NL-07-128, Reply to Request for Additional Information Regarding Proposed Technical Specification Changes for the Diesel Generator Endurance Test Surveillance

Reply to Request for Additional Information Regarding Proposed Technical Specification Changes for the Diesel Generator Endurance Test Surveillance

ML073250358
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	11/13/2007
From:	Dacimo F Entergy Nuclear Northeast
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NL-07-128, TAC MD4923
Download: ML073250358 (21)

Text

Entergy Nuclear Northeast Indian Point Energy Center mEntergy 450 Broadway, GSB3 P.O. Box 249 Buchanan, NY 10511-0249 Tel 914 734 6700 Fred Dacimno Site Vice President Administration November 13, 2007 Re: Indian Point Unit 2 Docket 50-247 NL-07-1 28 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001

SUBJECT:

Reply to Request for Additional Information Regarding Proposed Technical Specification Changes for the Diesel Generator Endurance Test Surveillance (TAC MD4923)

References:

1. NRC letter dated July 23, 2007 regarding Request for Additional Information.

2. Entergy letter NL-07-038 dated March 22, 2007; "Proposed Changes to Indian Point 2 Technical Specifications Regarding Diesel Generator Endurance Test Surveillance".

Dear Sir or Madam:

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc is providing the additional information requested in Reference 1 regarding the proposed technical specification changes (Reference 2) for the load range and power factor acceptance criteria applicable to the Indian Point 2 Diesel Generator endurance test surveillance.

The responses to questions are provided in Attachment 1 and the requested documents are provided in Attachments 2 through 4. The conclusions of the No Significant Hazards Evaluation documented in Reference 2 are not changed by the additional information provided in this response.

NL-07-128 Docket 50-247 Page 2 of 2 There are no new commitments identified in this submittal. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mr. R. Walpole, Manager, Licensing at (914) 734-6710.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on ______._

Sincerely, Fred R. Dacimo Site Vice President Indian Point Energy Center Attachments:

1. Reply to NRC Request for Additional Information Regarding Proposed Changes to Indian Point 2 Technical Specifications for Diesel Generator Endurance Test Surveillance

2. Emergency Diesel Generator Loading Study; Entergy Calculation FEX-00039-02 /

WCAP 12655.

3. Power Factor Evaluation for IP2 Diesel Generators

4. Proposed Changes to Indian Point 2 Technical Specification Bases Section 3.8.1 Regarding Diesel Generator Endurance Test Surveillance cc: (w/o Attachment 2)

Mr. John P. Boska, Senior Project Manager, NRC NRR Mr. Samuel J. Collins, Regional Administrator, NRC Region I Mr. Mark Cox, NRC Senior Resident Inspector, IP2 Mr. Paul D. Tonko, President, NYSERDA Mr. Paul Eddy, New York State Dept. of Public Service

ATTACHMENT 1 TO NL-07-128 REPLY TO NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING PROPOSED CHANGES TO INDIAN POINT 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR DIESEL GENERATOR ENDURANCE TEST SURVEILLANCE ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET 50-247

NL-07-128 Docket No. 50-247 Attachment 1 Page 1 of 5 Question la:

Define the IP2 EDG ratings (continuous, 2000-hour, 2-hour, and 1/22-hour) and time constraints for operating at those ratings, similar to how the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3 (IP3) TS Bases define the ratings and time constraints for the Unit 3 EDGs (Revision 3, page B 3.8.1-4).

Enteray Response:

The IP2 DG ratings, presented in a format similar to that used in the IP3 TS Bases are based on information provided by the DG manufacturer, Alco after implementation of the modification in 1991. The DG rating description currently provided on page B 3.8.1-4 will be revised to reflect this format. (Refer to response to Question 6).

The DGs have three capacity ratings as defined below that can be used to assess DG operability.

Continuous Normal steady-state electrical power output capability that can be maintained 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />s/day, with no time constraint.

2-hour An overload electrical power output capability that can be maintained for up to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> in any 24-hour period.

1/2-hour An overload electrical power output capability that can be maintained for up to 30 minutes in any 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period.

The electrical output capabilities applicable to these three ratings are as follows:

RATING DG LOAD TIME CONSTRAINT Continuous < 1750 kW None 2-hour < 2100 kW < 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> in any 24-hour period [Note A]

1/2-hour < 2300 kW < 30 minutes in any 24-hour period [Note A]

Note A: Operation at the overload ratings is allowed only for < 2300 kW (1/2-hour) followed by < 2100 (2-hour), not vice versa.

