ML20141F307
| ML20141F307 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 05/01/1995 |
| From: | Ritz G DUQUESNE LIGHT CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141F268 | List: |
| References | |
| 8700-DSC-6545, 8700-DSC-6545-R01, 8700-DSC-6545-R1, NUDOCS 9705210272 | |
| Download: ML20141F307 (83) | |
Text
4 DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY A1.oo2D Nuclear Engincaring Department DESIGN ANALYSIS / CALCULATION COVER SHEET Design Analysis IXl Alternate Calculation I i Unit 1 Page 1 of 20 j
CALCULATION TITLE (Indicative of the Objective) :
QA Category IXl I-SR i l II ANCHORAGE EVALUATION FOR BAT-CHG-2 l l III l ! F
' System Bldo Calculation No.
Ibov e Add Seismic l
38 SRVB 8700-DSC-6545
.1. f N/A YES IXl NO I l Pr.aoased bv/Date Checked bv/Date Confirmation Reed.
C z
5-1-95 Apcese 3-/ 9 $
Appi;;pved' by/Date EA Review by/Date
~
l l IXl l
iW f 5l
/
j 1
CROSS REFERENCE DATA V TER 9294
Supersedes Calc,Rev, Add 8700-DSC-6545-0-1 Supplement Calc,Rev, Add Purchase Order No.
Pipe Line No.
Cable / Raceway No.
Software, Rev.used Referenced Drawings 8700-1.24-44A
- g &R: ' 'jT.
4
\\
Y y%
- b. ' [-' \\.
N erp
,%d 7jh![
g' V FOR INFORMATION Of '!
TruG EUi;ihi &riAd NGi di.
-TG
- :c h--!
MasonM pHymicAt wngLnn e iM s
ACTMTIES WHICl AndCTLY AF -
Equipment Mark Nos-EIN BAT-CHG-2 N O""
.a
~ s. ~&? <
,3
\\j
--,;4:S q
g.), d e.
h o q'yg. >_ kQ
,=FYYF hN y
M s
4 y.
s Additional Data Analysis designs a substitute floor anchor for sub]ect equipment to correct an anchor bolt deficiency discovered dur-ing a SQUG walkdown inspection. This revision is to inhoprporate the use of stainless steel angle, which resulted from BVPS stock material limitatios.
9705210272 970516 PDR ADOCK 05000334 P
A Duquasne Light Company Analysis Sheet
'A FN 2O Pm 2 et }W COMPrr m BY C Yh D A rc /- /2 95 CHECKED BY [/ DATE ANALYSIS NO. (3EI.OW)
DCS DATA INPUT SHEET FOR ANALYSIS /C ALCULATION
\\
1917191/i-I Di SICl-6 l ri4 ;s i i i i i ; i i i,,, j
,}
Doc.
o.
Title 14tvicINIot#141'IEl IG IVI A It lul A ITI /lo iM I pi o t/?
igAi7-l_ic[igia i ; i i,( i i i g si i iiI I I I I I I I I I I I i l I I i i i i i i l'1 Uniti I I il Bldg. I Sif'l ul 6[I l\\1 id Addendum i I i i i Revision Q/A Category \\ L I III Seismic Category i I 1 51
- s. i i i/ ici l
Originator's Last Name l#71d IV'CI18 WI 1 I I I I I I I i i i I
(ODO =Co. Name)
INi i$iF 01 W
I i i I i i i ii i i i i i Verifier's Last Name i
(ODO =Co. Name)
Originator's d
I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I i 1 I I I I I I I i I (ODO) Calc. No.
I lb 1 1 1 Rev. Date (Director's Approval)
IM i ! 1 I - l I I I I I 1 I i i i i i t i ri i Replaced Document R [1 1 I I Ef/IE I I I I I Ad 1 I I I Rtype l
!I i I I I I I I I i i I i i i i i i i i i i i i i Replaced Document Add. l \\ l I
Rev. I I I I Rtype l I I I I I I I I i I I I 1 1 I i 11 1 I I ! i I i i i i i iiii Replaced Document Rtype l I i 1 I I I I I Add.I I I I Rev. I I I I 1 13181,1 I i 1,1 I I
O. Number l i I I I I i i iii System Number 1814171-1Cd1-12) i i i i i i i i i i i i iii Mark / Equip /Sprt. No.(s)
IM i i I th I I I i i i i i i i iii I I I I I I iAiiiiiiiiNiiiii,i,,i,i i i i I!! I I I I I I I I I lh I I I i I i i i i ii l I Reference Dwgs.
I I!!
lhiiiI I
I I I I I I I I I I I I i I i ii (e.g. ISO. RE's) gi7 oioi.ipigi izi7,gi i i i ; \\, i,, ;,,,,
I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I i 1 I I l\\ i 1 1 i i i ii i\\iii,iii l 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ii\\I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i i i ii I i 1 i I I I I I I I I I I i i I i i ihiiiii Idi/'Al I I i i l I I i I Cable /Racew N.
I Ib I i I I i i I I I I I I I Line(pipe l-iNi/l M i i i i DCP IWI I i 1 SMRI I I I I i Temp Mod I TER I 191El91M I C.O. No. I i t1
'J I
' ' ' ' ' I I I i 1 1 I I I I I I I i i i i. i !
So are Used (Name)
INI I I I I I I I I I I Dated I i iiI i i oftware Version EM No(s)l/f/l /l i 1 - 1 1: I I l - - -I I
l---.1 : 1 I I I I I 1: I i i i i i i
4.
l DUQUZ NE LICHT CMMPANY ANALYSIS SHEET
-m DESIGN ANALYSIS
- 74o Osc.654 P d1 l
PAGE 3
OF fJ-f 2BJ f
V V Preparcd by:
C.V., Ma,ncuco Diato:
01/12/95 Checked by:
/A/ M 4 Date
///.7/4 f G
i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 8 COPE.............................
4 2.0 DESIGN INPUT8.....................
4 3.0 REFERENCE8........................
4 i
4.0 METHOD OF ANALYSIS................
4 5.0 COMPUTER PROGRAM..................
4 6.0 A88UMPTIONS.......................
5 7.0 DEFINITIONS.......................
5 S.0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA...............
5 9.0 SAMPLE CALCLUATIONS...............
5 10.0 BODY OF ANALYSIS.................
5
11.0 CONCLUSION
8......................
10 12.0 RECChMENDATION8..................
10 13.0 ATTACEMENT8......................
10 N
4 i
kruermenf A iy Int /vded ArrAcijneJE'8 L29 AMM WoRHamd 5
2 1
J 4
m
DUQUESNE lit:H1 COMPANY ANALYSIS SHEET fs _
DESIGN ANALYSIS 8700-DSC-654 7_--!]
l PAGE 4
OF /X20)
{ d!.
Prepared by: C Mancuso Date: 1-12-95 Checked by:
/M/.,4'A/4AQ Date
///3/$5
()
1.O BACKGROUND 1.1 During an anchor bolt inspection of the anchorage on Battery Charger (BAT-CHG-2), three of the four 5/8 inch shell anchors on the front (north) side of the enclosure were found to be inactive.
1.2 The scope of this analysis is to design a new anchorage detail for the front of this enclosure.
The new anchorage will be installed as a Design Equivalent Change per TER 9294.
20 DESIGN INPUTS 2.1 TER 929 De gn Equivalent Change 2.2 ARS curves, El 713.5 feet, Service Building, 1% damping SSE 2.3 Original Procurement Specification BVS-492 2.4 8700-1.24-44A " Seismic Test Results for BAT-CHG-1 thru 4" by l
Gaynes Engineering and Testing Laboratories.
2.5 70.0-1,24.65M' Ins _
2.G BM-SZ, 80P2-l 2rguayzigAL Dggian) d2 lb 3.0 R ranEK E&
_e s/'
3.1 AISC Manual of Steel Construction 8th Edition 3.2 ES-G-015 " Design Criteria for Drilled In concrete Anchor Bolts" 4.O METHOD OF ANALYSIS 4.1 The actual "g" acceleration values are derived from the floor ARS curves based on the fundamental natural frequency of the battery charger derived during seismic testing (Design Input 2.4).
4.2 The g values are applied to the weight of the cabinet and used to derive anchor bolt loads.
The allowable loads are obtained from Ref 3.2 4.3 The connection of the new base angle to the cabinet structure is designed using Reference 3.1 5.0 COMPUTER PROGp_n_
NOT USED - This is a Manual Analysis
_m.____--_-__
-___.-_--m
____._-_m______-_m.__
.m___._-_
--_--__u
u, i
DUQUESNE LICHT _C;MPANY ANALYSIS SHEET m
DESIGN ANALYSIS 8700-DSC-654f-I \\
l PAGE 5
OF X2C. lb Prepared by: C Mancuso Date: 1-12-95
~~
~
Checked by:
4t/. #A/d A p.
Date
///3/g5 g
i 6.0 ASSUMPTIONS 6.1 The Center of Gravity of the cabinet is at mid-height.
This is confirmed based on a field walkdown which indicates the heavier
~
internal components are located at mid-height and lower.
6.2 The base of the cabinet will rotate about its centroidal axis in bending.
7.0 DEFINITIONS 7.1 cabinet - the enclosure for BAT-CHG-2 and all its internal j
components.
7.2 All other standard definitions apply.
8.O ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 8.1 For 3/8" Hilti Bolts, 3 inch min embeddment, T(allowable)
=
1070 pounds and S(allowable) = 1350 pounds.
8.2 Shear Stress in bolts F(shear) =.4 Fy 8.3 Bea Stress in fr eF aring) = 1.5 Fu s.4 Fwe or.u cooe awsears xWE; x[ A e.0 8mctmAtTow3 foe 086.
NOT USED N
10.0 BODY OF ANALYSIS SEE NEXT PAGE
U7dC - O SC --
6 ES
[ '?
auntvsis No O Duquesne Light Company gy' PAGE Analysis Sheet
^
h0U h#
cHECXE0 By
/ '/ 3 /75
(
/
DATE Y
f frtSL hi,4
/2.(.6
- 4. V,
v S
W 6
}
r e
e rt ~ ~
e "g
(9 (B
F~~~ 7 to
\\
{
\\
/
3, PT
(
\\
y.,#8 year
,,.ec )
oor e #
I
+.-- S p,s",
l 80 er 14 i
i k
IS p
18
,n t
+
+
+
19 h
9
( Exn,Ac, T/e *,4 t,,,,,,,,,
,a g
1 S
\\
m 7.7 //c 22 M
1
,k J
23 e
r A
A '-
. flo4 L/
ir. 44.,
x 2e u ia '^
s 27 j
j%rre j
~fhe S t Aue4on u - t.
se t9 S'06 l/ a w ies >c1 Ev t l
'o tec ras u
yerre ?. : *The 's As.cnua ;>
n ij e1:a,-,,i ss e m n,1,wei s
n y
4 nefe.ted :n f4h s.,
- ty s. )
lue:gr =
940 (Dimmots spe F ew meaus ob as L
c y..
7g e.
D s:.,, r o.r 2. 3, hr I32_
}n vsE W = lC00 # 0 "' ' ' ' '
n b~n h
0Asto O~
F,'r / J 5 sp o. t.. s i 4t C.6 n
[Au.y >,.- 6, /]
4 qso as s.,r w
Fw. r 0- (3.,w i lade IVAra^ FM+ ray DCC 'h t IT
/9/t7 s
S,oe - ro-9, oc FS He s
o S 9 se c.un s p,,:a.
- Duquesne Light Company
? 706 ' - C ';,C-9 6 Y ( - /,) /_L\\,
Aratvsrs No PAGE 7 contro sv oIre
> - /2 7 $
p[ g ]
Analysis Sheet CHECMED BY
[f/
///.5/95 N
OATE
.s 1
g-
/
l0 (LJ c' ' *
- I grp,, e g-y og, Qg(, YkQ
& }; ', / O.,
3 a we 4,s.,.., - : e,,c,c s?L
~1 th 3,,.,4 u, 2.
% ( L=.
.ll-X l$
./b
{.A TT 'T*'
=
3, C M - s.) ' =-
. 12-x i. s
.ie y
=
(No 3y (v en) 152 x 15
.zz6 3 ve, n,)
t' 10 il 12 1s C a n.a
,a
/ n,.,.
-te~>..-
/*g = 9,(w)
=
19)
" ) ~~ / G o t 1
1.
9, (w) =
(.MS.)(io<>o) =
16 5 *
,P 1r x1 1,-
p, o
- s.,.
3y..22 e v,. s
,, < t 4,.,
f.o3 y
30 l
21 (26~)CF7)_
(28"K/80*),
/ B'O T4 22 (2 soin)(/g")
(z ){ // ")
as ar 28"f/G5"))..
/82 5 Y,c.,
(.
f as
=
(z % )
(n.a "
31
--f'.,,, =
' 34 2.G Y X 2. =
7 2 5*'
n r
% n e, rc.e lo a < <.., r A - p,,.,%$ a c ti..,
C A t tus AT'*-
blGAt vo-s- ~
36
)l
S,..
((& ' + Px *)
\\[(/ gcf) +665)
/o /
=.
1: 1
f 6.io y bir, 5, to g s.
- n f u s r--
3/g ?,6 jy te; (toiO 3 M'N kr* EM/3t o* rot g
-hg, u!
"T~nu. -
to po *' y 72 5
[pe, 3,z}
on
%~
/ *55 0 ' >
61 *
^ ore
'~
.e T/
e>
A n,..
(_ns 5
6l i
+
,q,
53 < )
at
- U
. Q / o >O SO
_--_=-.__-____.2____-___-_-______
g Duquesne Light Company c'7oo-c5C - G 516-/ M.
O-m AwAtysis no PAGE a {
b' Analysis Sheet :
~#
P
/![Mi(
- , A C,
CHECKED BY OATE
/.h.
2 3
)
& fr('
{Qp p g g t ig,
of~
( g,,9 gggg g $
-j g e
s
. F vip u.c..
/ shu 6
yn c.uwe r
%c Aw L I L x lz v c ' i
- W,
[p uf t' b$
)
f D I!' N *' N n._5._
[ &CC 31
'22 w
13 14 y
72c" 16 17 Cheee sue.m Cye: ty 1.
us 3 I A*!!)
6~ac r 0~
oc 19 2
U$o 6
/& T(e fs9,q 7 Ff o'A_t. _ftepteY!')
- ~ ' &
ON kNO hs D
' 23 n,t((scar Arr:4cAMfpr 'B'.)
^
n Aim few gog,7 ;
f,- % **
fu -
(0 000 py
- s w &er:
/:j " 35k.C/
fu = 75, 5 &
- J{;
n l
(W)& _
/ /
'.1
^
n A
N.ie '
a 6
~ 1
.n
.30 (12 c)(% ) -
A y,,
n
=
. oss., ~
32 n
Secn. " J. S.1 2 1 W.
