ML15280A308
| ML15280A308 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 10/31/2011 |
| From: | Tsai Y FirstEnergy Corp, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15280A293 | List: |
| References | |
| L-15-310, TAC ME4640 C-CSS-099.20-055, Rev 1 | |
| Download: ML15280A308 (23) | |
Text
FtrstEnetxiv Page i
CALCULATION NOP-CC-3002-01 Rev. 03 CALCULATION NO.
C-CSS-099.20-055 D
BV1 INITIATING DOCUMENT ECP-10-0458
[ ] VENDOR CALC
SUMMARY
VENDOR CALCULATION NO.
BV2 l
^
DB l
QPY Title/
Subject:
ll/l Evaluation for Architectural Flute Shoulder Category Classification Open Assumptions?
System Number Functional Location Commitments:
(Perry & Oavis-Besse Only)
(Perry Only)
Active Tier 1 Calculation
Yes E
No
Historical H
Safety-Related/Augmented Quality if Yes, Enter Tracking Number
[X]
Study
Nonsafety-Related N/A N/A None Calculation Type:
N/A Referenced In Atlas?
Yes S No Referenced In USAR Validation Database Yes No Computer Program(s)
Program Name MathCAD Version / Revision 15.0 Category C
Status Active Description Analysis and Documentation Revision Record Rev.
00 Rev.
Rev.
Rev.
Affected Pages All Originator (Print, Sign & Date)
Yueh-Hua Tsai (Bechtel)
Description of Change: Initial Issue Describe where the calculation will be evaluated for Affected Pages Originator (Print, Sign & Date)
Description of Change:
Reviewer/Design Verifier (Print, Sign & Date)
Shen Wang (Bechtel)
/
10CFR50.59 applicability. -eee-NBIeT Reviewer/Design Verifier (Print, Sign & Date)
Describe where the calculation will be evaluated for 10CFR50.59 applicability.
Affected Pages Originator (Print, Sign & Date)
Description of Change:
Describe where the calculation will be evaluated for Affected Pages Originator (Print, Sign & Date)
Description of Change:
Reviewer/Design Verifier (Print, Sign & Date) 10CFR50.59 applicability.
Reviewer/Design Verifier (Print, Sign & Date)
Describe where the calculation will be evaluated for 10CFR50.59 applicability.
Approver (Print, Sign & Date)
Hongchun Liu (Bechtel)
Initiating Document: ECP-10-0458 Wage* £$J{y/*cHuc_
Tof&fn Approver (Print, Sign & Date)
Initiating Document:
Approver (Print, Sign & Date)
Initiating Document:
Approver (Print, Sign & Date)
Initiating Document:
FirstEnergy Page ii CALCULATION NOP-CC-3002-01 Rev. 03 CALCULATION NO.
C-CSS-099.20-055
[ ] VENDOR CALC
SUMMARY
VENDOR CALCULATION NO.
TABLE OF CONTENTS SUBJECT COVERSHEET:
OBJECTIVE OR PURPOSE SCOPE OF CALCULATION
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS LIMITATIONS OR RESTRICTION ON CALCULATION APPLICABILITY IMPACT ON OUTPUT DOCUMENTS DOCUMENT INDEX CALCULATION COMPUTATION (BODY OF CALCULATION):
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ASSUMPTIONS ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA COMPUTATION RESULTS CONCLUSIONS ATTACHMENTS:
ATTACHMENT 1:
ATTACHMENT 2:
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS (For Records Copy Only)
DESIGN VERIFICATION RECORD CALCULATION REVIEW CHECKLIST 10CFR50.59 DOCUMENTATION DESIGN INTERFACE
SUMMARY
DESIGN INTERFACE EVALUATIONS other.&iot^£R<>
M<^PTftAJC.
RGNiSKi EXTERNAL MEDIA? (MICROFICHE, ETC.) (IF YES, PROVIDE LIST IN BODY OF CALCULATION)
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES IN CALCULATION (COVERSHEETS + BODY + ATTACHMENTS)
PAGE iii iii iii iii iii iv 3
3 3
5 12 13 Pages Pages 1
Pages 3 Pages O
Pages C?
Pages O
Pages 2L Pages
YES
[3 NO 17 Pages NOTES:
CALCULATION Page iii NOP-CC-3002-01 Rev. 03 CALCULATION NO.
