ML17264A189

Rev 1 to Guidelines for Instrument Loop Performance Evaluation & Setpoint Verification.

ML17264A189
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	08/07/1992
From:	Daniels G ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML17264A188	List: ML17264A187 ML17264A189
References
PROC-920807, NUDOCS 9510160107
Download: ML17264A189 (85)

Text

Guidelines for Instrument Loop Performance Evaluation and Setpoint Verification Ginna Station Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649 EWR 5126 Revision 1 August 7 i 1992 Prepared by

.D iels, Inst.

Performance Verif.

Engineer Reviewed by ~A h~

R.AeBaker, Inst. Date Performance Verif.

Pro'ect Manager Approved by ~8(8 9 C.AeForkell, Mana Date Electrical Engineering Page i

'P5i0160107 95i006 PDR ADOCK 05000244 P PDR

REVXSZON STATUS SHEET Rev Page Page ii

GUXDANCE FOR INSTRUMENT LOOP PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND SETPOINT VERIFXCATION TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 PURPOSE 2-1 3.0 APPLICABXLITY 4.0 PROCEDURAL REQUXREMENTS 4-1 5.0 DEFINITIONS 5-1 6.0 ACRONYMS

7.0 REFERENCES

7-1 8.0 ASSUMPTIONS/CLARIFICATIONS 8-1 9.0 INSTRUMENT LOOP PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS 9-1 9.1 PERFORMANCE RELATED DESIGN BASES ASSOCXATED NITH THE INSTRUMENT LOOP 9-1 9.2 PROCESS PARAMETER DESCRIPTION AND INSTRUMENT LOOP FUNCTION 9-1 9.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE CONDITIONS 9-3 10 ~ 0 DESCRXPTXON OF THE EXISTING INSTRUMENT LOOP CONFIGURATION 10-1 10 1 F ORGANIZATION OF DATA AND DOCUMENTATION 10-1 10.2 PROCESS MEASUREMENT DATA 10-2 10.3 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNAL CONDITXONING AND OUTPUT EQUIPMENT 10-3 10 ' SCALING 10-4 Page iii

GUIDANCE FOR INSTRUMENT LOOP PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND SETPOINT VERIFICATION TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE 11.0 EVALUATION OF THE EXISTING INSTRUMENT LOOP CONFIGURATION AGAINST DOCUMENTED PERFORMANCE REUIREMENTS 11-1

11. 1 EVALUATING THE LOOP CONFIGURATION 11-1 11.2 EVALUATING THE LOOP MEASUREMENT CAPABILITY 11-3 11.3 EVALUATING THE CALIBRATION 11-3 12.0 EVALUATION OF LOOP UNCERTAINTY 12-1 12 F 1 PROCESS MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY 12-1 12.2 MEASUREMENT AND TEST EQUIPMENT UNCERTAXNTY 12-1 12 ' ACCXDENT SENSOR ENVIRONMENTAL UNCERTAINTY 12-2 12.4 ACCIDENT CURRENT LEAKAGE UNCERTAINTY 12-2 12.5 RACK EQUIPMENT UNCERTAINTY 12-2 12.6 SENSOR UNCERTAINTY 12-3 12 ' DRIFT UNCERTAINTY 12-3 12.8 TOLERANCE UNCERTAINTY 12-3 12.9 TOTAL LOOP UNCERTAINTY 12-3 12.10 COMPARING THE REFERENCE ACCURACY WITH THE CALIBRATION TOLERANCE 12-4

13. 0 SETPOINT EVALUATION 13-1

13. 1 ASSIGNING LIMITS TO OUTPUT DEVICES 13-1

13. 2 EVALUATING THE SETPOINT(S) 13-1 Page iv

GUIDANCE FOR INSTRUMENT LOOP PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND SETPOINT VERIFICATION TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE

13. 3 COMPARISON OF EXISTING SETPOINT WITH TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION LIMITS 13-2 CONCLUSION 14-1 ATTACHMENT A INSTRUMENT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND SETPOINT VERIFICATION ATTACHMENT B ORGANIZATION OF DATA AND DOCUMENTATION SUPPORT Page v

1. 0 INTRODUCTION This document, Methodology for Instrument Loop Performance Evaluation and Setpoint Verification, provides detailed instructions for performing Project activies.

Reg. Guide 1.105, Rev. 2 describes a methodology acceptable to the NRC for ensuring that instrument setpoints are initially within and remain within Technical Specification limits. This Regulatory Guide endorses ISA Standard S67.04-1982, "Setpoints for Nuclear Safety Related Instrumentation Used, in Nuclear Power Plants". A revision was issued to the document in 1987 and major draft supplements have been issued by ISA Committee S67.15 since that time. RG&E is not specifically committed to Reg.

Guide 1.105 or ISA-S67.04. However this document is intended to establish similar requirements and utilizes the methods of ISA S67.04 where applicable.

This document is not intended to supersede any calculations performed previously by RG&E or its vendors. Such calculations and analyses were performed in accordance with the guidelines and assumptions in effect at the time of their development.

Page 1-1

2.0 PURPOSE This document is intended to provide RG&E engineering personnel vith a step-by-step approach in performing an instrument loop performance and setpoint verification.

It includes a verification that, after all uncertainties in the measured parameter are accounted for, the existing loop setpoints assure that all documented performance requirements are met.

Page 2-2

3.0 APPLICABILITY This document may be applied to any process instrument laop at Ginna Nuclear Power Plant.

applicable to:

It is not 0 Electrical Metering 0 Torque/Limit Switches 0 Snubber/Spring Cans 0 Time Delay Relays 0 Protective Relaying 0 Breaker Trip Settings 0 Relief/Safety Valves Page 3-1

4.0 PROCEDURAL RE UIREMENTS Work performed in accordance with this document shall be performed to the requirements of the RG&E QA Manual and its appendices or another QA program meeting the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.

page 4-l.

DEFINITIONS 5.1 Accident Bias The non-random uncertainty created by the accident conditions in a known direction. An example of this would be reference leg heatup during specific pipe break events, which could change the density of the fluid in the reference leg, impacting the accuracy of the sensor.

5 ' Accident Environmental Uncertainties AEU The combined effect of errors on an instrument loop caused by exposure to nuclear radiation, elevated temperature, and steam/chemical spray, or an earthquake.

5.3 a~ccurac 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 represent the difference between the measured value and the ideal value.

5e4 Allowable Value AV The limiting value that the trip setpoint can have when tested periodically, beyond which the instrument channel must be evaluated for operability. (THE GINNA TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (TABLE 3 5-4) DEFINE THE TERM "ALLOWABLE VALUE" IN THE SAME SENSE AS THE ANALYTICAL LIMIT )

5.5 Anal tical Limit AL The limit of a measured or calculated variable "established by" the safety analysis to ensure that a safety limit is not exceeded.

In some cases there may be no analysis associated with a particular setpoint function. In such cases, the Design Limit established for the function shall be used as the Analytical Limit.

5e6 As Found The condition a device is found in after a period of operation.

5e7 As 'Left The condition a device is left in after calibration.

5e8 Bias For this document bias will have two separate definitions, one for calculating the setpoint. and the other for performing scaling. The definition for calculating a setpoint is:

The fixed or systematic error within a measurement.

The bias error is a known, fixed, difference between the true value and the actual measurement.

Page 5-1

0 The definition related to scaling is:

A voltage that is utilized 'to produce a signal offset. Bias is often used to compensate for signals that do not begin at zero.

5.9 Bias Distribution When performing scaling, the division of the total bias required by an instrument loop among the devices which comprise the loop.

5.10 Cable Leaka e Cl The error associated with leakage current exhibited by the instrument cable during environmental testing, or an accident, as correlated to the specified cable under analysis.

5.11 Calibration Comparison of items of measuring and test equipment with reference standards or with items of measuring and test equipment of equal or closer tolerance to detect and quantify inaccuracies and to report or eliminate those inaccuracies.

5. 12 Calibration Uncertaint CU The combined error associated with the test equipment and method used to determine that the instrument loop calibration is in compliance with the reference standards

5. 13 Circuit Leaka e Uncertaint CLU Summation of the errors associated with the electrical current leakage from the cable, cable splices, cable seal devices, penetrations, and terminal blocks.

5. 14 uncertainties, variables, or parameters rely upon one another, such that, under the conditions of interest, a change in one will produce a corresponding change in the other.

5. 15 Desi n Limit The limit of a measured or variable established to prevent undesired calculated conditions (e.g., equipment or structural damage, spurious trip or initiation signals, challenges to plant safety signals, etc.). Used in place of the Analytical Limit when there are no analytical bases. Bases may be industry standards or vendor recomendations. See also Estimated Design Limit.

Page 5-2

Drift Sensor Sd An undesired change in output over a period of time, which is unrelated to the input, environment, or load.

Note: The uncertainty associated with drift is dependent on the calibration period of the device.

Drift Uncertaint DU The combined error associated with the stability of the sensor and rack equipment.

The errors included in this term are the sensor and rack equipment drift.

uncertainties, variables, or parameters are autonomous and do not rely on one another, such that, under the conditions of interest, a change in one does not lead to a corresponding change in the other, and they may be separated one from the other.

Limitin Safet S stem Settin LSSS Settings specified for automatic protective devices 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 event are not more severe than the safety analysis predicted.

Loo Uncertaint The range of values that the process parameter may assume corresponding to a particular indication or output. Depending on the loop output, this uncertainty could be related to indication or actuation.

