RBG-31277, Forwards Roof Drawings for Standby Cooling Tower (Sbct) & Diesel Generator (DG) Bldgs & Calculations for DG & Sbct Bldgs,Per 890425 Request.Drawings Provide Overview of Each Bldg.W/Three Oversize Drawings
| ML20247N489 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 07/24/1989 |
| From: | Booker J GULF STATES UTILITIES CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247N492 | List: |
| References | |
| RBG-31277, NUDOCS 8908030021 | |
| Download: ML20247N489 (27) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:k.' ;, ?)} D _,/ '
- (t
.s 1
*4 h- _.*~
i, -'"
' GUXaF - STATES UTILITIES COMPANY
- )Wf R BfMD 5147 ION PC57 OHG BOM 220 ST MANOWtal WulSAN A 7 cut.
AMA CCDE fxM 636 6DP4 346 11651 July 24,1989 RBG- 3127 7 File No. G9.5 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 Gentlemen: y River Bend Station - Unit 1
' Docket No. 50-458 By: letters dated December 2, 1988 (RBG-29475), February 28, 1989 (RBG-30186), and April 10, 1989 (RBG-30504), Gulf States Utilities Company (GSU) described our roofing program for River Bend Station - Unit 1. On April 25, 1989 in a telephone conversation between GSU and Messrs. W. Paulson and G. Staley of the.NRC, GSU was requested to submit plan ano section drawings of the 126' elevation of the diesel generator building (DG) roof and the standby cooling tower (SBCT) roof. The NRC also requested that- GSU provide appropriate analyses and calculations to demonstrate that these roofs can withstand ponded water.
Included herein is roof drawing 12210-EA-59C-1 (Enclosure A) for
-the SBCT building, roof drawings 12210-EC-290-4 and 12210-EC-29G-3 (Enclosure B) for the DG building, calculation C29.0.1.3B fo'r the 'DG building (Enclosure C) and calculation C47.540.0B for the SBCT building (Enclosure D).
The drawings provide an overview of each building, includingthe location of the " scupper drains". The calculations are provided to 'show the adequacy of each roof structure to withstand the loading imposed- by ponded rainwater. The calculations conservatively assumed that all " scupper. drains" were blocked and, in the case of the DG building, a maximum amount of rainwater was retained prior to draining via an alternate path. With regards to the SBCT building, the calculation conservatively assumes the maximum amount of rainwater that could be contained within the parapet walls. Given'. the configuration of the roof structures and the calculations-performed, GSU- concludes that the concrete roof slabs of the DG and SBCT buildings are more than adequate to support the maximum amount of rainwater ponding that may occur.
~
I 9909030021 DR 890724 ' OtI0*%L W"Gs P MMuw (IO l ADOCK 0500 8 4%AME c4Ro pagy L a___ . - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ -_ - _ - - _ - . _ _ _ _ - . - - _ - - - - -
t e i Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact James W. Cook of my staff at (504) 381-4151. Sincerely,
. Edo#7 J. E. Booker Manager-River Bend Oversight River Bend Nuclear Group JEB/LAE/h F Enclosures
['Edo/ch 1 cc: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV ] 1 , 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 ) Arlington, TX 76011 Mr. Walt Paulson U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk : Washington, D.C. 20555 NRC Resident Inspector P.0 Box 1051 St. Francisville, LA 70775 l 4 l
s.e m o w narr mu 1
- , , CALCULATION TITLE PAGE 12210-C29. 0.1 - 3B ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT * "o-Job #G13.1.2 PAGE 1 OF 9
- 2. Cm_NLAMON Et.E:
- 3. Sumw.ur.a CALC. OR REMSON NO:
Diesel Generator Bldg. - Slab Design C29.0.1 Rev. 3, Add. A
)
- 4. MECT4 0F U*MTION:
The objective of this calculation is to prove the adequacy of the roof slab at elev. 126'-0" to support a maximum height of ponded rainwater, assuming that the scupper drains provided in the West wall of the building are clogged. (Note: This is a very conservative approach since the drains will not comp?.etely block and water will drain. S. CALCULATION WETHOD/ASEUMPTONS: ( 1 s The method employed in this calculation for determining the adequacy of the slab is ' a simple determination of the reserve capacity of the slab based upon designed loading, as compared to the maximum potential loading from ponded rainwater. If the reserve capacity of the slab exceeds the potential water loading, the slab is acceptable. If the reserve capacity does not exceed the rainwater loading, additional j analysis and/or justification is provided to insure the adequacy of the existing ' slab design.
- 4. SOURCES OF DATA / EQUATIONS (nr.rr.nr.rGS):
- 1. Calculation 12210-C29.0.1 Rev. 3; " Diesel Generator Mdg. - Slab Design"
- 2. Structural Design Criteria - Doc. No. 200.010, Rev. 5, dated 3/15/85 .
- 3. Design Handbook ACI 318-71, Publication SP-17(73)
- 4. Drawing EC-29G-3; " Floor Plan EL. 126'-0", Outline, Diesel Generator Bldg."
- 5. " Standard Handbook for Civil Engineers"; Merritt; Second Edition; 1968
- 7. CONCLUSONS Based upon the reserve capacity of the existing roof slab at elevation 126'-0",
the additional loading imposed by the maximum potential height of ponded rainwater will not compromise the structural integrity of the slab.
- 8. REASON FOR REVlWCW (F AN* %
l 1 The reason for this addendum is to provide a technical review of the adequacy of l ' the roof slab at elev. 126'-0" to support the maximum potential height of porded rainwater. Though the slab design is adequate to support the rainwater, the specific loading imposed by water was not individually identified in the original calculation.
- 8. RELATED DOCUWDnB 10. QA CATEGORY X I. NUCLEAR Il N/A -
SAFETT REI.ATED E III
- 11. 12. AJ-
% ,, Y7/gg .A?rt n / YA% V PREPAMR / OAW CHECER/REVE4R DATE 14 DATA RECMRING CONFWIMATION:
l iv A. DATA CONFIRMED gy: DATE EllP-Ot2 1/W _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ]
... v. - m e i u ,
J" ,
, , g CALCULATION REVIEW SHEET
~
PAGE 2_ OF 9 CALC I PAGE COMMENT RESPONSE / RESOLUTION , ) }
/ V O n e.-
X d COMME.NTS PROVIDED BY COMMENTS RESOLVED RESOLUTION ACCEPTED 4; g n.p *1 REMEWER DATE PREPARER DATE REME 6 OATE EF-014 1/s7
o ,. v. muha C FUgr-
} CALCULATION WORK SHEET OF V l PAGE 3 REF PAGE OBJECTIVE:
As stated on page 1, the objective of this calculation is to confirm the adequacy of the roof slab of the Diesel Generator Bldg. at elev. 126' to support the loading imposed by the maximum potential height of ponded rainwater. METHOD and SOLUTION: An outline of the configuration of the roof slab at elevation 126'-0" is
, shown on page 4 of this calculation. In this outline the slab is divided into sections, S1, S2, and S3, for which an original analysis was performed to determine the design loading and subsequently the slab reinforcing requirements for the overall slab.