C-CSS-099.20-055
[ ] VENDOR CALC
SUMMARY
VENDOR CALCULATION NO.
OBJECTIVE OR PURPOSE:
The purpose of this calculation is to demonstrate that during a
seismic
- event, with the development of the crack in the architectural flute shoulder, the capacity of rebar(s) can still provide adequate anchorage thus prevent cracked concrete piece from falling, and therefore Seismic ll/l condition can be maintained.
SCOPE OF CALCULATION/REVISION:
During the seismic event, a crack is assumed to be developed to the point of tendency for the architectural flute.
In order to satisfy the Seismic ll/l condition, not to allow the concrete to fall off from the Shield
- Building, under the Safety Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) load condition, the shear-friction
/ tensile capacity of the rebar(s) would have to provide the capacity to prevent the collapse of the concrete under the worst case scenario so the function and structural integrity of Seismic Category I structure, system, and component in the vicinity will not be affected.
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS:
This calculation evaluates the potential crack of the concrete for architectural flute shoulder.
In this evaluation, conservative scenarios are considered to include the effect of dead
- load, vertical seismic load and horizontal seismic load for the load combination (D +
E').
It was shown that the shear-friction / tensile capacity of the #8 rebar provides required reinforcement for the concrete so that the collapse of the flute shoulder concrete is prevented and ll/l condition of SB will be maintained.
LIMITATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS ON CALCULATION APPLICABILITY:
The use of this calculation is limited to Davis-Besse Shield Building for SGRP.
IMPACT ON OUTPUT DOCUMENTS:
Not applicable
FirstEnerav CALCULATION Page iv NOP-CC-3002-01 Rev. 03 CALCULATION NO.
C-CSS-099.20-055
[ ] VENDOR CALC
SUMMARY
VENDOR CALCULATION NO.
DOCUMENT INDEX DIN No.
1 2
3 45 67 Document Number/Title UpdatedSafetyAnalysisReport(USAR)for Davis-BesseNuclearPowerStationNo.1 Davis-BesseNuclearPowerStationUnit1 DesignCriteriaManual NRCReg.Guide1.29,SeismicDesign Classification DrawingNo.7749-C-110,ShieldBuildingRoof PlanWallSection&Details AmericanConcreteInstitute(ACI)318-05, BuildingCodeRequirementsforStructural ConcreteandCommentary FENOCOriginalCalculationNO.VS01/B01-03, SeismicAnalysisoftheContainmentStructure FENOCOriginalCalculationNO.VS21/B01-01, ShieldBuildingSeismicAnalysis Rev.6 August,2005 10/4/1976,Rev.0 6/4/1981,Rev.1 Reference Input Output
F/rsfEnergy CALCULATION COMPUTATION NOP-CC-3002-01 Rev. 03 Page 1
CALCULATION NO.:
C-CSS-099.20-055 REVISION:
00 TABLE OF CONTENTS Description.
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 PURPOSE METHODOLODGY ASSUMPTIONS ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA DESIGN INPUTS / REFERENCES CALCULATION 6.1 Description of Architectural Flute and Potential Crack 6.2 Loading Calculation 6.3 Loading Combination under Different Scenarios CONCLUSION Sheet No.
3 3
3 3
4 5
5 6
10 13
CALCULATION COMPUTATION Page 2 NOP-CC-3002-01 Rev. 03 CALCULATION NO.:
C-CSS-099.20-055 REVISION:
00 List of Figures Figure No.
Description.
Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 Plan View of Shield Building near Architectural Flute Potential Crack Path Diameter of Shield Building Model for Frequency Estimation Horizontal Seismic Normal to the Crack Path Horizontal Seismic Parallel to the Crack Path Sheet No.
5 6
7 9
10 11
FirstEnetxjy Page 3 CALCULATION COMPUTATION NOP-CC-3002-01 Rev. 03 CALCULATION NO.:
C-CSS-099.20-055 REVISION:
00 1.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this calculation is to demonstrate that during a
seismic
- event, with the development of the crack in the architectural flute
- shoulder, the capacity of rebar(s) can still provide adequate anchorage thus prevent cracked concrete piece from
- falling, and therefore Seismic ll/l condition can be maintained.
See the following Seismic ll/l definition stated in Ref.
