ML20214H064
| ML20214H064 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 04/17/1987 |
| From: | Bibb W, Gregory Cranston, Julie Ward SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214H055 | List: |
| References | |
| D-0050, D-50, NUDOCS 8705270264 | |
| Download: ML20214H064 (15) | |
Text
0 ;
ENGINEERING ACTION PLAN FOR RANCHO SEC0 NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT Report No. D-0050 REVISION O April 17,1987 NI 4 ?[ M Managsr Nuclear Engineering G. V. Cranston l
i Testart Implementdstida Manager W. Bibb l
- ' /
~
eral Manager, Nu r i 8705270264 870417 PDR ADOCK 05000312 P PDR
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ - - - - -----._J
a o Executive Summary This plan describes actions initiated or planned by SMUD to restore confidence in the engineering. design and design process at Rancho Seco. It addresses improvements in:
Jo/ '
- The design change process for future work
- The design reviews of work performed during the current outage
- The baseline Rancho Seco design (System Design Bases).
This first issue of the Engineering Plan places emphasis on current reviews and those process changes which are in progress. As elements of this program are implemented and schedules are finalized, this plan will be
! updated and incorporated into future amendments of the Rancho Seco Action Plan for Performance Improvement.
Because the District recognizes that the effectiveness of the Engineering Plan and the prevention of recurring design engineering problems are more likely to occur in concert with supporting organizational, administrative, and cultural changes, this plan summarizes the changes related to each of these areas.
Based on our in-progress review of the NRC Augmented System Review and Test Program and on internal studies currently in progress, these changes are described below. (Future updates of this plan will provide further detail concerning these changes.)
i w .. - - - - ,. -
', Oraanizational Chances In contrast to an engineering department originally comprised of a core of SMUD personnel supported by contractors, all of whom worked in
! Sacramento, the engineering department now has a permanent staf f of 85 working onsite. The group has been reorganized so that the overall
! organization reflects the appropriate delegation of authority,
- responsibility, and accountability. Heading the organizational i structure is the Manager of Nuclear Engineering, supported by the Configuration Control Manager, Electrical Engineering Manager,
]
]
Mechanical Engineering Manager, and Project Engineering Manager.
The Nuclear Engineering Department consists of:
) !
- System Design Engineers who provide the necessary resource of l system knowledge and coordinate resolution of design problems a
- Design Assurance Engineers within the engineering disciplines
]
! who assist with resolution of programmatic and procedural i
issues
!
- A Planning and Scheduling Group which provides improved control and coordination between all departments. This part of the group will ensure that engineering activities are more i effectively planned both in terms of 1) time required to get the job done and 2) sequencing work to match plant priorities.
4 I
l 4
i
- ii
. . _ . _ , _ . ~ . . . - . - - - _ . . - _ . _ _ _ . _ _ - . . _ _ . _ . , _ - _ _ _ _ . _- .-.__ _
U ,
Administrative Chances Tracking systems are in place and being implemented to control more effectively the administrative processes. These systems include computerized tracking of engineering action items through the Action Item Memo (AIM), tracking master equipment lists items to support design change package turnover, and establishing and tracking work plans with respect to unit rates, budget, and other managerial concerns.
Cultural Channes The key cultural change is directed towards a new definition of completed staff work. That definition is based on the understanding of all of the requirements for issuing not merely a technical answer, but a technically-acceptable and functional Design Change Package.
Specifically, the respons'.Pble discipline must recognize that personnel involved in the design process:
- Should understand the problem before designing its resolution
- Must agree that completing the paperwork (e.g., calculations,
.g' h '1p master equipment lists, design basis updates, procedural changes, changes to technical specifications) is just as v
\
A.
critical as the technical resolution
- Must understand that the job is not finished until the last drawing change notice to reflect plant configuration is incorporated into as-built drawings.
iii
The next revision of this plan will:
9
- Address the items identified in the Augmented Systems Review and Test Program Inspection (50-312/86-41) and the results of the internal Design Calculations Review Program (as described in Appendix E)
- Include the specific actions for preventing recurrence of design engineering problems.
I l
l l
i 1
iv l
0 .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.P_agt Exec u ti ve S uma ry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i 1.0 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.0 Engineering Action Pl an . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1 Summary of the Engineering Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2 Elements of Engineering Action Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2.1 Engineering Process Changes (Sumary) . . . . . . . 5 2.2.1.1 Configuration Baseline . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2.1.2 Design Change Package Program. . . . . . . 9 2.2.1.3 Design Assurance Engineering . . . . . . . 11 2.2.1.4 ECN Closure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 ,
2.2.1.5 Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.2.1.6 Periodic Technical Reviews . . . . . . . . 17 2.2.2 Review of Outage Design Work (Sumary). . . . . . . 19 2.2.2.1 Calculation Review and Correction. . . . . 21 2.2.2.2 System Status Report Items . . . . . . . . 24 2.2.2.3 Auxiliary Feedwater. . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Functionality 2.2.3 Design Validation (Sumary) . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.2.3.1 System Design Basis Reconstitution . . . . 30 2.2.3.2 System Functional Review . . . . . . . . . 33 2.2.4 Independent Reviews (Su mery) . . . . . . . . . . . 35 2.2.4.1 Technical Oversight Comittee. . . . . . . 36 2.2.4.2 SMUD Quality Audits. . . . . . . . . . . . 37 y
_ . . - ,,,--.e,,,..e+ -+ ,- *-- -+w- -'--*---C f
APPENDICES Appendix A James G. Partlow (NRC) letter to John E. Ward (SMUD) A-1 dated 3/11/87
- Appendix B RSMP 301 Rev. O. " Configuration Management Process" B-1 Appendix C G.V. Cranston Memorandum 87-188, dated Feb. 10, 1987 C-1 Appendix D Design Change Package Program Plan (draft) D-1 Appendix E Design Calculation Review Program Plan E-1 Appendix F Procedure QCI-12 (Systematic Assessment Process and F-1 l System Review and Test Program)
Appendix G NEP 4121 Rev. 2 " System Design Bases" G-1 l Appendix H System Functional Review Procedure H-1 l Appendix I Quality Assurance Audit Plan I-1 Appendix J Nuclear Engineering Department Organization J-1 J
l i
i 1
s vi l
1 1.0 Introduction 1
After the December 1985 overcooling event, the District began a j program of plant evaluations that have resulted in numerous design modifications scheduled to be implemented during the l
1 current outage. The review program is described in the Rancho '
] Seco Action Plan for Perfomance Improvement. Nuclear Engineering particpates in the ongoing system review elements of ,
- this program and in preparation and support for implementation of design modification packages.
I In the course of this effort, the District has recognized that a l
program of ongoing design reviews and further improvements in
{j the modification design process are needed to strengthen Nuclear Engineering's ability to support plant operation. Areas of j concern were identified by the District in such documents as the i System Status Reports. Additionally, areas of strength and 1
areas of concern were identified in recent independent reviews j of engineering activities by the NRC in the Augmented System
- Review and Test Program Inspection and by INPO. The areas of i
- concern noted by the NRC and INPO have provided additional
) observations reinforcing the need for continuing improvement in i
engineering programs, as well as specific corrective action r
l related to current outage work.
)
l l l I I i j -I -
k
(J U The elements of Engineering's action plan are described in the following sections. Nuclear Engineering's objective with this program is to continue in the direction of developing a trature engineering department with solid baseline documentation and effective controls over the quality of work.
-2 -
2.0 Engineering Action Plan 2.1 Summary There are three primary objectives of the Engineering Action Plan. These are:
A. Upgrade the engineering design change process to improve the quality of work performed in the future.
B. Review elements of work performed during this outage i
I to assure design adequacy.
C. Re-establish the plant System Design Bases including j
in-depth system functional reviews and reviews of past design work, which includes review of previous (to the Cycle 7 outage)designchanges, calculations, design I
criteria, etc.
The primary elements, along with the implementing program, are shown in Figure 2.1.
In each area, specific tasks are underway or planned to accomplish these objectives. These are discussed in the following sections, with the formal department plan, procedure, or program provided in the referenced Appendix.
l 1
3 .
D L
ENGINEERING ACTION PLAN .
'COPEIGURATION ECH CALCULATION PERIODIC TECHNICAL BASELINE CLOSURE PROCEDURE l l 8 PROGRAMMATIC REVIEWS -i '
CHECK LIST REVIS'ON a PROCESS ( 2. 2.i. I) ( 2.2.i.41 ( 2.2.1.51 ( 2.2. I. 6 )
l ,
CHANGES l 1 I iI I -
1 I j j DESIGN DCP TECH;41 CAL ASSURANCE SIG M I ! -
PROGRAM COMMITTEE ENGINEERS (2.2.i.31 ( 2.2.1.2) , ( 2. 2.4.1) ll SNUD Il CALC ADDED -l LI REVIEW SSR ITEMS D 7 I (2.2.2.) (2.2.4.2)
= OU (2.2._2. 21 a WORK l l l l _
POST RESTART SSR WORK' l
FUNCTIOPFLITY l
(22.2.3 ) F SYSTEM E DESIGN BASES SYSTEM SYSTEM OESCRIPTION & hl #{5 SYSTEMS)+
FUNCTIONAL REQUIRMENTS REVIEW DOCUMENTS (5 SYSTEMS) l e SYSTEM '
DESIGN (2.2.3 ) (2.2.3.5) (WORKING DRAFTS) ll DESIGN BASES EM M VALIDATION ] l l l
'5 SYSTEMS) "- FUNCTIONAL ==
l REVIEW l l S F AT SYSTEM l REV.O ( 23- GN TESTING ;. i -[2.2 .3.. ,-
4 BASES &
PROGRAM FUNCTIONAL
- +
(2.2.3) ( 2. 2.3 ) p
. 's. -
,75;. ' REVIEW
- J- " ' " "
(REMAINING
) .
TEST l .jpd[] '}gy SYSTEMS)
WORKING -f
( 2. 2. 3.1 )
l ' .'.'~-
2' GROUP -
~
(2.2. 3 ) [
FIGURE 2.1
o .
2.2 Elements of Engineerina Action Plan 2.2.1 Engineering Process Changes The District is proceeding with changes to the design change process that will provide increased assurance of the quality of modification packages released for installation and improved integration of closure activities before turnover of the completed modification to plant operations. These changes are motivated by experience with the present modification process during this outage, as well as observations from INPO and the NRC.
Under the direction of a pennanent Configuration Control Manager, a baseline configuration will be established that correlates the as-built plant configuration with baseline documentation. A Design Change Package program will be implemented to facilitate integrated reviews of modifications prior to release. These packages will contain design basis infonnation, safety analyses, and design output documents. The analytical basis for design, i.e., calculations, will be strengthened by issuing a good practices supplement to the present NEP 4106,
" Design Calculations".
[ -5 -
l L
Implementation of these changes will be facilitated 4
by a function called Design Assurance Engineering. [
l 3
consisting of designated representatives from each ;
' i engineering discipline. These engineers will do I
design engineering as well as being functionally ,
j matrixed to the Configuration Control Manager to a
}
provide a resource of people to identify and resolve 6
! progranaatic and procedural concerns with the design i
process and institute corrective action to prevent
)
J recurrence. To provide added confidence that the 1 "
j proposed effort is achieving desired improvements.
l periodic technical and programmatic reviews by an offsite technical organization will be instituted.
b The following sections discuss the specific elements
! of this program.
i ,
1 2.2.1.1 Configuration Baseline
) 2.2.1.2 Design Change Package Program i
j 2.2.1.3 Design Assurance Engineering 2.2.1.4 ECN Closure ;
I 2.2.1.5 Calculation Procedure Revision '
i 2.2.1.6 Periodic Technical Reviews l
i i
-6 - ,
i 2.2.1.1 Confinuration Baseline i
. Issue !
! Additional improvements to plant baseline documentation, such as design bases and streamlined procedures to maintain as-built f
i documentation, will reduce the potential for design or operational errors traceable to inaccurate or incomplete design records.
i i
i Resolution l The configuration of the Rancho Seco Station will be managed to ensure ;
I the station is operated, modified and maintained in accordance with
) the Rancho Seco Quality Program. The nuclear engineering ;
configuration management process will address the regulatory and f- District requirements affecting configuration management including I
(~ / design control, document control, material control, and records control.
i Ennineerina Action Plan (1) Approach
- The Configuration Control Management responsibilities have been i
! defined under RSMP-301. " Configuration Management Process" I
(Appendix 8). The process is being implemented under a i multidiscipline effort to accomplish the following:
! A) Reconstitution of the system design basis for the five j systems subject to the system functional review (Section l 2.2.3.2),andultimatelyallkeyplantsystems.
1 B) Upgrade of the construction specifications to reflect l
l current criteria.
4 l l
C) Validation of the design data elements of the components in theMasterEquipmentList(MEL).
E) Establishment of a configuration status accounting process to ensure that changes to the configuration baseline are recorded and disseminated in a timely manner.
(2) Design Output
- System Design Basis Documents (See Section 2.2.3.1)
- ConstructionSpecifications(Approximately30)
- MEL design data validated
- Configuration status accounting system on-line (3) Status as of 4/13/87
/
- Construction Specifications - 50% complete
(/ - MEL Design Data validated - 15% Class 1 equipment data complete
- Configuration status accounting system - 20% complete
- System Design Basis Documents (See Section 2.2.3.1)
(4) Closure schedule Prior to Restart
- Five System Description and Function Requirements documents issued (See Section 2.2.3.1)
Post Restart
- Remaining items 8 -
. - _ - _____ __- = - - - ._ . __.
)
2.2.1.2 Desian Change Package Program Issue The current method of preparing modification packages is complex and ;
fragmented with respect to interfaces among disciplines and departments in the preparation, review and closure cycle.
Resolution The District will implement a Design Change Package program under the auspices of the Configuration Management Process. The Design Control
- Program will define a method for reviewing and implementing proposed design changes and defining authorized changes in discrete manageable elements, such that design basis, functionality requirements, design
- criteria, interfacing group reviews, licensing commitments, and other appropriate criteria are incorporated.
Engineerina Action Plan (1) Approach
- The elements of the design change package currently being developed, consist of the following
A) A process for requesting, fully evaluating, prioritizing, and
! authorizing design changes. This includes establishing criteria for the acceptance of proposed design changes.
1 1
- -9 -
l
.= _ - _ _ _ . __.
r B) A process for ensuring that technical requirements defined for the design change are comprehensive.
C) A process for implementing the design change package into the plant configuration and associated design baseline documents. I plant procedures and training plans, while maintaining )
compliance with the technical specifications and other and i licensing comitments.
D) A process to ensure that the design change package is l:
properly pre-reviewed. issued, and closed, with revisions to the package being carried through all appropriate interfacing
, groups.
t The draft plan is provided in Appendix D.
j(!
I 4
(2) Design Output DesignChangePackageProcedures(Approximately15)
(3) Status as of 4/13/87
! DesignChangePackageProcedures(Approximately20% complete) !
i !
! (4) Schedule l Procedure modifications are being made now and will be periodically made to incorporate elements of the DCP plan as they I are completed.
k ,
1 2.2.1.3 _Desian Assurance Engineering P
!ssue i Restart activities have demonstrated a need to continually upgrade engineering procedures as the practices of engineering or interfacing departments evolve or weaknesses are identified. An efficient and 1 centralized mechanism is needed to identify and correct engineering ,
procedural problems.
Resolution ,
Implement a Design Assurance Engineering program with personnel (designated by the Discipline Supervisor) who1e functions are matrixed to Configuration Control Manag ment. The Design Assurance Engineering b Program will detect, evaluate and correct programatic weaknesses in engineering procedures.
i I
J Engineerina Action Plan _ ,
l (1) Approacn ,
Nuclear Engineering has initiated a program of Design Assurance Engineering. Specific engineers from each discipline have been assigned design assurance responsibilities. Areas of The programatic weakness will be identified and reported.
l
' Design Assurance Engineer may still be available for discipline engineering responsibilities.
i i .n.
l
f l
l
! Design Assurance Engineer responsibilities include:
! A. providing guidance to each discipline on procedure interpretation and discipline practice.
l 1
I B. Identifying prograsmatic weaknesses and working with the Configuration Control core group to upgrade procedures and f r
training to prevent recurrence, j f '
1 l C. Assuring that interfaces with other disciplines and the plant J q
on procedural issues are adequate.
j D. Monitoring discipline implementation of engineering procedures.
i (2) Expected Output In the near tem, closure of ECN's will be documented by concurrence of the Design Assurance Engineers and discipline Supervisors on the ECN clesure checklist (see section 2.2.1.4).
r Long tem, the Design Assurance Engineers will participate in the I ongoing effort to upgrade Nuclear Engineering procedures. 1 i
i i
j (3) Status as of 4/13/87 ;
This program has been started. Designations of engineers with !
i
)
i design assurance responsibilities have been completed.
(4) Closure Schedule This program will be integrated with the engineering program on a pemanent basis.
l I
i i 12
2.2.1.4 Engineering Change Notice Closure Issue Existing engineering practices related to completion of design activities when closing modification packages are not clearly documented.
Resolution The District will implement a documented closure review of all restart relatedECNs,usingamemorandumchecklist(AppendixC). Procedure NEP 4109, " Rancho Seco Configuration Control Procedure " will be revised to incorporate this checklist This is recognized as an interim program until the Design Change Package Program is fully and successfully implemented.
Engineerina Tetion Plan (1) Approach For each ECN, the Cognizant Engineer will be responsible for completing a closure checklist. The checklist includes details on the as built review of the ECN, and verification that documentation is complete, and the activities of the interfacing disciplines and departments activities are complete. The checklist will be jointly reviewed by the Cognizant E'igineer and the Discipline Design Assurance Engineer, and approved by the Discipline Supervisor.
(2) Design Output
- s. Engineering Change Notice and Checklist i
- c. Revision to NEP 4109, " Rancho Seco Configuration Control Procedure" (3) Status as of 4/13/87 Completion of ECN checklists is in progress and the revision to j NEP 4109 is in preparation.
1 (4) Closure Schedule i
This effort will be complete by restart and integrated into NEP 4109 and the the appropriate DCP procedures for future work.
' ()
i 1
1
]
l l
l
- 1. *
._.. . . _ m _ _
d '
1 2.2.1.5 Calculations l Issue
- Some calculations have been found to be difficult to follow, with assumptions and conservatisms not clearly stated and lacking complete
! references. Procedural requirements are not definitive with respect to acceptable levels of clarity.
Resolution The procedure which governs control of design calculations will be revised to include a " good practice" guideline which defines 1
acceptable technical and quality requirements for Nuclear Engineering 4
calculations. In addition, an immediate review is being conducted of
(,; recent design calculations to assure technical adequacy as discussed in section 2.2.2.1.
4 Engineerina Action Plan (1) Approach The Design Assurance Engineering core group under the purview of configuration control management will revise NEP 4106. " Design
! Calculations" to include a good practice guideline. Formal training will be conducted on calculation technical and quality standards, i j
(2) Expected Output (a) Revision to NEP 4106. " Design Calculations."
t
. . . - - - - --.-. . . - ~ - - . _ . _ _ _
(3) Status as of 4/13/87 l The revision to procedure NEP 4106 " Design Calculations" is in progress.
t t (4) Closure Schedule I
By Restart.
i 4
I 4
I r
6 I
(
\ .
1 l
1 1
l
}
1 ;
i I
. I I
I l 2
)
l i
l
U 1 2.2.1.6 Periodic Technical Reviews i l
Issue The quality of engineering output can be improved by strengthening the design verification and review process.
Resolution Nuclear Engineering will establish a program of periodic technical reviews. The reviews will be perfomed by independent, senior level professionals, and will emphasize both technical and programmatic aspects of the department.
Engineerina Action Plan (1) Approach An outside technical organization will be contracted to implement periodic reviews of engineering output at Rancho Seco. The team will be comprised of individuals with an appropriate cross section of backgrounds to evaluate the technical adequacy of design packages and calculations. The objective is to assure that an appropriate level of quality is maintained and that procedures and practices are appropriate.
(2) Design Output This review will be procedurally controlled and documented for corrective action and audit records.
(3) Status as of 4/13/87 s
The Calculation Review Program current in progress in an example
' of this type of activity (Section 2.2.2.1) l (4) Closure Schedule i
Post restart and ongoing.
1 l
t 1
i i
)
i i
I i
4 E
---.-,,--..,ww y-. . , . ,
y--- ,--,,,--,---w-m,,, - _ w..-~e---.. em--,---w--- ----..-,,,,,y , - , ,,,,-'-yw- -, ,-r--,-..-%.. . - -.. .-., - - ~ ---*, --=w-%<
2.2.2 Review of Outane Design Work The District is engaged in continuing assessments of the quality of work and the scheduling of resolution of known issues. The NRC's Augmented System Review and Test Program Inspection reinforced the need for this continuing self-assessment by identifying concerns related to some calculations and drawings prepared for work scheduled during the current outage. The audit team also recomended that several items not presently scheduled for completion during this outage be considered for comp 1'ation prior to restart.
I To address concerns with current rodifications and l calculations, a program of calculation reviews and modification i b reviews has been instituted. The calculation review will '
provide a comprehensive assessment of the technical adequacy of analysis performed for modifications being implemented presently. A sampling of modifi m tions will also be reviewed to assure that the design object 19es are met. (This will be integrated with the SMUD Quality Audits in Section 2.2.4.2.)
Wf th regard to scheduling of priort.ty 2 and 3 activities prior to restart. SMUD is proceeding with a review of items identified by the NRC inspection tean. The District is proceeding with restart activities presented in the Rancho Seco Action Plan, implemented under QCI-12.
The following section discusses the specific elements of this program.
2.2.2.1 Calculation Review 2.2.2.2 System Status Report Items 2.2.2.3 Auxiliary Feedwater Functionality Issues s
1 2.2.2.1 Calculation Review and Correction Issue Nuclear engineering design calculations have some deficiencies such as improperly documented assumptions and problems with clarity. Examples have been identified where superseded calculations remain on file with current calculations.
Resolution A technical review of Nuclear Engineering Calculations will be performed.
Engineering Action Plan (1) Approach
,; The approach for conducting the calculation review has been divided into the following subtasks:
- a. A review of recent engineering design calculations for technical adequacy will be performed. A calculation review team has been established from outside technical resources to independently review a broad selection of calculations associated with restart modifications. The focus will be on technical acceptability of the calculations. A cross-section of calculations in different discipline and technical areas will be reviewed, with an emphasis on unique or complex calculations for safety-related applications. The review j procedure is provided in Appendix E. Deficiencies affecting )
the design output of current work will be corrected.
I j
i
Based on their review, the team will make programmatic reconr.endations to correct deficiencies in the current review process.
- b. Obsolete source documents:
A review of all system calculations for obsolete source documents will be perfomed, and obsolete calculations will be deleted or revised to state they are obsolete.
Calculations will be revised as necessary to make appropriate technical corrections, and the effect on plant systems of any calculation change will be evaluated. The first priority for this review will be all select systems.
- c. Completion of calculations:
As part of the above effort, missing or preliminary calculations will be identified. The reconstruction or
-> conversion of documents to femal calculations will be performed,
- d. Procedural controls on adequacy of documentation:
A " Good Practice Guideline" is being added to Procedure NEP 4106, " Design Calculations." See Section 2.2.1.5
" Cal cul ations. "
l (2) Design Output (prior to restart)
- a. Design Calculation Review Program (see Appendix E)
- b. Documented review of restart related ECN design packages for select systems (approximately 250 ECNs affecting all select systems)
- c. Review of restart related calculations for select systems (approximately 100 calculations affecting all select systems) 1
- d. Correction of calculations or procedures l
- e. Fomal review observations and SMUD responses to document all action taken as a result of the review These activities relate to subtask (1)a above. Other subtasks will be completed after restart.
(3) Status as of 4/13/87 Review of restart ECNs and associated calculations is underway with approximately 80% complete. Initial results indicate that the observations are generally similar to the NRC vertical audit findings. There are concerns that relate to completeness and attention to detail, but no findings to date that would affect the safe and proper operation of the plant.
(4) Closure The initial review of recent design calculations is scheduled to be complete by restart. Unless significant problems are found, the schedule for resolution will be parallel with that of the reconstitution of the system design bases or occur when the system calculations are reviewed in conjunction with a future design modification. Where significant problems are found corrective action will be taken prior to restart. Reviews for obsolate calculations and calculation completeness will also be performed in conjunction with efforts to develop System Design Bases (see section 2.2.3.3).
l
i 1 2.2.2.2 System Status Report Items Issue The District and NRC identified items in System Status Reports to be reconsidered for resolution prior to restart. Generally, these were in the areas of operating procedure changes, as-built documentation problems, or resolution of design problems related to previous Rancho Seco transients.
Resolution The District is evaluating these items and will provide a response pnder separate cover.
(_j Engineering Action Plan (1) Approach These items will be reviewed by the District and resolutions provided under separate cover.
(2) Design Output Nuclear Engineering will preparo any necessary drawing changes or ,
i design modification packages.
)
l
)
._a ,
2.2.2.3 AFW System Functionality ,
i Issues Concerns have been raised regarding AFW system functionality under all potential reviews. The specific concerns relate to:
A. Confirmation of the AFW Pump minimum recirculation flow.
B. Surveillance testing of the CST Vacuum Breakers and pressure Relief Valves, C. Capacities of the CST Yacuum Breakers and Relief Valves, D. Surveillance of CST level indication, E. Structural integrity of CST for over pressure or under pressure conditions.
F. AFW Pump runout under certain circumstances,
- G. Seismic integrity of the CST, H. AFW Pump flow indication I. Motor overspeed, on a turbine overspeed event for P318.
J. Maximum flow of AFW.
Resolution A specific evaluation of functionality issues is being added to the System Status Report for Auxiliary Feedwater. Proposed resolution is ;
j sumarized below:
! A. The actual value of the recirculation flow will be verified by testing, and the appropriate supporting calculation identified.
The orifice diameter will be inspected for both AFW pumps.
B. The appropriate Surveillance Procedures for the vacuum breakers i and relief valves will be performed.
1 l
l i
C. The capacity calculation for the relief valves and vacuum I
breakers will be reviewed against the design limits of the tank i structure.
D. The surveillance procedure test results for the CST level :
J indication will be reviewed and perfomed. !
E. The structural integrity of the CST is being reviewed against maximum tank pressure based on the as-found relief valve setpoints, and minimum credible vacuum in the tank.