On page 5 of this calculation, an outline of the roof slab at elev. 126'-0" is provided showing the physical layout of the roof cubicles with all passageway openings and the scupper drain locations in the West wall of , the building. The purpose of this page is to indicate the maximum height of rainwater that could be contained within each cubicle of the roof slab, 7 inches, prior to the water draining into the adjacent cubicle and eventually off the roof through the opening in the North wall of the roof. (See page 8, conclusions, for additional explanation.) A. The method employed by this calculation,to verify the adequacy of the roof slab, will be to extract the design loading determined from the original calculation; determine the actual capacity of the slab based upon the reinforcing steel provided; determine the reserve
/
capacity of the slab; and compare the reserve capacity to the loading imposed by the maximum potential height of ponded rainwater. B. It should be noted that the approach defined above is very conservative in nature for the following reasons:
- 1. This method of review assumes that the scupper drains in the West wall of the roof structure are totally clogged and do not allow any drainage of water. Since this condition is extremely unlik.ely, the maximum ponded height of rainwater, 7 inches, will more than likely be reduced due to drainage.
- 2. Though the potential for simultaneous loadings from the full value of the original design loads for Live and Temperature Differential, are potentially reduced during a max. height of ponded rainwater, nc reductions in these loads will be considered.
- 3. In this calculation we are analyzing the effect of the poried 1 229, rainwater on slab section "S2" as compared to section "S1". Since 9 the slrics are sloped in the direction of slab S1, the ponded depth will ar ually occur on top of S1. However, the original calc.
determined that the max. stresses occurred in slab S2. In addition, the unsupported span length of section S1 is shorter than that of section S2. Therefore, it is very conservative to analyze section S2 and distribute the maximum depth of ponded water over the entire I section to determine structural adequacy. I fy-oO iM
,. .,. t CALCULA110N NUWSDt Rgy C J- * ' ~
CALCULATION WORK SHEET ni NO. T PAGE 2/ OF 9 CALCULATION SHEET # #^E
*~**"'***'"'~""n"o".*'*"~"~~"
4.e . e.te w e. envision 3 case ne .. ') t U a q.9 .l C29 esen.asefeate envisets / smesses teart sees eser navseventeare 9
- r. A. N J /s-ir rp M- M //-st- Fr * / t- si- t r sweeeet/ TitLa perss& dK#sAftTM Sap 4 ea catsooer/coes etaos FLann elAm Mids / A L 1.e4 L a %
.. wen- opa.-ea mm e .x,mmem p,
@ e,@ ,,t. - ~@ ,: ,,t .
~ ~ '
_ Is L s" _ _ 2L O._ _ .._ . __ . e.. .,e. g .. p_ _ , . 4 -__, -e_ _ _ _ , ___~_.-- w it.awai . O
,e 7I sses s
l l
~
.y
~%__ ,4r Q
! I I
t
"[ m* '
I ! l l . ._L t! ( " O 4; i t .
,g - e
** { ,
Q s Ii d'* h y i p$ *, i ii I i s 1 L_ J ,.,' _______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _t _t_ __1 ___J y 6 e ,,, .. o r------ -- - - - - - - -
- - - - - -- - ' - l r --1 0 M i 0
i ,
' li o ,a es N;
l i i i i i f
=
% {
[ , VJ lllg i l i t r f , W i i I 1
'y
-g (N l i .8 y t 4;
'?.
NARi e' _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .l.__) L ] h !
\
ir I a.% - l
- e. *
- $g l i :[
l_ II jj d 0 i _I. ,; 3'
._. ;! i g
'l o l , /[I 5.__..
.._4J
_J l _1 ,(' , 25 l.' E i , w f x : I i> 3.,
.a.
c s J . _. _ . _ _.--n
- . . _ _ . - . - . - - l rl n -
i 1 lPe J ,aj ..
.__.__.___q _ . , y Jg
- t. _dj53] _=____r . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.)1 Ls..J.? w e ._
_______________y_._~ _n a.- w ,
~_ _ _a.n_ , ,, ~_ _ _ ~_ _ _,
.. yr
)g,
=
g wuss , 0
-i.,
._9
,_ k .,.
L _ _ __ _ u. .Li _ _ _ _ _ ; l
, I(
;d g ,e
\ 3 + s* Nc3 a
__ ". 'lt E re< ss. u d . *t
'A I. . & _
drie [-sto#sLc
# '- o j 1i !' #
34 3 l _. .. FDir.c 3 ,m
CALCULATION WORK SHEET c ' PAGE g~ OF 9 r* I i l<ne m wues ' v' . < acr Pact a cE l e 4 y r- n 7 gi ' M= y i F i l .g I I ylsb @ @iid gl +hikg '
!l .kl~~*I W iT g
, I t
g @' M b- i 1 U e i
.w ,!
i . I i ' wLi l I c j% 2 k W Ret i ! e d i j g . :t i .< , +mm , - -- e ImIn .. li f;- s r4 ,. ' j
.u z-w ** wl l ,
I ,_________;. j In f l l ? ' " l l'jl a k . !
! 1
- l l
~
~
-h sg i 1 .]
l l 'h l l I l p - - ---k [hEj P .' l l IC l l l l l NI I l ! . 4 g{ 'ac.:rm , ., - L l';,'l ,y D o
,2 , *
.iP.5 l hm g
-)- d* m g gf l
.L 1
T"T.l i I isf)}
. f .
, l #G .g-.'_-.'7-If l!
.whop "f a
k %* s ; ed ae
/ p ep + y - --
*I
- t% $- f k lo b
in
,T g> =
- b. O, '
In 7 *-) f . J L tr ob i e ~ a
" - (F, I
I ! i w M ::-2* "" d- I g ,' ,y,
... A @- g
, i w ,pas ]Igjwgi vl w
,. I 1 4 i ;
1 1i
...FE ------- -
- I!C g ol d
S e
'TJ6TT I ewlI= 3 ; '
]gl m ::r--Mh a, l.EEJ iIIl l - . sE '
I / 0msbg : y: qI. g ',g:m I y ~ 3% , - - - - -
,l---dn gi I l',' g b P ,, ;'
e ' -4 lg$[i e, 'g
\ ,
e e 4-J .4* i,i'i f l g! I i - M~ ~w4
}$ JM - [
i (N6M3) i ? !
