ML20137N906

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Sys Vertical Slice Review
ML20137N906
Person / Time
Site: Millstone Dominion icon.png
Issue date: 04/03/1997
From:
External (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20137N877 List:
References
PP-01, PP-1, NUDOCS 9704090087
Download: ML20137N906 (25)
v • d • e


Text

_. .- - . . - - . . _ _ -

\

" -PARSONS PP-01 l l

l 4

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 ICAVP )

PROJECT PROCEDURES l l

Title:

j System Vertical Slice Review i

i REVISION O Prepared by: W b. Date: I!5[f7 i -

Approved by: [ anagfr, 9%Nuclear/[Quality Program' Date: //7/f7' Approved by: 4 ,

OD Date: 3!f b Project Director s

REVISION DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION O 04/03/97 Procedure Initiation O

9704090087 970403 PDR 1

P ADOCK 05000336' pag.

E) MILLSTONE UNIT 2 ICAVP PP-01 E , PROJECT PROCEDURES in \ .

\

?

V TITLE: SYSTEM VERTICAL SUCE REVIEW l REVISION: 0 DATE: 04/03/97 PAGE 2 OF 25 TABLE OF CONTENTS I.0 PURPOSE..................................................................................................................3 l

l

1.1 BACKGROUND

... . . . . . . .. .. ...3 i i

1 1.2 APPROACH.. . . .. . . .. . . . .. . .. .4 1 4

4 2

2.0 DEFINITIONS....................................................................................................................5 3.0 P R E R E Q UI S I T ES ... ....... .................... ... .......... ................... .. ... ..................... .... ................. 6 4.0 PROCEDURE...................................-.......................................................................................7 4.1 INSPECTION PREPARATION.... . . .. . . . . .8  ;

D 4.2 CONDUCT OF INSPECTION.. . . . . .. . . . . . . .10 l

(  !

l 4.3 INSPECTION ASSESSMENT AND REPORT. . .. . . .15 1 4.4 TEAM MEETINGS / REVIEWS . . . .. . . . 16 4.5 SYSTEM DEFECT ASSESSMENT AND SAMPLE EXPANSION. . ... .17

5.0 REFERENCES

......................................................................................................................I8 ,

1 APPENDIXA..................................................................................................................................19 APPENDIXB..................................................................................................................................22 4

APPENDIXC...............................................................................................................................23 APPENDIXD...........................................-..-...............................................................25 s 1 1

i

i

, E3 MILLSTONE UNIT 2 ICAVP PP-01 E . PROJECT PROCEDURES b

\v TITLE: SYSTEM VERTICAL SUCE REVIEW REVISION: 0 DATE: 04/03/97 PAGE 3 OF 25 1.0 PURPOSE His procedure establishes the overall objectives, scope, and general approach for conducting the System Vertical Slice Review (SVSR) for Millstone Unit 2. The purpose of the SVSR is to confirm that the selected system's physical and functional characteristics are in conformance with its licensing and design bases. He SVSR will provide independent verification, beyond Millstone Unit 2's quality assurance and management oversight, that they have identified and satisfactorily resolved existing nonconfonnances with the design and licensing bases and documented and utilized the licensing and design bases to resolve nonconformances.

1.1 BACKGROUND

On August 14,1996, de Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a Confirmatory order directing the licensee to contract with a third party to implement an Independent Corrective Action Verification Plan (ICAVP) to verify the adequacy ofits efforts to establish adequate design bases i and design controls. The ICAVP is to employ a process of selective sampling of Millstone Unit 2 systems to provide independent verification that, for the selected systems, the Millstone Unit 2 Configuration Management Plan (CMP) has identified and resolved existing problems, documented l and utilized licensing and design bases, and established programs, processes and procedures for effective configuration in the future.'

