ML23135A206
Text
FORM APF-05D-001-02, REV. 11 Page 1 CALCULATION CHANGE NOTICE CCN NO. XX-E-013 - 004 - CN004 Base Calc No. Rev No. Sequence No.
CALCULATION TITLE - Enter this item in CALCULATION TITLE field in EIS:
Post-Fire Safe Shutdown (PFSSD) Analysis COMPUTER CODE: VERSION:
Administrative? YES NO ASSOCIATED CHANGE #: 15070 N/A - only if Administrative REGULATORY REVIEWS: Attached Attached to: CP 15070 R0 Evaluation #
USAR STATEMENT: Requires a change to the USAR:
Does not require a change to the USAR ANY DOCUMENTS YES If yes, enter: Work Management Tool #, SWO #,
IMPACTED? NO and/or Condition Report #, if applicable Status: COMMITTED FINAL VOID SUPERSEDED DigsigOrg 2.8, 0.7 ORIG William M. Wilkins 01/09/17 ORIG NA - Status Change Printed Name Printed Name Date Date Signature ES9280479 QUALIFICATION REQUIRED: ES9280479 Signature QUALIFICATION REQUIRED:
DigsigVer 2.8, 0.7 George K. Boghosian 01-18-2017 Frank M Laflin VERF VERF Printed Name Date Printed Name 2018.05.15 Date 06:45:49 -05'00' Signature Signature ES9280479 QUALIFICATION REQUIRED: ES9280479 QUALIFICATION REQUIRED:
DigsigApp 2.8, 0.7 Digitally signed by Jeff Suter Jeff Suter 01/23/2017 APP Printed Name Date APP Jeff Suter Printed Name DN: cn=Jeff Suter, o, ou, Date email=jesuter@wcnoc.com, c=US Date: 2018.06.05 13:23:25 -05'00' Signature Signature DigsigCert 3.5 1.75 DigsigCert 3.5 1.75 Digitally signed by Frank M Laflin Date:
2017.02.07 15:41:01 -06'00' RPE Certification (For ASME Section III Stress Reports/Design Reports, refer to AP 05D-001 for qualification requirements)
FORM APF-05D-001-02, REV. 11 Page 2 CALCULATION CHANGE NOTICE CCN NO. XX-E-013 - 004 - CN004 Base Calc No. Rev No. Sequence No.
CALCULATION SUBJECT (Statement Of Problem) - Enter this in SUBJECT field in EIS:
CP 15070 is changing the 120VAC source from system NG to NN for the control room A/C unit inlet and exhaust dampers GKHZ0029A/B (Train A) & GKHZ0040A/B (Train B).
FORM APF-05D-001-02, REV. 11 Page 3 CALCULATION DATABASE INPUT CCN NO. XX-E-013 - 004 - CN004 Base Calc No. Rev No. Sequence No.
Link systems to the calculation/CCN in EIS.
Systems NG, NN, GK Affected:
Develop relationships between interdependent calculations in EIS.
Additional Calculations none Providing Input to this calculation:
Additional Calculations none Impacted by this calculation:
Develop relationships between the calculation/CCN and controlled reference documents in EIS.
Additional Controlled E-13GK02C (When CCN is Final, update E-13GK02C revision for Documents incorporation of WIP-E-13GK02C-002-A-1)
Inputs to this calculation:
Additional Controlled none Documents Impacted by this calculation:
The reference documents listed below are those that cannot be linked to the calculation/CCN and shall be entered in the INDUSTRY REFERENCE field in EIS, e.g., ASME Codes, ANSI Standards, letters, etc.
Additional Other CP 15070 Reference Documents:
Link components to the calculation/CCN in EIS.
Additional none Components:
REFER TO DESKTOP GUIDE FOR PROCESSING CALCULATIONS IN EIS
FORM APF-05D-001-02, REV. 11 Page 4 LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES CCN NO. XX-E-013 - 004 - CN004 Base Calc No. Rev No. Sequence No.
CCN Calc. CCN Calc. CCN Calc. CCN Calc.
Page Page Page Page Page Page Page Page No.
