ML20238F845

Rev 5 to M-52-31, NPSH Analysis Core Spray Sys

ML20238F845
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	08/28/1998
From:	PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:
Shared Package
ML20238F827	List: ML20238F825 ML20238F835 ML20238F845
References
M-52-31, M-52-31-R05, M-52-31-R5, NUDOCS 9809040371
Download: ML20238F845 (21)

Text

_

Effective Date:

EXHIBIT NE-C-420-6 Rev 3 I

PORC NO Page 1 of 1 SQR NO AWJ/mak QR NO 50.59 NO RESP MGR.

YES Calc. #

N-88-8 /

Rev. [

ECR #

N'd/[d Rev. 1 CALCULATION REVISION SHEEET l

INTERIM REVISION MARGIN REVISION PRELIM REVISION THIS CALCULATION El

• BEEN IMPACTED PER THIS REVISION SHEET AS FOLLOWS:

TMC09Pd24ti' 762 (fr ff-0/ M 9.

k% fBVM/0/125 kl#DE /N llBV $ N/? 602 9-7-620$$ #R VIVfr )

Al?2 AbM) AU;O AP9LICAi?IE 'Th LINIT '2.,

$$ bSlfl[/Of of R2-32-3/

cW4N4KC ON9 T?t)?

Covf M E r 70 Jew?As RMcACu?3 ts uwir2-Prepared By:

f,

/d,t

[(d Date: _

f h8 8[N/4g Reviewed By:

Date:

r Date:

8 -l t *)g i

Approved By:

y Q M h k 5000 3.

p u

e Effective Date:

EXHIBIT NE-C-420-3 Rev 3 PORC NO Page 1 of 2 L

.)

SQR'-

NO AWJ/mak QR NO 50.59 NO RESP MGR.

YES Calc #

M-@fQ Rev.

[

ECR #

~ 98" dl8N Rev.

O CALCULATION REVIEW CHECKLIST (This revision is a complete rewrite)

MANUAL COMPUTER YESor CALC.

CALC.

gg Prepargn X.

X' Freeform Comments field of PIMs and DEC database issues were reviewed for M

inclusion of issues within the revision scope Reviewer

' X_

X Calculation is the appropriate basis for the activity

_f_

X X-Format requirements are followed' 4

New Calculations follow Exhibit 12 format Revisions -

a. Applicable content addressed within existing format or

{}

b. Addressed in new section, Technical Content impact of ECR XX-XXXXX X

X

. Calculation assumptions, considerations, and methodology conform to applicable k

design requirements X

.X AR evals have been issued to track assumptions requiring confirmation

.44 X

.X Sources of data and formulas were reviewed and verified to be correct and complete 4

X

.X Input data is correct and used properly X

The analy0 cal method used in the calculation has been considered and is proper for the

.ka intended use

-X Mathematical accuracy has been checked and is correct (indcate method used)

&f._

a)

Complete check of each calculation b)

Spot check of selected calculations c)

Performance of attemate or approximation calculation (attached)

'X X

Calculation results were checked against applicable design criteria and were found to k

bein compliance X

X Existing calculations requiring revision as a result of this calculation have been a

identified and documented X

The analytical methods described in the computer calculation summary are proper for M

theintended use X

Calculation accuracy has been checked and is correct (indcate method used)

M a)

. Check sample calculation using data other than that usedin the sample b)

Performance of allemate or approximation calculation (attached)

}'

c)

Describe other method used:

t

Exhibit NE-C-420-3, Rev. 3 Page 2 of 2

~

X Program used is appropriate, input is valid, and output is reasonable considering the d_

p input X

X Base ea:culation has been reviewed against current drawing revisions and posted DCDs to ld,entify significant dfferences p

X X

A 50.59 has either been prepared or an existing 50.59 covers the scope of the

_y_

)

calculation revision X

X All system and topic numbers associated with the calculation are listed 4

X X

The PIMs Document Control Module Responsible Branch code for the calculation is correct laterim Revision:

X.

X Latest revision of Calculation Cover Sheet prepared except for signatures jff.,

X X

RESP ORG field on page 4 of ECR has been changed to ECR preparer branch code

_y_

unless attemate agreement reached with another branch for as-buildng

)

X X

Copy of revision attached to ECR X

X DEC database revised to reflect resolution of issues Direct Revision:

X X

Latest revision of Calculation Cover Sheet used g)[t X

X DEC database revised to reflect resolution of issues 2/g_

Marain Revision:

DEC database revised to reflect resolution of issues zg-

}

X X

Copy of revision attached to ECR jalt_

J' y

e ADorover Marain Revision

.X.

X PIMs CHANGE AUTHORIZING DOCUMENT Screen

//4_

Current date entered in DWG INC DATE field and

'9999" entered in INC REV field The criteria listed above are the minimum critaria to be considered and are not intended to limit the initiative of the reviewer to

- consider other criteria.

Attributes applicable to manual and computer calculations are noted by an "X" in the appropriate column.

If a calculation is both a manual and a. computer cale, then the attributes to both manual and computer calculations need to be considered.

List the documents used to support this review.

M-52-3/

/

Ee.e id)-o/885 k.

Prepared By:

Date: 8/' 74/ff(

'The reviewer's' signature indicates compliance with S&L standardSOP-0402 andthe verification of thefollowing minimum items: correctness ofmathfor handprepared calculations, apprcpr* lateness ofinput data, appropriateness ofassumptions, and appropriateness ofthe calculation method. "

7 nA Ll St v

t /

b.

c#t

/

L 5

p o e

e S6& rt S Y t

/

C h

M 6TA7t t

e s

s t

e e T &/S t

cA o

.c U

/e 7 M

)e S 6 I

I e Gr l

F n

n

)

e g

Naft Mt7*

N A

o s f

f S

o o/L k J G I

& )9 o.