The corrective action verification program was ordered to include:

e an in-depth review of selected systems which will address control of the design and design j basis since issuance of the operating license for each unit, e selection of systems for review based on risk / safety based criteria similar to those used in implementing the Maintenance Rule (10 CFR 50.65);

e development and documentation of an audit plan that will provide assurance that the quality of results of the Licensee's problem identification and corrective action programs on the selected j I

p systems is representative of and consistent with that of other systems; i I v

' NRC Confirmatory Order, Page 11, Item II l

l

i l

1 M.3 MILLSTONE UNIT 2 ICAVP PP-01 E > PROJECT PROCEDURES  !

O ~ l TITLE: SYSTEM VERTICAL SUCE REVIEW REVISION: 0 DATE: 04/03/97 PAGE 4 OF 25 l

e procedures and schedules for parallel reporting of fmdings and recommendations by the ICAVP team to both the NRC and the Licensee; and e procedures for the ICAVP team to comment on licensee's proposed resolution of the fmdings and recommendations.2 The ICAVP audit will be a multi-tiered approach using different and distinct inspection methods for each of a total of three tiers. This procedure covers Tier 1. In Tier 1, four systems will be inspected using a system vertical slice review process to provide a representative sample by wib.h to test the thoroughness of the NNECo's reviews in identifying potential nonconformances with the design and licensing bases.

1.2 APPROACH The ICAVP SVSR will review the configuration of the cted system through a combination of j inspecting techniques including document revimvs, calculation reviews, plant walkdowns, and l interviews with Millstone Unit 2 personnel.

)

i ne SVSR will assess the CMP as it applies to the selected systems through:

e a review of engineering design and configuration control processes; e verification of current, as-modified plant conditions against design basis and licensing basis documentation; I e verification that design and licensing bases requirements are translated into operating procedures and maintenance and test procedures; e verification of system performance through review of specific test records and/or obsenation of selected testing of particular systems; and I

e review of proposed and implemented corrective actions for Licensee-identified design deficiencies.'

The SVSR will examine system related activities from original design, construction, and testing to the present system configuration.

l

~

1

NRC Confirmatory Order, Page 12, item !!! & Page 14, Item IV

' NRC Confirmatory Order, Page 13. Item III & Page 14/15, item IV l

1

i I

r ED MILLSTONE UNIT 2 ICAVP PP-01 E > PROJECT PROCEDURES o

TITLE: SYSTEM VERTICAL SLICE REVIEW REVISION: 0 DATE: 04/03/97 PAGE 5 OF 25 Any defects identified during the review, coupled with the type of defect and its relative importance on the structure, system or components regulatory requirements. will provide the basis for SVSR reporting and the possible expansion of the sample size of the items inspected within each system.

2.0 DEFINITIONS e Design Basis . . that information that identifies the specific functions to be performed by a structure, system, or component of a facility and the specific values or ranges of values chosen for controlling parameters as reference bounds for design. These values may be (1) restraints derived from generally accepted state-of-the-art practices for achieving functional goals or (2) requirements derived from analysis (based on calculation and/or experiments) of the effects of a postulated accident for which a structure, system, or component must meet its functional goals.'

V e Licensing Basis, for purposes of the SVSR, the licensing basis for Millstone Unit 2 consists of that set ofinformation upon which the Commission, in issuing an initial operating license, based its comprehensive determination that the design, construction, and proposed operation of the facility satisfied the Commission's requirements and provided reasonable assurance of adequate protection to public licalth and safety and common defense and security.5

  • Current I,icensing Basis (CLB) is the set of NRC requirements applicable to a specific plant and a licensee's written commitments for ensuring compliance with and operation within applicable NRC requirements and the plant-specific design basis (including all modifications and additions to such commitments over the life of the license) that are docketed and in effect.

The CLB includes the NRC regulations contained in 10 CFR Parts 2,19,20,21,26,30,40, 50, 51, 54, 55, 70, 72, 73,100 and appendices thereto; orders, license conditions; exemptions; and technical specifications. It also includes the plant specific design-basis information dermed in 10 CFR 50.2 as documented in the most recent final safety analysis report (FSAR) i v d 10 CFR50.2 5

Source: NRC Letter of October 9,1996 On Maintaining Plant Design

P) MILLSTONE UNIT 2 ICAVP PP-01 E > PROJECT PROCEDURES TITLE: SYSTEM VERTICAL SUCE REVIEW REVISION: 0 DATE: 04/03/97 PAGE 6 OF 25 as required by 10 CFR 50.71 and the licensing correspondence such as licensee responses to NRC Bulletins, generic letters, and enforcement actions, as well as licensee commitments documented in NRC safety evaluations or licensee event reports.'

