Text

Rev 6 to AP-8, Design Change,Test & Experiment Program.
	ML18092A285
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	01/05/1983
From:	; Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	;
Shared Package
ML18092A282	List: ML18092A281; ML18092A284; ML18092A285;
References
	AP-8, NUDOCS 8409250149
	Download: ML18092A285 (39)
	v • d • e

.>

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE NO. 8 REVISION NO. 6 DESIGN CHANGE_, TEST AND EXPERIMENT PROGRAM APPROVED : _ _ _ _ _ ......,,..-_.t../;...;...!/-'9_vi-..-h::.....;;.-~.::...::~~~~----- 1-~--tJ Date General Maniger - Salem Operations

,~~8~4_0_9_2~50-~14-9~8-4~.0~9~1-8~~~-,

PDR ADOCK 05000272

..... F PDR

TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE

SECTION 1

1. 0 PURPOSE 1

2 .. 0 SCOPE 1

3.0 REFERENCES

1 4.0 DEFINITIONS 3

5.0 RESPONSIBILITIES OCR SCHEDULING AND PLANNING 15 6.0 DOCUMENT UPDATING 15 7.0 Form AP-8-1 Design Change, Test or Experiment Request Form Form AP-8-2 . Field Questionnaire Document Update Notification Form Form AP-8-3

- Attachment 1 Instructions for Completing the Design Change, Test or Experiment Request Form Attachment 2 Instructions for Completing the Field Questionnaire Attachment 3 Field Questionnaire Flow Chart Attachment 4 Priority Definitions and Worksheet Attachment 5 Design Change Package Notification (Part A, B, C) r i Rev. 6 AP-8

aINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE SALEM GENERATING STATION e

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE NO. 8 DESIGN CHANGE, TEST AND EXPERIMENT PROGRAM

1. 0 PURPOSE This procedure describes the program_for design changes, tests and experiments.

2.0 SCOPE This procedure encompasses design changes which include, but are not limited to, the following:

Replacement of equipment by items of another type, size or mode of operation (alteration of mode of operation through the use of non-permanent plant equipment shall require a OCR)

Relocating or resizing piping or structural elements Drawing revisions Setpoint *revisions*. (*outside allowa:Ole ** tplerances*)

NOTE *.

Tool modifications shall be implemented by Deficiency Reports in accordance with AP-20, Nonconformance Program.

3.0 REFERENCES

3.1 10CFRS0.59, Unreviewed Safety Question 3.2 AP-20, Nonconformance Program 3.3 Salem Nuclear Generating Station Technical Specifications, Unit 2 4.0 DEFINITIONS 4.1 Design Change 4.1.1 Change - An alteration of station structures, systems or components, which is not by its nature operational, upkeep, maintenance or replace~ent in kind.

4.1.2 Experiment - Performance of those station

'"?'

operations carried out under controlled *conditions in order to establish characteristics or values not previously known.

AP-8 Page 1 of 16 Rev. 6

4.1.3 ~Performance of those st~ necessary to determine that a system or comp~ent functions in accordance with predetermined specifications.

(This test is not to be confused with the testing required for 4.1.1 above.)

4.2 Operations Working Drawing File - Operations Department file.of selected pl*nt drawings - Functional Diagrams, Logic Diagrams, One Line Diagrams, and Piping Diagrams -

which are used in day-to-day plant operations. These drawings are to be updated within a target of 30 working days o.f receipt of Attachment 6 by Engineering Control.

A list of the Operations Working Drawings shall be provided by SNGS Operations to Engineering Control for identifying such drawings.

4.3 Unreviewed Safety Question - A proposed change, test or experiment shall be deemed to involve an unreviewed safety question if one of the following conditions exist:

4.3.1 .The probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of eguipment important to safety previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report may be increased. i I

4.2.2 A* *possibi*lity* for *an accident :or mal.furiction of* a i*

. I different type than any evaluated previously in '

the Final* Safety Analysis Report may be created.

4.4 4.3.3 The margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification is reduced.

Design Change Package (DCP) - An all inclusive package of engineering information required to implement a design modification. A design change may be comprised of one or more packages.

4.5 Operational Test Grou~ (OTG) - The OTG performs a review of each DCP to determine testing requirements and generates a Design Change Package-Test Package. They also direct operational tests (when required) and review and accept results of all DCP related testing.

4.6 Design Change Package-Test Package (DCP-TP) - The DCP-TP lists the systems and/or components to be tested or calibrated, required procedures, and the performing department. The DCP-TP is.generated by the OTG.

4.7 Construction Verification (C/V} Testing - Those tests performed to verify proper installation of components.

~ These may include, but are not limited to: hydrostatic testing, flushing, cleaning, equipment alignment checks, ground resistance checks, motor rotation, instrument calibration, etc.

AP-8 Page 2 of 16 Rev. 6

r

4. 8 e e Operational Testing - A testing program which ensures that equipment and system modifications conform to the design intent prior to, or in conjunction with, returning the system to plant service.