F. Potential pump degradation at pump runout will be investigated.
G. The seismic integrity of the CST and the standpipe is being reviewed.
4 H. Engineering will evaluate flow indication and modify flow l indication such that appropriate flow indication is available.
I. Engineering is evaluating the motor overspeed condition, I considering the alternatives of qualifying the motor or reducing the overspeed trip setpoint.
J. The AFW system will be modified to include a flow limiting device
- to preclude exceeding the maximum acceptable flow rate to the f
Engineerino Action Plan (1) Approach The resolution of AFW pump and CST issues are being documented in
, the Auxiliary Feedwater System Status Report.
i i
I
. _ . .. . ._ - ~.
(2) Design Output Additional analysis and modification packages are required.
(3) Status as of 4/13/87 In progress.
(4) Closure Schedule
'l The closure schedule for these issues is under review.
1 r
I
2.2.3 Desian Validation The purpose of this program is to provide confidence in the baseline Rancho Seco design and, in a effort continuing past restart, documentation of baseline design requirements in a more retrievable fonn than at present.
Significant elements of this effort are presently in place.
These include the completed Systematic Assessment Program as described in Section 4A of the Rancho Seco Action Plan and the System Review and Test Program as discussed in Section 1.4 of the Action Plan. A parallel effort has been undertaken to prepare System Design Basis documents. After restart, a SMUD System Functional Review of five systems as discussed in section 1.4.2 of the Rancho Seco Action Plan will validate the design basis effort and provide a reference point for modifying and expanding the design basis program to all key plant systems.
The following sections discuss the specific elements of this program, which are not discussed in depth in the Rancho Seco Action Plan.
2.2.3.1 System Design Basis Reconstitution 2.2.3.2 SMUD System Functional Reviews 1
U 3 j
l l
The integration of program is considered to provide a thorough, in depth review of system design. Key elements will be complete before restart, but substantive evaluations will continue after restart with developnent of the System Design Bases and the System Functional Reveiws.
2.2.3.1 System Desian Basis Reconstitution Issue The plant configuration has undergone a significant number of modifications throughout the plant operating history. In aodition, desig? or licensing evaluations of conditions not considered in the original design have been perfomed. Through this process, the system design bases have evolved and may be difficult to retrieve.
Development of System Design Basis documents will recapture key design criteria and, in the process, provide an in-depth review of system design.
Resolution Prior to restart, SMUD will compile Revision A documents called System Description and Functional Requirements documents for the 5 systems
! described in the action plan to be reviewed in the SMUD System Functional Review (Section 2.2.3.2). The documents these will be j compiled to reflect the current plant configuration, licensing connitments, and system functions and operating modes. A hierarchy of design bases from the system level to specific components will be developed.
This effort will be expanded to other systems after restart. ,
Development of these documents requires a careful review of the i current plant design, and provides a review of design adequacy with a different perspective than that of the System Review and Test Program.
)
1 1
Engineerina Action Plan (1) Approach The long-term objective for the content of the System Design Basis documents is as stated in Nuclear Engineering Procedure NEP 4121 " System Design Bases". (See Appendix G). On an interim
- basis, documents reflecting preliminary information for select systems are available to System Design Engineers and System Engineers. Prior to restart, five of these documents will be
- developed as Revision A " System Description and Functional Requirements Documents " after review by the System Design Engineers.
After restart, documents for the first five systems will be
(; upgraded to the objectives of the NEP. The quality of these documents will be validated in the SMUD System Functional Review (see section 2.2.3.2), after which the effort will be expanded to additional systems.
When Revision 0 documents are issued, a configuration control i
procedure will be implemented to assure that the baseline documents are maintained current as design er licensing basis changes occur.
l l
l l
(2) Design Output Ultimately, System Design Bases will be in place for all plant systems as input to future design modifications, with the thirty three select systems receiving priority (as defined in QCI-I2, ,
" Plant Performance and Management Improvement Program,"
Appendix F).
(3) Status as of 4/13/87 Work proceeding on documents for the thirty three select systems with emphasis on five systems that are identified in the action plan.
(4) Closure Schedule
- . Ongoing
)
1 l
f
o .
2.2.3.2 System Functional Review i
Issue _
System function reviews are needed to reconstitute the System Design Bases.
! Position Section 1.4.2 of the Rancho Seco Action Plan describes SMUD's connitment that " systems critical to secondary side heat removal will undergo a long-term and more extensive review" than those of the System Review and Test Program. The review "which is modelled after the safety system functional inspections by the NRC, consists of: a)
Design Basis reconstitution, b) reliability assessment of the system; i ..
and c) evaluation that individual components support the system design i
basis." Initially five systems are to be reviewed: Main Feedwater.
l Auxiliary Fe.edwater ICS/NNI, Pressure Control Functions of the Main Steam System, and Instrument Air. The Action Plan states that "This i comprehensive review of these five selected systems will be initiated prior to restart and will be completed prior to coming out of the j cycle 8 refueling outage".
Engineerina Action Plan (1) Approach i
j The System Functional Review will be augmented by the System I
Review and Test Program, identifying some issues that are outside the scope of previous reviews. Issues identified will be subject i
to broad, horizontal evaluations to resolve programmatic issues.
l i
A reliability assessment of the system performed in parallel will give a frame of reference for evaluating the significance of identified issues. This evaluation will serve to validate the i An ;
quality of design basis documents currently in preparation.
outline of a planned approach is provided in Appendix H. \
I l
(2) Design Output The output of this effort, in general terms, will be resolution of identified technical and programmatic issues, as well as feedback concerning the quality of the System Design Basis documents.
(3) Status as of 4/13/87 Preliminary scoping of the 4
System Design Basis work is underway.
I remainder of the effort has been completed.
l l
(4) Closure Schedule The effort is scheduled to be complete by Cycle 9.
4 i
2.2.4 Independent Reviews The action plan described in the preceding section will be Although administered by the Nuclear Engineering Department.
several elements, sucn as the reviews of calculations and modifications, are intended to have a high degree of impartiality, it is considered valuable to provide an oversight SMUD intends to function independent of Nuclear Engineering.
provide this independent confirmation of plan effectiveness through the offices of the Restart Implementation Manager and Quality Assurance. Specifically, a Technical Oversight Committee of experienced industry professionals reporting to the Restart Implementation Manager will audit the technical effectiveness of
- the Engineering Action Plan. Also, SMUD Quality Department is adopting a program of vertical audits assessing the technical and programmatic effectiveness of design package implementation.
These activities are discussed in detail in the following
- sections
2.2.4.1 Technical Oversight Committee 2.2.4.2 SMUD Quality Department Audits
. l l
j l
i 1
1
2.2.4.1 Technical Oversicht Comittee Issue It is desirable to provide independent assurance to management of the effectiveness of improvement actions taken by the Nuclear Engineering Department to address issues discussed in this plan.
Resolution A Technical Oversight Comittee will be instituted, reporting to the Restart Implementation Manager, to review the adequacy of the programs outlined in the Engineering Action Plan.
Engineerina Action Plan (1) Approach The Technical Oversight Comittee will review the progress and output of tasks identified in the preceeding sections of this report. The Comittee will review program definition, procedure ,
development, work progress and output quality.
(2) Output Documented results will be issued at the conclusion of each review, identifying conclusions and recomendations.
l (3) Status as of 4/13/87 Forecast date for initiating these reviews is 6/1/S7. l (4) Closure Schedula This effort is scheduled to be complete by Cycle 8.
l l
2.2.4.2 SMUD Quality Audits Issue Quality Department audits of Nuclear Engineering activities.
Resolution The Quality Department is presently comitted to adopt vertical audit techniques to evaluate the effectiveness of Nuclear Engineering programs.
Engineering Action Plan (1) Approach SMUD Quality Department personnel on a periodic basis, will review engineering practices and interfacing activities in other 1
departments. To obtain an in-depth evaluction of program effectiveness one approach will be to review plant modifications from the initial stage of problem definition through final plant in:plementation. The Audit Plan for the intitial vertical audit is provided in Appendix I.
(2) Output Each review will be documented in an audit report detailing conclusions and unresolved issues.
(3) Status as of 4/13/87
- An audit team has been formed and preparation started for the intitial vertical audit.
(4) Closure Schedule Ongoing.
I LW
- . 1
, / g UNITED STATES P g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- { g WASHINGTON. D. C. 20665 .
%../
Docket No. 50-312 March 11,1987 R ,E C ,E, om. IV E D MAR 17 W Mr. John E. Waro Tl6g'gjjg1,9,$t415i6 Deputy General Manager, Nuclear 8 Sacramento Municipal Utility District &
Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station 1 P. O. Box 15830. Mail Stop No. 291 Sacramento, California 95852-1830
Dear Mr. Ward:
A special announced team inspection of the restart activities at Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station was conducted by NRC headqcarters staff during the period December 1,1986-February 12, 1987. The team discussed the inspection findings with you and members of your staff during the course of this inspection and at the exit meeting on February 12, 1987. This letter provides a susunary of the significant findings in advance of the inspection report (50-312/86-41) so that appropriate corrective actions may be factored into your restart planning activities. The findings listed below are only the more significant concern:; identified during the inspection and provide neither a complete list of inspection concerns nor any of the strengths identified by the inspection (f team. A complete discussion of all the inspection findings will be provided in Inspection Report 50-312/86-41. The more significant inspection findings are summarized below:
- 1. Functionality Concerns:
- a. The auxiliary feedwater (AFW) system pumps may not be able to provide the flow required by Technical Specifications. This problem may have been concealed by inadequate testing procedures, inconsistent cali-bration of the condensate storage tank (CST) level instrument and inaccurate (low) estimates of the minimum recirculation flow that is diverted from the steam generators,
- b. The structural reliability of the CST may be in question due to im-properly set pressure relief valves and vacuum breakers that appear to be incorrectly sized and did not receive required periodic in-service testing.
- c. The AFW system may be susceptible to pump runout sitt:stions despite Emergency Feedwater Initiation and Control (EFIC) System installation.
Operator action is still required to prevent runuut under some cir-cumstances and the alarm and flow indication in the control room could provide unreliable information. The comitment to install flow limiting devices in the AFW system may correct this concern. Additionally, the proposed action for correcting the potential pump damage from the runout condition experienced during the event on December 26, 1985, appeared inadequate.
- .- . .- - - . _ = _ _ . . - _ - _ - . - . - - _ - __ -
..' l Mr. , John E. Ward t r.
e
, ,' d. Certain breakers on DC Buses SOA and SOB may be incorrectly sized for interrupting short circuit current after installation of the larger BA and BB batteries.
2p. . Programatic Concerns:
\ . .
, i a. Examples were found where improper implemen,tatiop qf the design l ; control program resulted in poor analyses, incorrect calculations, i and inaccurate drawings being used for modificatiun activities in
- , the plant. ,
?
.=
- b. The surveillance /in-service test program was found to have several
! , deficiencies including incorrect procedures, poor procedure imple-j <' mentation, and inadequate evaluation of test results.
j 4, c. Deficiencies were identified with the implementation of administrative i
- procedures for the control of plant systems and equipment status j . tracking. ,
- d. Mintenance prucedures used for AFW air-operated flow control valves appeared inadequate, which raised questions about the material condi-i tion of the valves. Additionally, equipment maintenance history programs were not fully implemented.
( e. The quality assurance (QA) audit and surveillance programs were
\._ , ' not providing station management with adequate feedback on safety activities. Management Safety Review Comittee (MSRC) oversight of the QA audit program did not appear to adequately review close-out of audit findings.
- f. The corrective action program did not appear to have a procedure issued for identifying and correcting significant conditions adverse to quality.
l 3. System Review and Test Program (SRTP) Concerns i 6. Selected System Status Reports (SSRs) did not appear to be properly i controlled considering their importance as a basis for the NRC
- development of the restart safety evaluation report (SER).
b; The SRTP priority system and restart plan did not sufficiently
. identify all system problem resolutions which would be accomplished
! prior to restart. Some problems, classified as a priority 2 or 3, I which affect or demonstrate safe plant operation should be completed l - prior to restart. The team acknowledged the commitment to correct l the specific items identified during the inspection for the eight systems reviewed; however, a review for similar problems in the l remaining selected systems should belperformed.
- c. The problems with the surveillance /in-service testing program and procedures reflect poorly on their use for SRTP testing, k
. , - - - . . _ _ _ , - . . - . . . _ - - - - . , . - - -- --- ----~_.- , - . , _,- .- -- ,. - , , , , , ,
ti M'r. J nn E. b rd - I No response is required to this letter since Inspection Report 50-312/86-41 detailing the inspection findings end concerns will be issued in the near future.
J Sincerely, t
) -- - . . - ,
Jame s G. Iartlow Director Division of Inspection Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement cc: See next page
)
.l I
i j
j l
1 i
I f
' A 5
Mr. John E. Ward g --
~
, cc: Mr. Stuart Knight Mr. Joseph 0. Ward, Chief Sacramento Municipal Utility District Radiological Health Branch Rancho Seco Nucidar Generating Station State Department of Health Services
- 1440 Twin Cities Road 714 P Street Office Building #8 j Herald, California 95738-9799 Sacramento, California 95814
. ... Mr. Gordon K. karEVIeck . . . . . Sacramento County . .._, . _
Secretary, Resources Agency Board of Supervisors l 1416 9th Street, Room 1311 827 7th Street, Room 424 j Sacramento. California 95814 Sacramento, California 95814
! Mr. David S. Kaplan Secretary Ms. Helen Hubbard and General Counsel P. O. Box 63
- i Sacramento Municipal Utility District Sunol, California 94586 l 6201 S Street P. O. Box 15830 Sacramento, California 95613 Thomas A. Baxter, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
~
r' Mr. Ron Columbo
( Sacramento Municipal Utility District Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station l 4440 Twin Cities Road l Herald, California 95638-9799 I Mr. Robert B. Borsum Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Power Generation Division
. Suite 220, 7910 Woodmont Avenue
) Bethesda, Maryland 20814 l
l Resident Inspector / Rancho Seco . ,
c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission '
14410 Twin Cities Road l Herold Califurnia ~ 95638 '
Director Energy Facilities Siting Division Energy Resources Conservation and Development Conraission 1516 - 9th Street Sacramento, California 95814 l d. 45@)f S. e t w K \
l F.WW
(.F. ,
I gc Md e c. M 65 i
M t A f= M 5
)
y c:. A. d M
N SMUD, NUCLEAR ORGANIZATION NUMBER: RSMP 301 REVISION: 0 RANCBO SECO MANAGEMENT PROCESS MANUAL PAGE 1 OF 5 TITLE EFFECTIVE DATE CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT PROCESSfCMP)
~
/ 3-/3-97 AEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER /Dat
. 1.0 DGM FOSITION -
The configuration of the Rancho Seco Station will be managed to ensure the station is operated, modified, and maintained in accordance with the Rancho Seco Quality, Program. The Rancho Seco Quality Program will address all regulatory and District requirements, affecting configuration management, including design control, document control, material control and records control.
~ 2.0 SCOPE The configuration management process applies to: (1) all
. (,' ,
permanent plant items including structures, systems, components, training equipment, and supporting computer software that are used in the design, operation, maintenance and modification of the station; and, (2) all documentation which describe and docunent plant items including the licensing documents, design documents, operation / maintenance documents, and training documents.
3.O REFERENCES -
3.1 Rancho Seco, Nuclear Manual -
4.0 DEFINITIONS l 4.1 Configuration l
The physical and functional characteristics of plant items.
4.2 Configuration Management ,
The technical and administrative direction and surveillance applied to: (1) identify and document the configuration of plant items; (2) control changes to the configuration of l those items; and, (3) record and report the status of changes !
. to plant items and their corresponding baseline documents; l and (4) approved methods and procedures by which equipment is operated and maint ONTRO.U.ADCOr c ar i
1
i l
- l
\
j SMUD, NUCLEAR ORGANIZATION NUMBER: RSMP 301
- REVISION
- 0 RANCHO RRfX) MANAfMMENT PROPERR MANTIAL PAGE 2 OF 5 i
! 4.3 Baseline Documents The documents that describe and document the configuration
- of plant items, including licensing documents, design i
documents, operation / maintenance procedures, and training documents.
I 4.4 - Plant Itent l The permanent plant structures, systems, components, training equipment, and supporting computer software that are used in
, the design, operation, maintenance and modification of the
- station.
4.5 N ame Control The systematic identification, evaluation, coordination, approval or disapproval, and implementation of changes in
! the configuration of plant items and corresponding baseline
. documents.
I l 5.0 PROCESS
~
5.1 General Reauirements
< Configuration management activities must meet the following requirements:
i '
5.1.1 Bancho Seco Quality Manual requirements affecting configuration I management. , , .
l
! 5.1.2 Standard configuration identification numbers must be l I
established and applied to the baseline documents and plant li items. .
1 5.1.3 The design bases used for the procurement, fabrication, construction, operation, maintenance, and modification of i plant items must be documented, maintained and controlled in j baseline documents.
i 5.1.4 The baseline documents for plant items must be retained for i the life of the plant and be readily retrievable at any time i in accordance with the Quality Manual.
1 5.1.5 Configuration of plant items must not be changed without a i review to determine the impact on licensing, design; operation, 1 maintenance, ta ing,3ame4 endpactpedialg a #to authoria g5ppfoQ &bb u l .
T E__._________.-__._.___ _. _ _ _ . - - _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
l SMUD, NUCLEAR ORGANIZATION NUMBER: RSMP 301 REVISION: 0 RANCHO SECO MANAGEMENT PROCESS MANUAC PAGE 3 OF 5 5.1.6 All baseline documents and plant items affected by plant 1 modifications must be identified and changed as and when i required. 1 5.1.7 The actual configuration of plant items must be verified to ensure conformance to baseline documents and approved changes thereto.
5.1.8 Baseline document files must be audited to ensure they contain current baseline documents and approved changes thereto.
5.1.9 Approved changes to baseline documents must be audited to ensure their proper review and approval and subsequent in-corporation in the baseline documents.
5.1.10 The status of baseline documents must be documented and available for use as required, including the currently approved revision level, and any outstanding, approved or
. Pending changes.
5.1.11 The status of plant items must be recorded and reported, including their unique configuration via tag number, h . model/part number, manufacturers name and serial number.,_.,_ _,
5.1.12 Plant modifications must be documented and available for use as required, including the identification of baseline documents and plant items affected by the modifications.
5.1.13 Material must be controlled to baseline documents through all phases from purchase to installation in accordance with "
Material Management Department configuration' controlled documents.
5.1.14 Commitments that affect plant items or baseline documents must be identified and traceable to the baseline documents and impacted plant items.
5.1.15 Configuration changes of plant items and baseline documents which affect or involve commitments must be identified and traceable to the commitments they impact. .
5.2 Delenation of Resnonsibilities 5.2.1 Delegation of responsibilities for implementation programs and procedures to implement the CMP are as follows:
5.2.2- Each Dep configurat department vn.t g d, apjn.de ne qcTeppp % Hle5f E gefugquest.b ahtM 1
he hf y the Rancho Seco Quality Manual.
I i SMUD, NUCLEAR ORGANIZATION NUMBER: RSMP 301 REVISION: 0 RANCBO SECO MANAmDfENT PROCESS MANUAL PAGE 4 OF 5 5.2.3 The Deputy General Manager is responsible for:
o Ensuring the implementing programs and procedures meet the position and requirements of this process.
5.2.4 The Manager, Nuclear Engineering is responsible for:
o Preparing and maintaining design baseline documents and the associated changes.
o Establishing standard configuration identification numbers.
o Establishing the change control process, o Preparing change packages.
5.2.5 The Manager, Cost Control and Office Services Department is responsible for:
o Supporting the CMP with centralized document control and records Management.
o Conducting the operation / maintenance activities required by the CMP, which includes preparation and maintenance of operation / maintenance baseline documents.
5.2.6 The Manager, Licensing is responsible for conducting the licensing activities required by the CMP, including:
~'
o Controlling SMUD regulatory commitments and requi're-ments related to configuration management; ensure , ,
configuration modifications compliance with I regulatory requirements.
o Preparing and maintaining licensing baseline docu-ments.
5.2.7 The Manager, Training is responsible for conducting the training activities of baseline documents in accordance with the design basis as required by the CMP. .
1 5.2.8 The Manager, Quality Assurance is responsible for conducting the quality assurance activities required by the CMP; including:
o Periodic auditing of CMP activities performed by the functional organizations.
o Performing plant item verification through inspec-tion, and surveillance activities. -
ee' D
, ywbc . w . % ]. s
_ U l 1 SMUD', NUCLEAR ORGANIZATION NUMBER: RSMP 301 REVISION: 0 RANCHO SECO MANAmtMRNT PROCERM MANUAL PAGE 5 OF 5 5.2.9 The Director, Arlministrative Services is responsible for I conducting the supporting activities required by the CMP including material control and information systems.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS None
\ .
G e
UNCONTen, n a eD - COPY
.n-.
. i l
SACIMMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT OFFICs MEMORANDUM To: ; scipline Supervisors DATE: Fecruary 10. 1987 GVC 87-188 FROM: The Office of Nuclear Engineering Manager g W V
SUBJECT:
ECN CLOSURE NEP 4109 and AP. 44 provide procedural controls on closure of ECNs. When and ECN is cigsed, Document Cantrol issues " yellow drawings" to.the Control Room and other stick riles. The as-buil plant systems must be in conformance with plant licensing commitments :.id design bases. Also, necessary documents for operation and maintenanc3 must be available. For retrievability, documentation associated with the ECN should be in final record form.
We have recently issued over 200 ECNs to support restart. Substantial additional effort is required to assure proper c:osure of these ECNs.
AP. 44 has been revised to require the System En }ineers to verify completion of supporting documentation on the pl int side (such as f) operating procedures, training, and maintenance requirements).
In order to assure proper closure of design activities, the enclosed checklist has been prepared. This checklist is to be completed for each ECN by the Cognizant Engineer and eIch supporting discipline prior to closure. Any exceptions will require approval by the Mechanical or Electrical Engineering Manager.
To support this effort, each discioline shall designate a Discipline Quality Engineer.* This engineer's responsibilities include:
- 1. Providing guidance to discipline engineers regarding procedure interpretation and discipline practices. ;
- 2. Identifying programmatic weaknesses and working with the Configuration Control group to upgrade procedures, training, .
etc. l l
- 3. Assuring that interfaces with other disciplines and the plant !
on procedural issues are adequate. l
- 4. Monitoring discipline implemer tation of engineering procedures.
- 5. Approving, with the Cognizant Engineer, closure of ECNs by signing the enclosed checklist.
- This title has been changed to " Design Assurance Engineer."
i I
\
It is intended that effort be imolemented imediately and that all ECNs
' to be closed be reviewed accorcingly. Each discioline '.s to designate a Quality Engineer by 2/13/87. A training ortgram is ceing aevelecec for these engineers.
Attachment cc: W. McDaniel K. Perkins R. Elias J. Ward J. Gough S. Lynch K. Swartz R. Harlow P. Bosakowski Design City Files RIC Files
~~
v e * ,
7
- i ECN CLOSURE CHECKLIST The Cognizar t Engineer snall assure
- omoletion of the #:llowing activities pricr to cicsure of an EC.'!. For :nulti-cisci line IC.*:s, eacn ciscipline shall comolete a checklist. The Cogni: ant "agineer snali compile the closure checklist from all sucoorting disciolines. (Note that many of these items must ce comoleted prior to turnover to startue oroperations.)
As-Built Review of ECN
- 1. All outstanding FPRs are dispositioned and all approved FPRs have been incorporated as required into DCNs (NEP 6118).
- 2. Pipe walkdown and stress reconciliation are complete (NEP 4109).
- 3. OBR is correct, considering all design and field changes (NEP 4109).
4 DVR is correct, considerint all design and field changes (NEP 4109).
- 5. SAR is ' correct, considerint all oesign and field changes (NEP 4109),
- ..b- 6. NCRs related to the modification have been '
dispositioned and incor3 orated into design documents (NEP 4115). _
Procurement
- 7. Vendor manuals are complete and up to date (NEP 4203).
- 8. All vendor submittals a.e on file and either status 1 or 4 (NEP 4203).
- 9. Spare parts PR has been issued (NEP 4205).
ECN Related Documentation
- 10. Test outl-ine has been approved and reflect final design, including field changes (NEP 4109).
- 11. HEL entries are complete and up to date (NEP 4109).
- 12. M-853 line list is complete and up to date.
- 13. M-872 valve lists are correct and up to date.
~
L
a : -l 14 ASME Code design reports are complete.
- 15. Calculations nave been acorevec for all crecess setooints (NEP a106).
Soecial Stuates
- 16. Hazards documentation is complete (craft NEPM 5504).
- 17. EQ documentation is comolete (NEP 4118).
- 18. Fire protection documentation is complete (NEP 4119). _
- 19. Seismic qualification records are complete.
Administrative
- 20. All calculations art acoroved or accepted and transmitted tc SDC (NEP 4109).
- 21. All corresoondence .1as been provided to NED aaministration for entry into project files (NEP 3102).
- 22. Discipline files ar2 up to date (discipline procedures).
J{; 23. Correspondence action items are completed.
Exceptions List here any except ons to this checklist that will remain open after closure of the ECN w th explanation and forecast for closure. Any exceptions will requ re approvar by the Mechanical or Electrical Engineering Manager.
Item Cognizant Engineer or Supporting Discipline Engineer Discipline Quality E/.giseer"~ Discipline Supervisor If Exceptions:
Mechanical / Electrical Engineering Manager
j 'Mwn d. l- s 7
. DESIGN CHANGE PACKAGE PROGRAM PLAN t
- 1. PURPOSE To define the method for packaging design changes into discrete elements that can be implemented to correct or improve plart performance.
- 2. SCOPE Design changes effecting the permanent configuration of the plant required
, after unit restart.
i
- 3. OBJECTIVES
! o Establish procedures that define how a design change is requested, j evaluated and authorized for design definition. ,
I o Establish procedures that define how an authorized design change is j technically defined for plant implementation in accordance with applicable regulations, codes, and standards.
l 4 o Establish procedures that define how a defined design change is implemented to ensure the design definition is satisfied.
! o Establish procedures that define how the status of a design change l f- package is recorded and reported to ensure effective configuration 1 (! management. -
j A. PROGRAM APPROACH l
> l Develop the process for the:
o Request, evaluation and authorization of design changes (Phase I).
i o Technical definition of design change packages (Phase II).
