ML20140F873
| ML20140F873 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 04/07/1997 |
| From: | Tom Ryan, Sheppard P NORTHEAST UTILITIES |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20140F736 | List: |
| References | |
| CK-MP3-04-01, CK-MP3-4-1, NUDOCS 9705050371 | |
| Download: ML20140F873 (20) | |
Text
I i
O l
Northeast Utilities Millstone - Unit 3 Independent Corrective Action Verification Program (ICAVP)
Programmatic Review Checklist CK-MP3-04 -01, Rev. O Corrective Actions O
hepared by:
P. Sheppard 8, /
V!7 7
Name Signature /[
Ddte '
i
- 7 7 Approved by: T. J. Ryan Sifure[
I/atf Name IMPLEhENTATION System Document No/Rev.
Verified by:
Date:
1 Concurrence by:
Date:
O Sheet 1 of (ex-unawai,an.o,r., )
C:CKMP3041. DOC
~
9705050371 970428 PDR ADOCK 05000423 P
~ -. - - -
Northerst Utilities C K-M P3-04-01 Milhtone Unit 3
)
Sptem Document No.
Sheet of Corrective Actions Checklist
/D V
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS CONDITION REPORT EVALUATION REVIEW CONDITION REPORT NUMBER YES NO i
1.
Is the nonconforming or degraded item or activity identified?
2.
Where applicable, is the requirement that was violated identified?
3.
Has NU approved the condition report evaluation?
Does the evaluation resolve the specific identified condition adverse to 4'
guality?
I 5.
Is the extent of the condition sufficiently determined?
6.
Is the effect of the cond; tion sufficiently determined:
(]
\\
a.
Does the evaluation identify the effect on items and activities?
I b.
Have affected plant processes or procedures been sufficiently identified?
j 7.
Is the cause of the condition identified?
8.
Has the root cause been identified for Significance Level A and B issues?
I 9.
Has an apparent cause been identified for other issues identified by NU's CMP or the ICAVP?
10.
Is the Significance Level appropriate based on the information developed during the evaluation?
- 11. Are preventive actions sufficiently determined?
- 12. Are the planned corrective actions sufficiently documented?
- 13. Are the planned corrective actions adequate?
Q
- 14. Are those corrective actions identified as att required for restart
, k/
adequatelyjustified and appropriate?
(W.MPJ4441 Rev. O, Page 2)
CIKMP304t JXX'
m Northeast Utilities CK-MP3-04-01 Millstone Unit 3 Sy stem Document No.
Sheet of Correctise Actions Checklist YES NO
- 15. Is the condition report evaluation sufficiently detailed?
- 16. Has a safety evaluation or screening been performed for "use-as-is" or
" repair" dispositions?
17.
Is the evaluation legible and suitable as a QA Record?
- 18. Are there any other problems with the condition report evaluation?.
Describe below l
For any "No" items, provide the reason and any appropriate discussion. For any "No" items, which O
are determined not to be a discrepancy, provide the basis.
O I
Comments item No.
Discussion
)
)
i f
- U (CK MPJ4441. Rev. G. Page 3) j C:ClalP3041. DOC
O Northeast Utilities Millstone - Unit 3 Independent Corrective Action Verification Program (ICAVP) l Programmatic Review Checklist CK-MP3-04-02, Rev.1 Channe Process Review l
NI Prepared by:
T7MVa+4 fr = -
V/ f7 Si[ureff/
6atf Name V
Approved by: 3).N.Sc.k. obv 3.T ID_h V-dT 9[
Name Signatur/
[]
3 Date IMPLEMENTATION Change Process:
Verified By:
Date:
Concurrence By:
Date:
(cx ur3444:2, nev. t, e.g.:)
Sheet 1 of C;CK0402. DOC
-- - J
Northeast Utilities CK-MP3-04-02 Millstone Unit 3 Change Process Sheet of Change Process Review Checklist
- O Programmatic Review Checklist CK-M P3-04-02 Channe Process Review Change Process
l Procedure No.
General Review Questions l
1hese questions should be answeredfor all change processes.
(ifa question is not applicable to the particular change process, indicate the reason)
A.
Change initiation l
1.
Is an evaluation done to determine if the change involves an unreviewed safety question (10CFR 50.59 review)?
yes no n/a i
2.
Is a control form used to document required reviews and approvals of the change?
/
yes no n/a B.
Change Responsibilities 1.
Is the orgamzation or person responsible for processing the change identified?
yes no n/a i
i 2.
