RS-16-183, Submittal of Mitigating Strategies Flood Hazard Assessment
| ML16291A445 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 10/17/2016 |
| From: | David Helker Exelon Generation Co |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| RS-16-183 | |
| Download: ML16291A445 (79) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:Exelon Generation . RS-16-183 10 CFR 50.54(f) October 17, 2016 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85 NRC Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353
Subject:
Mitigating Strategies Flood Hazard Assessment (MSFHA) Submittal
References:
- 1. NRC Letter, Request for Information Pursuant to Title 1O of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3, of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident, dated March 12, 2012
- 2. Exelon Generation Company, LLC Letter to USNRC, Response to March 12, 2012 Request for Information Enclosure 2, Recommendation 2.1, Flooding, Required Response 2, Flooding Hazard Reevaluation Report, dated March 12, 2015 (RS-15-064)
- 3. Exelon Generation Company, LLC Letter to USN RC, Response to NRC Audit Review Request for Additional Information Regarding Fukushima Lessons Learned - Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report, dated October 28, 2015 (RS-15-268)
- 4. Exelon Generation Company, LLC Letter to USN RC, Supplemental Response to NRC Audit Review Request for Additional Information Regarding Fukushima Lessons Learned
- Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report, dated January 13, 2016 (RS-16-002)
- 5. NRC Letter, Supplemental Information Related to Request for Information Pursuant to Title 1O of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Flooding Hazard Reevaluations for Recommendation 2.1 of the Near Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident, dated March 1, 2013
- 6. NRC Staff Requirements Memoranda to COMSECY-14-0037, "Integration of Mitigating Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events and the Reevaluation of Flooding Hazards", dated March 30, 2015
- 7. NRC Letter, Coordination of Requests for Information Regarding Flooding Hazard Reevaluations and Mitigating Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events, dated September 1, 2015
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mitigating Strategies Flood Hazard Assessment (MSFHA) Submittal October 17, 2016 Page 2
- 8. Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), Report NEI 12-06 [Rev 2], Diverse and Flexible Coping Strategies (FLEX) Implementation Guide, dated December 2015
- 9. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, JLD-ISG-2012-01, Revision 1, Compliance with Order EA-12-049, Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Requirements for Mitigating Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events, dated January 22, 2016
- 10. NRC Letter, Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 - Interim Staff Response to Reevaluated Flood Hazards Submitted in Response to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Information Request - Flood-Causing Mechanism Reevaluation (CAC Nos. MF6107 and MF6108),
dated December 24, 2015 On March 12, 2012, the NRC issued Reference 1 to request information associated with Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.1 for Flooding. One of the Required Responses in Reference 1 directed licensees to submit a Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report (FHRR). For Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 the FHRR was submitted on March 12, 2015 (Reference 2). Additional information was provided with References 3 and 4. Per Reference 5, the NRC considers the reevaluated flood hazard to be "beyond the current design/licensing basis of operating plants". Concurrent to the flood hazard reevaluation, Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 developed and implemented mitigating strategies in accordance with NRC Order EA-12-049, "Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Requirements for Mitigation Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events". In Reference 6, the NRC affirmed that licensees need to address the reevaluated flooding hazards within their mitigating strategies for beyond-design-basis (BDB) external events. This requirement was confirmed by the NRC in Reference 7. Guidance for performing mitigating strategies flood hazard assessments (MSFHAs) is contained in Appendix G of Reference 8, endorsed by the NRC in Reference 9. In Reference 10, the NRC concluded that the "reevaluated flood hazards information, as summarized in the Enclosure [Summary Table of the Reevaluated Flood Hazard Levels], is suitable for the assessment of mitigating strategies developed in response to Order EA-12-049" for Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2. Enclosure 1 to this letter provides the Mitigating Strategies Assessments for Flooding for the Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2. This assessment indicated that the FLEX design basis did not bound the reevaluated flood hazard (i.e., Mitigating Strategies Flood Hazard Information (MSFHI)) for the local intense precipitation (LIP) flood, specifically at the Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) building, but the FLEX strategy was not impacted and can be successfully implemented as designed. As a result, no changes to the FLEX strategies or additional flood mitigation modifications are required. Additionally, as requested in order to support the NRC staff technical review of the Limerick FHRR, Enclosure 2 to this letter provides the Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Engineering Technical Evaluation No. 01550669-36, dated February 23, 2015. This letter contains no new regulatory commitments. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact Ron Gaston at (630) 657-3359.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mitigating Strategies Flood Hazard Assessment (MSFHA) Submittal October 17, 2016 Page 3 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on the 171h day of October 2016. Respectfully submitted, David P. Helker Manager - Licensing & Regulatory Affairs Exelon Generation Company, LLC
Enclosures:
- 1. Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Mitigating Strategies Assessments for Flooding, dated October 17, 2016
- 2. Limerick Engineering Technical Evaluation No. 01550669-36, February 23, 2015 cc: Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation NRC Regional Administrator - Region I NRC Senior Resident Inspector - Limerick Generating Station NRC Project Manager, NRR - Limerick Generating Station Ms. Tekia Govan, NRR/JLD/JHMB, NRC Mr. John D. Hughey, NRR/JLD/JOMB, NRC Director, Bureau of Radiation Protection - Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources R. R. Janati, Chief, Division of Nuclear Safety, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Radiation Protection
Enclosure 1 Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Mitigating Strategies Assessments for Flooding dated October 17, 2016 (1 O Pages)
Mitigating Strategies Assessments for Flooding Limerick Generating Station Exelon.) October 17, 2016
Limerick Generating Station MSA for Flooding Page 2 of 10 Contents 1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................. 3 2 List of Acronyms ................................................................................................. 3 3 Background ........................................................................................................ 4 3.1 Purpose ....................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Site Description ............................................................................................ 4 3.3 Overview of FLEX Strategy ............................................................................. 5 4 Characterization of MSFHI (NEI 12-06, Rev 2, Section G.2) ...................................... 5 5 Basis for Mitigating Strategy Assessment (NEI 12-06, Rev 2, Section G.3) ................. 6 6 Assessment of Current Flex Strategy (NEI 12-06, Rev 2, Section G.4.1) .................... 6 6.1 Assessment Methodology and Process .............................................................. 7 6.2 Results ........................................................................................................ 9 6.3 Conclusions .................................................................................................. 9 7 References ........................................................................................................ 10
Limerick Generating Station MSA for Flooding Page 3 of 10 1 Executive Summary This Mitigating Strategies Assessment (MSA) evaluates the impact of the reevaluated flood hazard on FLEX strategy implementation. The Mitigating Strategies Flood Hazard Information (MSFHI), based on Limerick Generating Station's (LGS) Flood Hazard Reevaluation as affirmed in the NRC's December 24, 2015 interim response letter, is used to define the flood hazard for the MSA. The FLEX strategies were developed prior to completion of the Flood Hazard Reevaluation. Therefore, the FLEX design basis flood was set to be equivalent to the Plant's design basis flood. The MSFHI for LGS, submitted with the Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report (FHRR), resulted in combined-effect streams/rivers flood hazard along the Schuylkill River, Sanatoga Creek, and Possum Hollow Run (including the Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP)/Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) and upstream dam failure) that is bounded by the FLEX design basis flood hazard (equivalent to the plant's DB flood hazard). Therefore, the FLEX design basis completely bounds all MSFHI for streams/rivers-related flooding and a Mitigating Strategies Assessment (MSA) is not required for this flood-causing mechanism. The only MSFHI flood-causing mechanism considered in the MSA is the Local Intense Precipitation (LIP) flood. Although the maximum reevaluated (MSFHI) flood level is bounded by the FLEX design basis for LIP, the south side of the plant (near the emergency diesel generators (EDGs)) was not analyzed for the plant's design basis LIP flood. Therefore, LIP was considered to be non-bounded in this area by the FLEX design basis. The MSA for the LIP, which included an ingress evaluation at the EDGs, indicated that the FLEX strategy was not impacted by the MSFHI and can be implemented as designed. As a result, no changes to the FLEX strategies or additional flood mitigation modifications are required. 2 List of Acronyms
- AMS - Alternate Mitigation Strategy
- BDBEE - Beyond Design Basis External Event
- CLB - Current Licensing Basis
- DB - Design Basis
- DGB - Diesel Generator Building
- EDG - Emergency Diesel Generator
- ELAP - Extended Loss of A/C Power
- EOP - Emergency Operating Procedure
- FHRR - Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report
- FLEX - Strategy response to an ELAP and LUHS, postulated from a BDBEE
- FLEX DB - FLEX Design Basis (flood hazard)
- FSG - FLEX Support Guideline (procedure)
- LGS - Limerick Generating Station
- LIP - Local Intense Precipitation
- LUHS - Loss of Ultimate Heat Sink
- MSA - Mitigating Strategies Assessment
- MSFHA - Mitigating Strategy Flood Hazard Assessment
- MSFHI - Mitigating Strategy Flood Hazard Information
- MSL - Mean Sea Level
- NRC - Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- NTTF - Near-Term Task Force
- PMF - Probable Maximum Flood
- PMP - Probable Maximum Precipitation
Limerick Generating Station MSA for Flooding Page 4 of 10
- RCIC - Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (system)
- RHR - Residual Heat Removal (system)
- RHRSW - Residual Heat Removal Service Water (system)
- RPV - Reactor Pressure Vessel
- SFP - Spent Fuel Pool
- SRV - Safety Relief Valve
- THMS - Targeted Hazard Mitigating Strategy 3 Background 3.1. Purpose This MSA evaluates the ability to implement FLEX strategies for the reevaluated flood hazard as defined by the MSFHI. It is performed in accordance with NEI 12-06 Appendix G and contains the following elements:
- Section G.2 - Characterization of the MSFHI
- Section G.3 - Basis for Mitigating Strategy Assessment {MSFHI-FLEX DB Comparison)
- Section G.4.1 - Assessment of current FLEX Strategy (if necessary)
- Section G.4.2 - Assessment for modifying FLEX Strategy (if necessary)
- Section G.4.3 - Assessment of AMS (if necessary)
- Section G.4.4 - Assessment of THMS (if necessary)
On March 12, 2012, the NRC issued a Request for Information (Reference 1) to request information associated with NTTF Recommendation 2.1 for Flooding. One of the required responses in Reference 1 directed licensees to submit a FHRR. The LGS FHRR was submitted on March 12, 2015 (Reference 2). Additional information was provided in supplemental responses (References 3 and 4). Per Reference 5, the NRC considers the reevaluated flood hazard to be "beyond the design/licensing basis of operating plants". Concurrent to the flood hazard reevaluation, LGS developed and implemented mitigating strategies in accordance with NRC Order EA-12-049, "Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Requirements for Mitigation Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events". Those strategies are described in the LGS Implementation of Diverse and Flexible Coping Strategies (FLEX) and Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation Program (Reference 11). In Reference 6, the Commission affirmed that licensees need to address the reevaluated flooding hazards within their mitigating strategies for BDBEE's. This requirement was confirmed by the NRC in Reference 7. Guidance for performing MSFHAs is contained in Appendix G of Reference 8, endorsed by the NRC in Reference 9. Per NEI 12-06, Rev. 2, Appendix G, if a Section G.3 assessment shows that the FLEX DB flood completely bounds the reevaluated flood (i.e. MSFHI), only documentation for Sections G.2 and G.3 are required; assessments and documentation for the remaining sections {G.4.1 through G.4.4) are not necessary. 3.2 Site Description The Limerick Generating Station is located in southeastern Pennsylvania on the Schuylkill River, about 1.7 miles southeast of the limits of the Borough of Pottstown and about 20.7 miles northwest of the Philadelphia city limits. The Schuylkill River passes through the site and separates the western portion, which is located in East Coventry Township, Chester County, from the eastern portion, which is partly in Limerick Township and partly in Lower Pottsgrove Township, both in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. All of the major plant structures are located in the Limerick Township. The natural ground elevations vary from
Limerick Generating Station MSA for Flooding Page 5 of 10 110 feet mean sea level datum (MSL) at the Schuylkill River to 280 feet MSL at the highest elevation. 3.3 Overview of FLEX Strategy The LGS FLEX response strategies to maintain Core Cooling, Containment, Spent Fuel Pool Cooling, and Safety Function Support are summarized below. This summary is derived from the LGS Program document (Reference 11). The FLEX strategy mitigates the effects of an ELAP and LUHS, postulated from a BDBEE, by providing adequate capability to maintain or restore core cooling, containment, and SFP cooling capabilities at both units. The strategy is diverse and flexible to encompass a wide range of possible conditions, and is incorporated into the station's EOPs and FSGs. For Phase 1, initial RPV water level control will be accomplished using the RCIC System. The RCIC pump can take suction from the suppression pool, which is qualified to withstand a seismic event. The ELAP event will cause the RPV to be isolated from the Main Condenser. Pressure in the RPV will be controlled by manual and/or automatic actuation of the SRVs. Power for RCIC system operation and required containment and reactor vessel instrumentation comes from installed Division 1 and 2 safety-related batteries. One hour after the start of an event, station personnel will declare an ELAP and begin to line-up portable equipment. The Phase 2 strategy lines up portable FLEX Pumps to supply makeup water to the RPV, Suppression Pool and/or the SFP. The FLEX Pumps will take suction from the Spray Pond, and discharge through hoses into RHRSW. Ultimately this water would be supplied, via the RHR System, into the Suppression Pool, the RPV, and/or the SFP. The FLEX mechanical strategy utilizes one (1) FLEX Pump per unit. Connection points, pump storage location, and deployment pathways are at elevations higher than the FLEX DB flood level. The Phase 2 electrical strategy lines up the portable FLEX Generators to re-energize 125V/250V DC battery chargers and selected 480V AC components. The electrical connection panels, the FLEX Generator staging areas, and the FLEX equipment fuel oil supply access are at elevations higher than the FLEX DB flood level. The FLEX electrical strategy utilizes one (1) FLEX Generator per unit connecting to both Division 1 and 2 electrical busses. The FLEX equipment including FLEX Generators, cable trailers, FLEX Pumps, and hose trailers, are stored in a BDBEE-protected structure at an elevation higher than the FLEX DB flood level. For Phase 3, existing and FLEX equipment is used with backup equipment and supplies available as required from the SAFER offsite location. 4 Characterization of MSFHI (NEI 12-06, Rev 2, Section G.2) NRC has completed the "Interim Staff Response to Reevaluated Flood Hazards" (Reference
- 10) related to LGS's Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report (Reference 2). In Reference 10, the NRC states that the "staff has concluded that the licensee's reevaluated flood hazards information, as summarized in the Enclosure [to Reference 10], is suitable for the assessment of mitigation strategies developed in response to Order EA-12-049 (i.e., defines the mitigating strategies flood hazard information described in guidance documents currently being finalized by the industry and NRC staff [Reference 8]) for Limerick". Tables 1 and 2 of the enclosure to Reference 10 include a summary of the plant's DB and non-bounding reevaluated flood hazard parameters, respectively. In Table 1 of the enclosure to
Limerick Generating Station MSA for Flooding Page 6 of 10 Reference 10, the NRC lists the following flood-causing mechanisms for the current design basis flood:
- Local Intense Precipitation;
- Streams and Rivers;
- Failure of Dams and Onsite Water Control/Storage Structures;
- Storm Surge;
- Seige;
- Tsunmai;
- Ice Induced Flooding; and
- Channel Migrations/Diversions.