! o Implementation of defined design change packages (Phase III). ;
j 5. PHASE I ACTIVITIES
! Develop the process for requesting, evaluating, prioritizing and authorizing i design changes.
I l a. Review existing ECNs to identify those that are not scheduled for
- completion prior to restart.
v I
- b. Evaluate the status of ECNs not required for restart, for closure (e.g.,
finish partially implemented, accept partially implemented, cancel unimplemented).
i i
Page 1 of 7
-w wm7 - - , - - - -, --,,,y---
q
- c. Expedite incorporation'of outstanding DCNs into applicable drawings.
(- -d. Evaluate the living schedule process against the Configuration Management Program Implementation Action Plan to ensure the identified acticns are addressed, including:
o Establishing criteria.for the acceptance of design change requests (DCRs) to ensure a real need.
o Establishing criteria for the categorization of DCRs to ensure the review and approval process facilitates the urgency of the change, o Establishing requirements for the evaluation of DCRs to ensure the impact on plant structures, systems, components, baseline' documents, cost and schedule are identified and evaluated.
o Establishing a prioritization system for identifying approved DCRs to ensure adequate resources are allocated for change definition and implementation.
- 6. PHASE II ACTIVITIES Develop the process for defining the technical requirements of the design change.
- a. Establish the format for documenting the change requirement, including
, instructions for completing the following:
- 1. Cover Sheet -
Identify the DCP number and revision number, quality and seismic class, change prerequisites and DCP sequencing requirements.
Describe the purpose of the change.
Provide for authorization and closure signatures.
- 2. Document Requirements List Identify the types of documents that are required for the CCP using a document checklist. List documents required for:
o Evaluating the potential hazards of the design change (e.g.,
fire, seismic, missile, ALARA HELBA).
o Implementing the design change (e.g., material sheets, drawings and specifications for construction, installation and test).
o Updating the design baseline input documents (e.g., system-design bases,' design criteria).
Page 2 of 7
o Describing the impact on other configuration baseline documents (e.g., FSAR, technical specifications, operating / maintenance procedures, training materials).
c Substantiating the design basis of the change (e.g.,
calculations, studies, analyses).
- 3. Index Sheet Identify the specific documents by document number, included in the package (e.g., implementing documents, document requirements list, impact statements).
Reference the specific documents by document number, required to support the change but not included in the package (e.g.,
calculations, studies).
- 4. Design Change Notice Describe the design change by preparing design change notices (DCNs) for each drawing and specification affected.
Use copies designated by Document Control for preparing the DCN.
Record DCN activity underway against each affected drawing or specification.
Identify DCNs with the DCP number, applicable drawing or 1 specification number, and DCN sheet number as assigned by Document Control.
- 5. Material Sheet Define the parts and materials required to implement the change.
including the name, description, specification and quantity.
- 6. Master Equipment List Sheet Identify the equipment items added, modified or deleted by the change.
- 7. Document Change Only Notice Describe the changes to be made to the design baseline input documents (e.g., system design bases, design criteria) to reflect the design change by preparing Document Change Only (DCOs) notices against each affected document.
Identify DCOs with DCP number and DC0 sheet number as assigned by Document Control.
4 Page 3 of 7 -
e
- 8. Configuration Document Impact Statement Describe the design change impact on the other configuration baseline documents (e.g., FSAR, technical specifications, operating / maintenance procedures, training materials) in separate impact statements written against each affected document.
- 9. Design Basis Report Describe the design basis for the change.
Evaluate the potential hazards of the change. Identify the areas of concern on a checklist that includes:
o Fire Protection o Seismic Qualification o Equipment Qualification o Unresolved Safety Question Detennination o Missile Detennination o ALARA o HELBA Identify the specific regulations, codes and standards used as source requirements.
Reference the calculations, studies or analyses (by document number) that were made to support the design change.
- 10. Design Verification Report Describe the method used to verify the design satisfies the design -
change intent in accordance with the applicable regulations, codes and standards (e.g., design review, qualification testing, alternate calculations).
Provide verification checklist to ensure conpliance with ANSI 4
Standard N45.2.11 that includes the (19) basic verification checkpoints from section 6.3.
- 11. Safety Analysis Report Povide documented evidence that the design change has been analyzed for impact on the s.sfety of the plant.
Page 4 of 7
k - - . ,-
t i 12. Package Closure List Provide a checklist to verify that the:
- o Documents identified on the Document Requirements List are current and complete.
. o DCNs are issued, current and complete.
i o Material Sheets are issued, current and complete.
o Master Equipment List Sheets are issued, current and complete and the MEL database accurately reflects the data.
o DCOs are issued, current and complete.
O Configuration Document Impact Statements are issued, current and complete.
4 o Design Basis Report is issued, current and complete.
o Design Verification Report is issued, current and complete, o Safety Analysis Report is issued, current and complete.
o Vendor documents required for definition, operation or maintenance of installed equipment are approved and retrievable.
o Work orders used to implement the change are complete.
o Field Problem Reports (FPRs) issued to resolve implementation
- problems are closed.
- o NCRs are closed,
- b. Establish the requirement for review and approval of DCP documents to ensure compliance with the Quality Program, including:
f o Inter-discipline Design Engineering Review o Design Verification
- o Design Engineering Approval I
o Inter-departmental Design Review
- c. Establish the requirements for revising issued DCP documents to ensure
- the integrity of the package is preserved, including
! o Evaluation of FPR impact on total DCP prior to FPR disposition.
i ,
t i Page 5 of 7 l
, , , - - , ,- , - . , - - - - , , , ...,.a., .e_.p._,.,-.., .,-,.e. ~_-r- - -. .a,- ~. ,- wn---,, --,.. ~ . --,,,,< . , , - ,,,,e , . , - - . ,-
_..e___,_ _ ._ _
W Evaluation of NCR impact on total DCP prior to NCR disposition.
o o Review and approval of changes consistent with the original t documents.
- d. Establish the requirements for recording and reporting the status of CCPs and DCP documents, including:
i-
. o Identification of the current, approved baseline documents (e.g.,
I drawings, specifications, system design bases, design criteria, i vendor manuals) by document number, title, sheet number, revision level.
I ~ o Identification of each DCP document by document number, title, sheet
! number, revision level, and the baseline document affected.
l o Identification of the equipmant affected by the DCP, by equipment tag number, part/model number and serial number.
o Coordination of data requirements to record and report the
- identification of baseline documents. DCP documents and equipment in i
the computer-based infonnation systems (NORMS and NUCLEIS).
- 7. PHASE III ACTIVITIES Develop the process for implementing the design change package into the j configuration of the plant and applicable plant operating and maintenance ,
i f1 baseline documents. !
- V .
- a. Evaluate the living schedule process and existing design change implementation procedures against the Configuration Management Program i Implementation Action Plan to ensure the identified actions are j addressed, including:
Establishing requirements for the preparation of Work Orders (W0s) o to modify the plant in accordance with the DCP documents, and to j verify their satisfactory completion. . ,
! o Establishing requirements for the preparation of Field Problem !
, Reports (FPRs) to identfy and obtain resolution of problems '
l encountered during DCP implementation.
o r l Estab11shinks)equirements Reports (NC to identify andfor obtain the preparation resolution ofofany Non-Confonnance j non-conforming condition.
4 Page 6 of 7 e
,-wn-w-.--,--->. ,w--w--m--,n,=r-+mpr,-#e- o- m rew-, ,u----.-- ,---.-------,-----w- --e m - - e n--aswe p-,- emw,---r-v -
twn,.--. ors--ww---
..;7 i
j' .
l o Establishing requirements for post modification testing to ensure installation is complete and functional in accordance with the
. design requirements and test acceptance criteria. e i
o Establishing requirements for determining system operability to l ensure post modification testing is complete and acceptable, ;
temporary alterations are removed, drawings required for safe and i
, reliable operation are updated, and plant operability procedures are revised. !
l 1
o Establishing requirements for the identification and revision of !
plant operating / maintenance baseline documents (e.g., emergency l operating procedures, operating procedures, maintenance procedures, I surveillance procedures) and training baseline documents to comply ,
j with the requirements identified in the DCP configuration document
, impact statements, and the subsequent training of personnel.
I o Establishing requirements for the recording and reporting the status ,
! of W0s, FPRs, NCRs and plant baseline documents. I
! b. Evaluate existing baseline document update procedures against the Configuration Management Program Implementation Action Plan to ensure the
- identified actions are addressed, including
o Establishing requirements for incorporation of DCNs into parent design baseline input documents.
/ o Establishin requirements for. incorporation of DCOs into parent
- design base ine input documents.
1
! o Establishing requirements for updating other configuration documents l (not required for operability) to incorporate DCP impact statements.
f a
1 I
)
1 1
I (
! i i -
3 I
l Page 7 of 7
!. -s
oe RANCHO SECO NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION t*
SACRAMENTO ftUNICIPAL- UTILITY DIijTR /
C'
(, f i
,t w o h ge#'
V 0 O g ) ,
k
@ {' > ) h ' 1 -
en/
DESIGN CALCULATION REVIEW PROGRAM PLAN REVISION O MARCH 16,1987 L
Prepared by ,, r[ Date .S//6/87 Becht Review Team Lead r Approved by . Ic4 A G Bechtel Manager of En neering
' OLtw Date M $7i
/ m b .o Date ?.*'**'I'?
SMUD Nuclear Engineering Manager Bechtel Western Power Corporation San Francisco, California
DESIGN CALCULATICH REVIEW PP0GRAi1 i
TABLE OF CrNTENTS i
Section Description Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION
AND PURPOSE 1 2.0 SCOPE 2 3.0 PROCEDURE 3 4.0 RESULTS, RECOPMENDATIONS AND 5 CONCLUSIONS 5.0 ORGANIZATION 6 4
I
(,' EXHIBIT 1 ECN REVIEW
SUMMARY
'Fom EXHIBIT 2 CALCULATION REVIEW SUMARY Fom EXHIBIT 3 CALCULATION REVIEW OBSERVATICMS Fom EXHIBIT 4 RESPONSE TO REVIEW OBSERVATION Fom EXHIBIT 5 CONTINUATION SHEET Fom APPENDIX 1 SYSTEM REVIEW SCOPE APPENDIX 2 ECN REVIEW SCOPE APPENDIX 3 REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS
! I I
l l
I
DESIGN CALCULATION REVIEW PROGRAM
1.0 INTRODUCTION
AND PURPOSE
&J The Design Calculation Peview (DCR) Progran will entail a tecnnical review of Rancho Seco design. This review will establish the technical adecuacy and completeness of existing calculations for the scope described in section 2.0. The specific technical and programmatic problems identified oy the NRC vertical audit team in their Feoruary 12, 1987 exit meeting will be considered in the review, as well as other aspects required for the design and the design intent to be adequately supported by engineering calculations.
The DCR Program will provide a mechanism for documenting review results, providing recommendations and closing out any reouired actions. The review and recommendation process will be performed by Bechtel while corrective or investigative action will be addressed by SMUD. Problems identified during the review will be documented as observations on standard forms.
Observations may result from the review of individual documents or, af ter all individual documents have been reviewed, from an evaluation of all
- observations for generic or programmatic concerns. The technical and programmatic significance of each observation will be described and
'; corrective or investigative action will be recommended to resolve the observation. Recommendations will be made consistent with the significance and generic nature of the observation and commensurate with the nature of the material that was reviewed.
(t tt Observations with potential safety significance are reviewed by the Bechtel Manager of Engineering before release to SMUD for follow-up action.
, However, a preliminary copy of the observation is provided to SMUD for i (%/ information immediately. Potential safety significance is a condition which the reviewer believes may exist which could result in a loss of safety function to the extent that there may be a mQor r,tdgetion in the degree of public health and safety protection. It is SMUD's responsibility to determine whether or not the con'dition is . safety significant.
The results of SMUD's investigative or corrective action will also be '
J documented on standard forms and submitted to Bechtel for concurrence that
, the observation has been sitisfactorily resolved. If Bechtel cannot provide l
this concurrence, the reasons will be documented and transmitted to SMUD.
- A Any observation with potential safety significance will be satisfactorily resolved prior to plant restart or the condition will be determined to have no safety significance. Observations which may not be resolved by plant restart will be evaluated by SMUD and justification will be provided for resolution after plant restart.
A final report will be issued summarizing the results of the DCR Program.
All observations will be addressed along with actions that were taken to resolve them. Conclusions will be provided regarding the technical adecuacy and completeness of the existing calculations within the review scope. Any applicability of these conclusions outside the review scope will also be presented.
Page 1 of 6 Revision 0
- **9 9t 'O 4 9' t #. 8MB O &# 7s _A
DESIGN CALCULATION REVIEW PROGRAM
't YlW $'
2.0 SCOPE The DCR Program will address the recent design activities most critical to plant restart. To accomplisn this goal, the review scope will include all ECN's (Engineering Change Notices) issued against " Selected Systems" which are scheduled for implementation prior to plant restart. $ elected Systems" are defined in the Rancho Seco Action Plan, Amendment 2, December 15, 1986.
Appendix 1 of this program plan lists these systems with their associated Rancho Seco calculation index identification code. The ECNs against these systems which are scheduled for implementation prior to plant restart are noted in Appendix 2.
ECNs may authorize physical changes to the plant which reouire supporting engineering calculations. The initiating problem, as described in the System Status Report (SSR) or other applicable reference documents, will be reviewed to ensure that the design intent is adequately addressed by the ECN. The DCR Program will establish the completeness of existing calculations for each ECN identified in Appendix 2 through a multidiscipline review of the ECN design changes and the type of existing calculations. A reviewer from each affecteo discipline will determine whether the scope of existing calculations is sufficient to support the design changes made in that discipline's field for each ECN. The effect of the ECN on both system level process variables and structural capabilities will be evaluated. Any required calculations which do not exist will be identified.
Design requirements common to systems and structures throughout the plant are programmatically controlled by individual SMUD procedures. The need for
( .. any additional reviews of these programs is presently b?ing evaluated by L' SMUD. Therefore, calculations associated with these programs are not included within this calculation review scope. d The technical adequacy of the existing calculations identified from the review of ECNs is detennined through a detailed review of both the system level and structural type calculations. This review will cover 100% of the system level calculations and a 20% sample of the structural type calculations. If any calculations are too specialized for Bechtel to completely evaluate (e.g. detailed equipment manufacturer calculations),
this conclusion will be so documented. The 20% sample will be subjectively selected to include unique or complex calculatinns as well as representative examples of the standard calculation categories (e.g. pipe supports, structural steel, etc. ). Calculations which were generated for the initial plant design or for ECN's implemented prior to the December 1985 plant shutdown will also be reviewed as necessary to establish the completeness and adequac/ of calculations for the ECNs listed in Appendix 2. SJCh a review of earlier calculations will be perfonned to validate an assumption or referenced input used in a recent calculation, to confirm a previous revision was an acceptable base for a recent design change or to verify that an earlier calculation was correctly revised due to a recent design change.
Page 2 of 6 Revision 0
DESIGN CALCULATION REVIEW PROGRAM 3.0 PROCEDURE This section provides the detailed process which will De used implement the DCa Program. Exhibits 1 througn 5 will be completed as appropriate to document the program results.
3.1 The lead discipline reviewer obtains a thorough understanding of the ECN and the problem that it is intended to resolve. The corresponding System Status Report (SSR), ECN Design Basis Report (DBR) and other applicable references are reviewed to accomplish this. See Appendix 2 for ECN lead disciplines. The SMUD system design engineer may be contacted if 4
necessary to_ facilitate this understanding. The reviewer also confirms that the problem description and the ECN problem resolution are compatible.
2 3.2 The lead discipline reviewer coordinates completion of the ECN Review Summary form (Exhibit 1). Using available reference material, such as the ECN DBR or system calculation index, the scope of existing calculations is documented along with the respective revision numbers and responsible disciplines. Each calculation listed is labeled to indicate if it is a system level or structural type design calculation.
3.3 The lead and all affected discipline reviewers jointly evaluate the scope of existing calculations to determine its adequacy to support the ECN design. The discipline reviewer's experience plus infomal checklists provide the basis for reaching a conclusion. For each instance where it is concluded that a calculation required to support the design is
/ missing, a Calculation Review Observation form (Exhibit 3) is processed j per step 3.6.
3.4 A Calculation Review Surinary form (Exhibit 2) is used to document the detailed calculation reviews. A fom is completed for every system level calculation and for 20% of 'the structural type calculations in the review scope. Structural calculations will be selected for detailed review by the discipline reviewer to include the more unique and complex calculations plus representative examples of the various standard types of calculations. Structural calculations selected for review are noted on the ECN Summary form. If a calculation is considered to be too specialized for Bechtel to evaluate, the reviewer will document this judgement in the conenents section of the ECN Summary form..
. 3.5 The responsible discipline reviewer answers the calculation adequacy checklist questions. Significant input from other disciplines is documented in the comments section of the form. Calculations prepared prior to the ECN are reviewed as necessary to verify the adequacy of the ECN design. Such a review is nomally required if the recent ECN or its associated calculations rely on inputs from earlier calculations or if it is apparent that earlier calculations are affected by the recent design change. Earlier calculation reviews are docurrented in the comments Page 3 of 6 Revision 0
g..
- - . . . _9 I
DESIGN CALCULATION REVIEW PROGRAM l.
! section of the form. A Calculation Review Observation form (Exhibit 3)
{ is processed per steps 3.6 for each instance that results in a negative
("N") response to the calculation adequacy checxlist questions.
l 1
l 3.6 The Calculation Review Observation foms which are required from steps l
!. 3.3 and 3.5 are initiated by the reviewer who identifies the proDiem. i The observation is clearly described such that the subsequent statements l i
on significance and recommendations are a logical extension of the i issue. The technical significance evaluation documents the impact, if
- any, on plant hardware, system function or plant procedures. The impact i
to SMUD procedures and practices is assessed under the programmatic significance section.
1 Corrective action is recommended as appropriate to . resolve the specific j observation. If additional infomation from SMUD is required to resolve j the observation, investigative action recommendations are provided.
The completed observation fom is reviewed by the Bechtel calculation review team leader for conformance to the program intent, consistency, i and reasonableness prior to being assigned an observation number. A log i j is maintained to track all observations, revisions and resolutions. '
1 i If the recommendations would require extensive follow-up action by SMUD, 4 in the judgement of the reviewer, the observation will be submitted to l
the appropriate Bechtel Chief Engineer for review and concurrence.
j Observations which are identified as potentially safety significant are
- (")
l
(,
transmitted to tr.e Bechtel Manager of Engineering for concurrence and possible additional action. A preliminary copy of the observation is transmitted to the SMUD Manager of Nuclear Engineering for information. ,
Chief Engineer and Manager of Engineering reviews are documented in the i i additional reviews section of the form prior to submitting the fom to 1 SMUD for resolution.
] ,
j Observation foms can be revised if t[he need arisec. A new set of j signatures is required for each revision.
3.7 For each Calculation Review Observation form issued by Bechtel, SMUD j prepares a Response To Review Observation form (Exhibit 4). Meetings may
- be held between Bechtel and SMUD personnel to clarify the observation or
[ ' discuss potential corrective or investigative action alternatives. The l
} preparer notes whether or not the observed condition is safety i significant. The actions taken or planned by SMUD are documented in the appropriate sections and the response is reviewed by the responsible SMUD i Discipline Group Supervisor. Observations concluded to be safety ,
I significant are reviewed by the SMUD Manager of Nuclear Engineering prior i to being returned to Bechtel.
- i 3.8 The SMUD response is normally evaluated by the originating Bechtel j reviewer and the fom is marked to show whether or not the observation is resol ved. If review meetings with SMUD personnel are unable to resolve i
1~
the observation, the basis is described in the comments section and the response fom is returned to SMUD. Bechtel's action on that observation +
is considered to be complete at this point.
Prior to closing out the observatioiin the log'nr returning an unresolved response fom to SMUD, the fom is reviewed at tne same j organizational level within Bechtel as the corresponding observation
! form.
Page 4 of 6 .
I DESIGN CALCULATION REVIEW PROGRAM ,
1 i
4.0 RESULTS, REC 0f tMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSI0tlS The overall results of the DCR Pro' gram will oe documented in a final report. j This report will include a program description, a summary of observations and recommendations by Bechtel, a summary of ooservation responses and actions <
taken by SMUD, a conclusion describing the adequacy of design calculations I within the review scope, and an extrapolated conclusion on the adequacy of design calculations outside the review scope to the extent possible considering the nature of the material that was reviewed.
The final report is expected to be issued within 4 weeks of resolving all observations. In the event that all observations cannot be resolved within a reasonable period, and interim report will be issued which will document conclusions that can be made at that time and the items that must be resolved prior to issuing the final report. A schedule for final resolution will be provided and justification for restarting the plant with any items unresolved will also be included.
~.
1 l
Page 5 of 6 Revision 0
DESIGN CALCULATION REVIEW PROGRAM 5.0 ORGANIZATION The design calculation review will se perfonned primarily at tne Rancno Seco plant site by a team of senior, experienced Bechtel engineers. The work of the review team will be under the overall direction of the Manager of Engineering, Bechtel Western Power Corporation, San Francisco. Day to day direction of the review team activities as well as program implementation, planning and coordination is the responsiblity of the Review Team Leader.
. Routine interface with the SMUD Nuclear Engineering Department is also handled ,
by the Review Team Leader.
~
The review team consists of representatives from each engineering discipline as required to competently review the scope described in section 2.0.
Additional reviews may be requested through the appropriate home office Chief Engineer for significant issues or for technical issues beyond the expertise 4
of the review team members. All reouests for additional assistance are coordinated through the Review Team Leader.
I Exhibit 3 identifies the present review team members and will be updated for j the final DCR Program report.
1 i
.=
! (m.
l l
l l Page 6 of 6 Revision 0 l
. ~ _ - _ - _- ~ _ _ _
u n - --
EXHIB8T 1 l RANCHO-SECO Revision 0 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT DESIGN CALCULATION REVIEW PROGRAM i ECN REVIEW SUf91ARY ECN Number: System:
Description:
Lead Discipline: M E I C P Affected Disciplines: M E I C P Existing Calculation Numbers:
- System ** Structural
(
ARE THE AB0VE CALCULATIONS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE ECN DESIGN?
Lead Discipline: [] Yes [] No Reviewer: Date: ;
I Affected Discipline: [3 Yes [fNo Reviewer: Date:
[] Yes [] No Reviewer: Date:
[] Yes [] No Reviewer: Date:
If "No" is indicated above, complete a Calculation Review and Observations form for each instance. ,
COMMENTS:
Page 1 of e
EXH2 BIT 2 RANCHO SECO Revision 0 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT DESIGN CALCULATION REVIEW PROGRAM CALCULATION REVIEW
SUMMARY
ECN Number: Sy stem:
Calculation Number: Revision: Date:
Description:
Responsible Discipline: it E I C P Calculation Adequacy Checklist:
- 1. The calculation purpose is clearly stated? Y N
- 2. Applicable codes, standards and other project requirements Y N (FSAR, Reg. Guides, etc.) are identified along with applicable dates and sections?
l 3. References are appropriate and retrievable with applicable Y N dates and sections?
( . 4 All assumptions are clearly described with technical Ls rationale? Y N l
- 5. All assumptions are appropriate for the calculation's Y N purpose?
- 6. All equations and calculatian techniques are appropriate Y N for the intended purpose?
- 7. The calculation has been checked? Y N
- 8. The calculation conclusion coincides with the calculation's Y N purpose?
- 9. Considering the purpose, inputs and methodology, are the Y N calculation results reasonable?
t If "N" is indicated above, complete a Calculation Review Observation form.
Comments:
Prepared by: Date:
Page 1 of
I I EXHIBIT 3 Revision 0 RANCHO SECD SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT DESIGN CALCULATION REVIEW PRLGRAfi CALCULATION REVIEW OBSERVATION Observation Number: Revision: ,,
ECN Number:
Calculation Number: Revision: Date:
ECN/ Calculation
Description:
Observation
Description:
Significance: Potentially Safety Significant? [] Yes () No [] Insufficient
(, Information Technical Programmatic -
Recommendations:
Corrective Investigative Prepared By: Date:
Reviewed By:_ Date: _
Additional Reviews: Date:
Page 1.of
EXHIBIT 4 Revision 0 RANCHO SECO l SACRAMENTO ttuNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT DESIGN CALCULATI0ff REVIEW PROGRAM RESPONSE TO REVIEW OBSERVATION l
l Observation Humber: Revision:
l l Safety Significant? [] Yes [] No Response / Action Taken:
Action Planned / Schedule:
Prepared By: Date:
Reviewed By: Date:
Observation Resnived? () Yes () No Comments:
Prepared By: Date:
Reviewed By: Date:
Additional Reviews: Date:
Page 1 of ___
a 1 EXHIBIT 5 RANCHO SECO Revision 0 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT -
DESIGN CALCULATION REVIEW PROGRAM CONTINUATION SHEET
[] ECN Review Sumary - ECN No.
[] Calculation Review Sunnary - Calculation No.
() Calculation Review Observation - Observation No.
[] Response to Review Observation - Observation No.
6 6
Page of
DESIGN CALCULATION REVIEW PROGRAM APPENDIX 1 _
! SYSTEM REVIE!! SCOPE
! Calculation 4
Description System Code Index Code Reactor Coolant System RCS RCS Decay Heat Removal System DHS DHS Seal Injection and Hakeup System SIM SIM (Include High Pressure Injection)
Purification and Letdown System PLS PLS
- Nuclear Service Cooling Water System NSW NSW Nuclear Service Raw Water System NRW NRW l Steam Generator System OSTG MSS Main Steam System MSS MSS l
1 Main Feedwater System WW FWS h Auxiliary Feedwater System AFW AFW Reactor Protection System (includes ARTS) RPS RPS Safety Features Actuation System SFS SFS Emergency Feedwater Initiation Ind Control' System EFIC EFIC 1
Integrated Control System ICS ICS Non-Nuclear Instrumentation Systen NN! NN!
i 125 Volt DC Vital Power System DCV DCS DCS VBS 125 Volt DC Non-Vital Power System DCN DCS DCS VBS 120 Volt AC Vital Power System 120 EDS 1 VBS
- PTS j
l i
Page 1 of 2 Revision 0 e
~
0 !
DESIGN CALCULATION REVIEW PROGRAM SYSTEM REVIEW SCOPE (cont.)
