma, seismic levels to 8.5g ZPA, and ensure that the electronics remain sealed during for steam pressure/temperature performance.
installation.
Stringent quality control during the manufacturing process includes traceability of pressure-retaining             Operation parts, special nuclear cleaning, and hydrostatic P_rocess pressure is transmitted through an isolating testing.
diaphragm and silicone oil fill fluid to a sensing Transmitter Description                                         diaphragm in the center of the sensor cell. Process or reference pressure is transmitted in a like Rosemount 3154N transmitters are similar in
                                                                ~anner to the other side of the center sensing construction and performance to the proven diaphragm. The capacitor plates on both sides of Rosemount 3051 transmitters. Units are available the sensing diaphragm detect the position of the in a~solut~ (AP), _gau~e (GP), and differential (DP)            sensing diaphragm.
conf1gurat1ons, with six pressure range options.
Figure 1 - The Sensor Cell Center Diaphragm Isolating Diaphragms 3540 of 4015 728-012-10

Figure 2a - Transmitter and Bracket Dimensional Drawings General Transmitter Dimensions
                                                                                                       ~=
112-14 NPT CONDUITCONNfCTlON (OTHER THRfAO Sl2ES AVAll.ABLE)
                                                                                                          .65 (16.5)
                                                                                                               ""'l_-,w.___
1
                                                                                                                        ~......e:::1,,,,,,1:::,.....--r.:,~-t------,:
REMOVAL TRANSMITTER ELECTRCNICS HIGH PRESSURE                                                 10.00 PROCESS                                                    (256)
CONNECTION 1.2 (305) 318* SWAGEI.OK COMPRESSION FITTING 3,44      I                                                     !OTHER OPTIONS AVAILABLE,                           LOW PRESSURE FROCESS SE!: GRDERINu TABLE FCR (87,1)---'Jf                                                     COMPLETE OFFERl~GI                                  CONNECTION (OR SCREENED VENT FOR GP/AP)
Mounting Braclr.et Options Stainless steel Panel Mount Bracket                   Stainless Steel Pipe Mount Bracket (1J 318 SOLTS FCR PANEL MOUNTINO (NOT SUPPLIED)
                                                               ~
Notes (1) All dimensions are nominal in inches (millimeters) 3541 of 4015 728-012-10

Figure 2b - Typical Mounting Configurations Typical Mounting Configuations and Dimensions Stainless Steel Panel Mount Bracket                         Stainless Steel Pipe Mount Bracket Outside Bracket- Side View 11.63 - - - - *
                      .            11.63                                                                   (295.4) 2.75      (295.4) 69B)
Inside Bracket- Side View 11.63 (295.4) t 4.93                                                    4.93 -r----t-__,;;;;"t=T'--::flrH---!tt-)(
(125.2)                                                 (125.2)
Notes (1) Transmitter and bracket orientation with respect to gravity will not impact qualification.
(2) Transmitter orientation with respect to bracket will affect center of gravity.
(3) All dimensions are nominal in inches (millimeters).
3542 of 4015 728-012-10