In Table 2 of the enclosure to Reference 9, the NRC lists flood hazard information for only the Local Intense Precipitation (at the DGB) flood-causing mechanism as being not bounded by the plant's DB hazard. This is the only reevaluated flood-causing mechanism addressed in the mitigating strategies assessment, specifically at the DGB. LIP at LGS is described in detail in Reference 2, the FHRR submittal. Below is a summary of the MSFHI flood elevations for the flood-causing mechanisms applicable to FLEX (those mechanisms that produce flood levels above plant grade) as summarized in Reference 9: Stillwater Wind-Wave Maximum Flood Flood-Causing Elevation Runup Height Elevation Mechanism {feet NGVD29) {feet) {feet NGVD29) Local Intense Precipitation at the Diesel Generator 217.1 Minimal 217.1 Buildinq 5 Basis for Mitigating Strategy Assessment (NEI 12-06, Rev 2, Section G.3) The plant's DB flood was incorporated as the design input to all FLEX related plant modifications. As discussed in the previous section, the only MSFHI flood-causing mechanism not bounded by the FLEX DB, equal to the plant's DB, and considered in the MSA is the LIP flood. Although the maximum reevaluated (MSFHI) flood level is bounded by the FLEX DB for LIP, the south side of the plant (at the DGB) was not analyzed for the plant's DB LIP flood . Therefore, LIP was considered to be non-bounded in this area by the FLEX DB. As a result, further evaluation is required to address the reevaluated flooding hazards for LIP at the DGB within the BOB mitigating (FLEX) strategies for both installed plant equipment and portable equipment deployment areas and paths. See Section 6 below. For other areas of the site, since the FLEX DB bounds the MSFHI LIP flood, the current FLEX design remains valid for the LIP flood, including aspects related to the storage and deployment of FLEX equipment, validation of FLEX actions, and viability of FLEX connection points. Therefore, further assessment of the impact on FLEX for the MSFHI LIP flood is not required in the other areas of the site (areas other than the DGB). 6 Assessment of Current Flex Strategy (NEI 12-06, Rev 2, Section G.4.1) As discussed in Section 5, LIP is not bounded by the FLEX DB and is, therefore, evaluated below as part of the MSA for Limerick. In summary, the MSA for the LIP, which included an
Limerick Generating Station MSA for Flooding Page 7 of 10 ingress evaluation at the EDGs, indicated that the FLEX strategy was not impacted by the MSFHI and can be implemented as designed. As a result, no changes to the FLEX strategies or additional flood mitigation modifications are required. Additional details are provided below. 6.1 Assessment Methodology and Process This assessment reviews the effect of a LIP event and concurrent ELAP/LUHS on the FLEX strategy. The assessment addresses the following key aspects of the FLEX strategy from NEI 12-06, Rev 2, Section G.4 .1 (Reference 8):
- In the sequence of events for the FLEX strategies, if the reevaluated flood hazard does not cause the ELAP/LUHS, then the time when the ELAP/LUHS is assumed to occur should be specified and a basis provided (e.g., the ELAP/LUHS occurs at the peak of the flood).
Initiation of an ELAP will result in the deployment of FLEX equipment starting at 60 minutes from event start. For a LIP, the area of review is near the installed safety-related diesel generator building doors. The diesel generators are moved from the FLEX storage building to outside the diesel generator enclosures. A LIP is not assumed to cause an ELAP/LUHS. For this review, the LIP is assumed to occur between the initiating event start and declaration of an ELAP at one hour. This is considered a conservative assumption because minimal actions would be completed or initiated prior to the ELAP occurring.
- The impacts of the MSFHI should be used in place of the FLEX DB flood to perform the screening and evaluation per Section 6 of NEI 12-06, Rev 2:
o Protection of FLEX Equipment (Section 6.2.3.1 of NEI 12-06, Rev 2)
- Confirm that the guidance for protection of FLEX equipment (NEI 12-06, Rev 2, Section 11.3) was followed. Confirm that FLEX equipment is not impacted by MSFHI.
FLEX equipment has been stored and designed to the requirements of NE! 12-06. The protection of FLEX equipment will not be affected by a LIP event. The LIP stillwater elevations at the FLEX equipment storage locations are the same as previously analyzed for the DB flood level ( <1-inch depth).
- If applicable, document that any flood protection features credited in the FLEX strategy meet the performance criteria (NEI 12-06, Rev 2, Section G.5). How were the flood protection features evaluated?
Confirm that the flood protection features are not impacted by MSFHI. Flood protection features are not credited for FLEX. Based on this evaluation, no additional flood protection features will need to be credited for FLEX and no changes are required. o Deployment of FLEX Equipment (Section 6.2.3.2 of NEI 12-06, Rev 2)
- Document that deployment of FLEX Equipment is not impacted by MSFHI - e.g., warning time, ability to move equipment and re-stock supplies, and availability of fuel.
Required FLEX equipment is on trailers and is elevated. The maximum outside water level elevation due to a LIP (at the EOG buildings) is
Limerick Generating Station MSA for Flooding Page 8 of 10 approximately 3 to 4. 5 inches during the beginning of the LIP (first 10-15 minutes). After 10-15 minutes, the water surface elevation decreases to approximately 1-2 inches. Within 1 hour, water elevation will be at site grade ( <1 inch). Therefore, deployment areas and paths will not be affected due to the MSFHI. The new analysis shows a rise in site water level from the FLEX DB evaluation at the EOG building outside doors. There could be some minor delays in deployment of FLEX cables and connections due to additional water in the area. Validations for FLEX procedures were reviewed and there is a minimum of 2.5 hours of margin in the FLEX Electrical Connection deployment procedures. Any minor delays due to additional water in the deployment area and paths are acceptable based on the 2.5 hours of margin in the validation. See Section 6.2 for further discussion.
- Document that availability and access to all connection points is not impacted by the MSFHI.
All connection points are located in the EOG buildings and are protected from the impacts of flooding. Any water entering through undercuts in the doors will be contained in the diesel pits and will not affect the connection points for the diesel generators, per Reference 2.
- Document that deployment of temporary flood barriers is not impacted by MSFHI.
FLEX does not credit the deployment of temporary flood barriers and is therefore not impacted by an LIP event. o Procedural Interfaces (Section 6.2.3.3 of NEI 12-06, Rev 2)
- Confirm that no procedural changes are required due to MSFHI.
No procedural changes are required due to a LIP flood at the EOG for this MSFHI. o Utilization of Off-site Resources (Section 6.2.3.4 of NEI 12-06, Rev 2)
- Confirm that site access routes are not impacted by MSFHI.
The LIP event will not impede site access routes and the functionality of FLEX deployment or Phase 3 equipment deployment. The area around the DGB, in particular, does not contain access or deployment routes.
- The equipment storage guidance of Section 11.3 should be reassessed based on the impacts of the MSFHI.
Equipment storage was reassessed using the MSFHI for LIP and it resulted in no impacts. The equipment storage location for the FLEX equipment is not in the area of concern (EOG buildings) and meets the requirements for storage of equipment. FLEX buildings are elevated above grade elevation and water elevation around the plant due to the LIP. Also, no Phase 1 installed equipment is impacted by this MSFHI.
- The impacts of the MSFHI should be used in place of the FLEX DB flood in the consideration of robustness of plant equipment as defined in Appendix A of NEI 12-
Limerick Generating Station MSA for Flooding Page 9 of 10
- 06. For determining robustness only, the MSFHI should be used as the applicable hazard.
The FLEX equipment was evaluated for the worst case flood height and will still be capable to perform their functions due to the elevated heights of the transfer trailers. 6.2 Results
- Confirm that boundary conditions and assumptions in the initial FLEX design are maintained. If not, describe the differences. Describe the basis for this determination.
The boundary conditions and assumptions in the initial FLEX design, including shi~ staffing levels and independent/concurrent events, are maintained and would not be impacted by the MSFHI LIP flood in the EOG area.
- Confirm that the sequence of events for the FLEX strategies is not impacted by MSFHI (including impacts due to the environmental conditions created by MSFHI) in such a way that the FLEX strategies cannot be implemented as currently developed.
If yes, describe the impacts. Describe the basis for this determination. The sequence of events and tasks/steps in the FLEX Validation Plan was reviewed with the occurrence of the MSFHI LIP flood-causing mechanism, specifically in the EOG area. No new or re-ordered tasks were identified as a result of the MSFHI. Time to dispatch operators did not need to be accelerated to accomplish a task within the required time constraint. Therefore, the sequence of events for the FLEX strategies is not impacted by MSFHI (including impacts due to the environmental conditions created by MSFHI) in such a way that the FLEX strategies cannot be implemented as currently developed.
- Confirm that the validation performed for the deployment of the FLEX strategies is not impacted by MSFHI. If yes, describe the impacts. Describe the basis for this determination.
The FLEX strategies, including actions/steps in the Validation Plan, were reviewed to determine the impact of the MSFHI LIP flood in the EOG area. It was concluded that some steps were adversely impacted and time margin decreased but the margin is still adequate. The new analysis shows a rise in site water level from the FLEX DB evaluation at the EOG building outside doors. There could be some minor delays (up to 1 hour based on event start time due to water outside the diesel buildings) in deployment of FLEX cables and connections due to additional water in the area. Validations for FLEX procedures were reviewed and there is a minimum of 2.5 hours of margin in the FLEX Electrical Connection deployment procedures. The FLEX implementation steps can be successfully completed, with delays due to additional water in this area, since there would be a minimum of 1. 5 hours of margin in the validation. The 1.5 hours of margin for the impacted FLEX implementation steps is judged to be adequate. 6.3 Conclusions The assessment concluded that the existing FLEX strategy at LGS can be successfully implemented and deployed as designed for all applicable flood-causing mechanisms. For the LIP event, the assessment showed that installed plant equipment that supports FLEX implementation and the storage and deployment of FLEX equipment are not adversely impacted and no additional actions or procedural changes were required.
Limerick Generating Station MSA for Flooding Page 10 of 10 7 References
- 1. NRC Letter, Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3, of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident, dated March 12, 2012.
- 2. Exelon Generation Company, LLC Letter to USNRC, Response to March 12, 2012, Request for Information Enclosure 2, Recommendation 2.1, Flooding, Required Response 2, Flooding Hazard Reevaluation Report, dated March 12, 2015 (RS 064).
- 3. Exelon Generation Company, LLC Letter to USNRC, Response to NRC Audit Review Request for Additional Information Regarding Fukushima Lessons Learned - Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report, dated October 28, 2015 (RS-15-268).
- 4. Exelon Generation Company, LLC Letter to USNRC, Supplemental Response to NRC Audit Review Request for Additional Information Regarding Fukushima Lessons Learned - Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report, dated January 13, 2016 (RS-16-002).