. Engineering Design Bases (EDB) - The set of design constraints that are not included in the Licensing Basis but are implemented to achieve economies of operation, maintenance, procurement, installation, or construction. Such as:

  • Information that describes a system, structure, or component

. Operating values or parameters that are not reference bounds for design

. Information that identifies functions important for economic, maintenance, installation, or other non-safety function of design basis systems, structures, or components

. In' formation and operating values describing the functions of non-safety systems

  • Calculations, descriptions, and other " outputs"
  • Design Verification - The process ofindependently reviewing, confirming, or substantiating the design by one or more methods to provide assurance that the design meets the specified design criteria and design inputs. The extent of design verification may range from a detailed check of the total design to a limited check of the design approach and the results obtained. Design verification must be performed by an individual independent of the design aspect being verified.

3.0 PREREOUISITES e NRC announcement of the system (s) to be inspected e ICAVP Audit Plan

/^b L

' 10 CFR 54.3 (a)

ED MILLSTONE UNIT 2 ICAVP PP-01 l8 . PROJECT PROCEDURES

/3 TITLE: SYSTEM VERTICAL SUCE REVIEW REVISION: 0 CATE: 04/03/97 PAGE 7 OF 25 4.0 PROCEDURE Resources Responsibilities SVSR Group leader

  • Reviews and approves the System Specific Instructions and Checklists
  • Supervises the overall SVSR Inspections e Directs the course of the SVSR and maintain; review focus e Periodically reviews functional plans and system review progress e Reviews the documenting and reporting of any potential findings noted during the review.

SVSR System Lead e Coordinates the admmistration of the overall system specific inspection

(

\

e Defines system boundaries and components to be evaluated

%

  • Directs the development of the system specific review instmetions, checklists and observation / question forms e Defmes necessary resources to facilitate the review e Provides orientation and training to team members on the approach, methodology and overall project expectations l e Reviews and approves system specific review instructions, checklists, and supplements.
  • Develops a summary report of each system specific review and a comprehensive report of the inspection results I SVSR Team Members
  • Develops system specific review instructions and checklists e Conducts the system reviews in accordance with this review plan and the system specific instructions and checklists
  • Develops system specific reports and make appropriate presentations on the status of the

, system specific reviews to Team Supervision, Deputy Project Director, Project Director.

l

I 'E)

E MILLSTONE UNIT 2 ICAVP PP-01

. PROJECT PROCEDURES n

h TITLE: SYSTEM VERTICAL SUCE REVIEW REVISION: 0 DATE: 04/03/97 PAGE 8 OF 25 4.1 INSPECTION PREPARATION 4.1.1 Staff Trainine and Mobilization Resources Deputy Project Director SVSR Group Lead Action 4.1.1.1 Assess Project personnel needs based on selected system 4.1.1.2 SVSR Group Lead revises Team discipline composition as required to cover the selected system inspection 4.1.1.3 Develop mobilization and training schedule for Deputy Project Director approval 4.1.1.4 Complete SYSR mobilization and training completed in accordance with approved schedule <

Action Output i

Trained Personnel 4.1.2 Identify System Specific Documents for Inspection Resources System Leads System Team Members Action 4.1.2.1 Identify a list of documents and other information associated with the system. Typical information to consider

= Details of system boundaries / interfaces i

ED MILLSTONE UNIT 2 ICAVP PP-01 E > PROJECT PROCEDURES TITLE: SYSTEM VERTICAL SUCE REVIEW REVISION: 0 DATE: 04/03/97 PAGE 9 OF 25 e Identified systwa deficiencies or operating problems

. Regulatory documents containing requirements specific to selected system

. Modifications made to the selected system

. System Drawings e Calculations e System related actions from the Corrective Action Program

. Design changes e Design Basis Documents e Licensing changes e Procedure changes

. Original design information e System test data e Operating procedures e Maintenance procedures e System regulatory requirements such as emironmental qualifications, fire protection, seismic qualifications Action Outout A system specific document list.

NOTE:

The checklist initiated in Step 4.1.2.1 will be completed for all applicable parameters and functions the team can identify for the selected system. A list of typical document types is provided in Appendix B.

I m

E) MILLSTONE UNIT 2 ICAVP PP-01 E > PROJECT PROCEDURES n\

D' TITLE: SYSTEM VERTICAL SUCE REVIEW REVISION: 0 DATE: 04/03/97 PAGE 10 OF 25 4.1.2.2 Utilizing the list of documents developed in Step 4.1.2.1, develop a matrix of specific documents to inspect. These documents will be retrieved and evaluated during the inspection.