Calculation Description System Code Index Code 480 Volt AC System 480 EDS PSG VBS PTS MCC 4160 Volt AC System 4KV EDS PSG
! VBS PRL l PTS I 6900 Volt AC System 7KV EDS PSG PRL PTS Radiation Monitoring System RDM RDM Control Room /TSC Essential HVAC System HVAC HVS
( Emergency Diesel Generator System Component Cooling Water System EGS-CCW EGS CCW Plant Air System , SAS SAS Instrument Air System -
IAS IAS i Auxiliary Steam System ASC ASC Fire Protection System FPS FPS FPP HSEB Essential HVAC NHVS HVS NEH Reactor Sampling System RSS RSS I
1 i
- \
- Page 2 of 2 Revision 0 l l
e i DESIGN CALCULATION REVIEW PROGRAM APPENDIX 2 ECH REVIEW SCOPE (Reference - SMUD Nuclear Engineering ECN Closure Status Report, Dated 3/10/87)
ECN SYSTEM LEAD ECN SYSTEM LEAD NUMBER CDOE DISCIPLINE NUMBER CODE DISCIPLINE A2332 RDM M A5415H AFW I A3062 AFW M AS415J AFW P A3285 IAS/SAS P AS415K EFIC I A3319 AFW P AS415L EFIC I A3441 IAS I AS415M AFW I A3660Z DCS E AS415N AFW I A3725 FPS M AS415P AFW I A3725A NEH/ FPS M AS4150 AFW I A3748 EGS M AS415S EFIC I A3867 FPS E AS415T EFIC I A3867E FPS E AS415U AFW I A3881 -A EGS E AS415V AFW I A4353 RSS P AS415W AFW I A4382 FPS E AS415X AFW I A4414 RDM I AS415Y MFW I A5415Z EFIC I
(' A4615 RCS P A5530 FPS M A4615A RCS P ?A5544 AAE E A46158 RCS P A5564 EGS/4KV E A4687 DCS E A47111 RSS M A5620A NNI I A4714 RDM I A56208 NNI I A5034 HYS I . A5620C NNI I A5198 480 E A56200 NNI I A5233 IAS/SAS M A5620E NNI I A5249 NNI I A5620F NNI I A5339 CCW I A5672 RPS I AS415 EFIC M A5710 120 E A5415A EFIC M A5735 RSS I AS415AA1 FWS I A5743 IAS/SAS I AS415AB MFW M AS415AC EFIC P A5760 NNI I AS415AD EFIC P A5765 ASC I AS415AE EFIC I A5767 FPS M AS415AF EFIC I A5772 DHS E AS415AH EFIC I A5773 RSS I A5782 HVS E AS415B AFW I R0048 NRW I R0087 CCW I AS415C EFIC I R0112 4KV E AS4150 RPS I R0142 HVS M AS415E RPS I AS415F AFW I R0163 AFW E Page 1 of 4 Revision 0
a .
DES 8GN CALCULATION REVIEW PROGRAM 4
APPENDIX 2 ECN REVIEW SCOPE (cont.)
ECN SYSTEM LEAD ECN SYSTEM LEAD NUMBER CODE DISCIPLINE NUMBER CODE DISCIPLINE R0164 HVS I R0594 NNI E R0182 HVS I R0595 SFS E R0197 FPS M R0598 DHS I R0225 RSS I R0608 DCS E R0285 DHS M R0609 DCS E R0286 PLS P R0614 RPS E R0295 RDM E R0615 RPS I R0314 HYS M R0619 SFS E R0317 RSS I R0636 RPS E R0328 NRW E R0367 SFS E R0337 DHS I R0642 RPS I R0357A AFW I R0644 RPS E R0357B ICS I R0663 RPS E R0359 NNI I R0685 NNI I R03598 NNI I R0688 RCS I R0361 RSS M R0380 RCS I R0699 AFW E
., R0415A 4KV E R0415B EGS E R06998 MFW E i
( '; R0416 R0424C ASC RSS M P
- R0717 MFW I R0732 RSS I R0442 ICS I R0763 HVS M R0457 RDH I . R0764 HVS M R0458 FPS M R0765 MSS E R0767 FPS M R0459 RCS/SFS E R0769 HVS M R0465 RSS I R0770A EGS M R0469 ICS E R07708 EGS M R0470 FWS I R0477 ICS E R0788 HYS M R0488 HVS P R0789 HVS M R0498 DHS P R0796 HVS E R0499 NNI E R0803 FPS M R0517 ICS I R0517A ICS I R0822 NNI I R0527 FPS M R0823 MFW I
?R0546 AAE E R0824 ICS I R0559 RSS I i R0562 RSS I R0825 ICS I ,
R0584 SFS E R0826 NNI I R0585 SFS E R0828 MSS /MFW I R0587 SFS E R0830 SFS E R0588 SFS E R0838 FPS M l
Page 2 of 4 Revision 0
,--y
-t7 +- = ..--&- + -r-- y m - 9 7.
---<v*++-++w- w-
U t DESIGN CALCULATI0f1 REVIEW PROGRAM APPENDIX 2 ECN REVIEW SCOPE (cont.)
ECN SYSTEM LEAD ECN SYSTEM LEAD NUMBER CODE DISCIPLINE NUMBER CODE DISCIPLINE R0859 AFW/CCW I R1023D NEH M R0861 MSS I R0126 NEH M R0127 SIM P R0872 RDM I _ R1028 RCS I R0876 MFW I R1035 NEH I R0878 ASC I R1036 SIM I R0889 ASC I R1041 RDM I R1045 4KV R0890 EGS E E R0894 MFW P R1078 FPS M R0896 MFW/NNI I R1079 FPS E R0899 7KV E R1081 HVS M R0904 HVS M R1098 IAS/SAS M
~R0904A HVS M R1107 NEH M R0904B HVS M R1108 EGS E R0904C HVS M Rill 8 HVS M R09040 HVS M R1119 NEH M R0911 HYS E R1127 OCS E R0913 RDM I R1128A 4KY E R0914 SIM E R11288 480 E
(~>
- R0918 ICS I R1128C 4KV E R0919 NNI E R1128D 4KV E R0924 480 E Ril28E 4KV E R0927 DCS E R1142 FPS M R0937 NEH M R1150 EGS E R0938 HVS M R11.57 480 E R1158 NEH M R0953 NNI I R1159 HVS M R0955 DCS E R1160 HYS M R0956 FPS E R1170 NEH/HVS M R0957 HVS I R1185 FPS M
?R0968 MOV E
?R0975 AAE E R0989 HVS M R1214 EGS E R1000 EGS E R1217 ICS I R1002 HYS M R1218 ASC M R1227 RDM I R1018 SIM M R1230 NRW P R1022 NEH M R1255 NNI I R1257 DHS M R1023 NEH M R1259 RCS P R1023A NEH M R1260 HVS M R1023B NEH M R1272 NNI I R1023C NEH M R1295 SFS' E
! Page 3 of 4 Revision 0 l
4 ,
DESIGN CALCULATION REVIEW PROGRAM i
APPENDIX 2 ,
ECN REVIEW SCOPE (cont.)
ECN SYSTEM LEAD ECN- SYSTEM LEAD NUMBER CODE DISCIPLINE NUMBER CODE DISCIPLINE R1322 MSS P R1323 120 E R1328 RSS I R1367 MSS I '
R1372 RCS M R1392 480 E R1399 4KV E .
R1401 FPS M R1402 HVS M R1407 DCS E R1414 FPS M R1419 NNI E R1451 SIM M R1460 SIM M R1461 SIM M
?R1465 AAE E R1486 FPS M
?R1490 MOV E
(, ?R1493 R1496 R1508 MOV MFW RPS E
I I
? = Generic type of ECN - Specific applicability to Selected Systems to be determined during the review process.
Page 4 of 4 .- Revision 0
V DESIGN CALCULATION REVIEW PROGRAM
~
APPENDIX 3 REVIEW TEAN MEMBERS Name Responsibility R. J. Bulchis Lead J. C. Bradford Mechanical - NSSS/ BOP J. J. Cavanaugh Mechanical HVAC F. E. Stumpp Mechanical - Fire Protection L. Carey Controls C. K. Kuo Electrical S. K. Shim Electrical P. W. Chew Electrical M. H. Lee Plant Design - Stress
_, P. Gulko Plant Design - Pipe Supports
]
(Any additional team members will be identified in the final DCR Program report.)
t Page 1 of 1 Revision 0
e SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTPJCT OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Distribution DATE: March 4*, 1987
-/ s l l PnoM: Skip Wood - d susaEct. QCI No. 12, Rev. 2 PLANT, PERF0PJ4Af!CE AND MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM approved Plant Attached Performanceforand your use is a copy Management of the recently(QCI Improvement Program No.12).
Because of the transient nature of this QCI, it will not be distributed, nor is it to be placed in the QCI Manual.
Upon receipt, please sign below and return to Document Control -
Procedures, MS 221.
i -
This acknowledges receipt of QCI No. 12 Rev. 2.
DATE SIGNATURE OF MANUAL HOLDER e
r * *
- QCI No.12, Rev. 2 January 29, 1987 RANCHO SECO QUALITY CONTROL INSTRUCTION APPROVAL SHEET REVISION NO. 2 APPROVED BY:
MANAGER, NUCLEAR ENGINEERING <%4 7,. f 3 .d 7 MANAGER, NUCLEAR PLANT / ,
W , /kN7 MANAGER, QUALITY '.
,,s C p '. ,. ' f:_ C Date
[ . ,,,, 6 ' f ,
. 'r G f.
iMNAGER, LICENSING d
_+
b'c[.e
./ -
Datei
/#>
/~ u ,
MANAGER, TRAINING w < " . ,f : 7 Date MANAGER, IMPLEMENTATION '.'i' / <, /. .- e" MANAGER, RESTART IMPLEMENTATION /
'[/h/k
~
(Tate 3 [4/ d Date EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT / [ /
fMNAGER, NUCLEAR PROJECTS k A#/ VT _- /, /f /
DGM, NUCLEAR h-[ rI .JW3/k 7 1- "
Date TvC WE Lu 3
.) -
F I
o e
l
QCI-12 INDEX SECTION PAGES QCI-12 Procedure 20 pages Attachment 1 Selected Projects 1 page (Supplement)
Attachment 2 Precursor Review 1 page (Supplement)
Attachment 3 Plant Staff Interview 6 pages Attachment 4 Deterministic Failure 1 page (Supplement)
Consequences Attachment 5 B&WOG Safety & Performance 2 pages Improvenent Program Attachment 6 12/26/85 Event /NUREG-1195 1 page (Supplement)
Action List Attachment 7 RRRB Guidelines 1 page (Supplement)
Attachment 8 Charter for RRRB 1 page (Supplement)
Attachment 9 Charter for Performance 3 page
' _; Analysis Group (s. Management Process Group 3 page Attachment 10 ,
Attachment 11 Restart System Review 8 pages and Test.Progran Attachment 12 QCI-12 Tracking System 4 pages FIGURES Figure 1 QCI-12 Process Flow Chart Figure 2 Recommendation / Resolution Cover Sheet Figure 3 Recommendation Report Fonn Figure 4 Restart Organization Chart Figure 5 Request for QCI-12 Recommendation /
System Report Review Figure 6 QTS Data Entry Form Figure 7 Minor Change Form Figure 8 Minor Chan.ge Log
QCI No.12, Rev. 2 i January 29, 1987 Page 1 of 21 RANCHO SECO UNIT NO. 1 QUALITY CONTROL INSTRUCTION (QCI)
TITLE: PLANT PERFORMANCE AND MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (PP&MIP) 1.0 PURPOSE To delineate a phased approach to performance improvement and restart of Rancho Seco.
This QCI is a living document to provide instruction until transitioned into a long term process and a directive from the DGM, Nuclear terminates this instruction. As such, revisions to this instruction identify the phases and processes to be completed at the time of the revision.
Hoever, the body of the procedure will maintain the instructions for all phases, with a leading caveat explaining the current status of the phase / process.
A Supplement to this QCI will contain the Attachments for those phases /
processes which are complete at the time of the revision.
This Supplement has been approved as a part of the Revision, but will be distributed only on request.
2.0 SCOPE C"I This procedure defines and controls the flow of the major steps in the PP&MIP. These steps are: Investigation, Yalidation, Approval, Implementation and Closure. Attachments' to this procedure and other approved District Procedures will be used to control the individual activities within a particular step.
3.0 RESPONSIBILITIES Executive Assistant / Manager, Nuclear Projects is responsible for and has the authority for the conduct of tne PP&MIP.
The Nuclear Department Managers are responsible to provide the resources necessary for the conduct of the PP&MIP.
The Quality Department is responsible for providing surveillances for the l overall processes outlined in this QCI. '
The organization chart for the PP&MIP is shown in Figure 4. J
4.0 REFERENCES
The following referenced documents provide the basic requirements, direction, documentation, and controls for implementation of the program:
a) 10CFR50, Appendix B b) Quality Assurance Manual ~
c) Nuclear Engineering Procedures
. d) Administrative Procedures
- e). QCI-16, Recommendation. Resolution Procedure
QCI No.12, Rev. 2 January 29, 1987 Page 2 of 21 5.0 DErINITIONS Closed - Implementation of the recomendation has been completed, and
( I verified by Quality.
Implementing Organization: The organization responsible to oversee the implementation of a PAG approved Valid Recommendation and to subnit the
- closure memo to the Quality Manager, f Invalid Recomendation - A recomendation which does not appear sound and is not to De implemented.
Justification - A written explanation which specifies the reasons for a determination of " invalid" for a recomendation.
Non System-related - A recommendation which does not pertain to a defined system, or is related to Multiple Plant Systems (MPS).
Priority 1 - Actions required to be completed prior to restart or completion of the restart test program.
Priority 2 - Actions to be initiated as promptly as practicable, schedule developeo, resources assigned and maintained until completed (it is the intent to initiate these actions as soon as completion of priority one ~
items make resources available).
Priority 3 - Actions to be scheduled for long term completion.
Selected Projects - Projects selected by the Manager, Nuclear Projects on the casis of known problems or-sensitivities in the plant.
System-related - A recommendation which pertains to a system as defined in AP.3 Section 6.4.
Valid Covered Recommendation - A valid recommendation, the resolution of wnicn is covereo in a valid recommendation (s) which has been approved for implementation by the PAG. (Previously known as invalid redundant.) ,
Valid Recomendation - A proposed recommendation that appears sound and requires resolution.
6.0 INSTRUCTIONS The PP&MIP consists of the following five (5) phases, (see FW Jh l l
a) INVESTIGATION l b) VALIDATION l c) APPROVAL l d) IMPLEMENTATION e) CLOSURE i t *
. - . - ~ _ -. - , - ,, - - . - - .
QCI N). 12, R3v. 2 January 29, 1987 Page 3 of 21 6.1 INVESTIGATION PHASE The Investigation Phase is complete at the time of this revision.
Two of the Investigation areas, Plant Staff Interviews (Attachment 3) and the B3WOG SPIP (Attachment S), require follow-up action, and the Attachments have been retained. The Attachments for all other Investigation areas have been placed in the Supplement to QCI-12, Rev. 2.
6.1.1 This phase consists of six (6) areas:
a) SELECTED PROJECTS, Attachment 1 b) PRECURSOR REVIEW, Attachment 2 c) PLANT STAFF INTERVIEW, Attachment 3 d)
- DETERMINISTIC FAILURE CONSEQUENCES, Attachment 4 e) B&WOG SAFETY & PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT 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. The Input Group Leaders are responsible for maintaining schedules for their individual groups.
6.1.3 Input from the investigation phase shall be forwarded to the Recanmendation, Review and Resolution Board (RRRB) for
('
\. validation.
6.2 VALIDATION PHASE ,
The RRRB validation of the Investigation Phase is complete at the time of this revision. The RRRB Guidelines (Attachment 7) and the Charter for the RRRB (Attachment 8) have been placed in the Suppiament to QCI-12, Revision 2.
The Restart System Review and Test Program (Attachment 11) review of the Investigation Phase is still in process at the time of this revision.
This Validation Phase applies only to the recommendations identified in the Investigation Phase.
Reccumeendations identified after this revision shall be processed according to Section 6.6.
6.2.1 The RRRB reviews the input from the Investigation Phase and enters their recanmendations into the QCI-12 Tracking System (QTS) data base.
~
~ QCI No. 12, Rev. 2 January 29, 1987 Page 4 of 21 6.2.2 The log number assigned to each recommendation in the QTS shall be a unique number categorized 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 17.XXXX NUREG-0667 and BAW 18.XXXX NUREG-1195 19.XXXX Selected Projects 20.XXXX Precursor Review 21.XXXX Plant Staff Interviews 22.XXXX Deterministic Failure Consequences 23.XXXX B&WOG Safety & Performance Improvement Program 24.XXXX RRRB Observations (These items are not recannendations but may lead to recommendations. )
25.XXXX Department Managers Recommendations 26.XXXX System Engineering Recommendations 27.XXXX Licensing Commitment Review '
6.2.3 The review made by the RRRB will recommend the following:
- a. Whether the recommendation is valid or invalid (see Attachment 7).
- b. Wnether the recommendation is covered by an existing (j recommendation.
- c. The Implementing Organization. (See Figure 4).
- d. The priority (as determined using the criteria in Section 6.2.4)
- e. The applicable system (s) per AP.3.
NOTE: The designations "MGT" and "MPS" shall be used for reconmendations which are Management (non-system related), or apply to multiple plant systems, respectively
- f. The category.
6.2.4 The recommended priority of the recommendation is determined by using the following criteria:
6.2.4.1 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.
.C
~
QCI No.12, Rev. 2 January 29, 1987 Page 5 of 21 t
6.2.4.2 PRIORITY 2 - NEAR TERM ACTIONS TO BE SCHEDULED AS PROMPTLY AS PRACTICABLE, SCHEDULE DEVELOPED, RESOURCES ASSIGNED AND l 5
MAINTAINED UNTIL COMPLETED (IT IS THE INTENT TO j INITIATE THESE ACTIONS AS 500N AS PRIORITY ONE ACTION COPFLETIONS MAKE RESOURCES AVAILABLE).
- a) Enhance ability to remain in post-trip window. l b) Reduce reactor trips, c) Reduce challenges to safety systems.
d) Produce near-term progranziatic benefits.
4 6.2.4.3 PRIORITY 3 - LONG TERM ACTIONS TO BE SCHEDULED FOR THE LONGER TERM a) Improve reliability.
b) Improve availability.
c) Major programmatic enhancements.
6.2.4.4 Judgement shall be used when evaluating the
, criteria to determine the priority of a recommendation.
6.2.5 After the RRRB makes tIIe determinations outlined above, the recommendation shall be forwarded for review.
6.2.5.1 If the recommendation applies to a specific system, j f t will be forwarded to the System Review and Test Program (SRTP) for additional review.
6.2.5.2 Reconuendations designated as "MGT" and "MPS" shall be forwarded to the PAG for review and approval .
6.2.6 The SRTP shall review all system related recommendations
- from the Investigation Phase, as prepared by the RRRB, and fonvard them to the PAG.
6.2.6.1 The System Engineer shall include valid and valid-covered recommendations in the System Status Report or System Investigation Report (SSR/ SIR).
6.2.6.2 The System Engineer shall ensure that the valid-covered reccumendation will be satisfied by the implementation of its' valid reconnendations.
.I i
.. QCI No. 12, Rev. 2 January 29, 1987 Page 6 of 21 6.2.6.3 Prior to sutznitting tu SSR/ SIR to the PAG, the System Engineer shall sutrnit the report to QTS for assignment of QTS tracking numbers, as cutlined in Attachment 12. i 4
6.2.6.4 The System Engineer shall forward invalid reconmendations to the PAG by indicating concurrence with the invalf d designation in the Review Consnent section of the QTS Recanmendation Report.
6.2.6.5 The System Engineer shall consider all the RRRB recomended actions and sutait the resolution to the PAG for approval.
6.2.6.6 The System Engineer shall comunicate any input to the QTS via the QTS Recommendation Report (Figure 3). ,
i 6.2.7 Nuclear Department Manager recomendations shall be entered into the QTS data base and submitted directly to the PAG for eval uation.
6.2.8 The Management Process Group (MPG) recommendations shall be entered'into the QTS data base and sutmitted directly to the ,
PAG for evaluation.
~
6.3 APPROVAL PHAFE The Approval Phase for recomendations identified during the Investigation Phase is still in process at the time of this revision.
Reccumendations identified after this revision will be processed
! according to Section 6.6.
~
6.3.1 The charter for the Performance Analysis Group (PAG) is provided as Attachment 9.
i 6.3.2 The PAG shall review all the recommendations subnitted by the System Engineer (in the System Report), the RRRB, the Department Managers and the MPG for validity.
I 6.3.3 The PAG shall determine priority using the criteria outlined in Section 6.2.4.
6.3.3.1 Tu schedule for Implementation of a PAG approved recommendation may be accelerated without i affecting the PAG approved priority.
\
, 6.3.3.2 Schedule completion extensions beyond Restart, of i 4
PAG approved Priority 1 recommendations, must be !
approved by the PAG and OGM, Nuclear. )
l l
QCl No. 12, Rev. 2 !
January 29, 1987 Page 7_of 21 ,
6.3.4 The PAG shall assign the organization responsible to !
implement the recomendation. I 6.3.4.1 System related recommendations will be coordinated for implementation by the System Engineer.
6.3.4.2 Non-system related recommendations will be i implemented by one of the organizations shown in l Figure 4.
6.3.5 The PAG meeting minutes shall document disposition of all recommendations.
6.3.6 The PAG shall notify the QTS of the approved disposition and priority.
6.3.7 QTS shall subnit to Implementation a list of the PAG approved valid recommendations, their priority and assigned implementing organization.
6.3.8 After the PAG has approved the recomendation the following steps shall be taken:
6.3.8.1 If the recommendation is valid, it shall be sent 7 to the assign _ed Implementing Organization for implementation.
6.3.8.2 If the recomunendation is valid-covered, it shall be sent to Qualfty for verification of the valid / valid-covered relationship, and subsequent closure.
6.3.8.3 If the recomendation is invalid, it shall be sent to Quality for closure.
6.3.9 Recommendations shall be forwarded to the RIM for review. i Canments may be returned to the PAG for discussion and action. Copies of all correspondence shall be sent to QTS I for filing. 1 l
l e
QCI No.12, Rev. 2 January 29, 1987 Page 8 of 21
{
6.4 IMPLEMENTATION PHASE 6.4.1 The assigned implementing organization shall coordinate the >
implementation with other organizations, as necessary.
! 6.4.1.1 System Engineering is responsible to assign and obtain concurrence with the Nuclear Departments 1 for the implementation of each recommendation listed in the SSR/ SIR. -
i 6.4.2 When the responsible implementing organization is changed 4
from one department to another, the change and the person assigned responsibility shall be noted on the Recommendation Report, signed and dated by both Department Managers and -
4 forwarded to QTS for update to the data base.
6.4.3 The System Engineer (for system related items) and the assigned Implementing Organization (for non-system items),
shall:
1
i etc. are issued to implement a reconnendetion, and are cross referenced to the QTS Tracking !4'.mber as (J
i j outlined in Attachment 12. r 6.4.3.2 Implement test review of system related items in 3 accordance with Attachment 11. '-
l 6.4.4 When, in the course of implementation, it is desired to change the scope or priority of a PAG approved ,
recommendation, the following steps shall be taken:
6.4.4.1 The originator of the change shall complete and sign the Request for QCI-12 Recommendation / System
.; Report Review form (Figure 5) indicating the ,
change and justification, and shall attach copies l of the original SSR/ SIR pages and the proposed ,
revised pages and a signed and dated copy of the '
- current QTS Recossendation Report (Figure 3) ;
1 marked with the changes to be made to the data ;
j base.
6.4.4.2 If the Change is to a System Related
- recommendation, the Request form shall be approved I
by the System Engineer, and the Design Engineer.
Changes to Section 4 of the SSR shall also be approved by the TRG Chairman.
6.4.4.3 The Request form shall be approved by the PAG Chairman and the RIM and will be sutaitted to the l
DGM, Nuclear for final approval .
j 6.4.4.4 The approved Review form and attachments will be j sent to QTS for updating the data base, and filing. j 1 .
QCI No.12, Rev. 2 January 29, 1987
, Page 9 of 21 6.4.5 When implementation of a recommendation is complete, including testing, if appropriate, the implementing organization (System Engineer for system-related items) shall prepare and sign a closure memo to the Site Quality Department Manager.
The closure memo shall indicate:
I a) The QTS Log Number b) The date of completion, and
- c) List of documents (Work Requests, ECNs, procedures, Surveillance Reports, lesson plans, etc.) used to implement the recomendation.
Additionally, the closure memo shall have attached copies of l the cover sheet for the to; level documents to show their eampletion.
4 6.5 CLOSURE PHASE Qualitar shall close recomendations in accordance with QAIP-13.
6.5.1 For " invalid" reccuenendations, Quality shall ensure justification is attached to the recommiendation.
? 6.5.1.1 If justificafron is not adequate, the recanmendation shall be returned to the PAG. ,,
6.5.2 For " valid-covered" recommendations, the Quality Engineer j and System Engineer (for system related recommendations)
{
shall verify that the solution to the valid j recommendation (s) resolves the valid-covered concern.
I 6.5.2.1 If the System Engineer and Quality Engineer cannot agree, the discrepancy shall be brought to the PAG for resolution.
- 6.5.3 For " valid" recommendations, Quality shall review the closure documents to ensure
i
! a) The implementation is complete. If it is determined to be incomplete, the recommendation shall be transmitted back to the System Engineer or assigned Implementing i Organization.
1 b) The implementation appears effective. If it appears to
! be ineffective, the recommendation shall be transmitted l
back to the System Engineer or assigned Implementing Organization and a copy to the PAG.
! 6.5.4 When it is determined the recomendation is ' ready for
- closure, Quality shall document the closure per QAIP-13.
I_
l -
.~
~
QCI Nc.12, Rev. 2 January 29, 1987 Page 10 of 21 6.5.5 Quality shall subnit the closure package to QTS for updating the data base and filing.