Lower Set oint Limit The lowest value for a setpoint which when used in conjunction with the upper setpoint limit, describes the setpoint tolerance band (no adjustment required) which allows for safe function operation but minimizes the frequency of readjustment.

Marcain An additional allowance that may be added to the loop uncertainty for the purpose of increasing conservatism. Applying margin has the effect of moving a setpoint further away from the analytical limit.

Note: 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.

Page 5-3

Measurin and Test E ui ment M6TE Devices or systems used to calibrate, measure, gage, test, inspect, or control in order to acquire research, development, test or operational data or to. determine compliance with design, specifications, or other technical requirements. Measuring and test equipment does not include permanently installed operating equipment, nor test equipment used for preliminary checks where data obtained will not be used to determine acceptability or be the basis for design or engineering evaluation.

Mild Environment An environment that would at no time be more severe that the environment that would occur during normal plant operation, including anticipated operational occurrences.

the normal environment.

It may also be referred to as Normalization The process of converting process parameters into quantities having a range from 0 to 1.0 percentage units.

0 erational Limit The operational value of a process variable established t'o allow trip avoidance margin for the limiting normal operating transient.

Penetration Leaka e Pl The error associated with the leakage current exhibited by the penetration during environmental testing, as correlated to the specific penetration under analysis.

P imar Element See also. Sensor An independently calibrated system component which converts the measured process variable to a form which is appropriate for the sensor input. This is usually a differential producer in a fluid system, (i.e. orifice, venturi nozzle),

which converts flow rate to differential pressure. The differential pressure is then sensed by transmitters (sensors).

Primar Element Accurac Pea The accuracy associated with the primary element that quantitatively converts the measured variable energy into a form suitable for measurement by the associated instrumentation, (i.e. Elbow Taps, orifice plates, venturies, etc.).

Page 5-4

5.30 Process Measurement Accurac Pma The accuracy specification that, includes plant measurement errors up to, but not including, the sensor. Examples are the effect of fluid stratification on temperature measurements and the effect of changing fluid density on level measurements.

Process Uncertaint PU The combined error associated with the physical process and its measurement. The errors included in this term are the primary element accuracy and the process measurement accuracy.

5.32 Process Al orithm or Process E uation The process calculation expressed in terms of engineering units.

5.33 Rack E ui ment Uncertaint REU The combined errors of the rack-mounted devices that make up the instrument loop. These typically are accuracy, temperature effects, and power supply effects.

5.34 Rack E ui ment Calibration Accurac Rca The error associated with performance of rack equipment calibrations. This error is typically a result of test equipment accuracy and technician error.

~ 5 35 Rack E ui ment Drift Red An undesired change (error) in the rack equipment output over a period of time, which is unrelated to the input.

5.36 Rack E ui ment Miscellaneous Effects Rme The error associated with any effect on the rack equipment not accounted for in the documented rack effects of this procedure.

5.37 Rack E ui ment Tolerance Ret Is equal to the No Adjust Limits of the rack equipment and is defined as the allowance to account for the difficulty of measuring the rack equipment calibration. It is a function of the repeatability of the rack equipment.

5.38 R ck Power Su l Effects R s The error associated with the power supply variation for which the specific rack instruments are utilized.

5.39 Rack Tem erature Effects Rte The error associated with the ambient temperature variations of the specific rack instruments. This error is not included in the calculation Effect" term.

if already considered in the "Temperature Page 5-5

Radiation Effect Re The error associated with the normal radiation dose plus accident radiation exposure for the specific instrument.

Random The condition in which the deviation of an observation (measurement) from an accepted (true) value is equally expected to be positive or negative. The algebraic sign of a random uncertainty is equally likely to be positive or negative with respect to some median value. Unless specifically stated otherwise, for the purposes of this document random also means approximately normally distributed.

Random Error Errors which cannot be predicted except on a statistical basis. They occur wholly due to chance and can be expressed by probabilistic distribution. In most instrument applications, random errors occur with a frequency that approximates a normal distribution. For such distribution, 954 of all errors fall within 2 standard deviations of the mean.

Reference Accurac A number or quantity that defines a maximum for expected uncertainty when a device is used under referenced operating conditions.

Safet Limit The limit on a safety process that is established by licensing requirements variable to provide conservative protection for the integrity of physical barriers that guard against uncontrolled release of radioactivity. The acceptability of safety limits is based on plant accident and transient analyses.

Scalin E uation The equation that converts process variables from process/engineering units to the equivalent voltage values.

Sealin Device Leaka e Dl The error associated with the leakage current exhibited by the cable sealing device during environmental testing, as correlated to the specific sealing device under analysis.

Seismic Effect Se The error associated with the specific instrument when subjected to seismic activity.

Sensor See also Primar Element The channel element which responds directly to the measured process variable to produce an electric or pneumatic signal which is transmitted to control and indication systems.

Sensor Uncertaint SU The combined error associated with the sensor itself. These typically are accuracy, Page 5-6

temperature effects, power supply effects and static pressure effects.

Sensor Calibration Accurac Sca The error associated with the performance of sensor calibrations.

This error is typically a result of test equipment accuracy and Technician error.

Sensor Miscellaneous Effect Sme The error associated with any effect on the sensor not accounted for in the other documented sensor effects.

Sensor Power Su l Effect S se The error associated with the power supply variation for which the specific sensor is utilized.

Sensor Static Pressure S an Shift Ss s The change in the calibration of a differential pressure device which occurs when the process pressure is applied equally to both the high and low pressure connections.

Sensor Tem erature Effects Ste The error associated with the ambient temperature variations of the specific sensor. This error is not included in the calculation if already considered in the "Temperature Effect" Term.

Sensor Tolerance St Is equal to the No Adjust Limit of the sensor and is identified as the allowance to account for the difficulty of measuring the sensor calibration. It is a function of the repeatability of the sensor.

~met oint A predetermined value at which a device changes state to indicate that the quantity under surveillance has reached the selected value.

Set oint Verification -Information which identifies the specific functions to be performed by an instrument loop of a facility, and the specific values or ranges of values chosen for controlling parameters as reference bounds for design. These values may be (1) restraints derived from generally accepted "state of the art" practices for achieving functional goals, or (2) requirements derived from analysis (based on calculation and/or experiments) of the effects of a postulated accident for which an instrument loop must meet its functional goals.

Page 5-7

S lice Leaka e Sl The error associated with leakage current exhibited by the cable splice during environmental testing, as correlated to the specific splice under analysis.

Steam Chemical S ra Effect S Ce The error associated with the steam/chemical spray environment for the specific instrument.

Tem erature Effect Te The error of the specific instrument during a HELB or LOCA that is associated with the temperature as specified in the RG&E UFSAR.

Terminal Block Leaka e Tl The error associated with leakage current exhibited by the terminal blocks during environmental testing, as correlated to the specific terminal block under analysis.

Tolerance A band established around a desired value within which an instrument's performance is considered acceptable. Tolerances are established about specific instrument or loop output points to define the acceptable level of performance for the instrument or loop for given input points.

Tolerance Uncertaint TU The combined error associated with the difficulty of measuring the sensor and rack equipment during calibration. The errors included in this term are the sensor and rack equipment tolerance.

Tri Set oint Ts A predetermined level at which a bistable device changes state to indicate that the quantity under surveillance has reached the selected value.

'I " ~

which the true value of a parameter is known to exist.

For the purposes of this procedure, uncertainties shall include the broad spectrum of terms such as error, accuracy, bias, effect, etc.

U er Set oint Limit The highest value for a setpoint which when used in conjunction with the lower setpoint limit, describes the setpoint. tolerance band (no adjustment required) which allows for safe function operation but minimizes the frequency of readjustment.

Estimated Desi n Limit EDL Used in place of Analytical Limit or Design Limit when no formally documented bases are currently available for the limiting value of the process parameter.

Page 5-8

6 0 ACRONYMS AE Accident Effect AL Analytical Limit APE Accident Pressure Effect ARE Accident Radiation Effect ATE Accident Temperature Effect AV Allowable Value BOP Balance of Plant CCD Controlled Configuration Drawing CP Calibration Procedure CSE Conduit Seal Effect DBD Design Basis Document DBE Design Basis Event DL Design Limit DR- Drift DVM Digital Voltmeter EEQ Equipment Environmental Qualification EOP Emergency Operating Procedure GDC General Design Criteria HELB High Energy Line Break IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ILWD Instrument Loop Wiring Diagram XNPO Institute of Nuclear Power Operations XR- Insulation Resistance XSA Instrument Society of America Page 6-l.

LOCA Loss of Coolant Accident LSSS Limiting Safety System Setting MCB Main Control Board M&TE Measurement & Test Equipment NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NSSS Nuclear Steam Supply System OBE Operational Basis Earthquake OL Operational Limit OP Overpressure Effect PEA Primary Element Accuracy PLS Precautions, Limits and Setpoints (Document)

PME Process Measurement Effect PPCS Process Plant Computer System PS Power Supply Effect Reference Accuracy RE Readability RG Regulatory Guide RG&E Rochester Gas & Electric RTD Resistance Temperature Detector SE Seismic Effect SL Safety Limit, SPE Static Pressure Effect SRSS Square Root Sum of the Squares SSE Safe Shutdown Earthquake T/C Thermocouple TE Temperature Effect Page 6-2

TID Total Integrated Dose TLU Total Loop Uncertainty UFSAR Updated Final Safety Analysis Report URL Upper Range Limit Selected acronyms may also have another definition per the standard abbreviation list in the Ginna Quality Assurance Manual. However, the acronyms shown are common nuclear industry terms and for 'he purposes of this document will represent the meaning shown here.

