ML20207F704
| ML20207F704 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1986 |
| From: | Gridley R TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8701060195 | |
| Download: ML20207F704 (24) | |
Text
.-
__. =.
4 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY KNOXVILLE TENNESSEE 37902 SN 157B Lookout Place-DEC 31886 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention:
Mr. B. Youngblood, Project Director PWR Project Directorate No. 4 Division of Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR)
Licensing A U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Youngblood:
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-327 Tennessee Valley Authority
)
50-328 SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION TO NRC FOR DESIGN BASELINE AND VERIFICATION PROGRAM Please reference my letter to you-dated December 11, 1986. By enclosure 1
-to this letter. TVA is submitting "Sequoyah Nuclear Plant - Supplemental Information to NRC for Design Baseline and Verification Program." This
-enclosure supplements information on the Sequoyah Design Baseline and Verification Program presented in the TVA Nuclear Performance Plan, Volume 2, and fulfills a TVA comitment contained in the referenced letter. to this letter consists of a list of commitments containe.d within enclosure 1.
l If you have any questions concerning this issue, please call Beth L. Hall, of the Sequoyah Site Licensing Staff, at (615) 870-7459.
Very truly yours, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
). a.
gR.Gridley, Director Nuclear Safety and Licensing Enclosures cc: See Page 2
~ _.
k hoh27 87010 DR PDR o\\
k i
An Equal Opportumty Employer i
[
- k a Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation g3gg cc (Enclosures):
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Region II Attn:
Dr. J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator 101 Marietta Street, NW Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. Carl Stahle, Sequoyah Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Mr. G. G. Zech Director TVA Projects U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Region II 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 E
C 4
,,._.r_,,
, - - -, -,.,,,m_._
...,_..,.-_....m.
s TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction / Purpose II. Background III. Design Baseline and Verification Program A.
Definition of Terms B.
Description of Program 1.
System Walkdowns/ Tests 2.
Design Criteria / Design Basis Documentation 3.
Engineered Change Document Evaluation 4.
System Evaluation Reports C.
Engineering Assurance Oversight Review IV. Final Report (Phase I)
Attachments
I I.
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE' This submittal to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Office of Nuclear
' Reactor Regulation (NRR) is intended to clarify and expand upon features.
of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Design Baseline and Verification Program (DB&VP).
In particular, it provides details of Sequoyah's program that was developed in response to the identified need for improvement in the Sequoyah design control process. The particular efforts involved in implementing the DB&VP are described in the following sections and supplement the information in the Nuclear Performance Plan (NPP), Volume 2.
Flow charts are provided which illustrate the individual actions taken in selected DB&VP activities (attachments 1, 2, and 3).
II.
BACKGROUND Following a meeting between TVA and NRC in Bethesda, Maryland, on July 17, 1986, a number of questions have been raised as to the specific scope, objectives, and implementation of the Sequoyah DB&VP.
The July 17, 1986 meeting was held for the purpose of providing managers and technical reviewers within NRC's NRR an overview of the Sequo;ah DESVP and its relationship to other technical programs underway at Sequoyah under the auspices of the Division of Nuclear Engineering (DNE). This meeting introduced NRR personnel to the Sequoyah DB&VP and provided a forum for questions to TVA on the program.
In response to questions regarding certain aspects of the program, this submittal will serve as a reference for the DB&VP scope, objectives, and implementation.
It also amplifies descriptions provided through the NPP, Volume 2, submitted to NRC on July 18, 1986, and updates the document entitled
" Design Baseline and Verification Program," which was submitted to NRC on June 27, 1986. This latter document is currently being revised to reflect changes made in the program.
The DB&VP was initiated at Sequoyah to address deficiencies in design control ~after issuance of the operating license (OL).
In particular, Sequoyah has experienced problems with the control of design changes and plant modifications, due to the root causes of organizational weaknesses and lack of engineering depth, lack of documentation, and poor feedback to engineering regarding uncompleted modifications, as explained in Volume 2 of the NPP,Section II.3.2.
The DB&VP was established to assess the adequacy of past modification work and to correct deficiencies found in design and/or modifications for systems within the DB&VP boundary by:
6
'I l
. i (1) Verifying the design basis.
'(2) Verifying and establishing that the plant configuration changes are consistent with the design basis.
i
'(3) Reviewing and evaluating modifications since OL issuance against the reconstructed design basis, reconciling differences found and ensuring functionality.
l (4) Performing the required tests or modifications developed from this review and evaluation.
(5) Converting to a one-drawing system by reconciling plant configuration, as-constructed drawings, and as-designed drawings.