5.0 RESPONSIBILITIES INITIATION 5.1 Station Originated Requests 5.1.l The initiator shall complete Design Change, Test or Experiment Request (DCR) Form (form AP-8-1),

Sections I-1 thru I-6 and forward to his depart-ment head.

5.1.2 The department head shall:

a) Review form AP-8-1 (sample format included) and indicate whether the request should be implemented or not (Section I-7).

b) If the DCR' is approved, *complete Sect'ibn i-8, I* .

as applicable. If the DCR is rejected, return it to the initiator with a letter explaining the rejection .

c) Assign priority, implementation date and mode required for implementation (see Attachment 4 for Priority Definition Worksheet and classi-fication list). Priority Definition Worksheet shall be completed and a~tached to DCR.

d) Sign and date Section I-9 and forward to the Station Planning Engineer.

5.1.3 The Station Planning Engineer shall:

a) Assign a sequential DCR number of the form ABC-DDDD-E-FG.

A - Station Unit 1 - Unit 1 or Common 2 - Unit 2 3 - Unit 3 B - Originating Organization

~ *E Engineering Department S - Station Page 3 of *16 Rev. 6 AP-8

r C - DCR Type c Design Change (including setpoint revision) *

T - Test x - Experiment

DDDD - Four digit sequential number E - Major DCR Revision A - First Revision B - Second Revision FG - Alpha-numeric designation assigned when applicable to permit control of packages/subpackages d~signated for partial implementation. (See Section 5.2.2.f.l) -

There are separate numbers used for Engineering Department originated DCR's.

b) Return a copy to the requesting department head for tracking.

c) Forward the request to the General M~nag~r I

Salem Operations for approval. If accep_table,

the'G~neral Manager shall sign and date ~

Section I-10 .

5.1.4 d) Forward the DCR to the Manager - Nuclear Engineering Control to coordinate the develop-ment of the DCP.

Go to step 5.2.2, "Sponsor Enginee~ will", to continue the DCP development process.

I 5.2 Non-Station Originated Changes 5.2.1 Initiation of changes by other than Nuclear Engineering or Salem Operations shall be via letter from initiating department manager. to Manager - Nuclear Engineering Control or General Manager - Salem Operations. In all cases,Section I shall be completed and signed off by the Sponsor Engineer and the appropriate Nuclear Engineering Manager.

5.2.2 The Sponsor Engineer will~

a) Ensure all Engineering Safety Evaluation(s) are performed and, when complete, sign and date Section II-1. -

b)

Determine if the DCR involves a Technical Specification change or unreviewed safety question (Sections II-2 and II-3). If answer is no for both, go to Section 5.2.2.d.

AP-.8 Page 4 of 16 Rev. 6

c) IP a Technical Specif icatio.hange is required or an Unreviewed Safety Question is involved, forward the OCR (with appropriate TS or USQ forms) to the Nuclear Review Board (NRB) for evaluation.

1) The NRB will perform an evaluation of the OCR and verify that the Technical Specif i-

cation revision, FSAR amendment or Unreviewed Safety Question are reviewed and NRC approval has been obtained. Following the review the Chairman - Nuclear Review Board will complete Section II-3 and forward the OCR to the Sponsor Engineer.

d) Request the funding necessary, as specified by departmental procedures.

e) Compile the required Design Change Packages (DCP) in accordance with departmental procedures.

1) Each DCP shall consist of one each of the following:

(a) Table of c*onterits (b) Package Revision History *.

(c)

(d)

(e)

DCR Construction Work Package Definition Record Cost Estimate

(f) Statement of Applicability to Other Station Unit (g) Executive Summary - A description of the proposed modification or change to provide station personnel with an overview of the total DCP (affected systems, operating changes, etc.)

2) Each DCP shall have one per Engineering discipline of the following:

(a) Safety Evaluation

r (b) Engineering Instructions

(c) List of Materials

May be omitted if the DCP issue is of an emergency nature.

Page 5 of 16 Rev. 6 AP-8

e. (d) Design Change Doc.nt Status List (DCDSL)

(e)

.(f)

Operational Design Change Notice{s)

(ODCN) (include System Description ODCN's Document *Update Notification form (Form AP-8-3) identifying all affected drawings as to update priority.

f) Perform a constructability review where possible in conjunction with Nuclear Construction Support. (Section II-4)

1) DCR's having a large number of components requiring installation/replacement will be reviewed during DCP preparation to deter-mine if DCP's can be partially implemented as packages or sub-packages without adverse affect on safety (i.e., operation of a partially modified system). DCR's designated for partial implementation (as indicated .on the Const;.ruction Wo'.Fk Packag_e Definition Record) shall be controlled at the lowest package level. This shall ..

include provisions for testing and update of affected engineering documents (i.e.,

drawings, vendor manuals, etc.) upon (partial) completion.

2) DCR's designated for partial implementa-tion shall be coordinated with the Station Planning Engineer prior to issuance for implementation. (Section II-4A) * /

g) Assess the scope of the work to be performed to determine if there is a .potential impact upon Station Security and/or the Fire Protection programs. If so, coordinate the DCP with the Nuclear Security Administrator and/or the Nuclear Fire and Safety Administrator, as appropriate.

h) Perform a testing requirements review in conjunction with the Operational Test Group.