* ; dN ! i O -'-
i,- .
'9 a N
F f~l g i 2 i 4"' 1 g y li I l }i I Il % I 3 I" M A-s -+r .
, 1 i
l l.9JfilQ[lllJi(6' 57 g y M q 7
'{-
3 8Wd
<s, - Rf
- i. \7( -) { lj -
h
- %Mt i
- v. .g -rp; i l ;
p.O a C( k
---fgg%,
we* 9 - l - i g ,' w e, - i c l ; . lv:it' 23l . l l, . 3eow ,jg $ Q gl.i. t ,z-A ; I T
,S m IgI d
\ l
] 51~., 4 l[ M'i j -_----
y !I$ l I ! ' 0' Y --5C- .- l i . g j o o l l{ , a Y.. l
'. %k Y f
+n- - L._.
4: je6 i:l i l l 1
! k i I g i. l i yl4-__1rgp. -
p4:. W l , N ,_L @FMl ;( 1 u. m . I ----- l' #W:tMithl$l5 gl< l l 15._ y. ^
. (.
i ; --j - l q y 5: su' r t - o vari,., ?? G
.v.w:
Jd gEC ' li 4' 3 *4' w,a:8 o, '; L ==rt}
. .pt ):-
h yg** d I , ,8* " ,"E' # $ i: M 8) i B
'd
-.g, :s
$h s f86'fT
!l h g>d 7=
i M iYG Rj ' tl
'b d "i
'- l t
- d. eC ?I I'T t
g.* w - r- e .,- .MM r-423=,-- FE
*i IgiCJ , 8,,f{wF [g ,,
)g Ld \ **?8 fy d'P 3 9M
c .. o t. cAtcuuBON NUW8ER l REV ] C29 0.1 3B
. ; CALCULATION WORK SHEET ,n.
PAGE 6 OF T REF PAGE Referencing Page 4 of this calculation, which is page C29.9 of the original design calculation for the slab at elev. 126'-0"; From the original calculation performed, it is found that the most critical slab section exhibiting the highest stresses was section "S2".
)
The maximum applied momentu(M ) for slab S1 is : ) Mu = 66.0 KFT + 19.8 KFT/FT (diff. temp. To) 1 C29 10 The maximum applied moment (Mu) for Slab S2 is: 11 Mu = 86.0 KFT + 19.8 KFT/FT (diff. temp. To) 1 C29 13 11 Slab "S3" is not considered in this review since it is located outside of the " containment" area of the roof. The slab area identified as "S3" is located on the North end of elev. 126'-0" and is bounded on the South side only. The remaining edges of the slab are open and therefore permit runoff of rainwater. Since the maximum applied moment for the slab at elev. 126'-0" is found to exist in section "S2", we will utilize this section for the determination of structural adequacy to support ponded rainwater loads. To clarify the origin of the loading on this section of the slab, we will re-state the loading combination equation and results found in the original calculation on pages C29.12 and C29.13: The load combination equation utilized in the original calculation is: U = 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.9 OBE + 1.3 To (EQ. #3, Ref. 2, Pg. 4-6) D = Dead Load; L = Live Load; OBE = Operational Basis Earthquake; J To = Loads due to Temp. Gradient
]
From page C29.13 of the original calculation: 1 1.4D = 1.4(372 psf) = 520.8 psf gy = OBE Vert. Acc.el. 1.7L = 1.7(100 psf) = 170 psf 1.90BE = 1.9[(gy)(DL + LL)] = 1.9[(.164)(372 + 100) = 147.08 psf i 1.3T o n 1.3(15.25) = 19.8 KFT/FT = Mut (moment from temp.) U = 838 psf excluding temp. loads which are added separate The distributed load as a result of the temp. gradient moment (Mut) is: i From page C29.13, Ref. 1; ' W L2 , _Mp 10 , 19.8 x 10 x 1000 y = 193.4 psf (Note: L = 32 ft. from the section diagram in the orig. calc. on page C29.13) l I f2F-013 9T
~
~ I
}" '
CALCULATION WORK SHEET PAGE 7 OF 9 REF PAGE Therefore, the total distributed loading on slab "S2" is: Wu = 838 psf + 193.4 = 1031.4 psf As indicated on page C29.13 of the original calculation, the area of steel (A3 ) provided in the slab is equal to 1.87sq.in/ft(#11 barc @ 10" spacing). In addition, "d" in the original calculation is given as 21.9". Using the slab design, determine the maximum allowable distributed loading: For A3 = 1.87 sq.in., d = 21.9", and b = 12" (one foot sect. of slab) From Ref. #3, " Flexure 1.1", page 105: b y : 1.1. ": l 3 105
- T P" "
= 0.0071 ~*
(1 x 21.9) a bd2 12(21.9)2 p ,12000 , 12000
= 0.48 Y
i using f'c = 3000 psi and fy= 40,000 psi: 2 2-1 Ku = 240 by interpolation from Flex. 1.1 ,[ j 3 105 (Ku is the strength coefficient of resistance) Mu=FK u= 0.48 (240) = 115 KFT 3 105 Therefore, the maximum moment capacity of the slab is 115 KFT. From this capacity, we determine the raximum allowable distributed load on the slab; From the original cale., page C29.13: y . N x 10 115ix x 1000
, = 1123 psf 1 Therefore, comparing the max. allowable dist. load to the actually applied loading, we can determine the reserve capacity of the slab as being:
Wu margin = W u capacity - Wu applied = 1123 psf - 1031 psf = 92 psf Determine the max. allowable head of water based upon the margin of dist. load remaining in the slab: Since the head of water will act as a dead load and as a live load during a seismic event, the dist. load margin will be divided by the combined unit loading of the two cases to determine the permissible head of water: Allow. Head = " (water d n) (water den)(gy)1.9 1 (Density of water = 62.4 lb/ft3) 5 15-9 F #E3 9M
- t. CALCULAT!ON NUW8Dt l rey 38 CALCULATION WORK SHEET PAGE 8 OF y REF PAGE
^ ** ""
" (62. 1 + (62.4)(0.164)1.9 = 0.86 ft.