4.1.2.3 Develop list of organizations (internal and external) associated with the items identified.

4.1.2.4 Develop schedule for inspection.

Attion Output An inspection list that will provide:

  • Docmnent retrieval requirements e inspection organizational interface requirements e Detailed Schedule for resource planning b

V Conduct Of Inspection 4.2 The inspection will be conducted in multiple phases, alternating between in-office document review and verification and in-plant walkdown and personnel inteniews. Walkdowns and inteniews will be used to obtain additional information, clarify information, verify commitments, and evaluate findings.

NOTE The typical process will be in-office review for 2 to 3 weeks, followed by walkdown and inteniew activities at the site for one to two weeks duration. He process will be repeated as necessary to complete the inspection. The actual length of each inspection phase will be a function of the system and the inspection scope.

4.2.1 Evaluate Documents Resources CT U System Lead System Team Members

E3 MILLSTONE UNIT 2 ICAVP PP-01 E > PROJECT PROCEDURES V TITLE: SYSTEM YERTICAL SUCE REVIEW REVISION: 0 DATE: 04/03/97 PAGE 11 OF 25 Action 4.2.1.1 Retrieve necessary documents 4.2.1.2 Review system documents and record the results of the evaluation. The review should determine whether:

. The system current configuration accurately reflects the licensing-bases, including the updated FSAR.

. He system calculations and analyses were performed using recognized and acceptable analytical methods.

  • He assumptions made in any calculations or analysis supporting the change are technically sound. ,

e The results of calculations or analysis supporting the unmodified portions of the original configuration and design changes are reasonable (based on engineering judgment) for the scope of the change.

. NNECo considered the effect of a change on design margins and the design changes received the appropriate level of engineering and management review during the design phase and prior l to implementation.

  • NNECo considered the effect of a change on pre-operational, startup, or system baseline  !

l acceptance test resuhs.

  • Design changes were accomplished in accordance with approved procedures.
  • Design changes are accurately reflected in operating, maintenance, and test procedures, as well as in trauung materials.

. Proposed design changes, subsequently canceled, were not replaced by procedural changes that  !

imposed excessive burdens on plant operators. i l

E3 MILLSTONE UNIT 2 ICAVP PP-01 E > PROJECT PROCEDURES TITLE: SYSTEM VERTICAL SUCE REVIEW REVISION: 0 DATE: 04/03/97 PAGE 12 OF 25 4.2.1.3 As documents are reviewed, prepare walkdown and inteniew checklist detailmg items needing additional information or clarification through either a walkdown, an interview, or both. l Action Outout A list ofinspection walkdown and inteniew requirements A record of documents reviewed and their disposition NOTE:

Typical design input requirements to be used in evaluating system documents are listed in Appendix C.

Typical design review questions to be used in evaluating system documents are listed in Appendix D.

4.2.2 Plant Walkdowns Resources l

)

System Lead System Team Members j l

&tipon )

4.2.2.1 Develop Walkdown Package. Typical contents will be:

. System components and/or area to inspect during the walkdown

  • Specific modification package elements to inspect

,

  • System specific Corrective Actions identified by the Millstone Unit 2 Configuration Management Program to inspect and evaluate e Measurements / observations to make
  • System procedures to walkthrough
  • Location of components or structures
  • Marked up drawings showing walkdown requirements i

i

E) MILLSTONE UNIT 2 ICAVP PP-01 8 . PROJECT PROCEDURES (VD TITLE: SYSTEM VERTICAL SUCE REVIEW REVISION: 0 DATE: 04/03/97 PAGE 13 OF 25 4.2.2.2 Obtain clearance and/or access permits. Examples:

. Specialoperational requirements 4.2.2.3 Conduct the walkdown, emphasizing:

e control of operational procedures, maintenance procedures, test and surveillance procedures, operator training, and control of the plant simulator configuration.

e configuration control consistency with the licensmg bases at the level of detail contained in piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&lDs) or system flow diagrams, piping isometric drawings, electrical single-line diagrams, and enwrgency, abnormal, and normal operating

,(N procedures.

e engineering design and configuration control processes; e verification of wrrent, as-modified plant conditions against design basis and licensing basis documentation; e verification that design and licensing bases requirements have been and are being translated into operating procedures and maintenance and test procedures; e verification of system performance through review of specific test records and/or oservation of selected testing of particular systems; and e review of proposed and implemented corrective actions for Millstone Unit 2 identified design deficiencies.

