Text

Rev 1 to Instruction QCI-12, Plant Performance & Mgt Improvement Program
	ML20204E581
Person / Time
Site:	Rancho Seco
Issue date:	07/17/1986
From:	; SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20204E578	List: ML20204E574; ML20204E581;
References
	QCI-12, TAC-61635, NUDOCS 8608010147
	Download: ML20204E581 (82)
	v • d • e

.

FOR INf0RMAll0N OIRYuomg:1 No.12, Rev.1 m.

July 11, 1966 RANCHO SECO QUALITY CONTROL INSTRUCTION APPROVAL-SHEET + e I7.. g7 uga....

REVISION NO. 1 APPROVED BY:

MANAGER, NUCLEAR ENGINEERING MiiW V MANAGER, NUCLEAR PLANT

/ '/' dd 4 -

'-/ - [(-

E ON

/ Y ~ ka MANAGER, QUALITY

//N 8[

MANAGER, LICENSING N

b

~f f

MANAGER, TRAINING

[

3 11

/

8[o

/

t -

Date

\\

MANAGER, PROJECTS f-h ', v 'd 1 -,v-f 6 AGM, NUCLEAR

/

7/)- $

Date REVISION NO. 2 APPROVED BY:

MANAGER, NUCLEAR ENGINEERING Date MANAGER, NUCLEAR PLANT Date f('

MANAGER, QUALITY Date MANAGER, LICENSING Date MANAGER, TRAINING Date MANAGER, PROJECTS Date AGM, NUCLEAR Date REVISION NO. 3 APPROVED BY:

I MANAGER, NUCLEAR ENGINEERING Date MANAGER, NUCLEAR PLANT Date MANAGER, QUALITY Date MANAGER, LICENSING Date MANAGER, TRAINING Date MANAGER, PROJECTS Date AGM, NUCLEAR O

Date 8608010147 860721 "1R INFORMAPON ONLY PDR ADOCK 05000312 P

PDR

-. =

/

QCI No. 12, Rev. 1 7 July 11, 1986

, FOR INFORMATION ON[ ',

i RANCHO SECO UNIT NO.1 QUALITY CONTROL INSTRUCTION (QCI)

TITLE:

PLANT PERFORMANCE AND MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM l

PP & MIP f

, e'

? <

1.0 PURPOSE j

To delineate a phased approach to' performance improvement and restart of Rancho Seco.

t

.~

2.0 SCOPE This procedure defines and controls the flow of the major steps in the PP & MIP program. These steps,are: -Investigation, Validation, Approval, Implementation and Clo'sure. Attachments to this procedure or other approved District Procedu' es will be used to control the r

individual activities within a particular step.

l

~

3.0 RESPONSIBILITIES The Performance Improvement Manager is responsible for and has the authority for the conduct of the Plant Performance and Management i

]

Improvement Program.

The Nuclear Department Manage'rs have the responsibility to provide the 1

resources necessary for the conduct of the Plant Performance and Management Improvement Program.

, / -

The Quality Department is responsible for providing surveillances for the overall process as outlined in this QCI.

t

4.0 REFERENCES

The following referenced documents are to be tilized and shall provide the basic requirements, direction, documentation, and controls for implementation of the recovery prograe?

a) 10CFR50, Appendix B b)

Quality Assurance Manual c)

Nuclear Engineering Procedures d)

Administrative Procedures l

e)

QCI-16, Recommendation Resolution Procedure 2-O FOR1NFORMAT'ON ONLY w

--..--.w-

,,,,-.--,,-c n-

.w,,,---,.-,--,,,

y

.----,y,,,v.--.s,

QCI No. 12, Rev. 1 O

FOR INf0RMAIl0N ONLY 5.0 DEFINITIONS Valid Recommendation - An evaluation that a proposed recommendation appears sound and resolution is required.

Valid Combined - A valid recommendation that is combined with one or more recommendations for reasons of redundancy.

Invalid Recommendation - A recommendation which does not appear sound and is not to be implemented.

Restart - Actions to be completed prior to restart or completion of the restart test program. This is a Priority 1 item.

Near Tera - Actions to be initiated as promptly as practicable, schedule developed, resources assigned and maintained until completed (it is the intent to initiate these actions as soon as priority one action completions make resources available). This is a Priority 2 item.

Long Tera - Actions to be programmed for the long term. This is a Priority 3 item.

Selected Projects - Projects selected by the Performance Improvement Manager on the basis of known problems or sensitivities in the plant.

O-Closed - The proper implementation of the recommendation has been completed and verified.

Justification - A written explanation which specifies the reasons for a determination of " invalid" for a recommendation.

6.0 INSTRUCTIONS The recovery program will be grouped into five (5) phases. These phases are as follows; see Figure No. 1:

a)

INVESTIGATION b)

VALIDATION c)

APPROVAL d)

IMPLEMENTATION e)

CLOSURE 6.1 INVESTIGATION PHASE 6.1.1 This phase shall consist of six (6) areas as shown on Figure No. 1. A procedure for each area is included in Attachments 1 through 6.

a)

SELECTED PROJECTS, ATTACHMENT 1 O

b)

PRECURSOR REVIEW, ATTACHMENT 2,

FOR INFORMAPON ONLY

QCI No. 12, Rev. 1 3" 7 11 -1986 FOR INFORMMION wu nU c)

PLANT STAFF INTERVIEW, ATTACHMENT 3 d)

DETERMINISTIC FAILURE CONSEQUENCES, ATTACHMENT 4 e)

BWOG STOP-TRIP PROGRAM, ATTACHMENT 5 f) 12-26-85 EVENT /NUREG 1195 ACTION LIST, ATTACHMENT 6 6.1.2 Each of the six areas will have an Input Group Leader (IGL).

The Input Group Leaders are responsible for maintaining schedule for their individual groups.

6.1.3 Input from the investigation phase shall be forwarded to the Recommendation, Review and Resolution Board (RRRB) for validation.

6.2 VALIDATION PHASE 6.2.1 The RRRB reviews the input from the Investigation Phase and enters them into the QCI-12 Tracking System data base.

6.2.2

'The log number assigned to each recommendation shall be a unique number catagorized by its input source. The categories are:

15.XXXX Section 15, 12/26/85 Transient Action List 16.XXXX NRC Region V Recommended Action List i

17.XXXX NUREG 0667 and B&W 18.XXXX NUREG 1195 19.XXXX Selected Projects 20.XXXX Precurser Review 21.XXXX Plant Staff Interviews 22.XXXX Deterministic Failure Consequences 23.XXXX BWOG Stop-Trip Program 24.XXXX RRRB Observations (These items are not recommendations but may lead to recommendations.)

25.XXXX Department Managers Recommendations 26.XXXX System Engineering Recommendations 6.2.3 The review made by the RRRB will determine whether the recommendation is VALID or INVALID, redundant to another recommendation and to determine the system which is affected by the recommendation.

6.2.4 shall be used to determine the validity of the recommendation.

6.2.5 If the recommendation does not apply to a specific system, it will be assigned to management to disposition and sent directly to the PAG.

O FOR INFORMAI'ON ONI.Y

QCI No. 12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 FOR IHf0RMAll0N ONLY dc 6.2.6 If the recommendation does apply to a specific system, the recommendation will be sent to the System Engineer.

6.2.7 The review made by the System Engineer will determine the priority of the recommendation and assign the dispositioning organization.

6.2.8 The recommended priority of the recommendation is determined by using the following criteria:

6.2.8.1 PRIORITY l - RESTART ACTIONS TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO RESTART OR COMPLETION OF THE RESTART TEST PROGRAM.

a)

Assure plant remains in post-trip window b)

Assure compliance with technical specifications c)

Minimize the need for operator action outside the control room within the first ten minutes of an event 6.2.8.2 PRIORITY 2 - NEAR TERM ACTIONS TO BE INITIATED AS PROMPTLY AS PRACTICABLE, p

SCHEDULE DEVELOPED, RESOURCES ASSIGNED AND MAINTAINED

\\]

UNTIL COMPLETED (IT IS THE INTENT TO INITIATE THESE ACTIONS AS SOON AS PRIORITY ONE ACTION COMPLETIONS MAKE RESOURCES AVAILABLE).

l a)

Enhance ability to remain in post-trip window b)

Reduce reactor trips c)

Reduce challenges to safety systems d)

Produce near-term programmatic benefits 6.2.8.3 PRIORITY 3 - LONG TERM ACTIONS TO BE PROGRAMMED FOR THE LONGER TERM a)

Improve reliability b)

Improve availability c)

Major programmatic enhancements.

6.2.9 Judgement shall be used when evaluating the criteria to determine the priority of a recommendation.

6.2.10 The System Engineer shall include the recommendation in the System Status Report as outlined in Attachment 11.

6.2.11 If the System Engineer disagrees with the recommendation, the discrepancy shall be noted, forwarded to the PAG for resolution and the RRRB informed of the discrepancy and resolution..

FOR INFORMATION ONLY

QCI No. 12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 O

FOR INFORMATION ONI.Y 6.2.12 After the System Engineering reviews the recommendation, the recommendation, as incorporated in the System Status Report, shall be transmitted directly to the PAG for approval.

6.2.13 Nuclear Department Manager recommendations may be submitted directly to the PAG for evaluation.

6.2.14 The Management Process Group (MPG) shall submit their recommendations to the PAG.

4 6.3 APPROVAL PHASE 6.3.1 The Performance Analysis Group (PAG) sha review the proposed System Status Report, as submitted by ystem Engineer, and the recommendation, as submitted by th 6.3.2 The PAG shall evaluate the recommendations for validity.

6.3.3 The PAG shall evaluate the recommended priority and assign a priority to the recommendation.

6.3.3.1' The priority shall be determined using the criteria outlined in Section 6.2.8.

6.3.3.2 Management judgement shall be used when evaluating the criteria to determine the priority of a recommendation.

6.3.3.3 The schedule for implementation of any recommendation may be accelerated as a matter of management perrogative of l

the affected nuclear manager. Schedule completion extensions of " Restart: and "Near Term" recommendations, once committed to, shall be approved by the PAG and Assistant General Manager, Nuclear.