The allowable head of ponded rainwater that can be distributed over the roof slab at elevation 126'-0" is 0.86 ft. Reviewing the designed configuration of the roof structure at elevation 126', 4 as shown on page 5 of this calculation, it can be seen that the slab is
. sloped from East to West with a difference in elevation of 7 inches. In addition, it can be seen that the slab itself is divided into three (3) cubicles with a passageway opening connecting each cubicle. It can be seen that the center and South bays represent the worse case locations for the ponding of rainwater, which, due to the slope of the slab, the existance
, of passageways and the opening to an unrestricted roof on the North end of elev. 126', the maximum ponding that can occur is a depth of 7 inches. Therefore, since the maximum permissbile depth of water on the slab is 10 inches based upon a distributed loading and the maximum possible depth of ponded rainwater that the slab can contain on one end is 7 inches, the roof slab at elevation 126'-0" of the Diesel Generator Building is structurally adequate to support ponded rainwater. I I
o t f J " C " "? 4 . RIVER BEND STATION Eo"Cmumw GUIS STATES UTILITIES COMPANY c u. os. sa .
%c 9 s s DESIGN REVIEW CHECKLIST (REr. EDP-AA-se)
YES NO N/A
- 1. Were the Inpute correctly selected and incorporated into the deofgn? ......... O- 0
- 2. Are the oesumptione neceewery to perform the design octivfty
'8
- odoquetely described and receonable? Where necesocey, ore the f assumptions identified for subsequent reverificotlone when th ~
detailed design octivities are completed? .................................e O
....................... O
- 3. Are the appropriate quellty and quelfty osaurence requirements specified?.................................................................................................. O O
- 4. Are the opplicable codes, stonderde. and reguletory requirements, u
including issue mod oddendo, propert requirements for design met? ...........yIdent!fied and ore their........................................................ O C
- 5. Hove opplicoble construction and operating experience been considered?...... [ O '?
- 6. How the design Interfoce requirements been setlefied? ................................ O O X
- 7. Wee on appropriate design m oth od u see? ...... .............................................. M O' O
- 8. le the output ressenable compored to inpute? .............................................. % O O
- 9. Are the specified porte, equipment, and processes eultoble for the requ ired opp!!co tion ? ................. .. ... ................ ......... .. ............. ...... .... ....... .. .... O O
- 10. Are the specified meteriolo compettble with each other and with the design environmental conditions to which the materlot will be exposed?...... O O (
- 11. Hove odoquete molntenance foetures and requirements been epocified? ...... O O
- 12. Are accoolbility and other design proviolone odoquote for the performance of needed maintenance one repolr? ........................................... O O
- 13. Hoe odoquote oceselbility been provided to perform the in-service
- Inspection expected to be performed during the plant life? .................. ...... O O [
- 14. Hoe the design properly conaldered redletion exposure to the public on d t o plon t p ereennel f ................. ................................................................ O O
- 15. Are the occeptance artterio incorporated in the design documente sufficient to ellow wrffication that desi requirements how been
..................gn setlefoctority occompilehed? ............................................................ O O
- 16. How odequete pre-operational and subsequent peridic test requirements been appropriately speelfled? ..................................................... O O
- 17. Are odoquote handling, storoge, elooning and shipping requiramente a speelfled?............................................................................................ O O An
- 18. Are odoquete Idenfiflection requirwmente specified? ....................................... % 0 0 1g. Are requirements for record propecotton, review, o etc. odoquetely spoolfied? ............................... ......pprovol, retention,
....................................... O O M
":0. Hove environmental, safety, and salemic odoquocy been conaldered? .......... [ O O
- 21. Hove recommended opere porte been specified? ...........................................O O g
_ 22. Hove fire hozord onelyste Impacto been conaldered? .................................... O O M! vertfter's Summory: DESIGN VERIFIED # !
. VerifyinfEngineer Date {
g j
- 1. CALCULABON NUW80t i Rty CALCULATION TITLE PAGE C47. l540 - OB
'.
- ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT * "o . -
PAGE 1 OF 14
- 2. CALCULADON TITLL: Standby S.W. Cooling Tower - 3. SUPE EiW5 CALC. 0A REVIS0N NO:
Design of Roofs @ EL. 152'-6" & 163'-4" and Walls From E1. 152'-6" to EI. 163'-4" 12210-C47.540-0A I' 4. OBJECVW OF CALCULADON:
- The objective of this calculation is to prove the adequacy of the roof slab at elev.
152'-6" to support a maximum height of ponded rainwater, assuming that thc scupper drains provided in the surrounding parapet wall are blocked. (Note: This is a very lconservativeapproachsincethedrainswillnotcompletelyprevent the flow of water.) S. CALCULATION WCTH00/ASSUWPh0N$:
'The method employed in this calculation, for determining the adequacy of the roof slab, involves the simple comparison of existing ultimate design moments in each section of the slab, to a revised moment based upon the additional loadings imposed by the ponded rainwater. If the revised ultimate moment is less than that originally calculated, no additional review is required. However, if the revised moment exceeds the original design, additional calculations and/or justification for acceptability will be provided.
- 6. SOURES OF DATA /7. QUAT 10NR (twuw.NCEI):
- 1. Calculation 12210-C47.540 Rev. 0; " Standby S.W. Cooling Tower - Design of Roofs
@ EL. 152'-6" & 163'-4" and Walls From EL. 152'-6" to EL. 163'-4". "
- 2. Structural Design Criteria - Doc. No. 200.010 Rev. 5, dated 3/15/85 .
- 3. Design Handbook, ACI 318-71, Publication SP-17(73)
- 4. Drawing EA-59C-1; " Partial Roof Plans & Dets STBY SVCE WTR CLG Tower"
- 5. HVAC Calculation G13.18.2.1*28
- 6. Modification Request (MR) No. 85-0445 (Welding of doors SP154-1 & 2)
- 7. Drawing EC-47DA-2; Plan Elev. 152'-6", Reinforcing plan.
- 8. " Standard Handbook for Civil Engineers"; Merritt; Second Edition; 1968
- 7. CONCLus0NS:
Since the revised ultimate design moments for each section of the roof slab at elev. 152'-6" are enveloped by the original design, the additional loadfng imposed by the maximum height of ponded rainwater will not compromise the structural integrity of the roof slab.
- 8. PEASON FOR REM 50N (F APPXm ry The reason for this addendum is to provide a technical reviaw of the adequacy of the roof slab at elev. 152'-6" to support the maxim'im potential height of ponded rainwater. Though the slab design is adequate to support the rainwater, the specific loading imposed by water was not individually identified in the original calculation.
G. RELATED DOCUWENTR 10. QA CATEGORY X I-NUCLEAR II N/A - SAFETY RELATED [ III
- 11. 12. AJ.
