ML20137J376
| ML20137J376 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 03/04/1997 |
| From: | Terry J FLORIDA POWER CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137J365 | List: |
| References | |
| PROC-970304, NUDOCS 9704030280 | |
| Download: ML20137J376 (82) | |
Text
l 3F0397-19 74%,
h
\\
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION CRYSTAL RIVER NUCLEAR PLANT i
SYSTEM READINESS REVIEW PLAN REVISION 1 1
Sponsor er, Nucle Plant Technical Support 3ff97 Date
/ /
1 g 'g " 4 % g)U ApprovalN s
Chai'rman(Restart Panel b!Lf!D Date 0
9704030280 970304 PDR ADOCK 05000302 P
1 l
Summary of Revisions for System Readiness Review Plan i
Revision 1 dated March 4,1997:
i General:
i 1
More detail has been provided for clarification of scope for Level 1,2 and 3 System l
reviews. Numerous clarifications and editorial enhancements have been included. A detailed revision markup of the Plan is maintained by the SRR Team and is available for 4
review.
i Specific:
5 i
The Purpose, section 1.0, has been clarified to place the SRR in the context of other CR-3 ongoing restart programs.
Defmitions have been added in section 3 for Assessment Data Base and Open Item Data Base and Vertical Slice Review.
The scope in section 4 has been clarified and an estimate for level of effort for Level I t
and Level 2 system reviews has been added to Sections 7.1 and 8.1.
Additional guidance for selection of Attributes and Topic Areas for review has been i
added to sections 7.1 and 8.1. Guidance for using Time Line Information has been added to sections 7.1.5.
Additional guidance is provided in section 7.1.6 for expanded evaluation ofpreviously identified issues.
Clarification has been provided in sections 7.1.10,8.1.4, and 9.1.4 regarding scope of.
tracking of Open Items.
The text assoc'inted with Figure I has been modified to clarify that the FSAR and ITS are l
sources ofinformation for regulatory design basis and licensing basis. Other modifications clarify that the SRR assesses conformance of the plant systems with licensing and design basis.
Figure 6 has been added to compare scope for Level 1,2 and 3 systems. has been modified to clarify that the walkdowns will assess conformance of the plant systems with design and licensing basis. 0 has been deleted and the Plan clarified to indicate that the SRR scope does not include evaluation or resolution of discrepancies.
J
... = _.._
. - ~ -.
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PURPOSE
2.0 REFERENCES
3.0 DEFINITIONS 4.0 SCOPE 5.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 6.0 SYSTEM PRIORITIZATION 7.0 SYSTEM READINESS CERTIFICATION PROCESS (Level 1) 7.1 Phase 1 Initial System Readiness Reviews 7.1.1 Form System Teams 7.1.2 Team Training 7.1.3 Team Kickoff Meeting 7.1.4 Design and Licensing Basis Documentation 7.1.5 Time Lines for Key Systems 7.1.6 System Condition Documentation 7.1.7 Assessment of System Attributes and Topic Areas 7.1.8 Perform Multi-discipline Walkdown of System 7.1.9 Identify and Evaluate, Restart Action Items 7.1.10 Determine Restart Workscope 7.1.11 Prepare Initial System Readiness Report and Present to the Restart Accountability Team 7.1.12 Evaluate Extent of Condition for Identified Problems 7.2 Phase 2 Restart Activities Monitorine 7.2.1 Monitor Appropriate Work Control Documents for Restart Action Items 7.2.2 Disposition Restart Action Items for Completion 7.2.3 Monitor Restart Action Item Work Scope in Progress 7.2.4 Screen Emergent Issues for Inclusion in Action Item List 7.2.5 Conduct Work in Progress Walkdowns of System 7.2.6 Update Open Items Database With Status as Items are Closed and New Items Issued 7.2.7 Provide Status of Restart Item Work Progress as Required by Plant Management 7.2.8 Start Preparation of Final System Readiness Report 7.3 Phase 3 Final System Readiness Review 7e3.1 Conduct Final System Readiness Walkdowns 7.3.2 Review Work Not to be Completed Prior to Restart for Impact on System Readiness 7.3.3 Present Final System Readiness Report to the Restart Panel Prior to Plant Restart 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 7.4 Phase 4 Startuo and Power Ascension 7.4.1 Monitor Startup System Activities for Affect on System Readiness Condition 7.4.2 Review System Test Results 8.0 SYSTEM READINESS ASSESSMENT PROCESS (Level 2) 8.1 Phase 1 Initial System Readiness Review 8.1.1 Perform Initial System Condition Assessment 8.1.2 Assessment of System Attributes and Topic Areas 8.1.3 Perform Multi-discipline Walkdown of System 8.1.4 Identify and Evaluate Restart Action Items i
8.1.5 Determine Restart Workscope 8.1.6 Prepare Initial System Readiness Summary 8.2 Phase 2 - Restart Activities Monitoring 8.2.1 Monitor Appropriate Work Control Documents for Restart Action Items 8.2.2 Disposition Restart Action Items for Completion 8.2.3 Monitor Restart Action Item Work Scope in Progress 8.2.4 Screen Emergent Issues for Inclusion in Action Item List 8.2.5 Conduct Work in Progress 'alkdowns of System W
8.2.6 Update Open Items Database With Status as Items are Closed and New Items Issued 8.2.7 Provide Status of Restart Item Work Progress as Required by Plant Management 8.2.8 Start Preparation of Final System Readiness Summary 8.3 Phase 3 - Final System Readiness Review 8.3.1 Conduct Final System Readiness Walkdowns 8.3.2 Review Work Not to be Completed Prior to Restart for Impact on System Readiness 8.3.3 Present Final System Readiness Summary 8.4 Phase 4 - Startuo and Power Ascensign 8.4.1 Monitor Startup System Activities for Affect on System Readiness Condition 8.4.2 Review System Test Results 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
~
(Continued) 9.0 SYSTEM READINESS WALKDOWN PROCESS (Le. vel 3)
~
9.1 Phase 1 Initial System Readiness Review 9.1.1 Perform Initial System Condition Assessment 9.1.2 Perform System Manager Walkdown of System 9.1.3 Identify and Evaluate Restart Action Items 9.1.4 Determine Restart Workscope 9.1.5 Prepare Initial System Readiness Summary 9.2 Phase'2 Restart Activity Monitoring 9. 2.1'
' Monitor Appropria'te Work Control Documents for Restart Action Items 9.2.2 Disposition Restart Action Items for Completion 9.2.3 Monitor Restart Action Item Work Scope in Progress 9.2.4 Screen Emergent Issues for Inclusion in Action Item List 9.3 Phase 3 Final System Readiness Review 9.3.1 Conduct Final System Readiness Walkdowns 9.3.2 Review Work Not to be Completed Prior to Restart for Impact on System Readiness 9.4 Phase 4 - Startue and Power Ascension 9.4.1 Monitor Startup System Activities for Affect on System Readiness Condition 10.0 Intecrated System Readiness Report FIGURES F.1 SYSTEM READINESS REVIEW ASSESSMENT MATRIX F.2 SAMPLE ASSESSMENT MATRIX F.3 ATTRIBUTE ASSESSMENT FORM F.4 SAMPLE ASSESSMENT FORM F.5 GRADED APPROACH FOR SYSTEM ASSESSMENT F.6 COMPARISON OF VERTICAL SLICES FOR LEVELS 1, 2 AND 3 F.7 LEVEL SYSTEM READINESS REVIEW ASSESSMENT MATRIX 4
i i
+
i-ATTACHMENTS
[
A.1 ~ RESTART ISSUES SELECTION / SCREENING CRITERIA f
l~
i d
A.2 SYSTEM READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM l
(SYSTEM WALKDOWN GUIDELINES) r i
i A.3 INITIAL LEVEL 1 SYSTEM READINESS REPORT FORMAT 1
A.4 - FINAL LEVEL 1 SYSTEM READINESS REPORT FORMAT i
i
\\
A.5 INITIAL LEVEL 2 SYSTEM READINESS
SUMMARY
FORMAT' i
A.6 FINAL LEVEL 2 SYSTEM READINESS
SUMMARY
FORMAT A.7 LEVEL 1 SELECTION CRITERIA RESULTS COMPARISON A.8 INTEGRATED SYSTEM READINESS REPORT FORMAT A.9 TRA NING REQUIREMENTS'FOR SYSTEM READINESS TEAM A.10 LEVEL 3 SYSTEMS f
=
4 5
- ~. -. _
l 1.O PURP M t
The purpose of this document is to define the System Readiness Review (SRR)
Program and provide guidance in evaluating and determining system readiness for CR-3.
These guidelines support startup from the current Design Margin Outage.
l The System Readiness Reviews are intended to assess the~
j conformance of the plant
- design, testing, maintenance, l
operation and configuration with the licensing and design requirements on a sampling,- vertical slice basis.
In conjunction with 'other' ongoing ' programs at CR-3 and resolution of issues identified in the course of this l
review, the SRR will provide reasonable assurance that the-system operation is:
capable of meeting its functional requirement within regulatory design basis within licensing basis.
\\
2.O REFERENCES 2.1 Restart Plan, FPC Crystal River Unit 3 2.2 Restart Management Guideline, FPC Crystal River Unit 3 l
l 2.3 AI-256, Restart Readiness Assessment Guidelines i
2.4 AI-257, Start-Up, Power Ascension and Near-Term Operation Plan (under development) i l
l l
2.5 AI-1700, Conduct of Nuclear Engineering and Projects l
2.6 NOD-55, Control of Design Basis Information 2.7 Management Corrective Action Program II (MCAP II) l 2.8 CP-153B, Monitoring the Performance of Systems, Structures and components under the Maintenance Rule 3.0 DEFINITIONS 3.1 System Readiness Review Assessment Matrix The matrix
)_
consists of Attributes (rows) and Topic Review Areas (columns) that when completed provide the summary basis of
{
the conclusions of the System Readiness Review.
Figure 1 1
0
provides the Assessment Matrix Form.
Figure 2 provides a-sample assessmedt matrix.
l 3.2 Attribute '- Key system parameters that will be evaluated against various Topic Review ~ Areas.
The Attributes make up the rows of the matrix and are selected by the System Readiness Review Team using inputs such as the FSAR, PSA and reviewer knowledge.
3.3 Topic Review Area - Consists of documents and sources of information in the following areas:
- Design, Licensing, Operations, Maintenance, surveillance, Physical Plant, and j
Programs, Processes and Procedures.
The Topic Review Areas make up the columns of the assessment matrix.
l 34 Discrepancy - A finding generated as a result of an activity performed in accordance with this plan which indicates a i
potential need for corrective action or process improvement.
3.5 Generic Issue - Discrepancies-identified in several systems i
for the same topic review area that potentially identify a process or programmatic problem.
3.6 Assessment Data Base The data base used to document System Readiness Review assessments, identifying-consistent use of design and licensing information as well as discrepancies.
3.7 Open Item Data Base - The data base used to track open items recommended for restart for each system as well as to identify those work -requests whose _ resolution is~ not required for restart.
The open items include discrepancies identified by the System Readiness. The Open Item Data Base is linked directly to the Assessment Data Base.
3.8 Licensing Basis - The set of NRC requirements applicable to CR-3 and FPC's written commitments for ensuring compliance with and operation within applicable NRC requirements.
3.9 Regulatory Design Basis - A subset of the design basis that is included in the current licensing basis and forms the basis for the NRC staff's safety judgment.
This consists of information that identifies the specific functions to be performed by a structure, system or component and specific v& lues or ranges of values chosen for controlling parameters as reference bounds for design.
(See NOD-55 and NUREG-1397 for further clarification).
7 i
3.10 Design Basis The fundamental specification for a
ctructure,
- system, or component (SSC) that defines the parameters that ensure owner and regulatory requirements are met.
The design basis is the entire set of design restraints that are implemented, including (1) those that are part of the current licensing basis, and (2) those that are not part of the current licensing
- basis, but are implemented to achieve certain economies of operation, maintenance, procurement, installation, or construction.
(See NOD-55 and NUREG-1397 for further clarification, including definitions of Design Basis
- Document, Design Requirements and Design Output Document).
3.11 Vertical Slice Review - A structured review approach based on the Safety System Function Inspection (SSFI) methodology that allows an assessment of specific aspects of the plant physical configuration and operation against selected aspects of the plant licensing and design basis.
The scope of the SRR vertical slice review for each system is defined by the Attribute Assessment Matrix.
A, 0 SCOPE o
The System Readiness Reviews will address 105 p3nnt systems.
Plant Systems will be prioritized for revisw scope in three levels:
Level 1 - System Readiness Certificatien Level 2 - System Readiness Assessment Level 3 - System Readiness Walkdown The threshold for these levels are based upon the Readiness Review Significance System Ranking and results of prior system reviews (EDSFI, SWSOPI, IPAP, Self-Assessment, Tank Calculations, Setpoint Program, SPIP Reviews, Appendix R
\\
j Reviews, EOP Technical Basis Documents).
Further discussion of the level of review assigned to each system is provided j
in Section 6 and Attachment 7.
These levels of review will give reasonable assurance that the systems are operated in conformance with the plant Regulatory Design Basis and Licensing Basis and are in a condition to support safe plant operation for the next run cycle.
These reviews will also help establish an Extent of Condition concerning regulatory design basis conformance.
8
The three-level graded approach is summarized in Figures 5 and 6.
Level 1 - System Readiness Certification Level 1 systems were selected based upon their impact on i
maintaining the fission product boundaries and as determined by prioritization criteria, defined in Section 6.
The prioritization effort, as summarized in Attachment 7,
has resulted in defining the following Level 1 systems:
Makeup - MU Decay Heat - DH Emergency Feedwater - EF and EFIC Emergency Diesel Generator - EG Engineered Safeguards - ES Core Flood - CF Reactor Coolant - RC Based on a
PSA risk reduction worth perspective and excluding, contributions due to human error, the Level 1 systems are relied upon in accident sequences which account for 87% of the core damage frequency.
Level 1 systems will receive an extensive review of the
{
design and licensing documentation, using a vertical slice methodology based on Safety System Functional Inspections (CFI).
The review. includes a multi-disciplinary walkdown, as described in Section 7.1.
A detailed Time Line is also constructed and used for each Level 1 sys t em,_. a s described in Section 7.1.5.
Level 2 - System Readiness Assessment Level 2 System selection was based upon the prioritization criteria.
