Instrument Loop Accuracy Setpoint Calculation

Attachment IVto IPN-93-007
LOOP ACCURACY/SETPOINT CALCULATIONS
NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY

INDIAN POINT 3 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
DOCKET NO. 50-286
DPR-64
9302260265 930218
PDR ADOCK 05000286
P
PDR
CALC. NO.
Page
JAF
IP3-CALC-RPC-00298
MOD/TASK NO.
QA CATEGORY:
__
of
20
_.............
PRELIMINARY:
FINAL:
Twenty Four (24) Month Operating Cycle Project

PROJECT/TASK:
SYSTEM NO./NAME:Reactor Protection and Control (RPC)
Instrument Loop Accuracy/Setpoint Calculation/RC Loop Low Flow
TITLE:
NAME
DESIGN ENG.:
PREPARER:
CHECKER:
VERIFIER: NO LJ
APPROVED:
J
G
W
A
SIGNATURE
DATE
McNeil
Durniak
Wittich
Petrenko
PROBLEM/OBJECTIVE/METHOD
Verify that channel trip will occur within the Analytical Limit (AL) considering
additional instrument drift or uncertainties due to extension of the operating
cycle from 18 months 25% to 24 months 25%.
This calculation has been prepared in accordance with ISA-RP67.04, IES-3 and DCM-2.
DESIGN BASIS/ASSUMPTIONS
The low RC flow instrumentation serves to trip the reactor on a reduction in RCS
flow rate. The low flow trip protects the core from DNB following a loss of coolant
(ref. 3.2.2)
flow accident.
Seismic event is not considered coincident with any other postulated accident.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The existing Trip Setpoint for RC Loop Low Flow is set higher than is required by
the total channel uncertainty, therefore, it is conservative. No Setpoint change
is required.
For RC Loop Low Flow trip, sufficient margin exists for the existing trip setpoint
to insure that channel trip occurs within the Analytical Limit (AL) considering
additional drift and uncertainties for the 24 month 25% operating cyC
4::.*
REFERENCES
-7.'[
y..
AUG2.,1,
~
See Section 3.0
AFFECTED SYSTEMS /COMPONENTS /DOCUMENTS
FT-414,
FT-424,
FT-434,
FT-444,
WVOIDED
FT-415,
FT-425,
FT-435,
FT-445,
FT-416
FT-426
FT-436
FT-446
FC-414,
FC-424,
FC-434,
FC-444,
FC-415,
FC-425,
FC-435,
FC-445,
'
, "
....
FC-416
FC-426
FC-436
FC-446
LIIVOIDS
OR
m--SUPERSEDED
,-
BY:
_
_ _
(CALC. NO.)
FORM DCM 2, 4.1 (JAN. 1991)
FQ-414,
FQ-424,
FQ-434,
FQ-444,
FQ-415,
FQ-425,
FQ-435,
FQ-445,
FQ-416
FQ-426
FQ-436
FQ-446
OR
m-SUPERSEDES:
N/A
(CALC. NO.)
New York Power

thor ity
CALCULATION NO. IP3-CALC-RPC-00298
REVISION
Project
IP3
Title Instr. Loop Accur./Setpt. Calc.
Preliminary
X
Final
of 20
Page 2
1992
Date
Prepared by J. McNeil Date ,.#
Checked by G. Durniak Date r h
I.
i&
.z ,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1.0
PURPOSE ......
..............
2.0
ASSUMPTIONS ....
............
3.0
REFERENCES
4.0
LOOP FUNCTION ....
5.0
LOOP (BLOCK) DIAGRAM
6.0
. . .
LOOP UNCERTAINTY EQUATIONS
6.1
LOOP COMPONENTS . . .
7.0
DETERMINE CHANNEL UNCERTAINTY (CU)
8.0
OBTAIN ANALYTICAL LIMIT (AL)
9.0
DETERMINE SETPOINT (TS) .......
10.0
DETERMINE ALLOWABLE VALUE (AV)
11.0
SUMMARY .....
12.0
ATTACHMENTS ....
. . . . . . . ..
. .
...........
......
. .
..............
............
I
FORM DCM 2, 4.1 (JAN. 1991)
New York Power

khority
REVISION
IP3
Project
Page
Date
Preliminary
Prepared by J. McNeil
Final
1.0
Checked by
of
20
1992
_;__L
G. Durniak Datez
PURPOSE
Verify that channel trip will occur within the Analytical Limit (AL), considering
additional instrument drift or uncertainties due to extension of the operating
cycle from 18 months 25% to 24 months 25%.
2.0
ASSUMPTIONS
2.1
Per FSAR section 16.3.3, IP3's seismic horizontal acceleration is less than
or equal to 0.2g. WCAP-7817, "Seismic Testing of Electrical and Control
Equipment", states that the transmitter output returned to its original
pre-test condition after each seismic test (note: tests were based on a
maximum seismic test acceleration of 0.7g).
Similarly, bistables were also tested at 0.7g and results indicate that
tripping action of the bistable was not impaired. Therefore, seismic
(Ref. 3.1.9 & 3.2.5)
effect is considered negligible.
Since the issuance of WCAP-7817, various components have been replaced with
similar equipment. Therefore, seismic effect is considered negligible.
In addition, seismic event is not considered coincident with any other
accident.
3.0
2.2
Additional "margin" is not used in the calculation, since the methodology

used is inherently conservative.
2.3
Indication portion of loop is not addressed in this calculation.
2.4
The minimum ambient temperature for instrument calibrations will be 68F.
2.5
Instrument bus voltage variations do not exceed 2.0%.
2.6
No credit is taken in the Safety Analysis for operation of the Low RC Flow
Instrumentation following a LOCA/HELB. Therefore, effects of the accident
environment inside containment are not included in this calculation.
(Ref. 3.1.22)
REFERENCES
3.1
General
3.1.1
U.S. NRC, Regulatory Guide 1.105, Rev. 2, February, 1986 "Instrument

Setpoints For Safety-Related Systems".
3.1.2
ANSI/ISA-S67.04-1988 Standard "Setpoints for Nuclear Safety-Related

