ML20199L024

Rev 3 to PI-01, Svsr Implementation Checklists & Workbook

ML20199L024
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	02/02/1998
From:	External (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20199L004	List: ML20199K998 ML20199L011 ML20199L024
References
PI-01, PI-1, NUDOCS 9802090074
Download: ML20199L024 (265)

Text

_-.__________- ______-__ - __ _ __ _ ____ _ -

0 -

SYSTEM VERTICAL SLICE REVIEW (SVSR)

PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI-01 O svsa1metemesririOs cuecutisrs AND WORKBOOK l

Signature _ Qaig Prepared: .

/ p.A / 3/pV Reviewed: h~ _) S k 97 Approved: 9/[ AI r Approved: 9#M#lY Deputy Project Director kJ 26 PDR

- Parsons Power Group lac. -

PI41.IXX' January 2 ,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PISJECTINSTRUCTION PI-G1 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK rT Q TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title fagt 1.0 PURPOSE iv 2.0 DEFINITIONS 1 3.0 OVERVIEW 3 4.0 REQUIRED INPUTS (PREREQUISITES) 12 4.1 Required from NNECo: 12 4.2 Required from Tier 2 Review Team: 12 4.3 Required from Regulatory Review Team: 12 4.4 Required from Tier 3 Team 12 l 5,0 PROCESS 13 5.0.1 General 13 5.0.2 SVSR Verification ead Validation 13 5.0.3 Use of Site Team 13 5.0.4 SVSR Instructions and Forms 13 5.0.5 Interfaces with Other Tier / Regulatory Review Teams 14

- 5.0.6 Review Boundaries 14

(

5.0.7 Initial Actions 15 5.1 Modification Review, Scope and Boundary 16 5.2 Determine Licensing Bases 18 5.3 Prepare System Specific Checklists / Requirements 19 5.4 System Design input and Licensing Design Bases 20 5.5 Programmatic / Topical Review 22 5.6 Corrective Action Checklist 23 5.7 Modification Screening Review 24 5.8 System Modification Review 25 5.9 Operating Procedures Review 26 5.10 Training and Testing Review 27 5.11 As Built (Walkdown) Review 29 5.12 Tier 1 SVSR Review Close-out 30 5.13 ICAVP Report 31 m

- Parsons Power Group lac. -

i Revision 3 P14LDOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCTION PI 41 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK TABLE OF t OSTENTS Section Title East 6.0 WORKBOOK FORMS 32 6.1 General 32 SYSTEM SCOPE AND BOUNDARY INSTRUCTIONS - FORM I 34 SYSTEM LICENSING BASES CURRENT DESIGN LISTING INSTRUCTIONS - FORM 2 37 SYSTEM REVIEW CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS - FORM 3 39 SYSTEM CORRECTIVE ACTION CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS -

FORM 4 101l SYSTEM MODIFICATION

SUMMARY

SCREENING INSTRUCTIONS -

FORM 5 105l SYSTEM MODIFICATION

SUMMARY

LISTING INSTRUCTIONS -

FORM 6 108l SYSTEM MODIFICATION REVIEW CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS -

FORM 7 110l SYSTEM REVIEW CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS OPERATING PROCEDURES - FORM 8 117l SYSTEM REVIEW CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS TESTING -

! FORM 9 122l SYSTEM REVIEW CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS WALKDOWN -

FORM 10 127 SYSTEM REVIEW CLOSE-OUT INSTRUCTIONS - FORM CO 133 EXHIBITS Exhibit 3-1 ICVAP Implementation Activities 5 Exhibit 3-2 SVSR Che klist Requirements (Confirmatory Order) 6 Exhibit 3-3 SVSR Checklist Requirements (Oversight Inspection Plan Actions 7 ATTACIIMENTS Attachment A SVSR Source Book of Additional Questions O

- Parsons Power Group loc. -

ii Revision 3 PI-01. DOC January 21,1998

- _ . _ , _ - . . _. _ _ _ _ ._ m. _ __ _ _ . - . _ . ~ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ _ . ._._.. ___. _ - ._. . _ . . _. _ . . _

MILLSTONE UNTT 2 SYSR PROJECT INSTRUCTICN PI-01 )

SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK <

REVISIONS l Sectinn Revision No. Descrintion DAlt All 0 Initial Issue June 09,1997 All 1 Revisions June 30,1997 All 2 Revisions September 23,1997 All 3 Revisions January 21,1998 1

O l

O

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

iii Revision 3 PI-01. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCTION FI-01 SVSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK O LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES Pane No. Roisloa No. Pane No, Roision No, i 3 43 3 il 3 44 3 ill 3 45 3 iv 3 46 3 y 3 47 3 1 3 48 3 2 3 49 3 3 3 50 3 4 3 51 3 5 3 52 3 6 3 53 3 7 3 54 3 8 3 55 3 9 3 56 3 10 3 57 3 11 3 58 3 12 3 59 3 13 3 60 3 14 3 61 3 15 3 62 3 16 3 63 3 17 3 64 3 18 3 65 3 19 3 66 3 20 3 67 3' 21 3 68 3 22 3 69 3 23 3 70 3 24 3 71 3 25 3 72 3 26 3 73 3 27 3 74 3 28 3 75 3 29 3 76 3 30 3 77 3 31 3 78 3 32 3 79 3 33 3 80 3 34 3 81 3 35 3 82 3 36 3 83 3 Form 1 2 84 3 37 3 85 3 38 3 86 3 Form 2 2 87 3 39 3 88 3 40 3 89 3 41 3 90 3 Y 42 3 91 1

- Persons Power Grrup Inc. -

iv Revision 3 PI41. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSRPROJECTINSTRUCTION PI-04 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES Prue No. Revision No, gast h Revision No.

92 3 133 3 93 3 134 3 94 3 CO 2 95 3 96 3 97 3 98 3 99 3 Form 3 3 100 3 101 3 102 3 103 3 104 3 Form 4 3 105 3 106 3 107 3 Form 5 2 108 3 109 3 Fom 6

, 2

\ 10 3 111 3 112 3 113 3 114 3 115 3 116 3 Form 7 3 117 3 118 3 119 3 120 3 121 3 Form 8 3 122 3 123 3 124 3 125 3 126 3 Form 9 3 127 3 128 3 129 3 130 3 111 3 t 132 3

'i Fonn 10 3

- Panons Power Group Inc. -

y Revision 3 PI-01. DOC January 21,1998

'e

MILLSTONE IINIT 2

- SYSR PZOJECT INSTRJCTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK 1.0 PURPOSE Provide a process for systematically defining the selected system scope and boundary conditions through the use of system functions and critical design characteristics of the selected system.

THs workbook provides the in.tructions and documentation to be used by the System Vertical Slice Review (SVSR) team during the course of the Millstone Unit 2 audit. This workbook is intended to supplement rioject Procedure PP-01 and provide the detail directions necessary to assure a thorough and consistent review process.

2,0 DEFINITIONS

a. SVSR Group Leader Engineer (GLE) - The individual responsible to direct and lead the Tier 1 SVSR review team effort,

b. SVSR System Lead Engin(er (SLE)- The individual responsible to develop, direct, and perform the scope of the system audit. The System Lead Engineer is selected by the SVSR Group Lead Engineer with the concurrence of the Deputy Project Director.

(

t, c. Denuty Project Director - The individual who is responsible to assure compliance to the Independer.t Corrective Action Verification Program (ICAVP) Audit Plan and the technical adequacy of the final reports.

d. Originating Ennineer (OE) - The individual assigned the responsibility to complete a particular task or function.

e. hpjpline Lead Engineer (LE) - The individual responsible for directing the collection, analysis, and processing of audit data including the review of the

, technical adequacy of the checklist responses prepared by the OE's, reviewers, and/or specialins. This individual may also function to provide discipline interface review.

f. Oncrations Lead Engineer (OLE) - The individual assigned to collect, analyze and review Cata associated with plant operations. This individur.1 may also function to provide operations interface review.

g. hiaintenance Lead Engineer (NSE)- The individual assigned to collect, analyze and review data associated with plant maintenance. This individual may also function to provi6 maintenance interface review.

- Panons Power Gn,up loc. -

PI- 1 Revision 3 Pl.01. DOC January 21,1998 4

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI-01 SYSH IMPLEMENTATION CIIECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK p

() h. Icsting Lead Engineer (TLE)- TLe individual assigned to collect, analyze and review data associated with plant testing and training. This individual may alto function to provide testing and training interface review.

i. Specialist - The individual who has a particular expertise required to review program /t.,pical areas and/or provide technical consulting.

j. Reviewet - T' e individual who reviews or inspects documents and is responsible to provide input for a checklist item.

k. M1 - Request for additional information. This is the fontal process to obtain additional information from NNECo in response to a particular S"SR request.

1. Discrepancy - A condition, such as an error, omission, or oversight which prevents consistence among the physical configuration, information sources (e.g. documentation and databases), design basis and/or regulatory requirements. Discrepancies are processed in accordance with Project Procedure PP-07.

' m. Modifiqa!hm - Any documented method that allows a change to be made to n the licensing or design basis of the plant.

V

n. Minor Modification - A documented package that does not change the licensing or design basis of the plant.

o. Cunent Licensinn 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 defined in 10 CFR 50.2 as documented in the most recent final safety analysis report (FSAR) as required by 10 CFR 50.71 and the licensing correspondence such as licensee responses to NRC Bulletins, generic latters, and enforcement actions, as well as licensee commitments documented in NRC safety evaluations or licensee eve- eports.'

(,,)

v ' 10 CFR 54.3 (a)

- Panons Power Group Inc. -

PI - 2 Revision 3 PLOI. DOC January 21,1998 l

__-_N

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR P'.OJECT INSTRUCTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK

p. Design Basis That information that identifies the specific functions to be pedormed by a structure, system, or ccmponent 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 achiesing 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.2 3.0 OVERVIEW This workbook provides a generic framework based on checklist modulet that can be used to develop and conduct a system specific Design Bases and Configuration Management Assessment checklist to support the System Vertical Slica Reviews (SVSRs). Exhibit 3-1 provides an overview of the generic SVSR

checklist develop:nent process. The SVSR is based on the process outlined in Exhibit 3-1, which identifies the system specific licensing requirements and commitments, and the generic checklist modules in this workbook.

The generic checklist modules in this workbook are based on the requirements of the Confirmatory Order, the NRC Oversight Inspection Plan, and NRC O- Inspection Guidelines. Exhibits 3-2 and 3-3 provides matrices to cross reference d of Confirmatory Order and NRC Oversight Plan requirements to the generic checklist modules included in this workbook.

All checklist modules contained in this workbook are generic and applicable to a variety of systems. After system identification by the NRC, the generic modules are used as the framework to incorporate system specific considerations. A requiren'ent will be reviewed to a level that verifies it complies with its licensing basis.

The SVSR checklist development process noted in Exhibit 3-1 is used to prepare

. a system specific checklist by defining system boundaries, identifying licensing and design requirements, and identifying configuration management considerations.

P 2

10 CFR50.2

- Parsons Power Group lac. -

PI- 3 Revision 3 Pl.01. DOC January 21,1998

- - . - . _ - . - . - ~ . - --- - - . . . . _ _ - _ ~ .

. MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYMPIOJECTINSTRUCTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK b

V Generic checklist modules guidance provided in this workbook that supports checklist development includes:

• System Scope and Boundary e Licensing and Design Basis Requirements e Modifications e Corrective Action Plan e Testing and Maintenance '

e Operating Procedures

. Walkdowns The responsitsle SLE will prepare a workbook for cash selected system. Each workbook is comprised of various types of forms and a System Close-out checklist that are prepared in the sequence indicated in the SYSR resiew work process.

Afler the systems for review have been selected, the generic forms contained in this workbook will be expanded to make " system specific" workbooks.

Applicable checklist / review requirements will be added to cover the areas O discussed in the NRC Order, Oversight Plan and applicable Standad Review b Plan (SRP) topics.

The directions given in the instructions in this workbook will be used by the SVSR teams to govern the methodolopv and proside a standard documentation format for each system. Where a conflict in the instructions exists, the Deputy Proje:t Director will resolve the discrepancy.

Y

- Parsons Power Group lac. -

PI- 4 Revision 3 PI 01. DOC January 21,199*

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PIOJECT INSTRUCTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CilECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK l'D

" " I  ; y -+ a l '

ill r- I

, l' mummme  ?

E j E _ , ,

iin i.ll e*

j s .

~ 'yl ! i ;illi

,!lill lt'l I!Il .

li o-g i igjj l

- ja M ,

>I 4 -

o 2s e ,...

llll l  !.

a --

5  ! !F- ext ia a  :

i f:j 11

..!l llI _i il: yi, -. ijii

= --

e

Q) ll t lil i

lli ril

! i:i g

{!!!

2 g

............ 3

!- lI p

- y_

Il.

(j\

N

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

Pl . 5 Revision 3 PI 01. DOC Jang 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYS2P!OJECTINSTRUCTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK n

G Exhibit 3-2 SVSR Checklist Requirements AREA E

Confirmatory Order Actions b h j g Q -

Licensee committed to the scope of the ICAVP review encompassing modifications

} s to the selected systems since initial licensing, includinD :

Review engineering design X X Review configuration control pocesses X X X Verify current as-modified plant conditions X X X against design basis Verify current as-modified plant conditions X X X against licensing basis documentation Verify that design requirements are translated X

into operating procedures Verify that design requirements are translated X

into maintenance procedures _

Verify that design requirements are translated

/7 into test procedures sj Verify that licensing bases is translated X

into operating procedures Verify that licensing bases are translated X

into maintenance procedures Verify that licensing bases is translated X

, into test procedures Verify system performance through review X

of specific test records Verify system performs.nce through X

, observation of selected testing of particular systems Review proposed and implemented correct!fe X

actions for Licensee-identified design deficiencies l s

l V

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

P1 - 6 Revision 3 PI-01. DOC Jamsary 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSRPROJECTINSTRUCTEN PI 41 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK b- Exhibit 3 3

\, SVSR Checklict Requirements _

AREA E E Oversight inspection Plan Actions 3e h j ]

q -

m e Design modif, cations are adequate X Ccatrol of the design has been maintained

, since issuance of the initial operating X license Control of the design bases has been maintained since issuance of the initial X X operating license System's current configuration conforms to its licensing bases and will be capable of X X X performing its intended function System's original design that has not been modified conforms to its licensing bases and X X X will be capable of performing its intended function System modifications made since issuance of the initial operating license conform to its X X X

/" licensing bases and will be capable of Q] oerforming its intendad function Verify that the licensee's design engineers had sufficient technical guidance to perform X X assigned engineering functions.

Verify that the regulatory requirements are correctly implemented and the system can X X X perfoms its specified functions Verify that the licensing-bases are correctly implerrented and the system can perform X X X its specified functions The updated Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) accurately reflects the current X X licensing bases,-

The updated Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) accurately reflects the current plant X X configuration The updated Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) accurately reflects the operational X X X characteristics The analyzed facility configuration in the design bases is consistent with the current X X plant configuration of the unit 4

The analyzed facility configuration in the design bases is consistent with the current X X X plant operational characteristics of the unit Q)

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

PI- 7 Revision 3 PI41. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCTION PI 01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND W0kKBOOK

,q (G 4 AREA 4l Eg E 5 g

Oversight inspection Plan Actions h N lii j 3 y$ *h e I

a g, n. 3 The correct licensing bases information has been reflected in the maintenance X procedures The correct licensing-bases information has been reflected in the responsible X engineering procedures The correct licensing-bases information has X

been reflected in the operations procedures System design changes have not X X invalidated preoperationt* testing.

System design changes have not X X invalidated startup acceptance Design controls have been applied 1 X X temporary modifications design changes Design controls have been applied to design procedure changes X

, Design controls have been applied to

/O change the configuration of the facility.

V Design controls have been applied t X X change the operation of the facility.

l Verify the adequacy of the licensee's corrective actions as part of the CMP and in X X M response to the ICAVP findings.

Assess the adequacy of the licensee's effectiveness of implementation of the X X corrective actions developed as part of the CMP and in response to the ICAVP findings.

Review of procedural controls for modifying or changing the facility operational X X characteristics.

Verify the current configuration accurately reflects the licensing-bases, including the X X updated FSAR.

The calculations and analyses were performed using recognized and acceptable X X analytical methods.

The assumptions made in calculations supporting the change are technically X X sound.

The assumptions made in analysis supporting the change are technically X X sound.

v

- Panons Power Group Inc. -

PI - 8 Revision 3 PI-01. DOC January 21,1998 o

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR P'OJECTINSTRUCTI2N PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK AREA e

i

- e i Oversight inspection Plan Actions ]s je h

af m a The results of calculations supporting the unmodified portions of the original configuration and design cTanges are X reasonable (based on engineering judgement) for the scope of the change.

The results of analysis supporting the unmodified portions of the original configuration and design changes are 'X reasonable (based on engineering judgement) for the scope of the change.

l The licensee considered the effect of a X X change on design margins.

The appropriate level of engineering and management review existed during the X X design phase and prior to implementation.

The licensee considered the effect of a change on pre-operational acceptance test X X results.

O b

The licensee considered the effect of a change to startup acceptance test results.

The licensee considered the effect of a change to system baseline acceptance test X X results.

Design changes were accomplished in accordance with the licensee's approved X X procedures.

Design changes are accurately reflected in X X Mrating procedures.

Deeign changes are accurately reflected in X X maintenance procedures.

Design changes are accurately reflected in X X test procedures Design changes are accurately reilected in X X training materials.

Proposed design changes, subsequently cancelled, were not replaced by procedural y' changes that imposed excessive burdens on plant operators.

The walkdowns will be multi-disciplinary reviews including, as a minimum, Mechanical systems, X Mechanical components, X Electrical power, X O Civil and structural design, and X V Instrumentation and control. X_

- Parsons Power Group lac. -

PI- 9 Revision 3

[

January 21,1998 l

)

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK O

Q AREA Oversight inspection Plan Actions 'u a1 m s Walkdowns will verify adequate control of X surveillance procedures Walkdowns will verify adequate control of X operating procedures, Walkdew::s will verify adequate control of X maintenance procedures, Walkdowns will verify adequate control of X test procedures, ,

Walkdowns will verify adequate control of X operator training, Walkdowns will verify adequate control of y plant simulator configuration.

Verify that the current configuration is . .

consistent with the licensing bases at the level of detail contained in Piping and instrumentation diagrams X X X

(P&lDs)

Verify that the current configuration is consistent with the licensing bases at the level of detail contained in piping isometric drawings Verify that the current configuration is consistent with the licensing bases at the X X level of detail contained in elecidcal single-line diagrams Verify that the current configuration is consistent with the licensing bases at the level of detail contained in emergency, X X X abnormal, and normal operating procedures.

Verify the licensing-bases information X

contained in the updated FSAR.

Verify the licensing bases information y

.corlained in docketed correspondence.

Varify the analyzed configuration is uconsistent with the current plant X X configuration.

Verify equipment location and identification X

numbers are as indicated on the P&lD Verify equipment name plate data is X

consistent with design specifications.

Venfy equipment name plate data is X g consistent with analyses.

- Persons Power Group Inc. -

PI- 10 Revision 3 PI-ole January 21,1998

.~ __ - - - . . = . - _ _ - _ . . _ . - . . . - . . -

n MILIATONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK

-l

\ _

AREA d$

'eg - e g

= j Oversight inspection Plan Actions

] h n.

g 3

Verify t'1st the location of pipe supports, snbbbers, and other pipe restraints are X consistent with design specifications.

Verify that the location of pipe supports, snubbers, and other pipe restraints are X consistent piping stress analyses.

Verify that divisional separation of safety-related systems, structures and components, seismic il/l, and other topics X

addressed by the licensee's hazards analyses are reflected in the current plant configuration.

Modifications that appear to have been completed recently will be screened to X assure adequate documentation I v

'w/

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

PI- 1I Revision 3 PI41. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 -

SYSR PZOJECTINSTRUCTION PI-01 SWR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK

?\

V

., This workbook is comprised of the following:

4

a. Activities Flow Chart

b. Instructions

c. Workbook Forms 4.0 REQUIRED INPUTS (Prerequisites) -

4.1 Required from NNECo:

a. List ofModifications and Descriptions

b. P&ID

c. FSAR

d. UFSAR

e. Technical Specification

f. Safety Evaluation Report (SER)

g. Procedures

h. Corrective Action Program Information and Data

i. Selected System Documents such as:

A e Elementaries V e e

Logics Control Loops e Physical Drawings e Component Drawings e Specifications / Data Sheets

• System Description

. Design Base 4.2 Reauired from Tier 2 Review Team:

a. Critical Design Characteristics 4.3 Reauired from Regulatory Review Team:

a. Regulatog Review Input

b. Commitments

c. Licensing Basis Evaluation support 4.4 Required from Tier 3 Team

a. Summary of NNECo procedural process ID

. LJ

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

PI- 12 Revision 3 PI41. DOC January 21,1998

- . . ~ . - . . . - . .. .. -.

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYS2 PROJECTINSTRUCTI2N PI 41 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND V'ORKBOOK 5.0 PROCESS 5.0.1 General Each system will be reviewed in accordance with the work flow activities indicated in Exhibit 3-1 and in accordance with the associated system instructions and documentation contained in this workbook. When the process requires the use of a workbook form, the detailed direction will be provided under the heading " FORMS," The process description will only make mention of the need to complete the associated form.

4 5.0.2 SYSR Verification and Validation The inspection activities based on Independent Corrective Actica Verification Program (ICVAP) requirements shown in Exhibit 3-1 will be implemented

- through the use of Generic Checklists, modified as necessary to provide System Specific Checklists. The checklist is comprised of a series of previously developed queries to guide the inspection.

Typical requirements and questions for a Specific Checklist are contained in the appropriate Checklist Instruction. Attachment A provides additional" detailed" q level questions that the SLE may used in formulating the system specific Q inspection requirements. Additional questions will be added during the inspection as circumstances warrant.

5.0.3 Use of Site Team The primary functions of the site team will be to provide system walkdown support, to provide daily document collection for the home office based review team and ta assist the home office in obtaining or clarifying information. The site team is considered an extension of the home office review team.

Communication between the site and home office review team is considered as internal and will be treated in accordance with the project procedures.

5.0.4 SVSR Instructions and Forms The inspection process and the use of the chsklists will be documented throughout the use of Tier 1 Review Forms and concluded with the System Review Close-out (Form CO). The revievf will be documented in the various checklist instructicns listed below which arc part of this workbook.

Instruction Title q T1-CL-I-01 System Scope and Boundary Instmetions V

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

PI- 13 Revision 3 PI-01. DOC January 21,1998 l

l l

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYS2 PROJECTINSTRUCTIEN Pi-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CIIECKLISTS AND WORKilOOK D

d TI CL 1-02 TI CL 1-03 System Licensing Bases Current Design Instructions System Review Checklist Instructions T1 CL-1-04 System Corrective Action Checklist Instructions TI CL 105 System Modification Summary Screening Instructions TI CL-1-06 System Modification Summary Listing 1.2tructions T1 CL l.07 System Modification Review Checklist instructions T1 CL I-08 System Resiew Checkli3t Instructions - Operating Procedures TI CL 109 System Review Checklist Instructior.s Testing Procedures TI CL 110 System Review Checklist Instructions - Walkdown T1 CL 1-CO System Review Close-out instructions 5.0.5 inicIfacts with Otijer Tier /Regulagy Review Tearm The Tier I review team will receive inputs from the Regulatory Review and Tier 2 review teams. This input will be used by the Tier i team in establishing the current licensing and design bases for th: Unit and to establish the critical caaracteristics required of the system to support the accident analysis. A form will be used by these groups for this purpose. Tier 1 SVSR uses this information, adds additional information as required and returns the form to the originating group. The following outlines the process for this interface:

(3 V a. The SLE assigns an individual (OE) to be responsible for providing information,

b. The OE completes the form by providing the requested missing information

c. The OE signs, dates and returns the forms to the applicable group 5.0.6 Rninv_Jlnundarin A 100% review of the system against licensing and design basis shall be performed /, iring Tier 1. The review will include (but not be limited to) mechanical, electrical, I&C, and civil / structural requirements such as calculations, aadyses, assumptions, and conclusions. Appropriate design documents and data for the selected system and the system components shall be reviewed to the extent necessary to verify 100% of the selected system requirements.

For repetitive, standard, or identical functional components the verification will inciide a screening process to confirm that the components are repetitive and identical followed by validation of the licensing or design basis requirement using a comp at group process.

/%

- Parson. Power Group Inc. -

PI 14 Revision 3 PI 01.1XX' January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCTION FI el 1 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK 5.0.7 . Initial Actions

• After the systems are selected, the GLE in concert with the Deputy Project ,

Director selects the responsible SLE's.

• The GLE in conjunction with the rusponsible SLE's and LE's selects the system review teams from the pool of SVSR team engineers and specialists to best mat .,1 the individual skill levels.

• The SLE assures that the team members have been indoctrinated in accordance with the Project Administrative Manual (PAM).

• The SLE selects an Originating Engineer (OE) for each Form and/or functional area to be reviewed. The SLE can function as both the OE and Approver ifindependent review is provided.

O l

I l

l l

l

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

PI !$ Revision 3 Plat. DOC . January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PZOJECT INSTEUCTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CilECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK

,o V 5.1 System Scope and Boundarv 5.1.1 Purpose Document the review of system interfaces and the de'ernination of system boundary.

5.1.2 Prerequhites/ Documents

• FSAR e P&lD 5.1.3 Determine System Boundary Interfaces with, and ponions of, other systems will be included within the boundary of the selected system to the extent they are necessary to support the functional requirements of the selected system. System boundaries may be defined at appropriate components that provide physical isolation, as long as the selected boundary does not split the component between systems. All passive devices such as supports and restraints, within the system boundary are included within the scope of the SVSR.

Q b The extent of support system boundaries for mechanical, electrical,1&C, stmetural and piping are defined in pp-01 and included in the instruction for Instruction TI CL 1-01.

5.1.3.1 Determine the system functional requirements.

5.1.3.2 Review the simplified P&lD prepared by Tier 2 team to assure the system boundary includes the critical portions shown on the Tier 2 drawing.

5.1.3.3 Review system boundary definition with the NRC and resolve differences prior to proceeding. NNECo may participate in the boundary resiew if the NRC determines their participation is required.

5.1.4 Complete and document the System Scope and Boundary using Workbook Form 1.

5.1.5 Obtain interfacing signatures and approvals.

5.1.6 When the modification resiews are completed, the SLE will prepare a simplified PhlD summarizing the portions of the system that have been modified. The modified portions will be highlighted with a different color.

,3

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

Pl.16 Revision 3 PI-01.DCX' January 21, I998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2

$V9R FIOJECTINSTRUCTION Pl.41 l

SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK

$.1.7 Revise and issue Form 1 to incorporate the simplified P&lD showing the applicable major modification.

O O

- Persons Power Group lac. -

Pl.17 Revision 3 IHil. DOC January 21,1998

JA%&WM.O t/ 'LLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PRWECTINSTRUCTION PI 01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CilECKLISTS AND WOR 400 4 5.2 DIltanine Licensing Bases 5.2.1 Purpose Document the listing of Licensing Basis Requirements.

5.2.2 Prerequisites / Documents:

• The Current FSAR

• The Current Technical Specifications

• The Current Accident Analysis Calculations

• Regulatory Resiew Team Input I e Critical Design Characteris'ics-(Tier 2) 5.2.3 The OE, review team and specialists review the current resision of the PSAR and docketed correspondence, license amendments, and technical specification made since the initial operating license to determine the current licensing bases for the selected system; documenting the results using Workbook Form 2.

5.2.4 Obtain interfacing signatures and approvals.

l O

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

PI 18 Revision 3 PI-01. DOC January 21,1998

_ . . _ . _ _ . _ . _ - _. .__._.._. .._ _ ..... _ __ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ . . - . _ . ~ _ _ _

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 i SYSR PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI 41 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK 5.3 hepare System Speci&c Checklists / Requirements 5.3.1 Purpose Provide a mechanism for the customization of the generic checklists into specific system and supporting system related review checklists that are (1)in agreement with the boundary definition and (2) allow for a systematic review and assessment of checklist requirements.

5.3.2 Prerequisites / Documents

a. List of Modifications and Other Formal Documented Changes (including proposed, in process, temporary, implemented, canceled) b List of Corrective Actions

c. Boundary Definition

d. List of Procedures 5.3.3 The SLE in concert with the LE, review team and specialists reviews the system modifications, licensing bases, NNECo Corrective Action Program, and NRC Order together with the typical review questions contained in the appropriate instmetion in this workbook. Based upon these reviews the team modifies the generic checklists into specific system and supporting system checklists. The -

O following checklists will be customized based upon this review:

a. Corrective Action Modifications

b. Design input and Licensing Basis

c. Component Data Sheets

d. Modifications

e. Operating Procedures f, Testing and Maintenance Procedures p Walkdowns O - Persons Power Group Inc. -

Pl.19 Revision 3 PI41 DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2  !

$VSRPROJECTINSTRUCTION Pi el SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK

$.4 System Review 5.4.1 Purpose Document and verify that the selected system complies with the cunent unit Licensing and Design Basis requirements.  ;

5.4.2 Prerequisites / Documents

• Design Specifications e Design input Documents 4

e System Scope and Boundary Documentation r e Critical Design Characteristics Documentation e Original Design Specifications e ICAVP Regulatory Requirementr/ Commitments Documentation e List of A/E Identified Design Deficiencies issued at Initial Stanup e Performance Calculations e Technical Specifications e FSAR e Applicable Codes, Standards, and Regulatory Guides

• Accident Analysis Calculations e Equipment Specifications e Instrument Setpoint/ Calculations

• Design Guides / Design Standards etc. prepared by or for NNECo.

• Design Basis Documentation as defined by NNECo e Inventory of System Components 5.4.3 The OE in concert with reviewers from other disciplines completes the checklist and reviews each requirement at the system levelin accordance with the System Resiew Checklist (Form 3 Part C).

$.4.4 The OE assigned to a component completes the component data sheets obtaining input from other disciplines or specialists as required (Form 3 Part X).

5.4.5 The SLE may elect to assign specific checklist requirements to a specialist or other discipline individuals assigned to the system review team. The group assigned this responsibility is indicated on the checklist for that particular requirement. The OE retains responsibility for completing the review and incorporating the inputs of others.

- Persons Power Group Inc. -

Pl.20 Revision 3 PI-01.IXX' January 21,199s

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSRPROJECTINSTRUCTION PI41 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK O 5.4.6 Obtain interfacing signatures and approvals.

O O - Persons Power Group Inc. -

Ib 21 Revision 3 l'141. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PZOJECT INSTRUCTIIN PI 411 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CllECKLISTS AND WORKHOOK V 5.5 hostammalisHonicaLRoitw 5.5.1 Purpose Document and verify the correct application of the applicable programmatic / topical areas as part of the selected system level review. o 5,5.2 Each of the selected systems will be reviewed with respect to the following NNECo programmatic / topical areas:

• Anticipated Transients Without SCRAM (ATWS) l

• Control Room Design Review l

• Environmental Qualification of Electrical Equipment (EQ) l

• Erosion / Corrosion l

• External Eventr./llazards i

• Generic Letter 89- 10 (MOV) e lleavy Loads e liigh and Moderate Energy Line Breaks (IIELB/MELB)

• Inservice inspection e it! service Testing /10 CFR50 Appendix J Testing

• IPEEE

()

Master Equipment and Pans List (MEPL)

Regulatory Guide 1.97 Compliance

• Separation / Independence / Diversity

• Set Point Control

• Single Failure >

+ Station Blackout

• 10 CFR50 Appendix R USl A-46 Seismic Qualification 5.5.3 Eaeh program' topic is addressed by a separate Pan of the System Review Checklist. The OE prepares the checklist and reviews each requirement at the system level in accordance with the program being reviewed (Form 3 Parts E through W).

5.5.4 The SLE inay elect to assign specific checklist requirements to a specialist or other discipline individuals assigned to the system review team. The group assigned this responsibility is indicated on the checklist for that particular requirement. The OE retains responsibility for completing the review and incorporating the inputs of others.

5.5.5 Obtain interfacing signatures and approvals.

()

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

PI 22 Revision 3 Pl41.!XX' January 21,1998

_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ._.)

I MilMTONE UNIT 2 i SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCTl!N FI el SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECK 1.1STS AND WORKBOOK 5.6 Corrective Action Checklist 5.6.1 Purpose Document the review and assessment of proposed and implemented corrective ,

actions for design deficiencies identified by NNECo during the implementation of the Configuration Management Corrective Action Program. l 4

Provide review of the NNECo Correction Actions Program (CAP) identified in Adverse Condition Reports (ACR), Condition Reports (CR), Unresolved items Reports (UIR) and Final Safety Analysis Report Change Requests (FSARCR).

5.6.2 Prerequisites / Documents

a. NRC Significant items List l

b. NNECo Corrective Action Plan / List 5.6.3 The OE, review team and specialists review the system specific NNECo Corrective Actions and documents the results using the System Corrective Action Checklist Form 4.

, p 5.6.4 The SLE may elect to assign specific checklist requirements to specialists or ,

Q other discipline individuals assigned to the system review team. The group assigned this responsibility is indicated on the checklist for that particular requirement. The OE retains responsibility for completing the review and incorporating the inputs of others.

5.6.5 Prepare a separate Checklist for each corrective action being reviewed.

5.6.6 Obtain interfacing signatures and approvals.

O s

- Panons Power Group Inc. -

Pl 23 Revision 3 Pl41 DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYS3 P'OJECT INSTRUCTION Pl .01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK 5.7 Modification Screeninn Review l 5.7.1 Purpose l Provide a mechanism to screen system modifications and to identify those modifications that do not effect the licensing or design basis of the unit.

D.O.IEt Form 5 will not be required to be completed effective 1/10/98. All modifications identified for the selected systems for which an initial screening has not been completed will be reviewed utilizing the Form 7 process. For those modifications for which a Form 5 has been done it will be noted in Form 6 that the Form 5 screening has been completed.

5.7.2 Prerequisites / Documents e List of NNECo modifications and associated descriptions 5.7.3 Using the Unit's modification lists and descriptions, the OE determines which modifications are applicable to the system being reviewed, and lists all applicable '

modifications including those that have been canceled or in process.

5.7.4 The OE, review team and specialists review the list of system modifications and perform modification screening; documenting the results using Workbook Form

5. Modification screening is performed to identify minor modifications that do not effect the licensing basis.

5.7.5 The OE completes a modification screening form (Form 5) for each applicable system modification.

5.7.6 Any modification that passes the screening questions will be reviewed in accordance with the system specific modification checklist. Modifications that are in process or canceled also will be screened and summarized. Workbook Form 6 is used to summarize the applicable modifications to be used for the detail resiew.

5.7.7 Request a copy of each modification package contained in the Modification Listing Summary from NNECo.

5.7.8 Obtain interfacing signatures and approvals.

O _ _ _ _ _ _

= - Person Power Group lac. -

Pl.24 Revision 3 P101. DOC January 21,1998

i MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCT12N PI el SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK 5.8 Syntem Modification Review 5.8.1 Purpose Provide a mechanism for the systematic review and assessment of modifications contained in the Modification Summary Listing for the subject system to verify the maintenance of configuration control since the initial operating license. -

5.8.2 Modifications may include any of the following types of NNECo documents:

• Design Change Records

• Minor Modifications e Maintenance Support Engineering Evaluations

• Setpoint Change Records e item Equivalency Evaluations (formerly Replacement item Evaluations) 5.8.3 Prerequisites / Documents e List of Modifications (Proposed, impleinented, canceled, temporary)

• Design Control Procedures a Copies of Modifications and all Change Attachments e Programfropical Area Applicability 5.8.4 The OE prepares the checklist and resiews each modification contained in the System Modification Summary Listing, (Form 6) in accordance with the System Modification Review Checklist (Form 7).

5.8.5 The SLE may elect to assign specific checklist requirements to specialists or other discipline individuals assigned to the system review team. The group assigned this responsibility is indicated on the checklist for that panicular requirement. The OE retains responsibility for completing the review and incorporating the inputs of others.

5.8.6 Prepare a separate Modification Checklist for each modification being reviewed.

5.8.7 Based upon system modification review, the OE marks up a copy of the >

simplified P&lD to indicate which portions of the system have been changed by

- the modification. The modification number is included next to the marked-up portion of the P&lD associated with the modification. When the simplified P&lD review is completed it is fonvarded to the SLE.

5.8.8 Obtain interfacing signatures and approvals.

O V

- Parsons Power Groep Inc. -

Pl.25 Revision 3 Plat. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCTION PI 01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CilFCKLLSTS AND WORKilOOK (q) 5.9 Opfrating Procedtlas Resiew 5.9.1 Purpose Provide a process for the systematic review and assessment of the system related operai5g and maintenance procedures.

5.9.2 Prerequisites / Documents

• Operating Procedures

• Abnormal Operation Procedures

• Emergency Procedures

• Alarm Response Procedures

• Maintenance Procedures

• Pre , Post Operating Testing Procedures

• Operations Critical Diagrams

• Functional / Logic Diagrams

• Input from Modification Reviews LJ 5.9.3 The OE prepares the checklist and reviews the applicable operating and emergency procedures associated with the applicable system to verify that applicable modifications are reflected in the current operating procedures; documenting the results in accordance with the specific Procedure Review Checklist (Form 8).

5.9.4 The Procedures Lead Engineer assures the input required to complete the system and component level checklists (Form 3 Part C and X)is provided.

5.9.5 The Procedures Lead Engineer consults with the SLE to assure that the cerating procedures do not permit operation in an unanalyzed condition.

5.9,6 The SLE may elect to assign specific checklist requirements to a specialist or other discipline individuals assigned to the system review team. The group assigned this responsibility is indicated on the checklist for that particular requirement. The OE retains responsibility for completing the review and incorporating the inputs of others 5.9.7 Obtain interfacing signatures and approvals.

R-]

- Persons Power Group inc. -

P1 26 Revision 3 P141. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSRPROJECTINSTRUCTION Pi 01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK 5.10 Traininn and TestlDEBaicW 5.10.1 Purpose Provide a process for the systematic review and assessment of training and testing requirements for the selected system by evaluating:

. Training Procedures

• Test Acceptance Criteria and Basis Testing Conditions, and System Boundary Considerations o' Test P:rformance and Documentation

• Post Testing Review and Evaluation 5.10.2 Prerequisites / Documents

• Training Procedures

• Pre-Operation Test Procedures e Pre-Operation Test Results e Maintenance Tests e Maintenance Test Results e Sun'elliance Testing Procedures e Sun'elllance Testing Results e Calculations related to testing

• Completed Critical Function Checklist e input from Modification Reviews 5,10.3 The OE prepares the checklist and reviews the applicable training and test pm.cedures associated with the applicable system to verify that applicable modifications are reflected in the current operating procedures; documenting the

> esults in accordance with the System Specific Test Review Checklist (Form 9).

5.10.4 The Testing Lead Engineer assures the input required to complete the system and component level checklists (Form 3 Part C and X) is provided.

5,10.5 The SLE may elect to assign sp:cific checklist requirements to a specialist or other discipline iridividuals assigned to the system review team. The group assigned this responsibility is indicated on the checklist for that particular requirement. The OE retains responsibility for completing the review and j O

G incorporating the inputs of others.

- Panons Power Group lac. -

Pl.27 Revision 3 501. DOC January 21,1998

V 1

4 i

i MILLSTONE UNIT 2 f $YSR P OJECTINSTRUCTION FIdi i

SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKSOOK l

5.10.6 - Obtain interfacing signatures and approvals.  ;

i ,

i

)

4 1

I I

i i ,

e i i r i ,

i i,

A 1

4 4

3  ?

I i

i d' f i

I 1

i

.i . .

! l t  !-

3 1

k.

r- t a -t s

i i J

N-4 1

1 4

J-

- Persons Power Group lac, -

Pl.28 Revision 3

- Pl.01.!XX . January 21,1998  ;

~ , _ , _ , . , - . _ . _ . - . _ . - _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ . _ . , _ . _ . _ . . _ . . _ - . _ _ _ ~ _ _ . ___ .--,_._ _.._._._ _ -

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR P 0JECTINSTRUCTION PI 01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CilECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK 5.11 Aljuilt (Walkdown) Revits 5.11.1 Purpose Provide a process for the systematic identification of requirements for system walkdowns to verify the physical plant installation, primary drawing information, and the implementation of the configuration management program.

5.11.2 Prerequisites / Documents e P&lDs

• Piping Physical Drawings (Isometrics)

• One Line Diagrams

• Elementaries

• Instrument Loop Drawings

• Instrument Installation Drawings

• Specifications

• Requirements / Commitments List from other Primary Checklists and Discipline Checklist Requiring Verification 5.11.3 I nc OE prepares the checklist and verifies the existing pisnt physical arrarigement associated with the applicable system to verify that as built condition match the current plant design documentation; documenting the results in accordance with the System Specific Walkdown Review Checklist (Form 10). The OE will modify this checklist as the review progresses based upon home office review team input.

5.11.4 The SLE may elect to assign specific checklist requirements to specialist or other discipline individuals assigned to the system review team. The group assigned this responsibility is indicated on the checklist for that particular requirement.

The OE retains responsibility for completing the review and incorporating the i inputs of others.

5,11.5 Obtain interfacing signatures and approvals.

O - Parsons Power Group Inc. -

Pl.29 Revision 3 PI 01. DOC January 21,199:

l MILLSTONE UNIT 2

SYS"3 P20JECTINSTRUCTION PI 01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK  !

5.12 Tier 1 SVSR Resiew Clow out 5.12.1 The SLE is responsible to verify that all items and reviews required by the NRC  ;

Order have been completed by the system review team and completes the Tier 1 System Review Close-out (Form CO).

5.12.2 The SVSR GLE and Deputy Project Director approve that the system review is completed.

O O - Persons Power Group lac. -

Pi 30 Revision 3 PI-01. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRIJCT13N PI 41 l

SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHED 115T5 AND WORKBOOK 5,13 ICAVP Report Prepare Tier 1 input to the final ICAVP report in accordance with the format and direction from the Project Director.

O n

U

- Persons Power 9roup lac. -

P1 31 Revision 3 P141. DOC January 21,1998

s MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR P~.OJECTINSTRUCTION Pi 01

$YSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK 6.0 WORKBOOK FORMS After the system specific checklists are prepared the workbook will be co'mprised of the appropriate forms including a System Review Close-out Checklist. The purpose of this section is to provide instructions for the completion of the workbook forms. The forms are assembled using the sequence number on the lower right hand corner of each form.

6.1 General ,

6.1.1 Form Document identification shall have the following format:

[ Form Typc}-[NNFCo System Alpha IDj . [ Parsons Unique Numter)

For example:

LBCD hiS 01 Licensing Bases Current Design for hiain Steam System RC CA hts 01 Corrective Action Checklist for hiain Steam System Parsons' Form Document identification starts at 01. Each form will have the document ID filled out.

6.1.2 The OE(s) reviews NNECo documents to the level required to answer a specific requirement and/or question. The forms may be used to document the depth of the review and the reference source (s).

6.1.3 The interface reviewers and specialists review the .E's response (s) only to the level required to assure that the requirement and/or question is satisfactorily dispositioned.

6.1.4 Interface Review and Approval 6.1,4.1 When the review is completed, the OE presents the completed form including any supplemental documents to each of the discipline resiewers and or specialists.

6.1.4.2 The OE resolves any interface ieview comments.

6.1.4.3 The discipline leads and or specialist sign and date in Part A to indicate their interface review is completed.

6.1.4.4 The OE presents the completed form to the SYSR SLE and GLE for approval.

6.1.4.5 The OE resolves any Apprever comments and reviews these with the interface reviewers to assure that the change will not impact their reviews.

- Parsons Power Group lac. -

P1 32 Revision 3 PI41. DOC January 21,1998

. . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . - _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - ~ _ _ _ _ . - . _ _ __ . ._. _ _

4 MILLSTONE UNIT 2 i $Y$R P.~.OJECTINSTRUCT12N Pl 41 l

$YSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIS11!i AND WORKBOOK 6.1.4.6 The SYSR SLE and GLE sign and date Part A to indicate their approval. The form is considered completed after obtaining the required Approval signatures.

