ML20141E547
| ML20141E547 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1997 |
| From: | Tom Ryan, Wrona S NORTHEAST UTILITIES |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141E505 | List: |
| References | |
| CK-MP3-04-03G, CK-MP3-4-3G, NUDOCS 9707010096 | |
| Download: ML20141E547 (4) | |
Text
..
=-
1 Northeast Utilities i
Millstone - Unit 3 i
)
Independent Qorrective Action Verification Program (ICAVP)
Programmatic Review Checklist CK-MP3-04-03G, Rev. O l
Change Procedure Imniementation MODIFICATIONS Prepared by: _Stan Wrona p
~h f-JJ--ji77 Name Signatge Date Approved by: T 'T km l
_c}/py Name
(/
atu Igte/ ~
IMPLEMENTATION Change Process:
Verified By:
Date:
Concurrence By:
Date:
(cK-Mr>04-02G, Rev. 0, Pare!)
Sheet I of 4 9707010096 970627 PDR ADOCK 05000423 l
P PM i
Northeast Utilities l,
Millst'one Unit 3 CK-MP3-04-02G Change Process:
I sheet 1atA Change Procedure Implementation Checklist Programmatic Review Checklist CK-MP3-04-03G MODIFICATIONS l
l DCR/MMOD No:
- 1. Does the modification package include the appropriate preparer, reviewer, and approval signatures, along with an adequate description of the modification and a Safety Evaluation Screening / Evaluation?
l Yes No O N/A Comment
- 2. Is the proposed DCR/MMOD described, including a concise statement ofthe design change objective?
Yes No N/A Comment O
- 3. Are design inputs / references identified, and have design inputs been reviewed and approved?
l Yes No O N/A O Comment
- 4. Were potential changes to the simulator hardware and software identified?
YesO No N/A O comment
- 5. Was design information formally transmitted across interfaces, and were the required interdiscipline, internal, and external reviews obtained?
Yes No N/A O Comment
- 6. Were changes to approved DCRs/MMODs properly implemented through a revision process, or through the Design Change Process?'
Yes No O N/A Comment O
- 7. Has a design engineering screening evaluation been performed and documented to ensure that applicable regulatory requirements and design and licensing bases were =curately translated into the design change?
Yes No O N/A Comment O
- 8. Has an independent review been performed of the bases of the current design, the method ofchange, the design inputs, and the detailed design?
Yes No N/A Conunen!
i (CK MP3-04-02G. Rev.1. Pate 2)
~
.__ ~.. -
Northeist Utilities Millstre Ulit 3 CK-MP3-04-02G Charge Process:
Change Procedure Implementation Checidist Skeetl et.i
- 9. Wes the Design Change Package appropriately approved (PORC/SORC, Unit Director, N Yes No O N/A Comment O
.i
- 10. Have affected maintenance, inservice inspection, testing, and Section XI repair and replacemen requirements been adequately addressed?
Yes No O N/A Comment
- 11. Have required operating and emergency operating procedure revisions been identified and implemented prior to making the modification operable?
Yes O No O N/A O Comment
- 12. Has the selection of temporary equipment to replace plant equipment during the implementation of design change been based on an engineering review?
Yes O No N/A O Comment
- 13. Have any partial release / operability restrictions been adequately identified / controlled, and were operating personnel notified?
Yes No N/A Comment O
- 14. Have all appropriate documents, required for design change close out, been identified and c Yes No N/A Comment O (CK-MP3-0442G, Rev. t. Page 3)
i
' N:rtheast Utilities
{,
MillAone Urit 3 CK-MP3-04-02G Change Process:
Sheetj off
)
Change Procedure implementation Checklist i
Channe Procedure Imniementation - MODIFICATIONS 1
Comment Number Comment
)
l i
l I
l l
(CK-MP3-04-02G, Rev.1. Page 4)