The actions that are being taken to implement these objectives are described in some detail by the following TVA communications:
(1) TVA letter from R. L. Gridley to James Taylor dated June 27, 1986.
]
(2) Presentation to NRC in Bethesda, Maryland,'on July 17, 1986.
(3) TVA letter'from R. L. Gridley to B. J. Youngblood dated i
August 18, 1986, in response to NRC letter on design control
-issues.
I (4) TVA letter from R. L. Gridley to B. J. Youngblood dated
]
December 11,' 1986, in response to NRC request for additional information.
1 In addition, NRC inspection teams have been involved in reviewing specific aspects of activities related to design control at Sequoyah beginning in December 1985. These inspections and their completion' dates are itemized-in SECY-86-1C and include the following:
(1) Verification by direct inspection of all design control-related commitments contained in the Sequoyah NPP.
(Region II - complete December 20, 1985) i, (2)' Assessment of the implementation and adequacy of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) Design Control Program (Phase I & II) as upgraded after June 1985.
(Region II - complete January 24, 1986)
(3) Onsite inspections to review adequacy of Gilbert / Commonwealth's l
(G/C) efforts, review Engineering Change Notices (ECNs) for 1975-85 on feedwater and auxiliary feedwater systems, TVA's actions in response to G/C's findings, and TVA partial ECN review.
(IEe Region II - IE Report 50-327 -328/86-27 issued April 22, 1986; TVA response transmitted by means of a letter from R. Gridley to J. Nelson Grace dated July 28, 1986.)
In addition to these inspections, an IE team completed three of four i
planned inspections designed to assess implementation of the DB&VP at Sequoyah and the Engineering Assurance (EA) Oversight Program.
(The program plan for EA Oversight Review was docketed in the June 27, 1986 submittal.) The first inspection was held onsite in June and at i
i i
l
?-
-328/86-38 dated September 15, 1986. The second inspection also included NRR, with the inspection team visiting DNE offices in Knoxville, to overview the preparation and use of the Sequoyah design criteria and to assess the EA Oversight Review effort. This effort concluded on July 24, 1986, with IE Report 50-327, -328/86-45 issued on October 31, 1986. The third inspection evaluated efforts regarding ECN evaluations and corrective actions stemming from previous NRC inspections and reviews by others. This three-week inspection, not yet documented in a report, ended on December 4, 1986.
III. DESIGN BASELINE AND VERIFICATION PROGRAM (DB&VP)
As stated previously, this submittal supplements and updates the DB&VP plan and the description of the DB&VP in the NPP, Volume 2.
The following sections define soms of the important terms used in the DB&VP and describe the major processes involved, including the role of the EA o'versight review team.
A. Definition of Terms as used in the DB&VP:
- 1. Analysis reports - A component of the Design Basis Commitment / Requirement Tracking System, that provides a printout of Commitment / Requirement (C/R) data.
- 2. Design bases - As defined in 10 CFR 50.2(u).
- 3. Design basis accidents
" Worst-case" accidents which are postulated by the SQN FSAR, prevention or mitigation of which provide justification for certain design criteria of the plant.
The systems and components required to mitigate FSAR Chapter 15 design basis accidents comprise the scope of Phase I of the SQN DB&VP.
- 4. Design basis document (DBD) - A controlled manual that includes, as a minimum, those general design criteria for site, plant, structures, and systems which constitute the upper tier plant-specific design input.
It also includes, at the discretion of the project engineer, as appropriate:
detailed design criteria, system descriptions, design input drawings, discretionary engineering decisions and rationale, analysis results, and engineering parameters and associated margins for detailed design.
- 5. Design basis events - Conditions of normal operational occurrences, design basis accidents, external events, and natural phenomena for which the plant must be designed to ensure:
(i)
The integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary.
(ii)
The capability to shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition.
8 (iii)
The capability to prevent or mitigate the consequences of accidents that could result _in potential offsite exposures comparable to 10 CFR 100 guidelines.
- 6. Design input - Design requirements that govern the design of all project structures, systems, and components. Design input includes laws, regulations, industry codes and standards, design basis, interface requirements, design criteria; and TVA design standards, design guides, standard drawings, typical drawings, and standard specifications which are referenced by design documents.
- 7. Design requirement - Any technical requirement or internal TVA commitment which is essential for the safe or reliable operation of a nuclear plant.
- 8. Design review - As defined in Nuclear Engineering Procedure (NEP)-5.2: ".
. critical reviews to provide assurance that design documents, such as drawings, calculations, analysis, or specifications are correct and satisfactory."
