ML17335A153

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Rev 1 to Calculation HXP791121AF, Verification of 791121 Auxiliary Feedpumps NPSH Available.
ML17335A153
Person / Time
Site: Cook  American Electric Power icon.png
Issue date: 01/13/1988
From: Feliciano A
AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER SERVICE CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML17335A147 List:
References
HXP791121AF, HXP791121AF-R01, HXP791121AF-R1, NUDOCS 9808100107
Download: ML17335A153 (31)
v • d • e


Text

AMERICAN EL'ECTRIC POWER SERVICE CORPORATION MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DIVISION HEAT EXCHANGERS' PUMPS SECTION ENGINEERING EVAI UATION AND/OR CALCULATION CONTROL SHEET

SUBJECT:

V riFic A vw jj 4 ~ ~dv Z/ / T0 r ~r ~C dwa j CLDj" a

~t~

~h.

~ PecA d AV A wL A,IRK s cjoy

/C SUBJECT FILE C

NOs D:~/*0- 4'<. Z Z I

PAGE l OF NO ~

PAGES OTHER: D~j 6 j~j. i0<<~ f~ c.cjoy j-C - ATTACHMENTS:

e. 2)-C-

~A ~~

Co<<

PERFORMED REVIEWER MED No. 8 Check Method Used APPROVED DATE I I3 5 1 iso<

All work to be in compliance vith provisions of MED Procedure No. 8 NOTES: WV. t i~ h yj. u j c/c. g /O'EMCEE yg r//Z/ l~g A>J /"

.COO Ce~cuve~/m, nc '~g/ /~< c*i/ w~~~

PLANT cejA em c d yu j~pm<~

hi G REC RD jbfED CO~ Flc/'A4 Lcw y+ M s<~~~ + /+~

A 8 OTIC j jGfji~

O'P 6, ~/VI/

~ wj uj wm~ ~

/

GATE APu Q

L~~-'AP, T: IF TIIj/E .

CA j'= yo LAj>T jl Clhj ~h I c,l,. -lt

~-

c~j+

oc-&

~

jj j. c. jI ZA 4"j

j<<I'l'j.

j-04'1

..Ii/ (!8 YHS O~. ~P8pllp4 REV.ll/8/8 *Log in Pile 13.18 9808100i07 9808%7 File cc of pg 1 in 13.18 PDR ADQCK 05000315 H eaR

l ~ t ~

January 12, 1988 Net Positive Suction Head Introduction  : The auxiliary feedpump's (afp) net positive suction head available (NPSHa) was determined in a calculation dated Nov. 21,1979. This calculation will verify the accept-ability of the previous calculation's results.

Problem In order to use the Nov. 21, 1979 NPSH results it is necessary to determine the acceptability of those results. This calculation will verify the Nov. 21,79 results by calculating the afps NPSHa at the design conditions.

2 MDAFPs 9 450 gpm 2714 ft tdh 1 TDAFP 9 900 gpm 2714 ft"'tdh pump centerline 9 el. 593')

Afps supplied from the condensate storage tank with condensate at 100 deg

3) a: NPSHa will be calculated based on the high and low level alarms high level set at el. 638'- 4" (XPS-112;-113) low level set at el. 625'- 9" (XPS-110,111) b: NPSHa will be calculated on the basis of constant flow (design) to 2 pumps while varying the flow to the remaining pump.

'I

4) The afps suction line losses are taken from calculation HXP87113AF. This calculation has been checked and approved using MED 8.
5) NPSH required is obtained from the afp's performance curves.

Calculation  :. The NPSHa is calculated as follows NPSHa = Ha + Hst Hfs Hvpa where: Ha absolute pressure on surface of fluid supplied to the pump (ft).

Hst- static elevation difference of liquid level above pump centerline (ft). Note: positive for level for level above pump and negative below pump .

2okq

~ (~

January 12, 1988 Calculation Hfs- line losses in suction piping (ft).

(con't) Hvpa-absolute vapor pressure of fluid at the pumping temperature (ft).

  • from Cameron Hydraulic Data 16th edition 2nd printing pg 1-10 thru 1-15 high level alarm low level alarm WPDAFP TDAFP EMDAFP AFW system suction piping Suction line loss (gpm) unit 1 unit 2 (ft) 1 2 ,

'800 450 5.64 1.52 .