Page 6-3

I 7.0

7.1 REFERENCES

Reg. Guide 1.105, Rev 2, "Instrument Setpoints for Safety Related Systems".

7-2 ISA S67.04 1987, " Setpoints for Nuclear Safety Related Instrumentation".

7.3 INPO 84-026, Rev. 1, "Setpoint Change Control Program".

7.4 ISA-S67.04 Part II, Draft 9, "Methodologies for the Determination of Setpoints for Nuclear Safety Related Instrumentation."

7.5 RG&E EWR 5126, "Instrument Setpoint Verification", dated 8/31/89.

7.6 Title 10, Part 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10CFR50), as of January 1, 1990.

7.7 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Volumes I thru VIII, Rev. 4.

7.8 Procedure P-1, Rev. 45, Reactor Control and Protection System.

7.9 Procedure P-2, Rev. 28, Reactor Coolant System Precautions and Limitations.

7.10 Procedure P-3, Rev. 15, Chemical and Volume Control System.

7.11 Procedure P-4, Rev. 10, Precautions, Limitations and Setpoints Auxiliary Coolant System.

7.12 Procedure P-6, Rev. 12, Precautions, Limitations and Setpoints Nuclear Instrumentation System.

7.13 Procedure P-7, Rev. 11, Safety Injection System.

7.14 Procedure P-8, Rev. 16, Waste Disposal Syst: em.

7.15 Procedure P-9, Rev. 55, Radiation Monitoring System.

7.16 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Technical Specifications, Appendix A to Operating License No. DPR-18 (Amendment No. 40),

Dated September 23, 1990.

7.17 Deleted 7.18 R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant System Descriptions (Training Department Handouts).

Page 7-1

7.19 Deleted 7.20 Deleted 7.21 RG&E Quality Assurance Manual, Appendix A, Quality and Safety Related Listings, Rev. 9.

7.22 RG&E Quality Assurance Manual, Appendix E, Quality Assurance Program for EQ Equipment Replacements, Maintenance and Additions.

7.23 DELETED 7.24 RG&E Design Analysis (DRAFT), "Flow Measuring Element Technical Evaluation".

Page 7-2

e 8.0 ASSUMPTIONS CLARIFICATIONS 8.1 The intent of these guidelines is to establish a standard basis for instrument loop performance evaluation and setpoint verification analyses for existing process instrument systems at Ginna Station.

8.2 Information used to evaluate each instrument loop is preferrably obtained from controlled documents.

However, this may not always be possible. Information from uncontrolled sources should be documented sufficiently to establish validity.

8.3 When data conflicts occur, an assumption may be made as to which of the sources is correct. All such conflicts and the bases for any related assumptions should be documented as open items.

8.4 The Instrument Performance Evaluation and Setpoint Verification Checklist, included as Attachment A, provides the format for indivual loop analyses.

Supplemental calculations or analyses may be needed to fully document certain features of loop performance.

8.5 When information needed to complete Attachment A is abstracted from another document, that document shall referencedin the analysis.

8.6 When information is obtained from references that are not easily retrievable (e.g. vendor data, correspondence, purchase orders or specifications, etc.), copies should be made of the applicable portions of the reference. Copies should be attached to the Attachment A analysis.

8.7 When information requested in Attachment A is determined to be not applicable to a specific loop, the step should be marked "N/A".

it ih il:"- ii'll'y--i:R-:---,'...-,,',:,i:::,,',;,,',:,1:...,,P1, ",",-',",',,:,,', d':,:::::,',;,,tlN!:

oÃ4%%8ni'cx~p8e 3<'oper8 x'ng'>pAenomen8.":~ ~@%le':c'otic'em'8 ceiw.,'d'"'a~jrooi;:;ems',..oi:i 'ii'-'p':,,:xa';,:-.'."s,"oui:@: .'e;,:;;,'ai resse.,xp4',

@%i::aOi'~~~YQiiilit'..,:":;:-Eiicjiii'ear'~rij',~'f~QE>-.jPra'ced.

Page 8-1

9.0 Instrument Loop Performance Requirements The intent of this section is to document the performance requirements for the instrument loop, established in the design bases for the Ginna Nuclear Plant. Performance requirements include the nature of the process parameter being detected, quantified, and transmitted, (what is being measured), the range and accuracy of the process parameter information that is required (appropriate) for the loop outputs, and the physical environment(s) in which the loop is installed, calibrated, and required to operate. To the extent possible, these requirements should be described without reference to the installed system design.

9.1 Performance Related Design Bases Associated with the Instrument Loop.

In Section 5.1.1 of Attachment A document the following design basis information which places constraints on instrument, performance.

9.1.1 Safety Classification The safety classifications established in Appendix A of the Ginna Station QA Manual, Safety Related (SR), Safety Significant (SS), and Non Safety (NS), are based on functional considerations only. However, they do indicate whether the loop is critical to some aspect of plant safety.

9.1.2 NUREG 0737/R.G. 1.97 The Ginna Station R.G. 1.97 design bases are documented in Table 7.5-1 of the UFSAR. A more detailed description of these loops is contained in the RG&E submittal to the NRC, dated March 13, 1992, "NUREG 0737 Supplemental 1/ R.G.

1.97: Comparison of Ginna Post Accident Instrumentation",

Attachment 3, Table 1. A R.G. 1.97 instrument loop should conform with performance requirements stated in the Regulatory Guide, as qualified by status information or notes in Table 7.5-1 and the 3-13-92 NRC submittal. Design requirements related to physical separation, human factors, and reliability of power supply are not within the scope of this analysis.

9.1.3 Environmental Qualification (EQ)

If the instrument loop is required to function in harsh (accident) environments it is listed in the Ginna Station QA Manual, Appendix E, Attachment 1, (the 10CFR50.49 list).

Environmental data for the instrument component location(s) is documented in Section 3.11 of the Ginna UFSAR. This information is also in the appropriate component EQ (File)

Package. The EQ designation is only used for instruments Page 9-1

required to operate in "harsh" environments (50.49 list).

This indicates that performance capability must be demonstrated by test, in accordance with IEEE 323-1974.

Other ("mild environment") loops must demonstrate capability to perform throughout their range of "normal" ambient operating environments, but there is no regulatory requirement for testing.

Seismic Category The safety classification of the instrument loop does not directly imply a particular category, so that other design basis information must be used to establish its seismic classification and performance requirements. For loops that are designated R.G. 1.97, the references in Section 9.1.3 provide the seismic classification (this covers most of the loops within the present project scope). In addition, loops which are identified in the Ginna Technical Specifications, Table 3.5-1 Protection System Instrumentation, Table 3.5-2 Engineered Safety Feature Actuation Instrumentation should be designated Seismic Category 1 on the basis of IEEE 279-1971, and GDC 2 of Appendix A to 10CFR50. All other loops may be designated either non seismic (NS), or "structural integrity only" concern exists.

if a known R.G. 1.29, C.2 The performance requirements associated with instruments classified as Seismic Category 1 are not completely defined in the Ginna design basis. Per Attachment 2 of the RG&E 3-13-92 submittal to the NRC (referenced in 9.1.3), seismic qualification "i's in accordance with the Ginna Seismic Qualification Program" and "Seismic qualification at Ginna is currently being resolved under USI-A46". Since 1978 RG&E practice has been to qualify new floor (or wall) mounted equipment to IEEE 344-1975. However most instrument racks and panels were installed during plant construction and therefore (because of the accepted practice at that time) were not seismically tested. Racks and panels for Protection System and ESFAS equipment have subsequently been inspected and modified to assure seismic integrity of anchorage and structure. Historical data (recognized by IEEE 344-1987) has been used by SQUG to establish reasonable assurance that A46 plants, in which equipment adequately anchored and constructed, can safely be shut down following a SSE.

The seismic performance requirement for Seismic Category 1 equipment within the scope of this analysis shall be that both the components of the loop and their supports or enclosures have documented seismic capability. Evaluation Page 9-2

of seismic capacity versus demand is not within the scope of this analysis. Instrument accuracy has not been identified as an issue in the A46 program and therefore seismic loop uncertainty will at this time be calculated for information only.

Technical Specifications Ginna Station Technical Specifications, Section 3.5, Instrumentation S stems, identifies certain instrument loops which perform safety related functions. The following tables identify critical loop functions, the plant conditions when the loop must be operable, and the minimum number of channels that must be available for continued operation (LCOs).

Table 3.5-1 Protection System Instrumentation Table 3.5-2 Engineered Safety Feature Actuation Instrumentation Table 3.5-3 Accident, Monitoring Instrumentation Table 3.5-5 Radioactive Effluent Monitoring Instrumentation Table 3.5-6 Radiation Accident Monitoring Instrumentation Periodic test intervals, which are related to loop performance, are given in, Table 4.1-1 Minimum Frequencies for Checks, Calibrations, and Test of Instruments.

Performance requirements for Reactor Protection System (Trip) instrument loops are described in detail in Section 2.0, SAFETY LIMITS AND LIMITING SAFETY SYSTEM requirements for Engineered Safety Features SETTINGS'erformance instruments is located in Table 3.5-4, ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURE ACTUATION SYSTEM INSTRUMENTATION SETPOINTS.

should be noted that both setpoints and "allowable values" It are given in this table. The term "allowable value" in this context is the same as "analytical limit".