6.1.5 Eonr Revialoft _

] i 61,5.1 After a form has been approved further changes will be via revision. Each

!evision will be noted with a revision bar and the change noted.

q 6.1.5.2 Redew and approval requires the r,ame process as indicated above.

f 1

t O

1 1

a 4

1 O~

~ Persons Power Grour loc. -

I'! 33 Revision 3 l'l 01. DOC January 21,1o98

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PC.OJI:CT INSTRUCTION Pl.01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CilECKLISTS AND WORKilOOK T1-CL-I-01 SYSTEM SCOPE AND BOUNDARY INSTRUCTIONS - FORM 1 O

SigI1MULC. Dalt Prepared: W5,/ /J p Reviewed: .

d- -

1. 3 b ff Approved: ,,MA ff a er Cpmpany Qua ity Approved: _, A4<. / .w .4 e J dyV O 8 Deputy Project Director

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

PI 34 Revision 3 Pl41. DOC January 21,1998

MILL 3 TONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI-01 l

SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK 1.0 FORM 1 - SYSTEM SCOPE AND HOUNDARY 1.1 The purpose of this form is to:

• Define all the selected system interfaces l e Defme the inspection limit of supporting systems 1.2 The OB adds the Parsons Power Document ID number, NNECo system code, system title to the form header, and indicates the responsible SLE.

1.3 Upon initiation of the form, the OE signs and dates the appropriate Revision block in Part A.

1.4 Limit of Review Boundaries Interface with, and portions of, other systems will be included within the boundary of the selected system to the extent they are necessary to support the functional requirements of the selected system. System boundaries may be dermed at appropriate components that provide physicalisolation, as long as the selected boundary does not r,plit the component between systems. All passive I

devices such as support and restraints, within the system boundary are included within the scope of the SVSR.

1.4.1 Support system boundaries will be limited to:

1.4.1.1 Mechanisal The boundary is extended to the first level of support system interface. As an example, at a heat exchanger, the interface will be verified at the level of data associated with the temperature and flow rate of the cooling media, The interfacing system equipment / data / design will be verified to the extent that the input parameters can be validated with respect to a verified calculation or vendor document.

1.4.1.2 Electrical

- Electrical power will be verified from the actuating component or power supply to the ultimate on site source required for the component to perform its intended function. All selected system loads and their design parameters will be verified, Verifi:ation will focus on the review orloads associated with the selected system. Design documents will be reviewed to the level confirming that the intended function can be accomplished.

- Persons Power Group Inc. -

Pl.35 Revision 3 I PIRDOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCTI3N Pi 01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK 1.4.1.3 Ir.strumentation and Control IAC will be verified from the individual field r,ensor to the component or desice required to perform an intended function. Verification will include any portion of the instrument loop, power supplies, circuitry, interfacing hardware and range / set point required to assure the intended function is accomplished. The SVSR will concentrate on verifying (1) signals associated with the selected system and (2) that the instrument loop performs its primary function. Design documents reviewed will be reviewed to the level of confirming that the intended function can be accomplirhed.

1.4.1.4 Pipjng Will be reviewed to the point ofinterface with the component and/or supponing structures.

1.4.1.5 Structural Supporting structures will not be considered within the system boundary.

1.5 Using the applicable NNECo documents, the OE completes Part B of the form.

(O> 1.5.1 For each interface indicated, the extent of the boundary is to be included. The boundary shall be consistent with Section 1.4 1.6 The OE will count the number of pages and enter the appropriate total in the header box of the form.

1.7 The OE submits the form and checklist to the interface reviewers in accordance with the General Instructions for Resiew and Approval in Section 6.0 of this document.

O - Parsons Power Group inu -

Pl.36 Revision 3 P141. DOC January 21,1998

DOCUMENT ID: SSilD - Page J of xx MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

O ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM SCOPE & BOUNDARY DEFINITION

! Responsible Engmocr.

(System Team lead)

' PART A BOUNDARY INTERFACE SIGN OFF REVISION 0 REVISION 1 REVISION 2 nww.sw own.tw sensen.tw

1. ORIGINA70R

2. REYlEW'lD - - -

Mechanic al14ad Electrica. Lead Control Systems lead Piping / Structural 14ad Operations Engineer Procedures Engmeer Testing Engineer

3. Al' PROVAL - - -

System lead Engineer SYSR Lesd Engineer PARTB SYSTEM BOUNDARY DEFINITION lastructions: (1) Provide a brief description of the of the systent, highlighting major features, system functions, and all system laterfaces (mechanical, electrical, IAC, etc.)

(2) The boundary should be described for each laterfacing plant system (mechanical, electrical, or IAC),

structure and functional work group (mechanical, procedures, programs, etc.).

1. SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONt

2. SYSTEM FUNCTIONS:

a.

3. SUPPORTING SYSTEM (S) INTERFACES:

(Interfaces are to be described folly so that the extent of the boundary (review)is clearly undeMood). List each applicable functional group separately.

A.1 Mechanical 1.

- Persons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: el I-01. I Package Sequence No. 2 Revision 2 Fl.,SSBDR. DOC 9/23/97

DOCUMENT In: SSBD. Page19fu MILLSTONE IINIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

C ICAVP SLR SYSTEMI SYSTEM SCOPE & BOUNDARY DEFINITION Responsible %girmer:

(System Team imed)

A.2 Mechaalcal Estent of Boundan 1.

B.1 F.lalas 1.

B.2 Piolar Estent of Boundary 1.

C.I Strwetural 1.

C.2 Structural Estent of Boundan I,

,q D.I Electrical 1.

D.2 Electrical Estent of Boundary 1.

E.1 Instrumentation and Control 1.

E.2 Instemmentation aid control Estent of Boundary 1.

F.1 Procedures 1.

F.2 tsedons Estent of Boundary 1.

G.1 Testina 1.

O - Persons Power Group Inc. -

FORM:01 101 2 Package Sequence No. 2 Revision 2 FI,SSBDB. DOC 9/23/97

DOCUMENT ID: SSBD. Page 3 of us MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

O ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM SCOPE & BOUNDARY DEFINITION Responsible Engmeer (Svetem Team lead)

G.2 Testina Estent of Boundary 1.

H.1 frograseg 1.

H.2 Pr$mrams Estent of Boundan 1.

1.1 QLhtg 1.

1.2 DJ)'- ' stent of Boundary 1.

O O

- Panons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 01 I 01 3 Package Sequence No. 2 Revision 2 l

Fl.,SSBDB. DOC 9/23/97

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECT INSTRUCTION l'101 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CilECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK T1-CL-I-02 SYSTEM LICENSING BASES CURRENT DESIGN LISTING INSTRUCTIONS - FORM 2 O

l Sigtsture Dats Prepared: w/ / .2d M Reviewed:

SYSRWoup t.ead 23 b77 V

Approved: /f/dM A/w/pr J

Approved: 'Bedh*T8 ikputy lYoject Director O - Parsons Power Group Inc. -

PI 37 Revision 3 P141. DOC January 21,1998

. -- - - - - - - . - _ . - . _ - - - - . - - . - - ~ - . - . _ _ - . _ - -

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUC110N PI 01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK 1.0 FORM 2 - SYSTEM LICENSING BASES CUMRENT DESIGN 1.1 The purpose of this form is to:

• Obtain the selected system's current licensing basi'

• Obtain docketed NNECo licensing commitments to bulletin, orders, etc.

• Document the results to allow comparison of the current system design condition 1.2 The OE adds the Parsons Power Document ID number, NNECo system code, system title to the form header, and indicates the responsible SLE.

1.3 Upon initiation of the form, the OE signs and dates the appropriate Revision block in Part A.

1.4 Using the applicable NNECo documents, the OE completes Part B of the form.

Note: Only the current UFSAR and docketed licensing commitments are to be included. Input on NNECo licensing commitments contained in docketed material shall be provided by the Regulatory Review group as described in Project Procedure PP 04.

p

(,j 1.4.1 The licensing requirement should be described in su'Ticient detail. Wordy paragraphs are to be used only if required. As an example: -

• The required senice water design flow is 2500 GPM.

• The RWST accident volume is 350,000 Gallons.

1.5 The OE will count the number of pages and enters the appropriate total in the header box of the form.

1.6 The OE submits the form and checklist to the interface reviewers in accordance with the General Instructions for Review and Approval in Section 6.0 of this document.

O

_O __

- Persons Power Group lac. -

Pl.38 Revision 3 PI41. DOC January 21,1998

l 1

DOCUMENT ID: LBCD- l Page .1 of xx l MILLSTONE UNIT 2 CYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

LICENSING BASES -

CURRENT Desponsible Engmeer REVISION XX OF FSAR _n , tem Team 12nd, '

y . _ _- _ __ - . _ - - _ ____- . _ - - - - - - - _ - _ _

LICENSING BASES (CURRENT thru FSAR, Rev. XX) INTERFACE SIGN OFF PARY A

. REVISION 0 REVISION 1 REVISION 2 4

swww sw-tw sw -sw

1. ORIGINATOR

2. REVIEWF.a) - - -

Mechanical Lead Electrical Lead j Control Systems Lead Piping /Structur:.1 lead Operations Engineer Procedures Engineer

+ 1

Testing Engineer l

3. APPROVAL - - -

System Lead Engineer I SVSR Lead Engineer Q -

PARTH SYSTEM CURRENT LICENSING BASES Instructions: Revision xx of the FSAR and other licensing commitments will be used to determine the current system licensing basis. For each bases, enter the requirement and the reference section and page.

ILeB1 Licensine Reautrement Esfr ence - Section 4 Page 1.

, 2.

3.

4 i 4.

5.

i d

4 3

O V

4

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 02 I 02 - 1 Package Sequence No. 3 4

Revision 2 9/23/97 F2_LBCB. DOC

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CIIECKLISTS AND WORTBOOK

, O T1-CL-I-03 SYSTEM REVIEW CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS

1. "" 3 O

Signature. Date Prepared: sw/ / //p Reviewed: _

-J A 3 ho --- @

SfSR Grof'p Lead V Approved: 5'//4.fdI y/dr Approved: J/hhYO Deputy Profect Director O - Parsons Power Group Inc. -

PI- 39 Revision 3 PI41.lXX' January 21,1998

- MILLSTCNE UNIT 2 SYSR P~OJECTINSTRUCTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK g

'y1 1.0 FORM 3 - SYSTEM REVIEW CHECKLIST 1.1 The purpose of this form is to:

e Compare the current system design documentation (ircluding all modifications) to the current system licensing and design basis e Provide a review of current program / topical areas e Verify that system components satisfy their current licensing and design basis

. 1.2 The OE adds the Parsons Power Document ID number, NNECo system code, system title to the form header, and indicates the responsible SLE.

1.3 Upon initiation of the form, the OE signs and dates the appropriate Revision block in Part A.

1.4 The SLE in concert with the LE will review the specific checklist requirements and assign each requirement to the (1) OE, (2) discipline, or (3) specialist reviewer. The OE adds to Parts C, E.1 through W.1, and X, the assigned group (s) and types / prints the reviewer / inspector's name to each specific checklist requirement.

1.5 System /Programfropical Summary (Part B.2) 1.5.1 The OE summarizes the results of the program / topical area review performed in Parts E through W and provides a disposition in accordance with the instructions in Part B.2, signs and dates to indicate that applicable programs were considered in the design basis.

1.5.2 If any program / topical area is determined to not be considered, the OE indicates the program / topical area name, indicates and verifies that it is dispositioned as a discrepancy, signs and dates item 2 of Part B.2.

1.6 System Checklist Requirements (Part C) 1.6.1 Using the FSAR and other NNECo input documents as applicable, the OE(s) and/or specialist completes Part C of the Checklist following any additional instruction included in Part C.

1.6.2 If the requirement is assigned to another reviewer / specialist, the OE is responsible to track and assure the requirement input is provided.

1.6.3 The checklist requirement result should be described in sufficient detail. The OE/mspector determines the depth of the review. Wordy paragraphs are to be

_p used only if required.

\

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

PI 40 Revision 3 PI-01. DOC January 21,1998

- MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PJ.OJECTINSTRUCTISN PI el SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK O 1.6.4. - Upon completion of review of the checklist requirement, the assigned inspector checks the appropriate blocks under item B of the requirement, provides a disposition in accordance with the instructions in Part C, signs and dates the specific requirement (s). This signature indicates that the inspection of this requirement is complete.

1.7 Program / Topical Area Screening Requirements (Parts E to W)

Each program / topical area is screened to determine its applicability to the selected system.

1.7.1 The assigned inspector /OE completes the screening questions in Parts E through W and determines that the program / topical area was considered and its applicability to the system.

1.7.2 The OE and appropriate program / topical specialist provide disposition in _.

accordance with the instructions, sign and date the form These signatures indicate that the disposition of the system is correct.

1.8 Programffopical Area Checklist Requirements (Part E.1 through W.1) 1.8.1 Using the FSAR and other NNECo input documents as applicable, the OE(s) and/or specialist completes Parts E.1 through W.1 of the Checklist following any _

additional instruction included in each Part.

1.8.2 If the requirement is assigned to another reviewer / specialist, the OE is responsible to track and assure the requirement input is provided.

1.8.3 - The checklist requirement result should be described in sufficient detail. The OE/ inspector determine the depth of the review. Wordy paragraphs are to be used only if required.

_l.8.4 Upon completion of review of the checklist requirement, the assigned inspector cheeks the appropriate blocks under Item B of the requirement, provides a disposition in accordance with the instructions in each Part, signs and dates the specific requirement (s). - This signature indicates that the inspection of this requirement is complete.

1.9 Component Data Verification 1.9.1 - The OE adds the Parsons Power Document ID number, component tag number, NNECO system code, component description to the form header and indicates the responsible SLE. Repetitive or functionally similar components may be 0

0

- Persons Power Group Inc. -

PI- 41 Revision 3 PI41. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CliECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK O

g grouped on the same data sheet. Each non-repetitive component requires a separate form and Document ID number.

1.9.2 Upon initiation of Part X, the OE/ review inspector signs and dates the appropriate revision block.

1.9.3 The OE/ review inspector completes (Part X) by completing the component data checklist.

1.9.4 If the component data checklist is assigned to another reviewer / specialist, the OE is responsible to track and assure the requirement input is provided.

1.9.5 Upon completion of component data checklist, the assigned inspector checks the appropriate blocks under Item B of the requirement, provides a disposition in accordance with the instmetions in Part X, signs and dates the specific form.

This signature indicates that the inspection of this requirement is complete.

1.9.6 The OE submits the Part checklist for review and approval in accordance with General Instmetions for Review and Approval in Section 6.0 of this document.

1.10 The OE for Form 3 assures all the reviewer / inspector inputs are included for o each requirement and that the requirement has a (1) disposition, (2) inspector

!d signature, and (3) date. The OE counts the number of pages and enters the appropriate total in the header box of the form.

1.11 The OE submits the form and checklist to the SLE who reviews each of the individual requirements in Parts C and E through X that are dispositioned as a

" Discrepancy." The SLE completes Part B.1 by provic.ing a summary disposition, indicating any discrepancy requirement number (s), and signing and dating the form.

1.12 The OE submits the form and checklist (s) to the interface reviewers in accordance with the General Instructions for Review and Approval in Section 6.0 of this document.

2.0 CHECKLIST REVIEW REQUIREMENTS 2.1 The requirements and questions in the following sections are to be used to generate the specific checklist questions to be incorporated on the appropriate form. These questions and requirements are based upon the NRC Order, Oversight Plans, and SSFI/IDI procedures.

f' U)

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

PI- 42 Revision 3 PI-01. DOC January 21,1998

l MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYS2PROJECTINSTRUCTION PI-el SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK 2.2 The system review team (GLE, SLE, discipline reviewers, and specialists) will use these requirements / questions to generate the system specific resiew requirements for the selected system.

2.3 Based upon the system selected, the review team will determine what additional detail is to be provided and incorporate it into the customized system workbook.

O O

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

Pi- 43 Revision 3 PI41. DOC January 21,1998 1

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PZOJECT INSTRUCTION Pi-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK b

V SYSTEM REVIEW CHECKLIST QUESTIONS AND I 2QUIREMENTS INSTRUCTIONS

1. The system is reviewed using the following checklist and the results recorded on Form 3.

2. The System Lead Engineer shall use the following questions / requirements as the basis for preparing the specific review questions to be utilized by the inspection team.

3. The SLE reviews the following questions, expanding them as required, and completes the appropriate system specific form in the workbook.

Note: these questions / requirements are customized for each selected system and do not require the SLE to include each question ifit is not applicable to the selected system, f'8 O

4. If applicable, the SLE may use other checklist questions contained in the system review checklist or Appendix A.

5. If the selected system does not have a design input use Exhibit 1-03-1 to prepare a design input checklist.

A. IDENTIFICATION OF DESIGN INPUTS AND REOUIREMENTS Does a design input exist for the system? If yes, use the design input evaluation checklist.

If no, prepare a design input checklist (only the response to the questions need to be filled out). The system will be reviewed against this checklist. Exhibit IM 1 is a sample design input check.

B. DESIGN INPUT EVALUATION Are applicable Codes, Standards and Regulatory Guides referenced in the Calculations and Specifications?

(

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

PI-44 Revision 3 P141. DOC January 21,1998 l

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCTION PI 01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK

(%.

Q

• Verify that the calculations and specifications support the licensing basis as defined in Form 2.

• If the design was based on assumptions are these assumptions still valid?

• Does the design basis information, as used by NNECo, have suflicient technical guidance for engineers to perform assigned functions?

• Is the design basis information retrievable, adequately controlled, and revised as required to reflect changes to the Design Basis?

C. CALCIILATIONS AND MEAStiREMENTS e Do the calculations conform to the Design inputs?

Are any assumptions used in the calculations technically sound?

l Verify that the system design / performance calculation results envelope any performance requirements used or assumed in the Chapter 14 Accident Analysis. Where more than one flow path alignment is used for the system each alignment should be checked.

Are appropriate margins used for establishing the design basis of equipment?

e Were system calculations and analysis performed using recognized and acceptable methods?

(/ e Are the results of the calculations reasonable and consistent with the design input?

Are the calculations performed and verified in accordance with the applicable Design Control procedures?

e is data in the FSAR consistent with the plant design calculations and analysis?

Do the system calculations / analysis reflect the current plant configuration, Licensed Power Rating and operation?

D. OTHER CONFIGliRATION MANAGEMENT MEAStIREMENTS Do NNECo's Design Guides / Standards etc. provide suflicient technical guidance for Engineering?

Verify the seismic and safety classification of those components and portions of a systerr that perform a critical function.

Verify that non-safety portions of the system are isolated by automatic valves meeting single failure criteria or that calculations are available demonstrating that any loss of flow to the non-safety branch vil not effect the required operation.

Verify that safety grade power and control signals are provided to the critical i i components.

G

- Parsons Power Group lac. -

PI-45 Revision 3 Pi4l. DOC January 21,1998

_a

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR P'OJECT INSTRUCTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK Q]

• Review the control logic, interlocks, power supply, and manual controls associated with pumps and valves for required operation to support system design basis.

• Does the system design incoroorate and meet the licensing basis commitments?

e Does the data in the FSAR reflect modifications or changes in the licensing basis?

e Does the current design of the system meet the Design an 1 Licensing Basis requirements? i

. Are fuses controlled and stored properly? Verify that a fuse log exists. Is it maintained?

e Does the fuse control program segregate safety related and non-safety related fuses?

. Does Operations follow a process which maintains that a fuse is correct when handling fuses or fuse issues? Does the fuse control process address ider.tifying what caused the fuse to fail?

e If a problem exists as to the correct fuse being installed, does the fuse control program provide the information and processes necessary in determining the correct fuse or ensuring the correct fuse is used? This includes that all documentation is corrected which identifies fuse location, rating and type.

(

(

• Does the fuse control program provide adequate controls and linkages over fuse documentation when a change has been implemented in areas such as calculations, design documents, etc.?

e Have the design documents been modified to reflect the as-built conditions in the field and is there adequate documentation that identifies and implements and supports these field changes?

e Do NNECo's Design Guides / Standards, etc. provide sufficient technical guidance for Engineering?

E. MECHANICAL e Are the design pressure and temperature correctly selected in accordance with the applicable piping code?

e Are the system design conditions correctly stated in the Procurement Specifications and any ASME Design Specifications?

e Have the code requirements for overpressure protection been correctly applied in the design?

e Review valves and orifices in the systems for operating conditions with excessive (flashing or cavitation) pressure drops.

• Review the pipe size and flow in the system for Excessive fluid system velocities (erosion).

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

PI- 46 Revision 3 PI-01. DOC January 21,1998

.. - - __. --. ~

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYS3PTOJECTINSTRUC, TION PI-01 SYSP IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK e Do Valve, Flanges and other piping system components have adequate pressure-temperature ratings?

e Control valve operating conditions are bounded by procurement Specifications or valve vendors as-manufactured data, e Check required (as-built) heat exchanger duty with design requirements.

• Review Seismic qualification data for operability of active components.

• Has minimum flow protection been provided for pumps that are subject to operation at zero or reduced flow?

e Is there adequate isolation valving provided in any cross connections between redundant fluid trains?

e Are piping code / code class boundaries clearly identified and correctly applied to the system?

• Does the design provide instrumentation for performance testing and monitoring?

• Has the design considered the potential transient fluid loadings which may occur in the system?

e Has adequate NPSH been provided for pumps under all operating conditions and alignments?

g . Have the effects of pipe whip, jets and flooding been considered in the design?

I F. CIVIL. STRUCTURAL AND PIPING ANALYSIS

• Does the piping analysis use the correct system configuration, piping material and design pressure / temperature?

e Review piping suppons for adequate capacity for piping reaction loads.

• Has the piping analysis considered any applicable post-accident environmental temperatures that the system may be exposed to and which may exceed the normal piping design temperature?

• Are the design loads, load combinations and allowable values correctly selected in accordance with the applicable codes?

e Review applicability of floor response spectra and equipment damping values .

for piping analyses, pipe supports, conduit and cable tray supports, tubing design and seismic equipment qualification.

• Has the correct seismic input been used in the vendor documentation for seismic qualification of electrical and mechanical equipment?

e Were the design calculations for the generic conduit and cable tray supports performed by using accepted methods?

q

- Parsons Power Group lac. -

PI- 47 Revision 3 PI 01. DOC hnuary 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSRPROJECTINSTRUCTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK O

()

• Does the seismic qualification of electrical cabinets and 1&C panels and racks address structural evaluation of host cabinet, cabinet anchorage, housed components and component mounting details?

e Dues the number of modes used in the dynamic analyses capture about 90% of the total mass? If necessary, review how the effects of missing mass are included in the analyses.

• Do the dynamic analyses consider three-directional earthquakes where the vertical earthquake response is combined with the larger horizontal earthquake response?

e Are the relative movements between the structures correctly considered in the structural / piping calculations?

e Were the material properties correctly adjusted for high temperatures?

G. ELECTRICAL e Are the AC and DC electrical systems design bases / inputs including applicable codes, standards, criteria and regulatory requirements identified?

e Are the AC and DC electrical systems design bases / inputs complete and adequate to define the design base?

(O G

e Are the AC, DC and EDG design base calculations and analyses identified?

e Were the electrical system design base calculations and analyses performed using organized and accepted methods?

e Are the assumptions used in the system calculations or analyses technically sound and do they consider all operational modes and conditions that the AC or DC systems or components or EDG will experience?

Are the calculations or analyses results consistent with the design inputs?

e Do the design base electrical calculations identify available margins?

Are the AC and DC one line diagrams consistent with the supporting analyses?

e Do the electrical calculations and analyses support the rating of major safety related equipment / components including but not limited to:

. EDG's -

e medium voltage switchgear e low voltage switchgear a power center transformers e batteries and chargers e inverters e distribution panels e motor control centers t

- Panons Power Group Inc. -

P1 - 48 Revision 3 Pl.01. DOC January 21,1998 J

l i

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 l SYS3PROJECTINSTRUCTISN Pi-01 l SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK l

/O Q

• cables j

• electrical penetrations I e Do the AC and DC calculations and analyses represent the current plant configuration?

e Is the AC or DC electric power system capable of providing the required power as needed by each component in the system. That is, required voltage, frequency, current maximum and minimums at steady state and transient conditions?

e Can the required power quality be provided for the needed time?

e Do the system component controls meet the design requirements including disconnection from the bus, if required, and load sequencing in the required time?

e Has the distribution system been adequately designed with regard to cabling, breaker sizes, and coordination?

e Is safety-grade lE electrical power and control signals provided to critical components?

• Are the components qualified to perform their safety function in the environment that they will experience?

e Does the component physical arrangement meet requirements such as (3 separation, shielding, barriers, etc. to ensure that single failures do not prevent

\d the system from performing its safety function?

• Do the environmental qualification test conditions conform to the predicted conditions for that location?

e Is equipment performance specified for the worst accident in which the equipment will be required to perform?

• Do the equipment qualification test reports demonstrate qualification for the required conditions?

• Are the bases for the trip settings for protective devices including breaker, fuses and thermal overloads adequate to ensure performance of the safety function or protect the equipment in cases of overloads?

e Are the valve torque switch settings valid and are the setting > tested?

H. INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL

-* Verify that the Instrumentation and Control design pararneters envelope the anticipated normal, upset, and design process variables (pressure, temperature, flow) for the Fluid System design .

• Review the functional, wiring and installation drawings to assure conformance with the licensing and design basis.

• Review Qualificatioa documentation te determine ifit is in compliance with the licensing and design basis.?

- Parsons Power Group Inc. - i PI- 49 Revision 3 l PI-01. DOC January 21,1998 l

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK e Review the alarms or annunciators for the system to determine if the set points and location of the annunciation are appropriate.

• Have any required provisions for operation of the System from a remote location for shutdown been included in the design.

. Verify that the Instmment and Control system detects and maintains essential parameters during all plant conditions.

. Can the required detection and control functions be provided during a loss of offsite power or other anticipated conditions?

e Review the logic functions, interlocks, automatic actuation and other control functions required to assure that they are correctly implemented.

• Have the as-built deviations in instrument tap locations and instrument elevations been accounted for in the set point calculations?

e Have provisions been made at the control locations (Main Panel or local Panel) to indicate inoperable and bypassed status?

. Does the Instrument and Control design consider separation and redundancy requirements?

e For instrumentation that provides initiation or permissives for system operation verify the range, set point, and set point calculations are adequate.

• Has proper signal isolation been provided between safety and non-safety O related interfaces?

O

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

PI-50 Revision 3 P14)l. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCTION Pi-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK 3 FORM 3 PART E ANTICIPATED TRANSIENTS WITHOUT SCRAM CHECKLIST QUESTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS INSTRUCTIONS

1. ATWS is reviewed using the following checklist and the results of the review are recorded on Form 3 Part E.

2. The System Lead Engineer or Specialist shall use the following questions / requirements as the basis for preparing the specific review questions to be utilized by the inspection team.

3. The SLE or Specialist reviews the following questions, expanding them as required, and completes the appropriate system specific form in the workbook.

t Note: these questions / requirements are customized for each selected system and l do not require the SLE or Specialist to include each question ifit is not applicable i to the selected system.

O Q 4. If applicable, the SLE or Specialist may use other checklist question contained in the system review checklist or Appendix A.

A. ATWS OUESTIONS FOR SCREENING The following question will be used to screen the system for ATWS applicability.

A yes answer will require more detailed review as defined in Section "B."

Section A- ATWS Screening

• Does this system support plant response to an ATWS event as described in paragraph (b) of 10CFR50.62 and MNPS-2 FSAR Section 7.97 If yes:

Section B - ATWS The following questions should be answered for each system:

. How is this system credited in response to the event?

Does this system function wholly or in part to initiate AFW or a turbine trip in response to an ATWS?

. Does this system function wholly or in part as a means diverse from the RTS to interrupt power to the control elements, in response to an ATWS?

V

- Parsons Power Group Inc. ~

Pl.51 Revision 3 PI-01. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR P'OJECT INSTRUCTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK (O

j FORM 3 PART F CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW CIIECKLIST QUESTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS INSTRUCTIONS

1. Control Room Design Review is reviewed using the following checklist and the results of the review are recorded on Form 3 Part F.

2. The System Lead Engineer or Specialist shall use the following questions / requirements as the basis for preparing the specific review questions to be utilized by the inspection team.

3. The SLE or Specialist reviews the following questions, expanding them as required, and completes the appropriate system specific form in the workbook.

Note: these questions / requirements are customized for each selected system and do not require the SLE or Specialist to include each question ifit is not applicable q to toe selected system.

yf

4. If applicable, the SLE or Specialist may use other checklist question contained in the system review checklist or Appendix A.

A. CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW The following question will be used to screen the system for Control Room Design Review applicability. A yes answer will require a more detailed review as defined in section "B".

Section A - Control Room Design Review Screenine

• Does the system contain signals transmitted to the control room for indication, recording, annunciation, computer inputs, or engineered safety features?

O - Parsons Power Group Inc. -

P1 52 Revision 3 PI-01. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR P2OJECTINSTRUCTION PI 01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK Section B - Control Room Design Review The following questions should be answered for each system.

. 61 e the controls for the system (main or local panels) located in functional groups related to system structure?

e Are secondary controls and displays that are not important to safety located on secondary panels?

e is any color coding consistent with other color coding in the control room and does it provide adequate contrast?

• Are distinctive enhancement techniques used for emergency controls?

e Are frequently used controls located near the center of the preferred visual and manual areas as defined in NUREG 0700?

e Are functionally related controls and displays grouped together?

e Are components arranged left to right and/or top to bottom and in a numeric or alphabetic sequence?

Are the minimum separation guidelines of NUREG 0700 table 7-6 and figure 7-11 complied with?

q e Are displays arranged in horizontal rows?

V e Are controls appropriately and clearly labeled?

e Has a Hierarchical labeling practice in accordance with NUREG 0700, figure 7-12 been applied?

e Are major labels used to identify the system?

e Are labels placed abeve the device they describe?

• Are labels horizontally oriented to facilitate reading /

e Is the nomenclature used on labels the same as that used in the e procedures?

• Are the names, acronyms abbreviations system numbers, etc. used on labels consistent and administratively controlled?

• Is the direction (increase-decrease ) indicated for continuous motion rotary controls?

e Are any lines of demarcation for functions or groups visually distinctive?

e Is any color coding used to identify specific functions applied uniformly throughout the control room?

• Are labels clearly readable considering viewing distances and illumination at the panel?

- Parsons Power Group lac. -

PI- $3 Revision 3 PI-01. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECT INSTEUCTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK FORM 3 PART G ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION CHECKLIST QUESTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS INSTRUCTIONS

1. Environmental Qualification is reviewed using the following checklist and the results of the review are recorded on Form 3 PartG.

2. The System Lead Engineer or Specialist shall use the following questions / requirements as the basis for preparing the specific review questions to be utilized by the inspection team.

3. The SLE or Specialist reviews the following questions, expanding them as required, and completes the appropriate system specific form in the workbook.

Note: these questions / requirements are customized for each selected system and do not require the SLE or Specialist to include each question ifit is not applicable

( to the selected system.

4. If applicable, the SLE or Specialist may use other checklist question contained in the system review checklist or Appendix A.

A. ENVIRONMENTAL OUALIFICATION REVIEW CRITERIA The following question will be used to screen the system for Environmental Qualification applicability. A yes answer will require a more detailed review as dermed in Section "B."

Section A - Environmental Oualification Screening 3

Does the System contain " ACTIVE" components that must be operable during an accident, under post accident environmental conditions?

O V

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

PI-54 Revision 3 p -

January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 3 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CilECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK Section B - Environmental Oualification Reviny The following questions should be answered for each component requiring Environmental qualification:

• Has Millstone Unit 2 developed an environmental qualification program in accordance with 10CFR50.497

• Does the program have well-dermed criteria for:

identification of harsh environments?

identification of safety related equipment?

identification of associated equipment?

control and maintenance of documentation including EQ Configuration Control?

Are Equipment Qualification Reports developed?

Do they evaluate EQ Test Reports for tested configuration, anomalies, synergistic effects, etc?

Are the reports readily auditable?

Do they satisfy worst-case environmental conditions including submergence?

G

• Is there a program in place to ensure modifications appropriately address equipment enviromnental qualification?

Is there a program in place to ensure maintenance of qualification for:

responsibilities of personnel?

training of personnel?

identification of what equipment is EQ identify location generic equipment that is within the equipment loop for areas that are in s harsh environment?

a formal maintenance program in place to ensure qualified life?

equipment qualification requirement incorporation into Procurement Specifications?

Are changes in accident analysis reflected in changing environments and operating time for equipment?

Do dose calculations include source terms identified in NUREG 0588 and Reg Guide 1.897 When DOR qualified equipment is replaced and an upgrade to 10CFR50.49 qualified equipment is not made, is a " sound reason to the contrary" developed?

O

- Parsons Power Group lac. -

P1 - 55 Revision 3 PI 01. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCTION PI 01

, SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORK. BOOK e is the installed component in the plant checked during the Walkdown to assure that the installed configuration i.e., manufacturer model electrical /,nrocess spec., interfaces (cables, splices, terminal blocks, etc.); special EQ installation (conduit seals, weep holes, etc.) is in accordance with the qualification document?

l l

{

rx V

O

- Parsons Power Group lac. -

PI- 56 Revision 3 PI41. DOC January 21,1998

inlLLSTONE IINIT 2 GVSR PROJECTINSTRUC'I10N FI 01 SYSR LMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WOP.KBOON

,m FORM 3 PART H EROSION /CORROilON CHECKLIST QUESTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS INSTRUCTIONS

1. Erosion / Corrosion is reviewed using the following checklist and the results of the review are recorded on Form 3 Part H.

2. The, System Lead Engineer or Specialist shall use the following questions / requirements as the basis for preparing the specific review questions to be utilized by the inspection team.

3. The SLE or Specialist reviews the following questions, expanding them as required, and completes the appropriate system specific form in the workbook.

Note: these questions / requirements are customized for each selected system and do not require the SLE or Specialist to include each question ifit is not applicable to the selected system.

O Q 4. If applicable, the SLE or Specialist may use other checklist question contained in the system review checklist or Appendix A.

A. EROSION / CORROSION PROGRAM REVIEW CRITERIA

+ Has Millstone Unit 2 developed an erosion / corrosion monitoring program?

. Does the program have well-defined criteria for:

- selecting inspection points

- determining inspection frequency

- defining method ofinspection

- making replacement / repair decisions

. Does the program include:

- high-energy single-phase lines, including long-term inspection two-phase lines, including guidelines and computer codes

- large moderate-energy single-phase piping systems

. Has a plant-specific history of pipe wall thinning, including failure analysis and damage mechanism been established?

e Has a training program been implemented?

O . Have personnel conducting NDE examinations been properly certified?

V

- Panons Power Group lac. -

PI- 57 Revision 3 Pl.01. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PZOJECT INSTRUCTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK O

Q FORM 3 PART I EXTERNAL EVENTS / HAZARDS CHECKLIST QUESTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS INSTRUCTIONS

1. External Events / Hazards is reviewed using the following checklist and the results ot'the review are recorded on Form 3 Part I.

2. The System Lead Engineer or Specialist shall use the following questions / requirements as the basis for preparing the specific review questions to be utilized by the inspection team.

3. The SLE or Specialist reviews the following questions, expanding them as required, and completes the appropriate system specific form in the workbook.

Note: these questions / requirements are customized for each selected system and g do not require the SLE or Specialist to include each question ifit is not applicable Q to the selected system.

4. If applicable, the SLE or Specialist may use other checklist gaestion contained in the system resiew check list or Appendix A.

A. EXTERNAL EVENTS / HAZARDS REVIEW CRITERIA e Does the system include buildings, equipment or distribution lines that are affected by wiad loads?

e Does the system include buildings, equipment or distribution lines that are affected by snow loads?

. Does the system include buildings, equipment or distribution lines that are affected by seismic loads?

e Does the system include buildings, equipment or distribution lines that are affected by tornado loads?

Does the system include buildings, equipment or distribution lines that are affected by hurricane loads?

Does the system include buildings, equipment or distribution lines that are affected by flooding caused by natural phenomena?

e Does the system include buildings, equipment or distribution lines that could be affected by possible malevolent use of vehicles?

b

- Persons Power Group Inc. -

P1 - 58 Revision 3 l P141, DOC January 21,1998 I

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PZOJECT INSTRUCTl!N PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK

()j

(

FORM 3 PART J GENERIC LETTER 89-10 (MOV)

CHECKLIST QUESTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS INSTRUCTIONS

1. Generic Letter 89-10 (MOV)is reviewed using the following checklist and the results of the review are recorded on Form 3 Part J.

2. The System Lead Engineer or Specialist shall use the following questions / requirements as the basis for preparing the specific review questions to be utilized by the inspection team.

3. The SLE or Specialist reviews the following questions, expanding them as required, and completes the appropriate system specific form in the workbook.

Note: these questions / requirements are customized for each selected system and I do not require the SLE or Specialist to include each question ifit is not applicable

,g to the selected system.

4. If applicable, the SLE or Specialist may use other checklist question contained in the system review checklist or Appendix A.

A. GENERIC LE' ITER 89-10 (MOV) CRITERIA

• Are there safety related motor operated valves in this system?

Are there safety related position changeable valves in this system?

Are there non-safety related valves in this system that should be ir.cluded in the G.L. 89-10 program?

e Was the G.L. 89-10 program considered during the installation of new valves in this system?

e Was the G.L. 89-10 program considered during the maintenance of valves in this system?

, \

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

PI- 59 Revision 3 E01. DOC January 21,1998 r .

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYS3 PROJECTINSTRUCTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AhD WORKBOOK O

Q FORM 3 PART K HEAVY LOADS CHECKLIST QUESTIONS AND REQUIREMENTA INSTRUCTIONS

1. Heavy Loads are reviewed using the following checklist and the results of the review are recorded on Form 3 Part K.

2. The System Leaa Engineer or Specialist shall use the fohowing questions / requirements as the basis for preparing the specific review questions to be utilized by the ins 9ection team.

3. The SLE or Specialist reviews the following questions, expanding them as required, and completes the appropriate system specific form in the workbook.

Note: these questions / requirements are customized for each selected system and do not require the SLE or Specialist to include each question ifit is not applicable O to the selected system.

- 4. If applicable, the SLE or Specialist may use other checklist question contained in the system review checklist or Appendix A.

A. HEAVY LOADS REVIEV' CRITERIA Has a control-of-heavy-loads program been established for the plant in accordance with NUREG-0612.

. Does the system have any safe shutdown equipment positioned under a overhead load handling system capable oflifting the plant defined heavy load?

.O1 V

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

PI 60 Revision 3 Pl.01. DOC January 21,1998 l

MILLST5NE UNIT 2 SYSR P OJECTINSTRUCTION PI 01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLtSTS AND WORKBOOK (A) x FORM 3 PART L HIGH AND MODERATE ENERGY LINE BREAKS (HELB/MELB)

CHECKLIST QUESTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS INSTRUCTIONS

1. High and Moderate Energy Line Breaks (HELB/MELB) is reviewed using the following checklist and the results of the review are recorded on Form 3 Part L.

2. The System Lead Engineer or Specialist shall use the following questions / requirements as the basis for preparing the specific revww questions to be utilized by the inspection team.

3. The SLE or Specialist reviews the following questions, expanding them as i required, and completes the appropriate system specific form in the workbook.

Note: these questions / requirements are customized for each selected system and do r.ot require the SLE or Specialist to include each question ifit is not applicable t

sg to the selected system.

4. If applicable, the SLE or Specialist may use other checklist question contained in the system review checklist or Appendix A.

A. HELB/MELB REVIEW CRITERIA

{

e Are HELB/MELB location requirements identified in accordance with the Licensing / Design Basis?

Are essential systems / components required for operation of the system being reviewed identified in design documents?

Does system satisfy separation criteria for essential systems / components?

Are break effects considered and mitigated or evaluated correctly?

Are flooding, jets and spray conditions evaluated or identified in design documents?

. Are mitigating or evaluated conditions identified in design documents for use in maintaining configuration?

Are pipe rupture / whip restraints or structural separation provided at break locations as required to protect other systems required for shutdowns?

%./

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

PI- 61 Revision 3 FI4)l. DOC January 21,1998 l

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCTION PI 01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK .

• Arc safe shutdown components for other systems protected from jets from the system?

O O

- Persons Power Group Inc. -

PI- 62 Revision 3 MI E January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYS2PROJECTINSTRUCTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK FORM 3 PART M INSERVICE INSPECTION CHECKLIST QUESTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS INSTRUCTIONS l

1. Inservice Inspection is reviewed using the following checklist and the results of the j review are recorded on Form 3 Part M.

2. The System Lead Engineer or Specialist shall use the following questions / requirements as the basis for preparing the specific review questions to be utilized by the inspection team.

3. The SLE or Specialist reviews the following questions, expanding them as required, and completes the appropriate system specific form in the workbook, Note: these questions / requirements are customized for each selected system and p do not require the SLE or Specialist to include each question ifit is not applicable (j to the selected system.

4. If applicable, the SLE or Specialist may use other checklist question contained in the system review checklist or Appendix A.

A. INSERVICE INSPECTION REVIEW CRITERIA Are any system components part of the mechanical integrity or pressure retaining capability of a:

- pump

- valve

- piping

- vessel

- storage tank

- Rx Vessel Support Structures

- supports for piping, vessel, storage tank that fall into the boundaries of the ISI Program?

Does the component have any augmented exam requirements identified in the ISI program manual.

• Are any system components listed in the ISI manual.

- Parsons Power Group lac. -

P1-63 Revision 3 PI41. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PZOJECT INSTRUCTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK FORM 3 PART N INSERVICE TESTING /10 CFR50 APPENDIX J TESTING CHECKLIST QUESTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS INSTRUCTIONS

l. Inservice Inspection /10CFR50 Appendix J Testing is reviewed using the following checklist and the results of the review are recorded on Form 3 Pan M.

2. The System Lead Engineer shall use the following questions / requirements as the l basis for preparing the specific review questions to be utilized by the inspection team.

3. The SLE reviews the following questions, expanding them as required, and l completes the appropriate system specific form in the workbook.

Note: these questions / requirements are customized for each selected system and g does not require the sLE to include each question ifit is not applicable to the l 4

Q selected system.

4. If applicable, the SLE may use other checkhst questions contained in the licensing basis checklist, modificatien checklist or Appendix A and B.

A. INSERVICE TESTING APPENDIX J REVIEW CRITERIA

1. Does the IST Program systems (program / topical area) propetly reflect all required Design and Licensing bases?

2. An all systems (program / opical t area) pumps and valves and their associated tests required by ASME Section XI (applicable Code yehr) identified in the IST Progtam?

B.10CFR50 APPENDIX "J" TESTING REVIEW CRITERIA

1. Does the Appendix J Testing Program (Type "C") systems (program / topical area) properly reflect all required Design and Licensing bases?

2. Are all the valves under the jurisdiction of 10CFR50 Appendix "J" (Type "C")

Testing Program systems (program / topical area) identified for periodic 7

testing?

I

\s/

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

Pl.64 Revision 3 Pl.01. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK B. INSERVICE /10CFR50 APPENDIX "J" TESTING PROGRAMS COMMON REVIEW CRITERIA

1. Are the IST and 10CFR50 Appendix "T' Test (Type "C") Test Results within the systems (program / topical areas) tracked and trended?

2. When Repair / Replacement and Modifications are performed on the Insenice/10CFR50 Appendix "T' (Type "C") Testing Program systems (program / topical areas), are the applicable pre and post test requirements implemented?

t

%/

O - Parsons Power Group Inc. -

PI- 65 Revision 3 PI-01. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTCNE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCTION FI 01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK FORM 3 PART O IPEEE I CilECKLIST QUESTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS INSTRUCTIONS

1. IPEEE is reviewed using the following checklist and the results of the review are recorded on Form 3 Part O.

2. The System Lead Engineer or Specialist shall use the following questions /requirernents as the basis for preparing the specific review questions to be utilized by the inspection team.

3. The SLE or Specialist reviews the following questions, expanding them as required, and completes the appropriate system specific form in the workbook, Note: these questions / requirements are customized for each selected system and do not require the SLE or Specialist to include each question ifit is not applicable to the selected system.