Is the organization or person responsible for reviewing the change identified?
yes no n/a 3.
Are the methods for performing the design review identified and documented to an extent consistent with safety, complexity, standardization, state of the art and similarity with proven designs?
yes no n/a 4.
Is responsibility established for final approval of the change and, when applicable, its
' installation?
yes no n/a i
5.
Is there a controlled process for identifying, reviewing, and approving design input requirements (if applicable)?
q yes no n/a (CK-MP3 0442, Rev.1, Page2)
C:CK0402 DOC i
~
-._ -. - -. _ ~ -
- - ~
_ -. n Northeast Utilities CK-MP3-04-02 Millstone Unit 3 Change Process Shett of Change Process Review Checklist 6.
Is responsibility established, if applicable, for requesting approval of the NRC per
' 10CFR50.59 or 10 CFR50.90 (Technical Specification or license changes) and are hold points established for how far installation may progress before this approval is obtained?
yes no n/a C.
Change Implementation 1.
Are personnel affected by the change required to be trained in the applicable procedure when determined necessary by the responsible authority?
yes no n/a 2.
Is the review of the change commensurate with the original review and is appropriate interdisciplinary review required?
yes-no n/a 3.
Are channels of communication between involved organizations and individuals defined and is the transmittal of design information between organizations formal?
yes no n/a 4.
Does the process require the identification and revision of affected FSAR/ licensing documentation?
yes no n/a 5.
Does the process require, if applicable, identification of effect of the change on the l
station control room simulator?
yes no n/a D.
Change Documentation 1.
Are controls in place for revisions to change documents?
yes no n/a 2.
Is a method established for as-built mark-ups of affected design documentation on an interim basis including appropriate review and approval?
yes no n/a 3.
Is a program in place to direct users to this interim documentation for testing, maintenance, and future plant change activities until revised documentation is officiallyissued?
yes no n/a O
j (CK-MP3-0442. Rev.1, Page3)
CTK0402. DOC
1 Northeast Utilities CK-MP3-0M2 Millstone Uni 4 Change Process Sheet of Change Process Review Checklist A
l b
4.
Is the incorporation and release of marked-up changes on revised documents required in a timely manner?
- yes, no n/a 5.
Is there assurance that the documentation of the design and review process including important steps taken during the process such as sources of design input which support the final design is transmitted to records storage?
yes no n/a Process Specific Questions These questions apply to a particular change process.
(answer only those questionsfor the process under review as indicated on page 1)
Drawings /Soecifications 1.
Are design inputs (e.g. Calculations) reviewed and approved prior to document issue or, if not, are reviews complete before relying upon the item to perform a safety function?
yes no A
2.
Are the same industry codes used as in the original document preparation or is an
()
appropriate reconcilliation performed?
yes_
no i
Calculations 1.
Are the same codes and Owner's Requirements used as in the original design or, if either is changed, is a design reconciliation performed per Regulatory Guide 1.33, IWA-7200(c) and NCA-35547 yes no 2.
Are other design documents such as drawings or other calculations which are affected by the calculation revision identified?
yes no 3.
If engineering judgment is used, is the basis for the judgment required to be clearly specified?
yes no 4.
Is a checklist used for the technical review of the calculation or is the review documented consistent with safety, etc.?
yes no OO (CK-MP34442. Rev.1. Page4)
CfCK0402. DOC
I Northeast Utilities CK-M P3-04-02 j
Millstone Unit 3 Change Process Sheet of Change Process Review Checklist
's
]
5.
Are calculations that are prepared by an outside vendor / contractor approved by NU?
)
yes no Procedures 2
1.
Is an engineering review required for a change in setpoints?
1 yes no I
j 2.
Are user organizations requested to comment on a procedure under l-preparation / revision?
j yes no i
3.
Is an engineering review required in conjunction with changes in maintenance procedures involving the following:
i
- Torque values and sequences
- Compressible gaskets l
- Disassembly / Assembly sequences i
- Number of heat exchanger plugged tubes l'
. Equipment vibration limits
- Environmental (EQ) limits yes no ifno, identify item (s)
(-
4.
For non-routine procedures is an applicability review performed periodically (say every two years) or before use if the procedure has not been used or reviewed? This applicability review should be performed to determine if changes are necessary.
yes no i
)
5.
Is there a requirement that applicable commitments (e.g., current licensing basis, j
other licensing commitments, INPO, etc.) are met by the procedure or appropriately dispositioned?
yes no 6.
