ML17229A593

Rev 4 to Procedure QI-5-PSL-1, Preparation,Rev,Review/ Approval of Procedures.

ML17229A593
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	09/26/1997
From:	Scarola J FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML17229A591	List: ML17229A592 ML17229A593
References
QI-5-PSL-1, NUDOCS 9801230064
Download: ML17229A593 (124)

Text

S OPS DATE DOCT PROCEDURE FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT DOCN QI-5-PSL-1 SYS COMP COMPLETED ST. LUCIE PLANT ITM 4 IIMFORMAYIOM F-BODED'.I",:E PPDDI .r -.,-

~ "PP~

Vill'VWiillll~ Ql-5-PSL-1 5~

REVISION 4 gyy BEFORE USE.

PREPARATION, REVISION, REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES QUALITY INSTRUCTION PROCEDURE REVISION REVIEWED BY APPROVED BY DATE FRG ON 1/22/97 & 2/5/97 J. Scarola 1/22/97 8 2/5/97 Plant General Manager 9/1 8/97 8C 9/26/97 J. Scarola 9/26/97 Plant General Manager Responsible De agrnent, INFORMATION SERVICES 980ia 300g MPD 09/29/97 POP goo++,980)0p-CK P 05000335 PDR

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 2 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 TITLE..... ~ . ~ . ~ 5 2.0 PURPOSE 5 3.0 S COPE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 6 4.1 Author ~...=........ ~............

~ . ~ ~ . ~ .. 6 4.2 Department Head...... ~..., . ~...... ~ ~ . ~ ~ . 6 4.3 End User Verifier......,..... ~ .. ~... ~ ~ ~ .. ~ 7 4.4 Facility Review Group (FRG) . -7 4.5 Plant General Manager ~ 7 4.6 Services Manager 7 4.7 Site Personnel....... ~.... ~......... ~ .. ~ ~ 7 4.8 Subcommittee Reviewer... ~..... ~..., ~...., 10 4.9 Qualified Reviewer..............,, . ~..... 11

~................

~

4.10 Training Manager........ 11 4.11 Site Quality Assurance Program Review Committee (QAPRC) Member . ~........ . .. ~... ~....

~ ~

4.12 Site Quality Manager ~.... ~... ~....

5.0 INSTRUCTIONS ............ ~........... ~.... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 2 5.1 Procedure Changes/Revisions 12 5.2 Procedure Deletions.............. ~... ~....... ~ . ~ ~ 23 5.3 Procedure Upgrades/New Procedures.......... ~.... 25

~ ~

5.4 Procedure Responsibility Transfers ~ ~ 34 5.5 Periodic Review of Plant Procedures 35

~..........

~ ~

5.6 Procedure Temporary Changes . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 37 5.7 Quality Assurance Program Changes, Interdepartmental Procedure (IP) Changes and Nuclear Policy (NP) Changes ~ ~ ~ 38 5.8 Corr'ections to Procedure Typographical Errors 39

~...........

~ ~ ~

5.9 Processing New Guidelines/Instructions ~ ~ \ ~ 41 5.10 Guideline/Instruction Changes and Revisions.......... ~ ~ \ 46 5.11 Letters of Instruction (LOls) ~ ~ ~ ~ 49 5.12 Pre-Operational Test Procedure 55

..... ~..........

~ ~ ~ ~

5.13 Pre-Implementation Training Review ~ ~ 57 N

REVIS1ON NO.: PROCEDURE TlTLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 3 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 6.0 RECORDS REQUIRED . ~... ~..... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 59

?.0 REFERENCES 60 APPENDICES APPENDIX A DEFINITIONS ............................... ~ . 63 APPENDIX B CONTENTS OF REGULATORY GUIDE 1.33 (Appendix A) and NUREG-0?37 .............................. 69 APPENDIX C THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLYLEFT BLANK ....... 82 APPENDIX D PROCEDURE CHANGE REQUEST ................. 83 /R4 APPENDIX E UPGRADED/NEW PROCEDURE REQUEST FORM...... 85 APPENDIX F PROCEDURE COMMENT FORM ................... 91 APPENDIX G COMPLETED PRE-OPERATIONAL TEST PROCEDURE FORM .. ~... ~..... ~....... ~..... ~ . 92 APPENDIX H PRE-OPERATIONAL TEST

SUMMARY

~...... ~...... ~ 93 APPENDIX I LE lTER OF INSTRUCT(ON REQUEST FORM ......, .. 94 APPENDIX J PERIODIC REVIEW OF PLANT PROCEDURES ..... ~ . ~ 96 APPENDIX K PROCEDURE RESPONSIBIL)TY TRANSFER ......... ~ 97 APPENDIX L UFSAR USER COMMENT FORM ............... ~... 98 APPENDIX M NEW GUIDELINE/INSTRUCTION REQUEST ~.... ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ 99 APPENDIX N GUIDELINE/INSTRUCTION CHANGE REQUEST ~..... 100 APPENDIX 0 PRE-IMPLEMENTATION TRAINING NOTIFICATION FORM ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 01

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 4 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT TABLE OF CONTENTS FIGURES PAGE FIGURE 1 PROCEDURE CHANGE PROCESS FLOW PATH .. ~, . ~ . ~ 102 FIGURE 2 UPGRADED/NEW PROCEDURE PROCESS FLOW PATH . ~ 103 FIGURE 3 LETTER OF INSTRUCTION PROCESS FLOW PATH .. ~ ~ . 104 FIGURE 4 PRE-OPERATIONAL TEST PROCEDURE PROCESS FLOW PATH 105 FIGURE 5 NEW GUIDELINE/INSTRUCTION PROCESS FLOW PATH ................................... 106

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 5 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 1.0 TITLE PREPARATION, REVISION, REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 2.0 PURPOSE 2.1 This Quality Instruction (Ql) provides administrative guidance for the preparation, review, approval and revision of all guidelinesfinstructions and plant procedures except Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs).

1. EOPs shall be processed in accordance with the following applicable procedure(s);

A. Ql 5-PR/PSL-2, Writer's Guide for Emergency Operating Procedures.

B. Ql 5-PR/PSL-3, Verification Guide for Emergency Operating Procedures.

C. Ql 5-PR/PSL-4, Validation Guide for Emergency Operating Procedures.

D. Ql 5-PR/PSL-6, Requirements for Development and Revision of Emergency Operating Procedures.

2.2 This Ql defines the instructions that shall be used by St. Lucie Plant personnel to assure conformance with Technical Specification 6.8.1.

3.0 SCOPE 3.1 This Ql shall be applicable to all personnel involved in preparing, reviewing, approving and revising plant procedures and guidelines/instructions for use at the St. Lucie Plant.

3.2 This Ql contains procedure adherence expectations and methods to be used by all site personnel.

3.3 Vendor Technical Manuals are NOT within the scope of this procedure.

Refer to ADM-0010432, Control of Plant Work Orders.

/R4

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 6 of 106

'I-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 4.1 Author The Author is responsible for researching reference sources, verifying the accuracy of technical information, drafting new instructions or revisions which are consistent with ADM-11.02, St. Lucie Procedure

. Writer's Guide, and obtaining review and approval in accordance with this Ql ~

4.2 Department Head

1. Each Department Head is responsible for the following:

A. Determining if the activity to be conducted requires a written procedure. If a procedure is required, the Department Head is responsible for ensuring a procedure is issued in accordance with this Ql.

B. Controlling and distributing all guidelines/instructions which apply to their department. I C. The Periodic Review of procedures, ensuring procedures under their ownership comply with this Ql.

D. The required training of department personnel on new and revised procedures prior to their personnel performing activities specified in these documents.

E. Reviewing the membership of the subcommittee to ensure they possess equal or greater qualifications of the Author for the subject matter being evaluated.

F. Assigning a qualified individual to perform a walkdown of the draft procedure as the end user veI'ifier.

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 7 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES (continued) 4.3 End User Verifier

1. The End User Verifier will perform a walkdown of the procedure instructions to validate that the procedure can be implemented as written.

4.4 Facility Review Group (FRG)

1. The FRG is responsible for the following:

A. Reviewing procedures and guidelines/instructions in accordance with this Ql and AP 0010520, Facility Review Group.

B. Determining pre-implementation training requirements, training population and procedure implementation dates.

4.5 Plant General Manager The Plant General Manager is responsible for approving each procedure and exemption from FRG review.