The loading cycle (1/2 -hour, 2-hour, continuous) may be repeated in successive 24-hour periods. Operation in excess of 2300 kW, regardless of duration is not analyzed. In such cases, the DG is assumed to be inoperable and the vendor should be consulted.

NL-07-128 Docket No. 50-247 Attachment 1 Page 2 of 5 Question 1b:

Explain any discrepancies between the IP2 and IP3 definitions of the time constraints for operating at the load values of the ratings.

Enteray Response:

Although the IP2 and IP3 DGs are the same basic model, there are differences in the way the ratings are stated, primarily because of an upgrade modification installed on the IP2 DGs. The DGs at both units have the same continuous rating (1750 kw), but the overload ratings are applied differently for IP2 and IP3. At IP2, DG loading is allowed at the 1/2 -hour overload rating (_<2300kw) for up to 30 minutes, followed by operation at the 2-hour overload rating (:s 2100 kw) for up to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, followed by operation at the continuous rating (-< 1750 kw). At IP3, DG loading is allowed at either (but not both) of the overload ratings (1/22 - hour at < 2000 kw OR 2-hours at < 1950 kw) followed by operation at the continuous rating (< 1750 kw).

Question 2a:

Provide the basis for why there is a sequential limitation whereby it is unacceptable to operate the IP2 EDGs for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> at 2100 kW followed by operating at 2300 kW for 1/2-hour, and why any other combination of the IP2 EDG ratings is acceptable. Also provide the technical basis and acceptance (and its basis) from the EDG vendor for operating the EDGs for two consecutive overloading periods (30 minutes at the 30- minute rating and then 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> at the 2-hour rating) without adversely affecting EDG design function capability and without requiring additional maintenance and/or inspection after the first overload period prior to operating at the second overload period.

Enterpy Response:

The sequential limitation applied to the overload rating results from test and evaluation of the DG output breaker (Westinghouse DB-75 switchgear) which has a continuous rating of 3000 amperes at 4000. With the diesel generator upgrade to 2100kW and 2300kW, the equivalent amperes are 3000 amps and 3300 amps, respectively. Since 3300 amps is above the continuous rating of the switchgear, evaluation and testing of the short-term ratings was performed. Testing was performed by Satin American Corp on a Westinghouse breaker of similar vintage, and considered bus duct and switchgear sections. The limiting component was identified as the phenolic insulators on the breakers.

Consecutive loading periods are acceptable based on diesel engine and generator ratings. The upgraded engines are acceptable for operation at 2300 kW for a total of 200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br /> per year.

This accumulated running time would not be exceeded by operation at the specified loading cycle which permits operation at 2300 kW for up to 1/22-hour in successive 24-hour periods. The generator is acceptable for 2300 kW continuous at 104 0 F (ambient) and for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> at worst case temperatures of 125 0 F. Engine and generator ratings are confirmed by the manufacturers.

Consecutive loading was also confirmed through modification acceptance testing in accordance with the NRC accepted test plan submitted in Reference 3. NRC inspection of the DG upgrade modifications and testing is documented in Reference 1.

NL-07-128 Docket No. 50-247 Attachment 1 Page 3 of 5 Question 2b:

Provide the details of the EDG maintenance that is required as a result of operating the EDGs at the short-term ratings and as described in the license amendment request. This response needs to include the generator/excitation system capability as well as the engine's capability.

Enteray Response:

Operation of the DGs within the stated capacity rating limitations, including operation at the short-term values, does not invoke any special maintenance activities. The normal maintenance schedule is implemented via the Preventive Maintenance Program.

Question 3:

Provide the EDG loading calculation which establishes the KVAR, kilowatt, and power factor values, and the load profile (load values and duration of those values) until steady state loading conditions (no expected increases in loading) are reached after initiation of the worst-case design-basis event for each of the IP2 EDGs.

Enterqy Response:

The DG loading calculation is provided in Attachment 2. This calculation provides the basis for the design basis accident peak loading values reported in the license amendment request (Reference 2).

DG Peak Load See Attachment 2 21 2268 kW, with loss of DG 23 Table 5.5.2a (page 5-39) at T=42 minutes 22 2076 kW, with loss of DG 23 Table 5.5.2b (page 5-40) at T=40 minutes 23 2194 kW, with loss of DG 21 Table 5.3.2b (page 5-26) at T=37 minutes The calculation of power factor values is documented in the operability evaluation prepared following the performance of surveillance tests for the Spring 2006 refueling outage (2R1 7).

