C-CSS-099.20-055, Rev. 01, 'II/I Evaluation for ... · On the cylindrical wall of the Shield Building, there is architectural flute at every 45° as shown in Figure 6.1. Apotential

FtrstEnetxivPage i

CALCULATIONNOP-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 | ^ DB | 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 PagesOriginator


Description of Change:

Reviewer/Design Verifier


Shen Wang (Bechtel)

/

10CFR50.59 applicability. -eee-NBIeT



Describe where the calculation will be evaluated for 10CFR50.59 applicability.




Describe where the calculation will be evaluated for






10CFR50.59 applicability.



Describe where the calculation will be evaluated for 10CFR50.59 applicability.

Approver


Hongchun Liu (Bechtel) .

Initiating Document: ECP-10-0458

Wage* £$J{y/*cHuc_ Tof&fnApprover


Initiating Document:

Approver



Approver



FirstEnergyPage ii

CALCULATIONNOP-CC-3002-01 Rev. 03

CALCULATION NO.

C-CSS-099.20-055

[ ] VENDOR CALC SUMMARY


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


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


DOCUMENT INDEX

DIN

No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

DocumentNumber/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, ShieldBuildingSeismicAnalysisRev.6

August,2005 10/4/1976,Rev.0 6/4/1981,Rev.1Reference

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


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


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 180f(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) 1L2 := (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) 2i-(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 1809., := 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<|:

72ft •( 17ft + llin) 2= 645ft

Circular area based on the

angle 6-|:

1 2 2A2 := 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

Vfy := 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 Accvert

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


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 <hcrac|<< h2 := —in

Lateral stiffness considered from a single rebar:

3Es'bar 5 kip 12Es'bar ]0 kipk1 := =2.73x10—- ^.. k9 := = 1.71x10 •—'.3 in<K<K3 in

h2 h1

Figure 6.4: Model for

Frequency Estimation

Frequency:

ki l I k21239H <f< U= 1239Hz <f< f2 := =309840Hz

cone 2'71 I cone

Axial stiffness considered from a single rebar:

EsAvf 4 kip . Es Avf 6 kipko:= =9.16x10—^- <k< k4:= =2.29x10—-

ri2 in h^ in

Frequency:

3 1 I 4fo:=—— ■ I =718Hz <f< U := =3588Hz3 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(|)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<|»-fy-sin(a)

Shear-friction

reinforcement to resist vf2'~direct shear transfer.

Vu2

ify(n-sin(a) + cos(a))= 0.047-in2


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.


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)jDATE

SECTION II: TO BE COMPLETED BY VERIFIER

VERIFICATION METHOD (Check one)

M DESIGN REVIEW (Complete DesignReview 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 AAPPROVED BY: (Print and Sign Name)

Hongchun Liu

DATE

CALCULATIONREVIEWCHECKLIST

NOP-CC-2001-04Rev.05

QUESTION

General

1Doesthestatedobjective/purpose

clearlydescribewhytheca

lcul

atio

nis

being

performed?

2.Aredesign

input

/outputdocumentsand

references

listed

and

clearlyid

enti

fied

inthe

document

index,

includingeditionandaddenda,whereapplicable?

3.Were

verbalinputsfrom

thirdpartiesproperlydocumented?

4.Aredesign

inputparameters,suchasphysicalandgeometriccharacterist

regulatoryorcodeandstandardrequirements,accuratelytakenfromthe

c

documentsand

correctlyincorporated,

includingtolerancesand

units?

cand

lesigninput

5.Arethedesign

inputs

relevant,

current,

consistentwi

thdesign/licensingbasesand

directly

applicableto

thepurpose

ofthecalculation,

includingappropriatetolerances

andranges/modesofoperation?

6.Are

alldesign

inputsretrievable?

Ifno

t,havetheybeenaddedasattachments?

7.Arepreliminaryorconceptualinputscl

earl

yid

enti

fied

forla

terconfirmationasopen

assumptions?

8.Where

applicable,wereconstructionandoperatingconsiderationsincludedas

inpu

t

information?

9.Weredesign

input

/outputdocuments

properlyupdated

toreference

this

calculation?

Assumptions

10.

Havetheassumptionsnecessaryto

performtheanalysisbeen

clearlyid

enti

fied

and

adequatelydescribed?

11.

Are

allassumptions

fortheca

lcul

atio

nreasonableand

consistentwi

thdes

bases?

gn/licensing

12.

Have

allopenassumptionsneeding

late

rconfirmationbeen

clearlyid

enti

fied

onthe

Calculationcoversheet,

incl

udin

gwhen

theopenassumptionneeds

tobeclosed?

13.

HasanSAP

Acti

vity

Init

iati

onFormbeen

created

foropenassumptions?

14.

Haveengineeringjudgmentsbeen

clearlyidentified?