Instrumentation", dated 2/4/88.
3.1.3
ISA-RP67.04, Part II, Draft 9, "Methodologies for the Determination

of Setpoints for Nuclear Safety-Related Instrumentation", dated 3/22/91.
* Used as Design Input.
FORM DCM 2, 4.2 (JAN. 1991)
York Power
thority CALCULATION NO. IP3-CALC-RPC-00298
REVISION
4
0
of
20
IP3
Project
Page
Date
Preliminary
Prepared by 3. McNeil
Final
Checked by
1992
Date
_/
G. Durniak Date944
3.1.4
IES-3, Rev. 0, 1/3/91, Instrument Loop Accuracy and Setpoint

Calculations.
3.1.5
DCM-2, Rev. 1, 1/18/91, Preparation and Control of Calculations and

Analyses.
3.1.6
IP3 Master Equipment List, RP System, dated 4/11/90.
3.1.7
Memo from D. Luce, dated October 30, 1991; Subject: Bistables.
3.1.8
TSP-011, Rev. 4, EQ Spare Parts Review Procedure, Attachment I,

8/30/91.
3.1.9
WCAP-7817, "Seismic Testing of Electrical and Control Equipment",

December, 1971.
3.1.10 System Description No. 1.1, Reactor Coolant System, Rev. 1.

3.1.11 WCAP-7338, "Setpoint Study for Consolidated Edison's Nuclear Power
Stations II and III, R. Reymers, September 1969.
*
3.1.12 Tech Manual FO-008, Rev. 0, Overpressurization Protection System,

(System Error Analysis)
November 1987.
3.1.13 WCAP-12128, "Westinghouse Improved Thermal Design Procedure

Instrument Uncertainty Methodology For NYPA IP3," January 1989.
3.1.14 System Description No. 28, Overall Unit Protection, Rev. 0, Section
2.1.6.
3.1.15 NYPA Telephone Documentation Form dated 1/9/92, between J. McNeil

(NYPA) and S. Nunn (Foxboro).
3.1.16 Instrument Drift Analysis for RPS Report No. IP3-RPT-RPC-00357,
Preliminary Rev. 0.
3.1.17 Deleted
3.1.18 MOD 88-03-I01-RCS, RCS RTD Bypass Elimination Modification
(Electrical Design).
3.1.19 RTD Bypass Elimination Licensing report for Indian Point Unit 3,
WCAP-12009 Revision 1, dated January 1989.
3.1.20 "Westinghouse Setpoint Methodology for Control and Protection
systems", C.R. Tuley, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, Vol 33,
No.1, February.
3.1.21 "Performance Characteristics of Elbow Flowmeters", J.W. Murdock,
Transactions of the ASME, September 1964, pg. 498-506.
FORM DCM 2, 4.2 (JAN. 1991)
New York Power

Authority
0
REVISION
IP3
Project
Preliminary
X
Final
of 20
Page 5
1992
Date
Prepared by J. McNeil Datee,
Checked by G. Durniak Date
3.1.22
3.2
Tech Manual WE-117, One Phase Instrument Power Supply, August 1979.
Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR),Rev. 7, July 1991.

3.2.1
Chapter 4, Section 4.2.9.
3.2.2
Chapter 7, Section 7.2, Protective Systems.
3.2.3
Chapter 14, Safety Analysis, Rev. 1, dated 7/91.
3.2.4
Chapter 15, Technical Specification and Bases, through Amendment No.

111, dated 3/9/92.
3.2.5
Chapter 16 Design Criteria for Structures and Equipment.
3.3
Drawings
3.3.1
RPS Rack Layout Drawings:

9321-H-39903, Sht.
9321-H-39903, Sht. 1, Rev. 2
9321-H-39 903,
10, Rev. 2 9321-H-39903, Sht. 11, Rev. 3
932:1-H
Sht. 18, Rev. 2 9321-H-39903, Sht. 19, Rev. 2
1
25,
Rev.
Sht.
39903, Sht. 24, Rev. 1 9321-H-39903,
3.3.2
Interconnection Wiring Diagrams:

9321-H-39923, Sht.
9321-H-39923, Sht. 10, Rev. 2
9321-H-39'923,
11, Rev. 2 9321-H-39923, Sht. 23, Rev. 2
Sht. 24, Rev. 2 9321-H-39923, Sht. 32, Rev. 2
9321-H-39923, Sht. 33, Rev. 2
3.3.3
Instrument Arrangement Drawings:

9321-F-70273, Rev. 14, Containment Bldg. Instrumentation
9321-F-70283, Rev. 18, Containment Bldg. Instrumentation
9321-F-70253, Rev. 8, Primary Plant Instrument Piping &
Supports, Sht. 1
9321-F-70263 Rev. 11, Primary Plant Instrument Piping &
Supports, Sht. 2
3.3.4
Deleted.
3.3.5
9321-H-70863 Westinghouse Suggested Routing, Reactor Coolant Flow

Transmitter.
3.3.6
9321-F-27383, Rev. 22, Flow Diagram Reactor Coolant System Sht. 1

FORM DCM 2, 4.2 (JAN. 1991)
New York Power

REVISION
6
0
of
20
IP3
Project
Page
Date
Preliminary
3.3.7
Checked by
Final
1992
Date
G. Durniak Date
Instrument Block Diagram

IP3V-526-4.14-0075, (BD-20), Rev. 2
IP3V-526-4.14-0076, (BD-21), Rev. 2
3.3.8
Instrument Rack Drawing

9321-F-70513, Sht. 4, Rev. 9
3.3.9
Equipment Arrangement Control Building.