- 5. NRC Letter, Supplemental Information Related to Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Flooding Hazard Reevaluations for Recommendation 2.1 of the Near Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident, dated March 1, 2013.
- 6. NRC Staff Requirements Memoranda to COMSECY-14-0037, "Integration of Mitigating Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events and the Reevaluation of Flooding Hazards", dated March 30, 2015.
- 7. NRC Letter, Coordination of Requests for Information Regarding Flooding Hazard Reevaluations and Mitigating Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events, dated September 1, 2015.
- 8. Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), Report NEI 12-06 [Rev 2], Diverse and Flexible Coping Strategies (FLEX) Implementation Guide, dated December 2015.
- 9. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, JLD-ISG-2012-01, Revision 1, Compliance with Order EA-12-049, Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Requirements for Mitigating Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events, dated January 22, 2016 [Effective February 29, 2016 per Federal Register I Vol. 81, No. 39].
- 10. NRC Letter to Exelon, "Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 - Interim Staff Response to Reevaluated Flood Hazards Submitted in Response to 10 CFR 50.54(f)
Information Request - Flood-Causing Mechanism Reevaluation (CAC NOS. MF6107 and MF6108)", dated December 24, 2015 (ADAMS ML15357A517).
- 11. Limerick Generating Station, Implementation of Diverse and Flexible Coping Strategies (FLEX) and Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation Program (CC-LG-118).
Enclosure 2 Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Limerick Engineering Technical Evaluation No. 01550669-36, February 23, 2015
01550669-36 Page 1of5 01550669-36 ENGINEERING TECHNICAL EVALUATION This engineering technical evaluation is being prepared in accordance with procedure CC-AA-309-101. This technical evaluation was screened per HU-AA-1212. The work activities associated with this evaluation are of medium plant consequence level. In addition, this evaluation has a low probability of error. As such, the evaluation has been determined to have a risk of 1, and only normal process reviews are required. CC-AA- I 02 has also been reviewed and applicable design attributes are addressed in the modification. As this evaluation is in support of Fukushima Project, it is classified as augmented quality. REASON FOR EVALUATION I SCOPE In performance of the Fukushima Flooding Hazard Reevaluation, two items were found that were either previously unanalyzed or went beyond current design basis. These two items were:
- 1. The local intense precipitation event (LIP) was performed and a previously unanalyzed condition was found. This area was on the south side of the plant, near the emergency diesel generators, where water could enter the diesel bays through the south doors due to a LIP.
- 2. The flooding height due to a probable maximum flooding at Possum Hollow Run was increased beyond current design basis, from 159 feet (current design basis) to 167.8 feet.
This evaluation will document the effects of the new flooding information on the plant. DETAILED EVALUATION Effects of LIP on Emergency Diesel Generators Based on information provided in LM-0699, Rev. 0 (Ref. I), Local Intense Precipitation (LIP) - Fukushima Flood Hazard Assessment, an area next to the diesel compartments was determined to have not been previously evaluated . The new information has some elevation of water for approximately 1 to 1.5 hours after event start. The doors to the diesels are not water tight and have a small 5/8" undercut in the door. This allows water to enter the diesel compa11ments through the undercut. This evaluation determines the effects of the water on the diesels based on the updated flooding information. The evaluation will review the amount of water that enters the diesel bays and compare that value to the volume of the diesel pit areas (located below the diesels.) As long as the volume of water entering the pit does not reach the diesel generators, no safety related equipment will be affected.
01550669-36 Page2of5 The total volume of the pit area is determined based on physical measurements of the pits in one diesel compartment (D 13) and was compared to that in another compaitment (D 12). This walkdown is documented in Attachment 1 of this evaluation. The volume of each section, based on width and length, and the total volume is given below. A conservative height of 22 inches from the bottom of the pit to the bottom of the diesels are used in the volume calculation. This is conservative as the height of the bottom of the generator is at 2.0 feet. Section Width (in.) Length(in.) Area(in.L) Yolume(in. j) 1 120 206 24720 543840 2 416 64 26624 585728 3 44 210 9240 203280 4 164 24 3936 86592 5 46 42 1932 42504 6 56 370 20720 455840 7 78 90 7020 154440 Total 2072224 Based on the table above, the total volume in the pit is 2072224 in 3 or 1199 ft3. The amount of flow entering each of the diesel doors was determined using the methodology from NPB-013 (Ref. 2). This calculation determined the amount of water flow underneath a door with an undercut. The following equation is used to determine flow through a door: Q(cfm) =flow= K1 x a..J2gh Where: a = door undercut (ft)= 5/8 in= 0.052 feet (A-013-8-00002, Ref. 3) K 1 =constant from NPB-013= 133.614 for a 3 foot wide door (A-0150, Sheet I, Ref. 4) h =water height at the door (ft) 2 g = gravity = 32.2 ft/s Total volume is then calculated using the below equation: Volume= QM Each door is looked at has a curb prior to the undercut. This curb height is determined based on walkdowns performed during the Fukushima 2.3 flooding walkdowns (forms documented in ). The water height at the door is determined by calculation LM-0699, Attachment 12 (Selected pages for diesel doors from LM-0699 are included in Attachment 2 of this evaluation). The total water height at the door is determined by taking the water height at the door and subtracting the curb height. Also included is an excel spreadsheet (Attachment 4) with the values and times for the flooding height at each door based on graphs in Attachment 2.
01550669-36 Page 3 of 5 These values, inserted into the equation above (shown in Attachment 4) determine the total flow into the room . Bel ow is a summary table of volume into the room for each door: Door Number Total Volume (ftj) Below Acceptance Criteria (1199 ft 3) 2 11 163 Yes 2 13 714 Yes 2 15 1073 Yes 2 17 1037 Yes 2 19 481 Yes 221 452 Yes 223 275 Yes 225 275 Yes Based on the above, all rooms have enough volume in the pit area to account for the flow that could enter the room in a beyond design basis event. These results are applicable in all modes of operation. These doors are normally closed with security cages around them. The only time that these doors would be opened, other than door checks by security or as an emergency exit, would be when the emergency diesel generator is in a system outage for maintenance. During this time, the diesel is out-of-service and would not be required. Also, per the barrier breach program (CC-LG-201 ), the external diesel doors are security barriers and if held open for an extended time, would require a security watch. Therefore, security can close the door if an event were to occur. It should be noted that the force on the door from flooding will be minimal (only 2-3 inches of water at the bottom of a 7 foot door). Per engineering judgment, this force is well within the capability of the door and components (latches, etc.). There are many conservatisms in the calculation (LM-0699, Ref. 1) that make this evaluation conservative. LM-0699 includes roof runoff onto the external diesel doors. The external diesel doors are underneath a 6-foot overhang (Ref. 8) that would ensure water does not run down the wall and doors, therefore, lowering the total height of water slightly. Also, the diesel building itself has a 2-foot tall parapet (Ref. 7) with drains on the side of the building (2 drains near the top of the parapet). In an actual event, the roof itself would collect water up to the parapet height prior to wall runoff. This would delay that water coming down the building at which point the amount ofrain coming down is less. This would lower the initial height of water in the beginning of the event, therefore lowering the overall height of water and reducing the inflow into the room. Based on the above, there is no effect on safety related equipment in the diesel generator rooms and no compensating actions are necessary.
01550669-36 Page 4 of 5 Probable Maximum Flooding at Possum Hollow Run Current design basis for the Possum Hollow flooding is 159 feet. Based on Calculation LM-070 I (Ref. 6), the total elevation was increased to 167.8 feet. This was due to higher drainage flows from the water shed feeding Possum Hollow. Although the total elevation increased approximately 9 feet, there is no effect on any safety related equipment on site since site grade is between 215-217 feet. Therefore, there is sufficient margin (48 feet) and no compensatory actions are required. CONCLUSIONS I FINDINGS Based on the above, there are no effects to any safety related equipment at Limerick Generating Station due to the flooding hazard reevaluation. For the updated LIP, the total flow into the diesel generator rooms is less than the pit acceptance criteria. This result is conservative as the water height does not take into account the roof volume and the roof overhang over the door way. The margin to the plant grade from the Possum Hollow flood was decreased from 57 feet to 48 feet but is still acceptable and will not affect any site equipment. Therefore, no compensatory actions are required at this time. REFERENCES I. LM-0699, Rev. 0.
- 2. NPB-013, Rev. 2
- 3. A-013-B-00002,Rev.5
- 4. A-0150, Sheet I, Rev. 45
- 5. CC-LG-201, Rev. 3.
- 6. LM-0701, Rev. 0
- 7. A-0402, Sheet I, Rev. 16
- 8. A-0402,Sheet2,Rev. I ATTACHMENTS I. Diesel Bay Walkdown Form
- 2. Flood Curves from LM-0699
- 3. Flood Walkdown Forms
- 4. Excel Spreadsheet Calculations
01550669-36 Page 5 of 5 Prepared By: Brian Wehrman ~ °'J..----- /
~ j ]/JS-Reviewed By: Mackenzie Durand l t'\dt-~ et1 tkn c
- 12.J re 11\-t 'N \)e'f"fo r Yhe_ d 2/ 23 / 15 undef' [( - A-f\- ~D9 - lb I .
(\\\ lOMYnt.nt'S no.ve_ \;)e_e_n if\torpo<Q\:::.e.d lni:::D th\S e'l1QJ uc..-bo0 . Approved By: Greg Wallace ;J '/ _A /.I /,, ;JI:?_, z. /~ .5 / 1 ~
~~j~-lVliJ/Li--d-
IfSO.fb'I* 3 G, A~<h,.... ~-}- ( io~t. I o-f- J- CC-AA-106-1001 Revision 5 Page 12 of 24 ATTACHMENT 2 Walkdown Observation Record Page 1 of 1 Type of Walkdown: } J JJO JI~ Date of Walkdown :_O_c_s:(S_,,."'_<_r"""""'..s_ _ (Study, Designer's, Installer's, User's) EC No.: f~SDbtq- 3b
Participants:
Department Name (Printed) Signature LFDP gr.'a,. WeL-o~ ~~--- i- EDP f\ "l teri "2 ; c. D~,.J, /r /1oUAJ- /tvd
/I Walkdown Comments:
[Use additional pages as required. Note, if attachments are expected to be used as controlled design input for calculations (i.e., dimensional data, etc.), then the attachments must be properly prepared and reviewed/verified.] D~.,i"((' .-f,.,JV\ tc, ~b"' 6-t +l r:+ +o o~ de I - ;; f'
~(_ fi6ic l -fur Atlc ht c\ ch..se / f' t ~~ <.U.
q-lO M q-N q-lO 00 M m q-
# q-LI) N '-..Q M #qo
('\') ...... --/, I c er Q) '+ E (l
'°
'-0
<J
..c u
ro rt> 0 m
~ ~~ ...... fJ ...... m - N
- t:t: lO LI) d ......
'-1\ q-lO I lO bl 00 00 I.(') I""- 0 I.(') M _ _J_
AT 1550669-36 Attachment 2 Page 1 of B Critical Door 211 - Grid Element #33342 217.1 - - -
- - f- -
- t--
217.05 - - - Water Surface Elevation
-- - f-- -- FL0-20 Ground Elevation 217
- - - ---t--- - -
216 .95 -\-
, ---t------1--------lt------1------1------~------r-------t--
"'0 N l!l -*+-- - - - -t---- - - - - - - z 216.9
~
-f---- -
c - - - - - --+------!--- - -* - - - - - > - - -- --- -- - .g 216.85 -
>-- I- ---- - -
1-- - -~ ra iij
- ~ - f-
-t-- - -r-- -
216 .8 ---- ----- ---- ---- --~ - -
,, "7\,
216 .75
--~
-- --- - ::__,~--------- -f.---
t-- 216.7 --- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- i-----~-- -- --*~-------------1 216.65 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Time From Beginning of Simulation (Hours)
AT 1550669-36 Attachment 2 Page 2 of 8 Critical Door 213 - Grid Element #34284 217.2 ~----- -- -- - 217 .15 -
- - - Water Surface Elevation 217.1 - -t- - FL0-20 Ground Elevation ---
___,__ - - - --+-- - - - - -- ---
~----...--------.----~ - -
--- - --t- --
217 .05 - - ....en0 - I.II z 217 -- u..
- =
c 0 216 .95 i> --- w r- \ - 216.9
- ~--
' -c--
216 .85 216.8 --~- -- - ----~ ---~-~-- ...- 216 .75 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Time From Beginning of Simulation (Hours)
AT 1550669-36 Attachment 2 Page 3 of 8 Critical Door 215 - Grid Element #34910 217.2 ~-- --- -- -----~ -- - 217.15 - t-- - - -
- - 1- --
217 .1 - Water Surface Elevation - -
-- --- - - FL0 -20 Ground Elevation 217 .05 - \- - -
en --- ---
---1-------1-------1--------1-------J -- __ ,_
"'>c --- ~ 217
~ ----- --- -->---
QI - - -- - >-- - u.. .5 --**-------*-------*- - - -
~-------+ll------1-----------.\-------+-------+----
c ~ 216 .95 - ------- QI \ jjj 216.9
--'x- _,_ ->--- ---+----~
-- - 1-\- ----
216 .85
- -- - - ---- 1~
'\.
