ML20117M769
| ML20117M769 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1985 |
| From: | Crouse R TOLEDO EDISON CO. |
| To: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| References | |
| 1-523, NUDOCS 8505170197 | |
| Download: ML20117M769 (7) | |
Text
{
T DIO.O Docket No. 50-346 TOLEDO
%mm EDISON License No. NPF-3 RCHARD P. CROUSE Serial No.-1-523 va w wa *~*
April 30, 1985 Mr. James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator Region III United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen _Ellyn, Illinois 60137
Dear Mr. Keppler:
In the March 4, 1985 response (Serial No. 1-502) to the Davis-Besse Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP), Toledo Edison committed to provide the program plan and schedule for the system-by-system review of the Updated Safety Analysis Report (SAR). provides the methodology by which the review will be conducted.
It is expected that this review will be completed by July 1, 1987.
Very truly yours, f
RPC:SGW:JRL:nif encl.
cc: DB-1 NRC Resident Inspector 8825 IBM !!88lj;'
MAY 6 1985 G
THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY EDISON PLA7A 300 MADISON AVENUE TOLEDO OHIO 43652 d'
e
G
~D2cket N.:50-346i License'No'. NPF-3~
jt.
Serial No. 1-523 April 30, 1985 Attachment l' Page 1 SAR REVIEW PROGRAM
~
'I.
INTRODUCTION In order to broaden our understanding of the design, operating, and licensing bases of_ Davis-Besse, Toledo Edison has initiated a:long term program to document and disseminate as much of this important
~
information as practical. The first step of this program will be the
> review of.the Updated Safety Analysis Report-(SAR). The SAR review will be performed on a systematic basis with an overall objective of correcting errors in the SAR and extracting important operational and g
_ design information for incorporation into other user oriented informa :
- tion systems.. The review is to be conducted by experienced Toledo Edison personnel familiar with the design, operation, and licensing
- bases
- of the plant.
'II.IOBJECTIVES The SAR review process is an ambitious. project with several impor-
. tant. objectives.. _The objectives for this project are listed below-in order of decreasing importance:
- A.
The line-by-line review of the 'SAR-for potential errors and development of proposed changes.
.B.
The compilation of system functions identified in the.SAR.
C.
The compilation of component functions identified in the SAR.
D.
The compilation of procedural-requirements and operational
-restrictions-identified in the SAR.
E.
The identification of component quality classification using the_ newly developed safety classification system (4Q).
F.
The compilation of all system functions not identified in the SAR.
The foregoing represents the minimum set of objectives to be accom-
.plished by the review process. An additional objective to be accom-plished, as time permits, is as follows:
n,
' ' Docket N2. 50-346
.i License No. NPF-3
. Serial No.1-523 April' 30, :1985
.Page 2~
G.
.The compilation of all component functions not identified in the SAR.
.The SAR review is to be performed on a system-by-system basis. The
_ systems :to be reviewed include all safety related systems and major non-safety related systems on a predetermined sequence.
While the majority of the SAR will be reviewed by the system-by-system
~
approach, portions of-the SAR are not amenable to this approach. Those
- sections of the SAR will be reviewed separately at the conclusion of the system-by-system review.
III. SAR REVIEW METHODOLOGY The key, activity of this project is the SAR review meetings to be held for each system. The reviewers will be assembled as a group to evaluate all portions of the SAR relative to the ~ subject system at one time.
1(.
' Personnel The personnel selected for the SAR review are experienced
-individuals with a background in engineering and/or opera-tions. To provide an engineering input, two of the following three people will participate in each review meeting:
Fred Miller John' Wood Sushil Jain To provide operational. input, two of the following four people will attend each review meeting:
Mike Derivan Bill O'Connor Louis Simon Jacque Lingenfelter
' Substitutions for the specific personnel listed above may be made with the joint concurrence of the Plant Manager and Nuclear Facility Engineering Director.
Additionally, for each system review, a designated Engineering System Expert and a designated Station System Expert will participate in the meeting.-
y 2:
D:ckSt Ns. 50-346 License Noh NPF-3
- Serial No. 1-523 -
- April.30,-1985 Attachment l-
- Page13_
cFinally,~one or more individuals dedicated to monitoring and (managing the. review process will be in attendance. This indi-
- vidual(s) is designated as the Process Manager.
Other' individuals as deemed appropriate may also be invited to the meeting.
B.
Documentation The following information should be available for the review:
1)
-One complete controlled copy of the SAR i:
2)
Uncontrolled copies of=the SAR sections to be reviewed.
3)
.One controlled copy of System Procedures 4)'
One controlled copy of Technical Specifications 5)'
One' controlled copy of P& ids (one full set with both'
~
as-builts and DCNs for implementation)~
6)
-One controlled copy of electr'ical one line~ diagrams 7)
One controlled copy'of elementary electrical. diagrams
'8)
One controlled copy of piping isometrics C.