(Section II-4C) i) When authorized by the Lead Change Sponsor Engineer, incomplete DCP's may be distributed for information only; i.e., for procurement of long-lead items, preparation of preliminary

- AP-8 Page 6 of 16 Rev. 6

ks instructions, testing ~cedures, etc.

information, which doe91ot require SORC review, shall be stamped "PRELIMINARY" and shall not be used for installation or receiving inspection .

5.2.3 Upon approval for implementation (Section II-5),

the Manager - Nuclear Engineering Control will formally transmit the DCP to the General Manager Salem Operations/Station Planning Engineer.

5.2.4 The Station Planning Engineer shall:

a) Log the receipt of the DCP.

NOTE All packages associated with the DCR (as listed on the Construction Work Package Definition Record) should be included in the transmittal.

b) Coordinate the assignment of responsibility for implementing the DCP with the responsible i

department head(s).

I

1) The .department head sh~ll be respon~ibl~ I: .

f~r*otp*~ issu~d to all contractors "i p~rforming work for its department.

I c) Review the DCP for completeness per Section 5.2.2.e. If the DCP is incomplete, it shall be returned to the Manager - Nuclear Engineering'.

Control for resolution.

d) Forward the DCP to the Manager - ,2uality Assur-ance Nuclear Operations for revi~w.

e) Retain all SORC-rejected DCP's and coordinate resolution of problems with the System Sponsor Engineer.

5.2.5 Quality Assurance Review The Manager - Quality Assurance Nuclear Operations will review the DCP in accordance with the Quality ,

Assurance Instructions (QAI) and if the package is i acceptable, sign off Section II-6 and forward it to :

the responsible department head in preparation for ';

SORC review. 1 If unacceptable, initiate a letter to the Sponsor Engineer with a.copy to the Manager - Engineering Control detailing the reason for non-acceptance and attach a copy of the letter to the package and return it to the Station Planning *Engineer.

The Sponsor Engineer is responsible for resolution of identified deficiencies.

AP-8 Page 7 of 16 Rev. 6

IMPLEMENTATION

5.3 The* responsible department head shall:

5.3.1 I

Present the DCP to the Station Operations Review Committee (SORC) .for review. If the DCP is acceptable, SORC shall sign Section II-7 and forward to the General Manager - Salem Operations.

(Step 5. 5) 5.4 If SORC does not accept the DCP, the department head shall:

5.4.1 Initiate a letter detailing the reason for non-acceptance and transmit it to the Manager -

Engineering Control and a copy *.:to the System Sponsor Engineer.

5.4.2 Attach a copy of the non-acceptance letter_ to the DCP and return the package to the Station Planning Engineer, where the package is held pending r~solution of deficiency. (Step 5.2.4.e)

5. 5

The Ge.neral Manager -* Salem Operations shall:

5.5.1 Review the DCP and* if acceptable, indicate so and~

sign Section II-8, then return the DCP to the Station Planning Engineer.

5.5.2 If unacceptable, return the DCP to the responsible department head for resolution of deficiency.

5.6 The Station Planning Engineer shall:

5.6.l Initiate work order(s) per AP-9, Control of Station Maintenance, as required to implement the DCP. I I

I i

5.6.2 Record .the package number and associated work order numbers in Section III-1. When more than one DCP comprises the DCR, complete Section III-1 and check I!

the block indicating "Partial Package". '

5.6.3 Issue the DCP for implementation.

5.6.4 Ensure proper accounting is assigned on the work order and DCP.

5.6.5 Transmit a copy of the work order to the OTG.

5.7 Upon receipt of the DCP for implementation, the PSE&G/

contractor supervisor in charge of the work shall:

5.7.1 Prior to starting the work, issue Part A of the DCP Notification (Attachment 5) to advise the appropriate personnel of D~P implemen~ation (X).

Page 8 of 16 Rev. 6 AP-8

a) wlln the physical work of th.DCP is complete, Part A is marked (X) Complete - DCR close out in progress and the form is distributed .

5.7.2 b) If the work cannot be completed, details of the partial completion are included and the form is distributed.

If not in possession of a DCP-Test Package prepared by the OTG, initiate Part B of the DCP Notification (Attachment 5) to request a determination of test/retest requirements and procedures. One copy shall be sent to the Operational Test Engineer. Other departments as marked shall provide any needed information.

5.7.3 When the DCP work reaches an appropriate level of completion, fill out Part C of the DCP Notification (Attachment 5) to notify the appropriate departments of tests, procedures and work orders required to perform the test/retest. One copy shall be sent to the Operat~onal Test Engineer.

s.a When information necessary to implement the DCP is not clear, missing or in error:

5. 8 .1 The supervisor perf arming the DCP shall-:

a) Initiate a Field Questionnaire (FQ) (form AP-8-2). (3-part form - white, yellow, pink) b) Complete Sections I and II of the FQ.

c) Forward the FQ (all three parts) to the cognizant Sponsor Er.gineer.