T-V f

t A Eu D

A 5 GMf EJ A

f t

m f9m/%fWaVs7T l

e r

o A c c s

5 R

o ot Ec/

c r

o L

/ S r G c

ri

/

r E i

e p

3

/xy/N EK ti o

t7)

I f ;P t

S NGNE7 N/

~

o L

A oY 5 e Vc/d3 h

/

n O

5 t

t 5

r S /

I M

8sg/7 sfat 7 A PE f

S o

8 l

f u

C 4

a4 s A AA D R

P

)

t p/pv

/

t o

l.

A Gs A

/. d s.

t e / i s

wE A e v 4/ EL HY7 i

4 e

f 0

v

?

r/

+

k 5

7

/

A 0

s 7

W psT i

]

o L

f WC 4 /p-w%P i

o 3

C f d

n U E U

n/

8.

l A

o E J E a/s M7 f & t E i

)

/

P E W

t 7 ^

ao C

l fR M

i t

l 7

Nr iW / w n$

f

/

s, E

lt A

5

/.

A f,

E E

N Eh/

kE P

J

- c A

u O

i

/

S 2

t a

/

f 6

J T

P i

1 R

h NV E u e C

mn I

d O

0 3M I

b o

G e

R r

0 G

r

/-

C D T

02*

</,

0 a

3Mo l

O C

.c

,(

c.

7~

R F

R M

ev c

E 0

V 6

1 I

2 S

Y.

e I

e A

i O

s

)

ssu N

m S

pt Nio o

ns 8

5 C. $-

1 CS S 3

y t

i E P.

o r L

s mu D

r t

a t.

e c e s

vt p

p t

E 0 a

o u m

/

Y'a r

C u

e n r r

e

)

l l

n o~ /g o

e pi 2

t

(

c R

N L

e 5

U v

E i

2 o

J e

w D

C 0g 1

1 e

/

7 o

5 r

(

(DT m

2 Wgi

)

o PL S

So p

4 r

6 BG u

t

.z AS n

I a t

(/

Q n

l e

a P

t o P u

,3 f

r O@

S r

/

a P

$p

,c

/

e C M Og r

s

/

n e o

o D

NS a

yl s:

g m

n A

o a

)

r P

nf 3

a p

u e

Yp

)

m u

a t

o 2

Sy U.

r l

t e

a 4

fR j N v

r e

e e I

r 9

V D

y l

j T

/

t

(

a

(

e

'a a

t r

t Re S

s fe i

/

e d

)

'h o

la n

Q te N

f d

o 0

3 l

'l l

l

Effectiva D:te: 8/19/96 Pags/r_

Fou esu c~t, c v CALC. # MM' M REV. 6 i

ECR # LA 17-0305bREV. I CALCULATION REVIEW CHECKLIST MANUAL COMPUTER YES or N/A l

CALC.

CALC.

X X

Calculation is the appropriate basis for the activity Y

X X

Calculation assumptions, considerations, and methodology conform to applicable design requirements T

X X

Sources of data and formulas were reviewed and verified to be correct and complete T

X X

Input data is correct and used properly y

X The analytical method used in the calculation has been considered and is proper for the intended use Y

X Mathematical accuracy has been checked and is correct (indicate method used)

T a) complete check of each computation Y

b) spot check of selected computations d/4 c) performance of alternate or approximation calculation (attached) 4/A X

X Calculation results were checked against applicable design criteria and were found to be in compliance T

X X

Existing calculations requiring revision as a result of this calculation have been identified & documented NA

/

X The analytical methods described in the computer calculation summary are proper for the intended use ll/4 X

X All system and topic numbers associated with the calculation are listed

'I X

Computational accuracy has been checked and is correct (indicate method used)

A)/A a) check sample calculation using data other than that used in the sample lj/A b) performance of alternate or approximation calculation (attached)

A)/A c) describe other method used N/A X

Program used is appropriate, input is valid, and output is reasonable considering the input N/A 1

X-X Base calculation has been re~ viewed against current drawing revisions and 1

posted DCD's to identify significant differences T

The criteria listed above are the minimum criteria to be considered and are not intended to limit the initiative of the i

reviewer to consider other criteria.

Attributes applicable to manual and computer calculation are noted by an "X" in the appropriate column.

List the documents used to support this review.

[ eft t-en c e s le 5-6ed on p 2.

PREPARED BY:

M h

DATE: 5'/k3[TP3

, o m__.

amn7 E e e a h

d f

e e

' P E

/ P S

u a l

o s

V E E Sw av S ot s

s A

1 o

(

t EC p

I I

M0

[

i P

0 L

m

. hh

( PR 6 -

n n

T 6

U e

a of f

- S f

t 1

9 f S 0

I o

1 m4 N

t F

t r

c g T:o 2

e i

t r

o E

t 5'

r 9

A o

s A

u F

W Doe ~s g

b n

l a

R m

t h h I

a i

(

/

b n

D' e

a

$4 4

L Y

D e mD g4 wi n

6 To s

p n

a.

S ru mwt e

A O M E

E s

i w E

S a

e l

m C n oi

/

w F

T e

n _

n.

t E

"g f

r H.

i m

m 6S E

s p

s 5

wu a

t

_eha 3

e R

n E

ne e

g i-31 p

p e

V A

n N

v 2

a 4

s r

t t

s c

P c m_

o A

c f

t o

f

.t M

s=S I

M c

S E

M t

s R

eC F-s w _e t - -

r x

$T o

A o e

L s

t e

si y

n v

I e

7 X r

g o

T t

m oi A

C H S

v.