Performance requirements for Radioactive Effluent Monitoring Instrumentation are stated in Table 3.5-5 and also in Section 3.9.1 Liquid Effluents, (3.9.1.1.a) and Section 3.9.2.3, Gaseous'Waste Treatment (3.9.2.7.6).

Performance requirements for Control Rod Position Indication Systems are stated in Section 3.10.5, Control Rod Position Indication Systems.

Page 9-3

Ginna Station UFSAR Section 7 of the Ginna UFSAR describes design bases for Reactor Protection System and Engineered Safety Feature instruments. Xnstrument loops which initiate Reactor Protection and Engineered Safety Feature Actuation actions can be identified functionally from Table 7.2-1, LIST FOR REACTOR TRIPg ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURES ACTUATION'ND CONTAINMENT XSOLATION. Interlocks associated with these loops are listed in Table 7.2-2, PERMISSIVE CIRCUXTS.

Performance requirements for Reactor Protection systems are described in Section 7.2 of the UFSAR.

Performance requirements for Engineered Safety Feature Actuation instruments are described in Section 7.3 of the UFSAR. Table 7.3-1, ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURES ACTUATION SYSTEM XNSTRUMENTATION TRIP SETPOINTS, is (or should be) identical with Tech Spec Table 3.5-4 discussed in 9.1.5.

Instrumentation for Safe Shutdown, and related performance requirements is discussed in Section 7.4 of the UFSAR.

Safe Shutdown instruments and locations are shown by transmitter number on Table 7.4-2, SAFE SHUTDOWN INSTRUMENTS.

Performance requirements for Safety Related Display Instrumentation are described in Section 7.5. This section discusses the RG&E position on R.G. 1.97 Rev. 3 (See 9 1.2) .

~

Performance requirements for certain Control Systems Not Required for Safety are described in Section 7.7.

Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs)

The "EOP Data Base" can be used to identify instrument loops with output, (indication) required by an EOP. Since EOPs were often written without reference to the accuracy of the available indicator, critical supplemental studies have been performed on certain loops to establish the performance requirements and relate these to the accuracy of the installed equipment. These studies are documented as, Design Analysis, "Calculation of EOP Footnotes", NSL-4173-014, EWR 4173, Rev. 1. This information should be referenced for applicable loops. For loops that have not been analyzed in this reference, some judgement regarding required accuracy may be necessary.

Other Documents For instrument loops installed after 1978, design criteria documentation was prepared which defined performance requirements.

Page 9-4

Loop specific regulatory performance requirements may exist. Where known these should be addressed.

9.2 Process Parameter Description and Instrument Loop Function In Section 5.1.2 of Attachment, A, describe the process parameter being measured and its anticipated range of values under normal, test (calibration), and accident conditions. Typical value(s) for the parameter during normal operation as well as the extremes of the "normal" operating range should be documented. Document the functions of the instrument loop in Sections 4.0 and 4.1 of Attachment A. Both control and protection modes of operation should be described even if evaluation of the control application is not currently under review. "Worst Case" bounding values should clearly be documented. Note that. the intent of this section is to describe the values that the parameter can "take on", not the parameter values (limits) which represent "safe operation". System "safe operating" limits are documented in the next section.

Description of System Limits In Section 5.1.3 of Attachment A, describe the limits which confine the process parameter (described in 9.2) to values which assure that no system design constraints (e.g.

Departure from Nucleate Boiling) are violated. These limits will be used in Section 10 of Appendix A to evaluate the instrument loop performance margin after uncertainties are accounted for; therefore the bases for the limit(s) must be clearly understood and documented. Any uncertainty or "fuzziness" "in these limits should be noted here, so that it can be considered in the final loop performance evaluation. Limits should be documented as "analytical",

"design", or "estimated design". These terms in Section 5.0 but require some elaboration. are defined Analytical Limit Safety analyses supporting "analytical limits" are performed using a variety of methods. Ideally the Safety Analysis demonstrates that when the process parameter reaches the limit, under specified conditions, a system design constraint violation occurs. Often however the analysis, such as an accident simulation, has been performed assuming a value for the limit; and the validity of the limit is based on the fact that constraints were violated during the simulation. noThedesign limit established using the latter approach can conservatively treated as however, if it would result in constraint violation, there is and obvious margin uncertainty be introduced.

9.2.1.2 Design Limit Page 9<<5

"Design limit" should be applied to those limits without a documented analytical basis, but which use an established value taken from an industry standard or from well established'vendor literature.

9.2.1.3 Estimated Design Limit "Estimated design limit" should be applied when bases for 9.2.1.1 or 9.2.1.2 are not available. That is, some limit must be provided to evaluate instrument performance and if no existing basis is available, "Estimated Design Limit" will be provided using the best anavailable system data.

9.3 Environmental Service Conditions In Section 5.2 of Appendix A the physical environment in which the instrument loop is installed, calibrated, and required to function is documented.

9 '.1 The Sensor Environment In Sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2, identify the sensor location and the environmental service conditions for calibration, normal operation, and if necessary, accident operation.

Section 3.11 of the Ginna UFSAR provides environmental data based on plant location. For EQ (50.49) sensors, the applicable EEQ-1 Form in the Ginna EQ File defines the bounding accident environmental conditions, and the EQ Block Diagram shows the location and associated equipment.

If any known localized environmental conditions, more severe than the general area ambient (hot spots) exist near the Sensor location, they are identified on the EQ Block Diagram.

9.3.2 Associated Equipment Environments 9-3.2.1 Associated Equipment in Harsh Environment If equipment other than the sensor is EQ (50.49) (e.g.

cable, splices, connectors and penetrations) identified on the EQ Block Diagram for the loop. The it is diagram identifies the boundary between harsh and mild environments. Document harsh environment conditions, temperature, pressure, humidity and chemical spray, in Section 5.2.4.2 of Appendix A.

9 '.2 ' Associated Equipment in Mild Environments If equipment is not designated EQ (50.49), it is considered subject to mild environment only. Temperature, radiation if above background (otherwise indicate "background"),"and humidity ranges should be documented in Section 5.2.4.1 of Appendix A.

Page 9-6

10.0 DESCRIPTION

OF THE EXISTING INSTRUMENT LOOP CONFIGURATION The intent of this section is to provide direction for documenting the configuration, operation, and calibration of the installed instrument loop, including applicable dimensional information, equipment capability and range data, environmental performance data and test reports, and calibration and maintenance procedures. This data will be used in Section 7.0 of Appendix A to compare the capability of the installed loop with the performance requirements documented in Section 6.0 of Appendix A.

Uncertainty data will be documented in Section 8.9'~gOQ t." c~e~n&4AQ 10 ' Process Measurement Data 10.2.1 Primary Element Information If the orifice instrument loop has a primary element such as an or plate differential producer for flow measurement, identify the manuf acturer, model number, size and specif ications for the element.(@~jTh'e!',":;.;.'4IAf t Be'siq5::;:,:;:.':.::::.'::;fiick'lysis,"I "Flow Measuring Element Techni.cal yw'e,'. uceil:,""'THe ups ream an ownstream pi.ping configurations should be reviewed for conformance with good design practice.

Document this information in Section 6.1.1 of Attachment A.

10.2.2 Sensor Data Document the sensor's manufacturer and model number in Section 6.1.2.1 of Attachment A. Also list the vendor's published range and span limits of the sensor, including engineering units. The range should be obtained from vendor data sheets or manuals. The span should be obtained from the calibration procedure. Span and range are documented in 6.1.2.2 of Appendix A.

10.2.3 Sensor Environmental Limits For EQ (50.40) Sensors, using appropriate EEQ-1s, review the environmental limits within which the instrument is qualified to function. This information, should include pressures, temperatures, radiation, chemical sprays, Page 10-1

humidity, and any associated time periods. Any assumptions or conditions specified by the vendor for operating within a harsh environment should also be documented. This information is already available in the EQ file, and is summarized on the EEQ-1 form for the sensor. It is reviewed and documented here to assure a complete description of instrument loop performance in the Attachment A checklist.

All other sensors (located in a mild environment) shall be reviewed for temperature effects only, unless the available vendor information identifies additional environmental constraints. This information should be entered in Section 6.1.3 of Attachment A.

10.2.4 Environmental Limits on Associated Equipment.

Review the EQ Block Diagram for the instrument loop to assure that cable, splices, connectors, penetrations, and any other equipment associated with the sensor and subject to harsh environment are shown and referenced to appropriated EQ package. Document the EQ Block Diagram number in Section 6.1.4 of Attachment A.

For instrument loops subject only to mild environment no review of associated equipment is required unless special environmental constraints exist.

10.3 Documentation of Signal Conditioning and Output Equipment 10.3.1 Signal Conditioning/Output Device Information.

For each device within the scope of the analysis provide the manufacturer and model number. Document the range of the component from vendor data. From the calibration procedure, provide the span, setpoint and/or reset point.

The above information should be entered in Section 6.2.1 of Attachment A.

10 ' Scaling Scaling is the process of modifying a primary measurement signal to achieve a desired input-output response, appropriate to a specific application, from the in fluid systems), functus.onal conversion to provide a linear output from a nonlinear input (e.g. taking the square root of differential pressure to provide a linear output proportional to flow rate), compensation for other types of nonlinear detector response, temperature, correction, compensation for density and pressure Page 10-2

effects, and engineering unit conversions.

includes the algebraic methods used to combine inputs It also from more than one sensor to provide a single output.