5.78 1.67 3 1350 .16 .33 900 2.78 2.01 5 450 .03 .05 6 450 1.6 1.61 NPSH WMDAFP.-TDAFP 6 EMDAFP 9 design flow WMDAFP's Hfs is sum of seq 1 + 2 unit 1 NPSHa = Ha + Hst Hfs Hvpa high level alarm 9 638'-4" Ha = 34.1' 100,deg f water Hst = 638'- 4" minus 593' 45'-4" Hvpa = 2.21' 100 deg f Hfs = seg 1 + 2

= 5.64 + 1.52 = 7.16'

~ ~

J I January 12, 1988 Calculation NPSHa = 34.1 + 45.33 7.16 2.21 (con't) 70.06'ow level alarm 9 625'-9" Hst = 625'-9" minus 593' 32'-9" NPSHa = 34.1 + 32.75 7.16 2.21 57.48'ote

The NPSHa for the other 2 pumps is calculated in the same manner.

Results The NPSH results are tabulated below' PUMP NPSH (required) (avilable) unit 1 unit 2 high low high WMDAFP 12'4'2'ow 57'6'57'PSH TDAFP EMDAFP 70'7'0'8'6'9'0'7'9'PSHa from Nov. 21, 1979 calculation low high MDAFPs 57'9'DAFP 56'8'onclusions The results of this calculation verifies the accept-ability of the Nov. 21, 1979 calculation results. I Note : The minor difference in the calculated NPSHa is due to the new system resistance calculation.

This calculation determined that the minor system resistance. losses (the old vs the new) are negligible.

4 o< V

" r'eye.ra-a ~,q ENQINEERINQ p  ;? 0 0 I < g@0 2 DATE ( P BY I CK AMERICAN ELECTRIC POlER RVICE CORP.

2 BROADWAY S

COMPANY X e Powers C

NEW YORK aaNY i>. C. CO O

(~1 t- F SVB JECT A F' %PS'r-/ L t" u I R7ioa Csv AWNING.

h > TAT'I c. Zc. Q I p'c.

hpw- PQ.CSQ.

4I- LI Q. v OPoa- PCCss.

LI H'C g. gag

+CPfh+P W Mb AFi~ C Hboyp P

n e! Y, PD Q~D COPY h,'IP5,+ = l,~ +} pq>. IP r: q D~-:c r/i7f '<

&vQ F:LANT L>.- c.; ii~'"-

I DATE TQ PLAINT Os'c~

I Q )ION PKRHAllENT

= B~ MINIHUMRETE.'ITIOUS YRS.

hv~ Z. lR Q iso SBE, A,~O c.wK~ (gpLc ~,yo~cn-HF'S S/A = +4.& ~ ~S.R Z. IW-78- S I hZI CS~ A LIcu64 C g/.1,g".

+

'W8.2 C Il-9

= / g. es-

<r-89SV> =. +R.~a ., 4~.

rw Ac c

~ ~

f

~ II 1 ~ A I t I

I

FP>lII 0

Gf 5 p, ~

ENGINEERING 00200 I DATE~II t,0 '+ BY +F CK~~

AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER St%VICE CORP. ~ A EBB ++

COMPANY G,O 2 BROADWAY NEW YORK PLANT D c o ~ r 2 SUB JECT ASS< +P>> <IJS 9 P 0 00%.0. Oui OC l~ o F ~~>a~s or~

/0 PS/.4 C v auE.S, ~a o w~ o4 7-//'/= gg5 /5 () g CCT'+5 T @AT Fl OM ( %++(Q ~) 7 ~ Q $ 7IP~ y+I2y / A/$

/=c.oc vc S PP.

RR.S,OL, VS.

A'r L De Car LE.WC=i ( 4 I(-.,3 )

~~PIaP A//S Hg ~ Q &~urdu' /=c o~

CIl'~ /S WZ (IgZ @ST Q Y S A R.E.+et Qc-Q QPs M. eg IQ (S2 PS<) .