'\.. __ --
216.8 ----- --~--- ~- I-216 .75 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Time From Beginning of Simulation (Hours)
AT 1550669-36 Attachment 2 Page4 of B Critical Door 217 - Grid Element #35843 217.3 217.25
- Water Surface Elevation ----
-- ->-- >-- FL0-20 Ground Elevation -
217 .2 - ->-- - I ~-=::- -f- -- - 217 .15 -f- -- - "'0 N
- -\.-- -
---r---
~ 217.1 QJ
- - l-- - - - - - - -t-- - - - - - - - - -t-- - - - --+- - - - - - -
QJ .5 r-\ -
-+- - - - --; - - - - --;- - - - - -t-- - - - --i- - - -
~ 217.05
~
- ~- -
QJ u:; 217
-- - ->---~-=
- - - - - - --t- - - - - - - tl-- - - - --1-- - - - --+-- - -
216.95 1- - - - - --1-- - - - --t-- - - - * - f -
--- -f--
216.9 --- ~ - - _ _ _ __ _ _ ,___ _ __ _ _ _ _ _,______
-- -f- -- - - r - - --- - -- - * - - - - >--- -
216.85 a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Time From Beginning of Simulation (Hours)
AT 1550669-36 Attachment 2 Page 5 of e Critical Door 219 - Grid Element #38620 217.2 1------- - .-- 217.15
- -- f--
- - water Surface Elevation
- -----+--
- - - - FL0-20 Ground Elevation -
217.1 -
- -f-c-
217.05 "'"'c - >l.!J - z 217
'ii., -
c .g 216.95 --- --- - w 216 9
- \ - -
+\ --
216.85
- --f- --- - \
216.8 - - - - - *- - - - -- - ----- ----------- - -----1----*~--- -- - 216.75 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Time From Beginning of Simulation (Hours)
AT 1550669-36 Attachment 2 Page 6 of B Critical Door 221 - Grid Element #39233 217.2 ~ ---- 217.15 I- - Water Surface Elevation -- I- -- - FL0-20 Ground Elevation 217 .1
->-- -- -f-217.05 f- ---
0\ "'>c ---l------~------+------f----- "'z1ii 217
- --1-- ----1------1------f-- - - -
--=-~~----~-= --==--_-- __
QJ
- =
c -f- -- .g 216.95 w QJ 216.9 -- --
-t- - - -
216 .85
-=-\ '\.
-~-- ->-- --- -- -
_ -J/
- _~~~ -t- ..J --J_ -V~ J-V.. ::\J-V.*\*
216.8 - - -- - - - - - - - - - - ~------~-------------~--------~ - -- - 216.75 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Time From Beginning of Simulation (Hours)
AT 1550669-36 Attachment 2 Page7 orB Critical Door 223 - Grid Element #40149 217.2 217 .15
--- - -t-- -- - - Water Surface Elevation 217.1 FL0-20 Ground Elevation
. - --- - - - - - - - -1* - - - -----
- - -- - - --+-- - - - - -!- - - - - - - ----
217 .05 -\ - --- -- --f- --
\
"'c N --- - --- - > \ -- \!) z 217 __,,..,,----+--- - -- --- ti - --t,I-_ --1------t*------1-------1--------"------1-1--
- 1 c:
-f- ------- --- ---+-------!-----
w .g 216.95
\ -===- --
--=--- \~---=
~ f--
216 .9 ------ __ ,.. ---- o-- - - - - -t-** -- 216 .85
==~\=- -- --
216.8 ------~- - - - - - - -------------*- ---'----~-- - - - - * -~---~ -- - 216 .75 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Time From Beginning of Simulation (Hours)
AT 1550669-36 Attachment 2 Page 8 of 8 Critical Door 225 - Grid Element #40758 217.25 I I 217.2
- 1-t-------1-------1
-- - water Surface Elevation
- FL0-20 Ground Elevation f- --
217 .15 -- 217.1 -
-r-- - - - - - - --- ---- ----
en N c 217 .05 fl--l------1------ --- -f- ---
- -------"l-------1-------+------l-----
-f- ->- -f-
-------1----~
> - I- -- - l- - I!> z u.. 217
-- ----~--
------- 1--------<~-----+-------t-------t-
.5 c 0 w
~ 216 .95 --\-==- --f-1----",- ------1-------1-------1------1-------1-------+------*l- ------1 216.9 -"'- \* - - - - -
----!----- -f-
-- I-216 .85 --t- --- c- -
- -I -
f-216.8
- - -- - -- -t-t- -
216 .75 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Time From Beginning of Simulation (Hours)
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 1of39 NEI 12-07 (Rev. 0-A) May 2012 Walkdown Record Form Plant Name: ...;;L_G_s_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Unit:~l _ _ _ _ __ PART A. IDENTIFICATION List the flood protection feature credited in CLB documents for protection and mitigation against external flooding events. Flood Protection Feature ID or Procedure Number: ...D""'o....o.._r,,._21._.1.___ _ _ _ _ __ Description or Procedure
Title:
_..D""'o""o.._r.?..!w,_/t.whu.ire..,s, ,.,ho..,. l. ._d_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Location: Bldg. or Area Diesel Generator Building Elevation .:::.2.;..17'-'-...:::0~0_"- - - - - - - - Room ~3~ll~A~-------- Column Column Line A-B/ 15.3 Indicate below the type of the feature (check all that are applicable): o lncorporated or Exterior Passive o Temporary Passive
~Incorporated or Exterior Active o Temporary Active Enter the flood height at the location of the feature: 217'-00" If the feature is a procedure, enter NIA If the flooding design basis is determined by local-intense precipitation and the flood height is unknown, enter unknown
References:
I. Calculation LM-0615, Assess. Of Safety Related Equip For Potential Flooding
- 2. Procedure SE-4-3, Flooding External to Power Block
- 3. Procedure SE- Pr a tion for Severe Weather Evaluated By: Paul N Hansen Date: 7/30/2012 Print I Sign 0
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 2 of 39 PARTB. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS Part B.l Visual Inspection QI. ls a visual inspection required? N If No, Explain why not _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ If Yes:
- annotate (below) that Part C must be completed, and
- list any Licensing Basis I Acceptance Criteria that require verification during visual inspection (identify any critical characteristics I parameters applicable to the flood protection feature that are verifiable by inspection such as flood height or elevation, expected operation (e.g., door must close), and equipment name plate data (for example, pump capacity, seal rating, etc.)):
Part C must be completed Verify presence ofa gap, if applicable Perfonn a visual inspection to confinn that the ground slopes away from the door and into the yard. 0 Part s.1 Evaluated By: Paul N Hansel,f/.J7{b Print I Sign Date: 7/30/2012 Part B.2 Functional Testing or Periodic Monitoring Q2. Is the component included in a preventive maintenance (PM) program? N Q3 . Is the component included in a periodic test (e.g. surveillance test)? Y @
- If either, or both, the answers to question Q2 and Q3 is "Yes", document the identified PM(s) or test(s)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
M-200-047. Specification A-11 Special Doors Examination and Maintenance
- If the answers to questions Q2 and Q3 are both "No, describe any other existing test(s) that periodically verify the ability of the component to perform its credited CLB flood protection function. If there are no such tests, annotate with "none".
0 2
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 3 of 39 NEI 12-07 (Rev. 0-A) May 2012
- If there are no identified PMs or tests, should monitoring or testing be considered to periodically verify the component is able to perform its credited CLB flood protection function? Y @
If"Yes", enter this observation in the CAP (include references to CAP in "Comments" below. For all identified PMs or tests described above, evaluate whether the existing PM or test(s) are appropriate to verify the credited CLB flood protection function. Document findings in "Comments" below. If the existing test(s) are not, or may not be, sufficient to verify the credited CLB flood protection function, enter this observation in the CAP (include reference to CAP in "Comments" below). Comments: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Part B.2 Evaluated By:_,_P..,u...._l~u.....n...,,....._.,_:;:_::....~~~- Date: 7/30/2012 Print I Sign 0 Part B.3 Procedure Walk-Through I Reasonable Simulation (see sections 5.5.6 and 5.7) Q4. Does an appropriate procedure exist for the operation, positioning, or inst~on of the flood protection feature? ~ <<£) LM If Yes, document the procedure number-$ 4 J, Fleeding External tu Pvwc1 Bleek If No and a procedure should govern the operation, positioning, or installation, enter the observation into the CAP and reference the CAP entry here: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Q5. Is a procedure or activity walk-through (reasonable simulation) applicable¢' ) cJvl If Yes, ensure that all information in part D is documented. 0 Q6. Is a separate walkdown record form for another flood protection feature being credited for completion of this reasonable simulation? Y 3
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 4 of 39 If yes, indicate which Walkdown Record Form is being credited and ensure that all infonnation in part Dis d o c u m e n t e d : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - If a reasonable simulation IS applicable, and a separate walkdown record form IS NOT being credited:
- annotate (below) that Part D must be completed, and
- list the applicable procedure(s)
- list any credited time dependent activities
- list critical characteristics for any Available Physical Margins that should be measured (e.g., height of temporary barrier)
Applicable Procedures I time dependent activities I applicable critical characteristics:
\_}A PePt D ffH!!lt be completed. follow preeeElt11c SE 4 3, fleeeiftt?; 611ieRtal te Pewer Block to ensure ag9r is eloseEI.
Part B.3 Evaluated By:..:..P=au:::l_,_N-'-H:..:..::;an""'s~en~,__....::..a.__,~~-- Date: 7/30/2012 Print I Sign 0 Summa1y ofFindings Suggested parts of the Walkdown Record Site et to complete are as follows (Check those that apply, Part E always applies): C {'I..) Visual Inspections D ( ) Activity or Procedure Walk-Through (Reasonable Simulation) E ( X) Conclusions Comments: d"/\ Part c.)'and E apply. Date: 7/30/2012 0 4
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 5 of 39 NEI 12-07 (Rev. 0-A) May 2012 PARTC. VISUAL INSPECTION Q7. Is the feature accessible? N If No, Explain (See section 5. I and 5. IO)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ QB. Is the Material Condition Acceptable? Q9. Are the Critical Characteristics Per Design (refer to QI for list of criti~l characteristics)? CU N NIA QI 0. Can the equipment be operated as expected in order to achieve its flood protection function (see QI)? (!) N 0 QI I. Determine the available physical margin (the difference between licensing basis value of the critical characteristic (question Q. I) and the as found value - see definitions) Actual height or name plate data: Available Physical Margin:_~_;t------------------- Ql2: If the flood height is unknown, record the height of the barrier---..b......~~/......A=.......__ _ _ __ Comments: PartC Performed By: C . .\r..11t(l. A.~~ Date: 8 020 l C>. Print I Sign Part c Performed By: Latw-o. (V'\o,c tC\.y Date: 6/q / Id-Print I Sign 0 5
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 6 of 39 NEI 12-07 (Rev. 0-A) May 2012 Walkdown Record Form Plant Name: . :;:L. .; ;G. ; ; s_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Unit:-=-1_ _ _ __ PART A. IDENTIFICATION List the flood protection feature credited in CLB documents for protection and mitigation against external flooding events. Flood Protection Feature ID or Procedure Number:""'D""o""or._.2,..1..,.3'--------- Description or Procedure
Title:
...o=o=o._r"""w.._/=th.._.re""s=ho,.,l=d_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Location: Bldg. or Area Diesel Generator Building Elevation =2~17'-'-.....;.0_0_"- - - - - - - - Room _3_1_1C_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Column Column Line A-B/ 17.6 Indicate below the type of the feature (check all that are applicable): o Incorporated or Exterior Passive o Temporary Passive m Incorporated or Exterior Active o Temporary Active Enter the flood height at the location of the feature:~2~17_'-~0_0_"_ __ If the feature is a procedure, enter N/A If the flooding design basis is determined by local-intense precipitation and the flood height is unknown, enter unknown
References:
- 1. Calculation LM-0615, Assess. Of Safety Related Equip For Potential Flooding
- 2. Procedure SE-4-3, Flooding External to Power Block
- 3. Procedure SE-9, Preparation for Severe Weather Evaluated By: Paul N Hansen ~ n~ Date: 7/30/2012 Print I Sign 0
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 7 of 39 PARTB. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS Part B.l Visual Inspection Ql . Is a visual inspection required? N If No, Explain why not _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ If Yes:
- annotate (below) that Part C must be completed, and
- list any Licensing Basis I Acceptance Criteria that require verification during visual inspection (identify any critical characteristics I parameters applicable to the flood protection feature that are verifiable by inspection such as flood height or elevation, expected operation (e.g., door must close), and equipment name plate data (for example, pump capacity, seal rating, etc.)):
Part C must be completed Verify presence ofa gap, jfapp!jcab!e Perfonn a visual inspection to confinn that the ground slopes away from the door and into the yard. 0 Part B. l Evaluated By: Paul N Hansen p_~ ~ ~ Date: 7/30/2012 Print I Sign Part B.2 Functional Testing or Periodic Monitoring Q2. ls the component included in a preventive maintenance (PM) program? © N Q3. Is the component included in a periodic test (e.g. surveillance test)'? Y @
- If either, or both, the answers to question Q2 and Q3 is "Yes", document the identified PM(s) or test(s)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
M-200-047. Specification A-11 Special Doors Examination and Maintenance
- If the answers to questions Q2 and Q3 are both "No", describe any other existing test(s) that periodically verify the ability of the component to perform its credited CLB flood protection function. If there are no such tests, annotate with "none".