6.3.4 The PAG shall assign the organization responsible to implement the recommendation. Recommendations included in a System Status Report will be implemented by the System Engineer.

6.3.5 The Performance Improvement Manager (PIM) shall sign and date the approved System Status Report and the QCI Tracking System sign-off reports.

6.3.6 The PAG shall notify the RRRB of the approved disposition and priority.

6.3.7 The PAG shall submit to the scheduling group a list of the approved recommendations and their dispositions.

6.3.8 All recommendations determined to be " invalid" shall be sent to V

Quality for closure.

6-FOR INFORMMION ONLY

QCI No. 12, Rev. 1 p

FOR INFORMAIl0N ONLY G

6.4 IMPLEMENTATION PHASE 6.4.1 Af ter the PAG has approved the recommendations, the recommendations and the System Status Report shall be transmitted to the System Engineer for implementation. If the recommendation is a management recommendation, it shall be sent to the appropriate manager to implement.

6.4.2 The System Engineer shall implement the recommendation as outlined in Attschment 11.

6.4.3 The System Engineer shall coordinate the implementation of the recommendation with Quality and Scheduling.

6.5 CLOSURE PHASE 6.5.1 When implementation of a recommendation is complete, including testing if appropriate, The recommendation and a closure document shall be forwarded to Quality with the System Status Report.

6.5.2 The closure document shall be a memo from the responsible department manager to the Quality Assurance Manager.

It shall indicate the date of completion with reference to work orders,

\\

ECNs, etc.

6.5.3 The closure document shall also include a copy of, or reference to the following items, where appropriate:

a)

Completed work order b)

Completed ECN cover sheet c)

Approved revised procedure 6.5.4 A copy of the closure memo shall be sent to the PIM.

l 6.5.5 For recommendations dispositioned as " invalid", Quality shall ensure adequate justification is attached to the recommendation.

6.5.6 Quality shall review the closure documents to ensure:

a)

The implementation is complete.

If it is determined to be incomplete, the recommendation shall be transmitted back to the System Engineer.

b)

The implementation is effective.

If it is determined to be ineffective, the recommendation shall be transmitted back to the PAG. FOR INFORMMl0N ONLY

QCI No. 12, Rev. 1 n

FOR INFORMMION ONI.Y v

6.5.7 The QA review process is outlined in Attachment 12 (being developed ).

6.5.8 When it is determined the recommendation is ready for closure, Quality Assurance shall sign and date the Recommendation and forward the closure documents to the PIM.

6.5.9 The PIM shall sign and date the Recommendation and forward the package for filing.

6.6 SYSTEM REVIEW AND TEST The system review process is outlined in Attachment 11.

6.7 DATA BASE 6.7.1 All recommendations shall be entered into a computerized data base. This data base shall contain proper information such that programmatic and system problems can be extracted from it..

6.8 MANAGEMENT PROCESS GROUP 6.8.1 The Management Process Group is outlined in Attachment 10.

O 6.9 MINOR CHANGES 6.9.1 Minor changes may be made to this procedure to incorporate items that do not alter the intent of this procedure.

6.9.2 The minor change shall be approved by the Performance Improvement Manager.

6.9.3 Revision numbers for minor changes shall be lower case letter following the permanent revision number being revised (i.e.,

Rev. Oa, Rev. Ob, Rev. la, Rev. Ib.).

6.9.4 When a permanent revision is made, all open minor changes shall be incorporated into the permanent change.

6.9.5 Minor changes shall be incorporated into a permanent revision within 90 days of the issue date of the minor change.

6.9.6 A maximum of 10 minor changes shall exist on a permanent revision.

6.9.7 The minor change shall have a pink cover-sheet which contains the procedure title, procedure number, a description of the change, page numbers affected, revision number, issue date, ar.d the approval sign-off block for the Performance Improvement Manager. (Figure 5).

FOR INF0T.MMION ota

QCI No. 12, Rev. 1 f

FOR INf0RMAll0N ONLY 3" 7 1986 6.9.8 When a minor changes is made, only the minor change need be issued to holders of the permanent copies of this procedure.

6.9.9 All minor changes shall be recorded in a log. This log shall include the minor revision number, issue date, a short description of the change and the revision number of the permanent revision in which it is incorporated.

(Figure 6)

O 1

1

)

_9_

O FOR INFORMATION ONLY

QCI NO 12, REV 1 JULY 11, 1986 Figure 1 FOR INf0RMAllVN UNLY PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM A

NA PRECURSOR REVIEW 12/26/86 EVENT & NUREG 1195 ACTION LIST l SELECTED PROJECTS l lBWOG STOP-TRIP PROGRAM l PLANT STAFF INTERVIEWS DETERMINISTIC FAILURE CONSEQUENCE v

RECOMMENDATIONS SYSTEM REVIEW & RESOLUTION BOARD NON-SYSTEM o

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ENGINEERING PROCESS GROUP SYSTEM STATUS REPORT INPUT FROM j

DEPT. MGRS.

b 1P FEED BACK IF NEEDED FEED BACK IF NEEDED PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS GROUP

SYSTEM l

l NON-SYSTEM INVALID SCHEDULING SCHEDULING IMPLEMENTING :

YSTEM RESPO SIBL

--* IMPLEMENTING r

GROUP ENGINEER QUALITY IMPLEMENTING +--

GROUP GROUP TEST REVIEW 1P 1P PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS GROUP ANALYSIS GROUP APPROVE SYSTEM STATUS REPORT i

l i

ACTION PLAN CLOGEOUT REPORT,__J TO RIM

INCLUDES AGM, NUCLEAR QUALITY /AGM CONCURRENCE FOR INFORMATION ONI.Y

QCI No. 12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 O

FOR INFORMAT10N ONLY n ute 2 a

RECOMMENDATION ROUTING FORM (Being Developed)

O

[

t

_11.

O FOR INFORiell0H ONLY

m O

AGM 3"i 4

NUCLEAR Z

~a" o

8"W x

U8 23 o

8W P

z o5 a

y 2

Manager

=

m Restart /

8 Site QA Implementation EE o"

Manager ocb I____________.,

-___p_

m I

I I

I l

Program Test Outage Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager Director Program Manager Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Director Progects Engineering Plant Licensing Training Test QCI-12

_ - - _ _ _ Indicates functional accountability Organization Organization for restart and improvement program responsibilities.

Outage Organization e

9 9

J i

QCI No. 12, Rev. 1 f

July 11, 1986 l

Figure 4 i

O' FOR INf0RMAll0N ONLY l

s ASSIGNED TO:

1 1

4 EVALUATION I

Closed

[]

RI

[]

RD

[]

DOCUMENTATION (List of pertinent attached documents and/or references to where documents are located used for closure.)

j i

I i

APPROVAL Quality Manager a

O ron intcanation onty

-13

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

QCI No.12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 O

g 1Rf0RMM10B ORl.Y "8"" 5 MINOR CHANGE I

Procedure:

QCI-No. 12 Rev. No:

Issue Date:

Title:

PLANT PERFORMANCE AND MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM i

Description of Change:

I f

f I

!O i

l f

i l

j Page Numbers effected:

i i

i I-Performance Improvement Manager:

Date:

10

-14

.i 1

FOR INFORMATION ONLY

._-_m l'

l QCI No.12, Rev.1 July 11, 1986

!O FOR INFORMAIl0N ONLY 4

l MINOR REVISIONS l

Minor Issue Permanent I,

Rev. No.

Date Description of Change Rev. No.

i a

1 i

4 4

[

1 i

i O i

1 F

i r

J FOR INf0RMAll0N ONLY 4

15

QCI No.12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 Attachment No. 1

(~')

FOR INFORMATION ONLY Pase 1 of 6 SELECTED PROJECTS 1.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this procedure is to address selected projects identified l

by the Performance Improvement Manager (PIM), as a result of input from Corporate Management, the Management Process Review group, Performance Analysis Group, or Independent Review Panel. The projects are selected on the basis of known problems or sensitivities in the plant. The project selection is intended to expedite recommendation implementation and not to replace the other review programs.

2.0 SCOPE This procedure applies to projects selected by the Performance l

Improvement Manager.

l l

3.0 RESPONSIBILITY l p The Performance Improvement Manager is responsible for selecting the projects to be performed under this procedure and for appointing project leaders. The project leaders are responsible for accomplishing the projects.

4.0 PROCEDURE The PIM shall select a project by initiating Project Work Scope sheet (Enclosure 1). The PIM sh.111 briefly describe the intended project scope and assign the dispositioning organization.

The project leader as assigned by the dispositioning organization, shall complete the work scope section of the Project Work Scope sheet. The project leader shall i

Identify the team members.

Describe the project work scope in sufficient detail that the types of reviews or other work to be performed can be clearly understood.

Provide an estimate of the resources required to complete the project.

Provide a schedule for completion of the project.

O FOR INf0RMAT!0N ONL'(

-16

i QCI No.12, Rev.1 July 11, 1986 Attachment No. 1 sj Page 2 of 6 FOR INf0RMAll0N ONLY The project leader shall submit the Project Work Scope sheet to the PIM for approval. PIM approval is required prior to starting actual project work.

Upon receipt of the approved Project Work Scope sheet, the project leader shall assemble the project team and commence work.

The following criteria are to be used in system reviews and each criterion should be specifically addressed in closure documents. These criteria do not preclude or supersede applicable IEEE criteria for systematic reviews, but rather are in addition to IEEE criteria. The objectives of the systems review include providing confidence that the system will perform its intended function by: identifying and correcting design and operation weaknesses; verifying that the system meets its design basis; pinpointing improperly operating or high maintenance components; and verifying configuration control.

Experience Review Maintenance history of system components should be reviewed to identify high failure rate components along with recommendations to N

fix problems.

Design Review Identify potential single failure, their consequences, and mitigating recommendations.

Identifying the consequence of system failure versus these three questions:

Will failure cause a trip?

Will failure challenge safety systems?