I Vb FE.% C'4PS H,A Q. %<SIC H r- LO~ 0 F %0 0 CD,Phh l4 I

(I7- '7I ) vw p, R e goiDcw NC'5 < OP 3 9 ( lg.7 PC I$

Rid H C~~ I S~~l ( ( 40- ~)

~MA,Qq <S 7I ( gn.~PS<)

r&AFP IS 7< C 3o'+ S~) It POS S i SC.5 ~~BL~& > e $ ,CT /J4 L.oa h/PS A /PL/PIPS

~A%. rWq co Ai~s4, QADI~ Cs-r c.daldc--

/M. Ac c~g %4<C.9 V4<rH T'Gc S ~gpAE (gppJQ/:-Kg+T704

~en.P I mi~+ C. gi Cg < p gg V 'PO/OWZ A% Roc l o~g, t N/ g/Bglgg g g$ - f Lduu 'GVEC, dD~.. f .(XE S II%/ ll l)

(XPS - IIX, I I 5)

'T> LOW C'ST'K.VG.<,. O.vA,ve,S A chal... /Hr S. I I~i C5W ( gCugq, Akd....}M7 TO Laude C Cb l PLM LEUF L T iO AFP h'fSI44 /5 SS' I

( ZVFS I) kP tI tz.oI't f

~ ~

0.$ 2...0 0 I 6 Q/g 2 0 gaga~~

gA fj p

e

~1~

c'

1

)'c

"~~ " .,kAMXRICANELECTRIC BOW ERVICE CORPORATION-w) 4 p

g~

~,~

$ OFihl IEKD

~'eV. ~

ylVS 3)

S S 00200 I 6 0 0 E O

~

SHEET OF PIPE FRICTION CALCULATION DATA SHEET BY~)Ef DATE ~if DWG. REF. ) 5 Z9 'Q ~ $

FLUID, TEMP. ( F) j ~4 PIPE ABS. ROUGHNESS (FT) F+DG~~ PIPE SEGMENT NUMBER cl IFLOIO FLOW(OPN) 0-POPE PIPE I O (IN) g 7. Qgi PIPE EL SFQQ- TO EL D Pg-Q STRAIGHT PIPE LENGTHS F ITTINGS NUMBER <<K OR L/D Z L/D GATE VALVE 13 GLOBE VALVE 340 BUTTERFLY VALVE 40 9o SWING CHECK 135 I>5 90 STD. ELBOW 30 90'.R. ELBOW J 50 sq Z. 5'-O" 900 L.R. ELBOW 450 STD. ELBOW 20 16' Il S 16

/0'-<" 450 S.R. ELBOW 26 g'-0 1800 CLOSE RETURN STD. TEE RUN 50

( 20 z(- y STD. TEE BRANCH 60

<<MITRE BENDS '.2(l.COS6)

<<LATERAL <) OUTLET 1.0

<< LATERAL <)INLET 0.5 W8'PIPE

<<STRAIGHT RUN LATERAL 0.15

<<PIPE ENTR PROJ. INWD. 0.78 SHARP EDGE 0.50 g'- 0 0 0 WELL ROUND 0.04 EXIT SHARP EDGED 1.0 ORIFICE (Cp = 4

.61) 2.69 RF/P

<<SUDDEN CONTRACTION t (g li 5(1-P2) ~ .z7~

<<SUDDEN INCREASE t (1.P2) 2

<<VALVE, MISCELLANEOUS 891.4 d 4/Cy2 MISC

,ZlOTALS 3P

<< ITEMS ARE 'K'ALUES ONLY t BASED ON SMALLER PIPE DIAMETER FK-9 1 72 4 =d/D RF = RECOVERY FACTOR

0 0 2 0 0 1'"6. 0 '0 2:9 I

~ ~ 4 hgggfChN ELECTRIC POWER-,SERVICE CORPORhTION 4 oa~

DhTB MBX0 7~1

~Neap Q lao F

/g,oi v'WV A~'r S g 'FSC

]O. o s / 59.> / 6.gf~ 7f'3 rba~P yp~cpp o.o a. o' 9'i

+.Ca 2 & i'~ mme Owl o4+ bw~ -FMM ~ca C4<+-

pa~'RO D/I ~ /7K Pros FC rcr ~a tali Ol ~ Ii (AO I ~ )

0 0 0 '0" f" 0. 0 0 2 '

I hgggf ChN ELECTRIC POWER-.SERVICE CORPORhTION 4 oc-~

DhTE Msso To~

yCeA P zoo P

~ 8'8G Q7 r4. o ~ ~ rV~ A~ ' s r ggg 6vP b~~ .Fann H<< C><~-

~/( W/7g Proa ~FC fcf PMII Olios'

{A001 ~ )

~p<<q *

.-;-..; ~%~1 .",: j~Q":- I'~:~~~At .-P I<<I" +V" '-'.=+ '

~

~Op.'..