Affected No. Affected No. Affected No. Affected DVR/SCRN/ /DVR/SCRN /DVR/SCRN /DVR/SCRN Other /Other /Other /Other 1-5 CCN 6 App 3, page 61 7 App 3, page 62 8 App 3, page 89 9 App 3, page 92 10 App 3, page 103 11 App 3, page 104 12 App 4, page 17 13 App 4, page 18 DVR DVR = Design Verification Report (if applicable)
SCRN = Regulatory Screening (if applicable)
AD = Applicability Determination
FORM APF-05D-001-02, REV. 11 Page 5 CALCULATION SHEET CCN NO. XX-E-013 - 004 - CN004 Base Calc. No. Rev. No. Sequence No XX-E-013-004-CN004 change summary:
CP 15070 is changing the 120VAC source from system NG to NN for the control room A/C unit inlet and exhaust dampers GKHZ0029A/B (Train A) & GKHZ0040A/B (Train B). This is to provide damper function to mitigate a radiological release scenario through the non-operation train with the loss of the EDG. This change is inconsequential to PFSSD. The PFSSD function to support one train of control room A/C cooling is maintained as a single fire scenario will not impact both NN sources. For PFSSD applicability, this will remove distribution panel breakers NG03CLF115 and NG04CLF121 and add fused disconnects NN0121 and NN0422.
XX-E-013 impact:
The Calculation Main Body is not affected by this change. (There are no changes to Results (2.A), Conclusions (2.B),
Assumptions (3.A), Design Inputs (3.B), or Methodology, Nomenclature, & Computations (4)).
Appendix 1 is not affected by this change.
Appendix 2 is not affected by this change.
Appendix 3 is affected by this change as shown on the following pages.
Appendix 4 is affected by this change as shown on the following pages.
Appendix 5 is not affected by this change.
Appendix 6 is not affected by this change.
Attachment 1 is not affected by this change.
FORM APF-05D-001-02, REV. 11 Page 6 CALCULATION SHEET CCN NO. XX-E-013 - 004 - CN004 Base Calc. No. Rev. No. Sequence No
FORM APF-05D-001-02, REV. 11 Page 7 CALCULATION SHEET CCN NO. XX-E-013 - 004 - CN004 Base Calc. No. Rev. No. Sequence No
FORM APF-05D-001-02, REV. 11 Page 8 CALCULATION SHEET CCN NO. XX-E-013 - 004 - CN004 Base Calc. No. Rev. No. Sequence No
FORM APF-05D-001-02, REV. 11 Page 9 CALCULATION SHEET CCN NO. XX-E-013 - 004 - CN004 Base Calc. No. Rev. No. Sequence No
FORM APF-05D-001-02, REV. 11 Page 10 CALCULATION SHEET CCN NO. XX-E-013 - 004 - CN004 Base Calc. No. Rev. No. Sequence No
FORM APF-05D-001-02, REV. 11 Page 11 CALCULATION SHEET CCN NO. XX-E-013 - 004 - CN004 Base Calc. No. Rev. No. Sequence No
FORM APF-05D-001-02, REV. 11 Page 12 CALCULATION SHEET CCN NO. XX-E-013 - 004 - CN004 Base Calc. No. Rev. No. Sequence No
FORM APF-05D-001-02, REV. 11 Page 13 CALCULATION SHEET CCN NO. XX-E-013 - 004 - CN004 Base Calc. No. Rev. No. Sequence No
FORM APF 05F-001-01, REV. 05 PAGE 1 OF 11 DESIGN VERIFICATION REPORT DOCUMENT NO. XX-E-013-004-CN004 REV. N/A Post Fire Safe Shutdown (PFSSD) Analysis DOCUMENT TITLE:
ORIGINATOR: William M. Wilkins DESIGN VERIFIED: SAFETY CLASSIFICATION: VERIFICATION METHOD:
PRELIMINARY SAFETY-RELATED DESIGN REVIEW FINAL SPECIAL SCOPE ALTERNATE CALCULATION REVISION NON-SAFETY RELATED TESTING INDIVIDUAL VERIFICATION SIGNATURE: George K. Boghosian/ DATE: 01-18-2017 Print / Sign QUALIFICATION REQUIRED: ES9280465 OR ES9280479 TEAM VERIFICATION SIGNATURE: DATE:
Scope Verified:
TEAM LEADER SIGNATURE: DATE:
QUALIFICATION REQUIRED ES9280465 OR ES9280479 PRINT / SIGN
- Team leader signature certifies that adequate interfaces and overlaps have occurred.