Pre-meeting Activities To effectively use the time ~available in the SAR review l-meetings, certain pre-meeting activities will be performed.
.These activities' include the definition of system boundaries.
l the selection of specific SAR sections and'pages to be re-viewed,.~and compilation of any additional reference documen-tation deemed necessary. The' pre-reeting activities will
_normally be performed by the Engineering System Expert and the Station System Expert, and coordinated by_the Process Manager...
D.
SAR Review Meeting The following activities are to'be accomplished during the l
SAR' review meeting for a given system:
b
- 1. '
A review of the identified system boundaries.
t.
l' i-
ge;=
-~
s ~
E
' '~.Dockst No.J50-346 c.
' License'No.-NPF-3 Serial No. 1-523
. April 30, 1985-
. Attachment 1.
Page 4-
- 2.
- A line-by-line. review of the appropriate SAR sections'to accomplish the objectives identified in items A through D.
of.Section II.
_3.
The, identification'of component quality classification boundaries using the 4Q system.
-4.
The identification of additional system and component functional information.
'E._
Post Meeting Activities The' review activities identified in_the previous section will generate factual information to be compiled and distributed, and lists of action items requiring further research and/or problem. rectification.Section IV contains a general discus-sion of the factual information to.be distributed to the Mission.
Three major ~ categories of action items will be. identified ~ during the SAR review process.- The first of these will require addi-
-tional-research to determine or clarify certain factual informa -
tion.
The second category will require additional research and, if
= necessary, correction of potential deviations between the existing plant design.and the SAR_ description. Correction of such, deficiencies would be accomplished by_either modification
'of plant. design or performance of the safety evaluation.to modify the.SAR.
The third category of action items would require the comparison of' existing procedures to operational restrictions and procedural-requirements identified in the SAR. Differences identified will be corrected by modifying the procedure or performing a safety evaluation to modify the SAR.
The responsibility for the action items may be assigned to any Nuclear Mission personnel. Coordination of action item resolu-
-tion-is to be performed by the Process Manager.
l F.
Process Manager The primary function of the Process Manager, as described above, is to monitor and manage the SAR review program. This indivi-
-dual (s).will coordinate all administrative activities, such as reference document control, process instruction preparation and maintenance, record keeping activities, and the preparation and maintenance of the review schedule. The technical responsibili-
e-
-I kiY Docket No.150-346' License No.' NPF-3 Serial No. ~ 1 -523 April 30,1985 :
Attachment 1'-
Page 5 ties of the Process Manager consist'primarily of assuring that the review process is consistently applied to each system. This
.would include, for example, assuring that the system boundary V
definitions.are established during,the. pre-meeting activities in
~
accordance with guidelines, established for that. activity.
- Similarly', the' Process Manager ~would make sure that guidelines established for documenting system and component functional
.;information.are consistently applied.
IV.L
- DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION The objective;of distributing;SAR review information is to pro-vide Mission personnel with the information pertinent to their activities. Some of the information generated during the SAR
_ review process will be disseminated in the form of revisions to
- u
'the SAR and. corrections to Mission' procedures. The addition of
- ~
information to, or the modification of, procedures, and/or changes to the plant design, initiated by the SAR review process will be.
forwarded to the Training Department for evaluation with respect to. required-training program changes in accordance..with established m
procedures.' Information on system and. component functions are to
.be compiled and distributed for use by Nuclear Mission personnel.
V.
SCHEDULE
.The review of systems and other SAR sections not system related i
should be completed within 1 to 2 years. The assumptions used wr to develop this estimate are as follows:
1.
Review meetings will be held on an approximately weekly basis.
2.
One meeting each month will be set aside as a makeup session or to allow members of the SAR review group to meet with a larger group of individuals to discuss other aspects of the longer term program to document the Davis-Besse design bases.
3..
' Review of a single system is expected to require from 1/2 to 2 meetings, depending on the system complexity.
4.
A total'of 55 systems are currently being considered for.
review.
~
~ 5..
Review of-the non-system related SAR sections is expected to take 5 to 10 meetings.
f_; a :
-- "' Docket N5.: 50-346 License N.o. NPF Serial No. 1-523 April 30, 1985 Attachment l'
.Page 6 Systems are to be reviewed in approximately the order of safety significance, i.e., safety related systems will be reviewed first followed by major non-safet/ related systems.' _ Regular SAR review meetings should begin in June of 1985; therefore, the review project should be completed during the first half-of 1987.'
The post meeting activities, including deficiency resolution and information distribution, will lag behind the SAR review meetings. - The ' extent of this lag will depend upon the amount of information generated and the_. number of action items created.
The post meeting activities will, however, be conducted in parallel with the SAR review meetings.. As,the. process for these activities becomes more clearly defined, this lag time
-should decrease.
'JRL:lk/nf-JRL/100-
--T-
-~,,
--^wwww4--cw,9-
-ygy,y-y,,
p,_,,_,,,-,eyr4>q.
w