Total SPECIFICATIONS                                                     Integrated Output Range Accident Radiation Effect Code    Code Dose (TID)
Nuclear Specifications                                            s 30 minutes R&T<1l         ALL      +/-(0.2% URL + 0.6% span)
Qualified according to:
s 60Mrads       R&T(1l    ALL     +/-(0.25% URL + 0.8% span)
IEEE Std 323 '-1974/1983/2003, IEEE Std 344 '-197 5/1987 /2004                                    s 110Mrads       R&T(1l    ALL      +/-(0.3% URL + 1.0% span)
As documented in Rosemount report D2013003                      (1) With dampmg set for time response= 0.4 seconds or less Seismic Steam Pressure/Temperature and Post DBE When exposed to a disturbance defined by the                    Operation required response spectrum with a ZPA of 8.5g (see Figure 3), accuracies are as shown in the                  During and after exposure to steam at the following following table:                                                temperatures and pressures (see Figure 4),
concurrent with chemical spray for the first 48 hours:
Triaxial Random Multifrequency Output     Range Code      Code 8.5g ZPA                435&deg;F      (223.9&deg;C) , 95 psig (655 kPa) for 3 minutes,
                      ~.....-mmlllll ll                         365&deg;F      (185.0&deg;C), 95 psig (655 kPa) for 7 minutes, 1        +/-1 .75% URL Within reference  320&deg;F      (160.0&deg;C), 75 psig (517 kPa) for 8 hours, accuracy      265&deg;F      (129.4&deg;C) , 24 psig (165 kPa) for 56 hours Within reference R
2         +/-0.5% URL accuracy      212&deg;F      (100.0&deg;C), O psig (0 kPa) for 216 hours Within reference  Accuracies are shown in the following tables:
3-4        +/-0.3% URL accuracy Within reference  First 64 hours:
5-6        +/-0.2% URL accuracy Within reference                                                     Steam 1         +/-0.4% URL                                 Output                     Range accuracy                      Transmitter                Pressure/Temperature r<1i                                                            Code Type Code Effect Within reference 2-6        +/-0.2% URL                                               3154ND accuracy                                         1      +/-(2 .0% URL + 2.5% span)
(1)     With dampmg set for time response = 0.4 sec or greater                         &
3154NG         2-6     +/-(1 .0% URL + 1.0% span)
R&T< 1l 3-4     +/-(3.0% URL + 3.0% span)
Radiation                                                                          3154NA 5-6     +/-(1 .0% URL + 1.0% span)
Exposed to a Total Integrated Dose (TIO) of 112                  (2)    With dampmg set for time response = 0.4 seconds or less Mrads (1.12 MGy), consisting of 2 Mrad (20 kGy) background radiation followed by 110 Mrads (1.1 O MGy) accident radiation.                                        For 1 Year post-DBE following the first 64 hours:
During and after initial exposure at a dose rate of 0.1 Mrads/hr (1 kGy/hr) , accuracies are as shown in the following table:
Total                                                     (1)    Test profile simulates one year post accident conditions at Output Range Integrated                     Background Radiation Effect          120&deg;F (48.9&deg;C)
Code     Code Dose (TID)                                                    (2)    Includes 14 days of full submergence in chemical spray solution at 130&deg;F (54.4&deg;C) and pressure of 50psig s 1Mrads   R&T( 1 l   ALL       +/-(0.1 % URL + 0.15% span)   (3)    Output code T electronics with damping set for time response = 0.4 seconds or less s 2Mrads    R&T(1l    ALL        +/-(0.2% URL + 0.3% span)
( 1)   With dampmg set for time response = 0.4 seconds or less  Chemical Spray Chemical Spray began at time = 10 minutes of profile When exposed to an additional Total Integrated                  (see Figure 4) Duration of Chemical Spray was 24 hours.
Dose (TIO) of 110 Mrads (1.10 MGy), consisting of               Chemical Spray was 0.28 molar boric acid , 0.064 molar 2.0 Mrads/hr for 2 hr, 1.5 Mrads/hr for 4 hrs, and              sodium thiosulfate, and sodium hydroxide for initial pH of 1.0 Mrads/hr for 100 hrs, accuracies are as shown                11 .0, and subsequent pH between 8.5 to 11 .0 , sprayed at in the following table:                                         a rate of 0.25 gal/min/ft2.
3543 of 4015 728-012-10