'P

,gdt 'tg ~

gcQw<tt! '" " '" ~

11 00015! '0t.

it 5

~ii 110 0> 0 0 0! 2000t 200t 12. Ot 444. ' .. 5! a486

" 120 '0. Ot 0. Ot 2000(200! 7. 981 t 85. 7 t 4. 897! 458

'13 0 130

0. 0! 0. 0! 2000! 800 'N
0. 0 t 0". 0. 2000! '0  ! 1 O. 0'=". 58.. t 6 . 4'=:. 7' o140 0 . 0. 0 . 0 t 2 0 I? I? t. - I? I.I .. 1'=' fl I? . 0. I3 .. i?. 0 t 7'.

150 II ~ 0! I? ~ I3tL 000! i 0I3! 7 ~ '.":=:1t 86 ~ 0! 4 ~ 60i ! 61 1 SR' F;ERZI Y Put'{ HF LI"5 14: I3='"C'9. '79 F "= = { I RLI IIL T "I'I DLEEI='~I I'OURTiQI' I'{Pi 'T::.=.TF-;F ILE MFiTE,=. 1 flo 00~

DE(('., V rL>> ~)xi ! IFT) l=='. 00 RES.Vj:~:I'D'" Yr,LE/'I '~=: > ~ I . 4~ g538E-08.

E I .E"'<< +c '-'lggflEN~" . T>

~

. 15I? l?OI?E-I?:i:

t,t <<<< ~ I <<

1 -', fl I.II.I FL- vl- "I-'"' I~ ~~ I ~

"'.I".I.l ~FT~ <<ill ~ . ~

e<<l: . I?0 ~ I><< ~ I.i <.I

. l.'4 ~ OO I~

~ ~ .01 ~ ~ <<

~ <<

<< . Oi=' ~ '

~ I ~

~

06 r 't L

~

.1c <<

.16 C

, 2l?

I'1 -',!:

Ft 'i'--I=F:"t ~ <<

Pl I ~

I'l

< A I I.I

~

~

~

0

~

~ i ~ <<

6l? I?. 0 ~ C'

<< <<1

- 'l 4 Eh%h'I<<-Q 8 l.l I.I ~ 0 ~ ~

1000. 0 I . ~ <<

1'='OO. I? f>

C

~ ~ l? ~ l I 1400. 0 nV ~ C MJ 1600. 0 10. P.6 <<

C ~

) ~a ~ <<

1800. 0 11. 54 4. 00 14. ='7. 18 2000. 0 12. 8 4' 17. <<

g lg ~

3.0 SYSTEM DESIGN BASIS DB-12-ESW

~ 3.i5 Generic Letter 89-13: Service Water Problems Essential Service Water System 4.0 MAJOR COMPONRÃr DESIGN BASES (4.1

'L Safety Related Components 4.1.1 KSW Pumps (PP-7E, PP-7W)

The ESW pumps are 2-stage vertical turbine pumps manufactured by Johnston Pumps (Model 30CC-2 Stag/ These pumps have enclosed shafts and grease lubricated bearings. P.2.2(4)]

f7.8.2(l)] The pumps are located in the center portion of the screenhouse in separate missile-protected rooms. P.2.2(4)] P.1.5(2)] P.1.5(6)] The pump inlet pipe and shaft extend approximately 44 feet below the screenhouse floor into the suction well which is approximately 45 feet deep. P.1.1(2)] P.l. 1(8)]

The pumps were originally provided with bronze impellers. However, erosion due to heavy lake water sand and silt loading resulted in rephcement of the impellers every 3 to 4 years. As a result, the impellers are being upgraded to stainless steel (ASTM A351-CF3M; type 316 SS) as the pumps are repaired. This design change is expected to at least double the life of the impellers. P.6.3(2)] P.1.4(2)]

4.1.1.1 Basic Functions As discussed in Sections 2 and 3, the ESW pumps are designed to provide cooling water to Ih various interfacing systems. Each of the four pumps has the following design parameters.