- 9. Design verification - As defined in NEP-5.2:
. a review performed by an individual (s) to confirm or substantiate that the design meets the specified inputs."
- 10. General design criteria - Documents which provide in definitive statements, general descriptions and general design requirements of plant features; the environmental conditions under which the plant feature (s) must perform; applicable codes and regulatory requirements; the general parameters and the redundancy requirements and physical arrangements required for various modes of operation and design basis events. General design criteria documents include functions to be performed by structures, systems, and components; engineering values such as minimum structural loads and system performance requirements; and plant program criteria such as ALARA, pipe break, fire, etc.
- 11. Licensing commitment - An agreed-upon action related to the design, construction, operation, or testing of a TVA nuclear plant communicated to an organization authorized to regulate TVA activities.
- 12. Restart Design Basis Document (RDBD) - The initial issue of the DBD which contains design criteria for the systems or portions of systems identified within the scope of Phase I of the DB&VP.
It contains, as a minimum, a listing of those general and specific design criteria for site, plant, and structures required to support safe shutdown.
3 13. Safety-related systems - Systems relied upon to remain functional during and following design basis events.
- 14. System evaluation - An engineering evaluation of modifications 4
which were implemented or partially implemented since OL to verify that the ability of the systems or portions of systems identified in the DB&VP to mitigate FSAR Chapter 15 design basis accidents and to accomplish a safe shutdown has not been degraded and that these modifications have not violated licensing commitments.
- 15. System evaluation report (SYSTER) - A report that (1) compares the change documentation with the design basis, (2) summarizes and documents the results of the system evaluation, and (3) is used by the Project Engineer to prepare the DB&VP Prerestart Final Report.
(See Section IV.)
' 16. System walkdown boundary identification drawings (SWBID) - A drawing that has been marked to identify the boundary of those systems or portions of systems which will be analyzed in accordance with the DB&VP, Phase I.
- 17. Transitional change control process - The improved design control system, which upgrades the existing design control system.
It uses a unitized modification package and a single controlled drawing and provides a basis for the permanent design control system.
- 18. Walkdown package - A set of documents used by Sequoyah site personnel to verify the configuration of a system. The package consists of documents such as data sheets, and process flow diagrams for mechanical and fluid systems, control drawings and single-line drawings for electrical and instrumentation and control systems.
B. Description of Program The DB&VP is divided into Phase I and Phase II, representing restart and postrestart activities, respectively. The Phase I scope includes those systems or portions of systems required for mitigation of FSAR Chapter 15 design basis accidents and provide for safe shutdown of the plant.
Phase II scope will encompass the remainder of the safety-related systems and the work identified from Phase I that is 4
not required to be performed before restart.
~..
-7 The Phase I program consists of four major areas of effort which are described in more detail below and in approved Sequoyah Engineering Procedures (SQEP). They have also been' discussed in "DB&VP - Sequoyah j =
Nuclear Plant" submitted to NRC on June 27, 1986, which is currently j -
being. revised.
The detailed Phase II scope has not been fully determined, as the i
results of Phase I need to be evaluated to. fully define the Phase II-scope.
Based upon the Phase I analysis, the scope and schedule for Phase II will be submitted to NRC by March 21, 1987.
1.
System Walkdowns/ Tests 1
System walkdowns are being conducted within the system boundaries as defined in documented SWBID calculations in accordance with approved procedures. Information is being obtained in nuclear,-
I.
mechanical, electrical, and instrumentation and control (I&C) areas based on the scope of the walkdown package generated by the
. DNE system engineer in accordance with an approved SQEP.
A walkdown team consists of an assistant unit operator (AUO) or unit operator (UO), a QA/QC representative, and a DNE i
representative. The AUO or UO performs the first-part verification of the information, and the QA/QC representative perforns the independent second-part verification. The DNE representative provides technical direction during the walkdown.
Special assistance may also be provided from plant electricians'or instrument mechanics.
The accumulated information is documented in the walkdown package on drawings, sketches, data sheets, etc., as applicable.
Differences between the walkdown package drawings or documents and the setual plant configuration are noted.
These differences found are evaluated by a shift technical advisor (STA) for effect on operability or system function in the present j
or any other mode to determine if any immediate corrective or investigative action is required. Upon completion of the walkdown scope, all information is accumulated in the package and returned to the DNE system engineer for evaluation in accordance with the
+
design basis.
Based upon the results of the DNE evaluation of this initial walkdown, supplemental walkdowns may be initiated by the system j
engineer to accumulate more detailed information on the system configuration.
This information-is handled in a manner similar to that for the initial walkdown.
i 9
f A
.-y vv -,.
