ML20056F699
| ML20056F699 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 08/18/1993 |
| From: | CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056F697 | List: |
| References | |
| EER-93-0502, EER-93-0502-R02, EER-93-502, EER-93-502-R2, NUDOCS 9308300280 | |
| Download: ML20056F699 (41) | |
Text
.
ATTACHMENT 2 BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO.1 DOCKET NO. 50-325 / LICENSE NO. DPR-71 ENGINEERING EVALUATION REPORT EER No. 93-0502 Operability Assessment of Pinhole Leak in 6" Vital SW Header 1
93083OO2BD 930823 I
DR ADOCi< 05000325 rk p
PDR g
l 1
i 7
s
.og FORM 1 6
EER No. 93-0502 ENGINEERING EVALUATION Rev. No.
2 REPORT Page No.
I 1.
Reference ACR, LER, WR/JO, ETR etc. LCO T-1-93-0816 File No.
4060 1
2.
Brief description of item / activity Operability
[x] Class A (Q-List) 8ssessment of Pinhole Leak in 6" Vital SW Hender
[ ] Class B-3 (FP-Q)
[ ] Other (Non-Q)
- 3. Disposition
[ ] a.
Use/ acceptable as is
- Qualified Technical
[ ] b.
Permanent repair / rework Reviewer if Quality
[x) c.
Temporary change Class A and box 4b
[ ]
Temporary repair, Expiration date checked
[ }
[x]
OA/STSI ([ ] Preliminary) Expiration date 10/15/93
[ ] d.
Information Transmittal
[ ] e.
Other 4.
Final Resolution
[ ] a.
Complies with system DBDs, FSAR, design, code, and quality requirements.
(See definitions for Design Change and Configuration Control)
[x] b.
Acceptable deviation from system DBD, FSAR, design, code, or quality requirements. Safety review (AI-109) required.
- 5. Follow-up Requirements
[x] a.
Surveillance activities, responsible group (s)_ Operations
[x] b.
Action items, responsible group (s) NED. OM&M
[ ] c.
None Yes No
[ ]
[x] Changes to system DBD, FSAR, design, drawinc, code, or quality ga requirements are required due to this EER.
(Provide details on within 10 working days from EER approval.)
{:
- 6. Review / Approval NOTE:
If Blocks 3d and 4a are checked, only the Responsible Engineer b, f and Engineering Supervisor signatures are required. However, other reviewers may be necessary based on the disposi on.
Ofg Clark / d [ [
Responsible Engineer
- Brian E.
Date B 3 O E)~
Print Signature p
Group NED-MEU 2_,_ [ k n
[x)Yes [ )No Technical Review
- Mi@
Date 3
Engineering Supervisor 2 4 Lee s /
Me!
Date #//#/f5 OfM Print Signature LL-g h g
[ ]Yes [x}No EQ Review MAI Date f
[x]Yes [ ]No ANII Review I
M/#F9 Date 2Y 9/3 j
h
[ ]Yes [x)No PNSC Review
/ AI Date Approved Nr/e*
/
Date
/ b Print
[/>ignature INDEPENDENT SAFETY REVIEWS (Reference 6.2.6)
BE0 NOT REO REVIEW COMPLETED DATE
[ ]
[x]
CNSR (Prior to Approval)
REF
[ ]
[x)
CNSR (Review after Approval)
-8 Other:
]
7.O Distributions g
g y
F-BNP Records Management (EER File)
Supervisor - ISI cm Z
NED BESS Section Manager Manager - Operations Staff
}
O Manager - Maintenance
. Nuclear Engineering Department Raleigh
~
O Responsible Engineer Q-List /EDBS Coordinator - PEG cj specialist - kegulatory Compliance EDC - Technical Support CI O NED Document Control On Site NAD J.}
Q O
Manager - Training Department NED EQ Group - Raleigh 1.
CL z
BSEhVol.XX/ENP-12 23 Rev. 33
s g-EER No. o?'n592 Rev. No.
2 Page No.
2 l
ENGINEERING EVALUATION 4
LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES Paoe No.
Egyision No.
1, 2 2
4, 8
1 i
3, 5-7, 9-39 O
I l
Scope of Revisions Rev. 2 - Revised to correct unauthorized approval signature 5
Page la Revised to signify revision 2 of EER-0502 Page 2: Revised to add scope of revision and reflect new revision level This revision to the EER does not impact the original safety review packppe.
Lead First Safety Reviewer
[
Second Safety Reviewer,
l Evaluator 7
Rev. 1-Page la Revised to signify revision 1 of EER-0502 Page 2: Revised to add scope of revision and reflect new revision level Page 4: Revised the intent of the daily surveillance requirement Page B: Revised the daily surveillance requirement i
L 1
k
i s
i FORM 2 EER No. 93-0502 1
ENGINEERING EVALUATION Rev. No.
O i
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No.
3 j
Sections Pace No.
Traveler (Form 1).....................................................
1 j
List of Effective Pages...............................................
2 i
Table of contents (Form 2 or equivalent)' (optional)...................
3 i
Problem Evaluation (Form 3 or equivalent)
Problem Description.............................................
4 Evaluation / Disposition..........................................
4 Corrective Actions *.............................................
5 AC C e pt anc e Te s t ing *.............................................
5 EER Action Item Notifications ( Form 4 ) *...............................
6 EER Surveillance Notifications ( Form 6 ) *..............................
8 Safety Review (per AI-109)*...........................................
9 EQ Impact Evaluation (per ENP-34.1, Form 3)*..........................
15 S BO E v a l u a t io n........................................................
16 Appendix R Evaluation...............................................
18 Attachments (list)*...................................................
19 - Drawing FSP-24060 Sh.
1............................
19 - Calculation 1-SW-0081 Rev.
O.......................
20 l
I J
i
- As applicable i
BSEP/Vol. XX/EWP-12 24 Rev. 31
9 FORM 3 4
EER No. 93-0507 Rev. No.
1 Page No.
4 ENGINEERING EVALUATION PROBLEM DESCRIPTION A pinhole leak has been detected on a 6" branch of the Nuclear Service Water system.
The leak is located adjacent to valve 1-SW-V116 on a weld which connects the carbon steel weld neck flange to the elbow (line no. 1-SW-117-6-157).
The line is at elevation 15' of the Unit 1 Reactor Building.
It is suspected that this leak may have been propagated by a recent partial system hydrostatic test.
The purpose of this EER is to provide an operability assessment for the Nuclear Service Water system.
EVALUATION / DISPOSITION A field inspection of the piping in question was performed. The pinhole leak is located on the 6" vital service water header of the Nuclear Service Water 6ystem.
The 6" line taps of f the ' main 30" SW header, line 1-SW-103-30-1F?.
There is a span of carbon steel cement-lined pipe approximately 4' long between the 30" header and valve 1-SW-V116 (Reference Attachment 1).
The leak is on this section of piping, at the weld which connects the elbow to the weld neck flange. This section of piping is quality class A (safety-related), seismic, ASME class 3 pioing. The applicable installation specification is 248-117 class 157.
An ultrasonic test (UT) was performed on the section of piping containing the leak to determine the wall thickness of the pipe in the vicinity of the leak. The wall thickness values obtained from the UT were evaluated by NED and found to be acceptable, with the exception of the flawed location. The flaw was evaluated using the "Through-Wall Flaw" approach (Reference Calculation 1-SW-0081 Rev. O) as outlined in Generic Letter 90-05.
The calculation determined that the flaw did not compromise the structural integrity of the line.
The amount of leakage from the pinhola flaw is minuscule and does not impact any l
critical SW oystem parameters such as operating pressure or flow rate.
There will i
be no reduction in system reliability due t,the pinhole leak.
Therefore, system i
operability is maintained.
i In accordance with Generic Letter 90-05, a code repair of the flaw in the SW Header is required prior to Unit 1 startup. This permanent code repair will be accomplished by incorporating the repair into the existing Service Water Inspection Modification (Reference Action Item 1).
The OM&M section will be assigned to l
perform the code repair prior to Unit 1 startup (Action Item 2).
4 As an interim measure, a 2"x2" soft rubber patch will be clamped over the section of the pipe containing the leak.
This patch will provide a barrier against spraying i
salt water on any nearby equipment if the leak were to become worse.
Protection l
a from this type of occurrence is outlined in Generic Letter 90-05.