( 2
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page B of 39 NEI 12-07 (Rev. 0-A) May 2012
- If there are no identified PMs or tests, should monitoring or testing be considered to periodically verify the component is able to perform its credited CLB flood protection function? © N If"Yes", enter this observation in the CAP (include references to CAP in "Comments" below.
For all identified PMs or tests described above, evaluate whether the existing PM or test(s) are appropriate to verify the credited CLB flood protection function. Document findings in "Comments" below. If the existing test(s) are not, or may not be, sufficient to verify the credited CLB flood protection function, enter this observation in the CAP (include reference to CAP in "Comments" below). Comments: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Part B.2 Evaluated By: Paul N Hansen Print I Sign
~'J/2/;I;;.; Date: 7/30/2012 Part B.3 Procedure Walk-Through I Reasonable Simulation (see sections 5.5.6 and 5.7)
Q4. Does an appropriate procedure exist for the operation, positioning, or mstallation of the flood protection feature? "P?J D L-V'v'\ If Yes, document the procedure number$ 4 3 flg0diR' E>ttemal ta Peocr Block If No and a procedure should govern the operation, positioning, or installation, enter the observation into the CAP and reference the CAP entry here: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Q5. Is a procedure or activity walk-through (reasonable simulation) applicabl~ l" A
~ @ *-1 If Yes, ensure that all information in part D is documented.
IfNo?explainwhynot*Tbex-e.. \~ho ti~ re\a:h:d O..C.:t-iv1'ty &\.'i.SoC . lAJ'J T~ t-be.. re~p~n>~ . I'r-e, Wu\ B-Ja-wb o'(J \\{ r"\ee c\ ~ t-o 0 Q6. Is a separate walkdown record form for another flood protection feature being credited for completion of this reasonable simulation? Y 3
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 9 of 39 If yes, indicate which Walkdown Record Form is being credited and ensure that all infonnation in part Dis d o c u m e n t e d : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - If a reasonable simulation IS applicable, and a separate walkdown record fonn IS NOT being credited:
- annotate (below) that Part D must be completed, and
- list the applicable procedure(s)
- list any credited time dependent activities
- list critical characteristics for any Available Physical Margins that should be measured (e.g., height of temporary barrier)
Applicable Procedures I time dependent activities I applicable critical characteristics:
~ Pan D must be eempletee. fellew procedure SE 4 J, fleeeiAg e*teFRal te Pewer Block to eRliur-e
.Qoo1 Is closed.
Part B.3 Evaluated By: Paul N Hansen Print I Sign p;/7) ~ Date: 7/30/2012 SummaJy o(Fi11di11gs Suggested parts of the Walkdown Record Sheet to complete are as follows (Check those that apply, Part E always applies): C ( ><) Visual Inspections D ( ) Activity or Procedure Walk-Through (Reasonable Simulation) E ( X) Conclusions Comments: \,t-1' Part c.'JX'and E apply. Part B.J to B.3 Reviewed By: Paul N HanseneJ Print I Sign cs::J[ ~t
~L Date: 7/30/2012 0
4
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 10 of 39 NEI 12-07 (Rev. 0-A) May 2012 PARTC. VISUAL INSPECTION Q7. ls the feature accessible? N If No, Explain (See section 5.1 and 5.1 O)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ QB. Is the Material Condition Acceptable? Cl) N Q9. Are the Critical Characteristics Per Design (refer to QI for list of critical characteristics)? Cl) N N/A Comments: '2.. 1' c.uY'o \oe\ov..; do:.>~- QI 0. Can the equipment be operated as expected in order to achieve its flood prp~ction function (see QI)? ~ N Ql 1. Detennine the available physical margin (the difference between licensing basis value of the critical characteristic (question Q. l) and the as found value - see definitions) Actual height or name plate data: 1 Available Physical Margin:_'Z.....__'- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ql2: If the flood height is unknown, record the height of the barrier_Ll ___.....f_~------ Comments: Part C Perfonned By: Q ..Q....~'- ~ Print I Sign Date: B .<1 - a 0 l J. Part C Performed By: LCAW-<A Vv\Oi.C! °'Y1 Date: _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Print/ Sign 0 5
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 11 of 39 NEI 12-07 (Rev 0-A) May 2012 Walkdown Record Form PlantNarne: _L_G_S_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~ Unit: 1 PART A. IDENTIFICATION List the flood protection feature credited in CLB documents for protection and mitigation against external flooding events. Flood Protection Feature ID or Procedure Number:-=D=o....o.__r2=-1...,.5'--------- Description or Procedure
Title:
-=D_o_or.._w~/t~b~re~s~bo~l~d_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Location: Bldg. or Area Diesel Generator Building Elevation 217'-00"
~----------
Room ~3~11~B_ _ _ _ _ _ __ Column Column Line A-Bl 19.4 Indicate below the type of the feature (check all that are applicable): o Incorporated or Exterior Passive o Temporary Passive 1&1 Incorporated or Exterior Active o Temporary Active Enter the flood height at the location of the feature:=2~17.._'---=0~0-"_ __ If the feature is a procedure, enter N/A If the flooding design basis is determined by local-intense precipitation and the flood height is unknown, enter unknown
References:
I. Calculation LM-0615, Assess. Of Safety Related Equip For Potential Flooding 2.Procedure SE-4-3, Flooding External to Power Block
~===-==--=,.ar:-=-=r::.r=+or Severe Weather Evaluated By:.;:...P=au=l....:.N..:.......:H=an=s=e=n-w----------- Date: 7/30/2012 Print I Sign
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 12 of 39 PARTB. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS Part B.l Visual Inspection QI. Is a visual inspection required? N If No, Explain why not _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ If Yes:
- annotate (below) that Part C must be completed, and
- list any Licensing Basis I Acceptance Criteria that require verification during visual inspection (identify any critical characteristics I parameters applicable to the flood protection feature that are verifiable by inspection such as flood height or elevation, expected operation (e.g., door must close), and equipment name plate data (for example, pump capacity, seal rating, etc.)):
Part c must be completed verify presence ofa gap, if applicable Perform a visual inspection to confirm that the ground slopes away from the door and into the yard. 0 Part B. l Evaluated By: Paul N Hansen Print I Sign
~/J~ Date: 7/30/20 I 2 Part B.2 Functional Testing or Periodic Monitoring Q2. Is the component included in a preventive maintenance (PM) program? N Q3. Is the component included in a periodic test (e.g. surveillance test)'? Y @
- If either, or both, the answers to question Q2 and Q3 is "Yes", document the identified PM(s) or test(s)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
M-200-047. Specification A-11 Special Doors Examination and Maintenance
- If the answers to questions Q2 and Q3 are both "No", describe any other existing test(s) that periodically verify the ability of the component to perform its credited CLB flood protection function. If there are no such tests, annotate with "none".
2
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 13 of 39 NEl 12-07 (Rev. 0-A) May 2012
- If there are no identified PMs or tests, should monitoring or testing be considered to periodically verify the component is able to perform its credited CLB flood protection function? Y @
If"Yes, enter this observation in the CAP (include references to CAP in "Comments" below. For all identified PMs or tests described above, evaluate whether the existing PM or test(s) are appropriate to verify the credited CLB flood protection function. Document findings in "Comments" below. If the existing test(s) are not, or may not be, sufficient to verify the credited CLB flood protection function, enter this observation in the CAP (include reference to CAP in "Comments" below). Comments: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Part B.2 Evaluated By: Paul N l:lonoen Print I Sign
~ Date: 7/30/2012 Part B.3 Procedure Walk-Through I Reasonable Simulation (see sections 5.5.6 and 5.7)
Q4. Does an appropriate procedure exist for the operation, positioning, or installation o~e flood protection feature? ~ <£::) l)'v1 If Yes, document the procedure number~E 4 J, flooding Exte~al te Pewer Qlel:k If No and a procedure should govern the operation, positioning, or installation, enter the observation into the CAP and reference the CAP entry here: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Q5. Is a procedure or activity walk-through (reasonable simulation) applicable~. @ Lf\11 If Yes, ensure that all information in part Dis documented. If No, explain .why not Th~ \ '& ho ilfh-L \:el o +t: o.cti1,nt=f o
~s~oc. w 11-h *c:. yeSyx>h se:. The w~\\i.:.dowc OY\\'f p-ec As
-t-o c.:)rf-\ 'r- tv\ -eoi.('-e o F u..ccr s<; _
0 Q6. Is a separate walkdown record form for another flood protection feature being credited for completion of this reasonable simulation? Y @ 3
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 14 of 39 If yes, indicate which Walkdown Record Fonn is being credited and ensure that all infonnation in part Dis d o c u m e n t e d : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - If a reasonable simulation IS applicable, and a separate walkdown record fonn IS NOT being credited:
- annotate (below) that Part D must be completed, and
- list the applicable procedure(s)
- list any credited time dependent activities
- list critical characteristics for any Available Physical Margins that should be measured (e.g., height of temporary barrier)
Applicable Procedures I time dependent activities I applicable critical characteristics: \. .JJ\ P.art D must be cgmpletea. follon pFei;ed1.1re i;g 4 3, flssaif1g Ext@rRal te Power Q)sek to enst1re doer is closca ... Part B.3 Evaluated By:.:..P.::.au:.:l....:.N-"-'-'H=an:.:.:s~e.:..:.n-41-__-""_......._."-'-'--- Date: 7/30/2012 Print I Sign Sum11101y ofFindings Suggested parts of the Walkdown Record Sheet to complete are as follows (Check those that apply, Part E always applies): C (')f) Visual Inspections D ( ) Activity or Procedure Walk-Through (Reasonable Simulation) E ( X) Conclusions Comments: vt'\ Part C. "liand E apply . Date: 7/30/2012 4
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 15 of 39 NEI 12-07 (Rev. 0-A) May 2012 Walkdown Record Form PlantName: _L_G_S_ _~----~-~~~- Unit: -'-------- 1 PART A. IDENTIFICATION List the flood protection feature credited in CLB documents for protection and mitigation against external flooding events. Flood Protection Feature ID or Procedure Number:...,D'""""o'"""o._r... 21....,7'--------- Description or Procedure
Title:
...,D""'o""'o,,_rw-'-'-'--/t""'h....,re""'s"""'-ho~l=d_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Location: Bldg. or Area Diesel Generator Building Elevation 217'-00" Room _3~11'-D--------~ Column Column Line A-8/ 21.5 Indicate below the type of the feature (check all that are applicable): o Incorporated or Exterior Passive o Temporary Passive I!! Incorporated or Exterior Active o Temporary Active Enter the flood height at the location of the feature:=2_,_17'-'---=0""'"0_"_ __ If the feature is a procedure, enter NIA If the flooding design basis is determined by local-intense precipitation and the flood height is unknown, enter unknown
References:
I. Calculation LM-0615, Assess. Of Safety Related Equip For Potential Flooding
- 2. Procedure SE-4-3, Flooding External to Power Block
- 3. Procedure SE-9 Pre aration for Severe Weather Evaluated By: Paul N Hansen Print I Sign aJ. 7) Date: 7/30/2012 0
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 16 of 39 PARTB. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS Part B.l Visual Inspection QI. Is a visual inspection required? N If Yes:
- annotate (below) that Part C must be completed, and
- list any Licensing Basis I Acceptance Criteria that require verification during visual inspection (identify any critical characteristics I parameters applicable to the flood protection feature that are verifiable by inspection such as flood height or elevation, expected operation (e.g., door must close), and equipment name plate data (for example, pump capacity, seal rating, etc.)):
Part C must he completed Verify presence ofa gap, jfapplicahle Perfonn a visual inspection to confinn that the ground slopes away from the door and into the yard. 0 Part B. l Evaluated By: Paul N Hansen Print I Sign Date: 7/30/2012 Part B.2 Functional Testing or Periodic Monitoring Q2. Is the component included in a preventive maintenance (PM) program? © N Q3. Is the component included in a periodic test (e.g. surveillance test)? Y @
- If either, or both, the answers to question Q2 and Q3 is "Yes", document the identified PM(s) or test(s)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
M-200-047. Specification A-11 Special Doors Exam ination and Maintenance
- If the answers to questions Q2 and Q3 are both "No", describe any other existing test(s) that periodically verify the ability of the component to perform its credited CLB flood protection function. If there are no such tests, annotate with "none".