-m-
-ev
,,.,.wr e-.,-c.,w----.,,_
.,,,,m,,.,e-ey,m,,w,,,7,
-.-----e
,m-.i.ww.,--
,.mmm,e_w.-.+,.-.--.,--...,r-,-,,,-w--.r-..
}
1 e 2.
Design Criteria / Design Basis Documentation The design bases of a nuclear plant, as defined in 10 CFR 50.2, collectively comprise the design basis, a necessary part of the design documentation required by NRC and ANSI standards. The design basis is an important part of the plant design process to ensure that licensing commitments and technical requirements are maintained, and is supported by appropriate calculations and analyses.
Incorporation of the approved design basis into design changes is accomplished through the maintenance of controlled design criteria. TVA has undertaken an effort to assemble an up-to-date set of design criteria to be used in preparing the Design Basis Document (DBD) for Sequoyah. The approach is one in which (1) commitments made in generic upper-tier design input documents; (2) commitments made in licensing documents; (3) design requirements needed to satisfy the plant safety analysis; and (4) TVA policies, are captured in either plant-specific design criteria or other design input documents.
These commitments and requirements (C/Rs) are identified by senior engineers and managers who are familiar with the design evolution of the plant.
Procedures have been developed to control the process of systematically identifying the C/Rs, including both safety-related and nonsafety-related systems, structures, and components. As part of the approved procedure, the Design Basis C/R Tracking System has been created by TVA in order to automate and control the process of tracking these commitments and design requirements.
It also controls the process of-implementing them in design criteria documents and other design input documents which form the DBD for Sequoyah.
Once the licensing commitments and design requirements are captured in the C/R database and sorted according to subject, for inclusion in design criteria, the lead engineer or branch chief determines which design criteria documents are necessary for the desired structures or systems. The preparer of the design criteria uses the appropriate database sort of C/Rs to review the existing design criteria documents, revising them as required or weiting new ones in order to include appropriate C/Rs. Once these C/Rs are included, along with any additional information as required to conform with Criterion III of 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, the design criteria are reviewed and issued in accordance with established procedures. The design criteria for Sequoyah are reviewee and approved by the respective branch to assess whether or not
.=.
_g_
they address the pertinent C/Rs. This is documented for Phase I to ensure that each C/R was reviewed and properly assessed against
~
the design criteria that are required for Sequoyah restart. When design criteria are issued, the supporting C/R database is updated to conform to the C/Rs reflected in the design criteria.
Once the design criteria have been approved nnd issued, they are c.
used as input into the DBD.
Also, the DBD includes mechanical flow diagrams,. functional control and logic diagrams, single line
. diagrams, the~ site plant plot plan, the general arrangerent drawings, and any additional design inpyt documents tbi t the Project Engineer deens are appropriate. ;A DNE procedure controls the preparation of the DBD for Sequoyah, and the Project Engineer is responsible for having it reviewed, ~ approved, and distributed.
The DBD andilts subsequent revisions are subjected to review for approval by the engineering disciplines and will be controlled and o maintained throughout the life of the plant.
Ultimately the DBD's scope will encompass both safety-related and nonsafety-related systems, structures, and components.
For restart (Phase I), only thoso safety-related systems or portions of systems required to mitigate FSAR Chapter 15 accidents and provide for Lafe shutdown are included..The DBD which describes thic effort is the Restart Design Basis Document (RDBD). The RDBD contains a listing of design criteria which have been reviewed.. revised, or generated as necessary to address the commitments and requirements for Phase I systems.
3.
Engineered Change Document Evaluation To establish confidence in the plant safety systems before restart TVA committed to evaluate the modifications performed since O_L on safe shutdown / accident mitigation systems. The following subsection is an explanation of the review process for ECNs, Field Change Notices (FCNs), and related Field Change Requests (FCRs).
(1) ECN/FCN Design Verification The design verification of ECNs/FCNs under the DB&VP evaluates those ECNs/FCNs implemented since issuance of the OL and before implementation of the transitional change control process.
In addition, ECNs/FCNs which were not fully implemented at OL are being evaluated to ensure e--
. ~ - -
~
--n g---
e-,s,-,e,mr
-e
-c
P that their status of implementation does not adversely affect a system's required functions. This verification ensures that
~'
TVA performed adequate engineering activities that produced the modifications controlled by the previous design control process.
The method ~of evaluating the ECNs/FCNs is by consideration of design attributes, based upon INPO Good Practice TS-415.
This process is documented, assessing the engineering adequccy of the ECN/FCN. This evaluation identifies discrepancies observed, including-documentation / documented analysis that-needs to be produced. The evaluation form thus serves as an index to the documentation that supports adequate engineering
~
activities.