9312-F-30523, Sht. 1, Rev. 36
3.4
Calibration Procedures
3.4.1
IC-AD-2, Rev. 7, Calibration and Control of Measuring and Test

Equipment.
3.4.2
AP-19, Rev. 10, Surveillance Test Program.
3.4.3
AP-17, Rev. 5, Calibration of M&TE.
3.4.4
3PT-M03, Rev. 15, Surveillance Test Procedure, Reactor Coolant Flow

Analog Functional.
3.4.5
3PC-R2, Rev. 9, Reactor Coolant Loop Flow Calibration.
3.5
Foxboro Product Literature

3.5.1
Deleted
3.5.2
Foxboro Product Specification: PSS-2A-lClH, E13DH Electronic Gauge

Pressure Transmitters, dated 1984.
3.5.3
Deleted
3.5.4
Foxboro General Specification, GS-2A-5A2-A, 63U-AC Difference Alarm,

August 1975.
3.5.5
Foxboro Instruction 18-690, Model 63U-A Single Alarm, January 1969.
FORM DCM 2, 4.2 (JAN. 1991)
New York Power
LAuthority
4.0
REVISION
Project
IP3
Preliminary
Final
X
Page 7
of 20
Date
1992
Prepared by J. McNeil Date
Checked by G. Durniak DateL
LOOP FUNCTION
The low flow reactor trip protects the core against DNB in the event of a loss of
one or two reactor coolant pumps.
(Ref. 3.2.4, page 2.3-6)
Flow transmitters are installed in the intermediate leg of each RCS loop and
serve to indicate whether a reduction in the flow rate has occurred. Each
transmitter supplies a flow indicator on panel SAF in the control room, a
computer input (CI), and low flow comparator (bistable). At 93% of normal flow
the comparator generates a low flow trip signal and an alarm on panel SAF. If
two out of three flow comparators associated with a given loop trip, then the
coincidence logic gate generates a loop low flow signal which may or may not
cause a reactor trip depending upon the current power level and whether a low
flow condition exists in any other RCS loops.
(Ref. 3.1.14)
FORM DCM 2, 4.2 (JAN. 1991)
New York Power

j6thority
REVISION
Project
IP3
Title Instr. Loop Accur /Setnt
Page 8
of 20
Date
1992
Checked by G. Durniak Date Z
"i
----
-- [
.......
Calc
Preliminary,
Final
5.0
LOOP (BLOCK) DIAGRAM
1I
MTE3
MTE5
MTE2
MTE4
Low Flow
Reactor Trip
Flow
Transmitter
CONTROL BUILDING
CONTAINMENT BUILDING
The diagram above is similar for each of the twelve (12) instrument loops, as
follows:
REACTOR COOLANT
FLOW
LOOP
TRANSMITTER
POWER SUP . LY
31
FT-414
FT-415
FT-416
FQ-414
FQ-415
FQ-416
FC-414
FC-415
FC-416
32
FT-424
FT-425
FT-426
FQ-424
FQ-425
FQ-426
FC-424
FC-425
FC-426
33
FT-434
FT-435
FT-436
FQ-434
FQ-435
FQ-436
FC-434
FC-435
FC-436
34
FT-444
FT-445
FT-446
FQ-444
FQ-445
FQ-446
FC-444
FC-445
FC-446
BISTABLE.
______
(Ref. 3.3.3,
FORM DCM 2, 4.2 (JAN. 1991)
3.3.2,
3.3.6 & 3.3.7)
New York Power
6.0
REVISION
Project
IP3
reliminary
Final
X
Page
of
20
T) . t
Checked by
QO
Date h/l2/p'Z2j
G. Durniak Date
"
LOOP UNCERTAINTY EQUATIONS

(SEE ATTACHMENT I)
6.1
FORM DCM 2,
(Ref. 3.1.6, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, & 3.3.8)
LOOP COMPONENTS
4.2
TAG
SYSTEM
BLDG
RACK
MODEL NO.
FT-414
FT-415
FT-416
RP
VC Elev 68
F20
E13DH-SAH1
FT-424
FT-425
FT-426
RP
VC Elev 68'
F20
E13DH-SAH1
FT-434
FT-435
FT-436
RP
VC Elev 68'
F20
E13DH-SAH1
FT-444
FT-445
FT-446
RP
VC Elev 68'
F20
E13DH-SAH1
FQ-414
FQ-415
FQ-416
RP
CB ELEV 53'
R4
R8
R11
610AC-0
FQ-424
FQ-425
FQ-426
RP
CB Elev 53'
R4
R8
R11
610AC-0
FQ-434
FQ-435
FQ-436
RP
CB Elev 53'
R4
R8
R11
610AC-0
FQ-444
FQ-445
FQ-446
RP
CB Elev 53'
R4
R8
R11
610AC-0
FC-414
FC-415
FC-416
RP
CB Elev 53'
R4
R8
R11
63U-AC-OHAAF
FC-424
FC-425
FC-426
RP
CB Elev 53'
R4
R8
R11
63U-AC-OHAAF
FC-434
FC-435
FC-436
RP
CB Elev 53'
R4
R8
63U-AC-OHAAF
FC-444
FC-445
FC-446
RP
(JAN. 1991)
R11
I
CB Elev 53'
R4
R8
R11
63U-AC-OHAAF
New York Power

10
0
of
20
IP3
Project
Page
Date
Preliminary
Checked by
Final
7.0
REVISION
1992
Date 4
G. Durniak Date
DETERMINE CHANNEL UNCERTAINTY (CU)

Total Channel Uncertainty (CU)
The total Channel Uncertainty is calculated as follows.
described in Attachment I:
CU
PE,' - IRE.' - e,' -~
= i VPM,' -
CU =
V2.272
+ 1.0
+ 02
The methodology is
Bk
+ 1.552 + .682
Where, bias B = 0,
CU= *3.0% flow span
Converting "% flow span" to "% flow" given that the instrument loop span is
(Ref. 3.4.5)
120% flow,
CU= 3.0% flow span X (120%)
CU= 3.6% flow
The loop uncertainties are given as follows:

7.1
Process Measurement Uncertainty (PM1 )

PMA is an allowance for non-instrument .related effects. Examples of the
PMA terms used are the effect of the accuracy of the rod control system
(Tavg) on the density of the primary coolant in the cold leg elbow where
d/p transmitters are used to infer flow rate, and the accuracy of precision
flow calorimetric used to normalize the cold leg elbow tap d/p
(Ref. 3.1.20)
transmitters.
Westinghouse provides two values (in terms of % flow span) for Process
Measurement Uncertainty, PMA 1 and PMA 2 . For conservatism, these values are
combined algebraically as follows:
PM, = PMA1 + PMA, = .25 + 2.02 =
2.27% flow span (Page 19 of Ref. 3.1.19)
Values for PMA1 , PMA 2 , and PE1 were obtained from Tables 3.1-1 through 3.1-4
of Ref. 3.1.19 and reflect plant specific measurement uncertainties and
operating conditions of Indian Point 3.
7.2
Primary Element Uncertainties (PE1 )
.3% flow span
Primary Element Accuracy (PEA) is an allowance for use of a metering device

for the measurement of flow. When an elbow is used for a protection
function, the d/p transmitter used to make the measurement is normalized to
a precision flow measurement to reduce the uncertainty for the flow
coefficient for the elbow. The PEA term is then an allowance for the noisy
Ref. 3.1.20)
signal that is characteristic of use of an elbow
FORM DCM 2, 4.2 (JAN. 1991)
New York Power

uthority
0
REVISION
IP3
Project
Page
Date
Preliminary
of
20
1992
Checked by
Final
11
Date 651?
G. Durniak Date
Primary Element uncertainty, due to installation of flow transmitters

across an elbow in the suction of the RCP, is given by Westinghouse to be
.3% of flow span. For added conservatism this value will be increased to
1.0% of flow span.
PE,
Note:
7.3
PEA,
(Page 19 of Ref. 3.1.19)
1.0% flow span
Ref 3.1.21 details that a calibrated elbow meter is just as accurate

as any other standard primary device and has a repeatability in the
-order of 0.2%. Therefore, 1.0% is conservative.
Insulation Resistance Effect (IRE)
The twelve (12) flow transmitters are located in the Containment Building
(Ref. 3.1.6 and 3.3.3). Per Assumption 2.6, accident effects are not
considered.
IRE effects are negligibly small under normal, non-accident conditions.
(Ref. 3.1.3)
7.4
Transmitter Uncertainties (el)

e= /RA,' - DRf - 7VI
e,
V.52 +
1.802 + .682
WEI t S4I
PSI *
'MTI
R4,- SP.' -
+ 02 + 02 + 02 + 1.52 +
.722
+ .12
el = 2.59% of AP Span
Please note that no bias uncertainties were identified.
Reactor Coolant flow is determined by differential pressure transmitters
connected to elbow taps. The above el uncertainty, is given in "% of AP
In order to calculate total channel uncertainty for RC flow, the el
span".
uncertainty must be converted from "% of AP span" to "% flow".
Westinghouse provides this conversion as follows:
fow) = (AP uncertainty) (1/2)
le100
Transmitter span)2
(pg.
19 of ref. 3.1.13)
Where RCS flow transmitter span is 120%, and nominal flow is 100%.
In order to convert el above to "% flow span", divide both sides by
transmitter span, and multiply by 100. Therefore,
e, (% flow span) = (AP uncertainty
Solving for el,
e, (2.59%)(120) % flow span

= 1.55%flow span
FORM DCM 2, 4.2 (JAN. 1991)
)(transmitter span)
uthority
ew York Power
REVISION
Project
IP3
Page
Date
Preliminary
Final
12
20
1992
Checked by
of
Date
G. Durniak Date
The flow transmitter uncertainties are given as follows:

7.4.1
Reference Accuracy (RA1 )
.5% of AP Span (Ref. 3.5.2).
Analysis of ref. 3.4.5 details that the pressure span is less than
500 inches of H20. Per Ref. 3.5.2, the corresponding Reference
Accuracy is .5% of AP span.
The Calibration Procedure Tolerance for the transmitters is shown to
be .5% of span (2mV tolerance of 400 mV span) (Ref. 3.4.5).
Therefore, either value may be used to calculate the transmitter
uncertainty.
7.4.2
Drift (DR,) - 1.2% of AP Span, per year (Ref. 3.1.15).

Given that
the drift uncertainty for a given period is a random and independent
term, and that drift varies linearly with time within any one
period, drift for-30 months (2 1/2 periods) may be calculated as
follows:
DR,
2
1.22 + 1.22 +(1,)
= t1.80%
7.4.3
(Paragraph 6.2.7 of Ref. 3.1.3)
of AP span, for 30 months
Temperature Effect (TE1 )

The Temperature Effect at the normal operating temperature can be
calculated as follows:
Temp. Effect (TE1 )
2.0% of AP span, per 100F
(Ref. 3.5.2)
The normal containment temperature is 102F at elevation 68'

(Ref. 3.1.8)
Given that calibration is done at 68F (Assumption 2.4), the max.
temp. change AT = 102 - 68 = 34F.
Given that the temperature Effect (TE) will vary linearly with temp.
difference (Ref. 3.1.3),
2.0%
100F
TE, (Normal)
7.4.4
TE
34F
=
.68% of AP Span
Radiation Effect (RE,)
0.
(Assumption 2.6)
Radiation effects under normal operating conditions are considered

negligible.
FORM DCM 2, 4.2 (JAN. 1991)
.,
7-.e
New York Power
uthority
0
REVISION
IP3
Project
Preliminary
X
Final
Page
13
of 20
Date
1992
/&,./
Prepared by J. McNeil Datec_
Checked by G. Durniak Date 4 .,J
(Assumption 2.1)
7.4.5
Seismic Effect (SE1 )
0.
7.4.6
Humidity Effect (HE,)
7.4.7
Static Pressure Effect (SP1 )
7.4.8
Measurement and Test Equipment uncertainty (MTE1 )
=
=
(Assumption 2.6)
0.
=
1.5% of AP span
(Ref. 3.5.2)
The following three instruments are used to test the transmitters,

as shown in the block diagram (Section 5.0) and Ref. 3.4.5:
MTEI:
MTE2:
MTE3:
Pressure Gage
Precision Resistor, 10 ohms
Digital Volt Meter (DVM)
The reference standards used for calibrating M&TE have an

uncertainty (error) requirement of not more than 1/4 of the
tolerance of the equipment being calibrated (Ref. 3.4.3).
Measuring and Test Equipment shall have an accuracy greater than or
equal to that of the equipment being calibrated (Ref. 3.4.2).
Given the relative high accuracy of the M&TE, and the procedural
guidelines stated above, it is conservative to assume that:
MTEI - MTE3 - The transmitter Reference Accuracy (RA), including any
M&TE reading error, and reference standard uncertainty.
The Precision Resistor (MTE2) shall have a tolerance of 9.99 to
(Ref 3.4.3, Resistor Calibration Log)
10.01 ohms or .1% of span.
Therefore, per Ref. 3.1.3:
MTE= VMTE 1 2 +MTE 22 +MTE 3 2