0 2
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 17 of 39 NEI 12-07 (Rev. 0-A) May2012
- If there are no identified PMs or tests, should monitoring or testing be considered to periodically verify the component is able to perform its credited CLB flood protection function? Y lf"Yes", enter this observation in the CAP (include references to CAP in "Comments" below.
For all identified PMs or tests described above, evaluate whether the existing PM or test(s) are appropriate to verify the credited CLB flood protection function. Document findings in "Comments" below. If the existing test(s) are not, or may not be, sufficient to verify the credited CLB flood protection function, enter this observation in the CAP (include reference to CAP in "Comments" below). Comments: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Part B.2 Evaluated By: Paul N HM"n Print I Sign fkJYJ ~ Date: 7/30/2012 Part B.3 Procedure Walk-Through I Reasonable Simulation (see sections 5.5.6 and 5.7) Q4. Does an appropriate procedure exist for the operation, positioning, or installation o~e UVl flood protection feature? ")¥< V If Yes, document the procedure numbei; && M. FleeEliAg extemal te Pewer Bleak If No and a procedure should govern the operation, positioning, or installation, enter the observation into the CAP and reference the CAP entry here: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Q5. Is a procedure or activity walk-through (reasonable simulation) applicable?
~ (VLM If Yes, ensure that all information in part D is documented.
0 Q6. Is a separate walkdown record form for another flood protection feature being credited for completion of this reasonable simulation? Y 3
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 18 of 39 If yes, indicate which Walkdown Record Fonn is being credited and ensure that all infonnation in part Dis documented: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - If a reasonable simulation IS applicable, and a separate walkdown record fonn IS NOT being credited:
- annotate (below) that Part D must be completed, and
- list the applicable procedure(s)
- list any credited time dependent activities
- list critical characteristics for any Available Physical Margins that should be measured (e.g., height of temporary barrier)
Applicable Procedures I time dependent activities I applicable critical characteristics* L.tJ' Rast D HHISl 'be 601H@l@li!EI. f'glJgw @f6CCdt11e SE 4 3, FleeEliRg sx.tei:Ral to Power Blgck te eRs1,ire dear is elored. Date: 7/30/2012 Summmy ofFindings Suggested parts of the Walkdown Record Sheet to complete are as follows (Check those that apply, Part E always applies): C ( 'I..) Visual Inspections D ( ) Activity or Procedure Walk-Through (Reasonable Simulation) E ( X) Conclusions Comm~ t""'- Part C . d E apply. Part B. J to B.3 Reviewed By: Paul N Hansen Print I Sign
~ ~ L c1:::QJ~:*r-& t Date: 7/30/2012 0
4
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 19 of 39 NEI 12-07 (Rev. 0-A) May 2012 PARTC. VISUAL INSPECTION Q7. Is the feature accessible? Cf:> N lfNo, Explain (See section 5.1and5.10)._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Q8. Is the Material Condition Acceptable'? Q9. Are the Critical Characteristics Per Design (refer to Q 1 for list of critical characteristics)? (!) N NIA Comments: 2 CLJJ<O cq-x\e.~ dcoy-, SWlep dc:::.c~e.d /W\.i ~Sf h-Cj Ql 0. Can the equipment be operated as expected in order to achieve its flood protection function (see Ql)? ~ N 0 Ql 1. Determine the available physical margin (the difference between licensing basis value of the critical characteristic (question Q.1) and the as found value - see definitions) Actual height or name plate data: Available Physical M a r g i n . _ ' 2 _ ' ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q12: If the flood height is unknown, record the height of the barrier_b,_)...,./.....,~,__ _ _ _ __ Comments: Part C Performed By: 11
.QlAttU! MrAcJO.y Date: f:3Jf3 /!2 Print I Sign PartCPerformedBy: C \A., Q. ~J< ~ Date: 8 / B (, Ol Print I Sign 0
5
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 20 of 39 NEI 12-07 (Rev. 0-A) May 2012 Walkdown Record Form PlantName: _L_G_S_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Unit:=2_ _ _ _ __ PART A. IDENTIFICATION List the flood protection feature credited in CLB documents for protection and mitigation against external flooding events. Flood Protection Feature ID or Procedure Number: ....P~o""o"'"r=2_,_19"---------- Description or Procedure
Title:
~D_o~o~r~w~/=th~r=es~h~o~ld~----------------- Location: Bldg. or Area Diesel Generator Building Elevation 217'-00" Room _3_15_A_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~ Column Column Line A-B/ 24.5 Indicate below the type of the feature (check all that are applicable): o Incorporated or Exterior Passive o Temporary Passive
~ Incorporated or Exterior Active o Temporary Active Enter the flood height at the location of the feature:_2_17_'-~0_0_"_ __
If the feature is a procedure, enter NIA If the flooding design basis is determined by local-intense precipitation and the flood height is unknown, enter unknown
References:
- 1. Calculation LM-0615. Assess. Of Safety Related Equip For Potential Flooding
- 2. Procedure SE-4-3, Flooding External to Power Block
- 3. Procedure SE-9, Preoaration for Severe Weather Evaluated By: Paul N Hansen Print I Sign f?>J_7) ~ Date: 7/30/?012
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 21 of 39 PARTB. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS Part B. I Visual Inspection Ql. ls a visual inspection required? N If No, Explain why n o t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - If Yes:
- annotate (below) that Part C must be completed, and
- list any Licensing Basis I Acceptance Criteria that require verification during visual inspection (identify any critical characteristics I parameters applicable to the flood protection feature that are verifiable by inspection such as flood height or elevation, expected operation (e.g., door must close), and equipment name plate data (for example, pump capacity, seal rating, etc.)):
Part C must be completed Verify presence ofa gap, if applicable Perfoan a visual inspection to confinn that the ground slopes away from the door and into the yard. Part B. l Evaluated By:~P=au" 'l"'" "N- '-'H-'-a" 'ns'" e_n-'(£1'" " "'-" - <~'-~" k"'- - Print I Sign Date: 7/30/2012 Part 8.2 Functional Testing or Periodic Monitoring Q2. ls the component included in a preventive maintenance (PM) program? N Q3. ls the component included in a periodic test (e.g. surveillance test)'? Y
- If either, or both, the answers to question Q2 and Q3 is "Yes", document the identified PM(s) or test(s)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
M-200-047. Specification A-l I Special Doors Examination and Maintenance
- If the answers to questions Q2 and Q3 are both "No", describe any other existing test(s) that periodically verify the ability of the component to perform its credited CLB flood protection function. If there are no such tests, annotate with "none".
2
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 22 of 39 NEI 12-07 (Rev. 0-A) May 2012
- If there are no identified PMs or tests, should monitoring or testing be considered to periodically verify the component is able to perform its credited CLB flood protection function? Y @
lf"Yes", enter this observation in the CAP (include references to CAP in "Comments" below. For all identified PMs or tests described above, evaluate whether the existing PM or test(s) are appropriate to verify the credited CLB flood protection function. Document findings in "Comments" below. If the existing test(s) are not, or may not be, sufficient to verify the credited CLB flood protection function, enter this observation in the CAP (include reference to CAP in "Comments" below). Comments:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Date: 7/30/2012 Part B.3 Procedure Walk-Through I Reasonable Simulation (see sections 5.5.6 and 5.7) Q4. Does an appropriate procedure exist for the operation, positioning, or installation of the flood protection feature? 0 N If Yes, document the procedure number SE-4-3, Flooding External to Power Block If No and a procedure should govern the operation, positioning, or installation, enter the observation into the CAP and reference the CAP entry here: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Q5. Is a procedure or activity walk-through (reasonable simulation) applicable? c,,":<* ~ 0~ If Yes, ensure that all information in part D is documented. Q6. Is a separate walkdown record form for another flood protection feature being credited for completion of this reasonable simulation? Y @ 3
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 23 of 39 If yes, indicate which Walkdown Record Form is being credited and ensure that all information in part Dis d o c u m e n t e d : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - If a reasonable simulation IS applicable, and a separate walkdown record form IS NOT being credited:
- annotate (below) that Part D must be completed, and
- list the applicable procedure(s)
- list any credited time dependent activities
- list critical characteristics for any Available Physical Margins that should be measured (e.g., height of temporary barrier)
Applicable Procedures I time dependent activities I applicable critical characteristics: U" hil fl lfiliSt he mpl .. rt Foll6'11 ppoeethu e SE *t 3, rnnnliAg Ex.Wmal tQ Porner Hirn k h It t*Mfre d99F iii elmed. Date: 7/30/2012 0 Summary o(Findings Suggested parts c~f the Walkdown Rewrd Sheet to complete are as.follows (Check those that apply, Part E always applies): C ( )() Visual In!>.pections D ( ) Activity or Procedure Walk-Through (Reasonable Simulation) E ( X) Conclusions Comments: Part C, ~ tnd E apply. Part 8.1 to 8.3 Reviewed By: Paul N Hansen Print I Sign e.f~ ?Jz,.'<2.a-.~ (1..Q_ ~£- Date:-'-'7/-"-3-=0/-=2..;;_01=2'------ 4
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 24 of 39 NEI 12-07 (Rev 0-A) May 2012 PART C. VISUAL INSPECTION Q7. Is the feature accessible? <7)N If No, Explain (See section 5.1 and 5.10)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Q8. Is the Material Condition Acceptable? CD N Q9. Are the Critical Characteristics Per Design (refer to QI for list of critical characteristics)? CY) N NIA Comments: Z" cv..x b be\ovJ d(!)O\-, gcce \?\-o..0\-L >~ 1 5ood con<\ I bob
- G tZownAD ~I oQP A y.! '>'t t4.o"'* b-tz Q l 0. Can the equipment be operated as expected in order to achieve its flood protection function (see Q 1)? (/!) N Ql 1. Determine the available physical margin (the difference between licensing basis value of 0 the critical characteristic (question Q.1) and the as found value - see definitions)
Actual height or name plate data: Available Physical Margin:_ *Z . : _ " - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q 12: If the flood height is unknown, record the height of the barrier~\--.....\""""/A:-'--------- Comments: Part C Performed By: LQU!l.0 ' V\ o..c.R-aM Date:~/fJ /ti. Print I Sign Part C Performed By: ( \,.. n Q. ~"'"';'"q \ JLl . Date: B/~ U;i Print I Sign 0 5
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 25 of 39 NEI 12-07 (Rev. 0-A) May 2012 Walkdown Record Form Plant Name: _L_G_S_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Unit:=2_ _ _ _ __ PART A. IDENTIFICATION List the flood protection feature credited in CLB documents for protection and mitigation against external flooding events. Flood Protection Feature ID or Procedure Number:.,.D'-"o=o,_r=2=-2.._I- - - - - - - - Description or Procedure
Title:
_,,O,,..o""o"-r"""'w"'"/_,_,th.,..r"""es"'"h'""o""'ld.,___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Location: Bldg. or Area Diesel Generator Building 0 Elevation Room
.,;;;2..;. 17'-'-'-0;_;;0_"_ _ _ _ _ _ __
_3_15_C_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Column Column Line A-B/ 26.6 Indicate below the type of the feature (check all that are applicable): o Incorporated or Exterior Passive o Temporary Passive
!!ii Incorporated or Exterior Active o Temporary Active Enter the flood height at the location of the featurc:_2_17_'-~0_0'_'_ __
If the feature is a procedure, enter N/ A lf the flooding design basis is determined by local-intense precipitation and the flood height is unknown, enter unknown
References:
I. Calculation LM-0615. Assess. Of Safety Related Equip For Potential Flooding
- 2. Procedure SE-4-3. Flooding External to Power Block
- 3. Procedure SE-9, Preparation for Severe Weather Evaluated By: Paul N Hansen ~ry'/ ?b~ Date: 713012012 Print I Sign
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 26 of 39 PART B. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS Part B. l Visual Inspection QI. Is a visual inspection required? N If No, Explain why n o t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - If Yes:
- annotate (below) that Part C must be completed, and
- list any Licensing Basis I Acceptance Criteria that require verification during visual inspection (identify any critical characteristics I parameters applicable to the flood protection feature that are verifiable by inspection such as flood height or elevation, expected operation (e.g., door must close), and equipment name plate data (for example, pump capacity, seal rating, etc.)):
Part C must be completed Verify presence ofa gap if applicable Perform a visual inspection to continn that the ground slopes away from the door and into the yard. Part B.1 Evaluated By: Paul N Hansen f1-,./~7Jf.~ Date: 7/30/2012 0 Print I Sign Part B.2 Functional Testing or Periodic Monitoring Q2. ls the component included in a preventive maintenance (PM) program? © N Q3. Is the component included in a periodic test (e.g. surveillance test)? Y
- If either, or both, the answers to question Q2 and Q3 is "Yes", document the identified PM(s) or test(s)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
M-200-047. Specification A-11 Special Doors Examination and Maintenance
- If the answers to questions Q2 and Q3 are both "No", describe any other existing test(s) that periodically verify the ability of the component to perform its credited CLB flood protection function. If there are no such tests, annotate with "none".