Will failure cause transient "outside the box"?

Operations Review Modes of system operation should be identified (e.g. one of the eight operation modes of the Decay Heat Removal System is to cool spent fuel).

Review Operations, Test, Casualty and Maintenance procedures and propose changes, including reasons for proposed changes.

O FOR INFORMAIl0N ON!.Y

-17 i

QCI No.12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986

[]

Attachment No. 1

(,s Page 3 of 6 4

FOR INFORMMl0N ONLY Physical Review Identify all " broken" components and/or those components that need to be fixed and why.

Include recommendations.

Prepare a walkdown procedure that identifies the purpose (s);

responsibilities; scope and specific procedural steps to conduct i

the walkdown, along with actions that should be taken if discrepancies are found.

Should the project work scope change af ter initiation of the project, a revised Project Work Scope sheet shall be submitted for PIM approval.

The project leader shall record recommendations developed during the reviews on the Recommendation Resolution Sheet of QCI-12 and forward them to the Recommendation Review and Resolution Board for processing.

The project leader shall document the project. The report shall O

follow the format shown on Enclosure 2 to this procedure. The

\\./

approved Project Work Scope sheet shall be included as the first i

i Page of the report.

The project team members shall sign the report cover sheet and forward it to the PIM for approval.

' is a flow chart of this procedure.

-18

= - _ _.

s QCI No.12, Rev.1 July 11, 1986 lO f0R NORMMION ONLY

^!!!Tlh"'*

i i

PROJECT WORK SCOPE i

PROJECT:

1 s

SCOPE:

ASSIGNED TO:

3 i,

i ASSIGNED BY:

Performance Improvement Manager Date

{

WORK SCOPE:

k I

l I

SUBMITTED BY:

j Project Leader Date f

APPROVED BY:

Performance Improvement Manager Date llO FOR INFORMM!0N ONLY l

l

-19

l a

QCI No.12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 O

Page 5 of 6 TOR IMf0RMAll0N ONI.Y ENGINEERING REPORT ON REVIEW 0F (SYSTEM / COMPONENT / ISSUE)

PURPOSE:

(Describe the purpose of the selected project review, including the problems or issues.)

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS:

(Brief description of review results.)

t t

METHODOLOGY:

(Describe the methodology used for the review, including documents reviewed.)

RECOMMENDATIONS:

(List the recommendations developed during the review.)

l F R INFORMATION ONI.Y O

-20 l

/

QCI No.12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 O

FOR INFORMA110N ONLY E"*Io'un '

SELECTED PROJECTS PIM SELECTS PROJECT 4

& ASSIGNS DISPOSITION-ING 0RGANIZATION 1

1P COMPLETES PWS

& SUBMITS TO PIM t

IP PIM APPROVES PWS O

~

1P i

PL ASSEMBLES TEAM IF PROJECT AND INITIATES SCOPE CHANGES PROJECT WORK i

IP PL SUBMITS RECOMMENDATION (S) AND i

PROPOSED DISPOSITION-ING TO RRRB 1P i

RRRB ACTION PER QCI-12 t

4

-21

t i

1 QCI No.12, Rev. 1 10R INFORMAll0N ONLY Page 1 of 9 i

PRECURSOR REVIEW i

i 1.0 PURPOSE I

The purpose of this procedure is to establish a defined process for a systematic review of documents directly associated with the plant operations history and of other documents that had or could have had an impact on that history.

3 The intent of the systematic review is to determine if any unidentified i-precursors conditions exist at Rancho Seco that are capable of causing needless reactor trips, unsatisfactory post-trip response or will induce i

challenges to safety systems. " Unidentified precursor conditions" are conditions associated with an event or circumstance that occurred at I

Rancho Seco or elsewhere, and that caused or could have caused an I

adverse safety situation to develop, and for which apropriate preventive measures should be taken to protect against the occurrence of that or a similar event or circumstance at Rancho Seco in the future. An example is the loss of NNI at Crystal River. The intent is also to identify unique and recurring problems at any other Babcock 6.Wilcox plant and to i

determine whether any of these problems might be applicable to Rancho j

Seco. It is likewise the intent to review previous Rancho Seco O

responses to the selected documents to examine whether those responses j

were appropriately broad in perspective. The review will then highlight those problems, list mitigating / corrective recommendations, and present those recommendations to the Recommendations, Review and Resolution i

l Board (RRRB).

I 2.0 SCOPE i

The process shall involve the review of applicable documents dated from August 1974 (date of Rancho Seco Operating License) through 1985.

3.0 RESPONSIBILITIES Responsibility for the document review rests with the Precursor Responsible Engineer (PRE). The PRE shall establish Precursor Review Team (s) (PRT) and assign a Precursor Team Leader (PTL). The PRE shall be approved by and is responsible to the Performance Analysis Group i

(PAG).

The PTLs provide their experience and assistance to ensure completeness of reviews, to tabulate relevant information, to cross-check with other PRTs, and to prepare the coapleted recommendation (s) (see Enclosure 3).

j

~

lO FOR INFORMM!0H otny l

-22

QCI No.12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 Q

t "i Page 2 of 9 FOR INFORMATION ONLY 4.0 PROCEDURE 4.1 Structure Each Precursor Review Team should include engineer representatives as outlined in Enclosure 1.

The PRE is responsible for approving PTL personnel nominations. The PRE and PTLs approve team members.

4.2 Budget and Plan The PRE shall assess the resources required to complete the tasks as prescribed herein and shall present the PAG with a plan that identifies the human and other resources required to execute the tasks and the approximate time required to complete assigned tasks. The PAG shall review the plan for completeness and for approach and shall, after the completion of any revision it deems necessary, direct the process to proceed. The PAG shall ensure that resources are available for the approved plan.

4.3 Documents to be Reviewed The following documents from Rancho Seco's operating history should be reviewed:

(1) License Event Report and Occurrence Discription Report (LER/0DR)

(2) Transient Analysis Program (TAP)

(3) Rancho Seco Reactor and Turbine Trip Reports t

(4) Root Cause Analyses for Rancho Seco Events (5) Operational Assessments for Rancho Seco The following documents from other sources should be reviewed:

(1) Babcock & Wilcox Reports (BAW)

(2) Non-Rancho Seco Transient Analysis Program (TAP)

(3) Significant Operating Experience Report (SOER) issued by INP0 l

(4) Bulletins issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement (5) Notices / Circulars issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement FOR IHFORM!I0li ONLY

-23 i

QCI No.12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 (y

FOR lt!FORMMION ONLY

^ "**h**"t N. 2 7

Page 3 of 9 (6) Preliminary Safety concerns (PSC) issued by Babcock and Wilcox 4.4 Preparation for Review Preparation for the review process must include gathering and indexing of all specified documentation. This information will be the source for data review, applicability to Rancho Seco, analysis,

and tabulation of recommendations.

Following preparati'>n, the PRE will distribute the review material (s) equitably to PRTs via the PTLs.

4.5 Review Procedure Step 1 Using the Precursor Review Checklist (Enclosure 2), screen the issues identified by the review and analysis from source documents to identify issues which may cause incidents at Rancho Seco according to the following criteria:

(1) Would it cause a plant trip (reactor or turbine) or require a O

power reduction (manual or automatic)?

v NOTE: The power reduction must be in response to the problem I

and not a procedural reduction required by Technical Specifications.

(2) Would it cause the plant to leave the normal post-trip response window?

(3) Would it challenge the safety systems?

(4) Is clear and complete procedural guidance given?

(5) Was the previous response by Rancho Seco appropriate to the issue?

(6) Is immediate (less than 10 minutes) operator action outside the Control Room required to control the plant in the post-trip window?

If the answer to 4 or 5 of the above is no, or if the answer to 6 is yes, the item shall be developed as a recommendation. Go to Step 2.

O FOR INFORMM!0H CHLY

- 24

F i

QCI No.12, Rev. 1-July 11, 1986 Attachment No. 2 O

~FOR INFORMATION ONLY Page 4 of 9 I

)

If screening determines that no recommendations are required, the PTL shall sign the checklist and forward it to the PRE. Go to Step 3 (1).

4 j

Step 2 t

i The following procedure shall be used to develop recommendations.

j Each issue shall be identified on a separate report form (see ) which includes the following:

i

)

(1)

Description:

Briefly describe the issue in sufficient detail such that an independent reviewer (e.g. the RRRB) will i

understand it.

Specifically include the following:

i j

(a) System or procedure affected, s

(b) Why it was determined that procedural guidance or the j

previous Rancho Seco response (s) is/are not appropriate.

I (c) Sources: List all sources used to identify the issus.

I This will permit review of original material if necessary.

(2) Consequences: Specify the effect on component / system / plant if left uncorrected.

j (3) Racommendation(s): If the cause and the solution are known, provide recommendation (s) for the corrective actions and an estimate of resources required to do so, if possible.

If not known, recommend the activities needed to define the solution.

i (4) PRT completes the recommendation and forwards to the PRE.

Attaches relevant support documentation to the recommendation, I

l including the Precursor Review Checklist. Go to Step 3.

1 l

Step 3 The PRE is responsible for administrative control of the review.

i Accordingly, the PRE shall:

)

(1) Establish and maintain a master log and file of all Precursor

^

Review Checklists, including those for which no l

recommendations are required.

I i

lO FOR INFORMAT!0N ONLY i

-25 i

I

QCI No.12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 Attachment No. 2 Page 5 of 9 FOR INFORMA110N ONI.Y (2) Establish and maintain a master log of all recommendations.

(3) Screen recommendations to eliminate redundancies.

(4) Forward recommendations to the RRRB.

(5) Return a copy of recommendation (s) judged to be invalid by the RRRB to originator (s).

(6) Retain all original documents in a file.

(7) Forward the master logs and all files to the PAG upon completion of all work. is a flow chart of this procedure.

i ATTACliMENTS:

1.

Precursor Review Organization Chart 2.

Precursor Review Checklist 3.

Precursor Review Recommendation 4.

