ML20078A637
| ML20078A637 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 09/28/1987 |
| From: | Mcmanus R GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20078A351 | List:
|
| References | |
| PROC-870928, NUDOCS 9406020267 | |
| Download: ML20078A637 (200) | |
Text
. . _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ ._.. __ . . .
i i
J- .
THE VOGTLE PROJECT l 1
i UNIT 2 !
" 4 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM 1 PROCEDURES MANUAL ,
i i
\
l l
l n
1 MANUAL NUMBER: 34 ISSUED TO: M. V. Sink ul e ORGANIZATION: US, NRC - Region II DATE: September 28, 1987 l
T l
. _ ,n e PDR P
i
PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROG RAM PROCEDURES (v"~}
FO REWORD The Vogtle Project Readiness Review Program Procedures Manual establishes procedures, methods, and instructions to be followed by all Readiness Revi ew Program personnel in the performance of their duties. Also, interfaces with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are described in this ma nual.
Controlled copies of this manual are dist ributed to Readiness Review Program team leaders and to those people designated by l1 Readine ss Review Program management. It is the responsibility of those people tr. supervisory positions to ensure that subordinates are trained in and are familiar with procedures cont ained herein.
Manual holders are expected to become f amilier with the manual and to use it in their work. New or revised procedu res are ef fective upon distribution and shall be implemented immediately.
O ,
t I
l
/ l i
'/dL-- ' '
R. W. McManus l Readiness Review Program Manager Date: /0 Nov87 U
05 7 5M /314-7 i
March 17, 1968
()
UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES MANUAL DISTRIBUTION Manual Number Issued To Manual Number Issued To 1 R. W. McManus 20 D. W. Strohman 2 D. L. Edenfield 21 G. Bockhold, Jr.
3 P. R. Thomas 22 A. L. Musbaugh 4 R. C. Sommerfeld 23 F. R. Timmons 5 M. G. Upchurch 24 H. M. Handfinger 6 NA 25 D. M. Fiquett 7 J. P. O'Reilly 26 C. W. Rau 8 NA 27 NA 9 P. D. Rice 28 L. N. Brooks 10 R. H. Pinson 29 A. W. Harrelson
/ 11 W. C. Ramsey 30 NA
\ 12 D. E. Dutton '31 D. L. Kinnsch 13 R. A. Thomas 32 J. P. Hawley 14 C. T. Moore 33 R. J. Gross 15 D. T. King 34 M. V. Sinkule (2) 16 J. A. Bailey 35 M. V. Sinkule 17 C. W. Hayes 36 A. B. Gallant 18 E. D. Groover 37 W. G. Uhouse '
19 G. A. Yunker 38 R. J. Schepens Original: B. J. Dann
/
1
\w.
0575M/076-0 2
PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES s
DATE ISSUED: March 17, 1988 CHANGE LOG Procedure Revision Date
- 1. 0 08-06-87
- 2. 0 08-06-87 3.1 0 08-06-87 3.2 0 08-06-87 3.3 0 09-21-87 3.4 0 08-10-87 3.5 0 08-10-87
- 4. 0 08-06-87
- 5. 1 11-10-87
- 6. 0 08-06-87
- 7. Reserved NA 8.1 0 08-06-87 8.2 2 02-24-88 8.3 0 08-06-87 8.4 0 08-05-87 8.5 0 01-19-88 b '
0575M/076-8 r
4 01-21-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2
[\- READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES MANUAL Table of Contents (Sheet 1 of 4) .
Section 1. Program Description 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Objective 1.3 Scope Section 2. Organization and Responsibilities 2.1 Purpose 2.2 Organization ,
2.2.1 Readiness Review Board 2.2.2 Readiness Review Task Force 2.3 Responsibilities 2.3.1 Readiness Review Board 2.3.2 Readiness Review Task Force Quality Assurance O 2.3.3 2.3.4 Project Engineering, Project Construction, Project Start-up, and ;
Nuclear Operations 2.4 Qualifications 2.4.1 Readiness Review Program Manager 2.4.2 Readiness Review Team Member Section 3. Readiness Review Process 3.1 Conduct of Review 3.1.1 Purpose 3.1.2 General +
3.2 Commitment Identification and Implementation 3.2.1 Purpose 3.2.2 Scope 3.2.3 Responsibilities 3.2.4 Commitment Definition 3.2.5 Commitment Identification 3.2.6 Preparation of Commitment Matrix fs 3.2.7 Commitment Implementation 3.2.8 Revised or Added Commitments ,
0097P/021-8 )
l I
+
b
01-21-88 "
PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2
/~N READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM k_) PROCEDURES MANUAL Table of Contente (Sheet 2 of 4) 3.3 Unit 1 Finding Followup 3.
3.1 Purpose and Scope
3.3.2 Scope 3.3.3 Responsibilities 3.3.4 Identification and Listing of Findings 3.3.5 Project Action 3.3.6 Readiness Review Action 3.4 Module Scopes 3.4.1 Purpose 3.4.2 Scope 3.4.3 Responsibilities 3.4.4 Program Scope 3.4.5 Scope Statements Appendix 1 3.5 Unit 2 Assessment 3.5.1 Purpose 3.5.2 Scope 3.5.3 General 3.5.4 Personnel 3.5.5 Assessment Sample Deletion or i Substitution i 3.5.6 Checklists 3.5.7 Evaluation of Assessment Results l l
Section 4. Readiness Review Task Force - Quality Assurance ,
Interface 1 4.1 Purpose 4.2 Scope 4.3 Responsibilities !
4.4 Interface Activities l l
Section 5. Preparation of Unit 2 Modules 5.1 Purpose 5.2 Scope 5.3 Responsibilities 5.4 Module Content 5.5 Writing of Modules and General Appendixes 0097P/021-8 m
01-21-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2
/ READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM
'\_j, PROCEDURES MANUAL Table of Contents (Sheet 3 of 4)
Section 6. Assessment of Module Adequacy 6.1 Purpose 6.2 Scope 6.3 Responsibilities 6.4 General 6.5 Assessment Procedure 6.5.1 Readiness Review Team Members 6.5.2 Responsible Project Organizations 6.5.3 Quality Assurance 6.5.4 Readiness Review Program Manager 6.5.5 Readiness Review Board Section 7.
Section 8. Administrative Controls 8.1 Procedure Preparation and Control O 8.1.1 Purpose 8.1.2 Scope 8.1.3 Responsibilities 8.1.4 Format 8.1.5 Content 8.1.6 Initiation 8.1.7 Disposition, Return, and Transfer of Manuals 8.2 Deficiency Reporting 8.2.1 Purpose 8.2.2 Scope 8.2.3 Responsibilities 8.2.4 Initiation and Processing 8.2.5 Resolution and Closure 8.3 Responding to NRC Items 8.3.1 Purpose 8.3.2 Scope 8.3.3 Processing NRC Items l 1
l
"~\
(G 0097P/021-8 i
1
5 I
01-21-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2
.I ') READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM
\~s' PROCEDURES MANUAL Table of Contents (Sheet 4 of 4) 8.4 Training 8.4.1 Indoctrination 8.4.2 Specific Training 8.4.3 Implementation 8.5 Safeguards Information Control 8.5.1 Purpose 8.5.2 Scope 8.5.3 Responsibilities 8.5.4 General b
v i
o 0097P/021-8
I 8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2
,- RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES
()
- 1. PROGRAM DESCRI PTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the Unit 2 Readiness Review Program is to provide a systematic and disciplined review of Georgia Power Company's (GPCs) implement ation of design , construction, and initial test program processes to increase the assurance that quality program activities for Plant Vogtle have been accomplished in accordance l with licensing connitments.
l 1.2 OBJECTIVE The Unit 2 Readiness Review Program is a GFC self-initiated management system developed in follow-up of the Unit 1 Readiness Review Program and results to accomplish the following objectives:
1 o Identify changes in the Unit 2 programs and work processes f rom those described and assessed in the Unit 1 Readiness Review modules, o Provide an in-depth self-assessment of the appropriate Unit 2 work processes and conduct separate management overview of the self-assessment process and its concl usions .
l o Further assure the early identification of any problems or concerns and ensure their correction in a timely ma nn 9r .
o Identify and follow-up on findings and corrective actions resulting from the Unit 1 Readiness Review process to preclude repetition of past problems during Unit 2.
o Provide a mechanism for the early resolution of nny dif ferences between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and GPC interpretation of Unit 2 regulatory requirements and the acceptance criteria.
o Provide a system that will f acilitate the NRC's review, inspection, appropriate action, and approval of the acceptability of Plant Vogtle Unit 2 work processes on an advanced Readiness Review basis.
() Revision: 0 Issue Date: September 28, 1987 P~
Rea8iness Review Program Manager l
0098P/218-7
g.
8-6-87
(-
PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O
PROCEDURES l l
l 0 Provide a planning system, including GPC prepared and i NRC accepted milestone schedules, for the order 1.y conduct of the separate actions of GPC and NRC.
1.3 SCOPE The Plant Vogtle Unit 2 Readiness Review Program is an addition to the Unit 1 activities and translates the products of the Unit 1 program into useful management tools. As sessme nt of Vogtle Unit 2 activities, in general, address the following:
o The listing of design and construction licensing, commitments and implementing. documents identified in the ,
p Unit 1 Readiness Review Program will be maintained and updated through the completion of Unit 2. Commitments unique to Unit 2, if any, will be identified and added to the listing. Nuclear Operations has responsibility for maintenance of Unit 1 operations licensing commitments apart f rom Readiness Review.
o Unit 2 activities to be assessed include design, i O construction, and Initial Test Program Preoperational Test Phase.
o Assessments include programmatic and technical attributes for evaluation. During Unit 1 Readiness Review, assessment of design technical attributes was l covered in-depth in the Independent Design Review. Due ;
to the commonality of design bases, criteria, and specif.ications, and the advanced stage of design work at the time of the Unit 1 Readiness Review, ' a separate Unit 2 Independent Design Review will not be conducted. 1 Rather , any applicable attributes or follow-up on Unit.1 ;
findings are covered by the specific Unit 2 modules.
o The results of Unit 1 Readiness Review module assessments, along with applicable NRC inspections, and other sources such as Inspection and Enforcement bulletins r Quality Assurance audits, etc., are evaluated ~
to assist the direction of the Unit 2 program. The results of these evaluations are u"ed to determine those Unit 1 module areas that require - a Unit 2 assessment.
0098P/218-7 1-2 j i
1 1
8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 ,
RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM !
7s
() PROCEDURES I
- 2. ORGANI ZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES I
2.1 PURPOSE This procedure describes the Unit 2 Readiness Review Program organization and responsibilities of the Readiness Review i Program Task Force and others with specific activities within 1 Readiness Review Program scope. -Qualifications of the Readiness Review Task Force personnel are also included in this procedure.
1 1
2.2 ORGANIZATION The Unit 2 Readiness Review Program organization is comprised of the Readiness Review Board, the Readiness Review Task Force, Project Engineering, Project Construction, Project Start-up, Nuclear Operations, and Quality Assurance (QA) .
2.2.1 READINESS REVIEW BOARD The Readiness Review Board consists of the following members:
(V~')
o Southern Company Services (SCS) Vice President -
Nuclear. (Chairman, Readiness Review Board) .
o GPC Vogtle Project Engineering Manager, i 1
o GPC Vice President Vogtle Construction.
o SCS Executive Consultant - Licensing.
o GPC General Manager, Vogtle Project Support.
o GPC General Manager, Corporate Quality Assurance, o Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation Vice President and Senior Engineering Manager.
o Readiness Review Program Manager (Secretary and i non-voting member) . l g-~ Revi sion: 0 Issue Date: September 28, 1987 l
(- /
3 Re'adiness Review Program Manager 0099P/218-7
4 8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM
(. PROCEDURES 2.2.2 RE ADINESS REVIEW TASK FORCE The Readiness Review Task Force is comprised of the Readiness Review program manager, technical team members, and support personnel. The Readiness Review Task Force reports to the GPC general manager, Vogtle Project Support.
Additionally, a module consultant, to provide off-project expertise, may be utilized, as needed, at the discretion of the Readiness Review program manager or the Readiness Review Board.
2.3 RESPONSIBILITIES ,
2.3.1 READINESS REVIEW BOARD o Meet as directed by the Chairman, Readiness Review Board but no less f requently than quarterly.
o Review the adequacy of Readiness Review Program implementation and the results of audits and assessments, o Identify Board members who will serve as module sponsors to monitor module development activities as descticed in procedure 6.
o Provide final approval of module results and conclusions.
2.3.2 READINESS REVIEW TASK FORCE I l
The Readiness Review Task Force, through the program manager , is I responsible f or : l l
o Management of overall scope, direction, and schedule of this assessment program, o Maintenance of design / construction /preoperational test phase licensing commitments until Unit 2 Fuel Load. 1 o Identification and consolidation of findings and i corrective actions as a result of Unit 1 Readiness Review, o Preparation of Unit 2 assessment plans.
I o Review of QA's implementation of the Unit 2 assessment g, plans and evaluation of the assessment results.
I 2-2 i
1 8-6-87 l
PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 I r~ READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM i
()g PROCEDURES i
1 o Consolidation of Readiness Review Program assessments into Unit 2 Readiness Review modules.
1 o Providing program status for Senior Project Management and the Project Management Board.
o E st a blis hme nt of the necessary management , control, and training f or program implementation.
o Promulgation of Readiness Review Board review results to the appropriate organization.
o Preparation of agenda and minutes of the Readiness Review Board meetings, o Interaction with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
2.3.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE Project QA is responsible for:
O o Implementation of the assessment plans generated by the Unit 2 Readinesc Review Task Force, using QA personnel supplemented by personnel with technical expertise in the area under evaluation.
o Continuation of their system of audits as described in the Project QA program.
Additionally, corporate QA will audit conf ormance to these procedures by all program entities.
2.3.4 PROJECT ENGINEERING, PROJECT CONSTRUCTION, PROJECT START-UP, AND NUCLEAR OPERATIONS These organizations shall:
o Ensure that licensing commitments in their area of responsibility are properly implemented and included in implementing document s.
o Provide evidence to the Readiness Review Task Force that new or revised commitments have been implemented.
o Ensure that findings resulting f rom Unit 1 Readiness
/['g Review have resulted in Unit 2 program and work activity
(_) changes where appropriate and as committed.
f 2-3
G t
, 8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2
("N READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM (s,) PROCEDURES o Provide evidence to the Readiness Review Task Force that the Unit 1 Readiness Review findings have been evaluated
< for inpact and, if appropriate, implemented in Unit 2.
i o Provide Readiness Review with details of changes in project organization or programs f rom that described in the Unit 1 modules.
o Provide responses to findings resulting f rom Unit 2 assessments.
l 2.4 pUALIFICATIONS .
The following qualifications are minimum requirements for the positions indicated. Team members not meeting all requirements as indicated may be acceptable provided the Readiness Review program manager provides written justification as tc the acceptability of the individual. Resumes of all Readiness Review Task Force personnel shall be maintained in Readiness Review Program files.
2.4.1 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM MANAGER o Bachelor of Science in engineering or engineering technology, or be a Professional Engineer.
o Minimum ten years experience in design or construction, o Minimum five years nuclear design / construction ma nag ement exper i enc e.
2.4.2 READINESS REVIEW TEAM MEMBER o Minimum Associate of Science in engineering or
]
engineering technology or Bachelor of Science in j physical science.
o Supervisory experience in the specific nuclear design, construction, or startup discipline, o Minimum five years nuclear design or construction expe rie nc e.
O 0099P/218-7 2-4
.g 8-6-87 PLANT VGGTLE UNIT 2
() RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROtEDURES
- 3. READINESS REVIEW PROCESS i I
3.1 CONDUCT OF REVIEW '
i I
3.1.1 PURPOSE
[
This procedure outlines the elements of the Unit 2 Readiness Review Program. i 3.1.2 GENERAL The Unit 2 Readiness Review process consists of four activities i that are discussed below:
o Commitment Identification and Implementation i During the Unit 1 Readiness Review Program the Task {'
Force performed a syr amatic review of licensing documents and identitied the Project commitments for O design, construction, and operations. The list of commitn:ents with the corresponding list of documents that implement the commitments were segregated by module i
l and rece ved NRC review and concurrence. .The Unit 2 i effort parforms a review of the same documents for any ;
Unir i specific commitments and also reviews FSAR ;
amendments and any~ additional letters to the NRC and '
updates and maintains . cur rent for Unit 2 the listing of !
licensing commitments and their implementing documents. !
In this regard, design, construction, and preoperational l test phase commitments are maintained by Readiness '
Review while operations commitments are maintained by i Nucl ear Operations.
To ensure completeness, Readiness Review supplies these I i
lists of licensing commitments and implementing ;
documents to the appropriate project organize. tion who is !
responsible for providing feedback to Readisees Review ~
as to the method and documentation of u " . ment ation.
a Readiness Review as a part of the assessment will sample l commitments within each. applicable module scope and ;
ascertain by examination of Project implementation (i.e. , calculations, drawings , and construction ,
L Revis on: 0 Issue Date: September 28, 1987 i
_ M' Re diness Review Program Manager 1 0012P/218-7 l
s 1 l
8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2
() READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES processes, etc. , for conformance) whether such information on implementation is cor rect. I o Unit 1 Finding Follow-tip A list of findings and corrective actions as a result of l
the Unit 1 Readiness Review Program has been ' established for use by the Project to assist in avoiding a repeat of !
past problems. The list'contains the findings -
identified by Readiness Review and the NRC, coded by module, applicable program activities, and cause ot i deficienc y. i The Project will use this document to ensure that Unit 2 !
programs and processes preclude recur rence of the ,
problem. The Project will provide feedback to Readiness Review as to Unit 2 actions taken. Readiness. Review will include an assessment of this process as a part of f the Unit 2 modules. -
As a special case of follow-up, the readiness of the Unit 2 security systeni is incorporated into the Unit 2 '
Readiness Review with f orticular emphasis on tie review '
[\m/~') of programmatic changcs to ensure the correction of security problems identified in Unit 1. l
'i o Unit 2 Assessments In the Unit 1 Readiness Review Program modules, !
Readiness Review assessed the adequacy of design, !
construction, and readiness for operation of Unit 1. !
Unit 2 assessment activities evaluate Unit 2 design, ;
construction, and preoperational test phase to ensure that compliance to licensing commitments has been j ma int ai ned. Additionally, an assessment of the planning !
and implementation of Unit 2 plant security is performed.
In developing the Unit 2 assessment plans, the following !
features are considered: ;
- Implementation of cor rective action of applicable l Unit 1 Readiness Review findings into Unit 2 ,
activities. !
1
- NRC findings and comments f rom Unit 1 Readiness Review i applicable to Unit 2. '
gs - Results of Units 1 and 2 Quality Assurance audits and i
_,) NRC inspections subsequent to Unit 1 Readiness Review. !
- Industry issues.
3.1-2
[
t 8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM Ii PROCEDURES U
The plan includes guidelines on the extent of evaluation to be conducted and assessment details. The completed and management-approved plan is implemented by Readiness Review in accordance with the details of the plan.
As se ssme nt activities for Unit 2 are developed based on the Unit 1 Readiness Review and NRC findings, the status of completion of Unit 2 activities during Unit 1 Readiness Review, and whether there have been significant changes in organization or program details for Unit 2 from that evaluated in Unit 1.
o Unit 2 Modules and Appendices Af ter completion of Unit 2 assessment activities, Readiness Review will publish a Unit 2 module.
Typically, a module includes:
- An updated commitment and implementation matrix.
- A program description that includes identification of significant changes f rom the Unit 1 program.
- A list of audits and NRC inspections conducted s ubseq uent to the Unit 1 modules.
- A list of the Unit 1 Readiness Review Program findings and actions taken in Unit 2.
- Results of Unit 2 assessment .
A U
0012P/218-7 3.1-3
8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2
- READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM I)
O PROCEDURES 3.2 COMMITMENT IDENTIFICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION 3.2.1 PURPOSE This procedure provides direction for the identification of licensing commitments, establishment and control of a commitment data base, assignment of commitments to modules / appendixes, and identification of implementing documents.
3.2.2 SCOPE This procedure applies to preparation of commitment and implementation mat rixes f or Unit 2. As in the Unit 1 Readiness Review program, commitments relative to Westinghouse activities as the Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) supplier are omitted.
Operations commitments are maintained by Nuclear Operations in response to Nuclear Operations procedures.
3.2.3 RESPONSIBILITIES CT
(_) Readiness Review Task Force Readiness Review is responsible for the control and maintenance of design and construction commitments and the identification of those commitments to the responsible Project organization for determining implementation. Additionally, the task force is re sponsible f or f ollow-up of commitment implementation (procedure 3.5) and inclusion of the commitment and implementation matrixes into the modules (procedure 5) .
Project (Design, Construction, and Startup Organizations)
The Project is responsible f or verification of commitment implementation of licensing commitments and supplying Readiness Review with the results of their review.
3.2.4 JOMMITMENT DEFINITION A commitment is an obligation, as described in the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) or correspondence with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), to comply with an industry standard, Regulatory Guide
/
(_) Revi ion: 0 Issue Date: September 28, 1987 R6adiness Review Program Manager 0100P/218-7
8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM
() PROCEDURES (RG), Branch Technical Position (BTP), or owner-plan of specific action. For the purpose of Readiness Review, source documents for licensing commitment identification will be the VEGP FSAR and cor respondence to the NRC includi ng , specifically, correspondence pertaining to Inspection and Enforcement (I&E) bulletins and generic letters. Cor respondence pertaining to NRC Inspection Reports and/or findings or reportable deficiencies [10 CFR 50.55(e)} is tracked by other Project programs. A file copy of each commitment source, described above, is maintained and will be kept current by posting amendments to the FSAR and filing of cor respondence between Georgia Power Company and the NRC. Within these source documents, design, construction, and preoperational test phase commitments f or saf ety-related activities will be identified.
Examples of commitments, to the extent described in the VEGP FSAR, are:
o American Concrete Institute ( ACI) 318-71.
o BTP-CMEB 9.5-1.
o American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) III, Division 1, NCA-2000.
o American National Standards Institute (ANSI) N45.2-2.
o United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission RG 1.55. l i
o Cited Technical Reports utilized as design basis or )
methodology.
o Specific design and/or construction considerations.
o Specific standards of acceptance.
I o Specific cited technical data used as a design basis and/or unique design methodology.
Descriptions, detailed data and/or parameters resulting f rom i design activities, general codes, and regulations are not generally considered licensing commitments for this program. l These include:
o Dimensions, o System operational concepts or operational descriptions, j
( o References to general bodies such as 10 CFR 50, ASME, 5 ACI (specific requirements f rom such bodies, however,
\ are commitments).
3,2-2
a l .
18-6-87 l TLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 l REl.DINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O PROCEDURES ,
o Design calculation details (e.g. , streng th parameters, l flow rates).
o Listings of inf ormation (tables, figures, etc.) which are presented for reader reference purposes or are ;
summaries of specific commitments identified elsewhere.
3.2.5 COMMITMENT IDENTIFICATION Commitments are identified th rough a detailed review of the FSAR. i and the other source documents. A controlled copy of the FSAR is maintained and updated for the use by the task force. .;
The logic diagram (Figure 3.2-1) shall be used as a guide in ;
properly identifying licensing commitments. These guidelines r were developed to support the definition of a commitment and to ,
aid in maintaining consistency in the identification process. !
I An item f rom a source document qualifies as a commitment when it t is a stated obligation to a standard, code, or specific i licensing basis or is categorized into one of the indicated O areas defining owner-plans of specific action. Once identified, each commitment will be assigned to the appropriate module (s) . l Items considered questionable as commitments, after following l the logic diagrams or guidelines, shall be resolved by the Readiness Review program manager. .The above process was performed in Unit 1 Readiness Review and a data base was compiled current to the FSAR amendment ef fective for each module.
3.2.6 PREPARATION OF COMMITMENT MATRIX The Readiness Review Task Force utilizes the data base compiled for Unit 1 as a base from which a Unit 2 data base is developed . New commitments, or revisions to existing commitments, identified f rom FSAR amendments or other source documents are entered on a commitment edit sheet (Figure 3.2-2). The edit sheets are routed to the applicable
' team members for review. After-review, the new/ revised
' commitments are entered into the commitment data base. These additions and revisions are incorporated into the data base and >
a Unit 2 commitment matrix is published for use by the task force and the Project.
Readiness Review utilizes a personal computer to store commitments that have been identified. Commitments are stored O in a data base.
Figure 3.2-3.
The structure of the data base is identified in 3.2-3
8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM
'f' PROCEDURES 3.2.7 COMMITMENT IMPIEMENTATION During the Unit 1 program, Readiness Review identified project documents implementing each licensing commitment. Commi tme nt s and implementing documents were tabulated in an implementation matrix and published in the Unit 1 module reports. Each module implement ation matrix was cur rent as to the module date and FSAR amendment identified in the report.
Af ter publication of the Unit 1 modules, Readiness Review re-baselined the module implementation matrixes to a common date and FSAR amendment. The commitments for each module, cur re nt to the common date, were compared to the commitments published in the Unit 1 module report. Implementing documents were identified f or each changed or new commitment and were entered into the implementation matrix data base.
Readiness Review then maintained the commitment and implement ation matrixes, updating both for changed or new commitments upon issue of an FSAR amendment.
For the Unit 2 Readiness Review Program, Readiness Review
[\ continues to update commitments, but the Project has assumed
\~s responsibility for updating implement ation data. The implementation matrix, tabulating cur rent commitment data and the irplementation data as maintained to the conclusion of the Unit 1 Readiness Review Program, is f orwarded to the Project.
Upon receipt, the Project will verify that the information contained f or commitment implementation is cor rect by comparison of that information to current controlling documents. Where implementing documents have been revised, the Project will verify that the current revision continues to implement the commitment or take action to implement the commitment and identify corrective actions for work or processes that may be in noncompliance to the commitments. For newly identified commitments, the Project will identify controlling documents that implement the commitments.
Updated commitment implementation information will be returned
- o Readiness Review by the Readiness Review established response cate. The preferred method of response is identificat..on of changes in red on a copy of the list. Upon receipt of the updated implementation information, the data base will be updated.
3.2.8 REVISED OR ADDED COMMITMENTS
() Subsequent to receipt of the updated commitment implementation information from the Project, any commitments that change (due 3.2-4
8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O PROCEDURES to later amendments, letters, etc.) will be re-submitted to the Project f or additional implementation updating.
I h
f 8 P O
t L
O 0100P/218-7 3.2-5
h i
i 8-6-87 .
f- PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 :
( RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM l PROCEDURES mm F5Aa GENE meC LE TTE NSIRESPONSES I&E SULLFTINS/ RESPONSES + ITEM Nmc OUESTIONS/ RESPONSES II I
STATE D OSLIGATION TO A LICENSING BASES CF R. mG STP.COOES AND Y ES STOS STATED CODES AND STDS IN ADDITION TO LICENSING B ASES NO V
to SPECIPtC PL AN OF ACTION.
l Ex ALLOWASLE DESIGN LIMITS STIPULATED DESICE.
O SPECIPIC CONSTR DETAILS.
LOADS /COMS.. SCALING AND SAFETY P ACTORS N ION, PROCUREMET DE FEBOPREATICEAL TEST PEASE REQUIRE M NT vgg L j NO lf a
I Ex TOLkR ANCES MINIMUM WALL YES l TMIC KN ESS . STIPUL AT E D -> ACCEPT ANCE REQUIREMENT n )
MATEnl AL STRENGTHS 100 C YES Ex S ECMTE L. WESTINGMOUSE -+ TECMhtCAL REPORT C l NO if 1 0 !
Em FINITE ELEMENT SPECIFIC METHOD Op VES AN ALYSIS AN ALYSts (UNIQUti lNO Y
E Ea T R AINING On OV ALiflC ATION SPECIPIC UTILlyy VES pmOCmaMS PROQRAM i NO ' 1 1I l ;
111 pOR DISCUSSaON COMMITMENT
{"o y NO COMMITMSNT le4PL EMENT ATION )
3.2-1 (Sheet 1 of 2) ,
Commitment Identification )
l l
l 3.2-6 ;
I l
9 8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 g READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM Q PROCEDURES GUIDELINES FOR COMMITMENT IMPLEMENTATION o Source materials received and reviewed.
o Is a statement made to comply or conform to a specific standard, regulatory guide, branch technical position, etc. (must be specific, not a motherhood or general statement: 1.e., 10 CFR 50, ACI, or ASME)?
o If it is not a stated obligation to licensing basis, is the statement a stipulated design or construction requirement, acceptance requirement, a specific and/or unique method of analysis, a specific utility training or qualification program, or a reference to a technical report used as design basis? (See examples on logic chart).
o If the response to any of the above is yes, the statement is a commitment. If still uncertain, discuss with respective team leaders.
Items not generally considered commitments:
o General codes / standards.
- o Dimensions, o System descriptions.
o System operation descriptions.
o Design calculation parameters.
o Flow rates, etc.
Key works used in identifying commitments include:
o will. (a) o shall. (a) o Conform to.
- a. Not applicable to dimensions, descriptions, or system operational (functional) descriptions.
P (O,/. 3.2-1 (Sheet 2 of 2)
Commitment Identification 3.2-7
m 9
B-6-87 l PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM
_ (] PROCEDURES V
dr- , <
.3 g
i l
' i .' 4 i
t . !
l E l."
l I l !
l : i l.
11 x!Ui9-lI '!,
l
- I:
, i,
.j E :
. _ . . .! .I i.
.i .i . .. !,
8' +
' l30",! l ' 1 - . .. .i ' . ,g I I li
.l.'6..
. ..J, ,
- ,; . [ ,
! ;-- - :... . i .
. .. .4j.. .. ;,..,.7.....
1[5; .. ll 't
, l i.
, ,l i
i ;
.! , s i -<
---+r r---
r : i: .
i,.
!i!
r --- ,
i l . l- ii- ti- ,j 'l ;.
! ,! , l ,.: ,
l i
- t .
l L l
!lii.!,
l '
gig i
il i
,l ;
_E :: -
l 1 i -
s- : -
g,:: f t:: , i I , . i ii i t w fii i; l l ,'l 'i '
/~ is 2 l' +1-I a: . .t r
\ t;:a:
w=:
i:
i l 'l .
I ! . , l; i-
===:
! i. :
es : i: ,
- 1 W : ,
g o
"H' :- g.: ,
- : E~;:
EE: ..____.. .___. ._.. _ .._ . .__.
- I
! E i Es:: I i c: :
.E:
i
- x. . . ,,ii
!, i tl i..
v- 4
- i,,..
- 'q .
,. . l i . ,. *
- i !
,I" . ::' ,
i l., I .
i,i i
, ii , ; i, l ,
,!v :, 'll i,l
!*[gl
- i j.
i i i.
j,i .'
c: ;! i' .
! ] [4 i R{: ;
ll li !! 4
,' l. l I !' '
il i - ! i l4 ,. . , , .. , , , -. _ _l_.- __. .i _i_.l . .i
- r :l , ! .: ._.. I i i!
!! l il i
= . :. j2 l:I .:
i ., 1 4
r -
If .
- E f , i, j ;1 ;
i l ll I I
l l
O 3.2-2 !
Commitment Edit Sheet I i
l 1
3.2-8 l l
- I
e'
. 8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2
(
g READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES FIELD FIELD NAME TYPE WIDTH 1 EDITNO Numeric 8
~
2 NUMBER Numeric 8 3 SOURCE Character 20 4 SECTION Character 25 5 SUBJECT Character 200 6 COMMITMENT Character 200 O,N 7 MODULE Character 34 8 DES Character 1 9 CONST Character 1 10 REMARKS Character 200 11 AMENDMENT Numeric 2 12 REBASECHG Character 1 13 CHANGEDATE Date 8 14 IMPLEMENTN Character 254 0100P/218-7 (Figure 3.2-3 COMMIT.DBF STRUCTURE) ,
4 3.2-9 ,
g f.
l; 9-21-87 !
PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2
("3
.(,)
READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES ,
t
, 3.3 UNIT 1 FINDING FOLLOW-UP I
. i 3.3.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE !
This procedure provides direction for developing the list of !
Unit 1 findings identified during the Unit 1 Readiness Review by either Readiness Review or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The list is used by the Project to ensu re findings ;
applicable to Unit 2 are factored into programs and practices to preclude recur rence.
3.3.2 SCOPE i
This procedure applies to the process of establishing a list of findings f rom Unit 1 Readiness Review and the Unit 2 assessment of the applicability of those findings and implementation of ,
corrective actions.
3.3.3 RESPONSIBILITIES Readiness Review Task Force (Readiness Review)
Prepate a list of Unit 1 Readiness Review findings and NRC deficiencies f rom Unit 1 Readiness Review.
Project Determine the applicability of Unit 1 findings to Unit 2 and, where applicable, verif y tha t the Unit 2 programs and practices incorporate the corrective action identified for the Unit 1 findings. Provide justification to support a determination that a finding is not applicable to Unit 2 and provide feedback to Readiness Review as to Unit 2 actions taken.
3.3.4 IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF FINDINGS The Readiness Review Task Force identifies the valid findings (both the NRC and Readiness Review) f rom the Unit 1 design, const ruction, initial test program modules, appendices, and Ind epend ent Design Review (IDR) . Once identified, each finding is entere6 into a computerized data base (named Trends) to ;
Revisi n: 0 Issue Date: September 28, 1987
, WM -
Readiness Review Program Manager 0111P/264-7 !
9-21-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROG RAM r PROCEDURES include the applicable module, finding leve3., findi ng d esc rip t ion, and cor rective action.
Once all the findings are entered into the data base, a mat rix sorted by module and finding number is printed and provided to the Project.
3.3.5 PROJECT ACTION The li st of findings provided by Readiness Review is an abbreviation of the total stated finding and cor rective action.
To fully understand the finding and cor rective action, the response as published in the Unit 1 module should be reviewed.
Each finding will be evaluated and categorized for applicability to Unit 2 as follows:
- 1. Isolated instance /one tine cor rective action For Unit 1 findings where the Unit 1 investigative action determined the finding isolated with cor rection of the O specific deficiency and without other cor rective action (procedure revision, et c) . No additional action required.
- 2. Corrective action remaias identical and acceptable For Unit 1 findings that required revision to procedures or practices with Unit 1 cor rective action remaining in ef fect as published in the Unit 1 module.