2
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 27 of 39 NE! 12-07 (Rev. 0-A) May 2012
- If there are no identified PMs or tests, should monitoring or testing be considered to periodically verify the component is able to perform its credited CLB flood protection function? Y @
lf"Yes, enter this observation in the CAP (include references to CAP in "Comments" below. For all identified PMs or tests described above, evaluate whether the existing PM or test(s) are appropriate to verify the credited CLB flood protection function. Document findings in "Comments" below. If the existing test(s) are not, or may not be, sufficient to verify the credited CLB flood protection function, enter this observation in the CAP (include reference to CAP in "Comments" below). Date: 7/30/2012 0 Part B.3 Procedure Walk-Through I Reasonable Simulation (see sections 5.5.6 and 5.7) Q4. Does an appropriate procedure exist for the operation, positioning, or installation of the flood protection feature? {2) N If Yes, document the procedure number SE-4-3. Flooding External to Power Block If No and a procedure should govern the operation, positioning, or installation, enter the observation into the CAP and reference the CAP entry here: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Q5 . Is a procedure or activity walk-through (reasonable simulation) applica:%;: If Yes, ensure that all information in part Dis documented. Ac'r-:v,-+'(
\"-\ W:..i:. \> '
Q6. ls a separate walkdown record form for another flood protection feature being credited for completion of this reasonable simulation? Y 3
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 28 of 39 If yes, indicate which Walkdown Record Form is being credited and ensure that all information in part D is documented: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - If a reasonable simulation IS applicable, and a separate walkdown record form IS NOT being credited:
- annotate (below) that Part D must be completed, and
- list the applicable procedure(s)
- list any credited time dependent activities
- list critical characteristics for any Available Physical Margins that should be measured (e.g., height of temporary barrier)
Applicable Procedures I time dependent activities I applicable critical characteristics: uv' ~d 9 'P' ISI li e """I'" IN+: r oll8'11 ~F0 6~Ql:ll'e SE 4 3. fl eediHg !;xtemal 10 Pa'i'>er Rlueli l a en:iu Pe due1 is sle&l!d. Date: 7/30/2012 Summm11 of Fi11di11gs Suggested parts of the Walkdm-i 11 Record Sheet to comph le are as follows (Check those that apply, Part E always applie.\~: C ('>\) Visual l11spectio11'> D ( ) Activity or Procedure Walk-Through (Reasonable S111111latio11) E ( X) Conclusions Comments: 'f-A Part C. }(ai~d E apply. Date: 7/30/2012 4
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 29 of 39 NEI 12-07 (Rev 0-A) May 2012 PARTC. VISUAL INSPECTION Q7. Is the feature accessible? (!) N lfNo, Explain (See section 5.1 and 5.10) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Q8. ls the Material Condition Acceptable? Q9. Are the Critical Characteristics Per Design (refer to Q l for list of c~'\al characteristics)? CV N NIA Comments: . '2.* ccu-'o Q(;:IDW t\oD'r ~ S~c~~d O~~!~" yY)~ C:,c:. 1{\Q : ~ ::>~ ~..:r\S*_s;., F __ __ _ ::> --~- QlO. Can the equipment be operated as expected in order to achieve its flood protection function (see Q l )? (!) N QI I. Determine the available physical margin (the difference between licensing basis value of the critical characteristic (question Q. l) and the as found value see definitions) Actual height or name plate data: Available Physical M a r g i n : _ " _ ' - _ * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Q12: lfthe flood height is unknown, record the height of the barrier_N,___1,_/f\=,__,__ _ _ _ __ Comments: Part C Perfonned By: ~* ~~ ~ Date: 6* 9- c2o l1 By:~/JI fl~~ Date:_~_fi_~_/2_ Print ign Part C Perfonncd Print I Sign 5
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 30 of 39 NEI 12-07 (Rev. 0-A) May 2012 Walkdown Record Form Plant Name: _L_G_s_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Unit: ....2_ _ _ _ __ PART A. IDENTIFICATION List the flood protection feature credited in CLB documents for protection and mitigation against external flooding events. Flood Protection Feature ID or Procedure Number:~D~o~o_,_r=2=23~-------- Description or Procedure
Title:
_..D'""o""o.._r_,_,w,_/. ,_th. ._re""s.,_h...o...,ld.___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Bldg. or Arca Diesel Generator Building 0 Location: Elevation _2_17_'_-0""'0_"_ _ _ _ _ _ __ Room 315B Column Column Line A-B/ 28.4 Indicate below the type of the feature (check all that are applicable): o Incorporated or Exterior Passive o Temporary Passive m Incorporated or Exterior Active o Temporary Active Enter the flood height at the location of the feature:=2-'-l7,_'-""""0"'"0_"_ __ If the feature is a procedure, enter N/ A If the flooding design basis is determined by local-intense precipitation and the flood height is unknown, enter unknown
References:
I. Calculation LM-0615, Assess. Of Safety Related Equip For Potential Flooding
- 2. Procedure SE-4-3. Flooding External to Power Block Date: 7/30/2012
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 31 of 39 PART B. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS Part B. I Visual Inspection Ql. ls a visual inspection required? N If No, Explain why n o t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - If Yes:
- annotate (below) that Part C must be completed, and
- list any Licensing Basis I Acceptance Criteria that require verification during visual inspection (identify any critical characteristics I parameters applicable to the flood protection feature that are verifiable by inspection such as flood height or elevation, expected operation (e.g., door must close), and equipment name plate data (for example, pump capacity, seal rating, etc.)):
Part C must be completed Verify presence ofa gap if applicable Perfonn a visual inspection to confinn that the ground slopes away from the door and into the yard. Part B. l Evaluated By:-'-P-'-au'""'l-'N_H"'"a""'"ns"'"'"'e"'"'n_.8.._,_"bJ_;_n_.__b~-- Date: 7/30/2012 0 Print I Sign Part B.2 Functional Testing or Periodic Monitoring Q2. Is the component included in a preventive maintenance (PM) prog1 am? © N Q3. Is the component included in a periodic test (e.g. surveillance test)'} Y
- If either, or both, the answers to question Q2 and Q3 is "Yes", document the identified PM(s) or test(s)._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
M-200-047. Specification A-11 Special Doors Examination and Maintenance
- If the answers to questions Q2 and Q3 are both "No", describe any other existing test(s) that periodically verify the ability of the component to perfonn its credited CLB flood protection function. If there are no such tests, annotate with "none".
0 2
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 32 of 39 NE! 12-07 (Rev. 0-A) May 2012
- If there are no identified PMs or tests, should monitoring or testing be considered to periodically verify the component is able to perform its credited CLB flood protection function? Y @
If"Yes", enter this observation in the CAP (include references to CAP in "Comments" below. For all identified PMs or tests described above, evaluate whether the existing PM or test(s) are appropriate to verify the credited CLB flood protection function. Document findings in "Comments" below. If the existing test(s) are not, or may not be, sufficient to verify the credited CLB flood protection function, enter this observation in the CAP (include reference to CAP in "Comments" below). Part B.2 Evaluated By: .1-"'u>!.!l...w.............Ll"""-ll.-~_......--1-~--- Date: 7/3012012 Print I Sign 0 Part B.3 Procedure Walk-Through I Reasonable Simulation (see sections 5.5.6 and 5.7) Q4. Does an appropriate procedure exist for the operation, positioning, or installation of the flood protection feature? (2) N If Yes, document the procedure numberSE-4-3. Flooding External to Power Block If No and a procedure should govern the operation, positioning, or installation, enter the observation into the CAP and reference the CAP entry here: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Q5. ls a procedure or activity walk-through (reasonable simulation) applicable~ -r. If Yes, ensure that all infonnation in part D is documented. lfNo,explainwhynot 1\.\o"T!r-,1e. Q.e.LA+/-t:.b Ac....t:\J\lr--{ A~~o<..t#\~l:t)
'""*,tn \\:\~ g,:,tipo~E. . w A\.ll-'b9 .,.,..._, o...Sh.[ -to (,ohlt.::ie,..,, t;;A~E.
0 ~ A.~~~ -t-o~ YI.£.. ca~. Q6. ls a separate walkdown record form for another flood protection feature being credited for completion of this reasonable simulation? Y 3
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 33 of 39 If yes, indicate which Walkdown Record Forni is being credited and ensure that all infonnation in part D is d o c u m e n t e d : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - If a reasonable simulation IS applicable, and a separate walkdown record fonn IS NOT being credited:
- annotate (below) that Part D must be completed, and
- list the applicable procedure(s)
- list any credited time dependent activities
- list critical characteristics for any Available Physical Margins that should be measured (e.g., height of temporary ban-ier)
Applicable Procedures I time dependent activities I applicable critical characteristics:
\..._ti\ f!Ml D nrn5t be 6BlflJ?lete8. Felle w preeetlttre SIS 1 3, Fleeeins EuterRel ts Re:,,er Blee!* &2 e051:1re.
deer is ele!ed. Part B.3 Evaluated By:_P_a~ul_N_H_a_ns_e_n _______..,__ __ Date: 7/30/2012 Print I Sign 0 Swnmmy o(Findings Suggested parts of the Wa/kdown Record Sheet to c.:omplete are as follows (Check those that app~y. Part E always applies): C ( 1() Vis11al /n.\pectio11s D ( ) Activity or Procedure Walk-Through (Reasonable Sim11latio11) E ( X) Conclusions Comment.~ Part C,)f and E apply. Part B. l to B.3 Reviewed By: Paul N Han en Date: 7/30/2012 Print I Sib'll 4
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 34 of 39 NE! 12-07 (Rev 0-A) May 2012 PARTC. VISUAL INSPECTION Q7. Is the feature accessible? WN If No, Explain (See section 5.1 and 5.10) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Q8. Is the Material Condition Acceptable? © N Q9.
"l I)_ ,, ~ ,_,,__
v Are the Critical Characteristics Per Design (refor to QI for list of c~I characteristics)? N NIA Comments: c:t 'J C .>e°b . ~ , ?tG2 ,e ~ v , k y? -1 "--l G.a;t;> (.<<*, .. 1 Q 1-\-\01'1 QJO. Can the equipment be operated as expected in order to achieve its flood protection function (see Ql)? Q} N QI I. Determine the available physical margin (the difference between licensing basis value of 0 the critical characteristic (question Q. J) and the as found value see definitions) Actual height or name plate data: 0 ~ ,, Available Physical Margin: _ _ _c:::><. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Ql2: lfthe flood height is unknown, record the height of the barrier_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Cu111me11ts: Date: _ _..B. . . ./....,la.,/._/,_.:> Part C Performed By: l p, (,Lt~ MO\ClfM.4 Date: £?/io//2,... Print I Sign 5
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 35 of 39 NEI 12-07 (Rev. 0-A) May 2012 Walkdown Record Form Plant Name: _L_G_S_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Unit: ~----- 2 PART A. IDENTIFICATION List the flood protection feature credited in CLB documents for protection and mitigation against external flooding events. Flood Protection Feature ID or Procedure Number:=D~o~o~r=22=5~-------- Description or Procedure
Title:
_,.D...,.o'""o"-r""""""-'/_..,tl.....u_..es.....h,_,.o=ld...___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Bldg. or Area Diesel Generator Building 0 Location: Elevation =2..:. .17'-'-. .;;0_0_"- - - - - - - - Room 3150 Column Column Line A-B/ 29 Indicate below the type of the feature (check all that are applicable): o Incorporated or Exterior Passive o Temporary Passive lSJ Incorporated or Exterior Active o Temporary Active Enter the flood height at the location of the feature:=2..:...17,_'---"0'""'0_"_ __ If the feature is a procedure, enter NI A If the flooding design basis is detem1ined by local-intense precipitation and the flood height is unknown, enter unknown
References:
I. Calculation LM-0615. Assess. Of Safety Related Equip For Potential Flooding
- 2. Procedure SE-4-3. Flooding External to Power Block
- 3. Procedure SE-9 Date: 713012012
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 36 of 39 PARTB. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS Part B.J Visual Inspection QI. Is a visual inspection required? N If No, Explain why n o t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - If Yes:
- annotate (below) that Part C must be completed, and
- list any Licensing Basis I Acceptance Criteria that require verification during visual inspection (identify any critical characteristics I parameters applicable to the flood protection feature that are verifiable by inspection such as flood height or elevation, expected operation (e.g., door must close), and equipment name plate data (for example, pump capacity, seal rating, etc.)):
Part C must be completed Verify presence of a gap if applicable Perfoan a visual inspection to confirm that the ground slopes away from the door and into the yard. Part B.1 Evaluated By: Paul N Hansen fJ,.J'l)Jj;,.,~ Date: 7/30/2012 Print I Sign Pait B.2 Functional Testing or Periodic Monitoring Q2. Is the component included in a preventive maintenance (PM) progiam? N Q3 . Is the component included in a periodic test (e.g. surveillance test)'/ Y
- If either, or both, the answers to question Q2 and Q3 is "Yes", document the identified PM(s) or test(s)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
M-200-047. Specification A-11 Special Doors Examination and Maintenance
- If the answers to questions Q2 and Q3 are both "No", describe any other existing test(s) that periodically verify the ability of the component to perfonn its credited CLB flood protection function. If there arc no such tests, annotate with "none.