The following 18 Level 2
systems have been identified for CR-3.
MT - Auxiliary Electrical Power DP - DC Elec. Distribution BS - Building Spray AH - Air Handling for control complex, react.or building recirculation and auxiliary building exhaust.
SW - Nuclear Services Closed Cycle Cooling RW - Nuclear Service and Decay Heat Sea Water DC - Decay Heat Closed Cycle Cooling DR - Rod Drive 9
l MS - Main Steam WD - Waste / Disposal i
RM - Radiation Monitoring AN - Annunciator System
~
FW - Feedwater CA - Chemical Addition SF - Spent Fuel NI - Nuclear Instrumentation RP - Reactor Protection System RA - Containment Access 1
Bas,ed on ~ a PSA risk reduction worth perspective and i
excluding contributions due to human error, the Level 1 and Level 2 systems are relied upon in accident sequences which for 100% of the core damage frequency. To assist in account the review of two of the more important Level 2 systems, Building Spray (BS) and Air Handling (AH), Time Lines, as described in section 7.1.5, will be deve2oped for these systems.
Level 2 systems will be reviewed for design and licensing basis issues, modifications, and open items and will be walked down by a
System Manager / System operator team.
Generic issues identified in Level 1 system reviews and evaluated as having potential impact to other systems are to be considered in Level 2 system reviews.
A comparison of Level 1,
and Level 2 investigations is provided in Figure 6.
Level 3 - System Readiness Walkdown Level 3 systems include the remaining systems which do not meet the requirements for Level 1 or Level 2 but will be subject tio a planned system walkdown prior to plant restart.
Level 3 systems are identified in Attachment 10.
The SRR reviews will result in a vertical slice evaluation of selected design basis and licensing basis requirements to various depths for the Level 1,
2 and 3 systems.
These evaluations do not guarantee that future external or internal assessments will not uncover additional problems.
However, in conjunction with other ongoing horizontal slice programs at CR-3 and resolution of issues that may be identified during the restart effort at CR-3, the SRR is expected to provide a significant part of the reasonable assurance that the system is capable of meeting its 10
-functional requirements and is within its regulatory design basis and licensing basis.
5.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 5.1 The System Readiness Review Program Manager is responsible for program development, schedule and coordination, and oversight of the System Readiness Review (SRR) Program.
i 5.2 The Nuclear Plant Technical Support (NPTS) Manager is j
responsible for:
j
- a. System Readiness Review Program content and oversight.
- b. Development of the system screening criteria parameters and threshold for determining the required level of review.
- c. Ensuring adequate tra'ining is provided to participating team members.
- d. Approving the Attribute selection and the corresponding Assessment Matrix for each Level 1 and Level 2 system,
- e. Review the results of the individual system readiness reviews and identify any generic
- issues, their potential extent of condition, and define the appropriate expansion of readiness review or programmatic corrective action.
5.3 System Managers are responsible for:
Coordination of requests for system design and a.
licensing basis documentation from the appropriate j
sources.
54
- b. Assembling Readiness Review Results and restart action items into an appropriate database for tracking.
- c. Maintaining a status of restart action items and submit status update to plant management as required.
- d. Leading a System Team consisting of:
System Manager Team' members, as applicable to system level, with expertise in:
11
Maintenance Operdtions Design Engineering Licensing Clerical others as required Coordinating and conducting system walkdowns with e.
appropriate team members as applicable to system level.
- f. Coordinating preparation of System Readiness Reports as required.
- g. Presenting Initial and Final System Readiness Reports to the Restart Accountability Team and Restart Panel or Manager NPTS as required by system level.
5.4 The System Readiness Review Team will:
Select Attributes and Topic Review Areas appropriate to a.
their specific system, by reviewing the FSAR, Safety Evaluation Report, Probabilistic Safety Analysis (PSA),
other design basis
. documents and using the knowledge / expertise of the reviewers.
Guidance for selection of attributes and topic areas is provided in Section 7. The selected Attributes will form the rows of the Assessment Matrix; selected Topic Areas for each Attribute will be marked with an "X" in the Assessment Matrix.
A sample matrix is depicted in Figure 1.
b.
Perform the system attribute checks and walkdowns and document the
- results, including any noted discrepancies, in the appropriate data base.
c.
Enter the deficiencies in the CR-3 corrective action program, using Precursor Cards or REAs.
5.5 The Operations Manager will be responsible for assigning I
Operations Representatives for Level 1 Teams and Level 1 and Level 2 Walkdowns.
5.6 The Nuclear Operations Engineering (NOE)
Manager will be responsible for assigning Design Representatives for Level 1 Teams and Level 1 and Level 2 Walkdowns.
5.7 The Nuclear Maintenance Manager will be responsible for assigning Maintenance Representatives for Level 1 Walkdowns.
12
5.8 The Nuclear Licensing Manager will be responsible for I
assigning Licensing Representatives for Level 1 Teams.
5.9 The Work Controls Manager will be responsible for ensuring restart restraint actions are
- planned, scheduled and implemented to support restart readiness.
l 5.10 The Restart Accountability Team will be responsible for i
review and approval of submittals to the Restart Panel, the Initial System Review Report, and the Final System Review Report.
5.11 The Restart Panel will be responsible for approving the Initial System Review
- Report, the Final System Review i
Report, and approving the implementation of required restart action items as required.
6.O SYSTEM PRIORITIZATION 6.1 Plant systems have been prioritized based on the following ranking factors to provide a logical approach in deciding j
which systems receive Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3 reviews.
The weighting or importance ranges picked for the various factors were developed using engineering judgment with input from various departments.
PSA Factor - The Probabilistic Safety Analysis (PSA) Factor was provided by the PSA Group based on a system ability to affect core damage frequency.
Regulatory Factor - The Regulatory Factor is applied.to a system based on regulatory sensitivity / involvement, including consideration of regulatory design basis.
The applied factor is relative between systems and is determined by an expert panel Relative Importance Factor - The Relative Importance Factor represents the product of PSA and Regulatory Factors.
Risk Significance Factor Risk significance determinations have been established through Maintenance Rule Scoping.
An expert panel determined systems to be risk significant based on safety functions (inventory control, reactivity control, and decay heat removal), and PSA evaluations of criterin such as core damage sequences, risk reduction worth and r.isc achievement worth.
This factor is 1.20 for risk significant systems and 1.00 for non-risk significant systems.
13
.I J
Sofety/Non-Safety Factor - This factor is 1.10 for safety systems and 0.90 for non-safety systems.
Safety classifications were obtained from CMIS.
F System Importance Factor The System Importance Factor I
represents the product of Relative Importance Factor, Risk Significance Factor and Safety /Non-Safety Factor.
l l
Number (#) of Closed Modification Approval Records (MARS) -
[
The number of closed MARS against each system.
j Number
(#)
of OP Revisions The number of Operating" s
i j
Procedure (OP) revisions against each system.
Number (#) of SP Revisions - The number of Surveillance t
Procedure (SP) revisions against each system.
10CFR50.59 Review Opportunities The sum of number of closed
- MARS, Operating Procedure (OP) revisions and surveillance Procedure (SP) revisions on each system.
1 Readiness Review Significance The product of System Importance Factor and 10CFR50.59 Review Opportunities.
j -
6.2 A Readiness Review Significance System Ranking is determined a
for each system and used as a tool to determine which systems receive Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3 reviews.
The results of the system prioritization are presented in Attechment 7.
i 7.0 SYSTEM READINESS CERTIFICATION PROCESS (Level 1) 7.1 Phase 1 - Initial System Readiness Reviews
\\
The effort to be expended on Phase 1 of each Level 1 system review will be on the order of 900 hours0.0104 days <br />0.25 hours <br />0.00149 weeks <br />3.4245e-4 months <br />.
Over three person-years of effort will be expended by the SRR Team during Phase 1 for the Level 1 reviews.
7.1.1 Form System Teams A System Readiness Review (SRR) Team consists of:
System Manager Team members with expertise in:
Maintenance Operations 14
1 1
Danign Engineering Licensing
' Clerical
]
others as required 1
i 7.1.2 Team Training
'l Once a team is established, training is to be conducted to educate team members on the System Readiness Review Program.
Training-requirements are defined in 1
Attachment ~ 9.
l 7.1.3 Team Kickoff Meetina t
i The SRR Team' Kickoff Meeting will accomplish the following:
- a. Introduction of the team to the SRR scope and expectations.
b.* Review of SRR guidelines.
- c. Team indoctrination to the database to be utilized for documenting the attribute checks and results of system walkdowns.
7.1.4 Design and Licensing Basis Documentation Review The SRR Team shall become familiar with the design and licensing basis of the system to gain an understanding of the system functional requirements. _ The current revisions of the following information sources will be readily available to the SRR Team (other quality records, documents,. procedures or reference information will be available as needed via Seek, DocView, FulText and other document search and retrieval systems):
I System Flow Diagrams FSAR (Current and pending)
ITS and Bases Design Basis Documents (Enhanced and Topical)
Training Lesson Plans and related material Operating Procedures Surveillance and Performance Test Procedures Emergency and Abnormal Operating Procedures Calculations Design Specifications and Drawings 15
i The following material will be made available to provide iniight into the development of the related design and licensing basis documents.
These are not all kept current and use will generally require facilitation by appropriate FPC staff:
Technical Specification Bases Back-up Document Safety and Performance Improvement Program (SPIP)
Safety Function and Shutdown Logic Diagrams EOP Technical Basis, Deviation and Cross Step Documents I
l i
During the review and evaluation of design and licensing information, the System Team will develop a list of attributes to be included in the assessment on the System Readiness Review Matrix, Figure 1.
Attributes will be selected to cover the functional requirements of the system and the critical components based on existing PSA assessments and engineering judgement. Regulatory Design Basis and Licensing requirements will also be used to define specific attributes.
Generic requirements such as Station Blackout, EQ, Appendix R, etc. will-also be selected as system attributes when appropriate.
A detailed example of attribute selection and their bases is provided in Figure 2.
The system-specific _ basis for selection of system attributes will be documented and included in the Initial Report for each system.
Topic Areas will be selected to cover design and licensing requirements, as well as operating, i
maintenance, testing and programmatic issues.
For Level 1 systems all 30 Topic Areas will be included whei. applicable.
Specific review effort will be targeted at previously implemented system modifications i
(Topic Area 10) and operating procedures (Topic Area
- 16) to assess conformance of current plant configuration and operation to current plant design and licensing basis.
A description of each Topic Area is l
provided in Figure 1.
i 7.1.5 Time Lines for Kev systems
[
" Time Lines" for Level 1 systems will be provided to the SRR Teams.
The timelines will generally include a i
' review of sienificant NRC interactions (TS amendments, LERs, NOVs, Generic Communications, other),
16
1 J
l nonconformances,-modifications, and Industry Operating Experiences.
These_are viewed as opportunities'for-breakdowns in the change review, commitment management or other processes.
Time Line information can be used to identify recurring events at a component level, periods of high activity (e.g. modifications) at the system level and the effect of previous activities on the current design basis and licensing basis.
During the review and evaluation of'the timeline l
information, the System Team may develop additional i'
attributes to be included in the assessment on the l
System Readiness Review Matrix, Figure 1.
7.1.6 Svstem condition Documentation Plant work controls databases will be reviewed by the SRR Team to gain a comprehensive understanding of the current system condition, to assess the system i '
funcpional requirements for readiness, and to evaluate
)
the conformance of the system condition to its design basis.
The following documents are to be considered for review:
o OCRs o Open - REA, MAR, Work Requests, Problem _ Reports, NOTESc NOCs, LER's, and Precursors i
l o Closed
- MAR, Problem Report,
- NCOR, LER's and Precursors 4
o Canceled Items applicable system items from previous CRT/PMRG meetings o Operator Workarounds o Outage Required PMs that will be overdue prior t
to next planned outage 4 -
During the review and evaluation of these documents, the System Team may develop additional attributes to be
' included in the assessment on the System Readiness Review Matrix, Figure 1.
For example, if a previously I'
17 i
e r-a g
1 conducted assessment identified a discrepancy between a component capability and a design requirement, this design requirement would be a candidate as a specific attribute and the satisfactory closure of the previously identified discrepancy assessed as part of the SRR.
7.1.7 Assessment of System Attributes and Topic Areas The SRR Team will perform a vertical slice review of l
the system by evaluating specific system Attributes and Topic Review Areas in accordance with the Assessment Matrix.
These checks will assess the internal consistency of sampled system documents, procedures, and plant configuration and their conformance with design and licensing requirements.
The SRR Team will document conformance with requirements as well as deficiencies on an Attribute Assessment Form (Figure 3).
An example of a completed Attribute Assessment Form is provided in Figure 4.
i Each assessment form shall list the documentation reviewed or walkdown observations made to arrive at the assessment conclusions.
The list of reviewed documents shall contain revision numbers and/or date if applicable.
The assessment forms shall describe the assessment and indicate the number of attribute checks covered by the assessment form and the number of attribute checks which resulted in identification of discrepancics.
A summary of the evaluation for each attribute will be
. documented in the system readiness report.
7.1.8 Perform Multi-discioline Walkdown of Sys m The System Manager should develop the walkdown strategy in accordance with the System Walkdown Guidelines and brief the SRR Team (see ATTACHMENT 2).
Walkdown findings and initial corrective action items should be recorded by each team walkdown participant, and compiled for review.
During the review and evaluation of the walkdowns, the System Team may develop additional attributes to be
' included in the assessment on the System Readiness Review Matrix, Figure 1.
18
7.1.9 Identify odd Evaluate Restart Action Items The documents and information gathered in Sections 7.1.4, 7.1.5 and 7.1.6 shall have a multi-discipline vertical slice review per sections 7.1.7 and 7.1. 8' to determine the accuracy of design and licensing basis documentation, the materiel condition of the system, and the ability of the system to perform the required design and licensed functions.
All attribute checks performed as well as discrepancies found in this review are to be documented in the appropriate database.
7.1.10 Detemine Restart Workscone Review open corrective action items against the Restart Issues Selection / Screening Criteria (see ATTACHMENT 1).
These items are to be evaluated for Restart Readiness Scope.
The SRR Team will recommend one of the following categories for open items, including discrepancies identified by the SRR.
RESTART RESTRAINT - Activities required to be a.
completed prior to entering Startup/ Power Ascension.
b.
POST RESTART ACTIVITY - Activities which should be-completed on-a schedule consistent with the normal
{
plan ~t work controls process.