Reference 25 "NRC Information Notice 91-75", notes that a number of cases of incorrect static head compensation have been found in calibration procedures recently.

Special attention should be placed on this correction when applicable.

In Section 6.3 of Attachment A, provide a description of, the way the process parameter, documented in 'Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 of Attachment A is measured and processed to produce an output appropriate to the application and P, " I" " Qi:,":::.i,,,i:...,:,,:, .'i!,::,:;,,-,: ".i,.":,i,,',-ll,'",4%

Provide information in Section 6.1.1 of Attachment A, Primary Element Information and 6.1.2 of Attachment A, Sensor Information, as appropriate.

Describe any compensation required due to sensor or associated equipment location with respect to the process parameter or to environmental effects.

Reference should be made to existing studies of certain systems such as the Reactor Vessel Level Monitor, where scaling processes have been documented in detail, when available.

Documentation of Uncertainty Data This section provides direction for documenting instrument error data to be entered in Sections 8.1 through 8.8 of Attachment A. These data will be utilized in Section 10.0 of Attachment A to calculate total loop uncertainty.

Accident Uncertainty These errors, random and biasing, are addressed only for EQ (50.49) equipment. Harsh environment (accident) effects on most EQ instrument loops are analyzed in Generic Reference 17, "Integrated System Performance Page 10-3

Analysis", Attachment B performed by EPM. This study is based on detailed review of test report data in the Ginna EQ File. Random and biasing errors are calculated for sensors and associated equipment. These studies should be utilized for accident error data on instrument loops to which they apply.

Estimates of non-accident related error where made in these studies to provide a reasonable basis for evaluating instrument loop performance during the Design Basis Event. The non-accident error estimates should not be used in this analysis.

In some cases EOP studies, Generic Reference 9, Attachment B, also calculated or obtained accident errors. These values should be reviewed for consistency.

When error data is obtained from EQ tests performed in accordance with IEEE 323-1974, it is not normally possible to resolve the uncertainty into separate temperature, pressure, radiation, and steam/spray effects. A combined accident error is used in this case.

The random component of this error is called "combined random accident effect" (Crae) and the systematic or biasing error is called "accident bias" (AB). When the Crae is used there will be no "separate effects" uncertainty. These data are entered in Section 8.1.1 of Attachment A.

Accident related uncertainties produced in equipment associated with the sensor (cable, splices, penetrations) are assumed to be due to current leakage only. The associated equipment is identified on the EQ Block Diagram, as discussed in Section 9.3.2. Leakage effects are modeled and calculated in Generic Reference 17, Attachment B. Current leakage biases the instrument loop output in one direction, but the magnitude depends on unpredictable accident conditions and must therefore be assumed to vary from zero to the calculated maximum.

Both extremes should be considered. The maximum accident leakage bias error is entered in Section 8.2 of Attachment A.

The seismic performance requirements for Ginna instruments are discussed in Section 9.1.4. Seismic uncertainty data and calculations will be documented for potential use during A-46 resolution. The main use of seismic uncertainty data at this time is to provide reasonable assurance of instrument loop seismic integrity. Seismic error may be principally due to the sensor or may in some cases involve rack and output device effects. These data are entered in Section 8.2 of Page 10-4

J Attachment A.

10.5.2 Non Accident Uncertainty 10.5.2.1 Process Measurement Uncertainty Based on the data from 5.1.2 of Attachment A, provide an uncertainty estimate for the state of the measured parameter. Possible ranges of temperature, pressure, chemical composition, and flow rate should be considered.

If more than one effect is present, use subscripts.

If a primary element is be listed in the data present, the uncertainty should sheet. Record these data in Section 8.3 of Attachment A.

10.5.2.2 Measurement and Test Equipment Uncertainty The accuracy of sensor and rack equipment calibration is limited by the accuracy of the equipment used to perform the calibration procedure. The measurement and test equipment used to calibrate the instrument, loop is listed in the calibration procedure(s). Obtain the test equipment accuracy from Generic Reference 23, Test Instrument Calibration Procedures (TICP's). The appropriate TICP's should be referenced in the Calibration Procedure. Test instrument manufacturer data should be reviewed to assure that the equipment. is capable of the accuracy required by the TICP. If several test equipment items are involved appropriate subscripts should be used. Use the same rules for combining test equipment error as are used for the instrument loop itself. Record these data in Section 8.4 of Attachment A.

10.5.2.3 Rack Equipment Uncertainty The accuracy of rack mounted equipment in the instrument loop should be obtained from manufacturer's information or individual component calibration procedures.

If the output device is an indicator or recorder, the readability should be documented as a Rack Miscellaneous Effect. The readability of an analog indicator/recorder is based on the interval between scale demarcations. The indicator/recorder scale demarcations and calibrated span define the readability of the device.

It is important to differentiate between the readability of the indicator/recorder for calibration purposes and its readability during operation. When calibrating an Page,10-5

indicator/recorder, an input test signal will be provided by M&TE and the "output" will be directly read from the indicator/recorder. No additional M&TE is required.

This output is aligned on the scale demarcations during the calibration process. Thus, the readability of the indicator/recorder during calibration are the same as for a separate piece of M&TE if one were used. This readability is a part of the calibration, just like any other calibration, and is typically a part of the M&TE uncertainty or calibration tolerance.

For an indicator/recorder, however, there is a separate readability that must be included for its use by an operator.

For Ginna, the readability is defined as one half of the smallest scale increment or 1% full scale, whichever is greater.

RE = 1/2 smallest scale demarcation Sensor Uncertainty The sensor uncertainty should be obtained from manufacturer's literature. Zf separate effects such as linearity, hysteresis, or repeatability are listed, they may be appropriately combined, with the separate effect uncertainties documented in a note, or documented separately using subscripts, in Section 8.6 of Attachment A.

Non accident temperature effects on the sensor that are not compensated for in the instrument design or scaling should be documented in Section 8.6 of Attachment A. Any design features which compensate for temperature uncertainty (e.g. 4 wire RTD circuits) should be briefly described in a footnote.

Most sensor designs are stabilized against small variations in power supply voltage. This feature also provides flexibility in adding or removing loads in the instrument loops (e.g. bistables). When such features eliminate sensor power supply effects, provide a short description of the design feature and the associated load limits. An appropriate reference can be used also.

Power supply effects are documented in Section 8.6 of Attachment A.

Account for other uncertainties (such as construction tolerances) which produce errors in Section 8.6 of Attachment A.

Page 10-6

10.5.2.5 Drift Tolerance The expected or allowable time dependent change in instrument calibration during the calibration interval for sensors and rack mounted equipment should be obtained from the calibration'rocedure and documented in Section 8.7 of Attachment A. When no allowable drift is specified in the calibration procedure vendor information or plant maintenance history may be used.

10.5.2.6 Tolerance Uncertainty The calibration procedures for sensors and rack mounted equipment provide tolerance bands to reduce calibration time as much as possible within the loop accuracy requirements. This tolerance band represents a random error and should be documented in Section 8.8 of Attachment A.

Page 10-7

11.0 EVALUATION OF THE EXISTING INSTRUMENT LOOP CONFIGURATION AGAINST DOCUMENTED PERFORMANCE Section 9.0 addresses documenting the performance requirements for the instrument loop and Section 10.0 addresses documenting the existing instrument loop design. This section addresses comparing the information from these two sections. Portions of the existing calibration procedure will be reviewed. The remaining portions of the calibration procedure, related to the setpoints, are addressed in Sections 12.0 and 13.0 of this document.

11. 1 Evaluating the Loop's Configuration

11. 1. 1 Conformance with Performance Requirments Review the performance requirements documented per Section 9.1 for the instrument loop. Compare these to the existing design, documented per Section 10, to ensure that all of the criteria are addressed and met.

After all performance requirments are evaluated, provide a conclusive statement as to whether the existing design meets the requirments. Identify any requirements that are not met. Document the evaluation in Section 7.1.1 of Attachment A.

11. 1.2 Performance of Safety Related and Safety Significant Functions Review the required Safety Related and Safety.

Significant functions (protection, control, indication) of the loop documented in Sections 4.0 and 4.1 of Attachment A. Compare these functions to the existing loop design to ensure that all functions are achieved.

Document the evaluation in Section 7.1.2 of Attachment A.

11 '.3 , Consistency of Instrument Loop Documentation In Section 7.1.3 of Attachment A, describe documentation consistency.

11 ' Evaluating the Loop Measurement Capability 11.2.1 Evaluating the Range/Span Sections 10.2.2 and 10.3.1 of this document the range and span of the sensor and other loop components.

Page 11-1

Section 9.2.1 of this document addresses the limits that apply to this loop. Ensure that the calibrated spans of the sensor and the appropriate output devices (indicators, recorders, computer inputs, etc.) envelope all of the specified limit's. Document this evaluation in Section 7.2.1 of Attachment A.

Evaluating Setpoints and Indicated Values In Section 7.2.2 of Attachment A, document the setpoint and indicated value with respect to span. In Section 7.2.3 document the units of measure.

Evaluating the Calibration Reviewing the Calibrated Components Review the calibration procedure(s) for the loop and ensure that each applicable component is properly calibrated. This calibration should include the sensor, all safety related output devices, and other applicable intermediate components (power supplies, comparators, etc.).

The calibration data specified in the Calibration Procedure shall be verified by calculation to be consistent with the existing system design. This includes range, span, gain and bias (scaling), and time constants for dynamic compensation.

Document this review in Section 7.3.1 of Attachment A.