4.6 Services Manager /R4 The Services Manager is responsible for the coordination of the activities contained within this QI. /R4 4.7 Site Personnel NOTE Stock Code numbers are provided in procedures for reference information only. However, changes to Stock Code numbers used in maintenance activities shall meet the requirements of ADM-0010432, Control of Plant Work Orders.

1. A strict adherence to procedural/guideline requirements - Verbatim Compliance - is the policy expected and required of all St. Lucie Plant personnel.

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 8 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES (continued) 4.7 Site Personnel (continued)

2. Adherence to Procedures and Guidelines A. A procedure or guideline/instruction shall be performed in a step-by-step manner, with each step being completed prior to the performance of the next step, unless exceptions are allowed by the procedure or guideline/instruction, as specified by this procedure.

1. Procedures or guidelines/instructions of an Administrative nature (Qls, ADMs, etc.) shall NOT be violated, but step-by-step implementation may NOT be required.

these types of procedures and By'ature, guidelines/instructions often do not lend themselves to sequential implementation,

2. Procedures or guidelines/instructions that are of a technical nature shall be followed sequentially except as specifically allowed by approved plant procedures.

a. Required sign-offs and data entries shall be made as each step is performed.

b. If a procedure or guideline/instruction step can NOT be completed as written, or if in the judgement of the individual performing a procedure'or guideline/instruction, completion of a specific step(s) could result in an unsafe condition (e.g., personnel injury, damage to equipment, conditions outside the limits of the procedure or guideline/instruction),

conduct of the procedure or guideline/instruction shall be stopped, and supervision shall be notified.

c. Deviation from system valve lineups may be made provided the deviation is noted in ink on the applicable valve alignment and is approved (initialed and dated) by the Nuclear Plant Supervisor.

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 9 of 106 Ql-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES (continued) 4.7 Site Personnel (continued)

2. Adherence to Procedures and Guidelines (continued)

B. Adherence to procedures and guidelines shall be accomplished by use of one of the following methods:

Method 1 - Procedure or Guideline/Instruction Present Durin Performance of Activit: The types of procedures that shall be present and referred to directly are:

a. Those maintenance procedures that provide guidance for surveillance/maintenance activities on Safety-Related equipment.

b. Those procedures or guidelines/instructions developed for extensive or complex jobs where reliance on memory can NOT be trusted.

c. Tasks which are infrequently performed.

d. Tasks which must be performed in a specified sequence and/or which verification is documented by initial or signature.

2. Method 2 - Memorization: Method by which the procedure or guideline/instruction steps for the required actions are committed to memory. This method does NOT permit any deviation from the Procedural Adherence Policy.

a. Procedures for which actions should be committed to memory are Operator Actions in Emergency Operating Procedures and Off Normal Procedures.

b. Procedures or guidelines/instructions for which actions may be committed to memory are routine procedural actions that are frequently repeated and may NOT require the procedure guideline/instruction to be present during performance of the activity. However, copies of procedures or guidelines/instructions shall be available to the user at the work location for reference during performance of the task, if necessary.

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 10 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES (continued) 4.7 .Site Personnel (continued)

2. Adherence to Procedures and Guidelines (continued)

C. Procedural adherence may be accomplished by use of a Temporary Change or correction to a typographical error if necessary.

D. When used in a procedure the word:

~ shall is used to denote a requirement.

~ should is used to denote a recommendation.

~

may is used to denote permission, neither a requirement nor a recommendation.

• E. Independent Verification:

'I. Independent Verification has been defined in ADM-17.06, Independent Verification. Definitions of Independent Verification should not be added to procedures as they may conflict with the guidance outlined in ADM-17.06.

4.8 Subcommittee Reviewer 1 ~ The Subcommittee Reviewer is responsible for ensuring a technical review is conducted for procedures and guidelines/instructions.

This review shall include the following:

A. Compliance with the respective department requirements B. Accomplishing the intended purpose in a safe manner C. Technical accuracy D. Effect on plant equipment or personnel E. Verification that a proposed guideline/instruction meets the criteria for a guideline/instruction

0 REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 11 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES (continued) 4.8 Subcommittee Reviewer (continued)

2. The Subcommittee Reviewer is responsible for resolving all review comments with the procedure author.

4.9 Qualified Reviewer NOTE Any Qualified Reviewer, regardless of whether they are the Author, Subcommittee or Department Head, may perform a 50.59 review.

1. The Qualified Reviewer is responsible for determining whether or not proposed procedures and guidelines/instructions constitute a change to the system operating procedures as described by the UFSAR and Technical Specifications.

4.10 Training Manager

1. The Training Manager shall assist the subcommittee review in field testing on training department simulators or mock-ups, as requested.

2. The Training Manager is responsible for screening procedure changes for training program relevance.

4.11 Site Quality Assurance Program Review Committee (QAPRC) Member The Site QAPRC Member shall ensure all site Department Heads receive, for their review, significant changes to the Quality Assurance Manual that may affect site Qls which are under their jurisdiction.

4.12 Site Quality Manager The Site Quality Manager ensures that procedures receive Quality Assurance/Quality Control review, as appropriate, in accordance with Nuclear Assurance Qls/Technique Sheets.

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 12 of 106 Ql-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS 5.1 Procedure Changes/Revisions NOTE

~

Figure 1 shows the procedure change process in flow path form.

~ Appendix D and F are used to document this process.

1. The Author of a procedure change shall perform the following:

A. Obtain a complete copy of the current revision of the procedure.

NOTE Highlighters, correction fluid or any other obliteration material shall NOT be used to mark a procedure for revision purposes.

B. Clearly denote the applicable changes to the procedure as follows:

Mark through the applicable words, letters, numbers, sentences or paragraphs which are to be changed with a single RED line.

2. Legibly write the changes onto the affected page in RED ink. These changes may be indicated with a cloud and cross-hatching, with the contents written over and NOT obliterated (still legible).

3. If required, use notation symbols to reference a commitment or direction in the left column next to the affected step. See definition of notation symbols in Appendix A.

4. If extensive additions are required, use additional sheets as necessary. Clearly indicate the proper placement of the changes on the appropriate page of the old revision.

C. Review the entire procedure to ensure it is NOT in conflict with the proposed changes.

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 13 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.1 Procedure Changes/Revisions (continued)

The Author of a procedure change shall perform the following:

(continued)

D. Complete Author blocks 1 through 6 on Appendix D, Procedure Change Request. /R4 NOTE If requested, the Author shall make available a full copy of the procedure to the Subcommittee reviewer(s) and the Department Head.

E. Summarize the proposed changes and reason for the changes on Appendix D, block 4. This block shall be completed.

F. If a review of the procedure has been performed utilizing the criteria listed in Appendix J, and all applicable changes have been made, then check periodic review box in Appendix D, block 2.

NOTE Copies of the PCR package may be made to distribute as necessary.

The Author should maintain control of the original PCR package and obtain signatures on the original Appendix D upon comment resolution.

G. Attach the Appendix D to the marked up procedure to form the PCR package.

H. The Author shall obtain the following applicable reviews and ensure each review is documented on a form similar to the Procedure Comment Form, Appendix F:

1. Obtain QA review if the procedure is a Ql or Administrative procedure.

2. Obtain QC review if the procedure is a Maintenance procedure.

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 14 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.1 Procedure Changes/Revisions (continued)

1. The Author of a procedure change shall perform the following:

(continued)

H. (continued)

3. Obtain Chemical Control Supervisor review if this procedure change references any new chemical.

4. Obtain Engineering review if this procedure change alters the order of initiating signals of a test.

5. Obtain Operations Support Supervisor review if this procedure change deletes or changes a procedure number.

6. Obtain Nuclear Business Unit Joint Safety Committee (NBUJSC) Review if this procedure change affects the clearance procedure.

7. Verify that any applicable PC/Ms, Safety Evaluations, or revisions thereof, have been reviewed by the FRG and approved by the PGM if the PCR is being generated as a result of a PC/M or Safety Evaluation.

I. The Author shall select a Qualified Reviewer (see Appendix A) to perform a 10 CFR 50.59 screening of the proposed change.

2. The Qualified Reviewer shall perform the following:

A. Perform a 10 CFR 50.59 screening in accordance with ADM-17.11, 10 CFR 50.59 Screening. Upon completion, attach the documented results to the associated PCR package. /R4

/R4

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 15 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.1 Procedure Changes/Revisions (continued)

2. The Qualified Reviewer shall perform the following: (continued)

NOTE UFSAR errors or improvements include differences between proceduralized operating and maintenance practices and similar activities referenced in the UFSAR.