Precursor Review Flow Chart i

i i

-26

O O

O l

4

'r I

i j

RANCHO SECO NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION PRECURSOR REVIEW ORGANIZATION CHART I

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS j

GROUP (PAG) l l

PRECURSOR RESPONSIBLE j

ENGINEER (PRE) mo i

i LICENSING E

l I

o j

m W

~

3:

D l

PRECURSOR REVIEN TEAM PRECURSOR REVIEW TEAM PRECURSOR REVIEN TEAM PRECURSOR REVIEW TEAM 6

(PRT)

(PRT) l o

o 1

m z

g Q

~"o TEAM STRUCTURE w

Z<

=2 RECURSOR 9

TEAM PRT

~

DEPARTMENT EBE LEADERS MEMBERS i

oh Nuclear Operations 1

2 3

[Nkh Nuclear Engineering 2

4 mgg*g Quality Department 4

y mg grg l

Licensing Department 1

Qg*

o~~

t 2

P

g' f

1

~

l i

QCI No.12, Re v. 1 July 11, 1986 1

r FOR INFORMATION ONI.Y Page 7 of 9 Checklist Log No.

Recommendation No.

I PRECURSOR REVIEW CHECKLIST i

Source Document:

, Dated Issued By:

Issue:

I 1

YES NO i

1.

Would it cause a plant trip or require a power l

reduction?

2.

Would it cause the plant to leave the normal post-trip response window?

3.

Would it challenge the safety systems?

l 4.

Is appropriate procedural guidance given?

5.

Was the previous response by Rancho Seco appropriate to the issue?

6.

Is immediate (less than 10 minutes) operator action outside the control room required to control the plant in the post-trip window?

4 A check requires preparation of a recommendation.

4 SUBMITTED:

j Precursor Review Team Leader Date APPROVED:

{

Precursor Responsible Engineer Date This document has been reviewed and it is the opinion of the Precursor Review Team that no recommendations are required.

SUBMITTED:

Precursor Review Team Leader Date APPROVED:

L Precursor Responsible Engineer

, Date

~28 FOR INFORMMION 0!RY

i QCI No.12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 i

FOR INf0RMAll0N ONI.Y Enciosure 3 s

Page 8 of 9 PRECURSOR REVIEW RECOMMENDATION t

1 RECOMMENDATION:

RECOMMENDATION NUMBER:

4 i

t i

i l

DESCRIPTION:

i

' O 4

CONSEQUENCE:

j l

SUBMITTED BY:

REVIEWED BY i

Precursor Review Team Leader (Date)

Precursor Responsible Engineer (Da te )

i i

4 I

-29 l

FOR INf0RMAll0N ONI.Y 1

..n -~~.--

.n _

.n_,-.

n,.n

-,,,,,__.,,_,,,,,,n..,---,__,,,_~

t

?

C/I No.12, Rev. 1 fm

'Jufy 11, 1986 I

'IOR 1Rf0$fJlM OMW

^t'*ch=*nt 2

~

ease 9 or 9 l

-l PRECURSOR REVIEW

/

..r qp GATHER & INDEX SPECIFIED INFORMATION,

ir PRE-DISTRIBUTES' WORKLJAD TO PILs j-PRT SCREENS ISSUES AND PREPARES CHECKLIST ir-PRT PREPARES

].

RECOMMENDTION

\\

-ir PRT FORWARDS RECCMMENDATION TO PRE 4

1, PRE ENTERS ON MASTER LOG ir SCREEN FOR REDUNDANCY l

ir i

PRE FORWARDS RECOMMENDATION

{

TO RRRB ir FORWARD ALL LOGS AND FILES TO PAG Wi!EN COMPLETE i

i t!Q l

FOR INf0RMM10ti OllLY l

30 i

QCI No.12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 O'

10R INf0RMAll0N ONLY Page 1 of 6 Attachment No. 3 PLANT STAFF INTERVIEW 1.0 Purpose j

~

The interview process shall identify any previously unidentified, but "known" problems which may impact the safe or reliable operation of systems or components of the plant. This procedure is to provide guidelines for the interview process.

2.0 Scope Interviews will be conducted with, among others, plant operators, 1

operations tech support engineers, plant engineers and technicians, l

training instructors, design engineers and quality department personnel. These personnel will be encouraged to identify system, component, or operational related problems, or concerns which they are aware of and any recommendations to resolve them.

It is intended to interview personnel from each plant organizational group. Volunteers will be requested. All volunteers will be interviewed.

If insufficient personnel volunteer, the interview program coordinator will perform a random selection of intervicvaes.

h v

The minimum number of personnnel to be interviewed are derived from QAIP

)

3, which is based on MIL-STD-105D. Other interviewees may be added at the discretion of the Interview Program Coordinator (Enclosure 1).

3.0 Responsibilities The responsibility for the conduct and documentation of the interviews l

rests with the Interview Program Coordinator. The interview teams are responsible for conducting and documenting the interviews. The Interview Program Coordinator is responsible for compiling the results of the interviews. The Interview Program Coordinator shall ensure that interviews are thorough and are completed in a timely mduner. The Interview Program Coordinator is responsible to the Performance Analysis l

Group for the conduct of this program.

Initially four interview teams will be utilized consisting of human factors engineers and other knowledgeable plant representatives. These interviewers will be responsible for conducting the interviews and compiling the data. The interviewers are accountable to the Interview Program Coordinator for tabulation of interview recommendations.

I Interviewers can be added or deleted as deemed necessary by the Interview Program Coordinator, O

FOR INFORMADON ONLY

QCI No.12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 O

igg NORMM10R OW C'e"l"*"e*b 1

4.0 Procedure The number of interviews that will be required to ensure adequate coverage are listed in Enclosure 1.

These are the minimum number required, but if the interviewers, with concurrence of the Interview Project Coordinator, determines more interviews are desirable, they may conduct them.

The interviews may be conducted with group of personnel to provide a synergistic approach, or on an individual basis, or a combination of both. The approach used will be determined by the interviewers with concurrence of the Interview Program Coordinator.

The interview will be accomplished by requesting the area supervisor to provide the name(s) of personnel that have volunteered to be interviewed.

If insufficient personnel volunteer to meet the requirements of Enclosure 1, the Interview Program Coordinator shall select additional personnel to be interviewed.

All nuclear managers and their superintendents shall also be approached for interviews.

All concerns, problems or recommendations identified during the interview shall be recorded on the Personnel Interview Form, Enclosure 2.

A copy of the questionnaire used for the interviews is included in the program plan.

All concerns, problems and their respective recommendations (if any) from the Personnel Interview Form will be compiled into one list by the interview team. Redundant concerns, problems or recommenations will be consolidated into one statement to reduce the number of concerns.

If redundant concerns are consolidated, the total number of people with that concern will be noted by placing that number in parenthesis at the end of the consolidated concern.

The compiled list of concerns / recommendations will be forwarded to the Recommendation, Review and Resolution Board for Processing. The Interview Program Coordinator shall be considered the initiator on the Recommendation / Resolution forms.

O' FOR INFORMU:Cil DNLy

-32

QCI No.12, Rev. 1 July 11,1986 l

FOR lHf0RW10H OtU After the concerns / recommendations have been dispositioned, it will be the responsibility of the Interview Program Coordinator to inform the interviewees of the disposition of their concerns. For group interviews, everyone in the group should be notified.

5.0 Budaet and Plan The Interview Program Coordinator assesses the resources required to complete the tasks as prescribed and shall present the Performance Analysis Group with a plan that identifies the human and other resources i

required to execute the tasks and the approximate time required to complete all tasks. The PAG shall review the plan for completeness and for approach and shall direct approval to proceed or revisions. The PAG shall ensure that resources are available for the approved plan.

6.0 Interview Guidelines i

The interviewers shall ensure that interviews specifically address the following plant systems / areas: Reactor Coolant System, Reactor Auxiliary Systems, Secondary Systems, Plant Support Systems, and Instrumentation and Control Systems and electrical distribution, as they O

apply to the interviewee's experience and knowledge.

The purpose of the interview should be kept obvious during the interview:

the identification of potential or known problems within systems, components, or operational guidance that could impact reliable plant operation. Remember that the main point of the interview is to learn what others believe may be potential or actual problems. The interview team must stimulate the interviewee into describing total experiences.

The interviewers shall develop a questionnaire based upon the background of the interviewee. This questionnaire shall be used during the interview to help the interviewee recall previous problems or concerns they or others have had.

FOR INFORMM:0N ONLY

-33

QCI No.12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 O

FOR INFORMMION ONLY EcO*"'1 3

Page 4 of 6 MINIMUM NUMBER OF PERSONNEL TO BE INTERVIEWED Plant Operators Shift Supervisors - 3 Senior Control Room Operators - 3 Reactor Operators - 5 Auxiliary Operators - 5 Equipment Attendants and Power Plant Helpers - 8 Operations Tech Support Tech Support Engineers - 5 Shift Technical Advisors - 2 O

Scheduling - 2 Plant Maintenance I&C Technicians - 5 I&C Engineering - 2 Computer Technicians - 3 Electrical Maintenance - 8 Electrical Engineering - 3 Electrical Techs - 3 Mechanical Maintenance - 8 Mechanical Engineers - 3 SMUD Security - 4 O

FOR INFORMAll0N ONLY

QCI No.12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 f

FOR INFORMAll0H ONI.YAttachment 3

\\

Page 5 of 6 MINIMUM NUMBER OF PERSONNEL TO BE INTERVIEWED NPS - 20 Licensing - 4 Training Instructors Operations Training - 5 Maintenance Training - 3 General Employee Training - 2 Nuclear Engineering Electrical - 8 I&C - 8 i

Mechanical - 8

]

4 Civil - 2 Project Engineering - 3 Quality Department QA Inspectors - 3 QC Inspectors - 3 QE Inspectors - 2 Corporate QA - 1 Rad Protection Senior Chem-Rad Assistant - 2 HP Tech - 5 Chemistry Senior Chem-Rad Assistant - 1 Chem-HP Tech - 5 O

10Rm?0Risp0%OW

-3s

QCI No.12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 FOR INFORMAll0N ONLY Page 6 of 6 PERSONNEL INTERVIEW FORM No.

l ITEM DESCRIPTION System Designation PLANT SAFETY / RELIABILITY - PROBLEM /CCNCERN/ CONSEQUENCES O

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS:

(Brief description of results of the review.)