Action Outout Completed Walkdown Package O

V

1 l

mm E) MILLSTONE UNIT 2 ICAVP PP-01  ;

E PROJECT PROCEDURES V TITLE: SYSTEM YERTICAL SUCE REVIEW REVISION: 0 DATE: 04/03/97 PAGE 14 OF 25 4.2.3 Conduct Personnel Interviewl 1

1 Resources

)

SVSR Team Members SYSR System Leader Action 4.2.3.1 Prepare a list of specific infonnation to be obtained from an interview based on a need for clarification, information that the SVSR team can not fmd, or further investigation in'.o  ;

documenting a potential finding. This will help ensure that the inteniew is focused and successful in obtaining the information. l I

1 4.2.3.2 Identify the organization orjob function that may be able to supply the specific information. All interviews will be conducted in accordance with the Communication Plan

( 3' t

V (PLN-02).

4.2.3.3 If the inteniew is needed for clarification or information that the SVSR team can not find, schedule the inteniew, conduct the inteniew, and document the information or guidance obtained. I 4.2.3.4 If the inteniew is needed for further investigation into documenting a potential finding, the SVSR Group Leader assigns two ICAVP personnel to conduct two separate inteniews with the NNECo personnel. The assigned ICAVP personnel schedule the interviews, conduct the inteniews, and document the information obtained.

Action Output l

  • Guidance and clarifications regarding NNECo positions or decisions
  • Additional information ,

1

  • Input to investigation of potential findings O

U

P) MILLSTONE UNIT 2 ICAVP PP-01 E PROJECT PROCEDURES m

I i

(/ TITLE: SYSTEM VERTICAL SUCE REVIEW REVISION: 0 DATE: 04/03/97 PAGE 15 OF 25 4.3 INSPECTION ASSESSMENT AND REPORT Resources Deputy Project Director SVSR Group Leader SVSR System Lead SVSR Team Members Action 4.3.1 Collect and assess the results of the inspection preparation and system inspections from each of me inspection teams.

4.3.2 Prepare a draft report of the SVSR activities, results, and conclusions. The report is to consist of, as a minimum:

1 e input to an executive summary, I e a summary description of the methods used, e a summary of what was reviewed, e results of the vertical slice reviews, and

. .e conclusions that can be drawn from the results of the resiews.

The conclusions are to include a determination of whether:

e the current configuration accurately reflects the licensing-bases, including the UFSAR, at the level of detail contained in piping and instrumentation diagrams (P& ids) electrical j 1

single-line diagrams, and plant operating procedures.

e calculations and analyses were performed using recognized and acceptable analytical methods and that assumptions made in calculations or analysis supporting changes are technically sound.

e the results of calculations or analysis supporting the unmodified ponions of the original configuration and design changes are reasonable (based on engineering judgment) for the scope of the change.

P) MILLSTONE UNIT 2 ICAVP PP-01 E . PROJECT PROCEDURES I p ,

TITLE: SYSTEM VERTICAL SUCE REVIEW l

REVISION: 0 DATE: 04/03/97 PAGE 16 OF 25

]

l l

I e NNECo considered the effect of a change on design margins and that the design changes receimi the appropriate level of engineering and management review during the design phase and prior to implementation.

. NNECo considered the effect of a change on pre-operational, startup, or system baselme acceptance test results.

e design changes are accurately reflected in operating, maintenance, and test procedures, as well as in training materials.

e proposed design changes, subsequently canceled, were not replaced by procedural changes that imposed excessive burdens on plant operators.

4.3.3 Support intermu ICAVP reviews of the draft report as necessary.

4.3.4 Resolve comments and finalize the report for issue.

Action Output Final Report Project backup documentation 4.4 TEAM MEETINGS / REVIEWS During the SVSR, meetings and status reviews will be held periodicallv. The following guidelines shall govem the regularly scheduled meetings.

  • Meetings of the individual system teams shall be held daily.
  • The daily meetings shall be chaired by the System Lead and shall cover inspection status, progress, and findings to date.

. Combined Team meetings shall be held at least weekly.

. The weekly meetings shall be chaired by the SVSR Group Lead or the Deputy Project Director and shall cover the overall progress of the inspection including potential findings to date in all areas.

'E3 8

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 ICAVP PP-01

> PROJECT PROCEDURES O

L/ TITLE: SYSTEM VERTICAL SUCE REVIEW REVISION: 0 DATE: 04/03/97 PAGE 17 OF 25 4.5 SYSTEM FINDINGS ASSESSMENT AND SAMPLE EXPANSION Sygem Findings Assessmqnt As concerns or potential issues are identified by the SVSR Team Members, they are to be documented for further investigation.