4. If applicable, the SLE or Specialist may use other checklist question contained in the ystem review checklist or Appendix A.

A. IPEEE REVIEW CRITM

1. SEISMIC IPEEE REVIEW QUESTIONS The Millstone Unit 2 seismic IPEEE was performed using the EPRI Seismic Margin Methodology (EPki NP 6041, Rev.1). The review ruestions beloiv are formulated to address the NRC requirements for such an analysis as documented in NUREG 1407 and Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4.

• What was the review level mrthquake (RLE) used in the analysis? Does this meet or exceed the NRC's designation of Millstone as a 0.3g Focused Scope plant (NUREG 1407, fage 9)?

e Does the seismic IPEEE indicate that the Seismic Margin Methodology was critically reviewed against the Millstone Unit 2 plant design to ensure that the generic insights used in margin methodology development to b

- Parsons Power Group lac. -

P1 66 Revision 3 Pl 01.!XC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR P20JECTINSTRUCTION PI 01  !

SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK identify critical functions, systems, and success path logic are applicable to the plant (NUREG 1407, page 10)?

e Did the Seismic Margin Methodology use the NUREG/CR-0098 median rock or soil spectrum anchored at 0.3g (NUREG 1407, pages 11,13 &

14)?

e Was the ground motion considered at the surface in the free field? If secondary considerations such as shallow soil conditions were considered, were appropriate procedures used to determine the free field motion in the vicinity of affected structures and components, and did the capacity evaluations taken into account the effects of soil structure interaction (NUREG 1407, page i1)? ,

i e Was an analysis of high frequencv ground motion optionally included as discussed in NUREG-1407, page 117 If so, from what source was the response spectral shape derived (note that the 10,000 year return period uniform hazard spectra, NUREG/CR 5250, anchored at 0.3g was recommended in NUREG 1407, pages Il 12)?

e Did the alternate success path, to the maximum extent possible, involve operational sequences, systems, piping runs, and components different

\

from those in the preferred success ,ath (NUREG 1407, page 14; Generic Letter 8810, Supplement 4, page 13)?

e Did the walkdown conform to the recommendations in EPRI NP-6041, including methodology and documentation (NUREG 1407, pages 12 &

14)?

e Since Millstone Unit 2 is a USl A 46 plant, did the relay evaluation follow the A 46 procedures? Iflow ruggedness relays were identified in the A-46 evaluation, was the relay review expanfed to include relays outside the scope of USI A 46 but within the scope of the IPEEE (NUREG-1407, pages 12 & 14)?

e Did the soil failure review follow the EPRI NP-6041 guidance (NUREG-1407, pages 13 14)?

e Were the screening tables from the Generic Implementation Procedure for Seismic Verification of Nuclear Power Plant Equipment (GIP) used?

If so, was the review conducted at an appropriate RLE7 Were the caveats included in the margin reports observed? Were the limitations on the use of generic ruggedness spectrum (GERS) observed? Was spatial O - Panons Power Group inc. -

Pi 67 Revision 3 PI 01. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR P.".0JECTINSTRUCTION PI 01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK i interactions retained as described in EPRI NP 6041 (NUREG 1407, pages 13-14)?

e What approach was used to evaluation of outliers (fragility analysis or 2 conservative deterministic failure margin)(NUREG 1407, pages 13 14)?

-

• Did the seismic capacity evaluation conform to the guidance of NUREG.

1407 (page 14)?

e Do the success paths conform to NUREG 1407 guidance concerning s nonseismic failures and human actions? Do the failure modes and human actions have low enough probabilities to not affect the seismic margin evaluation (NUREG 1407, page 14; Generic Letter 8810, Supplement 4, page 13)?

e Was a containment and containment systems analysis included in the i

Seismic hiargin hiethodology? Was the analysis aimed at identifying vulnerabilities that involve early failure of containment functions (inchding containment integrity, containment isolation, and prevention of bypass)? Was the internal events IPE analysis used to determine the scope of systems for the containment analysis for the Seismic hiargin

,G hiethodology (NUREG 1407, pages 14-15)?

\J e Were safety-related above-ground tanks included in the evaluation (NUREG 1407, page 19)?

e Was the Seismic hlargin hiethodology evaluation coordinated with the USl A-16 evaluation (NUREG-1407, page 22)?

e Did the scismic IPEEE submittal provide a discussion of the criteria used to define " vulnerabilities" (NUREG 1407, page C-1; Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 19)?

e Did the seismic IPEEE submittal include a list of potential improvements that have been selectee for implementation based on the IPEEE? Did the submittal specifically highlight any improvements that were taken credit for in the analysis but which have not yet been implemented at the plant (NUREG 1407, page C-1)?

e Did the seismic IPEEE submittal contain a description of the peer review performed, including the results of the peer review and a list of the peer review team members (NUREG 1407, pages C-1 to C-2; Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 19)?

D U(

- Person: Power Group Inc. -

Pl.68 Revision 3 P! 01. DOC January 21,1998

_ _ .- _ ~ ~ _ _ __ -_ - . - = - _ _ _ - . . . _ _ -- _ __

~

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYS3PZOJECTINSTOUCT12N Pi 41 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKIBOOK

)'

• Did the seismic IPEEE submittal include a description of the methodology and a list ofimportant assumptions (NUREG 1407, page C-2)?

• Did the seismic IPEEE submittal address the extent to which the following were taken into account; nonseismic failures, human actions, dependencies, relay chatter, soil liquefaction, and seismically induced floods / fires? Was a list provided of the important nonseismic failures along with a rationale for the assumed failure rate given a seismic event (NUREG 1407, pages C 2 to C-3; Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 21)?

• Did the seismic IPEEE submittal include a summary of the walkdown

, results and a concise description of the walkdown team and procedures used (NUREG 1407, page C 3, Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, 1

page 22)?

• Did the seismic IPEEE submittal include a description of the success paths and procedures used for their selection, including a description of each component in the controlling success path (NUREG 1407, page C-3; Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 22)?

• Did the seismic IPEEE submittal identify the containment performance insights (NUREG 1407, page C-3; Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, pages 1314 & 22)?

e Did the seismic IPEEE submittal include a table of fragilities (if used) and HCLPFs, both generic and plant specific, used for screening as well as in quantification? Were the fragilities (if used) and HCLPFs for the plant, dominant sequences, and dominant components reponed (NUREG 1407, page C-3; Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 22)?

• Did the seismic IPEEE submittal include documentation with regard to other seismic issues addressed by the submittal, the basis and assumptions used to address the issues, and a description of the findings and

. conclusions (NUREG 1407, page C-3; Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 22)?

e Were any seismic vulnerabilities identified (Generic Letter 88-20, Supplement 4, page 8)? .

• Were all functional sequences and success paths considered in the analysis reported, along with their HCLPFs (Generic Letter 88-20,

( Supplement 4, page 15)?

- Panons Power Gmup Inc, -

PI 69 Revision 3 Pl.01.!XX' January 21,199s

Mila, STONE UNIT 2 SYSR P;0JECTINSTRUCTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK O e Were any IICLPF values lower than the RLE identified? If so, was the significance of any such values discussed in the seismic IPEEE submittal (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 15)?

e Did the IPEEE submittal include a description of the procedures used to identify systems and components for the walkdown in performing the seismic IPPEE (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 22)?

e Did the seismic IPEEE submittal include a discussion and the results of any specific component capacity evaluations performed, including the methods used and the assumptions (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 23)?

e lias the IPEEE program been affected by Information Notice 94 32, Revised Seismic Hazard Estimates, issued to advise licensees that the NRC is re visiting the IPEEE program to assess the impact of the revised seismic hazard curves in NUREG-14887 (The original seismic hazard curves are documented in NUREG/CR 5250.)

e For each system included in the ICAVP:

Does the system include any bad actor relays?

- Does the system include any active mechanical or electrical components that are part of the equipment list for the preferred or alternate shutdown paths?

Does the system include any tanks or heat exchangers that are required to achieve and maintain safe shutdown?

- Does the system include any outliers or vulnerabilities identified in the seismic margin analysis?

- Ilave allidentified IPEEE corrective actions been addressed to satisfactory conclusions for the subject system?

- Were new in structure response spectra generated for the A-46 resolution program scaled to generate in structure response spectra for the seismic IPEEE review, or vice versa?

- Ilow were the soil structure interaction efforts considered in the generation of the in structure response spectra?

- What structural and equipment damping values were used in the analysis?

-- Are any system or component failure modes identified which are not already included within the ICAVP scope?

O - Parsons Power Group lac. -

PI 70 Revision 3 PI-01. DOC January 21, I998

r-m-l MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PZOJECTINSTRUCTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CilECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK II. FIRE IPEEE REVIEW QUESTIONS e What methodology was used for the IPEEE internal fire review (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 4; NUREG 1407, page 16)?

Level I fire probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) as described in i NUREG/CR-2300, NUREG/CR 2815, or NUREG/CR-5259.  !

- Simplified fire PRA as described in NUREG/CR-4840. j

- Fire-L.duced Vulnerability Evaluation (FIVE) methodology. l

- liybrid (FIVE screening methods, PRA quantification).

- Other.

• Was the COMPBRN code used to model fire propagation? If so, were the shortcomings of the code (as identified in NUIWG/CR 5088) addressed in the application of the code (Generic Letter 88-20, Supplement 4, page 5)?

e When assessing the effectiveness of manual fire fighting, was plant.

specific data from fire brigade training employed to determine the response time of the fire fighters (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 5; NUREG 1407, page 16)?

O V e Was the effectiveness of fire barriers assessed in the fire IPEEE (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 5; NUREG-1407, Page 16)?

e Did the IPEEE critically examine the use of separation to determine fire zones (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 5)?

e Were the fire IPEEE walkdown procedures specifically tailored to assess the following issues identified in the Fire Risk Scoping Study (NUREG/CR-5088): (a) seismic / fire interactions, (b) effects of fire suppressants on safety equipment, and (c) control systems interactions (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 5; NUREG-1407, pages 16 &

20)? Did the walkdown address the issues raised in Generic Issue 57 (Generic Letter 88-20, Supplement 4, page 7, NUREG-1407, page 20)?

e Was containment performance assessed in the fire IPEEE to determine if vulnerabilities stemming from sequences that involve containment failure modes distinctly different from those obtained in the internal events IPE (Generic Letter 88-20, Supplement 4, pages 5,14 and 24; NUREG-1407, page 16)?

p V

- Persons Power Group Inc. -

P! 7i Revision 3 P141. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PZOJECTINSTRUCTION Pi 01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CilECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK e Did the fire IPEEE evaluate the vulnerability of decay heat removal systems to intemal fires as part of the resolut;on of USl A-45 (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 6; NUREG.1407, paFe 20)?

e Did the fire IPEEE specifically identify which USis and Gls it was proposing to resolve (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 7; NUREG 1407, pages 22 23)?

• Did the fire IPEEE reference the sequence screening criteria contained in Appendix 3 of Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, in reporting the sequences leading to core damage or leading to unusually poor containment performance (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 7)?

e Were any 10 CFR $0.$9 or 10 CFR 50.90 submittals made in connection with the fire IPEEE (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 8)?

e Did the fire IPEEE report any changes made to address vulnerabilities (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 8)?

e is there any indication in the fire IPBEE that the plant does not meet the facility licensing basis (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 8)?

o e Did the fire IPEEE identified whether the plant design or operation could be enhanced by substantial additional protection beyond NRC regulations in accordance with the NRC backfit rule (10 CFR 50.109)(Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, pages 8 9)?

e llave the results of the fire IPEEE been incorporated into the accident management plan or emergency operating procedures for Millstone Unit 2 (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 9)?

e lias the second tier documentation of the fire IPEEE been prepared and retained (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 9; NUREG-1407, page 25)? Does the second tier documentation include event and fault trees, current versions of system notebooks, walkdown reports, and the results of the examination such that an independent expert analyst can reproduce any portion of the calculations in a straight forward, unambiguous manner (NUREG-1407, pages 25 & C-1)?

e Were systemic sequences reported to the NRC in accordance with NUREG 1335 criteria (Generic Letter 88-20, Supplement 4, pages 15 &

24)?

()

\j

- Personi Power Group inc. -

P! 72 Revision 3 Plat.IXX' January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2

$YSR P OJECTINSTRUCTl2N FI 41 SY$R IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK e Did the fire IPEEE submittal identify the measures taken to ensure the technical adequacy of the IPEEE and the validation of the results (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 18)?

e Did the fire IPEEE define the term " vulnerability" as applied to intemal fire events (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 19)?

e Were any improvements identified for implementation based on the

. results of the fire IPEEE (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 19)?

e Did the fire IPEEE submittal describe the involvement of plant personnel in the analysis (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 19)?

e Did the fire IPEEE submittal describe the peer review process, describe j the results of the peer review, and provide a list of the peer review team members (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 19; NUREG 1407, page 24)? Were the peer review members independent of the individuals who performed the initial evaluation (NUREG 1407, pages xi & 24)?

e Did the fire IPEEE provide a description of the methodology and key assumptions used in performing the analysis (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 23)?

e Did the fire IPEEE provide a discussion of the status of Appendix R modifications (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 23)?

e Did the fire IPEEE provide a summary of the walkdown findings and a concise description of the walkdown team and procedures used, including a description of the efforts taken to ensure that the cable routing used in the analysis represents the as-built information and a description of the treatment of any existing dependence between the

- remote shutdown and control room circuitry (Generic Letter 38 20, Supplement 4, page 23)?

e Did the fire IPEEE provide a discussion of the criteria used to identify critical fire areas and provide a list of critical areas, including (a) single areas in which equipment failures represent a serious erosion of safety margin, and (b) same as (a), but for double or multiple areas sharing common barriers, penetration seals, HVAC ductwork, etc. (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 23)?

• Did the fire IPEEE provide a discussion of the criteria used for fire size and duration, and the treatment of cross-zone fire spread and associated

~

Persons Power Group laa. -

I'l 73 Revision 3 l'I.01. DOC January 21,199:

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYS3PZOJECTINSTRUCTION PI 01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK major assumptions (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 23; NUREG.1407, page 16)?

4 e Did the fire IPEEE provide a discussion of the fire initiation data base, including the plant specific data base used (including the data handling method, major assumptions, use of expert judgment, and the .

identification and evaluation of the sources of data uncertainties)

(Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 23)?

e Did the fire IPEEE provide a discussion of each case where plant specific data that was used is less conservative then the data base used in the approved fire vulnerability methodology used in the study (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 23)?

e Did the fire IPEEE provide a discussion of the treatment of fire growth and spread, the spread of hot gases and smoke, and the analysis of detection and suppression and their associated assumptions, including the treatment of suppression induced damage to equipraent (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, pages 23-24, NUREG 1407, page 16)?

e Did the fire IPEEE provide a discussion of fire damage modeling, including the defmition of fire-induced failures related to fire barriers and

( control systems and fire induced damage to cabinets (Generic Letter 88-20, Supplement 4, page 24)?

+

e Did the fire IPEEE provide a discussion of how human intervention was treated, and how fire induced and non fire-induced failures were combined (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 24)?

e Did the fire IPEEE identify recovery actions and types of fire mitigating actions taken credit for in the sequences (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 24)?

e Did the fire IPEEE provide all functional / systemic event trees associated with fire initiated sequences (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 24)?

e Did the fire IPEEE report the estimated core damage frequency, the timing of the associated core damage, a list of analytical assumptions including their bases, and the sources of uncertainties (Generic Letter 88-20, Supplement 4, page 24)?

e Did the fire IPEEE provide a discussion with regard to the Fire Risk Scoping Study (NUREG/CR 5088) issues addressed by the submittal,

- Persons Power Group Inc. -

PI 74 Revision 3 PI 01. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCTION PI el SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS ANil WORKBOOK incl'ading the basis and assumptions used to address the issues as well as a discussion of the findings and conclusions (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 24)? Were the issues addressed using plant specific data (NUREG 1407, page x)?

• Did the fire IPEEE provide a discussion of evaluation results and potential improvements associated with the decay heat removal function (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 24)?

l e If an existing fire PRA was used as the basis of the fire IPEEE, did the l submittal describe any sensitivity studies performed related to the use of the initial hazard, supplemental walkdown results, and subsequent evaluations, and did the submittal fill in those items from Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, Appendix 4, that were missing from the original fire PRA (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 24; NUREG 1407, page 16)?

• If the fire IPEEE employed the FIVE methodology, did the fire IPEEE address the NRC's evaluation report on FIVE (NUREG 1407, page x)?

• Did the fire IPEEE consider the possibility that transient fuels might supplement fuels already present in a fire zone (NUREG 1407, page 16)?

L

• Did the fire IPEEE examine any plant changes made as a result of the

- internal events IPE or proposed as a result of the external event IPEEE (for events than internal fire) to ensure that the changes do not create a fire vulnerability (NUREG 1407, pages 20-21)?

• Did the fire IPEEE include consideration of seismically induced fires and the impact ofinadvertent actuation of fire protection systems on safety systems (NUREG 1407, page 21)?

e Where the fire IPEEE credits actions by operators, have plant procedures been established that provide assurance that the operators can and will take the proper action (NUREG-1407, page 25)?

e For each system included in the ICAVP:

- Does the system appear in any of the dominant fire-initiated accident scenarios?

- Does the system include any outliers or vulnerabilities identified in the fire IPEEE analysis?

- Have allidentified IPEEE corrective actions been addressed to satisfactory conclusions for the subject system?

- Persons Power Group loc. ----

Pl . "15 Revision 3 Pl.01.IXX' January 21,1998

MIL 1J!iTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCTION PI 01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK Are any system or component failure modes identified which are not already included within the ICAVP scope?

III. tilGH WINDS, FLOODING, AND OTilER (HFO)IPEEE REVIEW QUESTIONS e What methodology was used to identifty potential severe accident vulnerabilities due to high winds, floods, and transportation and nearby facility accidents? Was the recommended progressive screening approach followed, or was another rnethodology employed (NUREG.

1407, page 17; Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 5)? Did the 11FO IPEEE submittal identify the screening criteria employed in the evaluation (Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 7)?

e Were any liFO events screened on the basis of conformance to the 1975 NRC Standard Review Plan (SRP)(NUREG 1407, page 17)? Where SRP conformance was referenced, did the IIFO IPEEE submittal provide the results of a plant / facility design review to determine their robustness in relation to the SRP criteria (NUREG 1407, page C-4)?

e Did the liFO assessment in the IPEEE include evaluations of high winds, external flooding, and nearby facility accidents (NUREG 1407, page 5)?

• Did the IIFO assessment include an evaluation of whether there are any plant unique events with potential severe accident vulnerabilities (NUREG 1407, page 5)?

• Did the liFO assessment or external floods include consideration of new probable maximum precipitation (PMP) criteria published by the National Weather Service as addressed in 01 103 (" Design for Probable Maximum Precipitation"; Generic Letter 89-22, October 19,1989)? Did the evaluation include both onsite flooding and roof ponding (NUREG Id^7, pages 4 & 20)?

• Did the IIFO assessment of external floods include consideration of upstream dam failure (NUREG 1407, page 4)?

e Even if the plant was designed to current criteria (RP), were changes that have occurred since the original design assessed as part of the IIFO assessment of transportation and nerby facility accidents (NUREG-1407, page 4)?

• Did the IIFO assessment consider plant history in response to lightning strikes? Is there any history for this facility of effects other than loss of

- Perwns Power Group Inc. -

P1 76 Revision 3 E01. DOC January 21,1998

l l

MILLETONE UNIT 2  !

SYS3PC0JECTINSTRUCTION PI el l SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK offsite power or a scram resulting from lightning strikes (NUREG 1405, pages 4 5)?

e Were any plant unique IIFO accident sequences identified which were different from those identified for the IPE or IPEEE seismic evaluations for which a containment performance evaluation was performed (NUREG 1407, page 17; Generic Letter 88 20, Supplement 4, page 5)?

e Did the liFO evaluation provide information on significant changes since the operating license was issued for: (a) military and industrial facilities within 5 miles of the site; (b) onsite storage or other activities involving hazardous materials;; (c) transportation; and (d) developments that could affect the o.iginal design conditions (NUREG 1407, page 17)?

e Was a confirmatory walkdown performed for liFO events (NUREG.

1407, page 17)?

e Were the liFO related USis and GSis addressed by the IPEEE submittal identified? Was the ability of the methodology used for the liFO event to identify vulnerabilities discussed? ' Was the contribution of the USI or GSI to core damage frequency or unusually poor containment performance (including sources of uncertainty if a PRA was used)

(Q,/ addressed? Was the technical basis for resohing the USl or GSI described (NUREG-1407, pages 22-23)?

e Did the liFO evaluation include a discussion of the peer review performed in connection with the evaluation (NUREG.1407, page 24 &

C 1 to C 2)?

e Did the liFO IPEEE submittal provide information on plant specific hazard data and licensing bases (NUREG 1407, page C-4)?

e Where PRA methods were used to address an liFO event, were the functional event trees provided? Was a description of each functional sequence selected provided, along with specific assumptions, human recovery actions, the estimated core damage frequency, the timing of associated core damage, and the sources of uncertainty (NUREG 1407, page C-4)?

e Was a certification provided in the 11FO IPEEE submittal that no other plant unique external event is known that poses any significant threat of a severe accident within the context of the IIFO screening approach (NUREG 1407, page C-4)?

O - Persons Power Group lac. -

Pl.77 Revision 3 Pl.01.IXX' January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PZOJECTINSTRUCTION Pi-01 SYSR IMPl.EMENTATION CllECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK Q e For each system included in the ICAVP:

Does the system appear in any of the liFO related accident scenarios?

. Does the system include any outliers or vulnerabilities identified in the liFO IPEEE analysis?

llave all identified IPEEE corrective actions been addressed to satisfactory conclusions for thu subject system?

- Are any system or component failure modes identified which are not already included within the ICAVP scope?

IV. INTERNAL EVENTS IPE REVIEW QUESTIONS e What methodology was used to perform the IPE (Level 1 PRA plus containment performance analysis, IDCOR Front End IPE plus 4

containment performance analysis, or other systematic method)(Generic Letter 88-20, page 3)?

e What were the fmdings of the USI A-45 (decay heat removal) review perforrned as part of the IPE (Generic Letter 88 20, page 4)? If the plant is a PWR without feed and bleed capability, does the submittal address the capability of the plant to recover from loss of all feedwater events (NUIEG 1335, page 2-7)?

p' V

• Did the IPE identify the screening criteria that were used to determine potentially important functional sequences that lead to core damage or unusually poor containment performance (Generic Letter 88 20, page 5)?

e Were any operator or other plant personnel actions identified as a result of the IPE that should be immediately implemented in the form of emergency operating procedures (EOPs) or similar fonnal guidance (Generic Letter 88-20, page 7)? For any actions in the IPE for which credit is allowed in the IPE, has the licensee established a plant procedure that provides assurance that the operators can and will take the required action (Generic Letter 88 20, page 4-2).

• Did the IPE follow the Generic Letter 68-20 screening criteria for selecting important severe accident sequences (Generic Letter 88-20, page 21; NUIGG 1335, pages 2-6 to 2 7):

- Any functional sequence (a set of faulted conditions that summarizes by function a set of system faults which would result in the consequence ofinterest, either core damage or unusually poor 4

containment performance) that contributes 10 per reactor year to p core damage.

V

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

PI 78 Revision 3 l'I.01 DOC January 21.1998

i MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCT12N Pi 41 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK Any functional sequence that contributes 5% of more to the total core damage frequency.

Any functional sequence that has a core damage frequency 4

contribution greater than or equal to 10 per reactor year and that leads to containment failute which can result in a radioactive release magnitude greater than or equal to the BWR-3 or PWR-4 release categories of WASil 1400.

Functional sequences that contribute to a contairunent bypass 4

frequency in excess of10 per reactor year.

- Any functional sequences that the utility determines from previous PRAs or engineering judgment to be important contributors to core damage frequency or poor containment performance.

• Did the IPE submittal describe the measures taken to ensure the technical adequacy of the IPE and the validation of the results, including any uncertainty, riensitivity, and imponance analyses (Generic Letter 88 20, page 41)?

e Did the IPE submittal list all initiating events, containment phenomena, and damage states examined (Generic Letter 88 20, page 41)?

• Did the IPE submittal provide all event trees (functional and

( containment), including their quantification? Were the fault trees for syrtems identified as the main contributors to core damage or unusually poor containment performance also provided (Generic Letter 88 20, page 41)?

e Did the IPE submittal provide a description of each function sequence selected by the criteria in Question Number 5 above, including a description of the accident sequence progression, specific assumptions, and human recoveiy actions (Generic Letter 88-20, page 4 1)?

e Did the IPE submittal provide the estimated core damage frequency and the likelihood or conditional probability of a large release? Was the timing of significant large releases for each of the leading functional sequences provided? Was a list of assumptions wiih their basis provided along with the source of uncertainties (Generic Letter 88 20, page 4-1)?

e Were the USis and GSis addressed by the IPE identified along with their contribution to core damage frequency or to unusually poor containment performance (Generic Letter 88 20, page 4-1)? For USIs and GSis addressed, does the submittal include a discussion of the ability of the IPE methodology used to identify vulnerabilities associated with the USl G or GSI being addressed, as well as the contributior. of each USI or GSI V

- Persoo Ponce Group Inc. -

P! 79 Revision 3 PI 01. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCTl".N Pi 41 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK to core damage frequency or to unusually poor containment performance (including sources of uncensinty)(NUREG 1335, page 2 8)?

• Was a description for the technical basis provided for the resolution of each USI and/or GSI (Generic Letter 88 20, page 41; NUREG 1335, page 2 8)?

e Was a listing of potential improvements (if any, including equipment changes, as well as changes in maintenance, operating and emergency procedures, surveillance, staffing, and training programs) that were I selected for implementation and a schedule for their implementation provided? Was a discussion included of the anticipated benefit, as well as i

any drawbacks, provided for each such improvement (Generic Letter 88-l 20, page 41; NUREG 1335, page 215)? If all potentialimprovements were dropped from further consideration because of high cost, does the IPE submittal document how less expensive attematives were sought as part of the IPE progress (NUREG 1335, page 215)?

e Was a description of the peer review process provided (Generic Letter 88-20, page 4-1; NUREG 1335, page 216)?

f%

d

• Was documentation on the level of ficense staffinvolvement in the IPE provided (Generic Letter 88 20, page 41; NUREG 1335, page 216)?

e Was the fbilowing information, if not provided as part of the IPE submittal, retained (Generic Letter 88 20, page 4 2):

- Event trees

- Fault trees System notebooks

- Walk through reports

- Results oflPE The guideline for adequate retained documentation is that an independent expert analyst should be able to reproduce any ponion of the results of

- the calculations in a straightforward, unambiguous manner (NUREG-1335, page 2 1).

• Does the IPE submittal contain plant layout and containment building information necessary for the analysis but not otherwise contained in the FSAR (NUREG 1335, page 2-4)?

O - Persons Paer Gmup inc. -

PI 80 Revision 3 nol. DOC January 21.199s j

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 l SYSR PC0JECTINSTRUCTCN FI el  !

SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIS1$ AND WORKBOOK e Does the IPE submittal contain a list of PRA or IPE studies of the plant 4

l or similar plants that the IPE team reviewed and a list ofimportant insights derived from these reviews (NUREG 1335, page 2-4)?

• Does the IPE submittal contain a concise description of the plant documentation used in the analysis, such as the FS AR, system descriptions, procedures, and LER:(NUREG 1335, page 2 4)?

e Does the IPE submittal contain a concise discussion of the process used to corfirm that the IPE represents the as built, as-operated plant (NUREG 1335, page 2 4)?

^

e Does the IPE submittal include a description of the walk through activity of the IPE team, including the scope and team makeup (NUREG 1335, page 2-4)?

e Does the IPE submittal contain a list of all generic and plant specific initiating events and groups of events considered (including internal flooding), their frequencies of occurrence, and the rationale for the grouping used (NUPdIG 1J35, page 2-4)? ,

O e Does the IPE submittal listina the minimum success criteria for front line systems that mitigate each in, ~ ing event or group of events, the bases for the criteria (e.g., expert juument, realistic calculation, FS AR), and the consistency of the criteria with the as built, as-operated plant (NUREG-1335, page 2-4)?

e Does the IPE submittal include all event trees (functional or systemic) '

developed or adapted from a reference plant for the initiating events or groups ofinitiating events, including a concise description of the assumptions and event heading dependencies consi6ered (NUREG 1335, page 2-4)?

e Does the IPE submittal include separate event trees used to develop special events such as ATWS, station blackout, PWR reactor coolant pump seal LOCA, interfacing system LOCA, internal flooding, etc.,

along with a concise description of the assumptions and event heading dependencies considered (NUREG 1335, page 2-4)?

e Does the IPE subrnittal include suppo,I system event trees (as applicable)? Does the IPE submittalinclude a concise description of each of the support system states (or bins) found to be important along with their effects on each of the front line systems (NUREG 1335, page 2-5)?

O - Perseas Power Group Inc. -

PI 81 Revision 3 Pl41. DOC January 21. I998

- . _ - _ _ . _ - _ _ _ . - . - ~ - _ - - --_ -_ _ -, _ _ -

MILLSTONE UNIT 2

$YSR PROJECTINSTRUCTION PI el SYSR IMPI.EMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK e Does the IPE include an explanation of the method used to group accident sequences into various bins, categories, or plant damage states (PDSs), including the unique bins considered and their physical meanings in tenns of controlling factors such as initiating events, time of core melt, and performance of containment safety features (NUREG 1335, page 2-5)?

e - Does the IPE include a table summarizing the bins associated with the ftmetional or systemic accident sequenced that lead to core melt (NUREG 1335, page 2 5)?

e Does the IPE submittal include a description and sin plified diagram of front line and support systems considered in the IPE (including appropriate line diagrams of electrical systems) (NUREG 1335, page 2 5)?

e Does the IPE submittal include a dependency matrix for all support and front line systems (or functions) considered in the IPE, including all functionalinterdependencies among the systems? Does the dependency assessment also include dependencies caused by systems that are shared by multi unit plants? Does the dependency assessment also include spatial or phenomenological dependencies that are scenario dependent O (NUREG.1335, page 2 5)?

e Does the IPE submittal include a discussion of the method used for determining unavailability of plant hardware, including a discussion of the unavailability consideration for standby and operating equipment and equipment in test and maintenance? Does the discussion also include a list of generic failure data used for equipment, equipment unavailability, or initiating events (NUREG 1335, page 2 5)?

e Does the IPE submittal discuss the types of common cause failures considered in the analysis (both in the event tree sequences and in the system analysis), including the quantification process employed and the sources of common-cause failure data used? Does the discussion also include a list of component groups subjected to common-cause failure analysis (NUREG 1335, page 2-5)?

e Does the IPE submittal include internal flooding initiators? Do the internal flooding initiators include such initiators as overfilling of water tanks, hose and pipe ruptures, and pump sealleaks along with their frequencies and resulting damage to important plant equipment (including water intrusion)? Does the submittal including quantification ofinternal n

V flooding sequences that leak to core damage (NUREG 1335, page 2-6)?

- Persons Power Group lac. -

PI 82 Revision 3 PbOI. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR P'OJECTINSTRUCTCN PI 01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CIIECKLISTS AND WORKil00K

/~'s

! )

e Does the IPE submittal discuss the types of human failures considered, such as human failures in maintenance and operation, human failure to recover, and human failure in accident mitigation (NUREG 1335, page 26)?

e Does the IPE submittal provide a list of human reliability data and time available for operator recovery actions considered, including the sources of these data? If the human errors are screened, does the IPE provide a list of the errors considered and a list of the important errors (including a discussion of the criteria used for determining importance)(NUREG-1335, page 2 6)?

e Does the IPE submittal provide a list ofitems for which plant specific experience is used, including the method of generating failure data from such experience (i.e., classical or llayesian method)? If such data has not been used, does the IPE include a rationale for not using plant specific experience for initiating events and for such important items as auxiliary feedwater and emergency core cooling system pumps, batteries, feed pumps, electrical buses, breakers, and diesel generators? Does the IPE submittal list any generic failure data used for equipment or initiating p events (NUREG 1335, page 2 6)?

U e Does the IPE submittal discuss the method by which accident sequences were quantified (including the identification of the computer program used, and the nature of the calculations performed by the program, such as outset generation, sequence quantification, and sensitivity analysis)

(NUIEG 1335, page 2 6)?

e Does the IPE submittal provide " expected" (mean) values or some other rnetric (NUREG-1335, page 2-6)?

e Does the IPE discussion of sequences meeting the reporting criteria include identification of the initiating event, the failures (both systems and containment responses), containment failure mode and timing, and the estimated source term? Does the discussion also include identification of specific assumptions, sensitive assumptions and parameters, essential equipment subjected to environmental conditions beyond the design bases and those conditions, and applicable human recovery actions (NUREG-1335, page 2 7)?

e Does the IPE submittal include a list of major contributors to those accident sequences selected using the screening criteria? Does the p submittal identify major contributions such as those from front-!ine LJ

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

P1 83 Revision 3 P141. DOC January 2 t,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSN PZOJECTINSTRUCTION PI el SYSR IMPLEMENTATION Cif ECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK p

(') systems or functions and support states, as well as contributions from unusually poor containment performance? Does the submittalinclude an estimate of the total core damage frequency (NUREG 1335, page 2 7)?

• Does the IPE submittal include a discussion of any vulnerabilities identified in the review process, including a discussion of the criteria used to define vulnerabilities? For each vulnerability identified, does the submittal include a discussion of the fundamental causes of each vulnerability (NUREG 1335, page 2 7)?

e Does the IPE submittal identify sequences that, but for low human error rates in recovery actions, would have been above the applicable core damage frequency screening criteria? For such sequences, does the IPE submittal identify the timing and complexity of the postulated human actions (NUREG-1335, page 2 8)?

• Does the IPE submittal identify and highlight component, system, and structure data that may be of significance in assessing severe accident progressions (NUREG 1335, page 2 9)?

• Did the IPE submittal evaluate equipment whose operability is desired Q during exposure to harsh environments (such as fan coolers or sprays)

V (NUREG-1335, onge 2 9)?

e Does the IPE submittal provide concise documentation of all analytical models, including selection of empirical factors and data inputs, used in the accident progression analysis? Does the submittal address general assumptions about the modeling of phenomena (NU"EG-1335, page 2 10)?

. Does the IPE submittal discuss the binning of accident sequences into darnage states with similar "back end" characteristics such es timing of important events or operability of key plant features? Does the submittal document all front to back-end sequence interfaces (i.e., reactor coolant system and containment thermal hydraulic conditions, containment mitigation system availability, support system availability, and human factor assumptions)? Is the binning method adequatelyjustified? Does the binning methodology facilitate further evaluation of potential preventive or mitigate options (NUREG-1335, pages 2-10 to 2-11)?

Does the IPE submittal document strategies to prevent or mitigate the detrinmtal effects of severe accidents which were developed as a result of the IPE process and for which credit is taken in the analysis (NUREG-1335, page 215)?

V

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

P1 84 Revision 3 Pl.01.IXX' January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PZOJECTINSTHUCTION PI 01 SYSR IMP!IMENTATION CIIECKLISTS AND WORKHOOK

,m

()

e Does the IPE submittal adequately discuss the basis for the containment failure characterization? Is the basis provided fo the estimated containment failure pressure and conditions? Did the analysis consider the possibility of thermal attack on containment penetrations (and did the assessment include a. evaluation of the penetration elastomer materials and their response to prolonged high temperatures? Did the assessment provide the containment failure size and location and the implications of these factors for any other structures into which radionuclide transport and retention were considered (such as vent piping, auxiliary buildings, etc.)(NUREG 1335, p3ge 211)?

e Does the IPE submittal adequately characterize the potential for containment isolation failure? Did the assessment consider: (a) the pathways that could significantly contribute to isolation failure;(b) the signals required to automatically isolate the penetration;(c) the potential for generating the signals for all initiating events; (d) the examination of the testing and maintenance procedures; and (c) the quantification of each containment isolation failure mode (including common mode failure)(NUREG 1335, page 211)? Does the subrnittal provide a description of the information used in determining the conditional probability that the containment is not isolated, including capability, r~3 testing, trip signals, overrides, diagnostics, and experience? Does the Q submittal describe the size and other characteristics of the resulting isolation failure (NUREG 1335, page 214)7

• Does the IPE submittal present a characterization of containment performance for each of the containment event tree (CET) end states based on an assessment of containment loads (NUREG 1335, page 2-13)?

e Does the IPE submittal provide documentation to support the availability and survivability of systems and components wit' pctentially significant impact on the CET or radionuclide release? Does the submittal assess the equipment environment with the same temperature, pressure, humidity, and radiation environment predicted as part of the accident progression analysis (NUREG 1335, page 213)7

• Does the IPE submittal provide an assessment of accident sequences that result in containment bypass (interfacing system LOCA)(NUREG 1335, page 2-14)7

• Does the IPE submittal describe (in sufficient detail for a reviewer to have confidence that phenomenological and other uncertainties have been p

NY

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

P1 8$ Revision 3 P101. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTCNE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCT12N Pi 01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKROOK properly accounted for) the methods used to handle phenomenological uncertainties in the containment analysis (NUREG 1335, page 2 14)?

e Does the IPE submittal provide radionuclide release estimates for all sequences which exceed the IPE screening criteria (NUREG 1335, page 214)?

e Does the IPE submittal provide information on how radionuclide reler se characteristics were assigned to sequences which exceed the IPE screening criteria (NUREG 1335, pages 2 14 to 2 15)?

e if release categories are used, does the IPE submittal provide the rationale for the process used to combine source term calculations or accident scenarios into release categories (NUREG 1335, page 2 15)?

e Does the IPE submittal report both the conditional and total frequencies of release categories (NUREG-1335, page 2 15)?

e Does the IPE submit'al identify any specific safety features that are unique and/or important to the facility (NUREG 1335, page 2 15)?

e For each system included in the ICAVP:

- Does the system appear;in any of the dominant accident scenarios?

- Does the system include any outliers or vulnerabilities identified in the IPE analysis?

have all identified IPE corrective .etions been addressed to satisfactory conclusions for the subject system?

- Are any system or component failure modes identified which are not already included within the ICAVP scope?

O - Par.ons Power Group Inc. -

11 86 Revision 3 Pl.01.tXX' January 21,199s

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCTION FI41 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKN00K 1 FORM 3 PART P MASTER EQUIPMENT AND PARTS LIST (MEPL)

CHECKLISTQUESTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS <

INSTRUCTIONS

1. Master Equipment and Parts List is reviewed using the following checklist and the results of the review are recorded on Form 3 Part P.

2. The~ System Lead Engineer or Specialist shall use the following questions / requirements as the basis for preparing the specific review questions to be utilized by the inspection team.

3. The SLE or Specialist reviews the following questions, expanding them as required, and completes the appropriate system specific form in the workbook.

Note: these questions / requirements are customized for each selected system and g do not require the SLE or Specialist to include each question ifit is not applicable ll U to the selected system.

4. If applicable, the SLE or Specialist may use other checklist question contained in

! the system review checklist or Appendix A.

. A. MEPI, REVIEW CRITERIA

• General

- Is the System and the components in the system assigned the correct Safety Classification in accordance with the Licensing and Design Basis?

Is the Safety Function correctly defined for Category I components?

Is the functional basis for the system safety related determination in agreement with the Tier 2 critical safety functions?

e MEPL changes for Parts lias MEPL changes for Parts reflect the component's safety classification and associated licensing / design basis.

Does the evaluation for use of commercial grade items reflect the components safety classification and associated licensing / design basis.

- Persons Power Group lac. -

Pl.87 Rnision 3 Pl.01.!XX' January 21,1998

}

MILLSTCNE UNIT 2 SV$R PZOJECT INSTRUCTION PI-01

$YSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK e Vendor TechnicalInformation

- For Key Safety Related Components have the associated vendor documents been reviewed for periodic update?

Periodic updates can be required as a result of plant modifications, industry experience or equipment vendor changes.

Are periodic updates incorporated in affected O&M procedures, drawings, databases, EQ packages, etc.?

Have parts and subcomponents updates / changes to VT1 been incorporated into the MEPL7 e Physical Verification (Walkdown)-

Do the NNECo drawings identified as operations critical reflect MEPL data for safety related and augmented quality?

O O - Parsons Power Group lac. -

. li 88 Revision 3 11-01. DOC January 21,1998

-~ .- _ - . . . . - _ . . - .- - - - - - _ _ _ - - - .

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR P'0JECTINSTRUCTI!N PI 41 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK FORM 3 PART Q REGULATORY GUIDE 1.97 COMPLIANCE CIIECKLIST QUESTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS INSTRUCTIONS

1. Regulatory Guide 1.97 compliance is reviewed using the following checklist and the results of the review are recorded on Form 3 Part Q.

2. The System Lead Engineer or Specialist thall use the following questions / requirements as the basis for preparing the specific review questions to be utilized by the inspection tearn.

3. The SLE or Specialist reviews the following questions, expanding them as '

required, and completes the appropriate system specific form in the workbook.

Note: these questions / requirements are customized for each selected system and do not require the SLE or Specialist to include each question ifit is not applicable to the selected system.

4. If applicable, the SLE or Specialist may use other checklist question contained in the system review checklist or Appendix A.

A. R.G.1.97 REVIEW CRITERIA Are all of the instruments required to meet the licensing basis for Regulatory Guide 1.97 for the system included in the MP2 design Basis (fi?-M2 EE-0012)?

• Is the correct measured variable type (A. 8, C, D, or E) assigned in accordance with RG 1.977 e is the RG 1.97 instrumentation qualified for the post accident environmental conditions in the zone where it is located?

e is the RG 1.97 instrumentation powered from safety related power sources where required by RG 1.977

• Ilave the instrument ranges been selected to cover post accident measured variable values?

e Do the plant testing programs cover the periodic testing of RG 1.97 p instrumentation?

G

- Persons Power Group lac. -

Pl.89 Revision 3 Pl41. DOC January 21,199s

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCT!!N PI 01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK FORM 3 PART H S EPA RATIO N/IN D E PEN D ENCE/ DIVE RSITY CilECKLISTQUESTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS INSTRUCTIONS

1. Separation / independence / diversity is reviewed using the following checklist and the results of the review are recorded on Form 3 Part R.

2. The System Lead Engineer or Specialist shall use the following questions / requirements as the basis for preparing the specific review questions to be utilized by the inspection team

3. The SLE or Specialist reviews the following questiont, expanding them as required, and completes the appropriate system specific form in the workbook.

Note: these questions / requirements are customized for each selected system and p do not require the SLE or Specialist to include each question ifit is not applicable Q to the selected system.

4. If applicable, the SLE or Specialist may use other checklist question contained in the system resi:w checklist er Appendix A.

A. SEPARATION / INDEPENDENCE / DIVERSITY REVIEW CRITERIA The following question will be used to screen the system for Separatiorv independence / Diversity applicability. A yes answer will require a more detailed review as dermed in section "B" Section A - Separatiorvindependence/ Diversity Review Screening

• Does the system contain " Active" components that must be operable during an j accident, or post accident conditions or during/after a seismic event?

t Section B - Srpatalion/ Independence /Diyrrsity Resiew e if the question is answered yes, a Separation / Independence / Diversity review of the system is required.

O - Panon Power Group Inc. -

l PI 40 Revision 3 l PbO).!XT January 21,1998 l

l , _ . _ _ , - - - - - . - .

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR P20JECTINSTRUCTION P101 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKHOOK FORM 3 PART S SET l'OINT CONTROL CilECKLIST QUESTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS INSTRUCTIONS

1. Set point controlis reviewed using the following checklist and the results of the review are recorded on Form 3 Part S.

2. The System Lead Engineer or Specialist shall use the following questions / requirements as the basis for preparing the specific review questions to b; utilized by the inspection team.

3. The SLE or Specialist reviews the following questions, expanding them as required, and completes the appropriate system specific form in the workbook.

Note: these questions / requirements are customized for each selected system and do not require the SLE or Specialist to include each question ifit is not applicable to the selected system.

4. If applicable, the SLE or Specialist may use other checklist question contained in the system review checklist or Appendix A.