15.

Areengineeringjudgmentsreasonableandadequatelydocumented?

16.

Issuitableju

stif

icat

ionprovided

for

allassumptions/engineeringjudgements(except

thosebaseduponrecognizedengineering

practice,physicalconstantsor

elementary

scientific

principles)?

MethodofAnalysis

17.

Isthemethodused

appropriateconsideringthepurposeandtypeof

calculation?

18.

Isthemethod

inaccordancewit

happlicablecodes,standards,anddesign/licensing

bases?

IdentificationofComputerCodes

(Ref:NOP-SS-1001)

19.

Havetheversionsof

thecomputercodesemployed

inthedesignanalysisbeen

cert

ifie

dforthis

application?

20.

Arecodesproperly

iden

tifi

edalongwi

thsource(vendor,or

gani

zati

on,

etc.

?

NA

El M M [x]

Yes

M M ® M LJ

El U El M

No

Page

1of3

CALCULATIONNO.C-CSS-099.20-055

REV.O

ADDENDUMNO.

N/A

UNIT:Davis-Besse01

COMMENTS

RESOLUTION



QUESTION

21.

Isthecodeapplicablefortheanalysisbeingperformed?

22.

Isthecomputerprogram(s)beingused

listed

ontheFENOC

UsableSoftware

List

for

thesite?

23.

Doesthecomputermodel,

that

hasbeen

crea

ted,

adequately

refl

ectactual(orto

be

modified)plantconditions

(e.g

.,dimensionalaccuracy,typeofmodel/codeoptions

used,timesteps,etc.)?

24.

DidthecomputeroutputgenerateanyERROR

orWARNINGMessages

that

could

invalidatetheresults?

25.

Isthecomputeroutputreasonablewhencompared

toinputsandwhatwasexpected?

Computations

26.

Aretheequationsusedconsistentwith

recognizedengineeringpr

acti

ceand

design/licensingbases?

27.

Isthereareasonable

justificationprovidedfo

rtheuses

ofanyequationsnot

incommon

use?

28.

Were

themathematicaloperationsperformedproperlyandthe

resu

ltsaccurate?

29.

Haveadjustmentfactors,

uncertainties,

empi

rica

lco

rrel

atio

ns,

etc.

,used

intheanalysis

been

correctlyapplied?

30.

Isthe

result

presentedwithproperun

itsandtolerance?

31.

Hasproperconsiderationbeengiven

toresultsth

atmaybeoverlysensitiveto

very

smallchanges

ininput?

Conclusions

32.

Isthemagnitude

ofthe

result

reasonableandexpectedwhencompared

toinputs?

33.

Isthereareasonablejustificationprovided

fordeviationsfromtheacceptance

crit

eria

?

34.

Arestatedconclusions

just

ifia

blebasedonthecalculationresults?

35.

Are

allpages

sequentiallynumberedandmarked

witha

validcalculationand

revi

sion

number?

36.

Isal

linformation

legibleand

reproducible?

37.

Isthecalculationpresentationcompleteandunderstandablewithoutanyneed

torefer

back

totheOriginatorfo

rclarificationorexplanations?

38.

Iscalculationformatpresented

ina

logi

caland

orderlymanner,

inconformancewiththe

standard

calculationcontentofNOP-CC-3002(Attachment1)?

39.

Have

allchanges

inthedocumentationbeen

init

iale

d(orsigned)anddatedbythe

authorofthechangeand

allrequiredreviewers?

Design/Licensing

40.

Have

allcalculation

resultsstayedwithin

existing

design/licensingbasisparameters?

41.

Iftheresponse

toQuestion40

isNO,has

Licensingbeen

noti

fied

asappropriate?

(i.e

.

UFSAR

orTechSpecChanqeRequesthasbeen

initiated).

42.

Isthedirectionoftrendsreasonable?

NA El El

El El El

Yes

El El El El El El El El El El El El El N El El

No

Page2

of3


REV.0

ADDENDUM

NO.

N/A

UNIT:Davis-Besse01

COMMENTS

RESOLUTION

FirstEn&cN



QUESTION

43.

HasthecalculationPreparerused

allapplicabledesigninformation/requirements

provided?

44.

DidthecalculationPreparerdetermine

ifthe

calculationwas

referenced

indesignbasis

documentsand/ordatabases?

45.

DidthePreparerdetermine

ifthecalculationwasusedasareference

intheUFSAR?

46.

Ifthecalculation

isusedasareference

intheUFSAR,

isachange

totheUFSAR

requiredoranupdatetotheUFSAR

ValidationDatabase,

ifapplicable,

required?

47.

Iftheanswer

toQuestion46

isYES,havetheappropriatedocumentsbeen

initiated?

48.