METHOD 01DGY:

(Describe the methodology and references used during the review.)

O RECOMMENDATIONS:

(List the recommendations developed during the review.)

1 ANALYSIS:

(Enclose the actual work sheets and " yellow lined" drawings from the review.)

t O

roa inroanuion ona

-45

QCI No.12, Rev. 1 July 11,1986

["s T

ATTACHMENT No. 4 IOR IHf0RMM10H ONLY Page 10 of 11 LOSS OF ELECTRICAL POWER PE SUBMIT PLAN TO PAG FOR APPROVAL 1r PAG APPROVE PLAN 1r TEAMS PERFORM 480V BUS REVIEWS l

1P COMBINE TEAMS TO PERFORM 4160V BUS REVIEW 1,

COMBINE TEAMS TO PERFORM IDSS OF TRANSFORMER REVIEW 1P COMBINE TEAMS TO PERFORM LOSS OF 0FFSITE POWER REVIEW 1P SUBMIT RECOMMENDATIONS TO RRRB 1r SUBMIT REPORT TO PIM TRANSMIT REPORT TO NEDC

!0

-46 FOR INFORMAIl0N ONLY

QCI No.12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986

)

O Attachment No. 4 Page 11 of 11 FOR INFORMAll0N ONI.Y LOSS OF INSTRUMENT AIR LOSS OF ICS/NNI PE SUBMIT PLAN TO MGT FOR APPROVAL i

1P MGI APPROVE PLAN 1P TEAMS PERFORM REVIEWS O

iP SUBMIT RECOMMENDATIONS TO RRRB l

ir SUBMIT REPORT

~

TO PIM 1P SUBMIT REPORT TO NEDC i

i O

FOR INFORMATION ONLY

-47

QCI No.12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 o

FOR INFORMATION ONLY Attachnent No. S Q

Page 1 of 2 B&WOG STOP-TRIP PROGRAM 1.0 PURPOSE This document describes the interface between the B&W Owners' Group (B&WOG) Stop-Trip Program and the Rancho Seco Performance Improvement Program (PIP). The District intends to fully participate in the B&WOG Stop-Trip Program. The results of the B&WOG Program are not startup res traints. The Rancho Seco PIP is expected to determine Rancho Seco specific items. Participation in the B&WOG Program will ensure a broad perspective is taken with respect to plant improvement as well as allow the other B&W Owners to benefit from the Rancho Seco PIP.

2.0 SCOPE This procedure applies to all interface between the B&WOG Stop-Trip Program and the District.

3.0 RESPONSIBILITY The SMUD Stop-Trip Program Coordinator (STPC) is responsible for providing the interface between the District and the B&W Stop-Trip

/N Program.

(--

4.0 PROCEDURE The STPC shall provide the B&WOG Stop-Trip Program with the results of the Rancho Seco PIP as they become available. This will be in the form of dispositioned recommendations.

The STPC shall review the recommendations of the B&WOG Stop-Trip Program and compare them to the recommendations of the PIP. Recommendations l

that are not in the PIP shall be submitted to the Recommendation Review and Resolution Board (RRRB) on a Recommendation Resolution sheet per QCI-12.

The District's status on the B&WOG Stop-Trip Program recommendations shall be reported to the Performance Analysis Group (PAG) and the B&WOG

(

on a regular basis.

Should the RRRB and the PAG have ' terminated their activities prior to receipt of the B&WOG Stop-Trip Program recommendations, the STPC shall enter any unresolved recommendations into the commitment tracking system and report status to the Manager, Nuclear Licensing. is a flow chart of this procedure.

i I

t FOR INFORMATION OHlY

-48

QCI No.12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 i/

FOR INFORMATION ONLY ease 2 or 2 B&WOG STOP-TRIP PROGRAM STPC REVIEW RANCHO SECO DISPOSITIONED RECOMMENDATIONS ir SUBMIT APPROPRIATE RECOMMENDATIONS l

TO B&WOG ir STPC REVIEW B&WOG STOP-TRIP RECOMMENDATIONS i

IP SUBMIT THOSE l

RECOMMENDATIONS NOT ADDRESSED BY l

RANCHO SECO TO THE RRRB W

PROVIDE STATUS TO PAG & B&WOG l

l O FOR INFORMAT'ON C.1Y d

-49 l

QCI No.12, Rev. 1 July 11,1986 O

FOR INf0RMA110N ONLY g*, cia *at" t4 12/26/85 EVENT /NUREG 1195 ACTION LIST 1.0 PURPC3E The purpose of this procedure is to incorporate the items identified on the 12/26/85 Event Action List into the Rancho Seco Plant's Performance and Management Improvement Program (PPMIP).

2.0 SCOPE 1

All the items on the 12/26/85 Event Action List are addressed by this procedure.

3.0 RESPONSIBILITY The Action List Coordinator (ALC) is accountable to the Performance Analysis Group (PAG) for coordination and tracking of the Action List items.

G

/.Q The Action List Response Team is accountable to the Performance Improvement Manager for interface with the NRC Region V.

4.0 PROCEDURE The 12/26/85 Event Action Item List is divided into 18 sections:

1-14 Event Related Action Items 15 Event Related Recommendations 16 NRC Region V Action Items 17 NUREG 0667 and BAW 1564 Recommendations 18 NUREG 1195 Issues l

i nU FOR INFORMAll0N ONLY

-50 m

-s--,-----,,,e n

-n n--,--

r--,

QCI No.12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 O

YOR INFORMA110N ONI.Y gt^ chm 6

4.1 Event Related Action Items (Sections 1-14)

The AIC shall assign a responsible individual for each action item. The responsible individual shall provide a Closure Report (Enclosure 1) to the ALC. The AIE shall review and sign the Closure Reports and forward them to the PAG for approval.

4.2 Event Related Recommendations (Section 15)

The AIE shall input recommendations from the approved Closure Reports generated by Sections 1-14 and 16 of the Action Item List to the Recommendation Review and Resolution Board (RRRB) using the Recommendation / Resolution Sheet of QCI-12.

The AIf shall also input existing recommendations from Section 15 of the Action Item List to the RRRB using the Recommendation Resolution Sheet.

4.3 NRC Region V Action Items (Section 16)

The ALC shall assign a responsible individual for each Section 16 action item. Where the action items are not addressed in Sections 1-14, the responsible individual shall provide a Closure Report to the ALC. The AIC shall review and sign the Closure Reports and forward them to the PAG for approval.

4.4 NUREG 0667 and BAW 1564 Recommendations (Section 17)

The AIf shall input the NUREG 0667 and BAW 1564 recommendations to the RRRB using the Recommendation / Resolution Sheet.

4.5 NUREG 1195 Issues (Section 18)

The ALC shall assemble a list of comments by the District staff of NUREG 1195. The AIC shall identify those comments which are recommendations and input them to the RRRB using the Recommendation / Resolution Sheet. The AIE shall compile a list of those comments which are corrections to NUREG 1195 and forward it to the PAG for action. is a flow chart of this procedure.

O l

FOR INFORMAT!0N ONLY

-51

QCI No.12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 O

FOR INFORMAll0N ONLY l'n**o o% i ACTION ITEM CLOSURE REPORT ACTION LIST ITEM NUMBER ACTION LIST DESCRIPTION RESPONSIBILITY OF PREPARED BY DATE A.

DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE / CONCERN:

B.

INVESTIGATIONS DONE:

C.

CONCLUSIONS / EXPLANATION (should include Root Cause):

O D.

SHORT-TERM FOLLOWUP REQUIRED / RECOMMENDATIONS:

E.

LONG-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS:

F.

PROGRAMMATIC IMPLICATIONS:

REVIEWED AND ACCEFIED DATE Action List Coordinator - SMUD APPROVED DATE Performance Improvement Manager l

O FOR INFORMAUON ONLY

-52

QCI No.12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 ATTACMfENT 6 CJ')

FOR INFORMAT10H ONLY Page 4 of 4 DECEMBER 26, 1985 EVENT ACTION LIST ASSIGN RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL (SECTIONS 1-14 & 16)

RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL SUBMIT CLOSURE REPORT ir ALC REVIEW CLOSURE REPORT 1P PAG APPROVE O

CLOSURE REPORT

& DISTRIBUTE sr AIE COMPILE DISTRICT COMMENTS ON NUREG 1195 (SECTION 18) 1P SUBMIT RECOMMENDATIONS TO RRRB (INCLUDING SECTION 15) 1P SUBMIT OTHER COMMENTS TO PAG FOR ACTION i

O FOR INFORMAT'ON ONLY

-53

~

l QCI No.12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 d

10R INFORMATION ONLY ha1d 8*-

inva11d Date Rev.

RRRB GUIDELINES (ATTACH TO RECOMMENDATION / RESOLUTION)

TEST QUESTIONS TO DETERMINE THE RECOMMENDATION IS VALID OR INVALID FOR RRRB'S USE ONLY YES NO LOG #

Is the recommendation redundant to any recommendation?

YES 1.

Could the recommendation prevent plant trip?

2.

Will the recommendation increase the reliability, control and performance of the systems required for power generation?

3.

Will the recommendation improve procedures of hardware affect _ing the quality of plant communication?

4.

'Does the recommendation correct a design weakness?

S 5.

Could the recommendation prevent a threat to occupational and public health and safety?

S 6.

Could the recommendation prevent challenges to safety systems?

l 7.

Could the recommendation improve the performance of systems required for mitigation of accident and/or safe shutdown?

S 8.

Does the recommendation make the potential transients less severe?

S 9.

Could the recommendation reduce the frequency of expected operational occurrences discussed in USAR Table 4.1 - 3 and 10CVR Appendix A?

S 10.