These scope categories will be used to determine and schedule the work within the appropriate restart time frame.
j Discrepancies identified by the SRR will be entered in the Open Items Data Base.
Open Work Requests will also I
be evaluated for Restart and entered if appropriate.
This Open Item Data Base will allow tracking of open items required for restart and will allow justification i
of those items not required to be resolved prior to restart.
19
7.1.11 Precare Initial System Readiness Recort and Present to Restart Rodountability Team The information gathered throughout the review and walkdown shall be compiled by the SRR Team.
The SRR Team shall determine the extent of condition for discrepancies identified within their system.
A presentation of items reviewed, issues raised, open items required to be resolved for safe operation of the plant, and resources required for implementation shall be developed.
The report is to address the section requirements outlined in ATTACHMENT 3 and will be presented to the Restart Accountability Team for approval.
Restart Accountability Team comments shall be evaluated and incorporated into the report /re-presented (if required) and approved.
7.1.12 Evaluate Extent of condition for Identified Problems The Nuclear Plant Technical Support (NPTS) Manager or his designee shall review the individual system reports to identify any recurring or generic issues.
If appropriate, this information will be used to expand the scope of the Level 2
reviews and/or recommend corrective actions of a programmatic nature to CR-3 management.
I i
7.2 Phase 2 - Restart Activities Monitoring 7.2.1 Monitor Anoropriate Work control Documents for Restart A.ction Items i
Ensure items on the Restart Action Item List have
~
appropriate Work Controls Documents (Work requests, REA's, RPA's, DCN's, etc.) initiated.
Each document initiated is to specify the classification of the item (Restart Restraint, Post Restart Activity).
The Approved Restart Action Item List will be transmitted to the departments requiring action.
7.2.2 Discosition Restart Action Items'for completion 20
The departm2nts requiring actions will work through the System Manager and Scheduling for expected completion dates.
Scheduling will incorporate the required items into the Plant Integrated Schedule. If conflicts or discrepancies are discovered, these items shall be brought to the System Manager's attention in an expeditious manner.
Items requiring upper management review shall be presented to the Restart Accountability Team.
7.2.3 Monitor Restart Action Item Work Scone in Progress The System Manager shall maintain the status of the Restart Action Item List.
Scheduling should be used to facilitate this action and informed of work. status to ensure the Plant Integrated Schedule is accurate and i
reviewed for possible conflicts.
7.2.4 Screen Emeraent Issues for Inclusion in Restart Item List The System Manager will maintain an awareness of issues
~
associated with the system and any Emergent activities (Work Requests, OCRs, LERs, Notices / Bulletins, etc.)
associated with the system. The System Manager shall review these items to determine if an emergent activity should be recommended as a Restart Activity Item or Post Restart Activity.
The System Manager shall document recommended restart activities for Restart Accountability Team review.
j i
Scheduling must be kept informed of the issue and if approved include the required activity into the Plant Integrated Schedule.
7.2.5 conduct Work in Procress Walkdowns of System The System Manager shall conduct walkdowns of the system based upon the type of work activity in progress. These walkdowns should be planned and documented in accordance with the System Readiness Review Program System Walkdown Guidelines (Attachment 2). The results of these walkdowns and any concerns noted shall be provided to the System Manager for review in an expeditious manner. The System Manager is to compile the walkdown results for inclusion into the Final System Readiness Report if required.
21
1 i
7.2.6 Update Oped Items Database with Status as Items are Closed and New Items Issued s
The System Manager maintains the Open Items Database to ensure accuracy.
This database is used to provide Open Item status to the Team Members and Plant Management as required.
7.2.7 Provide Status of Restart Item Work Procress as Required by Plant Manacement The system Manager provides the Restart Accountability Team and the Restart Panel periodic status of Action Item Work. The periodicity is to be determined by Plant Management.
If it is determined that information previously unavailable changes that status of a restart
{
restraint activity to a post restart activity, this shall be documented and presented to the Restart Accountability Team.
Approval to remove an~ activity from the restart required list shall be performed by the Restart Panel.
7.2.8 Start Prenaration of Final System Readiness Recort The system Manager should begin compiling Phase 2 data for inclusion in the Final System Readiness Report.
This information should be reviewed against the Restart Criteria and the Initial System Readiness Report developed in Section 7.1.11 to ensure Restart Readiness of the system.
The Final System Readiness Report is to address the section requirements outlined in ATTACHMENT 4.
l
)
7.3 Phase 3 - Final System Readiness Review 7.3.1 Conduct Final System Readiness Walkdowns i
The System Manager should develop the walkdown strategy in accordance with the system Walkdown Guidelines and brief the SRR Team (see ATTACHMENT 2).
Walkdown findings and documentation of corrective action items completed should be recorded and compiled for review.
22
7.3.2 Review Work Not to be comoleted Prior to Restart for Imcact on -System Readiness l
i The System Team reviews the Restart Item List and applicable open Work Control Documents to ensure that deferred work is not required prior to restart.
7.3.3 Present Final System Readiness Recort to the Restart Panel Prior to Plant Restart i
j The Final System Readiness Report will be presented to the Restart Panel for approval.
Restart Panel will comments shall be evaluated and incorporated into the report /re-presented (if required) and approved.
7.4 Phase 4 - Startue and Power Ascension 7.4.1 Monitor Startun System Activities for Affect on System Readiness Condition The System Manager will monitor startup system activities and focus on areas where corrective maintenance and enhancements were performed.
7.4.2 Review System Test Results The System Manager will review reedits of Work Requests (Post Maintenance Tests), SPs, pts, MAR Functional Tests for assigned system (s).
Applicable _ departments are expected to provide data to the System Manager.
8.0 SYSTEM READINESS ASSESSMENT PROCESS (Level 2)
\\
8.1 Phase 1 - Initial System Readiness Review The effort to be expended on Phase 1 of each Level 2 system review will be about 200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br />.
Approximately one and one-half person-years of effort will be expended by the SRR Team on Phase 1 for Level 2 systems.
Total effort on Phase 1 for Level 1 and Level 2 systems will be on the order of five person-years.
8.1.1 Perform Initial System condition Jissessment
'The System Manager / Engineer and System Operator will become familiar with the design and licensing basis of 23
s the system to gain an understanding of the system functionalJrequirements.
The current revisions of the following information sources will be readily available (other quality
- records, documents, procedures or reference information will be available as needed via Seek, DocView, FulText and other document search and retrieval systems):
System Flow Diagrams FSAR (Current and pending)
ITS and Bases Design Basis Documents (Enhanced and Topical)
Plant work controls databases will be reviewed by the System Manager to gain a comprehensive understanding of the system condition, to assess the system functional requirements for readiness, and to evaluate the conformance of the system condition to its design basis.
The following documents are to be considered for g
review:
o OCRs o Open - REA, MAR, Work Requests, Problem Reports, NOTES, NOCs, NCOR's, and Precursors o Closed MARS and Problem Reports o Operator Workarounds o Outage Required PMs that will be overdue prior to next planned outage Utilizing the example and guidance in Figure 7,
the System Manager will develop a list of attributes to be included in the assessment on the System Readiness Review Matrix.
Attributes will be selected to cover the critical functional requirements of the system and the critical components. Regulatory Design Basis and Licensing requirements will be used to define specific attributes. The system-specific basis for selection
'ystem attributes will be documented and included in s
the Initial Report for each system.
24
Topic Areas will be selected to cover design and licensing requirements, as well as plant modifications, plant configuration and operating procedures.
For Level 2 systems as a minimum the 12 Topic Areas identified in Figure 7 will be assessed, when applicable. A description of each Topic Area is provided in Figure 1.
Corrective actions from SWSOPI (SW, RW, DC), EDSFI (MT and DP), and IPAP will be reviewed and evaluated to determine if additional attributes are to be added to the appropriate system assessment matrix.
Generic issues identified in Level 1 system reviews are i
also to be considered in Level 2 system reviews.
8.1.2 Assessment of System Attributes and Tonic Areas I
The. System Manager will perform a limited vertical 3
slice review of the system by evaluating speci':ic
{
system Attributes and Topic Review Areas in accordance with the Assessment Matrix.
These checks will assess the internal consistency of sampled system documents, procedures, and plant configuration and their conformance with design and licensing requirements.
A sample attribute matrix and a discussion of typical
{
attributes for a Level 2 system is provided in Figure 7.
The System Manager will document conformance with requirements as well as deficiencies on an Attribute Assessment Form (Figure 3).
An example of a completed j
Attribute Assessment Form is provided in Figure 4.
i l
Each assessment form shall list the documentation reviewed or walkdown observations made to arrive at the assessment conclusions.
The list of reviewed documents shall contTin revision numbers and/or date if applicable T:.. asses mnt forms shall describe the assessment and indicate the number of attribute checks covered by the assessment form and the number of attribute checks which resulted in identification of discrepancies.
A summary of the evaluaM cn for each attribute will be
' documented in the system readiness summary.
25 i
l
8.1.3-Perform MuTti-discioline Walkdown of System The System Manac r should develop the walkdown strategy in accordance wich the System Walkdown Guidelines and brief the Walkdown Team (see ATTACHMENT 2).
The walkdown team will consist of the system manager and system operator with support from maintenance and design as needed to address specific concerns.
Walkdown findings and initial corrective action items should be recorded by each team walkdown participant and compiled for review.
8.1.4 Identify and Evaluate Restart Action Items The documents and information gathered in Sections 8.1.1 and 8.1.2 will have a focused vertical slice review to determine the accuracy of design and i
licensing basis documentation, the materiel condition of the system, and the ability of the system to perform the required design and licensed functions.
Discrepancies identified by the SRR will be entered in the Open Items Data Base.
Open Work Requests will also be evaluated for Restart and entered if appropriate.
This Open Item Data Base will allow tracking of open items required for restart and will allow justification of those items not required to be resolved prior to restart.
This review of information will be included as part of the Initial System Readiness Review Summary.
%E 8.1.5 Determine Restart Workscope Review open rcrrective action items against the Restart Issues Selection / Screening Criteria (see ATTACHMENT 1).
i The System Manager will recommend one of the following categories for open items, including the discrepancies identified by the SRR:
RESTART RESTRAINT - Activities required to be a.
completed prior to entering Startup/ Power Ascension.
26
b.
POST RESTART ACTIVITY - Activities which should be completed on a schedule consistent with the normal plant work controls process.
These scope categories will be used to determine and schedule the work within the appropriate restart time frame.
8.1.6 Prepare Initial System Readiness Summary Information gathered throughout the review and walkdown shall be compiled by th'e System Manager.
The summary shall address the section requirements outlined in ATTACHMENT 5.
The summary is to be approved by the NPTS Manager and made available for Restart Accountability Team review if requested.
8.2 Phase 2 - Restart Activities Monitoring 8.2.1 Monitor Aporonriate Work Control Documents for Restart Action Items Ensure items on the Restart Action Item List have appropriate Work Controls Documents (Work requests, REA's, RPA's, DCN's, etc.) initiated.
Each document initiated is to specify the classification of the item (Restart Restraint or Post Restart Activity).
The Approved Restart Action Item List will be transmitted to the departments requiring action.
8.2.2 Disnosition Restart Action Itemr for comnletion The departments requiring actions will work through the System Manager and Scheduling fer expected completion dates.
Scheduling will incorporate the required items into the Plant Integrated Schedule. If conflicts or discrepancies are discovered, these items shall be brought to the System Manager's attention in an expeditious manner. Items requiring upper management review shall be presented to the Restart Accountability Team.
B.2.3
' Monitor Restart Action Item Work Scone in Progress 27
The System Manager shall maintain the status of the Restart Action Item List.
Scheduling should be used to facilitate this action and informed of work status to ensure the Plant Integrated Schedule is accurate and reviewed for possible conflicts.
8.2.4 Screen Emergent Issues for Inclusion in Action Item List The System Manager will maintain an awareness of issues associated with the. system and any Emergent activities (Work ~ Requests, OCRs, LERs, Notices / Bulletins, etc.)
associated with the system. The System Manager shall review these items to determine if/an emergent activity should be recommended as a Restart Activity Item or Post Restart Activity.
The System Manager shall document recommended restart activities for Restart Accountability Team review.
Scheduling must be kept informed of the issue and if approved include the required activity into the Plant Integrated Schedule.
8.2.5 conduct Work in Progress Walkdowns of System The Team shall conduct walkdowns of the system based upon the type of work activity in progress. These walkdowns should be planned and documented in accordance with the System Readiness Review Program System Walkdown Guidelines (Attachment 2). The results of these walkdowns and any concerns noted-shall be provided to'the System Manager for review in an expeditious manner. The System Manager is to compile the walkdown results for inclusion into the Final System Readiness Report if required.
8.2.6 Update Open Items Database With Status as Items are i
Closed and New Items Issued The System Manager maintains the open Items Database to ensure accuracy.
This database is used to provide open Item status to the Team Members and Plant Management as required.
8.2.7 Provide Status of Restart Item Work Progress as Required by Plant Management 28
The System Manager provides the Restart. Accountability Team and the Restart Panel periodic status of Action i
I Item Work. The periodicity is to be determined by Plant Management.
i i
8.2.8 Start Preparation of Final System Readiness Summarv The System Manager should begin compiling Phase 2 data for inclusion in the Final System Readiness Summary.
l This information should be reviewed against the Restart Screening criteria and the Initial System Readiness j
Summary to ensure Restart Readiness of the system.
i j
The Final Summary report is to address the section I
requirements outlined in ATTACHMENT 6.
t 4
8.3 Phase 3 Final System Readiness Review l
8.3.1 Conduct Final System Readiness Walkdowns The system Manager should develop the walkdown i
strategy in accordance with the System Walkdown Guidelines and brief the SRR Team (see ATTACHMENT 2).
Walkdown findings and documentation-of corrective action items completed should be recorded and compiled i
j for review.
i e
B.3.2 Review Work Not to be Comoleted Prior to Restart for Impact on System Readiness
$[
The System Team reviews the Action Item List and applicable open Work Control Documents to ensure that deferred work is not required prior to restart.
Potential cumulative impact of the deferred work will
\\+
{
be considered.
4 8.3.3 Present Final System Readiness Summarv
.The summary report is to be presented to the Restart i
Panel for approval.
8.4 Phase 4 - Startuo and Power Ascension 8.4.1 Monitor Startuo System Activities for Affect on i
' System Readiness Condition I
4 1
29
The System Manager will monitor startup system activities and focus on areas where corrective c
maintenance and enhancements were performed.