The rubber patch i
does not affect the structural integrity of the flawed piping and is reversible.
Additionally, the installation of the rubber patch will prevent further propagation of the hole due to flow erosion. A relief request is being prepared for this interim maasnie (temporary non-code repair) in accordance with GL 90-05.
1 As an additional precaution, a weekly surveillance will be established to observe the patched area, quantify any leakage noted and report this leakage to the Tech j
Support System Engineer. This surveillance will remain in effect until the permanent repair of the piping is implemented. This will ensure that any further degradation of the pinhole is noted and evaluated. Operations personnel will be responsible for the weekly inspection while they are performing the operator rounds.
Based on the evaluation above, the pinhole leak found on the 6" vital Nuclear Ser~ ice Water Header does not compromise system operability. The pipe was determined to have structural integrity. The leak does not result in any reduction in system reliability or operating characteristics. Thus the Nuclear Service Water system is determined to be operable in the present condition. This operability assessment is valid until 10/15/93.
BSEP/Vol. XX/ENP-12 25 Rev. 31 i
e FORM 3 EER No. 93-0502 Rev. No.
O_
l Page No.
5 i
I CORRECTIVE ACTIONS The corrective actions as described in the evaluation section of this EER will be implemented to provide a permanent code repair of the pinhole leak.
ACCEPTANCE TESTING None required. All code acceptance testing will be accomplished via the permanent repair document (s).
i l
1 i
l l
l i
l l
l BSEP/Vol. XX/ENP-12 25 Rev. 31
FORM 4 EER No.93-0502 EER ACTIdN ITEM NOTIFICATION Rev. No.
O Page No.
6 To
[ ]
Manager - Operations Staff
[ ]'
Manager - Maintenance
[ ]
Technical Support Manager -
[x]
NED FROM:
Manager -
NED-On-Site FUBJECT EER Action Item No.
1 Corporate Priority SA Is this EER a temporary change?
[x] Yes
[ ] No Erpiration date 10/15/93
[ ] Temporary repair
[x] OA/STSI Is this EER action item required for resolution of the temporary i
change?
[x] Yes
[ } No The following Action Item is assigned to you by the above Engineering Evaluation for completion no later than 9/1/93 Revine the Service Water Inspection Modification (PM 91-047) to incorporate provisions for a permanent repair of the einhole leak in the 6" vital SW header.
This notification was reviewed with Wes McGoun (name) of the responsible organization, on 7/31/93 (date). Please sign below and return this notification upon the satisf actory completion 1
of the specified action item.
Brian E.
Clar
/ 7/31/93
/
J//f/
Responsible Engineer Date Responsible Manager Date l
i I
To Engineering Data Coordinator The above action item requirement has been completed satisfactorily. The reference doc'tTcat (WR/JO number, procedure, or DSR reference) implementing this item is:
/
Responsible Manager Date Distribution:
BNP Records Management (by EDC)
Responsible Engineer NED Document Control j
BEEP /Vol. XX/ENP-12 26 Rev. 32 4
\\
FORM 4 EER No.93-0502 EER ACTION ITEM NOTIFICATION Rev. No.
O Page No.
7 To
[ ]
Manager - Operations Staff
[ ]
Manager - Maintenance
[ ]
Technical Support Manager -
[x]
Manacer - OM&M FROM:
Manager -
NED-On-Site
/
SUBJECT:
EER Action Item No.
2 Corporate Priority
~5A Is this EER a temporary change?
[x] Yes I ) No Erpiration date 10/15/93
[ ] Temporary repair
[x] OA/STSI Is this EER action item required for resolution of the temporary change?
[x] Yes
[ ] No The following Action Item is assigned to you by the above Engineering Evaluation for completion no later than 9/15/93 Implement the permanent repair for the vinhole leak in the 6' vital SW header as detailed in the Service Water Inspection Modification (PM 91-047).
This notification was reviewed with Martin Dalle-Pozza (name) of the responsible organization, on 7/31/93 (date). Please sign below and return this notification upon the satisfactory completion of the specified action item.
7!7/!%7
/ //T//fJ Brian E.
Clark
./
Responsible Engineer Date Responsible Manager Date i
Tor Engineering Data Coordinator The above action item requirement has been completed satisfactorily. The reference document (WR/JO number, procedure, or DSR reference) implementing this item is:
I i
/
Responsible Manager Date j
1 Distribution:
BNP Records Management (by EDC)
Responsible Engineer NED Document Control ESEP/Vol. XX/ENP-12 26 Rev. 32 i
i
=
\\
FORM 6 EER No. 93-0502 EER SURVEILLANCE NOTIFICATION Rev.iNo.
1 Page No.
8 TO: [x] Operations Principal Engineer
[ ] Manager - Maintenance 4
[ ] Technical Support Manager -
l
[ ]
FROM:
Manager -
NED-On-Site A
i
SUBJECT:
EER Surveillance Item No.
I Is this EER a temporary change?
[x] Yes
[ } No Expiration date 10/15/93
[ ] Temporary repair
[x] OA/STSI Is this EER surveillance item required for resolution of the temporary change?
[ ] Yes [x] No The following surveillance is assigned to you by the above Engineering Evaluation. This surveillance shall be performed on the required frequency of once per week Surveillance performance shall be documented on Form 8 each time performed. Surveillance shall be performed until Form 7, Termination Notice, is received.
Inspect the rubber-patched area adiacent to valve 1-SW-V116 f6" vital' SW header RB el. 15') and cuantify anv leakace noted.
Report this leakace to the Tech. Suonert Svstem Encineer for further evaluation.
I The acceptance criteria for the surveillance is:
I There is no acceptance criteria recuired for this surveillance recuire-ment.
The leakace reported will be evaluated by Tech. Surnort to i
determine any recuired actions.'
This notification was reviewed with Jim Simon (name) of i
the responsible organi-ation, on 8/4/93 (date).
Brian E.
Clark
/8 U
2/
/
N Responsible Engineer Date Responsible Manager Date Distribution: Responsible Organization (by EDC)
F 4
BSEP/Vol. XX/ENP-12 28 Rev. 32 i
j
]
ATTACHMENT 2 (Cont'd)
REVISION 3 10CFR50.59 PROGRAM MANUAL Page 55 ATTACHMENT A CP&L SAFETY REVIEW PACKAGE Page 9 of SAFETY REVIEW COVER SHEET DOCUMENT No.
EER 93-0502 REV. NO.
O DESCRIPTION OR TITLE: Operability Assessment of Pinhole Leak in 6" Vital SW Header 1.
Assigned Responsibilities:
s Safety Analysis Preparer:
Brian E.
Clark Lead let Safety Reviewers Brian E.
Clark 2nd Safety Revlewer:
S ee,L u K.,, a, m e_ M-e e a
2.
Safety Analysis Preparer: Comple PART I, SAFETY ANALYSIS f/
7 / 7// 93 Safety Analysis Preparer SIGNATURE DATE 3.
Lead let Safety Reviewers Complete Part II, Item Classification.
4.
Lead let Safety Reviewer:
III may be completed.
If either question 1 or 2 is "yes," -
then Part IV is not required.
5.
Lead let Safety Reviewer Determine which DISCIPLINES are required for review of this item (including own) and mark the appropriate block (s) below.
DISCIPLINES Recuireds fPrint Name)
Sienature/Date fSteo 71
[ } Nuclear Plant Operations
/
- ) Nuclear Engineering
/ /
Lx) Mechanical Brian E.
Clark
/1 / M 7/ 3/ A t Electrical i
Instrumentation & Control
( ) Structural
[ ] Metallurgy
[ ] Chemistry / Radiochemistry
( ) Health Physics
[ ] Administrative Controls 6.
A QUALIFIED SAFETY REVIEWER will be assigned for each DISCIPLINE marked in step 5 and his/her name printed in the space provided. Each person shall perform a SAFETY REVIEW and provide input into the Safety Review Package.
7.
The Lead let Safety Reviewer will assure that a Tart III or Part IV is completed (see step 4 above) and a Part VI if required (see 9.d of Part II). Each person listed in step 4
5 shall sign and date next to his/her name in step 5, indicating completion of a SAFETY REVIEW.
8.
2nd Safety Reviewer Perform a SAFETY REVIEW in accordance with Section 8.0.
2nd Safety Reviewer Phb - [ muuvA Date 7/21/03 JI DISCIPLINE:
Mea Yes No 9.