Does the recommendation require a change in j

the Licensing Basis Documents (i.e., US AR, l

Tech. Spec., FHAR, etc. )?

l S

11.

Does the recommendation strengthen radiological control program?

FOR INf0RMAI',0N ONLY

-54

QCI No.12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986

['

\\

RRRB Guidelines FOR INFORMAll0N ONLY Page 2 YES S

12.

Does the recommendation strengthen Emergency Preparedness Program?

S 13.

Does the recommendation improve the plant maintenance program?

S 14.

Does thee recommendation improve the plant maintenance program?

15.

Does the recommendation improve operator training?

16.

Does the recommendation improve other training?

17.

Does the recommendation improve plant operating procedures?

S 18.

Does the recommendation replace or reduce operator action during transient conditions?

19.

Does the recommendation improve man / machine interface?

S 20.

Does the recommendation eliminate any operator action inside the control room during the first 10 minutes of an accident?

S 21.

Does the recommendation reduce required operator actions outside the control room?

l S

22.

Does the recommendation reduce challanges to the operator?

S 23.

Does the recommendation reduce the possibilities of operator errors?

NOTES:

1.

One or more "yes's" in response to the above test questions on a given recommendation means the recommendation is valid unless justified otherwise.

2.

One or more "yes 's" with "S" in response to the above test question on a given recommendation means the recommendation is a potential candidate for prestart completion.

FOR INFORMA110N ONLY l

-55 l

QCI No.12, Rev. 1 O

FOR INFORMATION ONLY M'chhntlo'.8 Page 1 of 3 CHARTER FOR RECOMMENDATIONS REVIEW & RESOLUTION BOARD I.

AUTHORITY The Recommendation, Review and Resolution Board (RRRB) is formed under the authority of Assistant General Manager's, Nuclear Directive ND-86-5-A.

The RRRB will process recommendations and obtain proposed disposition for the Rancho Seco Plant Performance and Management Inprovement Program.

II.

PURPOSE The purpose for the RRRB is to review, resolve and review team initiated recommendations and proposed dispositions. The recommendations and proposed dispositions will come from the systematic reviews of Rancho Seco documentation, systems, and operations. The dispositions will come from assigned dispositioning organizations.

III. SCOPE 1)

The recommendations shall be reviewed as directed by Section 6.2 of O

this QCI No. 12.

2)

The RRRB shall have the authority to " add to" or " delete from" the l

team recommendation. All changes must be documented.

IV.

MEMBERSHIP 1)

The RRRB membership shall be composed of a multi-disciplined group which will.eview each recommendation and the disposition associated with the recommendation.

2)

The RRRB membership will be as follows:

REPRESENTING MEMBER ALTERNATE Quality (Chairman)

J. Jewett M. Ehlinger Nuclear Engineering P. Bosakowski Nuclear Operations R. Iawrence Licensing J. Delezenski R. Little l

Training M. Ehlinger K. Molley Licensed Operator M. Hieronimus D. Tipton Bechtel B. Aley Other Utility N. Pope Babcock & Wilcox R. Kennedy O.

FOR INFORMAll0N ONLY

QCI No.12, Rev. 1 July 11 1986 (3

FOR INf0RMAll0N ONLY ittachment no. 8 L/

Page 2 of 3 IV.

MEMBERSHIP (Continued) 3)

The Chairman and Alternate Chairman will be appointed by the Performance Improvement Manager.

4)

A quorum shall consist of the chairman or alternate chairman and at least three members or alternate members.

V.

MEETING FREQUENCY The chairman or alternate chairman shall call the meeting at such a frequency to ensure that all recommendations are processed expediently.

VI.

PROCESS 1)

The recommendation will be logged in.

The log numbers will be assigned in numerical order as received or a set of recommendations may be consolidated into a single log number.

Example:

20-001 20-002 20-003 etc., for Precursor Review A file will be established for each series of logged recommendations.

2)

The review shall determine if the recommendation is invalid or valid.

a)

If invalid, a written explanation will be made and added to recommendation.

3)

The RRRB Chairman will recommend a Disposition Organization and determine which system is affected by the recommendation.

4)

The RRRB may make observations that are descriptions of problems observed during the review of recommendations. The observations may be turned into recommendations by the RRRB.

5)

The approved, recommendation will be forwarded to the System Engineer to assign a priority and an organization for action and approval.

6)

If the RRRB determines a recommendation needs to be revised, the revised recommendation will be assigned the same number as the original recommendation with a "

_no" following the number (i.e.,

15.0001-1).

7)

The revised recommendation shall be processed as if it is a new recommendation.

FOR INFORMMG W

QCI No.12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 Attacbeent 8 Page 3 of 3 FOR INFORMATION ONLY FLOW CHART FOR REOMMENDATION, REVIEW AND RESOLUTION BOARD I

Input Entered on Recommendation i

ir Review Invalid By RRRB Valid 1r Recommend l

System 1r i

Forward Approvad Recommendation to The System Engineering 1

l e

l

{

t O

FOR INFORMAT!ON ONLY

-58

QCI No.12, Rev.1 July 11, 1986 Attachment No. 9 E0R IHf0RMAT10H ONI.Y Page 1 of 3 CHARTER FOR PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS GROUP I.

AUTHORITY The Performance Analysis Group (PAG) is formed under the authority of Assistant General Manager's, Nuclear Directive ND-86-5-A.

The PAG will disposition, assign priority, assign an orgacization for action and approve the recommendations for the Rancho Seco Performance Improvement Program.

II.

PURPOSE The purpose for the PAG 1s to review, resolve, disposition, prioritize recommendations. The recommendations will come from the systematic reviews of issues surrounding the 12-26-85 plant transient.

III. SCOPE 1)

The recommendations will be processed per QCI-12.

2)

The PAG will have the authority to "ade to" or " delete from" the recommendations. All changes must be documented.

IV.

MEMBERSHIP 1)

The PAG membership will be comprised of the Nuclear Department Managers which will review each proposed dispositioned recommenda tion.

2)

The PAG membership will be as follows:

ORGANIZATION 4 EMBERS ALTERNATES Nuclear Projects 4h14 q J. V. Vinquist D. Whitney Nuclear Engineering D. Gillispie P. F. Bosakowski Quality L. G. Schwieger J. J. Jewett Training P. Turner M. A.

Ehlinger Licensing R. Ashley R. Little Nuclear Plant G. Coward J. McColligan O

FOR NORMEON ONI.Y

_g_

QCI No.12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986

("]

t U

FOR INf0RMAll0N ONI.Y Page 2 of 3 IV.

MEMBERSHIP (Continued) 4)

A quorum shall consist of the Chairman or Alternate Chairman and at least two members.

V.

MEETING EREQUENCY The Chairman or Alternate Chairman shall call the meeting at such a frequency to ensure that all recommendations are processed expediently.

VI.

PROCESS Af ter receiving the recommendation from the System Engineer, the PAG shall review the recommendation and approve a disposition, a priority and an organization for action.

Af ter approving the disposition and priority, the PAG shall transmit the recommendation for proper disposition.

The PAG shall approve one of the following priorities:

O a)

Restart - Priority 1 item, must be implemented and closed prior to restart.

b)

Near Term - Priority 2 item, must be initiated as promptly as practicable, c)

Long Term - Priority 3, Implementation and closure will be programmed for long term.

O

-6 0-

QCI No.12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 Attachment No. 9 gm Page 3 of 3 POR INFORMAll0N ONLY i

Enclosure t FLOW CHART FOR PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS GROUP Recommendation with Proposed Disposition, Priority and Dispositioning Organization from RRRB or System Engineering u

Request Provide Disposition

, Clarification Priority and Assign from RRRB or Organization for System Action Engineering u

Forward Recommendation to Organization Assigned for Action o

Closure by Quality Assurance and Approved by PIM O)

FOR 1Rf0RMM'.0H CNLY 1 -

.=.. -..

QCI No.12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 f-J 3 0

(

YOR INFORhiAll0N ONLY Page 1 of 3 MANAGEMENT PROCESS GROUP 1.0 PURPOSE Management and management process effectiveness have a major impact on the ability to operate the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station in a safe and reliable manner.

2.0 OBJECTIVE The objectives of these actions are as follows:

2.1 To enhance the management process in support of the safe, reliable and timely restart of the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station.

2.2 To develop guidelines and agreements by which the SMUD Board, as a governing entity, can improve its effectiveness in directing and monitoring the District's activities relating to the Rancho Seco

~

Nuclear Generating Station.

3.0 SCOPE 3.1 Review and ensure that executive level management processes support the safe, reliable, and timely restart of the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station.

3.2 Board of Directors / General Manager Improvement a)

Establish within the Board, guidelines and agreements by which the Board, as an entity, can more effectively set policy and direction, b)

Establish written performance measurement criteria, and a performance review process, for the General Manager (GM).

c)

Clarify the Board / General Manager working relationship in writing, including the reporting desired by the Board from the General Manager, b

FOR INFORtiAl!0N CNLY

-P w

,+m s-

--rv

.,,_.y._

QCI No.12, Rev. 1 A

July 11, 1986 U

FOR INFORMAll0B ORI.Y ittachment 10 Page 2 of 3 3.3 Corporate Management Improvement a)

Develop and implement a program to provide the Board and General Manager assessments and recommendations of corporate management improvement.

3.4 Nuclear Program Management a)

Develop and implement a Rancho Seco Business Plan for use by the Board of Directors.

b)

Establish a comprehensive, cohesive and clearly understandable set of GM and AGM-Nuclear policies and practices which provide upper tier direction for similiar efforts at the functional manager and supervisory levels, c)

Establish up-to-date functional organization charters and position descriptions which accurately reflect responsibilities authorities, and accountabilities for all organization function and job. classification.

V d)

Upgrade management programs and practices in the areas of functional planning, decision making, problem solving and interdepartmental collaboration.

e)

Establish appropriate management monitoring and control systems to ensure that all levels of department management are kept informed on important department performance trends or problem areas on a timely basis. At the same time, ensure that excessively burdensome administrative control systems are not perpetuated or introduced.

f)

Develop an employee communications program originating from the office of the AGM-Nuclear to ensure that all department employees are kept informed of District concerns, departmental priorities and performance progress on a timely basis and encouraged to feel that they are an important part of the Rancho Seco team.

g)

Develop a program for improving communications skills of Nuclear Department Managers in presentations to the Board of Directors, the public, and staff.