OVERVIEW (PURPOSE AND SCOPE):
A new load is added by CP 015070 to spare circuit NN0121 and NN0422 in distribution panels NN001 and NN004 respectively. This CCN revises the PFSSD analysis for the change.
CRUCIAL AREAS:
- 1. Bases for Design Inputs
- 2. Traceability of Design Inputs
- 3. Adequacy of Methodology used in CCN
- 4. Margins ALTERNATE OR INDEPENDENT ITEMS USED FOR VERIFICATION:
- 1. N/A
FORM APF 05F-001-01, REV. 05 PAGE 2 OF 11 DESIGN VERIFICATION REPORT DOCUMENT NO. XX-E-013-004-CN004 REV. N/A COMMENTS: ORIGINATORS RESPONSE:
- 1. Metadata for CCN Subject has not been entered; other fields Corrected.
are blank. Complete entry of Metadata. Per procedure the subject field in the CCN should match the data entered in the Metadata.
- 2. Page 2 Calculation Subject states: CP 15070 is changing Calculation Subject revised to remove function and the 120VAC source from system NG to NN for the control conclusion statements.
room A/C unit inlet and exhaust dampers GKHZ0029A/B (Train A) & GKHZ0040A/B (Train B). This is to provide damper function to mitigate a radiological release scenario through the non-operation train with the loss of the EDG.
This change is inconsequential to PFSSD. The PFSSD function to support one train of control room A/C cooling is maintained as a single fire scenario will not impact both NN sources. For PFSSD applicability, this will remove distribution panel breakers NG03CLF115 and NG04CLF121 and add fused disconnects NN0121 and NN0422.
Comment: The Calculation Subject as written includes Subject, Function, and Conclusion. Revise to remove Function and Conclusion statements. Refer to comment number 4 for suggestion on how to handle Function and Conclusion.
- 3. Page 3 Additional Controlled Documents Inputs to this Corrected.
calculation is marked none. Drawing E-13GK02C should be referenced in this CCN field as it is the design input document showing the power source. The revision for the CP is WIP-E-13GK02C-002-A-1, which shows the correct power source. Recommend referencing the WIP with a Note in the body of the CCN saying when CCN is incorporated, revised parent document will replace WIP.
- 4. General Comment; Review of the parent calculation There are no changes to Results, Conclusions, identified sections for Conclusions, Assumptions, Design Assumptions, Design Inputs, or Methodology.
Inputs and Methodology. Reviewing this CCN indicates that Revised CCN to summarize change and to clarify Conclusions and Design Inputs should be filled out. The specific sections as not affected.
remaining headings, Assumptions and Methodology should be listed in the CCN, with Assumptions stating none and Methodology unchanged. The function from comment 2 above does not appear to fit any heading. If this is the case, consider deleting the statement.
- 5. Margins; - The Parent calculation and the CCN do not Calculation procedure AP 05D-001 Attachment A does include a heading for Margin. Suggest adding this heading not require a separate Margin subsection. It states to to the CCN and explaining why it does not apply.
discuss design and operation margins. Margin is appropriately discussed/referenced, as applicable, throughout the calculation.
- 6. Additional Components are marked none. Conform that Confirmed. NG003C, NG004C, NN001, & NN004 all components are included including and none additional are already listed components. Only main MCC need to be added. (motor control center) and distribution switchboard components are listed. Specific breaker & fused disconnect components are not listed for any PFSSD function.
CONCLUSIONS:
FORM APF 05F-001-01, REV. 05 PAGE 3 OF 11 DESIGN VERIFICATION REPORT DOCUMENT NO. XX-E-013-004-CN004 REV. N/A Response to comments is acceptable. Reviewed incorporation of comments and occur with the changes in the CCN. No additional comments have been identified.
FORM APF 05F-001-01, REV. 05 PAGE 4 OF 11 DESIGN VERIFICATION REPORT DOCUMENT NO. XX-E-013-004-CN004 REV. N/A TABLE A (This table is required for change packages, or when required by a Supervisor.) If the answer to the question is yes, then provide a descriptive answer that explains why you came to this conclusion. If the question is not applicable, then provide a descriptive explanation detailing why it is not applicable.
See Design Verification Question Table Footnote
- 1. Were the design inputs correctly selected and incorporated into the design? Yes: No: Design verifier must clearly define the basis upon which the yes or no box was checked.