T

(

s a

S

.S nA I a.

t n

a A

5 E

e 5 A u

c ta I

R Ar _

K n m

r A R

s n 3

t c

r 4./.5 s e4 t

t 1

f y r s e

s s

E m

ia da smd p

G N $

f o

E 5

h i

n s

T P

s

)

s C

T H

r A n S r b

ne

1. a f

el E s E

m e

.S r

(

W e

o a

B n

b P

r hm b

a 4>

nc 4

h e

0 1

T 2

u R

r 3

E 4./.S S

N V C A u e

m n O

(

\\

/

l E

(

.s

/)

tt b d R M

E e

o D

o r

r M

C D

a O E

e.l F

h Y/

R

)

(\\

A R

/

)

e E

T k

.v V

l 3

I S

/.5 13 IO

\\

3(

w"Y

.A 4

k e s N s

S s

6 m

u

>t oi

\\.w

/

(7 hYN n

k o

s x,

~

d T

1 P

.4 C S S r

e[

r o

t e

l.

r 3

.S 3

m u a

/

)

i

/(3 p

c s

D-a p

t t

r o u m 4

G r

/

P e

n e w

r e : T a

,f s

n o

g N

t e

f(..b N

f R

5 N

o

[D o.

e 2 - :

1 M

v u

ei

/l w l

M3 1

1 F

e S

(

a R

C f

i

}L r

8cT o

g s

O2 r

n n

l p

h t

A g

7 "t

a a

(B 7 aS

• P t

C M M

u u

r

..C P

)a e

o a ja g

m in r

e r

s 1

e p

$A

)b

[NS s:

r p oa o u a g

t l

p f

r m

w 2

Syt r

e p

P

n. e a

r n

a r R e

e a

r yr el

/

n a

d D

t v

t Re a

I e

ed ai e

b' t

r si l9 e

o d

n 5

g

-_ ____ - _ s exo;Ec7 Limerick Gen. Station' up t 1 & 2 ;os no.

8031 DISCIPLINE Mechanical sue >Ecr Cnac SPRAY AIPM CALCul ATIONS - Twe 0:nf

,,,R L Yl* 1 lh AUNCLI T f NCDE G )

_ calc. No. M - S 2-3 \\

k_

No. 0F sMEETs D ^ "" M"

" ',: y p r r r_g RECORD OF ISSUES No.

OEsCAIPfloN BY OATE CHKD DATE APPAD OATE O

O

- k A

m,,r'bM Zi V

n S/

co g

Final calc. Revised for calc.

@y p.g_97 screening only. Added sheet (

g

gg

/

/p N

list of MDCPs, DCPs etc.

g Y

id ]M MMpJ reviewed.

9/.yJs CALCULATION SCREENING FOR THE AS-BUILT DESIGN 1.ft The purpose of this calculation revision is to document that the calculation results and conclusions are still applicable to the as-built design of the plant, including C>

modifications, e

I

@ Reviewer has detennined the calculation results and conclusions are applicable y

to the as-built design of the plant because:

/ the original design margin was large and subsequent modifications have had o

little or no l'apact on the design margin, there have been no modifications to the system which affect this calculation, the pre-op test results (as adjusted to agree with calculation assumptions, where appropriate) are consistent with the calculation and subsequent mods have not significantly affected the calculation results.

Other:

C Reviewer has determined the calculation results and conclusions are no longer applicable to the as-built design of the plant because:

the calculation design margin has already been exceeded.

Other:

[ Reviewer cannot determine that the calculation results and conclusions are applicable to the as-built design of the plant in the time available. Further technical evaluation is recommended.

pefertoSheet [ 2&for'a list of MDCPs, DCPs, design documents and pre-op test results that were reviewed during the calculation screening review.

Utt11:stion of this calculation by persons, without access to the pertinent factors and without proper regard for its purpose. could lead to erroneous conclusions.

should it become necessary to use any of this calculation in your work in the future. It is suggested that the calculation be reviewed with authorized Sechtel pe rsonnel, to ensure that the purposes, assumptions, judgments and limitations are

thoroughly understood. Sechtel cannot assume responsibility for the use of cal-

[culations not under our direct control.

srP 20220. Rev 8/88 i

ED.tAEv5(M 4 j

l

PROJECT [iM rrick bFMFRADMC $7AD06/

Ugitt lC2 JOB NO. _,,,, SO 3 /

OISCIPLt%E SfM !A/or id l/

iWsw ec 2k i

SUBJECT NPS#A Moor, G,

Ps.s m: N "'

CALC. NO. M 52-3l 6 n.

NO. OF SHEETS u

4 7kt: ve w< ~non at c 'IMie.t n iod /9940 n,,

h

.u e

. i,, a w -- a g

RECORD OF ISSUES NO.

DESCRIPTION BY DATE CHKO DATE APPRO DATE OM.sNas CnLCut.sTson - f/N/tt.

/o

)

tejy,yp yg - ;

KevnsEs Foa. h$as S.P. LsV6L fks-h F K b.

t 12l2lg

,f' RteewTtb sHEm 2 nausca G - F~taA L s.bewt

'f68 eJ w you %

$7a_A 13f/4fjf EEVISEO PA6&'. L b,S,9 f 6 To R ERECT

/2./ 'fl8 & *f tyjgl90 0

//.$l8)

' 'e#

t-r M

Hist-C212GV 3 CAL C "flklAL AMV I

n/a u/n

^

OL.. V n

n g

(,4/".