Potential findings are to be followed up by the SVSR Team Members to determine that either 1)

upon obtaining further information, no problem exists, or 2) it is a valid issue with a documented basis for the finding, or 3) it can not be resolved at this time and becomes a documented unresolved item Valid findings are evaluated per Project Procedure PP-07. Each valid issue and finding will be provided with a complete descriptL q including all pertinent background information.
Samnle Exoansion I l

l If valid findings are discovered during the document reviews or walkdowm, the team will consider )

expansion of the inspecJon sample. The sample (e.g. number of system maintenance records reviewed, number oflike system material or equipment substitutions reviewed, etc.) will be l expanded when it will facilitate determination of whether a valid finding is an isolated error or is an I indication of a systematic problem.

l If the decision is made to increase the sample size, the SVSR team members ' vill identify the items to be reviewed and proceed to perform the additional reviews using the steps pre : usly identified in this procedure.

O b

1

l l

r P) MILLSTONE UNIT 2 ICAVP PP-01 E > PROJECT PROCEDURES TITLE: SYSTEM VERTICAL SLICE REVIEW REVISION: 0 DATE: 04/03/97 PAGE 18 OF 25 s

5.0 REFERENCES

NRC Inspection Procedure 93801, Safety System Functional Inspection (SSFI)

NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0350, " Staff Guidelines for Restart Approval" NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2535, " Design Verification Programs" )

Millstone Unit 3 Restart Assessment Plan I j NRC Confirmatory Order to Northeast Utilities Energy Company dated August 14,1997  ;

NRC ICAVP Oversight Guideline Document

NRC ICAVP Oversight Inspection Plan v

4 i

f O

'P) MILLSTONE UNIT 2 ICAVP PP-01 I 8 PROJECT PROCEDURES  !

O V TITLE: SYSTEM VERTICAL SUCE REVIEW REVISION: 0 DATE: 04/03/97 PAGE 19 OF 25 l

APPENDIX A SYSTEM SELECTION CRITERIA Introduction The Parsons Power Group criteria for selecting systems for vertical slice review has been developed to provide an additional selection process to that criteria described by the NRC in the ICAVP Oversight Inspection Plan.

The ICAVP Oversight Plan (page 5) stipulates that the NRC will select the systems to be inspected during Tier I and that they will consider, in addition to the contractors proposed criteria, NRC criteria based on;

1. risk significance,
2. design and operating characteristics,
3. the number and complexity of changes to the system, and
4. the number of previously identified deficiencies or operating problems i

l The focus of the ICAVP, the Millstone Unit 2 Configuration Management Corrective Action Plan, includes in its scope the Millr'one Unit 2 systems categorized by NNECo as either Group 1 (safety-related and risk significant) and Group 2 (safety-related or risk significant). Using the Group 1 and 2 systems as a starting  !

l point, the selection criteria will apply q.tantit tive selection criteria to determine which of the systems in these two groups are likely candidates for the vertical slice inspection.

The initial systems to be reviewed will be selected from those systems categorized as Group 1 or Group 2 using criteria developed as part of maintenat.cc rule implementation (10CFR50.65). Also, it is assumed that t!.e utilization of the selection criteria will be done by the NRC.

fm iv )

'E3 MILLSTONE UNIT 2 ICAVP FP-01 M > PROJECT PROCEDURES TITLE: SYSTEM VERTICAL SUCE REVIEW REVISION: 0 DATE: 04/03/97 PAGE 20 OF 25 System Selection Criteria Factors have been developed on specific system attributes that, when measured and ranked, provide the basis for determining the Tier I candidates. These attributes are measured through an intensive examination of system operational, configuration and regulatory history Attributes Factor #1- Risk Significance Identify those systems that have a high level of risk significance base on PRA it ;ights as determined by a panel ofindividuals familiar with Millstone Unit 2 PRA. Cut sets (accident

<- sequence failure combinations) with a high level of risk significance are exammed to identify

(

) specific systems / components. Based on the risk significance of systems and/or components, a qualitative risk factor is developed for final detemunation of system rankmg by the expert panel.