6.5.6 Fo11 ming completion of the Action Plan closecut, all documents will be turned over to P1 ant Records.
6.6 IDENTIFICATION OF NEW RECOMMENDATIONS When a new recommendation is identified through the ongoing processes of the PP&MIP, that meets the definition of Priority 1 cr that otherwise is desired by a Department Manager to be tracked by the PP&MIP and is identified after the date of this revision, the following steps shall be taken:
6.6.1 The originating Department shall complete the QTS Data Entry form (QCI-12, Figure 6) to recanmend the following:
a) Initiating Document b) Validity c) Priority d) System Designations e) Keyword Category f) Implementing Organization g) Problem Description {
h) Coments (if anyF \_
- 6. 6.1.1 The Originating Department shall also complete the Resolution and Resolution Sunnary unless the recommendation is System related, in which case the System Engineer shall complete the Resolution ard Sumary (see step 6.6.3.2).
6.6.2 The Data Entry for.a shall be signed a'nd dated by the Manager of the originating department, as authorization to assign a
, QTS number.
6.6.3 The Data Entry form shall be subnitted to QTS for assignment of a QTS reference number. QTS shall keep the original for data entry and filing and distribute a copy for initiation of the approval process.
6.6.3.1 Non System Re1ated: The originating department shall prepare the Approval Package and route the package for approvals. The Approval Package shall i contain: the " Request for QCI-12 Review" from
! (Figure 5); and the copy of the QTS Data Ent'ry form (or Recommendation Report).
I
. . i QCI No.12, Rev. 2 January 29, 1987 Page 11 of 21 6.6.3.2 System Related: The System Engineer shall prepare the Approval . Package and route the package for approvals. The Approval Package shall contain:
the " Request for QCI-12 Review" form (Figure 5); '
copies of the current and revised page(s) of the SSR/ SIR; and the copy of the QTS Data Entry form (or Recommendation Report).
4 If the Resolution and Resolution Summary have not .
been completed, the System Engineer shall do so at this time. l 6.6.4 The Request fom in the Approval Package is the approval i document and'shall be signed and dated by all persons in the i review / approval process. j i
6.6.4.1 Any differences of opinion during the review / !
approval process that cannot be resolved shall be-documented and placed in the Approval Package with the approval by the PAG determining the reso?ution.
6.6.5 The Design Engineer shall review all system related !-
i packages, sign and date the Request form.
(" g 6.6.6 The orginating department manager shall review the Approval i b Package following the SRTP completion of the Resolution and Resolution Summary, sign and date the Request form.
- 6. 6~. 7 The PAG Chaiman shall review the Approval Package, sign and date the Request. form. 1 i
4 6.6.7.1 The PAG shall resolve any discrepancies documented !
in the package and verify that the QTS Data Entry i form accurately reflects the reconsnendation as approved, marking any changes (including textual) ;
on the Entry form. ,
6.6.7.2 The PAG shall document the approval action in the !'
Approval Caument section of the Data Entry form t
(or Recommendation Report), i.e.: PAG #, approved as Valid Priority One, assigned to Engineering.
6.6.8 The RIM shall review the Approval Package, sign and date the Request form. Comments may be returned to the PAG for '
discussion and action, with a copy of the correspondence placed in the Approval Package.
6.6.9 The DGM, Nuclear shall review the Approval package, sign and ,
, date the Request form. Comments may be returned to the1%G :
for discussion and action, with a copy of the correspostence I placed in the Approval Package. i
l l
l QCI No.12 Rev. 2 January 29, 1987 Page 12 of 21 C
6.6.10 The orginating department / System Engineer shall verify that the QTS Data Entry form (or Recommendation Report) accurately reflects the recommendation as approved, is signed and dated by the PAG Chairman and shall sutmit the Approval Package to QTS.
6.6.11 QTS shall edit the data base to reflect the approved !
recommendation as documented, and print and distribute th. ,
Recomendation Report.
6.7 DATA BASE 6.7.1 All recommendations shall be entered into the QCI-12 Tracking System (QTS) data base. This data base shall
, contain proper information such that programmatic and system problems can be extracted from it. .
6.7.2 The process for implementing the data base to track recommendations is in Attachment 12.
6.8 MINOR CHANGES 6.8.1 Minor changes may be made to this procedure to incorporate items thac do not alter the intent of this procedure.
6.8.2 The minor change shaTTbe approved by the Manager, Nuclear - -
Projects and the Site Quality Department Manager.
6.8.3 Revision numbers for minor changes shall be lower case letters following the pemanent revision number being revised (i .e., Rev. Oa, Rev. Ob, Rev. la, Rev.1 b. ) .
6.8.4 When a permanent revision is made, all open minor changs I
shall be incorporated into the pemanent change.
6.8.5 Minor changes shall be incorporated into a permanent revis-i fon within 90 days of the issue date of the minor change.
i 6.8.6 A maximum of 10 minor changes shall exist on a permanent revision.
6.8.7 The minor change shall have a pink cover-sheet which contains - the procedure title, procedure aumber, a description of the change, page numbers affected, revision ,
ntsnber, issue date, and the approval sign-off block for the Executive Assistant / Manager, Nuclear Projects, and the Site Quality Department Manager (Figure 7).
l 6.8.8 When a minor change is made, only the minor change itsel f needs to be issued to holders of the controlled copies of this procedure.
. 6.8.9 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 8).
o QCI No.12, Rev. 2 J anuary 29, 1987 Page 13 of 21 Figure 1 PLANT PERFORMANCE & MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT FLOW CHART MEtutSOR mer II 12/r./85 Defr AcnON UET & NUIEG lit $
mesnaAnON N SE1E"!!D Mio s!! MENSE5nc Fall #E CONSEQUENGS Y/////N M s5 ^'" ?//////A
/ :: /
l///kM "" " -"?l///b (POST 00-12 m 2) (POST 00-12 E 2) 1r RECOWWDOATION, RO/EW AND RESOLUDON BOMID is a noN MtE t NOI6-575 FEM y 5f5fDi M1AIID
/
r"A"?"4"a"pA a,ma, As PM E ANALYSIS GROUP l
(otNER APMust As unusun er 00-12) i l
wtm ir usuo a wuo SY5 M WLD- NON- M M1A!!D CO M D M1A!!D 4
winstrAnaN SIS M W ER 4 gy g PWL H3T Momi 4--) H ED REMEW/
itst mer GWup SURYDUANCE E I Sf5 FEM Q2RNE IIUl STATUE QDENE EPUEI 1r GmuiE , - - - oVAUlY CLOSURE m '
MPORT OF RECOWWENDATION 1r 1r PAC APPROWL l
'/////////////// sysuMb m ouAUTY/ocWCLOSURE posTO yc 2 Mar 0F ACDON PLAN
////////////H/h
- e. y,, , - , . - - - - - - - . - -
<r~ . - , -
QCI No.12, Rev. 2 January 29, 1987 Page 14 of 21 Figure 2 Page 1 of 2 (.
LOG NUMBER:
RECOMMENDATION / RESOLUTION I. EVALUATION AND PROPOSED DISPOSITION: RECOMMENDED PRIORITY
[] INVALID DISPOSITION ORGANIZATION [] 1 - RESTART l
' ~
[] VALID RECOMMENDED: [] 2 - NEAR TERM
[] YALID COVERED [] 3 - LONG TERM SYSTEMS:
CATEGORY:
RRRB CHAIRMAN DATE II. DISPOSITION: PRIORITY: .,
[] FEEDDACK TO RRRB [] 1 - RESTART .
[] INVALID
[] YALID COVERED
-- [] 2 - NEAR TERM .
[] 3 - LONG TERM
( s
[] IMPLEMENT THIS APPROVED DISPOSITION HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO FOR ACTION.
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT MANAGER DATE Analysis Group Chairman III. CLOSURE:
ACTION TO IMPLEMENT THIS RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED.
THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR COMPLETENESS AND ACCURACY AND DETERMINED TO BE ACCEPTABLE.
SITE QUALITY DEPARTMENT MANAGER DATE ,
e
QCI No.12, Rev. 2 January 29, 1987 Page 15 cf 21 Figure 2 Page 2 of 2 LOG NUMBER = 29. M97 SYSTEMS = WGS CATEGORY a CM PROBLEN DESCRIPTION:
TE AGREEENT TO BORROW AN EITUNE REC [M91ER FR(M ARIZ(BA PUBLIC SERVICE HAS LADSED, MAKING IT DIFFIClLT TO INSTALL A RECOM81ER FILLOWING AN ACCIDENT. A STUDY CF HOW TO BEST RES(LVE THE PROBLEM 15 CURIENTLY IMDER WAY tinPELL TAR IC. 233) BUT MES lei l#WE A HIGH PRIORITY.
IECINODATIONS:
+
PROCURE A RECOMBINER INDEPENDOm.Y OR IN C[NJlpCTI(N WITH OTER UTILITIES, OR RE-ESTABLISH mi A6lEEMENT TO OBTAIN A HYDROGEN RECtleINER.
COMMENTS:
lir A ID, OTHEP: TW O! STRICT IS ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN A POOLED INVENTORY MANAGEMENT PURCHASE OF A JOINTLYOWNEDHYDR0ffNRECCMBINER. SEE PRECURSOR REVIEW RECIM O DATICN GL-44-09-!R.
=- ._- _ . . __ _ _.
QCI No.12, Rev. 2 January 29, 1987 Page 16 of 21 Figure 3
{ l REC 0ftMENDATION REPORT FORM Printed:
12/85/86 e e e UCI-12 TRACKING SYSTDI eee t.og Number: 99.9999.M-1 14:46:55 Recommendation Report last Modified: 12/85/86 ONIO rev 1F2986 Status: Closed Validity: V Date ist Legged ir.to GTS: 01/81/01 Systes Report Assigned: SSR/ SIR Priority: 1 Date Signed Off By RRRB 91/01/01 Systen Engineer Assigned: LAST HnrE FI Systees: AP3 AP3 AP3 Date Signed Off By Sys Eng: 01/01/01 luplement Person Assigned: LAST NAPE FI Categcries: MM Date Signed Off By PAG: 01/01/01 Quality Engineer Assigned: LAST NArE F1 leptementing Organization: Engring Date laplemented: 01/01/01 Date Closed: 01/01/01 Suasary: TEIT SurtWIZIMi DE RE5tLilTIQt OR TIE ACTI(NS REGJIRED TO IMRDENT TIE lES3.11T!W. INIUT RECEIVED Frat DE SYSTDI ENEllER OR PAG. NAIIM (F 380 DNACTERS AVA!!NLE.
PROBLDI DESCRIPT!m TEIT CESCRIB!tG DE PROBLDL INPUT REIEIVED FRIM-ftE RRRB, SYSTDI DEIEER OR PAG. MI!PtM 1250 O GRACTERS j AVAllMLE. .
RECDf00ATIONS:
TEIT DESCRIBING DE RECDfENDED RESILilT!W (F DE PROBLDt. INPUT RECEIVED FREM TIE RRRB, SYSTDI DE!EER OR PAG.
I MAII M 1250 C ERACTERS AVAll M LE.
REVIEW CurtENTS:
TEIT FOR ADDITI(NI. 00rfENTS ADOUT TIE PROBLDI CESCRIPT!W OR RES3.UT!Ql. INPUT RECEIWD FROM RRRB, SYSTDI DEllEER Ok PAG. mI!M 1250 DERACTERS AVAllMLE.
PA6 CUTENTS:
TEIT DESCRIBING PAG APPROYft. ACT!W AND PAG PEETING MBDt. INRli RECE1WD FRON PnG. MA!! M 250 D URACTERS AVAllMLE.
t
- - _ - - - . .. . _ ~ .- . . - . . . -
4 QCI No.12, Reva 2 J anuary 29, 1987 Page 17 of 21 Figure 4 RESTART IMPUDdENTAVON ORGANIZAVON CCPUTY CENERAL MANAGER.
NUCLEAR e
I l I l l WANACCWENT EWCRCENCy egggg ha gygwn ASSUR ANCE A$$$ TANT P#CR,AR,[CNC$$
INF0#wat0N ,gg y
. . AC
- Museer Propecte RESTART WWENTallON W AN AGER 1
peACSCES e OmCANIZAftON AL l 5TAFF i gxgCUTtq
- ROCEDu'ES CFFEMWNESS l ASSSTANTS l A$357 ANT C00RDINAftDN gpgggg eggggg.5 6
l 4
ptANT k PLANT IMPt.DdENTAfl0N TRApeNC UCENSNC NUCLEAR $UMORT MANAGER I WOosmCATIONS WANAGER a MANAGER WANAGER ENGINEERING $ERMCES l uANAGER WANACER 4 e Oeeretiens . WeeAcetions . Aree Coorchnetion
- Ucenoeg
- Propect Engmeereg . hetenes
- Centenence 4 (Con struction e monamg
- Corneliance
- System Design
- Contreets I Fecdit4o wonogement)
- Seneouseg * *R A Engmeeems
- eweget
- Tecnnece Services .Rooerteg *IAC = Reioomty Ugmeemg * 'n te $ nt e= s
. System Revie. g . ErtC are ects . *wreneseg I
testeg . T3 profects
- Nestm 8%ysice 4
.i 4
1 I
1 I.
l
QCI No.12 Rev. 2 ,
January 29, 1987 Page 18 of 21 Figure 5
( j i
i REQUEST FOR QCl-12 RECOMMENDATION / SYSTEM REPORT REVIEW
! THIS REQUEST IS WADE TO:
,! REVISE APPROVED 001-12 RECOWWENDAil0N l: SYSTEM REPORT l
(acu a wee e cyr y u omms a --- wom)
REVISE APPROVED SYSTEM REPORT: REV PAGE(S)
Smsn som u omme me num ner(s) rnou u me wom)
, ADD A NEW RECOWWENDATION: QTS l 1 j (ncu u comune a ma oss rom a u none ors -- wom) i i
i i
cumat.
l I
l l
(,ms; l'
i
- msmcAnoN
l :
i e
l 1
i APPROVALS
, l SYSTEM ENG;NEER ;
ORIGINATING DEPT
)
DEPT. MANAGER DESIGN ENGINEER cam (sma namo my) wt i
! Daft
' DAT - ($$R SEC24 4 MY)
I DGM, NUCl. EAR R.I.M. "
- E .-
, . - ."i". Y.? -
QCI No.12, Rev. 2 January 29, 1987 Page 19 of 21 Figure 6 OTS DATA ENTRY FORM vo. - - s e PROCEDURE.1) COMPLETE ALL UNHATO(D 80XES ON INIS FORW AND SUHMIT TO QTS.
- 2) QTS mLL ASSX;N A RUDENCE NUWBER AND RETURN A COPr OF DGS FORW TO YOU.
- 3) ArTDI GETDNG APPROVALS ON THE
- REQUEST FOR 00-12 REWr RETURN 80TN FORMS TO OTS.
INIRAUNG 00WWENT JTS LOG #
VAUDITY PRIORITY STATUS SYSTEM DESIGNAD0NS V - VAUD 1 - RESTART _ 3 - AWNTING APPROVAL REPORT:
_1 - !NVAUD 2 - NEAR TERW _._ 4 - IN IMPLEMENTADON AP.3 CODE (S);
_ VC - VAUD-COVERED BY: _ 3 - LONG TERM _ 5 - SEND FOR CLOSURE
_ 0 - NOT APPL CATEGORr: (OECK A WAxadVW 0F 1WO) ladPLDdENTNG ORGANIZATION: (QECK OM.Y ONE)
CO - CONAG. MGT WW - WATURAL WCT W - DdDIGENCY PREP. 4 - PLANT WOD.
CW - COWWif. WGT WP - WAINTENANCE E - DGNEDONG 0 - QUAUTY OC - PLANT WOO OP - OPS / PROCEDURES I - BR Df0fTAfl0N $ - SAFETY EP - EWERGENCY PREP. 00 - QUAUTY L - UCENSNC C - SECUMTY HP - HEALTH PNYSICS RD - RECORDS / DATA WGT N - NUCLDR PUNT U - SUPPORT SDMCES LL - LISSONS LDRNED TR - TRMNNG P - NUCLDR PR(WECTS Y - SYS. REEN & TEST WE - WGT D7ECTNENESS NA - NOT APPUCABLE O - ORG. DTECTWDESS T - TRANNG macumn answer (no owussts):
s
~~~
'l 1
1 1
REVIEN COMMDITS.
APPROVAL COMMENTS. , !
AUTHORIZADON TO ASSIGN QTS LOG NUMBER: AUTHORIZADON FOR DATA ENTRY OF APPROVAL:
ORIGNATNG DEPT. WANAGDt DATE PAC QiniRWAN DATE 6- wt < am m. . .m
< <vAum , om e QTSDfTRY 2/27/87 r . , , - ,, _ . - _ __ _ _ _ , . . - , . - - -
.. OCI No. 12, Rev. 2 January 29, 1987 Page 20 of 21 i Figure 7 MINOR CHANGE
! Procedure: QC I-No. 12 Revision No:
_ Issue Date:
Title:
PLANT PERFORMANCE AND MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM i l
l Description of Change: -
l 1
s 1
1 f
Page Numbers Effected:
4 i
Executive Assistant /
, Manager, Nuclear Projects: Date:
Site Quality Assurance Manager: Date:
i
-rw- - , _ . - , . , _ . - _ - - - - - y - . ----c_ - - - _ - - - - - - - - - . - ---. . , - . -
- - QCI No.12, Rsv. 2 January 29, 1987 Page 21 of 21 Figure 8 j MINOR REVISIONS Minor Issue Permanent
- Rev. No. Date Description of Change Rev. No.
a a
f m L
1 4
. . 1
~ _ __ _ _ , . , _ _ _ . , . . _ - . , , _ _ , _ _ , _ _ . _ _ _ . , _ , . _ _ _...__m.____ . . _ . . , _ - , _ _ , _ - , - _ , _ _ . , _ . . , _ . _ . . . _ , -- z__ - ,
- QCI No.12, Rev. 2 January 29, 1987 Attachment No. 1 Page 1 of 1 SELECTED PROJECTS The Selected Projects Area of the Investigation Phase is complete at the time of this Revision.
The Attachment for this Area has been removed and placed in the Supplement to QCI-12.
O -
t l
I w
6 ha
=
s l
r - - ,- - -
.~
QCI N3.12, Rev. 2 Janaury 29, 1987-Attachment No. 2 Page 1 of 1 PRECURSOR REVIEW
~
The Precursor P.eview Area of the Investigation Phase is complete at the time of this Revision.
The Attachment for this Area has been removed and placed in the Supplement to QCI-12.
4 f
+-
9 %
e o -
l QCI No. 12, Rev. 2 l January 29, 1987 Attachment No. 3 ,
Page 1 of 6 l PLANT STAFF INTERVIEW 1.0 PURPOSE 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, operations tech support engineers, plant engineers and technicians, training instructors, design engineers and quality department personnel. These personne' 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 interviewees.
The minimum number of personnel 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 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 manner. The Interview Frogram 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.
Interviewers can be added or deleted as deemed necessary by the Interview Program Coordinator.
e e ,
.r . - - - . - - , - - - - - , - - _ __ - - - , , , - . .
~
QCI No. 12, Rev. 2
~
January 29, 1987 Attachment No. 3 Page 2 of 6
(
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 1 conduct them.
The interviews may be conducted with groups 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. (/
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 recommendations'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.
,l-i 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.
~
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.
1 D
9
QCI No.12, Rev. 2 January 29, 1987 Attachment No. 3 Page 3 of 6 l
, I 5.0 BUDGET 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 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 revise. The PAG shall ensure that resources are available for the approved plan.
6.0 INTERVIEW GUIDELINES The interviewers shall ensure that interviews specifically address the following plant systems / areas: Reactor Coolant System, Reactor Auxiliary Systems, Secondary Systems, Plant Support Syst es, and Instrumentation and Control Systems and electrical distribution, as they t
, 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
{,s.;) 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 i
they or others have had.
l
~
QCf No. 12, Rev. 2 January 29, 1987 Attachment No. 3 Enclosure 1 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 Operations Tech Support Tech Support Engineers - 5 Shift Technical Advisors - 2 j.
Scheduling - 2 Plant Maintenance
't I&C Technicians - 5
, I&C Engineering - 2 Computer Technicians - 3 Electrical Maintenance - 8 Electrical Engineering - 3 1
Electrical Techs - 3 Mechanical Maintenance - 8 Mechanical Engineers - 3 SMUD Security - 4 t
t
-e QCI No. 12, Rev. 2 January 29, 1987 Attachment No. 3 Enclosure 1 Page 5 of 6 MINIMUM NUMBER OF PERSONNEL TO BE INTERVIEWED NPS - 20 Licensing - 4 Training instructors Operations Training - 5 4 Maintenance Training - 3
. General Employee Training - 2 .
Nuclear Engineering Electrical - 8 I&C - 8 , ,
Mechanical - 8
~~
(/
Civil - 2 Project Engineering - 3 Quality Department Quality Assurance - 3 QC Inspectors - 3 Quality Engineering - 2 Corporate QA - 1 Rad Protection Senior Chem-Rad Assistant - 2 HP Tech - S Chemistry i
Senior Chem-Rad Assistant - 1 Chem-HP Tech - 5 9
QCI No. 12, Rev. 2 January 29, 1987
(
Attachment No. 3 Page 6 of 6 Enclosure 2 PERSONNEL INTERVIEW FORM No.
3E353233333333333E35E3333333333333333333333333333553333333333533333333333333333 ITEM DESCRIPTION E333333333333 3 3 333 333 333 3 3333 3 3 3 3333 33 3 3 33 33 33 33333 3333 33333 553 553233333 3 333 33 3 System Designation 33333333 33333355333333333333333333 3..33. 3333..E....E.3.E.5 5...E.333333 53..
PLANT SAFETY / RELIABILITY - PROBLEM / CONCERN / CONSEQUENCES ~ ..
33 33533333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333535 33 533333333333333339.
.M 3333333333333535353333333333322s3325333333333333333333333333333333322323 32 3s3 RECOMMENDED SOLUTION (OPTIONAL) 333333333333333325333333333333333333333332353333333323E335333333333333335333333 l
3333333333333333333333333333333333333533335$33333335353333333333333333333333355 INTERVIEWER'S INITIALS i 1
m.
QCI No. 12, Rev. 2 January 29, 1987 Attachment No. 4 Page 1 of 1 DETERMINISTIC FAILURE CONSEQUENCES The Deterministic Failure Consequences Area of the Investigation Phase is complete at the time of this Revision.
The Attachment for this Area has been removed and placed in the Supplement to QCI-12.
l l
4 i
QCf No.12, Rev. 2 January 29, 1987 Attachment No. 5
, Page 1 of 2 1 .
B&WOG SAFETY & PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (SPIP) 1.0 PURPOSE This document describes the interface between the B&W Owners' Group (B&WOG) Safety & Perfomance Improvement Program and the Rancho Seco Performance Improvement Program (PIP). The District intends to fully participate in the B&WOG SPIP. The results of the B&WOG Program are not '
startup restraints. 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 4
allow the other B&W Owners to benefit from the Rancho Seco PIP.
2.0 SCOPE l
This procedure applies to all interface between the B&WOG SPIP. -
3.0 RESPONSIBILITY I The SMUD SPIP Coordinator (SPC) is responsible for providing the interface between the District and the B&W SPIP.
4.0 PROCEDURE -
i The SPC shall receive the recommendations of the B&WOG SPF and sutait them to the Recommendation Review and Resolution Board (RRRB) on a Recommendation Resolution Sheet per QCI-12. The SPC shall provide the
. RRR8 amplifying infomation on specific reconnendations as requested to pemit them to make informed judgements. The SPIP shall also monitor
- RRRB and PAG results for all SPIP recommendations and provide feedback to 3
these groups to assure the intent of the recanuendations has been ,
- accurately assessed.
The District's status on the B&WOG SPIP recommendations shall be reported to the B&WOG on a regular basis for inclusion of the Recommendation '
1 Tracking System report. This same status infomation shall be made i available to the PAG. The SPC shall provide the B&WOG SPIP with the i results of the Rancho Seco PIP as they become available. This will be in the form of dispositioned reconnendations.
]
} Should the RRRB and the PAG have teminated their activities prior to i receipt of future SPIP reconsendations, the SPC shall enter any l unresolved recommendations into the conuitment tracking system and report
! status to the Manager, Nuclear Licensing.
l Enclosure 1 is a flow chart of this procedure.
I -
l l l e
---_.vmg ~n- - - , ,-- --e,-, m- ,e,,-m-.-,-- e, a-w--,.,me-en--m------- e,--w- -,----w-en-e---rw~ -.
w- w m ~--sve
QCI No.12, Rev. 2 January 29, 1987 Attachment No. 5 Enclosure 1 {
Page 2 of 2 B&WOG SPIP 1
STPC REVIEW RANCHO SECO i DISPOSITIONED l RECOMENDATIONS i
J V
SUBMIT APPROPRIATE RECOMENDATIONS TO B&WOG t
p
{)
STPC REVIEW i 84WOG STP-TRIP ,
i REC 0mENDATIONS I
1 j V
- SUBMIT THOSE RECOMENDATIONS '
i
, NOT ADDRESSED BY RANCHO SECO TO
.; THE PAG t
PROVIDE STATUS TO B&WOG l
G
.--.._.-__.____,-r_.-.
r s
. . ,_. _ y,-, ,, .-., . - _..,,y.,,---_,,,,,.,___m,c.--.__,._,. . . , . .. ,.-_,_ ._._.-__ , . , - _ . ~ _ . , . - .
' QCI No. 12, Rev. 2 January 29, 1987 Attachment No. 6 Page 1 of 1 12/26/85 EVENT /NUREG-1195 ACTION LIST The 12/26/85 Event /NUREG-1195 Action List Area of the Investigation Phase is complete _at the time of this Revision.
The Attachment for this Area has been removed and placed in the Supplement to QCI-12.
O
~
b e
1 M
M l
1 .
~
QCI No. 12. Rev. 2 January 29, 1987 Attachment No. 7 Page 1 o# 1 RRRB GUIDELINES The RRRB Validation Phase is complete at the time of this Revision.
The Attachment for these Guidelines has been removed and placed in the Supplement to QCI-12.
I i
.i 4
4 I
l I
QCI No.12. Rev. 2 January 29, 1997 i Attachment No. 8
! Page 1 of 1 CHARTER FOR RECOPMENDATION REVIEW & RESOLUTION BOARD f
The RRRB Yalidation Phase is complete at the time of this revision.
The Attachment for the Charter for the RRRB has been removed and placed in the Supplement to QCI-12. -
i l
t' l
l 1
'I i
1 4
I e
.4 4
g
.; C.,,,./
1 l 1 I .