U

era d N

r7

[His CALCUL4Tl0A/ 30PCRSEDES Cate. M-52.- 11.

t.n Ch Ch C)

O N;.a.:..

4-SFP 20220. Rev 8/88 ED 1 AEV 5 (W81)

Effective Dater 9/4/94, L

,L.

a-

.- ' ng

~@

CALC. # M-M 3I Y

REv.

pg FoumosD sy EPff"#

n ge 2(

CALCULATION REVIEW CHECKLIST MANUAL COMPUTER YES or N/A calc.

calc.

X X

CALCULATION IS THE APPROPRIATE BASIS FOR THE ACTIVITY X

X CALCULATION ASSUMPTI ONS, CONSIDERATIONS, AND METHODOLOGY CONFORM TO

_Y APPLICABLE DE3IGN REQUIREMENT 3 X

X COURCE3 OF DATA AND FORMULAS WERE REVIEWED AND VERIFIED TO BE CORRECT AND COMPLETE X

X INPUT DATE IS CORRECT AND U3ED PROPERLY Y

X THE ANALYTICAL METHOD USED IN' THE CALCULATION HA3 BEEN CONSIDERED Y

AND IS PROPER FOR THE INTENDED USE X

MATHEMATICAL ACCURACY HA3 BEEN CHECKED AND IS CORRECT (INDICATE 7

METHOD USED)

A)

COMPLETE CHECK OF EACH COMPUTATION Y

B)

SPOT CHECK OF SELECTED COMPUTATIONS h

C)

PERFORMANCE OF ALTERNATE OR APPROXIMATION CALCULATION 47 4 (ATTECHED)

X X

CALCULATION RESULT 3 WERE CHECKED ACAINST APPLICABLE DESIGN CRITERI A Y

AND WERE FOUND TO BE IN COMPLIANCE X

X EXISTING CALCULATIONS REQUIRINO REVISION AS A RESULT OF THIS CALCULATION HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED & DOCUMENTED X

THE ANALYTICAL METHODS DESCRIBED IN THE COMPUTER CALCULATION N8

SUMMARY

IS PROPER FOR THE INTENDED USE

-X X

ALL SYSTEM AND TOPIC NUMSERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CALCULATION ARE Y

LISTED X

COMPUTATIONAL ACCURACY HAS BEEN CHECKED AND IS CORRECT (INDICATE M

METHOD USED)

A)

CHECK 3 AMPLE CALCULATION USING DATA OTHER THAN THAT USED IN M4 THE SAMPLE B)

PERFORMANCE OF ALTERNATE OR APPROXIMATION CALCULATION N

(ATTACHED)

C)

DESCRIBE OTHER METHOD USED:

4 X

PRocRAM USED IS APPROPRIATE, INPUT IS VALID, AND OUTPUT IS d4 REASONABLE CONSIDERING THE INPUT X

X BASE CALCULATION HAS BEEN REVIEWED AOAINST CURRENT DRAWINc Y

REVISIONS AND POSTED DCDS TO IDENTIFY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES The criteria listed above are the minimum Criteria to be considered and are not intended to limit the initiative of the reviewer to consider other criteria.

Attributes applicable to manual and computer calculations are noted by an *X' in the appropriate column.

List the documents used to support this review.

M ' I

• f l-I ~ C C d '

• Jli.

M - 1 t A I'.- t o t o C t Cn~L It 01 <; k \\

Oy n~

410 REVIEWED BY:

d I DATE: # 46 U l

~

I

--J

CA LC. NO. M-6 2-3 l

_ REV. NO. 3

• kA N I-O N oRiolMATOR '

N DATE l,26 90 CHECXED DATE

~

(,

PROJECT Ll ME~AICk 0EN. $ r-A T f orf I&E JOB no.

803l SUBJECT-Core SPRAY NP.6HA CALCULATIONS - Tv10 SHEET NO, 5 2e K

' Puu9 Rsikour The following MDCPs, OCPs, Design Documents and Pre-op Test Results were i

3 reviewed:

3 HDCP DCP DE51Gil PRE-OP 4

- UttI f 1 Utili 2 UtilT 1 Util f 2 DOCUMENTS TEST RESULTS 5

35-o Of 5929 249 f

6 85-o376 2.o p 646I sin 25-o679 2 coo 6-

'M ES-o642.

2o sg; so,

35'- o 73 I is N g 4_ go g3 ia m i3 i, Ln 86-5o12.

is ed 86-5o54

%7-5789 17 g

@9-038

- is a

89-599S 20 21

??

?3.

4 l ;5 26 4

- 27 19

'9 10 -

li

~2 l

l l

4 J

57 P,20768 Red, (6/7G) g g gg g gg7,

A. M. \\/o rAtJGCDL-- lL/L9 l00 h CALC. NO.

M-52-31 REV. NO.

• ORIGINATOR Skin Denny DATE 12/02/88 CHECKED A'd! rs/et. ay% DATE /1 M PROJECT Limerick Generatina Station Units 1 and 2 JOB NO.

8031

(

3 JECT Core Sorav NPSHA Calculations - Two Pumo Runout SHEET NO.

2 e e: roa revmov N Potteo% 'E M501.,n,SEE

?kce S, Revis.oa 4 c u c -.o.3 ro ou ee

,o m ooca is, a

I.