~
To perform a design verification evaluation of an ECN/FCN with focus on "the change," the evaluating engineer must understand "the change," its scope and effect. Then the engineer turns to the drawingt., calculatiors. and analysis to see that "the change" has been addressed. This evaluation is conducted in
-accordance with approved procedures and is provided to the system engineer for use in preparing the system evaluation report.
Documents referenced in the evaluation will either be easily retrievable from TVA records, or will be copied and attached.
The references will lead to a specific document, calculation, or program that fulfills the evaluation of the design activity in question. If documentation is inadequate'or nonexistent to answer the appropriate question, a Condition Adverse to Quality-(CAQ) is identified, and the DNE corrective action process is initiated. A Problem Identification Report (PIR) or Significant Condition Report (SCR) form is prepared by the system engineer. Use of engineering judgement is acceptable for the evaluation, but the rationale to support this judgment must be documented in accordance with DB&VP Directives. These directives are controlled in accordance with approved procedures.
Workplans are used in the DE(VP o complement the ECNs/FCNs in defining system changes st# prs' de additional information for evaluation of the desig) i 4 cat.
Specifically, the QA records contained in woraplan' packages are used as the source l-documents for the following:
1.
Evaluation of functional test results; 2
Scope definition for partially implemented ECNs/FCNs; 3.
Material identification, where materials are specified in l
the ECNs/FCNs as to be field purchased.
i
.I The records of materials and equipment that were actually installed are used by the system engineers when completing the design review evaluation forms, especially when the material was field purchased.
Unimplemented ECNs/FCNs are reviewed to establish what testing would need to be performed to satisfactorily prove the safety function of the equiprent without the modification. These requirements are forwarded to plant operations for implementation.
(Refer to the section below, Electrical Test Evaluation.)
The workplan scope, together with the scheduled implementation status of modifications-(by workplan) at restart, is used to scope out the portion of the work which remains to be implemented at restart. This scope of remaining work serves as a base for evaluation; any recommended changes to this work scope are referenced to this base.
(2) Electrical Test Evaluation Test packages from the workplans are evaluated per an approved procedure which is designed to control the review of those ECNs/FCNs within the boundary of the DB&VP that affect electrical equipment or instrumentation and controls.
The procedure will also be used to determine if test results exist to ensure that the modified components' safety function is not compromised. The preoperational tests results established the
" functional" baseline for safety-related systems and components at the time of issuance of the original OL.
The ECNs/FCNs are reviewed with their respective workplans to determine the full scope of the implemented modification in order to fully assess the adequacy of the subsequent test results to support the intended safety function. Functional tests within the workplans are initially reviewed for adequacy. If they are not found to be sufficient, other plant program records (i.e., surveillance instructions, instrument maintenance instructions, calibration records, postmodification tests, etc.) are reviewed to see if any of these documents, after the date of the modification, yield the needed test results.
If this search yields acceptable results, no further retesting is required.
If test documentation cannot be found to substantiate the modifications, retest requirements are established and forwarded to plant operations personnel for implementation.
-m w+-
i e-
-em---
,g.-,us- - -
,,-.--*~se
- - ~,
- - +,
-~ve n,-
,r.
--e
. Partially implemented ECNs/FCNs are reviewed to' ensure that the projected test requirements will satisfactorily prove the safety functions of_the modification.
If the tests are found to be inadequate, additional test requirements are established
.and forwarded for implementation.
4.
System Evaluation Reports The system evaluations and resultant system evaluation reports (SYSTERS) represent the culmination of engineering' activities necessary-to ensure that modifications made since receipt of the OL have not degraded the capability of the systems within the scope of the DB&VP to perform their designated safety functions, nor violate licensing commitments. Approved procedures provide for the accumulation of data for preparation of these evaluations and reports.
In order to perform the system evaluation, the system engineer assembles appropriate change documentation, drawing discrepancies identified during system walkdown, and system test reviews. The system engineer initiates an Evaluation Review / Study Drawing, which is a marked up as-designed drawing showing the proposed as-constructed configuration of the system.
This will be further marked up to reflect any additional changes identified during the assembly of change documentation. The Evaluation Review / Study Drawings will serve as temporary baseline drawings to be used as tools by the system engineers during the system' evaluations to show ECNs and other changes which are/will be installed at restart. The system engineer then determines the status of any existing Temporary Alteration Control Form (TACF) and method of dispositioning it (i.e., " remain as is," " issue ECN," or
" remove"). Appropriate action is taken to disposition the TACF.