B. If a UFSAR error or improvement suggestion is discovered, the Qualified Reviewer shall submit a UFSAR User Comment Form, similar to Appendix L, to Site Engineering for processing and generate a Condition Report in accordance with AP 0006130, Condition Reports, as necessary.

C. Upon completion, return PCR package and 10 CFR 50.59 screening results to the Author. If NOT in concurrence with the proposed change, document reason for unacceptability on Appendix F. /R4 NOTE

~ if appropriate, the Author may select more than one subcommittee reviewer.

~ Each department affected by the proposed change should have the opportunity to subcommittee the change.

3. The Author shall determine the required subcommittee reviewer(s),

based on affected department(s) and end-user(s).

4. If the procedure change involves a Plant Policy PSL-105 issue, follow that policy's requirements for subcommittee review.

I

5. Forward copies of the PCR package(s) to the selected Subcommittee reviewer(s) for review.

0 REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 16 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.1 Procedure Changes/Revisions (continued)

NOTE Selected Subcommittee Reviewer(s) shall have qualifications which are equivalent to, or greater than, those of the Author in the relevant subject matter.

6. The Subcommittee reviewer(s) shall perform an independent technical review of the procedure change to ensure the proposed change:

A. Is reviewed for potential adverse impact on plant personnel =

and/or equipment.

B. Is technically accurate.

C. Is in agreement with the UFSAR.

D. Includes reference marks of all commitments and references next to the applicable steps and in the Reference section in accordance with ADM-11.02, St. Lucie Procedure Writer' Guide.

E. Is compatible with the referenced plant conditions.

F. Requires proper implementation of Independent Verification in accordance with ADM-17.06, Independent Verification.

G. Requires proper implementation of Health Physics precautions and policies.

H. Requires compliance with the FPL Nuclear Division Safe Work Practices manual.

I. If the proposed change is to an upgraded procedure, the Subcommittee reviewer(s) shall ensure the change is consistent with the following:

1 ~ ADM-11.02, St. Lucie Procedure Writer's Guide

2. Organizational Qls

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 17 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.1 Procedure Changes/Revisions (continued)

7. The Subcommittee reviewer(s) shall document their review on a form similar to Appendix F, Procedure Comment Form, and attach to PCR package.

8. The Author shall resolve all comments from the subcommittee reviewer(s), and incorporate any additional required changes to the procedure or consult with the responsible Department Head to resolve disagreements.

A. When obtaining resolution to a reviewer's comment, the author of the change shall ensure that each department affected by or responsible for implementing the resolution is notified of and concurs with the comment resolution. In some cases, the affected department may require the change and comment resolution to be routed back through their department for an additional review.

9. The Author shall forward the PCR package to the responsible Procedure Group for review.

A. If signature is required during off-hours, the Author may obtain approval per telecon as follows;

't. Record the following information in Block 8 on the Procedure Change Request, a form similar to Appendix D: /R4

a. Name of the person initiating the telecon and the person contacted/approving the PCR (i.e., Joe Smith for Tom Klein).

b. Date and time of telecon.

2. Forward a copy of the PCR to the person who approved the telecon.

3. The approving person shall review the PCR the next working day and, if required, make any changes to the procedure in accordance with QI-5-PSL-1.

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

P REPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 18 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.1 Procedure Changes/Revisions (continued)

9. The Author shall forward the PCR package to the responsible Procedure Group for review. (continued)

B. The responsible Procedure Group Reviewer shall review the PCR as follows:

Verify all departments affected by or responsible for implementing the proposed change have reviewed and approved the change.

2. Verify the instructions and format are in compliance with ADM-11.02, St. Lucie Procedure Writer's Guide.

3. Document any comments on a form similar to Appendix F and forward the comments back to the Author.

4. Upon approval, sign and date Block 8 on the Procedure Change Request, a form similar to Appendix D. /R4 NOTE Information Services should be contacted for responsible Department Head/Procedure Group determination.

10. The Author shall forward the original PCR package (along with all comment forms) to the responsible Department Head for review.

11. The Department Head shall perform the following:

A. Review the PCR package and answer the questions in Block 12 on Appendix D.

B. Review the procedure pre-implementation training requirements of section 5.13 of this Ql and complete Appendix 0, Pre-Implementation Training Notification Form, if required.

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 19 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.1 Procedure Changes/Revisions (continued)

11. The Department Head shall perform the following: (continued)

NOTE Whenever feasible, multiple changes are incorporated into one revision and some of the larger procedures are processed on a quarterly basis.

C. If in concurrence with the proposed change, assign a priority in

~

block 9 on Appendix D.

1. PRIORITY 1 Required to meet high priority regulatory commitments as well as immediate plant/operational needs such as SNO work. Changes are required for safe or continued operation of plant. Normal processing time after FRG review - under two weeks.

2. PRIORITY 2 Required to meet commitments and management directives where there is an allowance for more lead time.

Normal processing time after FRG review - two weeks,

3. PRIORITY 3 Routine changes, scheduled work, incorporation of existing temporary changes, etc. Normal processing time after FRG review - 3 weeks.

4. PRIORITY 4 Low priority work, (incorporating lessons learned from outage, minor editorial changes). Normal processing time after FRG review 4 weeks.

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 20 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.1 Procedure Changes/Revisions (continued) 1 I. The Department Head shall perform the following: (continued)

D. Sign and date Department Head approval in block 9 on Appendix D.

E. If NOT in concurrence with the proposed change, document reason for unacceptability on Appendix F.

F. Return the PCR package to the Author.

12. The Author shall forward the PCR package to the Information Services Department for tracking and scheduling for FRG.

CAUTION The procedures tracking system utilized by Information Services also tracks special procedure review commitments (e.g., a procedure may require a particular manager's signature, QA review, completion of a Human Factors review, prior to FRG review). Bypassing this administrative review is NOT suggested (walk-ins to FRG) ~

NOTE In situations of heightened priority, the procedure change effort should be coordinated with Information Services - Procedures Tracking, if possible.

13. The Information Services Department shall perform the following:

A. Perform an administrative review of the procedure package.

B. Log the PCR package into the tracking system.

C. Word process the PCR, if desired, at this time.

D. Place the PCR package on the FRG agenda for FRG review.

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 21 of 106 Ql-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.1 Procedure Changes/Revisions (continued)

14. The FRG shall perform the following:

A. Review submitted PCR package.

B. Review and evaluate the pre-implementation training recommendation (Appendix 0) and initiate appropriate pre-implementation training requirements per Section 5.13.

C. After review, the FRG Chairman shall recommend approval by initialling block 10 on Appendix D.

15. The Plant General Manager shall review the FRG minutes. If he concurs with the recommendations of the FRG, he shall sign the minutes indicating his approval.

16. After PGM approval the FRG Secretary shall enter the approval date in block 11 on Appendix D.

17. The information Services Department shall perform the following:

A. Produce an original copy of the revised procedure.

B. Include revision marks to mark changes conspicuously to alert the user.

C. Notify the responsible department when word processing is complete.

18. The responsible department shall assign an individual to proofread the word processed procedure, prior to the Procedure Production Group submitting the procedure to Document Control for distribution.

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 22 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.1 Procedure Changes/Revisions (continued)

19. The Information Services Department shall perform the following:

A. If pre-implementation training is required, the procedure will be placed on hold until training is complete in accordance with Section 5.13.

B. Forward the complete PCR package to Document Control.

20. Document Control shall distribute the revised procedure in accordance with Ql 6-PR/PSL-1, Document Control ~

21. The approved PCR package shall be forwarded to Nuclear Records Vault to be maintained in the plant files per Ql 17-PR/PSL-1, Quality Assurance Records.

END OF SECTION 5. I

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 23 of 106 Ql-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 iNSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.2 Procedure Deletions NOTE Figure 1 shows the process in flow path form.

~ Appendix D is used to document this process.

~ Procedure deletion packages shall be submitted with the request package for any procedure that is superseding the applicable activity or subject matter.

The Author of a procedure deletion shall perform the following:

A. Obtain the cover sheet of the most current revision and write the words "DELETE ENTIRE PROCEDURE" across the front of this first page (in RED ink) and submit with the PCR package.

B. Use the same process flow as delineated in section 5.1 (Procedure Changes).

C. Request the Information Services Department to perform a word search to identify other procedures that reference the procedure to be deleted.

D. Review the procedures identified by the word search to determine the impact of the subject procedure deletion on the affected procedures.

E. Prepare PCR(s) to revise any procedure(s) for which the subject deletion affects execution of the procedure.

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 24 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.2 Procedure Deletions (continued)

1. (continued)

NOTE If the procedure being deleted is included in another procedure simply as a reference and the execution of the procedure is not impacted, the reference may be corrected by using the process for correcting typographical errors outlined in Section 5.8.3.