Reviewing the Primary Element Section 10.2.1 of this document addresses the primary element. Ensure that the primary element is adequately sized for its application. Ensure the sensor's calibration properly reflects the output of the primary element.

Document this review in Section 7.3.2 of Attachment A.

Reviewing the Direction of Interest The calibration procedure should exercise the instrument loop, as a minimum, in the direction of interest. The calibration may be conducted in both directions. For instrument loops with both a setpoint and a reset point, the calibration should be conducted in both directions.

Document this review in Section 7.3.3 of Attachment A.

Page 11-2

11.3.4 Evaluating Scaling Assure that any scaling equations and constants addressed in Section 10.4.1 are included in the calibration procedure and are consistent with the existing system performance requirements. Document general scaling information in 7.3.4 of Attachment A.

11.3.5 Evaluating Scaling (Correction Factors)

Static head correction is identified as a frequently overlooked factor in NRC Information Notice 91-75.

Document, this and similar "correction" factors, separate from other scaling equations in Section 7.3.5 of Attavhment A.

Page 11<<3

EVALUATION OF LOOP UNCERTAINTY This section provides direction for combining and evaluating the uncertainty data obtained in accordance with Section 10.5, and documented in Sections 8.0 to 8.8 of Attachment A.'nless a bias is demonstrated in the uncertainty data, the documented error is assumed to be random, and approximately normally distributed with zero mean and standard deviation equal to one half the documented error. This corresponds to assuming that error data (from vendors, test reports, etc.) is at least two standard deviations. These assumptions provide the basis for combining error data using the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method. This method is based on the fact that the sum of normally distributed random variables (errors in our case) is itself normally distributed random variable (error), with variance (standard deviation squared) equal to the sum of the individual term variances. When loop outputs are functions other than sums (typically square roots in flow of terms, the resulting output is no longer 'easurement) normally distributed. The error combining methods of Reference 7.4 should be used for these measurements with the knowledge that they are based on expansions which assume that the error is "small" compared with the magnitude of the parameter. Some judgement is therefore required using this methodology.

Process Measurement Uncertainty (PMU)

As documented in Section 8.3 of Attachment A, the PMU is composed of one or more process measurement accuracies (Pma) combined using SRSS, and if a primary element is present, a primary element is present, a primary element accuracy (Pea). These are combined using SRSS, and documented in Section 9.1 of Attachment A.

Measurement and Test Equipment Uncertainty As documented in Section 8.4 of Attachment A, the individual MGTEU data are combined using SRSS. Document this in Section 9.2 of Attachment A using separate sensor (Sce) and Rack Equipment (Rce) terms combined using SRSS.

Accident Sensor Environmental Uncertainty Pipe Breaks (AEUp)

Combine the random accident error terms using SRSS necessary and add or subtract the accident bias (AB) as if appropriate. Document in Section 9.3 of Attachment A.

Seismic Events (AEUs)

Page 12-1

Combine seismic errors if necessary using SRSS. Document in Section 9.3 of Attachment A.

Accident Current Leakage Uncertainty (CLU)

All current leakage terms are biasing errors and are combined algebraically. Document in Section 9.4 of Attachment A.

Rack Equipment Uncertainty (REU)

Combine terms using SRSS and document in Section 9.5 of Attachment A.

Sensor Uncertainty (SU)

Combine terms using SRSS and document in Section 9.6 of Attachment A.

Drift Uncertainty (DU)

Combine terms using SRSS and document in Section 9.7 of Attachment A.

Tolerance Uncertainty (TU)

Combine terms using SRSS and document in Section 9.8 of Attachment A.

Total Loop Uncertainty Using the methods in Reference 7.4, Section 6.3, calculate the total loop uncertainty and document in Section 9.9 of Attachment A. Note the LU and AB are biasing terms which may produce opposing effects. The bias terms should be combined in a way that produces the "worst case" error(s).

The form of the total loop uncertainty function is dependent on the scaling processes addressed in Section 10.4 and documented in Section 6.3 of Attachment A.

Comparison of Reference Accuracy with Calibration Tolerance Xn Section 9.10 of Attachment A document the data showing that the calibration tolerances for components in the instrument loop are larger than the corresponding reference accuracies.

Page 12-2

13. 0 SETPOINT EVALUATION 13 ~ 1 Assigning Limits to Output Devices r

Section 9.2.1 of this procedure addresses the limits associated with the instrument loop. The limits are documented in Section 5.1.3 of Attachment A. Pair these limits with the corresponding output devices which prevent the limit from being exceeded. Document the output device/limit pairs in Section 10.1 of Attachment A.

13.2 Evaluating the Setpoint(s) 13.2. 1 Total Loop Uncertainty Obtain the total loop uncertainty (TLU), addressed in the previous section, from Section 9.9 of Attachment A.

13 ~ 2 ~ 2 Evaluation of Existing Setpoint Using Total Loop Uncertainty 13.2.2.1 To determine the maximum or minimum acceptable instrument setpoint, the total'oop uncertainty (TLU) is subtracted from or added to the limit (analytical, design, or estimated design) depending on whether the setpoint actuation occurs on an increasing or decreasing process parameter.

For an increasing process parameter setpoint actuation:

maximum acceptable setpoint = limit TLU For a decreasing process parameter setpoint actuation:

minimum acceptable setpoint = limit + TLU 13.2.2.2 Using the Total Loop Uncertainty, determine whether the existing setpoint is adequate to prevent system parameters from exceeding (high or low) documented analytical or design limits. In some cases there may not be a documented analytical or this occurs, reasonable assumptionsdesign limit. When may be made. For example the instrument loop uncertaintyassumed in original accident analyses, might be used to establish an "Estimated Design Limit" (EDL). The setpoint adequacy can then be determined from the equations:

Page 13-1

increasing process parameter setpoint:

setpoint < maximum acceptable setpoint decreasing process parameter setpoint:

setpoint > minimum acceptable setpoint Comparison of Existing Setpoint With Technical Specification Allowable Values If the calculation results are not consistent with the Technical Specification values, or other performance requirements documented in Section 5.0 of Attachment A, take appropriate corrective action based on the Ginna Station QA Manual.

Page 13-2

CONCLUSION Within the Conclusion Section, Section 12 of Attachment A,. summarize the overall results of the instrument's evaluation. Discuss whether or not the instrument."s present design and use meets the documented performance requirements. Also, state whether or not the existing calibration procedure(s) support the instrument loop functions. Identify any necessary changes to the calibration procedure and/or to the instrument's design. The discussion shall only address necessary changes. Suggestions for improvement should be documented in a separate report.

Within the discussion of any proposed include a well defined basis for why the change change, is needed. This basis shall include the potential consequences of not performing the change and any alternative measures that could be performed instead. Mark-ups of the calibration procedures, ILWDS, or other documents should be used as necessary to support the discussion.

These shall be included as attachments to this checklist and referenced within the discussion.

Page 14-1

ATTACHMENT A INSTRUMENT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND SETPOINT VERIFICATION

Design Analysis Ginna Station Instrument Loop Performance Evaluation and Setpoint Verification Instrument Loop Number (

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649 DA EE -21 Revision

( Date )

EWR 5126 Prepared by:

Instrument Performance Verification Date Engineer Reviewed by:

Instrument Performance Verification Date Project Manager Reviewed by:

Nuclear Safety 6 Licensing Date Approved by:

Manager, Electrical Engineering Date

NUCLEAR SAFETY & LICENSING INQUIRY DATA BLOCK Changed or new equipment/system information Safety Review requires copy to Ginna below.

if any box is checked Class From By GMEDB NS&L Re uires Co to Ginna. Check a licable box ~See 1 ~YN Setpoints See(g2)

(Instrument, Relief Valve, Time Delay, Other)

Operating Parameter See(g2)

(Flow, Pressure, Temperature, Volume, Other)

Operational Restrictions See(83)

UFSAR changes are required See(g4)

Section(s)

NOTES:

($ 1) If any box is checked, consult the GMEDB records to determine the component safety class, then enter "SR" Safety Related, or "SS" if Safety Significant or "NSR" if if Non-Safety Related.

(g2) If If Safety Class is "SR" or "SS" review by NS&L is required.

box is checked, review by NS&L is required.

(g3)

(g4) Responsible NES Engineer shall complete the UFSAR section.

If UFSAR changes are required, review by NS&L is required.

EWR 512 6 Design Analysis Revision DA EE -21 Date Page i

DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA FORM PLANT SYSTEMS AND STRUCTURES LIST (Ref. 2.3; PSSL Numeric Identifiers)

KEY WORDS:

CROSS REFERENCED TO:

SUPERSEDED REFERENCE DATA:

EIN DESIGNATORS(S):

ERR S12 6 Design Analysis Revision DA EE -21 Date Page ii

REVISION STATUS SHEET Page Latest Revision Page Latest Revision ERR 512 6 Design Ana1ysis Revision DA EE -21 Date Page iii

0 INSTRUMENT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND SETPOINT VERIFICATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Instrument Loop Identification 1.0 Purpose 2.0 References 3.0 Assumptions 4.0 Block Diagram and Scope of Analysis 5.0 Instrument Loop Performance Requirements Description of the Existing Instrument Loop Configuration 7 ' Evaluation of the Existing Instrument Loop Configuration Against Documented Performance Requirements 8.0 Evaluation of Loop Uncertainties 9.0 Loop Uncertainty Calculation 10.0 Setpoint Evaluations 11.0 Conclusion Attachment A Open Items List Attachment B Selected References ERR 5'126 Design Analysis Revision DA EE -21 Date Page iv

INSTRUMENT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND SETPOINT VERIFICATION Instrument Loop Identification Calibration Procedure No:

==

Description:==

The Instrument Performance Evaluation and Setpoint Verification of the following equipment will be performed by this document:

2 ~

3.