8.4.2 Review System Test Results The System Manager will review results of Work Requests (Post Maintenance Tests), SPs, pts, MAR-Functional Tests for assigned system (s).
Applicable departments are expected to provide data to the System Manager.
9.0 SYSTEM READINESS WALKDOWN PROCESS (Level 3) 1 9.1 Phase 1 - Initial System Readiness Review 1
9.1.1 Perform Initial System condition Assessment The System Manager / Engineer will review the FSAR,
- ITS,
{
and DBD's if applicable to gain an understanding of the system functional requirements.
1 Plant work controls databases should be reviewed by the l
System Manager to gain a complete and consistent understanding of the system condition for comparison to the system functional requirements for readiness.
The following documents are to be considered for i
review:
l o OCRs i
o Open - REA, MAR, Work Requests, Problem Reports, NOTES, NOCs, NCOR's, Precursors o Operator Workarounds o Outage Required PMs that will be overdue prior j
to next planned outage l
9.1.2 Pe -form System Manacer Walkdown of System The System Manager should develop the walkdown strategy in accordance with the System Walkdown Guidelines (see j
ATTACHMENT 2).
Walkdown findings and initial corrective action items j
should be recorded.
30
9.1.3 Tdentify and Evaluate Restart Action Items Data gathered in Sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.2 shoui,' be reviewed for design and licensing basis issues.
This review of information should be documented and included as part of the Initial System Readiness Review Summary.
9.1.4 Detennine Restart Workscone Review open corrective action items against the Restart
{
Issues Selection / Screening Criteria (see ATTACHMENT 1).
t The System Manager will recommend one of the following categories for open items.
RESTART RESTRAINT - Activities required to be a.
completed prior to entering Startup/ Power Ascension.
b.
. POST RESTART ACTIVITY - Activities which should be completed on a schedule consistent with the normal plant work controls process.
j These scope categories will be used to determine and schedule the work within the appropriate restart time frame.
9.1.5 Prepare Initial System Readiness Summary Information gathered throughout the review and walkdown is to be compiled by the System Manager.
The-summary is to address the section requirements outlined in ATTACHMENT 5.
The summary is to be approved by the NPTS Supervisor and made available for Manager NPTS review if requested.
9.2 Phase 2 - Restart Activity Monitoring 9.2.1 Monitor Approcriate Work control Documents for Restart Action Items Ensure items on the Restart Action Item List have appropriate Work Controls Documents (Work requests, 31
' REA's, RPA's, DCN's, etc.) initiated.
Each document initiated is to specify the classification of the item (Restart Restraint or Post Restart Activity).
The L
l Restart Open Action Item List will be transmitted to the departments requiring action.
1 9.2.2 Discosition Restart Action Items for Comniaedon The departments requiring actions will work ~through the i
System Manager and Scheduling for expected completion i
dates.
Scheduling will incorporate the required items 1
3 into the Plant Integrated Schedule. If conflicts or discrepancies are discovered, these items shall be j
brought to the System Manager's attention in an expeditious manner. Items requiring upper management i
review shall be presented to the Restart Accountability j
Team by the System Manager for resolution.
l 9.2.3 Monitor Restart Action Item Work Scone in Procress i
The System Manager shall maintain the status of the Restart Action Item List.
Scheduling should be used to l
{
facilitate this action and informed of work status to
}
l ensure the' Plant Integrated Schedule is accurate and reviewed for possible conflicts.
t i
9.2.4 Screen Emercent Issues for Inclusion in Action Item t
t List i
4 i
i The Team Members shall keep the System Manager informed 4
of any Emergent Issues (Work Requests, OCRs, LERs, j
Notices / Bulletins, etc.) associated with the system.
The System Manager shall review these items to determine if a Team review is required. If the Team l
review determines a Restart Restraint Activity is l
warranted, the System Manager shall present the 3
activity to the Restart Accountability Team and the Restart Panel (as requi.ed) for inclusion in the
{,
Restart Action Item List.
2 i
Scheduling must be kept informed of the issue and if approved include the required activity into the Plant Integrated Schedule.
L 1
32
9.3 Phase 3 Finc1 System Readiness Review f
9.3.1 Conduct Fi al System Readiness Walkdowns The System Manager should develop the walkdown strategy in accordance with the System Walkdown Guidelines and brief the SRR Team (see ATTACHMENT 2).
4 Walkdown findings and documentation of corrective action items completed should be recorded and compiled 4
for review.
1 i
9.3.2 Review Work Not to be Completed Prior to Restart for Impact on Svstem Readiness 4
The System Team reviews the Action Item List and applicable open Work Control Documents to ensure that deferred work is not required prior to restart.
')
i 9.4 Phase 4 Startue and Power Ascension i
i 9.4.1 Monitor Startuo System Activities for Effect on System Readiness Conilt;.iDD i
The System Manager will monitor startup system l
I 1
activities and focus on areas where corrective i
maintenance and enhancements were performed.
4 10.0 Intecrated System Readiness Reeort i
The Nuclear Plant Technical Support (NPTSL. Manager or his designee shall prepare a report which integrates the results of the individual SRR efforts at each 1-level: System Restart Certification (Level 1), System Restart Assessment Process (Leval 2) and System Restart Walkdown Process (Level 3).
The integrated report shall des: ribe results of extent
)
of condition determinations and expansion of reviews if required, make recommendations if appropriate for further required programmatic evaluations or corrective actions.
e 33
i The intent of this' integrated report and associated' backup infdrmation is to provide assurance that the plant design, testing, maintenance, operation and configuration conforms to the licensing and design
~
i requirements and that the plant is in a condition to support plant operation for the next run cycle.
i I
The final integrated System Readiness Report will be presented to the-Restart Panel for approval, i
j An. outline of the integrated report will be provided in 4.
1 4
s 2
l l
l 1
i i
8 I
5 1
I i
l 4
e t
i 1
I a
i i
tj t
1 34 i
4
)
i l
I
.,e b[
t <
r 1+
b;t ik I
e 3
ts t t Oa o
+
r-Rw t
Pe Lg n
OB z e
4 t t
Re I,:o P
C OR 7
P 3
lI 6
2 1
L w
AT 8 N C
r 5
S a I
t.
f.
1 M P P
w o
t i.
3 2
93 U
I l5 l-I 1
E 2
C i-N 4
v N
9 I
T J
2 i
N t
4 M
1 B
9 I-5 8
X C
N 1
I
.j-S O
s I
I 7
R O
T A
T P
R 1
!i E
A U
O P
1 5
6 M
8
}
T W
1 1
M E
R 0f I
O 2
l 4
V C
1 f,
J G
E D
A R
G.
N 3
i lb 8
1 S
N S
I K
I E
R I
N I
D II A
E 1
I 8
R M
ET 8
SY S
I 7
S S4 I
B N
4 E
C R
t s
tp U
S I
G IF 4
I 5
I 1
I m
t,
,ss is s.
m
=
!.g
Figure 1 DESCRIPTION OF MAJOR TOPICS Design Basis 1.
Electrical Cales/ Analysis:
Calculations related to motors, electrical devices, circuits, and associated power supplies for system components shall be revb wed.
The reviews should assess the appropriateness of desi-
- inputs, ass'mptions, u
and general approach.
Also, calcula. ion results should be verified for appropriate use in other design basis documents.
2.
I&C Cales/ Analysis: Calculations related to the performance, setpoints, and stability of I&C components and loops for system components shall be reviewed.
The scope of the reviews should be the same as for electrical calculations.
3.
Mech and Struct Cales/ Analysis: Calculations related to hydraulics, heat transfer, equipment / support loads, equipment / pipe stresses, and other mechanical performance issues rekated to system components shall be reviewed.
The scope of the reviews should be the same as for electrical calculations.
4.
Accident Analyses:
Analysis of FSAR Ch. 14 events shall be reviewed for assumptions regarding system performance and conditions.
5.
Drawings:
Controlled drawings documenting system design, configuration, layout, and conformance to programs (e.g.,
Appendix R, testing, and EQ) shall be reviewed for system l
design basis information and system interaction / dependency information.
Drawings that are excluded from this topic are the Safety Functional Diagrams and Safety Logic Diagrams (covered in Topic 6), 302-series and 208-series drawings (covered in Topic 25), and vendor drawings (covered in Topic 20).
6.
Safety Func/ Logic Diagrams:
The safety functional diagrams and safety logic diagrams shall be reviewed for system l
design basis information and system interaction / dependency l
information.
7.
CMIS:
The Configuration Management Information System data for system components shall be verified to be consistent with'other design basis documents.
A sampling of cross-referenced documents shall be verified to be current, applicable, and appropriate.
F.1 Page 2
~
8.
Specifications:
Equipment design, procurement, and installation specifications shall be reviewed for system design basis information.
General design specifications shall also be reviewed for system design basis information.
I 9.
EDBDs/TBDs/ABDs:
Related basis documents shall be reviewed for system design basis requirements, identification of possible cross-referenced documents, and appropriate applicability.
10.
Change Documents /50.59 Reviews:
Change documents, including MARS, DCNs, and FSAR changes, shall be assessed for package c o m p ". i t e n e s s, appropriate use of design basis information, appropriate consideration of interdisciplinary impact / input, and ef fective follow through (changes made or posted against the appropriate documents).
50.59 applicability evaluations and 50.59 reviews shall be reviewed to assess whether the change may have resulted in a current plant configuration or operation that is outside the regulatory design basis or licensing basis. 11.
Temporary Mods:
Temporary modifications shall be reviewed to verify that they were evaluated against appropriate design basis information.and do not result in an unreviewed safety question.
Also, the i
temporary modification shall be assessed to assure the duration is not excessive. 50.59 applicability evaluations and 50.59 reviews shall be reviewed to assess whether the temporary mod may have resulted in a current plant configuration or operation that is outside the regulatory i
design basis or licensing basis.
Licensing Documents 12.
FSAR Review:
Chapters related to the system, interfacing systems (e.g., power distribution, I&C, and support systems), accident analyses, and applicable design criteria shall be reviewed for regulatory design basis and licensing 1
basis information.
13.
ITS/ Bases:
LCOs, Surveillance requirements, and their bases for the system and its components shall be reviewed for regulatory design basis and licensing requirements.
Other appropriate sections (e.g.,
for interfacing systems, EQ-related, and containment isolation-related) should also be reviewed for system / component regulatory design requirements.
F.1 Page 3
14.
Licensing Commitmants:
NOTES items, open items from NRC inspections, commitments in the license (and not in the FSAR or ITS), and other commitments made to the NRC by correspondence shall be reviewed for additional licensing basis requirements.
15.
Notices / Bulletins: NRC generic communications and evaluations and responses to them related to the system shall be reviewed for additional regulatory design basis requirements and information.
l operations i
f 16.
Procedures:
operating and emergency operating procedures related to the system shall be reviewed for conformance with design basis information.
17..
operator Workarounds:
operator workarounds shall be i
reviewed for impact on system operation or performance.
The impact should be assessed for conformance with the design basis information.
18.
Industry Operating Experience Reviews:
Industry experience reviews related to the system shall be assessed for completeness and compared to current design basis information.
Maintenance 19.
Maintenance Procedures:
Procedures for the overhaul of or general repair of system components shall. be reviewed for appropriate use of and conformance with design _ basis information.
Also, completed work documentation, including any applicable data sheets, should also be assessed for i
adequacy of the use of the procedure.
This topic does not cover preventive maintenance activities (covered by Topic 3
No. 21) and surveillance type procedures (covered by Topic No. 22).
20.
Vendor Technical Information:
Vendor technical manuals,
' vendor drawings, and design data forwarded by the vendor related to system components shall be reviewed for conformance with design basis information.
21.
Preventive Maintenance:
Regularly scheduled maintenance work items to assure proper equipment operation, including calibrations, lubrication, and filter flushing / changing, F.1 Page 4
shall be reviewad for appropriate schedules, timeliness of parforming the activity, and appropriate use of materials.
Procedures, maintenance scheduling, and work documentation i
shall be reviewed.
Surveillances i
22.
Surveillance Tests & Inspections:
Procedures for tests and inspections required to verify compliance with ITS Surveillance Requirements for system components shall be reviewed to assess compliance with the ITS and its Bases, appropriate methodology, and consistency with other design basis information.
Results of the most recent surveillance tests shall also be reviewed for compliance with design basis information.
23.
Section XI IST/ Performance Tests:
Procedures for Inservice testing of system pumps and valves and other performance tests (e.g., heat exchanger performance tests, MOV tests, special pump / system performance tests) shall be reviewed for appropriate use of and conformance with design basis information.
Results of the most recent tests shall also be reviewed for compliance with design basis information.
t Physical Plant 24.
As-Built Verifications:
Walkdowns of the system to verify conformance with design basis information, system layout, system condition, component configuration, interactions with other systems, and other characteristics shall be performed based on checklists developed from the documentation reviews.
25.
302/208 Drawings:
Critical drawings for operators, such as the 302-series and the 208-series drawings shall be reviewed for conformance with design basis information.
Also, the timeliness of the incorporation of changes to the current drawings should be assessed.
26.
Surveillance Programs:
Surveillances not associated with Topics 22 or 23, such as Erosion / Corrosion, Fire Protection, or HELB, shall be reviewed for direct or indirect applicability to the system and its components and conformance with design basis.
Results of the most recent surveillances should be assessed against design basis information.
F.1 Page 5
. ~,
...-._._.._._____..-._____..___._____...m
]
Programs, Proc 3ca, & Procedurco 27.
PC/REA/PR Corrective Actions:
Precursor cards, Requests for Engineering Assistance, Problem Reports, and other I
corrective action program reports related to the system i
shall be assessed for appropriate evaluation of problem against design basis, generic considerations, appropriate resolution, timeliness of resolution, and adverse trends.
5 28.
QA Audits & Other Assessments:
QA audits, EDSFIs, SSFIs, and other similar system or program assessments related to l
the system shall be reviewed to assess effectiveness of the audit, appropriate resolution, timeliness of resolution, and 1
j adverse trends.
29.
Training Lesson Plans:
Operations'and engineering training i
lesson plans for the system shall be reviewed for consistency with design basis information and operating procedures.
t i
k 30.
Open Items (Backlog) :
Maintenance, engineering, and 1
operations open items related to the system shall be L
assessed for quantity and duration of items' open status.
i i
i I.