F. PCRs for procedures in which execution has been affected by the procedure deletion and changes being processed as typographical errors shall be submitted to Information Services at the time of the submittal for FRG review of the initiating procedure deletion. The intent is that all affected procedures be changed simultaneously to maintain configuration control.

END OF SECTION 5.2

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 25 of 106 Ql-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 6.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.3 Procedure Upgrades/New Procedures NOTE The goal of an upgraded procedure is to have a technically accurate and implementable document. This process is detailed and methodical The ~

methods to accomplish an error-free document shall utilize one or more of the following techniques for development and review:

~ Table Top Discussion

~ Field Walk-downs

~ Task performance using training devices such as simulators or mock-ups.

~ All new procedures shall be written in the upgraded format contained in ADM-11.02, St. Lucie Procedure Writer's Guide.

~ Figure 2 shows Upgraded/New Procedure process in flow path form.

~ Appendix E and Appendix F are used to document this process.

~ Personnel writing new or upgraded procedures should route a copy of a new draft to the Procedure Development Group prior to subcommittee review for screening of ADM-11.02 requirements.

'1. The Author of a procedure upgrade/new procedure shall perform the following:

A. Obtain a copy of a form similar to Appendix E Upgraded/New Procedure Request (UPR) Form.

B. Obtain a new procedure number from the Information Services Department.

C. Write a technically accurate draft of the upgraded or new procedure based on the results of table top discussions, field walk-downs and/or task performance using training devices such as simulators or mock-ups.

D. Complete blocks 1 through 3 of the Appendix E form, and attach the form to the Upgraded/New Procedure.

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 26 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.3 Procedure Upgrades/New Procedures (continued)

2. The Author shall obtain the following applicable reviews and ensure each review is documented on a form similar to the Procedure Comment Form, Appendix F:

A. Obtain QA review if the procedure is a Ql or Administrative procedure.

B. Obtain QC review if the procedure is a Maintenance procedure.

C. Obtain Chemical Control Supervisor review if this procedure change references any new chemical.

D. Obtain Engineering review if this procedure change alters the order of initiating signals of a test.

E. Obtain Operations Support Supervisor review if this procedure change deletes or changes a procedure number.

F. Obtain Nuclear Business Unit Joint Safety Committee (NBUJSC) Review if this procedure change affects the clearance procedure.

3. The Author shall select a Qualified Reviewer (see Appendix A) to perform a 10 CFR 50.59 screening of the proposed change,

4. The Qualified Reviewer shall: /R4 A. Perform a 10 CFR 50.59 screening in accordance with ADM-17.11, 10 CFR 50.59 Screening. Upon completion, attach the documented results to the associated PCR package. /R4

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 27 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.3 Procedure Upgrades/New Procedures (continued)

4. The Qualified Reviewer shall: (continued)

NOTE UFSAR errors or improvements include differences between proceduralized operating and maintenance practices and similar activities referenced in the UFSAR.

B. If a UFSAR error or improvement suggestion is discovered, the Qualified Reviewer shall submit a UFSAR User Comment Form, similar to Appendix L, to Site Engineering for processing and generate a Condition Report in accordance with AP 0006130, Condition Reports, as necessary.

C. If NOT in concurrence with the proposed draft, document reason for unacceptability on Appendix F.

D. Upon completion, return the UPR package and the 10 CFR 50.59 screening results to the Author. /R4

5. The Author shall determine the membership of the subcommittee.

A. The subcommittee minimum quorum shall consist of one of the following in the priority order listed below:

1. A System Engineer (if a system or component is affected)

OR

2. A Technical Expert on the subject material OR

3. A Training Department Subject Matter Expert (SME)

B. If the procedure affects other departments, ensure they are included as a Subcommittee Reviewer.

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 28 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.3 Procedure Upgrades/New Procedures (continued)

5. The Author shall determine the membership of the subcommittee (continued)

C. The Author shall distribute to each Subcommittee Reviewer a UPR package consisting of the following:

A draft copy of the upgraded procedure clearly marked DRAFT.

2. A copy of a form similar to Appendix F with the top section completed.

3. A copy of a form similar to Appendix E.

6. The Subcommittee Reviewer shall perform the following:

A. Perform a separate and independent technical review of the procedure.

B. Document review on a form similar to Appendix F, Procedure Comment Form, and attach forms to PCR.

NOTE The table top method is the preferred method, however a review and resolution of the Appendix F comments is acceptable.

7. Upon completion of the subcommittee review, the Author should, facilitate a table top review of the procedure utilizing all subcommittee reviewers.

8. The Author shall forward the package to the End User Department Head to facilitate a walkdown of the procedure with an End User to ensure that the procedure is implementable by performing the following:

A. The End User and the Author shall walkdown the procedure in the field, training lab or simulator, as appropriate.

B. Any comments should be documented on a form similar to Appendix F.

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 29 of 106 Ql-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.3 Procedure Upgrades/New Procedures (continued)

NOTE End User walkdown can be facilitated by use of training mock-ups, simulator facilities, simulated actions in the plant, concurrent performance with approved procedures/NPWOs/LOls or table-top, as best applicable.

S. The End User shall perform the following:

A. Walk down the instructions of the procedure to validate that-the instructions are in the correct sequence.

B. Verify all plant labels are correctly referenced in the instructions.

C. Verify all safety hazards and precautions are addressed.

D. Verify all Radiation Protection issues are addressed.

E. Sign block 5 of Appendix E to document the walkdown.

F. Return the UPR package to the Author.

10. The Author shall forward the UPR package to the responsible Procedure Group for review.

The responsible Procedure Group Reviewer shall perform the-following:

A. Verify all departments affected by or responsible for implementing the upgraded/new procedure have reviewed and approved the change.

B. Verify the upgraded/new procedure package conforms to the requirements of QI-5-PSL-1.

C. Document any comments on.a form similar to Appendix F and forward the comments back to the Author.

D. Upon approval, sign and date Block 6 on a form similar to Appendix E and return package to Author.

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 30 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.3 Procedure Upgrades/New Procedures (continued)

12. The Author shall forward the original UPR package to the responsible Department Head for review.

13. The Department Head shall perform the following:

A. Review the procedure and the UPR package.

B. Resolve any comments with the Author and sign Appendix F, Procedure Comment Form, if resolution is required.

C. Assess the need for pre-implementation training by performing the following;

1. Review the procedure pre-implementation requirements of section 5.13 of this Ql and complete Appendix 0 if applicable.

2. Answer the questions in block 7 on Appendix E.

D. Check the applicable priority block in block 7 on Appendix E indicating the level of attention the UPR package is to be given.

1. PRIORITY 1 Required to meet high priority regulatory commitments as well as immediate plant/operational needs such as SNO outage work. Procedure is required for safe or continued operation of plant. Normal processing time after FRG review - under two weeks. (Consideration of a TC may be a necessary alternative.)

2. PRIORITY 2 Required to meet commitments and management directives where there is an allowance for more lead time.

Normal processing time after FRG review - two weeks.

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 31 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.3 Procedure Upgrades/New Procedures (continued)

13. The Department Head shall perform the following: (continued)

D. (continued)

3. PRIORITY 3 Routine procedures, scheduled work, incorporation of existing temporary changes, etc. Normal processing time after FRG review - 3 weeks.

4. PRIORITY 4 Low priority work, (incorporating lessons learned from outage). Normal processing time after FRG review-4 weeks.

E. If NOT in concurrence with the proposed draft, document reason for unacceptability on Appendix F.

F. Indicate approval of the UPR by signing block 7 on Appendix E.

G. Return the UPR package to the Author.

14. The Author shall forward the UPR package to the Information Services Department for tracking and scheduling for FRG.

15. The Information Services Department shall perform the following:

A. Enter new procedure in the Tracking System.

B. Word process new/upgraded procedure.

C. Upon completion of word processing, place the UPR package on the FRG agenda.

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 32 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.3 Procedure Upgrades/New Procedures (continued)

16. The FRG shall perform the following:

, A. Review the UPR package.

B. Review and evaluate the pre-implementation training recommendation (Appendix 0) and initiate appropriate pre-implementation training requirements per Section 5.13, C. After review, the FRG Chairman shall recommend approval by initialling block 8 on Appendix E.

17. The Plant General Manager shall review the FRG minutes. If he concurs with the recommendations of the FRG, he shall sign the minutes indicating his approval.