N/A - See Table A applicability above
- 2. Are assumptions, necessary to perform the design activity, documented, adequately described and reasonable? Yes:
No: Design verifier must clearly define the basis upon which the yes or no box was checked.
N/A - See Table A applicability above
- 3. Are the appropriate quality and quality assurance requirements specified? Yes:No: Design verifier must clearly define the basis upon which the yes or no box was checked.
N/A - See Table A applicability above
- 4. Are the applicable codes, standards and regulatory requirements, including issue and addenda, properly identified and are their requirements for design met? Yes:
No: Design verifier must clearly define the basis upon which the yes or no box was checked.
N/A - See Table A applicability above
FORM APF 05F-001-01, REV. 05 PAGE 5 OF 11 DESIGN VERIFICATION REPORT DOCUMENT NO. XX-E-013-004-CN004 REV. N/A TABLE A (This table is required for change packages, or when required by a Supervisor.) If the answer to the question is yes, then provide a descriptive answer that explains why you came to this conclusion. If the question is not applicable, then provide a descriptive explanation detailing why it is not applicable.
See Design Verification Question Table Footnote
- 5. Has applicable plant and industry construction and operating experience been considered? Yes:No: Design verifier must clearly define the basis upon which the yes or no box was checked.
N/A - See Table A applicability above
- 6. Have the hardware interface design requirements been satisfied? Yes:No: Design verifier must clearly define the basis upon which the yes or no box was checked.
N/A - See Table A applicability above
- 7. Is the output reasonable compared to input? Yes:No:
Design verifier must clearly define the basis upon which the yes or no box was checked.
N/A - See Table A applicability above
- 8. Are the specified parts, equipment and processes suitable for the required application? Yes:No: Design verifier must clearly define the basis upon which the yes or no box was checked.
N/A - See Table A applicability above
FORM APF 05F-001-01, REV. 05 PAGE 6 OF 11 DESIGN VERIFICATION REPORT DOCUMENT NO. XX-E-013-004-CN004 REV. N/A TABLE A (This table is required for change packages, or when required by a Supervisor.) If the answer to the question is yes, then provide a descriptive answer that explains why you came to this conclusion. If the question is not applicable, then provide a descriptive explanation detailing why it is not applicable.
See Design Verification Question Table Footnote
- 9. Are the specified materials compatible with each other and the design environmental conditions to which the material will be exposed? Yes:No: Design verifier must clearly define the basis upon which the yes or no box was checked.
N/A - See Table A applicability above
- 10. Have adequate maintenance features and requirements been specified? Yes:No: Design verifier must clearly define the basis upon which the yes or no box was checked.
N/A - See Table A applicability above
- 11. Are accessibility and other design provisions adequate for performance of needed maintenance and repair? Yes:No:
Design verifier must clearly define the basis upon which the yes or no box was checked.
N/A - See Table A applicability above
- 12. Has adequate accessibility been provided to perform the in-service inspection expected to be required during the plant life? Yes:No: Design verifier must clearly define the basis upon which the yes or no box was checked.
N/A - See Table A applicability above
FORM APF 05F-001-01, REV. 05 PAGE 7 OF 11 DESIGN VERIFICATION REPORT DOCUMENT NO. XX-E-013-004-CN004 REV. N/A TABLE A (This table is required for change packages, or when required by a Supervisor.) If the answer to the question is yes, then provide a descriptive answer that explains why you came to this conclusion. If the question is not applicable, then provide a descriptive explanation detailing why it is not applicable.
See Design Verification Question Table Footnote
- 13. Has the design properly considered radiation exposure to the public and plant personnel? Yes:No: Design verifier must clearly define the basis upon which the yes or no box was checked.
N/A - See Table A applicability above
- 14. Have adequate pre-operational and subsequent periodic test requirements been appropriately specified? Yes:No:
Design verifier must clearly define the basis upon which the yes or no box was checked.
N/A - See Table A applicability above
- 15. Does each document contain the required signatures and date? Yes:No: Design verifier must clearly define the basis upon which the yes or no box was checked.
N/A - See Table A applicability above
- 16. If a computer program was used in the analysis, has the program been verified? Yes:No: Design verifier must clearly define the basis upon which the yes or no box was checked.