= /.52
+ .12 + .52
t .72% of AP span
7.4.9
Power Supply Effect (PS1 ) = .l% of AP span for a 10% deviation in

supply voltage (Ref. 3.5.2).
Per Assumption 2.5, instrument bus voltage variations will not
exceed 2.0%, therefore, it is conservative to assume,
PS, = 0.1% of AP span
FORM DCM 2, 4.2 (JAN. 1991)
New York Power

uthority
0
REVISION
Project
IP3
Preliminary
X
Final
of 20
Page 14
1992
Date
A4Ai',A
4,
7.4.10 Monthly Calibration Tolerance Analysis

Please note that the flow transmitter output is monitored as part of
the monthly calibration procedure. Therefore, any additional drift
due to extension of the Operating Cycle will be evaluated on a
monthly basis.
The monthly calibration tolerance for the transmitters is lOmV
(2.5% of AP span) (Ref. 3.4.4). This procedure records actual
transmitter output at 100% flow. Therefore, this tolerance
represents the normal combined channel uncertainty for the elbow and
transmitter as seen during operation: Using values from Sec. 7.0,
this tolerance should be no greater than:
given,
PM,
PE,
=
=
PMA,
PEA
=
-
1pMf + pE12 +
RA2
V.302
+ .502
0.30 % AP span
0.50 % AP span
DR2
.52
TE12
(Table 3.1.4 of Ref. 3.1.19)

(Table 3.1.4 of Ref. 3.1.19)
+ SpI2 + MTE
+ 1.82 + .682
+ pS3 2
+ .12
+ 1.52 + .722
2.66% of AP span
The monthly calibration tolerance is less than this value, and

therefore, conservative.
7.5
Bistable Uncertainty'(e 2 )
As shown on the block diagram (Section 5.0), the alarm (bistable)
uncertainty may be calculated as follows:
&2
e2 =
RA 22
.5
DR 2 + 7B; + RE: + S4.+
MB
BWirs
+
Sp22
+ .22 + .523 + 02 + 03 + 02 + 02 + .712
1.14%
:t
+ 757 t 0
of AP span,
Please note that no bias uncertainties were identified.

Similarly to Section 7.4, the bistable uncertainty given in "% of AP span"
must be converted to "% flow" using the Westinghouse conversion factor.
Therefore,
e2
(% flow span) - (114) (120)

e2 = 0.68%flow span
The bistable uncertainties are given as follows:
FORM DCM 2, 4.2 (JAN. 1991)
New York Power

Authority
0
REVISION
Project
IP3
Page
Date
Preliminary
Checked by
Final
7.5.1
15
of
20
1992
D a te
G. Durniak Date
Reference Accuracy (RA2 )

Reference Accuracy for the Model 63U-AC alarm is given as .5%of AP
(Ref 3.5.5)
span.
The Calibration Procedure Tolerance is given as .2 mV, ( .5%).
(Ref. 3.4.4)
Therefore, either value may be used to calculate the bistable
uncertainty.
Foxboro Bistable units with cord sets have a resistor (RMl) mounted
externally on a terminal block, as shown on the interconnecting
wiring diagram (Ref. 3.3.2). The resistor uncertainty (.1%) is
included in the specified bistable Reference Accuracy (Ref. 3.5.5).
Therefore, the uncertainty of the external resistor does not need to
be addressed separately.
The total resistance of all resistors in the
loop is within the vendors recommended "output
loop resistance operating area" for the
transmitters. Therefore, the resistors do not
introduce any additional loop uncertainty (Ref.
3.5.2).
NOTE:
7.5.2
Drift (DR2 )
Analysis).
.2% of AP span per year (Ref. 3.1.12, System Error
The overpressurization system manual provides drift values of

0.2%/yr. for various 63U series bistables. The RC Flow bistables
are also series 63U bistables. Therefore, by similarity it is
acceptable to use this drift value for the bistable uncertainty.
The bistables are checked and calibrated monthly, therefore this
drift value is conservative.
7.5.3
Temperature Effect (TE2 )

ambient temperature.
.5% of AP span, for a 50F change in

(ref. 3.5.4)
Control Room equipment is designed for a maximum temperature of

(page 7.2-7 of ref 3.2.2)
120F.
Given that calibration may be performed at 680 F (assumption 2.4),
the temperature effect over a temperature change of 52 0 F (120 0 F
680 F) is assumed to vary linearly as follows:
TE2
TE 2
0.5%
(52
0.52% or AP span
The above temperature effect is conservative.
FORM DCM 2, 4.2 (JAN. 1991)
L New York Power

.uthority
REVISION
I]
Project
Title Instr . Loop Accur./Setpt. Calc.
Preliminary
X
Final
Page 16
of 20
1992
Date
Prepared by J. McNeil Date 4/3/_2
Checked by G. Durniak Datek / $
7.5.4
Radiation effect (RE2 )
The bistable is located in a mild environment.

7.5.5
Seismic Effect (SE2 )
7.5.6
Humidity Effect (HE2 )
(Assumption 2.1)
=
=
The rack is located in a mild environment.

7.5.7
Static Pressure Effect (SP 2 )
Pressure Effects are not applicable for electronic components.

7.5.8
Measuring and Test Equipment (MTE2 )

Two instruments are involved in calibrating the bistables, as shown
in the block diagram (section 5.0) and Ref. 3.4.4:
Test Point resistor (Part of the Foxboro Rack)
Digital Volt Meter
MTE4:
MTE5:
As described in Section 7.4.8:

MTE4
MTE5
Bistable Reference Accuracy (RA 2 )
Therefore:
MTE2 = .fTE4 2
-
1.52
MTE5 2
.52
= .71%of AP span
MTE2 = .71% of AP span
7.5.9
Power Supply Effect (PS2 ) - .5% of AP span, due to a 10% change

in line voltage. (Ref. 3.1.12, System Error Analysis)
This value is typical for a 63U series bistable. Also, per
assumption 2.5, instrument bus voltage variations will not exceed
2.0%, therefore, it is conservative.
8.0
OBTAIN ANALYTICAL LIMIT (AL)