18. After PGM approval the FRG Secretary shall enter the approval date in block 9 on Appendix E.

19. The Information Services Department shall perform the following:

A. Produce an original copy of the upgraded/new procedure.

B. Notify the responsible department when word processing is complete.

20. The responsible department shall assign an individual to proofread the word processed procedure, prior to the Procedure Production Group submitting the procedure to Document Control for distribution.

21. The Information Services Department shall perform the following:

I A. If pre-implementation training is required, the procedure will be placed on hold until training is complete in accordance with this Ql.

B. Forward the complete UPR package to Document Control.

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAI OF PROCEDURES 33 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.3 Procedure Upgrades/New Procedures (continued)

22. Document Control shall distribute the procedure in accordance with Ql 6-PR/PSL-1, Document Control ~

23. The approved UPR package shall be forwarded to Nuclear Records Vault to be maintained in the plant files in accordance with Ql 17-PR/PSL-1, Quality Assurance Records.

END OF SECTION 5.3

REVIStON No.: PROCEDURE T!TLE: PAGE:

4 P REPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 34 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.4 Procedure Responsibility Transfers NOTE Appendix K is used to document this process.

If the procedure type and numbering will remain the same, perform the following:

A. The Current Responsible Department Head shall perform the following:

Document the transfer of responsibility for a procedure from one department to another using Appendix K.

2. Provide a reason for transferring the responsibility in the Reason For Request box on Appendix K.

3. Sign for responsibility transfer on Appendix K.

B. The New Responsible Department Head shall perform the following:

Sign for accepting the responsibility transfer on Appendix K.

2. Forward Appendix K to the Information Services Department.

C. The Information Services Department shall modify tracking system to reflect the transfer of responsibility.

2. If the Procedure Type and number is changing, perform the following:

A. The Current Responsible Department Head or designee shall delete the applicable procedure in accordance with section 5.2.

B. The New Responsible Department Head or designee shall submit an Appendix E with the applicable procedure to initiate a New Procedure.

END OF SECTION 5.4

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 35 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.5 Periodic Review of Plant Procedures NOTE

~ Appendix J is used to document this process.

~ Only Periodic Reviews resulting in a change are required to be reviewed by the FRG.

All procedures shall be reviewed at least once each 36 months (30 to 42 months) to assure they represent current plant policy and practice.

2. The Information Services Department shall coordinate'his effort as follows:

A. Tracking each procedure's periodic review status.

B. Providing the responsible Department Head with a status of the reviews for which he is accountable.

C. Generating a monthly status report to be issued to plant departments.

3. The Periodic Reviewer shall perform the following:

A. Document the review using Appendix J, Periodic Review of Plant Procedures, as follows:

Thoroughly review the entire procedure.

NOTE UFSAR errors or improvements include differences between proceduralized operating and maintenance practices and similar activities referenced in the UFSAR.

2. If a UFSAR error or improvement suggestion is discovered, the Qualified Reviewer shall submit a UFSAR User Comment Form, similar to Appendix L, to Site Engineering for processing and generate a Condition Report in accordance with AP 0006130, Condition Reports, if applicable.

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 36 of 106 Ql-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.5 Periodic Review of Plant Procedures (continued)

4. If the procedure requires a change to meet the Appendix J criteria perform the following:

A; Revise the procedure in accordance with this Ql, Section 5.1.

B. Attach Appendix J to Appendix D or Appendix E, (whichever is used), for FRG review and PGM approval.

5. The responsible Department Head shall perform the following:

A. Approve the review by signing the completed Appendix J.

B. Forward the completed Appendix J to the Information Services Department if changes to the procedure are NOT required.

END OF SECTION 5.5

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 37 of 106 Ql-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.6 Procedure Temporary Changes

1. Temporary changes to procedures shall be processed in accordance with ADM-11.03, Temporary Change to Procedures.

END OF SECTION 5.6

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 38 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.7 Quality Assurance Program Changes, Interdepartmental Procedure (IP)

Changes and Nuclear Policy (NP) Changes The Site Quality Assurance Program Review Committee (QAPRC) Member shall perform the following:

A. Review all revisions to the FPL Quality Assurance Manual, Nuclear Division IPs and Nuclear Policies.

B. Notify all affected Department Heads of significant changes to the Quality Assurance Program, NPs and IPs.

2. The affected Department Head shall perform the following; A. Upon receipt of notification from the Site QAPRC Member, determine if revision of a Ql assigned to their department is required..

B. Review other department procedures affected by the QA Program, IP or NP change to determine revision requirements.

C. Ensure that if revision of a Ql or other procedure is required, a Procedure Change Request is prepared and submitted for approval within 60 days of the issuance of the Quality Assurance Manual revision, IP revision or NP revision.

D. If a Procedure Change Request resulting from a QA Program change cannot be submitted within 60 days, a plan of action shall be submitted to the Site Quality Manager within 60 days of the issuance of the Quality Assurance Manual revision.

END OF SECTION 5.7

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 39 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.8 Corrections to Procedure Typographical Errors Corrections to typographical errors may be processed without generating a Procedure Change Request if the errors follow the examples listed below:

~ Misspellings (e.g., "adn" instead of "and")

~ Incorrect sequence of step numbers (e.g., "6.3.1, 6.3.3, 6.3.2" instead of "6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3")

~ Incorrect page numbers in the headers and attachments (e.g.,

"PAGE 82 of 80" instead of "PAGE 82 of 82")

~ Errors in references (e.g., a step references a procedure section that is an obvious typographical error)

~ Errors in valve numbers or breaker numbers. These errors will be corrected if they are VERIFIED and the new description fits the application (e.g., HCV-3645, MOV for LPSI to 1B1 Header, instead of HCV-3635).

~ Missing sign-offs which were obviously intended to be in the document.

2. Errors in setpoints, measurements, or quantitative acceptance criteria shall NOT be considered a typographical error, and shall require, at a minimum, a PCR or TC. AP 0006130, Condition Reports, shall be consulted to determine if a CR is required.

3. Changes to referenced procedure numbers, procedure titles, organizational names or position titles may be made in affected procedures upon FRG approval of at least one initiating PCR which describes the change. This initial PCR should contain the list of all procedures being revise'd under this provision. These changes in the procedures which contain the references may be processed as "typographical errors" in accordance with this section. Changes being processed as typographical errors shall be submitted at the time of the initiating procedure change.'he intent is that all affected procedures be changed simultaneously in order to maintain configuration control.

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 40 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.8 Corrections to Procedure Typographical Errors (continued)

4. To correct a typographical error:

A. The supervisor responsible for the work shall verify the procedure clearly contains a typographical error and shall handwrite the correction in the procedure, The correction shall be initialed and dated by the supervisor.

B. Upon completion of the work activity, the supervisor shall identify the correction via a written memo or electronic mail to the Information Services Supervisor. A PCR is NOT required.

C. The Information Services Supervisor shall authorize the correction of the error, correct the computerized version of the procedure, and issue the correction in a timely manner in accordance with Ql 6-PR/PSL-1, Document Control ~

END OF SECTION 5.8

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 41 of 106 Ql-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.9 Processing New Guidelines/Instructions NOTE

~ Figure 5 shows the process in flow p'ath form.

~ Appendices B and M are needed for this process.

1. The Author shall perform the following:

A. Determine if the document meets the following guideline/instruction criteria:

The document is NOT a procedure as described in the =

UFSAR. Refer to Appendix A for the definition of a "procedure as described in the UFSAR."

2. The document is NOT a procedure as described in T.S. 6.8.1. Refer to Appendix A for the definition of a procedure.

B. Complete the Author section of a form similar to Appendix M and attach it to the document.

C. Obtain guideline/instruction number from the Information Services Department.

D. Select a Qualified Reviewer to perform a 10 CFR 50.59 screening of the new Guideline/Instruction.

2. The Qualified Reviewer shall: /R4 A. Perform a 10 CFR 50.59 screening in accordance with ADM-17.11, 10 CFR 50.59 Screening. Upon completion, attach the documented results to the associated new guideline/instruction package. /R4

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 42 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.9 Processing New Guidelines/Instructions (continued)

2. The Qualified Reviewer shall perform the following: (continued)

B. Review the document to verify that it meets the guideline/instruction criteria as follows:

Ensure the document is NOT a procedure as described in the UFSAR. Refer to Appendix A for the definition of "procedure as described in the UFSAR."

2. Ensure the document is NOT a procedure as described in T.S. 6.8.1. Refer to Appendix A for the definition of a procedure.