Findings in this category shall include a description of investigative actions taken to verify correctness of this statement and should be supported by identification of the .
Unit 2 sample selection or procedure excerpts. ?
Additionally, the investigative action must verif y that the Unit 1 corrective action has been in ef fect during or applicable to all Unit 2 work.
- 3. Cor rective action has changed '
This category includes cases where the corrective action may !
have been eliminated or enhanced as a result of program evolution.
3.3-2
l g 9-21-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 gs RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM
( j PROCEDURES Finding cor rective actions in this category require description of the deletion or changes with j u st i f i ca tion .
- 4. Cor rective action not entirely ef fective Unit 2 follow-up of the findings may identify that cor rective action was not adequat e. If this occurs, the response must identify the problem and describe what actions are being taken to determine the extent , t ract and cor rect the deficiencies, and additional cor rective action to prevent recur rence.
Response to each finding shall be returned to Readiness Review by the date specified by Readiness Review in the letter t ra n smi t ting the findings matrix to the Project.
3.3.6 READINESS REVIEW ACTION Af ter receiving the Project response f or each finding, Reediness Review will evaluate each response and determine whether the information supplied is adequate to support the categorization
/~N of each finding. Additionally, findings classified as
(_ "cor rective action has changed" or "cor rective action not entirely ef fective" will be evaluated for acceptability of the revised cor rective action.
Upon acceptance of the Project response, the Readiness Review team member shall enter the Unit 2 finding category (as described in Section 3.3.5 above ) in the matrix under the heading " Description of Unit 2 Follow-up Action". Findings for Category 3, cor rective action has changed and 4, cor rective action not entirely ef fective shall also contain a brief description of the condition in an attachment to the table. The remarks column shall be used to identif y the location of this information.
Unit 1 finding follow-up is used as a source of information in the Unit 2 assessment as desc ribed in procedure 3.5.
OlllP/ 2 6 4- 7 Ov 3.3-3
8-10-87 )
- 1 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 l READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM
!f\_/
S) PROCEDU RES 3.4 MODULE SCOPES 3.4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this procedure is to present the scope of each module and appendix, the relationships between them, and how each is addressed in the Unit 2 Readiness Review Program.
3.4.2 SCOPE This procedure applies to those modules and appendixes t, hat discuss const ruction, design, or preoperational test phase ac tivi ties.
3.4.3 RESPONSIBILITIES The Readiness Review Board approves the module scopes.
The Readiness Review program manager provides overall administration of the Readiness Review team activities,
(~}
v The Readiness Review teams perform the initial module scoping and ensure that subsequent module activities adhere to the defined scope.
3.4.4 PROGRAM SCOPE As discussed in procedure sections 1. and 3.1, the Unit 2 Readiness Review Program extends the Unit 1 pilot program into Unit 2. The Unit 2 program uses the Unit 1 pilot program results as a base and concentrates on identifying and examining changes to the programs and organizations assessed in Unit 1 and examining design, installation, and preoperational test phase activities performed since the Unit 1 pilot program for that module concluded. Programs that have been added are also included in the Unit 2 prog ram, as well as some programs that were not examined by Readiness Review in Unit 1, but which experienced some dif ficulty during unit completion or preoperational testing (plant s ecu ri ty , as an example). The module and appendix scopes presented in Section 3.4.5 of this procedure include the total scope of the Unit 2 design, construction, and preoperational test phase testing programs.
i 13j Revis'o -
0 Issue Date: September 28, 1987 3
Re5diness' ReVi ew Program Ma nager 0105P/222-7
8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O
i PROCEDURE S I l
The scope of the Unit 2 Readiness Review Program is summarized i on Table 3.4-1. The Unit 2 design and procurement activities, H civil /struct ural and backfill activities, tendon installation, ,
and diesel generator activities were essentially complete at the i time of the Unit I review and were conducted under the programs !
examined in Unit 1. Re-assessment of these activities is not :
necessary and the Unit 2 Readiness Review Program related to '
these activities is limited in nature. Activities performed by Nuclear Operations subsequent to Unit 2 fuel load will be :
conducted under the controls of the plant procedures now utilized for operation of Unit 1 and are not included in the Unit 2 Readiness Review Program. !
3.4.5 SCOPE STATEMENTS Appendix 1 of this procedure provides a description of the scope of each module and the relations hips between other modules.
Readiness Review procedure section 3.1 describes the four major activities that comprise the Unit 2 program, commitment identification and implementation, Unit 1 finding follow-up, Unit 2 assessments, and Unit 2 modules and appendixes. The O scope description sheets in Appendix 1 list the extent to which each of these four activities will be performed for each module and appendix. i b
(
l i
l O 0105P/222-7 l
3.4-2 i
r
6-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM
{
s PROCEDURES
.~..
S.
t- .
.C.,. . . .
a 3 es
.a > es o.g . .,
....e
.e
. a.
es . N se ==3. m
,...O..
, . .e eN u a s e# Oe w> e am n
- ==3 a a
es 3.....
3 e a aa u .* O n 3 == w es > e 3 .ae E e se f Im On e em > w *= E # . . . . . . . . .
- p. m ga . . . . . . . . .
as a w 3e an > > 3* h h an h h h A
. W #
n g est #
. e be
.. W E 8e
. e6 as el
.a. >
- p. a...
a, a e
en og p es t
e 3 4
. es.
s.usDe - e e e .I e u = 0.Oe . . .
Ne .e : OEe . . . . . . 4 . .
- C . . an . m h . se . h
==
w > S .e nn a a4Oet 4. Q d**
3 *e o
- e. b. . -n a b .e q a e a as M es a am o @ u
- == 2 e . . . . . .
.i >.==a . . . . . . . . .
a == == S e h > . 8m . > tm De . 86 EEEp e 3 g me
- s. == en a n . a m w n . . .
nn 9 e qp er a a Na
.et se i e.s >a e W W , e d e M M e e O m > .= m e e e == N e
<.se e 3 3 me .
d 3m
<e . es a 3 .E 4 m .m u > st at # .
p e m
+ to .as se . .. o
. in e 9 e e e e e m ,- == e e e i se es se==> p* e m n dl > S R
' O =* 9 a E N
- e 9 ==
. S.. == @
am n . h - g u >> e w , e .
..e.em s
.-ill au se se
- ee e W
e.
WS w
e e e.
an a6 g ..s @
g d.
e-b e e ."
.a.y >a G. . G. . S. S. . .g . . g e.
- e. g 9., 3 Sh
. a
,+Oy 4 9 == b e > N. Wh -, 9e == *=
. a g as g M g T. g .S g. O e.s, g eg as . g an O.
d u et . . . O a + e. as &
- w. . . . .
o e
. *
- A a.eh .a ,
u e., . . a . &. & .
e a u == . b es & _. .
a a a h - g ".
6 & b o es e . h.
m - , e.e s .
- a m, . w n . == . .
e . e.,
, . .a
. e .
f
.o .
6
- 2 .,. ~.
5
- o s. a a 1 so I1 . 2 a a. a .- - .
N Table 3.4-1 (Sheet 1 of 3) 3.4-3
e 3-10-37 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM v]
- PROC EDU RE S as a me n sa a SNu a
R.bu e o
e e e e
e e e e e o e e
e a e NO# h 86 h an a h e e a e a h e 3a es to w a
. == n a 's e 3 ss a > w a se+ e n == n n > M e = to a a >E n es y g am w as == en em a g 3 == a me == == == m.
en a me as as am me me m
a 3 et es e e e a en o e e e e e e me uae>e me se em a e == a e e e a e
- n. =m= es 3ena o e 6 ==. .e. ==.
p Mgue s e me me em as e e e o e es se . . m a et a se m N eaO g e ame 3 e o e ae & a a e a 3 en en an E - N e e e e e e e ao e == 3 # e e e e e e e e e e e
- w bOe h h an an e an e e e an e en se N ad a es an ed a w to *Oe
- == 3 to a u E n 3 .. .. e e es Ed u
se oa to se m
- R>e R H Wee a w I>#
- > n kE# e e e e e e e
>E N == m # e e e e e e e e e e e e te e se E# De an an Dn e Sh e a e h e ais B es W#
es ed a se = Q an, e et et e E#
W t es e
> et
.E 3 si . . . . .
- n sh as ae e ea e ed as
\ W == 16 3 E to #
8> n O e N 08 O e OSOe e e e Ne aap3a e e o e e e e e e e e .a u - Oe# e h e as a en a e e e e W WSW# as
>== m at en y e .
E n e D n C.
=8.....p 3 e H a es
- E a a w au et e as
- Ee U @ OI h e
P a == 3 # e o e e e
- > tim == ao e e e e e e e e e e e 3 m = a= en e as se an an e a e e e an a a 55E# $
e 3 g == W e e == tm n ==
m e # e a n e es = . . *
- 3 a e a O ## a e a R Ne e e e == a se S e a a >e o e > e e e e e e e es 3 > a= m u eSSw am 3 3 3 ev Ee ==
3 e e
- 9 as e3e e
e e e o et e me e e ae a y a
= > e4 & W m e e e te == a e & Gb a k at u a Ge A a et se to e 3 g
e et g
G e e e e eS 9e e 9 e ein a e g 3 == 3 3 3 em 3 g u E Ee e- ee e e a 3 -s e u e e e n = b =es e
- =6 =.> e a e e e e 5
, as = N e b & e ==
a ed E m e @ e e 6e e se es ee EA @ E9 & 6 e 9 & 2 as e g a= a e e S S.
5 e w S. e S. &
we 9 w e s= .
i m O. & G. S. e
- O eW 9 9 > #6 en e8 9 #* ee Se Se O
=W &# 9 99 g am ee e ee* ea se e an e se es n u e u * = 0
- a se e -
ee $ e T w as 3 m + > ~ e o e en e 1 e o o e se e e se se e aus m e e e e n a e e e w e an e es e a e m e a e e 9 e e e e e n .S & a e e. e a h h e a a e e an a e e, e e e, e.
es e a s> b e a es ,an N e e a W e se a T w e e se me e
. E.s a e n > e e e e e e o b e e m e =a == == oa e ee = m ev ew e e
> O a a o
o eaee es g
- e. e ee e o se se > e me >e e == e- e to et w e e a.
e e
a weee n
== ae . en = .v eseu o ea e& eo ea eb Ne 3 a == m = 0 e e es as e
e e
e a
=
a
=
=
=,
9m eu e ew e
.e. a. e -e e-
-.e on e6
.e. .
ew w as e em-e h e e-e .a -e e
e e .9
-e ee ee
.e. .e e == e -o
-e e .e ee e
== e = = = = -e e- ea ee *
= * **ge ga ww w ew9e 9 .e 9e Te 99 99 94 9e
= a- ee e.e. ea
- m.
. =. -.=. a. no 1.e a.
&a o . 2 .n.s e
te e .b l. .
e a.e 2 .e == A m
I Table 3.4-1 (Sheet 2'of 3) 3.4-4
.~.~ u. .- .
o 3-i 18 Aug ST PAGE 3 UNIT 2 REAblNESS StvlBW ACTIVITT StfMMART
= 1. == . 2. cassu === e = . unssa.: a usase
2 43 . 2 ==. 2. ,, . se,,a ,, ,,
Cosep t t T ION STATUS DURING UNIT I : POST seeBULE :
MODULt UNIT I A S S E S 5stE NT SIGNIFICANT* PMOG%AM C0estt i tsqE N T GNif 2 stAtlNess attitu AcTittTV U l FINDING ASSESSMSNT UNIT 2 8t0Delu
. -DATE UNIT 1% UNIT 2% FINDINGS CNANGES
- IMPLSMENTATION: FOLLOW-UP z.. ==. 333 se ea=====s. .s.34ses6as s==== ======== 5s= ======ase== =======esas====aa+
(NOTE I) (NOTE 2) ases======aame========= .samassa ..,
8 A ppen.s e c os W s s a z e s = = = . . = . s.
7 %
M AppendeN C 05 85 759 45e yee M
no yes
@ Procuremost yee me me >g U p W H A
Appendia e Deceeent Centrol os e5 Tse 450 y*= e. yes yee me no ZU M"
I Appeedle 5 05-85 Tse 458 TM W se me yee pee no no W CO W seetectal Centrol O 4 Appeedse F 15-95 90s 54s yee me yes ON O ^
leepector emotificatsee yee B.Ill yes MMq 1 CD U
in 04 95 754 45e se me w Oseitty Assurance Orgemasetten yee yee se me TQ N Appendas J 10-35 90s 548 Od ....pe..t O..l.,c.t... me me yes yee no ao O y g eteeed em pleet complete et 46me of eseessment 3 DOTS I: PART I - Impleoestation verificetten and corrective action fellemmy FART II - In procese activet6ee FART III - Completion, tereover, and preeperet6eeml testing act4*ities NOTE 2 Attacheeet I to thne table empla6ne the retteente of eedele eelection i l cc I w . O
- l. I
, u, 4 i I l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _______-_-. ___ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - __ ~ _ . k i 8-10-87 l PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 ; READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM - O PROCEDURES l 1 EVALUATION OF UNIT 1 ASSESSMENT RESULTS [ Civil . An evaluation of the Unit 1 Civil modules listed below has shown l' that these modules developed f or Unit 1 provided an adequate , description and evaluation of the programs used for the Unit 2 i work. This conclusion is based in part on the advanced state of i design and construction completion of Unit 2 during the Unit 1 l a sses sme nt . , f Module 1 Reinforced Concrete Structures ! Module 8 Structural Steel , Module 13A Foundation Materials and Backfill i Module 13C Post Tensioned Containment For each of the above modules, the Unit 1 Readiness Review findings (RRFs) will be evaluated by the Project for , applicability in Unit 2 a nd , if appropriate, cor rective action } steps verified implemented in Unit 2 programs and practices. O-t Mechanical ; 1 An evaluation.of the Unit 1 Mechanical Module 16, Nuclear Steam l Supply System, has shown that the module developed for Unit 1 ! provided an adequate description and evaluation of the programs used for' the Unit 2 work. Specific findings as a result of i Unit 1 Module 16 will be . evaluated by the project for -applicability in Unit 2 and, as appropriate, implemented in the Unit 2 programs and processes. Module 13B, Fire Protection, was an evaluation of the planning and implementation activities of the fire protection task force. The Unit 1 module concluded that the program was adequately planned and implemented in Unit. l. A similar. ; programmatic approach will be used in Unit 2, thereby making a : separate Unit 2 assessment by Readiness Review unnecessary. : i Module 18C, Diesel Generator, verified that licensing 'I commitments were met and modifications to the Transamerica . DeLaval diesels were completed. The Unit 2 diesels are being ; modified in a similar manner as Unit 1 by the same organization which performed.the-work in Unit 1. Since the Unit 1 Readiness . Review concluded the commitments were being met and the same i process. is being used in ' Unit 2, a separate Unit 2 assessment . is not necessary. O , i Attachment 1 (Shee t 1 of 3) 3.4-6 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM () PROCEDURES Elec t rica l Unit 2 modules will be developed in the save module areas as Unit 1. For ease of presentation, modules 17 and 19 will be combined into a single module. Operations The Unit 1 Operations modules listed below consisted of an evaluation of the programs established for operation of the pl a nt . These programs are being used in the operation of Unit 1 and will be adopted f or operation of Unit 2 at fuel load. Since both units are operated using essentially the same organization and procedures and since the on-going evaluation and modification of operational programs is carried out under a rigorous program of operations, controls, and oversight, a separate Readiness Review is not necessary in the following a rea s: Module 2 Operations Training and Qualification . Module 3 operations Organization and Administ ration (~N Module 7 Plant Operations and Support (_sl Module 9A Radiological Protection Module 9B Chemi st ry Find ings identified during the design assessment of Module 9A, Radiological Protection, will be evaluated by the Project for applicability in Unit 2 and, if appropriate, cor rective action steps will be verified implemented in Unit 2 program and prac t ices. Appendixes The evaluation of the Unit 1 appendixes listed below has shown tha t the Unit 1 Readiness Review provided an adequate description and evaluation of the programs used for the Unit 2 work. Appendix C P rocureme nt Appendix D Document Cont rol Appendix E Material Control i' Appendix G Measuring and Test Equipment Appendix I Quality Assurance Appendix J Equipment Qualification , 1 O Att ac hme n t 1 (Sheet 2 of 3) 3.4-7 l i 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O PROCEDURES The Unit 1 RRFs for each of the above appendixes will be evaluated by the Project for applicability in Unit 2 a nd , if appropriate, cor rective action steps will be verified implement ed in Uni t 2 programs and practices. Findings in appendixes C, D, and G had potential for affecting the overall acceptability of other quality programs and will receive follow-up in Unit 2 by Readiness Review. Records Unit 2 Readiness Review activities, within the scope of modules not planned for a full assessment and module report, are documented in records maintained in the Readiness Revies files. Those records are generally the same as the back-up records maintained for modules with full assessments and reports, and i nclude : o Pro ject input f or commi t me nt implement ation and " Unit 2 Action" to Unit 1 RRFs. o Updated implementation data base. o Updated Unit 1 RRF data base (Trends). o Updated data base (findings) of findings, audits, and deficiency reports. o Executed checklists, RRFs and responses, o Records of Readiness Review investigations, i ncluding for example, the above evaluation of Unit 1 Assessment results. The results of Readiness Review activities, within the scope of modules not planned for a module report, are reported to the Readiness Revi ew Board. 0105P/222-7 ,O Attachment 1 ( S hee t 3 of 3) 3.4-8 i I 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O PROCEDURES MODULE 1, REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES - Scope Module 1 addresses the design, procurement , and construction of Category 1 reinforced concrete structures. Also included in the scope of this module is the turbine building as it may potentially af fect Category 1 st ruct ures. St ructures designated Category 2 and determined to not have a potential impact on Category 1 structures are not included in the scope of Readiness Revi e w. The evaluation of reinforced concrete structures includes design, procurement, and const ruction activities as the relate to conc re t e, reinforcing steel, and cadwelding within these st ruct u res . The post-tensioning system employed in the cont ainme nt shell is covered in Module 13C. Unit 2 Readiness Review Commi t me nt Impl e me nt at ion: O The module commitment listing is maintained cur rent. The Project identifies the current implementing documents for module commi tme nts . Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to corrective actions or justification for changes. Assessment: As s es sme nt activity is limited to a part 1 assessment ( c ommi tme n t implementation re-verification and cor rective ac tion f ollow-up) . Module Issue: A Unit 2 module is not issued. The matrixes f rom the first two activities above and the assessments results are presented to Project Management and retained by -Readiness Review. O Appe ndi x 1 (Page 1 of 26) 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 gs RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM () PROCEDURES MODULE 3A, INITI AL TEST PROGRAM Scope Module 3A addresses the preoperational test phase of the Unit 2 Initial Test Program (ITP) . Figure 3.4 illustrates how ITP activities are separated between the preoperational test phase and the startup test phase. For Unit 2, the startup test activities will be conducted using the controls and procedures developed for Unit 1 and will not be included in the Unit 2 Readiness Review program. Unit 2 Readiness Review Commitment Imple me nt at ion: The module commitment listing is maintained current. The Project identifies the current implementing documents for module commitments . Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: O The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to corrective actions or justification for changes. Assessment: The assessment is a full assessment. Construction Acceptance Testing is examined during the assessments performed for Modules 4, 6, 18A, and 20. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 module is prepared and submitted presenting the ! results of the above th ree activities. ! l I l I l O'v Appendix 1 (Page 2 of 26) , 1 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O PROCEDURES MODULE 4, MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND PIPING Scope Module 4 addresses the design, p rocu r eme nt , and construction work activities regarding safety-related mechanical equipment and piping systems classified as American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)Section III, Classes 1, 2, and 3. Design and construction work activities typically associated with the mechanical discipline are addressed in several modules as indicated in Table 3.4-2. Unit 2 Readiness Review Commi t me nt Imple me nt at ion: The module commitment listing is maintained cur rent. The Project identifies the cur rent method of implementation. Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to cor rective actions or justification f or changes. Assessme nt : The assessment is a full assessment. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 module is prepared and issued presenting the results of the above three activities. Appendix 1 (Page 3 of 26) 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM () PROCEDURES MODULE 6, ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT Scope The scope of this module includes those design, p ro cu r e me nt , installation, and inspection activities associated with saf ety-related (Class lE) electrical equipment for Vogtle Elect ric Generating Plant (VEGP), Unit 2. The following categories of electrical equipment are included in this module: o Transformers. o Bus syst ems (including penetration assemblies) . o Switchgear. o dc syst ems , o Motor cont rol centers. o Boards a nd panels. '~T o Distribution cquipment. o Inverters. Electrical motors are addressed in Modules 4, 16, 18A, and 20; wall-mounted electrical items other than transformers are addressed in Module 17; electrical instrumentation is addressed in Modules 18A and 20; attachment of equipment to supports is covered by this module; embed channels are covered in Module 8; concrete pads are covered in Module 1; and supports for bus systems are covered in Module 19. Unit 2 Readiness Review 1 Commi t ne nt Imple ne nt ation: l The module commitment listing is maintained cur rent. The Project identifies the cur rent implementing documents for module commi tments . Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: , l The Proj ect provides evidence of continuing conformance to cor rective actions or justification for changes. Asses sme nt : The assessment is a full assessment. Appendix 1 (Page 4 of 26) l 1 n g 8-10-87 PL ANT VOGTL E U NI T 2 77 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM 'N PROCEDURES Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 module is prepared and issued presenting the results of the above three activities. C N_.)\ l l l em 'k. _ Appe ndi x 1 ~ (Page 5 of 26) 1 . i 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM q PROCEDURES MODULE 8, STRUCTURAL STEEL 1 Scope i Module 8 eddresses design and construction work activities as ! they relate tc structural steel utilized in Category 1 (seismic) st ruc ture s. The structural steel within the scope of this ' module consist of embeds , structural steel f raming for containment internals and other Category I st ructures, anchorage for st ruct ures a nd equipment , pipe whip restraints, cranes and ! s up po r t s , liner plate systems and miscellaneous Category I st ruct ural it ems. Also included in this module is discussion and verification of the welding program at the VEGP site, (i.e., procurement, cont rol and issue of weld filler metals, welder qualifications, and weld procedure preparation) . Welding ; processes applicable to structural steel are also addressed in ! this module. Unit 2 Readiness Review Commi tme nt Impleme ntation: O The module commitment listing is maintained current. The Project identifies the current implementing documents for module commitments. i Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to cor rective actions or justification for changes. Assessment: Assessme nt activities are limited to commitment implementation re-verification and follow-up of corrective , actions. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 module is not issued. The matrixes f rom the first two activities above and the assessments results are presented to Project Management and retained by Readiness Review. O Appendi x 1 (Page 6 of 26) 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM /h PROCEDURES U MODULE 9A, RADIATION PROTECTION (SHIELDING) Scope Module 9A addresses the elements of the Health Physics department's radiation protection program and a discussion of radiation shielding design. For Unit 2, only the radiation shielding design is addressed. Unit 2 Readiness Review Commi tme nt Impl eme ntation: The module commitment li st ing is maintained cur rent'. The Project identifies the current implementing documents f or , module commi tme nts . Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to corrective actions or justification for changes. O A s se ssme nt : L) Assessment ac t ivi t ie s a r e l i mi t ed t o c o mmi t me nt implementation re-verification and follow-up of corrective actions. Module Preparation and Issue: , A Unit 2 module is not issued. The matrixes from the first two activities above and the assessment results are presented to Project Management and retained by Readiness Review. f , l Appendix 1 (Page 7 of 26) 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM ' O PROCEDURES MODULE 11, PIPE STRESS AND SUPPORTS Scope Module 11 addresses the design and construction work activities regarding pipe stress analysis and pipe supports for the Unit 2 saf ety-related mechanical systems classified as ASME Section III, Classes 1, 2, and 3, and non-safety-related systems supported to Seismic Category I requirements for protection of safety-related components. Mechanical piping and equipment is addressed in Module 4, instrumentation is addressed in Module 20, and the piping and suppor ts for the nuclear steam supply systens primary loop is , addressed in Module 16. ; Unit 2 Readiness Review Commitment Implementation: The module commitment li st ing is maintained cur rent. The Project identifies the current implemer. ting documents for mo dule c ommi tme nt s . Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformauce to cor rective actions or justification for changes. r Assessme nt : The assessment is a full assessment. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 modules is prepared and submitted presenting the results of the above three activities. , P l Ap pendi x 1 (Page 8 of 26) l 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES MODULE 12, CABLES AND TERMINATIONS Scope The scope of this module includes those design, procurement, installation, and inspection activities associated with all Class lE cables and terminations for VEGP, Unit 2. This module covers cables up to the equipment termination block. Equipment internal wiring is addressed in Module *,. Unit 2 Readiness Review Commitment Impl e me nt at ion:
- The module connitment list ing is mai ntai ned cur rent . The Project identifies the current implementing documents for module commitments .
Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to cor rective actions or justification for changes. ) Assessme nt : The assessment is a f u ll a s sessme nt . Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 modules is prepared and submitted presenting the results of the above three activities. O Appendix 1 i (Page 9 of 26) ' 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM ' () PROCEDURES i MODULE 13A, FOUNDATION MATERI ALS AND B ACKFILL Scope , The scope of this module includes those design and construction activities associated with foundation material (marl, lower sand st ra t um, etc.) design analyses, selection, s.nd plac ement of i Category I backfill. Unit 2 Readiness Review Commi tme nt Implementation: The module commitment li st ing is maintained current. The Project identifies the current implementing documents for module commi tments . Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to corrective actions or justification for changes. f Ass e ssme nt : Assessme nt activities are limited to commitment implementation re-verification and follow-up of corrective actions. Module Preparation and Issue: j A Unit 2 module is not issued. The matrixes from the first two activities above and the assessment results are presented to Project Management and retained by Readiness Review. t Appendix 1 (Page 10 of 26) , 8-10-87 . PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 I READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O PROCEDURES MODULE 13B, COATINGS , Scope l Module 13B addresses the design and construction activities associated with protective coatings for the VEGP Unit 2. Coatings discussed in this module are those applied to the r Unit 2 diesel generator fuel oil storage tank and those used , within the Unit 2 containment. Unit 2 Readiness Review Conni tme nt Impl e me nt at ion: The module commitment listing is maintained current. The ; Project identifies the cur rent implementing documents for ; module commitments . l Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to corrective actions or justification for changes. O Assessment: The assessment is a f ull assessment. Module Preparation and Issue: , A Unit 2 modules is prepared and submitted presenting the , results of the above three activities. ; i t O Appendix 1 (Page 11 of 26) 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM ; () PROCEDURES MODULE 13C, POST-TENSIONED CONTAINMENT i Scope The scope of this module includes the design and construction activities associated with the post-tensioning system employed in the containment shell. Unit 2 Readiness Review L Commi t ne nt Impl e me nt at ion: The module commitment listing is maintained current. The Project identifies the cur rent implementing documedts for module commi tments . , Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to cor rective actions or justification for changes. Assessme nt : , As ses sme nt activities are limited to commitment , implementation re-verification and follow-up of corrective actions. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 module is not issued. The matrixes from the first two activities above and the assessment results are presented to Project Management and retained by Readiness Review. l 1 i ($) ! Appe ndi x 1 i (Page 12 of 26) l 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 gs RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM ( ,) PROCEDURES MODULE 16, NUCLEAR STEAM SUPPLY SYSTEM Scope Module 16 addresses the design interface between Bechtel Power Corporation (BPC) and Westinghouse and the construction activities involved with the installation of primary loop equ ipme nt . Work activities considered Westinghouse generic are not addressed; however, this module addresses those Westinghouse activities considered Vogtle specific. Other Westinghouse hardware supplied as part of the nuclear steam supply system package is addressed in the modules ,that cont ain s imilar har dware. Unit 2 Readiness Review Commi t me nt Impleme nt at ion: The module commitment listing is maintained current. The Project identifies the current implementing documents for module commi tments . D) (_ Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to cor rective actions or justification for changes. Asse ssme nt : Assessment activities are limited to commitnent implementation re-verification and follow-up of corrective actions. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 module is not issued. The matrixes f rom the first two activities above and the assessment results are presented to Project Management and retained by Readiness Review. 1 l ) Appendix 1 (Page 13 of 26) i I 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O- PROCEDURES MODULE 17/19, ELECTRICAL RACEWAYS AND SUPPORTS Scope Module 17 addresses the design, p ro cur e me nt , installation, and inspection of conduit, cable trays, and special raceways containing saf ety-related cables for Class lE cables for VEGP Unit 2. Module 19 addresses the design and construction activities associated with the supports and associated lateral bracing for electrical cable trays, c o nd u i t , pu11 boxes, and junction boxes for VEGP Unit 2 facilities. Also included in this module are electrical equipment s up po r ts . Electrical equipment directly mounted to building steel or floor embeds is addressed in Module 6. For Unit 2, Modules 17 and 19 will be presented as a combined module entitled 17/19, Electrical Raceways and Supports. Unit 2 Readiness Review Commi tme nt Impl eme ntatio n : The module commitment list ing is maintained current. The Project identifies the current implementing documents for module conni tments . Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to cor rective actions or justification for changes. Asses sme nt : The assessment is a full assessment. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 modules is prepared and submitted present ing the results of the above three activities. I i l l l Appendix 1 l (Page 14 of 26) I ~ 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 (~' L READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES MODULE 18A, HEATING, VENTILATION, AND AIR CONDITIONING Scope Module 18A addresses the design and construction activities associated with the safety-related and Seismic Category I heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems for the VEGP Unit 2. Unit 2 Readiness Review Commi tme nt Implementation: The module connitment li st ing is maintained cur rent. The Project identifies the current implementing documents for module commitments. Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to corrective actions or justification for changes. Assessment: ( The assessment is a f ull assessment. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 modules is prepared and submitted presenting the results of the above three activities. , O v Appendix 1 (Page 15 of 26) 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM I PROCEDURES MODULE 18B, FIRE PROTECTION Scope This module identifies those Final Saf ety Analysis Report (FSAR) commitments for the Project Fire Protection Program for VEGP Unit 2. Unit 2 Readiness Review . Commi tme nt Implementation: The module commitment l i st ing is maintained cur rent. The ' Project identifies the current implementing documents for module conmi tme nts . Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to , corrective actions or justification for changes. Asses sme nt : i Assessment activitics are limited to commitment implementation re-verification and follow-up of cor rective actions. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 module is not issued. The matrixes f rom the first two activities above and the assessment results are presented to Project Management and retained by Readiness R e vi e w. , O b Appendix 1 , (Page 16 of 26) ; B-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 gg RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM ( ) PROCEDURES MODULE 18C, DIESEL GENERATOR Scope Module 18C addresses the diesel generator and associated support , systems, such as the air-start, lubricating oil, and fuel oil sy s t ems . The diesel generators quality assessment prog ram, undertaken by the Project to address specific industry concerns regarding diesel generators, is also included. Various other design and construction work activities associated with the diesel generators are addressed in other modules. Te st i ng requirements are included within the scope of Module 3A, Initial Test Program, the electrical systems connecting to the diesel generator and the sequencer, are in the scope of ; Module 6, and the structure is in the scope of Module 1. Unit 2 Readiness Review Commi t me nt Impleme nt ation: I The module commitment listing is maintained cur rent. The O Project identifies the current implementing documents for module commi tments . Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to corrective actions or justification for changes. Asses sme nt : Assessment activities are limit ed t o c ommi tne nt implementation re-verification and follow-up of corrective actions. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 module is not issued. The matrixes from the first two activities above and the assessment results are presented to Project Management and retained by Readiness R e vi ew . O Appendix 1 (Page 17 of 26) l 8-10-87 ! PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 , RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O PROCEDU RES MODULE 20, INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROLS Scope Module 20 addresses the design activities of BPC and the construction activities of Georgia Power Company' (GPC), Cleveland Consolidated, and Pullman Power Products (PPP) for instrumentation and control (I&C). This module includes Pneumatic instruments but excludes electrical I&C panels ; (Module 6) and HVAC inst rumentation (Module 18A). For Unit 2, the scope of the Module 20 includes installation of NSSS instrumentation. Unit 2 Readiness Review Commitment Implementation: j The module commitment l i st ing is maintained current. The Project identifies the current implementing documents for ! module commi tments . , Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: () The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to corrective actions or justification for changes. Assessme nt : l The assessment is a full assessment. Module Preparation and Issue: ; A Unit 2 modules is prepared and submitted presenting the results of the above three activities. c . 3 f 2 () Appendix 1 l (Page 18 of 26) ; a 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O PROCEDURES MODULE 23, SECURITY Scope This module addresses the hardware, programs, and organizations that comprise the Unit 2 Physical Security Plan. Unit 2 Readiness Review t C ommi tme nt Implementation: The module commitnent li st ing is maintained cur rent. The Project identifies the current implementing documents for module commi tments . Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to cor rective actions or justification for changes. Asses sme nt : The assessment is a full assessment. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 modules is prepared and submitted presenting the results of the above three activities. O Appendix 1 (Page 19 of 26) 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O( ,/ PROCEDURES APPENDIX 21C, PROCUREMENT i Scope This appendix lists the commitments and their i mpleme nt i ng documents for the programs for the procurement of equipment, ma t eri al, and services for VEGP Unit 2. Unit 2 Readiness Review Commitnent Impl e me nt at ion: The module conmitment list ing is maintained current. The Project identifies the current implen anting documents for module commi tme nts . Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to cor rective actions or justification for changes. Asses sme nt : O As ses sme nt activities are limited to commitment implementation re-verification and follow-up of cor rective actions. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 module is not issued. The matrixes from the first > two activities above and the assessment results are { presented to Project Management and retained by Readiness Review. I 1 I l l l 1 l l ( Appendix 1 (Page 20 of 26) i i 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 i RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O PROCEDURES APPEND 1X 21D, DOCUMENT CONTROL i Scope i This appendix lists the connitments and implementing documents ' for the document control and Quality Assurance (QA) records control program for VEGP during the design, construction, and pre-operational testing phases of the Project. Unit 2 Readiness Review Commi tme nt Implementation: The module commitnent listing is maintained cur rent. The Project identifies the current implementing documents for module commi tments . Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to corrective actions or justification for changes. Assessment: As ses sme nt activities are limited to commitment implementation re-verification and follow-up of corrective ac t io ns. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 module is not issued. The matrixes from the first two activities above and the assessment results are presented to Project Management and retained by Readiness Review. L O Appendix 1 (Page 21 of 26) 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM [) (/ PROCEDURES i 1 APPE N DI X 21E, MATERIAL CONTROL Scope The scope of Appendix 21E, Material Cont rol, addresses permanent plant materials, parts, and equipment at VEGP f rom receipt through issue to contractors for installation. It also addresses equipment maintenance program activities f rom receipt , through transf er to GPC Nuclear Operations. Unit 2 Readiness Review Commi t ne nt Impl e ne nt at ion: The module commitment li st ing is maint ained cur rent. The Project identifies the current implementing documents for mo dule c ommi tme nt s . Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: . The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to corrective actions or justification for changes. As s e ssme nt : As ses sme nt ac t ivi t ie s a r e l imi t ed t o c ommi t me nt implementation re-verification and follow-up of cor rective actions. Module Preparation and Issue: A " nit 2 module is not issued. The matrixes from the first two activities above and the assessment results are presented to Project Management and retained by Readiness Review. Appendix 1 (Page 22 of 26) 8-10-87 1 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 i RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O PROCEDURES APPENDIX 21F, INSPECTOR QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION Scope This appendix describes and assesses the construction organizations and their procedures which ensure that commitments for the qualification and certification of quality control inspectors are met. The requirements for inspector qualification and certification during the initial test prog ra m are described in Module 3A. The individual modules describe and assess specific inspection activities and also address whether inspectors held the correct certifications during specific inspection activities. Unit 2 Readiness Review Commi t re nt Impl eme nt at ion: The module commitment listing is maintained cur rent. The Project identifies the cur rent implementing documents for module commitments . Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to corrective actions or justification for changes. Assessment: The assessment is a f ull assessment. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 modules is prepared and submitted presenting the results of the above three activities, f ^x Appe ndi x 1 (Page 23 of 26) 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM ( PROCEDURES APPENDIX 21G , MEASURING AND TEST EQUIPMENT Scope
- This appendix provides a description and evaluation of the programs governing the control of measuring and test equipment (M&TE) utilized during construction activities of the VEGP. It is intended to describe the method of compliance with the Project commitments found in the FSAR. Thi s appendix addresses the commitments and their implementation and determines whether appropriate procedures were in use and adhered to.