2
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 37 of 39 NE! 12-07 (Rev. 0-A) May 2012
- If there are no identified PMs or tests, should monitoring or testing be considered to periodically verify the component is able to perform its credited CLB flood protection function? Y @
lf "Yes", enter this observation in the CAP (include references to CAP in "Comments" below. For all identified PMs or tests described above, evaluate whether the existing PM or test(s) arc appropriate to verify the credited CLB flood protection function. Document findings in "Comments" below. If the existing test(s) are not, or may not be, sufficient to verify the credited CLB flood protection function, enter this observation in the CAP (include reference to CAP in "Comments" below). Comments: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Part B.2 Evaluated By: .._P=l.......,_.....,H........,n.,.,,_,,n"*-'"---__,,..,.__:r~-- Date: 7/30/2012 Print I Sign Part B.3 Procedure Walk-Through I Reasonable Simulation (see sections 5.5.6 and 5.7) Q4. Does an appropriate procedure exist for the operation, positioning, or installation of the flood protection feature? 0 N If Yes, document the procedure number SE-4-3. Flood ing External to Power Block If No and a procedure should govern the operation, positioning, or installation, enter the observation into the CAP and reference the CAP entry here: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ QS. Is a procedure or activity walk-through (reasonable simulation) applicable~:(.([) If Yes, ensure that all information in part Dis documented. If No, explain why not >--lo~\ ~,'E.. Q.e LAtt:. b At.+.v ~+'/ A'P~oL e,,..4-E...D "4-1 it \4 l)\!= 1? ES )?o'lo.l s.E;. . v.a ~ul..- l>....yN ""t' c t q...lt ~ llM EA..~ e:. o F-A, U..E:.~!o ..,-o l'"'-CC....1:>eetl., 1 Q6. Is a separate walkdown record fo1m for another flood protection feature being credited for completion of this reasonable simulation? Y 3
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 38 of 39 If yes, indicate which Walkdown Record Fonn is being credited and ensure that all information in part Dis d o c u m e n t e d : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - If a reasonable simulation IS applicable, and a separate walkdown record fonn IS NOT being credited:
- annotate (below) that Part D must be completed, and
- list the applicable procedure(s)
- list any credited time dependent activities
- list critical characteristics for any Available Physical Margins that should be measured (e.g., height of temporary banier)
Applicable Procedures I time dependent activities I applicable critical characteristics: UV\ Rert D.must be con~pletea. f'gllgw 1:1rsseElttre Ss 4 J, J.'laaEling exleFAal IQ l?awer Bleelt te ensure
~er is r.:Jgsed.
Date: 7/30/2012 Summmy o[Fi11di11g.\ Suggested partv <.?lthe Walkdown Rew1 d Shea to complete are as.follows (Ched those that apply, Part E always applies): C ('f.) Visual lnspectrons D ( ) Activity or Procedure WalA. -Through (Reawnable Simulation) E ( X) Conc/11sions Comments: Part C.){tnd E apply. l Part B. to B.3 Reviewed By: Paul N HansenpJnY-'J>v Date: 7/30/2012 Print Sign c__G...Q._ I ~t 4
Technical Evaluation 1550669-36 Attachment 3 Page 39 of 39 NEI 12-07 (Rev. 0-A) May 2012 PARTC. VISUAL INSPECTION Q7. Is the feature accessible? N If No, Explain (See section 5.1 and 5.1 O)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Q8. Is the Material Condition Acceptable? Q9. Are the Critical Characteristics Per Design (refer to Ql for list of critical characteristics)? b N N/A
- -1 '10
Corrunents: ____~"'---/_
- __c.._0_"2._o ___0..,,0"""~=--~
____._})_\ .....* .-.>..... ' E""""'r._.,.7_~-'--""""'-S=--.._,..-_.,_
< "'""' * '5=5oc.....:..* <...:.=-----
..,..1e."'-
QIO. Can the equipment be operated as expected in order to achieve its flood p~on function (see Q 1)? LY-/ N QI I. Determine the available physical margin (the difference between licensing basis value of the critical characteristic (question Q. l) and the as found value see definitions) Actual height or name plate data:
'/.;J
Available Physical Margin: _ _ _t - " " - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ql2: If the flood height is unknown, record the height of the barrier_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Comments: PartC Performed By: ( } Pnn 1gn Q. '--r-'.J)...4. Date: B- 9 ... O),,o t'J. Part C Performed By: lau,r-&i J\,jM cio..~ Date: B/vi (12. i Print I Sign 5
Eval 1550669-36 Attachment 4 I of JO Grade Elevation (ft) 216.7 Door 211 Time Water Height from Water Height (Corrected to Door Flow Volume (hr.) Depths (ft) Grade (ft) Curb Height) (cfm) (ft3) Kl 133.614 D 216.7 o -0.25 a 0.625 m 0.052083 ft 0.1 217.05 0.35 0.1 17.66 105.96 g 32.2 ft/s 0.2 216.98 0.28 0.03 9.67 58.04 Bottom Door Elevatior 216.95 ft 0.3 216.95 0.25 o 0 0 0.4 216.93 0.23 -0.02 164.00 Total Volume (dm)
Eval 1550669-36 Attachment 4 lof Grade Elevation (ft) 216.8 Door 213 Time Water Height from Water Height (Corrected to Door Flow Volume (hr.) Depths (ft) Grade (ft) Curb Height) (cfm) (ft3) Kl 133.614 0 216.8 0 -0.167 a 0.625 in 0.052083 ft 0.1 217.13 0.33 0.163 22.5469329 135.2816 g 32.2 ft/s2 0.2 217.06 0.26 0.093 17.0308038 102.1848 Bottom Door Elevation (ft) 216.967 ft 0.3 217.03 0.23 0.063 14.0172864 84.10372 0.4 217.02 0.22 0.053 12.856762 77.14057 0.5 217.02 0.22 0.053 12.856762 77.14057 0.6 217 0.2 0.033 10.144967 60.8698 0.7 216.99 0.19 0.023 8.46949642 50.81698 0.8 216.99 0.19 0.023 8.46949642 50.81698 0.9 216.98 0.18 0.013 6.36744712 38.20468 1 216.98 0.18 0.013 6.36744712 38.20468 1.1 216.94 0.14 -0.027 714.7644 Total Volume (ft3)
Eval 1550669-36 Attachment 4 Jof Grade Elevation (ft) 216.8 Door 215 Time Water Height from Water Height (Corrected to Volume (hr.) Depths (ft) Grade (ft) Curb Height) Door Flow (cfm) (ft3) Kl 133.614 0 216.8 0 -0.125 a 0.625 on 0.052083 ft 0.1 217.14 0.34 0.215 25.895 155.37 g 32 .2 ft./s2 0.2 217.06 0.26 0.135 20.519 123.12 Bottom Door Elevation (ft) 216.925 ft. 0.3 217.03 0.23 0.105 18.096 108.58 0.4 217.02 0.22 0.095 17.213 103.28 0.5 217.02 0.22 0.095 17.213 103.28 0.6 216.99 0.2 0.065 14.238 85.43 0.7 216.99 0.2 0.065 14.238 85.43 0.8 216.99 0.2 0.065 14.238 85.43 0.9 216.99 0.2 0.065 14.238 85.43 1 216.99 0.2 0.065 14.238 85.43 1.1 216.95 0.15 0.025 8.830 52.98 1.2 216.92 0.12 -0.005 1073.74 Total Flow (cfm)
Eval 1550669-36 Attachment 4'1 of Grade Elevation (ft) 216.9 Door 217 Time Water Height from Water Height (Corrected to Door Flow Volume (hr.) Depths (ft) Grade (ft) Curb Height) (elm) (ft3) Kl 133.614 0 216.9 o -0.167 a 0.625 in 0.052083 ft 0.1 217.26 0.36 0.193 24.53 147.21 g 32.2 ft/s2 0.2 217.18 0.28 0.113 18.77 112.64 Bottom Door Elevation (ft} 217.067 ft 0.3 217.16 0.26 0.093 17.03 102.18 0.4 217.16 0.26 0.093 17.03 102.18 0.5 217.16 0.26 0.093 17.03 102.18 0.6 217.13 0.23 0.063 14.02 84.10 0.7 217.13 0.23 0.063 14.02 84.10 0.8 217.13 0.23 0.063 14.02 84.10 0.9 217.13 0.23 0.063 14.02 84.10 1 217.13 0.23 0.063 14.02 84.10 1.1 217.09 0.19 0.023 8.47 50.82 1.2 217.06 0.16 -0.007 1037.73 Total Volume (ft3}
Eval 1550669-36 Attachment 4.>"of Grade Elevation (ft) 216.8 Door 219 Time Water Height from Water Height (Corrected to Door Flow Volume (hr.) Depths (ft) Grade (ft) Curb Height) (elm) (ft3) Kl 133.614 0 216.8 -0.167 a 0.625 '" 0.052083 ft 0.1 217.17 0.37 0.203 25.16 150.97 g 32.2 ft/s2 0.2 217.07 0.27 0.103 17.92 107.54 Bottom Door Elevation (ft) 216.967 ft 0.3 217.03 0.23 0.063 14.02 84.10 0.4 217.01 0.21 0.043 11.58 69.48 0.5 217.01 0.21 0.043 11.58 69.48 0.6 216.96 0.16 -0.007 481.58 Total Volume (ft3)
Eval 1550669-36 Attachment 4 'of Grade Elevation (ft) 216.8 Door 221 Time Water Height from Water Height (Corrected to Door Flow Volume (hr.) Depths (ft) Grade (ft) Curb Height (cfm) (ft3) Kl 133.614 0 216.8 0 -0.167 a 0.625 In 0.052083 ft 0.1 217.17 0.37 0.203 25.16 150.97 g 32.2 ft/52 0.2 217.06 0.26 0.093 17.03 102.18 Bottom Door Elevation (ft) 216.967 ft 0.3 217.02 0.22 0.053 12.86 77.14 0.4 217 0.2 0.033 10.14 60.87 0.5 217 0.2 0.033 10.14 60.87 0.6 216.96 0.16 -0.007 452.04 Total Volume (ft3)
--~~~-..-~~"-"""~="-~---~ .. m,_....,.. _. ~~
Eval 1550669-36 Attachment 4 7 of Grade Elevation (ft) 216.8 Door 223 Water Height from Water Height (Corrected to Door Flow Volume Time (hr.) Depths (ft) Grade (ft) Curb Height) (cfm) (ft3) Kl 133.614 0 216.8 0 -0.20833 a 0.625 1n 0.052083 ft 0.1 217.18 0.38 0.17167 23.14 138.83 g 32.2 ft/s2 0.2 217.07 0.27 0.06167 13.87 83.21 Bottom Door Elevation (ft) 217.0083 ft 0.3 217.03 0.23 0.02167 8.22 49.33 0.4 217 0.2 -0.00833 275.36 Total Volume (ft3)
--- mm.-""'~ :::;w.....,.._
Eval 1550669-36 Attachment 4 9of Grade Elevation (ft) 216.8 Door 225 Time Water Height from Water Height (Corrected to Door Flow (hr.) Depths (ft) Grade (ft) Curb Height) {cfm) Volume (ft3) Kl 133.614 D 216.8 0 -0.20833 a 0.625 m 0.052083 ft
- 0. 1 217.19 0.39 0.18167 23.803 142.82 g 32.2 ft/s2 0.2 217.07 0.27 0.06167 13.869 83.21 Bottom Door Elevation (ft) 217.0083 ft 0.3 217.03 0.23 0.02167 8.221 49.33 0.4 217 0.2 -0.00833 275.36 Total Volume (ft3)
--= - L :;:. __ -0>-- ~-Y:nt':"'..~'C'*--* -**ii2!
Eval 1550669-36 Attachment4 'of Grade Elevation (ft) 216.8 Door 211 Time (hr.) Depths (ft) Water Height from Grade (ft) Water Height (Corrected to Curb Height) Door Flow (elm) Volume (ft3) 0 =$C$1+C3 0 =B3-$H$5 0.1 =$C$l+C4 0.39 =B4-$H$5 =$1$3 * (5QRT(2*$H$4' D4))' $ =E4*(A4-A3)'60 0.2 - SC$l+C5 0.27 =B5-$H$5 =SJ$3 * (5QRT(2' $H$4 'DS))'S =E5'(AS-A4)'60 0.3 =$C$1+C6 0.23 =B6-$H$5 =$J$3 * (SQRT(2*$H$4'D6))*$ =E6*(A6-A5)'60 0.4 =SC$l+C7 0.2 =B7-$H$5 =SUM(F4:F63)
~ CD 00 ., ~
~ ~ 0 < 3
- 2. 0 c:
3 Q
- r iS'
~ <
~
er E II w 0 .... n 0
"';... w w
5l w w s:"' 5}}