8.1
The Analytical Limit used in the safety analysis for low flow reactor trip
(page 14.1-4 of Ref 3.2.3)
is 87% of loop flow.
FORM DCM 2, 4.2 (JAN. 1991)
New York Power

ftthor ity
9.0
REVISION
Project
IP3
Preliminary
X
Final
Page
17
of
20
1992
Date

Checked by G. Durniak Dateg4U
DETERMINE SETPOINT (TS)

9.1
Calculated trip setpoint

The trip setpoint can be calculated from the following equation:
TS
given, Margin
CU
= AL (CU + Margin)
= 0
= 3.60% flow
(Section 7.2 of Ref. 3.1.3)

(Assumption 2.2)
(Section 7.0)
CU is then combined with the Analytical Limit (AL) in an appropriate

direction, in order to determine the Trip Setpoint, as shown below.
TS
TS
9.2
87% + 3.60%
= 90.6% flow
-
Determination of existing setpoint

The existing setpoint for each bistable can be found from procedure
The following is provided for information
3PT-M03, Rev. 15 (Ref. 3.4.4).
only, to show the existing Trip Setpoint in % flow. Please note that these
values may change at each refueling.
339.58
FC -414
32
33
34
FC-415
388
349.09
FC-416
380
342.17
FC-424
365
329.20
FC-425
380
342.17
FC-426
376
338.71
FC-434
384
345.63
FC-435
387
348.23
FC-436
382
343.90
FC-444
365
329.20
FC-445
384
345.63
FC-446
378
340.44
FORM DCM 2, 4.2 (JAN. 1991)
New York Power

uthority
0
REVISION
IP3
Project
Page
Date
Preliminary
Checked by
Final
18
of
20
1992
Date
__k?
G. Durniak Date
g4
The expected "as found" flow transmitter output is given in the monthly
calibration procedure (Ref. 3.4.4), and is based upon previous transmitter
operating behavior. The relationship of the calibration procedure Trip Setpoint
and the expected transmitter output is given as follows:
X =
[7
100) % flow
Where,
X = Trip Setpoint in % flow
TS
Trip Setpoint in mV DC
AP = Transmitter Output (mV) at 100% Nominal Flow

Solving for X, given the above values for bistable FC-414,
X =
377
-100
(100) % flow
X = 93% flow
10.0
DETERMINE ALLOWABLE VALUE (AV)

The Allowable Value (AV) can be calculated from the following equation (method 3
of ref. 3.1.3).
Where,
AV
TS CUcAL
TS
Trip Setpoint
CUc,
Channel Uncertainty (CU) as seen during

Therefore, uncertainties due to a harsh
process measurement, or primary element
considered. For conservatism, only RA,
uncertainties are considered.
calibration.
environment,
are not
DR, and MTE
The AV will be calculated using the Square-Root-Sum-of-the-Squares (SRSS) method

which is consistent with the method used for the determination of the trip
(ref. 3.1.3)
setpoint. Therefore, a check calculation is not required.
10.1
Determine ecAL
From Section 7.4,
V RA12 + DR,
+ 7EI
FORM DCM 2, 4.2 (JAN. 1991)
+ RB
+ SE
P+PS~+ME'B
New York Power

ifthority
REVISION
Project
IP3
Preliminary
Final
X
Page
Date
19
0
of
20
1992

As defined above, CUCA only considers the normal uncertainties as seen

during calibration, therefore the module uncertainty equation el reduces to:
e 1CAL
,RA:.2
DR~
f, _.fTRj
The el effects for RA, DR, and MTE from section 7.4 are substituted in the
above equation:
Therefore,
e CAL
e CAL
, V
1.52 + 1.82 + .722
= 2.0%of A.P span
Similarly for e2 and using values from section 7.5, the uncertainty
associated with e2 calibration is:
10.2
.22
.712
e2CAL
= /52
e2CAL
= + .89% of AP span
Determine CUcAL
Given the above CUCAL definition, the channel uncertainty equation from
Section 7.0 reduces to:
=
r F,- + e2"
CUcAL
F/2.02 + .892
CUcAL
= +2.19% of AP span
CUcAL
Therefore,
converting "% of AP span" to "% flow span" given the conversion factor of
Section 7.4,
2.19%)120 %flow span
CUcAL
CUcAL
= 1.31% flow span
Multiplying by 120%,
CUcAL
= (1.31%) (120%)
CUCAL
= 1.57%
FORM DCM 2, 4.2 (JAN. 1991)
flow
INew York Power

,6Lthority
REVISION
IP3
Project
Preliminary
X
Final
of 20
Page 20
1992
Date
by G. Durniak Datei
Checked
_j
10.3
_.&
/
Allowable Value (AV) Calculation

Calculating for RC low flow allowable value,
given, TS
CUcA
(Sec. 9.1)
90.6% flow
1.57% flow
The magnitude of CUcA is combined with the trip setpoint in an appropriate

direction to determine AV for a decreasing signal. Therefore,
11.0
AV
TS - CUcA
AV
90.6
AV
89.0% flow
1.57
SUMMARY
EXISTING
CALCULATED
Trip Setpoint
(TS)
90.6% flow(sec. 9.1)
(AV)
Analytical Limit (AL)
flow (Ref. 3.4.4)
90% flow (Sec.
Limiting Safety System Setting

Allowable Value
93%
89.0% flow(sec.
87% flow
2.3 of Ref.
3.2.4)
10.3)
(sec. 8.1)
87% flow (sec. 8.1)
NOTES:
1.
The calculated Allowable Value (AV) represents the limiting "as-found"

condition for the instrument loop.
2.
Normal operating RC flow is 100%.
11.1
CONCLUSION:
The existing Trip Setpoint for Reactor Coolant Loop Low Flow is set higher
than is required by the total channel uncertainty, therefore it is
conservative. No Setpoint change is required.
For RC Loop Low Flow trip, sufficient margin exists for the existing trip
setpoint to insure that channel trip occurs within the Analytical Limit
(AL) considering additional drift and uncertainties for the 24 month 25%
operating cycle.
12.0
ATTACHMENTS
I.
Channel Uncertainty Equations
FORM DCM 2, 4.2 (JAN. 1991)
ATTACHMENT I
CHANNEL UNCERTAINTY EQUATIONS
REV.
CALC NO. IP3-CALC-RPC-00298