N/A - See Table A applicability above
FORM APF 05F-001-01, REV. 05 PAGE 8 OF 11 DESIGN VERIFICATION REPORT DOCUMENT NO. XX-E-013-004-CN004 REV. N/A TABLE A (This table is required for change packages, or when required by a Supervisor.) If the answer to the question is yes, then provide a descriptive answer that explains why you came to this conclusion. If the question is not applicable, then provide a descriptive explanation detailing why it is not applicable.
See Design Verification Question Table Footnote
- 17. If a component has been added, has a Safety Classification Analysis been completed? Yes:No: Design verifier must clearly define the basis upon which the yes or no box was checked.
N/A - See Table A applicability above
- 18. Were the commitments provided in the USAR and the Design Criteria documents correctly incorporated into the design documents? Yes:No: Design verifier must clearly define the basis upon which the yes or no box was checked.
N/A - See Table A applicability above
- 19. Have the appropriate design documents been identified and/or updated? Yes:No: Design verifier must clearly define the basis upon which the yes or no box was checked.
N/A - See Table A applicability above
- 20. Has warehouse stock been considered for modification or retirement? Yes:No: Design verifier must clearly define the basis upon which the yes or no box was checked.
N/A - See Table A applicability above
FORM APF 05F-001-01, REV. 05 PAGE 9 OF 11 DESIGN VERIFICATION REPORT DOCUMENT NO. XX-E-013-004-CN004 REV. N/A TABLE A (This table is required for change packages, or when required by a Supervisor.) If the answer to the question is yes, then provide a descriptive answer that explains why you came to this conclusion. If the question is not applicable, then provide a descriptive explanation detailing why it is not applicable.
See Design Verification Question Table Footnote
- 21. Are acceptance criteria for the changes adequately defined to enable verification that the changes meet existing design requirements? Yes:No: Design verifier must clearly define the basis upon which the yes or no box was checked.
N/A - See Table A applicability above
- 22. Are all differences between previous and proposed configuration identified; Are reasons for acceptability of changes adequately documented; and does the evaluation adequately support authorization of the changes?
Yes:No: Design verifier must clearly define the basis upon which the yes or no box was checked.
N/A - See Table A applicability above
- 23. Were existing design requirements, functions, failure mechanisms, failure modes and effects, and critical characteristics appropriately determined and applied to the evaluation of the changes? Yes:No: Design verifier must clearly define the basis upon which the yes or no box was checked.
N/A - See Table A applicability above
FORM APF 05F-001-01, REV. 05 PAGE 10 OF 11 DESIGN VERIFICATION REPORT DOCUMENT NO. XX-E-013-004-CN004 REV. N/A TABLE A (This table is required for change packages, or when required by a Supervisor.) If the answer to the question is yes, then provide a descriptive answer that explains why you came to this conclusion. If the question is not applicable, then provide a descriptive explanation detailing why it is not applicable.
See Design Verification Question Table Footnote
- 24. Does the change impact existing digital assets or add a new digital asset? If so, have AP 15D-008, Wolf Creek Cyber Security Program considerations been addressed?
Yes:No: Design verifier must clearly define the basis upon which the yes or no box was checked.
N/A - See Table A applicability above
FORM APF 05F-001-01, REV. 05 PAGE 11 OF 11 DESIGN VERIFICATION REPORT DOCUMENT NO. XX-E-013-004-CN004 REV. N/A TABLE A (This table is required for change packages, or when required by a Supervisor.) If the answer to the question is yes, then provide a descriptive answer that explains why you came to this conclusion. If the question is not applicable, then provide a descriptive explanation detailing why it is not applicable.
TABLE A FOOTNOTE:
The purpose of this column is to enable Wolf Creek to track and trend deficiencies discovered during package verification. IF the design verification question is answered no, THEN he verifier shall mark this box with deficiency type as follows:
Type Description x MPR - Missed procedural requirement. Use this designator if all or part of a process step was not performed.
x TEV - Technical Error by Vendor. Use this designator if the discrepancy was caused by the actions of a Vendor. If the discrepancy was caused by misinformation supplied by Wolf Creek, use the next designator.
x TEWC - Technical Error by Wolf Creek. Use this designator if the discrepancy was caused by Wolf Creek personnel.
IF the design verification question is answered yes but could be significantly enhanced by additional or altered information, THEN the verifier shall mark the box as:
x DE - Document enhancement opportunity