Figure 3 - Seismic Required Response Spectra (RRS) 100 . . - - - - - - . - - - -........---,----,,-............,.-,,.....,.....,.-------,----.---........-"T""".....,.-..--"T"""-r--i I   I     I   1 1  1 SSE (1% Damping) 37 0.1 10                                                            100 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 4 - Steam Pressure/Temperature Profile 3154N Test Group A LOCA/HELB QualificationTest Profile Temperature & Pressure 500   -r-----------------;::::===================-- -r---:-:---:---:-:-                                       95% Relative 1   1 160 450                                                                                                            Humidity at 212&deg;F                140 400 120 350                                                                                                                                         ci
                                                                                                                                                      'in 100 .S
     ~300
: a.                                                                                                                                               f:::,
Ill i250
     ....                                                                                                                                              Ill f
Q.
200 60 150 40 100
                              .,, .,, .,,                                                                                                         20 50                                                                             Atmospheric Pressure 0   -+-....&..---~----~-----------,-------,--------.----"-----.------- 0 0 .001          0.01           0.1                              10               100     1000               10000               100000 Time (min)
                                                 --Temp (degF)                 Press (psig) I 3544 of 4015 728-012-10

Nuclear Cleaning Process wetted surfaces cleaned to <1 ppm chloride Traceability content Per 10CFR50 Appendix B, NQA-1, and ISO Hydrostatic Testing                                                 9001 :2008; chemical and physical certification of pressure retaining parts Hydrostatically tested to 150% of maximum working pressure for differential pressure transmitters.
Qualified Life Hydrostatically tested at the overpressure limit for 20 years at 120&deg;F (48.9&deg;C). Dependent on gauge and absolute pressure transmitters.
continuous ambient temperature at the installation All range code 1 transmitters tested to 2000 psi                    location (see Figure 5).
(13.79 MPa).
Figure 5 - Qualified Life vs. Ambient Temperature Transmitter Qualified Life 20 years at 120&deg;F (48.9&deg;C) 50
                          '"""- ~
                                               ~~
          ~    10                                                        .___
cu                                                                 .___
          ~                                                                            .............
:::i  5 1
100          110            120               130               140                          150   160 (37.8)       (43.3)         (48.9)           (54.4)             (60.0)                      (65.6) (71.1)
Ambient Operating Temperature, &deg;F (&deg;C) 3545 of 4015 728-012-10

Performance Specifications                                        For high static line pressure (Ps) less than or equal Based on zero-based calibration spans under reference conditions.
2-5          +/-0.1% URL per 1000 psi (6 .89 MPa)
This specification may be linearly interpolated in 1000 psi (6. 89 MPa) increments.
                               +/-0 .25% of calibrated span For high static line pressure (Ps) greater than 2000 Includes the effects of linearity, hysteresis, and repeatability.
Range         High Static Line Pressure Zero Effect Drift                                                                 Code                Ps > 2000 psi (13.79 MPa)
Range Code                 Drift Effect per 30 months                                         Not Applicable 2-5       +/-(0 .2 + (0.2(Ps-2000 psi)/1000 psi))% URL This specification may be linearly interpolated in 1000 psi 2-6                    +/-(0 .1% URL+ 0.1% span)            (6.89 MPa) increments.
Temperature Effect                                                High Static Line Pressure Span Effect Range Code Temperature Effect             3154ND Ran (per 100&deg;F (55.6&deg;C) Temperature Shift) 1                    +/-(0.55% URL +1.0% span) 2-6                   +/-(0 .15% URL + 0.6% span)
AP Range 3                 +/-(0.6% URL + 0.5% span)                  2, 3                +/-(0.1% URL + 0.1% span)
AP Range 4/5               +/-(0 .25% URL+ 0.5% span)
           ..                                                     3154ND Ranges 4 and 5:
This specification may be linearly interpolated down to 50&deg;F (27. 8&deg;C) temperature interval.                                   Rosemount 3154ND ranges 4 and 5 experience a span shift when operated at high static line Overpressure Effect                                                pressure. It is linear and correctable during calibration.
Based    on full overpressure limits:
* Range 1: 2000 psig (13.79 MPa)                         If no correction for the systematic High Static Line
* Range 2-5: 3626 psig (25.00 MPa)                       Pressure Span Effect is performed, the error is as
* Range 6: 6000 psig (41.37 MPa)                        follows:
3154ND:
5                 -1.25% +/- 0.2% input reading If the correction procedure as outlined in the 3150 3154NG and 3154NA:
Series Reference Manual 00809-0100-4835 is applied, the remaining correction uncertainty for the High Static Line Pressure Span Effect for ranges 4 and 5 is as follows :
High Static Line Pressure Zero Effect (3154ND only)
The High Static Line Pressure Zero Effect can be It is possible to improve the accuracy of the calibrated out by the customer (see 3150 Series 3154ND at high static line pressure for applications Reference Manual 00809-0100-4835 for additional requiring enhanced performance . Please contact information). If it is not calibrated out, the error RNII for additional information.
associated with the High Static Line Pressure Zero Effect is as follows :
3546 of 4015 728-012-10