PNSC review required? If *yes" attach Part V and mark reeson
[ ]
[x]
below:
[ ] Potential UNPEVIEWED SAFETY QUESTION
[ } Question 9 of Part IV answered *Yes"
[ } Other (specify):
O AI-lO9 Rev. 002 Page 72 of 86
ATTACHMENT 2 (Cont'd)
]
REVISION 3 10CTR50.59 PROGRAM MANUAL Page 56 ATTACHMENT A CPEL SAFETY REVIEW PACKAGE Page,_12 of N PART I SAFETY ANALYSIS (See instructions in Section 8.4.1)
(Attach additional sheets as necessary)
DOCUMENT NO.
EER 93-0502 REV. NO.
O DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE: This EER provides an operability assessment of a pinhole leak which has been detected on the 6" Nuclear Service Water vital header.
ANALYSIS:
The Nuclear Service Water Header in question has been evaluated and found to be operable.
The pipe was ultraronically tested to verify adequate wall thickness was present, with the exception of the f; aw.
The flawed spot was analyzed using fracture mechanics methods as outlined in Generic Letter 90-05.
The calculation performed confirmed that the line maintains its structural integrity with the presence of the flaw.
The leak is of a very minor nature and does not result in a reduction of system reliability or operating characteristics. The SW system will still be able to perform all its designed functions.
All FSAR Chapter 15 analyses are still valid and no addition transients are created, since the system still meets all of itu design requirements.
REFERENCES :
FSAR 8.3, 9.2, 9.5, Chapter 15 Tech. Specs. 3/4.7.1.1, B 3/4.7.1 O AI-109 Rev. 002 Page 73 of 86
l
\\
ATTACHMENT 2 (Cont'd)
REVISION 3 10CTR50.59 PROGRAM MANUAL Page 57 ATTACHNINT A CPEL SAFETY REVIEW PACKAGE Page _,11 of $f PART II: ITEM CLASSIFICATION DOCUMENT NO.
93-0502 REV. NO.
O Igs E2 1.
Does this item represent:
A change to the f acility as described in the SAFETY
[ ]
[x]
a.
ANALYSIS REPORT 7
)
b.
A change to the procedures as described in the
[ ]
[x]
SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 7 A test or experiment not described in the SAFETY
[ ]
[x]
c.
ANALYSIS REPORT 7 2.
Does this item involve a change to the individual plant
[ ]
[x]
Operating License or to its Technical Specifications?
3.
Does this item require a revision to the FSAR7
[ ]
[x]
4.
Does this item involve a change to the Offsite
[ ]
[x]
Dose Calculation Manual?
5.
Does this item constitute a change to the Process Control
[ ]
[x]
Program?
6.
Does this item involve a major change to a Radwaste Treatment
[ ]
[x]
System?
7.
Does this item involve a change to the Technical
[ }
[x]
Specification Equipment List (BSEP and SENPP only)7 or
[ ]
[x]
Does this item impact the NPDES Permitconstitute an "unreviewed environmental (all 3 sites) question" (SENPP 8.
Environmental Plan Section 3.1) or a "significant environmental impact" (BSEP)?
9.
Does this item involve a change to a previously accepted:
a.
Quality Assurance Program
[ ]
[x]
Security Plan including Training, Qualification, and
[ }
[x]
b.
Contingency Pla(ns)?
c.
I
[x]
d.
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation license?
[ ))
[x]
1 (If ves, refer to Section 8.4.2,
" Question 9,*
for special considerations. Complete Part VI in eccordance with Section B.4.6)
SEE SECTION 8.4.2 POR INSTRUCTIONS FOR EACH "YES" ANSWER.
REFERENCES. List FSAR and Technical Spcification references used to answer qusstions 1-9 above. Identify specific reference sections used for any "Yes" anrwer.
FSAR 8.3, 9.2, 9.5, Chapter 15 T.S. 3/4.7.1.1, B 3/4.7.1 0 AI-109 Rev. 002 Page 74 of 86 s
i ATTACHMENT 2 (Cont'd)
REVISION 3 10CFR50.59 PROGRAM MANUAL Page 58 l
ATTACHMENT A t
CPEL SAFETY REVIEW PACKAGE Page 2 of PART III: UNREVIEWED SAFETY QUESTION DETERMINATION SCREEN DOCUMENT NO.
EER 93-0502 REV. NO.
O r
111 E2 2.
Is this change fully addressed by another completed
[ ]
[x]
i UNREVIEWED SAFETY QUESTION determination 7 (See.
Section 7.2.1, 7.2.2.5, and 7.9.1.1)
REFERENCE DOCUMENT:
REV. NO.
XE1 E2 i
2.
For procedures, is the change a non-intent change which only
[ ]
[x]
(check all that apply): (See Section 7.2.2.3)
[ ] Corrects typographical errors which do not alter the meaning or intent of the procedure; or, f
[ ] Adds or revises steps for clarification (provided provided they are consistent with the original purpose or applicability of the procedure); or,
[ ] Changes the title of an organizational position; or, t
[ ] Changes names, addresses, or telephone numbers of persons; or,
[ ] Changes the designation of an item of equipment where the equipment is the same as the original equipment or is an authorized replacement; or,
[ ] Changes a specified tool or instrument to an equivalent substitute; or,
[ } Changes the format of a procedure without altering the meaning, intent, or content; or
[ ] Deletes a part or all of a procedure, the deleted portions of which are wholly covered by approved plant procedures?
If the answer to either Question 1 or Question 2 in PART III is "Yes," then PART IV need not be completed.
E 0 AI-lO9 Rev. 002 Page 75 of 86
ATTACHMENT 2 (Cont'd)
REVISION 3 ICCFR50.59 PROGRAM MANUAL Page 59 ATTACHMENT A i
CP&L SAFETY REVIEW PACKAGE Page j l of N l
PART IV: UNREVIEWED SAFETY QUESTION DET"RMINATION DOCUMENT NO.
EER 93-0502 REV. NO.
O i
Using the SAFETY ANALYSIS developed for the change, test or e e riment, as i
well as other required references (LICENSING EASIS DOCUMINTATION, DJaign Drawings, Design Basis Documents, codes, etc.), the preparer of the Unreviewed Safety Question Determination must directly answer each of the following seven qu2stions and make a determination of whether an UNREVIEWED SAFETY QUESTION cxists.
A WRITTEN BASIS Is REQUIRED FOR EACH ANSWER XEE EO 1.
May the proposed activity increase the probability of
[ ]
[K) occurrence of an accident evaluated previously in the SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 7 The SW line has been analvred and determined to be structurally aceeotable.
No detrimental ef f ects to the SW evetem are incurred and there is no reduction :.n system reliability. The service water system is capable of adecuately performino aL1 of its desioned functions. Therefore, there is no increase in the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in the SAR.
2.
May the proposed activity increase the consequences of an
[ ]
[g]
accident evaluated previously in the SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 7 The line has been analvred and determined to be structurally acceptable. No detrimental effects to the SW system are incurred and there is no reduction :,n system reliability.
The service water system is capable of adecuately perdormino ahl of its desioned functions.
All abilities to mitiaate the consecuences od an accident are maintained. Therefore. the consecuences of an accident analvred in the SAR are not increased.
3.
May the proposed activity increase the probability of
[ ]
((]
occurrence of a malfunction of epiga_ent important to safety evaluated previously in the SAFE 4Y MALYSIS REPORT 7 The SW line has been analvred and determined to be structurally acceptable. No detrimental effects to the SW system are incurred and there is no reduction in system reliability.
The service water system is esoable of adecuatelv performino all of its desioned functions, which is to supply water to eeuipment import ant to safety.
Thus the answer to this cuestion is no.
4.
May the proposed activity increase the consequence of a
[ ]
[K) malfunction of equip,ent important to safety evaluated previously in the SMETY ANALYSIS REPORT 7 The SW line has been analvred and determined to be structurally acceotable. No detrimental effects to the SW system are incurred and there is no reduction :,n system reliability.
The service water svetem is capable of adecuately performino all of its desnoned functions, which is to supply water to ecuipment import ant to safety.
All jd21:,ities to mit(gate the coryeeuences of an accident are maintained. Therefore, the coneeeuences of a taalfunction of eauipment import ant to safety as ereviously evaluated in the SAR are not increased.
5.