4
,4 4
i t
I 5
4 a
i.
i 1
l i
F.1 Page 6
j 2
a,a x
l
- 3fl E
a=w =-i s.==nr x
Y.
g g
- o,, wo x
x x x
=
x x x so.JAmad as e.a.g x
x x
x 5h n
e n m,u x x x x x x x i'
===.
x x x x x
x x x x x E
a=1*==~saai Asi ex==.s x
x s
A s as.es.:, an g u ni.ams x x x x x x x
x P'
w ss.a sd x x x x x x
r E
=
~
- ,-wr -4 x x x x x x x x
=z 2
g
,,,,,,,,J,,,,,,,,w g
g g
g 2
X Y
E s.n u.=mi a.a.ano u,
x x x x g
E
-...=_.o x
x x x x
=
5 2
g x x x x x x x e
m efP
{
9 485 8 / EDN=gd M x M
x W
8
.=,
======.a n.nu,r, u x x x x
x x
=
W
- W I 'E aow n x x x x x x
m
=.1 I
r M,r t.,
5 2
==.se avsa x x x x x x x x x x x x x Z<
M M ou.s=.3 x
= I'3 f.s2 *"
=
gg s.a u eres=====a as-is x
x x x
x x x x E$
ioevaassaceas x x x x x x x x x x x x x x W>
m
=
saim x
x x x
x x x
m t.s.
.. g e
sixa x x x x x x x x
N y
g a =v=.e 4,.
x x x x x x x E
D n ua x x x x x x x x x x x C
i.s.
u, x
x x x x x
a
,.-3 ouis,...
x x x
x x
x x x x
\\
-l
~
x x x
, 3..,u.ii x
x v
x x x 5
I ai i
C<
it *g s
e, e n l
I
=g m,i e
~
m a
5, Y
h k k bl 5
g 1
M
's y
i l, lJ 1 1 3.i 1 x, v
.! ! !.. b
- i 4
3.
a a
6,
.t.
2 a
l I e I
. r..
a; R e3
{ j-3 x 3.,g 5 )g g
$ 2 i E,
. c E
E I
E 8 0 8 E 2 : : : : :
ussw.w nnentuv i c c :
c c :
- : 2 0
Figure 2 ATTRIBUTE SELECTION BASIS System Attributes EF01 Water Supply:
An adequate water supply inventory is required for the EFW system to remove decay heat from the RCS following events resulting in a loss of main feedwater.
Issues related to water volume and level indication, switchover to other sources, and overpressure / vacuum i
pressure are to be assessed.
EF02 Pumps EFP-1 and EFP-2:
The pumps are critical components for delivery of EFW flow.
Issues related to pump performance, NPSH, minimum flow requirements, motor and power supplies, and design requirements are to be assessed.
EF03 Initiation and Control:
The Emergency Feedwater Initiation and Control System is required to automatically initiate the system to assure adequate decay heat removal and to allow control of cooldown rates.
Issues related to initiation and control setpoints, instrumentation, flow controller design and stability, level controller design and stability, and operator interfaces with the system are to be assessed.
EF04 EFP-2 Turbine and Steam Supply:
The turbine driver for EFP-2 and its steam supply are critical components for the operation of EFP-2, have been involved in recent modifications, and has had negative industry experience.
Issues related to steam line warming and draining, ASV-5 and
-204 design and operation, speed control, overspeed protection, and pump alignment are to be assessed.
EF05 EFW Control Valves EFV-55, 56, 57, 58:
The control valves are critical to limit flow to specified limits to achieve adequate decay heat removal and to minimize overcooling of the RCS.
Issues related to valve and actuator design requirements, power supplies, and positioning capability are to be assessed.
EF06 OTSG Isolation:
Protection against overfilling the steam generators is required to protect main steam piping.
Isolation of EFW flow to a depressurized steam generator is necessary to assure adequate flow delivery to the good steam generator for decay heat removal.
F.2 Page 2
EF07 EF/EFIC Overall System:
The system demands,and configuration differ based on the plant conditions, such as the need for natural RCS circulation, equipment availability, and decay heat levels.
Also, the system
~
interfaces with other systems (e.g., main steam, class 1E power supplies).
Both of these conditions impact system operability and single failure potential.
Issues related system demands / operation, system configurations, single failure scenarios, and system interfaces are to be assessed.
Generic Attributes EF08 Piping Design:
Changes in piping design criteria since original plant design typically result in confusion in piping design, installation, and inspection for' existing j
piping and new piping installations.
Issues related to buried pipe, classification boundaries, design temperatures and pressures, and pipe stress / support loads are to be assessed for the EFW system.
j EF09 Containment Isolation:
Concerns regarding the design, maintenance, and testing of containment isolation features are relatively common throughout the industry.
Issues related to the applicability of EFW and FW valves in the lines to the upper EFW nozzles on the steam generators and related Appendix J requirements are to be assessed.
EF10 Station Blackout Operation:
Significant effort has been made by the industry to address rules regarding loss of all AC power.
The EFW system is an important system to cope with this event.
Issues related to water supply, flow control and manual actions for the EFW system are to be assessed.
EF11 ME/HE Line Breaks:
The EFW system should be protected from the effects of medium energy and high energy line breaks.
Line break issues are interdisciplinary, involving piping design, environmental qualification, flooding, barrier design, and accident analyses.
Consistency among these issues and impact on system design basis are to be assessed for a sample of system components.
EF12 Environmental Qualification:
EQ is a highly regulated program to assure system operation during design basis accidents.
Compliance with the program and impact on design basis shall be assessed for a sample of system components.
F.2 Page 3
EF13 App ndix R:
App:ndix R is a highly regulated program that rcquired significant utility effort to address.
Compliance with the requirdments and the impact on design basis are to be assessed for a sample of system components.
EF14 Electrical Separation:
Redundant electrical trains and instrument channels are required to be separated per Reg Guide 1.75.
Compliance with the requirements and the impact 1
on design basis are to be assessed for a sample of system components.
i EF15 Seismic Qualification:
The Emergency Feedwater System is classified Seismic Category I in accordance with Reg Guide 1.29.
Compliance with seismic requirements and impact on design basis are to be assessed for a sample of system components.
I F.2 Page 4 e
EF13 Appendix R:
Appandix R is a highly regulated program that required significant utility effort to address.
Compliance with the requirdments and the impact on design basis are to i
be assessed for'a sample of system components.
EF14 Electrical Separation:
Redundant electrical trains and instrument channels are required to be separated per Reg Guide 1.75.
Compliance with the requirements and the impact on design basis are to be assessed for a. sample of system components.
4 EF15 Seismic Qualification:
The Emergency Feedwater System is classified Seismic Category I in accordance with Reg Guide l
)
j 1.29.
Compliance with seismic requirements and impact on p
design basis are to be assessed for a' sample of system components.
4 I
)
4 4
1 2
i i
e 4
8 4
1 I
i i
\\
l t
?
i-t l
d F.2 Page 4
- ~
I t
Figuro 3 Readines's Review Attribute Assessment Form t
Reviewer l Date.
Item Number Asses? ment Number l
}
System,
Attribute Number i 4
Attribute Description l Attribute Dis-Attnbute Dis-i Checks crepancies Checks crepancies Electrical Cales/ Analyses 1 l l
Operating Procedures 16 l
I&C Cales/ Analyses 2 l l
Operator Work Arounds 17.
Mech /Struct Cales/ Analyses 3 i j
Industry Operating Experience Reviews 18 Accident Analyses 4 !
Maintenance Procedures 19
+
4 Drawings 5 l l
Vendor /Technicallnformation 20 Safety Fune/ Logic Diagrams 6 i j i Preventive Maintenance 21 CMIS 7 l l t Surveillance Test and Inspection 22 j l
Specifications 8 l l {
l Section XIIST/ Performance Tests 23 l
!i EDBDs/TBDs 9 l l l l
As-Built Verification 24 l l l l
Change Docs /50.59 Reviews 10 l l l l
302/208 Drawings 25 l l l l
Temporary Mods 11l l l j
Surveillance Programs 26 l 1 l l
l FSAR Review 12 l l l PC/REA/PR Corrective Action 27 l] l l
I t
ITS/ Bases 13l l l l
QA Audits and Other Assessments 28 l l l l
Licensing Commitments 14 l l !
Training Lesson Plans 29 l l l l
[
Notices and Bulletins 15l t
Open items (Backlog) 30 l l i I
Issue Data t
I i
Documents Reviewed I
l I
J i
l t
Attnbute Assessment I
i f
i I
f F.3 Page 1
Figure 4
-Readiness Review Attribute Assessment Form Reviewer lHaines -
l Date l2/24/97 l
. Item Number P
Assessment Number lPGH-03 l
System lMU l-Attribute Number lMU-06 j
f Attribute Description l Letdown Cooler CMIS Data Review 8
i Attribute Dis-Attnbute Dis-Checks crepancies.
Checks crepancies Electrical Cales/ Analyses
! l0l l0i Operating Procedures 16 l0l l0l
' I&C Cales/ Analyses 2 l0l l0 l Operator Work Arounds 17 l0l l0l Mech /Struct Caics/ Analyses 3 l0l l0l Industry Operating Expenence Reviews 18 l0l l0l Accident Analyses 4 l0l l0 l Maintenance Procedures 19 l0l l0l Drawings 5 l2 l l0l Vendorfrechnical Information 20 l0l l0l
)
Safety Func/ Logic Diagrams 6 l0l l0l Preventive Maintenance 21 l0l l0l CMIS 7 l3l l1 l Surveillance Test and Inspection 22 l0l l0l Specifications 8 l0l l0l Section XIIST/ Performance Tests 23 - l 0 l l0l EDBDs/TBDi 9 l1 l l0}
As-Built Venfication 24 l1 l-l 0 l Change Docs /50.59 Reviews 10 l 0 l l0}
302/208 Drawings 25 l0l l0l Temporary Mods 11 l 0 l l0l Surveillance Programs 26 l0l l0l
~ FSAR Review 12 l 1 l }0l PC/REA/PR Corrective Action 27 l 0 l. l 0 l ITS/ Bases 13 l 0 l l0}
QA Audits and Other Assessments 28. l 0 l l0l Licensing Commitments 14 l 0 l l0I Training Lesson Plans 29 l0l l0l Notices and Bulletins 15 l 0 } }0l Open items (Backlog) 30 l0l l0l Issue Data Item Type item Number Title / Subject PC l97 xxxx jCMIS information for MUHE lC is inaccurate and incomplete. [ file:PGH0103.pc]
l Documents Reviewed
- 1. Vendor drawing NU-C 1143-1, Rev A
- 2. Vendor drawing NU-D-1082-1, Rev 1
- 3. Vendor Manual 0567
- 4. CMIS Tag No. MUHE 1 A
- 15. CMIS Tag No MUHE-1C i
- 6. FSAR Table 9.2
'7 MU&P EDBD. Section
- 8. Nameplate of the spare letdown cooler in the CR 3 Warehouse
'9. CMIS Tag No. MUHE-1B Attribute Assessment F.4 Pane 1
. = -....
4 l
i l
[
Readiness Review Attribute' Assessment Form
\\
l Reviewer lHaines l
Date l2/24/97 l ltem Number i
Assessment Number lPGH-03 l
System lMU l
Attribute Number [MU-06 l
j-Attribute Description l Letdown Cocler CMIS Data Review l
'The SRRT reviewed CMIS data for the letdown heat exchangers and compared the CMIS data against vendor data from' 1
the letdown heat exchanger technical manual and vendor drawings, the EDBD, and FSAR Table 9.2. In addition, the
{
.SRRT checked nameplate data for the spare letdown heat exchanger, CMIS provides accurate data for the MUHE-1 A, MUHE 1B and MUHE-lC design flows, temperatures and pressures as there is good agreement among the docu reviewed and the nameplate of the spare letdown cooler.
1
]
However, the heat transfer data listed in CMIS is inaccurate (15 MBTU/hr in CMIS vs 16 MBTU/hr per the vendor
~ drawings). Design code for MUHE-1B, shell side is incorrectly identified as ASME III as compared to ASME VIII pej PEERE 1372 Rev.1. Design code for MUHE-lC is identified as B31.7 as compared to ASME III, Class 3 per PEERE i
'1372, Rev.1. Data on model no.,ISI code, code keys and seismic information is missing from MUHE lC that is identified l
for MUHE-1 A and MUHE-1B. This discrepancy is reported in PC-97-XXXX.
j j
- Note:
final issuance of PCs is waiting on a field walkdowh and verification of MUHE-IC nameplate.
i j
i i-i i
1 1
1, I
i 4
Ie l
4 i
\\-
4 i
i s
c i
i 7
a 1
1 4
i i
F.4 Page 2 1
3 k
4 3
i l
l FIGURE 5 GRADED APPROACH FOR SYSTEM ASSESSMENT i
System System System Readiness Readiness Readiness t
p Certification Assessment Walkdown (Level 1)
(Level 2)
(Level 3)
Approach rje ystem Engineer System System
{
Team Operator Manager l
Review Design & Licensing Documentation Yes Focused Open items i
Review System Materiel Condition Documentation Yes Yes Yes As-Found System Condition Project System Engineer System System Walkdown Team Operator Manager Identification of Deficiencies Yes Yes Yes I
Disposition, Tracking &
Reporting Restart Restraints y
y As-Left System Condition Walkdown Yes Yes Yes Final System System Final Reporting Requirements Readiness Readiness Walkdown Report Sur.imary Summary Tumover to Operations Yes Yes Yes I
i 0
e i
l F.5 Page 1
9 Figure 6 Identifying and Resolving Design and Licensing Basis Issues System ll e a <l i n e s s ll e v i e w Vertical Slices I
Topic Area LEVELI LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 l'or Review 8 Systems 18 Systems 79 systems (Examples)
EF Dil MU etc..
ca c..
FSAR/ITS s.
4; ;; :; 4; tr EDilD/DDD Open licms 4;t r a
Plant Walldoun 1>-
s.
1>-
Mods /50 59 Plant Configuration Operating Procedures Previous Assessments Critical Draw ings Accident Analysis Calculations Drawings / Logics Surveillanec/ Tests I
Maintenance CMIS Specifications Notices / Bulletins i
Training
FIGURE 7: EXAMPLE SYSTEM READINESS REVIEW MATRIX FOR LEVEL 2 SYSTEMS AtAJOR TUFICS me sscn esutputwY1 tortuss conmients ortartsons naturanancs soev.