Power Supply Effect                                               Output Less than 0.005% of span/ volt                                    4-20 mA Load Effect                                                       Power Supply Less than 0.0001 % of span/ ohm based on                          Maximum supply voltage resulting change in terminal voltage to the
* 48   voe transmitter.
Maximum allowable supply voltage ripple Electromagnetic Compatibility
* less than 1 volt peak-to-peak ripple for ripple frequency less than or equal to 120 Satisfies requirements defined in:
Hz
* US NRC Regulatory Guide 1.180 Rev 1
* EN 61326-1 :2006 and EN 61326-2-3:2006                   Load Limits See Figure 6 Mounting Position Effect No span effect; zero shift of up to 1.5 inH20 (0.37               Dielectric Withstand Test kPa) which can be calibrated out.
707 VDC, 60 seconds, leakage less than 1 mA Functional Specifications                                         Insulation Resistance Test Service                                                           500 VDC, 60 seconds, IR greater than 100 MOhm Liquid, gas, vapor Figure 6 - Transmitter Supply vs. Load 2500                                                                      DESIGN REGION 2150 2000                                                   IEEE QUALIFIED REGION 1725 1500
                'in E
                .c Q_
                "C cu   1000 0
                ...J 50        55 38         43     48        53 13.55 Power Supply (VDC) 3547 of4015 728-012-10

Span and Zero Adjustments                                   Turn-On Time External adjust; non-interacting for standard               2 seconds maximum adjustments Maximum Working Pressure Zero Elevation, Zero Suppression Larger of Static Line Pressure Limit or Upper Range Maximum Zero Elevation                                  Limit (URL)
Zero is adjustable to the Lower Range Limit (LRL)                                                   Pressure Ranges Adjustable within the range shown; Upper Range Maximum Zero Suppression Limit (URL) is the highest pressure shown Zero is adjustable to 90% of the Upper Range Limit (URL) (80% for Range 1) 3154ND and 3154NG:
Range Down 10:1 (5:1 for Range 1)
Response Time Time constant (63.2%) at 100&deg;F (37.8&deg;C)
Output Code R:
0-400 to 0-4000 psi (0-2758 kPa to 0-27.58 MPa)
Range 6 not available on 3154ND 3154NA:!1>
6        0-400 to 0-4000 psia (0-2758 kPa to 0-27.58 MPa) 1.2 sec                   (1) Extended operation below 0.5 psia absolute pressure (3.5 N?te: In the Minimum Damping Position, the values for Fixed      kPa) is not recommended.
Time Response apply.
Temperature Limits                                          Static Line Pressure Limits (3154ND only)
Normal Operating Limits:
40&deg;F to 200&deg;F (4.4&deg;C to 93.3&deg;C) 0.5 psia to 3626 psig (3.45 kPa to 25.00 MPa)
Qualified Storage Limits:
-40&deg;F to 120&deg;F (-40.0&deg;C to 48.9&deg;C)
Overpressure Limits Humidity Limits 0 to 100% relative humidity (NEMA 4X)
Enclosure Rating NEMA 4X (IP 66)
Burst Pressure Volumetric Displacement Minimum burst pressure is 10,000 psig (68.95 MPa)
Less than 0.005 in 3 (0.082 cm3) 3548 of 4015 728-012-10