May the proposed activity create the possibility of an
[ ]
[X) accident of a different t p than any evaluated previously in the SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 7 Service Water Pipe intecrity and reliability are maintained. The system will function as oricinally desinned. Therefore, no new accident scenarios are created.
O AI-109 Rev. 002 Page 76 of 86
ATTACHMENT 2 (cont'd)
REVISION 3 lOCTR50.59 PROGRAM MANUAL Page 60 ATTACHMENT A CPEL SAFETY REVIEW PACKAGE Page,_11 of d PART IV (Continued)
DOCUMENT NO.
EER 93-0502 REV. NO.
O Yes Ji2 6.
May the proposed activity create the possibility of a
( )
[X) malfunction of e ipment important to safet g t an any eva uated previously in the S gof a different ETY ANALYSIS Service Water Pine inteority and reliability ere-maintained.
The system will function as orioinally desioned.
Therefore, no new failures of safety ecuipment are created.
7.
Does the proposed activity reduce the margin of safety as
[ ]
[>()
defined in the basis of any Technical Specification?
The Sw pipe maintains its orioinally desianed functional capabilities and, as such, meets the maroin of safety as defined in the Tech. Specs.
8.
Based on the answers to questions 1 - 7, does this item
[ ]
[x]
result in an UNREVIEWED SAFETY QUESTION? If the answer to any of the questions 1-7 is "Yes", then the item is considered to constitute an UNREVIEWED SAFETY QUESTION.
9.
Is PNSC review required for any of the following reasons?
[ ]
[x]
?
If, in answering questions 1 or 3 "No",
it was determined that the probability increase was small relative to the uncertainties; or, in answerin it was determined that the doses increase, question 2 or 4 'No*ill less than the NRC ACCEPTANCE LIMIT; or but the dose was st in answering question 7
'No",
a parameter would be closer to the NRC ACCEPTANCE LIMIT, but the end result was still within the NRC ACCEPTANCE LIMIT; then PNSC review is required.
REFERENCES:
i FSAR 8.3, 9.2, 9.5.
Chapter 15 T.S.
3/4.7.3.1, B 3/4.7.1 This Unreviewed Safety Question Detemination is for the following DISCIPLINE (s): (Additional Part IV forms may be included as appropriate.)
l Nuclear Plant Operations Structural i
Nuclear Engineering Metallurg x'
Mechanical chemistry / Radiochemistry Electrical Health Physics Instrumentation & Control Administrative Controls P
O AI-109 Rev. 002 Page 77 of B6 l
l ENGINEERING EVALUATION REPORT EER 93-0502 Rav. O ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION IMPACT FORM (EER-EQIF)
Pags ff Will the evaluation, on either a temporary or permanent basist 1.
Justify the deletion of equipment / common components from the BSEP EQ program?
[ ] Yes
[X) No 2.
Justify the addition of (already existing) equipment / common components to the BSEP EQ program?
I l
f
[ ] Yes [X) No 3.
Authorize the repair of EQ equipment / common components with other than cualified like-in-kind equipment / components parts?
[ ] Yes
[X) No 4.
Affect the existing installation or interface (of EQ equipment / common component applications) as may be designated in EDBS and/or in the i
qualification data package (including changing the type of interface /
installation)?
[ } Yes
[X) No 5.
Justify the (quality class) upgrade of equipment / common components p_r component parts which could be utilized in EQ applications?
[ ] Yes
[X) No i
i e
6.
(Re) Define qualification parameters (e.g., normal or LOCA/HELB environ-mental conditions, postaccident operating time requirements, essential passive / active postaccident operating requirements, qualified life assumptions /results, etc.) for specific EQ equipment?
[ } Yes
[X) No 7.
Provide an EQ-related justification for continued operation (as required per PLP-02, Section 4.4.3.3 EI 4.4.4)7 i
e
[ ] Yes [X) No i
8.
Provide the resolution of a qualification problem (as required per PLP-02, Section 4.4.4)?
[ ] Yes [X) No I
i Notes:
1.
If all no, then no further EQ consideration is required. Mark the EER Traveler acccrdingly as required by ENP-12 and include this completed EER-EQIF within the EER package. An EQ Technical Review is D2t z.q2irsd.
i 2.
If any yes, an EQ impact assessment (per Section 5.3) must be performed during the evaluation process. Mark the EER Traveler accordingly and include this completed EER-EQIF within the EER l
package.
An EQ technical review is required.
{
l i
I i
i Equivalent to BSEP/Vol. XI/ENP-34.1 20 Rev. 4 4
EXHIBIT C EER CT3-05V2 (Page 1 of 2)
Rev No.
O Page No.
16 BRUNSWICK NUCLEAR PROJECT STATION BLACKOUT (SBO)
PAGE 1 OF 2 SCREENING REVIEWFOR SBO IMPACT Document Number: EER 93-0502 Revision: 0 Document
Title:
Operability Assessment of Pinhole Leak on 6* SW Vital Header SBO SCREEh.WG REVIEW CRITERIA Does the change:
YES NO
- 1. Increase the suppression pool existing high water level of (-)27 inches?
x
- 2. Decrease the suppression pool existing minimum water level of (-)31 inches?
x
- 3. Increase the licensed power output of the reactor above 2436 MWT?
x
- 4. Increase the reactor coolant system average temperature above 547'F7 x
- 5. Reduce the condensate storage tank low water level below 10 feet?
x
- 6. Change the motive power type or power source to any Safety Relief Valve x
B21 F013A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, or L?
- 7. Change the motive power type or power source to the following x
instruments:
CAC-Li-2601-1 i
CAC-Pi-1230 CAC-LR-2602 CAC-TR-4426-1 A and 1B
- 8. Modify the equipment or change the motive power type or power source to x
I any components or instruments in the E41 (HPCI) system?
- 9. Change the location of or rnodify CST level indicator LIT-11607 t
x
- 10. Cause the following valves to fait closed on ioss of power: RNA-SV-5251, x
-SV-5253, -SV 5481, or -SV-54827
- 11. Change the motive power or power source to the following RPV instruments:
x i
B21-Pi-R605A, C32-LI-R606A?
l
- 12. Modify drywell pressure indicator CAC-PI-12307 x
i
- 13. Modify existing containment penetrations or containment penetration valving x
3-inch and larger?
Page 3.1*1-9 Revision 1 1
[
M 93-OSc7.
Exnisti c (Page 2 of 2)
Rev No.
O
? age No.
37 i
BRUNSWICKNUCLEAR PROJECT STATION BLACKOUT (SBO)
PAGE 2 OF 2 SCREENING REVIEWFOR SBO IMPACT i
Document Number: EER 93-0502 Revision: 0 f
SBO SCREENING REVIEW CRITERIA (continued) l Does the change:
YES NO i
- 14. Add a new containment penetration and isolation valves 3-inch and larger?
x f
Service Water Building, Diesel Generator Building Basement and E-Bus Rooms, ECCS Pipe Tunnel, or Mezzanine Area Pipe Chase above HPCI Room Roof?
- 16. Modify the equipment or change the motive power type or power source to x
Battery Room Fans 1B-EF-CB,1B-SF-CB,1C-EF-CB,1C-SF-CB, 2B-EF-CB, t
2 2B-SF-CB, 2C-EF-CB, or 2C-SF-CB7 t
l
- 17. Add electrical loads to any of the Class 1E 125VDC system batteries 1 A1,1 A2, x
181,182, 2A1, 2A2, 2B1, or 2B27 l
i j
j 1B. Add black start loads to MCCs 1CA,1CB,2CA,2CB,1PA,1PB,2PA,2PB, x
1 XE, 2XE; 1 XF, 2XF,1XL, 2XL,1XM, 2XM, DGA, DGB, DGC, or DGD7 4
1
- 19. Add black start loads to Panels 1ES,1E6,2E7, or 2EB7 x
- 20. Add black start loads to 4160VAC Emergency Buses E1, E2, E3, or E47 x
J
- 21. Modify equipment or circuitry in 4160VAC switchgear cubicles AGO (El-E3), AE6 x
(E1-1D), AJS (E3-E1), Al2 (E3-2D), AH9 (E2-E4), AG4 (E2-1C), AL5 (E2-E4), or s
AJ9 (E4-2C)?
j
- 22. Alter the FSAR statement that the 24/48 VDC power system batteries are x
capable of supplying the connected loads for a period of four hours (Section f
3 B.3.2.2.1 b)?
i i
A. If the response to all of the above screening review criteria is *no*, a SBO j
compliance review is not required.