' 34
$2 5 3* I
- e.,. %,
2z1.*
& s m p,,-
. p,
..icu. + iuoo,,-
3,
[n
- 4 5 7l,s.'
< )4 400,,:
O tc.
n s e e,.s I. T l s' 5 53, oc Re c % t
_i JO ls V-
_'7 2 $
jiI6L
,,,, ' (
). $~ fu l % 6 0 e M *-
9 0 '* s,-
y 3
ll *n
. oss-k t
' ( *3 I %I If L' ' p,- R f0000psl C)(
b 43-
'/6 ' Bosr s oe 4 " W e'/e.
'It "c~rs f>r4 y be u>rl. f n y hit > 4 tt a
es-
' gy.
44 A'
- 53'
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - -. _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ -. _ - _ _ - - _ - _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -.
annysis No O700- O 5 t* - 6 W.1~ / ) O 0 Duquesn3 Light Company PAGE f c
C"'
Analysis Sheet
~
d P
CHECKEO8Y DATE
///.f [# f
, 2Of f
h n;
/S y Ali ~
( o r m 1, 8,, %) /* )
{5v5y'$
2
/
4
/
5 s
G (f ge e. $ r, J.,3
- fe.,y
' t), h p />,,e 8
t/
ta j
Tp' p ~~ 72S~"
11 C
T' I I
Q:
64 (620.2 sG E T.l., '
s
,s 3*
}
g" d
f.
i'g,,7,e i.< ar,\\
% Eci<of I'* I' W' '
r
.is oc g44 %/
r 30,000 y
26
/, f ) 5 /0676 "
ggg /cg ::.6 A =
hr $-) '
f to
/M 5bo to an
-I's =
g _-
log
/*~//00 ps.
?','ee ps.*
C/(
s s,
. o u r.., s
/S,000 nei L
23 23 kl-2 '
E/6 15 ks o 8 & AC b eeLuAT*0A' w __.
._ f' I 1
YI)e.
A-
- /g *JN fee-ue w Op 1'4e B4er
- s. n-O 21 fit'&
/?o opf, & /t bwJ 0,,
ca p a,, ',,,
o/ y f, 2,~ 1Ao )
)
28
/f4'o -M4o)
/) $e v e.
39 30 31 32
$fACr b-Cp C$11%f A 33 ll
$p ar.'.y, V l0 /.s f *ov, e y r%
bH wa e
/ < t.
'2 sya w l
34 n
35 lyRh a,, 4 7' 4s 2 - o b.sndened. (Ep. n uo 94e //.$,
~T h t s & ll1 36 a,' //
. c hu 1
Wry Jrs,,//
d c c er > > <,.
sh ~7 he. shes-r O at e,,
j 37 od. */ / <
/> ///4, a -, J 4 a vt a.
ne3 3 4
- Q M" #
o-,
1%
// w.4 4 t
F
] 38
/o3Ns,
y,,
- g 40 W
- g.. -
D ce P.,
o ' -f $ t som // fo.) Js on 6 )
/-lo^/t*
ll,4 *> rs m o u<~e
..e, r Aim i,.m x s%.,,vs
,i
,. we s
43
'47-48
-Q 5 0' '
+
Um.h__
Emu.____i___
..__s______'_____m__m._______m_-_.__m____.______.__m. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _
____...__.___m__.m__
e l
DUQUESNE LItBT CANPANY ANALYSIS SHEET DESIGN ANALYSIS 8700-DSC-6546[/)
l PAGE
/o OF fdj Prepared by: C M,aricuso Date: 1-12-95 Checked by:
/A//./
Date
///J./9 7
11.0 CONCLUSION
S 11.1 Anchorage installation as described in TER 9294 is acceptable.
12.O RECOMMENDATIONS o
}.L l IEP ementatio_n_of T ended. eft./E57"/77/T/4/) CF '
l t
(A Rf S$. HA:%2 26 fiE*Kh'/775D W6 Tb 17T N/$AlW h *,,
y - w.-. ~...
-~ __.
~......
__,_....r-~
13.1 ARS curves (Design Input 2.2) 13.2 Excerpt from BVS-492 (Design Input 2.3)
- 13.3 Page 7 from Seismic Test Report (Design Input 2.4) 13.4 Enclosure Drawing (from Design Input 2.5) i I
a e
t A
e b
4
SERVICE BUILDING t-L
/13.50 TAKEM FROM ORIGINAL DISK CURVE SET NOo 10 DATED 20 APRIL 197_9 Ov-tCALC.NO. 11700. ~3 4 -NS t Gi - 00 A -R E V - 1 FLOOD AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SPEC TRA BY TIME HISTORv
! N C L trO F 9 '
t..'
N r >,',. r.'. ! ' t. o 4
ra fe r.
SSE E-W
' DIRECTION (X-AXIS)
DAMPING V ALUE= 0.010
=
0.80
=
=
0.70 l--
=
=_
0.s0 o o.
z 0.50 O
H
.a
'c E
cc 0.4e w
i w
E o
0.30 o
E c
E
_i
=
0.20
[
d.
,m nv
=
n S - li E
5 :, = : g 0.10 1-
$i
~
N
=
o.co 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
_ 1.00
- " ~~ $
PERIOD IN SECONOS
~-
~
SERVICE BUILDING l-L 713.50 l
TAKEN FROM ORIGINAL DISK CURVE SET NO.10 DATED 24 APRIL 1979 Bv-1 CALC.NO. 11700.3 4 -NStB)-0 08 - R EV-1 i
FLOOR AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRA BY TIME HISTORY (INCLUDES 1.2 NRC FACTOR 4 - T O.55 SEC.)
.VER DIRECTION (Y-AXIS)
7 0.64 I
0.56
~
l 1
8 o
b_
0.48
~
=
z
- 40 O
~
i Z
C b
Z O.32
[
f LtJ 2
Lt.J U
0.24
~
U E
~
q 0.16
[
f g = 0.is2.
h3 y
M eo g
.,I 0.08 CJ s
2 0.00 O.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 C.90 1
osvs~,A PERIOD IN SECONDS 5'
T SERVICE BUILDING EL 713.50
-l TAKEN FROM ORIGINAL DISK CURVE SET - NO.10 DATED 24 APRIL ' 1979 BV-1 C ALC. NO. 11700.34-NStB1-000-REV-1 ~
.l FLOOR AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SFECTRA BY TIME HISTORY IINCLUDES '-II2 NnC f~^CTon
.C 5 0.5 9 ir c.i
- i SSE-N-S -DIRECTION- (Z-AXIS)
DAMPING V ALUE = 0.010 -
~
-0.80
. e.7e.
2 I
I_-
0.s0 1
O-
_~
+
z 0.50 t
g
,H
~
8
<I T
0 40
~
LL.I I
LL.I E
U' O.30 O
E
<C 2
~
0.20 3 7
.f L l'
5 g,'
s DY' S
0.10
[
~
i
=
1If 3 3 t gat 3g Itt tt 3 I igg 3 IiI gi giI ge3Itt tgge33Ig g g gag 3gg gg igg g3g gg g gaggg ggg g g 'g's a g g g g g gg g g gg gg g gg 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.GO 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
.OS7 9empos PERIOD IN SECONDS
g..k};.rf
.? 9.bgb"
- f fC.m ;.; Wl'j: 24: A s '- ?o L
- s<
k'h ' O.No.'.'11700"- }a.','.'hb$fhb'5$
Sd. : l ' [. ~
S
~. :
J.
's. '
14.
'h //
c.,4.
'A.
hg@i.,
BVS-492..
k f P',
A 77 /1 '2.-
-7.[2:[.
t 6.
S eller 's. Data.
F*g
~
The' following data shall be provided for the battery charger specified,.as a part of the Seller's proposal:
R c-6.1 Physical Data.
iT?
. ii (Data applicable to all four items) 5' D
t' Item
- 1 2
3 4
e.;
6.1.1 Charger catalog No.
A 12 B-10 0- 130v.
cy."
6.1.2 overall dimensions, in.
36Wr35Dx56H s
y',r '
6.1.3 Net weight, Ib 960 3,..
Y 6.1.4 Mounting, floor ly or wall Ploor 6.1.5 Cooling, type convection
.c 6.1.6 Rectifiers, type silicon ft a
[W 6.1.7 Type of output j
v voltage control Mac Amp i
P-o 6.1.8 Direct current l
backfeed
[
protection, type Relav Diodes i
6.1.9 Inverse voltage protection, type surce aappressor j
yY 6.1.10 ACB
?
Input 50 e.
I
)
p.
Output 150 6.1.10 Amseter e
0;-
Case size 4
l l
Scale length, in.
3 1/2 l
V '
l Make and type MS 3 Honeywell l
t*g Accuracy, percent of full scale
-25 l
J w...
,4 r,
& l
- s. * *si
- }.
,bir I
s l
l I
l 4'
I 1
,,.a
?
r:,y s.y g.,*.,-
i C.
Job No. 72486 D TESTING L ABOR A' TORIES.
7 O AYNEf ENQlNEERIN 8 7w-osc - 6 s9-r t..i TEST
SUMMARY
Pb W 2D )----
t t
Arr 13 7l epresenta-p#
The Battery Charger was connected electrically by a rThe output was conn I
d using a tive of LaMarche Mfg. Co. resistive load bank, and t.he contacts were m lamp circuit.
heet and data The results can be observed on the attached P oto pages.
a resonant point was started h
In the top to bottem direction, h
about 24 Ez. and reached the most severe condition at 33 Hz, at a ratio exceeding 10:1.
a resonant point was observed In the front *to back direct.on, at 19 Hz. having a ratio exceedirig 8:1.
a resonant point was observed ed In the side to side direction, at 25 Hz. hav ing,a ratio exceeding 9:1.
O i
the-angle N
These observations were observed;when monitor ng o
support above the lower transformers.
'~ 9 A CEPTANCE CRITERIA:
fully passed 2
.r*
The battery charger was considered to have successupon comple the the test requirement when, following criteria was met:
including welds, revealed no Steel Structure, 1.
cracks, tears or separation.
d Monitoring indicated all units had performeduring, and upcn comp 2.
satisfactorily before, tion of test.
O.I 2M and operational switches, etc.
d equipment were functionally testod and foun Instruments, 3',
to be in an operating condition equiualent i
i to the cferating condition prior to Se sm tests.
lt f f t - ked g
E
VM5 EA G rp C E psa,&
17 % o,ma., n., u w, g g umt
- p. o.
/
goc rm,a D
waoh tes. coon lsoso.=o.
' ua son I
. so Isor ch9 F
ad.
i S/z BV-512
. n i. 0, y.
i
.7 f
.,v
9 voo - Osc - s c 41-1
\\
Pp W&
A NTY 13'l
\\
Im b
d 4
1 1
n 3
=i 5
a 1
zOn Q
m h
H i
o F
f.
3 g
s" n
NM-o_6 M
{
g g
x:.::,
d
? ""NR u
A vrA M,M o
5WM,g m. s x -r y
s t
N.
/
/,
4-1 n
0 E
g z
R R
O E
r c
k k
e z
r 5
gr.g.vcc tc.v;
.W... W....
m 40.T??F.'
?.*.*.7.,.y//N.*.
= = =. ~*
- N, 9
?N.*.
Q t 1 [
A g.t?.':'.E*,.
??N{.##N
..g.j':::92 :::;
?NN:NN..
. :::.T.
lNN/.
+
n 9
e ;
x it
.+
t erx.:xn::-
.N.f..My%.N.f, N n. #
,t,t;Y. = ////.
ew:nn:=::
t l
.j
.: j.......
n g
l :
. n:.
,o g
O N *I DI.
4
CuMP LEO @Y L ef /M OATE I ~ / T3-Y J
/) f t
~
' Duquesne Light Company P(5 P '
i
/ff$[9f CHECXED BY OATE Analys:3 Sheet PAGE f c -
i
- .NALYSIS NO 9 7 o 0 - OSC - df Y_S [O - J
.i ' / [hD/ T,')
i A
f di hT'sACili*rrr7 4
I S
6 S COPE Theoe Axcee bolts on 14e by s de
'^
of 6,ar,rier ciinaric M-cac - z wea f%d t'o be !'1?e /Ive.
5 4 he s &/l5 wov /d y ln w he fin b o/r w p3
-f o < g s d lo n
11 It Yh t
&f os /[
O
/ko $
e y?lL+{*0M Ik f0 o
l' n r;> l. ee f/n 35-O conn (lon of f he
+nc 4 or >y e l'
(o de for m.*v C Ib if r&
wi1hW?n d W&
- C IJ l oA ornc,s.
16 1r 14 LL fff/fMf%,
l%!'SW Allow T $,
b yw mpi rot.%
f l*
30 31
[q)$0g>CX eGV [fgf1 gy 0 lb 07/L/ 2[Q
< 23 23 7
j 24 1
25 l
g,oc ac 26 1
-t
+
+
Y
\\
as J
29 l
33 31
_f s
32
,.- f 33 34 h
3.
M n as D
p 0o00
/tf j
}31 Q
+
(9) bosn A"" )
3.
A".
d l i
3e g_,
Dyt?}
CT1/)
5 s3 g,,
- num,
!ca
!u 7
43 CS C6' C7 ce (9
S3
p Duquesne Light Company
,seastrwu
~ 4 WS-/,W _ C l'] ? & fAGE 6euv-
)
W Analysis Sheet
5~
P GE CHECKED BY bY I l l 3 f G.[
DATE EvAtuo C P>< aim fow20' o'
A^~'**E n
0*TM ' * ~ As. r a
A ><<>
(Me (2e ~ffl,):- 2 8 (l45 *) =
4 4 20 in-AL m=
um a e
r n
4 0
>FE py 7 o F 8
.\\
.i Off,6,*anu A
(%Q h
[,
9
~
n 10
[,
[y
?
W
~
l p
to 1,'
N 2
~
g f,:
?. s~ R a
n 15 4ao..s = Q -)(a)Ow,>)
Qo -) 2.s a G ud 18 19 f2=
ffo# fly) 20 21 22 23 A
b**T f kki $
m en e e r="
g 25
.Y r,
0 y
2 0
~
GO f0 gg-23 30 o 'or-h l1. 5 3n 32 33 31, 3s 36 i"
N'F
~ 38 3
$O$O!*1~ h \\
f* 5
~
no
$CfA $8 t10 {
s 3
g, a
S fxt )1fL C bM *'of s AlL &l$ $
fll h Lel. stas We 14un Dow-r
/)uo m w, e.
n C9 50 f,T b 4 "-
O tt O
7.
-trau. i~.
,a e., i,-, ; y,
A _,yp a
v,_
coupitEo sv.
f omrE rTf395 M
pGEl.
.V.
.Aralysis sheet
},M;
/ /f g /Qf CHECKED BY OATE 6
1~
3.
U Half 4.
