ML20012B717
| ML20012B717 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 05/31/1989 |
| From: | Bockhorst R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13303B199 | List: |
| References | |
| M-89047, M-89047-R, M-89047-R00, NUDOCS 9003160157 | |
| Download: ML20012B717 (72) | |
Text
[n . M_ gg o4:1 1
. ky. o l 0 l !
j' TA6tC
- of 72. i i
l si i
i i
i l
J
'k I l i--
.1 i
a INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY i
SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS 2 & 3 1
I< ?
p !
l i
e Prepared by R. M. Bockhorst
. Southern California Edison Company May, 1989 l;
9003160157 900312 4 PDR ADOCK 05000361 p_ PDC .
.. i
Etv. o A(pr E 2
- TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ....................................... Page 11 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
.............................. Page 111 1.0 Introduction ................................... Page 1 2.0 Method of Analysis ............................. Page 3 2.1 Individual Transmitter Data ............... Page 3 2.2 Analysis of Data by Model ................. Page 3 2.3 Treatment of Outliers ..................... Page 4 2.4 Normality Tests ........................... Page 5 2.5 Maximum Expected Drift .................... Page 5 2.6 Best Estimates ............................ Page 6 3.0 Scope of Analysis .............................. Page 7 3.1 Reactor Protective System ................. Page 7 3.2 ESFAS Instrumentation ..................... Page 9 3.3 Remote Shutdown Instrumentation ........... Page 11 3.4 Accident Monitoring Instrumentation ....... Page 12 3.5 Prsasure Transmitters ..................... Page 13 3.6 Differential Pressure Transmitters ........ Page 14 3.7 Temperature Transmitters u................. Page'15 4.0 Long Term Drift Requirements ................... Page 17 4.1 RPS/ESFAS-Related Instruments ............. Page 17 l 4.2 RSM/ AMS-Related Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 18 4.3 Drift calculation Basis ................... Page 18 5.0 Results-........................................ Page 21 5.1 Pressure Transmitters ..................... Page 21 5.2 Differential Pressure Transmitters ........ Page 25 5.3 Temperature Transmitters .................. Page 30 6.0 Comparison of Results .......................... Page 32 6.1 Reactor Protective System ................. Page 34 6.2 ESFAS Instrumentation ..................... Page 36 6.3 Remote Shutdown Instrumentation ........... Page 38 6.4- Accident Monitoring Instrumentation ....... Page 40 7.0 Conclusions .................................... Page 42 8.0 References ..................................... Page 43
$ Appendix A. Transmitter Drift Data .................... Page A-1
', B. Normality Tests ........................... Page B-1 l
l
M- 59 047 2sv.o l Pug Sc+7 d INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page 11 l ABSTRACT This report describes an analysis of instrument calibration data concerning the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2&3.
Increasing the design fuel cycle length of SONGS Units 2&3 has
- created a desire to increase the surveillance interval for instrument calibrations. The long term drift characteristics of instrumentation, wi:.tre the technical specifications require 3 calibrations every 18 months, were determined. This experienced long term drift was statistically adjusted to reflect the maximum drift expected over a fuel cycle at a 95% probability and at a 95% confidence level. These values are then compared to the amount of long term drift that was incorporated into Plant i Protection System setpoint and Core Protection Calculator :
uncertainty calculations. Drift for instrumentation related to Accident Monitoring and Remote Shutdown Instrumentation Technical Specifications is determined on a best estimate basis.
I i
l l
l e
_ _ _ .x . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
kiv 0 9%f 4 c+ 72-INSTRUMENT DRIPT STUDY Page iii EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
This report describes an analysia of transmitter calibration data concerning the San onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2&3.
The long term drift characteristics of pressure, differential pressure and temperature transmitters, where the technical specifications require calibrations every 18 months, were determined. This experienced long term drift was statistically adjusted to reflect the maximum drift expected over a fuel cycle at a 95% probability and at a 95% confidence level for each model of transmitter included within the scope of this study. These values are then compared to the amount of long term drift that was incorporated into Plant Protection System setpoint and Core Protection Calculator uncertainty calculations. Drift for instrumentation related to Accident Monitoring and Remote Shutdown Instrumentation Technical Specifications is determined on a best estimate basis.
The transmitter drift was determined by subtacting the as-left calibration data from the as-found calibration data, selecting the maximum difference for the five calibration points, converting to a percent of span, and dividing the maximum value by the time interval between calibrations. Once the drift data was determined for individual transmitters, the data was grouped by model of transmitter and edited, only data points with calibration intervals between 100 and 683 days were included in the evaluation. Intervals of less than 100 days were categorized as not applicable for a long term drift consideration. Intervals greater than 683 days were removed since this is the maximum interval between calibrations. Outliers, i.e., data points significantly differing from the sample, were identified using the T-Test described in standard statistical texts, and removed from the data base. The Chi Square Goodness of Fit Test was applied to groups with large populetions, to assurn the underlying distribution could be represented by a normal distribution.
Plant Protection System (PPS) setpoints are based in part on maximum expected drift values at a 95% probability and 95%
confidence level. Included as PPS setpoints are Reactor Protective System (RPS) setpoints and Engineered Safety Features Actuation Systems (ESFAS). In order to establish a value for the total drift population that is conservative with a 95%
probability at a 95% confidence level, a 95/95 tolerance interval is determined. A tolerance interval places bounds on a proportion of the sampled population contained within it. This 95/95 tolerance laterval about the mean bounds 95% of the past, present and future drift values. Determining the interval and adding it to the absolute value of the mean determines the maximum expected drift.
L(- 8 9 041 j KEV O !
p, g e 7 2. l INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page iv j Instrumentation-used for monitoring and controlling the unit :
under upset conditions is addressed in the Technical ,
Specifications for Accident Monitoring System (AMS) and Remote l Shutdown Monitoring (RSM) System Instrumentation. Combustion :
Engineering (C-E) performed an assessment of the impact of !
instrument uncertainties on Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) for the Combustion Engineering Owners Group (CEOG), Reference !
8.9. The C-E report used the best estimate of instrument uncertainties to arrive at a total channel uncertainty and then ,
studied the impact of this total uncertainty on the decisions !
that an operator is requf, red to make as he complies with the EOPs. Likewise, this report determines best estinste values for i instrumentation that is used for Remote Shutdown Monitoring and Accident Monitoring functions.
The best_ estimates of instrument drift were calculated in much the same manner as the 95/95 values. As before, the maximum value of drift for the five calibration points was determined for each interval. Again, this maximum value was divided by the time duration of the interval to arrive at an annual drift rate. At >
this point, the process differs from that used to calculate the ,
95/95 value. The best estimate of drift for the population is determined by calculating the average of the absolute values. ;
The drift allowables were determined by inspecting the 30 month drift values and selecting a value which would bound the L experienced values. In order to keep the. number of different g
allowances to a minimum, the drift value selected for use in '
i calculating PPS setpoints is utilized as the drift allowance for AMS,and RSM instrumentation. The experienced drift values are then compared to these allowable values to assure that the :
transmitters will remain within design values over a 30 month l interval.
?
u l
l I
I i
M- 69 04n Rtv C) pa aom.
INSTRUMENT DRIPT STUDY Page 1 1.0 Introduction This report describes an analysis of the calibration history of certain instrumentation used at the San Onofra Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) Units 2&3. The purpose of this report is to provide a reference document of an investigation into the possibility of extending the calibration interval of this instrumentation from the current technical specification requirement of 18 months to 24 month intervals, which would be consistent with the existing design fuel cycle length for both SONGS Units 2&3.
There are four technical specifications where, in. addition to conducting specific procedures on logic and actuation devices, it is necessary to perform calibrations of transmitters. These technical specifications are 3/4.3.1 Reactor Protective System (RPS) 3/4.3.2 Engineering SLfety Features Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation 3/4.3.3.5 Remote Shutdown Instrumentation 3/4.3.3.6 Accident Monitoring Instrumentation These technical specifications cover a large number of instrument channels, which in some cases share a common instrument transmitter. Appendix C provides a cross reference between the technical specification requirements and the tag number of the ;
instrument transmitter. This report addresses most of the
- transmitters covered by these technical specifications. There are a few cases where it is convenient to address the channel as ,
a separate system, such as the Toxic Gas Isolation System, containment Sump Level, Pressurizar Safety Valve Monitoring, and various Radiation Monitoring channels. .
There are three types of transmitters which are addressed by these technical specifications, pressure transmitters (pts),
differential pressure transmitters (DPs), and temperature ;
transmitters (TTs). PT and DP transmitters are electro-mechanical devices that are located remote from the control room while temperature transmitters-are solid etate, electronic 4 modules located in the control room area. In each instrument >
loop, the transmitter is a common device that drives a number of output devices. Comparison of different output devices on a single instrument loop provides an accurate, single point check of the calibration of the driven device and the associsted I/Vs.
The larger uncertainties associated with transmitters make comparisons of redundant channels more difficult. I Estimates for drift are developed for each model of transmitter.
These estimates reflect a "best estimate" value and a "95/95" '
value. Best estimates are values which reflect an expected performance of 50% of the hardware and is determined by averaging
UFhhf%ran b-
&v 0- ;
fehtioF7%
INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page 2 j
'the absolute value of drift data. 95/95 values are values of drift which will bound all hardware performance with a 95%
probability at a 95% confidence level. Best estimate values are used in evaluating the acceptability of Accident Monitoring and Remote Shutdown Instrumentation, while 95/95 value are used in evaluating instruments related to Reactor Protection and Engineered Safety Features Actuation System Instrumentation.
5 i
a 5
i i
i i
f s
e B
e e
e
~
(fv O
+
- pg $ cd 72.-
I INSTRUMENT DRIFT ETUDY Page 3 2.0 Method of Analysis The methods used to determine the experienced drift values are described in this section. Lotus 1-2-3 was used extensively to perform the calculations. Statistical methods described in Reference 8.8 were used to determine the maximum values for experienced drift for.those transmitters which are used in applications covered by the SONGS Units 2&3 technical specifications on the Reactor Protective System and Engineered Safety Features Actuation System.
2.1 Individual Transmitter Data To conduct this analysis, a Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet template was constructed. The calibracion data for the transmitters of interest were recovered and entered into this spreadsheet template and a unique spreadsheet was constructed for each transmitter. In some cases, tranLaitters not addressed by these technical specifications were included in order to increase the amount of historical experience for a particular model of instrument.
Each spreadsheet contains a groups of 5 cells (corresponding to each of the 5 calibration points) that calculate the difference between the as-found readings and the as-left readings of the previous calibration period. This difference is calculated for each set of successive calibration records that were recovered.
Once these differences are determined, the maximum value of drift for each cet of 5 points is selected. This maximum value is then divided by the time interval between calibrations to determine an annual drift rate. A unique spreadsheet was constructed for each transmitter resulting in several hundred spreadsheets. Each of these spreadsheets may contair. multiple, one or no calibration drift data.
2.2 Analysis of Data by Model and Process Once the drift data was determined for individual transmittars, the data was extracted from the transmitter spreadsheets and entered into another spreadsheet to perform a first cut at.
editing the data. Macros were written to automatically access each transmitter spreadsheet and transfer the data to a " raw data" spreadsheet. This method minimizes the chance for error in transferring data. One raw data spreadsheet was constructed for each of the different types of transmitters, i.e. one for pressure transmitters, one-for differential pressure transmitters, and one for temperature transmitters.
The data in these three spreadsheets was then edited using two criteria related to the interval between successive calibration 4
W
SLv O 9, 9 a n INSTRUMENT DRIPT STUDY Page 4 data that had been recovered. Any data that was related to a calibration interval less than 100 days was removed from the data base. This data represents a short term problem which was likely to have been discovered by operators during shiftly surveillances or through some other means. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the magnitude of drift to be expected over a fuel cycle and to exclude problems related to short term effects that are discovered during the fuel cycle.
The second screening criteria was that any interval greater than 683 days was removed from the data base. These data points were removed because the maximum interval allowed by the Technical Specifications is 683 so an interval that is greater than this value is likely to indicate that a calibration occurred in the intervening period but the data sheet was not recovered.
i Appendix B contains an edited data listing of each of these l values sorted by instrument tag number.
In order to assure that the results were conservative, this data base was examined from.several different perspectives. Section 4.0 contains a discussion of existing drift assumptions. To summarize, unique, explicit values exist for transmitters I associated with PPS setpoints and CPC uncertainties. Common l values exist for each of the following, Foxboro pressure transmitters, Rosemount pressure transmitters, Foxboro differential ptsssure transmitters and CPC temperature inputs.
The product of the drift study is to either validate that these numbers are valid or to define new acceptable values that can be supported.
To accomplish this objective, the data was then grouped and analyzed in this manner. To assure that this grouping was appropriate the data was more finely divided into models and then j by processes and analyzed at each level.
L once the grouping was established, identical final editing and analyses on the data were conducted. Methods described in Reference 8.8 wore used to identify and remove outliers from the data base and to determine the 95/95 drift values. They are briefly described here.
2.3 Treatment of Outliers An outlier is an observation that is significantly different from the rest of the sample and most likely comes from e different distribution. They usually result from mistakes or measuring device problems. To identify outliers, the T-Test described in
M- 89 o4~l
@cv. O hayf lD d E l INSTRUMENT DRIPT STUDY Page 5 Reference 6.8 was utilized. The extreme studentized deviate is calculated as T=l x; - x I s
where T Extreme studentized deviate x, Extreme observation x Mean s Standard deviation of the same sample If T exceeds the critical value, T g given in Table XVI of Reference 8.8 at the 5% significance,, level, the extreme observation is considered to be an outlier. Once the outlier is identified, it is removed from the data base.
2.4 Normality Tests once the edited data base was finalized and grouped, the Chi-Square Goodness of Fit Test (Reference 8.8) was utilized to assure that the underlying distribution could be represented by a normal distribution. This test assumes a normal distribution and based on the sample mean and deviation, predicts the expected number of observation in each interval. The expected values are compared to the observed values. Since this test requires a rather large number of points, it could only be applied to the groups with a large population.
2.5 Maximum Expected Drift In order to establish a value for the total drift population that is conservative with a 95% probability at a 95% confidence level, a 95/95 tolerance interval is determined as described in Reference 8.8. A tolerance interval places bounds on the proportion of-the sampled population contained within it. This tolerance interval about'the mean bounds 95% of the past, present and future drift values. Determining the interval and adding it to the absolute value of the mean determines the maximum expected drift. The maximum drift values were calculated as follows x, = l x l + Ks x,, Maximum expected drift with a 95% probability at the 95% confidence level x Sample mean s Standard deviation of the sample K A value from Reference 6.8, Table VII(a),
with 95% probability and at the 95%
confidence 1svel that is selected based on the sample size i
w S9041 c=
- Rsv. O
\ \ oV 1 b l
INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page 6 Section 5.0 of this report provides the results of these calculationn.
2.6 Best Estimate of Drift Instrumentation used for monitoring and controlling the unit under upset conditions is addressed in the Technical Specifications for Accident Monitoring System and Remote Shutdown Monitoring System Instrumentation. Reference 8.9 is a report of an assessment of the impact of instrument uncertainties on Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) that was performed by Combustion Engineering for the Combustion Engineering owners Group-(CEOG). This report used the best estimate of instrument uncertainties to arrive at a total channel uncertainty and then studied the impact of this total uncertainty on the decisions that an operator 4.s required to make as he complies with the EOPs.
This report was used as a basis for evaluating the drift experienced at San onofre. Reference 8.9 provides a baseline reference of acceptable instrument performance. Values of drift that are less than those utilized in the report indicate that the SONGS instrumentation is operating in an acceptable manner.
Values of drift which exceed those in the report or parameters that were not addressed in the report require further evaluation.
The best estimates of instrument drift were calculated in much the same manner as the 95/95 values. As before, the maximum value of drift for the five calibration points was determined for each interval. Again, this maximum value was divided by the time duration of the interval to arrive at an annual drift rate. At this point, the process differs from that used to calculate the 95/95 value. The best estimate of drift for the population is determined as follows.
Xu, = 111Xi l n
where x ,, The best estimate of drift x, Annual drift rate of the ith data point n Number of data points The recovered data included in this report represents a substantial portion of the operating history of tha instruments included within the scope of this study and provides an adequate representation of the long term drift of the total transmitter population. Calculating drift in this manner also inherently includes the accuracy of the transmitter as well as other uncertainties that may be treated separately from drift in setpoint and uncertainty calculations, i
hsv O
@gg,t 12 Mb INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page 7 3.0 Scope l l
The purpose of this study is to assess the suitability of extending the calibration interval of pressure transmitters, differential pressure transmitters, and temperature transmitters ,
that are addressed by the following SONGS Units 2&3 Technical I specifications.