- [S) Y/m '
0 N U l' d ,/ocien 0AU WL ,/a/e P ARDt /DATE CHECKUt/RNEWER ! OATE INDEPENDENT REVIEWUt DATE 14 OATA REQUIRWG CONF 1RMATION: N/A I 0ATA CONF 1RWED 8Y: 0 ATE tor-otz Vs7
~
1 c _y . mm ,m g-- - g CALCULATION REVIEW SHEET $
/
CALC
"" PAGE COMMENT RESPONSE / RESOLUTION l .
N o se
'I
-MMW M M M M M M u w mg COMMENTS PROVIDED BY COMMENTS RESOLVED RESOLUTION ACCEPTED
% , YOCl89 a-- > 4 -m - om .m.
om j3 E F -014 t/97
CALCULATION WORK SHEET fla 540 { 0B PAGE 3 OF /// REF PAGE OBJECTIVE: . As stated on page 1, the objective of this calculation is to confirm the adequacy of the roof slab of the Standby Cooling Tower Pumphouse, at elevation 152'-6", to support the loading imposed by the maximum potential
. height of ponded rainwater.
METHOD and SOLUTION: An outline of the configuration of the roof slab at elevation 152'-6" is shown on page 5 of this calculation. In this outline of the slab, it can be seen that the overall roof structure is divided into several different sections for which an analysis was performed to determine the design loading and subsequently the reinforcing requirements for the overall slab. (These sections are specifically identified on page 8.) On pages 6 and 7 of this calculation, an outline of the roof slab is provided showing the physical layout of the roof area with all scupper drain locations, the directional slope of the slab, and the height of the surrounding parapet wall. The purpose of the outline on page 6 is to indicate the maximum height of rainwater that could be contained within the parapet wall on the Pumphouse roof. Since the top elevation of the parapot wall is 154'-10" and the low-point elevation of the roof. slab is 152'-6", the maximum depth of ponded rainwater that will be contained on the roof slab prior to breaching the top of the parapet wall, is 2'-4". A. The method employed by this calculation, to verify the adequacy of the roof slab, will be to extract the design loading determined from the original calculation for that portion of the slab design being considered; apply the revised loadings. based upon the assumptions stated below and the additional loading from the ponded rainwater, to determine the ultimate applied moment (Mu ) for each section; compare this moment with the one originally calculated; if the new moment is less than the original, the roof slab is acceptable, if the new moment exceeds the original, a justification / analysis will be provided. B. The following assumptions / credits are taken in this calculation:
- 1. The originally applied Live Loading of 30 pounds per square foot (psf) vill be deleted from the overall loading condition. The justification for this is due to the absence of any equipment loading in this area and the elimination of general personnel 6 -
access to the roof area itself. Since the only Live loading 1 possible on the roof slab would be from rainwater, the additional 7 I 33 psf loading can be eliminated froni consideration se a > simultaneous loading.
- 2. The temperature gradient (T o ) specified in the Structural Design Criteria (Ref. #2) of 50'F will be reduced to 20'F due to actual 2 3-4 HVAC system design (Ref. #5). The 50'F gredient specified in the 5 -
Design Criteria was an overall conservative number used in most structural calculations prior to the final design of the building HVAC systems. In this particular case, an actual differential of I 20'F is applicable. fDF-@ 3 9M
E
.: g' cucuarton woax sassr WJ8 PAGE 4 OF / y' RD' PAGE C. It should be noted that the approach defined above is very conservative C
in nature due to the low probability that the scupper drains in the surrounding parapet wall vill become totally blocked. Though some blockage may occur, it is more likely that the drains will allow the passage of some water and the maximum hefght of pondc.; rainwater, 2'-4", will be reduced. ANALYSIS:
, To adequately review the entire slab design for the additional loading imposed by a conservative, uniform depth, of ponded rainwater, we will analyze each individual section of the roof slab as it was broken down in the original design calculation.
Referring to page 8 of this calculation, each analyzed section of the roof slab is identified by the letters "1" thru "E". To simplify this analysis, we will first determine the revised ultimate moment due to the temperature gradiJut (Mut), as indicated en page 3 of this calculation. Then a distributed load due to a ponded rainwater height of 2'-4" shall be determined, which will be added to the ultimate applied moment (Mu) for each slab section. Upon calculating the revised ultimate moments for each section, a comparison will be made with the originally determined moment to illustrate that the revised condition is enveloped by the original design. I. Revised Temperature Gradient Moment (Mm): As indicated on page 3 of this calculation, the actual temperature gradient for the upper elevations of the Standby Cooling Tower Pumphouse is 20*F. (This was provided in Reference #5.) Therefore. [ - based upon an original factored moment, Mut, of 21 ft,-k1ps, the j g revised moment will be: Mut = 21 ft-kips x = 8.4 ft-kips This revised moment will be utilized throughout the remainder of this calculation for the determination of ultimate applied moments for each section of the roof slab. 11.1 Distributed Load Due to Ponded Rhinwater (%): As stated on page 3 of this calculation, the maximum depth of rainwater than can pond on the roof of the Standby Cooling Tower Pumphouse prior to breaching the top of the parapet wall, is 2'-4". Therefore, based upon this depth, the resultant loading will be: (The water load is considered to be dead weight. Therefore, the weignt will be factored as Dead Load and the loading due to the seismic acceleration of the weight will h added to determine the total distributed load.) I j (continued on page 9) FDF-o'3 'M
8 CALCULATION WORK SHEET $ PAGE g-~ OF // AEF' PAGE CALCULATION SHEET ^....
~ " .., ' ..
' " n.6e.6.e
' ' ' ' " ' ,e
~ " " " " ' " " ' ' ~ ~ ~ ..~ v~i.' ..
/11'o / c47. s+o o L u,. , io - s e. t,
...i....,.....a...
rL u v ,i. ,s . s i w ,,. i a . r r c 41.s4c. 4
/ +
evav.ct/ tivt.. Eraussy se,uicr* W A-rata coo 6."*G To.atA ** 5878***v / cons c6.e. bG5;Ga oC GL.A G S eu. t b.T '- 4' e oss' L ' 'I. ar **
. em e
- th
*'. , ~ , ' e'h ,4*s.
/ \ \
h % y p '.* c i. ,
,i '%a , s s
v,
- t. -{ s <
' W'e,** 9s s
's - , s s '
e'. 1 << s~ s
's
s - '.. s . 4<
., , -N ,- ..'s',', %
'4 in. isz'-4 * 's s yN .,/, , ' 's N.>
ts i s' s . s s Y x =.. ', -
'/ '
j/ '\ M, ,.
*- i1 e
s .