5.8.2 The i~itiating department shall maintain an FQ log by DCR number, which shall contain as a minimum:

a) DCR number b) Package number c) Affected DCP section d) FQ number e) Date -initiated f) Initiating supervisor's name

-r g) Action taken (i.e., ODCN revision, no action required, etc.)

AP-8 Page 9 of 16 Rev.* 6

-' 5.8.3 The~onsor Engineer wili eval~e the stated pro~m and enter a response o~ection III of the FQ (i.e., information and/or work instructions).

The Engineer keeps the yellow copy, returns the white copy to the originator, and sends the pink copy to the Station Planning Engineer.

5.8.4 For work which also requires a minor DCP revision, the.Sponsor Engineer will indicate that the DCP revisio~ is required.

5.8.5 The Sponsor Engineer will be responsible for preparing the DCP revision after answering the FQ. Transmittal of the DCP revision shall be accomplished within 7 days of FQ disposition.

date.

NOTE FQ's may be used to implement minor DCP revisions except for the addition of one or more Engineering disciplines (Section 5.9.3 below). In this case, implementation shall not proceed until the DCP revision has been reviewed by SORC and Quality Assurance arid approved by the General Manager.- Salem Operations or h"is designee. Revision of. the DCP may be accomplished by adding a new package or revising an existing package.

5.8.6 The Engineering group will maintain a log of all FQ'.s, the DCR number, date received, date answered, description of problem, *indication of whether a DCP revision is needed and Transmittal Number containing revised ODCN(s) to correspond to the answer on the FQ. All DCP revisions generated by a FQ shall be identified Ly the applicable FQ nurnber(s) placed on the affected ODCN.

5.8.7 The supervisor performing the work shall:

a) Perform the work per the FQ res~onse.

b) Attach the FQ to the DCP.

NOTE Site Contractor attaches the FQ to the DCP and his control work package.

c) Discard the FQ upon receipt of the *revised ODCN(s) after assuring the FQ and revised ODCN(s) agree.

AP-8 Page 10 of 16 Rev. 6

5. 9 Revisions Revisions may be made to Design Change Packages. These are classified as minor or major. Major revisions are

those which alter the function of the design, result in a change to the Technical Specifications, impact radio-logical safety, or present an unreviewed safety or environ-mental question. All other revision? are minor. All re-visions shall be reviewed for cost impact in accordance with Engineering Department procedures.

5.9.1 Revisions may be classified as minor if they meet one of the-following:

a) Minor by Inspection

1) Are basically arrangement in nature,

2) Affect only items presently within the scope of the DCP, and

3) Require only work of a type already planned and approved for those items.

b) Minor by Evaluation The ~~~n~o~ E~gi~e~r ev~luates the revision as:

1) Not affecting system function .

2) Not affecting Radiological Safety or Technical Specifications.

3) Not involving an unreviewed safety question.

4) Not affecting the Environmental Technical Specifications.

5) Not involving an unreviewed environ-mental question.

5.9.2 Documentation of Minor by Inspection/Evaluation shall accompany each minor revision to the DCP.

This documentation becomes an addendum to the DCP Safety Evaluation(s). A Safety Evaluation addendum shall be prepared for each discipline included in the DCP minor revision.

5.9.3 DCP revisions which add one or more Engineering disciplines shall require SORC review if the original DCP was SORC reviewed. SORC review is also required if the new DCP is safety related, fire protection or security related.

5.9.4 All ODCN's issued subsequent to the original issue of their respective DCP's shall indicate major or minor if being added to an *existing DCP.

AP-8 Page 11 of 16 Rev. 6

5 *. 9 .5 The aager - Engineering Contr4twill transmit a copy of all revisions to a DCP to the OTG for evaluation of changes to the testing/retest requirements .

5.9.6* Copies of all station approved revisions will be forwarded to the TDR by the Manager -

Nuclear Engineering Control for distribution to the appropriate departments by the TDR per AP-3, Document Control Program.

5.10 The supervisor completing the work shall:

s.10.l Indicate all work and C/V testing has been completed by signing and dating Sections III-2

.and III-3.

a) For DCP's designated for partial implementation (as indicated on the Construction* Work Package Definition Record),Section III shall not be completed until all "partial" packages have been completed; i.e., completed Sections III-1 thru III-3 for each "partial" package.

b) Prior to release of a system or component back to se~*.,-.:i:ce, a review of* the work . and testing performed on the DCP must be accomplished with the Senior Shift Supervisor. A DCP that has *.

been partially completed must be identified to

the Senior Shift Supervisor and those portions reviewed for possible impact upon plant operations and procedures. This review must be documented in the design change package implementation Section III-3A prior to the release of tags and attached to. each partially completed package.

c) DCP's returned for partial close out and review fall into two (2) categories. Category I are those partial DCP's which will continue to work in the field after the unit startup and are being returned to the Sponsor for subsequent document and system description update.