The power factor discussion and worksheets from the operability evaluation are provided in Attachment 3. This information provides the basis for the proposed new power factors stated in the license amendment request (Reference 2).

Question 4:

Provide the bases that confirm the IP2 EDGs are capable of handling the worst-case load profile after considering derating of the EDGs, if any, due to EDG loading, engine coolant outlet temperature, air intake (combustion air) temperature, or other potential factors that may result in derating of the EDGs.

'1

NL-07-128 Docket No. 50-247 Attachment 1 Page 4 of 5 Enterqy Response:

Assurance that the IP2 DGs are capable of handling the required accident loading profile is based on a combination of analyses and tests. Analyses that establish the worst-case loading profile associated with design basis events are discussed in the response to Question 3. There are no derating factors that need to be included in these analyses. Testing was conducted following the installation of a DG upgrade modification in 1991 to verify the capability of the DGs to achieve the upgraded ratings that are currently in effect. The post-modification test program was described in a licensee submittal (Reference 3) pertaining to the license amendment request approved by NRC as License Amendment 153 (Reference 4). In addition to testing the capability of the diesel engine, the test program addressed the capabilities of the generator, exciter, and voltage regulator. NRC inspection of the post-modification testing activities is documented in the EDSFI Inspection Report (Reference 1). Routine periodic surveillance tests and maintenance are performed to verify that equipment capabilities are maintained.

Question 5:

Describe IP2's commitments to (and exceptions taken to) applicable guidance and standards regarding EDG design and testing, such as NRC Regulatory Guides and IEEE standards.

Include the revision numbers of the applicable guidance documents and standards.

Enterqy Response:

A search of licensing correspondence identified the following examples where Regulatory Guides and /or IEEE Standards were mentioned with respect to IP2 DG licensing basis requirements.

The modification test plan (Reference 3) for the 1991 DG rating upgrade stated that the test program was based upon the guidance provided in Regulatory Guide 1.9 (Revision 2),

Regulatory Guide 1.108 (Revision 1), and IEEE Standard 387-1984 with exceptions as noted.

This was a one-time post-modification test sequence and does not represent a commitment to adopt the provisions of these guidance documents. As stated in the response to Question 4, NRC inspectors monitored the implementation of this test program as documented in the EDSFI inspection report.

The NRC supplemental safety evaluation (Reference 5) regarding the station blackout rule acknowledged the licensee's implementation of a DG reliability program that satisfies Position 1.2 of Regulatory Guide 1.155 (Revision 0) which includes surveillance testing, a maintenance program, and monitoring of reliability levels versus target values. Implementation of a reliability program by Entergy is an ongoing requirement.

During the conversion to Improved Technical Specifications (ITS), Entergy proposed a more restrictive change (Reference 6, M-DOC 3.8.1; M.14) for DG surveillance SR 3.8.1.10 to specify a duration for the load test. This was classified as a more restrictive change because the pre-ITS surveillance did not specify any duration. In response to an NRC Request for Additional Information, Entergy provided justification (Reference 7; RAI 3.8.1-2) for the proposed 8-hour duration by citing IEEE Standard 387-1995. This citation does not represent an adoption of the IEEE Standard; it was only used a reference for selecting a test duration.

NL-07-128 Docket No. 50-247 Attachment 1 Page 5 of 5 Also during the ITS conversion, the new surveillance specified test load ranges based on a percentage of the DG continuous duty rating (105% - 110% for at least 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 90% - 100%

for the remainder of the test duration) instead of using the pre-ITS wording (loaded to continuous and short-term ratings). The new ranges are the values used in Regulatory Guide 1.9 (Revisions 3 and 4), but this was not described as a change in Reference 6. Regulatory Guide 1.9 describes a design and selection process for DGs beginning at the construction permit stage of licensing. This process was not established at the time of initial licensing for IP2 and use of these Regulatory Guide loading values is not bounding for IP2. Therefore Entergy has proposed in this License Amendment Request (Reference 2) that the surveillance be revised to reflect the site-specific loading values based on the results of the DG loading study (Attachment 2).

Question 6:

Provide the applicable marked-up version of the IP2 TS Bases pages.

Enterqy Response:

The markup pages for the proposed changes to Section 3.8.1 of the IP2 Technical Specification Bases are provided in Attachment 4.