, Y' / / / <
/
/
/ ~/ s'\
s s s ,
/
r
-n u _,
I, A ,- s - '
's s s
s
/
'g
,_ - #:, ' s <$
- s
[(- _ _ e -- I i .fl,' > y s ( /*/,',' n I ,.A , \ l r,4'c - r
+ 's ,
\
e g r e, %s s, ~ - s
, \
\
\
t
/ ,
// pL,g'
,_e5 -
~~
K r s x , E D 'p. i - _~___ __ _ _ _ _._ A _ ou T . z' w. .i 6 P14&O 'fC e 7 _
/ F
/*a PA R T I AL. PLA *J r.t., ess -6 " 4 43'-45 (sc,4 f LT-f I
- g ..'. .- . -
I b
l , , CALCULATION WORK SHEET l PAGE 6 OF /p' 6 REF PAGE N , et Av ecn osAm .
\/
- j. ..
' s* ,/
N I
\ /
ana-w acrr i . I
//n,s r...
1
/ .
\ < s, g1 x ss
,x \1 --
she ss, ',/ a$$!fE* /n_est-r/ 4I" x -
's -
s f e.ac .m,
\ 's / ,/'s
'i ' % m ccww /
/
0 75 a ut 3
/ N N M cE. f N
q.) y.g , , k W EL &Y \ q i;cygga onAn li E '* \ '/ \ '
/ ,' y* V \ @
*h. y l 'N ' '
p+v )
'y 4 ',/) !'v'
,b i'
!_ L / *'" ..
*/
Y Fr .. . : k. n . .. E.. .j
'/ V 4- _4- -
4-- 2f.9 - - 24*-8[ ove) .ne) PUMPHOUSE ROOF PLAN-OUTLtE Note: Doors SP154-1 and 2 were welded closed in accordance with Modification Request (MR) No. 85-0445. Therefore, access to the roof area of the pumphouse has been eliminated. I py r m3
- M?
. ' ,7~ o _s* c,
- i. CALMJLA7Di N l @
, a f, CALCULATION WORK SHEET of PAGE 7 & N ftEF PAGE e
_g WJ' 4 _ F'
- l .
h RAPLED DRM g,"7 ._ ( x- % N pFs GA 00sesEPOff 6* CARBON $ TEEL -- - N D UIE N I ( [o d) _+. _ . .p._ _ 6_ rbrauc.cr
. -r D *.-r.,
UM F.s ~ ,-
, --v
[ CCNC IIPLASM BLDCE 13 13
;D-4)
';.1- o*
r 1 FDP-@ 3 *M
}
~
CALCULATION WORK SHEET $ J. PAGE R OF / 44 RF PAGC o, 3 ,i o ,,, I 4-
/ \ 4' s % A ,,s,, N ., '.,
* 'ic o s
,- 9 s v,
-{
I s '
/
e f,N
, / s s
s c'. N s
's<N
, 'c , s s i
% *te s 4,
%g/
j 9% f # g/ , 'c e
s ,. i . J, ,, g s tlst i
, ,,<.e x s - - -
ss s' 4 s % ', ' 4' i
' 'N.b.'/
xx
, w. -
s
/ / s\ '
,, qp t , / / \
\ f
' e' h,l}i ',
?j -t L. s ,'
u_, s j' C \ \, ,' +;. s ,
>~w 3~ s '
-) !
' l l',p'
r's f.' k.f,f?s./ '
\
\
k *
.{f '
\
/ N\
' 's e.
,,- d
'$ .f4 \
L. _ 'b _ L.' T-U r. t SY , . IIS6" _ , 8[*O" 1 l / e-PARTIA6 'P6A ha El.. #5s '-6 i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1
, CALCULATION WORK SHEET PAGE 9 OF /4/ {
RtF PAGE II. (continued from page 4): p 1 W,= 1.4 D.L. + 1.9(gy) D.L. 2 .4-6 (Density of Water = 62.4 lb/ft 3) 8 L5-9 gy = OBE vert, accel. = 0.162 1 8 , W,= 1.4 (62.4 x 2.33') + 1.9 (0.162) (62.4 x 2.33') = 248.4 psf
, (Note: 2.33' = 2'-4" the depth of the water) 1
** Referring to page 8 of this calculation, the following slab sections are analyzed:
III. Roof Slab Section 'A': - 8 From the original calculation, the sla'a section is approx. 4'-6" 1 8 wide by 18' long. The depth (d) of the reinforcing steel (distance from extreme compression fiber to the centroid of the reinforcing) was determined to be 39.885" in the original cniculation. In addition to the dead weight of tha slab, an additional Dead Load due to the wall on top of th'e slab (see page 8) must be added. Therefore, the loadings are: Dead Load (DL) = Wall Load + Wt. of Slab = 1 768
= 4.9 kips /ft + (4.5' x 44"/12 x 150 pcf/1000)
= 7.38 kips /ft Live Load (LL) = 0.23 kipsht(this load comes strictly from the wall 1 8 on top of the slab. There are no additional live loads as defined on page 3 of this calculation.)
Seismic Load = gy (DL + LL) = 0.162 (7.38 k/ft)+ 0.23 k/ft = 1.23k/ft 1 8 (Note: gy = 0.162 is conservative in the original calc.; actually gv=0.160) Therefore, the total loading (U) is: U = 1.4DL + 1.7LL + 1.9 OBE 2 4-6
= 1.4 (7.38) + 1.7 (0.23) + 1.9 (1.23) = 13.06 kipsfft The resultant bending moment in the slab, utilizing the equation given in the orginal calculation which best apprortmates the support conditions of the slab is:(Note: '9' is used as a denominator to be conservative,)
end beams usually use 12. fixed M= = (13.06k/f t)(18') 2 470.2 ft-kips /4.5' width
' (
Moment due to ponded water = = 8.9 ft-kips Mu = 470.2 + 8.9 = 479.1 + Mut = 479.1 + 8.4 ft-kips /ft (4.5')
= 487.5 ft-kips /4.5' L_-._-____ . - - _ _ . .