2:
"Seismic Category ll/l structures, systems and components are defined as those structures, systems and components (or portions thereof) which are not classified as Seismic Category I
but whose failure due to a
seismic event could affect the function of a Seismic Category I structure, system or component."
2.0 METHODOLOGY During the seismic event, a crack is assumed to be developed to the point of tendency for the architectural flute.
In order to satisfy the Seismic ll/l condition, not to allow the concrete to fall off from the Shield
- Building, under the Safety Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) load condition, the shear-friction / tensile capacity of the rebar(s) would have to provide the capacity to prevent the collapse of the concrete under the worst case scenario so the function and structural integrity of Seismic Category I structure, system, and component in the vicinity will not be affected.
3.0 ASSUMPTIONS There are no unverified assumptions used in this calculation.
Assumptions and engineering judgment used are identified in the body of the calculation with appropriate justification.
4.0 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Due to Seismic Category ll/l condition for SB, the calculation is evaluated in accordance with ACI 318-05 (Ref. 5).
RrsfEnenav Page 4 CALCULATION COMPUTATION NOP-CC-3002-01 Rev. 03 CALCULATION NO.:
C-CSS-099.20-055 REVISION:
00 5.0 DESIGN INPUTS / REFERENCES (Design inputs are annotated with an asterisk *)
1.
Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) for Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station No.
1, Rev.
28 2.
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 Design Criteria Manual, Rev. 20 3.
NRC Reg. Guide 1.29, Seismic Design Classification, Rev. 3 4.
- Drawings: 7749-C-110, Rev. 6, "Shield Building Roof Plan Wall Section & Details" 5.
American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318-05, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary 6.
Original Design Calculations:
VS01/B01-03, Approval Date 10/4/1976, Rev.
0, "Seismic Analysis of the Containment Structure" 7.
Original Design Calculations:
VS21/B01-01, Approval Date 6/4/1981, Rev.
1, "Shield Building Seismic Analysis"
F/rsfEnergy CALCULATION COMPUTATION Page 5 NOP-CC-3002-01 Rev. 03 CALCULATION NO.:
C-CSS-099.20-055 REVISION:
00 6.0 CALCULATION 6.1 Description of Architectural Flute and Potential Crack On the cylindrical wall of the Shield
- Building, there is architectural flute at every 45° as shown in Figure 6.1. A potential crack (red line shown in Figure 6.2) is considered from the point of tangency to the area near the center of flute as shown in Figure 6.2. One set of "L" shape rebar has two legs crossing the potential crack surface. Since the leg near the point of tendency is too close to the potential crack
- path, the leg is treated only as stability support.
- Also, since the spacing of #8 rebar in height is 12",
only one rebar per foot is considered for the loading from a piece of flute shoulder. Therefore, shear-friction
/ tensile capacity provided by the leg is calculated.
Figure 6.1: Plan View of Shield Building near Architectural Flute
FirstEnertjy CALCULATION COMPUTATION Page 6 NOP-CC-3002-01 Rev. 03 CALCULATION NO.:
C-CSS-099.20-055 REVISION:
00 6.2 Loading Calculation Conservatively, vertical and horizontal seismic responses (Ref. 6) at the top of the cylindrical wall are applied for the seismic loads. Weight of the concrete outside of the potential crack path is considered as the dead load.
Point of Tangency Figure 6.2: Potential Crack Path Angles between shear plane and rebar legs:
10.125n)l f 180 f(3ft+2.5in)-(2ft+
a := acos
= 75.93 L
lft + 6in Lines for small triangular area:
(lft+6in)
L1 :=
7=
^7 = 1.55ft cos (90 -a) 180 f(90-a) 1 L2 := (lft + 6in)tan
-n
= 0.38ft L
180 J
Small triangular area:
A3:=
(lft+6in)L2 2
= 0.28ft Quadrilateral area:
A4:=
L1 +
(2ft +
2.5in) 2 i-(2ft+ 10.125n) = 5.34ft
FjrstEnergy CALCULATION COMPUTATION Page 7 NOP-CC-3002-01 Rev. 03 CALCULATION NO.:
C-CSS-099.20-055 REVISION:
00 MOTS:
FO/L
£XT£NT Of AtCHITSCTURAL S£B DNQ.