Physical Specifications                           Electronics Housing (5)
CF8M (cast version of 316 SST)
Materials of Construction Mounting Bracket Numbers in parentheses indicate where part is     CF8M (cast version of 316 SST) located in Figure 7 Mounting Bolts (bracket to transmitter)
Isolating Diaphragms (8)                      SAE J429 Carbon Steel, or 17-4 PH Stainless 316L SST                                      Steel (Optional)
DrainNent Valves (10)                     Process Connections 316L SST 1/4-18 NPT (per EN 61518 / IEC 61518); 1/4 Process Flanges (10)                      Swagelok or 3/8 Swagelok CF3M (cast version of 316L SST)
Electrical Connections Process Seal (C-rings) (9)
Silver-plated lnconel' X-750 1/2-14 NPT conduit with screw terminals; M20-1.5, PG13.5, and G 1/2 threads are optional Electronics Housing O-rings (2)
Ethylene Propylene Weight Fill Fluid (8)
* 16.6 lbs (7.5 kg) (excluding bracket)
Silicone Oil
* 21.8 lbs (9.9 kg) (including SST panel mounting bracket)
Sensor Module Housing (8)
* 25.1 lbs (11.4 kg) (including SST 2" pipe CF3M (cast version of 316L SST) mounting bracket)
Flange Bolts (11) 316 SST 3549 of 4015 728-012-10

                                . g and Table, Exploded View Figure 7 - Parts Drawm 3550 of 4015 728-012-10

Figure 8 - Electrical Block Diagram Figure 9 - Typical transmitter wiring connection
                                                                   +
_______Power Supply
                                                           ~+
                                                             + ~
0
                      \    Terminal Side (cover removed) 3551 of 4015 728-012-10

ORDERING INFORMATION Welded 1/4 inch Swagelok vy~1.~~~:.1t"11Jv&#xa2;h'$1#ag~19~@};l 3552 of 4015 728-012-10

DAAIN/VENT
                \,
a'NPRESSURI!
j
                       \
lNNEllT HPRESSURE) 3553 of 4015 728-012-10

(1)   3154NG Lower Range Limit (LRL) varies with atmospheric pressure.
(2)   Extended operation below 0.5 psia absolute pressure (3.5 kPa) is not recommended.
(3)   Customer assumes responsibility for qualifying interfaces on these options.
(4)   Qualification of the connector installation and instrument/connector interface is the responsibility of the end user.
(5)   Contact Rosemount Nuclear Instruments, Inc. for information regarding CDS.
(6)   Installation will be performed at Rosemount Nuclear Instruments, Inc. {RNII). Certification of the connector installation and instrument/connector interface will be provided by RNII.
(7)   Extended upper Range Limit varies by pressure range code. Please contact RNII for details.
(8)   The R1 option code cannot be combined with R4, RS or R6 option codes.
(9)   Quantity is two for DP type transmitters and one for GP/AP type transmitters.
3554 of 4015 728-012-10

Standard Accessories                          Special Options One instruction manual is included with each  Please Contact Rosemount Nuclear shipment.                                     Instruments, Inc (RNII) for special transmitter needs.
Calibration Spare Parts Transmitters are factory calibrated to the customer's specified range. If calibration is A spare part list for the Rosemount 3154N not specified, transmitters are calibrated at pressure transmitter is located within the maximum range (0 to URL). Calibration is      Rosemount 3150 Series Reference Manual performed at ambient temperature and          00809-0100-4835.
atmospheric pressure.
Documentation Additional Customer Tagging Information            Certifications Tagging is optional and will be provided           Certification will be provided for each when either option W1 or W2 is included in         Rosemount 3154N pressure transmitter the model number. All tags are SST. The            for quality system, nuclear qualification, transmitter will be tagged in accordance with      accuracy, special cleaning, hydrostatic customer requirements (within space                testing, traceability, and special testing if limitations defined below).                        applicable. Chemical and physical reports and identification of pressure-retaining parts will be on file at RNII.
3555 of 4015 728-012-10