B. If the response to any of the above screening review criteria is *yes", a SBO compliance review is required and s ould be processed in accordance with NED Procedure 3.17.
/
l Brian E. Clark 7/31/93 Lead Engineer Date l
i Page 3.17-10 Revision 1 v-v
ECR 13-05DZ Rev No.
O Page No.
1A EXHIBIT A CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY FIRE PROTECTION OF SAFE SHUTDOWN CAPABILITY REVIEW FOPR FOR BRUNSWICK AND ROBINSON PLANTS Date 7/31/93 l
Plant / Projects BSEP Unit 1 Title Operability Assessment of SW 1eak File No.
4060 I
Document No.:
EER 93-0502 Document Type:
Brian E.
Clark Organization:
NTD-MIU Yes No 1.
Does the change install a new plant system, subsystem, or camponent?
[ ]
[a]
2.
Does the change delete an existing plant system, subsystem, or component?
[ }
[x]
i Does the change affect the operating mode, active logic or normal / emergency 3.
[ }
[x}
status of any component?
4.
Does the change connect to or disconnect from any plant AC or DC power
[ ]
[x]
source?
5.
Does the change modify protective circuitry on any power source (circuit f
[ ]
[x]
breakers, fuses, relaying, etc.)?
[ ]
[x]
6.
Are the plant communications syatems modified?
Does the change install or remove any plant structures or portions, thereof 7.
(e.g., walls, floors, doors, dampers)?
[ ]
[x]
8.
Are fire barriers penetrated (e.g., walls, floors, or ceilings)?
[ }
[x}
f 9.
Is there modification of any piping, HVAC duct, or electrical raceway
[ ]
[x]
configuration?
- 10. Are any curbs, fire doors, fire dampers, drains, spray / drip shields, flame Ompingement barriers, protective wraps, cable coatings, or fire stops
[ ]
[x]
j modified?
- 11. Ara fire detection systems, subsystems, or components affected?
[ }
[x]
- 12. Is there any modification to HVAC flow rates or direction?
[ j~ [x]
- 13. Will any combustible or flammahle materials (e.g., cable insulation, lubrication oil, diesel fuel, wood, plastics) be introduced (or removed)
[ ]
[x]
j by the change?
k 1*. Does the change modify any emergency lighting units, or install any
[ ]
[x]
potential obstructions to light paths?
i
- 15. Does the change modify the status (locked / unlocked; card-reader) of any
[ ]
[x]
door or gate?
- 16. Are fire suppression systems, subsy tems, or components affected?
[ ]
[x]
Lead Engineer Prian E.
Clark t
If the response to all items noted above is "No", an " Appendix R* compliance review is not required.
Page 3.17-4 Revision 1 i
i
)
Lo c AT1orJ O F P'!)A W W s
LINE NC. I-SW-117 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
..pn g* }f.
1 ua I
[L,',W Bitt OF MATERIAL N
(g f
e e
o l
istw orv otscainTion j
I f
I i
3
(,'
iso
- FS ww. plc,(ace 6 t, o4,5-)
[l
"'q l
2.
I G" 90' EtBOW j'
4 b
I f
'y
'g
.1 12.-G, 3/4" socxcLET
^
4
'l 6 0-9, t" socxettT l-6W 103-30-197
- I f
-SEE D7L A DETAIL A FOR CONT. SEE 5
t
%" B Att. valve e 50' 5 w. _ Montt.
2 VEE"wEsr S S '" "^ " -
- *' 6* vi e 73'"'.'i dt.'2
)
5 (F P 60079 )
hj >- '
d '
l p
1 (p* 00TTERFLY VALVE, AL E'R,MFE tt $rnE s
".f
- H t.UQ 000f 60',MANUAt. CFER.TArc t 5# ynt, g
7 I
(s* BuTTtat T WLVE,4L OR, WATER tt vtt, L
411Z]
f l4D30 l
't#1 0fvT 890'UMif t#QLf Coil 1Att SW Vn?
{4: T4 TT (NOTE ?){4t15 h %
g,,
l
-J 10 PI 02O(B'f 145m ) y P
t
/
DET AIL 'B' 1
SEE tt-07044 T73h, Q
l-SW V'll C' C # ##
O pt. A 4 io tv-edrict Toho c.o ni,Attet m t, 4.1, tr'w r D
\\'
t LF W eist :
se4a.,nsw 1~3 To t.
yoj.j-*g A FOR CONT. SEE ff rtqs:
ss.40t '
g73 l J,
(. HATE 3)l4tg s
p$p-E4060 SHT 7.
5.o. L, ai -
9 gw,,, sw 4
2ggpss w.
cg SKETS:'/g"TH4 RO6BER(EPOM)
A
. *)
$[( Q1('B'
'4
/j' 150* F ult F ACE.
g
, [4177 l- -
actTiure Monet s o-tt,4 e ns w e.
7 44 00,, 44 og
~~~
't Wto.Ytc, new ut Ao c A9 screw
[g \\,'
4m 8
%' to.2'/=*Lc, f'
FCR CONT. SEE 20 4/4"-10 2"tc, l4176 F s\\j
/
FSP-240(,0 SHT. 3 2
W '- 80
- 2 4 tr. "
hg Ih
,A w iHST Att pittEcTroE tusot.AioRs h
[
r[#-(,
LINE SPEC. '24 6 -Ill,CL.04fe GROUP %
g
]p(*
4100 ! v '
vEs EZ]
No E 3 PARTent O h'lp g
nucle AR S AFET Y RELATED (0-LtST)
J N
"Q'3 ; 6
+
FP-Q Q RW-Q C O
f.
-~.0 z"
0 soE-req'o. ASME SEC.T. III, CL. 3 g
N h
B ASE LINE PwHi lufwCT TEST CLEAN.
, 3 4 4
\\
N/A N/A N/A O
Notts CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Cpg (
UNIT d]
- l. At.L WELOS FREFlKEP 6'(
- i-5W'.
BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT i
j r.
Z. ORIENT HANPwHEEt.(trEH 5)uP.
PIPING ISOME TRIC - BLD*0.: REACTOR 60tLDtNC3 DWG. NO.
Jg 1 A 3.Bt METALLIC wet.D SYSTE M : SERV t C E.
WAT E R
{ L717 e ASESt3' FTR PM-82-2216 V
pe P-MOM a
T/y,, FIRST ISSUE PER P : #J S ;*..B in Ak 3 EL E v.: (-) l 7LO" t
.)
%5 acenovto"'*3.lou t4 '4-e_0 sHT.
I REv_ L
(
j 'fg eatt DESCRIPTION
- @[/
at'. o*s [0 'lS037 % 2 l D-24o(o O
- ..' m LMc N cutcato DMi r SP t
{
t l
L -
i
-/ /AC///7ENT 7 EEcr 'l3-oq j
SYSTEM #:
4060 gg.g,
4 TYPE EXSEIS 4
Pace: zo 1
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY P. O. BOX 1551 l
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602 L
JSW-0081 (ANALYSIS / CALCULATION #)
FOR l
EVALUATION OF THROUGH-WALL LEAK 1-SW-117-6-157 (TITLE) 1 FOR BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT UNIT 1 (PROJECT AND/OR PLANT NAME & APPLICABLE UNIT)
REACTOR BUILDING. UNIT 1/SW/ PIPING (STRUCTURE / SYSTEM / COMPONENT)
I YES NO SEISMIC:
2 O
SAFETY CLASS:
O CLASS A Rev. No.
Prepared ty/
Verified by/
Project Engineer /
Prin. or Res. Eng./
Date Date,
Date Date
. {/ 7!$1 3
)
4 /
YM y
~
//.!t /93 Reason for Change Reason for Change r
Reason for Change i
i
r CALCULATION WO.: 1SW-0081 Rev. O SHEET WO.:
1 A i iAcH/1esT E 6.4)
N %~0m2 Rev, 5 LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES E/
Pace Revision Pace Revision Pace Revisip_D f
0 0
1 0
2 0
/
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
7 0
APPENDICES A1 0
A2 0
l A3 0
A4 0
+
A5 0
A6 0
A7 0
A8 0
A9 0
B1 0
B2 0
B3 0
I TOTAL NUMBER OF CALCULATION PAGES:
20 t
i i
e I
t f
I
?
l i
v
f l
CALCULATION NO.: 1SW-0081 Rev. O SHEET NO.:
2 EER S3-OS~oz g
II.