C. If a UFSAR error or improvement suggestion is discovered, the Qualified Reviewer shall submit a UFSAR User Comment Form, similar to Appendix L, to Site Engineering for processing and generate a Condition Report in accordance with AP 0006130, Condition Reports, if applicable.

D. Sign Appendix M to indicate concurrence.

E. Upon completion, return the new guideline/instruction package and the 10 CFR 50.59 screening results to the Author for additional processing. /R4

3. The Author shall perform the following:

A. Determine the subcommittee membership.

B. Obtain subcommittee reviews.

C. If the guideline/instruction affects other departments, ensure they are included as subcommittee reviewers.

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 43 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.9 Processing New Guidelines/Instructions (continued)

4. The Subcommittee shall perform the following:

A. Review the document to verify that it meets the guideline/instruction criteria as follows:

Ensure the document is NOT a procedure as described in the UFSAR. Refer to Appendix A for the definition of "procedure as described in the UFSAR."

2. Ensure the document is NOT a procedure as described in T.S. 6.8.1. Refer to Appendix A for the definition of a procedure.

B. Review the document for technical accuracy.

C. Document comments on a form similar to Appendix F, D. Upon approval, return entire package to the Author. /R4

5. The Author shall forward the new Guideline/Instruction to the responsible Department Head.

6. The responsible Department Head shall perform the following:

A. Review the document to verify it meets the guideline/instruction criteria as follows:

Ensure the document is NOT a procedure as described in the UFSAR. Refer to Appendix A for the definition of "procedure as described in the UFSAR."

2. Ensure the document is NOT a procedure as described in T.S. 6.8.1. Refer to Appendix A for the definition of a procedure.

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 44 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.9 Processing New Guidelines/Instructions (continued)

6. (continued)

B. Review the document for technical accuracy.

C. Sign Appendix M to indicate concurrence.

D. Forward the package to Information Services for tracking.

7. The Information Services Department shall log and prepare the guideline/instruction for FRG review.

8. The FRG shall perform the following:

A. Review the document to verify that it meets the guideline/instruction criteria.

B. Recommend to the PGM approval of this document as a guideline/instruction by initialing Appendix M.

9. The Plant General Manager shall review the FRG minutes. If he concurs with the recommendations of the FRG, he shall sign the minutes indicating his approval.

10. The Information Services Department shall perform the following:.

A. Coordinate the issuance of guidelines with the deletion notices of existing procedures if necessary.

B. Word process Revision 0 guidelinefinstruction.

C. Return guideline/instruction to the applicable department.

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 45 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 6.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.9 Processing New Guidelines/Instructions (continued)

11. The Department Head shall perform the following:

A. Determine if pre-implementation training is required by subsection 5.13.

1. If pre-implementation training is required, perform the following:

a. Complete and attach Appendix O.

b. Ensure the guideline/instruction is placed on hold until training is completed in accordance with departmental training plans, if appropriate.

B. Approve the guideline/instruction and document this by signing the cover sheet of the original guideline/instruction.

C. Control and distribute the new guideline/instruction.

D. Ensure any guideline/instruction which affects accredited training programs is routed to the Training Department library.

E. Ensure a copy of the guideline/instruction change package is routed to the Nuclear Records Vault.

/R4 END OF SECTION 6.9

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 46 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.10 Guideline/Instruction Changes and Revisions NOTE Appendix N shall be used to document guideline/instruction changes and revisions.

1. An approved guideline does NOT require FRG review for future revisions, however a 10 CFR 50.59 screening by a Qualified Reviewer is required for all changes or revisions. /R4

2. Changes to guidelines/instructions may be handwritten on the master, which is maintained by the effected department.

3. Revisions to guidelines/instructions consolidate handwritten changes and are word processed.

4. The Author shall perform the following:

A. Complete the Author section and attach Appendix N, Guideiineflnstruction Change Request to the change or revision.

B. Ensure the change or revision has NOT altered the document from meeting the guideline/instruction criteria by verifying the following:

The document is NOT a procedure as described in the UFSAR. Refer to Appendix A for the definition of "procedure as described in the UFSAR."

2. The document is NOT a procedure as described in T.S. 6.8.1. Refer to Appendix A for the definition of a procedure.

C. Select a Qualified Reviewer to perform a 10 CFR 50.59 screening. /R4

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 47 of 106 Ql-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.10 Guideline/Instruction Changes and Revisions (continued)

5. The Qualified Reviewer shall: /R4 A. Perform a 10 CFR 50.59 screening in accordance with ADM-17.11, 10 CFR 50.59 Screening. Upon completion, attach the documented results to the associated guideline/instruction change request package. /R4 B. Complete the Qualified Reviewer section of Appendix N and return the guideline/instruction change package and the 10 CFR 50.59 screening results to the Author for additional processing. /R4

6. The Author shall perform the following:

A. Determine the subcommittee membership.

B. Obtain subcommittee reviews.

C. If the guideline/instruction affects other departments, ensure those departments are properly represented in the subcommittee process.

7. The Subcommittee shall perform the following:

A. Verify the change or revision has NOT altered the document from meeting the guideline/instruction criteria by performing the following:

1. The document is NOT a procedure as described in the UFSAR. Refer to Appendix A for the definition of "procedure as described in the UFSAR."

2. The document is NOT a procedure as described in T.S, 6.8.1. Refer to Appendix A for the definition of a procedure.

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 48 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.10 Guideline/Instruction Changes and Revisions (continued)

7. (continued)

B. Perform a technical review of the change or revision.

C. Document review on a form similar to Appendix F.

D. Return the package to the Author.

8. The Author shall forward the Guideline/Instruction proposed change to the responsible Department Head.

9. The responsible Department Head shall perform the following:

A. Review each guideline/instruction change or revision and document the review arid approval on a form similar to Appendix N.

B. Ensure training is performed prior to the issuance of a change or revision, as necessary.

C. Ensure distribution and implementation requirements are established.

D. Ensure any guideline/instruction which affects accredited training programs is routed to the Training Department library.

E. Submit the following documents to the Nuclear Records Vault:

1. A copy of all Guidelines/Instructions reviewed by FRG and approved by the Plant General Manager.

2. A copy of each proposed Guideline/Instruction change or revision and associated supporting documentation (i.e.,

safety evaluations, dispositions, etc.) when the 50.59 screening results in a YES answer.

END OF SECTION 5.10

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 49 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.11 Letters of Instructions (LOls)

NOTE

~ if the content of a new document meets guideline/instruction criteria consider creating a guideline/instruction rather than an LOI.

~ Figure 3 shows this process in flow path form.

~ Appendix I is used to document this process.

~ Revisions to LOls shall be performed using the Procedure Change/Revision process described in this Ql.

~ When writing a new LOI refer to ADM-1102, St. Lucie Procedure Writer's Guide The Author of the LOI shall perform the following:

A. Draft the LOI.

B. If required, use notation symbols to reference a commitment or direction in the left column next to the affected step.

See definition of notation symbols in Appendix A.

C. Complete Author Blocks of the Letter Of Instruction Request, Appendix I.

D. If the procedure change involves a Plant Policy PSL-105 issue, follow the policy requirements for subcommittee review.

E. The Author shall obtain the following applicable reviews and ensure each review is documented on a form similar to the Procedure Comment Form, Appendix F:

Obtain QA review if the procedure is a Ql or Administrative procedure.

2. Obtain QC review if the procedure is a Maintenance procedure.

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 50 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.11 Letters of Instructions (LOls) (continued)

The Author of the LOI shall perform the following: (continued)

E. (continued)

3. Obtain Chemical Control Supervisor review if this procedure change references any new chemical ~

4. Obtain Engineering review if this procedure change alters the order of initiating signals of a test.

5. Obtain Operations Support Supervisor review if this procedure change deletes or changes a procedure number.

6. Obtain Nuclear Business Unit Joint Safety Committee (NBUJSC) Review if this procedure change affects the clearance procedure.

F. The Author shall select a Qualified Reviewer to perform a 10 CFR 50.59 screening of the proposed change. /R4

2. The Qualified Reviewer shall: /R4 A. Perform a 10 CFR 50.59 screening in accordance with ADM-17.11, 10 CFR 50.59 Screening. Upon completion, attach the documented results to the associated LOI package. /R4 MOTE UFSAR errors or improvements include differences between proceduralized operating and maintenance practices and similar activities referenced in the UFSAR.

B. If a UFSAR error or improvement suggestion is discovered, the Qualified Reviewer shall submit a UFSAR User Comment Form, similar to Appendix L, to Site Engineering for processing and generate a Condition Report in accordance with AP 0006130, Condition Reports, if applicable.