REVISIONS Changes from Rev AC to Rev AD Page (Old)  Page(New)   Changes Throughout  Throughout  Update document revision and implementation date.
Revised response time specification for pressure range 3 transmitters with output code R (all 10          10 pressure tvoes) from 0.25 sec to 0.2 sec.
Revised response time specification for pressure range 2-6 transmitters with output code T in the 10          10 maximum damping position from 0.8 sec to 1.2 sec.
3556 of 4015 728-012-10

The Emerson logo is a trademark and service mark of Emerson Electric Co.
Rosemount, the Rosemount logotype are registered trademarks of Rosemount Inc.
Coplanar is a trademark of Rosemount Inc.
Swagelok is a registered trademark of Swagelok Co.
Std 323 and Std 344 are registered trademarks of IEEE lnconel is a registered trademark of International Nickel Company All other marks are the property of their respective owners.
CE Emerson Process Management                                      Rosemount Nuclear Instruments, Inc.
Rosemount Nuclear Instruments, Inc.                             satisfies all obligations coming from 8200 Market Boulevard                                           legislation to harmonize product Chanhassen, MN 55317 USA                                        requirements in the European Union.
T (U.S.) (952) 949-5210 F (952) 949-5201 3557 of 4015 728-012-10 RA-23-0015 Attachment 5 Excerpt from RNP VTM 728-589-13, Instruction Manual for Control and Protection Instrumentation regarding Comparator Hagan Model 139-118 (Reference 4.4.1 of Attachment 1)
(2 pages follow)

Instruction Bulletin
                                                                       \.51             18-139-118 June 1970 Signal Comparator GENERAL DESCRIPTION The Model 139-118 Signal Comparator is an accurate, solid-state amplifier-compar:1.tor which compares either one or two input signals to an adjustable, internal set-point voltage. or compares two input signals to each other.
An alarm output signal is provided for either increasing or decreasing input sigr.al. The alarm Is a 300 VA. ac or de output which may be adjusted for normally on or noramally off action .
   . The output of the comparator amplifier also drives a hysteresis circuit which gives n deadba.nd beh\*een turn-on and turn-of!. This deadband can be adjusted between 20 rr.V and 1. 0 V above or below the input sigmls' alarm points.
Several models rire available; providing either one or two independent alarm channels, set point references and hysteresis ba.nds \\"1th ac or de output. The models are:
Part No.                              Description 4111082-001                        Single Comparator, ac output 4111082-002                       _Dual Comparator, ac output
            ..                                                                       '"            I 0* (j, r*    *-- ----
                      *         ,i J
                                                                                                     ,:I (0           *
                   !2 s)0.&sect;)-* i                                                             *           *
                                     -------MM*-------'
e fJ FIGURE 1. SIGNAL COMPARATOR OUTLINE Supersedes m-139-118 dated October 1968 VTM 728-589-13                                                                            766 of 5270

Part No.                             Description 4111082-003                  Single Comparator, de output
* 41110S2-004                  Dual Comparator, de output SPECIFICATIONS Sisrna.1 Inputs:       Tv.*o inputs for 1 to 5 Vdc.
Alarm Outputs:          One or two 300 VA outputs, ac or de, normally on or normally-off.
Set Point:             One or two set point controls (10-turn potentio meters) giving O to 4 V alarm points.
Deadlnnd:              One or two trimpots giving 20 mV to 1. 0 V of deadband.
Power Requirements:    117 Vac, 60 Hz. 10\V for comparator, plus 300W for each output supply.
Temperature Range:     40* to 120* F INSTALLATION Unpacking Unpack the signal comparator carefully. It Is packed in a cardboard container. Afti!r unpacking, check carefully for shipping damage. If any damage is evident, notify th*!
local carrier immediately and file damage claims. Also, check all items receh*ed against the packing list to see that the shJpment ls complete. Follow any handling instructions sent with the equipment or attached to it.
Physical Installation
   .Locate the signal comparator in a dry area, free of excessive shock, vtbra.Uon and uide temperature fluctuations. The unit should be mounted In a place \\'here adjust ments can be .made with ease.
Outline and mounting dimensions for the unit are shown In Figure 1. However. the cnlt \\'as designed for rack-mounting, using the :?.rodel 139-117 :Mounting Frame (3111005) and Terminal Panel Assembly (#4111012) and these dimensions are shovm in Figure_ 2.
Electrical Connections All connections are made at the 20-Pin Elco connector on the rear of the chass*is.
However, when the unit is rack-mounted in the Model 139-117 Mounting Frame and 18-139.118 VTM 728-589-13                                                                   768 of 5270 RA-23-0015 Attachment 6 Excerpt from RNP VTM 728-589-13, Instruction Manual for Control and Protection Instrumentation regarding Comparator NUS DAM 800 (Reference 4.4.1 of Attachment 1)
(6 pages follow)