Included are descriptions of M&TE programs for GPC, PPPg and Nuclear Installation Services Company. Other onsite contractors made use of GPC's calibrated equipment when required for , determining inspection acceptance of construction activities. Controls governing the M&TE program for procured equipment are > part of the quality program required by the procurement specification. The procurement of equipment and services is discussed in Appendix 21C. , Unit 2 Readiness Review O Commi t ne nt Imple re nt at ion: The module commitment listing is maintained cur rent. The P roject identifies the current implementing documents for module commitments . 1 Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: l The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to corrective actions or justification for changes. , 1 Assessment: l As ses sme nt activities are limited to commitnent ! implementation re-verification and follow-up of cor rective I ac t io ns. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 module is not issued. The matrixes f rom the first two activities above and the assessment results are presented to Project Management and retained by Readiness Review. O i Appendix 1 i (Page 24 of 26) l l t 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES APPSNDIX 21I , QUALITY ASSURANCE ORGANIZATION Scope The scope of this appendix encompasses the specific QA organizations involved in the Vogtle Project and the activities which are car ried out by these organizations. As such, a major topic of this appendix is QA audits. The other QA program elements, such as inspection test ing , procurement , etc. are covered in other modules on a functional basis or in other appendixes. Unit 2 Readiness Review Commitment Implementation: The module commitnent li st ing is maintained cur rent. The Project identifies the current implementing documents for module comni tments . Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: [) \_/ The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to cor rective actions or justification for changes. As ses sme nt : As s es sme nt activities are limited to commitment implementation re-verification and follow-up of corrective actions. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 module is not issued. The matrixes f rom the first two activities above and the assessment results are presented to Project Management and retained by Readiness Review. f% Appe ndi x 1 j (Page 25 of 26) ' l 1 s 8-10-87 ! 4 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM () PROCEDURES
- l APPENDIX 21J , EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION )
- Scope l This appendix encompasses the procedures, methods, and controls governing the VEGP equipment qualification (EQ) program. This program covers saf ety-related equipment and project-specified post-accident monitoring equipment; however, the term l "saf e ty-re lated equipment" will be used throughout this appendix l to mean " safety-related equipment and project-specified i po st-ac cident monitoring equipment" . i Unit 2 Readiness Review , l Co mmi tme nt Impl e me nt at ion: ! l The module commitment listing is maint ained cur rent. The l Project identifies the current implementing documents for module commitments . Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: O The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to corrective actions or justification for changes. Assessme nt : As ses sme nt activities are limited to commitment implementation re-verification and follow-up of corrective actions. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 module is not issued. The matrixes f rom the first two activities above and the assessment results are presented to Project Management and retained by Readiness Review. 0115P/222-7 Appendix 1 (Page 26 of 26) - 3-10-87 ~ PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 7- RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM (g) PROCEDURES 3.5 UNIT 2 ASSESSMENT 3.5.1 PURPOSE This procedure provides direction for the preparation and implementation of assessment plans for the Unit 2 Readiness Review program. 3.5.2 SCOPE This procedure applies to the preparation and execution.of assessment plans and evaluation of the collected data. 3.5.3 GENERAL The scope of Unit 2 Readiness Review modules and appendixes is described in Section 3.4 of this manual and the type of assessments to be performed is described in Table 3.4-1. V 3.5.3.1 .Ba c_kg rou nd I n f o rma tion In development of the assessment plans, the Readiness Review Team will, as a minimum, review the sources listed below to determine the appropriate subjects f or assessment: o Module commitment and implementation mat rixes and their source documents (see Section 3.2 of this procedure ) . - Vogtle Elect ric Generating Plant (VEGP) Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). - Cor respondence between VEGP and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) containing commitments. o Findings and corrective actions f rom Unit 1 Readiness Review Program (see Section 3.3 of this procedure) . - Trends matrix and the listed source documents. - Project prog rams and documents associated with the li st i ngs . th ( ,) Revision: 0 Issue Date: September 28, 1987 . -b' adiness Review Program Manager Oll4P/222-7 . 3-10-37 f PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM () , PROCEDURES o Audit data bases (see Section 5 of this procedure) . - Quality Assurance (QA) audit reports. - NRC inspection reports. - Special investigations. o Licensing Evaluation Reports, o Reports of industry problems. ' o Project Unit 1 lessons learned. o Quality Concerns. t In addition to review of the above sources, a review of the following will be performed for identification of specific issues for inclusion in the Unit 2 assessments: Indu st ry _ Problems ? /'^g Same engineer or NSSS supplier as Vogtle, t ( ,/ Recur ring industry problems. Generic NRC concerns. _ quality Concerns Valid violation cf the Vogtle Project Quality program. QA Audit Finding Reports All Level I f i nd ings . Recurring finding topics. NRC Violations All that were against any Specification, Design Criteria, or FSAR requirements. Unit 1 Readiness Review Findin,g_s, 1 All Level I fi ndi ngs . All collective significance findings. NOTE : f- For all of the above sources, any hardware issues i t that required rework or repairs. 3.5-2 - 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM () PROCEDURES 3.5.3.2 Plan Content The plan provides guidelines on the extent of evaluation to be conducted, assessment details, and selection and qualification of personnel implementing the plan. Assessment activities for Unit 2 will be developed based on the Unit 1 Readine , ' Review and NRC findings, the status of completion of Unit 2 activities during Unit 1 Readiness Review, NRC violations and industry problems since the Unit 1 module assessment, and whether there have been significant changes in organization or program details for Unit 2 from that evaluated la Unit 1. Asse ssme nt plans will be developed in three standard subdivisions identified as parts. o Part 1, Commitment Implement at ion and Cor rective Actions, o Part 2, Design and Construction Programs and Activities, o Part 3, Design and Construction Completion, and Initial Test Program. O 3.5.3.3 Plan Prepara t ion, Approval, and Implementation Assessments plans and checklists are prepared by the Readiness Review Team, reviewed and approved by the Readiness Review program manager and Readiness Review Board. The plans are implemented by Project QA in accordance with the details of the pla n . Readiness Review will participate directly with QA and provi de a.usist ance as appropri ate. 3.5.4 PERSONNEL 3.5.4.1 Responsibilities Personnel responsibilities are defined in Section 2 of the Unit 2 Readiness Review Procedures with additional responsibilities, if any, as described herein. 3.5.4.2 qualifications o The qualifications of Readiness Review personnel are presented in Readiness Review Procedure 2. 3.5-3 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 () RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES o The qualifications of Project QA personnel are presented in QA department procedure QA-05-01. o Technical specialists assigned to support QA assessment activities shall be qualified in accordance with procedure QA-05-01. The qualifications shall be subject to review by the Readiness Review program manager. 3.5.4.3 As sessme nt Plan Developme nt The assessment plans shall be developed in response to the objectives and guideline presented below. 3.5.4.4 P a r ,t, 1, o,f, As se,s,sme n t Plans The objective of Part 1 assessments and directions for implementing the plans are desc ribed below. 3.5.4.4.1 Objective , ! There are two primary objectives of Part 1 of each assessment plan: 1 o Identification of Unit 2-specific commitments; i identification of additions or revisions to Project licensing commitments as a result of FSAR amendments or Post-Unit 1 Readiness Review project letters to the NRC and verification of appropriate implementation of those commitments. o A review of findings as a result of the Unit 1 Readiness Review activities, examination of cor rective actions taken by the Project in response to the Unit 1 Readiness i Review Program, and the incorporation of those ! cor rective actions into Unit 2 programs and procedures I to preclude recur rence. ! 3.5.4.4.2 Sample Selection Unit 2 Readiness Review assessments will address, to the extent possible, a selected safety-related system and safety-related ser vi ces (elec trical, controls, HVAC ) to that system. A single system is assessed to facilitate evaluation of discipline interfaces. The system selected should exhibit a broad range of ( attributes in all disciplines. Inter faces with that system, or % other ' systems, may be assessed if necessary to perform an l acceptable assessment. 3.5-4 P . 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 f- READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM (j PROCEDURES Utilizing appropriate sources as listed in Section 3.5.3.1, specific commitments are selected for review and verification of implementation in response to the following criteria: o Representative of Project activities on Unit 2. o Inclusion of all Unit 1 Readiness Review findings classified as Level I (having potential saf ety concerns) and all NRC violations that were; - within the scope of the module. - related to the Unit 1 Readiness Review Program. and which addressed the licensing commitments or required corrective actions to demonstrate acceptable implement ing actions. o Repre .entative of commitments which were revised or addet subsequent to publication of the Unit 1 module. o Include selected commitments identified to Module 21A in / the commitment mat rix. j k-) / l o Include a sample of Project-provided implementation to i new or changed commitments. l l l l 3.5.4.4.3 Sample Size j Sample size is not fixed, but must, as a minimum, include all l Level I Readiness Review findings and NRC violations that resulted f rom their review of the Unit 1 modules as described in Section 3.5.4.4.2 above. In addition, utilizing the inplementation matrix as updated by the Project, the sample shall include a sufficient number of commitments to demonstrate confidence in the accuracy of the matrix and adequate to represent identified or potential concerns. 3.5.4.4.4 Implementation Details The commitments selected for verification shall be examined for the following characteristics: l o The commitment , as stated, reflects the intent of the source document. O 3.5-5 , 8'10-37 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 l RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM -( PROCEDURES l o Implementation, as described in the implementation matrix, is usually suf ficient to demonstrate compliance I with the commitment and review may be limited to I documenting Project implementation of the commitment in i documents such as Design Criteria, Piping and Instrument ) diag rams , one-line diag rams , construction I specifications, construction procedures, start-up l p roc edur e s , etc. If deemed necessary by the Readiness Review Team to develop additional assurance, additional documents such as calculations, installation drawings, isomet rics, installation records, desktop instructions, etc. , may also be reviewed and implementation documented l in those documents.
- I 3.5.4.5 Part 2, Programs and Activities 3.5.4.5.1 Objective The- primary objective of Part 2 of the assessment plans is assess on-going Project programs and activities to determine whether Unit 2 design, construction, and preoperational test '
,/ phase activities continue to conform to program requirements. Other objectives to be addressed in Part 2 include: l o Review of continued acceptability of response to design ! and construction related problems identified during the , Unit 1 Readiness Review. 1 o Review and evaluation of the acceptability and implementation of significant changes in programs, procedures, or responsibilities for Unit 2 activities, if any. o Assessment of the technical adequacy of selected design documents such as calculations and demonstration of necessary interf ace activity. i o Assessment of ongoing construction activities to demonstrate appropriate response to design details and ; construction-related procedures, personnel qualification ' status, material control, etc. 3.5.4.5.2 Sample Size : ,items, Sampleetc.) size (number shall beofestablished documents, number of welds, tag-numbered 'O in consideration of the following criteria: by the Readiness Review Team 3.5-6 1 J E-10-37 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES o The sample shall reflect the status of construction completion of Unit 2 activities at the time of the Unit 1 assessment. ' o The sample shall reflect extent (isolated versus generic) of the deficiencies identified during the Unit 1 Readiness Review assessments. I o The sample shall reflect the f requency of QA audit findings and NRC violations, unresolved items, and i inspector follow-up items for audits and inspections performed subsequent to publication of the Unit 1 Readiness Review modules. o The sample shall reflect the need to examine and ' demonstrate confidence in Project response to new or revised programs. The Readiness Review Team is to consider the need for the imposition of an increased sample size should early results of , assessments indicate problem areas. P t' (, 3.5.4.5.3 Implementation Details The plan prepared by the Readiness Review Team shall identify specific characteristics to be assessed to meet the objectives , described in Section 3.5.4.4.1, above. These characteristics i shall be identified on checklists described below in Section 3.5.6. In addition to the checklists, guidelines and directions shall be provided to the QA assessor in the event specific documents, ! ~ equipment, piping isometrics selected for examination are incomplete, inaccessible, or unavailable for other reasons (see- i Section 3.5.5, below). , 3.5.4.6 Part 3, Design and Construction Completion Part 3 of the assessment plan addresses design completion ac t ivi t ies, acceptability of installed hardware, acceptability and retrievability of completed quality records developed during design and construction activities, and the Preoperational Test Phase program. 3.5.4.6.1 Obj ective ; O There are three distinct objectives to Part 3 of the assessment plan as listed below: , 3.5-7 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM t PROCEDURES ( ! o Evaluation of the design completion activities such as the finali zation prog rams (design verification), change cont rol packages, interface activities, and design change control. o Evaluation of as-installed product acceptability and the availability and retrievability of quality records, o Evaluation of the Preoperational Tert Phase. (Const ruction Acceptance Tests and Preoperational Tests) . 3.5.4.6.2 Sample Selection Unit 2 Readiness Review assessments will address programs and activities appropriate to the systems described in Section 3.5.4.4.2. Utilizing the sources described in Section 3.5.3.1, the Readiness Review Team will select general categories of documents for review and specific portions of systems being installed for evaluations. Alternatively, the team may select i specific tag number items and prepare checklists (or assessment O guides if checklists are inappropriate) for use by Readiness Review and QA personnel performing assessments. The sample to e be assessed shall be selected in response to the following criteria: o lepresent ative of Project activities on Unit 2. o Inclusion of all Unit 1 Readiness Review findings classified as Level I (having potential saf ety : significance) and all NRC violations that were, - within the scope of the module. - related to the Unit 1 Readiness Review Program. I o Inclusion of significant QA audit results (Audit Finding Reports (AFRs], Corrective Action Reports [ CARS]) from audit reports not considered in the. Unit 1 assessments. o Inclusion, as appropriate, of NRC identified deficiencies (violations, unresolved items , inspector > follow-up items ) f rom inspections subsequent to Unit 1 module publication. 3.5-8 t 8-10-87 ' PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 i () READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES o Consideration of Georgia Power Company (GPC)-generated reports of potential deficiencies ( co nst ruction deficiency reports). o consideration of deficiencies determined to be reportable. o Consideration of NRC oulletins and notices. o Consideration of significant industry problems identified subsequent to Unit 1 module assessment. o Inclusion of significant changes in Project programs, organizational responsibilities, and Unit 2-specific design aspects. o Consideration of deficiencies identified in the Quality Concerns program. Programs and activities found acceptable during the Unit 1 Readiness Review assessments need not be re-assessed unless ' reviews conducted in response to the selection criteria described above results in a potential concern. O('N 3.5.4.6.3 Sample Size Sample size (number of documents, number of welds, t ag-numbere d items, etc.) shall be established by the Readiness Review Team in consideration of the following criteria: o The sample shall reflect the status of construction completion of Unit 2 activities at the time of the Unit 1 assessment. ; o The sample shall reflect extent (isolated versus generic) of the deficiencies identified during the Unit 1 Readiness Review assessments. o The sample shall consider the f requency and significance of similar QA audit findings and NRC violations, unresolved items, and inspector follow-up items for audits and inspections performed subsequent to publication of the Unit 1 Readiness Review modules. l o The sample shall reflect the need to examine and demonstrate confidence in Project response to new or -w revised programs , w 3.5-9 I 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 () RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES I The Readiness Review Team is to consider the need for the imposition of an increased sample size should early results of ! assessments indicates problem areas. i 1 3.5.4.6.4 Implement ation Details The plan prepared by the Readiness Review Team shall identify specific characteristics to be assessed to meet the objectives , described in Section 3.5.4.4.1, above. These characteristics ! shall be identified on checklists described below in Section l 3.5.6. J In addition to the checklists, guidelines and directions shall be provided to the QA assessor in the event specific documents, equ ipme nt , piping isometrics selected for examination are i incomplete, inaccessible, or unavailable for other reasons (see Section 3.5.5, below). . 3.5.5 ASSE5SMENT SAMPLE DELETION OR SUBSTITUTION , i The specific samples to be assessed are selected by Readiness O i Review af ter consideration of availability, completion status, l access, etc. Based on the Unit 1 assessments, substitutions or ' deletions of specific checklist items will occur due to un-anticipated conditions. To minimize the frequency of such o c cur re nc es, the following recommendations shall be considered. o Identify alternate samples or a generic class of samples , (e.g., specify 2 calculations, 10 welds from these 3 : isometrics, 1 of these 2 heat exchangers, review ' cer tified material test reports for 3 heats of weld i filler metal, etc.). In the event alternate samples are not id ent ified , the assessor ; shall notif y the responsible Readiness Review team leader if the l prescribed sample cannot be assessed. The team leader shall ! identify an alternate sample, or with the concurrence of the I Readiness Review program manager authorize deletion of the assessment, delay the assessment , or transfer the assessment l activity to another module, j 3.5.6 CHECKLISTS The Readiness Review Team prepares checklists as a means of assari ag consideration of specific attributes or characteristics () to be evaluated during assessment ac t ivi t ies . 3.5-10 l . 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT ? RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM () PROCEDURdS 3.5.6.1 Format ; Checklists are prepared by Readiness Review on the form shown in Figure 3.5-1. For each checklist, the following items shall be entered by Readiness Review: o Checklist originator and date. o Sample identification. - Short description and information to be recorded by auditor for t racking item / documents examined. o For each checklist eleme nt or grouping of characteristics, the originator shall record the following information on the checklist : - Checklist item number for each entry. - Reference to source of specific requirement of characteristic to be examined ( e.g. , Project Ref erence Manual, Part C, 4.3.1.A, Pullnan Power Products O Procedure IX-18, paragraph 4.3.2, etc.). Characteristics or requirements which are assessed to evaluate the response to Readiness Review Unit 1 findings or NRC violations shall show a reference to the finding / violation. - The specific characteristics to be examined. Directions concerning the sample and sample size to be assessed may also be added if appropriate. 3.5.6.2 Checklist _ Preparation The assessment plan checklists shall identify the selected characteristics and/or attributes to be evaluated f or the sample items. Examples of characteristics or attributes that may be appropriate include: o Objective evidence of commitment implementation in calculations, specifications , drawings , and procedures. o Objective evidence of appropriate review and/or approval functions (including discipline chief 's reviews) as applicable for calculations, drawings, specifications, design criteria, change documents, and Deviation Reports (DRs). 3.5-11 d 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O PROCEDURES o Objective evidence that change documents { Design Change Notices (DCNs), Field Change Requests (FCRs), Supplier Deviation Disposition Requests (SDDRs), DRs, etc.] do not inf ringe upon licensing commitments unless covered by an approved Licensing Document Deviation (LDD) . o Objective evidence that calculation results are cor rectly reflected in drawings, specifications, etc. o Objective evidence that, where required, inputs to calculations are correct and/or that calculation output, where required, is cor rectly f actored into other approved calculations or designs. o Objective evidence that results and assumptions of calculations are consistent with the design criteria and licensing commitments. o Objective evidence of inter-discipline design coordination, when appropriate, for drawings, specifications, and design change documents. /~' o Objective evidence of design coordination between the Project and of f-Project design groups. o Objective evidence that design change documents including DRs, FCRs, and SDDRs, as appropri ate, are incorporated into design drawings and specifications. o Evidence that requirements for maintenance, storage, installation, and testing have been adequately addressed by appropriate procedures, instructions, and inspection reports. o Evidence of acceptable calibration status of tools or other items of measuring and test equipment (M&TE) used at the time of the activity. o Objective evidence that records are traceable to the activity and are complete, accurate, and signed off as required. o Objective evidence that prerequisite requirements were performed. o Evidence that Quality Control (QC) personnel are . appropriately certified. () o Evidence that exceptions noted on selected records have been identified on DRs es appropriate. 3.5-12 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES o Evidence that DRs have been properly dispositioned, justification statements are included for required dispositions, and that each closed report is signed by QC. o Evidence that any required test records are available, complete, accurate, ret rievable, and acceptable per applicable requirements, o Evidence that key installation attributes such as location, orient ation, mounting , welding , connections, configuration, separation, and identification are in accordance with design / vendor requirements. 3.5.6.3 Completion of Checklist Checklists are used as o guide during assessment activities. The characteristic or attribute (requirement) to be assessed is reviewed within the context to the identified reference and the list of questions and/or directions. () 3.5.6.3.1 Assessment Results - A record of the documents or hardware reviewed must be ma i nt ained (either on the checklist or on an attachment referencing the item number) to establish the basis for the i entry in the " accept" or " reject" columns. In addition to , identifying the specific sample, the " finding / comment" column is ; t o i: 1 used for description of the actual conditions found and i the reasoning for establishing the accept / reject status, j If the condition found is unacceptable, the " reject" column is checked and the AFR, CAR, or Readiness Review Finding (RRF) ! nunber is recorded in the " resolution" column. l l 3.5.6.3.2 Inapplicable Requirements Certain characteristics or attributes specified in the checklist , may not be applicable to the specific sample being evaluated. ; If thi s occurs, the assessor will enter "N/A" (not applicable) l in the " finding / comment" column with a short statement of ' ex pl a na t ion. Readiness Review concurrence is required prior to closure of the checklist. O 3.5-13 i ) 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 \ RE ADINESS RdVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES l 3.5.6.3.3 Unverified Requirements In the event the assessor is unable to perform the required ! examination or review (no access, no work in progress, etc. ), the assessor will enter "N/V" (not verified) in the l " f i nd i ng/c omment" column with an explanatory statement. , Readiness Review concurrence is required prior to closure of the l checklist. l 3.5.6.3.4 Checklist Closure ! The signature of the assessor in the " performed by" box indicates the assessor has completed his assessment, has reviewed the accuracy of the entries, and has included , appropriate backup documentation and records in the checklist package. The checklist package is reviewed by the Readiness Review team leader and the signature in that box attests to acceptability of the package and conclusions. ) 3.5.7 EVALUATION OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS The Readiness Review Task Force will review the checklists and I backup data for the purpose of: o Assuring completeness and acceptability of responses to i checklist requirements. l o Identifying and verifying accuracy of reported deficiencies. ) 3.5.7.1 Review of Response to Findings ! The Readiness Review Task Force will evaluate responses to l deficiencies reported on RRFs, GPC QA AFRs, or Bechtel QA CARS l in response to Section 8.2 of this procedure. ! The review shall address the subjects described in the " General Guidelines for Responding to Readiness Review Findings" as ! printed on the back side of the RRF form for all RRFs, AFRs, and j CARS. Additionally, the response shall be evaluated for the ! following: fs o Does it adequately address the identified deficiency? o Is it complete? l l 3.5-14 I l I 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM () PROCEDURE 9 o Is the action plan (if necessary) adequate to preclude future recurrence of the deficient conditions and is the schedule for corrective actions acceptable? o Does the deficiency indicate that corrective actions as a result of the Unit 1 Readiness Review Program are inadequate or have not been extended to Unit 2? Findings shall also be evaluated for collective significance when considered with findings f rom other modules, QA audits, and NRC inspections. 3.5.7.2 Assessment of Significance The team, af ter reviewing the finding response and upon consultation with the program manager, shall classif y findings into levels of importance based on potential impact to plant safety. The following levels are used: I. Violation of licensing commitments, project procedures, or engineering requirements with indication of safety concern. II. Violation of licensing commitments or engineering requirements with no safety concerns. III. Violation of project procedures with no safety concerns. IV. Non-finding based on additional information/ clarification supplied by the Pro ject. The level shall be indicated at the bottom of the finding form by adding the word " level" and the appropriate roman numeral, or - by checking the appropriate box in the verification block as provided by the current revision to the RRP (Figure 8.2-1) form. 3.5.7.3 Assessment Plan closeout The Readiness Review Team shall include the assessment plan, che ck li st s , and backup documentation in the Readiness Review module files. Prior to filing, the documents shall be checked to verif y that all deficient items have been addressed and that necessary information and documents are included to support the ' checklist entries. 0114P/222-7 3.5-15 4 4 g g o o ~ O - O READINESS REVIEW CHECKLIST NO. RR-PREPARED BY DATE AUDIT NO. PAGE OF SAWLE DENTIFICATION AUDIT DATE AREA AUDITORS m ITEM REFERE NCE DE0ulREMENT FINDING / COMME NT ACCEPT REJEC T m RESOLUTION v 8~ E? O=E
- r c Ge G ym tmdm-O O O w X 'O t/) A O
m WhW P- - OZh i M m MM w rt I U
! R'eadiness Review Program Manager , 0104P/218-7 t f : 8-6-87 1 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 ! READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM () PROCEDURES i o Provide day-to-day direction f or any technical personnel l assigned to the audit. o Issue, track, and close findings. j o Review, provide input, and concur with Unit 2 module ! assessment conclusions. ! i o Provide a statement as to the adequacy of the work j activities presented by the module. h 4.4 INTER? ACE ACTIVITIES ! o The Readiness Review Task Force will forward the draf t f assessment plan for each module supplement to the Vogtle ! QA manager for comment before submission of the plan to l the Readiness Review Board for approval. o Upon approval by the Readiness Review Board, the l assessment plan will be forwarded to the Vogtle QA i manager for implementation. ; () o QA will schedule initial meetings or initiate communications to advise Readiness Review of planning l progress, the audit schedule and requirements for j technical support and to resolve any problens with ! incorporating the assessment plan into a QA audit. o QA shall provide the Readiness Review Task Force the l opportunity to comment on findings and closures prior to . issuance or acceptance. o Findings issued by QA as a result of Readiness Review i assessment activities shall be clearly identified as ! such. l o In the event that the audit results in concerns by either QA or Readiness Review that are not shared, or i considered out-of-scope, the concerned entity shall j issue, track, and close their own findings following ! their applicable procedures. o Upon completion of the audit QA will forward copies of ! the executed checklists. to- the Readiness Review Task ! Force, i i o QA will provide the Readiness Review Task Force the l 5 opportunity to comment on any report of 'the audit prior ! to issuance. F 4-2 j 8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM [ L PROCEDURES o The Readiness Review Task Force will provide QA with the draft Unit 2 module for review. QA will concur with the assessment conclusions, a nd pro.vi de a statement as to the adequacy of the work activities presented by the module. l 0104P/218-7 j 4-3 l I 11-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADIN ES S REVIEW PROG RA M [s.- PROCEDU RES
- 5. PRE PARATION OF U NI T 2 MODULES 5.1 PURPO SE This procedure provides guidelines f or the contents and general format of modules and appendixes.
5.2 SCO PE This procedure applies to module / appendix documents prepared by the Readiness Review Task Forc e . 5.3 RE S PONSI BI L ITIES The Readiness Review program manager is responsible for the overall implementation of the Readiness Review prog ram. The Readiness Review team leaders are responsible for ensuring that the modules / appendixes conf orm to the requi rements of thi s p ro c edur e . 5.4 MODULE CONTENT The following are general guidelines f or the format anj contents of modules / appendixes. Adjustments will be made in cases which war ra nt ch a ng e . Preface This section will describe the scope and methodology of the Readiness Review program. Executive Summary , This section will contain the assessments of the Readiness Review Team and Board for the specific module. 1 Int roduction (1. ) ' This section will present the scope and boundaries for discussion within the specific module, identify in general the completion status of project work covered, and planned completion schedule. ( Revision: 1 Issue Date: 11-11-87 MO s R6adiness Revi ew Progra m Manager 0110P/314-7 11-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROG RAM ) PROCEDURES Organization (2.) This section will present organization charts and identify the current project g roup(s) responsible f or the wor k cove red by the module. Commi tme nt s (3.) This section will present a ma trix of the project licensing commitments for the work covered by the module as found in the Vogtle Electric Generating Pl a nt Final Saf ety Analysis Report ( FS AR ) , responses to generic let t ers, and other documents. The commi tment matrix will ident if y, by notation in the left margin, any changes in commitments f rom that identified in the Unit 1 modules. This section will also contain an implementation matrix which identifies the method of implementation for each commitment. The FSAR amendment used in establishment of the commitment mat rix and the date commitment l' implementation verification was completed will be stated in Section 3. Program Descrip t ion ( 4. ) This section will identify the Vogtle Project work activities and programs utilized to control work within the scope of the module. Additionally, this section will identify the controlling project design criteria, specifications, and procedures that cont rol work activities. Significant program changes since Unit 1 will be identified in this section. Audits, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Inspections, Special Investigations and Unit 1 Findi ng Fol l ow-u p (5.) { This section will identify in matrix form, the Quality Assurance [ (QA) audits and findings issued and the NRC inspections ! performed and findings issued on work activities or programs as they apply to a particular module. Also included will be a desc ription of any special investigations (or repor t able I deficiencies) within the scope of the module and a list of Readiness Review and NRC findings as a result of Unit 1 Readiness Review, indicating their applicability to Unit 2 and, if applicable, corrective actions taken to work processes or ( prog rams. Section 5.0 will be arranged as follows: o 5.1 Quality Assurance Audits; o 5.2 NRC Inspections; i O 5-2 i 11-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 7-s READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM q f PROCEDURES o 5.3 Special Investigations; o 5.4 Unit 1 Readiness Review and NRC Readiness Review findings (RRFs). Program Assessment (6.) This section will describe the assessment activities conducted to verify proper implementation of commitments and conformance to project procedures and requirements, including the assessment plan development, impleme ntati on , and re s u l t s . The section will include discussionr, in su bsection 6.3, of Readiness Review or Project activities which bear on the a s se ssme nt , but were conducted outside or in preparation of, the formal module assessment plan. The discussion should show how these activities af fected the module assessment or conclusions. Examples of such activities include (as appropriate to the module): o Project Quality Concern investigations and Readiness Review sc reenicg of Quality Concerns. o Readiness Review sc ree ning of NRC Inspection and Enforcement (I&E) Bulletins, o Pro j ect QA 's independent review and verification of cor rective action to NRC and Unit 1 RRFs. o Readiness Review screening and factoring into Unit 2 assessment plans, as appropriate, of occur rences in 1 Unit 1 start-up and operation. Section 6. will be organized as follows: o 6.1 Int rod uc t ion; o 6.2 Program Description; o 6.3 Summary and Conclusions; I o 6.4 Assessment Activities and Results; 4 o 6.5 Unit 2 Findings.
- O 5-3
e 11-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 r~s RE ADIN ES S REVIEW PROG RAM PROCEDURES Assessment of Module Adequacy (7.) This section will cont ain statements f rom the Pro j e ct organizations being assessed, Project QA, and the Readiness Review Board attesting to the accuracy of the information contained herein and the adequacy of the work under review. Assessment Plan and Checklists (8.) 5.5 WRITING OF MODULES AND GENERAL A P PEN DIXES When data has been collected through the use of the commitment mat rix , implementation mat rix, the audit mat rix, assessment che ck l ist s (reference procedure 6.0), and other appropriate means, team members consolidate the information into the module or general appendix format and prepare a draf t of the module / genera l appendix . When a complete draf t of a section of the module or general appendix is finished, copies of the section will be distributed for comments to the following individuals: o Readiness Review Board module sponsors; o Readiness Review program manager; o Team leader (s); o QA; o Pro j ec t . Each draf t will contain a cover page outlining the distribution and stating the date all comments are to be returned. The comment period will normally be seven days. All comments will be made clearly on the draft copies and returned to the team leader for consideration. If necessary, the team leader will schedule a meeting to resolve comments. The team leader will review the final draf t for: o Technical accuracy; o Technical adequacy; O 5-4 I s : 11-10-87 A PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADIN ES S REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES o Completeness of discussion; o Format; o Clarity of writing / illustrations; o Gramma tical cor rectness. The completed module is then issued for review in accordance with Section 6 of this manual. () I i 1 0110 P/314-7 5-5 4 i 4 11-10-87 ) PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 i RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM \ [A PROCEDU RES TYPICAL MODUL E FORMAT Preface Executive Summary
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Organization
- 3. Commitments
- 4. Program Desc ription
- 5. Aud its, NRC Inspections, Special Investigations, and Unit 1
/^ Findings (
- 6. Prog ram Assessment
- 7. As sessme n t of Module Adequacy
- 8. Assessment Plan and Checklists l1
~. 1 Figure 5-1 Typical Module Format 5-6 f 8-6-87 s PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 ,-s RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES ( )
- 6. ASSESSMENT OF MODULE ADEQUACY 6.1 PUR PO SE The purpose of this procedure is to define the process, requirements, and responsibility f or assessing the adequacy of the Unit 2 Readiness Review modules.