CALCULATION WORK SHEET
" ~
[i ' PAGE 10 (# /g RF PAGE III. (continued from page 9): As indicated in the original calculation, an additional moment is added to the overall loading to compensate for pipe supports and cable trays. This loading will simply be transferred to this' calculation and is unchanged. Therefore, the total ultimate applied moment to slab section
'A' is:
Mu = 487.5 ft-kips + 65 ft-kips = 552.5 ft-kips /4.5' width 1 8 The originally calculated Mu for the slab was 640.5 ft-kips /4.5' width. 1 8 Since this moment was utlized to design the reinforcing requirements for the slab and it is greater than the revised moment determined here, it can be concluded that the additional loading imposed by the ponded rainwater will not affect the structural integrity of slab section 'A'. 1 IV. Roof Slab Section 'B': As can be seen from the drawing on page 8 of this calculation, and 1 369 I as defined in the original calculation, slab section 'B' is essentially a cantilevered member fixed on one end by the vertical vall of the structure and extending to the edge of the concrete plug opening. From the original calculation, the Dead Load contribution from the concrete plugs is 1.65 kips. Therefore, neglecting the Live Load, as stated on page 3 of this calculation, and applying the same loading combination equation utilized throughout this design:
- 1. The loading on the slab due to the concrete plugs is:
Pu (noint 1 ad @ end of cantilever) = 1.4DL + 1.9 gy (DL) 1 9
= 1.4 (1.65 kips) + 1.9 (0.162) (1.65 kips) = 2.82 kips The additional loading on the cantilever due to the curbing around the concrete plugs, from the original calculation, is P = 0.53 kips Therefore, the total applied point load at the end of the cantilever is:
Pu = 2.82 kips + 0.53 kips = 3.35 kips
- 2. From the original calculation, the Dead Load of the slab for section 'B' is:
D.L. = 2' thick x l' width x 150 pcf/1000 = 0.3 pounds per foot 1 9 Neglecting the Live Load, but including the seismic loading, the distributed loading along the length of the slab section is: Wu = 1.4DL + 1.9 gy (DL) = 1.4(0.3) + 1.9(0.162)(0.3) = 0.51 K/ft
, t CALCULAVON NUWR l My
[. ' CALCULATION WORK SHEET PAK 11 0F /e/ MF PAGE IV. (continued from page 10): As indicated in the original calculation, an additional loading is added to account for pipe supports and cable trays. Thia loading will simply be transferred here, thereby making the total distributed loading on the slab section: W u = 0.51 k/ft + 0.4 k/ft = 0.91 k/ft 1 9 Utilizing the loadings calculated above and an overall length of slab section of 11.5 ft, as stated in the original calculation, the ultimate 1 9 revised moment applied to slab section 'B' will become: Mu =P u x 11.5 ft + +Mut +
= 3.35 k x 11.5 f t + 0.W 11.Sft 9 + 8.4 ft-k/ft +
(0.248 ksf)(11.5ft)2 2 Mu = 123.5 ft-kips Since the originally calculated ultimate moment was 126.5 ft-kips and the 1 9 revised moment determined in this calculation was found to be less, 123.5 ft-kips, it can be concluded that the additioaal loading imposed by the ponded rainwater will not affect the structural integrity of slab section 'B'. V. Roof Slab Section 'C': As can be seen from the drawing on page 8 of this calculation, slab section 'C' is the longest clear span on the roof. In addition, the distributed loading applied to section 'C' is the same as that applied to section 'B'. That is: The distributed ioading as a result of the weight of the slab is: Wu = 0.51 k/ft (from page 10 of this calculation) - 10 Added to that is the loading from pipe supports and cable trays of 0.4 k/ft, thereby making the total distributed load: Wu = 0.51 k/ft + 0.4 k/ft = 0.91 k/ft Utilizing the equations provided in the original calculation for the bending moment in the slab that conservatively approximates the support conditions, the ultimate moment applied to the slab section is:
, Wu(L)2 W,(L)2 t
= (0.91k/ft)(30 ft)2 1 9
+ 8.4 Et-k/f t + (0.248ksO (19 f t)(3MtN f3F-Ot 3 99
I
^
CALCULATION WORK SHEET $;. PAGE 12 0F //,4 RD' PAGE V. (continued from page 11): Mu = 91 ft-k + 8.4 ft-k/ft (1 ft width) + 24.8 ft-k
= 124.2 ft-kip The resulting applied ultimate moment from the original calculation was 118 ft-kips. However, this moment was compared with that utilized for the 1 9 design of slab section 'B', which was 126.5 ft-kips. Therefore, since 1 9 the revised moment calculated here is 124.2 ft-kips and is less than the
, governing design moment of 126.5 ft-kips, it can be concluded that the additional loading imposed by the ponded rainwater will not affect the structural integrity of slab section 'C'.
VI. Roof Slab Section 'D': 1 Based upon a review of the original calculation, slab section 'D' 1 9 was found to be t~te most critical section due to the highest applied ultimate moment. Slab section 'D' is a cantilevered section with a span of 13'-0". 1 9 Therefore, the analysis performed here will be similar to that performed for slab section 'B'.
- 1. Referring to the original calculation, the effective width of the concrete plugs which contribute to a point load at the end of the cantilevered section is 2.29 ft. Therefore, the Dead Load of 1 9 the plugs (2 ft. thick) is: 7 -
D.L. = 2 ft. x 2.29 ft. x 150 pcf/1000 = 0.687 k/ft Therefore, the factored point load from the concrete plugs is: Pu = 1.' D.L. + 1.9 gy (D.L.) (neglecting live load, as stated 1 9 on page 3)
=1.4(0.687 k/ft) + 1.9 (0.162)(0.687 k/ft)
Pu = 1.17 h/ft 1 The additional loading on the cantilever due to the curbing around the concrete plugs, from the original calculation, is: l j 1 P = 0,53 kips /ft 1 9 Therefore, the total applied point load at the end of the cantilever is: Pu =1.17 k/ft + 0.53 k/ft = 1.70 k/ft or 1.70 kips for 1 ft. width
- 2. The ultimate moment for slab section 'D' is calculated as follows:
Mu = Pu(L) + + +M g 1 i ry-o'3 'M I
CALCULATION WORK SHEET PAGE 13 0F /g REF PAGE VI. (continued from page 12): O Pu = 1.7 kips Wu = 0.91 kips same as that determined for slab section 'C' , 11 W,= 0.248 ksf or 0.248 k/ft for 1 ft, width of slab analyzed - 9 Nt = 8.4 ft-k/ft or 8.4 ft-kip for 1 ft, width of slab analyzed - 4 Therefore, the total applied ultimate moment for slab section 'D' is: Mu = (1.7)(13 ft) + ( * )( ) +(* )I )
+ 8.4 ft-k Mu = 128.35 ft-k Since this revised moment is slightly higher than the originally calculated moment of 126.9 ft-k, the remainder of the analysis will be performed to 1 9 determine the area of reinforcing steel required, as compared to that prcvided in the original design.