(
Cd^! r
&q,
Q TABLE OF CONTENTS Pacc. 22 ITEM SHEET NO.
t t
COVER SHEET........................................ O j
LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES 1
i
//
TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
PURPOSE...................:........................ 3
[
l I
REFERENCES 4
l CALCULATIONS 5
CONCLUSIONS 7
APPENDICES A.
INFORMATION ONLY................................Al I
i i
B. DESIGN VERIFICATION RECORD......................B1 i
t t
(
t i
a f
f I
i f
?
?
i h
i 1
t 5
i
/
i' I
I CALCULATION NO.: ISW-0081 Rev. O SHEET NO.:
3 b TT Z Cwh EER 33~O502 RE4
\\
PURPOSE f/16E / 23 i
i To determine acceptability of the through-wall leak crack which--
i has been identified on line 1-SW-117-6-157 in accordance with references 1 & 3.
l
/
l e
i f
i l
l l
4 e
r i
I i
!'i a
l l
d i
. -..I
t a
CALCULATION NO.: 1SW-0081 Rev. O SHEET NO.:
4 EEE 93-osD2.
Ccd
[E4 h
1 ma: u REFERENCES j
I i'
1 USAS B31.1 1967 EDITION POWER PIPING CODE 2
ANSI B31.1 1973 SUMMER ADDENDA POMR PIPING CODE -
l APPENDIX A.
I 3
NRC GENERIC LETTER 90-05, " GUIDANCE FOR PERFORMING TEMPORARY NON-CODE REPAIR OF ASME CODE CLASS 1, 2, AND 3 PIPING",
DATED 6/15/90.
4 CP&L UT REPORT DATED 7/31/93.
SEE PAGES A3 THROUGH A9.
5 BSEP SPECIFICATION NO. 248-117, " SPECIFICATION FOR INSTALLATION OF PIPING SYSTEMS", REV 9.
i 6
NAVCO PIPING DATALOG, EDITION 10, JUNE 1 1974.
7 CALCULATION, SA-SW-823, REV 0.
I i
8 LOCATION AND DIAMETER OF THROUGH-WALL LEAK CRACK.
SEE PAGE A2.
l 9
PIPING DRAWINGS, D-25037 SHEET 2, R63.
1-FP-60879, RV.
j D-28046 SHEET 823, R0 I
l i
I i
I i
l f
I i
i l
e i
b7T 5 [M>\\
d ER 95-osua
(
Ve v. e b'E* &
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
. g 3g (q3 ISW-0081 j
f Checked by: '
Lates Pg. 5 of -
Rev. O PID No.:
File:
CALCULATION SHEET Project
Title:
BSEP UNIT 1 Calculation
Title:
Evaluation of Through-Wall Leak, 1-SW-117-6-157 Status:
Prelim.
Final E
Void '
1 Determine actual pipe stresses:
The location of the through-wall leak is on the elbow to flange weld identified as node 30 on piping isometric D-28046 sheet 823, (ref. 8 and 9).
Deadweight 540 psi Pressure 776 psi Thermal (90 F) 600 psi Thermal (33 F) 1069 psi Thermal Range 1669 psi Seismic (DBE) 3500 psi Combined 6485 psi Determine minimum wall thickness (t ) per reference 1.
1-SW-117-6-157 6"
sch 40, 6.625" O.D.,
t = 0.280", A106 GR B or A333 GR 6 j
design pressure = 150 psig, design temperature = 105 'F 15000 psi S
=
3 t, = (PD,) / (2 (SE+Py) )
+A P = Design Pressure, (psig)
D = Outside Diameter, (inch) o SE = Allowable Strass, (psi) y = factor = 0.4 1
A = Additional thickness required by Code = 0.0"
- 6. 625 ) / (2 (150 0 0+150
- 0. 4 ) ) + 0.0 = 0.033 inch t,=
(150 Note : The minimum wall thickness identified in the UT report is 0.100 inch.
See pages A3 through A9.
h f
Arr. 2 6 O
- L13 /N g
CAROLINA' POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 1 W-081 Check by:
Dater Pg. 6 of Rev. O PID No.:
CALCULATION SHEET l File:
)
Project
Title:
BSEP UNIT 1 Calculation
Title:
Evaluation of Through-Wall Leak, 1-SW-117-6-157 Status:
Prelim.
Final Void 'O l
Determine stress intensity, (K):
1 From page A4, the minimum wall thickness in the vicinity of
)
the through-wall crack is 0.100 inch.
Since the defect is a hair-line crack 1/8 inch long (page A1), it is reasonable to assume that the crack diameter at a depth of 0.033 inch l
(t ) is less than 3/8 inch.
i Therefore, 2a = 0.375 inch and a = 0.1875 inch.
I R = mean pipe radius = (6. 625-0. 28 0) /2 = 3.1725 inch c = a / (3.1416
- R) = 0.1875/ (3.1416*3.1725) = 0.018813 l
r = R/t, = 3.1725/0. 033 = 96.13 63 6 I
A = -3.2654 3 + 1.52784 *r -0.072698*r2 3
+0.0016011*r = 894.32 i
B = 11. 3 6 3 2 2 - 3. 91412
- r + 0.18 619
- r2 -0. 0 04 099
- r' = -22 8 6.1 C=
-3.18609 + 3.84763*r -0.18304*r2 3
+0.00403*r 2255.7
=
i l
2 F=1 + A*c 5 + B
- c.s + C*c'5 = 3.199 s = 6.485'ESI, from previous page K = 1.4
- s*F*
(3.1416
- a) 2/2 = 22. 3 KSI(IN) 2/2 l
Determine Acceptability:
Allowable stress intensity = 35 KSI (IN) 2/2 Actual stress intensity = 22.3 KSI(IN)2/2 22.3 < 35 Acceptable 1
4 4
i r
n.
CALCULATION NO.: 1SW-0081 Rev. O SHEET NO.:
7 f
A n 2ko4) m n-o:roz eu.
e CONCLUSzoNS Qgglg7 The through-wall leak crack which has been identified on line i
1-SW-117-6-157 satisfies the criteria of the "Threugh Wall Flaw" j
approach in accordance with reference 3.
Structural integrity and flaw stability are acceptable.
J
/,
t Note that, per reference 3, a Code repair is still required during the current refueling out, age.
e 4
I t
t v
i i
i e
?
l I
?
l
6 4
' CALCULATION NO.: 1SW-0081 Rev..O SHEET NO.:
A1 f~gg g3 67o7 l
C ^'
Ve v.
4 APPENDIX A f46E,*88 INFORMATION ONLY i
i t.
i i
.i f
i I
A i
)
1 B
t i
i 3
Y s
1 l
/$TT, -2 (coa'r)
Egg $, 93-ouz o
Csu. r,b.
15vJ-OOTf kv O
P n a fr k ~ O q
Iks D C-FGC. T uJ 7 TAG ELBou3
'TO ELAU6(
L4 GW vDS1rLeA.a oF v%tv G l-Sco-V(l(o i
LS A
(-l M P_.
ut p 6 /
c_f2.A CA A DF-d >C.
/3 Leos.
t cLM' o
r f
r
)
4
.-y e.,
7,
A TT. 2 dcear)s EEr VJ -os at i
. :a.,
-Das! b.2 777 geg, e PAGE' l 3D C A tc. 1. D.
1SVJ,oOSI kv O Pe A3
@ /A\\
fw19 YD h
r 2-h.
@A
' Foz em, SEE
~~
~*
_,,~s
% P-9tb41-112.
N "N
i.N, -v;d 3 ; 4.;
k FW 20 l
'p @D
/T\\ /
h NOTE:
1
$ INSTALL PIELELTEJc f
{
g INSULATORS.
No wNr y
ustET:vs' m.
, stg7cq 8 FULL FACE, EPPM b
FW'21 l 7
.F02 60 m. 6EE 7
g 9K -P. 9/ci+7 -/c e D
- FOR COMT. 6EE
%- F'- 9ta47 un t G. lG' FFWN FL6.