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 51 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.11 Letters of Instructions (LOls) (continued)

2. (continued)

C. Upon completion, return the LOI package and the 10 CFR 50.59 screening results to the Author. /R4 NOTE

~ If appropriate, the Author may select more than one subcommittee member.

~ Each department affected by the LOI should have the opportunity to subcommittee the LOI.

3. The Author shall perform the following:

A. Determine the required subcommittee reviewer(s), based on affected department(s) and end-user(s).

B. Forward copies of the LOI package to the selected Subcommittee reviewer(s) for review with forms similar to Appendix F for comments.

NOTE Selected Subcommittee Reviewer(s) shall have qualifications which are equivalent to, or greater than, those of the Author in the relevant subject matter.

4. The Subcommittee reviewer(s) shall perform an independent technical review of the LOI to ensure the LOI:

A. Is reviewed for potential adverse impact on plant personnel and/or equipment.

B. Is technically accurate.

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No. REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 52 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.11 Letters of Instructions (LOls) (continued)

4. The Subcommittee reviewer(s) shall perform an independent technical review of the LOI to ensure the LOI: (continued)

C. Is in agreement with the UFSAR.

D. If required, uses notation symbols to reference a commitment or direction in the left column next to the affected step. See definition of notation symbols in Appendix A.

E. Is compatible with the referenced plant conditions.

F. Requires proper implementation of Independent Verification in accordance with ADM-17.06, Independent Verification.

G. Requires proper implementation of QC Hold Points and/or QC Surveillance points.

H. Requires proper implementation of Health Physics precautions and policies.

I. Requires compliance with the FPL Nuclear Division Safe Work Practices manual.

5. The Subcommittee reviewer(s) shall:

A. Document review on a form similar to Appendix F.

B. Return LOI package and 10 CFR 50.59 screening results to the Author upon completion. /R4

6. The Author shall resolve all comments from the subcommittee reviewer(s), and incorporate any additional required changes to the LOI or consult with the Department Head to resolve disagreements.

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 53 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUGIE PLANT

5.0 INSTRUCTIONS

(continued) 5.11 Letters of Instructions (LOls) (continued)

7. The Author shall forward the original LOI package to the responsible Department Head for review.

8. The responsible Department Head, or designee, responsible for the LOI, shall perform the following:

A. Review the LOI package and answer the questions in the Department Head Section of Appendix I.

1. If pre-implementation training is required perform the following: /R4

a. Complete and attach Appendix O. /R4

b. Ensure training is completed in accordance with departmental training plans. /R4 B. If found NOT in concurrence with the proposed LOI, provide reason for unacceptability to the Author.

C. Sign and date Department Head approval on Appendix I.

D. Return the LOI package to the Author.

9. The Author shall forward the LOI package to the Information Services Department for tracking and scheduling for FRG.

10. The Information Services Department shall perform the following:

A. Perform an administrative review of the LOI package.

B. Log the LOI into the tracking system.

C. Place the LOI on the FRG agenda for FRG review.

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 54 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT

5.0 INSTRUCTIONS

(continued) 5.11 Letters of Instructions (LOls) (continued)

11. The FRG shall perform the following:

A. Review submitted LOI package.

NOTE The expiration date is optional for the FRG to set. If a date is NOT specified, the date will be one year from the issue date and is automatically canceled by Information Services.

B. Assign expiration date.

C. If the FRG concurs with the proposed LOI, the FRG Chairman shall recommend approval by initialling Appendix I.

12. The Plant General Manager shall review the FRG minutes. If he concurs with the recommendations of the FRG, he shall sign the minutes indicating his approval.

13. The Information Services Department shall perform the following:

A. Word process the approved LOI.

B. Forward the complete LOI package to Document Control.

14. Document Control shall distribute the LOI.

15. The approved LOI package shall be forwarded to Nuclear Records Vault to be maintained in the plant files.

END OF SECTION 5.11

e REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 55 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.12 Pre-Operational Test Procedure NOTE

~ Figure 4 shows the process in flow path form.

~ Appendices G and H are used in this process.

Development of Pre-Operational Test procedures follow the same process as a new procedure.

2. Changes to Pre-Operational Test procedures follow the Temporary Change process or Procedure Change process.

3. Review of completed Pre-Operational Test Procedures:

A. Appendix G shall have all sign-offs completed and any additional records required by the Test Procedure shall be attached.

B. Appendix H shall be attached to all Pre-Operational Test Procedures.

C. The Department Head or designee shall review the procedure to ensure the intent of the test was complied with and that acceptance criteria were met.

D. Pre-Operational Test Procedures of a safety related nature may be reviewed by Site Engineering Department.

E. Pre-Operational Test Procedures may be reviewed, if applicable, by appropriate vendors.

F. The FRG shall perform the following:

1. Review to ensure that all design parameters are within specification and shall evaluate deviations observed for assurance that the test is not invalidated.

2. Consider outside (i.e., vendor) comments on the completed test, when necessary, to assure that the system tested is acceptable for safe plant operation.

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 56 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.12 Pre-Operational Test Procedure (continued)

3. Review of completed Pre-Operational Test Procedures: (continued)

F. The FRG shall perform the following: (continued)

3. Determine what further action is necessary, if design parameters are NOT achieved.

4. Recommend approval to the Plant General Manager if design parameters were achieved and the Pre-Operational Test is satisfactory.

G. The Plant General Manager shall review the FRG minutes. If he concurs with the recommendations, then he shall sign the minutes to document his approval.

H. The approved Test Procedure shall be filed in accordance with Ql 17-PR/PSL-1, Quality Assurance Records, END OF SECTION 5.12,

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 57 of 106 QI-5-PS L-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.13 Pre-Implementation Training Review CAUTION Pre-implementation training is required for new Qls and Administrative procedures.

NOTE

~ Appendix 0 is used to document this process.

~ The FRG may require pre-implementation training for new/upgraded procedures and guidelinesfinstructions.

~ The FRG may require pre-implementation training for revisions to procedures that substantially change the requirements or instructions.

~ Pre-implementation training is NOT required for revisions to procedures involving only editorial changes or changes having no effect on the manner in which the procedure is implemented.

't. The Department Head shall review the content of the PCR or UPR for pre-implementation training. /R4 A. If pre-implementation training is required, the Department Head shall perform the following: /R4 Complete and attach Appendix O. /R4

2. Ensure the associated document(s) are placed ON HOLD until pre-implementation training is completed in accordance with departmental training plans, if appropriate. /R4

2. The FRG shall perform the following:

A. Review the pre-implementation training recommendation (Appendix 0).

B. Initiate appropriate pre-implementation training requirements.

C. Establish procedure implementation due date.

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 58 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 5.0 INSTRUCTIONS (continued) 5.13 Pre-Implementation Training Review (continued)

3. Upon receipt of Appendix 0, the Information Services Department shall perform the following:

A. Word process the document clearly marked draft.

B. Complete their portion of the Appendix O.

C. Issue a PMAI for completion of required pre-implementation training.

D. Distribute a copy of the complete package to the Department Head indicated on Appendix O.

4. Department Head or designee indicated on Appendix 0 shall perform the following:

A. Determine how this procedure change affects his departmental processes.

B. Train the appropriate personnel in the requirements of the new or revised procedure in accordance with his departmental training plan.

C. Document this training in accordance with Ql 2-PR/PSL-2, Indoctrination and Training of St. Lucie Plant Personnel.

D. Ensure any departmental guidelinesfinstructions which are affected by this change are properly reviewed and revised if necessary.

E. Complete his portion of Appendix 0 and attach to PMAI.

F. Close the PMAI associated with this pre-implementation training.

5. The Information Services Department shall distribute the revised procedure upon completion of training.

END OF SECTION 5.13

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 59 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 6.0 RECORDS REQUIRED 6.1 The following records shall be maintained in the plant files in accordance with Ql 17-PR/PSL-1, Quality Assurance Records.

1. Appendix D, Procedure Change Request /R4

2. Appendix E, Upgraded/New Procedure Request Form

3. Appendix F, Procedure Comment Form /R4

4. Appendix G, Completed Pre-Operational Test Procedure Form

5. Appendix H, Pre-Operational Test Summary

6. Appendix I, Letter of Instruction Request Form /R4

7. Appendix J, Periodic Review of Plant Procedures

8. Appendix K, Procedure Responsibility Transfer

9. Appendix L, UFSAR User Comment Form

10. Appendix M, New Guideline/Instruction Request

11. Appendix N, Guideline/Instruction Change Request

12. Appendix 0, Pre-Implementation Training Notification Form

13. Procedures

14. New Guidelines/Instructions

15. Letters of Instruction

16. FRG Meeting Minutes END OF SECTION 6.0

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 60 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT

7.0 REFERENCES

NOTE One or more of the following symbols may be used in this procedure:

g Indicates a Regulatory commitment made by Technical Specifications, Condition of License, Audit, LER, Bulletin, etc., 'and shall NOT be revised without Facility Review Group review and Plant General Manager approval.