A. SET POINT CONTROL REVIEW CRITERIA The following question will be used to screen the system for Set Point Control applicability. A yes answer will require a mere detailed review as defined in section "B" Section A . Set Point Control Review Screening

• Does the system contain at least one set point, which is critical to operation of the system, during an accident, post accident or during/after a seismic event?

- Persons Power Group Inc. -

PI 9I Revision 3 Pl41. DOC January 21,1998

MILIMT"NE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCTION Pi-01 1 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CilECKLISTS AND WORKil00K g)

( Section 11 - Sfifoint Control Review for each calculation answer the following questions.

• Are all assumptions reasonable and normal?

e is good engineering judgement used in making and qualifying the assumptions?

e Are the assumptions complete?

. Are all design inputs complete, documented, reasonable and normal?

e Are the sources of data for these calcula' ions reasonable and reliable 7 e Arc all applicable process conditions and efTects properly addressed?

e is the methodology used consistent with the time of the calculation?

e Are all appropriate assumptions and setpoints transferred to plant documents?

e Are the setpoints used in the plant enveloped by the calculations?

e Do the calculations support the technical specifications and other design documents?

'\ ]

(3

- Parsons Power Group lac. -

Pl 92 Itevision 3 PMt. DOC January 21.1998

MILESTONE UNIT 2

$V5R P OJECTINSTCUCTION PI 41 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECFLISTS AND WOAKBOOK FORM 3 PART T SINGLE FAkURE CHECKLIST QUESTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS INSTRUCTIONS

1. Single Failure !s reviewed using the following checklist and the results of the review are recorded on Form 3 Part T.

2. The System Lead Engineer or Specialist shall use the following questions / requirements as the bark for preparing the specific review questions to be utilized by the inspection team.

3. The SLE or Specialist reviews the following questions, expanding them as required, and completes the appropriate system specific form in the workbook.

Note: these questions / requirements are customized for each selected system and do not require the SLE or Specialist to include each question ifit is not applical,le to the selected system.

4. If applicable, the SLE or Specialist may use other checklist question contained in the system review checklist or Appendix A.

A. SINGLE FAILURE REVIEW The following question will be used to screen the system for Single Failure Review applicability. A yes answer will require a more detailed review as defmed in section "B" Section A Single Failure Resiew Screening

. Does the system contain any active components that must be operable during an accident or under post. accident conditions?

Section B Single Failure Review if the question is answered yes, a single failure review of the system is required.

• Was a single failure analysis performed on each component required per s Section A7 i

- Persons Power Group Inc. -

Pl.93 Revision 3 P!41, DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTENE UNIT 2 SYSR PZOJECTINSTRUCTION PI-01

, SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK FORM 3 PART U 9TATION BLACKOUT CHECKLIST QUESTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS INSTRUCTIONS

l. Station Blackout is reviewed using the following checklist and the results of the review are recorded on Form 3 Part U.

2 The System Lead Engineer or Specialist shall use the following questiondrequirements as the basis for preparing the specific review questions to be utilized by the inspection team.

3. The SLE or Specialist reviews the following questions, expanding them as required, and completes the appropriate system specific form in the workbook.

Note: these questions / requirements are customized for each selected system and do not require the SLE or Specialist to include each question ifit is not applicable g to the selected system.

4. If applicable, the SLE or Specialist may use other checklist question contained in the system review checklist or Appendix A.

A. STATION BLACKOUT REVIEW CRITERIA The following questions will be used to screen the system for Station Blackout applicability. A yes answer will require a more detailed review as defined in Section B.

Section A - Sigtion Blackout Rwiew Screenina

. Is the sydem being reviewed identified in the Millstone Unit SHO response scenario as being utilized?

Section B - Station Blackpyt Resiew e Are the system SBO functions identified in NNECo's SBO scenario consistent p with the NUMARC document?

O

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

PI 94 Revision 3 PLO1. DOC January 21,1998

- _ _ . _ ~ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ . __ _. _.-._ _ _

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI-01 SYSRIMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK n

Q e Can :he componen:s perform the required function as described in the SB0 scenado?

• Are all of tbe system components required to perform the SBO function listed in the SI'.O equipment list?

e Do the MEPL and PMMS entries for the system identify the SBO function e correcily for the components required for SBO? .

• Do any SBO related calculations for the system follow the NUMARC guidance for method, use the correct inputs and are correctly performed to obtain a correct result?

e Verify that any containment isolation valves in the system will fail closed in an SBO or can be manually closed.

• Venfy that any system electrical equipment that is powered from the ahernate AC source during an SBO can be connected to the alternate AC source and 4

that all of the breakers required are identified on the SBO Component list.

e Verify the DC and AC loads used in SBO Power requirement calculations for system components are correct.

• Verify that any system instrumentation required during an SBO is powered from an available source and is correctly identified in the station operating procedures.

• Review SBO Emergency Operating Procedures for the system to assure that they correctly implement the SBO scenario.

O (d

)

- Parsons Power Group lac. -

PI- 95 Revision 3 PI-01. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SVSR PZ.OJECT INSTRUCTION PI-01 SVSR IMILEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK FORM 3 PART V APPENDLX R CHECKLIST QUESTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS INSTRUCTIONS

1. Appendix R is reviewed using the following checklist and the results of the resiew are recorded on Form 3 Part V,

2. The System Lead Engineer or Specialist shall use the following questions / requirements as the basis for preparing the specific review questions to be utilized by the inspection team.

l

3. The SLE or Specialist reviews the following questions, expanding them as required, and completes the appropriate system specific form in the workbook.

Note: these questions / requirements are customized for each selected system and do not require the SLE or Specialist to include each question ifit is not applicable to the selected system.

(Jn) 4, If applicable, the SLE or Specialist may use other checklist question contained in the system review checklist or Appendix A.

A. APPENDIX R CRITERIA The following questions will be used to screen the system for Appendix R applicability. A yes answer will require a more detailed review as defined in Section B.

Section A- Anoendix R Review Screening Is the system (or any portion of the system) necessary for safe plant shutdown in the event of a 10CFR50 Appendix R fire?

Section B - Apoendix R Review Are the system and the specific safe shutdown components appropriately

, defined in the plant Appendix R documentation and in the operating

( procedures used by operating personnel for a fire scenario?

b)

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

Pl.96 Revisica 3 Pl.01. DOC January 21,1998 m

_ _ _ , . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . ~ . _ _ _ _ . _

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PIOJECTINSTRUCTION PI 01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK O e Does the Appendix R documentation demonstrate compliance to the separation criteria of 10CFR50 Appendix R, Section Ill.G.2 for the tsfe shutdown components and circuits?

e Are local manual operations or local administrative actions (if applicable) adequately defined?

e _ Is alternative or dedicated shutdown capability (e.g. remote shutdown for a main control room fire) provided in accordance with 10CFR50 Appendix R, Section III.L7 e For the fire areas requiring the use of the system for safe chutdown, does the Appendix R documentation demonstrate the availability of the necessary support systems; e.g. electrical power, control power, serviu water, HVAC7

.: Have the equipment and circuits necessary for safe shutdown been identified?

e Has the impad of fire barriers / wrap on cable derating been addressed?

e' For manual actions necessary for safe shutdown, has the required lighting and i communication been provided? _

e- Have associated circuits been iden:ified and their impact addressed?

e For the system cader reviews, do the circuits and equipment required for safe shutdown have adequate separation or fire barriers in representative fire zones.

O - Persons Power Group Inc. -

Pl.97 Revision 3 PI-01. DOC - January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK FORM 3 PART W USI A-46 SEISMIC QUALIFICATION .

CHECKLIST QUESTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS INSTRUCTIONS

1. USI A-46 Seismic Qualification is reviewed using the folloe.ing checklist and the results of the review are recorded on Form 3 Part W.

2. The System Lead Engineer or Specialist shall use the following questions / requirements as the basis for preparing the specific review questions to be utilized by the inspection team.

3. The SLE or Specialist reviews the following questions, expanding them as required, and completes the appropriate system specific form in the workbook.

Note: these questions / requirements are customized for each selected system and do not require the SLE or Specialist to include each question ifit is not applicable O to the selected system.

4. If applicable, the SLE or Specialist may use other checklist question contained in the system review checklist or Appendix A.

A. SEISMIC OUALIFICATION REVIEW CRITERIA e Has a " Verification of Seismic Adequacy of Mechanical and Electrical Equipment, Unresolved Safety issue (USI) A-46" program been established and executed for the plant?

e Does the program in Item 1 comply with the Seismic Qualification Utility Group's (SQUG) Generic Implementation Procedure (GIP), including Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report Number 2, to satisfy Generic Letter 87-02?

e Identify any significant or programmatic deviation from the GIP's guidelines for seismic verification of plant equipment.

• Does the system include any active mechanical and electrical components and cable trays that are required during and following a design basis seismic event?

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

PI- 98 Revision 3 PI-01. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYS3P OJECTINSTRUCTION FI el SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK

• Does the system include tanks and heat exchangers that are required to achieve and maintain safe shutdown?

• Does thr, system include any outliers identified during the implementation of the USI A-46 resolution program?

e What is the methodology used for seismic qualification of outliers?

e Has the SGUG's GIP's methodology been utilized for seismic qualification of new and replacement components?

e Have allidentified USI A-46 corrective actions been addressed to satisfactory conclusions for the subject system?

• Was there any integration between the USI A-46 and IPEEE programs?

O O

- Parsons Power Group lac. -

PI- 99 Revision 3 PI-01. DOC January 21,1998 E

DOCUMENT ID: RC-SLB- Page 1 of xx MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND LICENSING BASIS CIIECKLIST Responsible Engmeer:

PART A SYSTEM DESIGN AND LICENSING BASIS CHECKLIST CLOSE-OUT REVISION 0 REVISION 1 REVISION 2 1

ses ims.* awa-se sia -me

1. ORIGINATOR

2. REVIEWED - - -

Mechanicallead Electricallead Control Systems lead Piping /Structurallead Operations Engineer Procedures Engineer Testing Engineer 4

3. APPROVAL .- - -

System Lead Engineer

\ SVSR Lead Engineer PART B.1 SYSTEM

SUMMARY

Instructions: (1) The SLE will svview the attached checidists and supplemental material and indicate whether the system adequately considered or incorporated the indicated requirements.

(2) The SLE will review the attached program / topical checidists and supplemental material and indicste whether the system adequately considered or lacorporated the indicated irquiressents.

(3) For each DISCREPANCY found during the audit, the SLE is to indicate the requirement item number (s) under the appropriate Revision and assure all discrepancies are processed per PP-07.

REVISION O REVISION 1 REVISION 2

1. llave System licensing requirements been O Yes O No O Yes O No O Yes O No adequately addressed?

2. llave all program / topical area hsted been O Yes O No O Yes O No O Yes O No adequately addressed?

3. Are component requirements satisfied? O Yes O No O Yes O No O Yes O No

4. Summaryof Discrepancy (ies) Items Signature SLE/Date

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 3 I 1 Package Sequence No. 4 Revision 3 F3_CLLBD. DOC 12/22197

DOCUMENT ID: RC-SLC- Page 2 of xx MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND LICENSING BASIS CIIECKLIST Responsible Engmeer.

PART B.2 SYSTEM PROGRAM /FOPICAL

SUMMARY

Instructions: (1) The OE will summarb s which of the program areas are lacluded in the licensing basis of the system.

His Ps:1 should not be completed until the detall reviews la Parts E through W have been completed.

(2) The OE needs to assure that NNECo has considered the applicability of EACH program / topical area.

When dispositioning the~ question below, the OE needs to review the licensing basis or program to the estent that NNECo considered it during la the system design.

NOTE: Because these are topical areas, NNECo licensing basis needs to consider each program / topical area for appilcability. However, MQ1 area may not effect/ impact the system and hence not be applicable to the licensing / design basis.

Form 3 APPLICABLE TO Reference PROGRAM / TOPICAL AREA THE SYSTEM i Section CURRENT Part LICENSING BASIS E Anticipated Transients Without SCRAM (A1WS) O Yes O No p F Control Room Design Review 0 Yes O No V G Emironmental Qualification of Electrical Equipment (EQ) O Yes O No H Erosion / Corrosion O Yes O No I External Events / Hazards O Yes O No J

Generic Letter 89-10 (MOV) O Yes O No K Heavy Loads O Yes O No L High and Moderate Energy Line Breaks (HELB/MELB) O Yes O No M insenice Inspection O Yes O No N Insenice Testing /10 CFR50 Appendix J Testing O Yes O No O IPEEE O Yes O No P Master Equipment and Parts List (MEPL) O Yes O Na Q Regulatory Guide 1.97 Compliance O Yes O No R Separation / Independence / Diversity 0 Yes O No S Set Point Control O Yes O No T Single Failure O Yes O No U Station Blackout

. O Yes O No

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 3 1 2 Package Sequence No. 4 Revision 3 F3.CLLBD. DOC 12/22/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC SLB- Page 3 of xx MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

P) s v

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND SYSTEM:

LICENSING BASIS CIIECKLIST ~

Responsible Engmeer-(System Team lead)

V 10 CFR50 Appendix R O Yes O No W USI A-46 Seismic Qualification O Yes O No

1. O Yes O No A rniew of the program / topical area indicates that the current system licensing / design basis has considered the applicabihty of g_aqh program / topical area. (If"Yes," sign and date below. If"No,"

verify that a discrepancy was prncemvi as part of system program rniew. Indicate in step 2 the program, sign and date. REMEMBER, APPLICABILITY is a requirement but CONSIDERATION is a crocess).

Originating Engineer /Date:

2.a The following Program (s) Has Not Been Considered: [OE Delete this item is not applicable)

a. PROGRAM:

O DISCREPANCY processed Originating Engineer /Date:

( - Panons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 3 I 3 Package Sequence No. 4 Revision 3 F3_CLLBD. DOC 12/22/97

i DOCUMENT ID: RC-SLB- P:ge 4 of xx MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND LICENSING BASIS l CHECKLIST Responsible Engtneer, PART C SYSTEM LnCENSING/ DESIGN INPUT REQUIREMENT CHECKLIST lastructions: For each requirossent listed below:

(1) GLE, SLE, OE sad systeen team develops the specific requirements to be reviewed using the generic i questless le the lastruction and Attachment A source book. Eggh requirement will be gives a new item j

muenber and loclude steps A, B, C, and D.

(2) Each requiresmeet will be consecutively membered starting with I (one).

l (3) The System lead Engineer will assign the review group responsible for reviewleg each requiresnent.

Mechanical = M. Electrical = E, Centrols = IAC, Testing = T. Procedures = P. Operations = 0 (4) he ledividual that reviews the requirement will slan and date, provide a dispostales, Indicate laterfaces, and provide a reopease based spen the followlag:

, s. Yes Requiresseet is satisfactorey addressed. laciude reference source, revisies, sad date. No l

espisestion/results is required.

b. No Requiremset is not satisfactorily addressed or discrepast condition esists. Provide as esplanation of how the requirement was not satisfied. laciude referwace source (s), revision, and date, as

' applicable. Disposition the condition as a DISCREPANCY and classify the basis la step B. The responsible ladividual shall insmediately advise the SLE of any requirement belas disposittooed as a DISCREPANCY la accordance with Project Procedure PP-47. Initiaties of PP-47 will be by the i

' OE. Process and procedural discrepancies not dispositioned la accordance with PP 47 will be analysed by Tier 3.

c. NA Requireasset is not applicable. Explanation should be locluded only ifit clarifles the disposition.

~ INF Requiresseet could not be verified because leformistlos could not be found. If as RAI was generated to clarify the requirement, the RAI nuasber and subsequest NNECo response reference is to be provided. Is Part D indicate the information could not be found and disposition as a DISCREPANCY. The responsible ladividual shall leasediately advise the SLE of any i requiressent being dispositioned as a DISCREPANCY. laitiation of PP-47 will be by the OE.

i 1

9 f

- Parsons Power Group lac. - #

FORM: 3 3

1 4 Package Sequence No. 4 Revision 3 i

- -- - . - . . . _ . . - - - . -- . . . - - _. =. . . -

DOCUMENT ID: RC-SLB- Page .5 of xx MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND LICENSING BASIS CIIECKLIST Responsible Engineer; (System Team Imad)

PartC Resiew Requirement Item Group Status Reviewer's Signature

1. O Yes O No D NA O INF Date A. REOUIREMENT B. REOIIIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS:

O SATISFYING TIIE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (Procem per Pr47)

O (rrevio==ey di= covered by NNFre, sununarke basis and UIR , CR or discovery docunient in Step D).

O (Requiresnemt is met anty sationed but does not effect physical configuration does. -- design basis or regsdatory requirvements. Seneneathe emais in ster D) l

('k C. REFERENCE (S) & SOURCF/ REVISION / DATE:

D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT

'\

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 3 I43-5 Package Sequence No. 4 Resision 3 F3_CLLBD. DOC 12/22/97

i DOCUMENT ID: RC-SLB- Page 6 of ax MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND LICENSING BASIS CIIECKLIST Responsible Engineer:

(System Team lead) i

PART D TOPICAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS j Instructions: For each program / topical requiressent listed in Eglil throughfagi,E below:

(1) The OFJreviewerhpecialist completes and Dispositions Part 31. De miewerhpecialist responsible for the requirement miews the Prograse/ Topical area to the essent necessary to verify that the systens was considered when the prigram was developed and ladicates this verification la the appropriate area below.

i (2) If Past 31 is disposition as Applicable, the CLE, SLE, and OE/ specialist develops the specific requirements to be miewed uslag the generic questions la the lastruction and Attachment A source book med enters the requiressent to be miewed la Part 3 2 EREh reqaltsaseet will be given a new item number sad laclude steps A, B, C, and D..

! (3) Each requiressent will be consecutively numbered starting with I (one).

! (4) he System lead Engineer will assign the review group responsible for reviewleg each requi.vment.

Mechanical = M. Electrical = E Controis = IAC, Tating = T. Procederse = P. Operations = 0 2

(5) The OF/ Specialist that reviews the requisement will3lgg and date provide a disposition, ladicate j

laterfaces, and provide a response based upon the following:

j a. Yes Requirement is satisfactorily addressed. laclude reference source, mision, sad date. No explanation /results is required,

b. No Requirement is not satisfactorily addresud or discrepeat ceaaltion esists. Provide an explanation j

O of how the requirement was not satisfied. laciude reference source (s), revision, and date, ks applicable. Disposition the conditian as a DISCREPANCY and classify the basis la step B. 'Ibe responsible ladividual stall lassediately advise the SLE of any requirement beleg disposittened as a DISCREPANCY la accordance with Project Procedure PP47. Initletion of PP47 will be by the

OL Process and procedural discrepancies not dispositioned la accordance with PP47 will be analyred by Tier 3.

NA

c. Requirennent is not applicable. Esplanation should be included only ifit clarifles the disposition.

4

d. INF Requirement could not be verifled because information could not be fotnd. If an RAI was j generated to clarify the requirensent, the RAI mussber and subsequent NNECo response reference is to be provided. la Part D indicate the leformation could not be found and disposition as a DISCREPANCY. The responsible individual sballimmediately advise the SLE of any requirement being dispositioned as a DISCREPANCY. laitiation of PP47 will be by the OE.

4 I

!t

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 3 143-6 Package Sequence No. 4 Revision 3 F3 CLLBD. DOC 12/22/97

DOCUMFNT ID: RC-SLB. Page 7 of xx MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND LICENSING BASIS CIIECKLIST Responsible Engmeer:

, (System Team land)

PART E ANTICIPATED TRANSIENT WITHOUT SCRAM (ATWS)

CONSIDERATION / SCREENING e

A. SYSTEM DESIGN BASIS SCREENING i

1. O Yes O No Has NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the

. program / topical area during the initiation of the program?

2. O Yes O No Has NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the i

program / topical area within the FSAR7

3. O Yes O No Has NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the program / topical a:ta being reviewed within current (1) system design criteria, (2) modification process or (3) design input?

i If the response to questions 1,2, ap.d 3 is "No", Disposition as DISCREPANCY and i advise the SLL The OE will process the discrepancy in accordance with PP-07. If

, responw to questions 1,2, p: 3 is "Yes," continue with next question.

4. O Yes O No Does the system include the applicable provisions for the licensing basis requirements for Anticipated Transients Without SCRAM (ATWS)?

If Yes, Disposition as PROGRAM IS APPLICABLE. Complete Part E.1 checklists. If "No," disposition as PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM.

i 1

B. PROGRAM / TOPICAL AREA IS (Check only one):

, O DISCLEPANCY: O (ProcessperPrm)

O (Previously discowred by NNECo, summarus basis and Ulk . CR or discovery document in Step D).

O (Requirement is not fully satisSed but does not affect physical confisuration documentation, design basis or j regulatory requirements. Summanes basis in step D}

O PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BUI'IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM O PROGRAMIS APPLICABLE Programfropical Specialist /Date:

. Originating Engineer /Dute:

O - Parsons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 3

{ I-83 7 Package Sequence No. 4 Revision 3 F3_CLLBD. DOC 12/22/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC-SLB- Pagi 8 of xx

, MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SVSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND LICENSING BASIS CHECKLIST Responsible Engineer. -

PART E.1 ANTICIPATED TRANSIENT WITHOUT SCRAM (ATWS) CHECKLIST PortLI Review stequiressent Itein Group Status Reviewer's Signature

1. O Yes O No O NA O INF Date A. REOUIREMENT E. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS:

O SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (rmens per re-o7)

O (rmleesty dascovered by NNECo, senumartse hemis and UIR , CR or discovery decenwet in Seep D).

D (Rq_ _ f b met feby satisted het does not annet phyelcal e- ",,_ . - dec-- ., design bests er reguistory equireewnes. sesenaartae hash in step D)

C. REFERENCE (S) & SOURCE / REVISIONI DATE:

D. FEVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT O - Parsons Power Group Inc. -

FORM:3 I 8 Package Sequence No. 4 ,

Revision 3 F3_CLLBD. DOC 12/22/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC-SLB- Page 9 pf_n MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR - SYSTEM:

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND LICENSING BASIS CHECKLIST Responsible Engineer:

(Systein Team tal)

PART F CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATION / SCREENING A. SYSTEM DFEIGN BASIS SCREENING

1. O Yes O No Has NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the programhopical area during the initiation of the program?

2. O Yes O No Has NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the programhopical area within the FSAR7

3. O Yes O No Has NNECo r=airlared or addressed the potential impact on this system for the '

program / topical aren being reviewed within current (1) system design criteria, (2) modification process or (3) design input?

If the response to questions 1,2, ad 3 is "No", Disposition as DISCREPANCY and advise the SLE. 'Ihe OE will process the discrepancy in accordance with PP 07. If '

response to questions 1,2, gg 3 is "Yes," continue with mest question.

4. O Yes O No O Does the system have any controls, labeling or operating procedures effected by the Control Room Design Review or Human Factors Regim??

If Yes, Disposition as PROGRAM IS APPLICABIA Comeplete Part F.1 checklists. If "No " dispoWien as PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE TG SYSTEM.

B. PROGRAM / TOPICAL AREA IS (Check only one):

O DISCREPANCY: O (Process per PP.07)

O (Proviously dineovered by NNIXA summarue basis and UIR ,CR or discovery document in Step D1 O (Requirement is not fully satisfied but does not affect physical configuraison docasmessation. desisn basis or

, resulatory requirements. Summari.4 basis in step D)

O PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM O PROGRAMIS APPLICABLE Program / Topical Specialist /Date:

Originating Engineer /Date:

O - Parsons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 3 I 9 Package Sequence No. 4 Revision 3 F3_C' LBD. DOC 12/22/97

.. a

DOCUMENT ID: RC-SLB- Page 10 of xx MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND LICENSING BASIS CllECKLIST Responsible Engtneer.

(System Team lead)

PART F.1 CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW CHECKLIST PartF.1 Redew Requireement item Group Status Reviewer's Signature l 1. O Yes O No O NA O INF Date l A. REOUIREMENT B. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS:

O SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (Pr.c e per rr.o7)

O (Prevleudy discovered by NNECa. susnmeertse bes6s and UIR.CR or discovery deemnemiin Ster D).

O (Requirusment is not hdly entissed but does met afisce physical conAguration documentation. design basis or resuistory requinvawats senumentse be.is in metD>

O C. REFERENCE (S) & SOURCE / REVISION / DATE:

D. REVIEW.CUMMARY/ RESULT O - Parsons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 3 1 10 Packnee Sequence No. 4 F3_CLLBD. DOC g

DOCUMINT ID: RC-SLB- P:ge 11 of xx MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND LICENSING BASIS CIIECKLIST Responsible Engineer:

(System Team lead)

PART G ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT (EQ)

CONSIDERATION / SCREENING A. SYSTEM DESIGN BASIS SCREENING

1. O Yes O No Has NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the program / topical area during the hdtiation of the program?

2. O Yes O No lias NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the program / topical area witida the FSAR?

3. O Yes O No Has NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this sptem for the program / topical area being reviewed within current (1) system design criteria, (2) modification process or (3) design input?

If the response to questions 1,2,3pd 3 is "No", Disposition as DISCREPANCY and advise the SLE. The OE will process the discrepancy in accordance with PP 47. If response to questions 1. 2,2r 3 is "Yes," continue with next question.

4. O Yes O No Does the system contain " Active" components that must be operable during an accident.

under post accident emironmental conditions or during/aAer a scismic event?

If "Yes", Disposition as PROGRAM IS APPLICABLE and complete Part G.1 checklist. If "No," disposition as PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM.

B. PROGRAM / TOPICAL AREA (Check only one):

O DISCREPANCY: O (Process per PP o7)

O (Previously discovered by NNECo, summarue basis and UIR , CR or discovery &cument in Step D).

O (Requirement is not funy satisfied but does not affect phpical configuration d~-dion, desisn basis or regulatory requiremeras. Summarue basis in step D).

O PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM O PROGRAMIS APPLICABLE Programfropical Specialist /Date:

Originatireg Engineer /Date:

O - Parsons Power Group lac. -

FORM: 3 1 11 Package Sequence No. 4 Revision 3 F3_CLLBD. DOC 12/22/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC SLD- Pcge 12 of zu MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND LICENSING BASIS CIIECKLIST Responsible Engineer PART G.I ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT (EQ)

CHECKLIST PartG.! Review Requirennent Itean Group Status Reviewer's Signature

! 1. O Yes O No O NA O INF Date i

A. REOUIREMENT l

H. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS:

O SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (Pr.cose per rP47)

O (Prev 6euely discovered by NNECe, sumunarke beds and UIR .CR or dhcovery deciument hi Step D),

O (Regadrunnent is met Amy estes6ed but does met a&ct physical conAgurat6ee dwn- ' " 1 design O had. .e resui=sery r=guarviaew.s. 8=====r** h=de in mePDk C. REFERENCE (S) & SOURCE / REVISION / DATE:

D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT V - Parsons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 3 I 12 Package Sequence No. 4 F3_CLLBD. DOC 3

DOCUMENT ID: RC-SLB- Pcge 13 of xx MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND .

LICENSING BASIS l CHECKLIST Responsible lagtneer

__y PART H EROSION / CORROSION CONSIDERATION / SCREENING A. SYSTEM DESIGN BASIS SCREENING

1. O Yes O No Has NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the program / topical area during the initiation of the program?

2, O Yes O No llas NNECo considered or addresser. the potential impact on this system for the program / topical arcs within the F'sAR7 .

3. O Yes O No Has NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the program / topical area being reviewed within current (1) system design criteria, (2) modification process or (3) design input?

If the response to questions I,2, and 3 is "No", Disposition as DISCREPANCY and advise the SLE The OE will process the discrepancy in accordance with PP-47. If response to questions I,2,2r 3 is "Yes," continue with next question.

r 4. O Yes O No Has the system been evaluated in accordance with the erosion / corrosion program for the Q] unit?

If Yes, Disposition as PROGRAM IS APPLICABLE. Complete Part ILI checklists. If "No," disposition as PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM.

B. PROGRAM / TOPICAL AREA IS (Check only one):

O DISCREPANCY: O (Pn=== per PP47)

O (Previously discovered by NNEco, sunenanze basis and (JIR , CR or dacovery document in Step D).

O (Requirement is not fully satisfied but does not affect physical configuration documentatson. design basis or

, . regulatory requirements. Summarize basis in saep D1 0 PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BlIT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM O PROGRAMIS APPLICABLE Program / Topical Specialist /Date:

Originating Engineer /Date:

- Parsons Power Group lac. -

i FORhl: 3 1 13 Package Sequence No. 4 F3, CLLBD. DOC Revision 3 12/22/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC SLB- P:ge 14 of xx MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

O G

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND LICENSING BASIS CIIECKLIST Responsible Engmeer.

(System Team lead)

PART H.1 EROSION / CORROSION CHECKLIST PartlL1 Review Requireement Item Group Status Reviewer's Signature

1. O Yes O No O NA O INF Date A. REOUIREMENT l

H. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS:

O SATIEFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (Fr. cess per Pr-07)

O (Prevt =aly discovered by NNEC., sumunartie b. sis and UIR. CR or dheevery docuan.at in Step D).

O (u.gui, k e say ei.si.d 6. d e ass.es phy.ic.:-: ;__ - dw-- - -

_d ann 6 h r r. i.e.ry require = ease. Se==== die b.=6= la step D).

fi C. REFERENCE (S) & SOURCE / REVISION / DATE:

D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT N

- Parsons Power Group Inc. ~

FORM: 3 I 14 Package Ser,uence No. 4 Revision 3 F3_CLLBD. DOC 12/22/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC-SLB- Page 15 of xx MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

O ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND LICENSING BASIS CIIECKLIST

'Respot. sine Engmeer:

(Systr m Team lead)

PARTI EXTERNAL EVENTS / HAZARDS CONSIDERATION / SCREENING A. SYSTEM DESIGN BASIS SCREENING

1. O Yes O No llas NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this s) stem for the program / topical area during the initiation of the program?

2, O Yes O No Has NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the program / topical area within the FSAR?

3, O Yes O No Has NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the progrant.opical area being reviewed within current (1) system design criteria, (2) modification process or (3) design input?

If the response to questicas 1,2, and 3 is "No", Disposition as DISCREPANCY and advise the SIA The OE will process the discrepancy in accordance with PP-07. If response to questions 1,2,E3is "Yes," continue with next question, p 4, O Yes O No is the system located within building structures or include other features required to protect the system from external missiles, tornadoes, flooding or other external events included in the licensing basis?

If Yes, Disposition as PROGRAM IS APPLICABLE. Complete Part 1.1 checklists. If "No," disposition as PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM.

B. PROGRAMTTOPICAL AREA IS (Check only one):

O DISCREPANCY: O (riocess per PP o7)

O (Previously d= covered by NNECo summarue basis and LJIR . CR or discovery document in Step D).

O (Requirement is not fully satisfied but does not afrect physical configuration documentation, design basis or regulatory requirements. Summarue basis in step D)

O PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM O PROGRAMIS APPLICABLE Program / Topical Specialist /Date:

Originating Engineer /Date:

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

FORM:3 1 03 - 15 Package Sequence No. 4 F3 CLLBD. DOC Revision 3 12/22/97

.0

DOCUMENT ID: RC SLD- Page 16 of xx

=

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND LICENSING BASIS CIIECKLIST Responsible Engineer:

, (System Team lead)

PART L1 EXTERNAL EVENTS / HAZARDS CHECKLIST PartLI Review Requirement item Group Status Reviewer's Signature

1. O Yes O No O NA O LNF Date A. REOUIREMENT

, B. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS:

O SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS

, O DISCREPANCY: O (Proce.s per Pr.07)

O (Previously dhcovered by NNEco,sumanartie bests and UIR,CR oc theosery d.cument in Step D).

O (Reg.tresne. is e fway satissied b. e.e.n.e avvect physic.a. -. - _ -- d-

-" m dessen beans or regulate,y requirvonesta, Sensumartie besta la step D)

O C REFERENCEfS) & SOURCE / REVISION / DATE:

D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT

- Parsons Power Group lac. -

FORM: 3 143-16 Package Sequence No. 4 F3.,CLLBD. DOC 7

l a

Y DOCUMENT ID: RC-SLB- Page 17 of xx MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

SYSTEM SIGN INPUT AND LICENSING BASIS CHECKLIST Responnble Engineer:

PART J GENERIC LETTER 89-10 (MOV) CONSIDERATION / SCREENING A. SYSTEM DESIGN BASIS SCREENING I, O Yes O No Has NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the progranVtopical area during the initiation of the program?

2. O Yes O No Has NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the progn.nvtopical area within the FSAR?

3. O Yes O No Has NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the program / topical area being reviewed within current (1) system design criteria, (2) modification pmcess or (3) design input?

If the response to questions I,2, gad 3 is "No", Disposition as DISCREPANCY and advise the SLE. The OE will process the discrepancy in accordance with PP 07. If response to questions 1,2, gr 3 is "Yes," continue with mest question.

4. O Yes O No Have the motor operated valves in the system been evaluated under the unit's program for O MOV's? (89-10)?

If Yes, Disposition as PROGRAM IS APPLICABLE. Comiplete Part J.I checidists. If "No," disposition as PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM.

B. PROGRAM / TOPICAL AREA IS (Check only one):

O DISCREPANCY: 0 (Procme per PP 07)

O (Previously discovered by NNEco, summarue basis and UIR. CR or dise.ovwy documma in Step D)

O (Requirement is not fully satisfied but does not afrect physical configuration documentation, desisn basis or

, regulatory requirements. Summarus basis in step D)

O PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM O PROGRAMIS APPLICABLE Program / Topical Specialist /Date:

Originating Engineer /Date:

- Parsons Power Group lac. -

' FORM: 3 l 03 - 17 Package Sequence No. 4 Revision 3 F3_CLLBD. DOC 12/22/97 1

, , , . - -- - , - - ---- - n -

DOCUMENT ID: RC-SLB- Pcge 18 of xx MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND LICENSING BASIS CIIECKLIST Responsible Engmeer (System Team lead) l PART J.1 GENERIC LE' ITER 89-10 (MOV) CHECKLIST PartJ.1 Review Requirement l Item Group Status Reviewer's Signature

! 1. O Yes O No O NA O INF Date A. REOUIREMENT B. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS:

O SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (Procem per Pr 87)

O (Prest.asty d6scovered by NNECo.summarise beels and UIR , CR or d6scovery docusment in Ster D),

O <aguinniens is m.: emini naeisned bei d a.: an.es pbyiseni c.ang=rees.= documeine eien.dessen beels or reguietary rgenments. Sammartse beein in ster D).

C. REFERENCE (S) & SOURCE / REVISION / DATE:

D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT O'

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 3 1 18 Package Sequence No. 4 Revision 3 F3_CLLBD. DOC 12/22/97 l l

DOCUMENT ID: RC-SLB- Page 19 of xx MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

O ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND LICENSING BASIS CIIECKLIST Responsible Engmeer.

(System Team lead)

PART K IIEAVY LOADS CONSIDERATION / SCREENING A. SYSTEM DESIGN BASIS SCREENING

1. O Yes O No Has NNECo ossidered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the program / topics: a during the initiation of the program?

2. O Yes O No Has NNECo conslacred or addressed the potential irr. pact on this system for the programhopical area within the FSAR?

3. O Yes O No Has NNECo ctrisidered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the programhopical area being reviewed within current (1) system design criteria. (2) modification process or (3) design input?

If the response to questions 1,2, and 3 is "No", Disposition as DISCREPANCY and advise the SLE. The OE will p wcess the discrepancy in accordance with PP-07. If response to questions 1,2. E 3 is "Yes," continue with next question.

4. O Yes O No Have any cranes located over the system been evaluated under the Unit's heasy loads program?

If Yes, Disposition as PROGRAM IS APPLICABLE. Complete Part K.1 checklists. If "No," disposition as PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM.

B. PROGRAM / TOPICAL AREA IS (Check only one):

O DISCREPANCY: O (Process per PP 07)

O (Previously discovered by NNECo. summarue basis and UIR . CR or discovery document in Step D).

O (Requirement is not fully satisfied but does not affect physical configuration docunwntation. design basis or

, regula*.ory requirements. Summann basis in step D).

O PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BLTP IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM O PROGRAMIS APPLICABLE ProgramrTopical Specialist /Date:

Ori,,inating Ei.cineer/Da' :

4

\ - Parsons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 3 I-03 19 Package Sequence No. 4 Revision 3 F3_CLLBD. DOC 12/22/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC SLB- Page 20 of xx MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

g ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND SYSTEM:

LICENSING BASIS CIIECKLIST Responsible Engineer:

(System Team Lead) '

PART K.1 HEAVY LOADS CIIECKLIST PartK.1 Review Requirement Item Group Status Reviewer's Signature

1. O Yes O No O NA " INF Date 3 A. REOUIREMENT

~

D. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS:

E O SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (Proce per rr 07)

O (treously discovered by NNECo, sununartae basis and UIR .CR or discosery documu at b Ster D).

O (Requiresnent is not fWly satisSed b1t does not affect physical connguration documentation, design basis or regulatory requiresnents. Sununartae basis in step D),

O C. REFERENCE (S) & SOURCFJ REVISION / DATE:

D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT

/

O - Parsons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 3 I 20 Package Sequence No. 4 F3_CLLBD. DOC Revision 3 12/22/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC-ELB- Page 21 of xx MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

3 ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND LICENSING BASIS CHECKLIST Responsible Engmeer-(System Team 14ad)

PART L HIGH AND MODERATE ENERGY LINE BREAKS (HELB/MELB)

CONSIDERATION / SCREENING A. SYSTEM DESIGN BASIS SCREENING

l. O Yes O No Has NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the program / topical area during the initiation of the program?

2. O Yes O No Has NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the program / topical area within the FSAR?

3. O Yes a No Has NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the program / topical area being reviewed within current (1) system design criteria, (2) modification process or (3) design input?

If the response to questions 1,2, gad 3 is "No", Disposition as DISCREPANCY and advise the SLE. The OE will process the discrepancy in accordance with PP 07. If response to gestions 1,2,E3 is "Yes," contiene with next qua tion.

4. O Yes O No Has the effcct of pipe rupture and/or breaks in the system been evaluated for the impact on safe shutdown components /systena in accordance with the licensing basis?

If Yes, Disposition as PROGRAM IS APPLICABLE. Complete Part L1 cheeldists. If "No," disposition as PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM.

B. PROGRAM / TOPICAL AREA IS (Check only one):

O DISCREPANCY: O (Procese per PP o7)

O (Previously discovered by NNECo, summarue basis and UIR , CR or discovery document in Step D).

O (Requirement is not fully satisfied but does not affect physical configuration documentation, design basis or regulatory requirements. Summarue basis in step D)

O PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM O PROGRAM IS APPLICABLE Program /I'opical Specialist /Date:

Originating Engineer /Date:

O - Parsons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 3 I43-21 Package Sequence No. 4 Revision 3 F3.,CLLBD. DOC 12/22/97

_ ~ -.

DOCUMENT ID: RC-SLB- Pctelipf xx MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND LICENSING BASIS CHECKLIST Responsible Engmeer:

(System Team Lead) ,

PART L.1 HIGH AND MODERATE ENERGY LINE BREAl:S (HELB/MELB) CHECKLIST PartLI Review Requiremient Item Group Status Reviewer's Signature

1. O Yes O No O NA O INF Date i

A. REOUIREMENT B. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS:

O SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (Pr.c== per Pr 87)

O (Pmt== sty dheewred by NNECe,sammsmarke basis and UIR , CR .r distowwy docuenset in 9:ep D).

O (= _ ^ is ==t hay ==dseed has 4.= n t enut physkei ,_ m __ _ d is.

h h .c nsessa.ry rg s,.sms.es. ts. h sts he step D)

O C. REFERENCE (S) & SOURCE / REVISION / DATE:

D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT O - Parsons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 3 143-22 Package Sequence No. 4 Revision 3 F3_C11BD. DOC 12/22/97

l DOCUMENT ID: RC.SLB. Page 23 of m MILLSTONE UNIT 1, SYSTEM CODE:

,Q l

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM DESIGN INI'UT AND SYSTEM:

LICENSING BASIS CllECKLIST Responmble Distneer.

(Systein Team land)

PART M INSERV'CE INSPECTION CONSIDERATION / SCREENING l

A. SYSTEM DESIGN BA!'IS SCREENING I, O Yes O No Has NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the program / topical area during the initiation of the program?

2. O Yes O No lias NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the -

program / topical area within the FSAR7

3. O Yes O No Has NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the progrren/ topical area being reviewed within current (1) system design criteria, (2) modification process or (3) design input?

If the response to questions I,2. gad 3 is "No", Disposition as DISCREPANCY and advise the SLE. 'the OE will process tha dieerepancy la aceoedance with PP 07, if resposee to questions 1,2, g 3 is "Yes,' contiene with mest geestion.

4. O Yes O No Are the piping and components of ths system included in the unit's ineen ice inspection prograin where appropriate?

~

If Yes, Disposition as PROGRAM IS APPLICABLE. Complete Part M.1 checklists. If "No," d;sposition as PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM.

l B. PROGRAM / TOPICAL AREA IS (Check only one):

O DISCREPANCY: O (Proce= pn Prm)

O (Previcualy discovw.d by NNI.Co. sununarve bania and UIR . CR w dineovwy document ia Siep D1 A=

O (Requirement is not fully antisfeed but does not affect pbpical omfiguration ", doisn bens u

, resulatory regairunento Summseize basis in sep D).

O PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM O PROGRAMIS APPUCABLE Progremfropical Specialist /Date:

Originating Engineer /Dete:

V - Persons Power Group lac. -

FORM:3 143 23 Package Sequence No. d F3.CLLBD. DOC Revision 3 12/22/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC SLB- P:ge 24 of rr MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND LICENSING BASIS CIIECKLIST Responsible Engmeer.

(System Team lead)

PART M.1 INSERVICE INSPECrlON CitECKLIST PartM.I F.nlew Requirement liem Crisup Sestus Reviewer's Signature

1. O Yes u No O NA O &lf Date A. REOtIIREMENT H. REOtrlRFMENTIS CONSIDERED AS:

O SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY O (Fr een per Pr47)

O (rrevleudy dha.vmd by NNECo. sunun.the b l. nad LUR , CR .r danc.,ery d.cu.mee4 f.s $4ep D)

O (Regdre i ns i.* say e=en a.d b=e d a ses.ca phydc i e. anger.ai.= deca.neaa.es.a. de.ica b i. .r recuin.ry r.,wr w s===.rtu 6 i. e. os,, p>

b C. REFERENCE (S) & SOLIRCE/ REVISION / DATE:

D. REV1EW SilMMARY/ RESULT O - Persons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 3 1-03 24 Package Sequence No. 4 Reshion 3 F3.CLLBD. DOC 12/22/97

l DOCUMENT ID: RC.SLB. Page 28.ofis MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

, SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND LICENSING BASIS

[

CIIECKLIST Respcmsible Engmeer.

(System Tearn lead)

PART N INSERVICE TESTING /10 CFR$0 APPENDIX J TESTING CONSIDERATION /SCHEENING A. SYSTEM DESIGN BASIS SCREENING

1. O Yes O No Has NNECo corEidered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the program /topica; area during the initiation of the program?

2. O Yes O No lies NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this n stem for the program / topical area within the FSAR7

3. O Yes D No Has NNEco considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the program / topical area being reviewed within current (1) syst .m design criteria, (2) modification process or (3) design input?

If the response to questic.us 1,2, and 3 is "No", Dispostilon as DISCREPANCY and advise the SLE. De OE will prtwess the discrepancy in accordance with PP 07, if response to questions 1,2. g 3 is "Yes," continue with nest question.

4. O Yes O No Are the components in the system covered by the unit's insenice testing program where y appropriate? (ASME Section XI or Appendix J) ~

if Yes, Disposition as PROGRAM IS APPLICABLE. Complete Part N.1 checklists. If "No," disposition as PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM.