O E0R luf0RMAM ""d -- -

QCI No.12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 0

'y

""8*

3

'3 FOR lNFORt# HON ong,y h)

Establish a department Human Resource Management program which includes:

1) identification of priority management developing / training needs and the appropriate means for addressing each; and 2) identification of departmental priority in terms of current vacancies and/or pipeline concerns and more department management collaboration with the District's Human Resource organization in the recruitment / selection process.

1)

Improvement Department media and community relations by establishing a more proactive media / community outreach program.

j)

Improve Nuclear Department interfaces with all other Departments in the District by instituting additional interdepartmental communication and problem-solving processes l

p on a regular basis.

k)

Facilities improvement needs are to be established.

I 1

l O

O FOR INFOR!Mr.0N OIRY

-64

QCI No. 12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 O(V FOR INFORMATION ONLY 1 Page 1 of 18 RESTART SYSTEM REVIEW AND TEST PROGRAM 1.0 SCOPE 1.1 This attachment defines the Restart System Review and Test Program for Rancho Seco.

1.2 The scope of the Restart System Review and Test Program shall be sufficient to verify that Rancho Seco is suitable for return to power operation. Plant systems shall be subject to testing, as identified by this Program.

2.0 ORGANIZATION The Restart Test Organization is shown on Enclosure 1, Systems Review and Test Program Organization.

3.0 RESPONSIBILITIES O

3.1 The responsibilities of the Restart / Implementation Manager (RIM) are kJ delineated in the AGM Directive titled " Restart / Implementation Organiza tion. "

3.2 The System Review and Test Program Director is responsible to the RIM for the development, execution and summarization of the required program to assure component, system and plant material conditions can support safe and reliable operation. In this capacity he works with the Nuclear Department Managers and the Outage Manager, or their designees to ensure that the system reviews are thorough, test objectives are proper, and that the test procedures are developed, planned, performed, and evaluated in accordance with plant procedures. This position will work closely with the Outage Manager l

to develop and maintain a detailed schedule of work activities related to the test program.

l The primary purpose of this position is to structure and manage a comprehensive system review and test program, including:

a)

Defining the necessary organization and resources to accomplish the objectives. FOR lHf0RMAI!0N OM

QCI No. 12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 O 1 V

TOR lHf0RMAll0H OHl.Y Page 2 or 18 3.2 (Continued) b)

Developing administrative controls for the system review and test program. As a minimum, these administrative control procedure will address responsibilities and authority, scope of system review, test procedure requirements such as review and approval cycle, content, format, etc., rules for test conduct, and the evaluation and reporting of results. Where practicable, existing procedures will be used, e.g., AP.2 for the development and review of procedures, c)

Defining the test objectives for those components, systems and integrated systems to be tested.

d)

Defining the test methodology to be used to accomplish the test objectives. This includes a compilation of the procedures to be used, and which procedure is being used to satisfy each test objective.

e)

Preparation of test procedures.

f)

Defining training requirements for test personnel.

OU g)

Preparation of test results packages.

h)

Preparation of work plans for procedure development and test implementation for submittal to the Outage Manager for integration into the Overall outage Schedule.

The Test Program Director is expected to provide the RIM with weekly status reports.

3.3 The Test Review Group shall be established as a Task Review Group under Section 3.k of the Plant Review Committee Charter.

The Test Review Group shall contain the following members:

Nuclear Engineering Department, Member Babcock & Wilcox Representative, Member Bechtel Corporation Representative, Member Quality Assurance Department, Member Nuclear Plant Department, Chairman (PRC Liaison)

Nuclear Training Department, Member The System Review and Test Program Director will nominate members for the Test Review Group. The Plant Revi,ew Committee will confirm the members.

66 O

FOR lHFORMA110H OIRY

QCI No. 12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 1 O

FOR IHf0RMM10H ONI.Y V

page 3 of 18 3.3 (Continued)

The Test Review Group will review the Test History Review section of the System Status Report (See Section 4.2) to confirm that the previous and proposed testing will~ demonstrate all system functional requirements.

The Test Review Group will review Test Specifications to assure that the scope and methodology demonstrate the system function.

The Test Review Group will review new test procedures and recommend approval to the Plant Review Committee.

The Test Review Group will review restart test results.

4.0 PROCESS 4.1 System Selection The Systems subject to review will be proposed by the Systems Review and Test Program Director based on the following criteria:

1.

Has had a known history of significant or recurring problems 2.

Was related to the 12/26/85 Event 3.

Is being significantly modified 4.

Has significant potential for initiating or adversely affecting plant transients.

The RRRB shall approve the list of selected systems. A tentative l

listing of such systems is as follows:

Reactor Plant Reactor Coolant System Decay Heat Removal System l

High Pressure Injection System Seal Injection and Makeup System Purification and Letdown System

(

Nuclear Service Cooling Water System Nuclear Service Raw Water System l

Steam Plant Steam Generators System Main Steam System Main Feedwater System Auxiliary Feedwater System O

YOR luf0RMMM N

QCI No. 12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 f.s.

10R IMEORtW10M WlT 1 1

'V Page 4 of 18 4.1 (Continued)

Power / Control Reactor Protection System (including ARTS)

Safety Features Actuation System Main Steam Line Failure Logic System Integrated Control System Non-Nuclear Instrumentation System 125 Volt DC Vital Power System 125 Volt DC Non-Vital Power System 120 Volt AC Vital Power System 480 Volt AC System 4160 Volt AC System 6900 Volt AC System 1

Auxiliary Control Room /TSC Essential HVAC System Emergency Diesel Generator System (Including Fuel 011)

Component Cooling Water System Plant Air System Instrument Air System Based on the quantity and significance of issues raised against

]

other systems, the PAG may designate additional systems for review.

A Systen Engineer may recommend to the PAG that a system be subjected to a system review.-

4.2 System Review

4.2.1 Summary

A system review will consist of the following:

a)

The system functional description will be compiled.

b)

Test records will be reviewed to determine whether all of the functional characteristics which are important to safe operation have been demonstrated by test.

c)

All related recommendations and corresponding solutions l

will be assembled and reviewed.

i d)

The modification and test history for the system will be reviewed.

e)

The system will be walked-down for material condition.

' O lG FOR lHf0Riui d M l

=-

~..

QCI No. 12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 r

FOR IHf0RMM10N ONI.iIittachment 11 Page 5 of 18 4.2.1 (Continued) f)

Based on the findings of the review, the System Engineer will determine what additional modifications, maintenance, procedure revisions and testing will be l

necessary to assure that the system is ready for plant restart.

The System Review will be documented in the System Status Report.

4.2.2 Detailed Program Description 4.2.2.1 System Functional Description a)

Definition System Functional

Description:

A listing of the range of capabilities that the system must provide in order to assure reliable operation and effective transient mitigation, b)

Generation of System Functional Description The System Engineer will prepare a System Functional Description. Source documents to be used are NEP 5400 j

(System Design Bases), the USAR, Technical Specifications, B&W Guide Specifications, Bechtel Rancho Seco Design Manual, applicable design calculations, and vendor manuals, as appropriate. Training manuals will not be used as source documents.

System Functional Descriptions will be documented in the j

format defined on the second page of Enclosure 2.

Source documents for each function will be listed.

\\

The System Design Engineer (Nuclear Engineering Department will assist in the compilation of the System Functional Description and approve it upon completion.

4.2.2.2 Test Review i

The system engineer will review the testing that has been i

performed on the system. To determine if all of the functions defined.in the System Functional Description have been demonstrated by testing.

i l

O FORIHf0RME0HOM i l

)

QCI No. 12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 o

FOR INFORMATION ONLY 1 V

Page 6 of 18 4.2.2.2 (Continued) 4 Previous testing includes original Startup Tests,

Surveillance Tests, Post-Modification Tests, Post-Maintenance Tests, and Special Tests.

4 The modification history of each system will be reviewed to determine if modifications have occurred af ter any of the functional tests that would invalidate the functional tests.

If the functional testing is found to be inadequate, additional testing will be specified.

The results of the test and modification history review will be documented in the System Status Report. Copies of those tests that have been or are to be used to demonstrate system function will be included. The System Engineer will review the applicable Surveillance Procedures and document any deficiencies in the System Status Report.

i 4.2.2.3 Review of Recommendations and Resolution The RRRB will forward copies of all recommendations resulting from the PP&MIP process with the resolutions to the System Engineer. The System Engineer will consider I

the combined effect of the solutions being applied to the system and determine if all known system deficiencies will be corrected by the proposed solutions when i

implemented. He will assure that solutions are properly i

sequenced. He will satisfy hinself that no new issues are created.

The System Engineer will prioritize resolutions using the criteria provided in Section 6.2.8 of QCI No.12.

I The review of recommendations and solutions will be documented in the System Status Report.

4.2.2.4 Review of Test Results from Davis Besse The System Engineer will review the system / component problems identified at Davis Besse through the Davis Besse test program for applicability at Rancho Seco.

The Davis Besse test results review will be documented in the System Status Report.

- 7 0-FOR INFORMATION ONLY

QCI No. 12, Rev. 1 10R WE g 20R Od July 11. 1986

/mi 1 V

Page 7 of 18 4.2.2.5 Review of Recent Maintenance Activity and Maintenance History Trends.

The System Engineer will review system maintenance that has occurred since the 12/26/85 transient for adequacy of post-1naintenance testing. If post-maintenance testing is found to be inadequate, additional testing will be s pecified.

The System Engineer will review trends of maintenance history for indications of system deficiencies.

The System Engineer will document the maintenance activity and the maintenance history trend reviews in the System Status Report.

4.2.2.6 System Inspection The System Engineer will verify that mechanical portions of systems have been walked-down for confirmance to design drawings under the 79-14 program or the recent operations P&ID/ operating procedure verification program. Systems which have not been walked-down will be L

walked-down.