3/4.3.1 Reactor Protective System (RPS) I 3/4.3.2 Engineering Safety Features Actuation System !
(ESFAS) Instrumentation 1 3/4.3.3.5 Remote Shutdown Instrumentation 3/4.3.3.6 Accident Monitoring Instrumentation Each of these tech specs is addressed individually below.
l
)
i e
6 y e-. ,
h v. o hatL G OE 7 INSTRUMENT DRIPT STUDY Page 8 3.1 Reactor Protective System Instrumentation This tcchnical specification addresses instrumentation that I monitors conditions in the plant and initiates a reactor trip if required. Table 3.1 provides a listing of each of the functional units contained in Table 4.3-1, Reactor Protective Instrumentation Surveillance Requirements, of the SONGS Units 2&3 Technical Specifications, the instrument tag number and the manufacturer's model number. Model numbers with an "E", "NE" or l
"2AI" prefix are manufactured by Foxboro, while those with an "11" or "444" prefix are manufactured by Rosemount.
Table 3.1 i
Reactor Protective System Instrumentation Technical Specification / Transmitter Models Instrument i Functional Unit Tac Number Model !
- 1. Manual Reactor Trip . N/A l
- 2. Linear Power Level - High N/A
- 3. Logarithmic Power Level - High N/A l
- 4. Pressurizer Pressure - High PT-0101-1,2,3,4 E11GM i l S. Pressurizer Pressure - Low PT-0102-1,2,3,4 1153GD9 !
- 6. Containment Pressure - High PT-0351-1,2,3,4 NE11DM >
PT-0352-1,2,3,4 NE11DM l 7. Steam Generator Pressure - Low PT-1033-1,2,3,4 E11GM :
L PT-1023-1,2,3,4
- 8. Steam Generator Level - Low LT-1113-1,2,3,4 E13DM LT-1123-1,2,3,4
- 9. Local Power Density N/A
- 10. DNBR - Low See #14 '
- 11. Steam Generator Level - High LT-1113-1,2,3,4 E13DM ,
LT-1123-1,2,3,4
- 12. Reactor Protection Sys Logic N/A L 13. Reactor Trip Breakers N/A
- 14. Core Protection Calculators TT-0112-1,2,3,4 2AI-P2V TT-0122-1,2,3,4
- TT-9178-1,2,3,4 TT-9179-1,2,3,4 I
PT-0101-1,2,3,4 E11GM i
- 15. CEA Calculators N/A 4
- 16. Reactor Coolant Flow - Low PDT-0978-1,2,3,4 1153HD6 PDT-0979-1,2,3,4
- 17. Seismic - High N/A
- 18. Ioss of Load N/A l'
~
M-5900 ktv.C) kt l4 & N INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page 9 3.2 Engineered Safety Features Actuation System Instrumentation This technical specification addresses instrumentation that monitors conditions in the plant and initiates the necessary safeguards equipment if required. Table 3.2 provides a listing of each of the functional units contained in Table 4.3-2 Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System Instrumentation Surveillance Requirements, of the SONGS Units 2&3 Technical Specifications, the instrument tag number and the manufacturer's model number.- Model numbers with an "E", "NE" or "2AI" prefix are manufactured by Foxboro, while those with an "11" or "444" prefix are manufactured by Rosemount.
Table 3.2 Engineered Safety Features Actuation System Instrumentation Technical Specification / Transmitter Models INSTRUMENT FUNCTIONAL UNIT TAG NUMBER MODEL
- 1. Safety Injection
- a. Manual N/A
- b. Containment Pressure - High PT-0351-1,2,3,4 NE11DM L 'c..Pressurizar Pressure - Low PT-0102-1,2,3,4 1153GD9
- d. Automatic Actuation Logic N/A
- a. Manual N/A L b. Containment Pressure - Hi-Hi PT-0352-1,2,3,4 NE11DM l c. Automatic Actuation Logic N/A
- 3. Containment Isolation
- a. Manual CIAS N/A
- b. Manual SIAS N/A
- c. Containment Pressure - High PT-0351-1,2,3,4 NE11DM
- d. Automatic Actuation Logic N/A
- 4. Main Steam Isolation
- a. Manual N/A l
- b. Steam Generator Pressure - Low PT-1013-1,2,3,4 E11GM PT-1023-1,2,3,4
- c. Automatic Actuation Logic N/A
- 5. Recirculation
- a. Refueling Water Storage LT-0305-1,2,3,4 E13DM Tank - Low
- b. Automatic Actuation Logic N/A
%.o
@g tS e& N INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page 10 i 1
Table 3.2 (continued)
INSTRUMENT I FUNCTIONAL UNIT TAG NUMBER MODEL
- 6. Containment Cooling
- a. Manual CCAS N/A
- b. Manual SIAS N/A
- c. Automatic Actuation Logic N/A
- 7. Loss of Power i
- a. 4.16 kv Emergency Bus N/A -)
Undervoltage (Loss of Voltage ,
and-Degraded Voltage) l
- 8. Emergency Feedwater
- a. Manual N/A
- b. SG Level (A/B)-Low and DP LT-1113-1,2,3,4 E13DM l (A/B) - High LT-1123-1,2,3,4 j PT-1013-1,2,3,4 E11GM PT-1023-1,2,3,4 j
- c. SG Level (A/B)-Low and No LT-1113-1,2,3,4 E13DM l Pressure - Low Trip (A/B) LT-1123-1,2,3,4 j PT-1013-1,2,3,4 E11GM J PT-1023-1,2,3,4 )
- d. Automatic Actuation Logic N/A
- 9. Control Room Isolation a.-~ Manual CRIS N/A
.b. Manual SIAS N/A i
- c. Airborne Radiation .
- i. Particulate / Iodine N/A
- 11. Gaseous N/A
- d. Automatic Actuation Logic N/A
- 10. Toxic Gas Isolation
- a. Manual N/A
- b. Chlorine High N/A
- c. Ammonia - High N/A -
- d. Butane / Propane - High N/A
- e. Automatic Actuation Logic N/A
- 11. Fuel Handling Isolation
- a. Manual
- b. Airborne Radiation
- i. Gaseous N/A
- 11. Particulate / Iodine N/A
- c. Automatic Actuation Logic N/A <
- 12. Containment Purge Isolation
- a. Manual
- b. Airborne Radiation l1. Gaseous N/A
- 11. Particulate N/A 111. Iodine N/A >
- c. Containment Area Radiation N/A
- d. Automatic Actuation Logic N/A
A4-89en&1 1
,. _ Stv.C)
[(gg lg ok '7L l l INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page 11 l
3.3 Remote Shutdown System Instrumentation l This technical specification addresses instrumentation that is used to monitor the plant in the event that it is necessary to I evr Jate the control room. Table 3.3 provides a listing of each of the instruments contained in Table 4.3-6, Remote Shutdown ,
Monitoring Instrumentation Surveillance Requirements, of the i SONGS Units 2&3 Technical Specifications, the instrument tag l number and the manufacturer's model number. Model numbers with ;
an "E", "NE" or "2AI" prefix are manufactured by Foxboro, while ,
I those with an "11" and "444" prefix are manufactured by i Rosemount. ,
1 i
Table 3.3 Remote Shutd9wn System Instrumentation Technical Specification / Transmitter Models j l
INSTRUMENT l INSTRUMENT TAG NUMBER MODEL
- 1. Log Power Level N/A
- 2. Reactor Coolant Cold Leg TT-0115-2 2AI-P2V Temperature TT-0925-1 TT-0111-BY 444RL i
- 3. Pressurizar Pressure PT-0102-3,-0102-4 1153GD9 -
l
- 4. Pressurizer Level LT-0110-1,-2 E13DH
- 5. Steam Generator Level LT-1113-3 E13DM i LT-1123-4
- l 6. Steam Generator Prassure PT-1013-3 E11GM
" l l PT-1023-4 l 7. Source Range Neutron Flux N/A L 8. Condenser Vacuum PT-3202,3383,3395 1151AP4E
! 9. Volume Control Tank Level LT-0226 E13DM
- 10. Letdown Heat Exchanger PT-0201 E11GM Pressure
- 11. Letdown Heat Exchanger TT-0223 2AI-P2V Temperature
- 12. Boric Acid Makeup Tank Level LT-0206-1,0208-2 NE13DM
- 13 . Condensate Storage Tank Level LT-4356 1153DD5 LT-4357 1152DP5
- 14. Reactor Coolant Hot Leg TT-0111-BX 444RL Temperature
- 15. Pressurizer Pressure PT-0104-A NE11GM
- Low Range
th- 8 e) o +7 hv. o g ..
AWL \~I Ob INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page 12 Table 3.3 (continued)
INSTRUMENT INSTRUMENT TAG NUMBER MODEL
- 16. Pressurizer Pressure PT-0100-X E11GM
- High Range
- 17. Pressurizer Level LT-0103 E13DH
- 18. Steam Generator Pressure PT-8300,-8301 NE11GM
- 19. Steam Generator Level LT-1105 E13DM LT-1106 "
k
9
- ~
2sv. o-
. g,p g A y
L INSTRUMENT DRIPT' STUDY Page-13
' 3. 4 Abcident Monitoring = System Instrumentation This technical' specification addresses instrumentation that is used to monitor the plant in the unlikely event of an accident.
Table 3.4 provides a listing of each of the instruments contained
'inLTable 4.3-7, Accident Monitoring Instrumentation Surveillance Requirements, of the SONGS Units 2&3 Technical Specifications, the instrument tag number-and the manufacturer's model number.
Model numbers with an "E", "NE"'or "2AI" prefix-are manufactured by Foxboro, while those with an "11" and "444" prefix are
' manufactured by Rosemount.
Table 3.4 Accident Monitoring System Instrumentation Technical Specification / Transmitter Model INSTRUMENT I N S T RI.D E E T TAG _HUMTER MODEL
- 1. Containment Press-Narrow Range PT-0352-1,2 NE11DM
- 2. Containment Press-Wide Range PT-0353-1 NE11GM-PT-0354-2 E11GM
- 3. Reactor Coolant Outlet Temp TT-0911-X1 2AI .?2V
- Thot-(Wide-Range) TT-0921-X2
.4. Reactor Coolant Inlet Temp TT-0915-2 2AI-P2V TT-0925-2 "
- Tcold (Wide Range)
- 5. Pressurizer Press (Wide Range) PT-0102-1,-2 1153GD9
- 6. Pressurizer Water Level LT-0110-1,-2 E13DH-
- 7. Steam Line Pressure- PT-1013-1 E11GM
'PT-1023-1
- 8. Steam Ger.arator Water Level LT-1115-1,2 1153DD5 (Wide Range) LT-1125-1,2 9.-Refueling Water Storage Tank LT-0305 -,2,3,4 E13DM Water Level
.10. Auxiliary Feedwater Flow Rate FIT-4720-2 E13DM FIT-4725-1
- 11. Reactor Coolant System TT-915-2 2AI-P2V Subcooling Margin Monitor TT-925-1 TT-0911-X1 TT-0921-X2 TT-0911-Y1 ,
TT-0921-Y2 -
PT-0102-1 1153GD9 PT-0102-2 '
1153GD9
- 12. Safety Valve Position Ind N/A
- 13. Spray System Pressure PT-0303-1 NE11DM PT-0303-2 i
f L;
' 9sv.o pggg . [ $ _oF Y ' l
~
l-INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page 14 I
i Table 3.4 (continued)
INSTRUMENT l INSTRUMENT TAG-NUMBER HODEL l l
'15. Containment Temperature TT-9903-1 2AI-T2V i TT-9911-2 " I
- 16. Containment' Water Level N/A (Narrow Range)
- 17. Containment Water Level N/A ,
(Wide Range)
- 18. Core Exit Thermocouples N/A -
- 19. Cold-Leg HPSI Flow FT-0311-2 E13DH .;
FT-0321-1 " '
FT-0331-1 ". o FT-0341-2 "
- 20. Hot Leg HPSI-Flow FT-9421-1 E13DH FT-9435-2 a'
- 21. Heated Junction Thermocouple N/A l> System - Reactor Vessel Level
' Monitoring System (QSPDS)
)
P h
i a
F
M- 6 9 0 +7 ,
Esv. o h 20 ok 72_I
=
INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page 15 i
3.5 Pressure Transmitters )
As can be seen from the above tables, transmitters used to measura pressure in applications covered by these technical j specifications have been provided by either Foxboro or Rosemount.
There are five different models of pressure transmitters, three Foxboro models and two Rosemount models.: Foxboro transmitters utilize the force-balance. principal while the Rosemount '
- transmitters detect pressure changes through changes in
- capacitance caused by the pressure acting on a bellows assembly. :
Foxboro models E11GM and NE11GM are the same except for some component differences;to qualify the NE11GM for certain nuclear applications. The Foxboro NE11DM is technically a differential pressure transmitter, however it is utilized as a pressure L transmitter. The two-models of Rosemount transmitters are
' similar.in operating principals. Table 3.5 lists each model, the- .
l L monitored process and number of instruments in that group.
L -l t
? Table 3.5 SONGS PRESSURE TRANSMITTERS i L l' 1
Company Model Number Procegg j l
'Foxboro E11GM 26 Pressurizer Pressure Steam Generator Pressure Letdown Pressure l Foxboro NE11GM 10 Pressurizer Pressure Main Steam Line Pressure Containment Pressure l i
Foxboro NE11DM 20 Containment Pressure Containment Spray Header-Pressure
-i- Rosemount 1153GD9 8 Pressurizer Pressure Rosemount- 1151AP4E 6 Condenser Vacuum a
r L
I h
t I
s Li~ l lil
y ,
2sv. o Past 21 c+ 72; INSTRUMENT-DRIFT STUDY Page 16 3.6 Differential Pressure Transmitters At San onofre, transmitters used to measure differential pressure in applications covered by these technical specifications have been provided by either Foxboro or Rosemount. There are seven (7) different models of differential pressure transmitters, three (3) Foxboro models and four (4) Rosemount models. Foxboro L -transmitters utilize the force-balance principal while the
" Rosemount transmitters detect differential pressure changes through changes in capacitance. Foxboro models E13DM and NE13DM are the same except for some component differences to qualify the NE13DM for certain nuclear applications. The E13DM and E13DH are very similar except that the "H" device is designed for a higher static pressure application. The four models of Rosemount i transmitters are similar in operating principals. Again, the principal differences in these models is the suitability for each device in different static pressure applications. Table 3.6 lists each model, the monitored process and number of instruments in that group.
Table 3.6 SONGS DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE TRANSMITTERS Company Model Number Process Rosemount 1153HD6 16 Reactor Coolant Flow Rosemount- 1153HD5 8 Steam Generator Level Rosemount 1153DDS 2 Condensate Storage Tank Level Rosemount 1152DP5 2 Condensate Storage Tank Level
, Foxboro E13DM 32 Auxiliary Feed Flow Steam Generator Level RWT Level Foxboro NE13DM 6 VCT Level Boric Acid Makeup Tank Level Fcxboro E13DH 18 Pressurizer Level RWT Level High Pressure Safety Injection Flow
- W\- S C) d S
' .. g,3
+ '
pa u or 72 INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page 17
- 3. 7- Temperature. Transmitters Two techniques of measuring temperature are used-at San Onofre is applications covered by these technical specifications. The principal method is resistance temperature detectors (RTDs).
Foxboro temperature transmitters (Model 2AI-P2V) convert the
' resistance of the RTDs into a O to 10 volt signal used in the process-instrument loops. Rosemount temperature transmitters (Model 444RL) convert the resistance of the RTD into a 4 to 20 milliamp signal used in the respective process instrument loops.
The stability of these modules was examined to determine the- >
suitability of extending the calibration interval to 24. months.
The temperature transmitter is a solid state device that is located in the control room. The transmitter works in ,
combination with an RTD to develop'a O to 10 volt signalithat is-proportional to temperature. RYDs were not included within the scope of-this study since there is no detailed calibration data availaole at SONGS 2&3. Since the RTD is a passive device, it should exhibit excellent long term stability. Detailed cross '
L channel comparison of temperature loops are performed at San Onofre following refueling outages.