4.

ERR 5126 Desi.gn Analysis Revision DA EE -21 Date Page 1

1.0 Purpose Provide a brief description of the reason for preparing the calculation specific to the loop being evaluated.

2.0 References List all of the references used in the Setpoint Verification Evaluation specific to the loop being evaluated.

3.0 Assumptions List all assumptions that were made to perform the calculation specific to the loop being evaluated.

4.0 Block Diagram and Scope of Analysis Provide a Block Diagram of the specific loop being evaluated 4.1 Description of Functions Making reference to the Block Diagram, describe the instrument loop functions that are within the scope of the analysis using the format below.

4.1.1 Protection Describe any loop functions that input to the Reactor Protection and Engineered Safety Features Actuation Systems.

4.1.2 Control Describe any loop control functions that are within the scope of the analysis. Describe loop control functions not within the scope to the extent necessary to justify exclusion.

4.1.3 Indication Describe loop functions that produce indications that are within the scope of the analysis (e.g. RG 1.97 and EOPs).

Reference existing EOP studies where available. List indication not within scope.

ERR 5126 Design Analysis Revision DA EE -21 Date Page 2

5.0 Instrument Loop Performance Requirements 5.1 Documenting the Design Requirements for Monitoring the Process Parameter 5.1.1 Identify Performance Related Design Bases Associated with the Instrument Loop:

Safety Classification (SR/SS/NS) as documented in the Ginna Q-list.

NUREG 0737/RG 1.97 as documented in Table 7.5-1, of the Ginna UFSAR.

EQ ( per the 10 CFR 50.49 list )

Seismic Category (Seismic Category 1/ Structual Integrity Only / NS)

Tech Spec UFSAR EOP other 5.1.2 Description of Process Parameter:

Under normal conditions:

Under test conditions:

Under accident conditions (which accidents?):

EWR 5126 Design Analysis Revision DA EE -21 Date Page 3

5.1.3 Description of Limits Limits ~Te Ref Section EWR 5126 Design Analysis Revision DA EE -21 Date Page 4

e 1

I

(

5.2 Documenting the Environmental Conditions Associated With the Process Parameter 5.2.1 Identification of the Sensor Location:

5.2.2 Description of Environmental Service Conditions for the Sensor:

5.2 '.1 Normal 5.2 '.1.1 Normal Operation 5.2.2.1.2 During Calibration 5.2.2.2 Accident 5.2.3 Identification of Other Components Locations:

5.2.4 Description of Environmental Service Conditions for Other Components:

5~2~4~1 Normal 5.2 '.1.1 Normal Operation 5.2.4.1.2 During Calibration 5.2.4.2 Accident ERR 5126 Design Analysis Revision DA EE -21 Date Page 5

6.0 Description of the Ezisting Instrument Loop Configuration 6.1 Summary of Process Measurement 6.1.1 Primary Element Information Manufacturer/Model No.

Size Specifications Ref. Section Piping Configuration/Element Description Ref. Section 6.1.2 Sensor Information 6.1.2.1 Manufacturer/Model No.

Ref. Section 6.1.2.2 Sensor Range Ref. Sec.

Sensor Span Ref. Sec.

ERR 5126 Design Analysis Revision DA EE -21 Date Page 6

(

6.1.3 Sensor Environmental Limits:

Press Ref. Sec.

Temp. Ref. Sec.

Radiation Ref. Sec.

Humidity Ref. Sec.

6.1.4 Associated Equipment Environmental Limits:

Reference the appropriate EQ Block Diagram.

EQ Block Diagram 6.2 Summary of Signal Conditioning and Output Devices:

6.2.1 Signal Conditioning/Output Device Information:

6.2.1.1 Ta T e Ref Sec 6.2.1.2 Tac~ ~S an Set oint Reset Pt Ref Sec 6.3 Sealing 6.3.1 Performing the Conversions:

Describe the conversion performed by the instrument loop from the sensor input to the appropriate loop outputs and quantify the calculated biases and gains for each applicable component.

EWR 5126 Design Analysis Revision DA EE -21 Date Page 7

' Evaluation of Existing Instrument Loop Configuration

~ 7 Against Documented Performance Requirements, F 1 Evaluating the Loop Configuration 7.1.1 Compliance with Design Basis Performance Requirements:

Does the existing design conform to the design basis performance requirements identified in Section 5.1.1 of this checklist?

Explain:

7.1.2 Performance of Safety Related or Safety Significant Functions:

Can the existing loop adequately perform each of its Safety Related or Safety Significant functions (protection, control, and/or indication)?

Explain:

7.1.3 Evaluating the Consistency of Instrument Loop Documentation Is the loop configuration shown in the calibration procedure(s) consistent with the applicable design drawing(s)? Are component manufacturers and model numbers documented in the calibration procedure consistent with those shown on applicable design drawings? If significant inconsistencies exist, has reasonable assurance of the actual configuration been established? Have appropriate notifications been made regarding drawing changes?

ERR 5126 Design Analysis Revision DA EE -21 Date Page 8

7.2 Evaluating the Loop's Measurement Capability 7.2.1 Evaluating the Range/Span:

Is the calibrated span of the sensor and indication devices (indicators, recorders, computer output points) broad enough to envelope all of the limits in Section 5.1.3 of this checklist?

Explain:

7.2.2 Evaluating the Setpoints and Indicated Values vs. the Span:

Are setpoints located within the instrument span in a way that assures reasonable accuracy for the critical instrument loop functions.

Explain:

7.2.3 Reviewing the, Units of Measure:

Are the units for the indicated values shown within the calibration procedures consistent with the EOPs?

Explain:

7.3 Evaluating the Calibration 7.3.1 Reviewing the Calibrated Components:

Is every applicable component and output calibrated?

Explain:-

7.3.2 Reviewing the Primary Element:

Does the calibration of the sensor properly reflect the sizing of the primary element?

Explain:

EWR 5126 Design Analysis Revision DA EE -21 Date Page 9

7.3.3 Reviewing the Direction of Interest:

Does the calibration procedure exercise the components in the direction of interest?

Explain:

7.3.4 Evaluating Scaling:

Are the scaling equations and constants described in Section 6.3 of this checklist consistent with the existing system performance requirements.

Explain:

7.3.5 Evaluating Scaling (Calibration Correction Factors):

Describe any calibration corrections used to account for process, environmental, installation effects or for any special design features employed by the instrument. These include corrections within the calibration process for elevation, static head, density, calibration temperatures, etc. Ensure any effect not accounted for by the calibration process is included within the determination of the total loop uncertainty.

EWR 5126 Design Analysis Revision DA EE -21 Date Page 10

8.0 Documentation of Loop Uncertainties 8.1 Documenting the Components of Sensor Accident Uncertainty (AEUp and AEUs) 8.1.1 Pipe Breaks Accident Effect Uncertainty Ref/Section Temperature Effect(Te)

Pressure Effect(Pe)

Radiation Effect(Re)

Steam/Chem Spray(S/Ce)

Combined Random Accident Effect(Crae)

(per IEEE 323 tests)

Accident Bias(AB) 8.1.2 Seismic Event Seismic Effect Uncertainty Ref/Section Sensor Rack Output Device 8.2 Documenting the Components of the Accident Current Leakage Effect (CLU)

Associated Equipment Uncertainty Ref/Section Accident Effects Cable Leakage(Cl)

Splice Leakage(Sl)

Penetration Leakage (Pl)

ERR 5126 Design Analysis Revision DA EE -21 Date Page 11

e Term Block Leakage(TB1)

Conduit Seal Leakage (CS1) 8.3 Documenting the Components of Process Measurement Uncertainty (PMU)

Uncertainty Ref/Section Process Measurement Accuracy(Pma)

Primary Element Accuracy(Pea) 8.4 Documenting Measurement and Test Equipment Uncertainty (M&TEU)

Uncertainty Ref/Section Sensor Calibration Effect(Sce)

Rack Equipment Calibration Effect(Rce) 8.5 Documenting Rack Equipment Uncertainty (REU) '

Uncertainty Ref/Section Rack Equipment Accuracy(Rea)

Rack Temperaure Effect(Rte)

Rack Power Supply Effect(Rpse)

Rack Miscellaneous Effect(Rme)

ERR 5126 Design Analysis Revision DA EE -21 Date Page 12

8.6 Documenting Sensor Uncertainty (SU)

Uncertainty Ref/Section Sensor Accuracy(Sa)

Sensor Static Pressure Effect(Sspe)

Sensor Temperature Effect(Ste)

Sensor Power Supply Effect(Spse)

Sensor Miscellaneous Effect(Sme) 8.7 Documenting Drift Uncertainty (DU)

Uncertainty Ref/Section Sensor Drift(Sd)

Rack Equipment Drift.(Red) 8.8 Documenting Tolerance Uncertainty (TU)

Uncertainty Ref/Section Sensor Tolerance(St)

Rack Equipment Tolerance(Ret)

EWR 5126 Design Analysis Revision DA EE -21 Date Page 13

9.0 Loop Uncertainty Evaluation 9.1 Process Measurement Uncertainty (PMU)

PMT = (Pma) +(Pea) 9.2 Measurement and Test Equipment Uncertainty (MRTEU)

HTEU = (Sce) + (Rce) 9.3 Determining the Accident Sensor Environmental Uncertainties (AEU)

For Pipe Breaks:

AEUp = (Te) + (Re) + (Pe)

II

+ (S/Ce) + ~

or AEUp = Crae + AB For Seismic Events:

AEUs = Se 9.4 Accident Current Leakage Effect (CLU)

CLU = Cl + Sl + Pl + TB1 + Csl 9.5 Rack Equipment Uncertainty (REU) 2 REU = (Rea) + (Rbe) ~ + (Rpse) ~ + (Rme) 2 The miscellaneous errors must be confirmed by the engineer to be random and independent.