C-//1 Figure 6.3: Diameter of Shield Building Angle between point of tangency and the centerline of the flute:
(17ft +
llin)l 180 9.,
- = atari
= 13.97 1
I (72ft)
J Approximated potential crack length:
L:=7t (71ft +
9in) - (2ft +
10.125n) =
14.66ft 180 V
Based on Impulse Response testing, the actual crack length is 10 to 12 feet long.
Entire triangular area based on the angle 0<l:
72ft *( 17ft +
llin) 2
= 645ft Circular area based on the angle 6-l:
1 2
2 A2
- =
Tt (71ft + 9in)
= 627.78ft Total concrete area:
Aconc :=A1 -A2-A3-A4 = 11.6ft
RrsfEhenav CALCULATION COMPUTATION Page 8 NOP-CC-3002-01 Rev. 03 CALCULATION NO.:
C-CSS-099.20-055 REVISION:
00 Total volume of the concrete:
Total weight of the concrete:
Rebar yield stress:
Rebar area:
Volconc:=Aconclft = 11-6ft
- =VoLonr-0.15d-r
= 1.7402-kip V
fy
- = 60ksi
- = 0.79in2 Vertical seismic acceleration at Elev. 812.77' (g):
Horizontal seismic acceleration at Elev. 812.77" (g):
Accvert := 0.289 Acchoriz := °-605
[Ref. 6]
[Ref. 6]
Vertical seismic force:
Horizontal seismic force:
Reduction factor for shear-friction:
Normal weight concrete:
Coefficient of friction:
Dead load:
Modulus of elasticity of reinforcement Moment of Inertia of rebar:
Evert:~ wcone Acc vert Ehoriz := wconcAcchoriz = 105k'P if
- = 0.75 X
- =
1 u
- = 0.6-X Es
- = 2900(ksi
'bar:=
Tr(lin) 64~~
= 2.37x 10 6ft4
[Conservative]
F/rsfEnergy Page 9 CALCULATION COMPUTATION NOP-CC-3002-01 Rev. 03 CALCULATION NO.:
C-CSS-099.20-055 REVISION:
00 Estimation for seismic amplification factor:
'crack Assumed of crack width:
h1
- = o.oiin
<hcracl<<
h2 := in Lateral stiffness considered from a single rebar:
3Es'bar 5
kip 12Es'bar
]0 kip k1
- =
=2.73x10-
^..
k9 :=
= 1.71x10
'.3 in<K<K3 in h2 h1 Figure 6.4: Model for Frequency Estimation Frequency:
ki l
I k2 1239H
<f<
U
= 1239Hz
<f<
f2
- =
=309840Hz cone 2'71 I
cone Axial stiffness considered from a single rebar:
EsAvf 4 kip Es Avf 6 kip ko:=
=9.16x10^-
<k<
k4:=
=2.29x10-ri2 in h^
in Frequency:
3 1
I 4
fo:=
I
=718Hz
<f<
U
- =
=3588Hz 3
2-n I
Wconc 4
2-Ti Wconc Since the frequency is beyond the cut-off frequency (100Hz from Ref.
7), the amplification due to the SSE load is not required.
Vertical force:
Fvert:= D + Evert= 224kip Horizontal force:
Fhoriz := Ehoriz =
l.05 kip
FtrstEnergy CALCULATION COMPUTATION Page 10 NOP-CC-3002-01 Rev. 03 CALCULATION NO.:
C-CSS-099.20-055 REVISION:
00 6.3 Loading Combination under Different Scenarios Horizontal seismic force perpendicular or parallel to the potential crack path is evaluated.
Case 1:
Horizontal seismic load normal to the potential crack path of the leg (seismic force out of SB)
Figure 6.5: Horizontal Seismic Normal to the Crack Path Net tension across shear plane:
Nu1:=Fhoriz=l05kiP Direct shear transfer force along shear plane:
vvert_u = Fvert= 224kip vhoriz u:=0 vu1 := V vhoriz_u2 + vvert_u2 = 224kiP Reinforcement to resist net tension:
N An1:=
U1 2
= 0.046 in (l)fysin(a)
Shear-friction reinforcement to resist direct shear transfer.