P 1 1(2)] P 1 l(8)] P 82(1)] P 82(5)] P 82(4)] P 82(3)l P 82(6)l Design How Rate 10,000 gpm Design Total Dynamic Head 145 ft Shutoff Head Approximately 240 ft Rated Speed 880 rpm Efficiency (at design point) Approximately 84%

Brake Horsepower (at design point) Approximately 440 hp Based on a fluid specific gravity of 1.0.

Refer to Figure'6-1 for pump head flow requirements.

4.1.1.1.1 Pump NPSH At the minimum lake level of 565 feet 11 inches, the inlet to the first stage of the pump impeller will have a submergence of 18 to 19 feet. The pump is capable of a suction lift of 8 fe t of water (at,70 F) at the design flow rate of 10,000 gpm. Therefore, at the above lake level the pump has a margin of 26 feet above the required NPSH of 25 feet. As a result, pump performance is not limited by NPSH considerations. P.8.2(1)] P.1.1(2)] P.l. 1(8)]

'<: Page 45 of 77 Rev. 0

l' ~ ~

~ tt s I> ~ 1 ~

JOHNSTON PUMP COMPANY Nuclear Service Division Januarv 15, l998 i

I t

I A

Indiana Michigan & Electric D.C. Cook Plant Bridgemerr, MI 49106 I

Subject:

Johnston Service V/ater Pumps Model 30 CC I

Attention: Walt McCron Per our phone conversation please se enclosed curve on our ~OCC model pump which shows the minimum submergence required over the suction bell as 56". Also shown on this curve is the NPSHR which shows 18 feet at 10,uu0 GPM. I hope this information will be helpful and should you have any questions please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely, Ray Clark 0/AOQ.ldll;I 2601 East 34th Street 0 Chattanooga, Tennessee 37407 t hYrt) T~l~~t ~~~. A1 rlf1A t e tc un+ t tt,tt t OM s~~ ~cnt

~ f'>>

Il PER lfifPRI.ER PAIIT'. 6PPS THRUST CoffSTANT 95,5 ) rp, STAGE Exlr~ ffifPELTER PATTERff ff0. 5po5 FACE IUR2 j5S 1":- ~/STAGE PUMP SHAFT DIAM. $g ff(CffES C

SUBMk '.. f RE '9 OVER BOTTOM OF Hf.t.f To PREVENT VORTEXES 56 t ~

Ct C1 S ~ ~

F F

I ~ ~

I ~

9 f50 ~ I 0 I 1

~

I

~ ~ ~

I ~ I ~

I .I ~ ~ I I ~

F I ~ I I O

I I E I I X I ~ ~

I E ~ ~

0 F E P ~

E I ~ ~

J I ~

~ ~ I C E ~ I I ~

~ I ~ I I PEA F STAGE I ~

~ ~

. VER I E

~ t ~ I I ~ ZOO I ~

~ ~ S I ~ t ~ 00 PEAFOAhIANCE BASED ON hIUI TISTAGE TESTS Il.S, GAlLONS PER MINUTE PUMPING CLEAR COLO YlATKRSP. GR. L.O FDR r sTAGEMULTIPLTHKAo4EFF.sr f OO

~SQ CQ TITFIBIIIE PUMP

~BBQ B PM Johnston Pump Company IMPELLKASAON?K BOWL CAST IRON FOllQ2STAGESMlllllPE'TMO F EFF BY I QQ COATE0 Glendora, California 9 l740 CURVE SHEKT CCO.

DATE P //~78 ESTABLISHED 1009 EC-2.558 Jp44LA

Iw HXP791121AF - Verification of the Nov 21, 1979 Auxiliary Feed Pumps Net Positive Suction Head Available Most Significant Technical Rating:

Most Significant Administrative Rating: A2 Gale. Date: 1/13/88 Discipline: Mechanical System: AFW Summary Observation

GENERAL COMMENT

S

'eplacement for HXP740226FK

  • Joe Lula to revise the review to indicate that the calculation should show that pump operation is limited by flow retention and operation will not occur in the extrapolated portion of the NPSHr curve. Additionally, the extrapolated curve should be deleted from the calculation.