H. PROGRAM / TOPICAL AREA IS (Check only one):

O DISCREPANCY: O (Pn==iper Pr47) '

O (Previously dmoovered t y NNtco, summuus lesis and UIR , CR or discovery & ament in $tcp D)

O (Requirement is not fully satafied but doei nai afrea physical emriguration &amentation, de ign t iis or tegulatory requwsmsra Summarue t. asis in step D)

O PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BtTT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM O PROGRAM IS APPLICABLE ProgramrTopical Specialist /Date:

Originating Enginwr/Date:

- Parsons Power Group loc. -

FORM: 3 1-03 25 Package Sequence No. 4 Revlilon 3 F3_CLLBD. DOC 12/22/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC.SLH- Pcte16 ofu MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

O ic^vesvsa SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND svsrea' LICENSING BASIS CIIECKLIST ~

Responsible Engineer.

(Symem Team lead)

PART N.1 INSERVICE TESTING /10 CFR50 APPENDIX J TESTING CHECKLIST PartN.i Meview Pequiressent Isene Group $tetus Reviewr's Signature

1. O Yes O No O NA O INF Date A. REOlllREMENT H. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS O SATISFYING THE 1.lCENSING/ DESIGN BASIS O DISCRE!'ANCY: O (tr.c .er Pr47)

D (Pre,t sy da.c ver d by NNFr., usetw b i. and Usu.cm er da.c.very 4.c e i. see, p>

D %.ar =. n. ed has si.e.d b.:4= .n=t phy.ic.:e apews du_ 4 ip 6 i .r reci.e.ry mairmem., s tw b i. 6. mep n).

,O C. REFERENCE (S) & SOtIRCE/ REVISION / DATE:

D. REVIEESTMMARY/REStiLT O

- Parnas Power Group lac. -

FORM: 3 143 26 Package Sequence No. 4 Revision 3 F3_CLLED. DOC 12/22/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC-SLB- Page,U_ofs  !

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE: ,

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM

;

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND ,

LICENSING BASIS i CHECKLIST '

! ampansbietaginar

{sysima Team }md)

PARTO IPEEE CONSIDERATION / SCREENING 1

A. SYSTEM DESIGN BASIS SCREENING

1. O Y. O No Has NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the ';

program / topical area during the initiation of the program?

2. 0 Yes O No Has NNECo considered or addressed the potential !mpact on this system for the program / topical area within the I'SAR7

3. O Yes O No Has NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the program / topical area being raiewed within current (1) system design criteria, (2) 4 mod:Acation process or (3) design input? '

If the reopesse to quentless I,2 And 3 le "No", Dispeeltiese as DISCREPANCY and advise the SLE 'the OE will process the diserspancy la accordance with PP 47. If response to guestions 1,2, g 3 is "Yes," eestiene with nest questies.

4. O Yes O No Has the protection of the system been considered the unit's Individal Plant Examination for O External Events?(IPEEE)

If Yes, Dispeelsion as PROGRAM 18 APPLICABLE. Ceanplete Part 0.1 checklists if "No," dispeettien as PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM.

B. PROGRAM / TOPICAL AREA IS (Check only one):

O DISCREPANCY: O (Proe== rar Pr 07) -

D (tresiously deoovered by NNEco, summerim basis and UIR ,CR ar dmoovery desumed in Step D). i-D (R 9 rari ent is not fully eationed but does sud eNest pineuel conne nration A--. -- - desipibasis or

. tegulesary requh Summerine basis in nap D).

O PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM O PROGRAMIS APPLICABLE ProgremfTopical Specialist /Dete:

Originating Englooer/Dete:

- Persons Power Group loc. -

FORM: 3 143 27 Package Sequence No. 4 Revisica 3 F3,,CLt3D. DOC 11/21/91

DOCUMENT ID: RC SLB- Page 2A of MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND LICENSING BASIS CIIECKLIST Responsible Engineer:

(System Team Imd)

PART O.1 IPEEE CHECKLIST Par 10.1 Review Requirement Item Group Status Reviewer's Signature

1. O Yes O No O NA O INF Date A. REOUIREMENT H. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS:

O SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (Pr.com per rr.e7)

O (Pretteusly danceserse by NNFro,sumsmartse beds and UIR,CR et dancetery decwnem la hiep D>

D (Requirement is met fuBy entisted lust does met afrect phys 6 cal e-- ";_. - _d---

^'

, deelge b.de er reed.i.ry r,qwremens. s== rtu 6.as la me, u>

C. REFERENCE (S) & SOURCE / REVISION / DATE:

D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT O - Parsons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 3 1-03 28 Package Sequence No. 4 Re ision 3 D ,CLLBD. DOC 12/22/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC SLB- Page 29 of n Mll,LSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

, ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND LICENSING BASIS CilECKLIST Responsible Engmeer, mystem Team lead)

PART P MASTER EQUIPMENT AND PARTS LIST (MEPL)

CONSIDERATION / SCREENING A. SYSTEM DESIGN llASIS SCREENING

1. O Yes O No Has NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the program / topical area during the initiation of the program?

2. O Yes O No lias NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the program / topical arca within the FSAR7

3. O Yes a No lias NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the program / topical area being reviewed within current (1) system design criteria, (2) modification process or (3) design input?

l If the response to questions I,2, gad 3 is "No", Disposition as DISCREPANCY and i addse the SLE. he OE will process the discrepancy in accordance with PP 07. If response to questions I,2, Eg 3 is "Yes," continue with mest question.

4. O Yes O No Are the system components correctly entered into the Master Equipment and Parts List?

If Yes, Disposition as PROGRAM IS AFPLICABLE. Cosnplete Part P.I checklists, if "No," disposition as PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM.

11. PROGRAM / TOPICAL AREA IS (Check only one):

O DISCREPANCY: O (Process per Pr47)

O (Previously discovered by NNECo, summarsu basis and UIR . CR or d.incovery document in Step D).

O (Requirement is not fully satisfml but em not afrecs physical confisuration documentation, desisn basis or resulatory requirenwnts. summann basis in step D)

O PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM O PROGRAMIS APPLICABLE Programffopical Specialist /Date:

Originating Engineer /Date:

O - Persons Pcwer Group Inc. -

FORM: 3 1-03 29 Package Sequence No. 4 F3 CLLBD. DOC Resiston 3 12/22/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC-SLB- Page 30 of MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND LICENSING BASIS CllECKLIST ResponsiSic Engmeer (System Team lead)

PART P.1 MASTER EQUIPMENT AND PARTS LIST (MEPL) CHECKLIST PartP.I Review Requirviment llem Group Status Reviewer's Signature

1. O Yes O No O NA O INF Date A. REOlllREMENT 4

B. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS:

O SATISFYING Tile LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (Pr.sves per Pr47)

D (Prev 6eusly discovered by NNECo, aununartse bests and UIR , CR or discovery docusmeet in her D)

O (Requireuseet is met hay emelsted but does met anset phyekal e ".- 4-. ., deelga basis or regulatory requireewats. Euseumartse bests in ster D).

O C. REFERENCE (S) & SOURCEl REVISION / DATE:

D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT O - Persons Power Group inc. -

FORM: 3 103 30 Package Sequence No. 4 Revislon 3 F3,,,CLLBD. DOC 12/22/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC-SLB- Page 31 ofin MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND '

LICENSING BASIS CilECKLIST Responsible Engineer.

(System Team tend)

PART Q REGULATORY GUIDE 1.97 COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATION / SCREENING A. SYSTEM DESIGN BASIS SCREENING

l. O Yes O No lias NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this nstem for the program / topical arcs during the initiation of the progrun?

2. O Yes O No lias NNECo considered or addressed the poten'lal impact on this n stem for the program / topical area within the FSAIU

3. O Yes O No Has NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this nstem for the program / topical area being reviewed within current (1) system design criteria. (2) modification process or (3) design input?

If the mponse to questions 1,2, ap.A 3 is "No", Disposition as DISCREPANCY and advise the SLE. De OE will process the discrepancy in accordance with PP 07. If mpense to questions 1,2 gg 3 is "Yes," continue with mest question.

(

(

4. O Yes O No Does the system contain the required instrumentathn and ladication for licensing basis compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.977 If Yes, Disposition as PROGRAM IS APPLICABLE. Complete Part Q.1 checklists. If "No," disposition as PetOGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM.

B. PROGRAM / TOPICAL AREA IS (Check only one):

O DISCREPANCY: O (Procom pa PP47)

Q (Previously discovsmi by NNI.Co, summarize basis and 111R . CR or d scovay drument in Ster D).

O (Requirement is nr4 buy satidied but does not affect physical crvdiguration &wumerdation, design basis or

, regulatory rap..ements. $ummarue basis in step D1 O PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM O PROGRAM IS APPLICABLE Propm/ Topical Specialist /Date:

Originating Engineer /Date:

b - Parsons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 3 103 31 Package Sequence No. 4 Revision 3 F3_CF,t.BD. DOC 12/22/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC SIS. Page 32 of zu MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND LICENSING BASIS CIIECKLIST Responsible Engmeer; PART Q.1 REGULATORY GUIDE 1.97 COMPLIANCE CilECKLIST Per1Q.1 Review Requirtment item Group Status Reviewer's Signature

1. D Yes O No D NA O INF Date A. REOUIREMENT I

H. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS:

O SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: D (rme perrr47)

D (revve dy d6.cever.d by NNiro, e u etne beste e.d UIR.CR.t discovery d.cus t 1. Step D)

Or is n.: My Mied b. 4 not on.et phy ne. e ague.es du- "

_ de.ne .

6 i..ee i.e.eyrw ar s etieb ii. ,p>

C. REEERENCE(S) & SOURCE / REVISION / DATE:

D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/RESUI,T

. - Persons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 3 1-03 32 Package Sequence No. 4 F3 CLLBD. DOC Redslon3 12/22/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC.SLB. Page 33 of ss MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND LICENSING BASIS CilECKLIST Resporaible 14meer:

(System Team lad)

PART R SEPARATION / INDEPENDENCE / DIVERSITY CONSIDERATION / SCREENING i

A. SYSTEM DESIGN BASIS SCREENING

~

1. O Yes O No lias NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the

! program / topical area during the initiation of the program?

2. O Yes O No lias NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the program / topical area within the FSAR7

3. O Yes O No ths NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the program / topical area being reviewed within current (1) sytem design criteria (2) modification process or (3) design input?

If the response to questions I,2, Jiad 3 is "No". Disposition as DISCREPANCY and adiisc the SLE. The OE will process the discrepancy in accordance with PP 47. If response to questions 1,2. gg 3 is "Yes," continue witb eest question.

4. O Yes O No Does the systcm comply with the licensing basis for separation /independenec/ or diversity?

If Yes, Disposillon as PROGRAM IS APPLICABLE. Complete Part R.1 checklists, if "No," disposition as PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM.

D. PROGRAM / TOPICAL AREA iS (Check only one):

O DISCREPANCY: O (Proce= rw PP 07) 0 (Previously disoevered by NNECo, summarue basis and LMR . CR or dmovery davment in Eup D) 0 (Requrement is not fuuy satisfad but does not affas physwal conhguration documentatkw design basis or regulatory requirements. Summartu basis in map D)

O PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM O PROGRAMIS APPLICABLE Program /Topleal Specialist /Date:

Originating Engineer /Date:

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 3 1-03 33 Package Sequence No. 4 F3,CLLillA. DOC Revision 3 12/21/97 i

DOCUMENT ID: RC SLB. P:ge 34 ofin MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND LICENSING BASIS CIIECKLIST Responsible Engmeer.

(System Team lead)

PARTIll SEPARATION / INDEPENDENCE / DIVERSITY CHECKLIST PortR.I Re iew Requirement item Group status Reviewer's Signature

1. O Yes O No O NA O INF Dale A. RE0lliREMENT H. BEOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS:

O SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (Pr.c = Pee Pr-o7)

O (Pmieudy dheariered by NNEco, samniartse basis and UIR .CR ee dancevery docamieet in Ster D)

O (Mgedevement is met fdy estasSed bei dose W mfbt physical e mAgurat6es decenneetation, design b=as.r reg i tory equir.me t semai rtu bese t.ne, p>.

C. REFERENCE (Si & SOtfRCE/ REVISION / DATEt D. REVIEW SifMMARY/RESifLT

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 3 103 34 Package Sequence No. 4 Resision 3 F3,CLLBD. DOC 12/22/97

t DOCUMENT ID: RCSIS Page 35 of zu MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND LICENSING BASIS CilECKLIST Responsible Engmeer.

(System Team lead)

PARTS SET POINT CONTROL CONSIDERATION / SCREENING A. SYSTEM DESIGN HASIS SCREENING

1. O Yes O No lias NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the program / topical area during the initiation of tim program?

2. O Yes O No lias NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the program / topical area within the FSAR7

3. O Yes O No Has NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the programtiopical area being reviewed with' , current (1) system design criteria. (2) modification process or (3) design input?

If the response to questions 1,2, And 3 is "No", Disposillon as DISCREPANCY and advise the SLE. The OE will process the discrepancy la accordance with PP-07. If response to questions 1,2. gr 3 is "Yes," continue with mest question.

p 4. O Yes O No Does the system have instrumen's that require evaluation for tlw use of correct procedures and controls to establish setpoints?

If Yes, Disposition as PROGRAM IS APPLICABLE, Complete Part S.1 checklists. If "No," disposition as PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM.

B. PROGRAM / TOPICAL AREA IS (Check only one):

O DISCREPANCY: O (Proc =.s per rr.07) 0 (Previously decovered by NNEco, summarke basis and UIR CR or dacovery docunwns in Step D)

O (Requiremendisnce fully satisfied but does not afred phpical configuration da:urnentA design bas; or

, segulakry requiremenia. Summarire basu in sep D)

O PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM O PROGRAMIS APPLICABLE Programfropical Specialist /Date:

Originating Engineer /Date:

O - Persons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 3 I-03 35 Package Sequence No. 4 Revision 3 F3.,CLLBD. DOC 12/22/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC-SLB. Page N of :

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND LICENSING BASIS CIIECKLIST l

KeeponsMeihmeer:

(System Team 14ad)

PART S.1 SET POINT CONTROL CHECKLIST Ports.1 Hesiew Requirement i Item Group $telus Reviewer's Signature

1. O Yes O No O NA O INF Date '

i A. REOUIREMENT B. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS:

O SATISFYIN(i THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (Pr.co s per Pr-e7)

O (Prevleedy descovered by NNECe, summinetse beds and UIR ,CR or diocesery deemswet in Beep D).

D (Regadromwat is met fuby emeisted but does not eNoet playdeel : ".__ d

., deelga besb er regulosory regedreaments. Einmanettee bests in step D)

O C. REFERENCEfS) & SOURCE / REVISION / DATE:

D. HEVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT O .

- Persons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 3 143 36 Package Sequence No. 4 Revision 3 F3.011BD. DOC 12/22/97

__u

DOCUMENT ID: RC SLB. Page 37 ofis MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEMI SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND LICENSING BASIS CIIECKLIST ResponsMe lingmeer.

PART T SINGLE FAILURE CONSIDERATION / SCREENING A. SYSTEM DESIGN BASIS SCREENING

1. O Yes D No lias NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this n?cm for the program / topical area during the initiation of the program?

2. 0 Yes O No lias NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this nstem for the program / topical area within the FSAR?

3. D Yes O No lias NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this nstem for the program / topical area being reviewed within current (1) system design criteria. (2) modification process or (3) design input?

If the response to questions 1,2, an.d 3 is "No", Disposition as DISCREPANCY and advise the SLE. The OE will pmcess the discrepancy in accordance with PP-07. If response to questions 1,2. gr 3 is "Yes," continue with mest question.

p 4. O Yes O No Does the system design consider single failure vulnerabilities and include provision for assuring operability of the safely function with a singl: failure?

If Yes, Disposition as PROGRAM IS APPLICABLE Comiplete Pan T.1 checklists. If "No," disposition as PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BUT IS NOT APPLICABLl; TO SYSTEM.

B. PROGRAM / TOPICAL AREA IS (Check only one):

O DISCREPANCY: O (Pnuwas pe PP 07)

D (Previously discovwed t y NNECo. sunnarire tesis and tilR . CR or dmoowry docunwns in step D)

D (Requiriment is not rulfy natisfwd lua does not abet physical configuration docunwntation, design basis or

. sesulatory requirenwnts. sununarirs basu in ecp D)

O PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BlTT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM O PROGRAMIS APPLICABLE Progra ns/ Topical Specialist /Date:

Originating Engineer /Date:

p O - Persons Power Group lac. -

I'ORM: 3 I-03 37 Package Sequence No. 4 Revision 3 F3_CLLisD. DOC 12/22/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC SLB. Page18ofn MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

'O ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND LICENSING BASIS CllECKLIST ResponrMe Digmeer:

(System Team lead)

PART T.1 SINGLE FAILURE CilECKLIST

, Par 1T.I Rev6ew Requirement Item Group status Reviewer's Signature

1. O Yes O No O NA O INF Date A. REOlflREMENT H. REOtflREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS:

O SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (Prw perrr47)

O (Pevel.edy di.cevered by NNfro,semime.rk bones ased UIR CR oe diocestry decunwei nn beep D) i O (unidr in. e ridii ii.e.d b.:d n.n phy k.i. neur. 6 d.,

n d is.

b 6. or terulators rnidr*=wata. '--* b.=is la sier D>

f C. REFERENCE (S) & SOtfRCFJ REVISION / DATE:

D. REVIEW StIMMARY/REStILT T

- Persons Power Group lac. -

FORM: 3 143 38 Package Sequence No. 4 Revision 3 F3_CLLBD. DOC 12/22/97

1 DOCUMENT ID: RC.SLB- Page 49 of MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEMI SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND LICENSING BASIS CIIECKLIST Responsible ligmeer.

(System Team lead)

PART U STATION BLACKOUT CONSIDERATION / SCREENING A. SYSTEM DESIGN BASIS SCREENING

l. O Yes O No , lias NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the program / topical area during the initiation of the program?

2. O Yes O No lias NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the program / topical area within the FS AR7

3. O Yes O No lias NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the program / topical area being reviewed within current (1) system design criteria (2) modification process or (3) design input?

If the response to questions 1,2, And 3 is "No", Disposition as DISCREPANCY and advise the SLE. De OE will process the discrepancy in accordance with PP 07, if response to questions 1,2. gr 3 is "Yes," continue with sent question, p 4. O Yes O No is the system or any components of the system used for Station Blackout coping?

V If Yes, Disposition as PROGRAM IS APPLICABLE. Complete Part U 1 checklists. if "No," disposition as PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM.

H. PROGRAMTTOPICAL AREA IS (Check only one):

O DISCREPANCY: O (Pr== rw Pr 07)

O (Previmmly hvwed by NNEco, summann basis and UlR . CR w discovery damnwnt in St<.c D1 D (Requirunent is not fully natisfied tan does not afIed @ysical configuration exumentatiart, design basis or regulawy requiremera Sununarue basis in step D).

O PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERID BtrT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYS'IIIM O PROGRAM 15 APPLICABLE Programfropical Speciallit/Date: _

Originating Engineer /Date:

~

- Persons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 3 I-o3 39 PacLage sequence No. 4 Revision 3 F3.CLI.BD. DOC 12/22/97

! DOCUMENT ID: RC Si -

Page A0 ofis MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

O ic^vesvsa svsre":

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND l

LICENSING HASIS CilECKLIST ResgensMe 14meer.

. .gagir.2&

PART U.1 STATION BLACKOUT CHECKLIST PartU,1 Review Requirement llem Group status Reviewer's Signature

1. O Yes O No O NA O INF Date A. REOlllREMENT B. REOlllREMENTIS CONSIDERED ASt O sAriSrYING Tile LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (Fr em per Fr47)

D (Fmisedy discesered by NNith ownsmartse beans and UIR . CR or danc.tery derwment is $4ep D)

O (Requirment is not fuby satised bed does met aNeet phydral coangerse6am dw._; . , design b.es ., regia.i.tr r*gide'= 5===*rta be=is la **r D)-

('N C. REFERENCE (S)& SOllRCF) REVISION / DATEt D. REVIEW SilMMARY/RESill,T

\

- Parson Power Group loc. -

FORM: 3 1-03 40 Package Sequence No. 4 F3_CLLBD. DOC Revision 3 11/21/97 ec

DOCUMENT ID: RC SLH. P:ge 4I of as MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND LICENSING HASIS CilECKLIST Respotmtde Engineer; PART V 10 CFR50 APPENDIX R CONSIDERATION / SCREENING A. SYSTEM DESIGN HASIS SCREENING

1. O Yes O No lias NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this sy stem for the program / topical area during the initiation of the program?

2. O Yes O No lias NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the progrsm/ topical area within the FSAR?

3. O Yes O No lias NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the program / topics! area leing re.iewed within current (1) system design criteria, (2) modification process or (3) design input?

If the response to questions I,2, gad 3 is "No", Disposition as DISCREPANCY and advise the SLE. The OE will process the discrepancy in accordance with PP 07, if response to questions I,2, RI3 is "Yes," continue with next question.

4. O Yes O No Is the system or any of the system components required for Appendix R safe shutdown?

If Yes, Disposition as PROGRAM IS APPLICABLE. Coenplete Part V.1 checklists. If "No," disposition as PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM.

H. PROGRAM / TOPICAL AREA IS (Check only one):

O DISCREPANCY: O (Proc ==s per rec)

O (Previounty discmered t,y NNECo, summarire baus and UIR. CR ar dinoovery documed in step D)

O (Requirsman is not fully satafed but does not affat phonal configuration documentation, design tesis er regulatory requurments. Summarve basis in step D)

O PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM I

C PROGRAMIS APPLICABLE ProgramtTopical Specialist /Date:

Originating Engineer /Date:

l

- Parsons Power Group lac. -

FORM: 3 1 03 - 41 Package Sequence No. 4 P niston 3 F3.CLLBD. DOC 12/22/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC SLH- Page 42 ofis MILLSTONE UNIT 2 system CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEMI SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND LICENSING BASIS CIIECKLIST Responsitile Engmeer; Gwtem Team Iad)

PART V.1 10 CFR50 APPENDIX R CIIECKLIST PartV.I Retiew Requirement 1 Item Group Status Reviewer's Signature

1. O Yes O No O NA O INF Date A. REOUIREMEN'l i

H. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS:

O SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O nr.<= pr Pr47)

O gml sy dheeser,d by NNiro,emenwhe book nad UIR ca .e dioce ery docuene.it in Iser p>

i 0 (Regervawet b not fiey setbned but dose not eftwt phyulrel tenogerst6en doctamentai6en, deelge 6 6. .r regwery rware===. r eta b h 6. m, p>

10 C. REFERENCE (S) & SOllRCEl REVISION / DATE:

D. RF. VIEW SilMMARY/RESUI,T

(,

- Persons Power Croup lac. -

FORM: 3 1-03 42 Package Sequence No. 4 F3 CLIJID. DOC Resision 3 12/22/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC.SLH. Page _43 of as MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

) ICAVI' SYSR SYSTEM DESIGN INI'UT AND SYSTEM:

LICENSING llASIS CIIECKLIST ResponsMe Engmeer.

j PART W USI A-46 SEISMIC QUALIFICATION CONSIDERATION / SCREENING l

A. SYSTEM DESIGN HASIS SCREENING

l. O Yes O No lias NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on tids system for the .

program / topical area during the initiation of the program?

2. O Yes O No lias NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the prograrrvtopical area within the FSAR7

~

3. O Yes O No lias NNECo considered or addressed the potential impact on this system for the program / topical area being miend within current (1) system design criteria, (2) modification process or (3) design input?

If the response to questions 1,2,gp.d 3 is "No". Disposition as DISCREPANCY and advise the SLE. The OE will process the discrepancy in accordance with PP 07. If response to questions 1,2, Sg 3 is "Yes," continue with next question,

4. O Yes O No Does the system and/or the components require seismic qualificatiorvoperability capability to Oi perform a safe shutdown function?

If Yes, Disposition as PROGRAM IS APPLICABI '. Coenplete Part W.1 checklists, if "No," disposition as PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM.

H. PROGRAM / TOPICAL AREA IS (Check only one):

O DISCREPANCY: O ( % ns en tr 07)

O (Previoudy discovered by NNEco, summarus basis and UIR , CR cr dmoovery document in Siep D)

D (Requirement is rud rully satisfied tan does not afrect Hipical ecmfiguration docummtation, design tesis or regutatory requiremeta. Summarue teis in nep D1 O PROGRAM WAS CONSIDERED BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM O PROGRAM 15 APPLICABLE Programfropient Specialist /Date:

Originating Engineer /Date: '

O - Person: Power Group lac. -

FORM: 3 103 43 package Sequence No. 4 F3,CLLBD. DOC Revision 3 12/22/97

i DOCUMENT ID: RC.SLB. Page 44 ofin MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM DESIGN INPUT AND

! LICENSING BASIS -

CllECKLIST Responsible E.ngmeer:

(System Team land)

PART W.I USI A 46 SEISMIC QUALIFICATION CHECKLIST PortW.I Review Requirassent lieen Group status Reviewer's Signature

1. O Yes O No O NA O INF Date A. REOUIREMENT H. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS:

O SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (Prw.m per er47)

O (Prov6.edy disse,ered by NNtre, e==nertse hash and UIR , ca .e desee,ery dwanwat in sne, ti>

D (Meguiresnest is met fuBy onessed bei dess not efteet physical e ";__ . ._ da n - _ des ;n hash e e,s.n.e.ry r. qui es, s se hash in me, p>

C. REFERENCE (S)& SOURCE / REVISION / DATE:

D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT O - Persons Power Group lac -

FORM: 3 1 44 Package Sequenec No. 4 F3.CLt.BD. DOC Revision 3 12/22/97

O O O DATA SHEET NO. EE-DS-XXX-YYY PAGE 1 OF X MILLSTONE UNIT 2 ICAVP SVSR COMPONENT TAG NO.

ELECTRICAL COMPONENT SYSTEM / SYSTEM CODE DATA SHEET DESCRIPTION SYSTEM LEAD ENGR PART X SYSTEM COMPONENT DATA REVISION ATTACHED SHEETS ORIGINATOR /DATE REVIEWER /DATE APPROVEDIDATE O

1 2

A DATA 'S ** '~'w +mepemw 0 ves O No Co.nys,.wa tag numbers indicated in ( ) are repetstrve Cwnycs,ern Accessories included.

ITEM DATA AS DESIGNED AS BUILT REFERENCE N 1 MOTOR 2 Elec Channel 3 Horsepower 4 Voltage l 5 FLA 6 KVA Code 7 Serv Factor 8 Design Life 9 Ctrl Power SCE 10 DC Power SCE 11 AC Power SCE 12 Interiock CH 13 Manufacturer 14 Insul Class FORK 3X-EE F3X_EDOLDOC Padege Sequence No - 4 Rewhuen 3 l Decembae 17.1997 l

I PAGE 2 OF X MILLSTONE UNIT 2 DATA SHEET NO. EE-DS-XXX-YYY ICAVP SVSR COMPONENT TAG NO.

ELECTRICAL COMPONENT SYSTEMISYSTEM CODE DATA SHEET DESCRIPTION SYSTEM LEAD ENGR 15 Int / Cont Duty 16 SOLENOID 17 Elec Channel 18 Nattage 19 Voltage 20 coit Insul 21 Operation 22 Drpout Vo!ts 23 Desgn Ufe 24 CV Rating I 25 DC Pcwer SCE 26 AC Power SCE 27 Interlock CH 28 Manufacturer 29 FORRt 3X-EE i F3X_EEXX. DOC Podege Sw No;4 Revemen 3 Damer6ae 17.1997

O O O EE-DS-XXX-YYY PAGE 3 OF X MILLSTONE UNIT 2 DATA SHEET NO.

ICAVP SVSR COMPONENT TAG NO.

ELECTRICAL COMPONENT SYSTEM / SYSTEM CODE DATA SHEET DESCRIPTION SYSTEM LEAD ENGR B.

SUMMARY

OF COMPONENT LOOP INSTRUCTIONS:

The attributes which follow are selected based upon NNEco FSAR Licensing and Design Bases. If an attribute is answered "Yes*,the L._42_ _ *;; boois is satisfied. If NNECo has satisfied the attribute by special analysis or by exception, indicate that the attribute is satisfied, but include an =;":T- me on a  ;

separate page. The Originator (OE) needs to include sil ..~ .;e;.c (s) for all attributes. If addibonal comment is . 4 : (1) Indicate under references to

• See Attached Sheet

• and (2) attach a separate sheet and indicate the attribute number and additional documentation. The attached sheet shall be identified as follows : ATTACHMENT [ the same data sheet number] - xx (xx = next consecuuve unique number). Attachments shall have unique page numbers as well as total. Any attribute that is .;_;M *No,' means that it may not comply with the design or licensing beels and is proceeeed as a discrepancy and classified as follows: (1) DISCREPANCY process per PP-07, (2) DESCREPANCY - previously discovered by NNEco, summartae basis and list UIR, CR or di.c ,.e;y document, (3} DISCREPANCY - requirement is not fully satisfied but does not affect physical configuration documentation, design basis or regulatory requirements, summarize basis for conclusion. A DR need not be processed for type (2) or (3). For6..,_._.. which are "- _,;C

^

but still meet the design and licensing basis, the *No* block should be checked for that attribute (for example, a Level 4 DE _, cy Report --:_ _ _ : 2 g tr PP-07). For repetitive w.i.,,c,;.c.;"s list all applicable references (le Channel A Loop, B, C, D)_ If - Merence exists between the channels or trains that does not have a design and licensing basis, the attribute is answered *No." and is processed as a discrepancy in accordance with the classification noted.

Component (s) satisfies licensing and design bases.

Component (s) does not satisfy licensing and design basest discrepancy noted and processed, as requwed.

O Component (s) satisfies iscensing and design basesidiscrepancy noted and processed, as required.

ORIGINATOR DATE:

FORht- 3X-EE Padege Setymnce No; 4 F3X_EEXX. DOC Reus% 3 D& 17.1997

O O O MILLSTONE UNIT 2 DATA SHEET N"). EE-DS-XXX-YYY l PAGE4 OF ICAVP SVSR COMPONENTTAG NO.

ELECTRICAL COMPONENT SYSTEMISYSTEM CODE DATA SHEET DESCRIPTION SYSTEM LEAD ENGR C. COMPONENT ATTRIBUTE REVIEW ITED ATTRIBUTE E NO N/A REFERENCE Welashweste

1. Does the as-built nameplate data agree with the design documents?

2. Does the voitage calculations adequately address the component for all operating modes?

3. Does the short circuit calculation property incorporate the load for all operating modes?

4

_. Is the equipment short circuit capability in accordance with calculations?

_ 5. Do the electrical celculations use normal and accepted methodology?

6 Are the assumptions in the electrical calculations tecnnically sound?

7. Is the cable size appropriate for the load?

8. Is the protective device sized by calculation and appropriate?

9. Is the power supply to the safety related process cabinet property sized?

10. Is the load property accounted for in baseline loading / sizing cdculations and are all operating modes considered?

11. Is the component shed or sequenced on at the appropriate times?

12. If there are fuses, is there a sizing basis?  !

13. If there are fuses, are they controlled?

14 If there are overtoads, is there a sizing basis?

15. If there are overtoads, are they controEed? l

16. Are the cable deratings at any point along its* length appropriate?

17. Is the circuit feeding the component coordinated for all protective devices?

18. Does the component receive power from an apprepciate (independent) power source?

19. Does a set point calculation exist for the trip or alarm point (s)7

20. Are the set point calculation inputs reasonable?

21. Is the methodology and output reasonable?

FORM 3X-EE F3X_EEXX. DOC Padege sequmce No/ 4  !

Reweson 3 l ;

Dacente 17,1997 l i

(/c)

- (sn)/

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 DATA SHEET NO. EE-DS-XXX-YYY PAGE S OF X ICAVP SVSR COMPONENT TAG NO.

ELECTRICAL. COMPONENT SYSTEM / SYSTEM CODE DATA SHEET DESCRIPTION SYSTEM LEAD ENGR C. COMPONENT ATTRIBUTE REVIEW fre" ATTRIBUTE YES Im NfA NENE N I

22. Does sufficient margin as described in the Technical Specification exist?

23. Is the set point refieded in the appropriate test. operating and emert':ncy procedures?

24. Is the mov part of the generic letter 89-10 program? .

25. Is there calculations for correct torque settings using appropriate voltage '

value?

26. If a 89-10 valve, is the overtoad device appropnately induded in cales?

27. Is it dear that the component is induded in the SBO program? ,

28. If SBO component, is it iriduded in the documentation for coping duraten category?

29. If an SBO component, do the criteria and assumptions conform to the licensing basis?

30. If an SBO component does the calculations that are available support the SBO response / procedures?

31. If the componen: is in an dominant area of concem (SBO) is it evaluated for the event?

32. If a valve, does the SBO program adequately address containment isolation capability?

33. Does the APP R program documentation property address the component?

34. Will a common fire effect a redundant component or cause a basis for the Fire Hazards Report or hot shutdown capability to become invalid?

35. Is the hiDh/ low pressure boundary for APP R oorrsrily addressed?

36. Is the component induded in separation / associated circuit study for APP R7

37. Is the camponent induded in the MHIF study?

38. If an MOV, is the torque and limrt switch wiring evaluated? I FORM. 3X-EE F3X_EEXX. DOC Package sequence Nor 4 Renamn 3 l Decentwr 17,1997 l

e MILLSTONE UNIT 2 DATA SHEET NO.

e EE-DS-XXX-YYY O

PAGE 6 OF X ICAVP SVSR COMPONENT TAG NO. ,

ELECTRICAL COMPONENT SYSTEWSYSTEM CODE DATA SHEET - DESCRIPTION SYSTEM LEAD ENGR C. COMPONENT ATTRIBUTE REVIEW ITEM ATTRIBUTE YES NO NfA REFERENCE ON

39. Is the component seismically qualified?

40 is the component ri.ounted in accordance with the design documents induding minimum mechanical and eledrical separation on a common rack?

41. Is the component mounted in accordance with the seismic requirements?

42. Are there any instances where seismic 2 may affect seismic 1 components, conduits (seismic 2 over 1)?

43. If EQ. is the component included in the EQ program per the MEPL7

44. If EQ. does 2he component have a SCEW sheet that indudes installed location, r safety fundion and operating time? .

45. If EQ. is the worst case environment for the component addressed for the component performance 7(see EQ SCEW sheet to verify infonnation )

46. If EQ. does the installed configuration represent the tested configuration and does it satisfy the worst case environmental conditions induding submergence, if applicable?

47. If EQ. have qualified eledrical seals (Conax, Namco.etc.) been used to interface with the component?

48. If EO, are qualified splices such as Raychem, Lorite, etc. used?

49. If EQ. is the qualified life of the component adequately addressed ( see applicable SCEW sheet)?

50. If EQ. are the maintenance requirements induded in the plant preventive '

maintenance (PM) program?

l

51. If an eledrical containment penetration is used does it satisfy the requirements l of the FSAR7

52. If an electrical containment penetration is used is it adequately addrressed in the short circuit capabihty study?

FORM. 3A-EE F3X_EEXX_ DOC Pacemge sequem:e No.- 4 Revisam 3 Decemtm 171997

, o _ _ ----

O _

O O EE-DS-XXX-YYY PAGE 7 OF X MILLSTONE UNIT 2 DATA SHEET NO.

ICAVP SVSR COMPONENT TAG NO.

ELECTRICAL COMPONENT SYSTEMISYSTEM CODE DATA SHEET DESCRIPTION SYSTEM LEAD ENGR I

C. COMPONENT ATTRIBUTE REVIEW YES NO NrA REFERENCE C.L ^or/Date ITEM ATTRIBUTE

53. It M physical mechanical separation in the FSAR met with respect to a rwundant motor / valve?

54. Is the physical electrical separation in the FSAR met with respect to a redundant cable or conduit?

55; ls the physical installation of electrical raceway in accordance with spec?

53. Is wiring separation maintained from component to safety related process cabinets in accordance with the FSAR7

57. Are redundant channels electrically independent?

58. Is separation in accordance with the FSAR from the safety related component to the control power interface?

59. Is the safety related process output properly interfaced to and terminated to the device / equipment required to perform De safety function? _

60. Is component input signal to the safety related cabinets terminated in accordance with design documents?

61. Does the MEPL have the correct classification and snfety function for the component?

62. Is the component configured conristent v"h one-line drawings?

63. Can the required safety function be achieved?

64. Can all emergency furrctions be accomplished?

65. Can all shutdown functions be accomplished ?

66. Does the component as-built configuration conform to startup and preoperational state?

67. Is the component surveillance test base (' M3cceptance tests and design change documents?

FORM: 3X-EE Package sewence No? 4 F3X EEXX. DOC Revesson 3 December 17,1997

.. (

. DATA SHEET NO.

. EE-DS-XXX-YYY PAGE 8 OF X MILLSTONE UNIT 2 ICAVP SVSR COMPONENT TAG NO.

ELECTRICAL COMPONENT SYSTEMISYSTEM CODE DATA SHEET DESCRIPTION SYSTEM LEAD ENGR C. COMPONENT ATTRIBUTE REVIEW ITEM YES NO CA REFERENCE O Heinator m ATTRIBUTE

68. Do the operating procedures match the component tag number, description, set point and design change documentation? .

69. Do the alarm procedures match the component tag number, description, set point and design change documentation?

70. Do the emergency procedures match the componene tag number, description, setpoint and design change documentation?

71. Do the maintenance and inspection procedures match the system compor *nts, manuheturer's recommendations and design change documents?

72. Are component related design changes that indude physicalinstallations(ie raceway, cable bends, splices, terminations and grounding) consistent with original design and well documented?

73. Is switchgear, MCC*S other electrical equipment associated with, as well as the component itself installed and grounded in accordance with spec?

74. For associated modifications were they in accordance with pmcedures with the appropriate reviews and signatures during both the design and implementation phases?

75.

l l

FORM: 3X-EE F3X~ EEXX. DOC Package sesm A 4 Revision 3 December 17,1997 l

L.____ _

l Il li X E4 E*

F O

XW 3

Y, 9 7 5

E M:

O r

G e O b A

P RW F

e g D m

e c

e e

d a

P Y

Y Y-X X

X-S D- c E

E E

O D

N C C

. G M R O A E G N T N O T E

E T

N E

T S

Y S

N O

I T

E D

A E

H N /

P L S O M I P E R M A M T C E T S S T S

A O Y E Y e D C S D S t

a D

A T

A D

T T N N E E N 2 N O T O P I

N F. P T M U S M E O V E C E S O H N C S L O P L A T V A A T u S A C T N s )

L C I A E

(

e (

t s

L I

R D M No c

n n

e I

T E te e r m r M C L u f e m t o

E. P e o a e

b R C n L

P i

r ig E U A t

t . .

i r C a b O O S D.

X X

. E 1

. E_

X D 3 F

< \

t IC-DS-XXX-YYY PAGE 1 CF X MILLSTONE UNIT 2 DATA SHEET NO.

ICAVP SVSR COMPONENT TAG NO.

INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL SYSTEM / SYSTEM CODE COMPONENT LOOP DATA SHEET DESCRIPTION SYSTEM LEAD ENGR PART X SYSTEM COMPONENT DATA REVISION ATTACHED SHEETS ORIGINATOR /DATE REVIEWER /DATE APPROVED /DATE O

1 2

~

A DATA i is the component / loop repetitive: 0 Yes O No Component tag numbers indicated in ( ) are repetdrve LOOP Accessories included:

ITEM DATA AS DESIGNED AS BUILT REFERENCE Or%8a *r8

• 1 Instrument Type 2 Instrument Range 3 Instr Elec Channel 4 Instr Seismic Class 5 Instr Equipment Qualification per EQ Prog (Yes/No) Une 1 (P,T,RH, Seismic, RAD) Une 2 6 RG1.97perFSAR(Yes/No) Line1 TypeNariable Line 2 7 LOOP OUTPUT 8 Indicator (s) Range / Location 9 Computer range 10 Alarm Set Point (s) 11 Interlock set Point (s) (inct type & value) 12 FORM. 3X-4C Package secpence No.:4 F3X ICXX. DOC Rewsion 3 December 17.1997

1 -

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 DATA SHEET h,0. IC-DS-XXX-YYY l PhE2 OFX ICAVP SVSR COMPONENT TAG NO.

INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL SYSTEM / SYSTEM CODE COMPONENT LOOP DATA SHEET DESCRIPTION l SYSTEM LEAD ENGR B.

SUMMARY

OF COMPONENT LOOP INSTRUCTIONS:

The attributes which follow are selected based upon NNECo FSAR I.' ensing and Design Bases. If an attribute is answered "Yes",the licensing / design basis is satisfied. If NNEco has satisfied the attribute by special analysis or by exception, Indicate that *be attribute is satisfied, but include an explanation on a separate page. The Originator (OE) needs to include all reference (s) for all attributes. If additional comment is required (1) Indicate under a' .se- to "See Attached Sheet" and (2) attach a separate sheet and Indicate the attribute number and additional do::umentation. The attached sheet shall be identified as follows : ATTACHMENT [the same data sheet number]- xx (xx = next consecutive unique r. umber). Attachments shall have unique page numbers as well as total. Any attribute that is answered "No," means that it may not comply with the design or licensing basis and is processed as a discrepancy and classified as follows: (1) DISCREPANCY process per PP.07, (2) DISCPF'ANCY - previously discovered by NNECo, summarize basis and !!st tilR, CR or discovery document, (3) DISCREPANCY - requirement is not fully satisfied but does not affect physical configuration documentation, design basis or regulatory requirements, summarize basis for conclusion. A DR need not be processed for type (2) or (3). For components which are discrepant but still meet the design and licensing basis, the "No" block should be checked for that attribute (for example, a Level 4 Discrepancy Report processed per PP.07). For repetitive components list all applicable references (le Channel A Loop, B, C, D). If a difference exists between the channels or trains that does ,

not have a design and Ilcensing basis, the attribute is answered "No." and is processed as a discrepancy in accordance with the classification noted.

The OE will also consider any of the following accessories or Interfaces as a complete instrument loop and include the results on the same data sheet as the primary process Instrument:

a. Indicator (s)

b. Recorder (s)

c. Computer point (s)

d. Alarm (s)

Add other attributes and/or loop accessories as required.

O component (s) satisfies licensing and design bases.

O component (s) does not satisry licensing and design basest dise repancy noted and processed, as required.

O component (s) satisfies licensing and design basesidiscrepancy noted and processed, as required. ,

ORIGINATOR DATE: l FORM,3X4C Package Sequence No; 4 f F3X,JCX)LDOC Revision 3 I

l Decemtw 17.1997 1 . ..

l __

PAGE 3 OF X MILLSTONE UNIT 2 DATA SHEET NO. IC-DS-XXX-YYY ICAVP SVSR COMPONENT TAG NO.

INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL SYSTEM / SYSTEM CODE COMPONENT LOOP DATA SHEET DESCRIPTION SYSTEM LEAD ENGR C. COMPONENT ATTRIBUTE REVIEW i

YES NO N/A REFERENCE originsecreate ITEM ATTRIBUTE

1. Does the MEPL Indicate the component electrical / seismic class in cccordance with the !icensing and design basis?

2. Is the instrument range sufficient to measure all normal and emergency process values?

3. Does the component envelope the system design pressure / temperature?

4. Does the as built name tag data agree with the design documents?

5. Is the orientation of the process tap, impulse iubing size and slope in accordance with the design documents?

6. Are impulse tubing blowdown, vent and manifold valves and loop accessories installed in accordance with the design documents?

Y. Is the impulse tubing / piping, fittings, and instrumentation valving specified in accordance with the tubing / piping specifications?

8. If mounted on a common rack with multiple instruments, is the component mounted in accordance with the design documents including minimum mechanical and electdcal separation?

9. Is the component mounted on a rack / support in accordance with the design documents?

10. If applicable, is the component mounted in accordance with the vendor seismic mounting requirements?

11. If the component is seismically qualified, is the mounting support / rack seismically qualifiert?

12. Is the physical mechanical separation in the FSAR met with respect to a redundant lastrument or sensing line?

13. Is the physical electrical separation in the FSAR met with respect to a redundant instrument or conduit?

FORM. 3X-tC Package sequance No : 4 F3X_lCXX. DOC Revision 3 December 17.19W

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 DATA SHEET NO. IC-DS-XXX-YYY l PAGE 4 OF X ICAVP SVSR COMPONENT TAG NO.

INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL SYSTEM / SYSTEM CODE COMPONENT LOOP DATA' SHEET DESCRIPTION SYSTEM LEAD ENGR C. COMPONENT ATTRIBUTE REVIEW ..

YES NO N/A REFERENCE Originator!Dete ITEM ATTRIBUTE

14. If the component is seismically qualified, are the tubing and supports installed in accordance with the seismic / thermal tubing criteria or analysis? '

Check One: Installed by criteria O Insta!!ed by analysis 0

15. Does the calibration procedure values / ranges match the component name plate?

16. Does the calibration procedure reflect the location of the taps and instrument to account for zero/ suppression?

17. If the component is in the EQ program, does the PMMS/MEPL indicate the component within the prngram?

18. If EQ, has the qualified verses design life been considered and properly documented in the EQ document package?

19. If EQ, is the component qualified for the worst case location environmental conditions including submergence, IF APPLICABLE?

20. If EQ, have qualified electrical seals such as Conax, Namco, Patel, etc. been used to interface with the component?

21. If EQ, are qualified splices such as Raychem. Kerite, Okonite, etc. used (if applicable)?

22. If EQ do the preventive maintenance procedures include EQ requirements?

23. If EQ, does the installed configuration represent the "as qualified" test configuration?

24. If EQ, has the minimum cabh nponent insulation value recorded during the accident simulation (test) been entified and discussed in the EQ document package?

25. Is the component seisrric classification in accordance with the licensing and

' FORM. 3X-IC Package seg;ence No/ 4 F3X_ICXX. DOC Revision 3 Decemte 17.1997

. m,

O O O IC-DS-XXX-YYY PAGE 5 OF X MILLSTONE UNIT 2 DATA SHEET NO.

ICAVP SVSR COMPONENT TAG NO.

INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL SYSTEM / SYSTEM CODE COMPONENT LOOP DATA SHEET DESCRIPTION SYSTEM LEAD ENGR C. COMPONENT ATTRIBUTE REVIEW YES NO N/A REFF.tENCE OriginatorfDete ITEM ATTRIBUTE design basis?

26. If a mechanical containment penetration is used, does it meet the requirement of RG 1.11 and FSAR?

27. If an electrical containment penetra?bn is used, does it satisfy the requirements of the FSAR?

i

28. If the compont.nt is redundant, are independent process connections utilized?

29. Is wiring separation maintained from component to safety related process cabinets in accordance with the FSAR?

30- Are redundant channels electrically independent?  ;

39. Is component input signal to the safety related process cabinets terminated in accordance with design documents?

32.a If the component is redundant, doos the component / loop receive power from l an independent power source?

32.b is the 120 VAC Vital System capable of supporting the functional requirements with respect to bus loading, load voltage, circuit protection, feeder sizing and circuit separation?

32.c if a common feed from the 120 VAC vital panels is used to power both safety related a.nd non-safety related devices, are qualified (coordinated) isolation devices used?

33. Does(Do) calculation (s) exist to demonstrate loop accuracy, drift, and uncertainty for loops used to actuate /a'va a safety function or used in a maintenance or surveillance procedure / jf any of the calculation factors doesn1 apply, answer "no* . Explain on Attached sheet).

34. Does a set point calculation exist for the trip or alarm point (s)?

35. Are the set point calculation inputs reasonable? ,

FORM. 3X-IC Package sequence No : 4 F3XmlCXX. DOC Revision 3 Decen*w 17,1997

IC-DS-XXX-YYY PAGE 6 OF X MILLSTONE UNIT 2 DATA SHEET NO.

ICAVP SVSR COMPONENT TAG NO.

INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL SYSTEM / SYSTEM CODE COMPONENT LOOP DATA SHEET DESCRIPTION SYSTEM LEAD ENGR C. COMPONENT ATTRIBUTE REVIEW YES NO N/A REFERENCE origmatoresse ITEM ATTRIBUTE ,

36. Is the set point calculation methodology and output reasonable?

37. Does the set point (s) and accuracy match the values or margins as desdbed in the Technical Specification or FSAR?

38. Is the set point reflected in the appropriate test, operating and emergency

/ alarm procedures?

39. Do interfaces (outputs) to *other non-safety related system (s)[ computer, annunciator, etc.} or devices / components" use qualified isolation devices as described in the FSAR?

40. If a switch is used to isolate or transfer an analog signal (not within the process cabinet) for local readout, is the signal completely transferred such that there are no remote failure paths?

41. Are control board indicators qualified for the intended function?

41 is the control panel (s) indicator range consistent with the procedures and design documents?

43. Is separation maintained in accordance with the FSAR from the safety related process cabinets to the control panel indicator?

44. Are the safety related process cabinet outputs terminated in accordance with the design documents?

45. Are the safety related process outputs property interfaced to and terminated to the device / equipment required to perform the safety function?

46. Is tne required safety function of the loop / component as described in the FSAR achieved?

47. Are there any other contacts in the actuation circuit that would inhibit, c(1) ;

automatically remove or block an RPS/ESFAS/AF Initiation signal?

48. Are there any instances where seismic 2 may affect seismic 1 components, -(1) l FORM: 3X-lC Package sequence No; 4 F3X_lCXX. DOC Revision 3 December 17.1997

IC-DS-XXX-YYY PAGE 7 OF X MILLSTONE UNIT 2 DATA SHEET NO.

ICAVP SVSR COMPONENT TAG NO.

INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL SYSTEMISYSTEM CODE COMPONENT LOOP DATA SHEET DESCRIPTION SYSTEM LEAD ENGR l

1 C. COMPONENT ATTRIBUTE REVIEW YES NO N/A REFERENCE OWor/Date ITEM ATTRIBUTE impulse tubes or conduits (seismic 2 over 1)?

49. Do the operating procedures match the component tag number and description?

50. Do the emergency procedures match the component tag number and ,

description? l j

51. Can all described em'rgency system operating functions be accomplished (via walkdown)?

52. Do the alarm procedures match the component tag number and functional i

description?

l 53. Can all hot shutdown procedural functions be accomplished (via walkdown)? ,

54. Do the maintenance and inspection procedures follow the system l component (s) manufacturer's maintenance recommendations?

55. Do the test / calibration procedures match the component tag number, description, calibration and/or set point documentation?

56. If applicable are the system human factors attributes addressed on control boards, panel, procedures and labeling?

57. Does the simulator operating / emergency procedures match the *as built" control room procedures?

58. Does the simulator front view mak,h the appropriate main control beard section? , . _ . ,

59. Does a mechanism exist to allow logic and/or control boart! hardware changes to be incorporated into the simulator?

60. Will a common fire affect a redundant process variable or cause a basis for the , . 0); l Firn Hazards Report or hot shutdown capability to become invalid?

FORM. 3X-fC Package seq' ace No.: 4 F3X~ ICXX. DOC Revmon 3 December 17,1997

DATA SHEET NO. IC-DS-XXX-YYY PAGE 8 OFX MILLSTONE UNIT 2 ICAVP SVSR COMPONENT TAG NO.

INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL SYSTEM / SYSTEM CODE COMPONENT LOOP DATA SHEET DESCRIPTION SYSTEM LEAD ENGR C, COMPONENT ATTRIBUTE REVIEW I l ITEM ATTRIBUTE YES NO N/A REFERENCE c.:._._. m

^

61. Is the loop capable of being independently tested from sensor to actuated / measured component?

62. If identified in the FSAR as a RG 1.97 variable, does the component meet the l requirements of RG 1.97 with respect to range, signal type, qualification and l separatic17

63. If air is required following a incident, has a safety related air source been pmvided for the loop to allow the intended function to be satisfied?

64. If a safety related air source is used, is it mounted in accordance with seismic mounting requirements to the first support beyond the safety class tubir.g break?

65. If a primary flow element is part of the loop, has the installation (upstream and downstream diameters) effect on loop functionality been considered?

Notes: (1) An affirmative response to this question should be treated as a discrepancy and processed accordance with PP-07

) .

l FORM:3X-IC Package sequence No : 4 F3X~ ICXX. DOC Revision 3 December 17.1997

(. . p

I llllIl! 1ll 4 C 7 4 :. _ 99 X X 1 F 3 7,

O M 1

. 9 R r e

E O b G F O A P

k n

y q

c D

m e

e a

P Y

Y Y-X X

X-S D-C I

E O

D N O C

. G M R O A E G N T T N T T S N E E N Y O D O E H

S E

N O

P S

/

M E

I T

P I

R A

E L

M A M T C E T S S T S

A O Y E Y e D C S D S t a

D A

T

- L A D

O T R

T E

E T

N N H E 2 O 5 N O

T C A D T P A

I N R N M U S D O V A P C E S N P N

O O L O I O A T V T L T  :

S A A T N )

s )

s L C T N E .

(

e (

t c n M No I

L I N E E n

e e M N E e r m r MO U P L

P b t

u f e

e m

o t

o a

R C in R P r T M i

t g U t A a

. . ir O C

- S OC S b

O N

I .

D.

X 1 X C

l_

D X 3

F 1 I

ME-DS-XXX-YYY PAGE 1 CF X MILLSTONE UNIT 2 DATA SHEET NO.

ICAVP SVSR COMPONENT TAG NO.

MECHANICAL COMPONENT SYSTEM / SYSTEM CODE DATA SHEET DESCRIPTION I

SYSTEM LEAD ENGR PART X SYSTEM COMPONENT DATA REVISION ATTACHED SHEETS ORIGINATOR /DATE REVIEWER /DATE APPROVED /DATE 0

1 2

A DATA is the c mponent repetitive: O ves O No Component tag numbers indicated in ( ) are repetitive.

I Component Accessories included:

ITEM DATA AS DESIGNED AS BUILT REFERENCE OWN 1 PUMP _

2 Capacity, GPM 3 TDH, ft.

4 NPSH Rqd, ft.

5 Min. Flow, GPM 6 VALVE 7 ANSI Class 8 Diff Press, psi 9 Stroke, sec 10 Cv 11 Type 12 FORnt 3X-ME Pacinge 4 F3X_MEXX. DOC December 17,1997

s.

ME-DS-XXX-YYY PAGE 2 OF X

. MILLSTONE UNIT 2 DATA SHEET NO.

ICAVP SVSR COMPONENT TAG NO.

MECHANICAL COMPONENT SYSTEM / SYSTEM CODE DATA SHEET DESCRIPTION SYSTEM LEAD ENGR B.

SUMMARY

OF COMPONENT LOOP INSTRUCTIONS:

The attributes which follow are selected based upon NNFrM "' ;,,A a.icensing and Design Bases. If an attribute le answered "Yes", the L..i,"i _ *, . beels is satisfied. If NNEco has satisfied the attribute by spec'ai analysis or by exception, indicate that the attribute is satisfied, but include an explanation on a separate page. The Originator (OE) needs to include all a .. ,c.(s) for all attributes. If additional comment is . _ J. J (1) indicate under reftfences to "See Attache:f Sheet

• and (2) attach a separate sheet and indicate the attribute number and additional documentation. The attached shoot shall be identified as follows : ATTACHMENT [ the same data sheet number] - xx (xx = next consecutive unique number). Attachments shall have unique page numbers as well as total. Any attribute that is answered "Ne," means that it may not comply with the design or licensing bee 8s and is p-:-: _ _ _ f so a discrepancy and classified as follows: (1) DISCREPANCY process per PP-07, (2) DISCREPANCY - previously discovered by NNECo, summertae beels and slot ,

UIR, CR or discovery document, (3) DISCREPANCY - requirement is not fully satisfied but does not affect physical-:-c.. .1ation ' :___ _.f ^* =1. doeign basis or regulatory requirements, summarize basis for conclusion. A DR need not be processed for type (2) or (3). For - ----- -_ ^ which are dim..g but still meet the design and licensing basis, the "No" block should be checked for that attribute (for example, a Level 4 h- ; - :y Report g+: _ _- - f por PP-07). For repetitive components list all applicable references (le Channel A Loop, B, C, D). If a difference exists between the channels or trains that does not have a design and licensing basis, the attribute is answered "No." and is processed as a discrepancy in accordance with the cisosification noemd.

Component (s) satisfies licensing and design bases.

Component (s) does not satisfy licensing and design basest discrepancy noted and processed, as required.

Component (s) satisfies licensing and design bases / discrepancy noted and processed, as required.

ORIGINATOR DATE:

FORK 3X-ME Package Sequence No; 4 F3X_MEXXDOC rtevissan 3 De 17.1997

O O DATA SHEET NO. ME-DS-XXX-YYY PAGE 3 OF X MILLSTONE UNIT 2 ICAVP SVSR COMPONENT TAG NO.

MECHANICAL COMPONENT SYST'M/ SYSTEM CODE DATA SHEET DESCRIPTION SYSTEM LEAD ENGR C. COMPONENT ATTRIBUTE REVIEW ITEM YES NO N/A REFERENCE orighumorence ATTRIBUTE

1. Does the pump performance bound the performance used for '"ty accident analysis?

2. Is adequate NPSH pr oded at runout flow conditions ?

3. Is adequate NPSH provided at minimum suction source level ?

4. Is the driver horsepower adequate for runout / maximum pump operation 7 i I

S. Has reverse flow protection been provided for multi-pump insta!Iations ?

6. Has minimum flow protection been provided and does it meet the vendor's recommendations ?

7. Do the operating or maintenance instructions provide for filling and venting of the pump after maintenance or extended outages ?

8. Does the suction pipe arrangt. prevent vapor formation or air entrainment ?

9. Is the pump protected from overpressure from a leaking discharge valve if required ?

10. Is the pressure / temperature rating adequate for the design of the pipirw; 7

11. Does the IST program demonstrate the required performance for the l component 7

12. Has the component been seismically qualified 7

13. Has the operability of active components been demonstrated by test or analysis 7

14. Is the enmponent performance consistent with FSAR data 7

15. For two isolation valves in series have two control / power trains oeen used to assure isolation with a single failure 7

16. Does the valve operator provide adequate closing thrust for maximum conditions ? _

17. Have 89-10 program requirements been met for the valve ?

FORM; 3X-ME Package sequence No.:4 F3X_MEXX. DOC Rew,er13 Decemtw 17.1997

-~~

L__..________..

e MILLSTONE UNIT 2 DATA SHEET NO.

O ME-DS-XXX-YYY O

PAGE 4 OF X ICAVP SVSR COMPONENT TAG NO.

MECHANICAL COMPONENT SYSTEM / SYSTEM CODE DATA SHEET DESCRIPTION SYSTEM LEAD ENGR

=-

C. COMPONENT ATTRIBUTE REVIEW ITEM YES NO N/A REFERENCE originatormase ATTRIBUTE

18. Does the CV for the valve meet or exceed that used in system calculations ?

19. Do the operating procedures match the component tag number, description, Vendor Manual Operating Requirements or other documentation ?

20. Do the emergency procedures match the component tag number, description, or other documentation?

21. Has the component been procured or evaluated to meet the worst case environmental conditions for its location?

22. If actuator air is required following an incident, has a safety related air source, tubing, valves, etc. been provided to assure the function is satisfied?

23. Has pressure locking and thermal expansion affects on the valve been l considered ?

24. Does the component performance meet any applicable Tech Spec requirements ?

25. Have cooling water or any other required support systems been included in the system interfaces ?

26. Does the MEPL have the correct classification and safety function for the component ?

27. Do air operated valves have the correct failure position on a loss of air 7

28. Do the maintenance instructions for the component incorporate the vendor manual requirements ?

FORM. 3XME F3X MEXXDOC W sequence No; 4

~

Revision 3 December 17,1997

I i ; l1

,I X E4 F W ,

O X 3

S M

u.

E O G A

P

~

R O

F rm a

k c

a P

Y Y

Y-X X _

X-S D-E M

E O

D N O C

. G M R O A E G N T T N O T E

E H

T N

E N

S Y

S

/

N O

I T

P E

D A

E M L S O E I

R M A P T C E T M S S T A O E S Y Y e D C S D S t

a D

A T

A D

T T N N E E N 2 N O T O P I

N R PM T M U S E O V O E C E S C H N P S L O L A A T V A T T )

S L

AC C I

A N E

i s

e

)

(

s N D .

c t

n M No I

L A n e I

e M H E e r e

m r o

C L u t f

e m

o t

a E P bri R C n P t ig O M U S

t A a b

i O

r C O

D L

O

. D f

1 M

X_

D 3 F

l MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSRPZOJECTINSTRUCTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK

\ PftOJECTl IDENTIFIER:

JOB NOJ WBS NO.:

SUBJECT:

INPUT DISCIPLINE. CLASSIFIC ATION:

CHECMUST poucLEAR PAGE 2 OF j

peoJoets

~

APPLICABLE DESIGN INPUT REQUIREMENTS FOR NUCLEAR PROJECTS:

(V) (N) (if Yes, complete explanation, including referonoes, on DIR, Form EP13. Note: lleme 1,2 and 3 are appair.hi.)

/ (1) Scope / Basic fenetions of structure, eyelem or component

/ (2) Performance requirements, input services (air, electricay) as weg as outputs (capocay, rebng)

/ (3) Codes Standards, and regulatory requirements including afyarahia leeue and/or addende D O (4) Design Conditione such as temperature, pressure, fluid, chemistry and voltage D D (5) Leeds such as seiert,ic, wind, thermal and dynamic 0 D (6) Erwironmental conditions anticipated, such as pressure, temperature, humidity, corroelveness, one elev3 ten, wind dwoction, nuclear redishon, electromagnehc radiation, and durohon of awpaame including 10CF R50.4g angerman O O (7) Interface requirements and constructately including defintion of the functional arQ physicat interfaces including structures, systems, and components O O (8) Meterial requirements such items as compettsty, electrical insuistion proporties, protective conteng, and corrosion resistance D O (9) Mechanical requirements such ac vibrahon, stroes, shock and reaction forces D D (10) Structural requirements covering such items as equipment foundatiuns and pipe supports D D (11) Hydraulic requirements i och as NPSH, alloweble pressure drops, and fluid velockies D D (12) Chemistry requirements such as provisions for sempling and limitations on we.er chemistry D D (13) Electrical requirements such as svu,ce of power, voltage, raceway requirements, electrical insulebon, motor requirements, loed/ voltage studies and EDG load 6ng D D (14) Layout and arrangement requirements D D (15) Operational requirements under various conddions such as plant start-up, normal plant opershon, plant shutdown, plant emergency operation, special or infrequent operation, and system abnormel or emergency operaten i D D (16) Instrumentation and control requirements including indicating instruments, controis and alarms required for operation, testing V and maintenance.

D D (17) Access and administrouve control requirements required for plant securtly 0 D (18) Redundancy, drversity, and separoton requirements D D (19) Failure effects requirements including of those events which they must withetend D D (20) Test requirements including pre-operational and steequent periodic in-pient and the conddion under which they must operale O D (21) Acc M""f, maintenance, repair and in-service inspection requirements D D (22) Personnel requirements and hmitations D D (23) Transportatsty requirements such as stre and shipping weight O O (24) Fire protection or fire resistence requirements D D (25) Handling, storage, cleaning and shipping requirements D D (20) Other requirements to prevent undue risk to the health and safety of public D D (27) Meterleis, processes, parts, and equipment suRable for apphcation D D (28) Safety requirements for preventing personnel injury D D (29) Quetty and quellty assurance requirements D D (30) Relistety requirements including their interactens, which may impair safety D 0 (31) Interface requirements between plant equipment and operation and maintenance personnel D D (32) Requirements for crticality control and accountatety of special nuclear meterteis D D (33) Special ALARA considerations D D (34) Special human factors consederato.s D D (35) High Energy Line Brooks are affected D D (36) Flooding O O (37) Miss'les D D (38) 10CFR50 Appendix R, including Safe Shutdown Analysis D D (3g) . Seismic Category ll over i O O (40) Special HVAC requwements D D (41) Station Blackout Analysis D D (42) Post Accident Monitoring Requirements D D (43) OTHER requirements, as necessary f THIS IS A DESIGN RECORD Form EPt2 12/96 D

- Persons Power Group Inc. -

Pl.100 Revision 3 501. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSRPROJECTINSTRUCTION Pl.01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CilECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK O

T1-CL-I-04 SYSTEM CORRECTIVE ACTION CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS - FORM 4 O

Signature Date Prepared: w/ / 2s /

Reviewed; I - 4 3 h jPg Approved: 9 A fp Approved: '5o J M 9 f Deputy Project Director O - Parsons Power Group Inc. -

PI- 101 Revision 3 PI4)1. DOC January 21,1998 o ~

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK g 1.0 FORM 4 - SYSTEM CORRECTIVE ACTION CIIECKLIST 1.1 The purpose of this form is to:

• Provide review of the NNECo Conrection Actions Program (CAP) identified in Adverse Condition Reports (ACR), Condition Reports (CR), Unresolved items Reports (UIR) and Final Safety Analysis Report Change Requests (FSARCR),

e Document the results to assure that the CAP adequately addresses the items requiring corrective action in the Parsons Access Database, an electronic Form 4, Part C.

-] Summarize the results of the review of corrective actions in Part B of the form.

b 1.2 The OE adds the Parsons Power Document ID number, NNECo system code, l system title to the form header, and indicates the responsible SLE. Each corrective action requires a separate checklist form .

1.2.1 Each corrective action item checklist will be identified as follows:

a]E RC-CA-XXXX (system designator)-nn (Tier Number)- nnnn (unique checklist form number from the record number in the database). For example RC-CA-HPSI-T1-0004 is the Fourth CA reviewed by Tier 1 for the HPSI system.

1.3 Upon initiation of the form, the OE signs and dates the appropriate Revision block in Part A.

1.4 The SLE in concert with the LE will review the corrective action description and assign each corrective action to the (1) OE, (2) discipline, or (3) specialist reviewer. The OE enters in Part C, the assigned group (s) and enters the reviewer /m' spector's name to each specific checklist.

1.5 Checklist Requirement (Part C) 1.5.1 Using the NNECo CAP and other inputs documents as applicable, the OE completes the electronic Part C of the form.

l

- 1.5.2 If the requirement is assigned to another reviewer / specialist, the OE is d

responsible to track and assure the requirement input is provided.

1.5.3 The CAP checklist requirement result should be described in sufficient detail.

The OE/ inspector determine the depth of the review. Wordy paragraphs are to be used only ifrequired.

O - Panons Pot er Group Inc. -

PI- 102 Revision 3 PI-01. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECT INSTRUCTION P1 -01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CIIECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK 1.5.4 Upon completion of resiew of the checklist requirement, the assigned inspector provides a disposition in accordance with the instructions in Part C, prints the electronic copy of the completed form, signs and dates the checklist. This signature indicates that the inspection of the individual corrective action is complete.

1.6 The OE of the form assures all the reviewer / inspector inputs are included for each requirement and that the requirement has a (1) disposition, (2) inspector signature, and (3) date. l 1.7 The OE submits the signed checklist along with supporting documentation to the l g SLE who reviews each of the individual requirements in Part C that are dispositioned as a " Discrepancy." The SLE completes Part B for each checklist l O. by providing a summary disposition, indicating any discrepancy requirement number (s). l 1.8 The OE submits the checklist to the interface reviewers in accordance with the g GeneralInstructions for Review and Approvalin Section 6.0 of this document.

1.9 Each Corrective Action associated with the selected system will be placed on a separate checklist (Part C) form.

2.0 CIIECKLIST REVIEW REQUIREMENTS 2.1 The attached requirements and questions are to be used to generate the specific checklist questions to be incorporated onto the form. These questions and requirements are based upon the NRC Order, Overview Plans, and SSFI/IDI procedures.

l

- Panons Power Group Inc. -

Pl.103 Revision 3 PI-01. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CIIECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM CIIECKLIST QUESTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS INSTRUCTIONS

1. Corrective actions are reviewed using the following checklist and the results are recorded on Form 4.

2. The SLE shall use the following questions / requirements as the basis for preparing

] the specific review questions to be utilized by the inspection team.

3. The SLE reviews the following questions, expanding them as required, and completes the appropriate system specif.c form in the workbook.

Note: these questions / requirements are customized for each selected system and does not require the SLE to include each question ifit is not applicable to the selected system.

4. If applicable, the SLE may use other checklist questions contained in the licensing basis checklist, modification checklist or Appendix A.

• Is the problem clearly identified?

• Does the solution identify the root cause?

• Has the deficiency been corrected?

If the defidencv has not been corrected is there acceptable documentation that justifies rs trt without the correction being completed?

Does the solution address any generic or programmatic issues?

Have the corrective actions been adequately documented and any required configuration control document changes raade?

ls the corrective action technically and programmatically acceptable?

Does the corrective action include procedure or process changes to prevent recurrence?

O

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

PI- 104 Revision 3 P!41. DOC January 21,1998 I

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 Docvwnt ID RC-CA. Page 1 of 3 ICAVP SYSR system Code SYSTEM CORRECTIVE system:

ACTION Cap Number:

CIIECKLIST CAP

Title:

Responsible Engineer: l PART C Document Type:

ACR/CR or AR Number Responsible Parseas Disciplinet

1. Does the deficiency, including associated AR's, apply to the system under review (within the system boundary as defined in Form 1)7 l 2. Was the deficiency properly identified including extent of conditions?

O

3. Is the proposed resolution clearly defined?

4. Should a Root Cause analysis have been done' j 5. Was the Root Cause analysis done?

I

6. Was a Root Cause identified?

7. If root cause was done,is it adequate?

8. Was the deficiency resolved?

O - Parsons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 4 I44-1 Package Sequence No. 5 Resision 3 F4,.CLCB. DOC 12/22/97

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 Document ID RC-CA- Page ,L9R 4 g ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM CORRECTIVE System Code system:

ACTION C*P Number:

CIIECKLIST CAP

Title:

Responsible Engineer: l PART C

9. Was the resolution technically adequate?

3

10. Does the revalution comply with the licensing basis?

11. Does the resolution comply with the design basis?

11. Did the resolution recognize configuration control requirements?

O 13. llave the appropriate documents affected by the resolution been identified sad updated?

14. Should the resolution be completed prior to restart?

15. IIas the implementation of the corrective action been completed?

DR Nrmber(ifIssued): Parsons Originating Engineer:

Referenced Documents (if applicabic):

G - Parsons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 4 I 2 Package Sequence No. 5 Revision 3 F4_CLCB. DOC 12/22/97

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 D:cument ID RC CA. Page 3 of 3 ICAVP SYSR system Code 9 SYSTEM CORRECTIVE system:

ACTION Cap Number:

CIIECKLIST CAP

Title:

Responsible Engineer: l PART C Corrective Action is considered as:

O SATISFYING TIIE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS 3 O DISCREPANCY:

O (Process per FP-07)

O (Previously dhcovered by NNEco, sununartze besas and UIR .CR or discovery docwnent below).

O (Requirement is not fWly satis 6ed but does not effect physical renaguration documentation, design basis or regulatory requirements. I,onunarize below)

Originating Engheer Signature /Date O

liiscipline lead Signaturs /Date Interface ReviewerInput Signature /Date Signature /Date Signature /Date Signature /Date 9 - Persons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 4 1 3 Package Sequence No. 5 Resision 3 F4_CLCB. DOC 12/22/97

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECT INSTRUCTION Pl .01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CIIECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK O

3 T1-CL-I-05 SYSTEM MODIFICATION

SUMMARY

SCREENING INSTRUCTIONS - FORM 5 O

Signature Dats Prepared; wM / 3 P Reviewed: hs '_

SVSR G6up Lead o73 /

b9/ =

Approved: _9//L 'L/ .t/s/Ar Ccunpan hty Approved e 9 ct) /W98 Deputy Project btrector 9 - Parsons Power Group lac. -

PI- 105 Revision 3 PI4)l. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECT INSTRUCTION Pi-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK

-(mI J

NOTE:

Form 5 will not be required to be completed effective 1/19/98. All modifications identified for the selected systems for which an initial screening has not been completed will be reviewed utilizing the Form 7 process. For those modifications for which a Form 5 has been done it will be noted in Form 6 that the Form 5 screening has been completed.

The basis for the change is that the Form 5 screening process completed for the first system to complete the review process did not result in a significant reduction in modifications requiring full review as initially envisioned.

This change will not result in any substantive change in that the questiui .itilized in the screening process are essentia!!y the same as those utilized in the Form 7 reviews.

1.0 FORM S - SYSTEM MODIFICATION

SUMMARY

SCREENING 1.1 The purpose of this form is to identify minor system modifications from the detailed review process dat do not affect the licensing bases 1.2 The OE adds the Parsons Power Document ID number, NNECo system code, system title to the form header, NNECo mod number, NNECo mod title, and i indicates the responsible SLE. Each modification that is screened requires a separate form and Document ID number.

1.3 Upon initiation of the form, the OE signs and dates the appropriate revision block in Part A.

1.3.1 The SLE will provide the OE a listing of all modifications that are applicable to the sel:cted system.

1.3.2 The OE uses this list to perform the Modification Screening Process. Note: All applicable system modifications must be screened, including canceled and in process modifications.

1.4 Using the Modification and description listing provided by NNECo, the OE answers the question in Part B of the Modification Screening Form following any additional instruction indeded in Part B.

1.4.1 If the responses to any question is "Yes," continue an6 complete Part C of the form.

l.4.2 If the responses to all questions are "No," the modification is considered minor and the review is complete.

- Parsons Powe- Group nac. -

Pl.106 Revision 3 PI-01.IXX' January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSRPROJECTIIiSTRUCTION FI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKEOOK O 1.4.3 The OE provides a disposition in Part C, signs and lates the form and proceeds in accordance with the General Review and Approval Instmetion in Section 6.0 of this document.

1.5 The OE cubmits the form and checklist to the interface reviewers in accordance with the General Instructions for Review and Approval in Section 6.0 of this document.

1.6 Each Modification screening associated with the selected system will be placed on a separate form.

i-I O

i O

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

PI- 107 Revision 3 pg January 21,1998

DOCUMENT ID. SMSS. Page LnL1

, MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

\

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM MODIFICATION Mon N.mher SCREENING

SUMMARY

Mon ritie Respcmsible 11gmeer; (System Team lece FART A SYSTEM MODIFICATION SCREENING

SUMMARY

INTERFACE SIGN OFF REVISION 0 REVISION 1 REVISION 2 m ew m ww m 4w

1. ORIGINATOR

2. REVIEWED - -

Mechanical 14ad Elec;ricallead Control System;14ad .

Piping /Structurallead Operations Engmeer Procedures Engineer Testing Engineer

3. APPROVAL - - -

( _

System lead Engineer

( SVSR lead Engineer PARTH MINOR MODIFICATION SCREENING

Purpose:

This purpose of this screen is to identify those system modifications that ser evaluated as minor or not rlgnificant to the design process.

Instructions: 1. Retlew the modification and provide response to the following questions. The modification pacLaje is reviewed to the level necessary to determine the applicability of the screening question.

2. If the answer to gar Part B requirement is "Yes", Complete Part C. Check

• Review Modinention in Accordance with Modification Checkilst", summarise on Form 6, sign and date.Part C.

3. If the answo to gli Part B requirements are *No", the Modification does not constitute a potential impact on plant configuration as a function oflicensing or design bests. Complete Part C Check " Minor Modifiction", sign and date Part C.

4. If the modtfleetion w as canceled, complete Part C, sumniarise on Form 6, sign and date Peri C. N(,te the review o' the canceled modification will be performed using Fonn 7.

Questian Applicshility

1. O Yes O No 5 la there insullicient octail in the modificanc::il dage to adequately respond to the followmg Part 15 questions? (If"YES," no further screening is regaired Complete pett C) 2, O Yes O Nv Was the modification canceled? (If *YES%,o tJher screenmg is required. Complete part C).

3. O Yes O No Does the modi 0 cation involve active safety related or seismic class I components?

4. 3 Yes O No Would the modification require changes to the Technical Specification statements contained in l'orm 27

5. O Yes O No Wall the mMification change the function of the system?

6. O Yes O No Wt il the modification require changes to plant any operating procedures?

V

- Persons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: $

l.05. I Package Sequence No. 6 Revision 2 T$,5CRNR 9/23/97 a -

DOCUMENT ID: SMSS. Page Lg.[1 MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

I ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

l SYSTEM MODIFICATION MOD Nusnber l SCREENING

SUMMARY

won ne Respmsible Engmeer:

(System Team Is.ad)

7. O Yes O No Did the mcrtfication require the issue or revision of procurement on mStallation specifications?

8. O Yes O No Does the Utahty review of the modification mdute a l'SAR change is required?

9. O Yes O .40 lias a *0CFR$0.59 evaluation boca perfortned by the Utihty?

id. O Yes O No Could the modification impact any of the 19 programatic issues listed in item 11.2 of Form 37

11. O Yes O No Does the modification impact any inter'a- vith other systems?

PART C SYSTEM MODIFICATION SCREENING DISPOSITION A. CONCLOSIONS O MINOV. MODIFICATION . NO FURTilER REVIEW Of MODIFICATION REQUIRED D REVIEW MODIFICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITil MODIFICATION CilECK LIST O MODIFICATION CANCELED Originating Engineer Datet H. OBSERVATIONS / COMMENTS (If Applicable):

O - Parsons Powee Group Inc. -

FORM: 5 i A.2 Package Sequence No. 6 Revision 2 FS_SCRNB 9/23/97

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCTION Pi 01 SYSR IMFLEMENTATION CIIECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK O

T1-CL-I-06 SYSTEM MODIFICATION

SUMMARY

LISTING INSTRUCTIONS - FORM 6 O

ND 11112. Eills Prepared: /[ eft / //23- M Reviewed:

SYSR Gr<p(p [ cad hd '

1. 3h4% @

/

Approved: 9/A,M .A/Mr Approved:

Deputy Project Director

~ioJM O - Parwns Power Group lac. -

Pl.108 Revision 3 P141.1XX' January 21,1998

_ _ _ _ _ . - - . _ . . _ _ .__ _ .- _ _ _.-__._- _.._...___~~ ..._ _._ _ _ _- _ - _

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PIOJECTINSTRUCTION PI 41 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK 1.0 FORM 6 SYSTEM MODIFICATION

SUMMARY

LISTING 1.1 The purpose of this form is to summarize and document the modifications that will be reviewed for the selvted system. ,

L2 The SLE adds the Parsons Power Document ID number, NNECo system code, system title to the form header, and indicates the responsible SLE.

, 1.3 Since the purpose of the this form is to document the applicable modifications that will be reviewed, the individual who originates the Modification Screening Form will fill in the appropriate sections based upon the results of the screening.

i O

O - Perwas Power Group lac. -

Pl.109 Revision 3 I141. DOC January 21, I998

DOCUMENT ID: SMSt ,. Page .I of us AllLLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

O ic^ve svsa SYSTEM MODIFICATION svsre":

SUMMARY

LISTING Res;onsible Imgtneer; (System Team Lee liggt NNECo Modification Title of Modification Number 1.

2.

Modification in Process I, '

Modification Canceled I.

- Person Power Group Inci -

FORM: 6 1-06 1 Package Sequence No. 7 Revlilon 2 F6_ MODI. DOC 9/23/97 I

MIL 1 ATONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCTION P141 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CIIECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK O

T1-CL-I-07 SYSTEM MODIFICATION REVIEW CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS - FORM 7 O

' 41LlLC Oals Prepared: / fn/ //d ff Resiewed: -

[- o73 b ff Approved: , /I  : /fj:.

i[dhA~ et Company'Quah' Approved:

Deputy Project DirMor

% o J&78 G

~ Panoni Power Group lac. -

Pl.I10 Revision 3 P141IX)C January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR P OJECTINSTRUCTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK 1.0 FORM 7 - SYSTEM MODIFIC tTION REVIEW CHECKLIST 1.1 The purpose of this form is to:

• Provide review of the NNECo Modification Design Process; e Evaluate the modification to ensure that configuration management has been considered; and e Document the results of the modification review.

1.2 The OE adds the Parsons Power Document ID number, NNECo system code, system title to the form header, NNECo mod numb r, NNECO mod title and indicates the responsib!c SLE. Each modification that is reviewed requires a separate form and Document ID number.

1.3 Upon initittion of the form, the OE signs and dates the appropriate Revision block in Part A.

1.4 The SLE in concert with the LE will review the specific checklist requirements and assign each requirement to the (1) OE, (2) reviewer, or (3) specialist reviewer. The Oh adds to Part E, the assigned group (s) and types / prints the reviewer / inspector's name to each specific checklist requirement.

1.5 Modification Package Initial Configuration Control Review Using the modification descriptions and modification packages, the OE answers the questions in Part C follosving any additional instruction included in Part C.

1.5.1 If the response to all questions is "Yes," the modification will be reviewed in detail. The OE dispositions the screening for additional review, signs and dates Part C of the form and continues with Parts D and E.

1.5.2 If the response to any question is "No," a discrepancy may exist. The OE apprrises the SLE and does not do any additional review of the modificadon until advised by the SLE.

1.5.3 The SLE or OE will request additional documentation from NNECo using an RAl. Based upon the response, the SLE may direct the OE to proceed and document the basis under comments / observation. Ifit is concluded that a discrepancy exists, it is processed in accordance with Project Procedure PP-07, 1.6 Modification ProgramrTopical Area Review (Part D)

The intent of this step is to review a modification with t'espect to program / topical areas to a level that demonstrates that NNECo meets the configuration

- Persees Power Group inc. -

11 1II Revision 3 1101. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYS3PZOJECTINSTRUCTION PI el SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHrCKLISTS AND WORKBOOK n.anagement control aspects of the modification. A review of the program / topical area for conformance to the r, elected system current licensing basis will be reviewed during the System Design Input, Licensing Bases and Programfropical review. .

1.6.1 The OE reviews the modification package and completes Part D.1 of the program / topical area modification checklists following any additional ir.struction in Pan D. This purpose of this step is to document whether NNECo has considered the program / topical area.

1.6.2 The OE screens the modification for applicability to each of the program / topical areas in accordance with Part D.2 and determines the applicability using the decision matrix in the instructions.

1.6.3 The OE and review specialist disposition the program / topical area in Part D.2, item 1, signs and date the form. This signature indicates that the inspection of this step is complete.

1.6.4 The OE/ review specialist summarizes any programs that were not properly considered and indicates the program and discrepancy number in Part D.2, item

2. Any additional comments' observations, if tequired, are documented in Part D.2, item 3.

1.7 Checklist Requirement (Part E) 1.7.1 Using the NNECo hiodification Package and other inputs documents as applicable, the OE(s) completes Part E of the hiodification Checklist following any additional instruction included in Part E.

1.7.2 If the requirement is assigned to another resiewer/ specialist, the OE is responsible to track and assure the requirement input is provided.

1.7.3 The hiodification checklist requirement result should be described in sufficient detail. The OE/ inspector determine the depth of the review Wordy paragraphs are to be used only if required.

1.7.4 Upon completion of review of the checklist requirement, the assigned inspector checks the appropriate blocks under item B, provides a disposition in accordance with the instructions in Part E, signs and dates the specific requirement (s). This signature indicates that the inspection of this requirement is complete.

Note: hiodifications that have interface with procedures or testing require Part E, item E to be completed. Any interface indicated in Part E, item E, will be O

- Persons Power Group lac. -

P1 112 Revision 3 PI 01.1XX' January 21,199s

MILLSTONI' JNIT 2 SYSR PZOJECT INSTR 11CTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CIIECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK Q reviewed in accordance with the requirements of the Procedures and Testing checklists (Forms 8 or 9).

1.8 The OE of the form assures all the reviewer / inspector inputs are included for each requirement and that the requirement has a (1) disposition, (2) inspector signature, and (3) date. The OE counts the number of pages and adds the appropriate total in the header box of the form.

1.9 The OE submits the form and checklist to the SLE who reviews each of the individual requirements in Parts C, D, and E that are dispositioned as a

" Discrepancy." The SLE completes Part B by providing a summary disposition, indicating any discrepancy requirement nurnber(s), and signing and dating the form.

1.10 The OE submits the form and checklist (s) to the interface reviewers in accordance with the General Instructions for Review and Approval.

1.11 Each Modification listed on the Modification Summary Listing (Form 6) will be placed on a separate form for review, Note: For canceled modifications only applicable questions need to be

,f 3 answered.

C 2.0 CIIECKLIST REYlEW REQUIREMENTS 21 The attached requirements and questions are to be used to generate the specific checklist questions to be incorporated onto the form. These questions and requirements are based upon the NRC Order, Oveniew Plans, and SSFI/IDI procedures.

2.2 The system review team (GLE, SLE, discipline reviewers, and specialists) will use these requirements / questions to generate the system specific review requirements for the selected system.

2.3 Based upon the system selected, the review team will determine what additional detail is to be provided and incorporate it into the customized system workbook.

(3 V

- Pmons Power Group Inc. -

PI 1I3 Revision 3 1%1 IXX' January 21,1998

MILLSTCNE UNIT 2 SYSR PZOJECTINSTRUCTIEN PI 41 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK SYSTEM MODIFICATION CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS

1. Modifications which are r, elected for further review by the screening process are reviewed using the following checklist and the results of the review are recorded on Form 7. The modifications selected for review are listed on Form 6.

Form 6 also contains a list of all in process and canceled modifications for the system.

2. The System Lead Engineer shall use the following questions / requirements as the basis for preparing the specific review questions to be utilized by the inspection team.

3. The SLE reviews the following questions, expanding them as required, and completes the appropriate system specific form in the workbook.

O d

Note: these questions / requirements are customized for each selected system and do not require the SLE to include each question ifit is not applicable to the selected system.

4. If applicable, the SLE may use other checklist question contained in the licensing basis checklist, modification checklist or Appendix A.

A. GENERAL

• Was the modification performed in accordance with an Approved Design Control Program?

• Does the modification meet the design input requirements?

• If the modification has the potent 8I to change either bases, was the as-modified design / licensing basi, cu rectly revised as part of the modification process?

• If the modification includes a Safety Evaluation is it complete and adequate?

• lias the modification, if adding non safety equipment or modifications to structures, considered and evaluated seismic class 2-over-1 concerns?

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

P! 114 Revision 3 Pl41.1XX: January 21.1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYS3 P~0JECTINSTRUCTION PI 01 SYSk IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK

• Are the cumulative effects of the modification on suppon systems, such as Cooling Water, ilVAC, Electrical Power Supply etc. adequately addressed and l reviewed as pan of the modific:. tion process?

• Is there an Interface Reviews by other groups such as Operations, Training, Simulator Training, Testing, Maintenance, etc.?

• Verify that non safety portions of systems are isolated by automatic valves meeting single failure criteria, or that calculations are available demonstrating that a failure in the non safety branch will not affect the system to perform its safety function.

• Verify that safety grade IE electrical power and control signals aie provided to critical components and that non safety portions have proper isolation devices.

• Does the modification identify a list of Configuration control documents and ,

databases that could require revision as a result of the modification. The followin is a list of typical documents to be considered:

• P&lD Drawings

• Operating Procedures

• FSAR text, figures and tables O

G e Surveillance Test Procedures

• Elementary Diagrams

• ASME Design Specifications

• One Line Diagrams

• Training and/or Simulator

• Instrument Set Points

• Fire Protection Evaluation Repon (FPER)

• Calculations

• System Descriptions

• Maintenance Procedures

• Classification /EQ lists

• For new or revised calculations that were performed for the modification did they use recognized analytical methods and are in accordance with design -

input?

il

• For new or revised calculations that were performed for the modification are all assumptions technically sound and consider all operating modes?

• Does Post Modification testing demonstrate that the modified system meets the performance requirements?