V Avf1:=-
u1 fv(nsin(a) + cos (a))
= 0.043in2 Total area of required reinforcement:
As1 := Avf1+ An1 = 0 2
FirstEnerav CALCULATION COMPUTATION Page 11 NOP-CC-3002-01 Rev. 03 CALCULATION NO.:
C-CSS-099.20-055 REVISION:
00 Case 2: Horizontal seismic load parallel to the potential crack path of the leg Figure 6.6: Horizontal Seismic Parallel to the Crack Path Net tension across shear plane:
Direct shear transfer force along shear plane:
Nu2:=0 vvert_u:~hvert-224-kip vhoriz u:=Fhoriz=105kiP Vu2 :=
u2 = 2-48-kip Reinforcement to resist net tension:
N, An2:=
u2 2
= 0in
<l>>-fy-sin(a)
Shear-friction reinforcement to resist vf2'~
direct shear transfer.
V u2 ify(n-sin(a) + cos(a))
= 0.047-in2 Total area of required reinforcement:
2 As2:=Avf2+An2 = 0047in
RisfcEnertn/
CALCULATION COMPUTATION Page 12 NOP-CC-3002-01 Rev. 03 CALCULATION NO.:
C-CSS-099.20-055 REVISION:
00 Concrete compressive Strength:
Rebar diameter:
For normal weight concrete:
fc := 4000psi db:=lin
[Ref. 5, Sect. 12.5]
Required development length:
Ldh := max
,, 6in, -
=
1.58ft Judging from the drawing (Ref.
4),
the required development length should be satisfactory.
However, a reduction factor of 50% is used for provided reinforcement to cover possible inadequate development length.
Total area of required reinforcement:
Provided reinforcement:
Factor of safety:
, As2) = 0.
2
= 0.089 in 2
"s_req As prov:=(50%)0.79in" = 0.4in A
s prov FOS := = 4.46 As_req The provided reinforcement is almost 4.5 times of the required reinforcement under conservative assumptions and scenarios.
RrstEnerqy CALCULATION COMPUTATION Page 13 NOP-CC-3002-01 Rev. 03 CALCULATION NO.:
C-CSS-099.20-055 REVISION:
00
7.0 CONCLUSION
This calculation evaluates the potential crack of the concrete for architectural flute shoulder.
In this evaluation, conservative scenarios are considered to include the effect of dead load, vertical seismic load and horizontal seismic load for the load combination (D + E').
It was shown that the shear-friction / tensile capacity of the rebar provides required reinforcement for the concrete so that the collapse of the flute shoulder concrete is prevented and ll/l condition of SB will be maintained.
FirstEnerav DESIGN VERIFICATION RECORD Page 1 of 1 NOP-CC-2001-01 Rev. 00 SECTION I:
TO BE COMPLETED BY DESIGN ORIGINATOR DOCUMENT(S)/ACTIVITYTO BE VERIFIED:
II /1 Evaluation for Architectural Flute Shoulder, C-CSS-099,20-055 Rev 000 SAFETY RELATED AUGMENTED QUALITY
NONSAFETY RELATED SUPPORTING/REFERENCE DOCUMENTS Refer to the body of the calculation.
DESIGN ORIGINATOR: (Print and Sign Name)
Yueh-Hua Tsai M)j DATE SECTION II:
TO BE COMPLETED BY VERIFIER VERIFICATION METHOD (Check one)
M DESIGN REVIEW (Complete Design Review Checklist or Calculation Review Checklist)
D ALTERNATE CALCULATION QUALIFICATION TESTING JUSTIFICATION FOR SUPERVISOR PERFORMING VERIFICATION:
APPROVAL:
(Print and Sign Name)
DATE EXTENT OF VERIFICATION:
Verified using Calculation Review Checklist COMMENTS, ERRORS OR DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED?
Q YES E3 NO RESOLUTION: (For Alternate Calculation or Qualification Testing only)
RESOLVED BY: (Print and Sign Name)
DATE VERIFIER: (Print and Sign Name)
Shen Wang DATE 0/i i A APPROVED BY:
(Print and Sign Name)
Hongchun Liu DATE
CALCULATION REVIEW CHECKLIST NOP-CC-2001-04 Rev. 05 QUESTION General 1
Does the stated objective/purpose clearly describe why the calculation is being performed?
2.
Are design input / output documents and references listed and clearly identified in the document index, including edition and addenda, where applicable?
3.
Were verbal inputs from third parties properly documented?
4.
Are design input parameters, such as physical and geometric characterist regulatory or code and standard requirements, accurately taken from the c documents and correctly incorporated, including tolerances and units?
c and lesign input 5.