REFERENCE
1.0
SHEET 1 OF 2
PROJECT
IP3
IES-3. Rev. 0. Instrument Loop Accuracy and Setpoint Calculations
Total Channel Uncertainty (CU)

The calculation of an instrument channel uncertainty can be performed with a
single loop equation containing all potential uncertainty values, or by a
series of related term equations. A specific channel calculation coincides
with a channel's layout from process measurement to final output module or
modules.
The typical linear channel uncertainty calculation has the following form:
CU* =
CU- = -
,PM
+ PE
2
pM 2 + PE
IRE 2 + (Module)
IRE 2 + (Module,) 2
(Module2 ) 2
+ ...
(Module') 2 + B+
(Module 2 ) 2
+ ...
(Module.)2 - B"
Where:
CU
Channel Uncertainty (CU) at a specific point in the

channel: the CU can be calculated for any point in a
channel from Module 1 to Module n, as needed.
PM
Random uncertainties that exist in the channel's basic

Process Measurement (PM).
PE
Random uncertainties that exist in a channel's Primary

Element (PE), if it has one, such as the accuracy of a
flowmeter table.
IRE
Insulation resistance effect, leakage allowance in % of

span.
MODULE 1, 2, n
Total random uncertainty of each module that

makes up the loop from Module 1 through Module
The total of all positive biases associated with a channel;

this would include any uncertainties from PM, PE, or the
Modules that could not be combined as a random term
(biases, arbitrarily - distributed uncertainties, and
random bias).
The total of all negative biases associated with a channel.
FORM DCM 2, 4.2 (JAN. 1991)
ATTACHMENT I
CHANNEL UNCERTAINTY EQUATIONS
REV.
CALC NO. IP3-CALC-RPC-00298

REFERENCE
2.0
SHEET 2 OF 2
PROJECT
IP3
IES-3, Rev. 0. Instrument Loop Accuracy and Setpoint Calculations
Module (e ) Uncertainties
The individual module random uncertainties are in themselves a statistical
combination of uncertainties. Depending on the type of module, its location,
and the specific factors that can affect its accuracy, the determination of
the module uncertainty will vary. For example, the module uncertainty for a
module may be calculated as:
e
= + VRA
+ DR
e-=-VRA' + DR
+ TE
+ RE
+ TE2 + RE
+ SE
+ HE
+ SEA + HE
+ Sp
+ PS
+ SP4 + PS
+ NTE
+ B
+ MTEA - B-
Where:
e
RA
DR
Uncertainty of module,
Module Reference Accuracy specified by the manufacturer,
Drift of the module over a specific period,
TE
Temperature Effect for the module; the effect of ambient

temperature variations on module accuracy; the TE may be a
normal operating TE, or an accident TE, as required,
RE
Radiation Effect for the module; the effect of radiation

exposure on module accuracy; the RE may be a normal
operating RE, an accident RE, or time of trip RE as
required,
SE
Seismic Effect or vibration effect for the module; the

effect of seismic or operational vibration on the module
accuracy,
HE
Humidity Effect for the module; the effect of changes in

ambient humidity on module accuracy, if any,
SP
Static Pressure effects for the module; the effect of

changes in process static pressure on module accuracy,
MTE
Measuring and Test Equipment effect for the module; this

accounts for the uncertainties in the equipment utilized
for calibration of the module,
PS
Power Supply effect,
Biases associated with the module, if any.
FORM DCM 2, 4.2 (JAN. 1991)
IP3
JAF
INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION
CONTROL SHEET
VERIFICATION OF:
IP3-CALC-RPC-00298/Setpoint Calculation for RC Loop Low Flow

Document Title/Number
SUBJECT:
24 Month Operating Cycle
Reactor Scram Setting
MOD/TASK NUMBER (If Applicable):
QA CATEGORY:
Cat I
DISCIPLINE REVIEW: ELEC
MECH
C/S
I&C
OTHER
(SPECIFY)
O &M
Check
as required
METHOD USED *:
VERIFIER'S NAME:
VERIFIER'S
INITIALS/DATE:
APPROVED BY:
DR
W. Wittich
Date:
REMARKS/SCOPE OF VERIFICATION:
Verification completed in accordance with Attachment 4.3 of DCM 4, Rev. 7.
Calculation is clear and technically understandable.
The assumptions, approach,
and technique are in accordance with industry practice.
The results are valid
and reasonable.
In addition to an overall evaluation of the calculation, independent verification

compared the results of this calculation to results from similar plants.
The total
calculated channel uncertainty of 3.0% of flow span is consistent with the total
Methods of verification:
Qualification Test (QT)
Form DCM 4, 4.1 (MAR. 1989)
Design Review
(DR),
Alternate
Calculations
(AC),
IP3-CALC-RPC-00298
Page 2 of 2
IP3
JAF
INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION
CONTROL SHEET
allowance used elsewhere.
Both the Turkey Point Tech Specs and the W Standard
Technical Specification document a total channel uncertainty with margin of 2.5%

4.6% of span.
Form DCM 4, 4.1 (MAR. 1989)
IP3-CALC-RPC-00298
Page 1 of 3
DESIGN VERIFICATION CHECKLIST
DESIGN REVIEW METHOD
VERIFICATION OF:
RC Loop Low Flow/IP3-CALC-RPC-00298