Thermocouples are used to measure Containment Atmosphere ,
j ;'.
temperature and calibration is required-by the technical l specification on Accident Monitoring Instrumentation. The p thermocouples are connected to Foxboro temperature transmitters-l (Model 2AI-T2V) where the millivolt signal is converted *to a 0 to 10 volt signal for the process instrument loop. As in the case
, of RTDs,-detailed, periodic calibration of the thermocouples themselves is not performed at San.Onofre. Again, thermocouples l are passive devices and should exhibit excellent long-term stability. ;
Table 3.7 lists each model, the monitored process and number of instruments in that group.
Table 3.7 SONGS TEMPERATURE TRANSMITTERS Company Model Number Process Foxboro 2AI-P2V 54 Reentor Coolant Temperature LPS_ Header Temperature Letdown Temperatur'e Foxboro 2AI-T2V 4 Containment Temperature Rosemount- 444RL 4 Reactor Coolant Temperature
N L- D VUH Rsv. o e i g g INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page 18 4.0 Long. Term Drift Allowances
- Long term _ drift is the slight. change in instrument calibration that may occur over time. The effect of long term drift on
' '- system-performance has been explicitly addressed for those L -instruments which provide a signal associated =with RPS and ESFAS
,-- actuations. Long term drift assumptions have'been implicit for instrumentation which provide an indication function. In order i to' determine the acceptability of the magnitude of drift, the experienced drift must be-compared to acceptance criteria. Since L allowances for drift have been explicitly established in some
. cases but not in others, it is necessary to address the subject separately for these two groups.
4 '.1 RPS/ESFAS-Related Instruments L The first group is those. instruments which provide an input to P the Reactor' Protection System (RPS) or the Engineered Safety b Features Actuation System (ESFAS). These instruments are
- addressed in the SONGS RPS and ESFAS Instrumentation Technical Specifications. SONGS setpoint. calculations, References 8.1 and
~8.2, contain discrete values for long term drift that are combined statistically with other uncertainties to arrive at a l setting: which' willl assure. actuation of related devices in accordance with safety analysis values. These values for' drift were determined'by C-E through consultation with the instrument manufacturers. These drift assumptions were as follows.
L DRIFT BETWEEN CATEGORY CALIBRATIONS Foxboro Pressure Transmitters 1.88 L Rosemount Pressure Transmitters 0.94%
t Foxboro Differential Pressure 0.22%
Transmitters Foxboro Temperature Transmitters 0.50%
These values of drift were based on 22.5 months between calibration intervals and represent the maximum drift expected at L a 95% probability at the 95% confidence 1avel. If the experienced long term drift is less than these values when adjusted to the new cycle-length of 30 months (24 months plus
, 25%), then no changes to the Plant Protection System (PPS) l setpoints will be required. On the other hand, if the L '
experienced values exceed these values, revision to the PPS L setpoints may be required.
L, It should'be noted that Rosemount Differential Prassure L Trannuitters are not included in '+= abova , au f . ' though they I provide an input to an RPS trip ft.r " ion . - 9atpula:
L o
l'
m M-89Ct( -
fy. o Y
Q 082 f
INSTRUNENT DRIPT' STUDY Page 19
~ Calculation 1370-ICE-36160, Reference 8.3, was prepared to
+ determine the trip and pro trip setpoints frr a the Low RCS Flow
-trip' function. This trip function utilizes a Rate-Limited variable Setpoint module that generates a trip signal based on the. rate of' change of the signal. Since this is a rate-generated
-trip with a'following setpoint, no allowance was made in the setpoint calculation for long term drift. Long-terr. drift characteristics of these transmitters are, however, included in
-this report for information and completeness.
4.2- Remote Shutdown Monitoring / Accident Monitoring-Related Instruments The second group is those instruments included in the Accident Monitoring and Remote Shutdown Instrumentation Technical Specifications. Explicit allowances for long term drift have not been' established for this instrumentation for SONGS Units 2&3.
Combustion Engineering has, however, prepared a report for the C-E Owner's Group, Reference 8.9, which provides an assessment of the impact of instrument uncertainties on emergency operating procedures. .This assessment was performed ~on a generic basis.
In order.to assess the suitability of extending the calibration interval for these instruments, combustion Engineering was requested to perform an assessment of the SONGS Unit 2&3 EOIs assuming. values for long term drift provided by SCE. This assessment may: utilize best estimates for drift rather than the 95/95 values used for PPS setpoints. However, in order to simplify the drift assumptions and to maintain a common requirement for'a particular model of transmitter, the 95/95 value may be used as input for this assessment where excessive conservatism does not rasult. For this group of transmitters, the purpose of this report is to identify a' conservative best estimate value for each model of transmitter used in'AMS and RSM applications'for further evaluation by C-E.
4.3 Drift Calculation Basis The requirements are ordered by the technical specitications while the analysis'of drift data is necessarily ordered by equipment model. To establish the requirements on a transmitter model basis, the model that satisfies a' technical specification requirement must first be identified. Once this is done then the analysis method for that model of transmitter is determined depending upon whether the acdel of transmitter is related to a PPS or.CPC channel. Those associated with the PPS or CPCs must have drift rates determined that reflect a 95/95 interval value while those associated with RSM and AMS have drift rates determined using the best estimate method. Tables 4.3.1 through 4;3.4~ identify the applicable technical specification for each i
U . . .
-4 , .
W}- 8 9(@ W I l
& v. o ~
1 h j { c F 7 2.-
- INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY. Page 20 l l
model of transmitter at SONGS Units 2&3. 1 Table 4.3.1 .
I Pressure Transmitters Drift Calculation Basis .
Manufacturer: Foxboro Foxboro Foxboro Rosemount Rosemount
- Model :' E11GM NE11GM NE11DM 1153GD9' 1151AP4E RPS/ESFAS Yes Yes Yes Yes No ;
RSM/AMS. Yes AVB No No Yes Basis for u ' Calculation 95/95 95/95 95/95 95/95 Best l of Drift Estimate i
O Table 4.3.2 p
h Rosemount Differential Pressure Transmitters 4 L
Drift Ca3culation Basis .
Model 1152DP5 1153DD5 1153HD6 ;
i L- RPS/ESFAS No No Yes r
RSM/AMS Yes Yes No
. Basis for Calculation Best Best 95/95 of Drift Estimate Estimate ,
Table 4.3.3 Foxboro Differential-Pressure Transmitters Drift Calculation Basis Model E13DH E13DM NE13DM NE13DM .
RPS/ESFAS No Yes No Yes RSM/AMS- Yes Yes Yes Yes Basis for Calculation Best. 95/95 Best 95/95
'of Drift Estimate Estimate i
((-' ,. l .
' ~
M-N 9 0% l
~, 3 .. . S$v. 9 ^
crig a 72-i
' ~
p v; ' '
K- ..
L, , ~ . INSTRIJMENT DRIFT STUDY , -Page i I t, .
,'I t
Table 4.3.4 -
g; SONGS Temperature Transmitters
- Drift Calculation Basis
' Manufacturer Foxboro Foxboro Rosemount -
-Model. -2AI-P2V 2AI-T2V 444RL L' :
RPS/ESFAS Yes No- No RSM/AMS- Yes- Yes Yes
- l. Basis'for Calculation .95/95 Best Best
,. ~ of Drift Estimate Estimata.
- e-I-
L l
l l
r r
l..3' l
i i
g c.
U'
, & &904Q '
=.5 s"
,.. htV. & !
gu z T*79 INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page 22 -;
'5.0 Resulta- l The results of the analysis of the data are presented for each of ,
the different types of transmitters. For each type of f Ltransmitter, the 95/95 interval value and best estimate is prasanted for each-model. The data is then further subdivided by process and analyzed again as a check to determine if. substantial :
differences exist that are dependent upon the process. l r
5.1 Pressure Transmitters ,
The' average, standard deviation, and K values from Reference 8.8, and 95/95 drift value on an annual basis for the five different
- models of pressure transmitters is shown in Table 3.5. K is a term from Reference 8.8 that are used in the analysis of the L data. K is a coefficient which-is dependent on the Lample size L and is selected from a table in Reference 8.8. As explained in l Section 2,.this. term is used to calculate a tolerance. interval .
g which-bounds all past present andLfuture data with a 95%
probability.at the 95% confidence level. The table also lists the accumulated transmitter-years of experience that was recovered.
C Table 5.1.1 s
SONGS Pressure Transmitters L. Experienced Drift Sorted by Model Number Manufacturer: Rosemount Rosemount Foxboro Foxboro Foxboro E (Model : 1151AP4E 1153GD9 E11GM NE11GM NE11DM Data Points 7 18 123 13 30 l - Experience,, Years 8 25 161 16 37
! Average Rate, % of 1.63% 0.00% 0.11% 0.01% 0.10%
- b. .
Standard ^ Deviation 3.49% 0.25%~ 0.52% 0.30% 0.41%
, :K 4.007 2.819 2.202 3.081 2.549 l
.95/95 Interval %/Yr 15.62% 0.69% 1.25% 0.94% 1.15%
95/95 Interval %/30mo 39.05% 1.74% 3.13% 2.35% 2.86%
- Best Estimate, %/Yr 2.90% 0.20% 0.40% 0.24% 0.32%
Best Estimate,_%/30mo 7.24% 0.50% 0.99% 0.59% 0.80%
As can be seen from the above table, the Foxboro transmitters all experience approximately-the same amount of drift, regardless of the model number. For example, the E11GM and NE11GM models had differences in the best estimate; annual drift rates of only
.0.16%.
i i
L 4-
l 89047 y/sv. o -
?
gag ow7L INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page'23 l
J Al test'for normality was performed on the Foxboro E11GM
-transmitter drift data. This data associated with this test is shown in Appendix B, Table B-1. This test confirmed that the I 'datalis norma 31y distributed. There are insufficient data points l
to perform this test on the other models of transmitters, however -
there is no reason to believe that the data would not be normally distributed.
.The Rosemount 1151AP4E transmitters,-used only for condenser vacuum indication, experieace substantially more drift than other models as a percentage of span, however these transmitters are calibrated over a very narrow range. -
The Rosemount 1153GD9 transmitters have experienced significantly I lower drift rate than the Foxboro transmitters. These transmitters are used to monitor pressurizer pressure over two ranges of pressure. The wide range (0 to 3000 psia) transmitters L are the ones that are used as input to the PPS. To more
_ accurately assess the drift for the transmitters associated with these ranges, the data was sorted and then analyzed. The table below provides the results of this analysis.
L Table 5.1.2 -
SONGS Rosemount 1153GD9 Pressure Transmitters L . Experienced Drift Sorted by Range -
Rosemount Rosemount Wide Range Low Range Pressurizer Pressurizer "
Pressure Pressure Data Points 11 8 i Experience, Years 15 11 R Average Rate, % of Spun /Yr 0.00% 0.13% j i
Standard Deviation 0.13% 0.49%
K 3.259 3.732 95/95 Interval Value, %/Yr 0.44% 1.95%
95/95 Interval Value, %/30 mo 1.09% 4.88%
Best Estimate, %/Yr 0.11% 0.42%
Best Estimate, %/30 mo~ 0.29% 1.06%
There is a significant difference between the transmitters based on the application. It should be noted that the low range transmitters are subjected to an over-range condition
WF,7,,,
i:
Q,o c* L -
g oF 72 INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY -Page 24 continuously over long periods of time which probably accounts for the difference in drift performance.
In order to increase the assurance that significant differences do not exist by process for the Foxboro pressure transmitters, the data for these transmitters was sorted and analyzed on a process basis. The following table provides the results of that analysis, y
Table 5.1.3 SONGS Foxboro E11GM Transmitters Experienced Drift Sorted by Monitored Process
! Pressurizer S/G l Pressure Pressure
-Data Points 57 66 Experience, Years 80 81 Average Rate, % of Span /Yr 0.13% 0.10%
Standard Deviation 0.47% 0.56%
.K 2.346 2.312 ll 95/95 Interval Value, %/Yr 1.23% 1.38%
L 95/95 Interval Value, %/30 mo 3'.08% 3.45%-
l- Best Estimate, %/Yr - O.40% 0.40%
- Best Estimate, %/30 mo 0.99% 1.00%
~
As can be seen from this table, there are no substantial differences when sorted and analyzed in this manner. There was no data recovered for the Letdown Pressure transmitters, however, it is expected that their performance is adequately represented
!. by the above data.
'~
p;
- ~~ '- - - - - --
- . 2sv. o pg30 oF 72J INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY ' Page 25 j Table 5.1.4 SONGS Foxboro NE11GM Transmitters Experienced Drift ]
Sorted by Monitored Process 1
Pressurizer Containment S/G Pressure ' Pressure Pressure Data Points 3 6 4 Experience,_ Years 3 8 6 Average Rate, % of Span /Yr 0.22%- 0.00% -0.13%
1 Standard ~ Deviation 0.27% 0.10% 0.42%
0 K' -
4.414 6.370 95/95' Interval-Value, %/Yr -
0.44% 2.78%
95/95 Interval Value, %/30 mo -
1.11% 6.96%
'Best Estimate, %/Yr. 0.30% 0.09% 0.41% -
L Best Estimate, %/30 no 0.75% 0.22% 1.03%
ji L
Table 5.1.4 shows the analysis results when the Foxboro NE11GM i
transmitters'are sorted-by process application. The results for
! pressurizar pressure and steam generator pressure are.
approximately.the same and consistent with the'results obtained ;
L for the Foxboro'E11GM transmitters. The NE11GM transmitters used '
L to monitor containment pressure exhibited drift characteristics- ,
'that are very similar to the Foxboro NE11DM transmitters used to o monitor containment pressure.- Even though the number of data L points for the some of?the processes monitored by NE11GM transmitters is limited, the consistency of.the results with .
L other Foxboro models used in these applications provides a high L
confidence that these values adequately represent there long term L performance.
p 5
f h
l l
.e f/)- 8 9 O V7. )
12 w. o 1 fm t a*F 7 INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page 26 )
i
'l Table 5.1.5 1 SONGS Foxboro NE11DM Transmitters Experienced Drift Sorted by Monitored Process Containment Spray- Containment Pressure Pressure Data Points 6 15 Experience,' Years 6 21 Average Rate, % of Span /Yr 0.39% -0.07%
- Standard = Deviation 0.17% 0.28%
K 4.414 2.954 ,
95/95 Interval Value, %/Yr 1.15%' O.90%
2.89% 2.26%
95/95 Interval Value, %/30 mo best Estimate, %/Yr 0.39% 0.26%
l Best Estimate, %/30 mo 0. 97 % - .0.66% i Table 5.1.5 shows the analysis results when the Foxboro NE11DM
! transmitters'are sorted by process application. There.is no substantial difference in the performance of the NE11DM transmitters used in these two applications.
t
~
b I
r i
i a
f
(
)
h 2, . .. .
- k. o pg g ap 72-o.
INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page 27 5.2 Differential Pressure Transmitters The experienced transmitter drift for each of the seven different models of differential pressure transmitters is shown in Tables 5.2.1 and 5.2.2. The tables also-list the transmitter-years of experience that was analyzed.to determine the drift values as well as other data. Table 5.2.1 lists the results of the
-analysis of Rosemount differential pressure transmitters..
Table 5.2.1 Rosemount Differential Pressure Transmitters Experienced Drift Model 1152DPS 1153DD5 1153HD5 1153HD6 Data Points 9 2 10- 31 Experience, Years 12 2 13 _ 39 Average Rate, 4 of Span /Yr -0.01% -0.08% -0.25% -0.29%
Standard Deviation 0.55% 0.18% 0.42% 0.70%
K 3.532 -
3.379- 2.205=
95/95 Interval Value, %/Yr 1.93% -
l'.67% 1.82%-
95/95 Interval Value, %/30 4.83% -
4.17% 4.55%
Best Estimate, %/Yr 0.43% 0.18% 0.44% 0.46%
Best' Estimate, %/30 mo 1.08% 0.44% 1.09% 1.15%
Analysis of~the*Rosemount Differential Pressure Transmitter data-shows 95/95 values for long term drift between approximately 1.5 to 2 % per year with the best estimate values less than 0.5% per year.