. R + Pr # -
165# + 18 b ",
g9 e k 2Mo or p
s 4.m-s s.-s a
9 88 M Fa,7 /, 1 11 12 5/'b
)
$9
{ts 4
,d2
< /
o R-
~**
t 5
+
14 2 $40
)917 15 16 6
?
11 Cwcas.b+ :
- 6..n.
iku.aue L n c ~ r,.~
oc 19 BAT-CAG-2.
nh 5 a 1.%e brum w
c 21 hb e k' row, 'l I*') fruni 4 c(0,0134 l4
( O s.
a gg 23
- 4
' tS 24 31 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 a
f 37 i sa i n.
4
{ to L
! 42 l
1u 44 5
,(6 41' s8 43 53 l
2 0
y e
e cart Notto F RCaa.
/ C AJ
$/T1?*
A (/)f/Ad/
.l 1
cars motto QATE 9-21-15 TO cars motto j
I a
O Note O Report to care =orro O Approve O Comment
'" d '
O Return O File 2
O circulate O
.Sa.J_As4M d~ 3 't A i*! t-Remarks: Ca^l5h) J./ /~A & ~ /
TA W li2 f) A Y d ?/oh]
V^ r >
Af t3 <16.frs-A 5'a i M w A 43 8 /13.
r
- T4,..
f-Ley [/4 Date M-95; f/g 1
.w a7 P_.O. n ] ) L t. 4 ; y Q,$..
Y
',: M Jit 3 *f/4*Mtf 9.l1 DLC-d/76
'$,. 5'KAMr>1-A276 f3e4 fyfy f4 AM Lf
,6, Can.
j : 4 4 r g.:. 1..
A A 7"M = A J '74 ; 7' 9A 4.-
,:y; Ht.n Jfggg
(
. QA$k hg.
AffA7"25&9A
.g
- '?$.*lp{ W Y
t,'.
/f Vnu A wd"D 7a 7"AlK 7~0 m E~
/
1 QALL A C1'~ff I d.6 a }/qttef. 7 A?m WOf F lis L 2hn E1//FT.
" ~ ~ ~
- f. GA.S$Afl.'i
~
Form Q-23 5153 (6-84) e e
0 e
g 87w-ut?-ss4c-L r
(
/
AracMear 8 6m.)
i l
r DESirN REVIEW CHECKLIST A1.C80 FA DVR No.
N 700 -T VA - 9 2.9 4 Index No.
I Document (s) Venfied: (No., Rev., and Title) 87w hsc.-63+s, Eev.g, -heilonAge 44 Lum;a 1%: 24 eila-z
!!em Comment No.
Review Consideration Yes No N o.
1.
Were the inputs correctly selected and incorporated into the design?
/
2.
Are assumptions necessary to perform the design activity adequately described and reasonable?
3.
Where necessary, are the assumptions identified for subsequent reverifications when the detailed design activities are cornpleted?
/
4.
Are the appropriate quality and assurance requirements specified?
/
5.
Are the applicable codes, standards and regulatory requirements, including
[
issue and addenda, properly identified and are their requirements for design y
met?
6.
Havo apphcable construction and operating experience been. considered?
7 Have the desigre interface requirements been satisfied?
q4 8.
Was an appropriate design method used?
t/
9.
Is the output reasonable compaired to inputs?
//d 10.
Are the specified parts, equipment, and processes suitable for the required application?
11.
Are the specified materials compatible with each other and the design environmental conditions to which the material will be exposed?
12.
Have adequate operability and traintainability features and requirements 4
been specified?
13.
Are accessibility and other design provisions adequate for performance of g
needed maintenance and repair?
14.
Has adequate accessibility been provided to perform the in-service inspection expected to be required during the piant life?
15.
Has the design properly considered radiation exposure to the public ed plant personnel?
16.
Are the acceptance criteria incorporated in the design documents sufficient
/
to allow verification that design requirements have been satisfactorily y
accomplished?
17.
Have adequate pre-operational and subsequent periodic test requirements g
been appropriately specified?
8.
Are adequate handling, storage, cleaning and shipping requirements g
specified?
f 19.
Are adequate identification requirements specified?
V l
20.
Are requirements for record preparation, review, approval, retention, etc.
/
adequately specified?
21.
If this design includes equipment qualified for Cat. I use, did the qualification testing include the planned actual configuration? If not, has it been h
adequately documented by analysis / test that this equipment is.also qualified for the actual configuration?
22.
If a computer program was used to obtain the design, has the program been g validated pe,r NF,AP,1,57,
Verified By
[l/_ W[4 d Date
///4 ///$~
, b, l
Reviewed By Date (NEAP 2.10, Rev. 5)
DESIGN REVIEW CHECKLIST A1.080 FA DVR No.
9 700- Tv/P - 9 2 9d index No.
~2.
Document (s) Verified: (No., Rev., arid Title) 87oo~ 05c - G5'( 5% crA Jd I. AeHane 04t. Foz PAT-d G-z.
/
item Comment No.
Review Consideration Yes No No.
1.
Were the inputs correctly selected and incorporated into the design?
[
2.
Are assumptions necessary to perform the design activity adequately descr bed and reasonable?
3.
Where necessary, are the assumptions identified for subsequent reverifications when the detailed design activities are completed?
/
4 Are the appropriate quality and assurance requirements specified?
g/
5.
Are the applicable codes, standards and regulatory requirements, including issue and addenda, properly identified and are their requirements for dessgn
/
met?
6.
Have applicable construction and operating experience been, considered?
.A A 7.
Have the design interface requirements been satisfied?
4 8.
Was an appropriate design me! hod used?
/
9.
is the output reasonable compaired to inputs?
/
10.
Are the specified parts, equipment, and processes suitable for the required N
application?
11.
Are the specified materia's compatible with each other and the design environmental conditions to which the material will be exposed?
MA 12.
Have adequate operability and maintainability features and requirements been specified?
A 13.
Are accessibility and other design provisions adequate for performance of needed maintenance and repair?
MIA 14.
Has adequate accessibility been provided to perform the in-service inspection expected to be required during the plant life?
15.
Has the design properly considered radiation exposure to the public and k
plant personnel?
16.
Are the acceptance criteria incorporated in the design dccuments sufficient to allow verification that design requirements have been satisfactorily
[
accomplished?
17.
Have adequate pre-operational and subsequent periodic test requirements a }A been appropriately specified?
18.
Are adequate handling, storage, cleaning and shipping requirements M
specified?
19.
Are adequate identification requirements specified?
)@
20.
Are requirernents for record preparation, review, approval, retention, etc.
adequately specified?
glA 21, if this design includes equipment qualified for Cat. I use, did the qualification testing include the planned actual configuration? If not, has it been adequately documented by analysis / test that this equipment is also qualified A)lA for the actual configuratior)?
22.
If a computer program was used to obtain the design. has the program been g validated per_ NEAP 1.57 Verified By Rh1 Date i
13 l 4 7
, $. b.
I,, )
3 Date Reviewed By -
~
(NEAP 2.10, Rev. 5)
DESIGN REVIEW CHECKLlST At 080 FA DVR No.
17 o 0 ~7 Ff. 9 2 9 f Index No.
3 Document (s) Venfied: (No., Rev., and Title')
l 97co~Dsc~(oS4Cfewo % mesm Evu an A.
SA T-C#6 - C '
i item l
Comment '
N o.
Review Consideration Yes No N o.
1.
Were the inputs correctly selected and incorporated into the design?
l
{
2.
Are assumptions necessary to perform the design activity adequately j
{
described and reasonable?
3.
Where necessary, are the assumptions identified for subsequent y
revenfications when the detailed design activities are completed?
4.
Are the appropriate quality and assurance requirements specified?
/
l 5.
Are the applicable codes, standards and regulatory requirements, including issue and addenda, properly identified and are their requirements for design met?
6.
Have applicable construction and operating experience been ponsidered?
fL/A 7.
Have the design interface requirements been sati:fied?
s&%
8.
Was an appropnate design method used?
9.
Is the output reasonable compaired to inputs?
j4ig 10.
Are the specified parts, equipment, and processes suitable for the required application?
h 11.
Are the specified materials compatible with each other and the design environmental conditions to which the material will be exposed?
jd//
12.
Have adequate operability and maintainability features and requirements been specified?
j4//
13.
Are accessibility and other design provisions adequate for performance of needed maintenance and repair?
A//
14.
Has adequate accessibility been provided to perform the in-service inspection expected to be required during the plant life?
/Y/
15.
Has the design properly considered radiation exposure to the public and plant personnel?
h 16.
Are the acceptance criteria incorporated in the design documents sufficient to allow verification that design requirements have been satisfactorily W
accomplished?
17.
Have adequate pre-operational and subsequent periodic test requirements been appropriately specified?
h 18.
Are adequate handling, storage, cleaning and shipping requirements specified?
M 19.
Are adequr,te identification requirements specified?
V 20.
Are requkements for record preparation, review, approval, retention, etc.
j adequately specified?
21.
If this design includes equipment qualified for C.9t. I use, did the qualification testing include the planned actual configuration? If not, has it been adequately documented by analysis / test that this equipment is also qualified for the actual configuration?
22.
If a computer program was used to obtain the design, has the program been vahdated per NEAP 1.57 Verified By
( M M 8/JN640 Date f */ - f T 3 ** f.
d M'
O Reviewed By_
Date (NEAP 2,10, Rev, 5)
i I
1 1
1 l
I 1
ENCLOSURE 7 4
,4 a
l
.c 163 02,752,001
/ g ), m, 3,.3.
, m,,,
n 20018
- '5 b E
?
y, VENDER PRINT RECORD oucussNs L:GMT COMP ANY h
g a
NUCLEAR DIVISION PRINT NO.
/'
op
/6 m
llb i
h15 oc" s 79 lo48g co w
l130 g o
r 2 r2 c m
l 103l2
@,",", 3 Se u u, X
5 3o. 2 / /
h O & a- /
I
'6 Ba., <
20a,,-
L ea 5 74r on g
l b4 ' e L; ee-e. A4 couraav: So. Leo.
2 weanow
~
h
- M j'2 don >ron e Row e wreoc Cz asconos f""
O 146 **NLY 148^REF.
cno" Sm O
Con /* A Hk' n
pnome O*7 Y 'e ri c.
17w 146 M Moor <
vc22 3 Y24, ",a. k - 4 rrc/ cz oi, o z naseawre CPasuussaav Copacac 04comonat 15amsso 8 7o0 - 4. 46 c;
- A 3 0'wi z> n
-Oce - f%e
% em o'he'f' %
nasanns.
%.] me bn d Now iL f/v sc b
cars /d 6 7
,,,,,,,.s -rusie DISTRIBUTION OF PRINTS 2
LOC ATIO N LOCATION b
I r/P frw -
rs pvr Q
z 2
psr 16 O O C-O s
ser a-4 ra+c, N
s so Srsr o~
Eu s, we.e. ~ c h
f
// 12 fa.as irfm a.sa-r sse lQ i s - M-neo sciss-Y s
ho. %, _-, i o -u -8) x
%s '
0 G
j APPROVED ascavuna u
EHn0RE & """" UCFrE3
=
7 l
smeno % kSd5N
< l' Y
a-saneo s
3 l
l*
- t
=. ~_ e. ADJUSTABLE i
ovef.ew-iMtrol Valves ASC6
+
k
.,,' Brass Body. %* to M' N.P.T.
M. n I
J neral Description Specifications O*: patented adjustable fiow control Operadon: When the pawl is in the up esign has greater flow capacty than posation, it creates a fnction lock on the most conventional constructions where a knurled bonnet and the knob cannot M lh y septrate adjustment speed control and rotate. When the pawl is at 90* to the ball check for free flow are utilized.
knob, the knob es free to rotate.
A spnng loaded disc allows free flow in Valve Parts in Contact wetts Fluid:
Y ona direction and an adjustable or con.
Body and Stem - Brass.
trolled flow in the opposste' direction.
Seals - Buna "N."
[
Flow adjustment is performed by a ta-Disc - Acetal.
f.
pered brass stem that controls the flow Spring - 302 s.s.
1
]
through the cross hole in the disc.
Retainer - 17 7PH s s.
j.
g,,
The adjustable knob contains a unique Temperaturet r
j locking device that consists of a plastic Fluid: 180*f. Maximum.
FLOW DIACitAM m:tsring knob and thumb latch pawl.
Ambient: 125'F. Maximum.
4 Tha valve bonnet is scribed with gradua.
tions to serve as a position indicator for Insta&ation:
the stem.
Dimensions: Refer to Dimensions.
Attitude Mountable in any polnion without affecting operation.
I I
5PECIFICATIONS
)
l Prem" e 0%lllll' m= ag^ C"I
=
r e=
=='
cv As= Famer tool METDED FWw mE Row g, l %
ras sia 7,.m Anienttas.
t
- Caes.g (m64 (ms.1 meer nft (sel user ans Lasse ou
- f.
l nemmer DIMEN5 IONS (in isodies)
)
% i 22 1.2 1
300 130 v022Al 30 1.4 1
300 130
- v0222 1.2 2.6 1
300 130 v0223
% ! 8%
lii 40 2.5 300 130 v0224 i
nois O Reer a Cwt A in C..s usanne saans rumt l
K not_sume grului i
o t an. e./*
I i
tamen I: A %
=P.r. no. come NA reemros a esas 3 GPW of visser a a 40 et il est aatnaa
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,j l i
Osunamie me seamos er east suusung met g
El0W DCS U"
3 for ASCO How Control tilwes Ce =
= 15
- - - -Cat.
Moe Onnes
- @ Ce= d i" 3'as sin N
L u
P W
l l l l l From ma pen her the %* KP.T. fles centre 2.0 e e Ce of Js me aim iness ne v022A1 %
3% 2'% 1"'u 2% IN g g v0222 8/,
3% 2'N 1M'u 2tN 1%
.heenpog Images it: to essenmue one Ace uung me
{
l l l l p
=-
N %.
v0223 N 3u'u 3% ZN 2'2' 1%
w.
"same ese of 16 on 40 and METUED Ce er 35.
. w 's a 2's a
- ts 1.5 l@
""",",l* '"
. n a.,
a va22a C
t.0
- nie -
n.e es
,e,
, e I
s Ree %*
N FW Wca ma,,g
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,n,,,,,,n,,,,,,,,
l gji l l GPld a Cr**V&D = 18 Ga 10.4 ewee ans evenee.r a.r.=.=.=.==t r= n v.os.enrassume
===a noe mo n c====s. e.
. as = mit
,,4#l I i i
/~ no. w-
'C's an='es was na an== meet 0.5 nacHMact =si erwass ares ** s'a rums
- c="r*
s p,,,,,,, p,,,,,, m
' ".'."'""O 4 J PT i i i P. - Osam Premne esul Asco nos s
0 1234 5 6 78
'8 - ""* 0'" A - 'd '"
C8'"" ""
0" G - 5esote Greier of Gas 9141 P514 j67 utTERueG STDI T15181g
& 40*f.
y j
i r - nasame tema of no.uis essaan M.