Hasthe

applicabilityof10CFR50.59

tothi

scalculationbeenconsideredand

documented?

Acceptable

49.

Doesthecalculationmeet

itspurpose/objective?

50.

Isthecalculationacceptable

foruse?

51.

Whatcheckingmethodwasused

toreviewthecalculation?Check

allthatapply.

•spotcheck

formath

•completecheck

formath

•comparison

withtests

•checkbyalternatemethod

•comparison

withpreviouscalculation

52.

Ifthecalculationwaspreparedbyavendor,does

itcomplywiththetechnicaland

qualityrequirementsdescribed

intheProcurementDocuments?

Referencethe

PurchaseOrdernumberorotherprocurementdocumentnumber

intheComments

Sectionofthisquestion.

53.

Have

ProfessionalEngineer(PE)

certificationrequirementsbeenaddressedand

documentedwhere

requiredbyASMECode

(ifapplicable).

NA

® fed

M El El

Yes

M

No

Page3of3


REV.0

ADDENDUMNO.

N/A

UNIT:Davis-Besse01

COMMENTS

IRESOLUTION

ReviewSummary:

TechnicalRevie\

Design

Verificati

Shen

Wang^

«(PrintandSignName)

on

(PrintandSignName)

Date

Date

10/31/11

Owner'sAcceptanceReview(Requiredforcalculationspreparedbyavendor)

Reviewer

(PrintandSignName)

tilt

Approver

(PrintandSignName)

Date

Date

FirstEnerqy

OWNER'SACCEPTANCEREVIEW

NOP-CC-2003-18Rev.

01

DOCUMENT

(S)

CalculationC-CSS-099.20-055

REV.0

QUESTION

1.Is

thepurposeorobjectiveofthe

acti

vity

clear,

appropriateand

welldocumented?

2.Ifthere

isa

split

inworkscopebetweentheVendorandOwner,has

this

been

fulfilledto

ensurethewholescope

iscompleted?

3.WereOwner-supplied

inputsforthe

activity

usedanddocumentedappropriately?

4.Arethesourcedocuments

for

allinputsdocumentedandarethesourcescredibleas

appropriate(includingOwner-suppliedinputs)?

5.Areassumptionsanduseofengineeringjudgmentappropriate?

6.Arethereanyopenassumptions,whichneed

late

rconfirmation?

7.IfQuestion6

isyes,aretheopenassumptionstrackedproperly?

8.IfQuestion6

isyes,haveholds

(e.g.,

on

fiel

dimplementation)beenadequatelyimposed

andtracked?

9.Areappropriatedesignand

licensingbasescompliedwithanddocumentedassuch?

10.Arecomputercodes

certifiedasrequired?

Identify

ifcertifiedtoOwnerorVendor's

program.

11.Aremethodologies,design/acceptance

crit

eria

and

considerationsproper,documented

and

consistentlyappliedtothe

activity?

12.Have

allpertinentdesign

interfacesbeenconsideredanddocumented?

13.Have

allaffecteddocuments/programsbeen

properly

iden

tifi

edforfollow-upaction?

14.Aretestingrequirementsspecifiedwhereappropriate?

15.Havetheappropriateproceduresbeenfollowedforgenerationoftheproduct?

16.Hastheproductbeen

properlychecked

internallybytheVendor?

17.Aretheresultsreasonablecompared

totheinputs?

18.Hasthepurposeorobjectivebeen

met,and

istheproductacceptable

foruse?

19.

Isthe

readability/clari

tyofthedocumentacceptable?

20.Doestheproductcomplywiththe

inst

alle

dplantconfiguration

(i.e.,

theproduct

will

not

createanonconformingcondition)?

21.HasanOwner'sAcceptancewalkdownbeencompletedasappropriate?

Ifno,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

1of2

VENDOR

Bechtel

COMMENTS

Mode6HoldsonCRs

11-

03996&

11-04402

Thisanalysis

isperformed

to

demonstrate

operabilityofthe

Shield

Building

Ref.CR

11-03346

Owners

reviewofcorebores&

ImpulseResponse

test

information

RESOLUTION

FirstEnemy

Page

2of2

OWNER'SACCEPTANCEREVIEW

NOP-CC-2003-18Rev.

01

DOCUMENT

(S)

CalculationC-CSS-099.20-055

REV.0

*•QUESTION

22.Doestheproductcomplywiththetechnicaland

qual

ityrequirementsdescribed

inthe

procurementdocuments?

COMPLETED

BY:

( PrintandSignNamely

fDATE

UNIT1

NA

Yes

X

No

VENDOR

Bechtel

COMMENTS

RESOLUTION

IFCHECKLISTISREVIEWEDBYMORETHANONEREVIEWER,SIGNBELOW:

ADDITIONALREVIEWER

{PrintandSicmJJam&^^

DATE/

y

^