6.2 SCOPE This procedure applies to the evaluation of Unit 2 Readiness Review modules by the Readiness Review Task Force, the responsible project organizations, Project Quality Assurance, and the Readiness Review Board. 6.3 RESPONSIBILITIES The Readiness Review Program Manager is responsible f or the overall implementation of the Readiness Review Program procedures. Readiness Review Team members are responsible for performing an assessment of each module during the development process. It is the responsibility of the project general managers and their staf fs to evaluate appropriate module sections covering their areas of the work ef fort. The Readiness Review Board Chairman is responsible to summarize the consensus assessment by the Readiness Review Board for each module submitted. Evidence of thic consensus will be recorded in the Readiness Review Board meeting minutes and such statement will be included in each module. 6.4 GENERAL Each module shall have an " Assessment of Module Adequacy", Section 7, which shall contain as a minimum: o A statement by the appropriate project organizations attesting to the accuracy of the module and acceptability of the work activities covered by the module, ip) \_/ Revi s ' on: 0 Issue Date: September 28, 1987 Rehdiness Review Program Manager 0102P/218-7 t t ~ 8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O PROCEDURES . o A statement of certification as to the accuracy and technical correctness of the module's conclusion by the Readiness Review Program Manager. o A Quality Assurance statement attesting to the adequacy of the work activities covered by the module and as noted during the audit / assessment of those activities, o A statement of acceptance of the module and its conclusion by the Readiness Review Board. 6.5 ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE 6.5.1 READINESS REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS - Readiness Review Team members collect data and perform verification for the module in accordance with sections 3, 4, 5, and 8 of this manual. The evaluation of the data, including Project responses to findings, is f actored into the conclusions and is presented to the Readiness Review Board by the team - leaa er ( s ) . The conclusion shall be included in the executive Os summary and/or other appropriate sections of the module, 6.5.2 RESPONSIBLE PROJECT ORGANI ZATIONS Department managers whose line supervisors are or have been responsible for the work identified in a module will be requested to conduct an internal assessment of the module. This assessment will include an evaluation of the appropriate module sections for the correctness and completeness of the description of their wor k, activities, or responsibility. The assessment is to be documented by signature of appropriate project management on a letter, or other suitable means, , signifying concurrence with the module. r 6.5.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE Project Quality Assurance is responsible for incorporating assessment plans prepared by Readiness Review into audits, verification of checklist i t ems , and providing audit results to Readiness Review. Upon issuance of the draft module, Quality Assurance is responsible for reviewing the information contained, for concurrence with conclusions, and for providing a statement as to the adequacy of the work activities presented by the module. 6-2 l 8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES ['w)/ 6.5.4 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM MANAGER . Upon completion of the module, the Readiness Review Program Manager shall provide a statement attesting to the accuracy of the module. 6.5.5 RE ADINESS REVIEW BOARD The following activities provide the basis for board assessment of the module. These activities may be accomplished by the a ssignme nt of module sponsors who act on behalf of the Board and , provide status to the Board , o Reviews and approve s module scoping . f o Reviews and approves each assessment plan. l o Reviews and provides guidance on development of assessment policies and processes. o Monitors assessment activities by means of presentations /~ from the Readiness Review Program manager and Readiness (_,}/ Review Program staff. o Reviews and assesses the resolution of module findings. o Reviews and comments on the module. l o Reviews and accepts, where found to be acaquate, module conclusions. I Upon completion of these activities, the chairman of the Readiness Review Board shall prepare and sign a statement of consensus acceptance of the module contents and conclusions for inclusion in the module. 1 i l /~% 0102P/218-7 ' 6-3 I l l . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - 1 ! l l 8-6-87 4 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 7S RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM () PROCEDURES
- 8. ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS 8.1 PROCEDURE PREPARATION AND CONTROL l
8.1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this procedure is to define the responsibilities 1 and the requirements for the preparation, approval, and control ; of the Vogtle Project Readiness Review program procedures and I re vi sion s . 8.1.2 SCOPE l This procedure applies to procedures required to implement the Readiness Review program. 8.1.3 RESPONSIBI LI TIES The Readiness Review program manager is the final approval authority f or Readiness Review program procedures and is (^)% (_ responsible f or the overall implementation of the Readiness Review program procedures manual. The individual manual holders are responsible for the configuration of their manuals. 8.1.4 FORMAT The title of the manual shall appear at the top of each page of this manual. The issue date shall appear in the upper right corner of each page of each procedure. The bottom line of the first page of each procedure shall contain the revision number, the revision date, and the approval signature of the Readiness Review program manager. Revisions to procedures shall be indicated by a change bar in the right mar gin, numbered cor respond ing to revi sion number , indicating the lines that were changed from the preceding revision. ( Revi sion: 0 Issue Date: September 28, 1987 W-R6adiness Rdview Program Manager 0103P/218-7 t 8-6-87 4 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES ) Figures and illustrations will be placed at the end of the procedures and numbered using the procedure number plus another sequential number beginning with one (e.g., 8.1-1 would be the first figure / illustration to this procedure) . 8.1.5 CONTENT Each procedure shall have a statement of purpose which clearly defines the objective of the procedure. Following the statement of purpose, each procedure shall have a scope statement which clearly defines the intended applicability of the procedure. Following the scope statement , each procedure shall have a statement or statements which clearly define responsibilities for i npleme nt at ion . Each procedure shall, at a minimum, cont ain suf ficient description to identify what must be done and when, where, how, a nd by w ho m i t is to be accomplished. O 8.1.6 INITIATION Any member of the Readiness Review Team may initiate a draf t procedure or draft revision to a procedure for consideration by the Readiness Review prog ram manager . Drafts considered appropriate by the Readiness Review program manager shall be distributed to the task force members for detailed review. Comments generated f rom this review shall be f orwarded to the draft originator for resolution. The originator shall disposition and attempt to resolve all comments. Comments that cannot be resolved in this manner shall be presented to the Readiness Review program manager who will provide final resolution. Upon resolution of comments, the procedure shall be presented to the program manager for approval signature. 8.1.7 DISPOSITION , RETURN , AND TRANSFER OF M ANUALS The distribution of the Vogtle Project Readiness Review Program ( Procedures Manual shall be as follows: 8.1-2 i 8-6-87 6 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES V f' o The Readiness Review program manager shall designate those individuals to be assigned controlled copies of the manual. o The Readiness Review program manager shall maintain a controlled distribution list, assign copy numbers, and issue the procedures manuals and subsequent revisions. o Manual holders shall notif y the Readiness Review program manager via memo and return the manual when the manurl is no longer required. l o Manual holders shall notify the Readiness Review program manager via memo when a manual is being transfer red to a no the r individual. 1 l l l l <N i ,, s 0103P/218-7 1 8.1-3 l l l l l l 02-24-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 l READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM /~'$ PROCEDURES \v 8.2 DEFICIENCY REPORTING 8.2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this procedure is to define the methods by which items or activities considered by the Readiness Review Team to be in noncompliance to project commitments, specifications, drawings, or procedures, are identified, reported to the responsible organizations, tracked, and resolved to the satisfaction of the Readiness Review Team. This procedure is not intended to bypass, in part or wholly, existing project deviation reporting systems. ) 8.2.2 SCOPE This procedure applies to items found by Readiness Review Team members which are determined to be in noncompliance with project commitments, specifications, drawings, or procedures. 8.2.3 RESPONSIBILITIES \ ~' 8.2.3.1 Readiness Review Program Manager The Readiness Review program manager is responsible for overall implementation of the Readiness Review program. 8.2.3.2 Readiness Review Team Members The Readiness Review Team members are responsible for identifying findings, identifying responsible responding organizations, obtaining commitment dates compatible with module schedules, and acceptance of project resolutions. In addition, team members are responsible for ensuring that findings and appropriate response documentation are retained in the Readiness Review permanent files. 8.2.3.3 Clerk The Readiness Review clerk is responsible for maintaining the Readiness Review Finding (RRF) log book and assigning unique numbers to the RRFs as requested by the team leaders. The clerk. makes distribution of RRFs as required. l /') Revi i n: 2 Issue Date: 3-15-88 l l Readiness Review Program Manager 0096P/055-8 02-24-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM /~ PROCEDURES 8.2.3.4 Ouality Assurance Quality Assurance (QA) is responsible for reviewing each RRF for potentially reportable conditions in accordance with QA department procedures. NOTE Engineering, Construction, and Readiness Review are responsible for notifying QA of any identified potentially reportable conditions as per Project Policies and Procedures Manual, Procedure 7.2. 8.2.3.5 Responsible Organization Managers The responsible organization managers are to provide timely and complete responses. The responsible manager's signature is required for all final responses (see section 8.2.4.3). 8.2.4 INITIATION AND PROCESSING G 8.2.4.1 Initiation Readiness Review Team members, upon discovery of an apparent noncompliance to project commitments, specifications, drawings, or procedures, shall initiate a RRF on the RRF form (see Figure 8.2-1) citing the requirement and the apparent noncompliance. All initiated RRFs are then forwarded to the team leader for review. The Readiness Review team leader shall evaluate the finding and determine whether the identified noncompliance appears to be valid. If the finding is judged to be valid, the team member shall enter on the form, the organization (s) responsible for resolution, the required response date in the appropriate block, the unique RRF number obtained from the Readiness Review Task Force clerk, his name in the originator's box, and the date in the adjacent box. If the RRF is determined by the team leader to be invalid, the team leader shall enter an explanation on the form and return the finding to the originator. O b 8.2-2 02-24-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM a "'] PROCEDURES NOTE The originator, at any time, may discuss with the program manager deficiencies rejected by the team leader the originator considers valid. After approval by the team leader, the finding is forwarded to the program manager for his approval. 8.2.4.2 Processing A copy of the RRF will be transmitted by memo from the Readiness Review program manager to the responsible organization for resolution. Copies of the transmittal shall be forwarded to the Project director, functional organizational manager against which the finding is written, Unit 1 Nuclear Operations - Nuclear Safety and Compliance, Project QA for review for reportability, and the finding originator. Copies of findings identified during Module 23, Plant Security, assessment 2 activities will be forwarded to the Plant Security manager ,, instead of QA for evaluation. (,~ The original is filed subsequently in the RRF log book. For findings issued by QA, Readiness Review receives a copy and files it in the RRF log book. l l 8.2.5 RESOLUTION AND CLOSURE NOTE l This procedure section addresses RRFs and findings (Audit l Finding Reports issued by GPC QA, Corrective Action Requests issued by Bechtel QA) issued by QA while performing a Readiness Review function. 8.2.5.1 Resolution As defined in the guidelines on Figure 8.2-1 Sheet 2, the responding organization will perform remedial, investigative, 1 and corrective action, as required, to resolve the finding. The j response should identify the root cause of the discrepancy, the extent, any actual or potential impact upon hardware, and a o s-8.2-3 02-24-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM ; PROCEDURES i cummation of the significance of the discrepancy, as ; appropriate. 3 When appropriate, the responsible organization should initiate and issue any Deviation Reports (DRs), Deficiency Evaluation Reports (DERs), or other reporting forms ac required by } applicable QA program requirements. ! A complete resolution response should be contained on an ; attachment to the the finding. Copies of related DRs, DERs, etc. should be attached as appropriate. The response shall reference the finding and be signed and dated by the manager having responsibility for the work, (e.g., department manager - t construction findings) and returned promptly to the originating [ organization. Copies shall be distributed to Project QA and ) Readiness Review as appropriate. ; i NOTE ; ) In the event all required actions cannot be completed { in time to support the module publication, the l response should provide a suitable action plan, ! including commitment dates. ! i 8.2.5.2 Evaluation of Project Response Upon receipt of the finding response, the appropriate team ! shall evaluate the response for acceptability. Acceptable i responses shall be approved by the originator and Readiness i Review program manager and subsequently filed in the RRF log. The RRF tracking log shall also be closed out. i If rejected, the responsible organization shall immediately be i verbally informed of the reasons for rejection with a memo following to that effect. After resolution, copies of the finding and response shall be i transmitted to the originator, Project QA (Plant Security 2 ; manager for Module 23), Unit 1 Nuclear Operations - Nuclear i Safety and Compliance, and Readiness Review. (1) ! 8.2-4 { i .. - . . . . . - - - . ~ - . - . _ _ _ - - 02-24-88 ! PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 [ READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM : PROCEDURES , 8.2.5.3 Assessment of Significance I The team, after reviewing the finding response and upon consultation with the program manager, shall classify findings j into levels of importance based on potential impact to plant ; safety. The following levels are used: I. Violation of licensing commitments, project procedures, or : engineering requirements with indication of safety concern. j II. Violation of licensing commitments or engineering [ requirements with no safety concerns. I III. Violation of project procedures with no safety concerns. ! IV. Non-finding based on additional information/ clarification supplied by the Project. The level shall be indicated at the bottom of the finding form by adding the word " level" and the appropriate roman numeral, or - by checking the appropriate box in the verification block as provided by the current revision to the RRF (Figure 8.2-1) . form. . I i i l i r i i I . i 0096P/055-8 8.2-5 02-24-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES s READINESS REVIEW FINDING (RRF) ruJu d.E PEL uruvu(ATUR DATE rw.anmam6E 2RRF- - REQUIREMENTS: RNDING: i a iRESPONSE mioonAN wnAnot AarnovAu 'DUE DATE: LEVED DI DII O III DIV RESPONSE Act3FTANCE ACCEPTED BY ERIGDETER DATD ACCEPTED BY PMMRM MANAIER DATD tesponse 7- tCas are shorn on %w reverse stele Figure 8.2-1 Readiness Review Finding Form (Sheet 1 of 2) 8.2-6 02-24-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES Eggeral Guidelines for Reseendine To Beadiness Review Findines Responses to Readiness Review findings are to be type + written with each clearly indicating the finding number and the person to contact in regard to the response. Each response aust be approved by manager level or higher. t For each finding, the response must address:
- 1. INVESTIGATIVE ACTION
. What is the ettent of the problem? Additional sampling for like deficiencies should be considered unless it can be adequately demonstrated that the finding to isolated or has already been determined to be generic. . What le the significance of the specific deficiency? le there any impact, actual or potential. on hardware. technical adequacy, test results, etc.? - What le tho' collective significance of stallar deficiencies noted by additional campling or other Readiness Review lindings? . What le the root cause of the deficioacy(s)? * !!. REMEDIAL ACTION . What has been done to correct the specific identified deficiencies? - What has been done to correct like discrepancies identified during the investigative process? - What has been done to resolve other etatlar problems when it is determined a generie deficiency existof 111. ACT!DN 70 PREVENT RECURRENCE . What actione have been taken to assure that repetitive / generic deficiencies will not recur? ADDITIONALLY:
- 1. When required action rannot be completed to support finding due dates, a detailed action plan shall be submitted with allestone dates.
- 2. If the finding results in the generation of DRe. DERs.
4 LDDs. FCRe, procedure revisions, etc.. this action along with final disposition must be reported to the Readiness Review Task Force.
- 3. Any subsequent response revisione aust be forwarded to the Readinese Review Task Force. '
- 4. Resulte of ecanitted to actions must be reported to the Readinese Review Task Force upon completion for review and retention in the permanent Readinese Review files.
- 5. Responses should clearly indicate as appropriate what happened, why it happened any sitigating circumstances or other information that will put the finding in perspective ,
to a third party reader.
- 6. Any conclusione regarding findings should be properly and "
adequately supported by objective evidence and/or sound logie. l t j /'" 0%$4M/120-7 ( Figure 8.2-1 Readiness Review Finding Form (Sheet 2 of 2) f l 8 . 2 -- 7 02-24-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 i READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM l PROCEDURES INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETION OF THE READINESS REVIEW FINDING FORM ITEM NUMBER: Enter a sequential number obtained from the Readiness Review Task Force clerk consisting of two RRFs (module ; number) - (sequential number). ORIGINATOR: Enter the name of the person who . identified the discrepancy. ! DATE: Enter the date the discrepancy was identified. ; RESPONSIBLE Enter the organization affected by the ORGANIZATION: finding and responsible for resolution of the discrepancy and/or for ; supplying resolution (Example: BPC-PFE, Construction, Nuclear
- Operating, etc.)
REQUIREMENTS: Enter the requirement and a reference to the document and paragraph containing the requirement. FINDING: Enter a description of the noncompliance and how it differs from the required condition. RESPONSE DUE DATE: Enter the scheduled date for completion of response. l TEAM LEADER APPROVAL / PROGRAM MANAGER APPROVAL: (self explanatory) i l 5 ? I t i Figure 8.2-2 Instructions for Completion of the i Readiness Review Finding Form (Sheet 1 of 2) l I 8.2-8 i i 02-24-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM r"'g PROCEDURES I 1 V LEVEL: The team leader shall check the appropriate box indicating severity level of the finding based upon the project's response. ACCEPTANCE: The team member and program manager approves the finding response upon acceptance. NOTE Finding responses will be provided upon separate documents attached to the finding report by the responding entity. All responses shall clearly indicate the finding number, response date, and contain the signature and title of the person making the response. b (~-) 0096P/055-8 , Figure 8.2-2 Instructions for Completion of the , Readiness Review Finding Form (Sheet 2 of 2) 8.2-9 1 02-24-88 l PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 l READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM Q PROCEDURES s , d ! O f B 5 l 8l s l l il l 3 h , - W . E 3 t i e 1 1 l 1 11 : 1 O Figure 0.2-3 Readiness Review Program Finding Tracking Log i l 8.2-10 i i l l e 8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM () PROCEDURES 8.3 RESPONDING _TO NRC ITEMS 8.3.1 PURPOSE Du r i ng the course of performing their evaluation of the modules and appendices, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) may identify questions or issues that will require a response. This procedure outlines the steps to be taken to ensure timely and accurate responses to these items. 8.3.2 SCOPE The f ollowing NRC items are addressed by this procedure: Category I - Inspector Follow-up Items (IFI) Unresolved Items (URI) Violations Devi at ions Deficiencies Category II - Written or verbal questions requiring a written O response. t 8.3.3 PROCESSING NRC ITEMS Category I Category I items are assigned tracking numbers by the NRC and will be entered in the Readiness Review action report for tracking (see Figure 8.3-1). Once the item is identified, Readiness Review will evaluate the item and, with Project help, ident ify the appropriate organizations to supply the response. The Project Regulatory Compliance group will assist in this process and will also track the item in accordance with their procedures. Inspector Follow-up Items (IFI) and Unresolved Items (URI) do not require a written response to be formally submitted to the NRC but do require a written response submitted to Readiness Review for approval prior to submittal to the compliance coordinator for retention. Revi, ion: 0 Issue Date: September 28, 1987 (} ~) .)$ _ /. .. * <-_. Readiness Review Program Manager 010lP/218-7 As4 4 i 8-6-87 9 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O PROCEDURES NRC violations and deviations require a formal response to the NRC by Project and will be coordinated by the compliance ; coordinator in accordance with procedure GD-A-41. Prior to l submittal, the draft response shall be concurred with by Readiness Review, t Category II Questions f rom the NRC are tracked by Readiness Review who has sole responsibility for ensuring timely response to those questions. Questions are tracked in the Readiness Review Action Report . Questions are of two types, those formally submitted in 'a letter and verbal questions requiring a formal response. Ver bal - questions answered verbally are not covered by this procedure. l questions in the scope of this procedure are received, aess Review will identify who should supply the informction foi the response. A member of the Readiness Review Task Force - .1 then work with these individuals to ensure the question is fully and correctly answered. once answers are formulated, Readiness Review will draf t the O letter to the NRC. The letter will be f orwarded to licensing and the appropriate Project organizations for review and comments. Once all comments are resolved the letter will be signed by a project executive and mailed to the NRC. NOTE Each person involved in the preparation, review, l coordination, and approval of correspondence to the NRC is accountable, within his area of responsibility , f or (1) ensuring the overall accuracy of information, (2) ensuring that no misstatements are made in cor respondence, including clerical errors, transposition or errors made through simple negligence, (3) ensuring proper concurrence by other organizational entities who are involved in or af fected by the subject matter, : and (4) ensuring complete and proper implementation of any actions. t I k 010lP/218-7 ' 8.3-2 ! s . l . l READINESS RE , IEW PROGRAM ACTION TR A *:ING I,0G i RESPON-SIBLE EDIT ITEM DATE MOD- ORGANI- DATE RR DATE NRC DATE i NO. SOURCE NO. LEVEL ITEM SUBJECT ISSUED ULE ZATION DUE STATUS C y STATUS CLOSED EXPLANATION OF FI E tDS m M ' EDIT NO - The comput er record nusber. t h N SOURCE - Identification of type and source of action item. m' Z O D y* NRC INSP REPORT - Nuclear Regulator y Commi ssion (NRC) i nspect nun r epor t . TM MM 4 C MRC LETTER - Lett er i rom t he NRC. O m H g
- N O NRC Review QUESTION - Quest ion t ransmi t ted inf orma lly f rom t he NHC dur a rvi O%
the course of a module review. UM H NRC TELECOM - Telephone conversation with the NRC. w n w )FM
- p. ITEN NO wM 3
4 y - The NRC identified item number or a Readiness Revtew assigned number consist ing of the module number and a sequent ially assigned nunt>er . M lC M g N g LEVEL - Finding level of significance. H 8 ITEM SUBJECT - Subject of the act ion item. h) DATE ISSUED - Date issued by the source. 3: NODULE - Readiness Review module. RESPON ORGIN - The Project organization resonnsible for the action. ACTION - Those activities ident ified to take place to respond or resolve t he concer n. DUE DATE - Readiness Review assigned date in-light-of actions required to respond to the NRC. RR STATUS - Ident ified as open unt il Readiness Review i s sat i sf ied that the response is acceptable or act ion is complet er reassigned as closed. 'w s m DATE COMP. - Dat e that Headiness Revt ew st at us is changed t o closed, i G NHC STATUS - Ident t f ied as ogw*n une i I t he NkC a dent i f t e s t he res[unse or act ton i s accett atale. St at us a s t hese s e - a s s tijneti as close d. CLt) SED DATt: - Dat e 4 hat NHC st et us i s cha wl+ d a u close. ( l 8-5-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 ggl RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM (p PROCEDURES 8.4 T RA INING Each employee shall receive indoctrination upon assignment to the Readiness Review program and specific t raining in the requirements of the program. 8.4.1 INDOCTRINA7 ION Ind octrination s hall consist of, but is not limited to: o The objectives of the Readiness Review program, o A desc rip t ion of the plant . o A description of the site organization and management. o The Quality Concern prog ram, o The documents and procedures to be used. r 8.4.2 SPECIFIC TRAINING 's-In addition t o indoctrination, each employee shall receive specific training in the requirements of the program procedures and revision. Supervisory personnel shall determine which procedures require presentation and use by subordinates and will give t raining ac cor di ngly . Revisions to procedures shall also be handled in this way. 8.4.3 IMPLEMENTATION Supervisory personnel will be responsible for the ind oc t ri nat i on of all subordinates and will document the training on the Readiness Revi ew Program Training Indoctrination form, Pigure 8.4-1 or the Readiness Review Program Training Report, Figure 8.4-2. These f orms will be maintained in the employee's Readiness Review personnel file maintained by the Readiness Review program staff. Revi ion: 0 Issue Date: September 28, 1987 ./ . W Rdadiness Review Program Manager Oll3P/217-7 t 8-5-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE A DIN ES S REVIEW PROG PAM PROCEDURES Vogtle Project READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM TRAINING INDOCTRINATION EMPLOYEEE S S NUMBER DATE _, The foilcwing indoctrination subjects were expiarned to the employee Emotoyee's !netials 1 Tne oblective of the Aeadiness Aeview Program 2 A description of the plant 3 A description of the site organization and management 4 The Ovahty Concern Prog'am 5 The documents and procedures to be used 6 Other (Explasn) SUPERVISOA NOTE This document is to be tiied in the empsoyee s personnel hie maintained by Aeadiness Rev'ew l Figu re 8. 4-1 Readiness Review Program Training Indoctrination Form 8.4-2 { t ( - 8-5-87 PLAtJT VCGTLE UNI 2 2 RE A DIN ES S REVI EW PROG RAM ??OCEDU?i3 i Vogtle Project READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM TRAINING REPORT l, l EMPLOYEES I 1 l SUBJECT I i DATE AND PLACE ' i CETAILS OF TAAINING SUPERvlSOR NOTE. The onginal will be maintainec ey the supervisor. and a copy will be placeo in eacn empicyee s personnes te O ' Figu re 8.4-2 Readiness Review Program Training Report 8.4-3 01-19-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 ; READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM () i PROCEDURES ; 8.5 SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION CONTROL i 8.5.1 PURPOSE This procedure establishes the requirements for controlling and distributing Safeguards Information received or originated by , the Readiness Review Team during preparation and assessment of - Readiness Review Module 23, Plant Security. ! t 8.5.2 SCOPE k I This procedure applies to the development, receiving, issuing, storage, and use of documents received or originated by ; Readiness Review. This procedure applies to all Readiness i Review personnel and is not intended to invalidate any of the applicable requirements of procedure number 00650-C of the }' Project Administrative Procedures Manual. 8.5.3 RESPONSIBILITIES () 8.5.3.1 Readiness Review Procram Manager ; The Readiness Review Program Manager is responsible for-overall l implementation of-this procedure. i 8.5.3.2 Readiness Review Team Leader The Readiness Review Team Leader for Module 23 is responsible l for determining which information should be classified as Safeguards. 8.5.3.3 Readiness Review Team Members The Readiness Review Team members are responsible for complying with this procedure when receiving or originating safeguard. documents and during storage and use of safeguards documents. i Revision: 0 1ssue Date: January 20, 1988 O W - R"eadiness Review Program Manager ~ 0116P/019-8 ; 01-19-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES ( 8.5.4 GENERAL 8.5.4.1 Information to be Protected 1 I The specific types of information, documents, correspondence, reports, etc. to be protected are those dealing with details of l the Plant Security System, including: o Plant security and contingency plans. o Engineering drawings, vendor documents, sketches or descriptions of intrusion alarms, guard posts, or other security equipment. o Portions of guard training and qualification plans, related to response of attacks or threats, or which reveal details of security equipment. o Guard orders or procedures, excluding routine duties such as traffic control, material passes, etc. o Response and patrol routes. o Information related to on-site or off-site response l forces. o Communication methods or equipment. o Correspondence, inspection reports, and audits that reveal Safeguards Information. o Information related to specific spent fuel shipments (shipping routes and quantities of spent fuel are not classified). I o Drawings or documents that explicitly identify certain areas or equipment as being vital for purposes of physical protection, q o Draft and final copies of the Readiness Review Module 23, including completed checklists and findings. O 8.5-2 . - - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ .a 01-19-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM > PROCEDURES ( 8.5.4.2 Access to Safecuard Information A. Only personnel who appear on the immediate access list will be allowed to sign out and remove Safeguards Information and - to receive Readiness Review originated documents. , B. Personnel that have been fingerprinted may access Safeguards l Information on a need to know basis with the approval of the ' Readiness Review Program Manager or his designee. , 8.5.4.3 Protection While in Use and Storace ! A. While in use, Safeguards Information shall be controlled by the person authorized for access. This individual must limit access to the information to those individuals who have a "need to know". Safeguards Information must be I attended by an authorized individual, even though the { information may not be in constant use. . B. While unattended, safeguards documents shall be stored in a ! locked GSA approved security storage container or in a metal storage cabinet provided with a locking bar and a GSA O i' approved combination lock. C. A log shall be maintained listing all safeguards documents contained in the storage cabinet (Figure 8.5-1). Each i document shall be assigned a sequential control number. D. Individual items of correspondence, with or without ; attachments, may be stored in file folders with a common , control number. Individual sequential numbers are not i required for each item if the item is identified by a correspondence log number. E. Authorized individuals removing documents from the containers shall log the documents in the Safeguard Document Sign Out Log (Figure 8.5-2). I I 8.5.4.4 Preparation and Marking of Documents ] A. Readiness Review shall ascertain that any safeguard documents received by Readiness Review are properly marked in accordance with administrative procedures. Originator shall be notified of any omission for immediate correction. 8.5-3 l l a ~. . - . - . . . . . - . - .. . .- - .-. 01-19-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 , READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM () PROCEDURES B. Safeguard documents originated by Readiness Review shall be i conspicuously marked with an approved Safeguards Information stamp (Figure 8.5-3, item a or b). Each page of the document shall be stamped. In addition, the first page of l the document shall be identified with an assigned copy number and the name of the assigned individual (Figure 8.5-3, item c). C. Readiness Review shall ascertain that the receiving , individual has been authorized access to Safeguards Information before issuing the document. D. Cover letters or transmittal documents used to transmit safeguards documents shall not contain Safeguards Information and shall be stamped indicating that the cover document is decontrolled when separated from safeguards attachments (Figure 8.5-3, item d). 8.5.4.5 Reproduction and Destruction A. Safeguard documents originated by others shall not be reproduced in whole or in part. If additional copies are O required, they should be obtained from the originating organization. B. Safeguard documents originated by Readiness Review shall be reproduced by authorized personnel to the minimum extent ! possible consistent with the needs for minimum ! distribution. All reproductions shall be assigned a copy number per sections 8.5.4.4.B and 8.5.4.6.B. C. Safeguard documents no longer needed for the work shall be ; returned to the issuing department or destroyed by any t method that assures complete destruction of the Safeguards Information they contain. Destraction or return shall be ; documented on remarks column of the Safeguards Document Distribution Log. 8.5.4.6 External Transmittal of Safecuards Documents A. Safeguards Information will be enclosed in two sealed " envelopes or wrappers when being mailed on- or off-site. l The inner envelope or wrapper will contain the name and. 8.5-4 t 01-19-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 ! READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM () PROCEDURES [ address of the intended recipient and should be marked on i both sides, top and bottom, with the words SAFEGUARDS ! INFORMATION. The outer envelop or wrapper will show the i recipient's name and address but shall not indicate that Safeguards Information is enclosed. [ i B. A distribution log, shall be maintained listing all issued [ documents, copy numbers, and name of recipient of each copy ; (Figure 8.5-4). C. Recipients of Safeguards Information originated by Readiness f Review shall be required to sign an acknowledgement i certifying the receipt of the safeguards document ; (Figure 8.5-5). ; D. Safeguards Information shall not be transmitted over unprotected telephone lines except in emergencies. This restriction applies to telephone, telegraph, teletype,
- facsimile transmission, and radio. Exceptiona to this policy may be granted only by the Readiness Review Program Manager. j Safeguards Information may be transported by O E.
messenger-courier, United States first class, registered, express, or certified mail, or by an individual authorized access. 8.5.4.7 Use of Automated Data Processing Systems (WANG. PC. ! etc.) A. Word processing equipment.may be used for preparation of safeguard documents. Documents generated shall be ; transferred to tapes, disketts, etc., and stored as specified in Section 8.5.4.3 and'shall be deleted from the word proctusing program at the end of each day. B. Personnel responsible for performing word processing or text editing of generated documents shall be cleared for "NEED TO KNOW" according to Section 8.5.4.2.B. 8.5.4.8 Removed from Safeguards Information Category A. Documents originally containing Safeguards Information shall be removed from the-Safeguards Information category when the , l ( l l 8.5-5 l 1 l 01-19-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES information no longer meets the criteria specified in section 8.5.4.1. B. Only the Readiness Review Program Manager and the Module 23 Team Leader are authorized to reclassify Safeguards Information. O O 8.5-6 ; \ ~ O O O i READINESS REVIEW l SAFEGUARDS DOCUMENTS STORAGE LOG DATE DATE ,8 ITEM NUMBER SUBJECT REMARKS RECEIVED. RETURNED j E' < m T m =p> Z $M n M mm g f h < P gn - - omg e I n. a mm U<er hyM 4 cn f --- m "E e c g- m5 ge c 2 gm i ~ E O n _ _ _.. 2 e-O o . - - p 7 b h*kk eh _,. @ r 01_19-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM ( PROCEDURES READINESS REVIEW SAFEGUARDS DOCUMENTS SIGN OUT LOG JSER S NAME DATE TiVE OUT Tiv E IN NbBER PAGE Figure 8.5-2 Readiness Review Safeguards Documents Sign Out Log 8.5-8 01-19-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES I l SAFEGLAR:'S l INFCRMATIC 1 UNAUTHORIZED De MIRE OF THIS INFORMATION IS SU8)ECT TO civil AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES DO NOT DUPLICATE l item a. I SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION Item b. O s-UARos- -1. READINESS REVIEW SUBMITTAL l COPY NUMBER: ISSUED TO: Item c. 4 sAPtouAmos INPORMAT10N DECONTR0ufD WHEN sEPAAATED PROM ATTACHMENT l Item d. l Figure 8.5-3 Sample Safeguards Stamps 8.5-9 F i 01-19-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM Q%J PROCEDURES READINESS REVIEW SAFEGUARDS DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTION LOG DOCUMENT NUMBER:
SUBJECT:
COPY DATE ACGOME3GE ISSUE 3 TO: REMARKS NUVBER ISSUE 3 RECElpTt3 ATE)
PAGE Figure 8.5-4
- Readiness Review Safeguards Documents Distribution Log 8.5-10 i
(
)
01-19-88 i
PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM
/N PROCEDURES
%,Y READINESS REVIEW SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION DOCUMENT TRANSMITTAL Document Copy No. Descrip_ tion No. Issued To: Date RECEIPT ACKNOWLE!EEMM im
/ } I have received the above listed proprietary Safeguards Information
\ / documents. I certify that all documents in my possession shall be safeguarded in accordance with Procedure 00650-C, ' Safeguards Information
~
Control *.
On-site recipients shall sign and return this transmittal within 5 days.
Off-site recipients shall sign and return this transmittal within 15 days.
DATE OF RECEIPT:
RECEIVED BY EXTENSION LOCATION Please sign and return this transmittal to R. W. McManus Readiness Review Program Manager Plant Vogtle Construction Field Office Post Office Box 282 Waynesboro, GA 30830 0008w/019-8 Figure 8.5-5 I,_)s i Readiness Review Safeguards Information Document Transmittal L
8.5-11
i a
r
?
) .
I 4
THE VOGTLE PROJECT UNIT 2 i ;
RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM '
PROCEDURES MANUAL ,
i i
i i
1 1
i i
1 MANUAL NUMBER: 35 ISSUED TO: M. V. Sinkule ORGANI ZATION: US, NRC - Region II "
L DATE: September 28, 1987 ..
D.
- n
l 'd i .