The Evaluation Review / Study Drawing is then revised to reflect the decision. Results of corrective actions from SCR/Nonconformance Condition Report (NCR) evaluations are also reflected on the Evaluation Review / Study Drawing. After restart, it will be used as input to the configuration control drawings, but will not be independently distributed.
The system engineer assembles the necessary information and begins the evaluation process by comparing the RDBD with change documentation and walkdown/ test results. Changes are determined to be " acceptable" if.they meet the criteria for the system to satisfy design requirements and for installation in proper sequencing. SCRs/NCRs are evaluated to ensure that implemented corrective actions are acceptable such that the system's safety function is not compromised.
Systems
- configuration changes are reviewed for proper sequencing of.
implementing the changes, considering unimplemented and partially implemented configurational changes. Any " unacceptable" item will have corresponding corrective action, initiated and dispositioned
'for restart or scheduled for postrestart.
The SYSTER documents the engineering determinations, evaluations performed, and includes the cumulative effect of ECNs/FCNs for the system and provides the justification that the system's performance has not been degraded. Once preparation of the SYSTER is accomplished, it'is reviewed by an independent reviewer before transmittal to the DB&VP Program Manager, the DNE Roview Board,.
and 'the Project Engineer.
As-constructed drawing deviations or deficiencies identified by completing the DB&VP will be reported.
If design d0cumentation does not exist to support the as-constructed configuration, a CAQ will be identified.
ECNs will be prepared, as necessary, with an accompanying Unreviewed Safety Question Determination (USQD), to change plant configuration or revise design documents and drawings to support the existing configuration.
If a change is determined to be a restart item, the ECN will be implemented before restart.
Following completion of all system evaluation reports and the acceptance of the DB&VP prerestart final report by the Director of DNE, the prerestart phase (Phase I) of the DB&VP will conclude.
C. EA Oversight Review The EA Oversight Review Team is performing an independent review of DNE project activities. This review, as outlined in the NPP, Volume 2, will provide added assurance that the engineering activities associated with the program are technically adequate and performed in t:
accordance with approved procedures.
Details regarding how the review is being conducted are contained within the " Program Plan for the Engineering Assurance Independent Oversight Review for the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant DB&VP." This plan was submitted for NRC review on June 27, 1986.
The general approach taken by the EA oversight review team in reviewing activities for the project's DB&VP is to sample products, on an engineering discipline basis, as they are completed by the project. This review provides for the prompt feedback to the project regarding adequacy of the ongoing activities and an evaluation of the effective interaction of all implementing procedures in meeting the program objectives.
i J
i 1
.. - -., - -.. ~ - - - -,,. -,, - - - -. - - - - - - -,
,-,-,-n
---r--,
, -.,, - - +
y.,eev,,,,,
nn,,rn--
.m
..e-n-,
a..
~n
,,,---wwwr.,---.
- At the conclusion of the EA oversight team's activities, a final--
report will be issued to document the results of the team's review.
It will be approved by the Manager of EA, Director of the Division of Nuclear Quality Assurance, and Director of DNE and submitted to the Project Engineer.
IV.
Final Report (Phase I)
The results and conclusions of the DB&VP Phase I efforts, including reference to supporting information, will be documented in a final report from the Sequoyah Project Engineer to the Director, Division of Nuclear Engineering. The report will consider trending of deficiencies found during the implementation of the program in order to consider other corrective actions needed based on generic implications and also effects on other safety systems for Phase II consideration.
Based upon review of the report, the DNE Director will determine if the stated objectives of the program have been met, or if additional actions are required. Following this review and based partially upon the results and conclusions reported, the Phase II review scope will be determined for the remainder of the safety-related systems.
ENCLOSURE 2 SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT - UNIT 2
-LIST OF COMMITMSNTS MADE IN ENCLOSURE 1 1.
Issue Restart Design Basis Document.(RDBD) prior to restart.
2.
Issue final report of Phase I by end of first quarter of 1987.
3.
Issue final report of EA oversight team results prior to restart.
4.
Submit to NRC Phase II scope and schedule by March 21, 1987.