(*f. = enin y'", g NEFM OAE
@iltgugpapses j
n,/,,,,,,,,,,,
P se water C, e Grid a ce S
- "* g I'*
m esemens t.2 AIR Ce =
960d'8'b*#d A
8.
1.4 16 g
amme 40 m d"[#E
=='c'="8 a' '"
M = ce I
-,w-r
-ed ENCLOSURE 8 4
Memorandum To:
Glenn Ritz 4< $$
From: Dennie Weakland i
Date: April 22,1997 wn-j
Subject:
Welde on YS-D-401F On April 21,1997 during our walkdown of the support, VS-D-40-1F, i visually inepected the welde associated with the support structure. The vleual appearance of these welde was acethetically not pleasing and atypical of the appearance of most welde at Beaver Valley The rough appearance can be attributed to the lack of elag removal following the depoeltion of the low hydrogen welde, additionally the welde appear to have been inetailed in the vertical and overttead poeltlone adding to the Irregular weld dead contour.. However, the welds appear to be structurally sound and see no value added to having wort perfc med for the sole purpose of improving the appearance of the weld.
If you have any additional questione, please contact me.
P e
b.
EXCLOSURE 9 A
P
(
i 1
I l
l I
1
.. =
Sheet 1 of 2 SSEL Line No.
5347
A
.0UTLIER SEISMIC VERIFICATION. SHEET (OSVS)
.I.
OUTLIER !DENTIFICATION, DESCRIPTION, AND LOCATION Equipment ID Number BAT-1 Eq'uipment Class 15 Equipment Location:
Bldg. SRVB Floor Elevation 713 Room or Row / Column AE SWGR Base Elevation 713 s
Equipment Description 39/125 VOLT DC STATIONARY BATTERY 2.
OUTLIER ISSUE DEFINITION a..
' Identify all-the screening guidelines which are not met.
(Check more than one lf several guidelines could not be satisfied.)
j Mechanical and Electrical Eautoment Tanks and Heat Exchanaers Capacity vs. Demand Shell Buckling
- Caveats
/
Anchor Bolts and Embedment Anchorage Anchorage Connections Seismic Interaction Flexibility of Attached Piping
- Other ~
Other Cable and Conduit Raceways
' Essential Relays Inclusion Rules capacity vs. Demand Other Seismic Performance Concerns Mounting,' Type, limited Analytical Review Location Other Other
- Shell buckling and flexibility of attached piping only apply to large, flat-bottom, vertical tanks.
b.
Describe all the reasons for the outlier.(i.e., if all the listed outlier issues were resolved, then the signatories would censider this item of equipment to be verified for seismic adequacy):
N ve d
- s '. T ac1o:clu.
hah wa:p b, agrex.
1 e,a a m u L w 450 \\G coon u wk:a
~
tm m,6 weA e N tk med s
s l'
Sheet 2 of 2 SSEL Line No.
5347 OUTLIER SEISMIC VERIFICATION SHEET (OSVS)
Equipment ID Number BAT-1 3.
PROPOSED METHOD OF OUTLIER RESOLUTION (OPTIONAL) i a.
Define proposed method (s) for resolving outlier.
O)&A ree - G73 vemeL Ce m;e v
et n edvd e.
oh eeNeaies ec) rexc}cs bc
{ cekc.
GrCasm,'c omJ:Ge A E L e~
( ds).
V f
b.
Provide information needed to implement proposed method (s) for resolving outlier (e.g., estimate of fundamental frequency).
4.
CERTIFICATION:
The information on this OSVS is, to the best of our knowledge and belief, correct and accurate, and resolution of the outlier issues listed on the previous page will satisfy the requirements for this item of equipment to be verified for seismic adequacy:
i Approved by: (for Equipment Classes #0 - #22, all the Seismic
~
Capability Engineers on the Seismic Review Team (SRT) should sign; there should be at least two on the SRT. One signatory should be a the Lead Relay Reviewer ForRelays,f licensed professional engineer.
should sign.)
j U.-
eshoec>o 4
. /
A-7-95 i
' ature Date Print or Type Name d,On2 R-7-9C Print or Type Name Signature Q
Date
'rint or Type Name Signature Date P
l Sheet 1 of 2 SSEL Line No. 2118 A
OUTLIER SEISMIC VERIFICATION SHEET (OSVS)
- 1..
OUTLIER IDENTIFICATION, DESCRIPTION, AND LOCATION Equipment ID Number FCV-RC-455C1 Equipment Class 07 Equipment location: Bldg. RCBX Floor Elevation 767 Room or Row / Column PRZR CUBICLE Base Elevation 767+
Equipment Description RC/(PCV-RC-455C) FLOW METERING 2.
OUTLIER ISSUE DEFINITION a.
Identify all the screening guidelines which are not met.
(Check more than one if several guidelines could not be satisfied.)
Mechanical and Electrical Eautomant Jenks and Heat _I nhanaers Capacity vs. Demand Shell Buckling
- Caveats
/
Anchor Bolts and Embedment Anchorage Anchorage Connections Seismic Interaction Flexibility of Attached Piping
- Other Other Cable kud Conduit Raceways 111gntial Relays Inclusion Rules Capacity vs. Demand Other Seismic Performance Ccncerns
)
Mounting, Type.
Limited Analytical Review Location Other Other
- Shell buckling and flexibility of attached piping only apply to large, flat-bottom, vertical tanks.
b.
Describe all the reasons for the outlier (i.e., if all the listed outlier issues were resolved, then the signatories would consider this item of equipment to be verified for seismic adequacy):
It " d a pp6L mana G,.
th v.
rs ma.sren ou
[CH. " A
i Sheet 2 of 2 SSEL Line No.
2118 i
OUTLIER SEISNIC VERIFICATION SHEET (OSYS)
Equipment ID Number FCV-RC-455C1 3.
PROPOSED METHOD OF OUTLIER RESOLUTION (OPTIONAL) a.
Define proposed method (s) for resolving outlier.
&nwt m irs /muunurvaJ /.*
A n nu i, rte i
16 alsnN ti,sr.
cashs
~
b.
Provide information needed to implement proposed method (s) for resolving outlier (e.g., estimate of fundamental frequency).
4
(
1 4.
CERTIFICATION:
2 The information on this OSVS.s, to the best of our knowledge and belief, correct and accurate, and resolution of the outlier issues listed on the previous page will satisfy the requirements for this item of equipment to be verified for seismic adequacy:
Approved by: (For Equipment Classes #0 - #22, all the Seismic Capability Engineers on the Seismic Review Team (SRT) should sign; there should De at least two on the SRT. One signatory sheuld be a licensed professional engineer.
For Relays, the Lead Relay Reviewer should sign.)
}fhv4 8lltf9f Print or Type Name Signature Date Cu ~nW--
L 1G=
shhs Print or Tipe Name Signature Date Print or Type Name Signature Date
,i j
Sheet 1 of 2 i
SSEL Line No. 8011 A-OUTLIER SEISMIC VERIFICATION SHEET (OSVS) 1.
OUTLIER IDENTIFICATION, DESCRIPTION, AND LOCATION Equipment ID Number BNCHBO Equipment Class 20 l
Equipment Location: Bldg. SRVB Floor Elevation 735 Room or Row / Column CONTROL Base Elevation 735 Equipment Description 38/ CONTROL ROOM MAIN CONTROL BOARD l
2.
OUTLIER ISSUE DEFINITION i
a.
Identify all the screening guidelines which are not met.
(Check more than one if several guidelines could~not be satisfied.)
Mechanical and Electrical Eautoment Tanks and Heat Exchanaars Capacity vs. Demand Shell Buckling
- Caveats Anchor Bolts and Embedment Anchorage Anchorage Connections a Seismic Interaction Flexibility of Attached Piping
- Other Other l
Cable and Conduit Raceways Essential Relavs Inclusion Rules
]
Capacity vs. Demand Other Seismic Performance Concerns 1
Mounting, Type, limited Analytical Review Location Other Other i
- Shell buckling and flexibility of attached piping only apply to large, flat-bottom, vartical tanks.
b.
Describe all the reasons for the outlier (i.e., if all the listed i
outlier issues were resolved, then the signatories would consider this item of equipment to be verified for seismic adequacy):
d0 Ab3rDL Pens / G nixJC /kM4 }Qac'mAfr f
Exuek)77t2<1 ac~ AntML 2q077sk.
(b) She Akwsn-aa.w-a newm xuer Mcnas Arraduaor1/nrvrups(mm/
. r m s w -oz1'l i
d')Tersmes' Me-Ms-hs A se t'Re /twraw neerd
\\
/
ro ropor sea:wmm-oweaar smxrowna s i
'7NAnl M -
)
1 Sheet 2 of 2 SSEL Line No. 8011 OUTLIER SEISMIC VERIFICATION SHEET (OSYS)
Equipment ID Number BNCHBD 3.
PROPOSED METHOD OF OUTLIER RESOLUTION (OPTIONAL) a.
Define proposed method (s) for resolving outlier.
{G)lDn 75t1LWL A//;CW 62 71E4/24R7 7b M/7W&T/ Mdd)E'M DEluA G eGc;n770A.L9.
/
(A) Pk-idar4)L MASIrn)A A/ f2DA!ME fAl ors:
A dexacren Mid 7b /D2 7h127Exen4fr).
Nt sYm'e od(s) for b.
o id nfo mat ee t
r resolving outlier (e.g., estimate of fundamental frequency).
I l
4.
CERTIFICATION:
The information on this OSVS is, to the best of our knowledge and belief, correct and accurate, and resolution of the outlier issues listed on the previous page will satisfy the requirements for this item of equipment to be verified for seismic adequacy:
Approved by: (For Equipment Classes #0 - #22, all the Seismic Capability Engineers on the Seismic Review Team (SRT) should sign; there should be at least two on the SRT. One signatory should be a licensed professional engineer.
For Relays, the Lead Relay Reviewer should sign.)
hlEA'd cf W/72
/2"2-VS Print or Type Name Signature W
Date MmeW YAAlcVs*
M lS* h?$
Print or Type Name Signature Date Print or Type Name Signature Date
4 Sheet 1 of 2 SSEL Line No.
1233 A
OUTLIER SEISMIC VERIFICATION SHEET (OSYS) 1.
OUTLIER IDENTIFICATION, DESCRIPTION, AND LOCATION Equipment ID Number HCV-CH-389 Equipment Class 07 Equipment Location: Bldg. RC8X Floor Elevation 707 Room or Row / Column EXC LETD PLATF Base Elevation 707 Equipment Description CH/ EXCESS LETDOWN ORAIN DIVERT VALVE 2.
OUTLIER ISSUE DEFINITION a.
Identify all the screening guidelines which are not met.
(Check more than one if several guidelines could not be satisfied.)
Mechanical and Electrical'Eautoment Tanks and Heat Exchanaers Capacity vs. Demand Shell Buckling
- Caveats M
Anchor Bolts and Embedment Anchorage Anchorage Connections Seismic Interaction Flexibility of Attached Piping
- Other Other Cable and Conduit Raceways Essential Relays Inclusion Rules Capacity vs. Demand Other Seismic Performance Concerns i
Mounting, Type, Limited Analytical Review Location Other Other j
- Shell buckling and flexibility of attached piping only apply to large, flat-bottom, vertical tanks.
l b.
Describe all the reasons for the outlier (i.e., if all the listed outlier issues were resolved, then the signatories would consider this item of equipment to be verified for seismic adequacy):
i i
C AVE AT,5
- t. 4 4. A s.s L i e sTw & V A u vn Tb \\"4 A,4 o L A E. k E E..
Td i t
\\J Aco m \\s Tu m.s E-w AY 3/g e Aog, c AV EAT G. (lEST R.% c 7 L ees s o F-5"a u m_a 6."I - l
?R.EL' woe T* s VAw s' Aan m 3) sva rie. Le A D Y o WJf ST R.5"55 4 5 AA.E sA a tr. 4 o w 4.
i Sheet 2 of 2
- SSEL Line No.
1233 OUTLIER SEISMIC VERIFICATION SHEET (OSYS)
Equipment ID Number HCV-CH-389 3.
PROPOSED METHOD OF OUTLIER RESOLUTION (OPTIONAL).
l a.
Define proposed method (s) for resolving outlier.
EpsAA.c.n Gstsriaa omausits ioa d..re a L o s j
fi.e.
et E.'s, 9de Aw auvi ts _. ant V Auvr A,J AWs#5) o st.
c.a_ararat cibaav i m o Amo w Asa an.M 5 t b.
b.
Provide information needed to implement proposed method (s) for resolving outlier (e.g., estimate of fundamental frequency).
i L
t 4.
CERTIFICATION:
The information on this OSVS is, to the best of our knowledge and belief, correct and accurate, and resolution of the out11er issues listed on the previous page will satisfy the requirements for this item of equipment to be verified for seismic adeq acy:
Approved by: (For Equipment Classes #0 - #22, all the Seismic Capability Engineers on the Seismic Review Team (SRT) should sign; there should be at least two on the SRT.
One signatory should be a licensed professional engineer.
For Reh.ys, the Lead Relay Reviewer should sign.)
buV.omu m,I T b
Aias,ib49f Print or Type Name Si ure Date
$/kAJL "f'E k#k# $
j Date Print or Type Name' Signature
~
q Print or Type Name Signature Date i
i t
O r
- c -- -
(;
Sheet 1 of 2 SSEL Line No.
5335 A
OUTLIER SEISMIC VERIFICATION SHEET (OSVS) 1.
OUTLIER IDENTIFICATION, DESCRIPTION, AND LOCATION Equipment ID Number INV-VIT8US-1 Equipment Class 16 Equipment Location:
Bldg. SRVB Floor Elevation 713 Room or Row / Column AE SWGR Base Elevation 713 Equipment Description 38/UPS 1 1
2.
OUTLIER ISSUE DEFINITION a.
Identify all the screening guidelines which are not met.
(Check more than one if several guidelines could not be satisfied.)
Mechanical and Electrical Eautoment Tanks and Heat Exchanaers Capacity vs. Demand Shell Buckling
- Caveats Z
Anchor Bolts and Embedment Anchorage Anchorage Connections Seism?c Interaction Flexibility of Attached Piping
- Other Other Cable and Conduit Raceway 1 Eisential Relays Inclusion Rules Capacity vs. Demand Other Sr'smic Performance Concerns Mounting, Type, Limited maalytical Review Location Other Other
- Shell buckling and flexibility of attached piping only apply to large, flat-bottom, vertical tanks.
b.