Document/Title/Number
SetDoint Calculations for 24 Month Cycle
SUBJECT:
MOD/TASK NO.: (If Applicable)
&J/A
DISCIPLINE REVIEW
ELEC
Check as
Required
MECH
OTHER
(SPECIFY)
O&M
C/S
EZ
F--7
Yes/No/Not Applicable
1.
Were the inputs correctly selected and incorporated

into the design?
2.
Are assumptions necessary to perform the design

activity adequately described and reasonable:
Where necessary, are the assumptions identified
for subsequent reverifications when the detailed
design activities are completed?
3.
Are the appropriate quality and quality assurance

requirements specified? e.g., safety classification.
4.
Are the applicable codes, standards and regulatory

requirements including issue and addenda properly
identified and are their requirements for design met?
5.
Have applicable construction and operating experience

been considered?
6.
Have the design interface requirements been satisfied?
7.
Was an appropriate design method used?
Ys
o/NA
(No/NA
Yes/No
OS No/NA
G(o/NA
ce/No/NA
8.
Is the output reasonable compared to inputs?
9.
Are the specified parts, equipment and processes suitable

for the required application?
Form DCM 4, 4.2 (Page 1 of 3),
(MAR. 1989)
Yes /No&A
IP3-CALC-RPC-00298
Page 2 of 3
10.
Are the specified materials compatible with each

other and the design environmental conditions to
which the materials will be exposed?
Yes/Noe
11.
Have adequate maintenance features and requirements

been satisfied?
Yes/NoA
12.
Are accessibility and other design provisions

adequate for performance of needed maintenance
and repair?
Yes/No
13.
Has adequate accessibility been provided to perform

the in-service inspection expected to be required
during the plant life?
Yes/NoCA
14.
Has the design properly considered radiation exposure

to the public and plant personnel? (ALARA/cobalt
reduction)
Yes/No9
15.
Are the acceptance criteria incorporated in the design

documents sufficient to allow verification that design
requirements have been satisfactorily accomplished?
&
No/NA
&No/NA
16.
Have adequate pre-operational and subsequent periodic

test requirements been appropriately specified?
17.
Are adequate handling, storage, cleaning and shipping

requirements specified?
18.
Are adequate identification requirements specified?
19.
Are the conclusions drawn in the Safety Evaluation fully

supported by adequate discussion in the test or Safety
Evaluation itself?
Yes/No1C9
20.
Are necessary procedural changes specified and are

responsibilities for such changes clearly delineated?
Yes/No&
21.
Are requirements for record preparation, review, approval,

retention, etc., adequately specified?
Yes/No&
22.
Have supplemental reviews by other engineering

disciplines (seismic, electrical, etc.) been performed
on the integrated design package?
(MAR. 1989)
Yes/NoO
(No/NA
i/No/NA
IP3-CALC-RPC-00298
Page 3 of 3
23.
Have the drawings, sketches, calculations etc., included

in the integrated design package been reviewed?
24.
References used as part of the design review which are

not listed as part of the design calculation/analysis.
(9
/No/NA
9b
A/I--,
DESIGN VERIFIER:
Signature/Date
V62 ~6L
TitlVe
1~z co
'c
(MAR. 1989)
IP3-CALC-RPC- 00298

Instrument Loop Accuracy Setpoint Calculation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Instrument Loop Accuracy Setpoint Calculation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Instrument Loop Accuracy Setpoint Calculation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the purpose of the calculation?

What is the purpose of the calculation?

What assumptions are made in the calculation?

What assumptions are made in the calculation?

Attachment IVto IPN-93-007

LOOP ACCURACY/SETPOINT CALCULATIONS

NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY

Twenty Four (24) Month Operating Cycle Project

See Section 3.0

AFFECTED SYSTEMS /COMPONENTS /DOCUMENTS

FORM DCM 2, 4.1 (JAN. 1991)

New York Power

LOOP FUNCTION ....

LOOP (BLOCK) DIAGRAM

DETERMINE CHANNEL UNCERTAINTY (CU)

OBTAIN ANALYTICAL LIMIT (AL)

DETERMINE SETPOINT (TS) .......

DETERMINE ALLOWABLE VALUE (AV)

New York Power

CALCULATION NO. IP3-CALC-RPC-00298

Additional "margin" is not used in the calculation, since the methodology

Indication portion of loop is not addressed in this calculation.

The minimum ambient temperature for instrument calibrations will be 68F.

Instrument bus voltage variations do not exceed 2.0%.

U.S. NRC, Regulatory Guide 1.105, Rev. 2, February, 1986 "Instrument

ANSI/ISA-S67.04-1988 Standard "Setpoints for Nuclear Safety-Related

ISA-RP67.04, Part II, Draft 9, "Methodologies for the Determination

* Used as Design Input.

FORM DCM 2, 4.2 (JAN. 1991)

IES-3, Rev. 0, 1/3/91, Instrument Loop Accuracy and Setpoint

DCM-2, Rev. 1, 1/18/91, Preparation and Control of Calculations and

IP3 Master Equipment List, RP System, dated 4/11/90.

Memo from D. Luce, dated October 30, 1991; Subject: Bistables.

TSP-011, Rev. 4, EQ Spare Parts Review Procedure, Attachment I,

WCAP-7817, "Seismic Testing of Electrical and Control Equipment",

3.1.10 System Description No. 1.1, Reactor Coolant System, Rev. 1.

3.1.12 Tech Manual FO-008, Rev. 0, Overpressurization Protection System,

3.1.13 WCAP-12128, "Westinghouse Improved Thermal Design Procedure

3.1.15 NYPA Telephone Documentation Form dated 1/9/92, between J. McNeil

FORM DCM 2, 4.2 (JAN. 1991)

New York Power

CALCULATION NO. IP3-CALC-RPC-00298

Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR),Rev. 7, July 1991.

Chapter 4, Section 4.2.9.

Chapter 7, Section 7.2, Protective Systems.

Chapter 14, Safety Analysis, Rev. 1, dated 7/91.

Chapter 15, Technical Specification and Bases, through Amendment No.

Chapter 16 Design Criteria for Structures and Equipment.

RPS Rack Layout Drawings:

Interconnection Wiring Diagrams:

Instrument Arrangement Drawings:

9321-H-70863 Westinghouse Suggested Routing, Reactor Coolant Flow

9321-F-27383, Rev. 22, Flow Diagram Reactor Coolant System Sht. 1

* Used as Design Input.

New York Power

Instrument Block Diagram

Instrument Rack Drawing

Equipment Arrangement Control Building.

IC-AD-2, Rev. 7, Calibration and Control of Measuring and Test