Resolved - Calculation does not use extrapolated data. (JL 3/20198)

SL Reviewer: Mark Idell Date: 3/1 6/98 SL Approver: Joe Lula Date: 3/1 7/98 AEP Approver: Gordon C. Allen Date: 3/24/98 6/24/98 10:05:48 AM Code Legend on Last Page Page 1

~ ~ ~ l ~, ~ ~

Pages the Calculation: 10 Priority: Inventory Ia Purpose and Objective: Are the purpose and objective clearly stated?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? Yes Verifies results of a previous calculation which was attached. (origininal calculation had no identification ID other than date and title summary) lb Purpose and Objective: Ifthe calculation is for a modification, is this noted in the purpose and on the cover sheet?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? n/a 2a Methodology and Acceptance Criteria: Has the method/approach been described?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? Yes 2b Methodology and Acceptance Criteria: Is the method/approach appropriate for the calculation?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? Yes 2c Methodology and Acceptance Criteria: Are the steps in the analysis method clearly defined?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? Yes A sample of the calculations have been illustrated in the calculations, the remainder of the similar computations have been performed in with only the results appearing in the calculation.

2d Methodology and Acceptance Criteria: Have the sources of the acceptance criteria been identified?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? Yes The acceptance criteria has not been specifically provided but are understood by the problem description 2e Methodology and Acceptance Criteria: Are the acceptance criteria appropriate for the calculation?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? Yes 6/24/98 10:05:50 AM Code Legend on Last Page Page 2

3a ssumptions: Are the assumptions provided with sufficient rationale to pe verification?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? Yes 3b Assumptions: Have the assumptions that require verification been identified?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? n/a 3c Assumptions: Have assumptions that require verification been tracked to assure closure, ifapplicable?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? n/a 4a Design Inputs: Have the applicable design inputs been identified, including second party verification?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? No Al Design inputs have not been identified within the calculation. No clear reference was provided for the NPSHr curves.

4b Design Inputs: Has a statement as to whether the source inputs to the calc. may impact the design bases been included?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? No Al No statement has been provided Sa

References:

Have all the appropriate references been identified and cross references provided?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? No A2 References for design data have not been provided with appropriate references and or sources.

Sb

References:

Have all the references been provided with sufficient information to permit verification?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? Yes Sc

References:

Have the revision numbers and/or dates been provided?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? No A2 Reference dates and or revision indications have not been provided.

6/24/98 10:05:50 AM Code Legend on Last Page Page 3

alculations: Have formulae been provided consistent with the source docu t, including engineering units?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? Yes 6b Calculations: Have the correct formulae/methods been selected to support the problem statement and objective in agreement with established client and/or industry requirements?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? Yes 6c Calculations: Have all engineering judgements been provided with sufficien rationale?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? No Tl NPSHr calculation uses generic 14.7 psia as the site atmospheric pressure. Calculation does not indicate that this is the most limiting committed atmospheric pressure in licensing basis ifin fact it is.

Minimum CST level should reference the suction pipe nozzle elevation not the referenced lo-level alarm.

(Top of 12" AFP suction pipe nozzle is 610'-9", lo level alarm is 625'-9" difference of 15'-0") The lo-level alarm represents a potential maximum level available at the onset of an accident. Reference to instrument alarm levels did not include instrument error or inaccuracies.

Impact on calculation is minimal, with no change to conclusion, adequate NPSH is available. Additional margin is available because flow retention is used Available NPSH margin:

Motor Driven AFP Low 45', High 57'(margin at AFP suction pipe nozzle= 30')

Turbine Driven AFP Low 22', High 34'(margin at AFP suction pipe nozzle =7')

6d Calculations: Have the calculations been performed in accordance with the methodology?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? Yes 6e Calculations: Are the calculation results accurate and free of computational errors?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? No Al Source of head loss input data for line segment 3 not described in reference document.

6f Calculations: Have the arithmetic results been transposed correctly from references or equation results?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? Yes 6/24/98 10:05:50 AM Code Legend on Last Page Page 4

6g 4lculations: Are the analytical models consistent with the input data, assu ons, or design methods?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? Yes 7a Computer-Aided Design Calculations: Has the computer program been validated?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? n/a 7b Computer-Aided Design Calculations: Is the program consistent with the design approach, methodology, and acceptance criteria?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? n/a 7c Computer-Aided Design Calculations Have the program title, revision, computer hardware and date and time of run been identified?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? n/a 7d Computer-Aided Design Calculations: Does the input data conform with design inputs and are the results consistent with the assumptions and input data?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? n/a 7e Computer-Aided Design Calculations: Ifspreadsheet or other simple computer aided tools are used in the calculation, have the formulae been documented in the calculation and independently verified to be correct?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? n/a 7f Computer-Aided Design Calculations: Have data files from last revision been verified and documented?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? n/a 7g Computer-Aided Design Calculations: Have the following attributes been documented for any data files which were created or revised...

