ML20134L270

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Rev 0 to Design Control Process
ML20134L270
Person / Time
Site: Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date: 01/03/1997
From: Bibby J, Haseltine J
CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20134L236 List:
References
PROC-970103, NUDOCS 9702180392
Download: ML20134L270 (5)
v • d • e


Text

-

E 1

Connecticut Yankee Decommissioning Design Control Process GRPI l

Revision 0

)

1 l

// W97 Prepared oy:

Date:

l V

Jeffrey F. Bibby l

  1. [3/I)

Approved by:

Date:

l y John D. Hase'Itine 9702180392 970206 I PDR ADOCK 05000213 P

PDR

i a

)

Design Control Process GRPI i

M Modify the Design Control process for Connecticut Yankee to fulfill the commitments provided in the December 4,1996 Enforcement Conference and provide appropriate controls for the " Nuclear Island" and the remainder of the plant activities for decommissioning.

j Roles:

J. Bibby Responsible for overall process development, coordination i

of reviews and process implementation.

l S. Sarver Responsible for providing needed interface with the new FSAR change process.

S. Milioti Responsible for providing needed interface with the new Safety Evaluation process.

I F. Perdomo Responsible for providing needed interface with the new Licensing Commitment management process.

D. Sabean Responsible for providing definition of systems needed for l

decommissioning to support defining applicability of Design i

Controls.

S. Weyland Responsible for providing definition of " nuclear island" to support maintenance of applicability definition.

Group ActivityManagers Responsible for review and comment.

QA Reviewer (TBD)

Responsible for QA review and comment.

J. D. Haseltine Responsible for manual / procedure approval.

NTD Representative (TBD) Responsible for developing a training program and qualification process.

4

?

r 2

)

f.GSSEli The plant modi 6 cation process will consist of 2 parts. Systems, structures and components (SSC's) that are credited at any time to support spent fuel storage operations (e.g; the I

" nuclear island") will be processed in accordance with an updated version of the current Design Control Manual. A revision is currently in progress that will incorporate most of L

the lessons learned associated with the Virgilio Inspection. A subsequent revision is i

required to address all commitments associated with the December 4,1996 Enforcement i

j Conference and to reflect the 2 part process. Changes to these SSC's will be defmed by 3

DCR's, MMOD's or MSEE's.

i The second part will be based on YAEC's " Decommissioning Work Package" process (AP-0103). As with this process, certain Decommissioning activities (e.g; removal of the reactor vessel) may be defined by a DCR dependent on the complexity of the activity.

l 4

1 l

Starting with the current 5 unit DCM, a CY umque revision will be generated and a new j

Decommissioning Work Package procedure will be developed based on the following activities:

i-Coordinate with the Design Control Working Group to fmalize the in-progress i

" change 1 to revision 3" of the DCM. This change will incorporate the Millstone based (Bob Cox) "PI-10" review, many of the lessons learned from the Virgilio Inspection, j

and user feedback from implementation of revision 3.

(

Coordinate with Tom Miller (YAEC) to gain a full understanding of Yankee Rowe's l

process. Differentiate as appropriate between the controls for " nuclear" changes versus " commercial" changes. Utilize input from the definition of systems needed for i

decommissioning and the plans for the evolution of the " nuclear island" to support this differentiation.

j l

Gain an understanding of the Design Control process used by other plants in some i

stage of decommissioning (e.g; Trojan), as well as the best practices from operatmg i

plants (e.g; Entergy, NYPA and input from INPO and EPRI PSE) to ensure best i

practices are incorporated.

1

. Ensure all commitments made relative to the composite of the 1996 Inspections are j'

- fulfilled. (Formal commitments will be established).

4 Coordinate with other group related efforts to update processes such as 50.59 j

Reviews (Steve Millioti), FSAR Changes (Steve Sarver), maintenance of Licensing

l Commitments (Fred Perdomo), Corrective Actions (Jim Foley), MEPL Determinations (Pete Clark), and Work Identification and Authorization (formerly controlled by the 4

{

DCM Chapter 2 EWR process).

i!-

l m.

y p.

9

_,y

-g_...

a wy.,=g y

.y.

he

s b

f h

3 i i

i Generation of a CY unique process will require developing CY unique EDI's.

Coordinate with Seabrook and Millstone to transition from the 5 unit EDI manual.

Incorporate other Instructions determined to be appropriate later to facilitate j

unplementation.

I Generation of a CY unique process will also require updates to various NGP's.

+

e Develop and submit PAR's as appropriate once the DCM is approved.

J Establish training requirements and coordinate with NTD to train members of the e

Decommissioning staff.

i The revised, CY unique Design Control process is planned to be complete by 7/1/97 in accordance with the attached schedule.

4 i

Internersonal:

i The following interpersonal relationship guidelines will be used to maximize efficiency of the effort and avoid duplication ofefforts:

A liaison has been developed with Yankee (Tom Miller) to ensure best practices are j

incorporated from Rowe's decommissioning experiences. Similarly, contacts should be j

made with other permanently shutdown plants such as Trojan.

Contact will be maintained with Millstone and Seabrook Design Process Liaisons to ensure enhancements made to their processes are reviewed for applicability.

Contact will be maintained with other plants in the industry through INPO to ensure e

?

best practices are incorporated as applicable.

Decommissioning of nuclear power plants is relatively new with only limited industry l

experience. " Thinking outside the box", particularly with regard to non-nuclear, d

commercial changes will be encouraged.

Feedback from the group leads will be maintained to ensure that the Design Control Process fulfills all needs. Periodic meetings will be attended as necessary.

J a

4 i

. ~...

.~

~

ee97 1**S ID Task Name Duration NovlDec Jan l Feb l Mar l Apr l May l Jun l Jul l Aug l Sep l Oct l Nov l Dec Jan l Feb l Mar ! Apr l May l Jun l Jul l Aug l Sep 1

Coordusate with the DCWG to 60d DCM Revision 2

CY PORC Approval 7d C Approval 3

Staff Trained to Rev 3/ Chang 7d Rev 3/ Change 1 Training / implementation 4

Coordinate with YAEC for Bes W

E YAEC Input 5

Definition of DCM Related C/

30d 5

Closure of C/A Cmi Li as 7d CIA Commitment Completions 7

Ds.4,+a of Decommissio God Dwp Procedure :L. 4c- :

8 Revision of CY/MP DCM 60d DCM Revision Development l'

9 50.59 Process Cc.@vea 30d E

59.59 Prxedure (Steve Niilloti) 10 FSAR Change Process Devel 30d l

FSAR Cwnge Procedure (Steve Sarver) j '.

-MEPL P ocedure (Pete Clark) 11 MEPL Detemunation Process 30d l

12 Work identificatxm and Autho 30d EWR Substitute Proceduie l'%:eletion PAR's 13 NGP PAR's submitted for Del 7d 14 Review and Comment of Prop 30d eview IWlod 15 Disposition of Comments 7d omment Disposition 16 QA and JDH Approval 1d 1JMt Approval 17 PORC Approvalof Procedure 7d popC Approval l'

Training 18 Training Program Developme 15d f[New Process In-Place 19 DCM Effort Complete 1d l'

pY Unique EDrs Development 20 Upgrade of EDrs 60d 21 EDI Approvals 7d EDI Approvals l

Task Summary Roned Up Progress N Project:

Progress RoNed Up Task 7/g.

Date: Fri 12/27/96 hf/M g

Milestone Rolled Up Milestone Q Page1

. -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20134L270&oldid=4228152"