Category II partial DCP's are those partial DCP's for which no further work is planned and the DCP is going to be reviewed by the Sponsor Engineer for possible future reissue under a new OCR number or final close out.

Category I partial DCP's shall contain the

- -r following: a copy of the work order under which all. work has been performed; a copy of all completed ODCN's; signed Sections III-1 thru III-4 for the affected DCP; a completed "Design Change Package Notification"" (Part A of Attachment 5); a signed copy of all support/

AP-8 Page 12 of 16 Rev. 6

r t.ting work orders which we9 required to be completed prior to return of the system for service .

Category II partial DCP's shall be processed in the same manner as a completed DCP and s.hall contain all documentation as a Category I partial close out. The documenta-tion shall be *the originals under which the work was performed. No further work will be allowed on the system unless reissued by the Sponsor Engineer under a new DCR.

NOTE close out of a DCP at any level lower than the entire package, requires written approval of the Lead and appropriate Discipline Sponsor

Engineer (s) .

d) Reviews of partially completed DCP's will be similar to the reviews performed on fully completed DCP's. Prompt and timely reviews shall be conducted to ensure update of station document(s) is accomplished within the required time.

5.10.2 Ensure all FQ's are closed and the latest revision~

of the ODCN's are enclosed in the package. Verify the latest approved ODCN revision numbers have been transcribed on the Design Change Document Status List (DCDSL) .

5.10.3 Sign the DCDSL entries and each ODCN.

NOTE For all outside contracted work assigned the Nuclear Construction Support Department, the Manager - Nuclear Construction Support, or his designee, will sign for all completed or partially completed DCP's.

5.10.4 Obtain the completed DCP - Test Package from the Operational Test Group (OTG). The OTG performs the following:

a) For DCP's which are_ not test or experiment, collect and review all test results and documentation to ensure they are satisfactory

- ?

and resolve possible deficiencies.-

,. b) For test or experiment DCP's, monitor the test or experiment while it is in-progress, and notify the Sponsor Engineer of the end of the test or experiment to obtain proper follow-up and close o~t.

AP-8 Pag_e 13 of 16 Rev. 6

c) Sign Section III-3B for C/V test review and

.m..cceptance. Make one cop~f the signed-off

~CDSL and transmit i t to 1!1111 TDR to provide notification for ODCN distribution.

d) Notify the Operating Engineer in writing if any Operational Tests must be deferred until a different operating mode is achieved. Sign Section III-4 as applicable.

5.10.5 Forward the completed or partially completed DCP to the implementing department head.

5.11 The implementing department head shall:

5.11.1 Review the DCP and indicate in Section III-5 any procedure (SP(O), Maintenance Procedure, etc.)

that should be performed by the station to ensure the correct functioning of any systems affected by the completed DCP or partial package.

5.11.2 Review all work completed under the DCP and if acceptable, sign and date Section III-6. If unacceptable, return it to the applicable super-visor for resolution.

5.11.3 Ensure that a copy.of all workorders associated.

with the OCP is attached to tne package.

5.11.4 Forward* the partially complete or complete DCP to~

the Station Planning Engineer as soon as possible

REVIEW so document update can proceed

5.12 The Station Planning Engineer shall:

5.12.1 Transmit Form AP-8-3 (Document Update Notification) with appropriate DCDSL, ODCN's or other documents to Engineering Control to initiate the drawing/document update process. A copy of the Notification shall be sent to the TDR for tracking the document update requirement.

5.12.2 Review the DCP to ensure that all FQ responses have been included-as revised ODCN's. Indicate in Section III-7 which department(s) in addition to the Operating Engineer shall receive the DCP for procedure revision and updating~

a) The department head(s) or designated engineers shall complete the applicable part of

Section III-7 and return the DCP to the Station Planning Engineer.

5.12.3 Forward the DCP to the Manager - Quality Assurance Nuclear Operations for review.

AP-8 Page 14 of 16 Rev. 6 Minor Change of 5/6/83

r a) ~ality Assurance will review the DCP in

~ordance with applicable ~lity Assurance Instructions and if acceptaoie, complete Section III-8 and return it to the Station Planning Engineer. If unacceptable, return it with a copy of the rejection letter to the Station Planning Engineer for resolution.

5.12.4 Forward the DCP to SORC for review.

5.12.5 Notify the Office Supervisor of DCP number and completion date.

5.13 The SORC shall review the DCP and, if acceptable, the SORC Chairman shall sign Section III-9 and return it to the Station Planning Engineer. If unacceptable, return it to the Station Planning Engineer for resolution.

5.14 The Station Planning Engineer shall transmit the DCP to Engineering Control for subsequent review and close out.

A copy of the DCP may be retained by Station Planning for record purposes.

6.0 DCR SCHEDULING AND PLANNING 6.1 The Station Planning Engineer shall be responsible for

resolving DCR priori ti.es and f9r ens\J.rihg the DCR' s necessary to meet station needs and commitments are planned and accomplished as required. AP-8-1 forms shall be initiated in a timely manner to permit Dcp* *.

development and completion .