Table 5.2.2 provides the results of the analysis of the three
-models of Foxboro differential pressure transmitters.-
., M-8 9o 47 y
dr.o :
g 33 oF72 i
, INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page 28 i
Table 5.2.2 ;
Foxboro Differential Pressuro Transmitters l: Experienced Drift L
! Model E13DH E13DM NE13DM Data Points 34 81 8 Experienae, Years 38 101 7
- l. Average Rate, % of Span /Yr -0.24% 0.05% 0.31% <
Standard Deviation 1.73% 1.04% 2.22% ;
K' 2.190 2.270 3.732 f 95/95 Interval Value, %/Yr 4.04% 2.42% 8.61%
95/951 Interval Value, %/30 10.09% 6.04% 21.52%
l '
V
- Best' Estimate, %/Yr -
1.20% 0.79% 1.72%
Best Estimate, %/30 mo 3.00% 1.98% 4.31%
The Foxboro Differential Pressure Transmitters _ demonstrate higher
! rates of long term drift than the Rosemount transmitters. The
. 95/95 values range from approximately 2.5 to over 8 % per year L with'best estimate values-averaging approximately 1 % per year.
A test for normality was made on the largest data-group, i.e. the Foxboro Model E13DM transmitter data. The detailed data 0 associated with this test is shown in Appendix B, Table B-2.
This test confirmed that the data is normally distributed.
In order to increase;the assurance that substantial differences do=not exist based on the montitored process for the Foxboro ;
differential pressure transmitters, the data for these transmitters was sorted and analyzed on'a process basis.
All of the data for Foxboro E13DH transmitters was sorted by process application and analyzed as independent groups. Table
- 5.2.3 provides the results of this analysis.
h
+
2 _.__ _ . . -__________.__._____________r_
. h]-8 90 &T w . .
fogg f 3Y #b 7 Z'
' INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY- Page 29 Table 5.2.3 Foxboro E13DH Differential Pressure Transmitters Experienced Drift Process HPSI Pressurizer RWT Flow Level Level Data. Points 14 18 2 Experience, Years 16 18 3
-0.05% -0.27%
Average Rate, % of Span /Yr 0.09%
Standard Deviation 0.72% 2.78% 0.51%
K- 3.012 2.819 -
95/95 Interval-Value, 4/Yr 2.27% 7.89% -
95/95 Interval Value, %/30 5.67% 19.71% -
Best Estimate, %/Yr 0. 60% - 1.98% 0.51%
Best Estimate, %/30 mo 1.49% 4.96% 1.27%
The Foxboro differential pressure transmitters used to monitor pressurizer: level exhibit a higher long term drift rate than the same model of transmitter.used measure high pressure safety injection (HPSI) rystem_ flow and refueling water tank (RWT) level. The drift rates of the E13DH transmitters used forLHPSI flow and RWT level are very-close to the drift rate-of E13DM transmitters. The higher drift-rate for the pressurizer level transmitters-versun'the other E13DH_ transmitters is probably due to the HPSI and RWJ transmitters are not ncrmally pressurized while the pressuriner level transmitters are essentially constantly pressurized to over 2000 psi.
s I
i,
/)// 89O O l
< . /kv. O
- g, 3[# M INSTRUMENT-DRIFT STUDY Page 30
~
The' drif t data for Foxboro E13Dh _rsusmitters was analyzed for l differences due to-process effects. -Table 4.2.4 contains the ,
results.
Table 5.2.4 ,
Foxboro E13DM Differential Pressure Transmitters Experienced Drift Process AFW RWT+VCT S/G l Flow Level Level Data Points 7 7 64 Experience, Years 9 9 79 Average Rate, % of Span /Yr 0.12% -0.44% 0.09%
Standard Deviation 0.45% 0.20% 1.11%
-K 4.007 4.007 2.319 95/95 Interval Value, %/Yr 1.94% 1.23% 2.66%- ;
95/95_ Interval Value, %/30 4.84% 3.07% 6.66%
Best Estimate, 4/Yr 0.43% 0.44%. 0.85%
Cast Estimate, %/30 mo 1.06% 1.10% 2.13%
T:a 95/95 interval values and the best estimate values for these t'.ansmitters have substantial differences with the steam generator level transmitters being higher than those used in other process applications. As in the case of the E13DH <
transmitters,.the E13DM transmitters that are continuously pressurized, i.e. those_used to monitor steam generator pressure, exhibit increased long term drift characteristics.
The-steam generator level transmitters included in the-data base for this study included those used in Reactor Protection System, Remote Shutdown Monitoring, and control system applications. The data was sorted again by utilization of the signal to see if those used in the RPS showed differences from other systems.
Table 5.2.5 shows the results of this analysis.
+
w i
" #7 690+7
- gg o x +
pg ,7p
! INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page 31 Table 5.2.5 Foxboro E13DM Differential Pressure Transmitters Experienced Drift STEAM GENERATOR LEVEL ONLY RPS Control RSM Channels Channels Channels -!
Data Points 40 11 11 ,
Experience, Years 51 13 14 Average Rate, % of Span /Yr 0.04% -0.24% 0.08%
Standard Deviation 0.78% 1.20% 1.35% ,
K 2.445 3.259 3.259 95/95> Interval Value,.%/Yr 1.95%- 4.15% 4.49%
j 95/95 Interval Value, %/30 mo 4.87% 10.37% 11.23%
Best Estimate, %/Yr 0.62% 0.94% 1. 21% -
Best-Estimate, %/30 mo 1.55%. 2.34% 3.02% ,
As can be seen from this table, the RPS steam generator level transmitters show less drift than those used.in control and RSM applications.
?
'The drift data for Foxboro NE13DM transmitters was analyzed.for
' differences due to process effects. Table 4.2.6 contains the results.
L Table 5. 2. 6 -
Foxboro NE13DM Differential Pressure Transmitters Experienced Drift E Process BAMU VCT Level Level Data Points 3 4 I i- Experience, Years 1 5 L Average Rate, %'of Span /Yr -1.33% 0.42%
E Standard Deviation 1.59% 0.97%
K~
5.079 95/95' Interval Value, %/Yr -
5.34%
95/95~ Interval Value, %/30 -
13.36%
Best Estimate, %/Yr- 1.93% 0.80%
Best Estimate, %/30 mo 4.82% 2.00%
l L
l <
l .a .
n .
., y-69o+7
<w i; fty.L) .
g ya r.73 INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page 32 The amount ofLdata recovered for these transmitters is limited, however, it appears to be generally typical of drift. data for other models of-differential pressure transmitters. Given the limited-amount of data, there does not appear to be substantial L : differences-due P.o the monitored process.
In order-to increase-the assurance that substantial differences do not exist by process for the Rosemount differential pressure transmitters, the data for these transmittars was sorted and analyzed'on a process basis. The following tables provice the results. Table 5.2.7 highlights the results of examining the Rosemount 1153DP5 model transmitters on a process basis.
- Table 5.2.7 E
Rosemount 1153DP5 Differential Pressure Transmitters- l Experienced Drift 1 Condensate Main i Storage Tank Feedwater Level Flow ,
L !
Data Points 3 6 Experience, Years 4 8 Average Rate, % of Span /Yr 0.13% -0.07%'
Standard Deviation 0.64% 0.48%
K -
4.414 95/95 Interval Value, %/Yr -
2.19%
95/95 Interval Value, %/30 -
5.47%
L Best Estimate, %/Yr- 0.55% 0.37%
Best Estimate, %/30_mo 1.38% 0.93%
The number of data points for 1153DP5 transmitters used for j Condensate Storage tank level is'very limited, however, there is- "
no. reason to believe that additional data would cause substantially different results. The other models of Rosemount differential pressure transmitters are each used in only one type of process.
?
i ?. Psv o i
has*7L
. INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page 33 5.3 _ Temperature Transmitters Two techniques of measuring temperature are used at San Onofre is applications-covered by these technical specifications, resistance temperature detectors (RTDs) and-thermocouples.
Temperature-transmitters, manufactured by Foxboro, are primarily
-used with RTDs, however a few temperature transmitters manufactured-by Rosemount are installed.. Foxboro temperature transmitters (Model 2AI-P2V) convert the resistance of the RTDs into a'O to 10 volt signal used.in the process instrument loops.
Rosemount temperature transmitters (Model 444RL) convert the resistance of the RTD-into a 4 to 20 milliamp signal used in the respective' process instrument loops.
Thermocouples are used to measure Containment atmosphere
' temperature and-calibration is required by-the technical specification on Accident Monitoring Instrumentation. The thermocouples are connected to Foxboro temperature transmitters (Model 2AI-T2V) where the millivolt signal is converted to a 0 to 10 volt. signal for the process instrument loop.
The experienced transmitter drift for each of the three different-models of temperature transmitters is shown.in Table 5.3.1. The table also lists the transmitter-years of experience that was analyzed.to determine the long term drift and other analysis data.
Table 5.3.1 SONGS Temperature Transmitters Experienced Drift 2AI-P2V 2AI-T2V 444RL Data Points 61 5 7 Experience, Years 84 7 9 Average Rate, % of Span /Yr 0.00% 0.20% 0.06%
Standard Deviation 0.14% 0.08% 0.15%
K 2.3366 5.079 4.007 95/95. Interval Value, %/Yr 0.33% 0.59% 0.66%
-95/95. Interval-Value, %/30 mo 0.819% 1.48% 1.64%
Best Estimate, %/Yr 0.11% 0.20% 0.12%
Best Estimate, %/30 mo 0.284% 0.50% 0.31%
The temperature transmitters exhibit very stable drift characteristics. The annual best estimate values are less than 0.25 % per year for all three models.
x
, N ~ b $ Y-x [. fsy. o 39 or71 INSTRUNENT DRIFT STUDY Page.34 A normality test =was made on the data for the 2AI-P2v Etransmitters. Appendix B, Table B-3, contains the detailed'
. calculations ~for this test. The results confirmed that the data is-normally distributed.
Since the. temperature transmitters are located in the Control Room, sorting and analyzing by process would not be of any
~
significanca. To more closely define the experienced drift for
~this subset of-temperature transmitters,Ethe data was sorted
-based on the utilization of the signal. Table 5.3.2 provides the results of this analysis of the data.
Table 5.3.2 SONGS Temperature-Transmitters Experienced Drift MODEL 2AI-P2V ONLY Sorted by Tech Spec Application CPC AMS+RSM Data Points 25 26 Experience,' Years 35 '35 Average Rate, % of Span /Yr 0.00% -0.01%
Standard Deviation 0.14% 0.12%
K 2.631 2.612 95/95 Interval Value, %/Yr 0.37% 0.33%
95/95 Interval.Value, 4/30 'O.93% ' O.82%'
Best Estimate, %/Yr 0.11% 0.10%
Best Estimate, %/30 mo 0.28% 0.25%
,The experienced drift values demonstrate that the rate of calibration change for these temperature transmitters is'very low. ~ The physical features of the sensing elements, either RTDs or thermocouples, provide for a high degree of stability in that both are completely passive and have no active components.
M $9@@I
, . hv. o pg 40 +'2-INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page 35 6.0 Comparison of Results Preceding sections of this report have described the scope of this report, the acceptance criteria and the results. The purpose of this section is to consolidate all of this information and make comparisons of the results to the existing allowances.
Where those allowances are insufficient for 30 month calibration
.atervsls, and where no explicit allowances exist, proposed allowan.ces are identified. The experienced values of drift are then compared to these proposed allowances.
Selection of the 95/95 interval value or the best estimate value is dependent upon the technical specification that is being addressed. 95/95 values are selected for those instruments related to PPS setpoints, while best estimate values are selected for instruments related to AMS and RSM instruments.
Section 5.0 first deals with the instruments on a model basis and then checks the result by process for each model. In general, the value selected for comparison to the existing and proposed allowances are based on the drift rates for the particular model of transmitter that is used in support of the technical specification. For the Rosemount 1153GD9 transmitters, this would lead to unnecessarily large conservatisms. The drift rates for the 1153GD9's used in the low range pressurizer pressure applicrtion cause the 95/95 interval values to be substantially larger. It is clear that the drift rates for these transmitters are different when used in these distinctly different applications. Therefore, the 95/95 interval for the wide range Rosemount 1153GD9's is used as representing their performance.
On the other hand, selection of the best estimate for Foxboro E13DH differential pressure transmitters would underestimate the experienced drift associated with pressurizer level indication.
In this case the value for the pressurizer level transmitters taken by themselves was used as the best estimate of their performance.
The proposed allowances shown in the tables in this section were chosen based on the groupings originally made for PPS setpoints.
Assumptions were made for drift rates for Foxboro pressure transmitters (1.5% for 18 months), Rosemount pressure transmitters (0.75% for 18 months), Foxboro differential pressure transmitters (0.18% for 18 months), and Foxboro temperature transmitters (0.40% for 18 months). Tnese values were extrapolated to the maximum calibration interval allowed by the technical specifications, which is 22.5 months, and used in determining the PPS setpoints. The proposed allowances for drift were determined by inspecting the 30 month drift values and selecting a value which would bound the experienced values. In order to keep the number of different allowances to a minimum,
- - - ~
~
M-87647
@ f, , Stv.o ga 41 *72
- t. ... .
a ,-
, -INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page 36 tho'value selected.for~PPS setpoint is utilized as the allowance.
. for AMS~and RSM instrumentation.
{,s t
i s
w _ a _ x _ -- _ _:- _ __ - -_ .- - - . . . .
, -M-69o+1!
.r
,- hy, O g e o*72"
, . INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page 37 L 6.1- Reactor Protective System Instrumentation i
Table 5.1 provides a summary comparison of the results of the analysis of long. term drift, the existing allowances for drift in RPS setpoints and proposed allowances for long term drift to faccommodate 30 month intervals-between transmitter calibrations.
All experienced drift values. reflect the 95/95. interval value for 1 0 ~the-model of transmitter related to the functional unit, except i for Functional Unit f5, Pressurizer Pressure - Low. In this i case, a substantial difference exists between the Rosemount )'
- 1153GD9's-(wide range, 0 to 3000 psia) used for this trip
[' function and those 1153GD9's used for low range (100 to 765 psia) e p pressurizer pressure. The 95/95 interval value for the w'de E range transmitters was used. The higher drift rate associated
, with the low range transmitters is probably due to essentially
- constant exposure.to.an over range condition, i.e. pressure in excess of 765 psia.
Table 6.1 ,
Reactor Protective System L e Comparison of Results to Allowanc*s 95/95 Existing Proposed Instrument Interval Drift Drift Functional Unit Model Drift Allow Allow
'1. Manual. Reactor Trip N/A
- 2. Lin-Power Level - High N/A
- 3. Log Power Level - High N/A
- 4. Pzr Pressure - High E11GM 3.13 1.88 3.75 5.:Pzr Pressure - Low 1153GD9 1.09 0.94 1.25
- 6. Cont Pressure - High' NE11DM 2.86 1.88 3.75
'7. S/G Pressure - Low E11GM 3.13 1.88 3.75
- 8. S/G Level - Low E13DM. 6.04 0.22 6.25
- 9. Local Power Density N/A
- 10. DNBR - Low See #14
- 11. S/G Level - High E13DM 6.04 o0.22 6.25
- 12. RPS Logic N/A
- 13. Reactor Trip Breakers N/A
- 15. CEA Calculators N/A
- 16. RCS Flow - Low 1153HD6 4.55 None None
- 17. Seismic - High N/A 18.-Loss of Load N/A All of the experienced drift values exceed the existing allowance when extrapolated to 30 month calibration intervals. The
- 4. e Yl~890W i ... dv. oi kgg;k$##S
$NSTRUNENT. DRIFT STUDY Page 38
.]
proposed' values areEconservatively-larger.than the' experienced
. L'~~
/ drift rates. Incorporation of these values into setpoint i'
.. calculations would-justify extension of transmitter calibration
' intervals to 30. month periods.
1 I
s i
b r
4i s
5 L
a P
1 k
M-MON
.c' hy. O gg # ec 72
~ INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY- Page 39 6.2 Engineered Safety Features Actuation System Table 6.2 provides a summary comparison of the results of-the L analysis of long term drift, the existing allowances for drift in ESFAS setpoints and proposed' allowances'for long term drift to-accommodate 30-month intervals between transmitter' calibrations.
All experienced drift values reflect the 95/95-interval value for
- the model of transmitter related to the functional unit, except for Functional Unit 1.c, Pressurizar Pressure - Low. The reason for'using the lower value of drift associated with the wide range transmitters is discussed'in Section 6.1 above.
l' L Table 6.2 l
l ESFAS Instrumentation l Comparison of Results to Allowances
- l.
- 95/95 Existing Proposed I Instrument Interval Drift Drift Functional Unit Model Drift Allow Allow L 1. Safety Injection N/A
- a. Manual.