REFERENCES:

1. NRC Inspection Report No. 50-247 / 91-81, "Electrical Distribution System Functional Inspection of Indian Point 2," dated December 26, 1991.

2. Entergy letter NL-07-038, "Proposed Changes to Indian Point 2 Technical Specifications regarding Diesel Generator Endurance Test Surveillance," dated March 22, 2007.

3. Consolidated Edison letter NL-90-163, "EDG Modification Test Plan", dated October 26, 1990.

4. NRC letter to Consolidated Edison, "Issuance of Amendment [153] for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2", dated May 9, 1991.

5. NRC letter to Consolidated Edison, "Supplemental Safety Evaluation of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2, Response to Station Blackout Rule," dated June 4, 1992.

6. Entergy letter NL-02-016, "License Amendment Request (LAR 02-005) for Conversion to Improved Standard Technical Specifications", dated March 26, 2002.

7. Entergy letter NL-03-107, "Supplement 4 to Indian Point 2 License Amendment Request for Conversion to Improved Standard Technical Specifications", dated June 26, 2003.

ATTACHMENT 2 TO NL-07-128 (Regarding response to Question 4 in Attachment 1)

EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR LOADING STUDY; ENTERGY CALCULATION FEX-00039-02 I WCAP 12655 ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET 50-247 issued to NRC Document Control Desk for posting in ADAMS.

Electronic file also available in Entergy MERLIN

ATTACHMENT 2 TO NL-07-128 (Regarding response to Question 4 in Attachment 1)

EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR LOADING STUDY; ENTERGY CALCULATION FEX-00039-02 / WCAP 12655 ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET 50-247

ENN QUALITY RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ENN-DC-126 Revision 2 NUCLEAR L*flt6qy MANAGEMENT 0 MANUAL INFORMATIONAL USE Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT 9.2 CALCULATION COVER PAGE CALCULATION COVER PAGE ZIP-2 -'IP-3 []JAF [-]PNPS Calculation No. FEX*-00092 Revision 2 Sheet I of 3

Title:

Emergency Diesel Generator Loading Study Z QR nl NQR Discipline: Electrical Design Basis Calculation?

21 Yes F1 No This calculation supercedes/voids calculation: FEX-00039-01; FEX-00148-00 Modification No./Task No/ER No: See List of Condition Reports in Reference Section

[] No software used LI Software used and filed separately (Include Computer Run Summary Sheet)

E] Software used and filed with this calculation System No./Name: Emergency Diesel Generators; 480V Component No./Name: 21 EDG; 22EDG; 23EDG; 480V Bus 2A, 3A, SA and 6A (Attached additional pages if necessary)

Print I Sign STATUS (Prl.REVIEWER/DESIGN OTHER REVIEWER/

REV # (Prel.A,

-Pend, PREPARER REVIEWER VERIFIER REVIER DESIGN APPROVER DATE V, S) X C-, VERIFIER A Westinghouse a ae 2 A W!

ENN QUALITY RELATED ENN-DC-126 Revision 2 S- rA MNUCLEAR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE MANUAL INFORMATIONAL USE Page 2 of 3 ATTACHMENT 9.6 CALCULATION RECORD OF REVISIONS RECORD OF REVISIONS Calculation Number: FEX-00039-02 Page 2 of 3 Revision No. Description of Change Reason For Change Original Issue: Con Edison Rev. 1A Generate Con Edison Calculation Tables 3.3-1a, 3.3-1b, 3.3-1c and number for Westinghouse EDG revised page 3 of WCAP-12656 Loading Study, WCAP-12655, Supplement 1. Revision 1 and Con Ed revision 1A.

Revised pages 3-25 to 3-32, 4-3, 4- Several modifications during and 4, 4-7, Tables 5.2-2a,5.2-2c, 5.3-2b, before 1997 Refueling Outage 5.4-2a. 5.4-2b, 5.5-2a, 5.6-1a, 5.6- subsequent to rev. 00 affected EDG 01 lb, 6.1-2a and 6.1-2b to incorporate loading study and needed to be upto and including 1997 Refueling updated, which is incorporated in Outage changes. Con Ed rev. lB.

Document and accept Westing house WCAP-12655 WestnghoseCAP-2655was wasDouetadcep Westinghouse WCAP-1 2655, rev.2 extensively revised and issued as Wetnhue CA-265 v.

lreviseand i and supersede interim calculation revision 2. FEX-00148-00.