- 1. From reference #3, " Flexure 1.1", page 105; 3 105 i 2
F = flexural coeff. = b4 12000 b = 12 inches (width of slab being analyzed) d = 19.885 inches ('d' was previously defined on page 9, however, 1 9 this area of the roof is 2 ft. thick thereby reducing 'd' to 19.885" from 39.885") F = (12")(19.885")2 = 0.395 12000 From ref. #3, page 105, Ku =strengthcoeff,ofresistance=f= 3
= 324.94 therefore, from the table on page 105: (by interpolation) using f'c = 3000 psi and fy = 40,000 psi 2 2-1 f = tension reinf. ratio = 0.0098 Therefore, the Area of Steel required is:
from ref. #3, page 105 3 105 l As = pbd = 0.0098 x 12" x 19.885" = 2.338 sq. in. The Area of Steel provided in the original design was: l #11 bars @ 8" Top & Bottom = 2.34 sq.in. 3 160 Therefore, sufficient steel is provided as required by the revised moment. r:res s e L_ - - _ . - _ - - _ _ _
L~,. # ' ' CALCULATION WORK SHEET f PAGE 14 0F / p' j W PAGE , VI. (continued from page 13): 1o .
- Therefore, since sufficient steel area is provided in the slab to satisfy the requirements of the revised moment determined herein, it can )
, be concluded that the additional loading imposed by the ponded rainwater will not affect the structural integrity of slab section 'D'. l (Note: Since the applied loadings from Pu and W u are smaller than those 1 9 {
originally calculated, the check for shear is acceptable by observation, j including the small amount of loading added by ponded water.) VII. Roof Slab Section 'E': The analysis for slab section 'E' is .timilar to that performed for section 'C' (see page 11 of this calculation). Referring to pages 5 and 8 of this calculation and page 10 of the original calculation, the span of section 'E' is 22'-4". The distributed loading on the slab is the same as that applied to slab section 'C', that { is: 1 Wu = 0.91 k/ft (representing slab weight, cable tray and pipe - 11 support loads) Mu" +Mut + Ww = 0.248 ksf (page 9) , Mut = 8.4 ft-k (page 4) $ Therefore: (0.248ksf)(Ift)(22.33ft)2 , Mu " (0.91 k/ft)(22.33ft)2 9 + 8.4 ft-k + 9
~ '
Hu = 72.56 ft-k Since the ultimate applied moment determined here of 72.56 ft-k is less than the design governing moment of 126.5 ft-k to which slab section 'C' 1 9 { was compared, and since the reinforcing steel design is the same as section 1 10 i
'C', the slab loading is acceptable. The additional loading imposed by 7 -
the ponded rainwater will not affect the structural integrity of the slab. l
VIII. Conclusion:
As determined by this calculation, it can be seen that the additional l loading imposed by the maximum height of ponded rainwater that may occur, 2'-4", will not affect the structural integrity of the roof slab at elevattor 152'-6". The original design eniculation (reference #1) provided more i than adequate reinforcing steel, so that the conditions reviewed herein I are enveloped by the original design parameters. (Note: The remaining slab sections of the roof structure that were not = l j 1 identified and were not analyzed in the original calc. or here, are sections which are considered to be enveloped by those sections rhnt were nnniv"d I _ { l FDF-5 3 'T I i_________._._.____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - d
l - , i e -# x 4 - < ES 1 RIVER BEND STATION GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY c 47. s4o- o,
. DESIGN REVIEW CHECKLWT (REF. EDP-AA-58) =: \
YES NO N/A
- 1. w.ro the inpute correctly selected and Incorporated into the designt ......... K O. O
- 2. Are the seoumptione necessory to perform the design activity 8
- odoquetely described and reoconoble? Where necessory, are the assumptions identlfled for subsequent reverificottone when the ~
detalled design activities are completed? .................................... ................... % C D
- 3. Are the oppropriote quality and quality oseurance requirements spec *fied?.................................................................................................. O O
- l. 4. Are the opplicable codes, stonderde, and reguletory requiremonte.
I includinq !seue and addendo, property Identined and ore their 1' requirem ten to for design m et? ................................................. . ....... .............. % O O'
- 5. Hove opplicable construction and operating experience been considered?...... O O %
- 6. How the design Interfoce regulrements been sotiefled? ................................ O O %
- 7. woe on o,,,o,,ioie de.ign meth ad osed, .......................... .. .. ......... ....... W 0- O i .. is the ouipui ,co.onobi. com,o,ed to ie,utur ................... ........ ..... .... g O O
- 9. Are the specified porte, equipment, and processes cultoble for the re qu ired opplice tion ? . .................... ... ............ . ............... ..... ................ ............ O O h
- 10. Are the specified meterleis competIble with ooch other and with the design environmental conditions to whleh the meterial will be exposed?...... O O %
- 11. Hove odoquete molntenance footures and requirements been specified?...... O O %
12'. Are occoolbility one other deelen provlefone odoquote for the performance of needed molntenonce ond repoir? ........................................... O O %
- 13. Hos odoquote oceselbility been provided to perform the In-service inspection expected to be performed during the plant life? .......................... O O
- 14. Hoe the design proport considered rodlotion exposure to the pubitc ond to plont personnel O
...................................................................................O
- 15. Are the occeptance erfterlo incorporated in the design documente sufficient to allow vertfloation that desi sotiefectorfly accomplished? ................ gn regulromonto have been
.......................................................... O O
- 16. How odequote pre-operatienol and subsequent peeldic test requirements been oppropriotely specified? ............................................. ...... O O
- 17. Are odequote handling, storege, cleoning and shipping requirements opectfled?...................................................................................................... O O %
- 18. Are odequate idenftflootion requirements specified? ....................................... O O f
- 19. Are requirements for record properation, review, opprovol, retention, et c. odequ a t ely specified ? ................................. ............................................. O O M
- 20. Hove environmental, safety, and solemic odoquocy been considered? .......... M O O
- 21. Hove recommended spore ports been specified? ........................................... O O k
- 22. Hove fire honord onelyele Impoete been considered? ...................................... O O %
veriffer's Summary: DESIGN VERIFIED #
/.
0 N 4l ,/u/n 8 8 veriffing EAgineer i Date g t _____. __ _______ . . . _._..~m
y ,. . a: - i;.:; --. :--. -- -
, i' .:.r -
OVERSIZE . 1 DOCUMENT . PAGE PULLED . . . . . nSEE APERTURE CARDS
- NUMBER OF OVERSIZE PAGES FILMED ON APERTURE CARDS _
APERTURE CARD /HARD COPY AVAILABLE' FROM DECORDS Af7D REPORTS MANAGEMENT BRANCH}}