1
- b. Cont Pressure - High NE11DM 2.86 1.88 3.75 c.'Pzr Pressure - Low 1153GD9 1.09 0.94 1.25 d.-Auto Actuation Logic N/A
- a. Manual N/A
, b. Cont Pressure - Hi-Hi NE11DM 2.86 1.88 -3.75
- c. Auto Actuation Logic N/A "3. Containment Isolation
- a. Manual CIAS N/A
- b. Manual SIAS N/A
- c. Cont Pressure - High NE11DM 2.86 1.88 3.75
- d. Auto Actuation Logic N/A
- 4. Main Steam Isolation
- a. Manual N/A ;
- b. S/G Pressure - Low E11GM 3.13 1.88 3.75
- c. Auto Actuation Logic -N/A
- 5. Recirculation
- a. RWT Level - Low E13DM 6.04 0.22 6.25
- b. Auto Actuation Logic N/A
, 6. Containment Cooling N/A
, 7. Loss of Power- N/A i
?;
~
q gC)o4% -
1 -. Qtv. o -
y cFD
-INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page 40 l
Table 6.2 (continued)
E 95/95 Existing Proposed Instrument Interval Drift Drift Functional Unit Model Drift. Allow Allow +
8.. Emergency Feedwater
- a. Manual N/A
- b. SG Level ( A/B) -Low E13DM '6.04 0.22 6.25 and DP(A/B) - High E11GM 3.13 1.88 3.75 ,
- c. SG Level (A/B)-Low and Nof E13DM 6.04 0.22 6.25 Pressure - Low Trip (A/B) E11GM 3.13 1.88 3.75
- d. Auto Actuation Logic N/A
- 9. Control Room Isolation N/A
- 10. Toxic Gas Isolation. N/A
- 11. Fuel Handling Isolation N/A '
- 12. Cont Purge Isolation N/A All of the 95/95 experienced drift values exceed the existing l
allowances when extrapolated to 30 month calibration intervals.
l The proposed-allowances are conservatively larger than the -(
experienced drift rates. Incorporation of these values into setpoint calculations.would justify extension of transmitter calibration intervals to 30 month periods.
f-5 l
l t-
-- 48W4~l i'
1 l. ' Qsx, o Pns. 46*72 '
INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page 41-
'6.3 Remote Shutdown Monitoring System Instrumentation 1
Table 6.3 provides a summary comparison of the results of the !
analysis of long term drift and proposed allowances for long term i
drift to accommodate 30 month-intervals between transmitter L
calibrations. All experienced drift values reflect the best-estimate value for the model of transmitter related to the instrument channel except for wide range pressurizer pressure and pressurizer level. The reason for using a different value for- ,
wide. range pressurizer pressure is discussed-in Section 6.1.
- Substantial differences exist between pressurizer level transmitters and the same model transmitter, Foxboro E13DH, used -s to monitor HPSI flow. This is probably due to the normally inactive HPSI system versus the constantly pressurized RCS. The L higher best estimate value for the pressurizer level transmitters l taken by themselves was selected to represent the best estimate of the performance of these transmitters.
The proposed drift allowances were chosen to be consistent with the allowances used for similar equipment used in the PPS except for the transmitters used for condenser vacuum indication. The l drift allowance used for PPS pressure transmitters is not sufficient to bound the best estimate of long term drift for-the l
Rosemount 1151AP4E transmitters so a value of 8.75% was established.
L L
- l Table 6.3 l
Remote Shutdown Monitoring Instrumentation l Comparison of Results to Allowances Best L Instrument Estimate ' Drift p Instrument Model Drift Allowance L
F 1. Log Power Level N/A
- 2. RCS Cold Leg Temperature 444RL 0.31 0.94
- 3. Pressurizer Pressure 1153GD9 0.29 1.25'
- 4. Pressurizer Level E13DH 4.96 6.25
- 5. Steam Generator Level E13DM 1.98 6.25
- 6. Steam Generator Pressure E11GM 0.99 3.75
- 7. Source Range NIs N/A
- 8. . Condenser Vacuum 1151AP4E 7.24 8.75
- 9. Volume Control Tank Level E13DM 1.98 , 6.25
- 10. Letdown HX Pressure E11GM 0.99' 3.75
- 11. Letdown HX Temperature 2AI-P2V 0.28 0.94
, .. 2sv. o .
43 0 INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page 42 Table 6.3 (continued)
Best Instrument Estimate Drift Instrument Model Drift Allowance ,
i
- 12. BAMU Tank Level NE13DM 4.31 6.25
- 13. Cond Storage Tank Level 1152'D5 0.44 6.25 l 1152DP5 6.25 l
- 14. .RCS Hot Leg Temperature 444RL 0.31 0.94 j
- 15. Pzr Pressure - Low Range NE11GM 0.59- 3.75
- 16. Pzr Pressure - High Range E11GM 0.99 3.75
- 17. Pressurizer Level E13DH 4.96 6.25
- 18. Steam Generator Pressure NE11GM 0.59 3.75 I
- 19. Steam Generator Level 1153HD5 1.09 6.25 j l
As can be seen from the table, the proposed allowances for drift over a 30 month period are generally several times the experienced best estimate values. -Performing an assessment of.
this instrumentation as used in a situation requiring a remote shutdown of a unit assuming the proposed values of drift shown above would provide an adequate basis for extending the calibration interval of this instrumentation to 30 months.
l.
i
- l. <
l' 1
I
c :. hSV . O -
gg,, 4e ss 22 INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page 43 6.4 Accident Monitoring System Instrumentation Table 6.4 provides a summary comparison of the results-of the analysis of long term drift and proposed allowances for long term.
drift to accommodate 30 month intervals between transmitter calibrations.- All experienced drift values reflect the best estimate value for the model of transmitter related to the instrument channel except for pressurizar pressure and
, pressurizer level. The reasons for treating these instruments differently are. discussed in Sections 6.1 and 6.3, respectfully.
The proposed' drift allowances were chosen to be consistent with the allowances used for similar equipment in the PPS.
Table 6.4 Accident Monitoring System Instrumentation Comparison of Results to Allowances Best Instrument Estimate Drift Instrument Model Drift Allowance
- 1. Cont Press-Narrow Range NE11GM 0.59 3.75 2.-Cont Press-Wide Range NE11GM 0.59 3.75 3.-RCS Outlet Temperature 2AI ,P2V 0.28 0.94 L
l 4. RCS Inlet Temperature (WR) 2AI-P2V 0.28 0.94 l
S. Pressurizar Pressure (WR) 1153GD9 0.29 1.25
- 6. Pressurizar Water Level E13DH 4.96 6.25-
- 7. Steam Line Pressure E11GM' O.99 3.75
- 8. S/G Level (Wide Range) 1153HD5 1.09. 3.75
- 9. RWT Water Level E13DM 1.98 3.75
- 10. Auxiliary FW Flow' Rate E13DM 1.98 3.75
- 11. RCS.Subcooling 2AI-P2V 0.28 0.94 L Margin Monitor (QSPDS) 1153GD9 0.29 1.25 L 12. Safety Valve Position Ind N/A L 13. Spray System Pressure NE11GM 0.59 3.75 l 14. LPSI Header Temperature 2AI-P2V 0.28 0.94 L 15. Containment Temperature 2AI-T2V 0.50 0.94 l
- EVcN sv. O 1 + 9,p7zl INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page 44 Table 6.4 (continued)
Best l Instrument Estimate Drift )
Instrument Model Drift Allowance J J
- 16. Containment' Water Level N/A i (Narrow Range) l
- 17. Containment Water Level N/A (Wide Range)
- 18. Core Exit Thermocouples N/A
' 19 . Cold Leg HPSI Flow E13DH 1.49 6.25 1
- 20. Hot Leg HPSI Flow E13DH 1.49 6.25
. 21. HJTC System --RVLMS N/A l'
Comparisons of the best estimate drift' values to the proposed allowances show that those allowances conservatively reflect transmitter performance. Performing an assessment of this instrumentation as used in conducting the emergency operating procedures, assuming the proposed allowances of drift shown-above, would provide an~ adequate basis for extending the calibration interval of this instrumentation to 30 months.
M- 89o4 7
- c. , t. . ftv. O Mg so 472.
-INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY- Page-45 )
7.0 Conclusions The-preceding sections of this report provide a description of the' scope, methods, and results of an analysis of the long term ,
drift characteristics of transmitters installed at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2&3. A comparison of the results of analysis of the.long term drift data is made to existing allowances for long term drift. The results are also compared to proposed allowances for long term drift assuming 30 month intervals between calibrations.
The scope of-this report is sufficient in that all of the models '
of transmitters used in' applications covered-by the relevant technical specifications are addressed. The methods used to develop 95/95 interval values and best estimates are accepted and o documented. These methods assure results which are consistent L with the design assumptions.
l There are several inherent conservatisms with using the proposed '
allowances. First of all, the experienced data is, in general,
-substantially less than the allowance. The differences in as-found and as-left readings were assumed to be entirely due to drift, when factors such as transmitter accuracy, calibration uncertainties, and. technician errors are most certainly'present.
Finally, only the maximum value of drift for the five calibration ,
points was utilized as a data point. Incorporating the data
-related to the other-four points would. increase the amount of data by a factor of five, with four of the points of each data set being less than the point in the current data base.
This analysis provides a conservative assessment of transmitter performance for those transmitters addressed,within the scope of q this report. Utilization of the~ proposed allowances for long termidrift in setpoint.and' uncertainty' calculations, and in evaluations of instrument performance with respect'to the EOIs will provide a sound basis for extending the calibration interval of these transmitters to 30' months. .
h 4
-- ~ *
^~ ~
M.8904L"
-, '. Es.v. 0 L si on2_
INSTRUMENT: DRIFT STUDY Page 46 8.0 References 8 '.1 Combustion' Engineering Setpoint Calculation, 1370-ICE-36123, Revision 0, dated October 15, 1981 by K. A. Riad, T. W.
Shum, and D. S. Berto j
- 8. 2 ' Combustion Engineering Satpoint Calculation, 1370-ICE-36126, Revision 3, dated July 27, 1984 by W. J. Brodbeck,-D.
Johnson, L. W. Bulgier, and J. J. Valerio
'8.3 Combustion-Engineering Sutpoint Calculation, 1370-ICE-36160,-
Revision 0, dated October 28, 1981 by L. W. Bulgier, K. A.
Riad, and D. S. Berto 8.4 Foxboro Instruction Manual I
8.5 Rosemount.. Instruction Marual 8.6 Southern California Edison, San'Onofra Nuclear Generating ,
Station, Units 2&3 Instrument Index 8.7 San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2&3, Final Safety Analysis Report
, 8.8 Statistics for Nuclear Engineers and Scientists, Part 1: l l Basic Statistical Inference, WAPD-TM-1292, DOE Research'and !
Development Report, William J. Beggs, February, 1981, Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory, West Mifflin, Pennsylvania j 8.9 Best Estimate Instrumentation Inaccuracies for EOP Use, Task i 536 Final Report, CE-NPSD-471, July, 1988, Combustion Engineering, Incorporated o
- i I
t
\
l f .
l l
l
_:_- _ _ - _ _ __ _ _ _______ _ J;
M- 69 OO .I
.e KV' O .t fkkf- 2o572_j l
INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page A-1 4 APPENDIX A This appendix contains data tables which are referenced throughout this report. These tables represent the data which .l was extracted from spreadsheets and then combined in various 1 manners. ,
KEY 3eadings:Model Transmitter Model number. Rosemount-numbers were truncated by eliminating the "11" that precedes each of the Rosemount transmitter models used in this study.
Proc Process Tag SONGS Instrument ~ Tag Number Cal Date Ending date of the drift interval, i.e. the as-found calibration date, u Int Time interval, in days, over which the drift L occurred.
l f Drift Amount of drift, in' percent of span, that i
occurred over the interval. This is the L maximum value of change of the five l
calibration points.
l l
Drift. Drift divided by the time interval in years.
Rate l- ~
l PROCESSES:-
PZP Pressurizer Pressure CSP Containment Spray Header Pressure CTP Containment Pressure SGP Steam Generator Pressure COND Main Condenser Vacuum FF Feed Flow
, CSTT. Condensate Storage Tank Level -
HPS. High Pressure Safety Injection System Flow TECH SPECS:
RPS Reactor Protective Instrumentation EST Engineered Safety Features Actuation System Instrumentation AMS Accident Monitoring System Instrumentation RSD Remote Shutdown Monitoring Instrumentation 4
,, -- n-- - -
3[. kv O ~
flyt s3 cF 72.
INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY- Page A-2 PRESSURE TRANSMITTERS FOX 3ORO E11GM TRANSMITTERS I
DATA LISTING 1 Calibration Drift u Model Proc T/S Tag Date Int Drift Rate E11GM PZP None 2-PT-0100-X 12/28/81 662 -0.12% -0.07%
E11GM PZP None 2-PT-0100-X 06/25/83 544 -0.38% -0.25%
E11GM PZP None 2-PT-0100 -X 12/13/84 537 0.50%. 0.34%
E11GM PZP None 2-PT-0100-X 04/08/86 481 0.56% 0.43%
E11GM .PZP None 2-PT-0100-Y 12/08/81 641 -1.25% -0.71%
E11GM PZP None 2-PT-0100-Y 05/03/82 146 -1.12% -2.81%
E11GM' PZP- None 2-PT-0100-Y 06/25/83 418 -1.06% -0.93%
E11GM PZP Nona 2-PT-0100-Y 12/12/84 536 0.19% 0.13% ,
E11GM PZP None 2-PT-0100-Y 04/08/86 482 1.12% 0.85%
E11GM PZP None 2-PT-0100-Y 11/03/87 574 0.25% 0.16% ,
E11GM PZP RPS 2-PT-0101-1 X1/13/81 617 -0.25% -0.15%
E11GM PZP RPS' 2-PT-0101-1 04/15/83 518 -0.44% -0.31%
E11GM PZP- RPS 2-PT-0101-1 1G/31/84 497 -0.19% -0.14%
E11GM PZP RPS 2-PT-0101-1 04/02/86 518 0.76% 0.53%-
E11GM PZP- RPS 2-PT-0101-1 09/17/87 533 0.25% 0.17%
E11GM PZP RPS 2-PT-0101-2 10/51/84 498 0.29% 0.21%
'E11GM PZP- RPS 2-PT-0101-2 04/0,1/86 518 1.25% 0.88%
E11GM PZP RPS 2-PT-0101-2 09/18/87 534 -1.13% -0.77% ,
E11GM- PZP RPS 2-PT-0101-3 11/13/81 616 -0.19% -0.11%
E11GM PZP' RPS 2-PT-0101-3 04/15/33 518 0.63% 0.44%
E11GM PZP RPS 2-PT-0101-3 10/31/64 497 0.50% 0.37%
L 'E11GM- PZP RPS 2-PT-0101-3 04/02/86 518 -1.39% -0.98%
E11GM PZP RPS 2-PT-0101-3 09/18/87 534 0.12%- 0.09%
E11GM PZP RPS 2-PT-0101-4 11/13/81 617 -0.69% -0.41%
E11GM- PZP RPS 2-PT-0101-4 04/15/83 518 1.06% 0.75%
E11GM PZP RPS 2-PT-0101-4 10/31/84 497 0.21% 0.15%
E11GM PZP RPS 2-PT-0101-4 04/02/86 618 0.37% 0.26% ,
E11GM PZP RPS 2-PT-0101-4 09/17/87 513 -0.69% -0.47% '
E11GM PZP None 2-PT-0103-1 11/07/81 614 0.31% 0.19%
E11GM PZP None 2-PT-0103-1 06/20/83 590 0.63% 0.39%
E11GM PZP None 2-PT-0103-1 11/26/84 525 -0.38% -0.26%
E11GM PZP None 2-PT-0103-1 04/16/86 506 -0.19% -0.14%
E11GM' PZP None 2-PT-0103-1 09/20/87 522 0.31% 0.22%
'E11GM PZP None 2-PT-0105-3 06/20/83~ 590 0.75% 0.46%
E11GM PZP None 2-PT-0105-3 11/26/84 525 0.25% 0.17%
- E11GM PZP None 2-PT-0105-3 04/24/86 514 -0.06% -0.04%
E11GM PZP None 2-PT-0105-3 09/20/87 514 -0.06% -0.04%
E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1013-1 02/25/81 355 1.19% 1.22%
E11GM- SGP RPS 2-PT-1013-1 10/15/81 232 0.63% 0.98%
E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1013-1 07/02/82 260 -0.56% -0.79%
E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1013-1 06/18/83 351 -7.63% -0.65%
pgg
%o qg s+ o*7Z INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page A-3 PRESSURE TRANSMITTERS FOXBORO E11GM TRANSMITTERS DATA LISTING (continued)
Calibration Drift Model Proc T/S Tag Data Int Drift Rate E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1013-1 10/31/84 501 1.00% 0.73%
. E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1013-1 04/15/86 531 -0.13% -0.09%-
E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1013-1 09/13/87 516 -0.19% -0.13%
E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1013-2 02/25/81 356 0.94% 0.96%_
E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1013-2 10/16/81 233 -0.69% -1.08%
E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1013-2 07/07/82 264 -0.50% -0.69%
E11GM- SGP RPS 2-PT-1013-2 06/19/83 347 1.31% 1.38%
E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1013-2 10/31/84 500 -0.13% -0.09%
E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1013-2 04/15/86 531 -0.31% -0.21%
E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1013-2 09/10/87 513 0.12% 'O.09%
l E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1013-3 02/25/81 356 0.50% 0.51%
E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1013-3 10/19/81 236 -0.37% -0.58%
E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1013-3 07/07/82 261 -0.75% -1.05%
E11GM' SGP RPS 2-PT-1013-3 04/16/86 532- -0.12% -0.09%
E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1013-3 09/10/87 512 -0.25% -0.18%
E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1013-4 06/19/83 607 -0.13% -0.08%
E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1013-4 10/31/84 500 0.13% 0~09%-
E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1013-4 04/16/86 532 0.06% 0.04%
E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1013-4 09/13/87 515 0.69% 0.49%-
E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1023-1 02/25/81 352 1.56% 1.62%
E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1023-1 10/21/81 '238 -1.25% -1.92%
E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1023-1 04/15/86 530 -0.19% -0.13%
E11GM SGP_ RPS 2-PT-1023-1 09/13/87 516 0.25% 0.18%
E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1023-2 02/25/81 355 1.63% 1.67%
E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1023-2 11/03/81 251 0.12%_ 0.18%
E11GM SGP- RPS 2-PT-1023-2 04/15/86 530 -0.13% -0.09%
E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1023-2 09/10/87 513 -0.25% -0.18%
-E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1023-3 02/25/81 352 0.88% 0.91%
E11GM SGP~ RPS 2-PT-1023-3 11/03/81 251 0.38% 0.55%
E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1023-3 06/19/83 593 -0.31% -0.19%
E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1023-3 11/01/84 501 0.63% 0.46%
'E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1023-3 04/16/86 531 0.81% 0.56%
E11GM. SGP RPS 2-PT-1023-3 09/10/87 512 0.31% 0.22%
E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1023-4 02/25/81 355 2.19% 2.25%
E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1023-4 11/04/81 252 -0.44% -0.63%
E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1023-4 06/14/82 222 -0.49% -0.80%
E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1023-4 06/19/83 370 -0.37% -0.37% ,
E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1023-4 11/01/84 501 0.19% 0.14% l E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1023-4 04/16/86 531 -0.06% -0.04% i 515 1.00% 0.71%
E11GM SGP RPS 2-PT-1023-4 09/13/87 E11GM PZP None 3-PT-0100-X 01/07/83 137 0.29% 0.77%
^
hi- 6 Y O + /
fev. o
+ -
yy onz i INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page A-4 PRESSURE TRANSMITTERS 3 FOXBORO E11GM TRANSMITTERS DATA LISTING l (continued) l Calibration Drift l Model Proc T/S Tag Date Int Drift Rate l E11GM PZP None 3-PT-0100-X 01/23/84 381 -3.38% -3.23% l E11GM PZP None 3-PT-0100-X 11/14/85 661 0.06% 0.03% l E11GM PZP None 3-PT-0100-X 01/30/87 442 -0.53% -0.44% ,
E11GM PZP None 3-PT-0100-Y 01/20/84 378 -3.62% -3.50%
E11GM PZP None 3-PT-0100-Y 11/14/85 664 0.33% 0.18%
E11GM PZP None 3-PT-0100-Y 01/30/87 442 -0.75% -0.62%
E11GM PZP RPS 3-PT-0101-1 01/26/87 381 1.12% 1.08%
E11GM--PZP RPS 3-PT-0101-2 01/22/84 353 0.16% 0.16%.
E11GM PZP RPS 3-PT-0101-2 10/09/85 626 0.13% 0.07%
E11GM PZP RPS 3-PT-0101-2 01/24/87 472 0.56% 0.43%
E11GM PZP RPS 3-PT-0101-3 02/04/83 273 0.50% 0.67%
l E11GM PZP RPS 3-PT-0101-3 01/22/84 352 0.69% 0.71%
l' E11GM PZP RPS 3-PT-0101-3 10/09/85 626 -0.19% -0.11%
E11GM- PZP RPS 3-PT-0101-3 01/24/87 472 1.00% 0.77%
E11GM PZP RPS 3-PT-0101-4 01/22/84 355 0.65% 0.67%
E11GM PZP RPS 3-PT-0101-4 10/09/85 626 0.75% 0.44%
E11GM PZP RPS 3-PT-0101-4 01/26/87 '474 0.12% 0.10%
E11GM PZP None 3-PT-0103-1 02/09/84 424 1.19% 1.02%
E11GM PZP None 3-PT-0103-1 10/11/85 610 -0.75% -0.45%
-0.28%
E11GM PZP None 3-PT-0103-3 02/11/87 488 -0.38%~
L E11GM PZP None 3-PT-0105-3 02/09/84 423 0.38% 0.32%
L E11GM PZP None- '3-PT-0105-3 10/16/85 615 0.56% 0.33%
E11GM PZP None 3-PT-0105-3 02/11/87- 483 2.89% 2.18%
i E11GM SGP RPS 3-PT-1013-1 01/14/84 380 -0.25% -0.24%
L E11GM SGP RPS 3-PT-1013-1 09/28/85 623 0.19% 0.11%
L E11GM SGP RPS 3-PT-1013-1 01/19/87 478 0.06% 0.05%
l E11GM SGP RPS 3-PT-1013-2 01/14/84 376 0.81% 0.79%
l' E11GM SGP RPS 3-PT-1013-2 09/28/85 623 -0.13% -0.07%
E11GM SGP. RPS 3-PT-1013-2 01/19/87 478 0.38% 0.29%-
E11GM SGP RPS 3-PT-1013-3 01/14/84 374 0.38% 0.37%-
E11GM SGP RPS 3-PT-1013-3 10/01/85 626 0.25% 0.15%
E11GM SGP RPS 3-PT-1013-3 01/21/87 477 -0.13% -0.10%
E11GM SGP' RPS 3-PT-1013-4 01/14/84 372 -0.19% -0.18%
E11GM SGP RPS 3-PT-1013-4 10/04/85 629 -0.25% -0.15%
E11GM SGP RPS 3-PT-1013-4 01/21/87 474 0.44% 0.34%
E11GM SGP RPS 3-PT-1023-1 01/14/84 380 -0.12% -0.12%
E11GM SGP RPS 3-PT-1023-1 09/28/85 623 -0.12% -0.07%
E11GM SGP RPS 3-PT-1023-1 01/20/87 479 0.12% 0.10%
E11GM SGP RPS 3-PT-1023-2 01/14/84 379 -0.19% -0.18%
E11GM SGP RPS 3-PT-1023-2 09/28/85 623 -0.19% -1.11%
E11GM SGP RPS 3-PT-1023-2 01/20/87 479 0.12% 0.10%
M-87OY/
- y. ,
fct, 0 g 5 (o C C 5 INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page A-5 PRESSURE TRANSMITTERS FOXBORO E11GM TRANSMITTERS DATA LISTING (continued)
Calibration Drift Model Proc T/S Tag Date Int Drift Rate E11GM SGP RPS 3-PT-1023-3 01/14/84 375; -0.24% -0.24%
E11GM SGP RPS 3-PT-1023-3 10/01/85 626 0.19% 0.11%
E11GM SGP RPS 3-PT-1023-3 01/21/87 477- -0.31% -0.24%
E11GM SGP RPS 3-PT-1023-4 01/*.4/84 373 -0.19% -0.18%
E11GM SGP RPS 3-PT-1023-4 10/01/85 626 0.06% 0.04%
E11GM SGP RPS 3-PT-1023-4 01/21/87 477 0.25% 0.19%
i L
t l
l.
M-890+7 p hiv.C) h49t S7 0F'/2i
~I NSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY- Page A-6 PRESSURE TRANSMITTERS FOXBORO NE11DM TRANSMITTERS DATA LISTING Calibration Drift Model Proc T/S Tag Date Int Drift Rate NE11DM CSP AMS 2-PT-0303-1 06/22/83 223 0.25%_ 0.41%
-NE11DM CSP AMS 2-PT-0303-1 11/16/84 513 0.59% 0.42%
NE11DM CSP AMS 2-PT-0303-1 03/11/86 480 2.82% 2.14%
NE11DM CSP AMS 2-PT-0303-1 08/04/87 511 -0.75% -0.54%
NE11DM CSP AMS 2-PT-0303-2 06/21/83 222 0.37% 0.62%
! NE11DM CSP AMS 2-PT-0303-2 11/20/84 518 0.72% 0.51%
NE11DM CTP ESF. 2-PT-0351-1 03/21/86 506 -0.31% -0.23%
NE11DM CTP ESF 2-PT-0351-1 07/08/87 474 -0.25% -0.19%
NE11DM CTP ESF 2-PT-0351-2 06/22/83 328 2.25% 2.50%
NE11DM CTP ESF 2-PT-0351-2 03/01/85 618 0.19% 0.11%
NE11DM CTP ESF 2-PT-0351-3 07/23/87 418 2.00% 1.75%
NE11DM CTP ESF 2-PT-0351-4 06/22/83 523~ -0.63% -0.44%
NE11DM CTP ESF 2-PT-0352-1 07/10/84 452 0.13% 0.10%
NE11DM CTP ESF 2-PT-0352-1 10/31/84 113 0.37% 1.21%
NE11DM CTP ESF 2-PT-0352-1 03/21/86 506 -0.44% -0.32%
NE11DM CTP ESF 2-PT-0352-1 07/08/87 474 0.19% 0.14%
NE11DM CTP ESF 2-PT-0352-3 03/21/86 504 0.19% 0.14%
NE11DM CTP ESF 2-PT-0352-3 07/23/87 489 -0.56% -0.42%
NE11DM CTP ESF 2-PT-0352-4 06/22/83 526 0.50% 0.35%
NE11DM CTP ESF 2-PT-0352-4 09/08/87 536 0.56% 0.38%
NE11DM CSP AMS' 3-PT-0303-1 02/03/88 379 0.31% 0.30%
NE11DM CSP AMS- 3-PT-0303-2 02/01/88 .370 0.06% 0.06%
NE11DM CTP ESF 3-PT-0351-1 01/25/87 _479 -0.44% -0.33%
NE11DM CTP ESF 3-PT-0351 01/22/87 476 0.31% 0.24%
NE11DM CTP ESF 3-PT-0352-1 04/09/85 299 -0.38% -0.46%
NE11DM CTP ESF 3-PT-0352-1 01/23/87 654 -0.19% -0.10%
r tV.O ,
Qg ss 4 72_:
INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page A-7 FOXBORO NE11GM TRANSMITTERS DATA LISTING Calibration Drift Model Proc T/S Tag Date Int Drift Rate NE11GM CTP AMS 2-PT-0353-1 11/19/83 620 0.12% 0.07%
NE11GM CTP AMS 2-PT-0353-1 11/23/84 370 0.11%- 0.11%
NE11GM CTP AMS 2-PT-0353-1 04/10/86 503 -0.09% -0.07%
NE11GM CTP AMS 2-PT-0353-1 08/14/87 491 0.12% 0.09%
NE11GM CTP AMS 2-PT-0354-2 08/18/87 495 -0.03% -0.02%
NE11GM PZP RSD 2-PT-104-A 11/20/85 365 -0.12% -0.12%
NE11GM PZP RSD 2-PT-104-A 05/07/86 168 0.25% 0.54%
NE11GM PZP RSD 2-PT-104-A 09/20/87 501 0.31% 0.23%
NE11GM SGP -RSD 2-PT-8300 02/14/89 527 0.50% 0.35%
NE11GM SGP RSD 2-PT-8301 02/16/89 529 0.31% 0.22%
NE11GM CTP AMS 3-PT-0353-1 11/01/82 168 0.50% 1.09%
NE11GM CTP AMS 3-PT-0353-1 11/15/86 400 -0.19% -0.17%
NE11GM SGP RSD 3-PT-8300 05/07/88 485 -0.81% -0.61%
NE11GM SGP RSD 3-PT-8301 05/07/88 485 -0.63% -0.47%
l i
l l'
l l
l s
l l
- ~ ' ~
M - 6d) M 'T e ., k0V O pm s9
- u INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY' Page A-8 ROSEMOUNT 1151AP4E TRANSMITTERS DATA LISTING Calibration Drift Model Proc T/S Tag Date Int Drift Rate R51AP4ECOND AMS 2-PT-3383 03/24/88 183 -10.88% -21.69%
R51AP4ECOND AMS 3-PT-3202 10/24/85 247 4.63% 6.83%
R$1AP4ECOND AMS 3-PT-3202 01/06/87 439 2.81% 2.34%
R51AP4ECOND AMS 3-PT-3202 05/05/88 485 -1.69% -1.27%
R51AP4ECOND AMS 3-PT-3383 10/23/85 246 4.50% 6.68%
R51AP4ECOND AMS 3-PT-3383 01/03/87 437 -0.12% -0s10%
R51AP4ECOND AMS 3 PT-3383 05/05/88 488 -2.94% -2,20%
R51AP4ECOND AMS 3-PT-3395 05/05/88 483 -1.12% -0.85%
ROSEMOUNT 1153GD9 TRANSMITTERS DATA LISTING Calibration Drift Model Proc T/S Tag Date Int Drift Rate R53GD9 PZP ESF 2-PT-0102-1 03/31/86 491 0.25% 0.19%
R53GD9 PZP ESF 2-PT-0102-1 09/18/87 536 -0.06% -0.04%
R53GD9 PZP ESF 2-PT-0102-2 04/01/86 488 0.12% 0.09%-
L R53GD9 PZP ESF 2-PT-0102-2 09/18/87 535 0.13% 0.09%
R53GD9 PZP ESF 2-PT-0102-3 04/01/86 488 -0.14% -0.11%
R53GD9 PZP ESF 2-PT-0102-3 09/16/87 533 -0.06% 0.04%
R53GD9 PZP ESF 2-PT-0102-4 04/01/86 492 0.12% 0.09%
R53GD9 PZP ESF 2-PT-0102-4 09/17/87 534 0.06% 0.04%
R53GD9 PZP None 2-PT-0104-2 04/22/86 496 -0.31% -0.23%
R53GD9 PZP None 2-PT-0104-2 09/20/87 516 -0.62% -0.44%
R53GD9 PZP None 2-PT-0106-4 04/29/86 503 0.25% 0.18%
R53GD9 PZP. None 2-PT-0106-4 09/20/87 509 -0.31% -0.22%
R53GD9 PZP ESF 3-PT-0102-1 01/29/87 484 -0.31% -0.24%
R53GD9 PZP ESF 3-PT-0102-2 01/30/87 485 0.13% 0.09%
R53GD9 PZP ESF 3-PT-0102-3 01/30/87 485 -0.31% -0.24%
R53GD9 PZP None 3 - PT-0104-2 02/11/87 484 1.42% 1.07%
R53GD9 PZP None 3-PT-0104-2 06/10/88 485 -0.36% -0.27%
R53GD9 PZP None 3-PT-0106-4 02/11/87 482 0.78% 0.59%
R53GD9 PZP None 3-PT-0106-4 06/15/88 490 0.50% 0.37%
l l
M-89 o FI tx . Q p go. 'ci 72 -
INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page A-9 DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE TRANSMITTERS ROSEMOUNT MODEL 1152DP5 DATA LISTING Calibration Drift Model ' Proc T/S Tag Date Int Drift Rate 1152DP5 FF None 2-FT-1121 09/23/87 509 0.81%- 0.58%
1152DP5 FF None 2-FT-1121 08/22/88 334 -0.37% -0.41%
1152DP5 CSTL RSD- 2-LT-4357 08/11/87 480 0.12% 0.10%
1152DP5 FF None 3-FT-1111 09/27/85 198 -0.50% -0.92%
1152DP5 FF None *3-FT-1111 05/20/88 896 0.09% 0.04%
1152DP5- FF None 3-FT-1121 10/01/85 203 0.12% 0.22%
1152DP5 FF None *3-FT-1121 05/20/88 893 0.13% 0.05%
1152DP5 CSTL RSD 3-LT-4357 03/02/R7 468 1.19% 0.93%
1152DP5 CSTL RSD 3-LT-4357 02/25/88 360 -0.62% -0.63%
ROSEMOUNT MODEL 1153DDS DATA LISTING Calibration Drift Model Proc T/S Tag Date Int Drift Rate 1153DD5 CSTL None 2-LT-4356 07/30/87 465 0.13% 0.10%
1153DD5 CSTL None 3-LT-4356 02/24/88 362 -0.25% -0.25%
ROSEMOUNT MODEL 1153HD5 DATA LISTING Calibration Drift Model Proc T/S Tag Date Int Drift Rate 1153HD5 SGL AMS 2-LT-1115-1 03/25/86 460 -1.12% -0.89%
1153HD5 SGL AMS 2-LT-1115-1 09/12/87 536 -2.75% -1.87%
1153HD5 SGL AMS 2-LT-1115-2 03/25/86 457 -0.81% -0.65%
1153HD5 SGL AMS 2-LT-1115-2 09/11/87 535 0.38% 0.26%
1153HD5 SGL AMS 2-LT-1125-1 03/24/86 458 -0.56% -0.45%
1153HD5- SGL AMS 2-LT-1125-1 09/13/87 538 -0.37% -0.25%
1153HD5 SGL AMS 2-LT-1125-2 03/25/86 460 -0.56% -0.45%
1153HD5 SGL AMS 2-LT-1125-2 09/12/87 536 0.88% 0.60%
1153HD5 SGL AMS 3-LT-1115-1 01/27/87 447 0.12% 0.10%
1153HD5 SGL AMS 3-LT-1125-1 01/23/87 443 -0.38% -0.31%
1153HD5 SGL' AMS 3-LT-1125-2 01/27/87 447 -0.50% -0.41%
' ~ ~
A
,~ .