6 i
l i
I I
k
. - _ _ ...~ ., _ _ , _ ..._- - .._,.. ..._-..... .._ ,... _ _ _..___ _ _ .-._ _ _ _ _ .
PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 )
READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM f PROCEDURES 1
\-s '
i FO REWORD l
The Vogtle Project Readiness Review Program Procedures Manual j establishes procedures, methods, and instructions to be followed by all Readiness Review Program personnel in the performance of their duties. Also, interfaces with the Nuclear Regulatory Consission are described in this ma nual.
Controlled copies of this manual are distributed to Readiness Revi ew Program team leaders and to those people designated by l1 Readine ss Review Prog ram management. It is the re sponsibilit y of those people in supervisory positions to ensure that subordinates are trained in and are f amiliar with procedu res cont ained herein.
Manual holders are expected to become familiar with the manual and to use it in their work. New or revised procedu res are
-s ef fective upon distribution and shall be implemented immediately.
%J J
/
R. W. McManus Rea diness Rev.iew Prog ram Manager i
Date: / D M o v 8 ^7
/
.$ v 05 7 5M /314-7
March 17, 1988
)
\~J UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES MANUAL DISTRIBUTION Manual Number Issued To Manual Number Issued To 1 R. W. McManus 20 D. W. Strohman 2 D. L. Edenfield 21 G. Bockhold, Jr.
3 P. R. Thomas 22 A. L. Musbaugh 4 R. C. Sommerfeld 23 .F. R. Timmons 5 M. G. Upchurch 24 H. M. Handfinger 1 6 NA 25 D. M. Fiquett 7 J. P. O'Reilly 26 C. W. Rau 8 NA 27 NA 9 P. D. Rice 28 L. N. Brooks 10 R. H. Pinson 29 A. W. Harrelson 11 W. C. Ramsey 30 NA 12 D. E. Dutton '31 D. L. Kinnsch 13 R. A. Thomas 32 J. P. Hawley i
14 C. T. Moore 33 R. J. Gross 15 D. T. King 34 M. V. Sinkule (2) 16 J. A. Bailey 35 M.-V. Sinkule 17 C. W. Hayes 36 A. B. Gallant 18 E. D. Groover 37 W. G. Uhouse 19 G. A. Yunker 38 R. J. Schepens l 1
Original: B. J. Dann
\
0575M/076-8 l
PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES DATE ISSUED: March 17, 1988 CHANGE LOG Procedure Revision Date
- 1. 0 08-06-87
- 2. 0 08-06-87 0
3.1 08-06-87 3.2 0 08-06-87 3.3 0 09-21-87 3.4 0 08-10-87 3.5 0 08-10-87
- 4. 0 08-06-87 O' 5. 1 11-10-87
- 6. 0 08-06-87
- 7. Reserved NA ,
l 8.1 0 08-06-87 8.2 2 02-24-88 8.3 0 08-06-87 8.4 0 08-05-87 8.5 0 01-19-88 0 0575M/076-8
01-21-88 fs PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2
(\' READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM
) PROCEDURES MANUAL Table of Contents (Sheet 1 of 4)
Section 1. Program Description 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Objective 1.3 Scope Section 2. Organization and Responsibilities 2.1 Purpose 2.2 Organization 2.2.1 Readiness Review Board 2.2.2 Readiness Review Task Force 2.3 Responsibilities 1
2.3.1 Readiness Review Board 2.3.2 Readiness Review Task Force
(' ' 2.3.3 Quality Assurance
( 2.3.4 Project Engineering, Project Construction, Project Start-up, and Nuclear Operations 2.4 Qualifications 2.4.1 Readiness Review Program Manager 2.4.2 Readiness Review Team Member Section 3. Readiness Review Process 3.1 Conduct of Review 3.1.1 Purpose 3.1.2 General 3.2 Commitment Identification and Implementation 3.2.1 Purpose 3.2.2 Scope 3.2.3 Responsiti.1 ties 3.2.4 Commitmei, efinition 3.2.5 Commitmen identification 3.2.6 Preparatim. of Commitment Matrix 3.2.7 Commitment Implementation
(~3) 3.2.8 Revised or Added Commitments 0097P/021-8
01-21-88 s PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES MANUAL Table of Contents (Sheet 2 of 4) 3.3 Unit 1 Finding Followup 3.
3.1 Purpose and Scope
3.3.3 Scope 3.3.3 Responsibilities 3.3.4 Identification and Listing of Findings 3.3.5 Project Action 3.3.6 Readiness Review Action 3.4 Module Scopes 3.4.1 Purpose 3.4.2 Scope 3.4.3 Responsibilities 3.4.4 Program Scoce 3.4.5 Scope Statements Appendix 1 3.5 Unit 2 Assessment
())
3.5.1 Purpose l
3.5.2 Scope 3.5.3 General 3.5.4 Personnel -
3.5.5 Assessment Sample Deletion or Substitutioi ;
3.5.6 Checklists 3.5.7 Evaluation of Assessment Results Section 4. Readiness Review Task Force - Quality Assurance Interface 4.1 Purpose 4.2 Scope 4.3 Responsibilities 4.4 Interface Activities Section 5. Preparation of Unit 2 Modules 5.1 Purpose 5.2 Scope 5.3 Responsibilities 5.4 Module Content
- 5.5 Writing of Modules and General Appendixes L./
0097P/021-8 1
01-21-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O' PROCEDURES MANUAL Table of Contents (Sheet 3 of 4)
Section 6. Assessment of Module Adequacy 6.1 .urpose 6.2 Scope 6.3 Responsibilities 6.4 General 6.5 Assessment Procedure 6.5.1 Readiness Review Team Members 6.5.2 Responsible Project Organizations 6.5.3 Quality Assurance 6.5.4 Readiness Review Program Manager 6.5.5 Readiness Review Board Section 7.
Section 8. Administrative Controls 8.1 Procedure Preparation and Control 8.1.1 Purpose 8.1.2 Scope 8.1.3 Responsibilities 8.1.4 Format 8.1.5 Content 8.1.6 Initiation 8.1.7 Disposition, Return, and Transfer of Manuals 8.2 Deficiency Reporting 8.2.1 Purpose 8.2.2 Scope 8.2.3 Responsibilities 8.2.4 Initiation and Processing 8.2.5 Resolution and Closure 8.3 Responding to NRC Items 8.3.1 Purpose 8.3.2 Scope 8.3.3 Processing NRC Items 0 0097P/021-8
0 l
i 01-21-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM
\ PROCEDURES MANUAL Table of Contents (Sheet 4 of 4) 8.4 Training 8.4.1 Indoctrination 8.4.2 Specific Training 8.4.3 Implementation l
8.5 Safeguards Information Control !
1 8.5.1 Purpose 1 8.5.2 Scope 8.5.3 Responsibilities 8.5.4 General l
l i
1 1 \
\
O 0097P/021-8
f 8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM (s) PROCEDURES
- 1. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the Unit 2 Readiness Review Program is to provide a systematic and disciplined review of Georgia Power Company's (GPCs) implementation of design, construction, and initial test program processes to increase the assurance that quality program activities for Plant Vogtle have been accomplished in accordance with licensing commitments.
1.2 OBJECTIVE The Unit 2 Readiness Review Program is a GPC self-initiated management system developed in follow-up of the Unit 1 Readiness Review Program and results to accomplish the following objectives:
o Identify changes in the Unit 2 programs and work processes f rom those described and assessed in the Unit 1 Readiness Review modules.
o Provide an in-depth self-assessment of the appropriate Unit 2 work processes and conduct separate management overview of the self-assessment process and its conclusions.
o Further assure the early identification of any problems or concerns and ensure their correction in a timely manner, o Identify and follow-up on findings and corrective i actions resulting from the Unit 1 Readiness Review I process to preclude repetition of past problems during l Unit 2.
1 1
o Provide a mechanism for the early resolution of any dif ferences between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and GPC interpretation of Unit 2 regulatory-requirements and the acceptance criteria.
o Provide a system that will f acilitate the NRC's review, inspection, appropriate action, and approval of the acceptability of Plant Vogtle Unit 2 work processes on an advanced Readiness Review basis.
Revi sion: 0 Issue Date: September 28, 1987 A /
p.
Rea8iness Revi ew Program Manager 0098P/218-7
- 8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O PROCEDURES o Provide a planning system, including GPC prepared and NRC accepted milestone schedules, for the orderly conduct of the separate actions of GPC and NRC.
1.3 SCOPE The Plant Vogtle Unit 2 Readiness Review Program is an addition to the Unit 1 activities and translates the products of the Unit 1 program into useful management tools. As se ssme nt of Vogtle Unit 2 activities, in general, address the following:
o The listing of design and construction licensing commitments and implementing documents identified in the Unit 1 Readiness Review Program will be maintained and updated through the completion of Unit 2. Commitments unique to Unit 2, if any, will be identified and added to the listing. Nuclear Operations has responsibility for maintenance of Unit 1 operations licensing commitments apart f rom Readiness Review.
o Unit 2 activities to be assessed include design,
[ \ construction, and Initial Test Program Preoperational
\- Test Phase.
o Assessments include programmatic and technical attributes for evaluation. During Unit 1 Readiness Review, assessment of design technical attributes was covered in-depth in the Independent Design Review. Due to the commonality of design bases, c ri t er i a, and specifications, and the advanced stage of design work at the time of the Unit 1 Readiness Review, a separate Unit 2 Independent Design Review will not be conducted.
Rather, any applicable attributes or follow-up on Unit 1 findings are covered by the specific Unit 2 modules.
o The results of Unit 1 Readiness Review module assessments, along with applicable NRC inspections, and other sources such as Inspection and Enforcement bulletins, Quality Assurance audits, etc., are evaluated )
to assist the direction of the Unit 2 program. The results of these evaluations are used to determine those Unit 1 module areas that require a Unit 2 assessment.
O 0098P/218-7 1-2
. 8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADIN ES S REVIEW PROGRAM
()
es PROCEDURES
- 2. ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES 2.1 PURPOSE This procedure describes the Unit 2 Readiness Review Program organization and responsibilities of the Readiness Review Program Task Force and others with specific activities within Readiness Review Program scope. ' Qualifications of the Readiness Review Task Force personnel are also included in this procedure.
2.2 ORGANIZATION The Unit 2 Readiness Review Program organization is comprised of the Readiness Review Board, the Readiness Review Task Force, Project Engineering, Project Construction, Project Start-up, Nuclear Operations, and Quality Assurance (QA).
2.2.1 READINESS REVIEW BOARD
/% The Readiness Review Board consists of the following members:
U o Southern Company Services (SCS) Vice President -
Nuclear. (Chairman, Readiness Review Board) .
o GPC Vogtle Project Engineering Manager, j l
o GPC Vice President Vogtle Construction, o SCS Executive Consultant - Licensing.
o GPC General Manager, Vogtle Project Support.
o GPC General Manager, Corporate Quality Assurance. )
1 o Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation Vice President and Senior Engineering Manager, o Readiness Review Program Manager (Secretary and non-voting member) ,
rg Revision: 0 Issue Date: September 28, 1987 b
ys #
Re'adiness Review Program Manager 0099P/218-7
?
8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O PROCEDURES 2.2.2 READINESS REVIEW TASK FORCE The Readiness Review Task Force is comprised of the Readiness Review prog ram manager, technical team members, and support personnel. The Readiness Review Task Force reports to the GPC general manager, Vogtle Project Support.
Additionally, a module consultant, to provide of f-project expertise, may be utilized, as needed, at the discretion of the Readiness Review program manager or the Readiness Review Board.
2.3 RESPONSIBILITIES 2.3.1 READINESS REVIEW BOARD o Meet as directed by the Chairman, Readiness Review Board but no less f requently than quarterly, o Review the adequacy of Readiness Review Program implementation and the results of audits and assessments.
o Identify Board members who will serve as module sponsors to monitor module development activities as described in procedure 6.
o Provide final approval of module results and conclusions.
2.3.2 READINESS REVIEW TASK FORCE The Readiness Review Task Force, through the program manager, is responsible f or :
o Management of overall scope, direction, and schedule of this assessment program, o Maintenance of design / construction /preoperational test phase licensing commitments until Unit 2 Fuel Load.
o Identification and consolidation of findings and corrective actions as a result of Unit 1 Readiness Review.
o Preparation of Unit 2 assessment plans. -
o Review of QA's implementation of the Unit 2 assessment O plans and evaluation of the assessment re su lts .
2-2 l l
)
i 8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES o Consolidation of Readiness Review Program assessments into Unit 2 Readiness Review modules.
o Providing program status for Senior Project Management and the Project Management Board.
o Establishment of the necessary management , control, and training for program implementation.
o Promulgation of Readiness Review Board review results to the appropriate organization.
o Preparation of agenda and minutes of the Readiness
~
Review Board meetings.
o Interaction with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
2.3.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE Project QA is responsible for :
/~ o Implementation of the assessment plans generated by the Unit 2 Readiness Review Task Force, using QA personnel '
supplemented by personnel with technical expertise in the area under evaluation.
o Continuation of their system of audits as described in the Project QA program. ;
Additionally, corporate QA will audit conformance to these procedures by all program entities.
2.3.4 PROJECT ENGINEERING, PROJECT CONSTRUCTION, PROJECT START-UP, AND NUCLEAR OPERATIONS These organizations shall:
o Ensure that licensing commitments in their area of ,
responsibility are properly implemented and included in implement ing documents, o Provide evidence to the Readiness Review Task Force that new or revised commitments have been implemented.
o Ensure that findings resulting f rom Unit 1 Readiness f- Review have resulted in Unit 2 program and work activity
(,)- changes where appropriate and as committed.
2-3
v 4
i 8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O PROCEDURES o Provide evidence to the Readiness Review Task Force that the Unit 1 Readiness Review findings have been evaluated for inpact and, if appropriate, implemented in Unit 2.
o Provide Readiness Review with details of changes in project organization or programs f rom that described in the Unit 1 modules.
o Provide responses to findings resulting f rom Unit 2 asses sme nts .
2.4 QUALIFICATIONS ,
The _following qualifications are minimum requirements for the positions indicated. Team members not meeting all requirements as indicated may be acceptable provided the Readiness Review program manager provides written justification as to .the acceptability of the individual. Resumes of all Readiness Review Task Force personnel shall be maintained in Readiness Review Program files.
O' 2.4.1 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM MANAGER o Bachelor of Science in engineering or engineering technology, or be a Professional Engineer.
o Minimum ten years experience in design or construction. l o Minimum five years nuclear design / construction management experience.
2.4.2 READINESS REVIEW TEAM MEMBER o Minimum Associate of Science in engineering or engineering ' technology or Bachelor of Science in physical science, o Supervisory experience in the specific nuclear design, construction, . or startup discipline.
o Minimum five years nuclear design or construction experience.
O 0099P/218-7 I 2-4
a 5
8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM (j PROCEDURES
- 3. READINESS REVIEW PROCESS 3.1 CONDUCT OF REVIEW 3.1.1 PURPOSE This procedure outlines the elements of the Unit 2 Readiness Review Program.
3.1.2 GENERAL .
The Unit 2 Readiness Review process consists of four activities that are discussed below:
o Commitment Identification and Implementation During the Unit 1 Readiness Review Program the Task Force performed a systematic review of licensing documents and identified the Project commitments for design, const ruct ion, and opera tions. The list of Ox commitments with the corresponding list of documents that implement the commitments were segregated by module and received NRC review and concurrence. The Unit 2 ef fort performs a review of the same documents for any Unit 2 specific commitments and also reviews FSAR amendments and any addi tional letters to the NRC and updates and mali.tains current for Unit 2 the listing of licensing commis mnts and their implementing documents.
In this regard, design, const ruction, and preoperational test phase commitments are maintained by Readiness Review while operations commitments are maintained by l Nuclear Operations. '
To ensure completeness, Readiness Review supplies these lists of licensing commitments and implementi ng documents to the appropriate project organization who is responsible for providing feedback to Readiness Review l
as to the method and documentation of implementation. :
Readiness Review as a part of the assessment will sample commitments within each applicable module scope and l ascertain by examination of Project implementation i (i.e., calculations, drawings, and construction
\
y_,/ Revis'on: 0 Issue Date: September 28, 1987 I
~
r
~ ' sun- s' Re' diness'Revi eWPrEg^ ram Ma nag er 0012P/218-7 I
8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM V)
[ PROCEDURES processes, etc. , for conformance) whether such information on implementation is cor rect.
o Unit 1 Finding Follow-up A list of findings and corrective actions as a result of the Unit 1 Readiness Review Program has been established for use by the Project to assist in avoiding a repeat of past problems. The list contains the findings identified by Readiness Review and the NRC, coded by module, applicable program activities, and cause of deficiency.
The Project will use this document to ensure thdt Unit 2 programs and processes preclude recu~r rence of the problem. The Project will provide feedback to Readiness '
Review as to Unit 2 actions taken. Readiness Review will include an assessment of this process as a part of the Unit 2 modules.
As a special case of follow-up, the readiness of the Un.i t 2 security system is incorporated into the Unit 2 Readiness Review with particular emphasis on the review O of programmatic changes to ensure the correction of security problems identified in Unit 1.
o Unit 2 Assessment s In the Unit: 1 Readiness Review Program modules, !
Readiness Review assessed the adequacy of design, :
construction, and readiness for operation of Unit 1. l Unit 2 assessment activities evaluate Unit 2 design, I construction, and preoperational test phase to ensure i that compliance to licensing commitments has been l maintained. Additionally, an assessment of the planning i and implementation of Unit 2 plant security is performed.
l In developing the Unit 2 assessment plans, the following ,
features are considered- !
- Implementation of cor rective action of applicable l Unit 1 Readiness Review findings into Unit 2 l activities, j l
- NRC findings and comments f rom Unit 1 Readiness Review '
applicable to Unit 2.
() - Results of Units 1 and 2 Quality Assurance audits and NRC inspections subsequent to Unit 1 Readiness Review.
- Industry issues.
3.1-2 l
i
, 8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES The plan includes guidelines on the extent of evaluation to be conducted and assessment details. The completed and management-approved plan is implemented by Readiness Review in accordance with the details of the plan.
As se s sme nt activities for Unit 2 are developed based on the Unit 1 Readiness Review and NRC findings, the status of completion of Unit 2 activities during Unit 1
~
Readiness Review, and whether there have been significant changes in organization or program details for Unit 2 f rom that evaluated in Unit 1.
o Unit 2 Modules and Appendices Af ter completion of Unit 2 assessment activities, Readiness Review will publish a Unit 2 module.
Typically, a module includes:
- An updated commitment and implementation matrix.
- A program description that includes identification of significant changes f rom the Unit 1 program.
U- - A list of audits and NRC inspections conducted subsequent to the Unit 1 modules.
- A list of the Unit 1 Readiness Review Program findings and actions taken in Unit 2.
- Results of Unit 2 assessment.
0012P/218-7 3.1-3
, m . =.- . ._ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ ._ _ _ . _ _
8-6-87 t t PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 l READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM
()
PROCEDURES 3.2 COMMITMENT IDENTIFICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION !
3.2.1 PURPOSE
{
This procedure provides direction for the identification of I licensing commitments, establishment and control of a commitment data base, assignment of commitments to modules / appendixes, and identification of implementing documents. :
i t
3.2.2 SCOPE i This procedure applies to preparation of commitment and - !
implementation mat rixes f or Unit 2. As in the Unit 1 Readiness ,
Review program, commitments relative to Westinghouse activities !
as the Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) supplier are omitted. [
Operations commitments are maintained by Nuclear Operations in response to Nuclear Operations procedures. j l
3.2.3 RESPONSIBILITIES 1 Readiness Review Task Force 1 Readiness Review is responsible for the control and maintenance of design and construction commitments and the identification of those commitments to the responsible Project organization for determining implementation. Additionally, the task force is responsible for follow-up of commitment . implementation (procedure 3.5) and inclusion of the commitment and implementation matrixes into the modules (procedure 5) .
Project-(Design, Construction, and Startup Organizations)
The Project is responsible for verification of commitment implementation of licensing commitments and supplying Readiness Review with the results of their review.
3.2.4 COMMITMENT DEFINITICN A commitment is an obligation, as described in the Vogtle l Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Final Safety Analysis Report '
( FS AR) or correspondence with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission i (NRC), to comply with an industry standard, Regulatory Guide i
Revi ion: 0 Issue Date: September 28, 1987 R6'adiness Review Program Manager
. 0100P/218-7
8-6-87 f
PL ANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O PROCEDURES (RG), Branch Technical Position (BTP), or owner-plan of specific action. For the purpose of Readiness Review, source documents for licensing commitment identification will be the VEGP FSAR and correspondence to the NRC incl udi ng , specifically, correspondence pertaining to Inspection and Enforcement (I&E) bulletins and generic letters. Cor respondence pertaining to NRC Inspection Reports and/or findings or reportable deficiencies [10 CFR 50.55(e)] is tracked by other Project programs. A file copy of each commitment source, described above, is maintained and will be kept current by posting amendments to the FSAR and filing of cor respondence between Georgia Power Company and the NRC. Within these source documents, design, construction, and preoperational test phase commitments for saf ety-related activities will be identified.
Examples of commitments, to the extent described in the VEGP FSAR, are:
o American Concrete Institute ( ACI) 318-71. i l
o BTP-CMEB 9.5-1.
o American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) III, Division 1, NCA-2 0 0 0 .
}
o American National Standards Institute (ANSI) N45.2-2.
o United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission RG 1.55.
o cited Technical Reports utilized as design basis or methodology.
o Specific design and/or construction considerations.
o Specific standards of acceptance, o Specific cited technical data used as a design basis and/or unique design methodology. l l
De sc rip t ions , detailed data and/or parameters resulting f rom design activities, general codes, and regulations are not generally considered licensing commitments for this program.
These include:
o Dimensions, o System operational concepts or operational descriptions.
o References to general bodies such as 10 CFR 50, ASME,
(N_) ACI (specific requirements from such bodies, however, are commitments).
3.2-2
.- _ ~ _ _ _ - _- . . - _ . .- . . -
p 8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O PROCEDURES o Design calculation details (e.g. , strength parametets, flow rates).
o Listings of inf ormation (tables, figures, etc. ) which 1 are presented for reader reference purposes or are summaries of specific commitments identified elsewhere.
3.2.5 COMMITMENT IDENTIFICATION Commitments are identified through a detailed review of the FS AR i and the other source documents. A controlled copy of the FSAR is maintained and updated for the use by the task force., j The logic diagram (Figure 3.2-1) shall be used as a guide in properly identifying licensing commitments. These guidelines l were developed to support the definition of a commitment and to !
aid in maintaining consistency in the identification process.
An item f rom a source document qualifies as a commitment when it is a stated obligation to a standard, code, or specific j licensing basis or is categorized into one of the indicated O areas defining owner-plans of specific action. Once identified, each commitment will be assigned to the appropriate module (s) .
3 Items considered questionable as commitments, af ter following the logic diagrams or guidelines, shall be resolved by the ;
Readiness Review program manager. The above process was )
performed in Unit 1 Readiness Review and a data base was compiled cur rent to the FSAR amendment ef fective for each module.
i 3.2.6 PREPARATION OF COMMITMENT MATRIX The Readiness Review Task Force utilizes the data base compiled f or Unit I as a base f rom which a Unit 2 data base is deve loped . New commitments, or revisions to existing commitments, identified f rom FSAR amendments or other source documents are entered on a commitment edit sheet-(Figure 3.2-2). The edit sheets are routed to the applicable team members for review. Af ter review, the new/ revised commitments are entered into the commitment data base. These additions and revisions are incorporated into the data base and a Unit 2 commitment matrix is published for use by the task force and the Project.
Readiness Review utilizes a personal computer to store commitments that have been identified. Commitments are stored 4 in a data base. The structure of the data base is identified in Figure 3.2-3.
3.2-3
8-6-87
~
PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 r- READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM I PROCEDURES 3.2.7 COMMITMENT IMPLEMENTATION During the Unit 1 program, Readiness Review identified project documents implementing each licensing commitment. Commitments and implementing documents were tabulated in an implementation matrix and published in the Unit 1 module reports. Each module implementation matrix was current as to the module date and FSAR amendment identified in the report.
Af ter publication of the Unit 1 modules, Readiness Review re-baselined the module implementation matrixes to a common date a nd FS AR ame ndme nt . The commitments f or each module, cur re nt to the common date, were compared to the commitments published in the Unit 1 module report. Implementing documents were identified f or each changed or new commitment and were entered into the implementation matrix data base.
Readiness Review then maintained the commitment and implementation matrixes, updating both for changed or new commitments upon issue of an FSAR amendment.
For the Unit 2 Readiness Review Program, Readiness Review l
[,.}
N-continues to update commitments, but the Project has assumed responsibility for updating implementation data. The implementation matrix, tabulating cur rent commitment data and the inplementation data as maintained to the conclusion of the Unit 1 Readiness Review Program, is forwarded to the Project.
Upon receipt, the Project will verif y that the information contained for commitment implementation is cor rect by comparison of that information to current controlling documents. Where implementing documents have been r'aviccd, the Project will verify that the current revision continues to implement the commit.m or take action to implement the commitment and identits ;orrective actions f or etrk or processes that may be in noncompliance to the commitments. For newly identified commitments, the Project will identify controlling documents that implement the commitments.
Updated commitment implementation information will be returned to Readiness Review by the Readiness Review established response date. The preferred method of response is identification of changes in red on a copy of the list. Upon receipt of the updated implementation information, the data base will be updated.
3.2.8 REVISED OR ADDED COMMITMENTS
() Subsequent to receipt of the updated commitment impleme nt ation information from the Project, any commitments that change (due 3.2-4
i 8-6-87 s
PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES to 1 ster amendments, letters, etc.) will be re-submitted to the Project for additional implementation updating.
b s
4 e
i i
I t
?
O :
0 0100P/218-7 3.2-5
. 1
, 8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM
.y PROCEDURES 122".E1 95Aa GENEmeC LE TTE m5.mESPONSES 1&E SULLETIN$ rmESPONSES + ITEM NaC QUESTIONS /mESPONSES i
1r i i
ST ATED OSLIGATION TO A LICENSING BASES C8m. nG.STP CODES AND VES
]
STDS STATED CODES AND J STOS #N ADDITION TO LICE N5sNJ B ASEE ,
NO 1f l
19 SPECIPIC PL AN OP ACTION.
A STIPU14TED DESIGN, Ex ALLOWASLE DEssGN LIMITS.
SPECIPIC CONST A DE T AIL 5. COBSTEBCTION PROCURDENT YES 08 PESOPERATICA&L TEST L LOADS /COMS. 5C ALING AND SAPETV P ACTOm5 N REQUIRRENT NO lf ,
i 8
Ex TOLE M ANCES MINIMUM W ALL *II
-+ ACCEPTANCE REQUlmEMENT ; j TMiCXNESS STOPULATE D MATEme AL STRENGTM5 l No l 1r C
EX SECMTEL WESTINGMOUSE -* TECHNICAL REPomT ;
NO If D l Ex siNITE ELEMENT SPECIPlc METMOD OP VIS j ANALYSIS ANALY5t$ IUN8 QUEL l 1
NO II E
Ea Tm AiNiNG On OVALipiC ATION SPEClP6C UTILITY YES -
PmOGRAMS PROGRAM JP jf ill POR OtSCUSSION COMMITME NT 1 r"' 1r NO COMMtTMENT IWL EMENT ATION O
\
3.2-1 (Sheet 1 of 2)
Commitment Identification 3.2-6 i i
a s .8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O PROCEDURES GUIDELINES FOR COMMITMENT IMPLEMENTATION o Source materials received and reviewed.
o is a statement made to comply or conform to a specific standard, regulatory guide, branch technical position, etc. (must be specific, not a motherhood or general statement: i.e., 10 CFR 50, ACI, or ASME)?
o If it is not a stated obligation to licensing basis, is-the statement a stipulated design or construction requirement, acceptance requirement, a specific and/or unique method of analysis, a specific utility training or qualification program, or a reference to a technical report used as design basis? (See examples on logic chart).
o If the response to any of the above is yes, the statement i s a commitment. If still uncertain, discuss with respective team leaders.
Items not generally considered commitments:
o General codes / standards, o Dimensions.
o System descriptions, o System operation descriptions.
o Design calculation parameters.
o Flow rates, etc.
Key works used in identifying commitments include:
o will. (a) o shall. (a) <
o Conform to.
- a. Not applicable to dimensions, descriptions, or system operational (functional) descriptions.
) 3.2-1 (Sheet 2 of 2)
Commitment Identification 3.2-7
t 9-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM C PROCEDURES l
\
I y , , .
s
'U :, j '
= ,,
r ;, ,
$ lE.
l i l .
!!.!E i
a I u,9 -
==- i.
l li lllI:,
i
.- ! .i i .If,it;. i.i.
4 l'
- 9 .-
.,g : I ? i I '. ii
.. . .i' . . .i .. .;.'$.. .
- " :i ' ' ;
. .' 1.. . ,; . ,j
. , i .
t=-- =. ... ..
4 } '. . . . . . .
iU El l ! 'l lt '! '
' i
, i. .
l,i
- r. 1- r*- '*+- --
r<- --
J;- j t- '-t---'
- I' il', l 1 ;
i i; ' j i
.' ' ! '! l ll i !'
- I ,1 ! l !' ! .I '
I i l il i '4 i
s l l l
- .: 1, jI!! !.$.$j.
. ,l l
i I
ii
,i
.i
-l33: *' : ;ll* : ! t
(^ l l i i, ,
. . 1 t-
-t - l - -*I taa: i: i .
.gt: ': l l lI !' I'li
- D: j ;: !l
-3 ::. a., : .
[3 i: Egi
.i 3:
~~
i
- . l I E: ! l
'i
- i .
Il l' i It:
,u.. .' ,
ilI, ,
i.
,i i.
I l
3 i.i
- !a .
.2 ; ,. , !.. 1 : 3- -
, , i, . j , [
. h' l
ii i
i ll '
I i
jkx :, i l t:l --
ll ,
I j
l -'
i i.
t ': i
- i i l 'i t' i
1 li l ii .l
- s I !l I
. l:i i '
i
' l l
i
--.i il i
,4 . .___.
._.7 3 4 kl1 ; ' i I '
!! . i: :l .
.i i {-
t2 '
I
, l! -
I i
. ;; i 1
- + ! , ,.
I* !N , I i. .I il ', ;
} i II 'l i l 3.2-2 Commitment Edit Sheet 3.2-8 ,
2 n 8-6-87 e
PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 yg RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM
( ,/ PROCEDURES FIELD FIELD NAME TYPE WIDTH 1 EDITNO Numeric 8 2 NUMBER Numeric 8 3 SOURCE Character 20 4 SECTION Character 25 5 SUBJECT Character 200 6 COMMITMENT Character 200 7-(
x- 7 MODULE Character 34 8 DES Character 1 9 CONST Character 1 10 REMARKS Character 200 11 AMENDMENT Numeric 2 12 REBASECHG Character 1 13 CHANGEDATE Date 8 14 IMPLEMENTN Character 254
/^- 0100P/218-7 (Figure 3.2-3 COMMIT.DBF STRUCTURE) '
l 3.2-9 j
1 f
9-21-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 g~3 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM
(
) PROCEDURES 3.3 UNIT 1 FINDING FOLLOW-UP 3.3.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE This procedure provides direction for developing the list of Unit 1 findings identified during the Unit 1 Readiness Review by either Readiness Review or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NTC). The list is used by the Project to ensure findings applicable to Unit 2 are factored into programs and practices to preclude recur rence.
3.3.2 SCOPE This procedure applies to the process of establishing a list of findings f rom Unit 1 Readiness Review and the Unit 2 assessment of the applicability of those findings and implementation of cor rective actions.
3.3.3 RESPONSIBILITIES r\
(,sl Readiness Review Task Force (Readiness Review)
Prepare a list of Unit 1 Readiness Review findings and NRC deficiencies f rom Unit 1 Readiness Review.
P ro jec t Determine the applicability of Unit 1 findings to Unit 2 and, where applicable, verif y that the Unit 2 prog rams and practices incorporate the cor rective action identified for the Unit 1 findings. Provide justification to support a determination that a finding is not applicable to Unit 2 and provide f eedback to Readiness Review as to Unit 2 actions taken.
3.3.4 IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF FINDINGS i
The Readiness Review Task Force identifies the valid findings I (both the NRC and Readiness Review) f rom the Unit 1 design ,
const ruction, initial test program modules, appendices, and Ind epend ent Design Review (IDR) . Once identified, each finding is entered into a computerized data base (named Trends) to
(/~T) Revisi n: 0 Issue Date: September 28, 1987 Readiness Review Program Manager OlllP/ 26 4-7
. 9-21-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2
-s s RE ADIN ES S REVIEW PROGRAM q} PROCEDURES include the applicable module, finding level, findi ng d esc rip t ion, and cor rective action.
Once all the findings are entered into the data base, a mat rix sorted by module and finding number is printed and provided to the Project.
3.3.5 PROJECT ACTION The list of findings provided by Readiness Review is an abb reviation of the total stated finding and cor rective action.
To fully understand the finding and cor rective action, the response as published in the Unit 1 module should be reviewed.
Each finding will be evaluated and categorized for applicability to Unit 2 as follows:
- 1. Isolated instance /one time cor rective action For Unit 1 findings where the Unit 1 investigative action determined the finding isolated with cor rection of the O specific deficiency and without other cor rective action (procedure revi sion, etc). No additional action required.
- 2. Cor rective action remains identical and acceptable For Unit 1 findings that required revision to procedures or practices with Unit 1 cor rective action remaining in ef fect as published in the Unit 1 module.
Findings in this category shall include a description of investigative actions taken to verify correctness of this statement and should be supported by identification of the Unit 2 sample selection or procedure excerpts.
Additionally, the investigative action must verify that the Unit 1 cor rective action has been in ef fect during or applicable to all Unit 2 work.
- 3. Cor rective action has changed i
This category includes cases where the corrective action may have been eliminated or enhanced as a result of program evolution.
3.3-2
i
! 9-21-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM I-G) PROCEDURES Finding cor rective actions in this category require desc ription of the deletion or changes with j ustification.
- 4. Cor rective action not entirely ef fective Unit 2 follow-up of the findings may identify that cor rective action was not adequate. If this occurs, the response must identif y the problem and describe what actions are being taken to determine the extent, t ract and cor rect the deficiencies, and additional cor rective action to p revent recur re nce.