88 8 I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
le II II 13 14 15 16 17 la 59 20 is 22 33 24 25 26 27 29 29 38 I
1 1 3
s 3
i 3
,g i i i
i i I
1
- i 4
1 E
f I
j g
1 I
e$ f e;
U 8
is l
I 1
e 2
I s'
3 3
t
=
3 i
3 u
I i.
I a
3 i
_[ i a
i 3
y e
ASSES $ttiNT A11RfRtelF%
N
[>
O= wall Syseem X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
Hyeselec Functamalwy X
X X
ilcar Transfee Functionalmy X
X X
e vu gsewe=al X
X Pumps X
X X
rene.1(t&O X
X X
thecnicaf rowee f
X X
X X
X X
X X
4
/
3/4/97
Figure 7 ATTRIBUTE SELECTION BASIS Attributes The following attributes shall be considered by the system manager as examples in formulating the assessment matrix for a Level 2 system.
The specific attributes will vary between specific systems, but in all cases should cover the fundamental functional requirements for the system and the critical components that provide that functionality.
01 overall System:
The overall system requirements not covered under the individual attributes assessed below will be addressed.
Issues to be considered include system demands and configuration differences based on variable plant conditions, such as equipment availability.
Issues related to single failure scenarios, and system' interfaces are to be assessed.
02 Hydraulic Functionality:
System flow, pressure, pressure drop and temperature requirements will be identified and compared to system capability. Issues related to valve and actuator design requirements, power supplies, and positioning capability are also to be assessed.
03 Heat Transfer Functionality:
Heat transfer requirements for the system will be identified.and compared to aystem capability.
Issues to be addresses will include fouling margin for heat exchangers and monitoring of degradation of system performance.
04 Piping and Structural Design: Issues related to classification boundaries, design temperatures and pressures, and pipe stress / support loads are to be assessed for the system.
05 Pumps:
The pumps are critical components for delivery of flow.
Issues related to pump performance, NPSH, minimum flow requirements, motor and power supplies, and design requirements are to be assessed.
)
F.7 Page 2 l
- m. _. _
_..___________...__.__.___...._.__.__._.____m 06 Control and Instrumentation: Issues trelated to initiation and control setpoints, instrumsntation. flow controller l
design and stability, level controller design and stability, and operator interfaces with the system are to be assessed, i
07 Electrical Power:
2 Requirements for quality of power supply, i
and for redundant electrical trains and instrument channels are to be assessed.
i s
i
,e 1
1 J
i s
J 3
1 3
- i I
?
F.7 Page 3 i
ATTACHMENT 1
^
~
RESTART ISSUES i
SELECTION / SCREENING CRITERIA Required to directly address the purpose for outage 1.
s extension (design margin improvement of selected safety systems) 4a 1
- 2. Required to determine the " Extent of Condition" of our design issues
- 3. Required to address organization, programmatic or process deficiency that led to the design margin condition
- 4. Required to address a current operability issue
- 5. Required to address a significant equipment materiel. condition or reliability deficiency (especially repetitive failure)
\\.
l A.1_Page 1 i
ATTACHMENT 2 SYSTEM READINESS REVIEW PROGRAM SYSTEM WALKDOWN GUIDELINES Purnose:
This walkdown guideline is to be used as a reference while conducting the System Readiness Review Team (or individual) walkdowns.
General Method:
- 1. Define the purpose of the walkdown, areas to be visited / observed, roles of the individual team members, and assistance from Health Physics or other departments to w cess areas.
- 2. Plan the walkdown execution and implementation.
Predefine how the wa'1kdown will assess conformance of the plant with design and licensing basis requirements.
- 3. Erief the team on the purpose and plan.
- 4. Conduct the walkdown.
Focus the team on observation of equipment.
Work independently and discuss concerns for clarity.
Take concise and accurate notes to quantify and describe findings in sufficient detail to prevent having to salkdown the item twice.
- 5. Conduct a formal post walkdown briefing.
Review the notes, discuss issues and document the results on the SRR Assessment forms, enteering the data into the SRR Assessment Data Base.
Identify any impact on equipment or system operation.
Immediate concerns are tc be identified to the engineering supervisor and SSOD.
- 6. Identify items that need to be completed for the system to its intended design function. Assess each item against the meet Restart Criteria, Attachment 1.
Tr n. items are to be documented for disposition and tracking, on toe SRR Open # tem Data Base.
A.2 Page 1
Guidelines:
~
- 1. The team (led by the system Manager) is to outline the system walkdown strategy.
Key system components and system concerns are to be identified.
2.
The team is to identify necessary operational or plant configuration drawings to accompany the team during the walkdown.
- 3. Throughout'the walkdown, the team is to function as a cohesive unit, maintaining a team focus on individual system components or specific system areas.
The walkdown is to focus on equipment reliability or 4.
operability issues as well as conformance with system design configuration and design ba.ies.
Other conditions should be noted during the walkdown.
S. Each team member is expected to record detailed notes of issues or/ concerns identified during the walkdown.
- 6. Examples of team focus areas include:
+ Condition of snubbers, pipe supports, hangers and fasteners
+ Condition and placement of coatings and insulation
+ Evidence of corrosion Evidence of boric acid or boric acid buildup especially
+
on carbon steel components and material wastage Unauthorized modifications, partial modifications or
+
temporary modifications not in accordance with station programs Surface condition of visible structural welds
+
Condition of barrier or penetration seals
+
Use of unauthorized chemicals on components
+
+ Evidence of bolt torque relaxation Evidence of discoloration on relays, cable insulation
+
or electrical components
+ Unauthorized or expired scaf folding, scaffolding in unauthorized locations or impacting equipment performance
+ Hoses or other connections from vents or drains A.2 Page 2
7.
The following is' a general list of electrical equipment physical plant inspection items:
ELECTRICAL PANTLS EOUIPMENT Identify missing water plugs or holes / opening in cabinets
+
(water or moisture intrusion can degrade or damage equipment)
Identify missing or loose bolts or thumb screws (if missing
+
can violate seismic evaluation and it is not good work practice)
Identify open doors or back panels (ensure properly closed and
+
latched otherwise can violate seismic evaluation or allow dirt, water, etc. to enter panel)
Identify dirt or debris on top of or in panels (cleanliness of
+
circuit boards, modules, relays, cabinets; qualitative impact on heat transfer)
+ Identify mis-positioned breaker switches (anything that is different)
Identify proper labeling on key component breakers / switches
+
(accurate and legible per controlled drawings; also includes modules, relays, conduit)
Identify dirt or debris covering cooling gratings or filters
+
(if blocked can prevent cooling and cause heat buildup and subsequent equipment degradation) i Feel panels and equipment enclosures where appropriate to
+
check for excessive heat buildup (Can be an indication of degraded equipment, initiate request for thermography check)
+ Check cable trays.
Cable should not be hanging outside of cable tray (can overstress cable tray)
Check cables and conduit for degradation (cracked, brittle,
+
chafed, bend radius, wet conduit, etc.)
Check MCCs overall for anything that is different
+ Note any deficiency tags, especially old tags not being 4
worked.
These may need increased priority or have had work completed but the tags have not been removed Check for any abnormal sounds or smells coming from the
+
cabinet (may indicate degraded equipment)
Verify equipment grounding cable is connected and intact
+
+ Look at general materiel condition of cabinet (rust, dirt, consider qualitative impact on heat transfer)
+ Inspect seismic supports and trays A.2 Page 3
4 1
i f
i 7.
ELECTRICAL PANELR EOUIPMENT (Cont'd) i
=
+ Inspect overall condition of terminal strips and mechanical connections (lug' landings) 1 Inspect conduit and junction boxes for external damage, loose
+
l conduit connections and missir.g p.*rt's and f asteners
- Inspect solenoid valves and motot.rsvers for evidence of I
j damage cr equipment degradation
{
Inspec't meter or gauges for visual _ degradation
+
3
+ Cathodic Protection (Proper configuration and operation)
I.
8.
The following is a general list of mechanical equipment physical plant inspection items:
i i
MECHANICAL COMPONENTS i
l
+ Identify any abnormal sounds or smells coming from pump or motor operation Bearing housings and motors and pumps are to be inspected for l
j
+
l signs of excessive heat or vibration l
l
+ Look at general material condition of pump or motor for steam, l
oil, water leaks, proper levels in oil reservoirs or sight glasses - (and properly marked), missing insulation, proper f
conduit installation
+ Identify pinned hangers
)'
Inspect system gauges for proper operation or typical values
+
j Look for pump rotation or reverse rotation if part of a dual
+
i train common header sys' tem (could indicate check valve i
degradation or isolation valves leaking by) h Identify dirt or debris covering cooling gratings or filters 4
+
j (if blocked can prevent cooling and cause heat buildup and subsequent equipment degradation)
Note any deficiency tags especially old tags not being worked; i
These may need increased priority or have had work ccmpleted i
but the tags have not been removed
{
+ check equipment skid / foundation bolting.
Are all bolts present and have proper thread engagement?
Review trends of parameters on key system equipment, visually j
+
j inspect identified equipment with degraded performance j
+ Visually inspect for old leak repair fittings, ensure T-MARS i
exist to restore components with leak repair fittings Equipment Labeling / tags (Accurate and legible per controlled dr.awings) j j
A.2 Page 4 I
j
9.
The following list contains materiel conditions indicating equipment operability issues:
OPERABILITY IssUFs
+ Leaks (water, steam, oil, air - packing, flanges, rust on components or floor)
+ Lubrication (sight glasses, bull's eyes, grease cups, grease fittings, valve stems)
+ Handwheels/ valve operators (missing, key or pin missing, unlocked, not labeled)
+ Filters, screen or louvers (clogged, dirty, missing)
+ Instruments or gauges (out of calibration, inoperable, bent pointers)
+ Drains or drain holes (clogged, blocked, full, screens or grating missing)
+ Lines or Pipes (loose, unbracketed, vibrating, insulation ^
missing or damaged)
+ Fasteners / bolts (loose, striped, missing)
+ Indicating lamps (missing, burned out, missing covers)
+ control room annunciators
+ Panels (covers missing, bolt missing or not tightened, dirt and debris inside) i
+ Area lighting (bulbs missing or burned out, inadequate to support activities)
Look for consistency between similar parameters
+
+ Packing (bottomed out, out of adjustment, dirty or rusted glands)
+ cables or leads (unsecured, worn or frayed insulation, improper terminations)
+ Motors or generators (dirty, brush rigging pigtails broken, carbon dust, excessive noise or vibration, ground straps loose l
or missing)
+ Preservation (rust, corrosion, missing or damage insulation or l
+ check valves (oscillating lever, banging, stuck enen)
+ Movs (lubricant leaks, missing plugs)
- Valves (dried grease caked on stem, packing or stem leaks, bent stem)
I A.2 Page 5
=-. _,.
The following is a general list of additional inspection 10.
items that apply to both mechanica". and electrical equipment:
MECHANICAL OR ELECTRICAL EOUIPMENT
.I Identify inadequate or degraded structural components 1
+
Inspect system piping for evidence of water hammer,
+
severe transients, or improper venting.
Damaged supports, base plate 1
grouting, anchors (pulled-out or deformed) are to be l
identified for further root cause analysis 1
Inspect for unauthorized loads supported from cable trays,
+
l conduits or piping systems Identify undocumented system modifications
+
+ Identify damaged heat trace, and damaged or missing insulation l
+ Note piping exhibiting cyclical vibration for possible high cycle fatigue concerns
+ Safety Postings, Radiological Postings (Properly positioned, j
legible and understandable) j Inspect for adequate separation for independent electrical
+
trains Identify nameplate information and compare to design basis
+
information 11.
The System Manager is to ensure team members record identified walkdown issues on Attribute Assessment Forms l'
(Figure 3).
The System Manager is responsible'to ensure 1
that any discrepancies identified have appropriate follow-up corrective actions initiated to resolve these issues.
j
\\
5 i
A.2 Page 6
. - - - ~ -_~
i i
1 ATTACHMENT 3 INITIAL SYSTEM READINESS REPORT FORMAT 4
i Section I i
j Purpose Statement i
System Functions / Scope:
Outline the system design function and i
define system boundaries included with the Readiness Review Scope 3
System Readiness Review 4
l j
Reference design basis documentation reviewed
+
License basis documentation reviewed
+
v 4
Summary of Findings
+ Design Basis / License Basis Concerns i
Summary of evaluation work scope determination, Power
+
Ascension, Post-Restart, Canceled Action Items 3
Walkdown Results/ Report:
Strategy, new open corrective action
+
{
items i
- Aggregate impact of deferred work Generic program, process and procedural concerns
+
Summary of Actions to Disposition Corrective Actions Planning and Scheduling I
+
+ Performance Indicators
+ Emergent Work Items A.3 Page 1
INITIAL SYSTEM READINESS REPORT FORMAT Section II
)
I Evaluation Results for Attributes, including design basis / licensing basisSection III
+ Walkdown ResultsSection IV - References Appendices
+ A. Figure showing boundaries of system review B. Assessment Matrix - Record of completed evaluations
+
supporting the System Readiness Review
{
+ C. Attributes, Bases for Attributes and Summary of Results D. Summary of Discrepancies l
+
E. Individual Assessment Forms 9
l A.3 Page 2
INITIAL SYSTEM READINESS REPORT i
L COVER SHEET 4
System Title System Manager Signature /Date System Operator Signature /Date
\\.
NPTS Manager Signature /Date I
Restart Accountability Team Signature /Datt Restart Panel Chairman, Signature /Date A.3 Page 3 i
1
9
~
~
ATTACHMENT 4 FINAL LEVEL 1 SYSTEM READINESS REPORT The final Level 1 System Readiness Report:
- documents the status of the restart required items identified in the initial system readiness report
- provides the results of the final system walkdowns, identifies any new discrepancies and their status
- identifies how any generic issues or weaknesses identified during the Level 1 reviews have been addressed for this system
- provides the basis for reasonable assurance that the system is within its licensing and regulatory design basis prior to startup
- discusses the, cumulative impact of work that is deferred in this system until after restart.
A detailed outline that defines the format of the final system readiness report will be developed for use by System Readiness Review Team members.
l l
A.4 Page 1
ATTACHMENT 5 INITIAL LEVEL 2 SYSTEM READINESS
SUMMARY
P The Initial. System Readiness Summary for the Level 2 systems will follow a similar format to that of the Level 1 system report, as described in Attachment 3.