800 SERIES ALAR M MODULES OPERAT IONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL EIP-M-DAM800 Revision 2 FOR INFORMATION ONLY ISSUE DATE   AUG 3 1 1998-Instruments I
*'-,I ,_          l<hho Falls, ID 83402 (208) 529--1000 VTM 728-589-13                                                          3585 of 5270

V                                      2.0 PHYSICAL DET~ AND SPECITICAT101'iS The Alarm Module is an electronic assembly mounted in a protective chassis with all user adjustments on the front plate (Figure 1). The electronics in a DAM module consists of two circuit boards, three bridge rectifiers, and ty,*o solid stlte relays mounted separately in the chassis. The SAM has the same two circuit boards, two bridge rectificn, and one solid state relay. The circuit boards include the power supply board and the control board. The major parts are connected by plugs or ring fugs for easy removal and replacement.
The a1mn module bas been designed, test~ and qualified to the environmental and performance specifications below. Each aJami module will meet or exceed these specifications.
2.1 Pffi"SICAL SPECIFICATIO~S Bodv                               Panel                   Overall
\.-1-*              Width:      3.11 inches                       3.37 inches               3.37 inches (7.9 cm)                           (8.6 cm)                 (8.6 cm)
Height:      7.0 inches                        9.5 inches                9.5 inches (17.8 cm)                         (24.1 cm)                 (24.1 cm)
Depth:      IS.O inches                         1.0 inches              16.0 inches (38.1 cm)                           (2.S cm)                (40.6 cm)
Front Panel Clearance: 2.25 inches (5.7 cm)
Weight: less than 5.9 lbs pounds (2.66 kg)
The DAMS00 or SAMS00 module is to be mounted in a suitable opening in a vertical rack by bolting with tv,*o 8-32UNF by 5/8 inch screws (with #8 lock washer) through the mounting holes at the top and bottom of the front plate. These mounting holes are on S.7S-inch centers on the vertical centerline of the front pbte. A rigidly mounted brace will support the rear of the module. Refer to Appendi.~ B for a typic:il mounting configuration.
Rev.:?                                            EIP-M.. DAM800                                            ~-1 VTM 728-589-13                                                                                     3601 of 5270

V     2.l EU:CTRICALSPECIFICAT IO:-iS, WIRIXG, AND CO~"ECTIO!l'iS l..2 ..1 Poft*er Requirements Voluge:                120 VAC (+/-100/4), 47-63 Hz Power.                 S W', IO VA [Does not include power requimnents (or module supplied conuct wetting voltages]. Total power is the sum of the output load power plus S Watts.
2.2.2    Fuses (Not safety related)
Power.         Fl:     1 amp, 250 VAC, type JAG (indicating type fuse holder).
Output:        F2:     Not insta! led. W7 bypasses this fuse.
FJ:
* 3 amp very fast acting. 250 VAC, type GBB.
V                                     F4:     (DAM only), Same as F3 2.2.J    Channel! Per Unit     DAM 2 Input, 2 Output SMf 2 Input, I Output 2.2.4    Input Ranges           0-50 mA (10.50 mA) into 100 ohms 0-20 mA ( 4-20 mA) into 250 ohms 0-S volts (1-S volts) into 2M ohms 0-10 volts (2-10 volts) into 400k ohms NOTE: Input Range for Channel 1 is independent of range for Charulel 2, except in Deviation or Difference modes.
Rev. 2 VTM 728-589-13 EIP-M-DAM800 3602 of 5270---