)
i t
t I
j i i
i r t
e i <
i 9
4 4
e
- - - ~- - - -- - -- - -- - - - - -
QCI No.12. Rev. 2 January 29, 1987 i Attachment No. 9 ,
Page 1 of 3 1
< CHARTER FOR PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS GROUP l
f I. AUTHORITY l
i The Performance Analysis Group (PAG) is formed under the authority of
- Assistant General Manager's, Nuclear Directive ND-86-5-A. The PAG will j disposition, assign priority, assign an organization for action and a
~
approve the recommendations for the Rancho Seco Performance Improvement j Program.
- II. PURPOSE The purpose for the PAG is to review, resolve, disposition, and prioritize recaumendations. 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 authoriIy to " add to" or " delete from" the i recommendation,s. All changes must be documented.
IV. MEMERSHIP -
i 1
- 1) The PAG membership will be comprised of the Nuclear Department Managers which will review each proposed dispo'itioned s
recommendation.
} 2) The PAG membership will be as follows:(*)
Nuclear Projects (Chairman) i Nuclear Engineering i
Quality Training 4
Licensing Nuclear Plant
(*) The names of PAG members and alternates will be delineated by l memorandum from the Deputy General Manager, Nuclear.
\
1 f
4 1
- l i
l .
.-- . - _ _ - . - .. .- - - -- ~ . . - - - . . - _ _ -
1 i
~
i QCI No.12, Rev. 2 January 29, 1987 l
Attachment No. 9 Page 2 of 3
('
(
i IV. MEMBERSHIP (Continued) j 3) A quorum shall consist of the Chairm'an or Alternate Chairman and at least three members or alternates.
1 l V. MEETING FREQUENCY
(
! The Chairman or Alternate Chaiman shall call the meeting at such a j frequency to ensure that all recommendations are processed expediently.
] VI. PROCESS l After receiving the recommendation from the System Engineer, the PAG l shall review the recommendation and approve a disposition. _a priority i
and an organization for action.
The PAG receives the recolumendations from the following organizations:
- 1. System Engineering, system related recosamendations.
- 2. RRRS, non-system related recommendations.
i 3. Management Process Group, any recommendations they deem necessary. '
j 4. Department Managers, any recommendations they deem necessary.
j After approving the disposition and priority, the PAG shall transmit
{,
- the recommendation for proper disposition.
The PAG shall approve one of the foll'owing priorities:
r
- a) Restart - Priority 1 item, must be implemented and closed prior to j restart.
,\ : -
- l.
- b) Near Tem - Priority 2 f ten, must be initiated as promptly as
{ practicable.
i i c) Long Tem - Priority 3, Implementation and closure will be l programmed for long tem.
) -Enclosure 1 is a flow chart of this Procedure.
- l i i
i e
I i
! i
l l
QCI No.12. Rev. 2 January 29, 1987 Attachment No. 9
, Page 3 of 3 Enclosure 1 FLOW CHART FOR PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS GROUP Recommendation With Proposed Disposition, Priority
- and Dispositioning Organization from RRRB,
! System Engineering, MPG
! or Department Managers a
ir i Request Provide Disposition Clari fication ' Priority and Assign from RRRB or Organization for
(',) System Action
! L' Engineering i IP Forward Recommendation to Organization Assigned for Action i,
1P Closure by Quality Assurance and PAG j Approval of SSR 1
4 1
e I .
i . QCI No.12, Rav. 2
, ' January 29, 1987 Attachment No.10 j Page 1 of 3 j MANAGEMENT PROCESS GROUP ,
j 1.0 PURPOSE Management and management process effectiveness have a major impact on i the ability to operate the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station in a j safe and reliable manner.
2.0 OBJECTIVE 1
- 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 W 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.
h '-
3.0 SCOPE -
l 3.1 Review and ensure that executive level management processes support j the safe, reliable, and timely restart of the Rancho Seco Nuclear
- Generating Station.
3.2 Board of Directors / General Manager Improvement 1
. l a) Establish within the Board, guidelines and agreements by which j 2 the Board, as an entity, can more effectively set policy and direction.
l b) Establish written perfomance measurement criteria, and a l.
perfomance review process, for the General Manager (GM).
c) Clarify the Board / General Manager working relationship in writing, including the reporting desired W the Board from the
! General Manager.
i 3.3 Corporate Management Improvement l
a) Develop and implement a program to provide the Board and ,
General Manager assessments and recomendations of corporate l management improvement. j
] .
l I
l 4
. l QCI No.12, Rev. 2 January 29, 1987 Attachment No. 10 Pdge 2 of 3 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 i
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.
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 infonned on important department perfomance trends or problem
- areas on a timely basis. _At the same time, ensure that excessively burdensome administrative control systems are not .#
i perpetuated or fatroduced.
f) Develop an employee connunica'tions program originating from the office of the AGM-Nuclear to ensure that all department employees are kept informed of District concerns, departmental
- priorities and perfomance progress on a timely basis and
- encouraged to feel that they are an important part of the Rancho Seco team.
j g) Develop a program for improving communications skills of
, Nuclear Department Managers in presentations to the Board of
- Directors, the publ.ic, and staff.
)'I h) Establish a depuetment Human Resource Management program which
- includes
I
- 1) identification of priority management developing / training i needs and the appropriate means for addressing each; and
- 2) identification of departmen'tal priority in terms of current vacancies and/or pipeline concerns and more department management collaboration with the District's Human Resource 4
organization in the recruitment / selection process.
]
l I .
. l
~
QCI ND. 12, Rev. 2 January 29, 1987 i Attachment No. 10 i Page 3 of 3 i) 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 on a regular basis.
k) Facilities improvement needs are to be established.
r
+
k r %
V -
e l-I e
m 8
O 9
-,..n,. .--,-,,,,..n.. . , , ..,, --- , , - , , , . , , - - . - . ~ . - , . , _ , , . , , ,.. , , - . - , , , ,- . . - - ._
,,w,., -. _., . . , , .
r 1 e i
.1 QCI No.12, Rev. 2 January 29, 1987 Attachment 11 Page 1 of 8 RESTART SYSTEM REVIEW AND TEST PROGRAM 1.0 PURPOSE 1.1 This attachment defines the objectives and process of the Restart System Review and Test Program at Rancho Seco. Program details and procedures are established in the PDAP-4200 Series of Plant Department Administrative Procedures.
2.0 OBJECTIVES 2.1 The specific otdectives of the Rancho Seco System Review and Test Program (SRTP) are as follows:
- Evaluate all system problems identified by the Plant Perfornance and Management Improvement Program (PP&MIP).
= Develop an integrated program c. corrective actions for implementation both prior to and after Restart which will address system problems.
h
- Implement those corrective actions required prior to Restart.
- Identify those systems which require special consideration under the SRTP.
- Identify system functions important to the safe operation of the plant.
. Develop and implement a testing program which will demoristrate those functions important to safe plant operation.
3.0 ORGANIZATION 3.1 The SRTP is to be developed and implemented by the SRTP Director. The organization and responsibilities specifically established to implement this program are described in PDAP-4200, " System Review and Test Program Description and Organization."
3.2 A 'special committee, the Test Review Group, has been established to support the needs of the SRTP. The Test Review Group organization and responsibilities are described in PDAP-4203, " Test Review Group."
l . .
OCI No. 1.2, Rev. 2 '
January 29, 1987 '
Attachment No. 11 Page 2 of 8
/' 1
( l 4.0 SYSTEM SELECTION Under the SRTP, all systems at Rancho Seco are being investigated to some degree. These systems have been divided into two categories:
Selected Systems - which comprise 31 identified systems, and Additional Systems - which include the 41 remaining systems. The results of the investigations will be documented in a System Status Report (SSR) for Selected Systems, and in a System Investigation Report (SIR) for
- Additional Systems.
1 The SRTP Director identified certain systems which were then recommended to the Perfonnance Analysis Group (PAG) for treatment as Selected Systems.
l j The criteria used to identify these selected systems are as follows:
- A history of significant or recurring problems, i
i . The system was related, or contributed, to the 12/26/85 event.
- The system is being significantly modified.
The system has significant patential for initiating or adversely affecting transients. d' The criteria for selecting the Additional Systems are as follows:
l
- The OCI-12 input phase has produced a recommendation for the '
system.
- An open Work Request existed against the system as of 7/1/86.
i In addition, the process considers whether a system should be upgraded to selected status. The SRTP identifies component and system problems based upon extensive review of Rancho Seco performance history, conditiun, and design as well as industry experience. The system
- related output of the PP&MIP is fed through the RRRB to the appropriate j System Engineers. On the basis of this evidence, the System Engineer
, may recommend Additional Systems for upgrading to Selected Systems status.
The criteria for upgrading systems are that significant problems have been identified or a large quantity of comparatively minor problems have been identified. This upgrading is initiated by the System Engineer making a recommendation in the System Investigation Report (SIR). This is sutmitted to the PAG, which makes the final decision on upgrading.
l .
i QCI No.12, R::v. 2 l
. January 29, 1987 Attachment No. 11 Page 3 of 8 The SRTP Director has proposed, and the PAG has approved, the following lists of Selected and Additional Systems. The current listing of l Selected Systems is as follows:
l
- Upgraded ty PAG direction Power Systems:
- - 125 Volt DC Non-Vital Power System (125NY)
- - 125 Volt DC Vital Power System (125V)
- 120 Volt AC Vital Power System (120V)
- 480 Volt AC Distribution System (480V) j - 4160 Volt AC Distribution System (4160V) j - 6900 Volt AC Distribution System (6900V) j Steam Plant Systems:
- Auxiliary Feedwater System (AFW) i - Auxiliary Steam Systa (ASC) *
- Main Feedwater System (WW)
- Main Steam System (MSS) l - Once Through Steam Generators (OTSG)
Control Systems: _
. - Emergency Feedwater Initiation and Control System (EFIC)
- - Integrated Control System (ICS)
- Non-Nuclear Instrumentation (NNI) *
- Radiation Monitoring System (RDM) *
- Reactor Protection System (RPS)
- Safety Features Actuation System (SFS)
Reactor Plant Systems:
l, ,
I - Decay Heat Removal System (DNS)
- Purification and Letdown System (PLS) 4
- Reactor Coolant System (RCS) j - Seal Injection and Makeup System ,(SIM) 3
! Auxfliary Systems:
i - Component Cooling Water / Turbine Plant Cooling Water Systems (CCW)
! - Emergency Diesel Generator System (EGS) ,
- Fire Protection System (FPS)
- l - Instrument Air System / Service Air System (IAS)
- - Nuclear Service Raw Water System (NRW)
- - Nuclear Service Cooling Water System (NSW)
{ - Reactor Sampling System (RSS)
- I, ~
i . .
3 c,. .
QCI No.12, Rev. 2 .
January 29, 1987 Attachment No. 11 Page 4 of 8
(
Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Systems: '
- Control Room / Technical Support Center HVAC System (CR/TSC)
- Nuclear Service Electrical Building Essential HVAC System (NSEB) *
- Reactor Building Ventilation System (RBV)
The current listing of Additional Systems is as follows:
Power Systems:
- 120 Volt AC Non-vital Power System (120NV)
- Cathodic Protection System (CPS)
- Main Generator and Seal Oil System (MGS)
Steam Plant Systems:
- Gland Steam and Condensor System (GSC)
- Heaters, Drains and Vents System (HDV)
- Main Turbine and Extraction Steam System (HPT)
- Lube Oil System (LOS)
Control Systems:
- Annunciator System (ANS) )
-P1 ant Canmunications System (CSP)
- Main Turbine Electro-Hydraulic / Control Systems (EHO)
- Nuclear Instrumentation System (NIS)
- Plant Computer System (PCS)
- P1 ant Security System (PSS)
- Site Meteorological Monitoring System (SME)
, - Seismic Monitoring System (SMC)
. - Turbine Supervisory Instrumentation System (TSI)
Reactor Plant Systems:
- Borated Water System (BWS)
- Containment Building Spray System (CBS)
- Core Flood System (CFS) l i
i e
l OCI N3. 12, Rev. 2 ;
l January 29, 1987 ;
Attachment No. 11 2 Page 5 of 8 6 .
! Auxiliary Systems:
l - Cranes and Hoists System (CHS) -
i - Carbon Dioxide System (C05) i
- Domineralized Water System (DMW) l - Hydrogen Gas System (HGS)
! - Main Condensate and Makeup and Air Ejectors System (MCM)
] _
- Main Circulating Water System (MCW) l - Nitrogen Gas System (NGS) 1 - Plant Buildings and Structures System (PBS)
! - Plant Cooling Water System (PCW) i - Turbine Plant Sampling System (TSS) 1
- Secondary Chemical Addition System (SCA) '
- - Site Reservoir System (SRS)
- - Service Water System (SWS) -
- - Clean Drain System Drainage and Sewage System (CDS)
- Control Rod Drive System (CRD) ,
l
- Fuel Handling System (FFS) , ;
1
- Reactor Coolant Drain System (RCD) !
! - Radioactive Waste System (RWS) !
! - Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System (SFC) l
- Wasta Gas System (WGS) ;
l
{') HVAC Systems:
- HVAC Balance of Plant Systems (OHVS)
. (
, Other Systems: l I' !
- Main Control Room (MCR) l 5.0 SYSTEM REVIEW
! A system review will be conducted on both the Selected and Additional .
j systems as identified in Section 4.0. This review is intended to solve I I
- problems identified ty the PP&MIP and other corrective action proCrams,
- and to prioritize the solutions. The prioritization criteria'shall be
- as established in QCI-12 Section 6.2.2.4.
i l The review of the Selected and Additional systems under the System i Review and Test Program will be documented in individual system i reports. A System Status Report (SSR) will be prepared for each i Selected System and a System Investigation Report (SIR) will document each Additional System review, I
i i
J l
i l .
_ - - . . - - - . - ~ - . . -
~ QCI No.12. Rev. 2 January 29, 1987 Attachment No. 11 Page 6 of 8 .
5.1 System Status Report Overview 1 The SSR for Selected Systems will be developed in three stages, with each stage documented in a separate revision (Rev. O, 1 and 2). The purpose of the Rev. O report is to initiate plant design and modification work. The Rev. O report contains an Executive Sumary, a basic System Functional Description, and a listing of Problem Statements developed from the PP&MIP process and from the results of a review of open Work Requests. This Rev. O report is reviewed and approved by the Perfomance Analysis Group and the Deputy General-Manager, Nuclear. Once it is approved, it is used ty the System Engineer to initiate design activities, maintenance activities and plant modifications.
The Rev.1 SSR is utilized to identify the testing necessary for each Selected System. It builds on the Rev. O SSR, providing a more detailed System Functional Description, additional problem statements (admondments) from a review of open ECNs, open NCRs and outstanding abnormal tags, and the identification of testing which is to be conducted prior to restart required to demonstrate functions important to safe plant operation. The Rev. 1 SSR is reviewed and approved.ty the Test Review Group, Perfomance Analysis Group, and Deputy General e Manager, Nuclear. Once approved, the preparation and implementation of test outlines and procedures will begin.
If an SSR must be technically changed after an approved revision has been distributed, the originator / System Engineer must initiate a Request for QCI-12 Recomendation/ System Report Review (QCI-12, Figure 5), as detailed in QCI-12 Section 6.6.4. A Request must be completed and revised in the QTS data base whenever a change is proposed in the scope of testing determined; the corrective actions described, or problem priorities or descriptions outlined in the SSR.
Completed Requests must be approved by the System Engineer, Design Engineer, the PAG, the RIM and the DGM, Nuclear. When Section 4 of the SSR is revised, t*ie request shall be reviewed and approved by the TRG.
Once approved, they will be distributed to all report recipients and incorporated into the next official SSR revision.
a
. QCI No.12, Rev. 2 January 29, 1987 Attachment No.11 Page 7.of 8 I
A Rev. 2 SSR is prepared for each Selected System and is utilized for final system acceptance. This report contains everything from Rev.1 plus additional problem statements documenting the results of the system walkdown, a review of maintenance history trend investigation, i and a review of the Davis-Besse SRTP results. This revision will also contain a summary of results of tests perfomed to date, address the status of each Priority 1 problem statement, and have an operability statement by the Systemingineer. This revision shall also address the status of each Priority 1 problem statement, and when presented to PAG shall be accompanied ty a report from the Quality Engineer addressing l the same subject. This report is reviewed and approved by the i Performance Analysis Group and Deputy General Manager, Nuclear, prior !
to restart.
5.2 System Investigation Report Overview The SIR will be developed for all Additional Systems in two stages. The Rev. O SIR for each system will be utilized to get plant work started and to determine whether the system should be upgraded to Selected System status. The Rev. 0 report contains an Executive Summary, a System Functional Description, and a listing of Problem Statements developed from the PP&MIP process and from the results of a review of
(.. ,
! open Work Requests, open NCRs, outstanding abnormal tags and open ECNs.
The report also contains a justification for upgrading the system to Selected status or for maintaining the Additional System status. This ,
report is reviewed ty the PAG and ty. the Deputy General Manager, Nuclear.
Technical changes required on SIRS shall be handled in the same manner as the changes to SSRs described above. .
The Rev.1 SIR is utilized for final system acceptance and for consideration for upgrading to Selected System status. The contents of the Rev. I status report contains the Rev. O SIR plus any additional j problem statements (amendments) and an Operability Finding. This report is approved by the Perfomance Analysis Group and the Deputy ]
General Manager, Nuclear. '
6.0 RESTART TEST PROGRAM
)
Testing to be perfomed prior to restart will be identified by the SRTP i and ty other nomal testing programs such as post modification testing, post maintenance testing and surve111ance testing. To identify the functional testing for the SRTP, the System Engineer will first document the functions of the system. Testing to demonstrate each function is then defined. Current testing is considered in this review.
l
QCI No.12, Rev. 2 -
January 29, 1987
(
Attachment No. 11 Page 8 of 8 i
Justification will be provided for those functions or portions not to be tested prior to restart.
The results of the test identification will be documented in the System Status Report (Rev.1) and will specify the scope of restart testing to be conducted for the SRTP. Tests used to demonstrate system function will be included or referenced. .
The Restart Test Program is controlled by a series of formal procedures. Most activities are controlled by the normal plant procedures, while new procedures (PDAP-4200 Series) have been created for the overall control of the program and other activities unique to i
the SRTP. The procedural controls considered as part of the Restart Test Program address the following activities:
- Development of the functional testing program scope.
- Preparation, review and approval of test outlines.
- Preparation, review and approval of test procedures.
- Conduct of tests.
- Review and approva'l of test results.
- Training and certification of test personnel, f a
Safety tagging.
Control of test equipment and iniitrumentation.
- Control of temporary plant modification.
(> -
.
- Identification, control and reportability of non-conforming conditions. *
- Quality Assurance / Quality Control .
The results of the Restart Test Program will be reviewed by the System Engineer and by the Test Review Group. The results of those tests completed prior to the development of the Rev. 2 SSR will be described in the report, and considered in the evaluation of system suitability for return to service.
l 1
a ,
- QCI No. 12, Rev. 2 January 29, 1987 1 Attachment No.12 -
l Page 1 of 5 l QCI-12 TRACKING SYSTEM (OTS) i 1.0 PURPOSE To delineate the requirements and procedures for implementing a ,
computerized data base to: track recommendations identified through the QCI-12 process; and cross-reference the reconsnendations to plant documents, the Rancho Seco Action Plan for Performance Improvement, the 12/26/85 Transient Action List, the NRC Region V recommended Action List, NUREG-1195, and other cross-references as may be identified.
2.0 SCOPE This attachment defines the authority, accountability and responsibility for the input and reporting of reccmimendations and cross-reference
- information to and from the QTS and for the maintenance of the QTS.
This Attachment also provides instructions for the entry and correction of data, temporary storage and transmittal of QCI-12 records.
. 3.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 4
( The Quality Department is responsible for the maintenance of the QCI-12 d
U Tracking System (QTS), with input 7esponsibility to Infomation Management Services with respect to design and development considerations. The Quality Data Supervisor shall ensure that the operational procedures are in place for the acquisition of data, data entry, data validation, report generation, daily backups, and filing of hardcopy documents. The Quality Data Supervisor is responsible to ensure that the data received are input and reported accurately, in a .
timely manner.
Other departments and groups that provide the data input to the QTS shall be responsible for the content of the data in the QTS. They shall ensure that all data sent to OTS for entry are authorized and dated.
They shall ensure that originating data, updates and/or revisions to the data in the QTS is documented, authorized and dated and sent to the QTS for entry, in accordance with the procedures outlined in this attachment.
i i
4.0 REFERENCES
i QCI-12 i QAIP-13
-,-,---o=--- -+--,---w-am, -n-v - r-,-- -,,-e,,--w--- w-r., -- -----m+,-,,-, ,----w,,-- --- wr_,w,,,,, m,-,-m - - - ,,-- .cr--- - , - , _ - , ,m---- ,n , - - , -,
c ._ QCI No.12, Rev. 2 ,
January 29, 1987 Attachment No. 12 Page 2 of 5 5.0 DEFINITIONS Authorize - to approve the addition or revision of a recommendation.
Document - to state in writing the data to be added, deleted or changed in tne data base. Note: Additions, deletions and changes must be authorized and documented.
New Recommendation - a recomendation which has not been previously j entered in the data base.
Existing Recommendation - a recommendation which has been previously
- entered in the data case.
Revise - to add, change or delete data to an existing recomendation.
6.0 PROCEDURE 6.1 Data Entry Authorizations Reouired 6.1.1 All data sutmitted to QTS for entry shall be dgfumented in writing, signed and dated by an authorized person:
j 6.1.1.1 Prior to QCI-L2, Revision 2, the RRRB Chairman, the System Engineers and the Department Managers had (j
authority to add new recomendations to the QTS.
Effective with QCI-12, Revision 2, only the !
Department Manager level or higher shall have '
authority to add new recommendations to the QTS.
r 6.1.1. 2 Prior to PAG approval of a recomendation, only the originator has authority to change infomation in the data base, however, for the recomendations originated by the RRRB the System Engineer may add review coments and may change Validity and/or Priority in conjunction with their sutnittal of the System Report.
6.1.1.3 Following PAG approval, only the PAG Chairman, shall have authority to change any infomation relating to the Validity, Priority or textual content of the recommendation in the QTS.
NOTE: The only exception to this shall be the ability of the System Review & Test Program to subnit changes to text of 26.XXXX series recomntendations based on an approved SSR/ SIR. In -
these instances, the System Engineer shall provide the signed and dated Recommendation Report marked with the edits to be made, along with a copy of,the page from the approved SSR/ SIR.
O QCI No.12, Rev. 2 January 29, 1987
. Attachment No.12 Page 3 of 5
]
6.1.1.4 Following PAG approval, changes to the " distribution fields" (i.e. Implementing organization, Implementing person assigned, System Report, System Engineer assigned and Quality Engineer assigned) shall be authorized by both the person currently assigned and the person to be assigned.
6.1.2 The " Request for QCI-12 Recommendation / System Report Review" form (QCI-12, Figure 5) shall be used to ,
i authorize new recommendations and revisions te PAG j approved recomendations.
6.1.3 The " QTS Data Entry" form (QCI-12, Figure 6) shall be used to document the data to be entered for new recomendations, as authorized.
6.1.4 The QTS "Reconsnendation Report" (QCI-12, Figure 3) shall be used to document the data base edits to be made to existing reconsnendations, as authorized. -
6.1.5 The Authorizing person shall be accountable and responsible to ensure that the data authorized for entry is accurate and complete, e.g. that data is provided (or indicated as "NONE") for all fields of entry to the QTS, a 1.e. Validity, Priority, Implementing Organization, j System (s), Initiattng Document, text fields,'etc..
6.2 Data Entry Review 6.2.1 All documents sutaitted for data entry to QTS shall be reviewed by QTS personnel to assure that the document is readable, reproducible and that the following minimum legibility requirements are met: !
a) All document data is discernible to the naked eye.
b) Print is not blurred, marred or smudged so that it is not '
discerni ble.
c) Pertinent data does not run off the page. l 6.2.1.1 All data entries to QTS records shall ba !
typewritten or made with black ball-point pen. Ink ;
shall not be susceptible to smearing or smudging, ;
and shall be of the pennanent type. ;
6.2.1.2 Corrections shall be made via a single line through i the incorrect data and entry of the correct data
! with initials and date indicated in an adjacent i area. Additional sheets shall be used if the adjacent area is not sufficient. Documents shall not be changed or corrected by use of white-out, correction tape, eraser or any other means which
, ~
renders the original entry unreadable.
l .
QCI No.12, Rev. 2 January 29, 1987 Attachment No. 12 Page 4 of 5 6.2.1.3 Historical documents that have been completed C
prior to QCI-12, Rev. 2 may exist which do not meet the strict requirements of this Section (6.2).
6.2.2 All documents subnitted for data entry to QTS shall be reviewed by QTS personnel to assure that all required data is provided and an authorized signature is present.
6.2.3 Any document which does not meet the requirement of Section 6.2.1 or 6.2.2 above shall be returned for correction and i resu bnission. l 1
6.2.4 The QTS personnel shall document their acceptance of the '
document for data entry by initialing and dating the l document.
l 6.3 Data Entry Process I
6.3.1 The data entry operator shall enter the new information or ;
edit existing infonnation exactly as it is documented. I 6.3.2 On a daily basis, all data base records which were added or ,
revised shall be printed for validation. i 6.3.3 A data entry operator,-other than the one who perfonned the ,' ,,)
original data entry, shall validate the printout against the l originating document to as'sure the accuracy of the data entry. Any errors will be marked on the printout and the
, data entry process repeated.
6.3.4 The data entry process shall be completed in a timely manner I
.. and, when possible, within twenty-four hours of QTS receipt !
of the data.
~
6.4 Assignment of Log Numbers 6.4.1 QTS shall assign the next sequential log number for i authorized new reconsnendations:
a) in the "23.XXXX" series for recommendations subnitted '
by the B&WOG SPIP.
b) in the "26.XXXX" series for recomendations subnitted by the SRTP.
c) in the "27.XXXX" series for recomendations transferred from the Coordinated Committed Tracking Systcan (CCTS).
d) in the "25.XXXX" series for all other recomendations.
QCI No. 12. Rev. 2 January 29, 1987.
Attachment No. 12 Page 5 of 5 l 6.5 Cross Reference of Documents to QTS Items
, 6.5.1 QTS shall provide coordination with System Engineering, Implementing Organizations, Implementation and other j groups for the identification and subsequent entry and '
reporting of identified process control documents (ECNs, NCRs, ODRs, Work Requests, etc.) relating to QTS items.