6.2 Engineering Control is responsible for providing the necessary support within the Nuclear Department to ensure timely preparation and issuance of DCP's for implementation and issuing updated drawings within the indicated time interval.

6.3 For outage planning, a list of required DCR's including priority and required date will be developed by the General Manager - Salem Operations, General Manager -

Nuclear Support, and General Manager - Nuclear Services.

Changes to this list will be approved by the above personnel or their designee(s).

7.0 DOCUMENT UPDATING 7.1 Engineering will update all drawings and system descriptions within a target period of 30 working days from date Form AP-8-3 is received (Step 5.12.1).

7.2 The TDR shall maintain a "tickle" file to track DCR document update deadlines in accordance with TDR procedures.

A list of overdue drawings shall be sent weekly to the Assistant General Manager - Engineering, Station Planning,

,.,.- Manager - Quality Assurance Nuclear Operations and General

AP-8 Manager - Salem Operations

Page 15 of 16 Minor Change of 5/6/83 Rev. 6

7.3 The TDR_shall make distribution of specified DCP ODCN's upon receipt of the DCDSL from the Operational Test Group.

AP-8 Page 16 of 16 Rev. 6

DESIGN CHANGE REQUEST 'NO. l SALE~ GENERATING STATION DESIGN CHANGE, TEST OR PRIORITG [LJ. w w w w

. IMPLEMENTATION DATE REQUESTED _ _,.GJ.:2=-'----

EXPERIMENT REQUEST FORr" MODE REQUIRED FOP IMPLEMENTATION Cl)

I. IN ITIATI OU

l. TYPE: DESIGN CHANGE 0 TESTQ EXPERIMENT m

--.--lo,,,=3~---------------------------~

m

2. SYSTEM(S)

3. loUNIT UNIT 2~ UNIT 3 COMM0Nm

4. DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE _ _ _ _ G):i.,.4_.L.----------------------

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.,

I I

I

5. RE~OOF~~AN~-----~~--------------------~I

6. REQUESTED BY ------!o~.:;6:::.:------- -------=T::::!>'6dc::6._,._ _ _ __

7. RECOMMENDATION: IMPLEMENT YES© B.

- r INSTALLATION OF THIS DCR IS AN NRC COMMITMENT. YES (!) NO* (!}

IF YES, LIST COMMITMENT DOCUMENT/DATE =---.....a..0,,:,7,,.it---------------

9. DEPAR'l'MENT HEAD (STATION ORIGINATED CHANGES)/

SPONSOR ENGINEER: .

0s

~

10.

GENERAL MANAGER - SALEM OPERATION TATION IGINATED CHANGES APPROPRIATE NUCLEAR ENGINEERING MANAGER Form AP-B-l AP-8 Page l of 3 Rev. 6

~-~--

e DESIGN OIANGE REQtlEST NOii PAGE 2 OF G)

I I

ENGINEERING REVIEW II.

I

l. ENGINEERING SAFETY EVALOATI~ @ ~ I (SEE ATTACHED 6AFE'n' EVALUA'l'ION(s)) SPONSOR ENGINEER DATE I

2. TEomICAL SPECIFICATION alANGE: nsQ NOQ I SECTION AFFECTED (lo) I I

r

. 3. UNREVIEWED SAFETY QUESTION (10CFRS0.59): ns [.£) NoQ THIS SECTION m:QUIJmD IF 'DUS CHANGE 1 TEST OR EXPE:RIMENT: .1 I

(l) INVOLVES A a!ANGE TO '1'HE 'l'!amICAL Sl'ECIFICATION.

(2) INVOLVES AN 'CNllEVIJ!!WED SAFE'l"i QUESTION.

li I

N:RB :REVI'EW Gi) 67)

O!AI JIMAN - NllB DATE NRC APPROllAL RECE?VED MANAGER - NUCLEAR l.Ia:NSING AND JIEGUIATION ~

'l'Ec:JfNICAL SPECIFICATIC11 REVISICIJ RECEIVED Gi)

.JCANAGER - R!JCI.EAR LICENSING AND REGOLATION

~

!'Sll AMENDMENT

StlBMI'l"I'ED @ ~*

IWJAG!R - HtlCUAR l.ICENSING AND REGULATION

4. CONSTRUCTAllILITY REVnW PERFORMED:

4A. PAJlTIAL IMPLEMENTATION lS AtmlOJIIZEJ:I:

6POHS~

ns~

YES~*

NO(]

No@

(@

I I

i

JIEFER 'l'O CONSTlWC'l'lON WO* PACDGE ENGINEER IZ!'INITI~ RECORD.

DATE I

~ NO Q, 4B. lF '1'HE O!ANGE IS SA!'E'lY m.A'l'ED:

FIRE PROTECTICl9 REU'1'!:D1 SECOJUTY JIEI.ATED:

us

'fZS us

~ NO~'

Uil NO U31 I OR

'lm:N QA IS J!EQUIJmD.