Response to each finding shall be returned to Readiness Review by the date specified by Readiness Review in the letter t ra n smi t t ing the findings matrix to the Project.
3.3.6 READINESS REVIEW ACTION Af ter receiving the Project response f or each finding, Readiness Review will evaluate each response and determine whether the inf ormation supplied is adequate to support the categorization
/~N of each finding. Additionally, findings classified as
( "cor rective action has changed" or "cor rective action not entirely effective" will be evaluated for acceptability of the revised cor rective action.
Upon acceptance of the Project response, the Readiness Review team member shall enter the Unit 2 finding category (as described in Section 3.3.5 above) in the matrix under the heading " Description of Unit 2 Follow-up Action". Findings for Category 3, cor rective action has changed and 4, cor rective action not entirely ef fective shall also contain a brief description of the condition in an attachment to the table. The remarks column shall be used to identif y the location of this information.
Unit 1 finding follow-up is used as a source of information in the Unit 2 assessment as desc ribed in procedure 3.5.
OlllP/ 2 6 4-7 l
/~T !
\ ,)
l 3.3-3 l
l 1
6 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 <
gs READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM t ,) PROCEDU RES 3.4 MODULE SCOPES 3.4.1 PURPOSE ;
The purpose of this procedure is to present the scope of each ,
module and appendix, the relationships between them, and how +
each is addressed in the Unit 2 Readiness Review Program.
1 3.4.2 SCOPE This procedure applies to those modules and appendixes that discuss const ruction, design, or preoperational test phase activities. ,
3.4.3 RE SPONSIBI LITIES The Readiness Review Board approves the module scopes.
The Readiness Review program manager provides overall
()
administration of the Readiness Review team activities. ,
The Readiness Review teams perform the initial module scoping and ensure that subsequent module activities adhere to the defined scope.
3.4.4 PROGRAM SCOPE As discussed in procedure sections 1. and 3.1, the Unit 2 Readiness Review Program extends the Unit 1 pilot program into Unit 2. The Unit 2 program uses the Unit 1 pilot program ;
results as a base and concentrates on identifying and examining .
changes to the programs and organizations assessed in Unit 1 and i examining design, installation, and preoperational test phase r activities performed since the Unit 1 pilot program for that module concluded. Programs that have been added are also ;
' included in the Unit 2 program, as well as some programs that i were not examined by Readiness Review in Unit 1, but which
-experienced some difficulty during unit completion or preoperational testing ( plant s ec u ri ty, as an example). The module and appendix scopes presented in Section 3.4.5 of this procedure include the total scope of the Unit 2 design, construction, and preoperational test phase testing programs.
() .Revis'o -
0 Issue Date: September 28, 1987 3
Re5diness~ Review Program Manager 0105P/222-7
I
\
8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDU RE S
(
The scope of the Unit 2 Readiness Review Program is summarized on Table 3.4-1. The Unit 2 design and procurement activities, civil /struct ural and backfill activities, tendon installation, and diesel generator activities were essentially complete at the time of the Unit 1 review and were conducted under the programs examined in Unit 1. Re-assessment of these activities is not necessary and the Unit 2 Readiness Review Program related to these activities is limited in nature. Activities performed by Nuclear Operations subsequent to Unit 2 fuel load will be conducted under the controls of the plant procedures now utilized for operation of Unit 1 and are not included in the Unit 2 Readiness Review Program.
3.4.5 SCOPE STATEMENTS Appendix 1 of this procedure provides a description of the scope of each module and the relationships between other modules.
Readiness Review procedure section 3.1 describes the four major activities that comprise the Unit 2 program, commitment I identification and implementation, Unit 1 find ing follow-up, Unit 2 assessments, and Unit 2 modules and appendixes. The -
s scope description sheets in Appendix 1 list the extent to which Os each of these four activities will be performed for each module a nd ap pe nd ix .
O 0105P/222-7 3.4-2
8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 p
g READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES l
-~e, E.. -
C. . .
. e
. ~E . . . . - . . . . .
,E
> .s s . .
.o o. .E .e - -
.e .
. Ee..,
. O.
. .=.
.e.. ..e
. .e
.=
.e e,
e.
4
.e Ees , .
.E.,
e...,
e
,., ..E.O .
.... e
...O,,
E ,.,
, , . . . E. ..
.e O
.E.. .
m.
E.
-E
. e e
.. . u ..,.
e4 Ae
. a.
. m.
/m .E.. .. . .
r . ,
.. .e t e.
E. .
.z.
. o. .f-O.n
= -
,E O.m S
A A
Om a
D.
h S
S S
e S
h n > sea
- M an u 8 E -. u a a w
O.
e....
m to is n E ,e e . e9 e o me .u n *E Ou n e S e e e e e u . e S . O e e e 0 0 0 e a k en . a h as a h a h k an a a e an a = = -EE et
.* D W .E= as ee a
a um se en o.
a e
- n. ..
4 e O We
- d. E Ne 4 me e a . G W W g' O en 9 M M O e O a D 9. S= em a W W G me N as e u 633m p
W
.D. S
- 49 88
- a a es e a ,
a > e a . et..eresea e
- > ee o ea O a 40 W G w O e, O e M == @ O O
. et e.t to
= == a 9 m a == 5 M d p 5 e9 - as W E Ea == W W
.
- a 9
==O == 3 to88 e to e Q
~ $= Go et h a & a G as == s 3 V e 3 h ==
- .45 e en es Ww en eS S eS em es en b $
ee ap ., e se t$ en e
en G h
- e. e. e a. e. eg e. e, ee e.
- . e. E es
- Q
.W
.a
> is ea to -. 4e e er 3
en O
>T O5 e
93 me e NS g
eS 4 e.
Sw g
e og
- a. et
@ an .= 9 as e M
e en se S. as a=
OO 5
1 e a es e
- O e U s e ee & h e e 9 - en 3 & as S 9 si a se se e g a . 3 e, e S a se e e - e a $ ee & = S e e a h as to u n & 3 er b 4 e # w e 9 m
- 9 et e A S $
- w e S e as g
- 3 e 0 ** O e a e 8 es 4 e a y a g ==.
e e 9 -m an e e a Q em a e e - e e ee b e te a
a m
.a.s 3
a e 4
u a
es
- as e g
GS se .O M e e
M ue Me e e se e ea@ e em e
3 se e 9 og e
as .a S .9 S es y
eS QSeO e
CE a
E U. o O e aSw e te se m me e se a me 4. se me e me e se 9 N9 d G. e a e a e. 3 ** W G eWW m ewe as b W es W
- a D$
ame GS 9 De ea ea e og ge e5 9 en e- O s . #. a= a .m. h W se== g .e. s. am am-e a= e an e e == e s he .
au a u
.e a.a *ga p G 9 3 gb 30 g3 3 as ge 9e g .n aa 3A wa1y ee g& gw 3 == 3 as g 3 SS 9h 3 e 9e ge S **
6m
(.
e =
u.a.e
= = 0 9 a .an Je $e no .e .e. 1a. 11 1.a. 23 3 6 9 9*
- 3 9*
I
\
x Table 3.4-1 (Sheet 1 of 3) 3.4-3
i 1
e 1 d-10-37 e
PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDU RES a I as n
-d a 3* m ann Q 4 o Z te o e e e e e e e >e e e e e e e 9 9 0 0 9 9 e a NOe h am > h a em e a e g g an e
e >wa .e e e -. e a a 3 a e> e e>.. e t
- = = e ee a w -> e e>5 e es e g me w - se se me e gIse em se == en m. .e a et u as me - en e B en es # = *
- em 9 se. 9 g g g g . ,
e em>e es se se e a se e a e g a e a en se g e se as em se se me e > ee #8 e e o e e o eewe en as as se es S e a
e se ..
a se
.ee er is e e e ao e e am 3 e el e en b e n e99m I a eB + fe e e e e e e e e S ** 3 o 9 9 e 9 0 e 9 9 e e 9 e e e an O e am h ab h S in 8 A S en e em o N -9 e e se me e u> - Oe
= - 3 en a es e ge e
a ..aeee ss Oe e es == e ,
e m>e 'i 3 m W es e
- R e= a ass> e to S e S e e e G G e,
at a e a- es e p 9 e e g 9 3 3 g g e as e o Ee D h am h a e.
3 3 3 e h e am a o en e n m ens a se e uha se se e Ee es a == e a= m e ,
- 3. 3 e . . . .- ;
e a= e as a e> ea e se == a a E se o B De eSeM e U e09 0e e 9 a Ne e 9 e 9 e e 9 e 9 9 e 9 ==
m S. Oee 98e S > S am S em 5 S S S S to e>a m
- e se a.eeae e =
m *O e a e a 3
.e en . . ..
e > e e e M e e es e e .e e-uoa w e -Ee e e e e e W
e e W D 9 9 9 0 $ e S e.> b. =e= a e e an h an an a g a e e am a 1 e E5Ee 3 e 3 g mee e e n == en u -
o e e * ,
e e e . a.
3 e a eW We an a e E Ne e e a u o 9 9 eeem Da e 9 e > S e e e e ew e e S e ^70-==* me a a a a9 == a ,=
i eaaa 6 an e g3e e e e e se 3 e e se e '
a 5m e W S
- > et # 5 8e e u e as se e S & Sm o > es e d 9e A e se se 4= a e S S S e S e e eS Se e e e =* e G e6 W G W *e E E S* - S ,
.a e a*
. -3 em 3 m o S
9
.as e*
5 6
S m
en as6 e o
.. a= ce e en es e e 3
- e as a S en & e **
- ee B e em e e e ee e e es @S e19 0 ma e e e e e e u A 3 as e a E 1
>a ea e.
w S G.
S.
es ee e es e.
e
- e. se 9 ==
e S ab SS
& G. w Sw SS
- 0
- 6W ee e ge e se gg e ge. ea enSSe en e S- es e a w as o e m , op es E a
o e
.e e a es e
e 9
es e
es e e.
es 3
S b
e S e &
S W
e e o er 3 e b o an u e **
e e e S e a e 9 . e 9 9 e a e een = 6 e e e, e e e. b e a w . 3 e
5 en a e
e a. e 9 4. An h e e e b 3 N e as e e as e se a g e, e e.
e e. e e .6 e e > e e e O G S e em as e B e me e == *= ee 9 e9
- es eU eU S S e g e e a eaye M. > eW e e es Mk e ee ee em 9* Oh M&
S e o O e
==u am a en e - W eeaw e ee e& OW GW eb N9 en e 3 m n a ee es e em e e o e as e e e e ** a w e o h ee e er e ee ee G* 9 9 == e- S8 9 ee ae .S. e -8D . es-. -.
e
. e e
e e
e e .m,.
e 9 ,., . 5 ,. .h...
.. .e,.-
.e . ,-
, e
. , . , - ,. , . --.9 ,.
8
- l. s..
- e. e.
a
. e. s. au n .e .-
- n. On.e&>. 8R e su 8 .m r
3 Table 3.4-1 (Sheet 2 of 3) 3.4-4
% e is aus et FAGE 3 UNIT 2 REABlNBSS R$ tite ACTielTT Susse4NT is .ss as s ass s sose 2 a 2ssssa s.=:: = is ss .s :as _4s. s 2. :,s:ss,t .2 COMPLETlom 5TATUS SketNG UNIT 4 : POST seOfBLE:
MODUL5 DNIT 1 a558$$ MENT
- SIGNIFlCANT: PROGRAM UNIT 2 StaDt#ESS StoltW ACTIVtTV C00eelTMENT U 1 FINDING assgS$NFNT UNIT 2 MODutt 4 DATE UNIT 1% UNIT 2% FINDlNOS ?
CRANGS$ IMPLEMENTaTl0N: FOLLOW-Up (NOTS I) 4:35samasssesass asassus, a assesasssssssa:==3s ses===s asesses==== (Nott 2)
=ssssass===5:=== e633:3=seessassssssssssseassesuss uses N appendstee W 3as.3==sss=,s.u 7 x H appendem C 05-e5 T5e eso yee ne M
O yee yee no no 35 Procurement U
w appe.... . no H b
9ecament Coeltel
.. .s 48 ,ee e. ,e. ,e. me .. =E M"
I appeedia E 95 85 TSe 45e se
%M W se ye, yee no me W Meternet C.. trol % (n 4 O
Appendia F 11-85 90s 64e yes no ON A ^
leapecter emelificotsem yeo yee I.lli yee tr) m g W
3 (A U
l -J l - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-_,. _ _ . - - _ - -. ,. .- _.- - - - - - _ - . . ~ . _ . , . 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 () READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES i l EVALUATION OF UNIT 1 ASSESSMENT RE SULTS I Civi l An evaluation of the Unit 1 Civil modules listed below has shown that these modules developed f or Unit 1 provided an adequate description and evaluation of the programs used for the Unit 2 work. This conclusion is based in part on the advanced state of - design and construction completion of Unit 2 during the Unit I a sses sme nt . Module 1 Reinf orced Concrete Structures Module 8 Structural Steel Module 13A Foundation Materials and Backfill Module 13C Post Tensioned Containment For each of the above modules, the Unit 1 Readiness Review findings (RRFs) will be evaluated by the Project for applicability in Unit 2 a nd , if appropriate, cor rective action steps verified implemented in Unit 2 programs and practices. O Mechanical An evaluation of the Unit 1 Mechanical Module 16, Nuclear Steam Supply System, has shown that the module developed for Unit 1 provided an adequate description and evaluation of the programs used for the Unit 2 work. Specific findings as a result of Unit 1 Module 16 will be evaluated by the Project for applicability in Unit 2 and , a s app rop riat e , implemented in the Unit 2 programs and processes. 1 Module 13B, Fire Protection, was an evaluation of the planning and implementation activities of the fire protection task force. The Unit 1 module concluded that the program was adequately planned and implemented in Unit 1. A similar programmatic approach will be used in Unit 2, thereby making a j separate Unit 2 assessment by Readiness Review unnecessary. > l Module 18C, Diesel Generator , verified that licensing ' commitments were met and modifications to the Transamerica l DeLaval diesels were completed. The Unit 2 diesels are being modified in a similar manner as Unit 1 by the same organization , which performed the work in Unit 1. Since the Unit 1 Readiness l Review concluded the commitments were being met and the same ; process is being used in Unit 2, a separate Unit 2 assessment is not necessary. ; Os At t ac hme n t 1 (S hee t 1 of 3) I 3.4-6 8-10-87 d PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM ( PROCEDURES Elec t rica l Unit 2 modules will be developed in the same module areas as Unit 1. For ease of presentation, modules 17 and 19 will be cowlined int o a single module. . Operations The Unit 1 Operations modules listed below consisted of an evaluation of the programs established for operation of the pl a nt . These programs are being used in the operation of Unit 1 and will be adopted for operation of Unit 2 at fuel load. Since both units are operated using essentially the same orgadization and procedures and since the on-going evaluation and modification of operational programs is carried out under a rigorous prog ram of operations , cont rols, and oversight , a separate Readiness Review is not necessary in the following a rea s : Module 2 Operations Training and Qualification Module 3 Operations Organization and Administration O Module 7 Module 9A Module 9B Plant Operations and Support Radiological Protection Chemistry Find ings identified during the design assessment of Module 9A, Radiological Protection, will be evaluated by the project for applicability in Unit 2 a nd , if appropriate, cor rective action steps will be verified implemented in Unit 2 program and prac t ices. Appendixes The evaluation of the Unit 1 appendixes listed below has shown J that the Unit 1 Readiness Review provided an adequate < description and evaluation of the programs used for the Unit 2 4 work. l l Appendix C Procurement i Appendix D Document Cont rol Appendix E Material Control i Appendix G Measuring and Test Equipment ' Appendix I Quality Assurance Appendix J Equipment Qualification ( l At t a c hme nt 1 (Sheet 2 of 3) 3.4-7 l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_Y 8-10-87 ! PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM () PROCEDURES i The Unit 1 RRFs for each of the above appendixes will be evaluated by the Project for applicability in Unit 2 a nd , if appropriate, cor rective action steps will be verified iq?leme nt ed in Unit 2 programs and practices. Findings in appendixes C, D, and G had potential for af fecting the overall acceptability of other quality programs and will receive follow-up in Unit 2 by Readiness Review. Records Unit 2 Readiness Review activities, within the scope of modules not planned for a full assessment and module report, are documented in records maintained in the Readiness Revies files. Those records are generally the same as the back-up records maintained for modules with full assessments and reports, and include: o Project i npu t f or commi tme nt implementation and " Unit 2 Action" to Unit 1 RRFs. o Updated implementation data base, n/ (_ o Updated Unit 1 RRF data base (Trends). f o Updated data base (findings) of findings, audits, and deficiency reports. o Executed checklists, RRFs and responses. ; o Records of Readiness Review investigations, including for example, the above evaluation of Unit 1 Assessment ! results. ( i Tne results of Readiness Review activities, within the scope of i modcles not planned for a module report, are reported to the Readiness Review Board. I i 0105P/222-7 At t ac hme n t 1 (Sheet 3 of 3) ! 3.4-8 i 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O PROCEDURES MODULE 1, REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES - Scope Module 1 addresses the design, p rocur e me nt , and construction of Category 1 reinforced conc rete st ructures. Also included in the scope of this module is the turbine building as it may potentially af fect Category 1 structures. St ructures designated Category 2 and determined to not have a potential impact on Category 1 structures are not included in the scope of Readiness Revi e w. The evaluation of reinforced concrete structures includes design, procurement, and const ruction activities as the relate to conc re te, reinf orcing st eel, and cadwelding within these ' st ruct u re s . The post-tensioning system employed in the cont ai nme nt shell is covered in Module 13C. Unit 2 Readiness Review Commi t me nt Impl e me nt at ion: L O The module commitment li st ing is maint ained cur rent. Project identifies the current implementing documents for module commi tme nts . The Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to cor rective actions or justification for changes, t Asses sme nt : As s es sme nt activity is limited to a part 1 assessment ( c onni tme nt implementation re-verification and corrective ac tion f ollow-up) . Module Issue: A Unit 2 module is not issued. The matrixes f rom the first two activities above and the assessments results are presented to Project Management and retained by Readiness Review. O Appe ndi x 1 (Page 1 of 26) 9 l l l 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM < PROCEDURES ( MODULE 3A, INITI AL TEST PROGRAM Scope Module 3A addresses the preoperational test phase of the Unit 2 Initial Test Program (ITP) . Figure 3.4 illust rates how ITP activities are separated between the preoperational test phase and the startup test phase. For Unit 2, the startup test activities will be conducted using the controls and procedures developed f or Unit 1 and will not be included in the Unit 2 Readiness Review program. Unit 2 Readiness Review Cormitment Impl e me nt at ion: The module commitment listing is maintained cur rent. The Project identifies the cur rent implementing documents for module commitments. Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance O to corrective actions or justification for changes. Assessment: . The assessment is a full assessment. Construction Acceptance Testing is examined during the assessments performed for Modules 4, 6, 18A, and 20. i Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 module is prepared and submitted presenting the results of the above th ree activities. ; i l i i i Appendix 1 I (Page 2 of 26) i 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM ( PROCEDURES ) MODULE 4, MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND PIPING Scope ; Module 4 addresses the design, procurement , and construction work activities regarding safety-related mechanical equipment and piping systems classified as American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)Section III, Classes 1, 2, and 3. Design and construction work activities typically associated with the mechanical discipline are addressed in several modules as indicated in Table 3.4-2. j I Unit 2 Readiness Review , Commi t me nt Impl e me nt at ion: 1 The module commitment listing is maintained cur rent. The ! Project identifies the cur rent method of implementation. Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evi dence of continuing conformance to - cor rective actions or justification for changes. O Assessment: The assessment is a full assessment. , Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 module is prepared and issued presenting the l results of the above three activities. i i l t I l . l Appendix 1 l (Page 3 of 26) ! y 8-10-87 l . l l PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM () PROCEDURES MODULE 6, ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT Scope The scope of this module includes those design, pro cu r e me nt , installation, and inspection activities associated with saf ety-related (Class lE) electrical equipment for Vogtle ' Elect ric Generating Plant (VEGP), Unit 2. The following categories of electrical equipment are included in this module: o Transformers. o Bus syst ens (including penetration assemblies), o Switchgear. o de systems, o Motor cont rol centers , o Boards a nd panels. ( ) o Dist ribution equipment. o Inverters. Electrical motors are addressed in Modules 4, 16, 18A, and 20; wall-mounted electrical items other than transformers are addressed in Module 17; electrical instrumentation is addressed in Modules 18A and 20; attachment of equipment to supports is covered by this module; embed channels are covered in Module 8; concrete pads are covered in Module 1; and supports for bus , systems are covered in Module 19. ' Unit 2 Readiness Review Commi t me nt Imple me nt at ion: The module commitment list ing is maint ained cur rent. The Project identifies the current implementing documents for module commi tments . ' T Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to corrective actions or justification for changes. Assessment: ; The assessment is a full assessment. Appendix 1 l (Page 4 of 26) i l l 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O PROCEDURES , Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 module is prepared and issued presenting the results of the above three activities. 9 t i i f Appe ndi x 1 (Page 5 of 26) ! 8-10-87 PL ANT VOGTL E U NI T 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O PROCEDURES MODULE 8, STRUCTURAL STEEL Scope , Module 8 addresses design and construction work activities as they relate to structural steel utilized in Category 1 ( sei smi c) r st ruc ture s . The structural steel within the scope of this i module consist of embeds, structural steel f raming for r cont a i nme nt internals and other Category I st ructures, anchorage f or st ruct u res a nd equipment , pipe whip restraints, cranes and s up po r t s , liner plate systems and miscellaneous Category I st ruct ural it ems. Also included in this module is discussion and verification of the welding program at the VEGP site, (i.e., p roc u r eme nt , cont rol and issue of weld filler metals, we'lder , qualifications, and weld procedure preparation) . We lding processes applicable to structural steel are also addressed in this module. Unit 2 Readinass Review Commi tme nt Implementation: O The module commitment l i st ing is maintained cur rent. Project identifies the current implementing documents for module cogni tnents . The Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to , cor rective actions or justification for changes. Assessme nt : Assessment activities are limited to commitment implementation re-verification and follow-up of cor rective actions. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 module is not issued. The matrixes f rom the first two activities above and the assessments results are presented to Project Management and retained by Readiness Review. i Appe ndi x 1 , (Page 6 of 26) , 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM () PROCEDURES MODULE 9A, RADI ATION PROTECTION ( SHIELDI NG ) Scope Module 9A addresses the elements of the Health Physics department's radiation protection program and a discussion of radiation shielding design. For Unit 2, only the radiation shielding design is addressed. Unit 2 Readiness Review C ommi tme nt Implementation: The module commitment li st ing is maint ained cur rent'. The Project identifies the current implementing documents for module conni tments . Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to corrective actions or justification for changes. A s se ssme nt : Assessment activities are limited to commitnent implementation re-verification and follow-up of cor rective actions. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 module is not issued. The matrixes f rom the first two activities above and the assessment results are presented to Project Management and retained by Readiness Review. Appendix 1 (Page 7 of 26) 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 f- RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES MODULE 11, PIPE STRESS AND SUPPORTS Scope Module 11 addresses the design and construction work activities regarding pipe stress analysis and pipe supports for the Unit 2 saf ety-related mechanical systems classified as ASME Section III, Classes 1, 2, and 3, and non-safety-related systems supported to Seismic Category I requirements for protection of safety-related components. Mechanical piping and equipment is addressed in Module 4, instrumentation is addressed in Module 20, and the piping and supports for the nuclear steam supply systens primary loop is addressed in Module 16. Unit 2 Readiness Review Commitment Implementation: The module commitnent listing is maintained cur rent. The Project identifies the current implementing documents for module c onni tments . Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to 1 cor rective actions or justification for changes. Assessme nt : The assessment is a full assessment. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 modules is prepared and submitted presenting the results of the above three activities. 0 O t Appe ndi x 1 i (Page 8 of 26) , l 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O PROCEDURES MODULE 12, CABLES AND TERMINATIONS Scope ~ The scope of this module includes those design, procurement , ' installation, and inspection activities associated with all Class 1E cables and terminations for VEGP, Unit 2. This module covers cables up to the equipment termination block. Equipment internal wiring is addressed in Module 6. Unit 2 Readiness Review Commi tme nt Impl e me nt at i on: The module commitment li st ing is maintained current. The Project identifies the current implementing documents for module commi tme nt s . Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to cor rective actions or justification for changes. Assess me nt : The assessment i s a f u ll a s sessme nt . Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 modules is prepared and submitted presenting the results of the above three activities. O Appendix 1 (Page 9 of 26) 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM ( PROCEDURES MODULE 13A, FOUNDATION MATERI ALS AND BACKFILL Scope The scope of this module includes chose design and construction activities associated with foundation material (marl, lower sand st ra t um, etc.) design analyses, selection, and placement of Category I backfill. Unit 2 Readiness Review C ommi tme nt Implementation: The module connitment list ing is maintained cur rent'. The Project identifies the current implementing documents for module commitments. Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: , The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to cor rective actions or justification for changes. Asse ssme nt : As se ssme nt activities are limited to commitment implementation re-verification and follow-up of cor rective actions. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 module is not issued. The matrixes from the first ; two activities above and the assessment results are j presented to Project Management and retained by Readiness ' Review. , l i i l Appendix 1 (Page 10 of 26) l 4 - - - -- _.__..________.____._______________l 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINOSS REVIEW PROGRAM () PROCEDURES MODULE 13B, COATINGS . Scope Module 13B addresses the design and construction activities associated with protective coatings for the VEGP Unit 2. Coatings discussed in this module are those applied to the Unit 2 diesel generator fuel oil storage tank and those used within the Unit 2 containment. Unit 2 Readiness Review Commi t me nt Impl eme nt at ion: The module commitment listing is maintained cur rent. The Project identifies the cur rent implementing documents for module c ommi tments . Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to cor rective actions or justification for changes. Asse ssme nt : The assessment is a f ull assessment. Module Preparation and Issue: , A Unit 2 modules is prepared and submitted presenting the results of the above three activities. O Appendix 1 (Page 11 of 26) i l l 8-10-87 l PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 ! RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM : O PROCEDURES ' i l MODULE 13C, POST-TENSIONED CONTAINMENT Scope The scope of this module includes the design and construction l activities associated with the post-tensioning system employed I in the containment shell. Unit 2 Readiness Review Co mmi t ne nt Impl e me nt a t ion: _ The module commitment listing is maintained cur rent. The Project identifies the current implementing documents for mod ule commi tments . Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to cor rective actions or justification for changes. Assessme nt : As ses sme nt activities are limited to commitment implementation re-verification and follow-up of corrective actions. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 module is not issued. The matrixes f rom the first two activities above and the assessment results are presented to Project Management and retained by Readiness Review. I Appendi x 1 l (Page 12 of 26) 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM ( PROCEDURES MODULE 16, NUCLEAR STEAM SUPPLY SYSTEM Scope Module 16 addresses the design interface between Bechtel Power Corporation (BPC) and Westinghouse and the const ruction activities involved with the installation of primary loop equ i pme nt . Work activities considered Westinghouse generic are not addressed; however, this module addresses those Westinghouse activities considered Vogtle specific. Other Westinghouse hardware supplied as part of the nuclear steam supply system package is addressed in the modules that ' contain similar hardware. Unit 2 Readiness Review Commi t me nt Impleme nt at ion: The module commitment listing is maintained current. The Project identifies the current implementing documents for mo dule c ommi t me nt s . Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to cor rective actions or justification for changes. , Assessment: As s es sme nt activities are limited to commitment implementation re-verification and follow-up of corrective actions. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 module is not issued. The matrixes f rom the first two activities above and the assessment results are presented to Project Management and retained by Readiness Review. O Appendix 1 (Page 13 of 26) u 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O PROCEDURES MODULE 17/19, ELECTRICAL RACEWAYS AND SUPPORTS Scope Module 17 addresses the design, p ro cu r e me nt , in st allat ion , a nd inspection of conduit, cable t rays, and special raceways containing saf ety-related cables for Class lE cables for VEGP Unit 2. Module 19 addresses the design and construction activities associated with the supports and associated lateral bracing for electrical cable trays, conduit, pu11 boxes, and junction boxes for VEGP Unit 2 facilities. Also included in this module are electrical equipment s uppo r ts . Electrical equipment d ir'e ctly mounted to building steel or floor embeds is addressed in Module 6. For Unit 2, Modules 17 and 19 will be presented as a combined - module entitled 17/19, Electrical Raceways and Supports. Unit 2 Readiness Review C ommi tme nt Impl eme ntation: ) The module commitment listing is maintained cur rent. The Project identifies the current implementing documents for module commitments. Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to cor rective actions or justification for changes. Asses sme nt : The assessment is a f ull assessment. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 modules is prepared and submitted presenting the l results of the above three activities. ! l l 1 O Appendix 1 (Page 14 of 26) 8-10-87 PL ANT VOGTL E U NIT 2 / READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES MODULE 18A, HEATING, VENTILATION, AND AIR CONDITIONING Scope Module 18A addresses the design and construction activities associated with the safety-related and Seismic Category I he a t ing , ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems for the VEGP Unit 2. Unit 2 Readiness Review Commi tme n t Implementation: The module commitment listing is maintained cur rent. The Project identifies the cur rent implementing documents for module commi tments. Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to cor rective actions or justification for changes. Assessment: The assessment is a full assessment. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 modules is prepared and submitted presenting the results of the above three activities. O(_/ Appendix 1 (Page 15 of 26) l 1 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 g~ RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM l (j PROCEDURES MODULE 18B, FIRE PROTECTION Scope This module identifies those Final Saf ety Analysis Report (FSAR) commitments for the Project Fire Protection Program for VEGP Unit 2. Unit 2 Readiness Review Commi tme nt Impl eme ntation: The module commitment list ing is maintained cur rent. The Project identifies the cur rent implementing documents for module commi tments . Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to corrective actions or justification for changes. Asses sme nt : Assessment activities are limited to commitment implementation re-verification and follow-up of cor rective actions. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 module is not issued. The matrixes f rom the first two activities above and the assessment results are
- presented to Project Management and retained by Readiness Review.