The System Engineer with a designer of the Operations Manager, will walk down the system to assure good material condition.

The results of system walkdowns will be documented in the System Status Report, using the format of 2.

4.2.2.7 Operability Finding Based on the testing history review, the review of,

recommendations and solutions, review of Davis Besse test results, the review of recent maintenance activity and maintenance history trends, and system inspection, the Engineer will specify any additional maintenance, modifications, procedure changes, and testing that is needed to assure reliable system operation.

He will state that upon completion of the defined work scope and his additional requirements the system is ready for operation.

9

- 7 1-FOR INf0RMM!0N ONLY

QCI No. 12, Rev. 1 1

July 11, 1986

.O 1 V

FOR INFORMATION ONLY Page 8 of 18 4.2.2.8 Independent and Management Reviews The Test Review Group will review the Test History Review section of the System Status Report. They will satisfy themselves by review of actual test procedures and results that the system functions have been demonstrated.

The PAG will review and accept the System Status Report.

l 4.2.2.9 Evaluation of Systems not Subject to Review System Engineers will review all of the PPIMP, process recommendations and resolutions for each system not subject to a Formal System Review. If a system stands-out as having numerous recommendations or several significant recommendations, the engineer will propose to a

the PAG that a formal system review be performed.

4.3 Testing 4.3.1 Scope of Testing The Restart Test Program will consist of:

l 4.3.1.1 Testing specified by the System Engineer in the System Status Report.

4.3.1.2 Testing resulting from one of the following normal sources:

a)

Post Modification Testing b)

Post Maintenance Testing c)

Safety System Operability Testing 4.3.2 Test Specification The System Engineer will prepare a Test Specification for testing not covered by existing plant procedures.

The Test Specification will be prepared using the guidance of AP.45, Modification Test Program.

O FOR INFORMAll0H 0.NLY 1

QCI No. 12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 O

FOR INFORMAll0N ONLY

^"*ig'd

,e 4.3.2 (Continued)

Test Specifications will be reviewed and approved by the Test Review Group.

4.3.3 Test Procedures System Engineers will prepare test procedures using approved Test Specifications and AP.302, Special Test Procedures; AP.2,

. Review, Approval and Maintenance of Procedures; and QAP 26, Test Control.

Where appropriate, existing Surveillance Procedures and Special Test Procedures will be revised to cover additional testing.

New test procedures will be walked down by the author and a representative (s) of the work group responsible for performing the test.

4 In addition to the review called for in AP.2, all new test procedures and test procedure revisions will be reviewed by i

the Test Review Group.

4.3.4 Training The System Review and Test Program Director will develop a training program for test engineers. This program will cover the generation of Test Specifications, the writing of procedures, the revision of procedures (both permanent and I

temporary changes) test conduct and the review of results.

All test engineers will be qualified through this program.

Prior to beginning the test, the Test Engineer will review the test requirements with the work groups involved.

4.3.5 Results Review The System Engineer will compare the results of tests to acceptance criteria, vendor performance data, expected performance and historical test results as applicable.

Discrepancies found will be resolved using Non-Conformance Reports (NCRs) (Ref. QAP-17 and QCI-1), Work Requests (Ref.

AP.3), and Occurrence Description Reports (0DRs) (Ref. AP.22).

l FOR INf0RMA110N ONLY

-7 3-

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

.-,_-.,-e,,

QCI No. 12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 1 O

' '8 V

FOR INFORMAIl0N ONLY 4.3.5 (Continued)

All test results will be submitted to the Test Review Group for review.

When required by plant procedures, test results will be submitted to the PRC for review and Operations Manager for approval.

4.4 Open Work Request Review Open Work Request against the selected systems will be reviewed by the System Engineer. Any work requests which should be completed prior to rentart will be identified by the System Engineer using the following criteria:

a)

The work must be performed to make the system OPERABLE as required by the Technical Specifications.

b)

The work must be performed prior to restart to satisfy an external legal commitment. This includes commitments to state and local as well as federal agencies.

c)

The work must be performed in order to allow the system / plant to operate in accordance with approved procedures. This restraint must be interpreted with an understanding of what is allowable and practical with regard to tagouts and alternate alignments.

d)

The work is required to eliminate a personal hazard, e)

The work is required to prevent ~significant deterioration of the affected system or other plant equipment.

f)

The work would, if completed, result in an appreciable reduction in contamination or liquid radwaste.

g)

The work is required to eliminate as inoperable control board annunciator, indication or control.

The Open Work Request Review will be documented in the System Status Report using a problem summary page.

4.5 Open Engineering Change Notice (ECNs) Review Open ECNs against the selected systems will be reviewed by the System Engineer. ECNs which should be completed prior to restart will be identified by the System Engineer.

FOR lHf0RE0H OHW

FOR IHf0RMATI0h, u.s/

QCI No. 12, Rev. 1

.L O

auty 11, 1986 V 1 Page 11 of 18 ENCLOSURE 1 RESTART TESTING ORGANIZATION CHART RESTART IM PLEM ENTATION MANAGER SYSTEM REVIEW AND TEST PROGRAM DIRECTOR TEST REVIEW GROUP ASSISTANT SYSTEM REVIEW AND TEST PROGRAM DIRECTOR I

I I

I TEW frus comenm6 sYrsus ST WS "OD' V

TE REACTOR AN 1

l E

R E

N R 8"*"* 88 SUPERVISOR ENGINEER SUPERYlSCR ENG R

SYSTEM SYSTEM SYSTEM SYSTEM STAR T=U P REACTOR suavs p es ENGINEERS ENCINEERS ENGINEERS ENGINEERS ENGIN E ER S ENGINEERS sCMaatnAR ISI REVISED 27 JUNE SS ENCINEER O

FOR ll&ORMA110tl Olli.Y

_7s _

L

QCI No. 12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 FOR INFORMATION ONLY C'*ETH i x

ENCLOSURE 2

[COVERSHEET TO INCLUDE SYSTEM NAME, REVISION, DATE]

PAG RELEASE FOR IMPLEMENTATION 1

SYSTEM ENGINEER APPROVAL FOR RESTART 1

O LEAD SYSTEM ENGINEER APPROVAL FOR RESTART i

I TEST REVIEW GROUP APPROVAL OF TESTING PAG APPROVAL FOR RESTART l

O FOR lilFORMAll0D '0NI.Y

-76.

I

QC I No. 12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 O

FOR INFORMATION ONty 1

* 8*

3 f 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS O

l ii l

C roamrcra n pu

QCI No. 12, Rev. 1 July 11, 1986 O

FOR INFORMATION ONLY

^"E!*"l1 e

EXECUTIVE SUWfARY O

lO FOR INFORMMION ONLY 78

...=

I I

QCI No. 12, Rev. 1 July 11,1986 1.

FOR INFORhiATION ONLY

- 8*

5 ' 8 SYSTDI FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION FUNCTION SOURCE DOCUMDIT l

1 1

i l

i j

O i

i I

i i

i l

i APPROVAL:

l j

SYSTEM MGINEER DESIGN SYSTEM ENGINEER 1

4 i

FOR liif0RhiAI 0!! CNLY

- 7 8-l t.--,..,---.-

- -~-...

.. - ~ - - -

1 i

(

QCI No. 12, Rev. 1 July 11,19%

i

[gg gFORMAll0N ONtf. 1 Page 16 of 18 i :-

j ENCLOSURE 2 (Continued) l 4.

TEST REVIEW-I FUNCTION APPLICABLE TEST i

[

i r

i, I

l i

-i i

t i

r L

I l

i l

l t

i-O i

FOR INFCR."ATON ONLY 80

QCI No. 12, Rev. 1

[g# IN/0#ya [hk ggg July 11, 1986 1 Page 17 of 18 ENCLOSURE 2 (Continued)

SYSTEM PROBLEM:

(One Sheet per Problem)

SOURCE TRACKING NUMBER (As Assigned by RRRB)

DESCRIPTION INVESTIGATION C

l RESOLUTION (Include Modifications, Maintenance and Testing and indicate which of these it is)

TESTING PRIORITY

_81 O

FOR il#0RMMIDH ON

r

[

QCI No. 12, Rev. 1 O

FOR INE0RhfAT10N ONif

$UtIdbaE!!

Page 18 of 18 ENCLOSURE 2 (Continued) l SIGNIFICANT TEST FINDINGS FROM DAVIS BESSE:

RECENT MAINTENANCE AND MAINTENANCE HISTORY TRENDS:

i i

SYSTEM INSPECTION:

f 4

OPERABILITY FINDING:

3 I

i O i.

l 4

?

i i

i 1

i l

e 82-FOR INFORMAll0N. ONLY

.--

v t e Letter Sequence Other
TAC:61635, (Approved, Closed)
Initiation Acceptance... Administration Meeting, Meeting, Meeting Questions 13 May 1987 5 September 1986 Answers Results Approval, Approval, Approval, Approval Other: 05000312/LER-1986-011, :on 860424,during Visual Insps of Internal Wiring Terminations,Seven Internal Compression Terminations Failed.Caused by Loose Conductor/Lug Assemblies in Bailey Cabinets.Maint Stds & Insp Plan Developed, ML20137L915, ML20198K880, ML20198K899, ML20203E922, ML20204C493, ML20204E581, ML20206T869, ML20207Q604, ML20207R069, ML20210F539, ML20210G003, ML20210K842, ML20211M464, ML20211P598, ML20211P612, ML20212H039, ML20213F038, ML20213F695, ML20213G414, ML20215K603, NL-86-672, Forwards Rev 1 to A-5415, Design Basis Rept, as Requested. Review of Current Emergency Feedwater Initiation & Control Sys Design Should Address Inconsistencies w/1983 SER Not Technical Adequacy
MONTHYEAR1986-07-23 [Table View]

ML20204E581

Text

4.0 REFERENCES

Title:

SUMMARY

Description:

SUMMARY

4.2.1 Summary

Description:

Navigation menu

Search