Is there a requirement that procedures specify proper plant and system conditions and that licensing requirements such as LCOs are met?
1 yes no i
Temporarv Alterations i
1.
Is shift supervisor approval required for installation or removal of a temporary J
alteration?
l yes no 4
(CK-M F3-0442. Rev.1. Page5)
C:CK0402. DOC i
o Northeast Utilities C K-M P3-04-02 i
' Millstone Unit 3 Change Process 4
Sheet of j
Change Process Review Checidist
!iO V
1 4
2.
Is there an independent verification or functional test for temporary alterations after they are installed and removed?
i yes no 3.
Is a record (log) kept for each temporary alteration which includes the period of time it is expected to be in place?
j yes no l
^
4.
Is training required for operators and supervisors on the impact on system operation j
ofimtalled temporary alterations when determined necessary by the responsible au:a.rity?
ye.t _ _ no_
5.
Is there n...aa for reviewing the continued need of a temporary alteration and restricting the installed duration to a reasonable time period ( 3 months normal, not to exceed 6 months)?
yes_ _,no
)
1 6.
Are temporary alterations clearly identified (tagged)?
yes no 7.
Are instructions provided for the operation of equipment which is temporarily modified; i.e. are appropriate revisions made to affected procedures and/or drawings?
yes no 8.
Are periodic checks (monthly) made ofinstalled temporary alterations to verify they are tagged and in good condition?
yes no Modifications 1.
Is the effect of the modification on the following topics considered:
-PRA
- Fire Protection / Appendix R
- HELB/MELB
- Setpoints
- Station Blackout
- Environmental Resiew
- Radiological Environmental Review
- Seismic Qualification (CK.MP34442. Rev.1, Page6)
C:\\CK0402.tXX'
._...- ~. -. -..
. - ~... -.. -.
. ~ _. -.., _ ~. -.
Nor1heast Utilities C K-M P3-04-02 Millstone Unit 3 Change Process Shtet of Change Process Review Checklist i O
- Equipment Qualification (EQ)
- Security
-ALARA i
- Electrical Separation yes no if no, identify item (s)
?,
i l
2.
Is there a requirement to revise affected maintenance, inservice inspection, and testing requirements for new or altered components or equipment?
3 yes no 4
3.
Are required operating and emergency operating procedure revisions identified and 3
made prior to declaring a modification operable?
yes no i
4.
Is training conducted for operation and maintenance of modified components and equipment prior to putting into service?
yes no 5.
Is responsibility assigned for identification of applicable post-modification testing j
j (~'
requirements other than ASME Section XI inservice testing 7
- \\
yes no i
6.
Is post-modification acceptance testing required to be performed (if applicable)?
yes no 7.
Are test results evaluated for acceptance prior to declaring the modification operable?
yes no i
8.
Is responsibility assigned for identification of applicable maintenance and inservice inspection requirements?
yes no 9.
Are vendor manual updates initiated if the modification affects the contents of the manual?
yes no i
hiinor Modifications 1.
Are the following required to catgorize the change as a minor modification:
i
- No change to licensing or design basis
- No effect on emergency operating procedures (CK-M P3-04-02. Rev.1, Page7)
CfCK0402. DOC l
.,4
Northeast Utilitlis CK MP3-04-02 Millstone Unit 3 Change Process Sheet of Change Process Review Checklist
/%
< t
- No effect on technical specifications
- No complex calculations oc engineering design required 4
yes ne if no, identify item (s) i 2.
Has a prior review determined that, due to the nature of the modification, some or all of the reviews / evaluations needed for modifications above are not applicable?
yes no l
Licensing
]
1 1.
Are appropriate criteria established defining when a licensing change (operating license or Technical Specification) should be initiated?
I yes no
)
2.
Is a "No Significant Hazards " analysis done for proposed licensing changes?
yes no 3.
Are required changes to the FSAR and supporting or other licensing documents "O
identified?
b d
yes no 4.
When required, was the proposed Technical Specification or operating license change or unreviewed safety question submitted to the NRC for review?
4 yes no i
5.
Are provisions made for the revision of surveillance requirements and procedures affected by an operating license amendment such as a change to Technical i
Specifications?
yes no 4
6.
Are revisions made to the Updated FSAR within 6 months of each refueling outage (but not more than every 2 years)?
yes no 7.