6.6 Cross Reference of Procedures to QTS Items
~
6.6.1 QTS shall provide coordination with the Practices and Procedures Coordination group, Implementation, Implementing Organizations and other groups for the identification and subsequent entry and reporting of all procedures, including Training tesson Plans and courses, relating to QTS items.
6.7 QCI No.12 Document Control 6.7.1 QTS shall maintain a filing system by QTS Log Number for
- the original documents signed by the RRRB, System Engineer, PAG, Implementing Organizations and Quality for their respective actions on 'the recomendation.
(") 6.7.1.1 Following completion of the Action Plan closeout all documents will be forwarded to plant records in accordance with existing plant procedures.-
6.7.2 The QTS hrsonnel shall receive requests for copies of the infomation contained in the files and ensure that the request is filled in a timely manner.
6.8 Data Base Integrity and Security 6.8.1 QTS shall ensure data integrity and security by reviewing, researching, revising and backing up the database on a daily basis.
6.8.2 Backup copies of the data base shall be maintained for the prior six days and prior four_ weeks. Archive copies shall be generated on a monthly basis.
l 1
l 1
i
Nuclear Engineering Procedure
&SMUD 5Y5ItM DESIGN BA5E5 1.0 PURPOSE To define the scope of system design bases documents and to describe how they are prepared, revised, and controlled for Sacramento Municipal Utility District's (SMUO's) Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station.
2.0 SCOPE System design bases documents are prepared in accordance with this procedure. l 3.0 DEFINITION The desion bases are the body of information which identify the specific l functions to be perfonned by a system or component of a nuclear power plant, the specific values or ranges of values chosen for controlling parameters as reference bounds for design, specific physical requirements of the system or component, and any specific or unique requirements such as interlocks, materials, or process parameters. These design bases are used to provide a base for future system modifications.
60 RESPONSIBILITIES Supervising Engineers are responsible for reviewing, approving and updating l
[; system design bases pertaining to their respective disciplines. (The NEPM V table of contents for the 5400 series of documents lists the responsible ,
discipline for each of the system design bases and provides a new document cross reference.)
System design engineers are responsible for preparing t'he system design bases documents.
The Discipline Engineering Manager assigns responsibility for the preparation of system design bases and reviews and approves the completed documents.
5.0 INSTRUCTIONS 5.1 PREPARATION The playscript procedure to be followed for preparation of the initial issue (or revision) of a design bases document is provided in Attachment 1.
5.1.1 Fonnat System design bases documents are presented on preprinted SMUD fonns, i.e., a design bases cover page and design bases text pages (Attachments 2 and 3 respectively).
I Page 1 of 4 Revision 2 1
SWO-ista 6.85
(
0CMUD
%d Nucisar Enginsering Proc 3 dura nEp <121 The system design bases cover page lists all the applicable seismic categories and the quality groups for system equipment and components. The cover page references appropriate sections of the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR)
(
and applicable P& ids which describe system design. The cover page is signed and dated by the discipline Supervising Engineers and by the Discipline Engineering Manager.
l Attachment 4 provides the format and content requirements.
5.1.2 pagination Each page of the document is identified with the System Design Bases (DB) number and the lead discipline. The page number and revision number are shown at the bottom of the page. The pages, including all attachments, shall be numcered sequentially as Page of , starting with Page 1 as the cover sheet.
5.1.3 Tables and Ffoures For tables that consist of more than one page, the table number and title appear on the first page of the table, with only the table number repeated on subsequent pages. The page number and revision number are shown at the bottom of the page. Most tables are an integral part of the document and should be inserted as close as is reasonable after they are first referenced.
Figures should also be fnserted as close as reasonable after they are first referenced.
5.1.4 Review and Approval (.
System design bases documents are prepared by system. design engineers and reviewed and approved by Discipline Supervising Engineers. Supervising Engineers page. indicate their review and approval by signing and dating the cover After a system design bases document is approved by the discipline Supervising y
Engineer, it is submitted to the Discipline Engineering Manager for review and approval.
5.2 REVISION i .
' System design bases documents are revised when appropriate (when new ECNs are issued, the need for revision should be evaluated). Revisions are reviewed and approved in the same manner as the initial issue, per Section 5.1.4 above.
The procedure (Attachment 1) details the steps to be followed when revising a system design bases document.
5.2.1 Revision Control The initial issue of a system design bases document is designated as Revision 0, "Inftial Issue." Revisions shall be assigned the next revision number (1,2,3,etc.). '
Suuc 1454 e's9 r- -.r
Nuclear Engineering Procedure NEP 4121
& CMU = . -
l A revision control page (Attachment 6) shall be included following the cover l sheet of each system design bases document and shall provide a revision history for that document. This sheet shall list each revision, its date of l 1ssue, revision description and authorization document (e.g., ECN number).
For cornplex revisions, where at least 50 percent of the document has been changed, the notation " General Revision" may be used in lieu of a complete description.
The entire document is reissued for each revision regardless of the changes involved. Substantial changes (i.e., changes other than gramatical or editorial corrections) shall be marked by a vertical line in the margin opposite the change. Subsequent revision shall show change bars only for the latest revision; change bars for previous revisions shall not be retained.
5.3 CONTROL System design bases documents will be issued by Document Control. Issued or -
revised system design bases documents will be numbered in accordance with NEP 4103, " Engineering Document Numbering."
5.4 SYSTEM DESIGN BASES LOG Document Control will assign document numbers and maintain a listing of all existing system design bases and their current revision status.
f REFERENCES Q~,
- 1. NEP 4103, " Engineering Document Numbering." :
ATTACHMENTS
- 1. Procedure for Initial Issue or Revision of System Design Bases Document.
- 2. System Design Bases Document Cover Page.
- 3. System Design Bases Document Text Page.
- 4. System Design Bases Document Format and Content Guide.
- 5. Comparison of System Design Bases to ANSI N45.2.11.
- 6. Revision Control Page. l Page 3 of 4 Revision 2 l
l 1
l l
l suuo isse e.as
(^)CMUD k
Nucl ar Engineering Procedura APPROVED: eMW 8 #7 Manager (Nuclear Engineering Date
% @ kAA Sk Manager', Nuclear Date v >dEh;lA ManagerpQual1Q nce L/
4/nN7
/ pte
- km/
Manager, Support j!"ervices N 1h- ullfl Date Page 4 of 4 Revision 2 l
l SWO tasa e 35
NEP 4121 l Attachment 1 PROCEDURE FOR INITIAL ISSUE OR REVISION OF SYSTEM DESIGN BASES DOCUMENT Responsible Party Action i
System Design Engineer . Prepares draft (or revision) of system design bases document. Documents to be reviewed in preparation should include ECNs, licensing commitments, as well as any other scurce documents.
Submits document for word processing and for any
. graphics work.
Submits completed draft to the responsible Supervising Engineer for review and concurrence.
Responsible Supervising Reviews draft for technical content and Engineer adequacy. Returns draft to System Design Engineer.
. System Design Engineer Routes system design bases document for review
/ per NEP 4110. "Interdiscipline Document Review."
Reviewing Parties Review document for conformance with appropriate I requirements, standards and codes, etc. Follow review instructions in NEP 4110.
System Design Engineer Resolves any comments and completes the review cycle (as directed in NEP 4110).
If necessary, submits document for final word
- processing and/or graphics revision.
Forwards final document to Supervising Engineer.
Supervising Engineer Signs and dates the cover page of the system design bases document to signify completion of review and approval, and forwards the document to Discipline Engineering Manager.
Page 1 of 2 Revision 2 t
NEP 4121 Attachment 1 Responsible Party Discipline Action Reviews and approves the system design bases
(
Engineering Manager document by signing and dating the cover page.
Forwards document to Document Control.
Document Control Checks document for completeness.
. Enters issue date on Revision Control sheet.
Reproduces and distributes the system design bases document.
Retains originals of the document. Microfilming of new and revised documents shall be coordinated by Document Control following established procedures.
?
l Page 2 of 2 Revision 2 l
i
i Document flo, SYSTEM DB- l 9SMUD .._ _ ,o _ - 1.c, DESIGN BASES' l
Subject:
NEP 4121 Attachment 2 ~
i P.evision 2 I Qua ity Class: Seismic Category Page 1 of 1 ;
i 1
USAR Section:
P & ID:
Other:
)
Prepared By:
Cate Approved By:
Supervising Engineer Date Discipline Engineering Manager Date
- " " ' ' " Page of Revision
Document No.
SYSTEM DB-
$SMUD . - - . - - - .. - DESIGN BASES " " " """*
(~
NEP 4121 Attachment 3 !
Revision 2 j Page 1 of 1 SWO-1457e 0 05 l
I NEP 4121 Attachment 4 SYSTEM DESIGN BASES FORMAT AND CONTENT GUIDE FORMAT 1.0 Function ;
2.0 System Description l 3.0 Governing Codes a Industry Standards 4.0 Design Bases 4.1 Licensing Design Bases 4.2 Reliability Design Bases 4.3 Other Safety Design Bases 4.4 Non-Safety Design Bases 4.5 General System Design Bases 5.0 System Interfaces 6.0 System a Component Parameters 6.1 System Parameters 6.2 Component Parameters 6.2.1 Mechanical Equipment Parameters 6.2.2 Electrical Equipment Parameters 6.2.3 Instrumentation 7.0 Reference Sources (I) 8.0 Cross-Reference to Other Controlled Documents III Appendix A System Diagran Appendix B Process Conditions Appendix C Unresolved Issues NOTE 1: System Design Engineers must verify that these documents are on file in Document Control.
\
I Page 1 of 9 Revision 2 1
,m _ , _ . ._. _ . , , _ - _ _
-. - = . - . - . .- -- . . - ._ - - _ - - - . - - .
NEP 4121
.. Attachment 4 CONTENT GUIDE 1.0 FUNCTION A short description listing the specific functional requirements of the system
(
during various plant and system operating modes. Attachment 5. " Comparison of System Design Bases to ANSI N45.2.11," must be used as a guide to assure that all required infonnation is included. Examples of system function requirements are:
(1) Provide sufficient cooling.
l (2)Maintainwaterchemistry.
1 (3) Recover and retain radionuclides.
2.0 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION A description of the system and how it accomplishes its purpose, including a listing of the major components and interfaces with other systems. For example, a cooling system description should detail how heat is removed and where this heat is rejected. The description should also explain operation during all plant modes, including events in Chapter 14 of the USAR for which the system is required, and technical specification plant conditions. All system modes which affect system configuration should be identified with the appropriate plant condition.
, Technical specification plant conditions are:
i Cold shutdown: Tave 12000F and reactor subcritical 11%Ak/k.
I Hot shutdown: Tave 15250F and reactor subcritical 11%Ak/k.
i Hot standby: Tave > 5250F and reactor critical (X,ff = 1.0) and reactor power < 2% rated power.
Power operation: Reactor power > 2% rated power.
Refueling shutdown: Calculated boron concentration is high enugh to f assure with all rods removed, the reactor is subcritical l
is i 1400F.15% Ak/k and decay heat pump suction 4
Using the Nuclear Services Cooling Water System as an example:
i l The system has the following modes of operation:
- 1. Standby.
- 2. Cooling Decay Heat System only -
one train required to perfonn this function.
\
Page 2 of 9 Revision 2 D 9
- . .,,,,.n., ,n-- - --
- - . - - , - - - - ~ - ~ . - -
l NEP 4121 Attachment 4
+
- 3. Cooling Decay Heat Systen - two trains required to perform this function.
- 4. Cooling Decay Heat System and Reactor Building Emergency Coolers - either train can perfor1n this function.
NOTE: For all modes see Decay Heat Syster design bases.
These modes are used for the following plant operating conditions:
Operating Condition Mode
- 1. Power operation: Reactor power > 2% rated power. 1 3
- 2. Hot standby: Tave > 5250F, reactor critical 1 l (Keff = 1.0) and reactor power < 2% rated power.
- 3. Hot shutdown: T > 5250F and reactor 1 subcritical11%'dE/E,
- 4. Cold shutdown: Tave 1 2000F and reactor 2 or 3 suberitical 1 1% Ak/k.
- 5. Refueling: Calculated boron concentration is high 2 or 3 enough to assure with all rods removed the reactor f~ is subcritical > 5% Ak/k and decay heat pump
() suction is 1 1450F.
- 6. All USAR Chapter 14 events requiring emergency 4 core cooling and reactor building emergency cooling.
Reactor building emergency coolers are required for a LOCA and main steam line break. l
. 7. All USAR Chapter 14 events leading to forced 2 or 3 initiation of plant shutdown.
NOTE: For 6 & 7 see Decay Heat System design ba' sis.
i i
i 1
f Page 3 of 9 Revision 2 i I i '
- l i
l
1 NEP 4121 Attachment 4 A description of the system's general process arrangement is also included in the system description if this arangement is necessary for proper system operation. Changes in the design after the original issue should be described, such as: " Pump No. P- was added by ECN ;
the system also cools .
In addition, identify current operating procedures or equipment arrangements when they differ from the design operation originally intended, such as: "both 100% capacity pumps must operate to provide the required flow."
3.0 GOVERNING CODES AND INDUSTRY STANDARDS This section provides a listing of the industry codes and standards and NRC originated documents which are design or licensing comitments, including those which may be a comitment for future system modifications, or which provic'e design guidance but are not ccmitments.
The specific comitments to codes, standards 'and NRC documents are found in the USAR. Design Basis Reports, the original Station Design Manual, and Licensing Comitment Letters. A design basis which fulfills the comitment to a code or standard should note that the comitment is the reason for the design basis.
Include the general statement:
NEP 5101.11 and its interfacing NEPs control compliance with mandatory codes and standards and effective dates. f 4.0 DESIGN BASES
(
This section contains the specific system requirements that apply during various modes of operation. Original system criteria was provided in documents such as the Station Design Manual issued by Bechtel. The intent of this document is to reflect the current system design basis, including all ECNs and licensing comitments. Situations may exist where the original and
,- current bases differ and the reasons for the difference may not be readily apparent. The differences should be noted in the " REASONS" description for each basis.
Safety design bases together with licensing design bases provide for or assure ,
the following:
(1) The -integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary (2) The capability to bring the reactor to cold shutdown and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition Page 4 of 9 Revision 2
]
1 l
NEP 4121
' Attachment 4 l (3) The capability to prevent or mitigate the consequences of accidents
- that could result in potential offsite exposures comparable to the guideline exposures of 10CFR100 (4) The accomplishment of specific structure, system, or component requirements which are important to safety 4.1 LICENSING DESIGN BASES I Statements that define the physical and functional requirements of the system to meet original operating license commitments and subsequent commitments as stated in the Updated Safety Analysis Report or in correspondence with the Nuclear Regulatory Conunission. A Licensing Commitment letter (e.g.,
commitments to NUREG-0737) should be used as the reference for design bases which fulfill the commitments of the letter.
Include a reason for the design bases and a reference or source of the design bases when possible; use standard format as follows:
REQUIREMENT REASON REFERENCE / SOURCE i
, (See Section 7.0 and 8.0 i
for guidance.)
4.2 RELIABILITY DESIGN BASES If reliability analyses have been developed for components and/or the system, s the results should be included in this section.
. If no reliability analyses have been performed, this should be stated in this section.
i If the system or any of its components are modified in the future, it must be verified that the changes are within the required reliability criteria.
4.3 OTHER SAFETY DESIGN BASES Other safety design bases are bases required to establish or increase nuclear safety, but are not ifcensing design bases.
4.4 NON-SAFETY DESIGN BASES Statements that define the physical and functional requirements of the system l to support nomal plant operation (power generation) and special maintenance and testing requirements are to be included.
4.5 GENERAL SYSTEM DESIGN BASES General design bases are those which are generic to most systems and impose physical requirements on the system components but do not impose additional functional requirements.
Page 5 of 9 Revision 2 l
- - , , - . , , , , . - - - . , - - - - . . ,- , - . - . -,--..--a.- - - - - - - . - . . - - , , -
1 NEP 4121 Attachment 4 l (1) Structural Loads (a) Seismic NEP 5101.3 Seismic Classification and Design Criteria 5104.5 Seismic Requirements for Electrical Equipment 5108.9 Seismic Design Requirements for Systems and Equipment (Mechanical)
(b) Wind NEP 5101.1 Site Information 5103.1 C'urrent Civil / Structural Design Criteria for Existing Structures and Yard Additions and Modifications 5103.2 Governing Civil / Structural Design Criteria for Original Structure Design (c) Missiles NEP 5101.5 Missile Design Criteria, Internally Generated 5103.2 Governing Civil Structural Design Criteria for Original Structure Design (2) Structural Requirements NEP 5107.4 Pipe Supports NEP 5103.1 Current Civil / Structural Design Criteria for Existing Structures and Yard Additions and Modifications (-
NEP 5103.2 Governing Civil / Structural Design Criteria for Original Structure Design (3) Environmental (a) Pressure, Temperature, Humidity, Corrosiveness and Radiation
_~
NEP 5101.1 Site Information ERPT - E0187 Users Manual Environmental Equipment s Qualification (b) HELBA - EP.5101.7 High Energy Line Break (HELBA)
(4) Layout and Arrangement Requirements NEP 5101.6 As Low As Is Reasonably Achievable (ALARA)
NEP 5101.8 Fire Protection NEP 5106.2 Shielding Criteria NEP 5101.10 Independence - General Page 6 of 9 Revision 2 l .
l
l NEP 4121 Attachment 4 l (5) Access Control Requirements NEP 5108.7 Maintenance and Decontamination 5.0 SYSTEM INTERFACES Identify the interfacing system and the type of interface. The interfacing system provides or receives fluid, electrical power, etc. All interfaces are to be listed using the following format: .
SYSTEM INTERFACE For example: Nuclear Service Water Provides cooling water Using Decay Heat System (NSW) to the decay heat exchangers Electrical Provides power to the Distribution System ......
(EDS) 480V 6.0 SYSTEM AND COMPONENT PARAMETERS 6.1 SYSTEM PARAMETERS Identify the system parameters required to perform each system function. List
(' the system operating limits and precautions for protection of equipment .
Provide a source for each parameter, limit, or precaution. The source must be
() a traceable document, drawing, instruction manual, FSAR, etc. Provide a reason for each parameter, limit, or precaution. The reason can be engineering judgement, but an effort should be made to identify a reason such as: ECCS analysis uses the number, design parameter, etc.
Use the following standard format:
SPECIFIED PARAMETER PARAMETER REASON REFERENCE / SOURCE (See Section 7.0 and 8.0 for guidance) 6.2 CON ONENT PARAMETERS Page 7 of 9 Revision 2
NEP 4121
._ Attachment 4 6.2.1 Mechanical Equipment Parameter -
Provides individual component infomation with operating limits and precautions for protection of equipment, if applicable. Specify sizes and ratings of equipment. Include material infomation only if it is a compliance to a design bases previously stated. Include, for example, electric motor horsepower (rated), voltage rating, RPM and whether the power source is Class IE or non-Class IE. Mechanical equipment includes: relief valves, pumps, heat exchangers, filters, fans, compressors, and valves which control process flow, pressure and temperature, including power-operated isolation valves.
Use the following format:
Equipment
Description:
SMUD ID No.:
SPECIFIED PARAMETER PARAMETER REASON REFERENCE / SOURCE (See Section 7.0 and 8.0 forguidance) 6.2.2 Electrical Equipment Parameters The following electrical equipment should be described: switchgear, load center, MCC's, batteries, battery chargers, inverters and . transformers. Where applicable, the descriptions should include such items as: bus rating, voltage rating, input and output voltage, phase, frequency, ampere hour rating, output ('
, current (amps), type of cooling and impedance. (
6.2.3 Instrumentation List only those instruments that directly control a process condition, e.g'., a level switch controlling a pump start-stop circuit.
Exclude set-points but describe what the instrument does in terms of function
- and the measured variable. Manufacturers and model numbers are excluded.
A suggested format is:
MEASURED INSTRUMENT VARIABLE FUNCTION 4 Equipment Description i SMUD ID No.
7.0 REFERENCE SOURCES l The reference source for every parameter, limit, or precaution and all system interface parameters must be listed in this section and must include the revision level of each document.
Page_8 of 9 Revision 2 l
-,,n -e-- - - , v v-- e,-, ---- - , - - - , -r-,-- e , - , ._ , - - , - - -
p 7.,,,
NEP 4121 Attachment 4 8.0 CROSS-REFERENCE TO OTHER CONTROLLED DOCUMENTS 8.1 SMUD GENERAL AND DISCIPLINE DESIGN CRITERIA (NEPM 5100 SERIES) 8.2 P& ids 8.3 LOGICS 8.4 ELEMENTARY WIRING DIAGRAMS 8.5 USAR 8.6 TECH SPECS 8.7 SYSTEM TRAINING MANUALS 8.8 VENDOR DOCUMENTS APPENDIX A SYSTEM DIAGRAM This is a simplified P&ID with node locations shown to match Appendix 8 information; or a simplified electrical single-line which does not have node 4
locations. Process fluid design conditions (desi and code application classification (NEPM 5108.2)gn are to be provided pressure in and tempera tabular fonnat.
1
(~ '
APPENDIX B PROCESS CONDITIONS FOR OPERATION Use standard fonnat where applicable.
REFERENCE /
NODE PRESSURE TEMPERATURE FLOWRATE FLUID SOURCE i
(Not applicable for single-line electrical diagrams)
The process conditions for each operating condition or event described in Section 2.0 are to be provided for each node. Since the process may change over time, indicate the time of the operating condition, such as " initiation or recirculation after LOCA."
APPENDIX C UNRESOLVED ISSUES Provide a listing of all unresolved issues.
i Page 9 of 9 Revision 2
- , . - . . , _ - , , , . . , , -. _ . . - . . . . , , , - - , - n.._,._,., , . , , _
NEP 4121 Attachment 5 COMPARISON OF SYSTEM DESIGN BASES TO ANSI N45.2.11 '
1 i
Section 3.2 Design Input Requirements SDB Section ]
- 1. Basic functions of each structure, system and component. 1, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 !
- 2. Perfomance requirements such as capacity, rating, 6 system output.
- 3. Codes, standards, and regulatory requirements including 3 l the applicable issue and/or addenda.
- 4. Design conditions such as pressure, temperature, fluid 6. APP. B chemistry and voltage.
- 5. Loads such as seismic, wind, thermal and dynamic. 4.4
- 6. Environmental conditions anticipated during storage, 4.4 construction and operation such as pressure, temperature, humidity, corrosiveness, site elevation, wind direction, nuclear radiation, electromagnetic radiation and duration of exposure.
- 7. Interface requirements including definition of the 5 functional and physical interfaces involving structures, systems and components.
- 8. Material requirements including such items as 4, 6 compatibility, electrical insulation properties, protective coating and corrosion resistance.
~
- 9. Mechanf cal requirements such as vibration, stress. 6 shock and reaction forces.
- 10. S'tructural requirements covering such items as 4.4
> equipment foundations and pipe supports.
- 11. Hyc.raulic requirements such as pump net positive 6, 4.4 suction heads (NPSH), allowable pressure drops, and allowable fluid velocities.
- 12. Chemistry requirements such as provisions for sampling 6
. and limitations on water chemistry.
Page 1 of 3 Revision 2
--,m., ,n. , , ,-- . _ . . -. . - , ,_g,.,,m,,, - , _ . - . - - , . - , . , , . , .n,..n, ...n. . ,. -- --.. . . . . , - ., - - - , , . . , , , . , - , , , . -
NEP 4121 Attachment 5 I
I Section 3.2 Design Input Requirements SDB Section l l
- 13. Electrical requirements such as source of power, 6 voltage, raceway requirements, electrical insulation ,
and motor requirements. '
- 14. Layout and arrangement requirements. 4.4
- 15. Operational requirements under various conditions, such 2, 4, 6 APP.B as plant startup, nomal plant operation, plant shutdown, plant emergency operation, special or infrequent operation, and system abnomal or emergency operation.
- 16. Instrumentation and control requirements including 6 indicating instruments, control and alams required for operation, testing, and maintenance. Other requirements such as the type of instrument, installed spares, range of measurement, and location of indication should also be included.
i 17. Access and administrative control requirements for plant Not applicable security.
except
/ DB-PSS-5456, V " Plant Security System"
- 18. Redundancy, diversity and separation requirements of 2,;3, 4 structures, systems and components.
- 19. Failure effects requirements of structures, systems and 4.4 -
components, including a definition of those events and accidents which they must be designed to withstand.
- 20. Test requirements including in-plant tests and the 4.3
- conditions under which they will be perfomed.
I
- 21. Accessibility, maintenance, repair and inservice 4.4 inspection requirements for the plant including the conditions under which these will be perforsr.d.
- 22. Personnel requirements and limitations including the Not applicable qualification and number of personnel available for plant operation, maintenance, testing and inspection l and pemissible personnel radiation exposures for I specified areas and conditions.
Page 2 of 3 Revision 2
I NEP 4121 l
- Attachment 5 l Section 3.2 Design Input Requirements SOB Section
- 23. Transportability requirements such as size and shipping Not applicable weight, limitations, I.C.C. regulations.
- 24. Fire protection or resistance requirements. 4.4
- 25. Handling, storage and shipping requirements. Not applicable
- 26. Other requirements to prevent undue risk to the health 3,4,6 and safety of the public.
27 Materials, processes, parts and equipment suitable for -Not applicable application.
- 28. Safety requirements for preventing personnel injury Not applicable including such items as radiation hazards, restricting the use of dangerous materials, escape provisions from enclosures, and grounding of electrical _ systems.
r i
Page 3 of 3 Revision 2 t
I i
NEP 4121 Attachment 6 REVISION CONTROL DB Rev. Issue Revision Authorization No. Date Description Document O
l Page 1 of 1 Revision 2 e
. ..- . .... =. _ .-- .. . . -- . - .. .. --.
r 1
(
?
a.<t f t i 1 9
APPENDIX N I
SMUD SYSTEM FUNCTIONAL REVIEWS 1
1
)
i
]
2 8
e t
i H-1 l
,n-,,.-.- ,_,- --- -- , ,- - . . . , - -,-, --.-- - ... .- -.,.,_,,rr.e.e. ~ n., , , - - - ---..n,- - ,----,,,
SMUD SYSTEM FUNCTIONAL REVIEW i
OVERVIEW The SMUD System Functional Review implements the commitments of section 1.4.2 i
of the Rancho Seco Action Plan. A more extensive review will be made of the systems which have been identified as dominant causes for severe and complex post trip plant transients.