Describe all the reasons for the outiler (i.e., if all the listed outlier issues were resolved, then the signatories would consider this item of equipment to be verified for seismic adequacy):
Of
- black wicN a E.>c h s wit vec
%H Cr auwed eks ssh " v, 40" k i 1
Sheet 2 of 2 SSEL Line No. 5335 0UTLIER SEISMIC VERIFICATION SHEET (OSVS) j Equipment 10 Number INV-VITBUS-1 3.
PROPOSED METHOD OF OUTLIER RESOLUTION (OPTIONAL) a.
Define proposed method (s) for resolving outlier.
ev.' ew Q Cf-16 31 om althece.6 cud cocdvses be in o erker cc.b tne
- s.,
b.
Provide information needed to implement proposed method (s) for resolving outlier (e.g., estimate of fundamental frequency).
Se is mic. ctunLIhce NA bedbe Inoe o
ec c h el
!JL mm M f mLud h
/
4.
CERTIFICATION:
j The information on this OSVS is, to the best of our knowledge and belief, correct and accurate, and resolution of the outlier issues listed on the previous page will satisfy the requirements for this item of equipment to be verified for seismic adequacy:
Approved by: (For Equipment Classes #0 - #22, all the Seismic Capability Engineers on the Seismic Review Team (SRT) should sign; there should be at least two on the SRT. One signatory should be a licensed professional engineer.
For Relays, the Lead Relay Reviewer should sign.)
A
_L A
.S' 7--V6~
S WGX Date p
Print or Type Name i na re 0,Yemas PNacc c C
j t it.o7L P
s-7-95 Print or Type Name
" Signature Date Print or Type Name Signature Date
f i
Sheet 1 of 2
'SSEL Line No.
2107 A
i OUTLIER SEISMIC VERIFICATION SHEET (0SYS).
i 1.
OUTLIER IDENTIFICATION, DESCRIPTION, AND LOCATION i
- Equipment ID Number PCV-RC-456 Equipment Class 07 Equipment Location: Bldg. RCBX Floor Elevation 767 i
Room or. Row / Column PZR CUBICLE Base E1 pation 767+
r
^
- Equipment Description RC/ PRESSURIZER PORV r
1 i
i-2.
OUTLIER ISSUE DEFINITION
-j a.
' Identify all the screening guidelines which are not met.
i (Check more than one ~ if several guidelines could not be satisfied.)
.l Mechanical and
~
Electrical Eautoment Tanks and Heat Exchanaers Capacity vs. Demand Shell Buckling
- Caveats
_/__
Anchor Bolts and Embedment Anchorage Anchorage Connections i
Seismic Interaction
/
Flexibility of Attached Piping
- l
?
Other Other I
Qhle and Conduit Raceways Essential Relays Inclusion Rules i.
Capacity vs. Demand Other Seismic Performance concerns Mounting, Type, Limited Analytical Review Location Other Other J
- Shell buckling and flexibility of attached piping only apply to i
large, flat-bottom, vertical tanks.
b.
Describe all the reasons for the outlier (i.e., if all the listed i
outlier issues were resolved, then the signatories would consider this item of equipment to be verified for seismic adequacy):
CAutre d ; #3G" o /L WEA K. u ak is temui ato.
T,.tr.
- 1 1 ATikaco A,a.
itas m a o st ra n n Acc a r Mb1I t
i
.r i
c.
. ~. - -, -
...n
i Sheet 2 of 2 SSEL Line No.
2107 i
OUTLIER SEISMIC VERIFICATION SHEET (OSVS)
Equipment ID Number PCV-RC-456 r
3.
10 POSED METHOD OF OUTLIER RESOLUTION (0PTIONAL) a.
Define proposed method (s) for resolving outlier.
O PELPoe.m " M "
eL &lk t GoaK.enfrlL.
.b cwcw coaraa n avars, b.
Provide information neaded to implement proposed method (s) for resolving outlier (e.g., estimate of fundamental freytency).
1 4.
CERTIFICATION:
The information on this OSYS is, to the best of our knowledge and belief, correct and accurate, and resolution of the outlier issues listed on the previous page will satisfy the requirements for this item of equipment to be verified for seismic adequacy:
Approved by: (For Equipment Classes #0 - #22, all the Seismic Capability Engineers on the Seismic Review Team (SRT) should sign; there should be at least two on the SRT. One signatory should be a licensed professional engineer.
For Relays, the Lead Relay Reviewer should sign.)
L Paut m PdlA a6Y Pr nt'or Type Name Signature Date i
Cu,~ d w GL 771 -,
i t+-e r Print or Type Name Signature Date f
Print or Type Name Signature Date t
M m-Au4
-4 dd=
W-m 4-,44,ap
++~-*-4
-+e-nam J
v>4eni
,.. --i-C
-M-,
Sheet 1 of 2 SSEL Line No. 8117 A
OUTLIER SEISMIC VERIFICATION SHEET (OSVS)
I.
OUTLIER IDENTIFICATION, DESCRIPTION, AND LOCATION Equipment ID Number PNL-AMSAC Equipment Class 20 Equipment Location:
Bldg. SRVB Floor Elevation 713 Room or Row / Column PROCESS RACK RM Base Elevation 713 Equipment Description 45B/ANTICIP TRANS W/0 SCRAM MITIGATING SYS ACTUAT CIRCT 2.
OUTLIER ISSUE DEFINITION a.
Identify all the screening guidelines which are not met.
(Check more thn one if several guidelines could not be satisfied.)
Mechanical and Electrical Eauipment Tanks and Heat Exchanaers Capacity vs. Demand Shell Buckling
- Caveats
- 2.
g Anchor Bolts and Embedment Anchorage Anchorage Connections Seismic Interaction Flexibility of Attached Piping
- Other Other C.ghl_e and Conduit Raceways Essential Relays Inclusion Rules Capacity vs. Demand Other Seismic Performance Concerns Mounting, Type, Limited Analytical Review Location Other Other 1
- Shell buckling and flexibility of attached piping only apply to large, flat-bottom, vertical tanks.
b.
Describe all the reasons for the outlier (i.e., if all the listed outlier issues were resolved, then the signatories would consider this item of equipment to be verified for seismic adequacy):
0.67m5 coWerJss oce3com.ke cm mR,
i
f Sheet 2 of 2 SSEL Line Ns. 8117 OUTLIER SEISMIC VERIFICATION SHEET (0SYS)
Equipment ID Number PNL-AMSAC 3.
PROPOSEQ METHOD OF OUTLIER RESOLUTION (OPTIONAL)
Defin[ proposed method (s) for resolving outlier.
I a.
Tekermine eNeh oN c.cbec ler-s Cdre aEW.
r n
bdesu bu. w kch b ccMb hwe. ken seud
- mt61, v
i v
i b.
Provide informattorrneeded-tv-tmptement proposed method (s) for resolving outile:- (e.g., estimate of fundamental frequency).
d e
4.
CERTIFICATION:
The information on this OSVS is, to the best of our knowledge and belief, correct and accurate, and resolution of the outlier issues listed on the previous page will satisfy the requirements for this item of equipment to be verified for seismic adequacy:
Approved by: (For Equipment Classes #0 - #22, all the Seismic Capability Engineers on the Seismic Review Team (SRT) should sign; there should be at least two on the SRT. One signatory should be a licensed professional engineer.
For Relays, the Lead Relay Reviewer should sign.)
g b u)V 9/20/9 5 GWb dLk
/k Print or Type Name
~11gn'ature Date AWL N.9A*3 nE Neu203,14 9 I' Print or Type Name Signature Date Print or Type Name Signature Date I
i c
i
Sheet 1 of 2 SSEL Line No. 8048 A
OUTLIER SEISMIC VERIFICATION S6 ET (OSYS) 1.
OUTLIER IDENTIFICATION, DESCRIPTION, AND LOCATION j
Equipment ID Number PNL-PR-HTR-A Equipment Class 14 Equipment Location:
Bldg. SFGB Floor Elevation 735 j
Room or Row / Column W CABLE VAULT Base Elevation 740 Equipment Description RC/ PRESSURIZER HEATERS POWER DIST. PANEL 2.
OUTLIER ISSUE DEFINITION a.
Identify all the screening guidelines which are not met.
(Check more than one if several guidelines could not be satisfied.)
Mechanical and Electrical Eauipment Tanks and Heat Exchanaers Shell Buckling
- Capacity vs. Demand Caveats
/
Anchor Bolts and Embedment Anchorage Anchorage Connections Seismic Interaction Flexibility of Attached Piping
- Other Other Cable and Conduit Raceways Essential Relays Inclusion Rules Capacity vs. Demand Other Seismic Performance Concerns Mounting, Type, Limited Analytical Review Location Other Other
- Shell buckling and flexibility of attached piping only apply to large, flat-bottom, vertical tanks.
b.
Describe all the reasons for the outlier (i.e., if all the listed outlier issues were resolved, then the signatories would consider this item of equipment to be verified for seismic adequacy):
CaJcN N c$t aumslens a?e.
Yan a
a rew:er s
60cc's le cotdmen C Ass,
lle%F re4' e 40" U;A 44% "us 40"
Sheet 2 of 2 SSEL Line No.
8048 OUTLIER SEISMIC VERIFICATION SHEET (OSVS)
Equipment 10 Number PNL-PR-HTR-A 3.
PROPOSED METHOD OF OUTLIER RESOLUTION (OPTIONAL)
~
l a.
Define proposed method (s) for resolving outlier.
1)% Aou audlhe seh~h. aualkW ?e a ea oc,k G
k pal 0 L am ec w A cle -
L, Sou6 LL L leuch, g
b.
Provide information needed to implement proposed method (s) for resolving outlier (e.g., estimate of fundamental frequency),
b sat v nya2Cw k,,q1s l
- 2) L l mtd-1 l
4.
CERTIFICATION:
The information on this OSVS is, to the best of our knowledge and belief, 1
correct and accurate, and resolution of the outlier issues listed on the previous page will satisfy the requirements for this item of equipment to i
be verified for seismic adequacy:
l j
Approved by: (For Equipment Classes #0 - #22, all the Seismic Capability Enginders on the Seismic Review Team (SRT) should sign; there should be at least two on the SRT. One signatory should be a licensed professional engineer.
For Relays, the Lead Relay Reviewer should sign.)
{
8 9 5 j
- 0. L ac Oes Y e W
.Date i
Print or Type Nami
Si n ture YILLI441 hksl&
kl
@Q offs Frint or Type Name Signat'ure
(
Date j
i Print or Type Name Signature Date
{
~
~ -...
i Sheet 1 of 2 SSEL Line No. 8102C A
OUTLIER SEISMIC VERIFICATION SHEET (OSVS) 1.
OUTLIER IDENTIFICATION, DESCRIPTION, AND LOCATION
[
Equipment ID Number RK-VS-E567 Equipment Class 20 Equipment L~ocation:
Bldg. SRV8-Floor Elevation 713 l
Room or Row / Colt:mn AC EQUIP ROOM Base Elevation 713 Equipment Description CONTROL ROOM HEATERS VS-E-5, 6 & 7 j
h 2.
OUTLIER ISSUE DEFINITION t
a.
Identify all the screening guidelines which are not met.
j (Check more than ona if several guidelines could not be satisfied.)
Mechanical and Electrical Eautomerti Tanks and Heat Exchanaers Capacity vs. Demand Shell Buckling
- Caveats Z
Anchor Bolts and Embedment l
Anchorage Anchorage Connections t
Seismic Interaction 7~
Flexibility of Attached Piping
- Other-Other 2
Cable and Conduit Raceways Essential Relays Inclusion Rules Capacity vs. Demand Other Seismic Performance Concerns Mounting, Type, limited Analytical Review Location Other Other l
- Shell buckling and flexibility of attached piping only apply to l
larga, flat-bottom, vertical tanks.
b.
Describe all the reasons for the outlier (i.e., if all the listed outlier issues were resolved, then the signatories would consider this item of equipment to be verified for selsnile adequacy):
t)Tm Ei -t t h < at h % irs Atm a w h vAc h T
-< m m m u-a-a.
rum 4
a Y
N OO d I k
k l
M a u :r ma n u T c.A w cAwsa
- BAuALE, ct irhELA ne_m % A o T AtarM r 7196 I
h lAi h Fi ci m a r L 9 P a n.r E c hcx l
1 h b o p co ?P s R. T4E W T*
EAM KU W E5 7 560 E g
w. s.rs n er W - w m e s.cs s es wn a r,. man 14 Tant _ca As. T3 FA e4 3 L.
-[
2.U
. U
=
o
-or,---rv
-r v-
+v4-
~-r m
Sheet 2 of 2 SSEL Line No. SIO2C OUTLIER SEISMIC VERIFICATION SHEET (OSVS)
Equipment ID Number RK-VS-E567 3.
PROPOSED METHOD OF OUTLIER RESOLUT10i1 (OPTIONAL) a.
Define proposed method (s) for resolving outlier.
~
\\)hAnnm Gana irc ;
tosrAtt Ft_c w cn o o m T S An L acnna,n no r oc_ w e ontt Pm<n_5 "h Ma cie N 9tM Sta99cPJ B t pro r D
Cw m
._L di c i co r Ct_crAttArdC C
- b. 3)Provfde IAm P/A[f o.go c Tb coF?E st. woc ea PANEL nTELJM. w CT FAcc'.
40 C
r
~
nforma n needed to implement proposed method (s) for resolving outlier (e.g., estimate of fundamental frequency).
4.
CERTIFICATION:
The information on this OSVS is, to the best of our knowledge and belief, correct and accurate, and resolution of the out11er issues listed on the previous page will satisfy the requirements for this item of equipment to be verified for seismic adequacy:
Approved by: (For Equipment Classes #0 - #22, all the Seismic Capability Engirieers on the Seismic Review Team (SRT) should sign; there should be at least two on the SRT. One signatory should be a licensed professional enginee For Rel ys, the Lead Relay Reviewer should sign.)
A wu\\/.O Avi5 au A md MA la /@6 Print or Type Name
'S gnat 6 Date
^
O.
7A f
A 9 '7 e rnos. es enc Print or Type Name
' Signature Date Print or Type Name Signature Date
i Sheet 1 of 2 SSEL Line No.
8105 A
OUTLIER SEISMIC VERIFICATION SHEET (OSVS) 1.
OUTLIER IDENTIFICATION, DESCRIPTION, AND LOCATION Equipment ID Number TRANS-1-8-N1 Equipment Class 04 Equipmentlocation:
Bldg. SRVB Floor Elevation 713 Room or Row / Column NORMAL SWGR Base Elevation 713 Equipment Description 37/480V AUX EMERG BUS INI 2.
OUTLIER ISSUE DEFINITION a.
Identify all the screening guidelines which are not met.
(Check more than one if several guidelines could not be satisfied.)
Mechanical and Electrical Ecutoment Tar.ks and Heat Exchanaers Capacity vs. Demand Shell Buckling
- Caveats Anchor Bolts and Embedment Anchorage g
Anchorage Connections Seismic Interaction Flexibility of Attached Piping
- Other Other Cable and Conduit Raceways Essential Relays Inclusion Rules Capacity vs. Demand Other Seismic Performance Concerns Mounting, Type, Limited Analytical Review Location Other Other 1
- Shell buckling and flexibility of attached piping only apply to large, flat-bottom, vertical tanks.
b.