The level of detail in the report will be consistent with the level of detail included in the assessment.
The Level 2 system reviews will assess system functional requirements and will focus on the sources of information identified in Figure 7as well as any generic problem areas identified during the Level 1 reviews.
The Level 2 reviews wil'1 focus on assessing adequacy of programs and processes, since not these will already have been assessed in the Level 1 reviews.
A detailed outline that defines the format of the initial Level 2 system readiness report will be developed for use by System Readiness Review Team members.
l i
i A.5 Page 1 B
~
ATTACHMENT 6 FINAL LEVEL 2 SYSTEM READINESS
SUMMARY
The Final System Readiness Summary for the Level 2 systems will follow a similar format to that of the Level 1 system report, as discussed in Attachment 4.
The level of detail in the report will be consistent with the level of detail included in the assessment.
I detailed outline that defines the format of the final Level 2 system readiness-report will be developed for use by System Readiness Review Team members.
N4 1
A.6 Page 1
i l
ATTACHMENT 7 LEVEL 1 SELECTION CRITERIA RESULTS COMPARISON SYSTEMS CONSIDERED FOR LEVEL 1 (SYSTEM READINESS CERTIFICATIO BASED ON MULTIPLE FISSION PRODUCT BARRIERS, WITH CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO :
ANALYTICAL PROCESS ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT RESULTS 1.
Makeup & Purification System This system was selected as a LEVEL 1 based on several factors.
i
- HPI design margin was an issue that resulted in the current extended plant shutdown.
- The Readiness Review Significance Evaluation used to support the fission product barrier methodology indicated i
a high Readiness Review Significance (198.72).
1 J
- The only significant assessment activity accomplished previously is Quality Assessment Report 95-02-MAKP.
4 2.
Decay Heat System This system was selected based on several i
factors.
i 4
i
- LPI design margin was an issue that resulted in the i
current extended plant shutdown.
The Readiness Review Significance Evaluation used to support the fission product barrier methodology indicated a high Readiness Review Significance (197.29).
3.
Core Flood System Core Flood is not risk significant based on the current PSA model, however, because HPI is an ECCS system it was evaluated to be a Level 1 syster..
4.
Emergency Feedwater System This system was selected based on several factors.
- EFW design margin was an issue that resulted in the current extended plant shutdown.
The Readiness Review Significance Evaluation used to support the fission product barrier methodology indicated a high Readiness Review Significance (103.97).
A.7 Page 1
r l
t Based on recent SBLOCA analysis and discussions with FTI, EF is considered an ECCS system.
i 5.
Emergency Feedwater Initiation & Control System This system was selected based on several factors.
The Readiness. Review Significance Evaluation used to l
support the fission product barrier methodology indicated i
a high Readiness Review Significance. (46.40).
Because recently identified dependencies between EFP-2 and EGDG-i 1A may not be properly reflected in the existing PSA
- model, EFIC was considered a Level 1 system.
F e The EFIC control system has been the subject of many design reviews and control weaknesses have been identified.
Operator Workaround items and the complexity of the system are other factors in the decision to consider EFIC a level 1 system.
6.
Emergency Diesel Generator & Support Systems This system was I
selected based on several factors.
i EGDG-1A margin was an issue that resulted in the current extended plant shutdown.
L
- The Readiness Review Significance Evaluation used to support the fission product barrier methodology indicated i
a high Readiness Review Significance (101.23).
7.
Engineered Safeguards This system was selected based on several factors.
- The Engineered Safeguards System controls the auto connected loads associated with the 4160 ES Busses following LOOP and LOCA scenarios.
As such, the Emergency Diesel Generator loading is dependant on the ES system.
Since design margin of EGDG-1A was an issue that l
resulted in the current extended plant shutdown, the ES system warrants consideration.
- The Readiness Review Significance Evaluation used to support the fission product barrier methodology indicated a high Readiness Review Significance (120.05).
8.
Reactor Coolant System Further review of the selection criteria results indicates that despite the initial decision not to select this system, it should be conidered as a level 1 system.
Based on this re-evaluation, RC System is now a level 1 system.
This basis is described below.
s i
l A.7 Page 2 i
I I
I l
The RC system has undergone 682 10CFR50.59 review opportunities.
Significantly more than any other safety related/ risk significant system.
This aspect factored into the Readiness Review Significance factor results in the highest f actor of all systems (262.10).
9.
Air Handling Subsystems The Air Handling System has many subsystems. For the purposes of level 1 reviews, only three were considered.
Control Complex Air Handling Auxiliary Building Exhaust e
Reactor Building Recirc only one of these is significant from a_ fission product e
barrier consideration, the RB recirculation system for containment integrity.
The Control Complex Air Handling subsystem provides the necessary control room personnel protection during accident conditions.
- The Auxiliary Building Exhaust subsystem provides protection to the public in FSAR Chapter 14 scenarios.
These three subsystems considered together result in a system readiness significance factor of 94.43.
When considered individually, they are less significant.
Bases on this, these subsystems will be considered level 2 systems.
Because collectively they are significant, timelines will be completed and evaluated for these systems.
- 10. Building Spray System.
This system was originally selected as a Level 1 system because BS design margin was E concern that resulted in the decision to maintain the unit in mode 5.
Upon further review, the design margin concerns are at this time limited to BS pump NPSHmaa.
Further consideration based on selection criteria indicates \\
that despite the initial decision to select this system, it is not significant in terms of the Readiness Review Significance f actor (33. 94).
While it is integral to containment integrity during certain LOCA scenarios, it is not risk significant and has been subjected to minimal modification and procedure 10CFR50.50 review opportunities.
Based on this re-evaluation, BS System will-be a level 2 system.
Because it is significant to support the containment fission product barrier, a timeline will be completed and evaluated for the BS system.
A.7 Page 3
- 11. DP and NT GENERAL DISCUSSION ITEMS Several extensive evaluations have already been performed on the AC and DC distribution systems in preparation for the EDSFI.
These include the following items:
- 1. An independent external Readiness Assessment performed by Devonrue in 1991
- 2. FPC self assessment, May 1992
- 3. NRC Electrical Distribution System Functional Inspection in July of 1993
'An upgrade of the electrical calculations was performed in the early 1990's and further electrical calculation reviews and upgrade are in progress in accordance with Restart Issue OP-6.
A detailed failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) of loss of DC power is in progress in accordance with Restart Issue D-7.
The System Manager will perform a LEVEL 2 focused review of the MT and DP systems to confirm adequate closecut of previously identified issues during the Level 2
assessment.
- 12. Reactor Protection System Based on the low number of system modifications / procedure changes combined with the non-risk significant classification and NRC feedback on RPS setpoint calculations, this system is considered a level 2 system.
The readiness review significance factor is 32.82.
NRC audit feedback of RPS setpoint calculations was positive.
The audits have been ongoing since
- 1995, including reviews by an I&C expert.
NRC responses were on the order of no problems found; typographical errors were identified, but did not change the end result of the calculations.
PRC subcommittee discussions on the results of system prioritizations included the status of the Reactor Protection System (RPS).
The specific topic area involved RPS setpoint calculations, the level of NPTS involvement and potential time pressures involved with performance of the calculations.
The concern involved the plant at full power, competing with ITS action statements while field calibration procedures were revised and end device setpoints were changed.
Engineering personnel involved in oversight and generation of calculations were interviewed l
and the following issues were discussed:
ImC feedback, calculations / analysis, 10CFR50.59 evaluations and NPTS involvement.
A 7 Page 4 1
Calculations by B&W (FTI) exist which validate ITS setpoints for RPS.
During ITS reviews of instrument setpoints, it was identified RPS module field setpoints matched the ITS values, i.e.,
not error corrected.
Calibration procedures were revised to error correct the field setpoint; conservative engineering judgment was applied to provide margin from respective ITS values.
Subsequent calculations by FPC were generated to establish required error correction for RPS instrument modules and specific test equipmeht.
The field changes made prior to
, the subsequent calculations were conservative in comparison to the calculated error corrections.
These calculations were reviewed by
- NPTS, Licensing, Operations and Maintenance.
10CFR50.59 evaluations (screening) were performed in support of the field calibration procedures.
The level of NPTS involvement in RPS setpoint calculations included oversight of the Action Plan for Setpoints, development of the calculation template for as-found/as-left tolerances and test equipment to be used, calculation development, calibration procedure enhancement, revision of calibration data sheets and participated in NRC audits and enforcement conferences.
1
- 13. Nuclear Instrumentation Based on the low number of system modifications and procedure changes combined with the non-risk significant classification, this system is considered a level 2 system.
The readiness review significance factor is 34.19.
As an additional review during the level 2 assessment, the System Manager will perform a focused review of the calculations program and the implementation of the calculations into existing plant procedures.
14.
Reactor Building Airlock.
Based on the low number of system modifications and procedure changes combined with the non-risk significant classification, this system is considered a level 2 system.
The readiness review significance factor is ???.
A.7 Page 5
System Rankings - By Remliness Review Significance Columns / Calculations i
A B
C=(A
- B)/2 O
E F=(C)*(D)*(E)
G H
I J (G*H+f)
Ks((F)*(J))/100 L
i Relative Systern
- of Readiness Fission PSA Regulatory
/
g og op
- of SP 50.59 Review Systein im ortance trnportance
% sed Review Product Factor Factor Significance Non. Safety Revisions Revisions Opportunities Factor Factor MARS Significance Barrier 1
RC 8.23 50.00 29.12 1.20 1.10 38.43 382 45 255 682.00 262.10 Yes 2
MT 100.00 50.00 75.00 1.20 1.10 99.00 128 81 7
216.00 213.84 Yes t
3 MU 16.76 50.00 33.38 1.20 1.10 44.06 310 102 39 451.00 198.72 Yes 4
DH 12.92 75.00 43.96 1.20 1.10 58.03 162 104 74 340.00 197.29 Yes 5
DP 42.50 80.00 61.25 1.20 1.10 80.85 45 39 127 211.00 170.59 Yes 6
SW 19.11 50.00 34.56 1.20 1.10 45.61 190 83 24 297.00 135.47 no 7
ES 1.00 50.00 25.50 1.00 1.10 28.05 58 11 359 428.00 120.05 Yes 8
EF 2.86 50.00 26.43 1.20 1.10 34.89 205 17 76 298.00 103.97-Yes 9
EG 10.15 50.00 30.08 1.20 1.10 39.70 128 39 88 255.00 101.23 Yes
[
10 FS 1.00 30.00 15.50 1.00 1.10 17.05 168 9
392 569.00 97.01 no 11 RW 13.04 50.00 31.52 1.20 1.10 41.61 97 0
112 209.00 86.96 no 12 DR 1.00 80.00 40.50 1.00 1.10 44.55 85 35 57 177.00 78.85 no 13 AH - Misc 1.00 50.00 25.50 1.00 1.10 28.05 120 39 92 251.00 70.41 no 14 MS 2.20 35 00 18.60 1.20 1.10 24.55 217 47 19 283.00 69.48 no 15 CF 1.00 80.00 40.50 1.20 1.10 53.46 40 43 40 123.00 65.76 Yes 16 WD 1.00 25.00 13.00 1.00 1.10 14.30 325 40 39 404.00 57.77 no 17 AH-XK 1.10 50.00 25.55 1.00 1.10 28.11 69 39 92 200.00 56.21 Yes 18 RM 1.00 50.00 25.50 1.00 1.10 28.05 107 14 73 194.00 54.42 no 19 AN 1.00 100.00 50.50 1.00 0.90 45.45 45 0
74 119.00 54.09 no I
20 AH-XA 1.00 50.00 25.50 1.20 1.10 33.66 27 39 92 158.00 53.18 Yes 21 PS 1.00 60.00 30.50 1.00 0.90 27.45 176 0
0 176.00 48.31 no i
22 EC (EFIC) 2.86 50.00 26.43 1.20 1.10 34.89 0
105 28 133.00 46.40 Yes 23 AH - XJ 1.00 50.00 25.50 1.00 1.10 28.05 28 39 92 159.00 44.60 no 24 BS 1.00 50.00 25.50 1.20 1.10 33.66 70 41 10 121.00 40.73 Yes 25 FW 1.26 20.00 10.63' 1.00 1.10 11.69 238 65 30 333.00 38.94 no
{
Piswed 14 97 10 M Akt
System Rankings - By Readiness Review Sigmficance Columns /Calculatrons A
B C =(A
- D)/2 O
E F=(C)*(D)*(E)
G H
I J=(G + H +l)
K=((F)*(J))/100 L
Relative System
- of Readiness Fission PSA Regulatory g of OP
- of SP 50.59 Review System i
ortance I"1P "3"C8 I
- Review Product Factor Factor sig itcance Non-Safety Revisions Revisions Opportunities actor Factor MARS Significance Barrier 26 CA 2.57 35.00 18.79 1.00 1.10 20.66 122 63 0
185.00 38.23 no 27 SF 1.00 40.00 20.50 1.00 1.10 22.55 53 54 51 158.00 35.63 no 28 NI 1.00 55.00 28.00 1.00 1.10 30.80 28 0
83 111.00 34.19 Yes 29 RP 1.00 50.00 25.50 1.00 1.10 28.05 16 0
101 117.00 32.82 Yes 30 DC 16.02 50.00 33.01 1.20 1.10 43.57 48 0
0 48.00 20.92 ho 31 RA 1.00 30.00 15.50 1.00 1.10-17.05 2
70 49 121.00 20.63 nn 32 FH 1.00 20.00 10.50 1.00 1.10 11.55 116 28 0
144.00 16.63 no 33 CM 1.00 20.00 10.50 1.00 0.90 9.45 155 16 0
171.00 16.16 no 34 VB 1.10 30.00 15.55 1.00 1.10 17.11 62 24 0
86.00 14.71 no 35 ME 1.00 10.00 5.50 1.00 0.90 4.95 259 8
0 267.00 13.22 no 36 DF 10.15 50.00 30.08 1.20 1.10 39.70 5
0 26 31.00 12.31 no 37 RS 1.00 50.00 25.50 1.00 1.10' 28.05 3
0 38 41.00 11.50 no 38 CH 1.10 25.00 13.05 1.00 1.10 14.36 51 0
29 80.00 11.48 no 39 LR 1.00 20.00 10.50 1.00 1.10 11.55 31 0
64 95.00 10.97 no
~
40 CP 1.00 25.00 13.00 1.00 0.90 11.70 63 21 0
84.00 9.83 no 41 NG 1.00 20.00 10.50 1.00 1.10 11.55 39 34 0
73.00 8.43 no 42 MX 1.00 10.00 5.50 1.00 1.10 6.05 117 0
0 117.00 7.08 no 43 MM 1.00 20.00 10.50 1.00 0.90 9.45 19 0
51 70.00 6.62 no 44 DW 2.57 20.00 11.29 1.00 '
1.10 12.41 33 19 0
52.00 6.46 no 45 CO 1.00 60.00 30.50 1.00 0.90 27.45 6
0 17 23.00 6.31 no 46 DO 13.04 1.00 7.02 1.00 1.10 7.72 46 33 0
79.00 6.10 no 47 NN 1.00 55.00 28.00 1.00 0.90 25.20 0
22 0
22.00 5.54 no 48 SB 1.00 70.00 35.50 1.00 0.90 31.95 16 0
0 1E 00 5.11 no 49 Cl 1.00 20.00 10.50 1.00 1.10 11.55 32 10 0
42.00 4.85 no 50 LP 1.00 10.00 5.50 1.00 0.90 4.95 12 7
65 84.00 4.16 no Pimped F4 97 10 30 Akt
.m.s n m
System Rankings - By Readiness Review Significance Columns /calculatetns A
B C=(A+c)/2 D
E F=(C)*(D)*(E)
G H
I J=(G + H +l)
K=((F)*(J))/100 L
I*'
- of OP
- of SP 50.59 Review ea ness Rssion importance imp nance Closed Factor Factor Significance Non. Safety Revisions Revisions Opportunities e w ct Factor Factor MARS Significance Barrier 51 CD 2.57 1.00 1.79 1.00 1.10 1.96 114 88 0
202.00 3.97 no 52 EM 1.00 30.00 15.50 1.00 0.90 13.95 25 0
0 25.00 3.49 no 53 DJ 1.00 50.00 25.50 1.20 1.10 33.66 9
0 0
9.00 3.03 no 54 DL 1.00 50.00 25.50 1.20 1.10 33.66 9
0 0
9.00 3.03 no 55 SD 1.00 10.00 5.50 1 fr 0.90 4.95 51 8
0 59.00 2.92 ho 56 HT 1.00 20.00 10.50 1 00 1.10 11.55 24 0
0 24.00 2.77 no 1h}
57 LO 1.00 20.00 10.50 0.90 9.45 27 0
0 27.00 2.55 no 58 AT 1.00 20 00 10.50 1.00 0.90 9.45 1
11 14 26.00 2.46 no 59 PC 1.00 20.00 10.50 1.00 1.10 11.55 2
0 19 21.00 2.43 no 60 IM 1.00 20.00 10.50 1.00 1.10 11.55 13 0
7 20.00 2.31 no 61 AS 2.86 1.00 1.93 1.00 1.10 2.12 69 33 0
102.00 2.17 no 62 SP 1.26 20.00 10.63 1.00 1.10 11.69 17 0
0 17.00 1.99 no 63 SI 1.00 20.00 10.50 1.00 0.90 9.45 20 0
0 20.00 1.89 no j
64 CW l.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 121 58 0
179.00 1.61 no j
65 TB 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 101 38 0
139.00 1.53 no
{
66 IA 1.29 1.00 1.15 1.00 1.10 1.26 47 53 0
100.00 1.26 no i
67 SA 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 52 53 0
105.00 1.16 no j
68 WS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 11 0
79 90.00 0.99 no 69 HD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 '
O.90 0.90 82 0
0 82.00 0.74 no
[
70 IC 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 62 19 0
81.00 0.73 no 71 AC 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 56 0
0 56.00 0.62 no l
72 SC 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 32 34 0
66.00 0.59 no 73 HY 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 21 34 0
55.00 0.50 no 74 CX 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 50 0
0 50.00 0.45 no 75 SS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 33 10 0
43.00 0.39 no Ptewed l'497 6010 Akt f
.. _ _,. _,.....-. _. ~...