. This process, which is modeled af ter the safety system functional inspections by the NRC, consists of: (a) Design Basis reconstitution; (b) reliability
. assessment of the system; and (c) the evaluation of individual component design criteria to assure that the individual components support the system design basis.
A reliability assessment of these systems will also be conducted as part of i this program to determine which components of these systems are critical to i
the prevention of reactor trips and which are critical to assure- that, immediately after a reactor trip, the transient remains in the post-trip .
window (see Figure 1-3). . The system surveillance tests, where appropriate, 4
will be evaluated to assure they adequately demonstrate the operability of the system and/or components to meet their design basis requirements. The five systems selected for this comprehensive review are:
- Main Feedwater System Auxiliary Feedwater System
- ICS/NNI
- - Pressure Control Functions of the Main Steam System
- Instrument Air
- his comprehensive review of these five selected systems will be ' initiated prior to restart and will be completed prior to coming out of the cycle 8 refueling outage. '
The document which follows is a draft task description for the System Functional Review effort.
)
k 4
l H-2 -
l
. - ---- , . --m-e-m7p- m w-1 w-t'--------p+-- -e-r-- --ewe-,wyv y eP em *- -- - W r -*W- --
DRAFT ~
Requirements for Systems Functional Reviews I. Purpose II. Scope III. Background IV. Work Statement A. Task Descriptions
- 1. Design Basis Reconstitution / Reconciliation
- 2. Systems Reliability Assessments B. Products
- 1. Reconciliation Task Descriptions
- 2. Systems Reliability Improvements
- 3. Future Action Recommendations V. Organization and Procedures A. Databasis/ Documentation B. Task Performance Procedures Administrative Procedures
('
C.
VI. Schedule Proposal Requirements A. Work Plan B. Qualifications C. Experience D. Personnel Figures
- 1. Systems Functional Review logic
- 2. Systems Functional Review Schedule Attachments A. Typical System Design Basis Document B. Additional Design Basis Source Documents C. Existing System Studies H-3
I. Purpose The Systems Functional Review program is intended to ~ provide a high level of confidence that the Rancho Seco Nuclear Plant design s design / licensing bases are documented and consistent, are reflected properly in the plant design documents, and that this documentation reflects the plant as-built con figura tion. It is also intended to determine that the subject systems are designed, maintained, tested and operated so as to accomplish plant secondary side heat removal in a safe l and reliable manner.
II. Scope i
The program is based upon the detailed review of the following systems:
Main Feedwater Systems Auxiliary Feedwater System Integrated Control System /Non-Nuclear Instrumentation Main Steam System (pressure control functions)
Instrument Air System Also included are the interface aspects of the support systems required for function of the above systems.
III. Background This program is intended to parallel the NRC Safety System Functional Inspection (SSFI) program initiated in 1985. Certain modifications have
{ been made to the SSFI approach to accommodate SMUD/ Rancho Seco unique objectives. First, the scope of systems were chosen on the basis of historical problems at B&W NSSS plants involving transients caused by mismatches between reactor heat generation and secondary side heat f
removal. These systems are, for the most part, not " safety-related" but in actual fact have a very significant relationship to both plant safety and plant reliability at Rancho Seco.
A second dif ference between the SMUD and typical SSFI programs is the incorporation of a system " reliability assessment" in the program. This task is intended to identify specific systems /r 7ponents which are more likely to be the cause of reactor trips or of railure to remain within the " post-trip window" of plant parnaters following a reactor trip.
I H -4 l
6_._....__. . . . . . . . . . . . . -
IV.- Work Statement A. Task Descriptions
- 1. Design Basis Reconstitution and Reconciliation l l
This task is based on the use of the Rancho Seco System Design l Basis documents, an example of which is included as Attachment i A. These documents are being prepared for systems within the
, scope of the System Functional Review. They were prepared on the basis of a search of several design basis source documents, such as the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR). The SDBs are to be reviewed for clarity, completeness and correctness. They are to be amplified as appropriate by .a search of additional source documents, listed in Attachment B. Inconsistencies, gaps and contradictions in the design bases are to be reconciled.
i The second part of .this task is the verification of the 4
consistency of systems design documents with each other, with the SDBs and with the as-built configuration. Discrepancies found in this process are to be documented, evaluated and utilized to identify patterns of problem areas, possible root causes and recommended corrective actions.
- 2. Systems Reliability Assessments This task consists of a quantitative determination of systems
,. reliability, in the form of a limited scope probabilisti_c risk assessment (PRA). The results .of this assessment are to be (U .,
analyzed for possible modifications of plant hardware or i
testing, maintenances and operating procedures which may be cost effective in reducing plant risk or improving plant 4
reliability. The PRA is to cover only reasonable probalve initiating-events, i.e. it is not planned to include large pipe breaks or severe natural phenomena.
B. Product Descriptions
- 1. Design Basis Reconstitution and Reconciliation The following products are required for this subtask:
- a. Completed System Design Basis documents in the form of markups of additional design basis information/ clarification.
- b. Tabulation of inconsistencies in design basis and ,
recommended reconciliation of inconsistencies. j a
l l
H-5
- c. Tabulation of discrepancies between various design documents for a particular system.
- d. Tabulation of discrepancies between systems documents and SDB documents and recommended reconciliation of the discrepancies.
- c. Tabulation of discrepancies between systems documents and system as-built configurations.
- f. Identifications of problem areas indicating programmatic weaknesses in controls, procedures, etc. This is to include possible root cause identification and recommended corrective actions.
- 3. Systems Reliability Assessments The following products are required for this subtask:
- a. A limited scope PRA covering those events which could be aggravated or integrated by failures /unavailabilities in the subject systems,
- b. Recommendations based on the results of (a) above concerning possible changes which would be cost effective in reducing plant risk or increasing plant reliability.
() V. Organization and Procedures A. Databases / Documentation Database and documentation materials required for performance of the tasks is, for the most part, common to all tasks. These materials include the following:
- 1. System Design Basis Documents For Scope Systems
- 2. Systems Drawings including:
- a. Flow Diagrams
- b. P& ids
- c. Single Line Diagrams
- d. Logic Diagrams (or elementary diagrams where logic diagrams are unavailable)
- e. Systems Status Reports or System Investigation Reports
- 3. Selected Documents Describing Major Systems Changes Since Initial Plant Operations; e.g. Engineering Change Notices i
H-6
l l
- 4. Key calculations listed in the SDB documents, as selected. l S. Plant procedures, including:
- a. Normal and Emergency Operating Procedures
- b. Surveillance Test Procedures
- c. Maintenance Procedures
- 6. Selected historical documentation concerning performance of procedures listed in item 5 above.
- 7. Results of all B&W - generic and Rancho Seco - plant specific studies of scope systems, described in attachment C.
- 8. Generic component failure data
- 9. Rancho Seco component failure documentation
- a. Oconee
- b. Crystal River
- c. Arkansas
- d. Midland B. Task Performance Procedures
- 1. Design Basis Reconstitution and Reconciliation Collect the data / documents listed in section V.a.
a.
- b. Complete the SOBS with the search of design basis source documents listed in Attachment B.
- c. Compare design drawing for a particular system, tabulate discrepancies, and initiate corrective action as required.
- d. Perform systems walkdowns (if not performed previously),
comparing system configuration with system drawings, and tabulate discrepancies found.
- e. Compare system documents with SOB documents for consistency of system capability with system design bases, and tabulate discrepancies found,
- f. Upon completion of step V.B.2.1 (in the next section) for all scope systems, compare and correlate discrepancies in the design bases. Reconcile discrepancies on a rational basis, clearly documenting the limitations of application of arbitrary or non-mechanistic design bases,
- g. Evaluate the individual discrepancies found in steps 'd' and 'e' above. (This step is not to be initiated until step V.B.2.1 - evaluation of the systems analysis results -
is completed.)
H -7 L
.h. Define corrective actions to be performed based on the previous step, resolving only those discrepancies which, if left unresolved, would result in significant contributions
, to plant risk or unreliability.
- i. Based on results of 'c', 'd', and 'e' above, evaluate-programmatic weaknesses which suggest the need for a broader horizontal review.
- j. Based on step 'i' define . and initiate programs for systematic review of pertinent plant documents or procedures.
l
- 2. Systems Reliability Assessments i a. Initiate this task' upon completion of step V.B.l.b. (The initial steps of this task are to be closely correlated with the task ' described in section V.B.1 using common personnel where practicable.)
- b. Collect additional data required to perform- systems analysis, as identified in section V.A.
- c. Identify all events for which responses of scope systems are required, or would af fect scope system operation, and define the functional responses /affects completely.
- d. Construct event trees, including relevant event sequence timing.
- e. Construct systems fault tree models including all required
(; f.
support systems.
Utilize all relevant input material from reports listed in Attachment C. Input failure / unavailability data, including hardware failures, maintenance and testing.
- g. Perform event / fault tree quantification analysis.
- h. Perform uncertainty analysis.
- 1. Evaluate and summarize analysis results.
- j. Compare the results of the analysis with those of other PRAs, and identify those event sequences which result in significantly higher risk contribution than comparable i sequences on other plant. Identify- the causes of l differences where possible. l
- k. Identify significant risk /unreliability contributors at the I component level from the results of steps 'i' and 'jabove.
- 1. Analyze the failure data for the above components for possible changes in hardware, testing procedures, operating procedures or maintenance procedures to reduce component failure rates unavailabilities as required,
- m. Estimate the cost and quantify the decrease in failure rates /unavailabilities for possible changes, and select the changes to be recommended on the basis of cost vs.
- risk / unavailability reduction.
l l H-8 l
l 1 - - - - - - - . .- -
1 l
i C. Administrative Procedures (These procedures will be developed as part of detailed work scope.)
- 1. Review Team Personnel and Organization
- 2. Review Team Indoctrination / Orientation
- 3. Review Plan Development
- 4. Checklist Preparation
- a. General
- b. Discipline
- 5. Documentation of Findings / Action Items
- 6. ' Status Review Meetings and Reports
- 7. Final Report Preparation
()
H -9 i
Figure 1 Systems, Functional Review logic r
Mobilization and Trainir.g Y
General Document Collection
/ N
/ \
SDB Analysis Data Completion Collection
?
If 9
- Drawing Review Event / Response and Correction Definition y h Systems Event / Fault Tree Walkdowns Construction if I SDB/ System flncertainty Document Analysis Review l
1 ( h Design Basis Results Analysis Comparison and Summary if y Design Basis Results
. Reconciliation Comparison
- 'I y Specific Key Events and Corrective Components 4
Actions Identification i
I 'f Programmatic Modifications Corrective Recommendations Actions s Final Report
- Issuance H-10
Attachment A (later)
O
)
1 H-11 l
Attachment B (later)
(i H-12
EXISTING SYSTEMS STUDIES The following deterministic reviews have been performed on SFR scope systems:
- 1. Operational Assessment 86-5, Reliability of PWR Auxiliary Feedwater Systems , 7-15-86.
This assessment was prepared in response to INP0 SOER 86-1, on the same subject. It contains 7 recommendations in the areas of testing (3),
administration, maintenance, design and training (1 each).
- 2. Deterministic Failure Consequence Analysis (DFCA) for the Instrument Air System.
This analysis resulted in 6 recommendations in the areas of design (3),
administration, procedures and training (1 each).
- 3. Deterministic Failure Consequence Analysis for the Non-Nuclear Instrumentation (NNI) and the Intearated Control System (ICS), July 25, 1986, and Supplement I to the above, August 25, 1986.
This analysis resulted in 17 recommendations, in the areas of design (13),
administration (3) and training (1).
- 4. Babcock & Wilcox Owner's Group (B&WOG) Safety and Performance Improvement Program (SPIP), Instrument Air Review, Oraf t of October 3,1986.
! This review covers all B&W NSSS plants, and includes both generic and plant specific recommendations and findings. The Rancho Seco - specific recommendations numbered 13, in the areas of design (8), procedures (3),
maintenance (1) and training (1).
- 5. B&WOG Availability Committee Report, 47-1159449-00, Main Feedwater Pumo Trio Reduction Program Final red 0rt.
a
}
H -13
In addition to the above system - specific reports, the following general 4
studies have been or are being conducted:
- 1. Rancho Seco Precursor Review Program This review includes past trips and transients on SW NSSS plants,
, specifically those under BW's Transient Assessment Program, Category C. ,
In addition, it includes Rancho Seco LERs and Occurrence Description '
Reports, INPO SOERs, NRC IE bulletins and circulars and relevant BW reports.
- 2. BWOG Program - Safety and Performance Improvements Proaram (SPIP) .
The purpose of this program is to reduce the number of trips and complex transients on BWOG plants and to ensure acceptable plant response during those trips and transients which do occur.
L i
I
.i j iC 4
l l
1
(
s i
I I
i
,2035G H -14
'[
J l
$SMUD F{~'e9-SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT I I P. O. Box 15830. Sacramento CA 5852-1830.(916) 452 3211 AN ELECTRIC SYS TEM SERVIN THE HEART OF CAllFORNIA AUDIT PLAN Activity /
Subject:
Station Modifications evision: Initial Issue L/
Scheduled Audit Date: Aorfil 30, }987 - June 1,1987 Audit Team Leader: h, c/ Date: f f//7 Audit Supervisor: [.Ede m _, Date: YI'7 Quality Manager: . / Date: /'/ 7 Purpose l
To assess the operational readiness of selected modified systems by determining if:
0 The system is capable of performing the required functions.
O Engineering, design and construction practices are per approved procedures, satisfy applicable codes and standards, and include identified system improvements.
O System test requirements and acceptance criteria have been specified that will demonstrate the system will perform the required functions, page 1 of 9 DIS Trit r licADQUARTERS ( l 6201 S Street, Sacramento CA 95817 1899
Activity /
Subject:
Station Modifications Revision: Initial Issue l
O Changes to procedures and training programs resulting from the
- system modification have been appropriately considered.
i 0 Human factors considerations and the systems' supporting procedures will result in proper system operation.
Scope and Approach It is planned that the Emergency Feedwater Initiation and Control System and the TDI Emergency Diesel Electrical tie-in will form the basis of the audit.
The Engineering Change Notices (ECNs) related to these systems will be
- %.)
screened and the more substantive functionally related packages selected for
- detail evaluation. In addition, a sample of miscellaneous " older", smaller-
- scope modification packages that are to be implemented during the present outage, but where the major engineering and procurement were accomplished over several years prior to this outage, will be selected for evaluation.
i
! The evaluation of system modifications will include the following:
I O Conformance to codes and design requirements i
i Page 2 of 9 4
e
, I l
a i
Activity /
Subject:
Station Modifications Revision: Initial Issue I
4 i
O Consistency with design baseline, USAR, Technical Specifications, ,
1 etc.
i ,
1 0 Analyses are available to support the d; sign change ,
1 0 Inputs to calculations are appropriate 4
r
' 0 Results of analyses are correctly translated into other design documents.
- t 1
i
- O Drawings and diagrams are complete, accurate, and consistent with
! each other and other design documents. I i
0 Procurement, construction, and inspection requirements are complete l and correct.
O Seismic and environmental qualification requirements have been-i
- appropriately considered.
J i
0 Test requirements and acceptance criteria are adequate to demonstrate function.
=
Page 3 of 9 i
.=. . .- -. .- .-
i Activity /
Subject:
Station Modifications Revision: Initial Issue 4
O Design changes are being appropriately addressed in operator training, operating procedures, surveillance test procedures, and maintenance procedures.
4
) 0 The modification is consistent with the Systems Status Report (SSR).
O The modification addresses the recommendations resulting from the QCI 12 process.
0 "As constructed" condition is consistent with "as-built" docunentation.
i ,
' 0 Tagging (e.g., clearance tags) procedures have been correctly utilized.
l l
O Corrective actions in response to QA audits, NRC Inspection. ASRTP, etc. have been incorporated as appropriate.
1 I The sample of " older" modification packages will be evaluated mainly for appropriate procurement requirements and application of equipment and adequacy
! of analyses to support the modification.
Page 4 of 9 i
Activity /
Subject:
Station Modifications Revision: Initial Issue Audit Team The audit team will include the below listed personnel. The team will be supplemented by additional members as necessary.
.3 i
D. L. Malone (Audit Team Leader)
D. Logan (Auditor) j M. Horhota (Auditor)
C. Jones (Technical Specialist)
J. Kjemtrup (Technical Specialist)
A. Ostenso (Technical Specialist)
Schedule j
The summary schedule of the audit is shown on Attachment No. 2 and a detail scheduled is shown on Attachment 3.
l Page 5 of 9
_- _ _ . . _ _ . - ~ _ _ .__.__._ _ _ . .
Activity /
Subject:
Station Modifications Revision: Initial Issue Preliminary Preparation 0 Address administrative and logistic needs (e.g., plant access, work
, areas.HPtraining).
i 0 Arrange for orientation reading and presentations (e.g., AP.44, NEP 1000 NEP 4109, ongoing corrective actions).
O Assemble documents and other materials needed for team preparation and
(; design baseline development.
Team Preparation o Indoctrination and orientation of team members:
- Purpose, scope, approach, conduct, preparation and use of checklists, documentation of results, communication, reporting.
- Familiarity review of key procedures i
page 6 of 9 i'
1 l
Activity /
Subject:
Station Modifications Revision: Initial Issue i
0 Review key documents and identify additional material needed for i
preparation and audit conduct.
O Prepare checklists. The audit team members will use base audit check-I lists to prepare detailed checklists specific to the discipline.
4 modification, and system selected.
Conduct of Audit 4
4 -
The audit will begin with a pre-audit conference between team members and SMUD I
I' management to present the purpose, scope, and approach of the audit.
i The team members will annotate the audit checklists to specifically and 4
completely: identify the documents reviewed (including issue and revision 1
identification); identify personnel interviewed; and describe, in detail, the results of the review for each attribute. Any supporting documentation and notes will be included as attachments to the audit checklists.
i i
(
Page 7 of 9
_ -. ,, , , _. _ - - - - , , . , ~ , . . . . - - . . _ _ . _ . . _ _ . . -a, _ _ . - _ _ _ . _ , _ _ , , , _ . , _ _ - , . , , _ _
Activity /
Subject:
Station Modifications Revision: Initial Issue i
In order to provide early, clear, resolution of potential concerns during the ;
performance of the audit, the team will inform appropriate organizations of potential concerns or make requests for information using a " Request for Information" form. The responsible organization will be expected to promptly respond to each Request for Information (RI) providing the information requested or addressing the potential concern.- A status log is to be maintained to track and account for all RIs. (See Attachment No. 1 for handling of Action Items.) An attempt will be made to " bound" all valid concerns / deficiencies during the audit by the use of RIs. In order to be bounded, the full extent of the concern or deficiency must be determined, corrective action taken, and preventive action--where appropriate--
implemented. The team member must concur that the extent has been determined and verify that appropriate corrective action has been taken and preventive action implemented.
i Periodic status meetings will be held by the Team Leader with appropriate SMUD management. The purpose of these meetings is to discuss the progress of the audit and the status of any open Audit Items.
Page 8 of 9 i
Activity /
Subject:
Station Modifications Revision: Initial Issue Reporting After completion of the audit, and prior to issuance of the report, a post-audit conference will be held by the Team Leader with appropriate SMUD management personnel to discuss the results of the audit.
The audit report will generally follow the format presented in QAIP 1 (Quality Assurance Audit Procedure).
)
i
.I Page 9 of 9
! ATTACHMENT NO. 1 i
j HANDLING OF REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION (RIs)
Generation of RIs An RI can be generated to identify deficiencies or to request information. It is difficult to define precise criteria to apply in determining if an RI
. should be generated. Three considerations are: significance of individual discrepancies, number of discrepancies, and the urgency of needed information by the evaluation team member. An RI Item should be processed for one or more of the following cases:
- 1. To identify a potential technical concern.
I
- 2. To identify a significant program aspect or practice that is, or appears to be, incorrect or inadequate.
- 3. When it is deemed necessary for an investigation to be performed to determine extent and cause of discrepancies.
I 1 I i
)
Page 1 of 4 l
-%._ ym.w_--,g9__s_---.-+--y ,,.m.-.-
.m -w-+.~a- ---
p% --n,. -
,x,3 ----v- -
yy. %v.9.f,,g .,m.- --.g ,-or""'"? --"'-T' """'
l l
1
- 4. When it is deemed appropriate to document the proposed actions to j correct discrepancies and prevent recurrence.
It is generally not necessary to generate an RI if a minor discrepancy is observed and the discrepancy appears to be random. (An RI could be used, l however, if deemed necessary to track correction of the discrepancy). Several minor discrepancies could warrant issue of an RI.
NOTE: Audit checklists must indicate all discrepancies observed regardless of significance or number. The Team Leader will make the final decision of when an RI is to be processed.
Processing of RIs
- 1. Team member completes (except for date and serial number) first page of RI form (the serial number and date will be added after team leader review and just prior to issue).
- 2. Provide RI to Team Leader for review. The Team leader will initial the RI to indicate that RI is ready for issue.
- 3. The RI will be' entered into the RI Log and numbered.
f Page 2 of 4
.; : l
- 4. Reproduce two copies of the RI. The original is to be supplied to the i
appropriate action party. One copy of the RI is to be filed in the RI
- binders. - The second copy is to be provided to the originating team
~
member. The issue date will be logged in the RI Log.
a
- 5. When the original RI is returned with response, the original is filed in the RI binder and a copy provided to the team member. Receipt of the RI response will be logged.
i 6. Team member and team leader will evaluate the response and document the evaluation on the response evaluation portion of the original RI in the RI binder. The evaluation will be entered into the RI Log.
- 7. If the response is not satisfactory, a followup memo will be initiated l by the team member. The memo must clearly explain why the response is not satisfactory (attach copy of RI to memo). The memo is to be initialed by the Team Leader prior to issue. The issue of the memo will i
be entered into the RI Log.
1
- 8. Revised or supplemental responses are to .be handled as in 6 above.
I
! 9. Completion of any required corrective action and implementation of j preventive action must be verified. Explanation of how verification was performed must be clearly documented on the followup portion of the RI.
~
Satisfactory completion of actions will be indicated on the RI Log.
i i
Page 3 of 4 4
y r, , - . , ,,,,-.v.-,-y .m.. ----w-. . , , , , , - , , , ,
r -= &*-----=+wer ---e*~-"*n *"*m-- T-'-- we- - + +*er -
- r-wr-r---s-r-~w,-- -w-re--y-w n --erm f
- 10. RIs shall be retained as part of the supporting documentation to the audit report as part of the audit package.
/
f a
' i
)
i 1
Page 4 of 4
. - , ..----.._..,,-,,e- - - - - - ,_ .-.-,,e__, . ., ..-._...,,i.,,.r. -
, s . . . - -, ._ , , , _ - .,,-----ce,--r- , - . . , , _ . , . .,
i i
i t
)
4/20/86 Pre-Audit 4/6/87 Conference
- /
Teara Prep 6/1/87 l Audit Conduct Complete Audit Conduct 1
A t U j l 6/22/87 7/6/87
! : Post-Audit Report Conference Issue i
Results Resolution of RIs O Review
%/
i l- ~
2 Weeks
-~
l- 6 Weeks ml-
,~
3 Weeks ,~l- 2 Weeks ,sl
- ~
1 ATTACHMENT 2 SUfetARY AUDIT SCHEDULE
7 Attachment 3 Detail Schedule o Security training, badging, general 4/6/87 orientation 0
Detail indoctrination / orientation 4/7/87 (Audit Plan, document requests, checklist preparation, RIs, audit report, assigned reading) 0 HP training 4/8-9/87 0 Perform Reading Assignment, 4/10/87 (e.g.,NEPs,QAPs, Corrective Actions to NRC Inspection) 0 Issue audit notification memo 4/10/87 0 Presentation on QCI 12 process 4/10/87 (N.Pappas). Presentation on EFIC (M.Parenteau)
(' 0 Familiarity review of modifications, preparation of checklists, request additional documents, develop input 4/13-17/87 into audit plan 0 Select ECNs to be evaluated '
4/14/87 0 Submit Checklists for Team Leader 4/16/87 approval.
O Incorporate team members' input to audit 4/16/87 plan.
O Pre-Audit Conference 4/20/87 0 Audit conduct 4/20-6/1/87 0 Sele't c specific items of equipment 4/23/87 that will be evaluated for procurement, seismic, environmental requirements, consisting with vendor documents, mater-ial control.
l 1
Page 1 of 2
/
Attachment 3 Detail Schedule 0 Finalize documentation in checklists, 6/1-22/87 results review, preparation of draft report section, resolution of RIs.
O Subnit completed checklists and draft 6/16/87 report sections to Team Leader.
O Post-Audit Conference 6/22/87 0 Finalize report 6/23-7/6/87
.I l
(
Page 2 of 2
l) i I
T R
- PN
- FlH t
T SER TNG NI A EE N AGN LNA PLM E
M T S Y
S S
E S
R LN A I CEk G
R R
O S
L A
C R
O S
L V
V A
R O
S E
C I
v A
I I I I / I NEE V N V G V R A NG R 0 N E l
C. IGN t A LWE I
VO P APk HL E iwE l
Po4
- S COW P
^
N A iRU EN I NL T E
V WEM CGS R GS PG3 rO R
I Ne Ar E
T Lu A
Rf f PS Tl Mei SA D INS INSI DS T O D Ri e Fv NN I I AA . - -
. . Xx I I G G RR N Ro R, TT I R S ON O A A R O t s S i. S MM TE TTR TE N a I l CER CE C t Vi v **
El E A. JB AG R EN l l D R
I RNA PER I I 9A SPn d RN PE L c SS Wo SC -
R G _
N I
- - - gII 1Ll IlI L J R
RE E AS
.El Ll CQ ,
i d
x n
E UN
. NE e
p p
N G , 3 LN L R R R 8 8 A AI A O O O 1 CR C S S SRR I ER I I I I EE I REE TI G R
TPR V
CPR V VrS l
i uI Cl A EQN CL E E0P &OP L E BWI P G G LN I LhU NL L oD EEW ECS I GS SCE N LT A N CA E
T leS l
l I cS ES TA R
R T O N S E I
A R
V E RSG ELA PEN E L t A SFN L .
C
~
U N O /
N I . - -
T N S - -
A O T E t
4 LR S C N N L N U Rt E I
FT A EI P TI T C NNN PSA SUS O ER A QI RE OOW CC t
sDD I I EL PS
_