Purpose To calculate the net positive suction head available (NPSHA) from the suppression pool to the worst-case core spray pump, for the worst case conditions expected during the plant life, for comparison with the design NPSH required. led 40bmera Ttttf d h4A MAawl ic utt evtanto truet. oa w e M ruat b&ry S.rgp,ue,7,_ paess x mop.

NI.

References r0 A.

Crane Technical Paper No. 410, 21st printing, 1982 c3 B.

Process Diagram 8031-M-1-E21-1020-G-1.3 N

$Pg. MO. A &

'2W, lle\\l I, Sih.Wsurrtom Foil Ec.cs %'m W 5 7' leo # # G C.

-Meehemical I'. O. 0 0 31 --M --- 10 2 ncv. 4 (10/3/33) n 3

tn D.

Mechanical Calculation 8031-Misc-62, Rev.K h

E.

Bechtel Pipe Isometrics

(

1.

HBB-120-1 Rev. 22 9.

HBB-220-1 Rev. 12 f

2.

HBB-120-2 Rev.

9 10.

HBB-220-2 Rev.

8 3.

HBB-120-3 Rev. 20 11.

HBB-220-3 Rev. 11 C3 4.

HBB-120-4 Rev.

9 12.

HBB-220-4 Rev. 10 ca 5.

HBB-120-5 Rev. 21 13.

HBB-220-5 Rev.

7 6.

HBB-120-6 Rev.

9 14.

HBB-220-6 Rev.

7 7.

HBB-120-7 Rev. 22 15.

HBB-220-7 Rev.

7 8.

HBB-120-8 Rev.

9 16.

HBB-220-8 Rev.

7 F.

Bechtel Piping Specification 8031-P-300 to Addition 2 to Revision 33 G.

Anchor / Darling double Disc Gate Valve Catalog, Drawing PD-026 l

Rev.

1, dated 6/1/78 l

H.

Hydraulic institute Standards, 13th edition, 1975

'f.

Cone SPRAY PLeMe PER F'O/EM A*# E T~eSr GEi/E (fR)

V. F. /f B051-M-t -E! } l ~~ b III. Res Du 7,sMc 4G-167-ovo 17j REV o

@## 3 -JI4' I/

s ii

-r,- n. g.o The net positive suction head available (NPSHA) is kl.3d?'705 feet, which is greater than the net positive suction head requi e (NPSHR) of 10.0 feet.

Therefore the system suction lines are 7

ADEOUATE.

/ d. O The 10' NPSHR is from Ref.Iand is the actual value supplied by the pump vendor.

Ref. B, Note 6 specifies the NPSH required is 212 ft for Mode G. This requirement g

is satisfied based on maximum allowable dirty strainer pressure drop. Therefore I

the system suction lines are adequate. The NPSHA margin based on the actual dirty strainer pressure drop is 7.03 ft of H 0.

2 l

i I

J

R' pt

• d r44N c.ot..t2/24 / g k

• W "!#l CALC. NO.

M-52-31~ REV. NO.

T2'

. ORIGINATOR.

~ Skin Denny DATE 12/02/88 CHECKED M.+d A/a+vus% DATE 12. - 2. - M PROJECT Limerick Generatina Station Units-1 and 2 JOB NO.

8031 f 3 JECT Core Sorav NPSHA Calculations - Two Pumo Runout SHEET NO.

3 IV.

Assumptions A..

Pressure dro ss b " ;i @ strainer F A p id is no pe

/

greate,r than

~.,r... Reference Cg AwoWracuct 'T.

f 5

. -. s..

v m.n B.

. Suppression Pool elevation is at 100.0157 feet, which is the Y

minimum expected pool elevation after pool draw-down, per g

Reference DC.ZBA at (eou reuvrJQ &Of W) n C.-

Single pump flow is at runout condition of 3950 gpm, per

. Reference B.

'c0 D.

. Suppression Pool temperature is at 212 deg F, per' Reference B,

.W which is above the peak expected pool temperature for any accidert scenario.

This is conservative, since water density n

decreases with higher temperature, and thus will NPSHA also

.m-decrease with higher temperature.

Although viscosity decreases with higher temperature,.and so turbulence will ch increase and the friction factor decrease, this is a much smaller impact on NPSHA than that of density, E.

IAlthou 1ee used at -ttre ~ strainer mav--rncTude comM1TiTgl p

c fl he friction coefficient for the tee branch is k

(

o.

calcul as a normal full flow tee branch, Mb is consioERS Co45Ed kTiVE Fon. Tos kefut Amo4 o

F.

The penetration length.is assumed to be 15 feet.

The actual penetration is much less than 15 feet.

G.

The. total straight length of suction piping for any of the eight: unit 1 and. unit 2 core spray pumps is assumed to be 66

-feet by-bounding the summations of the straight lengths (including fitting lengths) for each pump, assuming 15 feet for the penetration (Assumption F).

H.

Pipe Aging is-considered by calculation the friction losses for the straight length sec.tions of pipe under new pipe conditions and adding an arbitrary 40% margin.

This margin is not added-for fittings or the strainers.

+ b Il Nore :. THE ORIGN%. PURCHASt. of4:Ert tecc. met > A mM. DEStG ULoS5 m sw a

• 2.o nil e so z e Fa gev. Y A '"AWM A doWA6tE A Ss T% STaMME4 0F 3.h P5th l

l 85 Em M50 y ' tn.*F) dce wu. eiusotte t

^

W of

7. FEET 66TtoEE a rJPS H A And OPS H R.

j ll b

(_ __

g.

5 CALC. NO.

M-52-31 REV. NO.

-F t. ORIGINATOR Skin Denny DATE 12/02/88 CHECKED Mi rJ4AVA DATE / 2 - 2. Pt PROJECT Limerick Generatina Station Units 1 and 2 JOB No.