Describe all the reasons for the outlier (i.e., if all the listed outlier issues were resolved.then the signatories would consider this item of equipment to be verified for seismic adequacy):
Nut s emer-Col ca e_ we o,
ceo
Sheet 2 of 2 SSEL Line No. 8105 OUTLIER SEISMIC VERIFICATION SHEET (OSVS)
Equipment ID Number TRANS-1-8-N1-3.
PROPOSED METHOD OF OUTLIER RESOLUTION (OPTIONAL) a.
Define proposed method (s) for resolving outlier.
em medvds a
e er m ko-swoo
~
c ca uc+ c v e
o o
en sunna w
er.
I VV V
/
b.
Provide information needed to implement proposed method (s) for resolving outlier (e.g., estimate of fundament'al frequency).
4.
CERTIFICATION:
The information on this OSVS is, to the Dest of our knowledge and belief, correct and accurate, and resolution of the outlier issues listed on the previous page will satisfy the requirements for this item of equipment to be verified for seismic adequacy:
Approved by: (For Equipment Classes #0 - #22, all the Seismic Capability Engineers on the Seismic Review Team (SRT) should sign; there should be at least two on the SRT. One signatory should be a licensed professional engineer.
For Relays, the Lead Relay Reviewer should sign.,)
,f/
0,La )c,bd
(,
I2./20/ff 1
Print or Type Name
~ Signat re Date Yl NAM Ad$
Q fYMf7f Print or Type Natne
/
Signatute
'/
(
Date '
Print or Type Name Signature Date
Sheet 1 of 2 SSEL Lino No. 3205C A
OUTLIER SEISMIC VERIFICATION SHEET (OSVS)
{
1.
OUTLIER IDENTIFICATION, DESCRIPTION, AND LOCATION Equipment ID Number TV-CH-200A Equipment Class 07 Equipment Location: Bldg. RCBX Floor-Elevation 718 Room or Row / Column LETDOWN CUBICLE Base Elevation 728 Equipment Description CH/ LETDOWN ORIFICE CNMT ISOLATION 2.
OUTLIER ISSUE DEFINITION r
a.
Identify all the screening guidelines which are not met.
(Check more than one if several guidelines could not be satisfied.)
Mechanical and l
Electrical Eautoment Tanks and Heat Exchanaers i
Capacity vs. Demand Shell. Buckling
- Caveats
/
Anchor Bolts and Embedment 4
Anchorage Anchorage Connections i
Seismic Interaction Flexibility of Attached Piping
- l l
Other Other Cable and Conduit Raceways Essential Relays Inclusion Rules Capacity vs. Demand Other Seismic Performance Concerns Mounting, Type, Limited Analytical Review 2
Location Other Other
- Shell buckling and flexibility of attached piping only apply to large, flat-bottom, vertical tanks.
i b.
Describe all the reasons for the outlier (i.e., if all the IIsted
[
outlier issues were resolved, then the signatories would consider this item of equipment to be verified for seismic adequacy):
/) VAbl6 6%rA4me $/sc Curzns fQMd 2;n7A84GG':
Mr:
M /A.z "fevkro ha R7-/.bx>rssF YC Ng 2 "Ligg,
Af$5-30% mene kc&n ser nab 7-2 as.
2)Imawae Jnwac uswur> ro mesau
&r Ar ehus cemos udfcroa nWAvrke(7'rs m e n w e s -).
4 8
1
Sheet 2 of 2 SSEL Line No. 3205C l
i OUTLIER SEISMIC VERIFICATION SHEET (OSVS) i Equipment ID Number TV-CH-200A
'3.
PROPOSED METHOD OF OUTLIER RESOLUTION (OPTIONAL) a.
Define proposed method (s) for resolving outlier.
/)
4 ' 36FK AMANJM
' -C/
1
- 2) Prwr2/ Pod DF #FFw &rm Ad4b!rn x
/
4 ZkvarMAr)E A~FA3re?" or /AJDEPesJ13GW7~ CA!iGfRllC cf&JbM i
Provide information needed to implement proposed method (s) for
.b.
resolving outlier (e.g., estimate of fundamental frequency).
i f
i i
i i
4.
CERTIFICATION:
The information on this OSVS is, to the best of our knowledge and belief, correct and accurate, and resolution of the outlier issues listed on the l
previous page will satisfy the requirements for this item of equipment to l
j be verified for seismic adequacy:
Approved by: (For Equipment Classes #0 - #22, all the Seismic j
Capability Engirteers on the Seismic Review Team (SRT) should sign; there should be at least two on the SRT. One signatory should be a licensed professional engineer.
For Relays, the Lead Relay Reviewer should sign.)
$e$
Print or Type Name S/gntu y
[late 0$ Ye Drce 2
0-8-93 Print or Type Name.
' Signature Date
{
' Print or Type Name Signature Date t
4 Sheet 1 of 2 SSEL Line No.
5241 A
OUTLIER SEISMIC VERIFICATION SHEET (OSVS) 1..
OUTLIER IDENTIFICATION, DESCRIPTION, AND LOCATION Equipment ID Number VS-AD-9 Equipment C1 ass 00 Equipment Location:
Bldg. SRVB Floor Elevation 713 Room or Row / Column CR VENT Base Elevation 713 Equipment Description VS/VS-F-40A DISCHARGE DAMPER 2.
OUTLIER ISSUE DEFINITION a.
Identify all the screening guidelines which are not met.
(Check more than one if several guidelines could not be satisfied.)
Mechanical and Electrical Eautoment Tanks and Heat Exchanaers Shell Buckling
- Capacity vs. Demand v
Caveats Anchor Bolts and Embedment Anchorage z
Anchorage Connections Seismic Interaction Flexibility of Attached Piping
- Other Other Cab!e and Conduit Raceways Essential Relavs Inclusion Rules capacity vs. Demand Other Seismic Performance Concerns Mounting, Type, Limited Analytical Review Location Other Other
- Shell buckling and flexibility of attached piping only apply to large, flat-bottom, vertical tanks.
b.
Describe all the reasons for the outlier (i.e., if all the Itsted outlier issues were resolved, then the signatories would consider this item of equipment to be verified for seismic adequacy):
IYh f:P Gh u sT* Ate 4T I b Aeo n te - Licat Dmc.T
\\
~
W@ eta DAMEEE.
%Y \\b NOT Ip3 ch,m O G D im Tws E Aa.waw Av.s a osus a c.s E Gl u \\ff W h M T C.w.A SbE S.
THE D A PA P E tt.
\\S A 'T T A c w a O To T'M E t ea b so n' o
- Tu rm, t u c. T.
4 i
.<w
Sheet 2 of 2 SSEL Line Noa 5241 OUTLIER SEISMIC VERIFICATION SHEET (0SYS)
Equipment ID Number VS-AD-9 3.
PROPOSED METHOD OF OUTLIER RESOLUTION (OPTIONAL) a.
Define ~ proposed method (s) for resolving outiler.
A*^ ORE DerAswap E w as.JiiE u nge A St>J A L T ist 8p n a, TD TbE PR E F D AmW D Ten EVAbwATE THE S wte m sc.
CapAc.gr4 Q F-THE D A M P E R..
b.
Provide information needed to imples.ent proposed method (s) for resolving outlier (e.g., estimate of fundamental frequency).
4.
CERTIFICATION:
The information on this OSYS is, to the best of our knowledge and belief, correct and accurate, and resolution of the outlier issues listed on the previous page will satisfy the requirements for this item of equipment to be verified for seismic adequacy:
Approved by: (For Equipment Classes #0 - #22, all the Seismic Capability Engineers on the Seismic Review Team (SRT) should sign; there should be at least two on the SRT. One signatory should be a licensed professional engineer. For Relays, the Lead Relay Reviewer should sign.)
9A %V.D AVt&
b in h6 ilk 194I Print or Type Name
~Si n t e Date 1
ewme l
im Ill20l95 0$emas Print or Type Name
'51gnature Date~
Print or Type Name Signature Date m
u o
1 Sheet 1 of 2 SSEL Line No. 5260 A
-0UTLIERSEISMICVERIFICATIONSHEET(OSVS) 1.
OUTLIER IDENTIFICATION, DESCRIPTION, AND LOCATION Equipment ID Number VS-AFD-5 Equipment Class 00 Equipment Location: Bldg. SRV8 Floor Elevation 713 Room or Row / Column CR VENT Base Elevation Equipment Description VS/ ZONE 3 SUPPLY FIRE DANPER 2.
OUTLIER ISSUE DEFINITION a.
Identify all the screening guidelines which are not met.
(Check more than one if several guidelines could not be satisfied.)
Mechanical and Electrical Eautoment Tanks and Heat Exchanaers Capacity vs. Demand
/
Shell Buckling
- i Caveats Anchor Bolts and Embedmont
- i Anchorage v
Anchorage Connections Seismic Interaction Flexibility of Attached Piping
- i Other Other Cable and Conduit Raceways Essential Relays Inclusion Rules l
Capacity vs. Demand Other Seismic Performance Concerns F
Mounting, Type, Limited Analytical Review Location Other Other i
i
- Shell buckling and flexibility of attached piping only apply to large, flat-bottom, vertical tanks.
b.
Describe all the reasons for the outlier (i.e., if all the listed outlier issues were resolved, then the signatories would consider this item of equipment to be verified for seismic adequacy):
i Tms dau emmNT i s A,e m - t iam om.r We nu. D A mPER.
g y g o, goy tuc,u oap tu Tus E.ARTHawk%E E w P ER.sE n c.E
)
E st Ws g ma n T C.w A s, b a s.
Tes o A m es t
\\ s, A T T A c. w E O To Tu s 19 s, no t o p-Tu rs.
V w c. T.
c.o,4 owst h e f o a.T 11.o 0 \\N cos TA c.r W ST $
D A PA P1E R OPEAATON.
C.o N D w LT LeJ l
(. o N T A C. T W \\ TM UA*FE.Il DESNJ6 EOD+
i Sheet 2 of 2 1
SSEL Line No. 5260 OUTLIER SEISMIC VERIFICATION SHEET (OSVSj Equipment ID Number VS-AFD-5 3.
EP0 POSED METHOD OF OUTLIER RESOLUTION (OPTIONAL)
Define proposed method (s) for resolving outlier.
A Mo B.E Der T A s u s e E w en s.J E g y.g n A Aw A LN M 1b t e, Tw TbE Per e. P o st m s o To EVAbwATE THE S 45 \\1b m s o C a p A c,sT M O F-Tti a D A M P E ta.. R.Ewogx Kop Aw O cotJOw tT To cLE A%- t w Te AF EREs cE E.
i b.
Provide information needed to implement proposed method (s) for resolving outlier (e.g., estimate of fundamental frequency).
i 4.
CERTIFICATION:
The information on this OSVS is, to the best of our knowledge and belief, correct and accurate, and resolution of the outlier issues listed on the previous page will satisfy the requirements for this item of equipment to be verified for seismic adequacy:
Approved by: (For Equipment Classes #0 - #22, all the Seismic a
Capability Engineers on the Seismic Review Team (SRT) should sign, there should be at least two on the SRT. One signatory should be a Itcensed professional engineer.
For Relays, the Lead Relay Reviewer i
should sign.)
)
fan V.DAvt$
g M og, l
[8M f Print or Type Name Si nat e 4
Date
/N J
1 1
- 0 _-
hw-ocoo l J. m. nlL lll20lW
.I m Print or Type Name
~ S'ign'ature Date '
Print or Type Name Signature Date 1
Sheet 1 of 2 SSEL Line No.
5216 A:
OUTLIER SEISNIC VERIFICATION SHEET (OSYS) 1.
OUTLIER IDENTIFICATION, DESCRIPTION, AND LOCATION Equipment ID Number VS-D-4-BA Equipment Class 00 1
Equipment Eocation: B!dg. AXLB Floor Elevation 768 i
l
)
Room or Row / Column,AT FAN Base Elevation 768 i
Equipment Description LEAK COLL EXHAUST FAN 48 SUCTION ISOLATION DAMPER
{
2.
OUTLIER ISSUE DEFINITION 1
a.
Identify all the screening guidelines which are not met.
(Check more than one if several guidelines could not be satisfied.)
Mechanical and Electrical Eautoment Tanks and Heat Exchanaars Capacity vs. Demand 2
Shell Buckling
- Anchor Bolts and Embedment Caveats u
Anchorage Anchorage Connections Other Other l
Seismic Interaction g
Flexibility of Attacheo Piping
- Cable and Conduit Raceways Essential Relavs Inclusion Rules i
Capacity vs. Demand Other Seismic Performance Concerns Mountiag, Type, Limited Analytical Review Location Other i
Other
)
- Shell buckling and flexibility of atttched piping only apply to large, flat-bottom, vertical tanks.
b.
Describe all the reasons for the out11er (i.e., if all the listed i
outlier issues were resolved, then the signatories would consider this item of equipment to be verified for seismic adequacy):
I IM S Ga u sNENT 16 Am W - LipE Duv wenn Darn 9s%.
sT g o poo y tuawomo
]
}w Twg E AETHESAk%E G AP EME P4 LE E 4 u s t b^.t n T C w A SbtS.
Tv4s O A m FE E
\\b A T T h c.wt E D To TH E I N b t O E o p-TM fe.
j ucT.-?@gm4& BAAN teAPACT D AmPG R.
4 6
9
._,,,-..e
. +_
..~.
Sheet 2 of 2 i
SSEL Line No.
5216 i
OUTLIER SEISNIC VERIFICATION SHEET (OSVS)
Equipment ID Number VS-D-4-8A 3.
PROPOSED METWOO OF OUTLIER RESOLUTION (0PTIONAL) j a.
Define proposed method (s) for resolving outlier.
AnaoEE p e y A s s. u O E u so.J E m %s e A j
j
% A b 4 M **
te, w E E Ps e. c o e.m s o Te, l
EvAbwATs Tws S u ts ew s c, C n y A c.m l
O F Tti e O A ba ts sa.. Psn % Os h?s hos raeNT' N S W O t, D. T>E Aos A6M1 E Provide information needed to impleme.D.nt proposed method (s) for i
.1 b.
resolving outlier (e.g., estimate of fundamental frequency).
l i
f i
I i
i i
4.
CERTIFICATION:
1 The information on this OSVS is, to the best of our knowledge and belief, correct and accurate, and resolution of the outlier issues listed on the previous page will satisfy the requirements for this item of equipment to be verified for seismic adequacy:
Approved by: (For Equipment Classes #0 - #22, all the Seismic Capability Engineers on the seismic Review Team (SRT) should sign; there should be at least two on the SRT. One signatory should be a licensed professional engineer.