- ~ -.,. -.. - -
System Rankings - By Remliness Review Significance Columns /Calculabons A
B C=(A+8y2 D
E F=(C)*(D)*(E)
G H
I J=(G + H +I)
K=((F)*(J))/tOO L
Relative PSA Regulatory System
- of Readiness Fission System im stance g or op g of SP 50.59 Review Factor Factor impodance dosd Review Product Revisions Revisions Opportunities Factor Fa N NS SI0nificance Barrier 76 CT 1.00 5.00 3.00 1.00 0.90 2.70 14 0
0 14.00 0.38 no 77 RH 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 41 0
0 41.00 0.37 no 78 TG 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 4
37 0
41.00 0.37 no 79 EX 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 37 0
0 37.00 0.33 no 80 AR 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 14 19 0
33.00 0.30 ho 81 GS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 30 0
0 30.00 0.27 no 82 GW 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 30 0
0 30.00 0.27 no 83 TR 1.00 10.00 5.50 1.00 1.10 6.05 3
0 0
3.00 0.18 no 84 TD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 18 0
0 18.00 0.16 no 85 ED 1.00 30.00 15.50 1.00 0.90 13.95 1
0 0
1.00 0.14 no 86 MD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 13 0
0 13.00 0.12 no 87 CG 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 9
0 0
9.00 0.10 no 88 HV 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 11 0
0 11.00 0.10 no 89 ER 1.00 20.00 10.50 1.00 0.90 9.45 1
0 0
1.00 0.09 no 90 SU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 9
0 0
9.00 0.08 no 91 WT 2.57 1.00 1.79 1.00 0.90 1.61 5
0 0
5.00 0.08 no 92 HC 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 5
0 0
5.00 0.05 no 93 RV 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 4
0 0
4.00 0.04 no 94 CC 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 '
O.90 0.90 4
0 0
4.00 0.04 no 95 RD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 3
0 0
3.00 0.03 no 96 CS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 3
0 0
3.00 0.03 no 97 EH 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 3
0 0
3.00 0.03 no 98 FD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 3
0 0
3.00 0.03 no 99 LA 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 2
0 0
2.00 0.02 no 100 MA 1.00 1.00 1.00f 1.00 0.90 0.90 2
0 0
2.00 0.02 no Pruned D a 97 00 30 Akt
System Rankings - By Readiness Review Significance 4
4 Columns /Calculstions A
B C =(A + B)/2 D
E F=(C)*(D)*(E)
G H
I J=(G+ H +1)
K=((F)*(J))/100 L
Relative PSA Regulatory
/
g orop
- of SP 50.59 Reh System
- of System Readiness Fission im riance importance Osd Factor Factor Significance Non-Safety Revisions Revisions Opportunities Review Product Fador Factor MARS 3g.nificance Barrier 101 GG 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1
0 0
1.00 0.01 no 102 MV 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 1
0 0
1.00 0.01 no l
103 GC 1.00 20.00 10.50 1.00 0.90 9.45 0
0 0
0.00 0.00 no 104 OX 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0
0 0
0.00 0.00 105 PP 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0
0 0
0.00 0.00 ho
,no 106 RR 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 0
0 0
0.00 0.00 no 107 SE 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0
0 0
0.00 0.00 no 108 SO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 0
0 0
0.00 0.00 no l
9 f
Pruwed W41T 10 M Akt
l ATTACHMENT 8 INTEGRATED SYSTEM READINESS REPORT FORMAT
.An integrated system readiness report will be prepared to document the key generic results of the Level 1 System Readiness Reviews.
This report will assess the generic results across the Level 1 l
l systems and define corresponding expansion of reviews for Level 2 l
systems to further define extent of condition.
I The integrated report will evaluate the significance of the results generated for the Level 1 systems and the use of these l
results to assess the health of plant-wide programs and i
The report will document the generic strengths as processes.
well as weaknesses discovered.
~
I l
I I
I l
l 1
I I
4 A.8 Page 1
(~'
(NUCTSM-308-4-17)
\\'N R3v.1/2 /s7
)
- - SYSTEM READINESS ENGINEER QUALIFICA TION GUIDE NAME.
SSN:
DISCIPLINE:
1 i
INSTRUCTIONS:
' Allitems must be signed by the Supervisor upon review or completion of required tasks / functions.
I ACTIVITY REFERENCE SIGNATURE /DA TE 1.- Procedural Indoctrination i
Complete NEP Partial Training Attached Training a.
Recuirements Sheets
- b. Complete System Readiness Engineer Attached Training Prerequisite Training Requirements Sheets
- 2. System Readiness Requirement's Demonstrate knowledge and the
' System Readiness a.
purpose and processes associated Review Program with the System Readiness Review Program, including documentation i
requirements
- b. Demonstrate basic understanding of:
1, the MAR process NEP 210
- 2. the CGWR process NEP 211
- 3. the PEERE process' NEP 254
- 4. the Calculation process NEP 213 c.
Demonstrate knowledge of the NEP 104 requirements pertaining to communication within FPC d.
Demonstrate knowledge of the
'AI410 requirements for preparing an REA e.
Demonstrate knowledge of the CP 111 l
requirements for preparing a Precursor Card 1i f.
Demonstrate familiarity with CMIS.
User Guides / Formal i
SEEK, and Doc View. FIMIS, MACS.
Classroom Futtext Training /Di:;cussion with Supervisor Page 1 of 2
CN w
j (NUCTSM 3084-17)
Rxv.1/2sig7 V_)
-- SYSTEM READINESS ENGINEER QUAUFICATION GUIDE NAME:
ACTIVITY REFERENCE SIGNA TURE/DATE g.
Demonstrate familiarity with NOD 55 Enhanced Design Basis Documents, NEP 216 Design Basis Documents, Topical Formal Classroom Basis Documents, Analysis Basis TrainingiDiscussion Documents, FSAR, improved with Supervisor Technical Specifications and ITS Bases h.
Discuss the requirements for CP150 equipment operability NRC GL91-18
- i. Discuss the responsibilities of the Al1700 various Nuclear Engineering organizations with which you may interface i ;
J.
Discuss the 50.59 process as it NEP 210 applies to the procedure and Al400C modification review process 50.59 OJT m
en:y
- np
.,v...a+
s
-;i-;
y
-a
. Orientation Training Completed s
s q Supervisor.1 Dete g;, pg 7
,{
.o
.. ~,
' kY:l!
'n+
- w.,,m, x
+
0' Position' Specific Qualificatioit TrainingICompleted.
s
,4
y
- . * ' d;->
J p.
Supervisor / Date,,
Upon como'etion. eend original to:!N. Nuclear Configurston Management S ecialist (NCMI ~
- )
For Nuclear Operatione Trairnng use oNLY NoTIS
. Copy to Re O
orisinalto seco,ee -
02 d
Page 2 of 2
(HUCTSt. J8-4-17)
' ~ ~ '
( ')N Florida SYSTEM READINESS ENGINEER DJX INITIAL TRAINING / SELF-STUDY ASSIGNMENT RECORD
~
Nuclear Engineering Training 50 CIA & SfCLNWTY NuM8ER Page1of2 R AST NAME NMST NAMt MG RA COMPANY t
For initial training, completion of the below indicated items is required to perform quality related activities without dire Engineering Department.
upervision for the Nuclear QUALK1 CAT 10N PRoCRAM DOCUMENT TYPE /NUMoDI PREF 1X MET 1800 SUBJECT rJUCLEAR ENGitJEERitJG PROCEDURES PARTIAL TRAltJtNG NOTES DATE COMPLETE NUCElT RR NEP 999 tJEP-lO4 REV. _
PARTIAL a
NUCEli RR NEP 104 flEP 21o REV. _
REV.
NUCEli RR NEP 210 tJEP-211 REV. _
REV.
tJUCEli RR NEP 211 tJEP 213 REV. _,_
REV.
NUCEli RR NEP 213 NEP-21 e REV. _
REV.
NUCElT RR NEP 21e
~
REV.
tJEP-254 REV. _
NUCElT RR NEP 254 Al 1700 REV. __
REV.
NUCEli RR Al170o CP-111 REV. _
REV.
NUCEli RR CP111 CP-I SO REV. ___
REV.
REV.
DOC VIEW SYSTEM SYSTEM READitJESS REVIEW PLAN NUCERT RR SRAP
?
Al 4 ID REV.
SYSTEM READINESS REVIEW NUCEli RR At410 REV.
EVEtJT FREE ER ATloNS INPTSI l
NUCElT RR EFoooO SAFETY CULTURE EVENT FREE OPERATIONS NUCEli RR NSAGSC FALL PROTECTION S AFETY CULTURE DESIGN BASIS DOCUMENTS RC A PRACTICAL WALKDoWtJ l hsv2 completed the above requirements and am cognizant of the rsquircments as they affect the performance of my assigned tasks.
I have reviewed the information contained in the referenc this employee. (For initial training only) euetor < sicNatunt
[
onta surtavison=ANAaen s,aNAtune DAtt 1
(NUCTSM ad8-4-17)
(%+ /r~'] E.r*1 SYSTEM READINESS ENGINEER Florida INITIAL TRAINING / SELF-STUDY ASSIGNMENT RECORD a
Nuclear Engineering Training Page 2 of 2 SOCIAL SECUf4TV NUM9f R tASTNAMI FtRST NAME M4 RA COMPANY I or initial training, completion of the below indicated items is required to perform quality related activities without direct 6
I ngineering Department.
ervision for the Nuclear QUALK1 CATION PROGRAM DOCUMENT TYPE /NUMBOt PRETIK METitOD
$USJEcT NOTES D4TE OS4PLETE COfJrlGURATiON mat 4AGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
~
HU:LE AR ENGINEERING ORIENTATION MANUAL Et0000 ESPX 17 GEY MANUAL y S STUDY BOOK NUCEli RR LLNPTS Al 800C Rev.
MANUAL NUCEIT RR At400C 53-59 OJT REV.
NO455 Rev. _
NUCElT RR NOD 55 REV.__
t I hr,vs completed the above requirements and am cognizant of the requirzments as they affect the performance of my assigned tasks.
I have reviewed the information contained in the referenced d this employee. (For initial training only)
IMPt@vig stGNATURE DAIE SUPER'A50RMANAotR StGNATURE DAtt
r ATTACHMENT 10 l
I 1
LEVEL 3 SYSTEMS FUTURE l
1 i
l l
I 1
l l
l l
i l
1 1
1 1
I l
i l
\\
i 4
A.10 Page 1 i
l
,