8031

(

.3 JECT Core Sorav NPSHA Calculations - Two Pumo Runout SHEET NO.

4 l

l V.

Theory and Equations Unless otherwise stated, reference for the following is Ref. A and f, =. 013 for 12 to 16 inch pipe.

G

1. $ef. H A.

NPSHA = 144*1E

-P) + (E 3

g E,)

.59115E-3*

+

f rho d

B.

K(Strainers) =

dP

• d'

)

gn

1. 8 0 0 8 6E-5

• rho *Q' f --

where 7 = 2. 0 psid-;-d = 15. 25 inches l

rho

.9584

• 62.4 lbm/cuft

+- Ref. C N

= 3950 gpm l

c C.

K(Straight Pipe)

(1 + 40%)

• 12

• f*L/d

=

d' / C Eqn. 3-16 2

l D.

K(Gate Valve) = 890.60384

• y i

E.

K(90 deg elbow) = N

• 14 *f (90 deg butt welding 7

,(

l e3 bow with r/d = 1.5)

Os F.

K(45 deg elbow) = N

• 5.82

• f7 O

o where K = (n-1) * (0. 2 5 *pi*f *r/d+0. 5 *K) + K Ref. A pg A-29 7

and n = number of 90 deg bends = 0 i

r/c1 = 1. 5 and K =.14 *f7 then K = (0-1) * ( 0. 2 5

• 3.14 *1. 5 *f +0. 5 *14 *f ) + 14 *f 7

7 7

= 5.82 *ft G.

K(Tee Branch) = N

• 60

• f 7 H.

K(Tee Run) = N

• 20

• f i l

I.

K(Total) = sum ( Ks )

g.

AP

= 9/2 f}- = 3 6'EfSi O b

NOTE: The pressure drop for the new strainers obtained from Ref. C is based on 3950 GPM and 212.5'F. The 0.5'F difference between the AP basis and the suppression pool temperature of 212*F is considered negligible based on the 5

insignificant changes in water properties between 212*F and 212.5"F.

ELaMEm?A%I EEL 43tr R xs J m n

!2p4/gr 8.M, d rM@l- /7/2f[B8 CALC. NO.

M-52-31 REV. NO.

Y2

• ORIGINATOR Skin Denny DATE,j2/02/88 CHECKED' M W AvehDATE / t Pt

)

PROJECT Limerick Generatina Station Units 1 and 2 JOB NO.

8031

(.., c,3 JECT ' Core Sorav NPSHA Calculations - Two Pumo Runout SHEET NO.

5 VI, Data 3

A.

Fluid Conditions 1.

Temperature 212 deg F Assumption D 2.

Density 59.81466 lbm/cuft Ref. A Os 3.

Viscosity

.2822 c.p.

Ref. A n.

4.

Vapor Press.

14.696 psia Ref. A CD 5.

Flow Rate 3950 gpm Assumption C B.

Elevations c3

( 41'. 9 &

Ln 1.

Suppression Pool 109.^107 feet Assumption B thi.

cb -

2.

Press. above SP 14.696 psia Ref. B i

3.

Pump' Suction 175.75 feet Ref. E Os C.

Suction Piping CD-c) 1.

Inside Diam.

15.25 inches Ref. F 2.

Basis Diam.

15.00 inches Ref. A 3.

Straight Length ~

66 feet Assumption G 4.

No. of Gate Valves 1

(F001)

Ref. E Cv =

-17,375 Ref. G 5.

No. of 90 deg elbows 6 Ref. E 6.

No. of 45 deg elbows 1 Ref. E 7.

No. of Tee Branches 1 Assumption E 8.

No. of Tee Runs 3

Ref. E l

l e

u sseL MEWil StiHLE 5

CALC. NO.

M-52-31 REV. NO.

E

• ORIGINATOR Skin Denny DATE 12/02/88 CHECKED A*5 Alhavam DATE / 2. 9+

PROJECT Limerick Generatina Station E;1.ts 1 and 2 JOB NO.

8031 (f3 JECT Core Sorav NPSHA Calculatiorff;_ Two Pumo Runout SHEET NO.

6 VII. Calculations A.

Friction Losses Nes4A Bass-n n4 M Awmuu Attou>AstG bery 57&ae/L Alessu2f DbP.

1.

Strainers K=

2. 0 ~

• _15-r2-5 6.437286

=

o 008'6f--5 *. 9 5 8 4

• 6 2. 4

• 3 9 5 0' y

2.

Straight Length 03 Re = 50.65929

• 3950

• 59.81466 2.78E+6

=

15.25 *.2822 e

e =.00015 feet (Comm. Steel)

=>

f =.0134 fn K= (1+40%)

• 12 *.0134

• 66 / 15.25 =.975889 m

3.

Gate Valve (F001)

(*

K = 890.60384

• 15.25' / 17,3752

.159556

=

tl>

4.

90 deg Elbows o

(15. 25/15. 00)' = 1 166 640 o

K = 6

• 14 *.013

• 5.

~45 deg Elbows K = 1

• 5.82 *.013 * (15. 25/15. 00)' =. 080858 6.

Tee Branches K = 1

• 60 *.013 * (15. 25/15. 00)' =.833 315 7.

Tee Runc K=3 *20*

.013 * (15. 25/15. 00 ) ' =. 83 3 315 l

I i g I

r l

L

)

memewnsew satan%

n-/1 fl99 G

A, M. V' M f @ L. /7/ff[88 h CALC. % m f

NO.

M-52-31 REV. NO.