LINE NO, i.sw.103 15 7 6 Ird 97L2 ELL I-SW-117 - G IM 4.130' <& WOL
/
3.12 FrWN FL6 PR07ES$0NAL ENC;hEER:
7, g.,2'WOL EN N'
g' jg* c3g D 5.E.E'A'A CARollNA POWER & UOHT COMPANY DE<MEIPilON NUCLEAR ENGINEERINO DEPARTMENT ssi. 5kW5HKr A' ult /AR FRD.tfCT !SXEM-o l
l 1
l l
t Tiit.E:
i l
l ijl l
NU(LEAR. WEADEf 4 hml Mjff14
- i/If igejai' tJM PIPIM (b BLM c
a mceti otscaintio~
o*~!ardce.d evioetierat % EP-605E3 bcv - 15 t:
r
!!$c so Sf P-91047-IlO
! s-t: /r
Arr, 2 knh)
Csu t6.
pxy o ]go 3* eat
. rev.si.8.....
i sv_ ocet
.,o w f
5l Carcitae Pever S Ught Company NOE oat.ausG ATTACHMENT PAGE_ OF_
PaoJECT "Eq p JOB No.
UNn" 1720 30 40 cart 7-Ir-93 _
MAWING SYSTEM UNE WELD /f7EM NUMBER 4t -P-9 n o4*7 - 11o
(, rad Et WTE/L.-
I n - fo - t 5 1 Wctc A A-SCAst uT ~ksot ri e
i 3
s4
}
9 1
ser,o wt.s 7
%t-4}
f y
1
\\
/
i i
.==
=..
=m
Arn z 4) cu
- r. b.
'3 m
- *ostu rvo
.,,s sesst Q
ggQ_$3g{
\\/
em.c..g Carettaa Power S Lignt Carapeny hk NDE r.p c. m 's G ATTACHMENT PAGE_ OF _
Pao.!ECT EQP JOB NO.
UNIT 1720 20 40 carEM-%
l UNE117-6-157 b/'ab B ORAWING SYSTEM WEp/TTEM NUMBER 6t.P-Q I D47 - 1 I o W ic.E w W r c A A nr4 uT Wm1 f
i sat.:.
C'- 1' I
YUY
/
MMT YI b4CT 'TD
\\
i
)
b i
(
f S
15 4
d k
e l \\e
.l I 6
.S 4
i,
\\
u y V 1
5-i i
4 h l
l
(
4 i
2 J
]s i -d. _
.-[-
'l
(
i g'jg'
,--i.+__
-)<
g}
~
s. _.[ g - >. p.
, ~ 12,-s... -
e 3--
N]
i 1
3 p
I-
$ --s.7.Y
~~
., ~ um. -
D
's l
Md L1IE
.n =
= -.< :
=n
i
[
Rev. 10/91 UNIT 0 Ret: Life of attachments RMP-007 Page 1 of 1 I
ILLEGIBLE RECORD ACCEPTANCE FORM originator requests acceptance of this document and accepts responsibility for the illegible condition of this data.
Document Identity ER 93- 05 02 R tv O rymt Is; l
6' 33 +Jun %.
NOTE:
The identity of the illegible record *or illegible page (s) within the f
record shall be provided by the originator of this form by i
identifying and inserting this form preceding the illegible data.
In cases where tha entire record is considered illegible, this form precedes the record.
Please complete Part A pl B.
l 7JJYYYYYY7JyYYYYx x x x x x x x x x x x qwm,AAyJJ x x x x x x x x x x x x_ x x x x x x x x x x x x_ x x x x x x x x x x C
AAAyJyJXy y_ x_x_ x _x x_ _x x x x x x x x__1_x x x x x x x x x x_ x x x x x 1_x 1JMY x x x x x x x x__x x ym_ _x x__x x_ x_ _x x x x x 1,7R PART A The attached record is suitable for microfilming because:
4 It is non-Q or nonvital records or the data which is relevant to the identification of the item is legible and/or the data can be provided from other sources.
Signed:
Title:
boe Y Jmut
/
$bN Date XXXhhx x__x_ x x x x x x x x x x_7JXAAy x x x x x x x xxx x x x x x x x x_ umgJ)OQQQ(
AAAAAAywJJJ AAymJJXXXXYY 1 x x x x x x x x x x x x _ x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xxx x. x x x x x x YYYYi x x x x x 1 Il x
PART B The attacned record is the most legible copy available and may be retained in the RFR.
i
/
l Originating Supervisor Date Reviewed:
/
Supervisor - Project Services Date Data Processing /
Records Receipt A
I i
i O RMP-007 Rev. 9 Page 21 of 24 1
i Y
e
- a
/$W
$ (GWT.:)
~
' Cat.c. I.b.
\\ 6 vJ- 0081 flEV O
%G.E. Af, Nj!,3l 70?.III 5::es M( D-6702 NEO N wiRTIFIEE TEICIN!S!
UNITS FLACS SU i
? M E,' &
DE 37 i VIL(/sS) DIFF LO-ALM EI-ALE IIT-BLAKI UNIIS TEAEIDUCIE CAIN G 0.1315 0.000 0.000 10.000 0.000 IN D150/191 53 0.1315 0.000 0.000 10.030 0.000 IN D190/791 55 2
0.1315 C.030 0.000 10.000 0.000 IN D730/731 49 4
0.231! D.000 0.000 10.000 0.003 IE D790/731 41
~5 0.1315 0.000 C 000 10.000 0.000 IN 3730/791 48 01 iiienase: IDP t!!
Operat::: C10103 UNIECii,E ELA:I Lc:stion: -?' SD'JTii EER Da:e:7/31/195)
?i:e: 11:0)
Prc~te 10 31SD/?il for S'Ji !
3*S0!?!1 !:: S"! !
3790/ii. f::IUt.
5150!751 f:: EUI 4 ti!G/751 ft: sui i i
C:::etts:
Ti.0:I WI!! VI!E FLOF. 3A!! EITEL 0;EAED WAS l' UP AfD D0VE STEIA!
a 6
r l
l i
r I
- /
- \\
'I hec (c.
i h
- h a
l I
i
Arr 2
%D i
Cu _T h i sW-oog t hvO Pu-a A7
&J
!C?.71:
l f
D02 l
c Ce
. !! Directics
- O!ccivise Offset *O
~
FNc:34 A
i C
3 i
F G
H I
J E
L li 0
P G
i U
j 10.2710.277 0.2(5 0.2310.2210.2(3 0.260 0.253 0.145 0.264 0.300 0.272 0.273 0.!!! 0.232 0.252 0.213 0.235 C.303 0.!!0 0.274 2 3.259 I.278 0.247 0.136 0.235 0.237 0.258 0.!!! 0.259 0.269 0.281 C.275 0.292 0.233 0.239 0.228 0.2110.28i 0.23! C.253 0.!!5 l
2 0.255 0.266 0.274 0.2!! 0.210 0.248 C.257 0.252 0.!!i 0.253 0.250 C.290 0.274 0.295 0.301 0.293 C.304 0.275 0.2i2 0.28i 2.251 4 0.207 0.335 0.345 0.305 0.320 0.!!5 2.320 C.234 0.312 0.315 0.33! 0.343 0.359 0.!!0 0.363 0.232 C.357 D.32: 0.334 C.320 0.237 5 S.320 0.3:7 0.*Di 0.222 0.23! 0.20s 0.223 0.3010.3210.337 0.333 0.334 R329 0.332 0.314 0.3i3 C.302 0.312 0.324 0.31! 0.302 5 0.32! 3.324 0.312 0.2!5 0.255 0.310 C.314 c.3110.214 0.335 0.335 C.325 0.232 0.328 0.323 0.305 0.305 0.322 0.3310.3!i 0.305 7 C 33; 0.230 0.222 0.215 0.190 0.34' O.225 0.223 t.321 0.323 0.330 0.3310.335 0.2310.315 C.30' O.223 3.322 0.212 0.;05 A
5 C
D E
~
G E
I J
I L.