Are the design inputs relevant, current, consistent with design/licensing bases and directly applicable to the purpose of the calculation, including appropriate tolerances and ranges/modes of operation?
6.
Are all design inputs retrievable?
If not, have they been added as attachments?
7.
Are preliminary or conceptual inputs clearly identified for later confirmation as open assumptions?
8.
Where applicable, were construction and operating considerations included as input information?
9.
Were design input / output documents properly updated to reference this calculation?
Assumptions 10.
Have the assumptions necessary to perform the analysis been clearly identified and adequately described?
11.
Are all assumptions for the calculation reasonable and consistent with des bases?
gn/licensing 12.
Have all open assumptions needing later confirmation been clearly identified on the Calculation cover sheet, including when the open assumption needs to be closed?
13.
Has an SAP Activity Initiation Form been created for open assumptions?
14.
Have engineering judgments been clearly identified?
15.
Are engineering judgments reasonable and adequately documented?
16.
Is suitable justification provided for all assumptions/engineering judgements (except those based upon recognized engineering practice, physical constants or elementary scientific principles)?
Method of Analysis 17.
Is the method used appropriate considering the purpose and type of calculation?
18.
Is the method in accordance with applicable codes, standards, and design/licensing bases?
Identification of Computer Codes (Ref: NOP-SS-1001) 19.
Have the versions of the computer codes employed in the design analysis been certified for this application?
20.
Are codes properly identified along with source (vendor, organization, etc.
?
NA El M
M
[x]
Yes M
M
M LJ El U
El M
No Page 1
of 3 CALCULATION NO. C-CSS-099.20-055 REV.O ADDENDUM NO.
N/A UNIT: Davis-Besse 01 COMMENTS RESOLUTION
CALCULATION REVIEW CHECKLIST NOP-CC-2001-04 Rev. 05 QUESTION 21.
Is the code applicable for the analysis being performed?
22.
Is the computer program(s) being used listed on the FENOC Usable Software List for the site?
23.
Does the computer model, that has been created, adequately reflect actual (or to be modified) plant conditions (e.g., dimensional accuracy, type of model/code options used, time steps, etc.)?
24.
Did the computer output generate any ERROR or WARNING Messages that could invalidate the results?
25.
Is the computer output reasonable when compared to inputs and what was expected?
Computations 26.
Are the equations used consistent with recognized engineering practice and design/licensing bases?
27.
Is there a reasonable justification provided for the uses of any equations not in common use?
28.
Were the mathematical operations performed properly and the results accurate?
29.
Have adjustment factors, uncertainties, empirical correlations, etc., used in the analysis been correctly applied?
30.
Is the result presented with proper units and tolerance?
31.
Has proper consideration been given to results that may be overly sensitive to very small changes in input?
Conclusions 32.
Is the magnitude of the result reasonable and expected when compared to inputs?
33.
Is there a reasonable justification provided for deviations from the acceptance criteria?
34.
Are stated conclusions justifiable based on the calculation results?
35.
Are all pages sequentially numbered and marked with a valid calculation and revision number?
36.
Is all information legible and reproducible?
37.
Is the calculation presentation complete and understandable without any need to refer back to the Originator for clarification or explanations?
38.
Is calculation format presented in a logical and orderly manner, in conformance with the standard calculation content of NOP-CC-3002 (Attachment 1)?
39.
Have all changes in the documentation been initialed (or signed) and dated by the author of the change and all required reviewers?
Design/Licensing 40.
Have all calculation results stayed within existing design/licensing basis parameters?
41.
If the response to Question 40 is NO, has Licensing been notified as appropriate? (i.e.
UFSAR or Tech Spec Chanqe Request has been initiated).
42.
Is the direction of trends reasonable?
NA El El El El El Yes El El El El El El El El El El El El El N
El El No Page 2 of 3 CALCULATION NO. C-CSS-099.20-055 REV. 0 ADDENDUM NO.
N/A UNIT: Davis-Besse 01 COMMENTS RESOLUTION
FirstEn&cN CALCULATION REVIEW CHECKLIST NOP-CC-2001-04 Rev. 05 QUESTION 43.
Has the calculation Preparer used all applicable design information/requirements provided?
44.
Did the calculation Preparer determine if the calculation was referenced in design basis documents and/or databases?
45.