Is a process established for sceening safety evaluations and NRC correspon Ance to identify changes to the FSAR?
yes no l
O\\
(J (CK-MP344-02, Rev.1. Page8)
C;TK0402. DOC
Northeast Utilities CK-M P3-04-02 Millstone Unit 3 Change Process Shtet of Change Process Review Checklist i
Vendor Manuals 1.
Is a procedure in place for incorporating industry / plant experience notices into vendor manuals as appropriate?
yes no 2.
Are vendor manuals updated to incorporate the effects of modifications? Is concurrence obtained from the vendor for such updates, when required?
t i
yes no l
3.
Is there a process for identifying deficiencies in vendor manuu and obtaining j
appropriate updates?
yes no 4.
Are vendor recommendations pursued through the use cf VETIP for the NSSS vendor and contact with the suppliers of other key safety-related components per NRC Generic Letter 90-03, and are the recommendations incorporated into 1
appropriate plant procedures? If not, is the basis for deviation documented?
yes no
.O V
5.
Are vendor drawings maintained as part of the manual? If not, is there cross reference between vendor drawing files and the appropriate manual?
yes no 6.
Is there a mechanism for assuring that vendor information which is recieved is forwarded to the appropriate plant department?
yes no Like-for-Like Reclacements 1.
Is an evaluation of acceptability required for deviation of the following:
- size
- materials
- model number
- lubricant
- bolting material
- manufacturer yes no if no, indicate item (s) 2.
Is an evaluation required for use of" manufacturer's equivalent"?
yes no n/a O
V (COMP 34442. Rev.1, Page9)
CIK0402. DOC
- -.. - - - ~.
. - ~. -. -
.. _ ~ _.. _. -
Nor4heast Utilities CK-MP3-04-02 M listone Unit 3 Change Process Sheet of Change Process Review Checklist i G 1D) 3.
Is an evaluation for equivalence in " form, fit, and function" required to be done by engineering?
yes no i
Setpoints 1.
If the calculation is prepared by an outside vendor / contractor, is it approved by NU?
yes no n/a 2.
Are design inputs for the calculations required to be properly documented?
yes no n/a 3.
If engineering judgment is used, is the basis for the judgment required to be clearly i
specified?
yes no n/a 4.
Is the type of setpoint required to be determined?
yes no 1
5.
Is the proper form for the technical data based on the above item required to be fdled j
out?
qV yes no j
6.
Are any changes to setpoints in the Master Setpoint Index (MSI) databases identified?
yes no 7.
Is an independent verification of the assigned Setpoint Quality classification required to be pedormed?
yes no 8.
Are instructions necessary to implement setpoint change record (as input to the modification package) required to be included?
yes no 9.
Is a review of currently installed jumper devices required to ensure no impact on the setpoint change record?
yes no e
O (CK-MP3-0402, Rev.1. Pagelo)
CfCK0402 DOC
. - ~. -
- - - - ~ ~ - - -
Northeast Utilities CK MP3-04-02 Millstone Unit 3 Change Process 4
Sheet of J
Change Process Review Checklist i
j Comments For any "no" Items, provide the reason and any appropriate discussion. For any "no "
i items which are determined not to be a discrepancy, provide the basis.
4 Item No.
Discussion f
i J
i
{'
i i
1 1,
/
1 h 1
i t
}
?
i l
s I.
1 4
I f
I i
i i
4 1
i i
4 4
1 l
1 (CK-MP34402. Rev.1. Paget 1)
CPCK0402. DOC 4
. ~. -_
v i
i 1
Northeast Utihties Millstone - Unit 3 Independent Corrective Action Verification Program (ICAVP)
Programmatic Review Checklist CK-MP3-04-03 Channe Procedure Imniementation O
toter l
Prepared by:
Name Signature Date Approved by:
Name Signature Date IMPLEMENTATION Change Process:
Verified By:
Date:
Concurrence By:
Date:
O (CK MP3403,Pagel)
Sheet I of C:CK0403.D(X'
A Northeast Utilities Millstone - Unit 3 Independent Corrective Action Verification Program (ICAVP)
Programmatic Review Checklist CK-MP3-04-04, Rev. O Setooint Channe Review Prepared by:
- l. W.De Arco Mdr TN.A w V[eB/97 Name Signature Date
}
Approved by: TT n
+7 7
Name V
Sigurc[
IIat(
IMPLEMENTATION Change Item:
Verified by:
Date:
Concurrence by:
Date:
O Sheet 1 of
4 Northeast Utilities C K-M P3-04-04 Millstone Unit 3 Change item x
Sheet of Setpoint Change Reilew s
Instrictions This checklist supplements PI-MP3-04 and is used to document the programmatic review of setpoint changes. A single checklist shall be used for a given setpoint calculation. The checklist shall be 1
i completed in accordance with the following instructions-i a.