I INSTALLATION OF 'mlS tlC1l DQlllRES WO* IN PLANT BUIU>INGS WHlO! CONTAIN SAFETY RELATED SYSTEMS.

ns~ llO ~ IF YES, INSTAU.ATICl1 Q.C. COVERAGE IS REQUIRED 4C. TESTING DQUIUMERTS 1IEVIDf PIRFOMED1 us~ NO U3J

s. ZNGIN!:ElUNG DEPAM'M!N'l' APPJIOllAL POil IllPIZM!NTATICl1: us [i;J RO ruJ

~

(i;')

-r

6. QA JIEVIEW @ ~

7. SOIC JllV'lDf CSAI~

~ ~ .~

fl ftO.

e. CZll!DL IWWZll - IAIZM Cl'ZMTICllS .IPPJIOVAZ, POJl IJIPLZNZN'l'ATICl11 'fZS rm 1'0~

IZREJIAI. DDGn ~Al&M CllDATICIE ~

>>-8 1'99* 2 of 3 .RIV. 6

e DESIGN CHANGE REQUEST ~*

PAGE 3 OF w

III

IMPLEMENTATION/EVALUATION l.

2.

PACKAGE NO./WORK ORDER NUMBER(S) 11** TESTING WORX ORDE!tS WORK COMPLETED @

COMPLETE PACKAGE

~

El PARTIAL PACICAGE (REVIEWED WI'l'H SENIOR SUPERVISOR IN OIARGE O"l WO:RX DATE SBlFT SUPERVISOR)

3. C/V TEST PROGRAM COMPLETEO (@ Q StJPDVISOR IN OiARGE OF WOJ'U< DATE JA. PARTIAL DCP DOCUMENTATIOl'I ~EWED Q ~

SENIOR SHIFT StJPERVISOP. DATE 3B. REVIEW/ACCEPTANCE OF C/V TEST RESULTS

i. RATIONAL TEST ENGINEER ~

DA I

4. . OPERATIONAL 'l'ESTING (check one) g CCl!PLETED 5 RESULTS REVIEWED

~

I DEFERJ!ED ONTIL MODE I

. . G.92 Cl'ERATION.AI. TES't ENGINEER wDATE I! s. DEPARTMENT BEAD ~EW

~ *.

' PROCEDUM:

I

6. WORK COMPLETE AND ACCEPTED Q @

IMPLEMENTING DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE I

7. (ii) OPERATING PROCEDUM:S PROCEDtmE NO. :REV. NO./OSC NO. DATE

~ TRIS UPDATED BY DATE I

' ~ STANDllD TAGGING REQUEST BY

! DATE OPERATING ENGINEER DATE i1 PROCEDtmE NO, :REV. NO./OSC NO. DATE ZHGINEER:

PROCEDtmE NO. :REV. NO./OSC NO. i:IATE ZHGINEER:

r

&. QA JIEVIEW @ @

DATE

9. IOJIC llEVIZW @ (@

MEETING NO *.

10. DGilllZ~ BVIDf @ ~

DATE Pon AP-8-l lqe 3 Of 3 11ev. 6

I

~

INITill_L FQ NO .

FI ELD OU EST Imm.~ I PE 000000

I. TO:

PHONE NO.: ..

FROM:

PHONE NO.:

DCP NO.:

ODCN NO. /REV. :

DRAWING NO. :

WORK ORDER NO. : REPLY REQUIRED BY:

II. PROBLEM:

. . I.

I IDENTIFIED BY DATE III. RESOLUTION: NEW ODCN(S) REQUIRED: YES D NOD DCP REVISION ODCN (S) AFFECTED:

IS MINOR BY:

Description:

APPLICABLE RESPONSIBLE TESTING TEST(S) REQUIRED PROCEDURE DEPARTMENT WORK ORDER NO .

Responsible Supervisor/Engineer Date Upon receipt of a completed form, a copy will be forwarded to the responsible department head(s) listed in the matrix above.

This shall not be considered notification that the test is ready to be performed.

Attachment 5 AP-8 Page 2 of 3 Rev. 6 f

A ATTACHMENT 5 A DES~ CHANGE PACKAGE NOTIFICA'.19fN I (PART C)

NOTIFICATION OF READINESS FOR TEST/RETEST

TO: Maintenance Department Technical Department Operations Department Department Head

~- MIET Department Manager - Nuclear Construction Support X Operational Test Engineer Manager - Nuclear Engineering Control~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The following DCP is ready for test/retest:

DCP No. : Unit No. : Work Order No. :

Safety Related: Yes No Account No. :

QA Required: Yes No Authorization No.:

. Fire Protection: Yes No Security Related: Yes No De~cription:

i I

I APPLICABLE TESTING TEST (S ). REQUIRED PROCEDURE WORK ORDER NO.

I.

Originator - Title

..... Depar~ment Upon completion of test(s) required for a DCP in accordapce with this notification, forward a copy of the signed tes~ing Work Order to the initiating department. ..