Z l
l i
l 1
~!
a I
COMPILE C/R = COMMITMENT / REQUIREMENT D.C.= DESIGN CRITERIA l
IDENTIFY LICENSING HOLD COMMITMENT COMMITMENT NON-DESIGN g
I SOURCE DOCUMENTS RELATED DOCUMENTS BY COMMITMENTS i
BRANCHES SENERATE l
REVIEW ADDITIOWAL DISTRIBUTE S APPROVE C/R DATA j
C/R DATA
"*"Y C/R DATA SHEETS FOR i
SHEETS 1
GENERATE SHEETS DESIGN i
C/R DATA REGMTS 3p I
SHEETS l
DISTRIBUTE
---9 LICENSING COMMITMENT DOCUMENTS 1 r 2
i TO i
l BRANCHES GENERATE GENERATE C/R DATA ADDITIONAL 4
SHEETS C/R DATA m
FOR SHEETS FOR LOAD C/R REJECT LICENSII;6 DESIGN DATA SHEETS I
m COMMITMENTS REGHTS r
i I
i b
l NSSS:
NSSS:
E I
IDENTIFY NSSS:
GENERATE j
BR CHIEF DESIGN DISTRIBUTE C/R DATA PROJECT RATIFIES i
HEGMTS SOURCE SHEETS FOR ENGINEER CR H J SOURCE DOCUMENTS DESIGN GENERATES pECM*
DOCUMENTS REGMTS ANALYSIS TO CHANGE REPORTS COMMITHENT i
l t
4 i
BR CHIEF l
DESIGN BASELINE DETERMINES BR CHIEF TO l
0 SHEET 2 4 D.C. TO BE CHANGES
% SHEET 3 PROGRAM PREPARED COMMITHENT C/R GENERATION OR REVISED SHEET 1 0F 3 i (page 1 of 3)
D.
REPARERS D.C. PREPARERS D.C. PREPARERS
/R D.C. CHECKERS INCORPORATE PERFORM ANALYSIS ORM C/Rs & ANY INTERFACE i
REPORTS &
U U"
ADDITIONAL INFO REVIEW WITH OURCE ERWICATION TD MEET APP B DISCIPLINES DOCUMENTS J k i r 1 r i
D.C. PREPARERS BR CHIEF PROECT WS D.C. &
EM M l
RECORD C/Rs TRANSMIT W/ C/R
?
COLLECTS D.C. AE FRM ADDRESSED M LIST TO PROJECT ISSLES TE DESIGN D.C.
SHEET i ENGIEER BASIS DOCUMENT 1
1 r 1r l
BR CHIEF BR CHIEF GLERIES BR CHIEF LPDATES TE TE C/R DATABASE EVALUATES BR CHIEF i
C/R DATABASE TO DETERMIE CAPTUE OF TECWICAL REVIEW m
m m
i TO IPOICATE C/Rs THAT HAVE IFOIVIDUAL 0F DESIGN BASIS INLEMENTING HAVE NOT BEEN C/As FOR D.C.
DOCLDENT i
DOCUENT ADDAF99Fn IN D.C.
ADEGUACY J
f j
1 r 1 r t
l BR CHIEF BR MEF i
EVALUATES C/Rs i
ISES THAT HAVE NOT D.C.
BEEN N u
{
1 r 1r i
DESIGN BASELINE BR CHIEF PROJECT CHANGES ENGIEER l
PROGRAM C0 m ITMENT REVISES DESIGN i
DESIGN BASIS OR D.C.
BASIS DOCUMENT l
DOCUMENT SW ET 2 0F 3 f (page 2 of 3)
m C
E FROM i
SEET 1 PLANT MODIFICATION PACKAGE 3
______ ___ _______ q I
I i
i I
l l
I l
1 l
l l
+
l N
l d
CHANGE PROPOSED CHANGE I
DESIGN h
l
@D CONTROL
> MODIFICATION 9 CONTROL CRITERIA 5
I BASE UPDATE COMMITMENT l
BOARD STUDY BOARD l
REVISION 3 p l
d I
4 0
l l
CHANGE N y
l DESIGN CHANGE 1
l l
OR PLANT
[
L l
1 IMPROVEENT
/A A L,2 I
INITIATED BY 9
y,,
j EGULATORY I
I l
l j
EQUIREENT i
l I
I
-9 I
I I
APPROVE l
DESIGN DOCUMENT CHANGE PROJECT
/R DATA LICENSING l
ENGINEER RITERIA
+
i" BASE UPDATE COMMITMENT I
REVIEW g
REVISION l
I l
l
+
1 g
1 1
I i
l l
l 1
I L______________________
l DESIGN CHANGE NOTICE DESIGN BASELINE PROGRAM l
MAINTENANCE SHEET 3 0F 3 1
l (page 3 of 3)
4 I
a 4
l i
i i
SE TO 4
MONITOR &
4 EVALUATE j
CHANGE TO STATUS
(.
