ML051220424
| ML051220424 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 02/08/2005 |
| From: | Snead P Progress Energy Co |
| To: | Emch R, Parkhurst M Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, NRC/NRR/DRIP/RLEP |
| References | |
| Download: ML051220424 (2) | |
Text
I Richard Emch - Brunswick Sit6_kud`ii'Follow-Up item,46 I I --I,; w -. i.r1,,_: I _! L I ', ill
_ _ I 1.
u,,,
r.. 11 11II I I.I I -
I I 6 -
I I I -
_ _.__ I I -,, ,.i
) Al I l
Richard Emch - Brunswick Site Audit Follow-Up Item #8 Paael I
From:
"Snead, Paul" <paul.snead@pgnmail.com>
To:
<maryann.parkhurst@ pnl.gov>, <RLE@ nrc.gov>
Date:
Tue, Feb 8, 2005 11:03 AM
Subject:
Brunswick Site Audit Follow-Up Item #8 With regard to the Brunswick Environmental Report Site Audit Follow-Up List, response to Item # 8 is as follows:
- 8.
Ensure that the induced shock calculation properly bounds the newly identified Whiteville to Fayetteville 230kV scope.
[provide to Van Ramsdale] [Responsible individual: Phil Moore, TtNUS]
The Brunswick transmission line analysis examined 335 miles of transmission line and modeled two candidate locations on each of 8 transmission lines for induced-current shock. The candidate locations were selected based on expectation of providing bounding conditions on the line. There was an additional 54 miles of line beyond Whiteville (to Fayetteville) that was not analyzed, because the plant now connects to the grid at Whiteville instead of Fayetteville. According to NEPA, the analysis is supposed to be pertinent to the Proposed Action, and the line beyond Whiteville has no relationship to the Proposed Action.
Given that 335 miles were evaluated and found to be well below the industry standard limit of 5 milliamperes, it is highly likely that the un-analyzed 54 miles are also below the regulatory limit. All the lines were built to the same standard. In addition, all the Robinson and Shearon Harris lines were analyzed and found to be well below the limit.
Given that the Progress Energy (CP&L) engineering standards are consistent across all these lines, it is difficult to imagine a situation in which the un-analyzed 54 miles would be an issue.
In summary, we believe the existing analysis is adequate and that modeling the additional segments of line beyond the Whiteville substation would serve no useful purpose.
If you have further questions or need additional information, please let us know.
> Paul Snead
> NGG Environmental Coordinator
> Nuclear Engineering and Services
> Progress Energy
> paul.snead@pgnmail.com
> (919) 546-2836 CC:
"Kozyra, Jan" <jan.kozyra~pgnmail.com>, "Moore, Philip" <MooreP@ttnus.com>
c:\\temp\\GW}OnO01.TMP 4
Page i Mail Envelope Properties (4208E2DA.F2A: 5: 48938)
Subject:
Creation Date:
From:
Brunswick Site Audit Follow-Up Item #8 Tue, Feb 8, 2005 11:03 AM "Snead, Paul" <paul.snead@pgnmail.com>
Created By:
paul.snead@prnmail.com Recipients nrc.gov OWGWPOO2.HQGWDO01 RLE (Richard Emch) ttnus.com MooreP CC (Philip Moore) pgnmail.com jan.kozyra CC (Jan Kozyra) pnl.gov maryann.parkhurst Post Office OWGWPO02.HQGWDO01 Route nrc.gov ttnus.com pgnmail.com pnl.gov Files MESSAGE TEXT.htm Mime.822 Options Expiration Date:
Priority:
Reply Requested:
Return Notification:
Concealed
Subject:
Security:
Size 1908 2835 1
Date & Time Tuesday, February 8, 2005 11:03 AM None Standard No None No Standard