Did the Preparer determine if the calculation was used as a reference in the UFSAR?
46.
If the calculation is used as a reference in the UFSAR, is a change to the UFSAR required or an update to the UFSAR Validation Database, if applicable, required?
47.
If the answer to Question 46 is YES, have the appropriate documents been initiated?
48.
Has the applicability of 10CFR50.59 to this calculation been considered and documented?
Acceptable 49.
Does the calculation meet its purpose/objective?
50.
Is the calculation acceptable for use?
51.
What checking method was used to review the calculation?
Check all that apply.
spot check for math complete check for math comparison with tests check by alternate method comparison with previous calculation 52.
If the calculation was prepared by a vendor, does it comply with the technical and quality requirements described in the Procurement Documents?
Reference the Purchase Order number or other procurement document number in the Comments Section of this question.
53.
Have Professional Engineer (PE) certification requirements been addressed and documented where required by ASME Code (if applicable).
NA
fed M
El El Yes M
No Page 3 of 3 CALCULATION NO. C-CSS-099.20-055 REV. 0 ADDENDUM NO.
N/A UNIT: Davis-Besse 01 COMMENTS I
RESOLUTION Review Summary:
Technical Revie\\
Design Verificati Shen Wang
^
<<(Print and Sign Name) on (Print and Sign Name)
Date Date 10/31/11 Owner's Acceptance Review (Required for calculations prepared by a vendor)
Reviewer (Print and Sign Name) tilt Approver (Print and Sign Name)
Date Date
FirstEnerqy OWNER'S ACCEPTANCE REVIEW NOP-CC-2003-18Rev. 01 DOCUMENT (S)
Calculation C-CSS-099.20-055 REV. 0 QUESTION 1.
Is the purpose or objective of the activity clear, appropriate and well documented?
2.
If there is a split in work scope between the Vendor and Owner, has this been fulfilled to ensure the whole scope is completed?
3.
Were Owner-supplied inputs for the activity used and documented appropriately?
4.
Are the source documents for all inputs documented and are the sources credible as appropriate (including Owner-supplied inputs)?
5.
Are assumptions and use of engineering judgment appropriate?
6.
Are there any open assumptions, which need later confirmation?
7.
If Question 6 is yes, are the open assumptions tracked properly?
8.
If Question 6 is yes, have holds (e.g., on field implementation) been adequately imposed and tracked?
9.
Are appropriate design and licensing bases complied with and documented as such?
- 10. Are computer codes certified as required?
Identify if certified to Owner or Vendor's program.
- 11. Are methodologies, design/acceptance criteria and considerations proper, documented and consistently applied to the activity?
- 12. Have all pertinent design interfaces been considered and documented?
- 13. Have all affected documents/programs been properly identified for follow-up action?
- 14. Are testing requirements specified where appropriate?
- 15. Have the appropriate procedures been followed for generation of the product?
- 16. Has the product been properly checked internally by the Vendor?
- 17. Are the results reasonable compared to the inputs?
- 18. Has the purpose or objective been met, and is the product acceptable for use?
- 19. Is the readability/clarity of the document acceptable?
- 20. Does the product comply with the installed plant configuration (i.e., the product will not create a nonconforming condition)?
- 21. Has an Owner's Acceptance walkdown been completed as appropriate?
If no, provide justification.
UNIT1 NA X
X X
X X
Yes X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X, X
X X
X X
X No Page 1
of 2 VENDOR Bechtel COMMENTS Mode 6 Holds on CRs 11-03996 & 11-04402 This analysis is performed to demonstrate operability of the Shield Building Ref. CR 11-03346 Owners review of core bores &
Impulse Response test information RESOLUTION
FirstEnemy Page 2 of 2 OWNER'S ACCEPTANCE REVIEW NOP-CC-2003-18Rev. 01 DOCUMENT (S)
Calculation C-CSS-099.20-055 REV. 0 QUESTION
- 22. Does the product comply with the technical and quality requirements described in the procurement documents?
COMPLETED BY:
(Print and Sign Namely f
DATE UNIT1 NA Yes X
No VENDOR Bechtel COMMENTS RESOLUTION IF CHECKLIST IS REVIEWED BY MORE THAN ONE REVIEWER, SIGN BELOW:
ADDITIONAL REVIEWER
{Print and SicmJJam&^^
DATE/
y
^