O Appendi x 1 (Page 16 of 26) l 1 m 8-10-87 4 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM () PROCEDURES MODULE 18C, DIESEL GENERATOR Scope Module 18C addresses the diesel generator and associated support systems, such as the air-start, lubricating oil, and fuel oil sy s t ems . The diesel generators quality assessment prog ram, undertaken by the Project to address specific industry concerns regarding diesel generators, is also included. , Various other design and construction work activities associated , with the diesel generators are addressed in other modules. Testing requirements are included within the scope of Module 3 A, Initial Test Prog ram, the electrical systems connecting to the diesel generator and the sequencer , are in the scope of Module 6, and the structure is in the scope of Module 1. Unit 2 Readiness Review Commi t me nt Imple me nt at ion: The module commitment listing is maintained cur rent. The O Project identifies the current implementing documents for module commi taents . Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to cor rective actions or justification for changes. As ses sme nt : As ses sme nt activities are limited to commitment implementation re-verification and follow-up of cor rective ac t io ns. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 module is not issued. The matrixes from the first two activities above and the assessment results are presented to Project Management and retained by Readiness Review. Appendix 1 (Page 17 of 26) 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O PROCEDURES MODULE 20, INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROLS Scope Module 20 addresses the design activities of BPC and the construction activities of Georgia Power Company (GPC), Cleveland Consolidated, and Pullman Power Products (PPP) for instrumentation and cont rol (I&C). This module includes Pneumatic instruments but excludes electrical I&C panels (Module 6) and HVAC instrumentation (Module 18A). For Unit 2, the scope of the Module 20 includes installation of NSSS instrumentation. Unit 2 Readiness Review Commi tme nt Impl eme ntatio n : The module commitment listing is maintained cur rent. The Project identifies the current implementing documents for module commi tme nts . Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to corrective actions or justification for changes. As ses sme nt : The assessment is a full assessment. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 modules is prepared and submitted presenting the results of the above three activities. O Appendix 1 (Page 18 of 26) l l 8-10-87 ) PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O PROCEDURES MODULE 23, SECURITY Sc ope This module addresses the hardware, programs, and organizations that comprise the Unit 2 Physical Security Plan. Unit 2 Readiness Review C ommi tme nt Impleme nt atio n : The module commitment li st ing is maintained cur rent . The Project identifies the current implementing documents for module commi tments . Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to cor rective actions or justification f or changes. Asses sme nt : The assessment is a full assessment. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 modules is prepared and submitted presenting the results of the above three activities. O Appendix 1 (Page 19 of 26) N 6-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 (~g READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM ( ,) PROCEDURES APPENDIX 21C, PROCUREMENT Scope This appendix lists the conmitments and their i mpleme nt ing documents for the progracas for the procurement of equipment, ma t er i a l, and ser vices for VEGP Unit 2. Unit 2 Readiness Review Commi t ne nt Imple me nt a t ion: The module connitment li st ing is maintained current. The Project identifies the current implementing documents for module commi tme nts . Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to cor rective actions or justification for changes. A ssessme nt : e ) (m/ As ses sme nt activities are limited to commitment implementation re-verification and follow-up of cor rective actions. t:odule Preparation and Issue: A *1 nit 2 module is not issued. The matrixes f rom the first t.,o activities above and the assessment results are presented to Project Management and retained by Readiness Review. O Appendix 1 (Page 20 of 26) 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O j PROCEDURES ; I APPENDIX 21D, DOCUMENT CONTROL ) l Scope , This appendix lists the conmitments and implementing documents for the document control and Quality Assurance (QA) records control program for VEGP during the design, const ruction, and pre-operational testing phases of the Project. Unit 2 Readiness Review Commi tme nt Impl em e ntatio n: The module commi tnent list ing is maint ained cur rent'. The Project identifies the cur rent implementing documents for module conni tments . Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to corrective actions or justification for changes. /'h As s es sme nt : U Assessment activities are limi t ed t o c ommi t me nt impl em e ntati o n re-verification and follow-up of corrective ac t io ns. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 module is not issued. The matrixes from the first two activities above and the assessment results are presented to Project Management and retained by Readiness Review. O Appendix 1 (Page 21 of 26) l 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 , READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM / PROCEDURES APPENDIX 21E , MATERIAL CONTROL Scope The scope of Appendix 21E, Material Control, addresses permanent plant materials, parts, and equipment at VEGP f rom receipt through issue to contractors for installation. It also addresses equipment maintenance program activities f rom receipt th rough tra nsf er t o GPC Nuclear Operations. Unit 2 Readiness Review Commi t ne nt Impl e me nt at ion: The module commitment listing is maintained cur rent. The Project identifies the current implementing documents for module commitments. Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to corrective actions or justification for changes. ( As s e ssme nt : As ses sme nt activities are limi t ed t o c ommi t me nt implementation re-verification and follow-up of corrective actions. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 module is not issued. The matrixes f rom the first two activities above and the assessment results are presented to Project Management and retained by Readiness Review. O Appendix 1 (Page 22 of 26) e o 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 /~ RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM ( ,T) PROCEDURES APPEN DI X 21F , INSPECTOR QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION Scope This appendix describes and assesses the construction organizations and their procedures which ensure that commitments for the qualification and certification of quality control inspectors are met. The requirements for inspector qualification and certification during the initial test program are described in Module 3A. The individual modules describe and assess specific inspection activities and also address whether inspectors held the. correct certifications during specific inspection activities. Unit 2 Readiness Review Commi t ne nt Impl eme nt at i on: The module connitment listing is maintained cur rent. The Project identifies the cur rent implementing documents for module commi tme nts . Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to cor rective actions or justification for changes. Assessment. The assessment is a full assessment. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 modules is prepared and submitted presenting the results of the above th ree activities. O Appendi x 1 (Page 23 of 26) 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O PROCEDURES I APPENDIX 21G, MEASURING AND TEST EQUIPMENT Scope This appendix provides a description and evaluation of the programs governing the control of measuring and test equipment (M&TE) utilized during construction activities of the VEGP. It is intended to describe the method of compliance with the Project connitments found in the FSAR. This appendix addresses the commitments and their implementation and determines whether appropriate procedures were in use and adhered to. Included are descriptions of M&TE programs for GPC, PPP, and Nucle ar Installation Services Compa ny. Other onsite contractors made use of GPC's calibrated equipment when required for det er mi ning inspection acceptance of const ruction activities. Controls governing the M&TE program for procured equipment are part of the quality program required by the procurement specification. The procurement of equipment and services is discussed in Appendix 21C. Unit 2 Readiness Review Commi t re nt Impl e ne nt a t ion: ; The module commitment listing is maintained cur rent. The Project identifies the cur rent implementing documents for module conni tments . Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to cor rective actions or justification for changes. Assessment: Assessment activities are limited to commitnent implementation re-verification and follow-up of cor rective ac t io ns. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 module is not issued. The matrixes f rom the first two activities above and the assessment results are l presented to Project Management and retained by Readiness Review. l l l l Appe ndi x 1 l (Page 24 of 26) ) 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM 'O PROCEDURES APPENDIX 21I, QUALITY ASSURANCE ORGANIZATION Scope The scope of this appendix encompasses the specific QA organizations involved in the Vogtle Project and the activities which are car ried out by these organizations. As such, a ma j or topic of this appendix is QA audits. The other QA program elements, such as inspection testing, pro cureme nt , etc. are covered in other modules on a functional basis or in other append ixes . Unit 2 Readiness Review Commitment Impl eme ntatio n : The module commitnent li st ing is maintained current. The . i P ro je ct identifies the cur rent implementing documents for module commi tments . Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: I The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to cor rective actions or justification for changes. As ses sme nt : As s es sme nt activities are limited to commitrent i implementation re-verification and follow-up of corrective i actions. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 module is not issued. The matrixes f rom the first two activities above and the assessment results are l presented to Project Management and retained by Readiness Review. I l l i Appendix 1 ! (Page 25 of 26) l o 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O PROCEDURES APPENDI X 21J, EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION l Scope i This appendix encompasses the procedures, methods, and controls l governing the VEGP equipment qualification (EQ) program. This i program covers saf ety-related equipment and project-specified post-accident monitoring equipment; however, the term l "saf ety-re lated equipment" will be used throughout this appendix l to mean " safety-related equipment and project-specified j po st-ac cident monitoring equipment" . Unit 2 Readiness Review Co mmi t me nt Impl e me nt at ion: The module commitment list ing is maint ained cur rent. The P roje c t identifies the current implementing documents for module commi tments . Unit 1 Finding Follow-up: O The Project provides evidence of continuing conformance to cor rective actions or justification for changes. Assessme nt : As ses sme nt activities are limited to commitment implementation re-verification and follow-up of cor rective actions. Module Preparation and Issue: A Unit 2 module is not issued. The matrixes f rom the first two activities above and the assessment results are presented to Project Management and retained by Readiness Review. l l 0115P/222-7 Appendix 1 (Page 26 of 26) _ _ _ _ __ b 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 () RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES 3.5 UNIT 2 ASSESSMENT 3.5.1 PURPOSE This procedure provides direction for the preparation and implementation of assessment plans for the Unit 2 Readiness Review prog ram. 3.5.2 SCOPE This procedure applies to the preparation and execution.of assessment plans and evaluation of the collected data. 3.5.3 GFNFRAL The scope of Unit 2 Readiness Review modules and appendixes is described in Section 3.4 of this manual and the type of assessments to be performed is described in Table 3.4-1. 3.5.3.1 _Ba c_kg rou nd I nf o rma tio n In development of the assessment plans, the Readiness Review Team will, as a minimum, review the sources listed below to determine the appropriate subjects for assessment: o Module commi tment and implementation mat rixes and their source documents (see Section 3.2 of this procedure) . - Vogtle Elect ric Generating Plant (VEGP) Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). - Cor respondence between VEGP and the Nuclear Regulatory ' Commission (NRC) containing commitments, o Findings and corrective actions f rom Unit 1 Readiness Review Program (see Section 3.3 of this procedure) . - Trends matrix and the listed source documents. - Project prog rams and documents associated with the li st i ng s . () Revision: 0 Issue Date: September 28, 1987 !W - adiness Review Program Manager Oll4P/222-7 8-10-37 l PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 ' () RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES l 1 o Audit data bases (see Section 5 of this procedure) . i - Quality Assurance (QA) audit reports. - NRC inspection reports. - Special investigations. o Licensing Evaluation Reports. o Reports of industry problems . l o Project Unit 1 lessons learned. o Quality Concerns. In addition to review of the above sources, a review of the following will be performed for identification of specific issues f or inclusion in the Unit 2 assessments: Indust ry Problems ' i Same engineer or NSSS supplier as Vogtle. Recur ring indust ry problems. Generic NRC concerns, i quality Concerns ! Vad violation of the Vogtle Project Quality program. Q,A, _Au d i t Finding Reports ; l All Level I f i nd ings . Recur ring finding topics. ! NRC Violations All that were against any Specification, Design Criteria, or FSAR requi reme nt s . Unit 1 Readiness Review Finding,s, All Level I findings. All collective significance findings. l N OTE: ' i For all of the above sources, any hardware issues ) that required rework or repairs. 3.5-2 ~ 8-10-87 l PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM iO PROCEDURES ' 3.5.3.2 Plan Content The plan provides guidelines on the extent of evaluation to be conducted, assessment details, and selection and qualification of personnel implementing the plan. Assessment activities for Unit 2 will be developed based on the Uni t 1 Readine5 Review and NRC findings, the status of completion of Unit 2 activities during Unit 1 Readiness Review, URC violations and industry problems since the Unit 1 module assessment, and whether there have been significant changes in organization or program details for Unit 2 f rom that evaluated in Unit 1. Assessment plans will be developed in three standard subdivisions identified as parts, o Part 1, Commi t me nt Implementation and Cor rective Actions. o Part 2, Design and Construction Prog rams and Activities. l 0 Part 3, Design and Construction Completion, and Initial Test Program. 3.5.3.3 Plan Preparation, Approval, and Implementation Assessments plans and checklists are prepared by the Readiness Review Team, reviewed and approved by the Readiness Review program manager and Readiness Review Board. The plans are implemented by Project QA in accordance with the details of the pla n . Readiness Review will participate directly with QA and provide assistance as appropriate. 3.5.4 PERSONNEL l 3.5.4.1 Responsibilities Personnel responsibilities are defined in Section 2 of the Unit 2 Readiness Review Procedures with additional responsibilities, if any, as described herein. l 3.5.4.2 Qualificaticas f-~ o The qualifications of Readiness Review personnel are " presented in Readiness Review Procedure 2. 3.5-3 i 8-'10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM () PROCEDURES o The qualifications of Project QA personnel are presented in QA department procedure QA-05-01. o Technical specialists assigned to support QA assessment activities shall be qualified in accordance with procedure QA-05-01. The qualifications shall be subject to review by the Readiness Review prog ram manager. 3.5.4.3 Assessment Plan Development The assessment plans shall be developed in response to the objectives and guideline presented below. 3.5.4.4 P a r t_1 o_f, ,As se,s sme n t Plans The objective of Part I assessments and directions for implementing the plans are described below. 3.5.4.4.1 Obj ec t ive There are two primary objectives of Part 1 of each assessment plan: o Ident ification of Unit 2-specific commitments; identification of additions or revisions to Project licensing commitments as a result of FSAR amendments or Post-Unit 1 Readiness Review project letters to the NRC and verification of appropriate implementation of those c ommi tme nts . o A review of findings as a result of the Unit 1 Readiness Review activities, examination of cor rective actions taken by the Project in response to the Unit 1 Readiness Review Program, and the incorporation of those cor rective actions into Unit 2 programs and procedures ; to preclude recurrence. j i 3.5.4.4.2 Sample Selection j Unit 2 Readiness Review assessments will address, to the extent possible, a selected safety-related system and safety-related ser vi ces (electrical, cont rols, HVAC) to that system. A single system is assessed to facilitate evaluation of discipline s interfaces. The system selected should exhibit a broad range of attributes in all disciplines. Interf aces with that system, or other systems, may be assessed if necessary to perform an acceptable assessment. 3.5-4 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM ( PROCEDURES Utilizing appropriate sources as listed in Section 3.5.3.1, specific commitments are selected for review and verification of implementation i n response to the following criteria: o Representative of Project activities on Unit 2. o Inclusion of all Unit 1 Readiness Review findings classified as Level I (having potential saf ety concerns) and all NRC violations that were; - within the scope of the module. - related to the Unit 1 Readiness Review Program, and which addressed the licensing commitments or required corrective actions to demonstrate acceptable implement ing actions. o Representative of commitments which were revised or added subsequent to publication of the Unit 1 module. o Include selected commitments identified to Module 21A in f'} the commitment matrix. \m/ ' o Include a sample of Project-provided implementation to new or changed commitments. 1 l 3.5.4.4.3 Sample Size Sample size is not fixed, but must, as a mininum, include all l Level I Readiness Review findings and NRC violations that resulted f rom their review of the Unit 1 modules as described , in Section 3.5.4.4.2 above. In addition, utilizing the ! implement ation matrix as updated by the Project, the sample l shall include a sufficient number of commitments to demonstrate ' confidence in the accuracy of the matrix and adequate to represent identified or potential concerns. l 3.5.4.4.4 Implementation Details i The commitments selected for verification shall be examined for the following characteristics: o The commitment , as stated, reflects the intent of the source document. 3.5-5 I 1 . o i l 3-10-37 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM () PROCEDURES I o Implementation, as described in the impleme ntation matrix, is usually suf ficient to demonstrate compliance with the commitment and review may be limited to documenting Project implementation of the commitment in documents such as Design Criteria, Piping and Instrument diag rams , one-line diag rams, construction specifications, construction procedures, start-up proceduces, etc. If deemed necessary by the Readiness Review Team to develop additional assurance, addi'tional documents such as calculations, installation drawings, isometrics, installation records , deskt op inst ructions, etc. , may also be reviewed and implementation documented in those documents. I 3.5.4.5 Part 2, Programs and Activities 3.5.4.5.1 Objective , The primary objective of Part 2 of the assessment plans is assess on-going Project programs and activities to determine /"' whether Unit 2 design, construction, and preoperational test phase activities continue to conform to program requirements. Other objectives to be addressed in Part 2 include: o Review of continued acceptability of response to design and construction related problems identified during the Unit 1 Readiness Review. o Review and evaluation of the acceptability and implementation of significant changes in programs, procedures, or responsibilities for Unit 2 activities, if any. o Assessment of the technical adequacy of selected design documents such as calculations and demonstration of necessary interf ace activity. o Assessment of ongoing construction activities to demonstrate appropriate response to design details and construction-related procedures, personnel qualification status, material control, etc. . 3.5.4.5.2 Sample Size , Sample size (number of documents, nurber of welds, tag-numbered O items, etc. ) shall be established by the Readiness Review Team in consideration of the following criteria: 3.5-6 b B-10-37 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 () RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES o The sample shall reflect the status of construction completion of Unit 2 activities at the time of the Unit 1 assessment. o The sample shall reflect extent (isolated versus generic) of the deficiencies identified during the Unit 1 Readiness Review assessments, o The sample shall reflect the f requency of QA audit findings and NRC violations, unresolved items, and inspector follow-up items for audits and inspections per formed subsequent to publication of the Unit 1 Readiness Review modules. o The sample shall reflect the need to examine and demonstrate confidence in Project response to new or revi sed programs. The Readiness Review Team is to consider the need for the imposition of an increased sample size should early results of assessments indicate problem areas. ) 3.5.4.5.3 Implementation Details The plan prepared by the Readiness Review Team shall identify specific characteristics to be assessed to meet the objectives desc ribe <1 i n Section 3. 5. 4.4.1, above . These characteristics shall be identified on checklists described below in Section , 3.5.6. ' In addition to the checklists, guidelines and directions shall i be provided to the QA assessor in the event specific documents, equipment, piping isometrics selected for examination are incomplete, inaccessible, or unavailable for other reasons (see Section 3.5.5, below). ] 3.5.4.6 Part 3, Design and Construction Completion Part 3 of the assessment plan addresses design completion ac t ivi t ies, acceptability of installed hardware, acceptability and retrievability of completed quality records developed during design and construction activities, and the Preoperational Test l Phase program. I 3.5.4.6.1 Obj ect ive ] There are three distinct objectives to Part 3 of the assessment plan as listed below: 3.5-7 4 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM () PROCEDURES o Evaluation of the design completion activities such as the finalization programs (design verification), change cont rol packages, interface activities, and design change control. o Evaluation of as-installed product acceptability and the availability and ret rievability of quality records, o Evaluation of the Preoperational Test Phase. (Const ruction Acceptance Tests and Preoperational Tests) . 3.5.4.6.2 Sample Selection , Unit 2 Readiness Review assessments will address programs and activities appropriate to the systems described in Section 3.5.4.4.2. Utilizing the sources described in Section 3.5.3.1, the Readiness Review Team will select general categories of documents for review and specific portions of systens being installed for evaluations. Alternatively, the team may select specific tag number items and prepare checklists (or assessment Oi guides if checklists are inappropriate) for use by Readiness Review and QA personnel performing assessments. The sample to be assessed shall be selected in response to the following criteria: j o 7epresentative of Project activities on Unit 2. o Inclusion of all Unit 1 Readiness Review findings classified as Level I (having potential saf ety significance) and all NRC violations that were, - within the scope of the module. - related to the Unit 1 Readiness Review Program. o Inclusion of significant QA audit results ( Audit Finding Reports [AFRs], Corrective Action Reports [ CARS]) from audit reports not considered in the Unit 1 assessments, o Inclusion, as appropriate, of NRC identified deficiencies (violations, unresolved items, inspector i follow-up items) f rom inspections subsequent to Unit 1 module publication. () I 3.5-8 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM ( PROCEDURES o Consideration of Georgia Power Company (GPC)-generated reports of potential deficiencies ( co n st ructio n deficiency reports) . o Consideration of deficiencies determined to be reportable, o Consideration of NRC bulletins and notices. o Consideration of significant industry problems ident ified subsequent to Unit 1 module assessment. o Inclusion of significant changes in Project programs, organizational responsibilities, and Unit 2-specific design aspects. o Consideration of deficiencies identified in the Quality Concerns program. Programs and activities found acceptable during the Unit 1 Readiness Review assessments need not be re-assessed unless reviews conducted in response to the selection criteria described above results in a potential concern. O 3.5.4.6.3 Sample Size Sample size (number of documents, nunber of welds, tag-numbered items, etc.) shall be established by the Readiness Review Team in consideration of the following criteria: o The sample shall reflect the status of construction completion of Unit 2 activities at the time of the Unit 1 assessment. o The sample shall reflect extent (isolated versus generic) of the deficiencies identified during the Unit 1 Readiness Review assessments. o The sample shall consider the f requency and significance of similar QA audit findings and NRC violations, unresolved items, and inspector follow-up items for audits and inspections performed subsequent to publication of the Unit 1 Readiness Review modules, o The sample shall reflect the need to examine and demonstrate confidence in Project response to new or -s revised programs. V 3.5-9
- m. . _
8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROG RAM PROCEDURES The Readiness Review Team is to consider the need f or the + imposition of an increased sample size should early results of . assessments indicates problem areas, i 3.5.4.6.4 Implementation Details The plan prepared by the Readiness Review Team shall identify ! specific characteristics to be assessed to meet the objectives described in Section 3.5.4.4.1, above. These characteristics shall be identified on checklists described below in Section 3.5.6. In addition to the checklists, guidelines and directions shall be provided to the QA assessor in the event specific documents, eq u ipme nt , piping isometrics selected for examination are incomplete, inaccessible, or unavailable for other reasons (see i Section 3.5.5, below). 3.5.5 ASSESSMENT SAMPLE DELETION OR SUBSTITUTION The specific samples to be assessed are selected by Readiness O Review af ter consideration of availability, completion status, access, etc. Based on the Unit 1 assessments, substitutions or , deletions of specific checklist items will occur due to : un-anticipated conditions. To minimize the frequency of such oc cur re nc es, the f ollowing recommendations shall be considered, o Identify alternate samples or a generic class of samples (e.g., specify 2 calculations, 10 welds from these 3 i somet ri cs , 1 of these 2 heat exchangers, review certified material test reports for 3 heats of weld filler metal, etc.). 1 In the event alternate samples are not id ent ified , the assessor shall notif y the responsible Readiness Review team leader if the prescribed sample cannot be assessed. The team leader shall , identify an alternate sample, or with the concurrence of the ! Readiness Review program manager authorize deletion of the l assessment, delay the assessment , or transfer the assessment i activity to another module. I 3.5.6 CHECKLISTS The Readiness Review Team prepares checklists as a means of i () assuring consideration of specific attributes or characteristics to be evaluated during assessment ac t ivi t ies. 3.5-10 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES 3.5.6.1 Format Checklists are prepared by Readiness Review on the form shown in Figure 3.5-1. For each checklist, the following items shall be entered by Readiness Review: o Checklist originator and date. o Sample ident ification. - Short description a nd inf ormation to be recorded by auditor f or tracking item / documents examined. o For each checklist e lement or grouping of characteristics, the originator shall record the following inf ormation on the checklist: - Checklist item number for each entry. - Reference to source of specific requirement of characteristic to be examined ( e.g. , Projec t Ref erence Manual, Part C, 4.3.1.A, Pullnan Power Products Procedure IX-18, paragraph 4.3.2, etc.). O Characteristics or requirements which are assessed to evaluate the response to Readiness Review Unit 1 l findings or NRC violations shall show a reference to the finding / violation. - The specific characteristics to be examined. Directions concerning the sample and sample size to be assessed may also be added if appropriate. 3.5.6.2 Checklist Preparation The "..s se ssme nt plan checklists shall identify the selected characteristics and/or attributes to be evaluated for the sample items. Exampler of characteristics or attributes that may be appropriate include: o Objective evidence of commitment implementation in I 1 calculations, specifications , drawings , and procedures , o Objective evidence of appropriate review and/or approval functions (including discipline chief's reviews) as applicable for calculations, drawings, specifications, design criteria, change documents, and Deviation Reports (DRs). 3.5-11
- v. y 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM
( PROCEDURES o Objective evidence that change documents [ Design Change Notices (DCNs), Field Change Requests (FCRs), S upplier Deviation Disposition Requests (SDDRs), DRs, etc.] do not inf ringe upon licensing commitments unless covered by an approved Licensing Document Deviation (LDD). o Objective evidence that calculation results are cor rectly reflected in drawings, specifications, etc. o Objective evidence that, where required, inputs to calculations are cor rect and/or that calculation output, where required, is correctly factored into other approved calculations or designs. , o Objective evidence that results and assumptions of calculations are consistent with the design criteria and licensing commitments. o Objective evidence of inter-discipline design coordination, when appropriate, for drawings, specifications, and design change documents. o Objective evidence of design coordination between the O Project and of f-Project design groups, o Objective evidence that design change documents including DRs, FCRs, and SDDRs, as appropriate, are incorporated into design drawings and specifications. o Evidence that requirements for maintenance, storage, installation, and testing have been adequately addressed by appropriate procedures, instructions, and inspection reports, o Evidence of acceptable calibration status of tools or other items of measuring and test equipment (M&TE) used at the time of the activity. o Objective evidence that records are traceable to the activity and are complete, accurate, and signed off as required. o Objective evidence that prerequisite requirements were performed. o Evidence that Quality Control (QC) personnel are appropriately certified. o Evidence that exceptions noted on selected records have \- been identified on DRs as appropriate. 3.5-12 , 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O PROCEDURES o Evidence that DRs have been properly dispositioned, justification statements are included for required dispositions, and that each closed report is signed by QC. o Evidence that any required test records are available, complete, accurate, ret rievable, and acceptable per applicable requirements. e o Evidence that key installation attributes such as location, orientation, mounting, welding, connections, configuration, separation, and identification are in accordance with design / vendor requirements. , 3.5.6.3 C_omple,t_io n o f C he ck li s t Checklists are used as a guide during assessment activities. The characteristic or attribute (requirement) to be assessed is reviewed within the context to the identified reference and the list of questions and/or directions. 3.5.6.3.1 Assessment Results A record of the documents or hardware reviewed must be maintained (either on the checklist or on an attachment referencing the item number) to establish the basis for the entry in the " accept" or " reject" columns. In addition to identifying the specific sample, the " finding / comment" column is to be used for description of the actual conditions found and , the reasoning for establishing the accept / reject status. ! If the condition found is unacceptable, the " reject" column is checked and the AFR, CAR, or Readiness Review Finding { RRF) ; nuraber is recorded in the " resolution" column. 3.5.6.3.2 Inapplicable Requirements Certain characteristics or attributes specified in the checklist may not be applicable to the specific sample being evaluated. If this occurs, the assessor will enter "N/A" (not applicable) in the " finding / comment" column with a short statement of ' explanation. Readiness Review concur rence is required prior to j closure of the checklist. ! ([) l i 1 3.5-13 j i l . 1 1 l 8-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM l .O PROCEDURES l 3.5.6.3.3 Unverified Requirements In tha avent the assessor is unable to perform the required examination or review (no access, no work in progress, etc.), the assessor will enter "N/V" (not verified) in the " f i nd i ng/c omme nt " column with an explanatory statement. Readiness Review concurrence is required prior to closure of the checklist. 3.5.6.3.4 Checklist Closure The signature of the assessor in the " performed by" box , indicates the assessor has completed his assessment, has reviewed the accuracy of the entries, and has included appropriate backup documentation and records in the checklist package. The checklist package is reviewed by the Readiness Review team leader and the signature in that box attests to acceptability of the package and conclusions. 3.5.7 EVALUATION OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS The Readiness Review Task Force will review the checklists and backup data for the purpose of: o Assuring completeness and acceptability of responses to checklist requirements. o Identifying and verifying accuracy of reported deficiencies. 3.5.7.1 Review of Response to Findings The Readiness Review Task Force will evaluate responses to deficiencies reported on RRFs, GPC QA AFRs, or Bechtel QA CARS in response to Section 8.2 of this procedure. The review shall address the subjects described in the " General Guidelines for Responding to Readiness Review Findings" as : printed on the back side of the RRF form for all RRFs, AFRs, and ! CARS. Additionally, the response shall be evaluated for the i following. r'~ o Does it adequately address the identified deficiency? ( o Is it complete? l l l 3.5-14 i 8-10-87 PLANT V0GTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM () PROCEDURES i o Is the action plan (if necessary) adequate to preclude future recurrence of the deficient conditions and is the schedule for corrective actions acceptable? o Does the deficiency indicate that corrective actions as a result of the Unit 1 E?adiness Review Program are ! inadequate or have not been extended to Unit 2? j Findings shall also be evaluated for collective significance when considered with findings f rom other modules, QA audits, and NRC in spe c t ions . 3.5.7.2 As ses sme nt_of _ Sign ifica nc e The team, af ter reviewing the finding response and upon consultation with the program manager, shall classify findings into levels of importance based on potential impact to plant safety. The following levels are used: i I. Violation of licensing commitments, project procedures, or e ng ineer ing requirements with indication of saf ety concern. O) \_ II. I Violation of licensing commitments or engineering ' requirements with no safety concerns. III. Violation of project procedures with no safety concerns. IV. Non-finding based on additional information/ clarification supplied by the Project. The level shall be indicated at the bottom of the finding form by adding the word " level" and the appropriate roman numeral, or by checking the appropriate box in the verification block as provided by the current revision to the RRF (Figure 8.2-1) form. 3.5.7.3 Assessment Plan Closecut The Readiness Review Team shall include the assessment plan, i checklists, and backup documentation in the Readiness Review module files. Prior to filing, the documents shall be checked to verif y' that all deficient items have been addressed and that necessary information and documents are included to support the checklist entries. 0114P/222-7 3.5-15 I READINESS REVIEW CHECKLIST '. NO. RR-PREranco eT audit NO. PAsE Or-loATE SAtrLE DENTIFICATION AUDIT DATE AREA AUDITORS N , o ITEM REFERENCE DEQUIR EMEN T FINDING / COMMENT i m ACCEPT REJEC T RE SOLUTION H-a > 0 ). U Ogo z c g>Dz @ N m O O mmd I u W N 0) < m Phw e-
- O Ox8 4 M m Mm N H rv I C C U O q* W trj M M
O ME C U3 ~ tQ n TQ m i m g 3 N 3: [ 1 H PERFORMED ST lDATE lR R. TEAM LE ADER lDATE t 8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O PROCEDURES
- 4. READINESS REVIEW TASK FORCE - QUALITY ASSURANCE INTERFACE 4.1 PURPOSE This procedure describes the interface between the Readiness Review Task Force and Quality Assurance (QA) elements of the Readiness Review program organization.
4.2 SCOPE This procedure applies to the Readiness Review Task Force and the QA Department during implementation of the Unit 2 Readiness Review Assessment Process. 4.3 RESPONSIBILITIES Readiness Review Task Force o Define module scope, o Prepare an assessment plan including checklists and detailed instructions. o Prepare a milestone schedule f or the module. o Obtain Readiness Review Board approval of the module scope and plan. o Present findings and responser to Readiness Review Board. o Provide support to QA as required for implementation of the assessment plan. o Prepare draf t Unit 2 module and obtain comments. Quality Assurance o Perform detailed planning to incorporate the assessment plan into a QA audit and the approved tentative audit schedule. o Assign personnel, perform the audit and verify the checklist items in accordance with applicable QA procedures. () Revi io : 0 Issue Date: September 28, 1987 7e - R'eadiness Review Program Manager 0104P/218-7 8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 g READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM ( j PROCEDURES o Provide day-to-day direction f or any technical personnel assigned to the audit, o Issue, track, and close findings, o Review, provide input, and concur with Unit 2 module assessment conclusions, o Provide a statement as to the adequacy of the wor k activities presented by the module. 4.4 INTERFACE ACTIVI TIES , I o The Readiness Review Task Force will forward the draf t assessment plan for each module supplement to the Vogtle , QA manager for comment before submission of the plan to ! the Readiness Review Board for approval. j o Upon approval by the Readiness Review Board, the assessment plan will be forwarded to the Vogtle QA mar.aoer for implementation. o QA will schedule initial meetings or initiate communications to advise Readiness Review of planning progress, the audit schedule and requirements for technical support and to resolve any problens with incorporating the assessment plan into a QA audit, o QA shall provide the Readiness Review Task Force the opportunity to comment on findings and closures prior to issuance or acceptance. o Findings issued by QA as a result of Readiness Review assessment activities shall be clearly identified as such. o In the event that the audit results in concerns by either QA or Readiness Review that are not shared, or considered out-of-scope, the concerned entity shall issue, track, and close their own findings following their applicable procedures. o Upon completion of the audit QA will forward copies of the executed checklists to the Readiness Review Task Force. ("% o QA will provide the Readiness Review Task Force the 4 opportunity to comment on any report of the audit prior to issuance. 4-2 ) 8-6-87 i PLANT V0GTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM O PROCEDURES o The Readiness Review Task Force will provide QA with the draft Unit 2 module for review. QA will concur with the assessment conclusions, and provide a statement as to the adequacy of the work activities presented by the module. 9 0 O 0104P/218-7 4-3 i 11-10-87 PL ANT VOGTLE U NIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM [)
- )
PROCEDURES
- 5. PRE PA RATION OF UNI T 2 MODULES 5.1 PURP)SE This procedure provides guidelines for the contents and general format of modules and appendixes.
5.2 SCOPE This procedure applies to module / appendix documents prepared by the Readiness Review Task Forc e . 5.3 RES PONSI BI L ITIES The Readiness Review program manager is responsible for the overall implementation of the Readiness Review program. The Readiness Review team leaders are responsible for ensuring that the modules / appendixes conform to the requi rements of t hi s procedure. 5.4 MODULE CONT ENT The following are general guidelines f or the format and contents of modules / appendix es. Adjustments will be made in cases which wa r ra nt ch a ng e. Preface This section will describe the scope and methodology of the Readiness Review prog ram. Executive Summary This section will contain the assessments of the Readiness Review Team and Board for the specific module. Int roduction (1. ) This section will present the scope and boundaries for discussion within the specific module, identify in general the completion status of project work covered, and planned completion schedule. (O '%.) Revi aion: 1 Issue Date: 11-11-87 gs} - R6adiness Revi ew Progra m Manager 0110P/314-7 . - . ~ ._ E 11-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROG RAM FROCEDURES ( Organization (2.) This section will present organization charts and identify the current project g roup(s) respon sible f or the wor k covered by the module. Commi tme nt s (3.) This section will present a ma trix of the project licensing commitme nts f or the wor k cove red by the module as found in the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Fina l Saf ety Analysi s Repor t (FSAR), responses to generic lett ers, and other documents. The commi tment matrix will identify, by notation in the left margin, any changes in commitments f rom that identified in the Unit 1 modules. This section will also contain an implementation matrix which identifies the method of impl e me nt a t ion for each commitment. The FSAR amendment used in establishment of the commitment mat rix and the date commitment implementation verification was completed will be stated in Section 3. Prog ra m Desc rip t ion ( 4. ) This section will identify the Vogtle Project work activities and programs utilized to control work within the scope of the module. Additionally, this section will identify the controlling project design c rite ria, specifications, and procedures that cont rol work activities. Significant program changes since Unit 1 will be identified in this section. Audits, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Inspections, Special Investigations and Unit 1 Fi ndi ng Fol low- u p (S.) This section will identify in matrix form, the Quality Assurance ( QA) audits and findings issued and the NRC inspections performed and findings issued on work activities or programs as they apply to a particular module. Also included will be a ' description of any special investigations (or reportable deficiencies) within the scope of the module and a list of Readiness Review and NRC findings as a result of Unit-1 Readiness Review, indicating their applicability to Unit 2 and, if applicable, cor rective actions taken to work processes or prog rams. Section 5.0 will be arranged as follows: o 5.1 Quality Assurance Audits; o 5.2 NRC Inspections; 5-2 d 11-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 () RE ADIN ES S REVIEW PROGRA M PROCEDURES o 5.3 Special In ve st igat ions ; o 5.4 Unit 1 Readiness Review and NRC Readiness Review findings (RR?s). Program Assessment (6.) This section will describe the assessment activities conducted to verify proper implementation of commitments and conformance to project procedures and requ ireme nt s , including the assessment pla n development, im plement ati on , and re s u l ts . The section will include discussions, in su bsection 6.3, of Readiness Review or Project activities which bear on the a s sessme nt , but were conducted outside or in preparation of, the formal module assessment plan. The discussion should show how these ac civities af fected the module assessment or conclusions. Examples of such activities include (as appropriate to the module): o Proj ect Quality Concern investigations and Readiness Review sc reening of Quality Concerns. o Readiness Review screening of NRC Inspection and Enforcement (I&E) Bulletins. o Pro j ect QA 's independent review and verification of cor rective action to NRC and Unit 1 RRFs. o Readiness Review screening and factoring into Unit 2 assessment plans, as appropriate, of occur rences in Unit 1 start-up and operation. Section 6. will be organized as follows: o 6.1 Int ro d uc t ion; o 6.2 Program Description; o 6.3 Summary and Conclusions; I o 6.4 Assessment Activities and Results; ; o 6.5 Unit 2 Findings. O V 5-3 11-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 () RE ADINESS REVIEW PROG RA M PR1CEDURES Assessment of Module Adequacy (7.) This section will contain statements f rom the Project organizations being assessed, Project QA, and the Readiness Review Board attesting to the accuracy of the information contained herein and the adequacy of the work under review. As se s sme nt Plan ard Checklists (8.) 5.5 WRITING OF MODULES AND GENERAL AP PEN DIXES When data has been collected th rough the use of the commitment matrix, implementat ion mat rix, the audit mat rix, assessment checklists (reference procedure 6.0), and other appropriate means, team members consolidate the information into the module or general appendix format and prepare a draf t of the ' modu le/ genera l appendix . When a complete draf t of a section of the module or general appendix i s finished, copies of the section will be dist ributed for comments to the following i nd ivi duals: o Readiness Review Board module sponsors; o Readiness Review program manager; ,o Team leader (s); o QA; o Pro j ec t . Each draf t will contain a cover page outlining the distribution and stating the date all comments are te be returned. The comme nt period will normally be seven daysc All comments will be made clearly on the draf t copies and returned to the team leader for consideration. If necessary, the team leader will schedule a meeting to resolve comments. The team leader will review the final draf t for: o Technical accuracy; o Technical adequacy; O 5-4 - _ - . - .. . = _ _ .- . --- . . _ . 11-10-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 ! RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES o Completeness of discussion; o Format; o Clarity of writing / illustrations; , o Gramma tica l cor rectness. The completed module is then issued for review in accordance with Section 6 of this manual. i y I f O ! t s t I t h 0110P/314-7 f 5-5 w -- ,-, -n, _ . - - - .m__- --_____-_______ 4 11-10-87 PL ANT VOGTL E U NI T 2 (x RE ADINESS REVIEW PROG RAM () PROCEDU RE S TYPICAL MODULE FORMAT Preface Executive Summary
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Organization
- 3. Commitments
- 4. Prog ram Desc ription 1
- 5. Aud it s , NRC Inspections, Special Inve st iga tions, and Unit 1 Findings
- 6. Prog ram Asse ssment
- 7. Assessment of Module Adequacy
- 8. Assessment Plan a nd Check lists l1 l
Figure 5-1 Typical Module Fo rma t
- 5-6
8-6-87 l PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM l (s_ PROCEDURES >
- 6. ASSESSMENT OF MODULE ADEQUACY l
i 6.3 PURPO SE ) i The purpose of this procedure is to define the process, requirements, and responsibility f or assessing the adequacy of i the Unit 2 Readiness Review modules. l l 6.2 SCOPE This procedure applies to the evaluation of Unit 2 Readiness Review modules by the Readiness Review Task Force, the responsible project organizations, Project Quality Assurance, and the Readiness Review Board. 6.3 RE SPONSI BI LITIES The Readiness Review Program Manager is responsible for the overall implementation of the Readiness Review Program procedures. Readiness Review Team members are responsible for performing an assessment of each module during the development process. i It is the responsibility of the project general managers and their staf fs to evaluate appropriate module sections covering their areas of the work ef fort.