Xe

• ORIGINATOR -

Skio Denny DATE 12/02/88 CHECKED MS ^/4+ aw DATE / L - 1. - SM-PROJECT Limerick Generatino Station Units 1 and 2 JOB NO.

8031

[.3 JECT Core Sorav NPSHA Calculations - Two Pumo Runout SHEET NO.

7 8.

Total K K=

b6 M.975889 +.159556 of

+ 1.166640 +.080858 +.833315 +.833315 = 10.486853 B.

NPSHA NPSHA = 144*( 14.696 - 14.696 ) / 59.81466 149.94 y

+ ( 100.0167 - 175.75 )

d

.59115E-3

• 10.486859

• 3950 / 15. 25h +S' 2 2

to

._i l'2., O

.n en -

N

= E [3$7??5 feet g

m VIII.

Comparison NPSHA.vs. NPSHR 12.0 in 4

M b

Since NPS $ =

15.327705 feet

} - NPSHK =

10. 0 R.

(M 1)\\

and

- I M feet q20 we have a margin of

.32.705 feet o-Therefore, NPSHA > NPSHR and the suction line is C)

ADEOUATE R.GF,8, NOTE fa S FEca r tE5 Tite N PS14 AEDVIRC-0 051WO M MODE b -

N

-T ~ !V W NPSg 2;"rz ^.;c E p :n; Lc f- & ;",:. 5Fec,,^ia; t,0::n

%'A L.u:

l~^ 2 T2 T iif uEriC&L. ~TH e 10.o# AIPSHa: RefEKENCEO I4 REF..r. Es THE AcTu A t.

vAu.te as suprieo 64' Tue Panf VENDOR.

q

[C2 N '. C S 3 me.oonn C ros-Ot v.

N

• • J C t 's iUs A600E.

v t

l C

uma5L%Enew RiL9M

+ ORIGINATOR.

-Skin Denny

. /1/%9l$$ 0

&'t %4,,

t 2-l3 9/9f-A.M VotANGC#L.

CALC. NO.

M-52-31 REY. NO.

% 2-DATE 12/02/88 CHECKED b rA/A+dv4 DATE 12. H-

. PROJECT Limerick Generatina Station Units 1 and 2 JOB NO.

8031

[. TECT Core Sorav NPSHA Calculations - Two Pumo Runout SHEET NO.

8

{

IX.

Figures DRYWELL g

. SUPPRESSION POOL P

= 14.696 psia

/99, (G

'T Minimum Water Level is-100.0157 feet T = 212 F

=CO m

04 c3 Ln

('

p 16" HBB-120/220

'O o

Core Spray Pump Pump Suction Elevation 175.75 feetg[

', g rrauam i

Suas" Jay CALCULATION SHEET SA$" N

^

Revision

/6 REVISION 4 Purpose

/

To re-evaluate the net positive suction head available (NPSHA) for the core spray (CS) system wit suction aligned from the suppression pool (SP) under the worst expected conditions and with an iricrease in the maximum allowable differential pressure across the suction strainer of 3.6 psid he original design was 2.0 psid).

During the regular pump valve and flow tests, measurements will be taken of the pre.<tsure at the pump suction (PP-52-136A-D and PP-52-236A-D) with suction aligned to the SP and with reflow (static) and with design rated (3,175 gpm/ pump) flow (dynamic). The purpose of these measurements is to show loop capability for LGS Technical Specification requirements. An additional purpoje of this calculation is to establish the maximum value for the difference between these two measuya pressures beyond which the loop may not satisfy its safety function.

Results These results are applicable to both LGS Unit 1 and U With suction aligned from the SP, under worst expected conditions (212*F and 1 atm), with a pump flow rate of 3,950 gpm/ pump (representing full pump runout), a SP leve of 199' 11%", and a maximum allowable differential pressure across the suction strainer of 3.6 ps[id, the ca head available and margin to the net positive suction head re dired are, h

NPSHA - 12.0 et Margin = - feet With a system test (SP to SP) flow rate of 3,175 m/ pump, the maximum allowed change in suction pressure measured at PP-52-1(2)36A( D) is 3.

psid. If the test flow rate is 3,950 gpm/ pump, the maximum allowable value rises to 5.16 psid.

P,,,,, - P

.33 psid (@ 3,175 gpm/ pump)

> 5.16 psid (@ 3,950 gpm/ pump)

Max. Allowed inputs T

212

• F P

45 psia (only used to determ p and )

=

59.81992 lbm/cuft p

=

0.28222 cp 4

=

P.

1 atm

=

P, 1

atm

=

3,950 gpm

=

d 15.25 inches i

=

K(w/o strainer) 4.049573

=

l AP.,,,_

3.6 psid

=

l Zs..

199.95833 feet

=

Z 175.75000 feet

=

m NPSHR 10.0 feet @ 3,950 gpm

=

I L

l

CALC NO.: M-52-31 PECO EN Y

CRCUMTION SHEET eAoE:

10 R: vision

1. 6 Calculations NET POSITIVE SUCTION HEAD AVAILABLE Flow losses (not including strainer) from page 3-2 Equation 3-5 of References 5 & 6 p K O2 AP, = 1.800864361E-5 d4

= 1.258 psid Calculating the NPSHA, with P, = P,.

b NPSHA = IM (P. - P, - AP - AP

) + ZSP - Z f

pump p

I"

= 199.95833 - 175 5 - 59.81992 (1.258 + 3.6)