IENN NUCLEAR I QUALITY RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

[ENN-DC-12 Revision,2

ýýEntei y MANAGEMENT MANUAL INFORMATIONAL USE Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT 9.4 CALCULATION

SUMMARY

PAGE CALCULATION

SUMMARY

PAGE Page 3 of 3 Calculation No. FEX-00039-02 Revision No. 2 CALCULATION OBJECTIVE:

This calculation is to supersede calculation FEX-00148-00 that was prepared as an interim document for plant start-up. This calculation provides a Loading Analyses for the IP2 Emergency Diesel Generators for a number of Loss of Offsite Power Events with Safety Injection. This calculation accepts and documents the results of the Westinghouse Update to WCAP-12655, revision 2.

CONCLUSIONS:

See Section 8 of the WCAP.

ASSUMPTIONS:

Included in WCAP sections 1 through 8 DESIGN INPUT DOCUMENTS:

See Section 9.0 "References". This section includes various listings that contain the design input documents AFFECTED DOCUMENTS:

Calculations FEX-00039-01 and FEX-00148-00. WCAP-12655, all prior revisions to 2.

Operating procedures as listed in Section 9, reference 1-28.

METHODOLOGY:

See Section 2.0 "Overview of the Emergency Diesel Generator Loading Study". This section describes the method and scope of the EDG loading analysis.

ENN QUALITY RELATED ENN-DC-134 Revision 0 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE e

• NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT MANUAL INFORMATIONAL USE Page 10 of 32 ATTACHMENT 9.1 DESIGN VERIFICATION COVER PAGE DESIGN VERIFICATION COVER PAGE iP-~ [0 IP-3 0 JAF 0 PNPS Document No. Revision Page 1 of --(Q-

.-00..0 3C) 21

Title:

• _* LO*,N( 5-,Jy I Quality Related 03 Non Quality Related DV Method: C9 Design Review 01 Alternate Calculation 03 Qualification Testing VERIFICATION DISCIPLINE VERIFICATION COMPLETE AND COMMENTS REQUIRED RESOLVED (DV print, sign, and date) v ~Electrical 4 Mechanical \J Instrument and Control Civil/Structural Print/Sign After Comments Have Been Resolved Orfginator: Date:

ENN QUALITY RELATED ENN-DC-134 Revision 0 NUCLEAR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE MANAGEMENT MANUAL INFORMATIONAL USE Page 27 , of 32 ATTACHMENT 9.7 CALCULATION DESIGN VERIFICATION CHECKLIST" IDENTIFICATION: DISCIPLINE:

DocumnentTitle: Document~~~~~~~~

• -,H.( Tte . TL El 'Electrical Civil/Structural Doc.. No.: 0-.-Cl Rev. 2 QA Cat. 0o I&C Verifier: Print Date El Mechanical

.... v,-El - Other Manager Authorization for supervisor performing verification.

• . N/A Print Sign Date METHOD OF VERIFICATION:

Design Review

• Alternate Calculations 0] Qualification Test 11

. Design Inputs - Were the inputs correctly selected and Reference incorporated into the design? Page No.

Design Inputs include design bases, plant operational conditions, performance OR requirements, regulatory requirements and commitments, codes, standards, field data, etc. All information used as design inputs should have been Paragraph No.

reviewed and approved by the responsible design organization, as applicable.

All inputs need to be retrievable or excerpts of documents used should be attached. Completion of the Reference Boxes is optional See site-specific design input procedures for guidance in identifying inputs, for all questions.

Yes F No 0 N/A 0 Verifier Comments:

Resolution:

Calculation Design Verification Checklist Page 7 of G

ENN QUALITY RELATED ENN-DC-134 Revision 0 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

'-~Entera, NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT MANUAL INFORMATIONAL USE Page 28 of 32

2. Assumptions - Are assumptions necessary to perform the Reference design activity adequately described and reasonable? Where Page No.

necessary, are assumptions identified for subsequent re- OR verification when the detailed activities are completed? Paragraph No.

Yes X No 0 N/A D Verifier Comments:

Resolution:

3. Quality Assurance - Are the appropriate quality and quality Reference assurance requirements specified? Page No.

OR Yes *1* No 0]

• N/A [] Paragraph No.

0 Verifier Comments:

Resolution:

4. Codes, Standards and Regulatory Requirements - Are the Reference applicable codes, standards and regulatory requirements, Page No.

including issue and addenda properly identified and are their OR requirements for design met?