(q-8 sv. oy o dF1 g (, [ of N I.NSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY- Page A-10 DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE TRANSMITTERS ROSEMOUNT MODEL 1153HD6 DATA LISTING Calibration Drift' Mode 1~ Proc T/S Tag Date Int Drift Rate 1153HD6 SGDP RPS 2-PDT-0978-1 03/26/86 458 -2.06% -1.64%
1153HD6 SGDP RPS 2-PDT-0978-1 09/12/87 527 0.12% 0.09%
1153HD6- SGDP RPS 2-PDT-0978-2 03/26/86 458 -2.25% -1.79%
1153HD6 SGDP RPS '2-PDT-0978-2 09/12/87 527 0.25% 0.17%
1153HD6 SGDP RPS 2-PDT-0978-3 03/26/86 345 0.12% 0.13%
1153HD6 SGDP RPS 2-PDT-0978-3 09/12/87 527 -0.06% -0.04%
1153HD6 SGDP RPS 2-PDT-0978-4 03/26/86 458 -2.00% -1.59%
1153HD6 SGDP.RPS 2-PDT-0978-4 09/12/87 527 0.19% 0.13%
1153HD6 SGDP RPS 2-PDT-0979-1 04/14/85 111 0.11% 0.37%
1153HD6 SGDP RPS 2-PDT-0979-1 03/25/86 345 -0.07% -0.07%
1153HD6 SGDP RPS 2-PDT-0979-1 09/12/87 527 0.06% 0.04%
.1153HD6 SGDP RPS 2-PDT-097S-2 03/25/86 459 -2.31% -1.84%
1153HD6 SGDP RPS 2-PDT-0979-2 09/12/87 527 0.12% 0.09%
1153HD6 SGDP RPS 2-PDT-0979-3 03/25/86 456 -2.44% -1.95%
1153HD6 SGDP RPS 2-PDT-0979-3 09/12/87 527 0.12% 0.09%
1153HD6 SGDP RPS 2-PDT-0979-4 03/25/86 456 -3.44% -2.75%
1153HD6 SGDP RPS 2-PDT-0979-4 09/12/87 527 -0.12% -0.09%
1153HD6 SGDP RPS 3-PDT-0978-1 01/19/87 451 -1.06% -0.86%
1153HD6 SGDP RPS- 3-PDT-0978-1 05/20/88 487 0.19% 0.14%
-1153HD6 SGDP RPS 3-PDT-0978-2 01/19/87 451 -0.25% -0.20%
1153HD6 SGDP RPS 3-PDT-0978 05/20/88 487 --0.19% -0.14%
1153HD6- 'SGDP RPS- 3-PDT-0978-3 01/23/87 455 0.19% 0.15%
'1153HD6 SGDP RPS 3-PDT-0978-3 05/20/88 483 -0.25% -0.19%
L 1153HD6 SGDP RPS 3-PDT-0978-4 05/20/88 367 0.19% 0.19%
1153HD6 SGDP RPS 3-PDT-0979-1 01/19/87 451 -0,50% -0.40%-
1153HD6 SGDP RPS 3-PDT-0979-1 05/20/88 487 0.25% 0.19%
1153HD6 SGDP RPS 3-PDT-0979-2 01/19/87 451 -0.44% -0.35%
l 1153HD6 SGDP RPS 3-PDT-0979-2 05/20/88 487 0.69% 0.52%
1153HD6 SGDP RPS 3-PDT-0979-3 01/22/87 453 0.31% 0.25%
1153HD6 SGDP RPS 3-PDT-0979-3 05/20/88 484 -0.25% -0.19%
1153HD6- SGDP RPS 3-PDT-0979-4 01/21/87 452 -0.31% -0.25%
1153HD6 SGDP RPS 3-PDT-0979-4 05/20/88 485 0.19% 0.14%
~~
H-89041 H gw.o Glueszor22:,'
INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page A-11 :
DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE TRANSMITTERS FOXBORO MODEL E13DH DATA LISTING !
Calibration Drift Model- Proc T/S Tag Date Int Drift Rate E13DH HPSI AMS 2-FT-0311-2 06/23/83 421 -0.45% -0.39%' i E13DH HPSI AMS 2-FT-0311-2 01/10/85 567 -5.49% -3.53%
E13DH HPSI AMS 2-FT-0321-1 06/01/83 383 -1.44% -1.37%
'E13DH HPSI AMS 2-FT-0321-1 12/18/84 544 0.66% 0.44%
E13DH HPSI AMS 2-FT-0321-1 04/22/86 490 -0.26% -0.19%
E13DH HPSI AMS 2-FT-0321-1 07/30/87 464 0.28% 0.22% ,
E13DH HPSI AMS 2-FT-0331-1 01/28/83 282 0.25% 0.32% I E13DH- HPSI-AMS 2-FT-0331-1 06/01/83 124 -1.56% -4.60%
E13DH HPSI AMS 2-FT-0331-1 01/17/85 572 0.89% 0.57% l E13DH HPSI AMS 2-FT-0331-1 04/23/86 461 0.37% 0.29% '
E13DH HPSI AMS 2-FT-0331-1 08/03/87 467 -0.63% -0.49%
E13DH HPSI AMS 2-FT-0341-2 06/25/83 428 -0.94% -0.80%
E13DH HPSI AMS 2-FT-0341-2 07/10/84 381 1.06% 1.02%
E13DH- HPSI AMS 2-FT-0341-2 12/17/84 160 0.69% 1.57%
E13DH HPSI AMS 2-FT-0341-2 04/23/86 492 -0.40% -0.30%
E13DH. HPSI AMS 2-FT-0341-2 08/12/87 476 0.50% 0.38%
E13DH. PZL RSD 2-LT-0103 06/23/83 308 -0.50% -0.59%
E13DH. PZL RSD 2-LT-0103 11/26/84 357 1.25% 1.28%
E13DH. PZL RSD 2-LT-0103 03/21/86 480 1.31% 1.00%
E13DH PZL AMS 2-LT-0110-1 11/23/84 350 0.76% 0.80%
E13DH PZL AMS 2-LT-0110-1 04/13/86 506 -1.11% -0.80%
E13DH PZL AMS 2-LT-0110-1 09/22/87 527 4.68% 3.24%
E13DH PZL AMS 2-LT-0110-2 03/25/84 111 -0.25% -0.82%
E13DH. PZL AMS 2-LT-0110-2 11/23/84 243 -0.17%^ -0.25%
l E13DH PZL' AMS 2-LT-0110-2 11/20/85 362 -0.62% -0.63%
i E13DH- PZL AMS 2-LT-0110-2 04/13/86 144 2.44% 6.18%
l E13DH PZL AMS 2-LT-0110-2 09/22/87 527 5.11% 3.54%
l E13DH RWT None 2-LT-0302 12/10/87 682 0.44% 0.23%
E13DH PZL RSD 3-LT-0103 01/29/84 389 -0.81% -0.76%
E13DH PZL RSD 3-LT-0103 12/09/84 315 13.56% 15.72%
E13DH PZL AMS 3-LT-0110-1 02/15/83 133 5.73% 15.73%
E13DH- PZL AMS 3-LT-0110-1 10/16/83 243 -2.91% -4.37%
l E13DH PZL AMS 3-LT-0110-1 12/09/84 235 -4.00% -6.21%
E13DH PZL AMS 3-LT-0110-1 02/02/87 467 -0.11% -0.08%
E13DH PZL AMS 3-LT-0110-1 08/11/88 556 -5.31% -3.49%
E13DH PZL AMS 3-LT-0110-2 01/16/84 335 -0.28% -0.31%
E13DH PZL ~AMS 3-LT-0110-2 12/09/84 234 -10.38% -16.18%
E13DH PZL AMS 3-LT-0110-2 10/22/85 317 1.19% 1.37%
E13DH RWT None 3-LT-0301 01/14/88 310 -0.66% -0.78%
M~ $ )OV l
,- [ 25v.o f4p M N I INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page A-12 DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE TRANSMITTERS FOXBORO MODEL E13DM DATA LISTING Calibration Drift Model- Proc T/S Tag Date Int Drift Rate E13DM AFWF AMS 2-FIT-4720-2 03/26/86 497 -2.31% -1.70%
E13DM AFWF AMS 2-FIT-4720-2 08/13/87. 505 0.19% 0.14%
E13DM AFWF AMS 2-FIT-4725-1 11/14/84 505 0.94% 0.68%
E13DM AFWF AMS 2-FIT-4725-1 03/26/86 497 0.44% 0.32% '
E13DM AFWF AMS 2-FIT-4725-1 08/18/87 510 0.25% 0.18%
E13DM RWT ESF 2-LT-0305-2 07/10/87 367 -0.62% -0.62%
E13DM RWT ESF 2-LT-0305-3 04/18/83 312 -0.27% -0.31%
E13DM REP ESF 2-LT-0305-3 10/29/84 497 -0.19% -0.14%
E13DM RWT ESF 2-LT-0305-4 03/12/86 499 0.50% 0.37%
E13DM RWT ESF 2-LT-0305-4 09/17/87 554 -1.19% -0.78%
E13DM SGL RSD 2-LT-1105 06/17/82 212 1.00% 1.72%
E13DM SGL RSD 2-LT-1105 06/27/83 375 -0.48% -0.47%
L E13DM SGL RSD 2-LT-1105 11/11/84 503 1.17% 0.85%
E13DM SGL ~ RSD 2-LT-1105 03/21/86 495 1.06% 0.78%
E13DM SGL RSD 2-LT-1105 10/04/87 562 2.50% 1.62%
E13DM SGL RSD 2-LT-1106 03/24/86 498 -0.56% -0.41%
- E13 DM SGL RSD 2-LT-1106 10/02/87 557 -0.63% -0.41%
L E13DM SGL' None 2-LT-1111 06/17/82 212 -0.31% -0.54%
- E13DM SGL None 2-LT-1111 06/27/83 375 0.24% 0.23%
E13DM SGL .None 2-LT-1111 12/07/83- 163 -0.81% -1.82%
E13DM .SGL None 2-LT-1111 11/11/84 340 1.19% 1.27%
E13DM SGL' None 2-LT-1111 03/11/86 485 0.12% 0.09%
E13DM SGL None. 2-LT-1111 09/24/87 562 -1.50% -0.97%
E13DM SGL RPS 2-LT-1113-1 06/20/83 370 -0.44% -0.43%
E13DM SGL RPS 2-LT-1113-1 11/09/84 508 1.06% 0.76% '
l E13DM- SGL RPS 2-LT-1113-1 03/23/86 499 -0.50% -0.37%
, E13DM SGL RPS 2-LT-1113-1 09/14/87 540 -0.31% -0.21%
l E13DM SGL RPS 2-LT-1113-2 06/20/83 369 1.31% 1.30% '
l E13DM SGL RPS 2-LT-1113-2 11/07/84 506 0.56% 0.41%
E130M SGL RPS 2-LT-1113-2 03/21/86 499 -0.88% -0.64%
'E13DM SGL RPS 2-LT-1113-2 09/12/87 540 0.22C 0.15%
E13DM SGL RPS 2-LT-1113-3 11/15/84 514 138.06% 98.04%
E13DM SGL RPS 2-LT-1113-3 03/25/86 494 -1.13% -0.83%
E13DM SGL RPS 2-LT-1113-3 09/09/87 533 0.50% 0.34%
E13DM SGL RPS 2-LT-1113-4 03/22/86 498 -0.69% -0.50%
E13DM SGL RPS 2-LT-1113-4 09/08/87 535 -0.44% -0.30%
E13DM SGL None 2-LT-1121 10/03/87 558 0.50% 0.33%
E13DM SGL RPS 2-LT-1123-1 09/14/87 540 0.31% 0.21%
E13DM SGL RPS 2-LT-1123-2 11/07/84 506 2.56% 1.85%
l E13DM SGL RPS 2-LT-1123-2 04/11/85 155 -0.37% -0.88%
l E13DM SGL RPS 2-LT-1123-2 03/21/85 344 0.69% 0.73%
L E13DM SGL RPS 2-LT-1123-2 09/12/87 540 -0.33% -0.22%
~
Q f Cf0 V'
.j
< . fu.o fga &+a 72-INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page A-13 DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE TRANSMITTERS FOXBORO MODEL E13DM DATA LISTING (continued) ,
Calibration Drift Model Proc T/S Tag Date Int Drift Rate E13DM SGL RPS 2-LT-1123-3 06/20/83 370 -0.75% -0.74%-
E13DM SGL RPS 2-LT-1123-3 11/17/84 516 0.37% 0.27%
E13DM SGL RPS 2-LT-1123-3 03/25/85 128 -0.31% -0.89%
E13DM SGL RPS 2-LT-1123-4 06/20/83 370 -1.00% -0.99%
E13DM SGL RPS 2-LT-1123-4 11/09/84 508 2.13% 1.53%
E13DM SGL RPS 2-LT-1123-4 03/22/86 498 -2.00% -1.47%
E13DM SGL RPS 2-LT-1123-4 09/09/87 536 -0.63% -0.43%
E13DM- AFWF AMS 3-FIT-4720-2 01/29/87 464 -0.63% -0.49%
E13DM AFWF AMS 3-FIT-4720-2 03/03/88 399 -0.62% -0.57%
E13DM AFWF AMS 3-FIT-4725-1 03/14/88 495 0.81%- 0.60%
E13DM VCT None 3-LT-0227 02/19/85 358 1.69% 1.72%
E13DM RWT ESF 3-LT-0305-4 01/27/84 381 -0.49% -0.47%
E13DM RWT ESF 3-LT-0305-4 10/03/85 615 -0.68% -0.40%
E13DM RWT ESF 3-LT-0305-4 01/19/87 473 -0.43% -0.33%
E13DM SGL RSD 3-LT-1105 01/13/87 389 -1.87% -1.76%
E13DM. SGL RSD 3-LT-1106 01/15/84 399 2.31% 2.12%-
L E13DM SGL RSD 3-LT-1106 09/24/85 618 -2.06% -1.22%
E13DM SGL RSD 3-LT-1106 01/13/87 476 -2.50% -1.92%
E13DM 'SGL None 3-LT-1111 09/23/85 613 -0.25% -0.15%
E13DM SGL None 3-LT-1111 01/14/87 478 2.50% 1.91%
E13DM SGL RPS 3-LT-1113-1 01/15/87 469 0.19% 0.15% .;
E13DM SGL RPS 3-LT-1113-2 01/16/87 435 -0.06% -0.05%
E13DM SGL RPS 3-LT-1113-3 10/09/85. 629 -1.31% -0.76%
E13DM SGL RPS 3-LT-1113-3 01/19/87 467 -0.13% -0.10%
E13DM SGL RPS 3-LT-1113-4 08/14/83 244 2.12% 3.18%
E13DM SGL RPS 3-LT-1113-4 01/16/84 155 -1.75% -4.12%
-E13DM SGL RPS 3-LT-1113-4 10/07/85 630 -0.56% -0.33%
E13DM SGL RPS 3-LT-1113-4 01/20/87 470 -0.25% -0.19%-
E13DM SGL None 3-LT-1121 09/23/85 541 -0.75% -0.51%
E13DM SGL None 3-LT-1121 01/13/87 477 -3.2b% -2.49%'
E13DM SGL RPS .3-LT-1123-1 01/17/84 336 1.87% 2.04%
o E13DM SGL RPS 3-LT-1123-1 10/04/85 626 1.75% 1.02%
E13DM SGL RPS 3-LT-1123-1 01/16/87 469 5.63% 4.38%