The Verifier shall review the setpoint change against each attribute listed on Pages 3 and 4 of the checklist. Multiples of Pages 3 and 4 may be used when more than one setpoint change is being condidered.
b.
The Verifier shall indicate for each attribute whether the change is satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
If the attribute is not applicable, the Verifier shall indicate NA in both columns.
j l
c.
The Verifier shall assign a sequential comment number to each response indicated on Pages 3 and 4 and shall use the Page 5 comment sheet to providejustification for the responses on Pages 3 and 4. Multiple Page 5's may be used. Thejustification shall reference the section of the setpoint change or document reviewed for which the comment is applicable.
d.
Discrepancies shall be processed in accordance with PI-MP3-11.
e.
The Verifier shall enter the Change Item number on each sheet, number the sheets sequentially and sign and date the cover sheet. The sheet numbers s tall be sequentially numbered (i.e.,1,2, 3, etc.). It is acceptable to add ingy pages (i.e., l A, IB, IC, etc.) if needed.
l f.
The Verifier shall obtain the PRG I.ead's concurrence on the cover sheet that the Setpoint Change Review has been adequately completed.
g.
The cover sheet and all applicable checklists and comment forms shall be included in the final project file copy.
1 I
i J
+
l l
(CK-MP3-04-0% Rev. O, Page 2)
C:<K3-o404. DOC 1
l Northerst Utilities CK-M P3-04-04 1
Millstone Unit 3 Change Ittm Sheet of _ _
Setpoint Change Review f.
s.
Attributes Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Comment 1.
The component requiring a setpoint change has been identified appropriately in system design basis documents.
2.
If the setpoint for a component was affected by a plant modification, the modification explicitly identified the setpoint change required and the reference to the affected setpoint calculation.
3.
The existing Master Setpoint Index (MSI) Database has been referenced as a document / database requiring change.
4.
Reference information.'n the MSI such as database description, type of setpoint description, contraliing department, responsible person, or mechanism of control have been
^\\
properly documented.
t\\d 5.
The design bases / criteria used in the setpoint calculation were current at the time the calculation was prepr. red and approved.
6.
The provisions of the appropriate revision of regulatory guides, IEEE Standards,ISA Standards, ASME,IE Bulletins,IE Notices, ANSI, ANS, NUREGs, and NRC Generic Letters been included in the setpoint calculation.
7.
The setpoint calculation identifies the criticalcharacteristics of the component and those characteristics which are to be changed.
AU (CK-MP34444,Rev.O Pese3)
C:CK34404. DOC
_. - _. _. _ _.. _ _ _ _. _. - _. _. ~. _ _. _ _,.. _. _ _ _. _. _ _... _ -. _ _.. _ _.
I Norther.st Utilities CK-MP3-04-04 Millston; Unit 3 Chuge Item Sheet of l
Setpoint Change Resiew Attributes Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Comment 8.
The setpoint calculation identifies changes to the component, which may include one or more of the following:
f reference information, setpoint description, installed / modified j
configuration, manufacturer, model number, uncertainty values, vendor or i
plant driA data, process conditions, I
em'ironmental conditions (normal and accident), maintenance and test equipment, setting tolerances, testing 4
frequency, analpicallimits, technical
}
specification limits, allowable values, operational limits, assumptions, engineeringjudgment, calculation methodology ano conclusions.
}
)
9.
The calculation methodology at the i
time the calculation was performed 3
was appropriate for the setpoint l
calculation.
bl
,4 10.
The setpoint established in the i
calculation is/was reasonabic for I
meeting the intended function.
i j
11.
The setpoint meets the requirenents of j
the setpoint criteria.
1 12.
Calibration requirements report or affected data sheet was issued.
I l
13.
Adequate review and approval of i
setpoint calculation was performed.
1 l
14.
Interface documents appropriately used the setpoint calculation results I
Prepared by Signature Date
%)
(CK-MP34444. Rev. O, Page 4)
C;'CK34404. DOC
4 Narthc.tu U 1!!Ges CK-MP344-04 Millstone Unit 3 Change Item Sheet of n
Setpoint Change Review 1
Setpoint Change Review Comment Form Comment No.
Comment i
1 IV Prepared by Signature Date t
(CK.MP3 0444, Rev. O, Page 5)
C:<K34404. DOC
..