Paragraph No.

Yes'*, No D N/A [

Verifier Comments:

Resolution:

Calculation Design Verification Checklist Page 3 of C_

ENN QUALITY RELATED ENN-DC-134 Revision 0 NUCLEAR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE t51J -MANAGEMENT MANUAL INFORMATIONAL USE Page 29 of 32

5. Construction and Operating Experience - Have applicable Reference construction and operating experience been considered? Page No.

OR Yes ~No E N/A 0 Paragraph No.

Verifier Comments:

Resolution:

Interfaces - Have the design interface requirements been Reference

6. satisfied and documented? Page No.

No 11 N/A 11 OOR Yes Paragraph No.

Verifier Comments:.

Resolution:

7. Methods - Was an appropriate analytical method used? Reference Page No.

Yes No 0 N/A U OR Paragraph No.

Verifier Comments:

Resolution:

Calculation Design Verification Checklist Page A of (0

ENN QUALITY RELATED ENN-DC-134 Revision 0 En; 01 NUCLEAR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE Entry MANAGEMENT MANUAL INFORMATIONAL USE Page 30 of 32

8. Design Outputs - Is the output reasonable compared to the Reference inputs? Page No.

[] N/A El OR O

Yes 1*No Paragraph No.

Verifier Comments:

Resolution:

9. Acceptance Criteria - Are the acceptance criteria Reference incorporated in the calculation sufficient to allow verification Page No._

that design requirements have been satisfactorily OR accomplished? Paragraph No.

Yes A No 0 N/ADL Verifier Comments:.

Resolution:

10. Records and Documentation - Are requirements for record Reference preparation, review, approval, retention, etc., adequately Page No.

specified? OR Are all documents prepared in a clear legible manner suitable for microfilming and/or Paragraph No.

other documentation storage method? Have all impacteddocuments been identified for update?

Yes Uq No 0 N/A 0 Verifier Comments:

Resolution:

Calculation Design Verification Checklist Page . of 4

ENN . QUALITY RELATED ENN-DC-134 Revision 0 NUCLEAR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE 0 MANAGEMENT MANUAL INFORMATIONAL USE Page 31 of 32

11. Software Quality Assurance- For a calculation that utilized Reference software applications (e.g., GOTHIC, SYMCORD), was it Page No.

properly verified and validated in accordance with ENN IT- O.

104 or previous site SQA Program? OR Paragraph No. __________

Yes " No [3 N/A 14 Verifier Comments:

Resolution:

OTHER COMMENTS RESOLUTIONS All comments for "NO" answers have been resolved satisfactorily.

Calculation Design Verification Checklist Page L of C

ENN QUALITY RELATED ENN-DC-126 Revision 2 NUCLEAR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE MANAGEMENT MANUAL INFORMATIONAL USE Page 29 of 43 ATTACHMENT 9.7 CALCULATION IMPACT REVIEW PAGE CALCULATION IMPACT REVIEW PAGE Date: 5/2/2003 Z QR OINQR (Note: X indicates required distribution)

To: Mechanical Engineering - Licensing Operations I&C Engineering - Elect Maintenance Chemistry X Electrical Engineering - I&C Maintenance HP/Radiological

-_ Civil Engineering - Mech Maintenance Computer Applications System Engineering - Component Engineering Rad Engineering Reactor Engineering - Program Engineering ISI Engineering DBD Owner ___Nuclear Engineering IST Engineering DBD Owner ___EQ (Other)

(name)

From: Thomas Klein /788-3343 (Print Name and Phone extension Calculation No.: FEX-.00039-02 Revision No. 2 .-.

Title:

Emergency Diesel Generator Loading Study

Reference:

WCAP-12655, Revision 2; FEX-00148-00 Date Response Required: 5/23/2003 MESSAGE: Work organizations are requested to review the subject calculation (parts attached) to identify impacted calculations, procedures, Technical Specifications, FSAR sections, other design documents (e.g. EQ files, DBD, Appendix R, ISI/IST, PRA, MOVs/AOVs, etc.), and other documents which must be updated because of the calculation results. Also provide the name of the individual responsible for the action and the tracking number. Sign and return the form to the originator.

IMPACT REVIEW RESULTS:

Affected Documents Responsible Individual Tracking Number D] Process Applicability Determination required and attached.

Responding Supervisor/Manager (or designee):, * \ 7123/03 Name/Signature 15ate