E N
0 F
G i
i l'
C3;fr 0.330 0.335 0.34! 0.31!.320 0.342 0.325 0.334 0.3210.337 0. 39 0.3(3 0.3!! 0.350 0.353 C.353 0.357 0.323 0.324 0.233 0.205 l
Celf.c 0.255 0.255 0.245 0.2310.222 0.227 3.257 D 252 0.249 0.253 0.2B; 0.272 0.273 0.282 0.212 0.283 0.302 C.!ii 0.2510.'.53 0.2i1 hhz 0.375 0.070 0.100 0.0i( 0.0!i 0.105 0.055 0.0i2 0.072 0.074 0.055 0.0710. Dis 0.053 0 Dil C 075 0.0!! D.047 0.052 0.047 0.044 Ave 0.237 0.304 0.25 D.272 0.255 0.287 0.294 0.!!! 0.195 0.3010.313 0.3110.312 0.316 0.319 C.3110.315 0.20( 0.314 0.3;! 0.2!!
i 13E2 EcWE Delta Ave 4
. 0.315 0.222 C.095 0.271 2 0.31! 0.235 0.C?5 0.27 3 0.304 0.230 0.074 273 t
4 D.3!! 0.287 0.07E 0.330 5 0.363 0.!!3 0.085 0.311 1
i 0.336 0.255 0.081 0.315 i 0.342 0.29 t.05 5.323 l
1 f
i ie:ti: sant!
uns;: leaMtg :. 313 (
- 4. 0)
Averige
- 0.30D Firitu stadi:g : 5.222 '
!. I Standard Leviatic: : ;.03:
hts! leah:gt : !4!
l p
1 2
i I
i I
l l
l l
1 i
I i
Arr, 2 %'r)
.PE:ni C a.c I.b.
15vJ- 00f t Pav o Pm Ag 3:ne.n:
htt Ea 93_arot dE V. @
. ig!IIIIE TEICEKI!3 "KI!!
ILAC3 IU I 0i
@c,g l 39 3" i VIL(/sS) ;IFF LO-AL!! El-ALM Eli-! LANE ENIIS TRAK 5DU0ii CAIN dB 0.23!! 0.000 0.000 10.000 0.000 IN D750/7S1 53 1
0.2316 0.000 0.000 10.000 0.000 15 L7!0/7!!
55 C.1316 0.000 0.000 it.000 0.0D0 IN 0750/75:
54 4-4 0.1318 0.000 0.000 10.000 0.000 IN 3793/791 50 i
0.131i 0.000 0.000 10.000 0.000 IF 0730/151 52 C.131E 0.000 0.000 10.000 0.000 15 L790/191 51 0.231! 0.000 0.000 10.000 0.00C IN D7!0/191 56 i
s 0.1315 0.000 0.000 15.000 0.000 IN D790/731 57 GI hie:ame: 30ii2.?IT
. Operator: CE0iOI L!%IEIE.ED ELA01 Lccation: -7'SOUTE EEE Late: 7/31/!!93 i
ii:e: 15:46
? :h It: D790/791 for SUI !
D790!791 fe: sui i D730/751 for sui 3 D750/751 fe: SUI (
Si!0/7!. fer SUI i E7!0!731 for 5;l E l
L75C/75 fer SUI i l
L7E/7:'
'-- cUi E i
0.
..s:
i:!!CM VILO E LEAE A: 00*. 15 U??Il VILD TOE i
f A
I i
I l
l 8 l"M3
/-) 77 L (Cedt)
M %=M.
j C Au
_L. h i%J-00Tl Rev O Pncs_ A9 l:g ) C.t
- .Lm,v......
1.
!'ain fertie: E
'l ta 1:ws 5 Cols !! Oirection. Cle:rvise Offset D n
K-11 8+
sf it.
Il (6
l't 40 2.(
i s.
7 4
3-(,
1 t.
[7e A
B C
0 I
I C
i E
L M
N 0
i i
U 1 I.315 0.3010.312 0.2iS 0.314 0.314 0.305 0.332 0.255 C.310 0.3110.315 0.315 0.210 C.3f; 0.295 0.254 0.!!! 0.253 C.313 C.!!'
2 0.312 L.296 0.226 C.2!4 0.333 0.321 3.233 0.236 0.303 0.314 0.307 0.303 C.208 0.322 0.30i 0.255 0.27! C.2"! 0.273 :.27! :.lii 3 0.255 0.!?i 0.320 0.235 L.320 0.327 0.3210.198 0.282 0.2910.315 0.316 C.332 3.3110.18" 0.175 0.:20 0.185 0.25! 0.2!
X 4 t.333 C.255 C.309 C.33! 0.2910.304 0.315 0.344 C.34i 0.315 ).315 L.370 0.343 0.320 0.1 : ;.2010.276 0.357 0.374. 33: :.3!! f,
- i C.33 0.3:0 0.3!7 t 31! 0.324 0.30! I.31" 0.301 C.255 0.313 C.35! 0.4:0 0;410 0.405 0.3Ei t.3:5 0.345 0.::: : 39: 0.:3 0.3!:. m/cl7 A
i C
L i
i E
I J
E L
E E
0 i
i Co hr 0.333 0.3!C D 3 H 0.335 0.333 0.32" :... C.344 0.345 0.315 0.3!! C.430 C.410 0.405 0.36! 0.311 0.345 0.333. 3i! :. !: ?.3!!
Colf.n e.!!! L.2710.11! D.293 0.2310.304 0.259 0.!!i 0.!!i 0.!!4 0.307 0.309 0.30B 0.31; D.176. 373 :.*23 0.275 :.27
.27~ a.!!!
Delta 0.031 0.03! :.034 0.045 C.042 0.0:3 0.022 0.04i 0.03: 0.024 0.052 0.1:1 E.102 0.Ci! 0.!!! 0.14C.!!! C.105 J..;3 C.:!! 0.10:
h e u.a**.*s*.99tu.. v.3 hr*
- 3na.. ac u.316 0.314 g r
e
.=la C.3f4
.*..$a a
- C.
- j 0 C. 9 H..a.348 C.*4* *..i.'.* * *7: C.9ta.a u..:4 v.3-. a.. 4 4 =.. u. *
- e.., n a ***
- a a.
a..
. i..a
- M ^f5 Eev*r !:et Leita he 1 0.!!!,,.234 0.0"7 0.30s Y
2 0.3*: :.2!! 3. 75 0.2!!
l Y l< c.sza o a C..,,.
,,75 la.. < *..
u..
...:e 4 0.318 0.l*f 0.!!! 0.315
! 0.430 (.2H :.171 :.347 3e::i:* Sur: art Yr
- iead;u : 2.42 herne
.2 Endir; : v. "i f
- 4. Ci I: dard Ceria:i:t : 0.H:
~ a. Eead:Ms
- i l
)
a s
CA1,dUJ.ATION NO. : 1SW-0081 Rev. 0 SHEET NO.:
B1 ATrZ(co.h) ege g, _ a,,,7 APPENDIX B ke: 3 DESIGN VERIFICATION i:
e
[ hoa h Appendix B Page B2 jj,
~
DISCIPLINE DESIGN VERIFICATION RECORD DN i
?E4, &
Sheet 1 vf 2 I.
Instructions to Verification Personnel OAGE / 38 Plant BRUNSWICK STFJJ! ELECTRIC PLANT O Level
[x] Q (Class A)
Project
[] Seismic (Class B)
File No.
[] FP-Q (Class D)
Document No. ISW-0081 Rev. 0
[ ] Other Design verification should be done in accordance with ANSI N45.2.11, Section 6 as amended by Regulatory Guide 1.64, Rev. 2.
Special Instructions:
I Discipline Project Engineer
/
II.
Verification Documentation Arolicable Discipline Mechanical
[x]
Civil Structural
[]
[]
Seismic Equip. Qual.
[]
Electrical
[]
Civil Stress
[]
[]
Fire Protection
[]
Environmental Qualification
[]
Human Factors
[]
Materials
[]
Other:
[]
i Verification Methods Used:
[X] Design Review
[] Alternate Calculations
[] Qualification Testing l
4 Desicrn Document Acceptable:
'e s [X]
No [ ] (comments attached)
Design verifier:
[1 N f )
Date
~7 /7 / /9 T Acknowledgement g rification:
(DPE)
/ / C<J Date I/// lS-?
III. Resolution of Co=ments:
Comments Resolved (See Attached):
(RE)
Date Action taken makes Design Documents Acceptable:
Design Verifier:
Date (DPE)
Date Proc. 3.3 Rev. 1
A77, [ (ccy)7 Appendix B Page E3 1-ece 93-oroz R'cv,
4 Pace f 39 DISCIPLINE DESIGN VERIFICATION RECORD Sheet 2 of 2 COMMENT SHEET Plant PRUNSWICV STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
Project File No.
Document No.
ISW-0081 Rev. O This sheet is only required when comments are being made.
O Aaxpt COMMENT RESOLVED RESOLUTION
.-