For Relays, the Lead Relay Reviewer should sign.)
M N ov. l (N
i Print or Type Name Si natu e Date i
ll ll7 l90 I
0.
arms c:-o w L Print or Type Name
" Signature Date Print or Type Name Signature
.Date
--,-e
...n.
-n
Shaet 1 of 2 SSEL Line No. 5101C A
OUTLIER SEISNIC VERIFICATION SHEET (OSVS) 1.
OUTLIER IDENTIFICATION, DESCRIPTION, AND LOCATION Equipment ID Number VS-F-57A Equipment Class 09 Equipment Location:
Bldg. INTS Floor Elevation 725 Room or Row / Column A CUBICLE Base Elevation 733 Equipment Description VS/ INTAKE STRUCTURE CUBICLE #1 SUPPLY FAN 2.
OUTLIER ISSUE DEFINITION a.
Identify all the screening guidelines which are not met.
(Check more than one if several guidelines could not be satisfied.)
4 Mechanical and Electrical Eautoment Tanks and Heat Exchanaers Capacity vs. Demand 7
Shell Buckling
- Caveats Anchor Bolts and Embedment Anchorage Anchorage Connections Seismic Interaction Flexibility of Attached Piping
- Other Other Cable and Conduit Raceways Essential Relav.1 Inclusion Rules 4
Capacity vs. Demand Other Seismic Performance Concerns Mounting, Type, Limited Analytical Review l
Location Other Other i
- Shell buckling and flexibility of attached piping only apply to large, flat-bottom, vertical tanks.
b.
Describe all the reasons for the outlier (i.e., if all the listed outlier issues were resolved, then the signatories would consider this item of equipment to be verified for seismic adequacy):
soe ekrum
}
res oon s e.
no - can, o c ui Cr N[ = edhon.
l l
.. ~. _.,
a Sheet 2 of 2 i
e 5101C LSSEi t.ine No.
l OUTLIER SEISMIC VERIFICATION SHEET (OSVS)
Equipment ID Number VS-F-57A-3.
PROPOSED METHOD OF OUTLIER RESOLU110N (OPTIONAL) j a.
Define proposed method (s) for resolving. outlier.
hJebo-T (2.5 D C seNmEc l
un N
cc N
lE Sox weNu~.
ocre b.
Provide information needed to implement proposed method (s) for resolving outlier (e.g., estimate of fundamental frequency).
a f
i 4.
CERTIFICATION:
The information on this OSVS is, to the best of our knowledge and belief, correct and accurate, and resolution of the outlier issues listed on the i
previous page will satisfy the requirements for this ite's of equipment to be verified for seismic adequacy:
l Approved by:-(For' Equipment Classes #0 - #22,. all the Seismic Capability Engineers on the Seismic Review Team (SRT) should sign; t
there should be at least two on the SRT. One signatory should be a licensed professional engineer. For Relays, th Lead Relay Reviewer should sign.)
oree k Asuu'
/
I Jtlfii STom N Print or Type fame
'S1 ure Date
- d. C2rz.
L.
/2-2 M sr Print or Type Name Signature 7
Date Print or Type Name Signature
'l) ate i
I Sh:;et 1 of 2 SSEL Line N3.
$201 A
i OUTLIER SEISMIC VERIFICATION SHEET (OSYS) 1.
OUTLIER IDENTIFICATION, DESCRIPTION, AND LOCATION i
Equipment ID Number 'J +-1A Equipment Class 06 Equipmenti.ocation:
Bldg. INTS Floor Elevation 705 Room or Row / Column A CUBICLE Base Elevation 705 Equipment Description RW/ RIVER WATER PUMP 2.
OUTLIER ISSUE DEFINITION a.
Identify all the screening guidelines which are not met.
(Check more than one if several guidelines could not be satisfied.)
Mechanical and Electrical Eouloment Tanks and Heat Exchanaers Sapacity vs. Demand v
Shell Buckling
- Caveats v
Anchor Bolts and Embedment Anchorage Anchorage Connections Seismic Interaction Flexibility of Attached Piping
- Other Other Cable and Conduit Raceways Essential Relays Inclusion Rules capacity vs. Demand Other Seismic Performance Concerns Mounting, Type, Limited Analytical Review Locatinn Other Other
- Shell buckling and flexibility of attached pipira only apply to large, flat-bottom, vertical tanks.
b.
Describe all the reasons for the outlier (i.e., if all the listed outlier issues were resolved, then the signatories would consider this item of equipment to be verified for seismic adequacy):
p*
{5 7. o aJ, a c.we Aow e %.m o,a c, c. va.
m n c.~ m -
%, =. s.v.m.
cou <wr Aa.st. AA) LitsA IBM T pd af id MW B Aa F.
f at um m Sw1L ^^ m112L er).
Sa## ALT I sa A t t in t "" L G" I
Sheet 2 of 2 SSEL Line No.
5101 OUTLIER SEISMIC VERIFICATION SHEET (OSVS)
Equipment ID Number WR-P-1A 3.
PROPOSED METHOD OF OUTLIER RESOLUTION (0PTIONAL) a.
Define proposed method (s) for resolving outlier.
RGv m Ex.tSTt46 s e a w e A w e Aw At.M stS.
c.m acL O W A 1 E W UT W T. S*I Am.. w e h e_.
S u #ent t h) s P GLTi o M /nsJ p.sw M io a.
b.
Provide information needed to implement proposed method (s) for resolving outlier (e.g., estimate of fundamental frequency).
EM h.a Tkck.604 9a m e SeL5 m c M e t.w s i s.
i 4.
CERTIFICATION:
The information on this OSYS is, to the best of our knowledge and belief, correct and accurate, and resolution of the outlier issues listed on the previous page will satisfy the requirements for this item of equipment to be verified for seismic adequacy:
Approved by: (For Equipment Classes #0 - #22, all the Seismic Capability Engineers on the Seismic Review Team (SRT) should sign; there should be at least two on the SRT. One signatory should be a licensed professional engineer. For Relays, the Lead Relay Reviewer should sign.)
PA n V.O gyis
[
Print or Type Name
' Signature
' %A, oge.2oh los 1
Date Cnen,aissue,.
fn L i2 - 2 a-,s Print or Type Name Signature Date j
Print or Type Name Signature Date j
.,u.
.A.
l 1
ENCLOSURE 10 l
l 1
l
ESSENTIAL RELAY DATA & ASSES MENT CHEET REF: AGASTAT 7022 Relav Tvog: AGASTAT 7022PD EIN f s)_: 62-1AFWRA,RB M2 del / Style: 7022PD State: DE/NO Location (s): PNL-REL-37R,38R Demand: RP's e SRVB El 713 (See "RP Demand" Sheet) => PSA/ZPA =
2.087/O.702g.
Capacity:
EPRI Ref.- NP-7147, pg.B-8 GERS/ Record - kLY-PNT.7 PSA/ZPA g-levels are:
NOP/NO&NC= 6/2.4; OP/NO&NC= 10/4; Transition =
4/1.6 SOUG-accentability Issues:
1.
" Time-out" setting must be greater than 0.3 sec.
- 2. Must be mounted in vertical position.
Resolution / Conclusion (s):
Component-related Issues:
- 1. Time setting is 10 sec.
- 2. Vertically mounted.
Relay Reviewer:
%T Capacity / Demand Issues:
Capacity exceeds Demand and essential AGASTAT 7022 relays are acceptable.
SCE:
~4
L
- c saurzaL nsLar Dara s.as::sssumur canst 1
REF: BARTON 288A
' Relav-Tyne: Barton 288A' Flow' Indicating Switch EINfs): FIS-FW151A,;FIS-FW151B
'Model/ Style: 288A i
i State: NOP/NC-
)
Location (s):.Short-Pipe-stanchion attached to a concrete column; SFGD El 722 Q.efand:. Stanchion judged to-be rigid for-device weight and cantilever 1627th;-=> FRS 9 5% damping yields PSA/ZPA = 0.4928/0.149g r
4 I
Canacity:
EPRI Ref.- NP-5223, pg.C-73 GERS/ Record
'GERS-RLY-PS.5 IEEE-344-Record: Barton Seismic Test Report R3-288A-13, 75.
i i~
PSA/ZPA g-levels'are:.GERS - NOP/NC='3/1.2g (function after) i QTR
- OP/12g (_21 (function during) j
]
SOUG-accentability Issues:
1
- 1) No mercury used.
k.
- 2) Setpoint margin should be greater than 10% of normal system l
- pressure.
+
Resolution / Conclusion (s):
Component-related Issues:
1&2) No' mercury is used; flow can vary with pump running, however, after Reactor trip (assumed to occur as a seismic consequence or shutdown action) flow would be at 350 gym for which the 275 gpa switch setting is beyond a 10% margin. => Caveats are OK.
j j
Relay Reviewer:
b Capacity / Demand' Issues:
QTR Capacity-exceeds Demand, as does GERS Capacity. Barton 288A is i
acceptable fo function-ring strong motion.
--SCE:.
,a4I _ J
}'
l I
ESSENTIAL RELAY DATA E ASSE28 MENT SHEET REF: COM-5 Relav Tvoe: Westinghouse COM-5 i
EINfs): 51-VE110A,B,C; 51-VF110A,B,C; 51-VE111A,B,C; 51-VF111A,B,C; 51-51-VE114A,B,C, 51-VF114A,B,C; 51-VE115A,B,C; 51-VF115A,B,C; 51-VE116A,B,C; 31-VF116A,B,C Model/ Style: 289B456A19, 289B456A21'- with CO, IIT & ITH included.
State: DE/NO Location: 4KVS-1E/1F; 713 SRVB Damand: SWGR AF=7.0 applied to FRS; PSA/ZPA = 2.434/0.819 Caoacity:
EPRI Ref. - NP-7147, V2, A1, Grp.7, pgs.1-1,2-1+; Model 289B355A11 GERS/Recora - Table 2-1, Group 7 (C37.98 data)
PSA/ZPA g-levels are: NOP/NO= 3/1.2 ; NOP/NC= M& ; OP/NO&NC= 10/4 s
SOUG-Accetability Issues:
- 1. SOUG R1h ACTOR for NOP/NC (DE/MC)
- 2. Model equivalence - EPRI vs. installed?
- 3. Is ITH present versus IITH ( IITH has higher capacity)?
- 4. Time Dial setting of 2.0 minimum?
Resolution / Conclusion (s):
Component-related Issues:
- 2. BV-1 essential COM-5 relays have a CO component, whereas the EPRI model does not.
- 3. The ITH is present, not the IITH.
f
- 4. The time dial settings have been verified as 2.0.
Relay Reviewer:
b m
capacity /Deman,d Issues:
1.
The BVPS-1 essential COM-5 relays are not configured in the Bad Actor state. For the BVPS-1 use (NOP/NO), EPRI reports a 3g Capacity level based upon the COM-5's least rugged component - the ITH. The EPRI Capacity is a C37.98 test result, which means that the ZPA achieved is 40% of the 3g PSA, or 1. 2g. The essential COM-5's, therefore, have a seismic Capacity that exceeds expected Demand (3/1.2g vs.2.434/0.819g/ZPA)
NOTE: The 3g " fragility" level is also found in the original 4KVS SWGR qualification (VTI 8700-01.015-01401, BV-146, ITE Report R-09400, pgs.
5&7). The QTR limits the COM-5 to the CO's minimum Capacity of 2.4g -
obviously lower than the ITH's 3.0g. However, the CO is now known to have a PSA of 6.0g, making the ITH controlling. Additional testing by i
Westinghouse under BV-8 1975-76, was also aaceptable)
SCE:
m/b m;
-~1
\\
Y
c SENTIAL RELAY DATA & ASSESCMENT SEEET REF: MG-6 Relav Tvoe: Westinghouse MG-6 EIN(s): ESRXA; ESRXB; 52-8N16X *; 52-9P16X *; 52S-1A10X; 52S-1D10X; 52S-1E7X; 52S-1F7X; 52S-1E9X; 52S-1F9X; 52X-1AFWRA *; 52X-1AFWRB *; 62-AEX2; 62-DFX; 62-ACAX3; 62-ACBX3; 62-VE100X5; 62-VF100X5; 69-AEX2; 69-DFX2; 69-E3VX *; 69-E4VX *; 69-E7E; 69-E8E; 162-AEX2; 162-DFX2; indicates latching relay i
Model/ Style: 1163801, 1163803, 1163828, 1163841, 288B977A15 State: DE/NO; DE/NC i
Location (s): 4KVS-1AE,1DF,1E8A,1F8A; 480VUS-1N,1P; PNL-DG-SEQ-1 & 2; PNL-DIGEN-1 & 2; PNL-REL-35F,35R,36F,36R,37R,38R Demand: 4KVS SWGR (AF=7) 9 SRVB El 713 => PSA/ZPA = 2.434/0.819 PNL-REL (See "RP Demand" Sheet) => PSA/ZPA = 2.304/0.936g t
PNL-DG-SEQ 9 SRVB El 713 w/AF=7.0 => PSA/ZPA = 2.434/0.819g PNL-DIGEN MG-6's are located 9 floor level => AF=1.0 and PSA/ZPA = 0.445/0 152g.
j l
Canacity:
EPRI Ref.- NP-7147, pg.B-18; Model MG-6(DC)
GERS/ Record - RLY-ARH.5 PSA/ZPA g-levels are:
NOP/NO= 10/4 ; NOP/NC= 3/1.2 ; OP/No&NC= 10/4 SOUG-accentability Issues:
- 1. Model comparability - 120V DC model.
- 2. 3 NC contacts maximum.
- 3. Compliance with Westinghouse Instruction Leaflet IL.41-753.1 for NO l
gap & NO/NC wipe, including 80 ms time adjustment. NOTE: NP-7147,V2,A1, p.3-1, addresses comparability issues, including effects of relay adjustments. It concludes that only the HFA151 NC is affected.
i Resolution / Conclusion (s):
Component-related Issues:
- 1. Models in use are both 120 VAC & 125 VDC; some are latching. The 125 VDC and latching have no effect on equivalence.
- 2. All relays have 3 or fewer NC contacts.
i
- 3. No known adjustments from factory settings exist.
j Relay Reviewer:
At Capacity / Demand Issues:
- 4. The essential MG-6 r lays have Capacity exceeding Demand.
-SCE:
w
]
CCSENTIAL RELAY DATA & A8800CMENT SHEET REF: RXME-1 Relav Tvoe: ASEA RXME-1 EIN(s): 3A-PASA; 3A-PASB; 40VF-109X; 52S-1F7XX; 52S-1D10XX; 52S-1F9XX; 62VF-110XX; 62-1E9X; 62-1F9X; EXPBX-REC; FFX-REC; FFSWX-REC; RCRX-REC;
)
RGLX-REC; RSX-REC; SYNDG-2X
)
Model/ Style: RK-221-052-AN, 125 VDC State: DE/NO; DE/NC Location (s): 4KVS SWGR, SRVB El 713; PNL-REL-DGI, DGBX El 735.