l.l.S    Output11R.1nge,  (I)      Solid State - NO or NC, 400 volts pe3k. (JSO VA continuous) any polarity, frequency from DC to 1MHz.
(2)      Mechanical Relay - NO and NC, 400 volts pen.
2.2.6    Wetting Voltages (I)      120 VAC @ 6A ma-<lmum {3S0 VA continuous per ch3nnel)-Supply VoJuge.
(2)      168 VDC @ IA (168 VA continuous per channel)-Full Wave, Bridge Rectified, and Unfiltered Supply Voltage.
(3)      External, AC or DC, 400 V ma~ (350 VA continuous per channel).
U.7      Toler:ances Accur:scy:       Repcltlble to 0.5% of input span (2% dial setting accuracy) for lhe set poinL Reset point repeatable to 0.5% of input span.
Sensitivity:     +/- S mV.
Temperature      Less than 0.04% of input ~ change in set and reset point Stability:
for a I &deg;C change in temperature.
Set Point:      1000/4 of input range, 10 tum indicating dial for each channe~ C3librated in percent.
Dc:idband:      0.S-25% of input range, IO tum recessed pot for e:ic:h channel, accessible from the front panel.
Ttme Response:  Less than 20 msec. from the time at which the input first reaches its nominal value to the time at which the output reaches 63% of its final
-._J                               value for solid state outputs.
Rev. 2                                EIP-M-DAMS0O                                               ., .
VTM i28-589-13                                                                          3603 of 5270 --~

Less than SO mscc. from the time at which the input first reaches its nominal value to the time at which the output re3ches 63% of its final value for relav outputs.
Dielectric Withsta..,d: No damage or misoperation for 1000 VAC (RMS) and 3000 VDC applied input to output, and for 1000 VDC and 750 VAC (RMS) input to chassis.
Surge Withsund:         No damage on all inputs, outputs and power terminals when the waveform described in IEEE-std-472, 1974 is applied.
Alarm Action:           Calibrated  set point or calibrated reset point, jumper seleeuble.
Indicators:             Yellow LED for power. Red output status LEDs arc jumper selectable:
to match the output (NO or NC) for each channel.
u    2.l.8    "iring It is the user's responsibility to provide wiring to and from the alann module. The module must be provided with power of the same wety class as the output stage of the module.
2.2.9     Electric:al Connections Elcdrical connections are made to the alann module via connector JI on the rear of the module. This connector is an ELCO 20 pin connector pin 00.8016-020-000.602 using 60-8017-03-13-00-339 pins. Use a connector and pins which will mate to these. Refer to Appendi.~ A for the pin connections on this connector.. Power cable is to be three conductor 16 AWG (minimum} stranded copper. Signal wire should be at least 20 AWG stranded copper.
Rev.2                                         EIP-M*DA..\1800                                              2-i VTM 728-589-13                                                                                    3604 of 5270

\-I     2.3 l:~"VIRO~~tn.,A LSPECIFICATIO NS Ambient Temperature:    35 to 122&deg;F (2 to 50&deg;C) (Normal Operation) 3S to 13S&deg;F (2 to 57&deg;C) (Abnormal Operation for 200 hours)
                                -40 to 185&deg;F (-40 to 85&deg;C) (Storage)
Relath*e Humidity:      0% to 95% (non-condensing)
Radiation Limits:       J04 Rad TID Gamma over 40 years Pressure:               Atmospheric Rev. 2                             EIP-M-DAMSOO                                            :?-5 VTM 728-589-13                                                                     3605 of 5270}}