E13DM SGL RPS 3-LT-1123-2 01/17/84 185 1.44% 2.84%
E13DM SGL RPS 3-LT-1123-2 10/04/85 626 0.81% 0.47%
E13DM SGL RPS 3-LT-1123-2 01/19/87 438 -0.31% -0.26%
E13DM SGL RPS 3-LT-1123-3 10/05/85 628 0.62% 0.36%
E13DM SGL RPS 3-LT-1123-3 01/22/87 474 -0.75% -0.58%
E13DM SGL RPS 3-LT-1123-4 08/11/S3 241 0.50% 0.76%
E13DM SGL RPS 3-LT-1123-4 01/17/84 159 0.37% 0.86%
E13DM SGL RPS' 3-LT-1123-4 10/08/85 630 -0.19% -0.11%
E13DM SGL RPS 3-LT-1123-4 01/23/87 472 -0.50% -0.39%
^
si M- 69047 fsv. o
,O; g d Ll, w
INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page A-14 DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE TRANSMITTERS FOXBORO MODEL NE13DM DATA LISTING '
Calibration Drift Model Proc T/S Tag Date Int Drift Rate '
NE13DM VCT RSD 2-LT-0226 04/10/86 475 0.50% 0.38%
NE13DM VCT RSD 2-LT-0226 10/01/87 539 0.19% 0.13% <
NE13DM BAMU AMS 3-LT-0206 04/11/83 161 ~-1.18% -2.68%
NE13DM BAMU AMS 3-LT-0206 12/18/87 143 -0.86% -2.20%
NE13DM BAMU AMS 3-LT-0206 06/07/88 172 0.43% 0.90%
NE13DM VCT. RSD 3-LT-0226 02/10/85 367 1.94% 1.93%
NE13DM VCT RSD 3-LT-0226 10/01/85 233 3.06% 4.80%
NE13DM'VCT- RSD- ~3-LT-0226 01/22/87 478 -1.00% -0.76%
I l
(, M- & 9 o +"1 x .. hv. o y
94 a os 72-
' INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page A-15 TEMPERATURE TRANSMITTERS FOXBORO MODEL 2AI-P2V DATA LISTING Calibration- Drift Model Proc T/S Tag Date Int Drift -Rate 2AI-P2V. RCS None 2-TT-0111X-1 07/01/83 441 -0.28% -0.23%
2AI-P2V RCS None 2-TT-0111X-1 11/05/84 493 -0.17% -0.13%-
2AI-P2V RCS None 2-TT-0111X-1 04/03/86 514 -2.20% -1.56%
2AI-P2V RCS None 2-TT-0111X-1 08/31/87 515 -0.13% -0.09%
L ~2AI-P2V- RCS None. 2-TT-0111Y-1 08/25/83 496 0.40% 0.29%
L 2AI-P2V RCS None 2-TT-0111Y-1 10/29/84 '431 -0.63%- -0.53%
2AI-P2V RCS- CPC 2-TT-0112-1 04/15/83 370 0.03% 0.03%
-2AI-P2V RCS CPC 2-TT-0112-1 11/01/84 566 0.10% 0.06%
2AI-P2V RCS CPC 2-TT-0112-2 11/01/84 498 -0.10% -0.07%
2AI-P2V RCS CPC *2-TT-0112-2 09/04/87 1037
- 0.08% 0.03%
2AI-P2V RCS .CPC 2-TT-0112-4 06/23/83 439 0.10% 0.08%
2AI-P2V RCS CPC 2-TT-0112-4 11/01/84 497 -0.10% -0.07%
2AI-P2V RCS CPC 2-TT-0112-4 09/05/87 172 0.11% 0.23%
2AI-P2V- RCS RSD 2-TT-0115-2 06/25/83 444 0.07% 0.06%
L 2AI-P2V- RCS -RSD 2-TT-0115-2 10/29/84 492 -0.07% -0.05%
2AI-P2V RCS None 2-TT-0121X-2 06/30/83 440 -0.18% -0.15%
L 2AI-P2V' RCS None 2-TT-0121X-2 11/07/84 496 0.15% 0.11%
i 2AI-P2V RCS None 2-TT-0121Y-2 08/11/83 482 0.37% 0.28%
E .2AI-P2V RCS None 2-TT-0121Y-2 10/29/84 445 -0.07% -0.06%
i 2AI-P2V- RCS None 2-TT-0121Y-2 03/31/86 518 0.21% 0.15%
2AI-P2V' RCS None 2-TT-0121Y-2 09/02/87 454 0.09% 0.07%
i
~2AI-P2V RCS CPC 2-TT-0122 11/01/84 498 'O.20% 0.15%
2AI-P2V; RCS .CPC 2-TT-0122-2 -06/22/83 438 0.'20%- 0.17%
2AI-P2V RCS CPC 2-TT-0122-2 11/01/84 498 -0.10% -0.07%
2AI-P2V RCS .CPC 2-TT-0122-4 06/22/83 446 0.10% 0.08%-
~2AI-P2V RCS CPC 2-TT-0122-4 11/01/84 498 0.00% 0.00%
2AI-P2V RCS CPC *2-TT-0122-4 09/04/87 1037 0.00% 0.00%
.2AI-P2V CVCS RSD ~2-TT-0223 06/28/83 436 0.24% 0.20%
2AI-P2V CVCS RSD 2-TT-0223 11/20/84. 511- '
-0.10% -0.07%
2AI-P2V CVCS RSD 2-TT-0223 04/02/86 498 O.10% 0.07%
2AI-P2V CVCS RSD 2-TT-0223 10/01/87 547 -0.10% -0.07%
2AI-P2V LPSI AMS 2-TT-0303-1 06/13/84 579 -
0.10% 0.06%
2AI-P2V. LPSI AMS 2-TT-0303-1 11/29/84 169 0.08% 0.17%
2AI-P2V LPSI AMS *2-TT-0303-1 08/17/87 991 0.17% 0.06%
2AI-P2V LPSI AMS 2-TT-0303-2 06/13/84 579 , -0.50% -0.32%
2AI-P2V. LPSI AMS 2-TT-0303-2 11/29/84 169 -0.02% -0.04%
2AI-P2V LPSI AMS 2-TT-0303-2 C4/16/86 503 0.06% 0.04%
2AI-P2V RCS AMS 2-TT-0911Y-1 12/03/84 490 -0.14% -0.10%
i
?[ ..- Y- O *)O Y ,
, _f .
ky.O kg. p os-72_
l INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY-- -
Page A-16 l
l TEMPERATURE-TRANSMITTERS l FOXBORO MODEL 2AI-P2V l
DATA LISTING ]
(continued)
Calibration Drift <
Model Proc T/S Tag Date Int Drift Rate 2AI-P2V RCS AMS 2-TT-0911-X1 04/12/86 496 0.39% 0.29%
2AI-P2V RCS- AMS 2-TT-0911-X1 09/09/87 515 -0.19% -0.13%
2AI-P2V RCS AMS 2-TT-0915-2 06/15/83 208 0.10% 0.18%
2AI-P2V PCS AMS 2-TT-0915-2 11/30/84 534 -0.20% -0.14%
2AI-P2V RCS AMS 2-TT-0915-2 04/12/86 498 -0.10% -0.07%
'2AI-P2V RCS AMS 2-TT-0915-2 09/10/87 516 -0.04% -0.03%
2AI-P2V RCS AMS 2-TT-0921X-2 06/11/83 569 -0.10% -0.06%
2AI-P2V RCS- AMS 2-TT-0921X-2 12/02/84 S40 -0.10% -0.07%
2AI-P2V RCS AMS 2-TT-0921-Y2 06/11/83 569 -0.10% -0.06%
, 2AI-P2V 'RCS AMS 2-TT-0921-Y2 11/30/84 538 -0.10% -0.07%
2AI-P2V RCS AMS 2-TT-0921-Y2 04/12/86 498 -0.05% -0.04%
2AI-P2V. RCS AMS 2-TT-0921-Y2 09/10/87 516 -0.04% -0.03%
2AI-P2V RCS AMS 2-TT-0925-1 09/09/87 502 0.10% 0.07%
2AI-P2V RCS CPC 2-TT-9178-1 02/14/84 675 0.24% 0.13%
y 2AI-P2V RCS CPC 2-TT-9178-1 11/01/84 261 0.10% 0.14%
p 2AI-P2V RCS CPC 2-TT-9178-2 11/08/84 505 -0.30% -0.22%
i 2AI-P2V RCS CPC 2-TT-9178-3 11/01/84 497 -0.20% -0.15%
2AI-P2V RCS CPC 2-TT-9179-1 11/01/84 -498 -0.20% -0.15%
'2AI-P2V RCS CPC 2-TT-9179-2 11/01/84 498 -0.40% -0.29%
2AI-P2V RCS CPC 2-TT-9179-3 11/01/84 497 -0.10% -0.07%
2AI-P2V. RCS CPC 2-TT-9179-4 06/23/83. 439 0.05%' O.04%
L 2AI-P2V RCS CPC '2-TT-9179-4 11/01/84 497 0.10% 0.07%-
2AI-P2V-.RCS CPC 3-TT-0122-1 01/08/87 471 0.13% 0.10%
2AI-P2V RCS CPC *3-TT-9178-3 10/06/88 633 0.11% 0.06%
- Interval includes a loop verification only check.
l.
L e
M-89ON
.t. < ft.V. O '
f(oat 68 Ell INSTRUMENT DRIFT STUDY Page A-17 TEMPERATURE TRANSMITTERS-FOXBORO MODEL 2AI-T2V DATA LISTING Calibration Drift Model Proc T/S Tag Date Int Drift Rate 2AI-T2V CTT AMS 2-TT-9903-1 09/27/82 249 0.20% 0.29%
2AI-T2V- CTT None 2-TT-9905-A 05/30/83 581 0.41% 0.26%
2AI-T2V CTT None 2-TT-9905-A 12/10/84 560 0.27% 0.18%
2AI-T2V CTT None 2-TT-9905-B 05/30/83 581 0.11% -0.07%-
2AI-T2V CTT None 2-TT-9905-B 12/10/84 560 0.31% 0.20%
t i
-t
l'- *- >
hgy. O - !
f g g9 cr 72. ] '
INSTRUMENT-DRIFT STUDY Page A-18 TEMPERATURE TRANSMITTERS ROSEMOUNT MODEL 444RL DATA LISTING ,
Calibration Drift Model Proc T/S Tag Date Int Drift Rate 444RL RCS RSD 2-TT-0111-BX 11/05/84 494 0.12% 0.09%.
444RL RCS RSD 2-TT-0111-BX 04/05/86 516- -0.12% -0.09%
444RL RCS RSD 2-TT-0111-BX 09/01/87 514 -6.76% -4.80%
444RL RCS RSD
- 3-TT-0111-BX 09/24/85' 743 -0.06%. -0.03%
444RL RCS RSD 3-TT-0111-BX 01/06/87 469 -0.06% -0.054
- 444RL RCS RSD- 3-TT-0111-BX 05/11/88 491 0.38% 0.28% ,
444RL RCS RSD 3-TT-0111-BY 01/08/87 238 0.19% 0.29%
444RL RCS RSD 3-TT-0111-BY 05/09/88 487 -0.06% -0.05%
l
- Interval includes a loop verification only check.
s i
i i
i
?
Y 4
b4-J59o4ul
- YhV. O pgg go os %
. Instrument Drift Study Page B-1 APPENDIX B NORMALITY TESTS TABLE B-1 Chi Square Test for Normal Distribution Foxboro E11GM Pressure Transmitters Xi Interval Expected Chi Upper X, Z, P, P, E,=np, observed Sq Bound
.7% =-0.007 -1.56 0.059 0.059 7 8 0.07
.5% -0.005 -1.18 0.119 0.060 7 5 0.74
.3% -0.003 -0.79 0.215 0.096 12 6 2.84
.1% -0.001 -0.41 0.341 0.126 16 23 3.62
.1% 0.001 -0.02 0.492 0.151 19 23 1.05
.3% 0.003 0.37 0.644 0.152 19 20 0.09
.5% 0.005 0.75 0.773 0.129 16 14 0.22
.7% 0.007 1.14 0.873 0.100 12 6 3.18
>.7% 1.000 0.127 16 18 0.36 123, 123 12.16 From Reference 6.8, Table IV, for 7 degrees of freedom, significance level of 5%, Chi Square values less than 14.067 indicato a normal distribution.
FA - 69 o 'Y1 o o Ltv, O o e Skat 71 o F'7 L Instrument 0*ift Study Page B-2 TABLE B-2 Chi Square Test for Normal Distribution Foxboro E13DM Differential Pressure Transmitters Xi Interval Expected Chi Upper Xi Zi P, Pi Ei =npi Observed Sq Bound
-1.5% -0.015 -1.48. 0.069 0.069 6 5 0.07
-1.3% -0.013 -1.29 0.099 0.029 2 1 0.78
-1.1% -0.011 -1.10 0.156 0.058 5 1 2.89
-0.9% -0.009 -0.91 0.181 0.025 2 2 0.00
-0.7% -0.007 -0.72 0.236 0.054 4 6 0.58
-0.5% -0.005 -0.53 0.298 0.062 5 7 0.76
-0.3% -0.003 -0.33 0.371 0.073 6 13 8.62
-0.1% -0.001 -0.14 0.444 0.074 6 8 0.70 0.1%- 0.001 0.05 0.520 0.076 6 3 1.59 0.3% 0.003 0.24 0.595 0.075 6 7 0.14 0.5% 0.005 0.43 0.666 0.072 6 7 0.25 0.7% 0.007. 0.62 0.732 0.066 5 2 2.09 0.9% 0.009 0.82 0.7939 0.062 5 6 0.21
>0.9% 1.0000 0.206 17 13 0.82 l 81 81 19.49 From Reference 6.8, Table IV, for 12 degrees of freedom, significance level of 5%, Chi Square values less than 21.026 indicate a normal distribution.
The calculated value of 19.49 is less than this value.
1 l-
E7 M - g g o +1
- 1. ,$ Etv. o
&ct n es 72-Instrument Drift Study Page B-3 TABLE B-3 Chi Square Test for Normal Distribution Foxboro 2AI-P2V Temperature Transmitters Normality Test X,
Interval Expected Chi Upper X, Z, P, P, Eg =npi Observed Sq Bound
.165 -0.00165 -1.19 0.117 0.117 7 5 0.64
.105 -0.00105 -0.76 0.224 0.107 7 6 0.04
.045 -0.00045 -0.33 0.371 0.147 9 15 4.05
.015 0.00015- 0.10 0.540 0.169 10 -
6 1.81
.075 0.00075 0.53 0.702 0.162 10 13 0.99
.135 0.00135 0.96 0.832 0.130 8 5 1.07
.195 0.00195 1.39 0.918 0.086 5 6 0.10
>.195 1.000 0.082 5 5 0.00 I
TOTAL 61 61 8.70 From* Reference 6.8, Table IV, for 6 degrees of freedom, significance level of 5%, Chi Square values less than 12.952 indicate a normal distribution.
The calculated value of 8.7 is well within this limit.
L
.