Factor #2- Number of Modification Events (Frms) )

l l

I For purpose of the ICAVP selection criteria, a modification is defined as any change to any aspect of the system (components, procedures, design, calculations, etc.) that will alter or revise m any

. way 1) systems design bases; 2) system maintenance; 3) system controls; and 4) system operation.

Fram is developed by reviewing all documentation for each Group 1 and Group 2 system and developing a matrix of system modifications and the count of modification events. Modification events are changes and/or revisions to design bases, maintenance, controls and/or operations of the system made during the modification. The modification events for each system are then summed to arrive at the total number. He concluding step is to compile system rankmgs as a function of the  ;

1 number of modifications events per system.

nv l

I

P) MILLSTONE UNIT 2 ICAVP PP-01 8 .

PROJECT PROCEDURES o

) TITLE: SYSTEM VERTICAL SLICE REVIEW REVISION: 0 DATE: 04/03/97 PAGE 21 OF 25 Factor #3 - Number of Major Modifications / Interfaces (Fusu)

He selection criteria defmes a major modification as a design change invohing internalinterfaces between major discipline areas and/or externalinterfaces with one of more of the following: the NSSS vendor, component vendors, or an engineering service organization (s).

Fur is developed in matrix form by reviewing all documentation for the systems and noting the number ofinterfaces involved in the various modifications for each system. The total number of interfaces per modification and system will be derived for the total factor per system. The systems will be ranked accordingly.

Factor #4 - Plant System History (Fes)

O Licensee Event Reports (LERs) provide an extensive record of system problems to be used for system selection. LERs provide information on both the system and the system components. For purposes of system selection, an LER will be counted as applicable ifit relates in anyway, to: 1) systems design bases; 2) system maintenance; 3) system controls; and 4) system operation. Frs is the summed LERS for e sch system.

Factor #5 -Industry System History (F is)

Input for system selection for Factor #5 will be based on industry data on system and equipment failure rates. The data input will be derived on a system by system basis from the Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System and the CE Owners Group. The data and its collection will be similar to Factor #4 but on an industry wide, NSSS specific basis. The Fi s will be summed failure on a system by system basis.

An Expert Panel will make the final determination of the relative ranking of the systems based on the results of the system selection survey, system boundaries, industry experience, and their own knowledge of the systems and the requirements of the ICAVP.

E3 E

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 ICAVP PP-01

. PROJECT PROCEDURES l TITLE: SYSTEM VERTICAL SLICE REVIEW REVISION: 0 DATE: 04/03/97 PAGE 22 OF 25  ;

l i

APPENDIX B i l

TYPICAL DOCUMENT REVIEW / SAMPLE TOPICS FOR INSPECTION )

I

l. System Design Review - Fluid and Material Handling Systems  ;

i

2. Fluid System Diagram; System Description; for complex systems, Logic and Loop Diagrams 1

1

3. System Design Review - Structural
4. Bracing Arrangement and Stability Analysis
5. System Design Review - Electrical System l
6. One-line Diagram and System Description
7. System Design Review -Information Processing / Control Pldlosophy
8. Description of Control Philosophy j G 9. System Design Review - Facilities Design Systems i
10. HVAC, Fire Protection, and Architectural
11. Layout Desip Review
12. Layout Drawing, Layout Description, Code Reviews, and Life Safety Analysis
13. Site Arrangement Review
14. Ultimate Site Development Plan
15. Cooling Water Source
16. Environmental Constraints  ;

i

17. Common or Shared Facilities
18. Railroad Access
19. Foundation Type Review
20. Geotechnical Limitations
21. Soil Bearing Capacity
22. Water Table Considerations
23. Altemative Methods q 24. Transmission and Distribution Design Review
25. Modification packages

ED MILLSTONE UNIT 2 ICAVP PP-01 E PROJECT PROCEDURES

\

TITLE: SYSTEM VERTICAL SLICE REVIEW REVISION: 0 DATE: 04/03/97 PAGE 23 OF 25 i

i APPENDIX C TYPICAL DESIGN INPUT REQUIREMENTS l

1. Scope / Basic functions of structure, system or component
2. Performance requirements, input services (air, electricity) as well as outputs (capacity, rating)
3. Codes Standards, and regulatory requirements including applicable issue and/or addenda
4. Design Conditions such as temperature, pressure, fluid, chemistry and voltage
5. lx,a6 ,uch as seismic, wind, thermal and dynamic
6. 5avironmental conditions anticipated, such as pressure, temperature, humidity, corrosiveness, site elevation, wind direction, nuclear radiation, electromagnetic radiation, and duration of l