_O

- Persons Power Group lac. -

11 115 Revision 3 PI 01IXX' January 21,199*

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSRPROJECTINSTRUCTION PI 01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLXSTS AND WORKBOOK e Does Post Modification testing validate the Pre-Operational acceptance testing?

e Does the modification have the potential to change the design margins for a system?

e Did the modification contain any " temporary" changes? Were these changes analyzed and controlled?

e If a propos,cd modification was canceled did it result in procedural changes that could impose an excessive burden on the plant operators during normal or emergency operating conditions?

e Was a canceled modification partially implemented and not documented properly?

e Were field changes, if performed during the implementation of the modification, incorporated into the "as built" documentation?

e lias the impact of the modification on the original design analysis, applicable to the unmodified portions of the system been adequately addressed?

e llave the program requirements been followed for " temporary" modifications?

e Was the modification reflected on the appropriate P&ID's,1 line/ load list and logic / loop diagrams, if applicable?

e For the applicable programs /topicals has the modification addressed the -

requirements?

e For the applicable programs /topicals were required document changes identified? -

e if the modification added or revised a component that effects a setpoint, alarm, calibration or operation (logic and/or sequence) have the appropriate procedures interfaces been identified?

e If the modification added or revised a component that effects operation, function, surveillance, performance, or timing characteristics have appropriate testing procedures interfaces been identified?

e If the modification added or revised a component that effects operation, logic, control board, or maintenance has the training interface been considered in the modification?-

O - Pornoes Power Group loc. -

I'l 116 Revision 3 l'l.01. DOC January 21.1998 l.-.- - - _ - . --- - - , , . - - - . . - - _ .

DOCUMENT ID: RC. MOD- Page I of 34 MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

O iCive svsa MODIFICATION REVIEW svsTEM:

M D Numbu ,

CIIECKLisT ""

• Responsible Engmeer-(System Team lead)

PART A MODIFICATION CHECKLIST CLOSE-OUT REVISION 0 REVISION 1 REVISION 2 s,ww.nm s,ww.tw s ,w w.t w

1. ORIGINATOR

2. REVIEWED - - -

Mechanical tr.ad Electrical Lead Control Systems lead Piping / Structural Lead Operations Engmeer Procedures Engineer Testing Engineer

3. APPROVAL - - -

System Lead Engineer SVSR Lead Engiswer

\.

PART B MOnlFICATION

SUMMARY

Instructions: (1) The SLE will review the attached checklist and suppleasental material and ladicate whether the modification adequately considered or lacorporated the ladicated requinments.

(2) The SLE will miew Part D and say supplemental material sad ladientes whether the system adequately considered the indicated program / topical requirements. The detailed miew of the program / topical areas will be reviewed as a part of the SYSTEM Resiew.

(3) For each DISCREPANCY found during the audit, the SLE is to ladicate the requirement item number (s) under the appropriate Revision and assure all discrepancies are processed per PP-47.

REVISION 0 REVISION 1 REVISION 2

1. Has alie modincation sationed the liccasing O Yes O No O Yes O No O Yes O No basis and conngurstlos control?

2. Are the applicable program /tc.pleal areas O res O No O Yes O No O Yes O No adequately comildered la the modincation?

3. Summary of Discrepancy (les) Items (Part C, D, E)

Signature SLIVDate

- Persons Power Group lac. -

FORM: 7 l-07 1 Package Sequence No. 8 Revision 3 I'l-CLMDE.DO 12/17/97

l DOCUMENT ID: RC. MOD. Page .2 of M l MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

1 l ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

l MODIFICATION REVIEW "*N'"'*'

l CIIECKLIST "" "'

Responsible Engineer (System Team 14ed)

PART C SYSTEM LICENSING, DESIGNS CONFIGURATION SCREEN

Purpose:

Tble purpose of tble screen is to determine if basic configerstlos enemagement/ design consideretless were not addrused when the esodifisettoe was prepared and to process any potential discrepeecy la accordance with Project Procedure PP47.

lastructions: 1. Review the caodification and provide twponse to the followleg geestleis. N modificstion package is reviewed to the level necessary to deteralee the applicability of the screenleg question.

2. Complete review of all Part C questless.

3. If the omswers to all questions are "Yes". Modification will be reviewed le accordance with the system audit checklists.

d. If the seewer to 33r question (s)is *No", the Modificellen may constitute a discrepeecy. ANY "NO" MUST BE ADDRESSED WITH THE SLE. THE SLE WILL PROVIDE THE ORIGINATOR WITH DIRECTION WHETHER TO PROCEED WITH THE MODIFICATION REVIEW.

5. Project Procedure PP47 will be esed to dispoiltles any poteettel diurepeecy. Isleistles of PP-47 will be by the ortgleetleg englooer.

6. Complete Port C.1, sign and date.

Question Applicability SCREENING QUESTIONS:

1. O Yes O No lies a 10 CFR50.59 acreemnglevolustion been addressed?

2. O Yes O No Were unreviewed safety question adequately resolved? (If the unreviewed esfety questions were sent to the NRC and NRC concmence received prior to completing the modification , this question was properly addressed and it abound be dispositioned as "Yes")

3. O Yes O No lleve documents requiring change teen klentified?

4. O Yes O No lleve FSAR revisions teen addresnod?

5. O Yes O No if there are applicable system interfaces, have they been identified?

PART C.1 MODIFICATION INITIAL CONFIGURATION SCREEN A. STATUS:

O DISCREPANCY O INITIAL MODIFICATION CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE CONTINUE WITH DETAILED REVIEW Originating Engineer / Dele:

B. COMMENTS / OBSERVATIONS (if Applicable):

O

_ =._

- Persoes Power Group loc. -

FORM: 7 147 2 Package Sequence No. 8 F7-CLMDE. DOC Revisloe 3 12/17/97

_w

L DOCUMENT ID: RC-MOD- Page.3 of 34 MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

MODIFICATION REVIEW CHECKLIST " * " '

Respoemble 1:agmeer.

)

(System Team land) l PART D SYSTEM MODIFICATION PROGRAM /IOPICAL CHECKLIST

~

General lastructlees: (1) The latest of tble Port of the checklist is te verify that the progreenhopical areas were considered and le accordesce with the NNEco Cor ,1retles Moneseeneet procedures (2) Frese a Conflgurstlee Meengens viewpoint, each onedinceties should be reviewed agelast each of the NNECo progresshapical eroes for applicabluty, le reelley, only certale eroes sesy apply to the endificelles. The purpose of Part D of tble form is to document which area beve been considered by NNECe for the enedificelles.

Q) For sub progrese/ topical mese listed belew, the systese ORIGINATING ENGINEER (OE) deterselees if the applicable eroe was considered by NMECe for the snedificaties and ledicate le the appropriate bos le Part D.I. Where applicable, the OF sesy request loput frose program specialists.

(4) The OE siges and detes le ledicate that Port D le completed.

Remessber that for early enedificellees, certale progresas were met le effect and may est beve been considered durbg b course of the seedificelles. Fw these cases, the program / topical eres rettews of the Desige loput and 1Jcesslag Basis Checklist will be utilised te verify the System has odegestely addressed the stes.

PART D.I PROGRAM /I'OPICAL AREA MODIFICATION CHECKLIST lastruct6ees: (1) The OE rev6ews the modificettee package set didicates whether the press.a./ 7 si area was comeldered by NNECe verifyleg sely to the esteet that t'as eroe was le accordance with the NNECe Coefigurstlee Menesesseet Control If the progromhopical stem was le effect et the time of the seedificat6es, the eres must be considered even ifit is not applicable. For tble process

• CONSIDERED" is deflood as beleg addressed le sosse NNECe procedure or design beels documeet (Le. Design lopet docuenet, Deelse Change Record checklist, etc.).

(2) Slece k progremhopical eres sesy not beve esisted when the snedifleetles was perfornied,"Not Applicable (NA)", is se appropriate NNECe action fw a particular erse. "NA" should ONLY be used if the enedificaties was perferened hgfalt the program sees was teltisted. (See below)

Note: The purpose is to validate the progremhopical eren was considered uslag the NNECe procedures in effect when the seedificelles was performed. The Reviewer does not need te verify that the seedificellen was prepared le accordance with these procedures le effect when b modificaties was

, prepared. The Reviewer sely needs to assure that the seedificetles considered and recogelsed the necessity of thee protremJ NNECo Did NNECo Ceesider the Applicability item Applicability of PROGRAM / TOPICAL AREA Date ProgreserTepical Aree?

1 Oyes O No O NA Anticipated Transient Without SCRAM (ATWS) 12 88 2 Oyes O No O NA Control Room Design Review 2-85 3 Oyes O No O NA Environmental Qualification of Electrical Equipment (EQ) Il 85 d Oyes O No O NA Erosion / Corrosion 12 91 5 Oyes O No O NA External Events /flazards 12-75 6 Oyes O No O NA Generic Letter 8910 (MOV) 11 95 l ,

- Persons Power Group lac. -

FORM: 7 l 47 3 Package Sequence No. 8 Revisies 3 F7-CLMDE. DOC 12/17/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC MOD. Page .4 of14 MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

O ic^ve svsa MODIFICATION REVIEW svsrea:

M o Number

~

CliECKLIST M " *'

Responsible Engineer, (system Team iend) 7 Oyes O No O NA Heavy Lands 7 81 8 Oyes O No O NA High and Moderate Energy Line Breaks (HELB/MELB) 12 75 9 Oyes O No O NA Inservice inspection 12 75 to Oyes O No O NA Inservia Testing /10 CFR50 Appendix J Testing 5 79 11 Oyes O No D NA IPEEE 12 95 12 Oyes O No O NA Master Equipment and Parts List (MEPL) 1 85 13 Oyes O No O NA Regulatory Guide 1.97 Compliance 2 84 14 Oyes O No D NA Separation / Independence / Diversity 12 75 15 Oyes O No D NA Set Point Control 12 75 16 Oyes O No DNA Single Failure 12 75 17 Oyes O No O NA Station Blackout 4-89 18 Oyes O No O NA 10 CFR50 Appendix R 4 88 19 Oyes O No O NA USl A-46(SeismicQualification) 1 92 PART D.2 SYSTEM PROGRAM /rOPICAL SCREENING CHECKLIST lastructlens: (1) The OE evaluates each of the following screenlas questless is colemas R.

(2) Uslag the roomks freen Part D.1 Indicate nest to the applicable scroselag questles wbetber NNECo considered the ProgramfTopical area.

(3) Diumes differsecos with the SLE and laterface with the Dwige loput sad 1Jcessing Resis rniewer(s) to deterialee whether the progress / topical eree satisfies the current lices slag basis.

(4) he applicable of the program /topicalis addressed is item 1 of Par 1 D.2.

(5) ne OE uses the followleg metris to determlae the applicability of the program / topical area with respect to the appliesble modifiestles. Colums A represents the vertiest siis and colema D represents the bortseatel asis. The OE disposillons colunsa E *Prograsm/Topleal Area is:

Part D.2 Columns Columa D = "Yes" Column D = "No" Column D = "NA" Column A = "YES" Applicable ' Discrepancy Not Applicable (1)

Column A = "No" Applicable (2)- Not Applicable Not Applicable (1)

(1) Not Applicable because modification occurred after program / topical was laltlated.

(2) NNECo defined as applicable (5) The OE addses the SLE of the DISCREPANCY. Initiation of Project Procedure PP-47 will be by the OE.

- Parseas Power Group lac. -

FORM: 7 I-07 4 Package Sequence No. 8 Revislen 3 F7 CLMDE. DOC 12/17/97 -

l

DOCUMENTIDI RC MOD- Page 3 of 34 s MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE' ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

MODIFICATION REVIEW """"*'

CliECKLIST Responsible Engmee.

(System Teem lmj)

PREMISE RESULTS REF. (Me.p.a.e Fr PROGRAM /TOplCAL AREA PART Progrem/ Topical D[d ^"'

consider

, Programa/

Topical Ares?

A B C D E O Yes Does the modification add, delete or enWify the licensing basis Dl.1 O Yes O Applicable O No for the Anticipated Transients Without SCRAM (ATWS)? O No O Not Applicable O NA O NA O Discrepancy 0 Yes Ikes the modification involve changes to ow main control DI.2 O Yes O Applicable O No board. , local panels, labeling, or the operating procedures O No O Not Applicable O NA requiring a iluman l' actors Review't O NA O Discrepancy 0 Yes Does the modification add or change components requinns >

DI.3 O Yes O Applicable O No evaluation under ths licensing tesis for enviroiunental O No O Not Applicable O NA qualification? O NA O Discrepancy G O Yes Does the modification affect portion of a system cosered by the DIA O Yes O Applicable V O No O NA crosion/ corrosion pmgram for the plant? O No O NA O Not Applicable O Discrepancy 0 Yes Does the modification impact doors, hatches, building structure DI.5 O Yes O Applicable O No or other features require to protect the system form extemal O No O Not Applicable O NA missiles, tornadoes, flooding or other extemal events included O NA O Discrepancy in the licensing tesis?

O Yes Does the modification add or modify any motor operated valves DI.6 O Yes O Applicable O No rcquiring review under Ge plants MOV pmgram? (89-10) O No O Not Applicable O NA O NA O Discrepucy O Yes Does the modification change or add cranes / loads requinng DI.7 0 Yes O Applicable O No evaluation under the heavy loads prograrn? O No O Not Applicable O NA . O NA O Discrenacy 0 Yes Does the modification involve high or moderate erregy piping DI.* Oyes O Applicc.e O No that requires evaluation for the impact on aere snutom in O No O Not Applicable O NA accordance with the licensing basis? O NA O Dicerepancy 0 Yes Does the modification change or add components that are 'I .9 0 Yes O Applicable O No covered by the plants inservice inspection program? O No O Not Applicable O NA O NA O Discrepancy O Yes Does the modification change or add components that are Dl.lo O Yes O Applicable O No covered by the plants inservice testing piogram? (ASME D No O Not Applicable O NA Section XI or Appendid) O NA O Discrepancy O Yes Does the mcairiention impact doors, hatches, building D1.11 O Yes O Applicable O No structures or other features which may effect the plans O No O Not Applicable O NA individual plant Examination for Extemal Events? flPEEE)

O NA O Discrepancy O

- Parsons Power Group lac. -

FORM: 7 107. $ Package Sequence No. 8 Revision 3 M-CLMDE. DOC 12/17/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC. MOD- Page .6 of M MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE: .

O ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

V """"*"'*'

MODIFICATION REVIEW CilECKLIST " " *

• Resporuible Lagmaer.

(System Team leed)

O Yes Will the moddication require revisions to the Master DI.12 O Yes O Apphcable O No Equipment and Parts List?(MEPl.) O No O Not Applicable O NA O NA O Discrepancy 0 Yes Does dw modification impact instruments required for DI.13 O Yes O Applicable O No licensing tesis compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.977 O No O Not Applicable O NA O NA O Discrepancy 0ven Does the modification involve changes width could impact the DI.14 O Yes O Applicable O No licensing tesis for sesaretion. independeme, or diversity? O No O Not A;plicable O NA O NA O Discresuncy 0 Yes D$s the modification impact an instrument or device netpoint? DI.15 O Yes O Applicable O No O No O Not Applicable O NA O NA O Discrepancy 0 Yes Does em modi'ication intmdues any single raiture pl.16 O Yes O Applicable O No vulnerabilities into the plant or change features provided for O No O Not Applicable O NA sinste failure protection? O NA O Discrepancy O Yes Does ow modification impact any components or systems used DI.17 O Yes O Applicable O No for station Blackout coping? O No O Not Applicable O NA O NA O Discrepancy

/' O Yes Does Ow modification involve components required for DI.18 O Yes O Applicable

\ O No Appendix R safe shutdown fire suppressions systems, fire O No O Not Applicable O NA detection sys ems, fire terriers, etc.? O NA O Discrepancy 0 Yes Does the modification impact Ow ::ismic analysis of the DI.19 O Yes O Applicable O No system or the qualirication of the components in the symem? O No O Not Applicable O NA O NA O Discrepancy

1. PROGRAMfrOPICAL

SUMMARY

The above programs / topical areas have been redewed and applicability noted. tlc program / topical areas with respect to this modification are considered as:

D ADEQUATELY ADDRESS CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT ASPECT O DOES NOT SATISFY CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT ASPECT (List program (s) and discrepancy number (s) below and verify that a discrepancy is processed in accordance with PP47)

Programfropical Specialist /Date:

Originating Engineering /Date:

2. PROGRAMIIOPICAL AREA (S) NOT CONFORMING Tu CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT ltem - Program / Topical D!screpancy Number

3. COMMENTS /ONSERVATIONS(if applicable):

_b - Persons Power Group lac. -

FORM: 7 147 6 Package Sequence New 8 Revision 3 F7-CLMDE. DOC 12/17/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC. MOD. Page .7 of M MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

b ICAVF SYSR SYSTEM:

MODIFICATION REVIEW M " " ""6" CIIECKLIST M D "'

Responsible 14meer.

M ..

PART E SYSTEM MODIFICATION REQUIREMENT CIIECKLIST Instructions: For each requirement listed belows (1) GLE, SLE, OE ned systeen team develops the specific requirements to be redewed using the generic questions in the Instruction and Attachment A source book. Egill requirement will be ghen a new itern number med larlude steps A, B, C, and D.

(2) Each requiressent will be consecutively numbered staning with I (ow).

(J) ne System 14ed Engineer will assign the tedew group mpossible for miewing each requirement.

Mech.nical = M. Electrical = E, Controls = I A C, Testing = T. Procedures = P Operations = 0 (4) he individual that miews the requirement will slam and date. provide a disposition, Indicate interfaces, and provide a response bened upon the following:

n. Yes Requirement is satisfactorily addmsed. Include reference source, mision, and date. No esplanation/mults is required.

b. No Requirement is not satisfactorily nodressed or discrepent condition esists. Provide an esplanation of how the requimeent was not satisfied. Include reference source (s), revision, and date, as applicable, Disposition the condition as a DISCREPANCY and classify the basis in step B. The mponsible ledhidual shalllmenediately advise the SLE of any requirement being dispositioned as a DISCREPANCY in accordance with Project Procedure PP47. Initletion of PP47 will be by the OE, Process and procedur31 discrepancies not dispositioned in accordance with PP 47 will be analysed by Tier 3.

c. NA Requirement is not applicable. Esplanation should l'e lacluded only if it clarlfles the disposition.

d. INF Requireement could not be verified because information could not be found. If an RAI was generated to clarify the requiresnent, the RAI nuenber and subsequent NNECo response reference is to be provided, la Part D ludicate the information could not be found and disposition as a DISCREPANCY. The mponsible ladividual shall immediately advise the SLE of any requirement being dispositioned as a DISCREPANCY, laitiation of PP-07 will be by the OE.

O U - Persons Power Group Inc. ~

FORM: 7 I.07 7 Package Sequence Nou 8 Redslon 3 F7 CLMDE. DOC 12/17/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC. MOD- Page.8 of 34 MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

O ic^ve svsa svsrEul MODIFICATION REVIEW """"'*'

CIIECKLIST M imm Responsible tagh er (Systern Team lead)

Parte Review Requiteeneet item Croup Status Reviewer $4anature

1. O Yes O No O NA OINF Dele A. REOUIREMENT Was the anodification performed in accordance with an Approved Design Control Prograsa?

11. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS: l O SATISFY 1NG 'IllE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (Pr=.w Per tr47) 0 (Prev 6.usly dineevered by NNECo.emmumuk bests and UIR , CR er enceveg 4.eussent in fuep D).

O (n.,*.a== b met 8say e.es.d 6.e 4 e m phy.6 i: ._. A 1_. -, 4.se .

basis w resen swy requir is. sammartie b a. in seep D>

C. REFERENCEtS) & SOURCE / REVISION / DATEt O D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT i

O

- Persons Power Group lac. -

FORM: 7 147 8 PetLage Sequeste No. 8 Revision 3 F7 CLMDE. DOC 12/17/97

1 DOCUMENT ID: RC. MOD. Page 3.of 34 l MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

O ic^ve svsa MODIFICATION REVIEW svsrea:

M " N"*'

CilECKLIST " " " '

Responsitde Engineer:

(Systeen Team land)

Par 1E Redew Requirement leem Group Status Redewer 84amature

2. O Yes O No O NA O INF Date i A. REOUIREMENT Does the snodifkatles smeet the design loput requirenseets?

B. REOUfREMENTIF CONSIDERED ASr l

l 0 SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCIIEPANCY: O (Prw pertrar) 0 (Pme dy ain.m.d by NNace, sum anta nues and Usa,ca er ehmery d.m==.e in siep n>

0 (n.,6,. eh n.:ney mma.d 6. 4.= easutph iehen. ;-. -d_. -, salen hash er res om.,y r. gale n =marta hade in ei., p>

C. REFERENCE (S) & SOURCE / REVISION / DATE:

O O

D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/RESULI

- Persons Power Group lac. -

FORM: 7 IM . 9 PacLage Sequence No. 8 F7-CLMDE. DOC "

fg7j97 l

DOCUMENT ID: RC.M OD- Page 10 of 34 MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

,O ic^ve svsa svsrew:

M"""*'

MODIFICATION REVIEW CIIECKLIST " " * '

ResponsMe Dytmeer:

(System Team lead)

PortE Redew Requitwaneet fleen Ctwup Status Redewer Slamature

3. O Yes O No O NA O INF Date A. REOUIREMENT If the snodificatlos has the potential to change either bases, w as the as-anodified design /llrenslag basis correctly revised as part of the snodification process?

11. REOUIREMENT IS CONSIDERED AS:

O SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O er.=. per Pr-o7)

O (Prevlessly dheevered by NU' , , susammartse hash and UIR ,CR or d6scovery deemmneed in Deep DF 0 (Requie,assed is met psey emeisted bei dose met efted phys 6eal renagerse6en dw --  ; des 6ga bases or regulatory requ6teenents. $mmismartse basis in step D).

C. BEFERENCE(S) & SOURCE / REVISION / DATE:

D. REV1EW

SUMMARY

/RESUI,T 1

C t

- Parsons Power Group loc. -

FORM: 7 I-07 10 Package Sequence No. 8 Redston 3 F7-CLMDE. DOC 12/17/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC. MOD. Page 11 of 34 ,

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

MODIFICATION REVIEW " """6" CIIECKLIST " *'

Responsible Cngineer.

(System Team Id)

PortE Review Requireement item Group Status Res4 ewer Slaseture

d. O Yes O No O NA O INF D te A. REOUIREMENT l If the imedification locludes a Safety Evaluation is it c~nplete and adequate?

H. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS: l C SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (Prwem per Pr47)

O (Prevteemdy deseevered by NNFre, sunumertne bests and UIR CR or discovery document in Reep D)

O (Megadreeneet is not hey emeleted but dose not effect phyencel esedgeretion docuanentation, design bests or reguistory . -

bumunattie bests in esep D)

C REFERENCE (S) & SOURCE / REVISION / DATE:

O D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/RESUI,T 4

k

- Persons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 7 147. Il Package Sequence No. 8 Resision 3 F7 cLMDEDoc 12/17/97 1 ._.

DOCUMENT ID: RC. MOD- Page 12 of 34 MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

O ic^ve svsn MODIFICATION REVIEW svsrs":

" 8 """* '

CIIECKLIST " D 5' Respostnible Engtneer (System Team Imd)

Parte Reiew Requirennent Iteen Group Status Resiewer Slamature

5. O Yes O No O NA O INr D.ne A. REOUIREMENT lias the snodification. if adding non-safety equipment or modifications to structurts, considered and evaluated seismic class 2 crer 1 concernst H. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS: l O SArtSrYlFG THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (Pr=== per Pr47) 0 (Previ.=sh desener.d by NNace. rw hash and Usu . cu er di.e.very 4.e= neat in siep 95 O (bg. ira a n. a.: sumy easted b. 4.o a. mes phy.ic : e.mar .r.si dw=- ' , date.

h i..re.ria.i.,7r,,.ir u.s rw 6 hinme,p>

C. REFERENCE (S) & SOURCE / REVISION / DATE:

I (EVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT s - Panons Power Group lac. -

FORM: 7 I-07 12 Package Sequence No. 8 Rniston 3 F7 CLMDE. DOC 12/17/97

. - _ _ . . . _ _ - _ - .. .- . - - - - . - - - .. - .._.. . . _ . _ - . - - _ = _ .

DOCUMENT ID: RC. MOD- Page 13 of 34 MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

MODIFICATION REVIEW " """6'r CIIECKLIST " *'

Responsible Engmeer.

(System Team lead)

~

Parte Review Requirenneet lteen Group States Reviewer SWature __

6. O Yes O No O NA OINF Date A. REOUIREMENT

, Are the censulatin effects of the modification on support systems, such as Cooling Water. HVAC, Electrical Power Supply etc. adequately addtvened and miewed as part of the anodification process?

H. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS: l D SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (Fr e rerrr e7) 0 (Prevt.emey dhemrod by NNEC., e numartse b sis and UlR .CR or discovery doctanced in $sep D).

O (n., he  : h e sma r sha.d 6.i d w .s=< phy*.s -: ;_ . :Au , d is.

b.* r res.a.s.ry r.,h samm rtw b.* 6. me, n).

C. REFERENCE (Sla SOURCE / REVISION / DATE:

a D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT

- Parsons Power Group lac. -

FORM: 7 l 47 13 Package Sequence No. 8 Revislom 3 F7-CLMDE. DOC 12/17/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC.M OD. P:ge _14 of 34 MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

(] MODIFICATION REVIEW ICAVP SYSR SYSTEMI M D """"

CilECKLIST M D"'

IWpuusible Engmeer.

(System Team lead)

Parte Review Requl.ement item Crown Status Reviewer slan tu e 7.

O Yes O No O NA O tNr nste A. REOUIREMENT is there as laterface Reviews by other groups suc'n as Operations Training, Simulator Training. Testing, Malatenance, etc.?

11. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS:

l O SATISFYING THE 1.lCENSING/ DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (Fr.cem per tr47)

O (trnwy elseovered by NNiro, umunart e beans and (flR CR or discovery document in Ster D)

O (unani il.= suny n.a.4 b. de t n <t piyac.:e n .r.e6 e 4.c o ,de.ie.

bei..re ,=a=*er7rnutr = eats. s====arta b==4slaN'P Dk C. j!EFERENCE(S) & SOURCFJ REVISION / DATE:

D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/RESUI T l

i O

V ---- Persons Power Group lac, -

FORM: 7 1-07 14 PacLate Sequence No. 8 n.C1.MDE. DOC " "

12/17/97 e

DOCUMrJ.T ID: RC MOD- Page 15 of 34

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE

O ic^ve svsa MODIFICATION REVIEW svsrea:

" """6" CIIECKLIST " *'

Responsible Engineer.

(System Team Imd)

Parte Review Requirement Group l Iteen Matus Reviewer Slaanture 1

8. O Yes O No O NA O INF Date 4 A. REOUIREMENT

^

Art sou-safety portless of :) steses leolated by automatic valves sneetlag slagle fallere criteria, or art calculations available densonstrating that a failure in the non-safety branch will not pmtet the system from perfonolog its safety function? l H. REOtilREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS: l O SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY O (Prere per Pr47)

O (Previsedy diwevered by NNEco, sumamartse bade and UtR.CR er dheeeery deeumment hi asep D>

0 (Regadroewet is not futy emete 6ed bei does not effect physkal conAgurselon en.. " 1 design b de erier n.sery requires e.as.. s un rta b de in ese, o>

C. REFERENCE (S) & SOURCE / REVISION / DATE:

D. REVIEW StIMMARY/ RESULT O

I - Parsons Power Group lac, -

FORM: 7 I 07. !$ Package Sequence No. 8 Revlilon 3 77-CLMDE.1XX' 12/17/97

DOCUMENTID: RC MOD- Page 16 of 34 MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

O ic^ve "sa MODIFICAT; . N REVIEW svsrea:

u on. wr CIIECKLIST " " " '

Responsible Engmw.

(System Team land)

Parte Review Requiressent .

Itean Group Status Reviewer S!;asture

9. O Yes O No O NA O INF Date A. REOlllREMENT Do safety grade 1E.4ectrical power and control signals that laterface with critical connponents have proper .

Isolation devices for the non safety portions?

B. REOtIIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS: l O SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (rr c perPr47)

O (Prest i descovered i by NNECo.a n.,tse b is a.d UIR,CR or discovery der w.t 6. Step D)

O (n .ir is m.4 ner ma.d bw c .aws pay *.i u_;=" : d, - _. _

.-, d is.

b.m ., e.g w.cy e.g.4, s etie b i. i. .eep p>

C. REFERENCE (S)& SOURCF) REVISION / DATE:

V D. BEVIEW StiMMARY/REStil,T 4

\ ~ Parsons Power Group lac. -

FORM: 7 I47 16 Package Sequence No. 8 Revision 3 T'7-CLMDE. DOC 12/17/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC MOD- P:ge 17 0f 34 MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

MODIFICATION REVIEW M D Nu*r CIIECKLIST " T'*

Responsible Engmeer.

(System Team lead)

I ertE Review Requires. eat Iteisi Group Status Reviewer signature 3 0 Yes O No O NA O INF Date A. REOUIREMENT Does the snodification identify a list of Configuration control documents and &.tabases that could require revision as a result of the snodification?

B. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS* l O SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (Fr.c m p.e Pr47)

O (Preste ly discovered by NNECe,e u.ortae b l. d UIR,CR er Ji.covery doc w t in Step D)

O (R., tr s i. e e ny u.a.d 6.e e e .tr.<t phy.ic.i erw - -- d.ci .es , d is.

h=i. .e res.t.s.ry i.,.ir 4 se rk, b e. i. .ter n ).

C. REFERENCE (S) & SOURCE / REVISION / DATE:

4 LJ D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT O

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 7 I 17 Package Sequence No. 8 F"-Cl3fDE. DOC Revision 3 12/17/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC-MOD. Pag: 18 of 34 MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

MODIFICATION REVIEW """"""'

CIIECKLIST " " " "

Responsible Engmeer (System Team tead)

PortE Redew Requirosseet item Group Status Redewer SWAlgte i1. O Yes O No O NA OINF Date A. REOUIREMENT For new or revised calculations that weet perfornned for the anadification did they use recognized analytical enethods and are in accordance with design tapet?

B. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS: l O SATISFY 1NG THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (Prueens pee PP47)

O (Prevleanly dheevered by NNECa. sumu nehe hash ed UIR.CR or dheevery docum ent in Beep D).

O (neg=6,o si. e n.ay ei.e.d b.:de n.et phyale.1 testgerne6ee deces. set.elen, design <

he m .eregui.nery , - . s==r.rt h b in me, p>

C. REFERENCE (S) & SOURCE / REVISION / DATE:

I D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 7 1-07 18 Package Sequence No. 8 F7.CLMDE. DOC g ff97 1

J

l DOCUMENT 1D: RC-MOD- Page 19 0f34 MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

(] ICAVP SYSR MODIFICATION REVIEW SYSTEM:

" """'6'r CIIECKLIST N

• Responsibic Imgtneer (Swtem Team lead)

Parte Review Fequiremient item Group Status Reviewer Signature

12. i O Yes O No O NA O INF Data _

l A. REOUIREMENT For new or mined calculations that were performed for the modification are all assumptions technically sound and consider all operating modes?

B. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS1 l 0 SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS C DISCREPANCY: O (r,we pe rt.e7) 0 (rrevioudy discovered by NNECL.susnaieshe bashs and UIR .CR or discovery documment in Step D) 0 (Regelreaneet is met fusy emeis0ed but does met aNect phye6 cal conAgurst&on dw -  ; design hamns or regulatory regelreements. hatne beans la step D),

C. REFFJtENCE(S) & SOURCFJ REVISION / DATE:

D. REVIEW SI!MMARY/ RESULT

- Parsons Power Group lac. -

FORM: 7 147 19 PackageSequenceNo. 8 F7-CIAfDE. DOC Revision 3 12/17/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC MOD- Page 20 of 34 MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

O iCive svsa MODIFICATION REVIEW svsrs=:

" D"""6" CIIECKLIST 'M D Me Responsible Engineer.

(System Team lead)

Parte Review Requirennent Iteen Group Status Reviewer Signature

13. O Yes O No O NA O INF Date A. REOUIREMENT Doc.9 Post Modification testing demonstrate that the modified system meets the performance requirements?

H. REOUIREMENT IS CONSIDERED AS:

l 0 SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (Process per Pr 07)

O (Previe=dy discovered by NNECo, sumunartse beels and UIR ,CR or discovery docieswat in litep D)

O (Requisveient is met fugy entiske het does met affwt phyencel eeneguretton doen dertgn beats or requistory twquirvesents, finnennar%e basis in step D)

C REFERENCE (S) & SOURCE / REVISION / DATE:

U D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT s

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 7 147-20 Package Sequence No. 8 F7-CLMDE. DOC Revision 3 12/17/97

____ l

DOCUMENT ID: RC MOD- Pege 21 of M MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

O iCive svsa MODIFICATION REVIEW.

svsTEM:

"8""**'

CHECKLIST "*"*'

Respon=hi" Engineer.

(Sv wn lad)

Parte Review Nq^uiressent Itese - Group Status Rev6 ewer Slanature

14. O Yes O No O NA O INF Date A. REOUIREMENT Does Post-Medincation testing validate the Pre Operational acceptance testing?

l B. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS:

l 0 SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (Fr e perPp-e7)

O (rynteesty deseovend by NNFro, sumumartse hemis and LHR . CR se dineevery deressw.t h Beep D).

O (=- -

is met may sensa.d has 4 e akt phy=neel a.as e 4 -  ; doses .

besh er resuiseery r.jule.awees, Samunarbe basis k step D)

C. REFERENCE (S) & SOURCE / REVISION / DATE:

O D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT O - Parsos.s Fower Group Inc. -

FORM: 7 147-21 Pacl6ege sequence No. 8 MMF DOC Revision 3 12/17/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC-MOD- Page 22 of 34 MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

O ic^ve svsa MODIFICATION REVIEW svsrea:

"*"*'"6

CHECKLIST " " *

• Responsible Engmeet (Systwn Team lead) E Parte Review Requiresnest Iteen Group Status Reviewer Signature

15. O Yes O No O NA O INF Date A. REOUIREMENT If the snodification ba the pMeetlal to change the design snargins for a systens, have the design snargins been adequately addressed?

B. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS:

l 0 SArtSrv1NG THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (Pr.ea.per Pr e7)

O (Prev 6.edy drwomd by NNECo an rt e bed. .md UIR.CR or di.e.very d.come.at in Seer D)

O oteg.ar it. ,..ey sea.db.:d e vi.<ep6ysi i_ r;_ w- _ d is.

h i. .r r. =i.e.,y r,quir=.=ta. 8===nes** h ds ha me, DE C. REFERENCE (S) & SOURCE / REVISIONI DATE:

a D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT O - Parsons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 7 I 22 '

hee sequence No. 8 F7-CLMDE DOC g7f97

DOCUMENT ID: RC-MOD- Page 23 of 34 MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

O iCive svSR MODIFICATION REVIEW svsreal CIIECKLIST " " " '

Responsible 1:mgmeer (Systaan Teem land)

Parte Redew Requireaneet iteen Group Status Redewer Sbature

16. I O Yes O No O NA O INF Date

! A. REOUIREMENT If the modification costale any " temporary" changes, were these changes ana?)wd and controlled? .

11. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS: l O SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (Pree=== per Pr-e7)

O (Pmtausly dierovered by NNEOn, s munertse hash e.d UIR , CR er deseovery d.nunes.4 in Ster D)

O (= :,_ is sway assed 6.e d.s. e enset phy.iens e a c r es d.e es ,de.ac .

hasis or ngelse.ry . ,_ assmsmaetse hosts k usep D)

C. REFERENCE (S) & SOURCE / REVISION / DATE:

O D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT

- Parsons Power Group lac. -

FORM: 7 147-23 Package Sequence No. 8 Revision 3 F7-CLMDE. DOC 12/17/97 ,

______a

DOCUMENT 1D: RC MOD- Page 24 of 34 MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE: ,

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

M@ Number l MODIFICATION REVIEW CIIECKLIST MN

• Respormble Engmeer (System Team land)

Parte Redew Requireaneet Item Group Status Reviewer Slanature

17. O Yes") ONo"> 0 NA O INF Date A. REOUIREMENT If a pmposed modification was canceled did it result la pmcedural changes that could impose an excessive burden on the plant operaton during normal or emergency operating conditions?

B. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS: l O SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (Fr. cess per Fr47)

O (Prr%eemly d6scovered by NNFre, emmesmartse beds and UIR ,CR or discovery deciument in Seep D)

O (Rguarveneet is met eney senseed het does nei affect phyencal esmatureebe dw _ design 6 i..e ns a.a.cy munr e.a s rtie 6 a.in see, p>

g C. REFERENCE (S)& SOURCF)REVISIONIDATE:

U D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT (1) An amtmative response to this question should be treated as a discrepancy and processed in accordance with PP-07.

k - Parsons Fower Group Inc. -

FORM: 7 1 07- 24 Package Sequence No. 8 Revision 3 F7-CLMDE. DOC l~417/97 we -

DOCUMENT ID: RC. MOD. Page 25 of 34 MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

O ic^vesvsa MODIFICATION REVIEW svsTEMI

" N"""'

CHECKLIST * **

Respanaille Eagmeer (System Team Imd)

PortE Review Requiressent item Group Status Reviewer Strasture la. O Yes") ONo"' O NA O INF Date -

l A. REOUIREMENT l

Was a canceled anodification part ially laiplemented and not docusmented properly?

H. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS: l 0 SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (Pr.e.=s per re-87)

O (Prevleemly dierowred by NMECa summanneta. hauts and U1R.CR or dineewry 4.eeniset in Step D).

OR h e ne re s.d 6. d .n.esphysi i. ._

_ d is.

hemis er ; . -_ % hemislasse,D>

- 3 . _, --

C. REFERENCE (S) & SOURCE / FEVISION/ DATE:

O D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT (1) An affirmative response to this question should be treated as a discrepancy and processed in accordance with PP-07.

- Parsons Power Group lac. -

FORM: 7 I 07 - 25 Package Sequence No. 8 F7.CLMDE. DOC Revision 3 12/17/97 m

DOCUMENT ID: RC MOD- P:g? 26 of 34 MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

MODIFICATION REVIEW " " """6" CHECKLIST """"'

Responsible Engmeer (System Team Imd)

Parte Review Requireeneet Iteen Group status Reviewer Simaature

19. O Yes O No O NA OINF Date A. REOUIREMENT Were field changes,if petforened during the impleanentation of the modification,lacorporated lato the "as built" documentation?

B. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS: l O SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (tree per 77 87)

O (Preve===iy da revee.d by NNECo umunartse basis and UIR , CR er discovery doetun.at im Seep D)  !

l O (u.g.ar e is t nier e a.d b.s d t es.e physic :e ae.r.o w- .. d is.

bests .c reautme.ry requireewets. Sasemartie hosts ha .sep D)

C. REFERENCE (S) & SOURCE / REVISION / DATE:

D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 7 107-26 PackageSequenceNo. 8 F/-CLMDE. DOC Revision 3

, 12/17/97

___a

DOCUMENT ID: RC-MOD- Page 27 of 34 MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

O ic^ve svsa MODIFICATION REVIEW svsre==

" """"6" CIIECKLIST " D *"

Responsible Engmeer (System Team Imd)

Parte Review Requiressent

• Item Group Status Reviewer Slaseture 2e _

O Yes O No O NA O INF Date A. & AREMENT Has the lampact of the snodiD ation on the origleal desige analysis, applicable to the unmodified portions of the system been adequately addressed?

B. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS: l .

O SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (Pr==.pertr47)

C (Prevleudy descovend by NPNfe, summenartae bests and UIR , CR w discovery documment in $sey D)

O (= -. ' h noe may ==essed kw 4 e asset physic =1 e.=es ur=eien du--- desium banne er regelseary mairvenemas. Samensartse basis to step D)

C. REFERENCE (S) & SOURCE / REVISION / DATE:

D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT O - Persons Power Group let -

FORM: 7 I 27 Package Sequence No. 8 M-CLMDF DOC '.evision 3 12/17/97

__ J

DOCUMENT ID: RC-MO'J- Page 28 of 34 MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

'O ic^ve svsa MODIFICATION REVIEW svsrs==

" 8 ""'* 6" CHECKLYST " " * '

Responsible Engineer, (Systein Team imed)

Parte 3 Review Requirement item Group Status Reviewer Slaanture

21. O Yes O No O NA O INF Date A. REOUIREMENT Have the prograan requiremients beca followed for "teasporary" anodifications?

B. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDTRED AS: l 0 SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN G/.5.S l O DISCREPANCY: O (Pew.m per Pr47)

O (Prev 6eemly disrevered by NNECo, massenartse heats and UIR , CR er disrevery documment in Step D).

O (Requir==== ls ==a ha r n=es.d b. d .e sa.et phymbral- ".__ dwestem, design '

bests or regelmeery . _ , - _ _  % bests he step D) l C. REFERENCE (S) & SOURCE / REVISION / DATE:

O D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT t

1

- Parsons Power Group lac. -

FORM: 7 I47-28 PackageSequenceNo. 8 F"J-CLMDE. DOC g$f97

DOCUMENT ID: RC-MOD- Page 29 of 34 M1LLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

O ic^ve svsa MODIFICATION REVIFW svsrs=:

" N ""*'

CHECKLIST " T'*

Responsible Fagmeer (System Team land)

Parte Review Requirement lien Group States Reviewer Sinneture

22. O Yes O No O NA O INF Date A. REOUIREMENT Was the snodification reflected on tbt appropriate P&ID's,1 line/ load list and logic / loop diagrams,if applicabic?

B. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS: l O SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (Fr eme per Pr47)

O <rme==dy de rever.d by NNECo..m.nertne beds d LHR CR or di. revery document 6. Step D)

O (aguir 6.m.< hay n.e.d b. 4 .n.esphy.iemi. _. de -- -, d i had .e... .,rgeir es. % hasisi..se,o>

l C. REFERENCE (S) & SOURCE / REVISION / DATE:

D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT

- Panon Power Group lac. -

FORM: 7 I07-29 Package Sequence No. 8 F7-CLMDE. DOC Revision 3 12/17/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC-MOD- P:ge 30 of 34

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

MODIFICATION REVIEW " """"6" CHECKLIST M " "'

Responsible Engtneen (System Tesm id)

Parte Revlew Requirement itemi Croup Status Reviewer S6anature

23. O Yes O No D NA OINF Date A. REOUIREMENT For the applicable programs /topicals has the modification addressed the requirements? ,

~

B. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS: l 0 SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (From per Pr e7)

O (Provi e.ty dhcover d by NNFro. u net.e b l..ad UIR.CR or di.cevery deciument in Step D).

O (= m . -:is e m.ny a.s.d 6 4 d a.s.<t phy.ic. .: ;_ --d.c-- . d is.

b a..e r.s.a ry en im e s=== rwe h.a i. wey D).

C. REFERENCE (S) & SOURCE / REVISION' nite; E D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT b

\j - Parsons Power Group lac. -

FORM: 7 I 30 Package Sequence No. 8 F7 CLMDE. DOC Revision 3 12/17/97

e DOCUMENT ID:

RC-MOD __ Pap 31 of 34 MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

O ic^vesvsa MODIFICATION REVIEW svsTra:

" 8""'"'*'

2 CIIECKLIST M DTi&

Responsible Eugmeer.

(System Team Imd)

Parte Review Requiressen Items Group Status Reviewer Sirant' ire

24. O Yes O No O NA OINF Date A. REOUIREMENT For the applicable prograndtopicals were required document changes identified?

B. EEOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS; l O SATISFYING Tile LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O er. eses per Pr-e7)

O erevt==ely dheevered by NNFre, seminiertie bests and UIR , CR or disee,ery decurient in Step D)

O (Requirussent is not hdly onessed het does met elkt phyuleel renageration dee' - "" n design book .c regulatory requir w.ts. tae hads h step D).

C. REFERENCE (S) & SOURCFJ REVISIONI DATE:

O D. BEVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT 5

V

- Parson Power Grou,,Inc. -

FORM: 7 I 31 Package Sequence No. 8 F7-CLMDE. DOC Revision 3 12f37/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC-MOD- Page 32 of 34 MfLLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

O 'c^vesvsa MODIFICATION REVIEW svsrea:

M 8 """b

CIIECKLIST MOD Me Responsible Engineer.

(Systern Team Imd)

Parte Hedew Requiressent Iteen Group Status Reviewer Sleasture

25. O Yes O No O NA O INF Date A. REOUIREMENT If the snodification addedyr arvised a compoucat that effects a setpolat, alarm, calibration or operation Oozic and/or sequence) have the appropriate precedures interfaces been identified?

B. BEOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS:

l O SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY; O (Fr.e==s per Pr-o7)

O (Pretteesty JWevered by NNECe, susweertie bests and UIR.CR or dhcovery document in Step D)

O (Regadressent la met fWay seensaed het dose moi affect phys 6 cal costSguration dacusment.etloa, design beats or regulseory requireements.1%numartse bests la step D).

C. REFERENCE (S) & SOURCEJ REVISIGN/ DATfd O

()

D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT E. MODIFICATION INTERFACES:

Should the modification interfa:e with Maintenance, Testing or Procedures, the Responsible Engineer will indicate the type interface (s) below and immediately advise the procedure and/or test lead engineer of this interface.

D' Malatenance and Test O Procedutts O Does not interface with Maintenance and Test or Procedures O

- Parsons Power Group inc. -

FORM: 7 I 32 Package Sequence No. 8 l F7-CLMDE. DOC Revision 3 12/17/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC-M OD- Page 33 of 34 .,

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

O ic^ve svsa MODIP' CATION REVIEW svsrs":

M D NuWr CIIECKLIST M D Me s

Responsibic Engmeer:

, (Systern Team lead)

Parte Review Requirwsment Iteen Group Status Reviewer Signature 2( 0 Yes O No O NA O INF Date A. REOUIREMENT If the modification added or revised a coenponent that effects operation, function, surveillance, performance, or timing characteristics base appropriate testing procedures interfaces been identified?

B. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS:

l O SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (tr.co.s per tr4r>

0 (trev6 =dy discoverve by NNECo.su,ansertse basis and UIR.CR or discovery d comment in Step D).

O (Requitvesent is met Assy meetmeed but does not aflect phys 6 cal; "._ -- doce oestenen, design basis or reguissory reqedreaments. Sasusnartse basis in step D)

C. REFERENCE (S) & SOURCE / REVISION / DATE:

D. B_EVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT E. MODIFICATIONINTERFACES:

Should the modification interface with Maintenance, Testing or Procedures, the Res ensible Engineer will indicete the type interface (s) below and immediately advise the procedure and/or test lead engineer of this interface.

d Mainienance and Test O Procedures O Does not interface with Maintenance and Test or Prncedures r

4

- Parsons Power Group lac. -

FORM: 7 1 33 Package Sequence No. 8 F7-CLMDE. DOC Revision 3 12/17/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC. MOD. Pag 34 of 34 MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

MODIFICATION REVIEW """"'"'*'

CIIECKLIST M D **

Respons Ne Engineer (System Tema Ind)

Parte Review Requirenneet liese Group Status Reviewer slaanture 27 O Yes O No O NA O INF Date 3

A. REOUIREMENT If the modification added or revised a component that effects operation, logic, control board, or maintenance has the training laterface been considered in the modification?

B. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS:

l O SATISITING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (Free perrr47)

O (Prev 6 e da.cevered r by NNEc rt best. d UIR,CR er di cevery d.c e.t 1. Step D),

O (n.,.i, si. eswiy ei.fi.4 6. d e.es.etphy.ic.:e n e es doc si ,de.is.

b is.c reanime.ry requirements. se et h i.in eep D)

C. REFERENCE (S) & SOURCE / REVISION / DATE:

l D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/RESUL1 E. MODIFICATION INTERFACES:

Should the modification interface with Maintenance, Testing or Procedures, the Responsible Engineer will indicate the type interface (s) below and immediately advise the procedure and/or test lead engineer of this interface, O' Maintenance and Test O Procedures O Does not inte: Tace with Maintenance and Test or Procedures O

- Persons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 7 1-07 34 Package Sequence No. 8 F7.CLMDE. DOC Revision 3 12/17/97

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK O

T1-CL-I-08 SYSTEM REVIEW CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS OPERATING PROCEDURES - FORM 8 O

Signature Dals Prepared: en/ /4 f5 Reviewed:

SVSR Cd6up Lead I-- 23 k @

V Approved: '//A A/3/$f-Approved: ~

99d 8 Dhuty Projer: Director O

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

P1 - 117 Revision 3 PI-01. DOC January 21,1998

-33

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SVSR PROJECTINSTRUCTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CIIECKl.lSTS AND WORKBOOK 1.0 FORM 8 - SYSTEM OPERATING PROCEDURES REVIEW Q{ECKI,lST 1.1 The purpose of this form is to:

3 e Validate compliance of the NNECo Modification Design Process and results relating to procedures;

• Evaluate procedures against the licensing bases and as-built system to determina compliance; and

. Document the results to demonstrate whether the requirement has been incorporated.

1.2 The OE adds the Parsons Power Document ID number, NNECo system code, system title to the form header, and indicates the responsible SLE.

1.3 Upon initiation of the form, the OE signs and dates the appropriate Resision block in Part A.

1.4 The MLE, OLE in concert with the OE will review the specific checklist requirements and assign each requirement to the (1) OE, (2) discipline, or (3) specialist reviewer. The OE adds to Parts E and F, the assigned group (s) and types / prints the reviewer / inspector's name to each specific checklist requirement.

d 1.5 The OE interfaces with the modification reviewers to obtain the list of applicable modification and completes Part C adding the appropriate NNECo modification number, modification title, and Parsons modification review checklist '

identification number.

1.6 Procedure Checklist Requirements (Parts E and F) 1.6.1 Using the applicable NNECo Modification Package (s) noted in Part C and other NNECo input documents as applicable, the OE(s) completes Parts E and F of the Checklist following any additional instructions included in Part D.

1.6.2 If the requirement is assigned to another reviewer / specialist, the OE is responsible to track and assure the requirement input is provided.

1.6.3 The checklist requirement result should be described in sufficient detail. The OE/ inspector determine the depth of the review. Wordy paragraphs are to be used only if required.

1.6.4 Upon completion of review of the checklist requirement, the assigned inspector checks the appropriate blocks under item B of the requirement, provides a disposition in accordance with the instructions in Part D, signs ar.d dates the

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

PI- 118 Revision 3 PI-01. DOC lanuary 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYS2 P~OJECTINSTRUCTION PI 01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK O'

Q specific requirement (s). This signature indicates that the inspection of this requirement is complete.

r 1.7 The OE of the form assures all the reviewerrmspector inputs are included for I-each requirement and that the requirement has a (1) disposition, (2) inspector signature, and (3) date.

1.8 The OE submits the form and checklist to the SLE who reviews each of the individual requirements in Parts E and F that are dispositioned as a

" Discrepancy." The SLE completes Part B by providing a summary disposition, indicating any discrepancy requirement number (s), and signing and dating the form.

1.9 The OE submits the form and checklist (s) to the interface reviewers in accordance with the General Instructions for Review and Approval in Section 6.0 of this document.

2.0 CHECKLIST REVIEW REQUIREMENTS 2.1 The attached requirements and questions are to be used to generate the specific checklist questions to be incorporated onto the form. These quer ions and requirements are based upon the NRC Order, Oveiview Plans, and SSFI/IDI g procedures.

2.2 The system review team (SLE, MLE, OLE discipline reviewers, and specialists) will use these requirements / questions to generate the system specific review requirements for the selected system.

2.3 Based upon the system selected, the review team will determine what additional detail is to be provided and incorporate it into the customized system workbook.

O)

Q

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

PI- 119 Revision 3 PI-01. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYS3 PC2 JECT INSTRUCTI3N PI-01 i SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK f\

Q PROCEDURES CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS

1. Procedures are reviewed using the following checklist and the results of the review are recorded on Form 8.

2. The Operations Lead Engineer or Maintenance Lead Engineer shall use the following questions / requirements as the basis for preparing the specific review questions to be utilized by the inspection team.

3. The MLE, OLE reviews the following questions, expanding them as required, and completes the appropriate system specific form in the workbook.

Note: These questions / requirements are customized for each selected system and does not require the MLE, OLE, OE to include each question ifit is not applicable to the selected system.

1 C\

4. If applicable, the MLE, OLE, OE may use other checklist questions contained in the licensing basis checklist, modification checklist or Appendix A.

A. MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES e Review the adequacy and accuracy of the procedure to ensure that the -

component functions are not reduced by the maintenance procedure.

Review the procedure to determine that the precautions and limits are adequate for equipment protection.

Review the procedure for conformance with the equipment vendor manual.

Review the technical specifications, the FS AR, the design basis and the current -

licensing basis to verify appropriate information has been reflected in the procedure.

Determine if system modifications identified by the Tier I review process were incorporated into the procedure.

O V

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

PI- 120 Revision 3 PLOI. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSRPZOJECTINSTRUCTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK O H. OPERATING. ALARM. ABNORMAL. & EMERGENCY PROCEDURES e Verify the procedure satisfies the requirements and plant configuration as defined by technical specifications, the updated final safety analysis report, and the current licensing and design basis.

• Determine if system modifications identified by Tier 1 review process were incorporated in the procedure.

O O

- Panons Power Group lac. -

PI- 121 Revision 3 PI-01. DOC January 21.1998 j

DOCUMENT ID: RC-PROC- Page 1 of xx MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM PROCEDURES CIIECKLIST

~

Responsible Engmeer.

PART A PROCEDURES CHECKLIST CLOSE-OUT REVISION 0 REVISION 1 REVISION 2 sw=aw aw=nw awmaw

1. ORIGINATOR

2. REYlEWED - - -

Mechanicallead -

Electrical 1.ed Control Systems Lead Piping / Structural Lead Operations Engineer Procedures Engineer l Testing Engineer

3. APPROVAL - - -

System Lead Engincer SYSR lead Engineer PART B SYSTEM PROCEDURES OBSERVATIONS & FINDINGS

SUMMARY

lastructions: (t) The SLE will review the attached checklist and supplesmentalinsterial and indicate whether the NNECo Procedures adequately considered or lacorporated the ladicated requirements into the systeni.

(2) For each DISCREPANCY found during the audit, the SLE is to indicate the requirement item number (s) under the appropriate Revision and assure all discrepancies are processed per PP-07.

REVISION 0 REVISION 1 REVISION 2

1. Are the procedures as they relate to the system O ves O No O Yes O No O Yes O No satisfactorily incorporated or will be incorporated into the system design?

2. Summary of Dircrepancy(les) Items Signature SLF/Date b

- Parsons Power Group lac. -

FORM: 8 i 1 1 Package Sequence No. 9 Revision 3 F8_CLP. DOC 12/22/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC PROC. Page _2 of xx MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

O ic^ve svsa SYSTEM PROCEDURES svs'ta:

CHECKLIST Responsible Engmeer (System Team Imd)

PART C APPLICABLE SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS lastructions: (1) The M12,012 suusmarises the applicable modificat6ons that may effect the system procedures and ledicates these below.

Note: Only these modifications affecting the system are to be reviewed. The input is provided from the system modification chs.klist.

l 1. APPLICABLE MODIFICATIONS The following anodifications are applicable and need to be reviewed agalast the checklist requirements and licensing bests:

NNECo Mod Reference Modification item Number Modificatico Title Review Checklist 1.

O V

O - Persons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 8 10G - 2 .ekage Sequence No. 9 Revision 3 F11_CLP. DOC 12/22/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC-PROC- Pcte 3 of xx MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM PROCEDURES CHECKLIST Responsible Engmeer:

(System Team Lead)

PART D CHECKLIST REVIEW INSTRUCTION lastructions: For each mquinment listed below:

(1) SLE, MLE, OLE, OE ned system team devoleps the specific requiressents to be reviewed using the generic questions la the lastruction and Attachment A Source Book.- Egh requirement will be given a new item number and include steps A, B, C, and D.

(2) Each requirement will be consecutively numbered starting with I (one).

(3) 'Ibe Systein lead Engineer will assign the review grour responsible for reviewing each requiressent.

Mechaalcal = M Electrical = E. Controls = IAC, Testleg = T. Procederss = P Operations = 0 (4) The individual that reviews the requiresnemt will sian and date. provide a disposition, indicate interfaces, and provide a response based upon the followleg:

a. Yes Requirement is satisfactorily addressed. laciude refersees source, revision, and date. No esplanation/results is required.

b, No Requirement is not satisfactorily addressed er discrepast condition esists. Provide an esplanation of how the requireseemt was not satisfied. laciude reference source (s), revision, and date, as applicable. Disposition the condition as a DISCREPANCY and classify the basis la step B. The responsible ladhidual shall tassmediately advise the SIE. of any requiressent being dispositioned as a DISCREPANCY la accordance with Project Procedure PP 47. taltistion of PP-07 will be by the OE. Process med proceder .I discrepancies not disposit.oned in accordance with PP-47 will be analysed by Tier 3.

c. NA Requirement is not applicable. Esplanation should be locluded only ifit clarifles the disposition.

d. INF Requireemet could not be verified because leforusation could not be found. If an RAI was generated to clarify the requirensent, the RAI number and subsequent NNECo response reference is to be provided. In Part D ladicate the information could not be found and disposition as a DISCREPAFCY The responsible individual shall immediately advise the SLE of any requirement being dispositioned as a DISCREPANCY, laitiation of PP-07 will be by the OE.

- Persons Power Group lac. -

FORM: 8 I 3 Package Sequence No. 9 F8,CLP. DOC Revision 3 12/22/97 o

DOCUMENT ID: RC PROC- P:ge 4 of xx MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM PROCEDURES CIIECKLIST Responsible Engmeer.

(System Team Lead)

PART E OPERATING, ALARM, ABNORMAL, AND EMERGENCY PROCEDURES Parte Review Requirement item Group Seatus Reviewer's Signature

1. O Yes O No ONA O INF Date A. REOUIREMENT i

B. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS: l 0 SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS I O DISCREPANCY: O (tr c perPr-07)

O (Fmisesty desee.ered by NNECo, sunumettae beats and UlR . CR .r discovery decioniene in Step D),

O (Require === is e nais es.a.4 6.e d n.:.sv.cs pbyde.:e sis. ei n d.c e.es ,d ign bed. .r res hn.ry r.g=trea=*s. 8=====rt.* baats la aer D).

C. REFERENCE (S) & SOURCE / REVISIONI DATE:

D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT O - Parsons Power Group Inc. -

FORM:8 I4 - 4 Package Sequence No. 9 '

Revision 3 RCLP. DOC 12/22m

DOCUMENT ID: RC-PROC- Page 5 of xx 4

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM PROCEDURES CllECKLIST Responsible Engmeer.

(Swtem Team lead)

PART F MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES PartF Review Requirement Item Group Status Reviewer's Signature

1. O Yes ONo ONA O INF Date A. REOUIREMENT B. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS:

l O SATISFYING Tile LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (Fr eens par Pr-07)

O (Previously discovered by NNECo. sununartse basis and UIR , CR or dmovery document in Ster D).

O (Require =.e=< is not nday s.inssied but de.s e arrect physkas e r n ur thm d.m - . -, de.ign bests or reruistory requiresnents. Seminiertse bests 4. step D)

D E) C. REFERENCE (S) & SOURCE / REVISION / DATE:

I D. EFVIEW

SUMMARY

/RESUI,T

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 8 1 5 Packag,e Sequence No. 9 FB_CLP. DOC Revision 3 12/22/97

MILLSTONE UNIT 2

$VSR PROJECT INSr.(ICTION PI-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CIIECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK O

1 l

l T1-CL-I-09 SYSTEM REVIEW CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS TESTING - FORM 9 m

V t

Sicnature pgg Prepared: ess //2,f/f/

Reviewed:

S'

./Jh h- [

iGradhLead J3 k @

(/

Approved: 9/f A lgm t/s/pp Approved:

Ikputy Project Director kk eJ 9[

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

P!41. DOC y, 99f 1

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYS]PROJECTINSTRUCTIIN Pi-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK O

1.0 FORM 9 - SYSTEM TESTING REVIEW CIIECKl.lST 1.1 The purpose of this form is to:

• Validate compliance of the NNECo Modification Design Process and results relating to testing;

+ Evaluate testing against the licensing bases including the technical specifications to determine compliance; and

. Document the results o demonstrate whether the requirement has been incorportied.

1.2 The OE adds va Parsons Power Document ID number, NNECo system code, system title to the form header, and indicates the re ponsible SLE.

1.3 Upon initiation of the form, the OE signs an.) dates the approp6 ate Revision block in Part A.

1.4 The TLE in concert with the OE will review the specific etecklist requirements and assign each requirement to the (1) OE, (2) discipline, n (3) specialist resiewer. The OE adds to Part E through G, the assignv. group (s) and typer/ prints the reviewer / inspector's name to each speci6c checklist requirement.

C's C/ 1.5 The OE interfaces with the modification re"iewers to obtain the list of applicable modifications and completes Part C adding the appropriate NNECo modification number, modification title, and Parsons modification review checklist identification number.

1.6 Procedure Checklist Requirements (Pa- E through G) 1.6.1 Using the applicable NNECo Modification Package (s) noted in Part C and other NNECo input documents as applicable, the OE(s) completes Parts E through G of the Checklist following any additional instructions included in Part D.

1.6.2 If the requirement is assigned to another reviewer / specialist, the OE is responsible to track and assure the requirement input is provided.

1.6.3 The checklist requirement result should be described in sufficient detail. The OE/ inspector determine the depth of the review. Wordy paragraphs are to be used only if required.

1.6.4 Upon completion of review of the checklist requirement, the assigned inspector checks the appropriate blocks under item B of the requirement, provides a disposition in accordance with the instructions in Part D, signs and dates the 6's O

- Parson Power Group Inc. -

Pl.123 Revision 3 Pl.01.IXX' January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2  !

SYS3PROJECTINSTRUCTION PI 01 l SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK  ;

specific requirement (s). This signature indicates that the inspection of this requirement is complete.

1.7 The OE of the form assures all the reviewer /mspector inputs are included for each requirement and that the requirement has a (1) disposition, (2) inspector signature, and (3) date.

1.8 The OE submits the form and checklist to the SLE who resiews each of the individual reauirements in Parts E through G that are dispositioned as a

" Discrepancy." The SLE completes Part B by providing a summary disposition, indicating any discrepancy -

ment number (s), and signing and dating the form.

1.9 The OE submits the form and checklist (s) to the interface reviewers in accordance with the Generalinstructions for Review and Approvalin Section 6.0 of this document.

2.0 CHECKLIST REVIEW REQUIREMENTS 2.1 The attached requirements and questions are to be used to generate the specific

. checklist questions to be incorporated onto th: form. These questions and requirements are based upon the NRC Order, Over iew Plans, and SSFI/IDI

procedures.

(.

Y 2.0 The system review team (SLE, TLE, discipline reviewers, and specialists) Wil use these requirements / questions to generate the system specific review requirements for the selected system.

2.3 Based upon the system selected, the review team will determine what additional detail is to be provided and incorporate it into the customized system workbook.

4 k

0.

U

- Persons Power Group lac. -

Pl.124 Revision 3 501.IXX' January 21,1998 ,

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYS3 PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI 411 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK G

Q TRAINING AND TESTING CilECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS

1. Testing is reviewed using the following checklist (s) and the results of the re:iew are recorded on Form 9,

2. T}.e Testing Lead Engineer (TLE) shall use the following questions / requirements as the basis for preparing the specific review questions to be utilized by the inspection team.

3. The TLE, OE reviews the following questions, expanding them as required, and completes the appropriate system specific form in the workbook.

Note: These questions / requirements are customized for each selected system and does not require the TLE, OE to include each question ifit is not applicable to the selected system.

O 4. If applicable, the TLE, OE may use other checklist question contained in the licensing basis checklist, modification checklist or Appendix A.

A. TRAINING PROCEDURES

• Do the training procedures reflect the present plant configuration?

• De the training procedures reflect the current plant configurstions and equipment of the system?

• Review the operator training procedure for the system for technical completeness. Ensure that the training procedures incorporate system modificatiuns and that the. operators are trained on the modifications.

• Determine ifimplementing personnel receive adequate training for the system and if the training is consistent with the level of detail in the implementing procedures.

• lias the Simulator been updated to reflect modifications to the unit?

- Persons Power Group Inc. -

Pl.125 Revision 3 PMI .!XX' January 21,1998

MILLSTCNE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCTION PI41 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CilECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK H. PRE-OPERATION AND POST MAINTENANCE TESTING e Verify that the Pre-operational or post maintenance test and acceptance criteria demonstrated that the System met the required critical performance / functional requirements.

i e Verify the system alignment and test conditions demonstrate performance functional / requirements.

• Review calculations used to establish test results acceptance criteria for j acceptable analytical approach and correct testing configuration.

• Verify that the Design Basis information was correctly incorporated into the pre-operational testing procedures with appropriate acceptance criteria.

• The reviewer should determine if the system has been adequately tested to demonstrate that it can perform the intended safety function. This review should include initial tests performed by the manufacturer, start up testing and pre-operational testing.

• Review the program for post maintenance testing of components prior to declaring them operable. The post modification testing should demonstrate that the system functional capability has been restored / maintained.

• Review the measuring and test equipment requirements to ensure the j ( equipment can measure the parameter to the accuracy necessary to assure ls proper operation.

e f

Review the testing pmcedures to ensure that the method for measuring the parameter is appropriate. for the physical condition of the plant.

• Review post test data redaction and analysis. Are the results of the analysis consistent with test conditions / assumptions and recognized analytical methods?

Does the post test analysis satisfy test acceptance criteria?

• Review data sheets for signatures of personnel performing the test (s).

C. SURVEILLANCE AND PEltlODIC TESTING e Verify that the procedure satisfies the requirements contained in technical specifications, the FSAR, and the current licensing basis and design basis.

Verify the test conditions accurately reflect actual plant conditions during system critical function operations.

Determine if system modifications identified by Tier i review process were incorporated in the procedure.

O _ _ _

v

- Person Power Group Inc. -

PI 126 Revision 3 I'l 01 DOC January 21,1998

DOCUMENT ID: RC. TEST. Page .1 of zu I

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 ~

SYSTEM CODEI O ic^ve svsa SYSTEM TESTING svsreu:

l CllECKLIST ResponsMe Ln6meer.

l .

PART A TESTIN6. CHECKLIST CLOSE-OUT REVISION 0 REVISION 1 REVISION 2 aw-aw ow.immaw sw.m nw

1. ORIGINATOR

2. ItEVIEWED - -

~

M d ani:41 lead Electrical trad Control Systems lead Piping /Structurellead Operations Engineer Procedures Engineer Testing Engineer

3. APPROVAL - - -

System lead Enginoct SVSR lead Engineer O\ PARTB SYSTEM TESTING OBSERVATIONS & FINDINGS

SUMMARY

lastructions: (1) ne SLE will review the ettsched checlJist and supplesmental m.eterial e.sd indicate whether NNECo laservice lespectlan and Testing edequately considered or incorporated the indicated requireau:;ts into the systems.

(2) For each DISCREPANCY found during the audit, the SLE is to indicate the requiressent liens number (s) under the appropriate Revision and assure all discrepancies are processed per PP-47.

REVISION 0 REVISION 1 REVISION 2

1. liste the insenice inspections and tests ei O ves O No O ves O No O ves O N$

es they relate to the

(

systein settsfactorily '

incorporated or will be incorporated into the system design 7

2. Summary of Discrepency(! s) Items Signature St.E/Date

- Persons Power Group lac. -

FORM: 9 l-09. I Package Sequence No.10 Pp. CLT. DOC Revision 3 12/22/97

DOCUMENT IDt RC TEST- Pas a 2 of MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

, ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM TESTING CIIECKLIST Responsible Engmeer:

(System Team land)

PART C APPLICA.BLE SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS Instrwetloas: (1) The TLE summertnes the applicable modincetions that may effect the system procedures and indicates these below.

Note: Only these modifications affecting the system are to be reviewed. The input is provided from the system modification checklist.

1. APPLICABLE MODIFICATIONS The following modincellons are appliemble and need to be reviewed against the checklist requirements sad licensing beels:

NNECo Mod Reference Medincation item Number Modincetion Title Review Checklist 1.

O l

l

[

i i

O - Persons Power Group inc. -

FORM: 9 IM

• 2 Package sequence No.10 FLCLT. DOC g 9

i DOCUMENT ID: RC. TEST- Pete 3 of x MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

IC4YP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM. TESTING CllECKLIST Responsible Lngmeer:

(System Team Imd)

PART D CHECKLIST REVIEW INSTRUCTION lastructions: For each requirement listed in fili.E through 23:1.0 below:

(1) SLE, T1Jt, OE and systeen team develops the speelfle requiteenents to be miewed using the generic quest 6ees in the lastruction and Attachewel A Source Book. Eggh requiresaent will be given a new item number and include steps A, B, C, and D.

(2) Each requiressent will be consecutively mussbered starting with I (see).

(3) The System Imd Engineer will assign the miew group twpensible for miewing each requirement.

Meckonical = M, Electrical = E, Controls = IAC. Tating = T. Procedures = P. Ope 3tions = 0 (4) The individual that miews the requiresseet will slam and date. provide a disposillon, Indicate laterfaces, and provide a twpense based upon the following:

a. Yu Requiteewet is satisfactorily addrweed. Include roterence source, revlelos, and dele. No explanation /rwalte le regelred.

b. No Requiresneet is not setlefactorily addrweed or discrepast condities eslots. Provide en esplanellom of bow the requitessent was not settsfled. laciude refersace neurce(s), revision, and date, as applicable. Dispeeltion the condittee as a DISCREPANCY and closelfy the beels in step B. The twpose6ble ledividual abou lananediately advloe the SLE of ney requiressent bolag dispoellioned as a DISCREPANCY le accordance with Pasject Procedure PP47. taltie46ee of PP47 will be by the OL Process and procedural discrepencies not dispooltioned le accordance with PP47 will be analysed by Tier 3.

l

c. NA Requirement is not applicable. Esplasstlos abound be included only ifit clarlflee the dispwillos.

d. INF Requireewet could not be verifled beconoe leferination could not be found. If am RAI *as generated to clarify the requirement, the RAI number ned subsequest NNEco response reference is to be provided. la Port D ledicate the informatlee could not be found and dispoelt6om as a DISCREPANCY. The twpomelble ledividual shallimenediately adtlee the SLE of any requiresnent being disposillooed as a DISCREPANCY, laitist6en of PP47 will be by the OL Note: Systeen review to consider test procedures, ruults, and/or calibrations.

- Persons Power Group fac. -

FORM:9 149 3 Package Sequence No.10 ACLT. DOC Revluon3 12/22/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC TEST. Pag 2.4 of ix l MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR F.YSTEM:

SYSTEM TESTING CIIECKLIST Responsible lagmeer:

, (System Team land)

PART E TRAINING AND TESTING PROCEDURES Parte Resfew Requiresseet item croup status Reviewer's Signature

1. O Yes O No DNA O INF Date i

A. REOUIREMENT ,

II. REOtflREMENTIS CONSIDERFD AS: l O SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (trwesepeerr47)

O (trevloody discovered by NNECo, seen.nartse beeh and UIR .CR or discosery decrement la Step D),

O (Rguarveneed b not fumy aselened bas dose not afled physical eenagerse6en dww . , design be a. .r readw.ry maire==.e s eren be i. be me, D>

C. REFERENCE (S)& SOURCE / REVISION / DATE:

D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT

- Persons Power Group Inc. -

FORM:

• I 09 4 Package Sequence No.10 Revision 3 ItCI.T. DOC 12/22/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC TEST. Page 5 of ru MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE: ,

O ic^ve svsa SYSTEM TESTING svsre":

CilECKLIST Responsible Engineer.

l (System Team Imd)

PART F PRE-OPERATIONAL AND POST TESTING PartF Retiew Requiresnest fleen Group Status Reviewer's Signature

i. O Yes O No DNA O INF Date A. REOUIREMENT _

H. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS: l O SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCAEPANCY: D (Prw.m per Pr47)

O (Pressemaly discosered by NNECo, samunartse beds and UIR , CR or discovery decomment in Ster D)

O (Requineneet is not tuBy estissed but does seet mmd pbydcol eennguration dr-- ' ' , deelga b.de er neula**r7 r* quires = eats. "* basis la sier D)

C. REFERENCE (S)& SOUNCF)REVISIONIDATE:

D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/RESUI,T V - Panon Power Group lac. -

FORM: 9 l-09 5 Package Sequence No.10 Resision 3 F9.CLT. DOC 12/22/97

, DOCUMENT ID: RC-TEST. Page .6 of n MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

! ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM: l 1 SYSTEM TESTING {

CHECKLIST '

Responsible Engmeer; i

-i- --

i PART G SURVEILLANCE AND PERIODIC TESTING PartG Rettew Requiresseet itesa Group Status Reviewer's Signature

1. O Yes O No DNA O INF Date A. EQUIREMENT -

1

H. MOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED AS

l O SATISFYING THE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (Pree.=s per Pr et)

+

0 (Provtsemiy distevered ty NNF', e, susumeartse basis and UIR , CR or discovery decennent in Deep D).

O (Requirment is not Asty set 6sfled het dose not affect phyelcal eennguration dm - , design r bash er regen e.cy regenre nn es. sumunart= basis in step p>

l C. REFERENCE (S) & SOURCE, REVISION / DATE:

i 1

D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/ RESULT O - Persons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 9 I-09 6 Package Sequence No,10 Revision 3 QCLT. DOC 12/22/97

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCTION PI411 SYSRIMPLEMENTATION CilECKLt TS AND WORKBOOK O

T1-CL-I-10 SYSTEM REVIEW CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS l

WALKDOWN - FORM 10 O

EIEDAIRCL Dalt Prepared; _

spr/ / 3/9f Reviewed: ~

s -- E ,- c#3A98 SVSR 0(oup Lead Approved: MS .2M/M -

Approved:

Deputy lYoject Direitor

1. dN 8 O - Parsons Power Group loc. -

PI 127 Revision 3 P141. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYS2PZOJECTINSTRUCTION Pi 01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK 1,0 FORM 10 - SYSTEM WALKDOWN REVIEW CHECKLIST 1.1 The purpose of this form is to:

, e Provide in plant review of system configuration;

• Evaluate status of physical system configuration against design documents -

and requirements; and e Document the results to demonstrate whether the requirement has been incorporated.

l l 1.2 The OE adds the Parsons Power Document ID number, NNECo system code, l system title to the form header, and indicates the responsible St.E.

1 1.3 Upon initiation of the form, the OE signs and dates the appropriate Revision blockin Part A.

1.4 The SLE in concert with the LE will review the specific checklist requirements and assign each requirement to the (1) OE, (2) reviewer, or (3) specialist reviewer. The OE adds to Part C, the assigned group (s) and types / prints the reviewer / inspector's name to each specific checklist requirement, g 1.5 The OE uses the modification summary listing (Form 6) to obtain a lirt of V modifications that must be walked down. Addi'ionally, the OE walks down the t system for any system changes not reflected in the current configuration drawings.

Unmodified portions of the system shall be walked down to confirm conformance with the P&ID. Piping supports type, general location, and configuration shall also be verified.

Modified portions of the system shall be walked down in detail to verify that the as-built condition conforms with the design base drawings and documents, including verification of:

a. Support type, location (dimensional verification), and configuration.

b. Instmment line route, supports, and slopes.

c. Separation and support of raceways carrying circuits of the modified portion of the selected systems.

(}

b

- Persons Power Group Inc. -

P1 - 128 Revision 3 1%). DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSRPROJECTINSTRUCTION PI 01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK 1.6 Procedure Checklist Requirements (Part C) 1.6.1 Using the applicable NNECo Modification Package (s) noted in Form 6 and other NNECo input documents as applicable, the OE(s) completes Part C of the Checklist following any additionalinstruction included in Part C.

1.6.2 If:he requirement is assigned to another reviewer / specialist, the OE is responsible to track and assure the requirement input is provided.

1.6.3 The chccklist requirement result should be described in sufficient detail. The OE/ inspector determine the depth of the review. Wordy paragraphs are to be used only if required.

1.6.4 Upon completion of review of the checklist requirement, the assigned inspector checks the appropriate blocks under item B of the requirement, provides a ,

disposition in accordance with the instructions in Part C, signs and dates the specific requirement (s). This signature indicates that the inspection of this requirement is complete.

l 1.7 The OE of the form assures all the reviewer / inspector inputs are included for each requirement and that the requirement has a (1) disposition, (2) inspector signature, and (3) date. The OE counts the number of pages and enters the O appropriate total in the header box of the form.

1.8 The OE submits the form and checklist to the SLE who resiews each of the individual requirements in Part C that are dispositioned as a " Discrepancy." The SLE completes Part B by providing a summary disposition, indicating any discrepancy requirement siumber(s), and signing and dating the form.

1.9 The OE submits the form and checklist (s) to the interface reviewers in accordance with the General Instructions for Review and Approval in Section 6.0 of thie document.

2,0 CIIECKLIST REVIEW REQUIREMENTS 2.1 The attached requirements and questions are to be used to generate the specific checklist questions to be incoiporated onto the form. These questicas and requirements are based upon the NRC Order, Overview Plans, and SSFl/IDI procedures.

2.2 The system review team (GLE, SLE, discipline reviewers, and specialists) will use these requirements / questions to generate the system specific review requirements for the selected system.

O - Persons Power Group Inc. -

Pl.129 Revision 3 PI-01. DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONF. UNIT 2 SYSR PZOJECTINSTRUCTION FI4i SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKUSTS AND WORKBOOK 2.3 Based upon the system selected, the review team will determine what additional detail is to be provided and incorporate it into the customized system workbook.

l l

l x

, . .=.

_ =_= = = - ==

- Persons Power Group lac, -

Pl.130 pcvision 3 1%). DOC January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYS3PROJECTINSTRUCTION PI41 l SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK WALKDOWN (AS-BUILT VERIFICATION)

CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS

1. The unit's system configuration is reviewed using the following checklist and the results of the review are recorded on Fonn 10. The modifications selected for review are listed on Form 6.

2. The System Lead Engineer shall use the following questions / rey'irements as the basis for preparing the specific review questions to be utilized by the inspection team.

3. The SLE reviews the following questions, expanding them as required, and completes the appropriate system specific form in the workbook.

~

Note: These questions / requirements are customized for each selected system and do not require the SLE to include each question ifit is not applicable to the selected system.

4. If cpplicable, the SLE may use other checklist question contained in the licensing basis checklist or Appendix A.

A.WALKDOWN

• Does the FSAR text description reflect the system "as-built" configuration, for the systems (excluding figures)?

e Verify that equipment ( including valves and instnamentation ) nameplate data is consistent with specifications and analysis.

. Verify the location and type of pipe restraints installed against the piping analysis and Design Specifications.

• Confirm physical separation of systems.

• Confirm Electrical and Control channel separation of systems.

. Verify that the System is adequately protected from fire, missiles, pipe nipture/ whip, flooding and other hazards.

• Verify that the systems and components located above the system being reviewed are seismically supported.

O V

- Parsons Power Group loc. --

P! 131 Revision 3 Pl.01.tXX: January 21,1998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYS]P OJECTINSTRUCTl!N P1-01 SYSR IMPLEMENTATION CIIECKLISTS AND WORKil00K (g") e Note any Modifications that appear to have had recent installation activity.

This information shall be noted on the checklist and shall be passed on to the SLE who will determine if further review per the Modification Checklist (Form 7) of this procedure is required.

• Verify that the current latest revision of P&lDs, One Line Diagrams, Elementary and other critical drawings are available for reference by plant operations.

• Verify that critical control room drawings reflect panially installed modifications which are turned over to operations.

. Verify the capability to perform local operation of equipment and the availability ofindication for local operation is in accordance with the operating procedures. Environmental conditions that will exist in the area under post a:cident conditions should be considered in determining the capability to perform local operation.

• Perform a detailed verifation to assure that the system as built configuration agrees with the P&lD. The verification should include a review of the following charactenstics of the system:

1. Access to system components requiring local operation and accurate labeling?

2. Are motor operated valves ant' .alves installed in the orientation required (or qualified as an a 3mponent) by the manufacturer?

3. Are the As-built physical ( lsomuric ) piping drawings and the P&lD consistent?

e Verify the integrity of the fire barriers and/or wraps associated with the system.

. Verify the integrity of rated (fire, pressure, radiation) wall penetration associated with the system?

e Verify housekeeping type of hazards such as combastible, unrestrained scaffolding, tool box, etc. in proximity to safety related or seismic components, f}

V

- Parsons Poner Group Inc. -

PI 132 Revision 3 P!41. DOC Januarv 21,1998

DOCUMENT ID: RC WALK- Page.Lafn MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODEt O

b ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM WALKDOWN 1

CilECKLIST Responsible Engmeer:

(System Team 1 cad)

PART A WALKDOWN CHECKLIST CLOSE OUT REVISION 0 REVISION 1 REVISION 2 i sia . m.i. sw a si... m.i.

1. ORIGINATOR

2. REVIEWED - - -

Mechanical Lead I'lectncal Lead Control Systems lead Piping / Structural Lead Operations Engineer Procedures Engineer Testing Engineer

3. APPROVAL - - -

System Lead Engineer SVSR Lead Engineer s

PART B SYSTEM WALKDOWN OBSERVATIONS & FINDINGS

SUMMARY

Instructions: (1) The SLE will resiew the attached checklist and supplemental material and indicate whether the "cs built" conditions are in conformance with the applicable system design documentation.

(2) For each DISCREPANCY found during the audit, the SLE is to ledicate the requirement item number (s) under the appropriate Resisjon and assure all discrepancies are processed per PP-07.

REVISION 0 REVISION 1 REVISION 2

1. IWs the as built conditions reflect the O Yes O No O Yes O No D Yes D No deste documentation as it relates to the system 7

2. Summary of Discrepancy (les) Items Signature SIIJDate

- Persons Power Grnup lac. -

FORM: 10 110 1 Package Sequence No.11 Resision 3 F10_CLWB. DOC 12/22/97

DOCUMCNT ID: RC. WALK. Page .2 of u MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

O icevesvsa SYSTEM WALKDOWN svsrEul CIIECKLisT Responsible Engmeer; (System Team lead)

PART C WALKDOWN CHECKLIST Instruttions. For each requirt aient listed below:

(1) GLE, $LE, OE and systeen lease deselops the specific requireements to be resiewed using the generic questions in the lastructisin aaJ Attachment A source book. Egh requhement will be given a new item number and include steps A, B, C, and D.

(2) Esth requirement will be consecutively numbered starting ulth I (one).

(3) The System lead Englwer will assign the review group responsible for resiening each requirement.

Mechanical = M. Electrical = E. Controls a lac Testing = T. Procedure = P. Operations = 0 (4) The individual that reviews the requirement will slam and date. preside a disposillot., Indicate laterfaces, and provide a response based upon the following:

a. Yes Requirement is satisfactorily addressed, include reference tource, revision, and date. No esplanation/resuits is required.

b. No Requiresnent it n< t satisfactorily addressed or discrepent condition esists. Provide an esplanation of how the requiresnent was rot satisfied. Include reference source (s), revision, and date, as applicable. Disposition the condition as a DISCREPANCY and classify the basis in step B. The responsible ladividual shall immediately adsise the $LE of any requirement being dispositioned as a DISCREPANCY in accordance with Project Procedure PP-07. Initletion of PP-07 will be by the OE. Process and procedural discrepancies not dispositioned in accordance with PP 47 will be analped by Tier 3.

c. NA Requirement la not applienble. Esplanation should be lacluded only ifit clarifles the disposition.

d. INF Requirement could not be serlfled because information could not be found. If an RAI was generated to clarify the requirement, the RAI number and subsequent NNECo response reference is to be provided. In Part D Indicate the informatinn could not be found sad disp 6,sition as a DISCREPANCY. The responsible ladividual shallimmediately advise the SLE of any requirement being dispositioned as a DISCREPANCY. Initiation of PP-07 mill be by the OE.

1 0 - Persoi Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 10 110 2 Package Sequence No,11 Resision 3 F10.CLWB. DOC 12/22/97

DOCUMENT ID: RC. WALK. Page .lpf xx MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM WALKDOWN CIIECKLIST Responsible Engmeer:

(System Team lad)

~I*a r1C Reslew Requirement item . Group Status Retiewer's Signatt.;c

1. I O Yes O No DNA O INF Date A. REOUIREMENT B. REOUIREMENTIS CONSIDERED ASI O SATISFYING TIIE LICENSING / DESIGN BASIS O DISCREPANCY: O (trwca rer rr.ot)

O (Prestously discesered by NNECo, sununartie beds and UIR . CR or d6scosery docunient in Step D).

D (Reqdrement is not fWly satished but does not affect phys 6 cal connguration docusmentadon, design basis or regulatory requiresnents. Susasnartae beans la ster D).

C. REFERENCE (S) & SOURCE / REVISION / DATE:

D. REVIEW

SUMMARY

/RESULI

- Parsons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: 10 110 3 Package Sequence No, Ii Revision 3 FIO.CLWB. DOC 12/22/97

h11LISTONE UNIT 2 SYSR PROJECTINSTRUCTION PI 01 SYSR IntPLEhlENTATION CilECKLISTS AND WORKilOOK T1-CL-I-CO SYSTEM REVIEW CLOSE-OUT INSTRUCTIONS - FORM CO smaatus om Prepared: ((7a,gs //2-3/9f Reviewed: .h-[

SR Gr6up Lead ofdb [/

Approved: ' d.M . 2.-/,2.d( _

Approved: A.

, Deputy Project Dnector e dN

- Parsons Power Group I c. -

PI- 133 Revision 3 P141. DOC January 21, I998

MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYS3 PROJECT INSTRUCTION Pi-01 SYSR IPIPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS AND WORKBOOK 1.0 EQlLMW YSTEM PEVIEW CLOSE-OUT 1.1 The p u >ose o this form is to provide a summary checklist that all applicable review 19..... nave been assembled, reviewed and approved.

1.2 - The SLE adds the Parsons Power Document ID number, NNECo system code, system title to the form header, and indicates the responsible SLE.

1.3 The SLE assemblies the Resiew package using the Sequence number at the bottom of each form.

1.4 The SLE completes Part A by indicating whether the form is completed or not required, adds the respective form Document identification Numbers, and verifies that the attached forms have been completed, reviewed and approved.

Note: A second sheet can be attached if there are several document of the same type. Indicate in the blank to "See Attached" and list the documents on this page, 1.5 The SLE signs and dates the Package and Close-out Cover sheet and submits them to the SVSR GLE and Deputy Project Director for approval.

- Persons Power Group Inc. -

P1- 134 Revision 3 501. DOC- January 21,1998 J

DOCUMENT ID: SCO. Page.Lgil MILLSTONE UNIT 2 SYSTEM CODE:

ICAVP SYSR SYSTEM:

SYSTEM REVIEW CLOSE-OUT ResponsMe Engmeer.

PART A SYSTEM CLOSE.OUT CHECKLIST Instructions: L Assemble the SYSR Tier I review package according to the acquence numter at the lettom of each form.

2. The System 1. cad Enginew will venfy that all attached fanns have teen completed and signed by the respective interfacing engineenng groups.

3. "the System ixed Engineer will close out the system review package by indicating the status of the attached forms, sign and date telow to indicate the SYSR Tier I review is completed.

4. The SYSR Team Leader will approve that the system review is completed and sign and date below.

5. The Deputy Project Director concurs that the system has teen adequately reviewed and indicates his approval by signing and dating telow.

The following attachments are made a part of this review package:

O Completed O NA SSBD. Form i System Scope and Boundary 0 Completed O NA LBCD. Form 2 Licensing Bases . Current (Revision u of the FSAR O Completed O NA RC SLB . Form 3 Syste'n Design input and Licensing Bases Checilist.

O Completed O NA RC CA. Form 4 System Corrective Action Checklist O Completed O NA SMSS . Form 5 System Modification Screen Summary 0 Completed O NA SMSL . Form 6 System Modification Summary Listing O Completed O NA RC MOD. Form 7 System Modification Review Checklist O Completed O NA RC PROC - Form 8 System Procedures Checklist O Completed _ O NA RC. TEST . _ Form 9 System Testing Checklist O Completed O NA RC-WALK . Form 10 System Walkdown Checklist PART H SYSTEM REVIEW COMPLETED REVISION 0 REVISION 1 REVISION 2 swain.ww swa.iw.to.u swa.ier.nu

1. Syster land Engineer

2. APT. Fal - - -

SYSR Lead Engineer Deputy Project Manager t

- Persons Power Group Inc. -

FORM: CO I-CO .1 Package Sequence No.1 Reviilon 2 FCO_COUT. DOC 9/23/97 i