Is this attribute acceptable as is? n/a 8a Summary of Results and

Conclusions:

Does the summary of the results and conclusions clearly state the calculation results and respond to the purpose and objective?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? Yes 6/24/98 10:05:50 AM Code Legend on Last Page Page 5

~ a )

8b mmary of Results and

Conclusions:

Do the conclusions address the acc lity / unacceptability of the results?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? n/a 8c Summary of Results and

Conclusions:

Have limitations or requirements imposed by the calculation necessary to maintain the validity of the results been identified?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? n/a 8d Summary of Results and

Conclusions:

Are justifications provided for conclusions based on "engineering judgement"?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? n/a 9a Recommendations: Are the recommendations consistent with the purpose/objective, acceptance criteria, and results?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? n/a 9b Recommendations: Do any recommendations require corrective actions? Are these corrective actions being communicated to the affected organization?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? n/a 10a Appearance: Have calculation format and content requirements been met?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? No A2 See below 10b Appearance: Have all required attachments been included in the document and numbered appropriately?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? No Al Attachment pages are not numbered to indicate the either the parent or the calculation to which it is attached 10c Appearance: Has the calculation been prepared neat and legible with sufficient contrast to all satisfactory record copies to be produced?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? No A2 Page 6 of 6 of the attachment is not completely legible.

6/24/98 10:05:50 AM Code Legend on Last Page Page 6

10d pearance: Are the calculation number and the sheet number provided oi i page?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? No A2 Only page numbers provided on calculation and attachment no documents numbers appear except on title sheets.

10e Appearance: Have revision bars been provided as appropriate (for revised calculations only)?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? No A2 No revision bars have been provided to indicate the revised information.

10f Appearance: Ifthe calculation indicates that it supersedes a previous calculation, is this noted on the cover sheet?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? No A2 The calculations intent is to verify the results of a previous calculation, it would have been more appropriate to revise the original calculation rather than have two or more design calculations on the same subject.

10g Appearance: Is the calculation review checklist attached?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? No AI No checklist was provided, but a reviewer signature is.

I la Review Methods: Has the review method been performed using one or more of the following methods...

Is this attribute acceptable as is? No Al No review method has been identified.

I lb Review Methods: Has the review method been clearly identified on the cover page?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? No Al No method has been provided.

6/24/98 10:05:50 AM Code Legend on Last Page Page T

I lc view Methods: Is the verification checklist attached?

Is this attribute acceptable as is? No Al No checklist has been provided.

References Code Legend TECHNICAL TS Superceded TO No comment, calculation is acceptable as presented.

Tl Negligible effect on results and item resolved by documented engineering judgement.

Calculation of record may require revision.

T2 Minor effect on results and item resolved by simple/manual calculation. Calculation of record may require revision.

T3 Significant effect on results or item resolved by detailed analysis. Calculation of record will require revision.

T4 Results in inoperability or design basis or licensing basis limits are exceeded.

Calculation of record will require revision.

ADMINISTRATIVE AO No comment, calculation is acceptable as presented.

AI Minor'editorial item (spelling, grammar, typographical errors, page numbers, etc.).

Calculation does not require revision.

A2 Poor organization, poor legibility, confused layout. Calculation may require revision.

A3 Documentation of assumptions, scope, design inputs, methodology, references or engineering judgement is not complete or clear. Calculation may require revision.

A4 Did not follow procedure.

STATUS IP Performing independent review.

IR Resolving review comments.

R Replaced (Superceded, Voided, Vendor Calc).

RC Independent review complete.

FM Ready for Functional Manager review.

TOC Reviewed by management (Approved).

TOCR Reviewed by management - Additional action required.

TOCR/RC Reviewed by management- Add. actions taken, again ready for FM.

6/24/98 10:05:51 AM Code Legend on Last Page Page 8

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML17335A153&oldid=2519158"