exposure including 10CFR50.49 apphcation

7. Interface requirements and constructability including defmition of the functional and physical interfaces including structures, systems, and components
8. Material requirements such items as compatibility, electrical insulation properties, protective coating, and corrosion resistance
9. Mechanical requirements such as vibration, stress, shock and reaction forces
10. Structural requirements covering such items as equipment foundations and pipe supports
11. Hydraulic requirements such as NPSH, allowable pressure drops, and fluid velocities
12. Chemistry requirements such as provisions for sampling and limitations on water chemistry
13. Electrical requirements such as source of pov'er, voltage, raceway requirements, electrical insulation, motor requirements, load / voltage stuss and EDG loadmg
14. Layout and arrangement requirements
15. Op.: rational requirements under various conditions such as plant start-up, normal plant operation, plant shutdown, plant emergency operation, special or infrequent operation, and system abnormal or emergency operation j
16. Instrumentation and control requirements including indicating instruments, controls and alarms required for operation, testing and maintenance.
17. Access and administrative control requirements required for plant security O 18. Redundancy, diversity, and separation requirements
19. Failure effects requirements including of those events which they must withstand l

l E3 MILLSTONE UNIT 2 ICAVP PP-01 E . PROJECT PROCEDURES b TITLE: SYSTEM VERTICAL SLICE REVIEW REVISION: 0 DATE: 04/03/97 PAGE 24 OF 25

20. Test requirements including pre-operational and subsequent periodic in-plant and the condition under which they must operate
21. Accessibility, maintenance, repair and in-service inspection requirements
22. Personnel requirements and limitations 1
23. Transportability requirements such as size and shipping weight
24. Fire protection or fire resistance requirements
25. Ilandling, storage, cleaning and shipping requirements
26. Other requirements to prevent undue risk to the health and safety of public
27. Materials, processes, parts, and equipment suitable for application
28. Safety requirements for preventing personnel injury i
29. Quality and quality assurance requirements ,
30. Reliability requirements including their interactions, which may impair safety
31. Interface requirements between plant equipment and operation and maintenance personnel

- 32. Requirements for criticality control and accountability of special nuclear materials

33. Special ALARA considerations
34. Special human factors considerations
35. High Energy Line Breaks are affected
36. Flooding
37. Missiles 38.10CFR50 Appendix R, including Safe Shutdown Analysis
39. Seismic Category 11 over 1
40. Special HVAC requirements
41. Station Blackout Analysis
42. Post Accident Monitoring Requirements
43. OTliER requirements, as necessary O

O

I MILLSTONE UNIT 2 ICAVP PP-01 i

/~)

.l,, J PROJECT PROCEDURES SYSTEM VERTICAL SUCE REYlEW REVISION: 0 DATE: 04/03/97 PAGE 25 OF 25 APPENDIX D TYPICAL DESIGN REVIEW OUESTIONS

1. Were the inputs correctly selected and i corporated into design?
2. Are assumptions necessary to perform the design activity adequately described and reasonable?

Where necessary, are the assumptions identified for subsequent reverification when the detailed design activities are completed?

3. Are the appropriate quality and quality assurance requirements specified?
4. Are the appropriate codes, standards, and regulatory requirements specified?
5. Have applicable operating and construction experiences been considered?
6. Have the design interface requirements been satisfied?
7. Was an appropriate design method used?
8. Is the output reasonable compared to the inputs?

O 9. Are the specified parts, equipment, and processes suitable for the required application? l

10. Are the specified materials compatible with each other and the design emironmental conditions to which the material will be exposed?
11. Have adequate maintenance features and requirements been specified?
12. Are accessibility and other provisions adequate for performance of needed maintenance and repair?
13. Had adequate accessibility been provided to perform the in-senice inspection expected to be j l

required during the plant life?

14. Has the design properly considered radiation exposure?
15. Are the acceptance criteria incorporated in the design documents sufficient to allow verification that design requirements have been satisfactorily accomplished? l
16. Have adequate pre. operational and subsequent periodical test requirements been appropriately specified?

)

17. Are adequate handling, storage, cleaning, and shipping requirements specified? Are adequate l identification requirements specified?
18. Are requirements for record preparation, review, approval, retention, etc., adequately A)

(

v specified?

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20137N906&oldid=2831354"