= 12.514 feet @ p = 59.81992 lbm/cuft 59.81M2 2.514 x

=

62.4

= 12.00 feet @ p = 62.4 lbm/cuft

Thus, NPSHA 12.0 feet

=

NPSHR 10.0 feet (@ 3.950 gpm. Ref 10)

=

2.00 feet Margin

1 CALC NO.: M-52-31 PECO EN Y

CRCUMTG MEET exaE:

11 Rsvision

1. 6 Calculations (Cont'd)

/

MAXIMUM VALUE The pressure loss due to flow calculated above considered the longest suction line from the SP assumed a conservatively long penetration length, included fitting lengths in the straight pipe, nd added 40% to the straight pipe losses to account for a 40 year life. The equivalent length c culated is therefore conservative for the calculation of NPSHA, but should not be used to evaluate aximum value for a measured difference in suction pressure between static and dynamic conditi s because it would attribute more measured flow dP to the line itself and less to the strainer. Thu a conservatively LOW value for K should be used for this part of the calcula; ion. The resistance fa r (K) for fittings will not change, but we will not include the 40% additional (for 40 year life) to the str ht pipe length and we will only use half the straight pipe length (33 feet). This will give us a K fac r for the straight pipe of, K, = /

g 33

= 12 x 0.0134 x 15.25

= 0.347 We must also calculate a resistance co icient for the strainer, since we will be testing the system at a flow rate less than full runout (3,175 m/ pump versus 3,950 gpm/ pump). Using Equation 3-14 on page 3-4 of Reference A and strai r design conditions, i

K

=

2 1.800864361E-5 p Q 4

(3.6) (15.25)4 1.800064361E-5 (59.81992) (3950)

= 11.5890676 I

l l

~

^' " ' "~""~ '

me 2Y uwnam usT e

w Revision

1. 6 Calculations (Cont'd)

The total line resistance coefficient will then be,

( = 11.58907 + 0.34796 + 0.159556 + 1.166640

+ 0.080858 + 0.833315 + 0.833315

= 15.010714 It is conservative to assume the hottest SP temperature expectad during th.est, that of the maximum SP temperature allowable by Technical Specification during normal plant eration, 95'F.

T 95

'F

=

P 45 psi

=

62.06687 I

cuft p

=

0.71955 p

4

=

O 3,175 gpm

=

Evaluating the line losses (including the suction strain AP = 1.800864361E-5 (15.010714)(62.06687)(3175)2 f

(15.25)4

= 3.127 psid The difference between the pres re at the pump suction (PP) at static conditions and at dynamic conditions can be expressed a,

AP = P

- Pm

= A P, + A P,

where, P.

pressure at the pump suction with no flow

=

pressure at the pump suction with flow

=

APf pressure loss due to flow (not including the suction strainer)

=

AP, pressure loss due to velocity (i.e. the velocity head in psid) l

[

CALC NO.: M-52-31 PECO EN Y

CALCULATION SHEET PAos:

13 R3 vision A' 6 Calculations (Cont'd)

The pressure loss due to velocity is evaluated as, P

AP = 1.80086E-5 dd (62.0668D (3175)2

= 1.80086E-5 (15.25)'

= 0.20833 psid b

Thus the ditierence between the measured suction pressure at atic and dynamic conditions becomes, AP = AP + AP, f

= 3.12716 + 0.

833

= 3.33 psid (@ 3,175 gpm/ pump)

Note: If the test is run at full ru (3,950 gpm/ pump), the ACTION value changes to, 3950

• P = 3.33549 3175 j s

= 5.1626 psid (@ 3,950 gpm/ pump) l

/

4

CALCULATION M-52-31, PAGE 14 6*.

REVG

2. NPSHA Marrin Based On Actual Dirty Strainer AP From Reference B, the CS System in Mode G is the accident mode at pump mnout conditions and is the limiting case.

NPSHA = 12.0 ft H O @ 3,950 gpm @ 212 *F (page 7 of this calculation) 2 The above NPSHA is based on the maximum allowable AP for the new large capacity passive strainers. The purpose of this calculation is to detemine the NPSHA margin based on the actual dirty strainer AP. Therefore, the above NPSHA will be adjusted to obtain the NPSHA based on the actual diny stminer AP:

NPSHA,.ioiny== NPSHAp.,,7 + Maximum Allowable Dirty Strainer AP - Actual Dirty Strainer AP 4

Maximum Allowable Diny Strainer AP @ 3,950 gpm @ 212

• F = 9.2 ft (References C and J)

The Actual Diny Strainer AP is obtained from Table 4 of Reference J:

. Actual Dirty Strainer AP @ 3,950 gpm @ 213'F = Strainer System Iosses + StrainerBed losses Actual Dirty Strainer AP @ 3,950 gpm @ 213 *F = 1.54 ft + 2.63 ft = 4.17 ft NOTE: The Actual Dirty Strainer AP obtained from Reference J is based on 213

• F, however the actual Mode G temperature is 212

• F. This l'F difference is considered to have an insignificant affect on the strainer AP based on the insignificant change in water properties from 212

• F to 213 ' F.

Therefore, k

D" NPSHA,.ioi, = 12.0 ft + 9.2 ft - 4.17 ft = 17.03 ft H O 4

2 Determine NPSHA Margin:

8' f

@fe NPSHA Margin = NPSHA m.ioi,- NPSHR 3c UJ NPSHR = 10 ft @ 3,950 gpm (Reference I) y x

Therefore, 8

NPSHA Margin = 17.03 ft - 10 ft = 7.03 ft H O 2

Therefore, thne is sufficient margin between the Core Spmy Pump NPSHA and the NPSHR when considering the actual dirty AP of the new large capacity passive strainers.

I