Attachment 5 AP-8 Page 3 of 3 Rev. 6

~

Enclosure 5 BED'S in Appendix c of SAI Report

,. .* ~

HEDS IN APPENDIX C OF SAI REPORT HED # PAGE # REMARKS 3 6 This discrepancy does not pose a problem to the operators, and it will not degrade their performance from a safety stand point. There is no great effort required to reach the pushbuttons and the panel dimensions are fixed.

5 8 Same as HED #3 13 18 The location of these meters does not impair readability. These meters do not display parameters that are significant to the operators, or to the safe shutdown of the plant. There is no safety

~elated equipment on these panels.

14 22 Same as HED #13 532 56 *The system logic was designed to operate in this manner. The operator action is contingent on the transient.

533 57 There is backup instrumentation e.g. temperature indicators and Doric Scanner.

534 58 Same as HED #533 538 62 The layout of the overhead

annunciator is in essence a method of prioritization. The more important alarms are in the center and the less important alarms are to the left and right.

541 65 The auditory clear tone is distinguishable from the alarm tone. ~he auditory coding is adequate.

Original justification has been reviewed and found to be satisfactory.

D8/7 1/05

==---_:c=====--==------=---- -**

1* ,v HEDS IN APPENDIX C OF SAI REPORT (continued) 540 66 Same as HED #541

716 67 The sound level of the audible alarms is adjustable. These alarms have never failed to elicit operator response.

123 114 This HED will be corrected.

19 119 Red indicates closed for breakers.

Pushbuttons are consistent with the rest of the safeguards system.

This is unique to the Safeguards System.

. 204 405 Even though the controls and indications of the steam dump valves and the relief valves are laid out in a string on the same bezel, the spacing between the controls is adequate and the controls are easily distinguish-able. This discrepancy is not safety significant.

139 410 The safeguard actuation equipment is divided into trains A & B. Each train is on a separate bezel with adequate space between bezels. The bezels are also adequately labeled and easily distinguishable.

114 415 It is difficult to use demarcation techniques on these consoles.

These meters are sequentially grouped by loop and adequately labeled to facilitate easy identification. Hot and cold leg temperatures will be displayed on on the SPDS.

Original justification has been reviewed and found to be satisfactory.

D8/7 2/05

i'

-HEDS IN APPENDIX C OF SAI .REPORT (continued) 116 422 This is not viewed as a problem because the operators are adequately trained on the Hot Shutdown Panel. Also there is no negative transfer because of the large difference in design. For Appendix R, training was done on this panel.

599 427 There is no logical way of demarcating the Radiation Monitors keylock switches.

. 397 428 The laiout of the mimic is based on the logic. The indicators are read to determine lit versus unlit.

146 429 The labeling system employed is adequate in identifying components.

242 435 Onset of light shows operator indication of concern. The service water valve indications are adequately subdivided. Not used as primary means of indication.

.141 437 The controls for the 12 (22) and 13 (i3) Component Cooling Water Pumps are located to the right of the indicators and the 11* (21) controls to the left. The reason for the location of the 11 (21) controls to the left is because of the dual indicator used for the 11 (21) and 12 (22) amperes. The control/

display relationship is considered to be satisfactory and does not pose a safety problem. In all systems; the relationship between controls and displays was reviewed and found to be satisfactory and does not pose a safety problem.

111 438 The pressurizer relief valve controls are grouped together and explicitly labelled. This location is not confusing t6 the operator and is satisfactory.

'Original justification has been reviewed and found to be satisfactory.

D8/7 3/05

HEDS IN APPENDIX C OF SAI REPORT (continued) 37 445 Even though the recorders are on the vertical plane and the controls are on the horizontal plane of the console, the recorders are essentially located above the controls. The association of controls and displays is not a problem with the operators.

38 446 Hot and Cold leg temperatures will be displayed on the SPDS. The recorders are useful for long term monitoring.

133 447 The design intentions were to have controls next to displays, which is an acceptable design, given that miniaturized pushbuttons are used rather than J-handle controls.

134 450 Generally there is consistency in the location of controls to the left of indicators. The operator training program is very effective and the operators are trained for the present control/display orientation.

39 449 These guidelines do not seem to be applicable to the control room as designed. Miniaturized controls help to afford good control/display arrangements.

41 453 The indicators are arranged in accordance with PSE&G separation criteria. The power supply dictates the arrangement. Channel identification is not important to the operators. *

Original justification has been reviewed and found to be satisfactory.

D8/7 4/05

~ ' I

~EDS IN APPENDIX C OF SAI REPORT (continued) 480 455 Auxiliary feedwater controls and indications for #13 Auxiliary Feed Pump are on the same panel.

Because of the types of controls and indications located on this panel (PL-207), the orientation of the panels (PL-213 and PL-207) does not pose a safety problem.

Original.justification has been reviewed and found to be satisfactory.

MHA: ljs 9/10/84 D8/7 5/05

ML18092A285

Contents

Text

3.0 REFERENCES

3.0 REFERENCES

Description:

Navigation menu

ML18092A285

Text

3.0 REFERENCES

3.0 REFERENCES

Description:

Navigation menu

Search