EMR 5126 Design Analysis Revision DA EE-92, -2 1 Date Page 14

9.6 Sensor Uncertainty (SU)

SV = (Sa) + (Supe) + (Ste) + (Spec) + (Sme) 9.7 Drift Uncertainty (DU)

DV = (Sd) + (Red) 9.8 Tolerance Uncertainty (TU)

TV = (St:) ~ + (Ret) ~

ERR 5126 Design Analysis Revision DA EE -21 Date Page 15

9.9 Calculating the Total Loop Uncertainties Provide the total loop uncertainty (TLU) for each end device for normal, seismic and accident conditions as applicable.

Output Device TLU f( LUg ABI AEVI PMUI M&TEUg REU/ SUI DU~ TU)

Where:

TLUs The Total Loop Uncertainty Seismic TLUa The Total Loop Uncertainty Accident LU Current Leakage Uncertainty AEUs Accident Environmental Uncertainty (Seismic)

AEUp Accident Environmental Uncertainty (Pipe Break)

PMU Process Measurement Uncertainty REU Rack Equipment Uncertainty SU Sensor Uncertainty DU Drift Uncertainty TU Tolerance Uncertainty AB Accident Bias M&TEU Measurement and Test Equipment Uncertainty 9.10 Comparing the Reference Accuracy vs. the Calibration Tolerance From the calibration procedure(s), identify the calibration tolerance associated with each component. Next, obtain the reference accuracy associated with each component.

Translate both effects into the equivalent units. Ensure that the calibration tolerance is greater than or equal to the reference accuracy for each component.

EWR 5126 Design Analysis Revision DA EE -21 Date Page 16

10.0 Setpoint Evaluations 10.1 Assigning the Limits:

For each instrument function, identify the associated limits from 5.1.3 of this checklist.

Out ut Device Limit Value T e of Limit 10.2 Evaluating the Setpoint(s):

Compare the existing setpoint, reset point or indicated value within the calibration procedure with the maximum or minimum acceptable setpoint.

Out ut Device Set t INC DEC Acce tbl Set t 10.3 Verifying the Adequacy of the Allowable Tolerance Band:

For each component, calculate .the maximum as-found and as-left value lmits. Compare these to the existing allowable tolerance band presently within the calibration procedure.

11. 0 Conclusion ERR 5126 Design Analysis Revision DA EE -21 Date Page 17

Attachment A Open Items List Attachment B Selected References ERR 5126 Design Analysis Revision DA EE -21 Date Page 18

ATTACHMENT B Organization of Data and Documentation Support for Instrument Loop Performance and setpoint Verification Documentation and data to support project calculations being performed by the contractor will be furnished in either of two ways. "Generic" data and documentation, applicable to a number of the instrument loops or the associated plant systems, will be provided at near the start of project activity. This data and documentation is contained in existing reports, files, or packages that can be identified, segregated, and transmitted without reference to a specific instrument loop. Instrument loop "specific" data and documentation (not contained in the "generic" packages) will be identified by RG&E Engineering in a "pre-calculation" review of each instrument loop being analyzed. These reviews will be performed, and identified data and documentation transmitted to the contractor (Cygna, Boston), in advance of the contractors work start on the applicable instrument loop t calculations.

The following tables groups. These tables list the data and documents in each of the may be revised as the project advances.

Page B-1

"Generic" documents to be supplied to Cygna for general reference.

Generic Reference Document Date Sent Initials Comments Ginna Technical Specifications

2. Ginna .UFSAR 3 ~ Foxboro BD Series Dwgs:

RPS & Process Control Block Diag.

4 ~ Foxboro CD Series Dwgs:

RPS & Process Control Connection Diag.

5. Fox 1, Fox 2, Fox 3, RVLMSlg RVLMS2g SAFW Cab. Dwgs.

6. Foxboro PSS 9-1B1A NE-10 Series Transmitters

7. Foxboro PSS 9-1A1A 820 Series Transmitters

8. Foxboro WAPD Manual (First Three Vols.)

and System Inst. Man.

9. Design Analysis, "Calculation of EOP Footnotes," NSL-4173-014, EWR 4173, Rev. 1

10. Index (CPs only)

'rocedure P&IDs (complete set)

12. CCD Index

13. Instrument Index (4 DELETED Vols.)

14. "P" Series Procedures (Precautions &

Limitations)

15. W PWR Training Manual 16 RG&E Training Dept.

'7 System Descriptions

~ Integrated System Performance Analyses for Harsh Environment Effects.

18 Foxboro SPEC 200 Manual (4 volumes)

Page B-2

Generic Reference Document Date Sent, Initials Comments

19. Foxboro (SPEC 200)

Nuclear Qualification Doc. (7 volumes)

20. EOP Setpoint Data Base J

21. Ginna Station QA Manual, Appendix E, Attachment 1

22. Instrument Loop Wiring Diagrams (ILWDs) (Set)

23. Test Instrument Calibration Procedures (TICPs) (Complete Set)

24. RG&E Submittal to NRC, 3/13/92, NUREG 0737/RG 1.97:Comparison of Ginna Post Accident Instr.

25. NRC Information Notice 91-75: Static Head Corrections in Pressure Transmitter Cal. Proc.

26. NRC Information Notice 92-12: Effects of Cable Leakage on Instrument Settings and Indications

27. NRC Information Notice 91-52: Non Cons. Errors in Overtemp Del. T Caused by Improp. Gain also IEN 91-52 Sl and RGE response 28 RG&E Dwg 03201-0102 R1 Also RO Inst. Bus Single Line colored

'9.

RG&E Dwg 33013-652 R12 480V One Line Diag.

30 ~ RG&E Design Analysis Also EWR (DRAFT),"Flow Measuring 5085ME-1 Element Tech. Eval." Rev 0 8/32/92 Loop or System "unique" documents 1~ Calibration Procedure(s) 2~

3 ~

Applicable Instrument Loop Wiring Diagram (ILWD) if it exists.

Component vendor manuals not included in "generic" documents 4 ~ Isometric, piping and equipment drawings,and sketches showing component locations, and dimensions.

5. Other applicable Vendor/RG&E drawings.

6. EQ Package Data (e.g. EEQ-ls, EQ Block Diagrams)

O 8.

Existing analyses not included in generic packages.

Other applicable documentation (e.g. data sheets, EOPs)

Page B-3

Precalculation Instrument Review Checklist.

1. Instrument Loop Rev

2. Calibration Procedure(s)

Procedure Number Date Sent Initials

3. Instrument Loop Block Diagram (Figure 1), Simplified Schematic Diagram (Figure 2) (Optional).

(list all 4

4 ~ Component Documentation components shown in block diagram and indicate "generic" (gen) with "generic" doc pkg.

number or date sent).

a~ Isometric, piping, or equipment drawings showing physical configuration.

Dwg. Number Description Date Sent Initials

b. Component vendor drawings and documentation.

(i) Vendor Manuals/Data Component Model g VTD g/ Date/

(BIN) Doc g Initials Page B>>4

(ii) Vendor/RG&E Drawings Vendor Dwg. Number Description Date Sent Initials

c. EQ data for 50.49 instrument loops (list all components subject to harsh environmental effects).

Component EQ Ref. Doc. Date Sent Initials

d. Note any other information provided.

Prepared by:

Date Reviewed by:

Date Approved by:

R. A. Baker Date RG&E Lead I & C Engineer xc: R. Baker J. Bitter G. Daniels D. Kosack (Cygna)

P. Swift EWR 5126 File Elec. Eng. File Page B-5

INSTRUMENT LOOP BLOCK DIAGRAM FIG 1 Page B-6

SIMPLIFIED SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM (OPTIONAL)

FIG 2 Page B-7

Page B-8 l~,

INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION DATA SHEET 3. Sheet 1 of 2 TECH SPEC INSTRUMENT NO ~ CURRENT-TO-VOLTAGE X V CONVERTER L -504 LOCATION: RELAY ROOM RVLMS-1. RACK NEST 5 SLOT 9

, PURPOSE: STEAM GENERATOR A HIDE RANGE LEVEL XNPUT OUTPUT UNXTS DESXRED AS ALLOWABLE AS VALUE FOUND TOLERANCE BAND LEFT VDC VDC VDC VDC 4 p

• 0.00 -0.05 to 0.05 8.0 12.

0'.50 5.00 2.45 4.95 to 2.55 to 5.05 16.0 7.50 7.45 to 7.55 2P.P ** 10.00 9.95 to 10.05 (0 All Tolerances are ~ of Span. TOLERANCE +0;5~

(+0.05 VDC) ~

• ZERO A. Adjust, Point.

• • SPAN A Adjust Point.

MGTE SERXAL NO. CAL DUE DATE CPX-LVL-504 Page 26 of 40 Rev. 03

1