I i
5 i
t t
i SE&D5E EVALUATE IDENTIFY SE CATEGORIZE REVIEWER UNiMPLEMENTED, 5
SE RECORD ECN/FCN PARTIAL. a REVIEWER AND SE OBTAINS SIGNS ASSEMBLE
_4 e IMPLEMENTED CANCELLED SCHEDULED SLE CUMULATIVE p
4 RECMCILES STATUS AT e PARTIAL SIGNATURE IMPLEMEN-
>A 4
CHANGE RECOMMEN-RESTART
- UNIMPLEMENTED IDENTIFY DATION D TO TATIM j
DOCUMENT
- CANCELLED COMPONENTS TO BE P.S.
STATUS j
WOD. SY RESTART SHEET SE SENDS l
ECNS W/
STATUS CHG t
TO PART/
IMPLEM FOR REVIEW SE ISSUE
>B SE/DSE CAQIF EVAL
> NECESSARY ECN/FCR W/ FIELD i
WORK IMPL l
BY RESTART C
I se a est EVN_UATION OF lorNTIFY gtg ECN's/FCN's sure, ueNTAL CONCUR g
j SEQUOYAH nrousato PAGE 1 of 2 l (page 1 of 2) 1 I
l f
I i
O J L ECN FCN NOT d L IMPLEM TO P.S.
4 LE SE ISSUE MODS FEED 8ACK COMPILES A%
LE OF 5
ASSIGN
+
DESIGN INSTALLED TO SE WORK PLAN RESTART WORK PRODUCTS INFO ETC WORK J L J L J L
\\
000 I
O t
J k i
SE j
LE PREP COMPILES REVIEWER SE NECESSARY
$,IG[
4 4
4 RESOLVES &
COMPILE'i B%
4 SENDS TO COMPLETID DOCS TO CHECKLIST SE PKGS CLOSE CAQ
& SENDS 1
TO REVIEWER
^
!^ '
2 '
TO P.S.
SE = SYSTEM ENGINEER C*---------*********
LE = LEAD ENGINEER i
DSE= DISC SUPPORT ENGINEER l
SLE= SENIOR LEVEL ENGINEER P.S.= PROJECT STAFF EVALUATION OF ECN's/FCN's (page 2 of 2)
SEQUOYAH PAGE 2 of 2
I I
OO ONP DD 4 WISC OWIL ITEMS coMPLETs REVIEW SUMMARIZE ar
+
GATHER
+
D IG WI j
INPUT SCOPE CONROURAMON BASIS EXPLANATION 4
a L CSOUND-TAcF REVIEW g
(OPEN)
AGAINST E
i DESIGN EMPLANAMON i
y BASIS N
' I C SMI l
AEMovs EVALUATE m o, 3 r J
CUMULATIVE 4 A EFFECTS 1
LIST OF CHANGES IN DESIGN
- j INPUTS m
INDIVIDUALLY CRITERIA
~~M[A7
[
ust Or
, a l
i L-DCt EXCEPTIONS &
j (NOT TIED REVIEW SUMMARIZE DEVIATIONS i
To m)
AGAINST REVIEW 1
4 4;
Ls La La L DESIGN WITN BASIS EXPLANATION SUMMARIZE POST-MOD ELECT.
ELEC. TEST f
I RESULTS REVIEW j
SUMMARIZE
[
}
?
ECN i
REVIEW l
SUMMARIZE SCR CHANGE m
DOCUMENT l
SYSTEM EVALUATION N
SEQUOYAN l
PAGE 1 of 2 NftC 4 EA l
RNDINGS REVIEW t
f m
IMPACT i
i
]
Q INTERFACING SQEP/AI
- PRODUCTS (page 1 of 2)
BETH3
- ~.... -.
1, 4
1 i
4 i
l POST RESTART 4
JUSTIFIED i
REQUIREMENTS 4
1 SUMMARIZE SENIOR LEVEL RESTART 1,
A 4 RESULTS OF
-+
O CONCLUSION
+
ENGINEER JUSTIFIED
,1 EVALUATION CONCURS REQUIREMENTS 1
4 i
]
............................g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,j i
}
l ISSUE CAQ'S i
INDEPENDENT l
3 r j
,M """
REVIN i
REQUIRED 4
DWG MARKUP i
l EXPECTED i
g CONFIGURATION j
- i DNE J L J L
~4 ". " "
PROJECT WU" onv l
DD I
1 PRERESTART
'"l' Q
INTERFACING SQEP/Al APPRO AL NPUT
- . PRODUCTS
- i POST l
1 r i
SYSTER i,p RESTART REVISE RIMS PUNCHLIST AS-SYSTEM EVALUATION INPUT l
CONSTRUCTED SEQUOYAH DWG PAGE 2 of 2
? (page 2 of 2) a