- he Readiness Review Board Chairman is responsible to summarize
a consensus assessment by the Readiness Review Board for each module submitted. Evidence of this consensus will be recorded in the Readiness Review Board meeting minutes and such statement will be included in each module. I 6.4 GEN E RAL Each module shall have an " Assessment of Module Adequacy", Section 7, which shall contain as a minimum: 1 i o A st atement by the appropriate project organizations I attesti.ng to the accuracy of the module and I acceptability of the work activities covered by the module. ( ) Revi sion: 0 Issue Date: September 28, 1987 l 1 l Rehdiness Revi ew Program Ma nager 0302P/218-7 I 8-6-87 l I PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 ] READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM i ( PROCEDURES o A statement of certification as to the accuracy and technical correctness of the module's conclusion by the Readiness Review Program Manager. o A Quality Assurance statement attesting to the adequacy ' I of the work activities covered by the module and as noted during the audit / assessment of those activities. o A statement of acceptance of the module and its conclusion by the Readiness Review Board. 6.5 ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE 6.5.1 READINESS REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS f Readiness Review Team members collect data and perform verification for the module in accordance with sections 3, 4, 5, and 8 of this manual. The evaluation of the data, including Project responses to findings, is factored into the conclusions and is presented to the Readiness Review Board by the team O lead er summary The conclusion shall be included in the executive (s). and/or other appropriate sections of the module. 6.5.2 RESPONSIBLE PROJECT ORGANI ZATIONS Department managers whose line supervisors are or have been responsible for the work identified in a module will be requested to conduct an internal assessment of the module. This assessment will include an evaluation of the appropriate module sections for the correctness and completeness of the description , of their work, activities, or responsibility. The assessment is to be documented by signature of appropriate project management on a letter, or other suitable means, ' signifying concurrence with the module. 6.5.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE ! Project Quality Assurance is responsible for incorporating , -assessment plans prepared by Readiness Review into audits, l verification of checklist i t ems , and providing audit results to i Readiness Review. Upon issuance of the draft module, Quality I Assurance is responsible for reviewing the information l contained, for concur rence with conclusions, and for providing a l O statement as to the adequacy of the work activities presented by the module. l 6-2 i s 8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEU PROGRAM () PROCEDURES 6.5.4 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM MANAGER Upon completion of the module, the Readiness Review Program Manager shall provide a statement attesting to the accuracy of the module. 6.5.5 RE ADINES S REVIEW BOARD The following activities provide the basis for board assessment of the module. These activities may be accomplished by the a ssignme nt of module sponsors who act on behalf of the Board and provide status to the Board, o Reviews and approves module scoping . o Reviews and approves each assessment plan. o Reviews and provides guidance on development of assessment policies and processes, o Monitors assessment activities by means of presentations from the Readiness Review Program manager and Readiness O Review Program staff, o Reviews and assesses the resolution of module findings. o Reviews and comments on the module. o Reviews and accepts, where found to be adequate, module conclusions. l Upon completion of these activities. the chairman of the Readiness Review Board shall prerare and sign a statement of consensus acceptance of the modale contents and conclusions for l inclusion in the module. l 0102P/218-7 l 6-3 \ l 9 8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 . RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM (J PROCEDURES
- 8. ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS 8.1 PROCEDURE PREPARATION AND CONTROL 8.1.1 P URPOSE -
The purpose of this procedure is to define the responsibilities and the requirements for the preparation, approval, and control of the Vogtle Project Readiness Review program procedures and r evi sion s . 8.1.2 SCOPE This procedure applies to procedures required to implement the Readiness Review program. 8.1.3 RESPONSIBILITIES The Readiness Review program manager is the final approval authority f or Readiness Review program procedures and is f]/ s_ responsible for the overall implementation of the Readiness Review program procedures raanual. The individual manual holders are responsible for the configuration of their manuals. 8.1.4 FORMAT The title of the manual shall appear at the top of each page of this manual. The issue date shall appear in the upper right corner of each page of each procedure. The bottom line of the first page of each procedure shall contain the revision number, the revision date, and the approval signature of the Readiness Review program manager. Revisions to procedures shall be indicated by a change bar in the right margin, numbered cor responding to revision number , indicating the lines that were changed from the preceding revision. () Revision: 0 Issue Date: September 28, 1987 M/- R6adiness Rdview Program Manager 1 0103P/218-7 .- - . . _ . .- . - =- . l 8-6-87 I l PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM () PROCEDURES Figures and illustrations will be placed at the end of the procedures and numbered using the procedure number plus another , sequential number beginning with one (e.g., 8.1-1 would be the first figure / illustration to this procedure) . ? 8.1.5 CONTENT , Each procedure shall have a statement of purpose which clearly defines the objective of the procedure. Following the statement of purpose, each procedure shall have a scope statement which clearly defines the intended applicability of the procedure. Following the scope statement , each procedure shall have a statement or statements which clearly define responsibilities for i mpleme nt at ion. Each procedure shall, at a minimum, contain suf ficient description to identify what must be done and when, where, how, a nd by whom i t is to be accomplished. 8.1.6 INITIATION i Any member of the Readiness Review Team may initiate a draf t procedure or draft revision to a procedure for consideration by the Readiness Review program manager . : Draf ts considered appropriate by the Readir.ess Review program manager shall be distributed to the task force members for detailed review. I Conments generated f rom this review shall be f orwarded to the draft originator for resolution. , The originator shall disposition and attempt to resolve all comments. Comments that cannot be resolved in this manner shall be presented to the Readiness Review program manager who will provide final resolution. Upon resolution of comments, the procedure shall be presented to ; the program manager for approval signature. i i 8.1.7 DISPOSITION, RETURN, AND TRANSFER OF M ANUALS The distribution of the Vogtle Project Readiness Review Program C) Procedures Manual shall be as follows-8.1-2 - .-_ _ _ ~ . _ _ _ . . _ _ , 5 8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2
- READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM l PROCEDURES o The Readiness Review program manager shall designate those individuals to be assigned controlled copies of the manual.
i o The. Readiness Review program manager shall maintain a controlled distribution list, assign copy numbers, and issue the procedures manuals and subsequent revisions. ; o Manual holders shall notif y the Readiness Review program . manager via memo and return the manual when the manual is ; no longer required. o Manual holders shall notify the Readiness Review program manager via memo when a manual is being transferred to , a nothe r individual. t p i e l 0103P/218-7 8.1-3 02-24-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM /"'s PROCEDURES e t 8.2 DEFICIENCY REPORTING 8.2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this procedure is to define the methods by which items or activities considered by the Readiness Review Team to be in noncompliance to project commitments, specifications, drawings, or procedures, are identified, reported to the responsible organizations, tracked, and resolved to the satisfaction of the Readiness Review Team. This procedure is not intended to bypass, in part or wholly, existing project deviation reporting systems. 8.2.2 SCOPE This procedure applies to items found by Readiness Review Team members which are determined to be in noncompliance with project commitments, specifications, drawings, or procedures. 8.2.3 RESPONSIBILITIES I V 8.2.3.1 Readiness Review Procram Manaaer The Readiness Review program manager is responsible for overall implementation of the Readiness Review program. 8.2.3.2 Readiness Review Team Members 1 The Readiness Review Team members are responsible for identifying findings, identifying responsible responding organizations, obtaining commitment dates compatible with module schedules, and acceptance of project resolutions. In addition, team members are responsible for ensuring that findings and appropriate response documentation are retained in the Readiness Review permanent files. 8.2.3.3 Clerk The Readiness Review clerk is responsible for maintaining the Readiness Review Finding (RRF) log book and assigning unique numbers to the RRFs as requested by the team leaders. The clerk makes distribution of RRFs as required. ] Revi i n: 2 Issue Date: 3-15-88 [V lyJ)f - Readiness Heview Program Manager 0096P/055-8 02-24-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM ("~g PROCEDURES V 8.2.3.4 Ouality Assurance 1 Quality Assurance (QA) is responsible for reviewing each RRF for ' potentially reportable conditions in accordance with QA department procedures. NOTE Engineering, Construction, and Readiness Review are responsible for notifying QA of any identified potentially reportable conditions as per Project Policies and l Procedures Manual, Procedure 7.2. 8.2.3.5 Responsible Organization Managers The responsible organization managers are to provide timely and complete responses. The responsible manager's signature is required for all final responses (see section 8.2.4.3). 8.2.4 INITIATION AND PROCESSING 8.2.4.1 Initiation R93diness Review Team members, upon discovery of an apparent noncompliance to project commitments, specifications, drawings, or procedures, shall initiate a RRF on the RRF form (see Figure 8.2-1) citing the requirement and the apparent noncompliance. All initiated RRFs are then forwarded to the team leader for review. The Readiness Review team leader shall evaluate the finding and determine whether the identified noncompliance appears to be valid. If the finding is judged to be valid, the team member shall enter on the form, the organization (s) responsible for resolution, the required response date in the appropriate block, the unique RRF number obtained from the Readiness Review Task Force clerk, his name in the originator's box, and the date in - the adjacent box. If the RRF is determined by the team leader to be invalid, the team leader shall enter an explanation on the .stm and return the finding to the originator. i s_ - 8.2-2 2 02-24-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM Og PROCEDURES V NOTE The originator, at any time, may discuss with the program manager deficiencies rejected by the team leader the originator considers valid. After approval by the team leader, the finding is forwarded to the program manager for his approval. 8.2.4.2 Processino A copy of the RRF will be transmitted by memo from the Readiness Review program manager to the responsible organization for resolution. Copies of the transmittal shall be forwarded to the Project director, functional organizational manager against which the finding is written. Unit 1 Nuclear Operations - Nuclear Safety and Compliance, Project QA for review for reportability, and the finding originator. Copies of findings identified during Module 23, Plant Security, assessment 2 activities will be forwarded to the Plant Security manager instead of QA for evaluation. \_,/ The original is filed subsequently in.the RRF log book. For findings issued by QA, Readiness Review receives a copy and files it in the RRF log book. i 8.2.5 RESOLUTION AND CLOSURE NOTE This procedure section addresses RRFs and findings (Audit ! Finding Reports issued by GPC QA, Corrective Action Requests I issued by Bechtel QA) issued by QA while performing a < Readiness Review function. ; l 8.2.5.1 Resolution As defined in the guidelines on Figure 8.2-1. Sheet 2, the i responding organization will perform remedial, investigative, I and corrective action, as required, to resolve the finding. The response should identify the root cause of the discrepancy, the extent, any actual or potential impact upon hardware, and a f\ x- / 8.2-3 , 4 i 02-24-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM ( PROCEDURES \/ : summation of the significance of the discrepancy, as appropriate. When appropriate, the responsible organization should initiate ' and issue any Deviation Reports (DRs), Deficiency Evaluation Reports (DERs), or other reporting forms as required by ' applict.b'* QA program requirements. A complete resolution response should be contained on an attachment to the the finding. Copies of related DRs, DERs, i etc. should be attached as appropriate. The response shall ! ref erence the finding and be signed and dated by the manager having responsibility for the work, (e.g., department manager - construction findings) and returned promptly to the originating organization. Copies shall be distributed to Project QA and ; Readiness Review as appropriate. ' NOTE : In the event all required actions cannot be completed in time to support the module publication, the response should provide a suitable action plan, . including commitment dates. [ 8.2.5.2 Evaluation of Proiect Response : Upon receipt of the finding response, the appropriate team i shall evaluate the response for acceptability. Acceptable responses shall be approved by the originator and Readiness , Review program manager and subsequently filed in the RRF log. The RRF tracking log shall also be closed out. If rejected, the responsible organization shall immediately be verbally informed of the reasons for rejection with a memo following to that effect. After resolution, copies of the finding and response shall be transmitted to the originator, Project QA (Plant Security 2 . manager for Module 23), Unit 1 Nuclear Operations - Nuclear Safety and Compliance, and Readiness Review. 8.2-4 02-24-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM '~5 PROCEDURES L) 8.2.5.3 Assessment of Significance The team, after reviewing the finding response and upon consultation with the program manager, shall classify findings into levels of importance based on potential impact to plant safety. The following levels are used: I. Violation of licensing commitments, project procedures, or engineering requirements with indication of safety concern. II. Violation of licensing commitments or engineering requirements with no safety concerns. III. Violation of project procedures with no safety concerns. IV. Non-finding based on additional information/ clarification supplied by the Project. The level shall be indicated at the bottom of the finding form by adding the word " level" and the appropriate roman numeral. or by checking the appropriate box in the verification block as s '}y provided by the current revision to the RRF (Figure 8.2-1) form. 0096P/055-8 8.2-5 e 1 02-24-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES V READINESS REVIEW FINDING (RRF) - m - u n. -- z 2RRF- - REQUIREMENTS: FINDING: i " " " " " RESPONSE PaomeAn wwAcot APenovau DUE DATE: LEvEu a r art a m aIV l ACCEPTER BY mtzGNATI3t DATL ACCEPTD BY PnDWAN MANAIER DATL temponse geselegnes are shown on 1he reverse sede k Figure 8.2-1 Readiness Review Finding Form (Sheet 1 of 2) 8.2-6 02-24-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDUIRES , l Ceneral Guidelines for Rescendine To Readiness Daview P'_ndinas I Responses to Readiness Review findings are to be type-written with each clearly indicating the finding number and the person l ( to contact in regard to the response. Each response must be approved by manager level or higher. For each finding. the response must address:
- 1. INVESTIGATIVE ACTION
. What la the extent of the problem? Additional sampling for like deficiencies shoold be considered unless it can be adequately demonstrated that the finding is isolated or has already been determined to be generic. . - What is the significance of the specific deficiency? Is there any impact, actual or potential, on hardware, technical adequacy, test results.'etc.? . What is tho' collective significance of similar deficiencies noted by additional sampling or other Readiness Review findings? . What is the root cause of the deficiency (s)?
- 11. REMEDIAL ACTION
. What has been done to correct the specific identified deficiencies? A . What has been done to correct like discrepancies [ \ identified during the investigative proceset kg _,j ! - What has been done to resolve other stallar problems when it is determined a generic deficioney existe? 111. ACTION TO PREVENT RECURRENCE - What actions have been taken to assure that repetitive /generie deficiencies will not recur? ADDITIONALLY
- 1. when required action cannot be completed to support finding due dates, a detailed action plan shall be submitted with attestone dates.
- 2. If the finding results in the generation of DRs. DERs.
LDDs. FCRe, procedure revisione, etc.. this action along with final disposition must be reported to the Readiness Review Task Force.
- 3. Any subsequent response revisione suet be forwarded to the Readiness Review Task Force.
- 4. Results of committed to actione must be reported to the Readiness Review Task Force upon completion for review and retention in the permanent Readinese Review files.
- 5. Responese should clearly indicate as appropriate what happened, why it happened. any attigating circumstances or other information that will put the finding in perspective to a third party reader.
- 6. Any conclustens regarding findings should be property and adequately supported by objective evidence and/or sound logic. i I
L ) 0$$4M/120-7 d Figure 8.2-1 Readiness Review Finding Form (Sheet.2 of 2) r S.2-7 ; 02-24-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 l - READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM l PROCEDURES INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETION OF THE READINESS REVIEW FINDING FORM ITEM NUMBER: Enter a sequential number obtained from the Readiness Review Task Force clerk consisting of two RRFs (module number) - (sequential number). ORIGINATOR: Enter the name of the person who identified the discrepancy. DATE: Enter the date the discrepancy was identified. RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION: Enter the organization affected by the finding and responsible for resolution of the discrepancy and/or for supplying resolution (Example: BPC-PFE, Construction, Nuclear Operating, etc.) REQUIREMENTS: Enter the requirement and a reference to the document and paragraph containing the requirement. FINDING: Enter a description of the noncompliance and how it differs from the required condition. RESPONSE DUE DATE: Encer the scheduled date for completion of response. TEAM LEADER APPROVAL / PROGRAM MANAGER APPROVAL: (self explanatory) Figure 8.2-2 Instructions for Completion of the Readiness Review Finding Form (Sheet 1 of 2) 8.2-8 _ . . ._- _ _ _ _ . , _ _ _ , . _ _ _ _ _ . - . _ . _ _ . , . m.. .m_._. 4 02-24-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES , LEVEL: The team leader shall check the appropriate box indicating severity level of the finding based upon the project's response. ' i ACCEPTANCE: The team member and program manager approves the finding response upon acceptance. ' t NOTE i Finding responses will be provided upon separate documents attached to . the finding report by the responding entity. A).1 responses shall clearly indicate the finding number, response date, and contain the signature and title of the person making the i response. 4 i i 1 0096P/055-8 Figure 8.2-2 Instructions for Completion of the Readiness Review Finding Form (Sheet 2 of 2) 8.2-9 4 02-24-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES a il5 85 5% 11 h N , E!'q E $ll - l l
- l 11 1
O Figure 8.2-3 (j Readiness Review Program Finding Tracking Log 8.2-10
- l 5
B-6-87 I PL ANT VOGTL E U NI T 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM , J PROCEDURES %J l 8.3 RESPONDIN_G_TO NRC ITEMS 8.3.1 PURPOSE Du r i ng the course of performing their evaluation of the modules and appendices, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NhC) may identify questions or issues that will require a response. This procedure outlines the steps to be taken to ensure timely and accurate responses to these items. 8.3.2 SCOPE The following NRC items are addressed by this procedure: Category I - Inspector Follow-up Items (IFI) Unresolved Items (URI) Violations Deviations Deficiencies ( Category II - Written or verbal questions requiring a written response. 8.3.3 PROCESSING NRC ITEMS Category _I Category I items are assigned tracking numbers by the NRC and will be entered in the Readiness Review action report for tracking (see Figure 8.3-1). Once the item is identified, Readiness Review will evaluate the item and, with project help, ident if y the appropriate organizations to supply the response. The Project Regulatory Compliance group will assist in this process and will also track the item in accordance with their procedures. Inspector Follow-up Items (IFI) and Unresolved Items (URI) do not require a written response to be formally submitted to the NRC but do require a written response submitted to Readiness Review for approval prior to submittal to the compliance coordinator for retention. () s_- Revi ion: 0 Issue Date: September 28, 1987 -) 5 - + Rbadiness it'evi ew Prog'r'aTn Ma nager 010lP/218-7 8-6-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM () PROCEDURES NRC violations and deviations require a formal response to the , NRC by Project and will be coordinated by the compliance coordinator in accordance with procedure GD-A-41. Prior to submittal, the draf t response shall be concurred with by
- Readiness Review.
Category II Questions f rom the NRC are tracked by Readiness Review who has sole responsibility f or ensuring timely response to those questions. Questions are tracked in the Readiness Review Action ' Repo rt . Questions are of two types, those formally submitted in a letter and verbal questions requiring a formal response. Ver bal questions answered verbally are not covered by this procedure. When questions in the scope of this procedure are rec eived , Readiness Review will identify who should supply the inf ormation for the re spon s e . A member of the Readiness Review Task Force will then work with these individuals to ensure the question is fully and correctly answered. ( Once answers are formulated, Readiness Review will draf t the letter to the NRC. The letter will be f orwarded to licensing and the appropriate Project organizations for review and comments. Once all comments are resolved the letter will be signed by a project executive and mailed to the NRC. NorE Each person involved in the preparation, review, coordination, and approval of correspondence to the URC is accountable, within his area of responsibility, for (1) ensuring the overall accuracy of information, (2) ensuring that no misstatements are made in cor respondence, including clerical er rors, transposition or errors made through simple negligence, (3) ensuring proper concurrence by other organizational entities who are involved in or af fected by the subject matter, and (4) ensuring complete and proper implementations of any actions. O 010lP/218-7 8.3-2 , ) i e. rm s/^h r\ s ) / ( ) %d READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM ACTI ON T R AC K I NG LOG RESPON-SIBLE EDIT ITEM DATE MOD- ORGANI- DATE RR DATE NRC DATE NO. SOURCE NO. L EVEI. I T EM SU BJ ECT ISSUED ULE ZATION DUE STATUS COMP STATUS Cl.OSED EX PL AN ATI ON OF FI E LDS y M y EDIT NO - The comput er record number. t C
- p. SOURCE - Identif seation of type and source of action it em.
O "' p NRC INSP REPONT TM - Nuclear Regulator y Commi ssion INRCl i nspect t on r epor t . m *-3 NRC LETTER - Lett er f rom t he NRC. mM< O
- M f 'NRC PEVIEW QUESTION - Queret son t ransat t ted Inf Orma lly trom the NHC durarug O N g(.3 (D
the course of a module review. MM 8 = NRC TELECON - Telephone conve r sat ion wit h the NRC. m x *
- p. ITEN NO mM a
Q y - The NRC identified it em number or a Readiness Revtew assigned number consist ing of the module number and a sequent i al ly ass a gned number . MZ g M .-. H LEVEL - Finding leve l of signi f ica nce, w N gH j ITEN SUBJECT - Subject of the act son i t em. M DATE IS SUED - Date issued by the source. 3 NODULE - Readiness Review module. RESPON ORGIN - The Project of ganlEation responsible f or t he act ion. ACTION - Those activit ies ident ifi ed t o take place t o respond or resolve t he co nc er n . DUE DATE - Readiness Review assigned dat e in-light-of act ions requir ed t o respond t a t he NRC. RR STATUS - Ident ified as open unt il Readiness Review i s sat isf ied that the w response is accept able or act ion is complet es reassigned as closeo. I m DATE CONP. - Dat e that Readiness Revi ew st at us i s changed t o closed. I tU NHC STATUS - Ident i f t ed os s ogen unt i I ehe t4 H C adent i s es I he r e s gun s +a or det n on as acety t ats t e. St at us a s t he se e e - a s tis ijn ed a s e i o s t 41, cLOSI:D DA1] - Da t e that NHC st a t u *a e sa etsate je el 4 o close. r f I 8-5-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE ADINESS REVIEW PROGRAM ( PROCEDURES 8.4 T RA INING Each employee shall receive indoctrination upon assignment to the Readiness Review program and specific t raining in the requ ireme nts of the program. 8.4.1 INDOCTRINATION Indoctrination s hall consist of, but is not limited to: o The objectives of the Readiness Review program. o A description of the pla nt . o A description of the site organization and management. o The Quality Concern prog ram, o The documents and procedures to be used. / 8.4.2 SPECIFIC TRAINING V) In addition to indoctrination, each employee shall receive specific training in the requirements of the program procedures and revision. Supervisory personnel shall determine which procedures require presentation and use by subordinates and will give t raining ac cor di ngly . Revisions to procedures shall also be handled in this way. l 8.4.3 IMPL EMENT ATION Supervisory personnel will be responsible f or the ind oc tri nat ion of all subordinates and will document the training on the Readiness Review Program Training Indoctrination form, Figure 8.4-1 or the Readiness Review Program Training Report, l Figure 8.4-2. ) i These forms will be maint ained in the employee's Rea'diness Review personnel file maintained by the Readiness Review program staff. (~h () Revi ion: 0 Issue Date: September 28, 1987 g ffbS , i R6adiness ke9iew Program Manager 0113P/217-7 ft Li 8-5-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 RE A DIN ES S REVIEW PROG RAli , PROCEDURES Vogtle Project READINESS AEVIEW PROGRAM TRAINING ' INDOCTRINATION l EMPLOYEEE SC NUMBER DATE The following indoctrination subjects were esclained to the employee. Employee's Initials 1 The ODiective of the Readiness Aeview Program 2 A description of the plant 3 A description of the 9te organ'28 tion and management 4 The Quakty Concern Program 5 The cocuments and procecures to be usec l 6 Other (Explain) i SUPEAVISOR NOTE This owument is to ce fiiea in the empsoyee s personnet ble ma.ntained by Aeaoiness Aeview Figure 8. 4-1 Readiness Review Program Training Indoctrination Form 8.4-2 8-5-87 PLANT VOGTLE UNIf 2 p RE A DIN ES S REVIEW P ROG RAM \] P?OCEDU3Z3 A Vogtle Project READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM TRAINING REPORT l I EMPLOYEES J l i i I I s SUBJECT I DATE AND PLACE < l l l 1 CETAILS OF TRAINING < l l 1 1 SUPERVISCA NOTE The onginal will be maintaineo ey the supervisor, and a copy win De piaceo in eacn empaoyee s personnel Ne l 1 \ Figure 8. 4-2 l Readiness Review Program Training Report 8.4-3 l A 01-19-88 4 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM [\- - PROCEDURES 8.5 SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION CONTROL 8.5.1 PURPOSE This procedure establishes the requirements for controlling and distributing Safeguards Information received or originated by the Readiness Review Team during preparation and assessment of Readiness Review Module 23, Plant Security. 8.5.2 SCOPE This procedure applies to the development, receiving, issuing, storage, and use of documents received or originated by Readiness Review. This procedure applies to all Readiness Review personnel and is not intended to invalidate any of the applicable requirements of procedure number 00650-C of the Project Administrative Procedures Manual. 8.5.3 RESPONSIBILITIES O() 8.5.3.1 Readiness Review Program Manager The Readiness Review Program Manager is responsible for overall implementation of this procedure. 0.5.3.2 Readiness Review Team Leader The Readiness Review Team Leader for Module 23 is responsible for determining which information should be classified as Safeguards. 8.5.3.3 Readiness Review Team Members The Readiness Review Team members are responsible for complying with this procedure when receiving or originating safeguard documents and during storage and use of safeguards documents. Revision: 0 Issue Date: January 20, 1988 g: - R'eadiness' Review Program Manager 0116P/019-8 e 01-19-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM () PROCEDURES 8.5.4 GENERAL 8.5.4.1 Information to be Protected The specific types of information, documents, correspondence, reports, etc. to be protected are those dealing with details of the Plant Security System, including: o Plant security and contingency plans. o Engineering drawings, vendor documents, sketches or descriptions of intrusion alarms, guard posts, or other security equipment. o Portions of guard training and qualification plans, related to response of attacks or threats, or which reveal details of security equipment. o Guard orders or procedures, excluding routine duties such as traffic control, material passes, etc. ("' o Response and patrol routes. o Information related to on-site or off-site response forces. o Communication methods or equipment. o Correspondence, inspection reports, and audits that reveal Safeguards Information. o Information related to specific spent fuel shipments (shipping routes and quantities of spent fuel are not classified). o Drawings or documents that explicitly identify certain areas or equipment as being vital for purposes of physical protection. o Draft and final copies of the Readiness Review Module 23, including completed checklists and findings. O 8.5-2 e a 01-19-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 l READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM j ( PROCEDURES 8.5.4.2 Access to Safeguard Information A. Only personnel who appear on the immediate access list will be allowed to sign out and remove Safeguards Information and to receive Readiness Review originated documents. B. Personnel that have been fingerprinted may access Safeguards Information on a need to know basis with the approval of the Readiness Review Program Manager or his designee. 8.5.4.3 Protection While in Use and Storace A. While in use, Safeguards Information shall be controlled by the person authorized for access. This individual must limit access to the information to those individuals who have a "need to know". Safeguards Information must be attended by an authorized individual, even though the information may not be in constant use. B. While unattended, safeguards documents shall be stored in a locked GSA approved security storage container or in a metal (~} \ ,/ storage cabinet provided with a locking bar and a GSA approved combination lock. C. A log shall be maintained listing all safeguards documents contained in the storage cabinet (Figure 8.5-1). Each document shall be assigned a sequential control number. D. Individual items of correspondence, with or without attachments, may be stored in file folders with a common control number. Individual sequential numbers are not required for each item if the item is identified by a correspondence log number. E. Authorized individuals removing documerts from the containers shall log the documents in the Safeguard Document Sign Out Log (Figure 3.5-2). 8.5.4.4 Preparation and Marking of Documents A. Readiness Review shall ascertain that any safeguard documents received by Readiness Review are properly marked in accordance with administrative procedures. Originator shall be notified of any omission for immediate correction. r\ U 8.5-3 1 4 01-19-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM [3 \n) PROCEDURES 1 B. Safeguard documents originated by Readiness Review shall be conspicuously marked with an approved Safeguards Information stamp (Figure 8.5-3, item a or b). Each page of the document shall be stamped. In addition, the first page of the document shall be identified with an assigned copy number and the name of the assigned individual (Figure 8.5-3, item c). - C. Readiness Review shall ascertain that the receiving individual has been authorized access to Safeguards Information before issuing the document. D. Cover letters or transmittal documents used to transmit safeguards documents shall not contain Safeguards Information and shall be stamped indicating that the cover document is decontrolled when separated from safeguards attachments (Figure 8.5-3, item d). 8.5.4.5 Reproduction and Destruction , A. Safeguard documents originated by others shall not be reproduced in whole or in part. If additional copies are g required, they should be obtained from the originating 1 organization. B. Safeguard documents originated by. Readiness Review shall be reproduced by authorized personnel to the minimum extent possible consistent with the needs for minimum distribution. All reproductions shall be assigned a copy ; number per sections 8.5.4.4.B and 8.5.4.6.B. C. Safeguard documents no longer needed for the work shall be returned to the issuing department or destroyed by any method that assures complete destruction of the Safeguards + Information they contain. Destruction or return shall be documented on remarks column of the Safeguards Document Distribution Log. 8.5.4.6 External Transmittal of Safeguards Documents P A. Safeguards Information will be enclosed in two sealed
- envelopes or wrappers when being mailed on- or off-site.
L The inner envelope or wrapper will contain the name and l . L C) ! 8.5-4 r 01-19-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES address of the intended recipient and should be marked on both sides, top and bottom, with the words SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION. The outer envelop or wrapper will show the recipient's name and address but shall not indicate that Safeguards Information is enclosed. B. A distribution log, shall be maintained listing all issued documents, copy numbers, and name of recipient of each copy (Figure 8.5-4). C. Recipients of Safeguards Information originated by Readiness Review shall be required to sign an acknowledgement certifying the receipt of the safeguards document (Figure 8.5-5). D. Safeguards Information shall not be transmitted over unprotected telephone lines except in emergencies. This restriction applies to telephone, telegraph, teletype, facsimile transmission, and radio. Exceptions to this policy may be granted only by the Readiness Review Program Manager. E. Safeguards Information may be transported by O' messenger-courier, United States first class, registered, express, or certified mail, or by an individual authorized access. 8.5.4.7 Use of Automated Data Processing Systems (WANG, PC, etc.) A. Word processing equipment may be used for preparation of safeguard documents. Documents generated shall be transferred to tapes, disketts, etc., and stored as specified in Section 8.5.4.3 and shall be deleted from the word processing program at the end of each day. B. Personnel responsible for performing word processing or text editing of generated documents shall be cleared for "NEED TO KNOW" according to Section 8.5.4.2.B. 8.5.4.8 Removed from Safeguards Information Category A. Documents originally containing Safeguards Information shall be removed from the Safeguards Information category when the i (~) i V 8.5-5 i 01-19-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES information no longer meets the criteria specified in section 8.5.4.1. B. Only the Readiness Review Program Manager and the Module 23 Team Leader are authorized to reclassify Safeguards Information. O U l 8.5-6 ; 1 .q ~ O O O' READINESS REVIEW SAFEGUARDS DOCUMENTS ~ STORAGE LOG [ DATE DATE cu ITEM NUMBER SUBJECT RECEIVED. RETURNED HEMARKS 0
- - i 7 m
W e E . m C g T $ e , T - g *** T LO c 4 Z Li g OT O h e ,, mm ga t a U
sArnouAnosINeonMAnoM DEC&tmoLLED WHEN SEPWWLATED PROM ATTACHMENT ltem d. ; Figure 8.5-3 Sample Safeguards Stamps t' 8.5-9 01-19-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM PROCEDURES O READINESS REVIEW SAFEGUARDS DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTION LOG DOCUMENT NUMBER: i
SUBJECT:
CODY U# ^
ISSUE 3 TO REMARKS NUVBER ISSUE 3 RECElpil3 ATE) l l _ . _ . - . . _ _
i l
PAGE __
Figure 8.5-4 Readiness Review Safeguards Documents Distribution Log 8.5-10
C 6
01-19-88 PLANT VOGTLE UNIT 2 READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM
(} PROCEDURES U
READINESS REVIEW ,
1 SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION l
\ :
DOCUMENT TRANSMITTAL I Document Copy No. DescriDtion No. Issued To: Date RECEIPT ACKNO'fLEDGEMENT A I have received the above listed proprietary Safeguards Information
( documents. I certify that all documents in my *.,vssession shall be safeguarded in accordance with Procedure 00650-C,
- Safeguards Information control'.
On-site recipients shall sign and return this trartamittal within 5 days.
Off-site recipients shall sign and return this transmittal within 15 days.
DATE OF RECEIPT:
RECEIVED BY EXTENSION LOCATIOW Please sign and return this transmittal to:
R. W. McManus Readiness Review program Manager Plant Vogtle Construction Field Office Post office Box 282 vaynesboro, GA 30830 0008w/019-8 l
Figure 8.5-5 Readiness Review Safeguards Information Document Transmittal 8.5-11