Demand: 4KVS (AF=7.0) PSA/ZPA = 2.434/0.819g PNL-REL-DGI (see "RP Evaluation" Sheet) PSA/ZPA = 3.112/1.064c Capacity:
EPRI Ref.- NONE GERS/ Record - Record QTR: ASEA AB Relay Division, Test Report 7911.373 (ANSI C37.98 testing).
PSA/ZPA g-levels are: RK 221 052-AN (Data Sheet RK 21-10) NOP&OP/NC =
6/2.4; NOP/OP/NO = 6.5/6.5 (Table limits).
SOUG-acceptability Issues:
NONE Resolution / Conclusion (s):
Component-related Issues NONE Relay Reviewer: bbo Capacity / Demand Issues:
Capacity of essential RXME-1 relay exceeds Demand and relay is acceptable.
SCE:
m
j CCSENTIAL RELAY DATA & ASSEOCMENT SEEET l
l REF: RXMH-2 Relav Tvoe: ASEA RXMH-2
- EIN(s): Group 1 HVCA; 3-HVCB; 3-HVCC; 3-HVCD Group 2 3-LDA; 3-LDB; K611X-GSP; K613YA-LDA; K613YB-LDB; K613XA-E3V; K613XB-E4V i
"~
Group 3 - 43X-PASA; 43X-PASB Model/ Style: Grp.1 = RK-223-069-EN, 110V; Grp.2 = RK-223-068-EN, 120V; Grp.3 = RK-223-069-AP, 125V.
l State: DE/NO Location (s): PNL-PAS-RA,RB; PNL-REL-35R,36R; TB-348A; TB-349A; PNL-REL
-DGI.
Demand:
l RP's 35R,36R & PAS S SRVB El 713 (See "RP Demand" Sheet) => PSA/ZPA =
j 2.087/0.702g and 2.434/0.8199; I
TB's G AXLB El 768 (AF=7.0, see below) => PSA/ZPA = 3.750/1.232; PNL-REL-DGI e DGBX El 735 (See "RP Demand Sheet) =>
3.112/1.064g Canacity:
EPRI Ref.- NONE GERS/ Record - RECORD: Calculation 8700-DQC-0075; ASEA AB Report i
7911.373 (ANSI C37.98 testing).
PSA/ZPA g-levels are:
RK 223 069-AN (Data Sheet RK 21-10):
l NOP/NO=6.5/6.1; NOP/NC= 5.25/2.1; OP/NO&NC 2,NOP/NOENC i
SOUG-accentability Issues:
- 1. Cabinet amplification for wall-mounted panel is not provided in SQUG/EPRI guidance. If an AF=7 is used, the RXMH-2 Capacity exceeds all location-of-use Demand levels.
4 4
- 2. Use of ASEA Test Report is based upon RXMH-2 being a RK 223 069-AN j
or equivalent.
i Resolution / Conclusion (s):
1 j
component-related Issues:
- 2. Relays are RK 223 069-AN (120 VAC), -EN (110 VAC) & -AP (125 VDC).
i No difference exists that would make the AN's Capacity greater than the EN's and AP's.
Relay Reviewer: Os FJe I
Capacity / Demand Issues:
SCE:
[
N
I i
ESORMTIAL RELAY DATA & ASSEOCMENT SEEET REF: SG Relav Tvoe: Westinghouse SG EIN(s): 62-ACAX1,2; 62-ACBX1,2 - 120 VAC 3-1AFWRA,B - 125 VDQ Model/Stvli: 1163803; 293B255A26 State: DE/NO Location (s): PNL-REL-35F, 36F, 37R,~38R Demand:'RP's 0 SRVB El 713 (See "RP Demand" Sheet) => PSA/ZPA =
2.087/0.702g Canacity:
l EPRI Ref.- NP-7147, pg.B-19, Group 4 GERS/ Record - RLY-ARH.5 PSA/ZPA'g-levels are:
NOP/NO= 9/121 ; NOP/NC= ER ; OP/NO= 8/121; "OP/NC= 5/2
)
SOUG-accentability Issues:
- 1. 5000 *1n ACTOR FOR MOP /MC (DE/MC)
- 2. Model is 120VDC Resolution / Conclusion (s):
Component-related Issues:
- 2. Essential relays are both 120 VAC & 125 VDC, which are phyEica31y i
equivalent.
Relay Reviewer: bb Capacity / Demand Issues:
SCE:
[
--g i
i i
t
- - =
+. - - -. -
m a:ssuTIAL asLay Dara a assaccumur susse
.SQD 8504-
- REF: -
i Relav Tyne: SQUARE D Class 8504 1
EIN(s): ~Frc j.
KQdal/_ Sty _la:- EQ1965G13 State,DE/No i
Location (s): PNL-DIGEN-1 & 2; DGBX El 735.
1 I
Demand: (see "RP" Demand Evaluation Sheet), => PSA/ZPA = 1.338/0.458g.
l I
Canacity:
EPRI Ref.-'None GERS/ Record.- BV-116; WYLE Laboratories QTR No. 42531-1 (VTI 8700-l 01.030-43D).-
PSA/ZPA g-levels are: Original test levels produced a mounting surface ZPA ='2.60g during a sine dwell test of 0.44g at the table surface.
j SOUG-accentability Issues:
l t
Resolution / Conclusion (s):
l Component-related Issues:
Relay Reviewer: db [
f Capacity / Demand Issues:
Relays vere originally tested to IEEE-344-71 requirements as part of a full-scale cabinet shakatable test by WYLE Laboratories (VTI 8700-1 01.030-43D, Report' 42531-1). Table motion was 0.44g horizontal / 0.28g vertical, which exceeds'the ZPA at the DGBX floor of 0.152g. The f
j cabinet was oriented at 45* to the table axis, so that each of the 1
three (3) cabinet axes was excited. A 0.2g H/0.lg V, sine sweep was performed for 1-33 Hz to determine cabinet response, which occurred'at c
9, 12 and 19 Hz. The 0.44 H/0.28 V full sine dwell tests then followed at these frequencies. Six (6) circuits were monitored to a one (1) as 1
chatter limit. All devices functioned properly, except for four (4) MG-6 relays, which were then relocated to the floor level to eliminate i
3
- amplification.
j The essential SQUARE D Class 8504 relays satisfied the license basis qualification test as. described above. However, there is no SQUG basis j
, - and the lays will be considered OUTLIsRS.
for acceptan SCE:
u,
-H 3
4 w
N'*'
s er e
v v
v E
a-:
,-.we,,
,.N_,-
l l
Relav Panel "RP" C ' nd Evaluation The relay enclosures that do not fall within the. MCC, Switchgear or Control Panel groupings, such as the Relay Panels, require separate t
determinations of the_
demand levels they generate.
Existing i
qualification data provides frequency response and amplification factors for most enclosures. However, the amplification factors, while kinematic, were often derived from low excitation levels. Where such data woulds indicate enclosure rigidity for relay panels (RP) and i
similar type enclosures, EPRI publication NP-7146-SL-R1 is taken as i
guidance on establishing more conservative demand levels.
l PNL-REL-32 thru 38:
4 These panels were tested by Westinghouse / Systems control Corp, under Purchase Order BV-647. Testing (VTI 87.00-01.060-107A) established the i
minimum fundamental response frequencies as 8 Hz front-to-back and 23 Hz side-to-side (single units standing alone). The 8 Hz level was taken from transmissibility plots with a response ratio of only 1.49. versus 1
the common response level requirement of two (2). They meet all NP-j 7146-SL caveats regarding material type, thickness, and size aspect 1
ratios. The 9 Hz limit is considered met since the responsiveness of i
the cabinet is low (1.49) at 8 Hz and drops back to 1.0 thru~19 Hz.
i i
i 1
PNL-REL-19 & 22:
These panels were tested by Westinghouse / Systems control Corp, under Purchase Order BV-647. Testing (VTI 8700-01.060-107A) established the j
minimum fundamental response frequencies as 23.5 Hz front-to-back and 9 l
Hz side-to-side (single units standing alone). The 9 Mz level was taken i
from transmissibility plots with a response ratio of two (2). They meet all NP-7146-SL caveats regarding material type and thickness, and size i
aspect ration.
RK-REAC-PROT-A & B:
i f
These panels are three-bay units with individual 30" X
30" bay
.L dimensions, and a height of 91". The RP caveats are considered to be l.
met except that the fundamental frequency is unknown.
i l
i RK-AUX-REL-A & B:
These panels are single-bay units with 30" deep by 24.5"
' wide l
dimensions, and a height of 91". The RP caveats are considered to be met except that the fundamental frequency is unknown.
The above panels are all located on El 713 of the Service Building, and are governed by the following determination of amplification:
Amnlification Factor Method of NP-7146-SL R1:
DEM = 6.0(0 2178g) = 2.0879 PSA; ZPA = 6.0(0.117) = 0.702g.
i Alternate Method 2, with fdI=9HZ, f,d=4% and DF,=8.0g/g (Fn unknown for some RP's) results in the following DEMAND levels:
2 DEM1 = DF. Sad
-DEM2 = Sao(f,5%) for f,>_ 4Hz t
.w~
-w
- .1
-.e.--
~ -.. -. -. _. - -. _. _ -
l
~DEM1 = ( 8. 0) ( 0.122 ) = 0. 976g; ZPA = (8. 0) (0.117) =0. 93 6g DEM2 = 0.2575g l-(Note: 4% & 5% FRS are attached)
I The DEMAND of 2.087/0.702g = PSA/ZPA, will be used for the above relay panels. (Note: Original testing of several of these panels resulted in a determination of near-rigidity and amplification of 1.6.
The use of AF=6.0 is conservative)
PNL-DIGEN-1 & 2:
These panels were purchased from General Motors under BV-116, Emergency Diesel Generators. Testing by WYLE Laboratories (VTI 8700-01.030-43D, QTR No.
42531-1), resulted in accelerometer data for two (2) horizontal / vertical table motion levels (0.2/0.1g & 0.44/0.28g) for sine sweep and dwell
- input, respectively.
The tested cabinet was oriented at 45* to the table's axes to excite both of the cabinet's horizontal axes simultaneously (an independent vertical excitation was also applied simultaneously).
Transmissibility data at both table levels indicated cabinet and internal panel resonance at 9, 12 and 19 4
Hz.
The par ls are located at El 735 of the Diesel Generator Building, a 5% damping FRS PSA/ZPA of 0.4445/0.152g. An item at that whicP l
locais
- .aving a fundamental response of 9 Hz, and subjected to the site's
. censed SSE notion, will have a PSA9 = 0.22852g. When compared 4
to the maximum base (floor ZPA) acceleration of 0.152g, this yields an AF=1.503. Applying a factor of 2.0 for multi-modal participation and Fn I
- error, raises the "AF" to 3.01 and the PSA/ZPA to 1.338/0.458g.
However, four (4) MG-6 relays in each panel are mounted at the floor 0.4445/0.152g for 1.0 applies so that PSA/ZPA level, and an AF
=
=
these MG-6's.
PNL-DG-SEQ-1 & 2 These panels are wall-mounted at El 713 of the Service Building, with the relays attached to an
- internal, rear sub-panel.
There is essentially no amplifying, intervening structure (connectors only) between the sub-panel and the wall surface. The wall's motion can be taken as the FRS, which has a 5% damping PSA/ZPA of 0.348/0.117g. Since the mounting panel's response should be no higher than the PSA, these values could be taken as the panel's Demand level.
- However, for j
conservatism, an AF = 7.0 will be used, and PSA/ZPA = 2.434/0.819g 9 54 damping.
PNL-PAS-RA & RB These panels are wall-mounted at El 713 of the Service Building, with the relays attached to an
- internal, rear sub-panel.
There is 1
essentially no amplifying, intervening structure (connectors only) between We sub-panel and the wall surface. The wall's motion can be 4
taken as the FRS, which has a 5% damping PSA/ZPA of 0.348/0.1179. Since the mounting panel's response should be no higher than the PSA, these i
~
values could be taken as. the panel's Demand level.
- However, for 4
conservatism, an AF = 7.0 will be used, and PSA/ZPA = 2.434/0.819g 9 5%
damping.
PNL-DGEA-1 & 2
?
These panels are. wall-mounted at El 735 of the Diesel Generator Building, with essential relays mounted in both the face panel and a rear sub-panel.
For the rear sub-panel, there is essentially no amplifying, intervening ' structure (connectors only) between the sub-panel and the wall surface. The wall's motion can be taken as the FRS, which has a 5%
damping PSA/ZPA of 0.4445/O.152g. Since the mounting panel's response l' should be no higher than the PSA, these values could be taken as the panel's Demand level. However, for conservatism, an AF = 7.0 will be used, and PSA/ZPA = 3.112/1.064g 8 5% damping for the sub-panel relays.
i For the relays mounted on the panel's face, there is no amplifying,
-intervening structure between the panel and the wall surface. The side 1
panels that form the box are rigid in-plane, and act as diaphrams. The face panel's out-of-plane response would, therefore, control (1).
Motion in the lateral and/or vertical plane of the face panel - would be resisted by the top & bottom and/or sidewalls in-plane. The face
-panel will experience essentially no-amplification. The wall's motion 4
can be taken as the floor response spectrum, which has a 1% damping l
(rigid)
PSA/ZPA of 0.994/0.152g. Since the in-plane motion is non-amplifying, and the out-of-plane panel response should be no higher than the PSA, the 1% FRS could be taken as the DEMAND level curve.
i Alternatively, a very conservative amplification factor could be taken l
as seven (7) applied to a 5% damped FRS. The resulting Demand level is 3.112/1.064g. This higher than the 1% FRS and produces a PSA/ZPA
=
alternative will be used for the panel's face-mounted relays.
+
(1) NOTE: The overall panel is a NEMA 12 according to the applicatie drawing AA-8700-RE-25AW-7. Its face panel's natural frequency, wiP. two (2) 47H relays mounted on it, is 31.74 Hz (calculated using Roark &
Young as a
plate with all sides simply-supported).
Possible amplification of orthogonal motion is, therefore, minimal and an AF=7 1
extremely conservative.
PNL-REL-DGI This panel is.a wall-mounted enclosure, at El 735 of the Diesel Generator Building, with the relays mounted on a rear sub-panel.
There is essentially no amplifying, intervening structure l
(connectors only)-between the sub-panel and the wall surface. The wall's motion can be taken as the FRS, which has a 5% damping PSA/ZPA of 9 4445/0.152g. Since the mounting panel's response should j
be no higher than the PSA, these values could be taken as the panel's DerAnd level. However, for conservatism, an AF = 7.0 will be used, and PSA/ZPA = 3.112/1.064g 9 5% damping.
r,...
.+..-:
...c.
.