$ Indicates a management directive, vendor recommendation, plant practice or other non-regulatory commitment that should NOT be revised without consultation with the plant staff.

'P Indicates a step that requires a sign-off on a data sheet.

g, 7.1 St. Lucie Unit 1 and 2 Technical Specifications, Section 6.8, Administrative Controls; Procedures g, 7.2 St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 UFSAR Section 13, Conduct of Operations.

7.3 Procedures ADM-0010432, Control of Plant Work Orders ADM-11.02, St. Lucie Procedure Writer's Guide ADM-11.03, Temporary Change to Procedures ADM-17.06, Independent Verification AP 0006130, Condition Reports AP 0010520, Facility Review Group Ql 2-PR/PSL-2, Indoctrination and Training of St. Lucie Plant Personnel

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 61 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT

7.0 REFERENCES

(continued) 7.3 Procedures (continued)

~ Ql 5-PR/PSL-2, Writer's Guide for Emergency Operating Procedures /R4

~ Ql 5-PR/PSL-3, Verification Guide for Emergency Operating Procedures /R4

~ Ql 5-PR/PSL-4, Validation Guide for Emergency Operating Procedures /R4 Ql 5-PR/PSL-6, Requirements for Development and Revision of Emergency Operating Procedures. /R4

~ Ql 6-PR/PSL-1, Document Control

~ Ql 17-PR/PSL-1, Quality Assurance Records

~ C-200, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) 7.4 Commitments

~ Condition Report (CR) 97-0304 7.5 NRC Correspondence

~ NRC Inspection Report numbers 50-335/90-32 and 50-389/90-32, Item H, Licensee's Exception to 24 Month Procedure Review

~ NRC Inspection Report numbers 50-335/95-18 and 50-389/95-18, Violation C 7.6 Regulatory Guide 1.33, Quality Assurance Program Requirements and NUREG 0737

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 62 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT

7.0 REFERENCES

(continued) 7.7 FPL Nuclear Division St. Lucie Safe Work Practices Manual 7.8 American National Standards Institute N18.7-1976, Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance for the Operational Phase of Nuclear Power Plants, Revision of N18.7-1976 g, 7.9 PSL Policy 105 END OF SECTION 7.0

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 63 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX A DEFINITIONS (Page 1 of 6) 1 ~ Critical Characteristics:

Measurable or controilable aspects of a procedure which should be closely monitored to ensure high quality work and overall job success. There are important design, material and performance standards of a component that, once verified, will provide reasonable assurance that the component will perform its intended safety function. Examples of critical characteristics include:

~ Orientation of parts

~ Sequence of assembly

~ Component materials

~ Tolerances (thickness, clearances, movement, trueness)

~ Torque values

~ Surface preparations

~ Environmental conditions and controls

~ Implementation of Independent Verification and Hold Points

~ Adequate documentation of As Found/As Left data

~ Clearly stated and accurate Acceptance Criteria

~ Return of system/component to normal plant configuration

2. Desktop Instruction/Department Plan Non safety-related instruction or plan used to maintain a department training plan or administrative department instruction. These items are not covered under this Ql.

3. End-User An end-user is a person who actually puts the procedure in use (e.g., RCO, Mechanic, Technician)

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 64 of 106 QI-5-PSL-3 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX A DEFINITIONS (Page 2 of 6)

4. Guideline/Instruction A document which has been determined by the FRG to NOT require FRG review for implementation of future revisions.

5. Letters of Instruction (LOI)

Instructions which have a general but temporary application to the conduct of business and which require dissemination to the plant staff. These documents normally apply to a single department and are originated in the various departments by the Department Head. All Letters of Instruction shall be reviewed by the FRG and approved by the Plant General Manager.

6. Notation Symbols Notation symbols should be accompanied by a subscripted number to cross-reference the affected step(s) with the applicable reference. For example, a given step indicates that it is tied to a directive listed within the references section. To show a relationship between the two, the reference would be notated with tt, or g, and the step would also carry the same notation.

Indicates a Regulatory commitment made by Technical Specifications, Condition of License, Audit, LER, Bulletin, etc., and shall NOT be revised without Facility Review Group review and Plant General Manager approval ~

Indicates a management directive, vendor recommendation, plant practice or other non-regulatory commitment that should NOT be revised without consultation with the plant staff.

'P Indicates a step that requires a sign off on a data sheet.

7. Pre-Operational Test Procedure Written instructions which demonstrate the capability of structures, systems and components to meet safety related and design requirements. It is the purpose of these procedures to test a system/component under actual or simulated operating conditions to ensure the system/component meets its design criteria. Testing and acceptance criteria shall be specific to the activity performed based on applicable codes, standards, design requirements, drawings, technical manuals and technical specifications.

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 65 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX A DEFINITIONS (Page 3 of 6),

8. Procedure A written procedure, recommended by the Facility Review Group (FRG) and approved by the Plant General Manager, which provides a series of actions or steps to be performed to accomplish a desired objective.

Procedures are those documents which have been outlined by Technical Specification 6.8.1 as listed below.

The applicable procedures recommended in Appendix A of Reg.

Guide 1.33 (see Appendix B of this procedure)

The applicable procedures recommended in NUREG-0737 (see Appendix B of this procedure)

Refueling Operations Surveillance and test activities of safety related equipment Security Plan implementation Emergency Plan implementation Fire Protection Program implementation

~ Radwaste shipping

~ As determined by Plant General Manager

~ Process Control Program Off Site Dose Calculation Manual (Chemistry Procedure C-200)

Q.C. Program for Effluent Monitoring per Reg. Guide 1.21 Q.C. Program for Environmental Monitoring per Reg Guide 4.1

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 66 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX A DEFINITIONS (Page 4 of 6)

9. Procedures as described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)

A procedure simply listed by type, title and/or number (and not outlined, summarized, or completely described) in the SAR, does not require review in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.

2. Procedures that are outlined (usually by describing a sequence of events or steps that must be performed for a given activity),

summarized, or completely described in the SAR must be evaluated under 10 CFR 50,59.

3. Changes to procedural requirements contained in descriptions of activities, functional controls, configuration, tasks, and testing constitute "procedures described in the SAR"; even though these instances are not usually clearly identified as procedures. Under 10 CFR 50.59, procedures are not limited to items specifically identified as procedures (e.g., operating, chemistry, system, test, surveillance, and emergency plan). In fact most procedural descriptions in the UFSAR are not clearly identified as procedures and are almost never referred to by title or number. Procedure descriptions in the UFSAR of this type may consist of statements such as "the system is normally operated in automatic mode". The regulatory interpretation of these statements is that they represent procedural descriptions that must be consistent with the applicable operating procedures.

Contrasting examples of SAR procedures, as described above, follow.

If the SAR description of the radioactive waste system states that the Shift Supervisor will authorize all radioactive liquid releases, a safety evaluation would be required before assigning this function to other than the Shift Supervisor. On the other hand, if the SAR merely states that radioactive liquid releases will be authorized as detailed by plant procedures, the redesignation of the authorization function would not require a safety evaluation.

If the reactor startup procedure, as described in the SAR, contains eight fundamental sequences, the decision to eliminate one of the sequences would require a safety evaluation. On the other hand, if the eight fundamental sequences are consolidated and the basic functions performed are not altered, a safety evaluation would not be necessary.

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 67 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX A DEFINITIONS (Page 5 of 6)

10. Quality Control Attributes Inspections, tests or analysis which are performed on Critical Characteristics of a procedure to provide reasonable assurance that the component will perform its intended safety function. Examples of Quality Control Attributes are:

~ QC Hold Points

~ Independent Verifications

~ Second Party Reviews

~ Signoffs

~ Checklists

~ Cautions

~ Notes

~ Precautions and Limits

~ Detailed sequence of steps

~ Inspections

~ Measurements

11. Qualified Reviewer A person who has successfully completed 10 CFR 50.59 training, is able to apply this knowledge to effectively review procedural documents, and is authorized by the Engineering Manager (i.e., name is on the PSL Qualified Reviewer List. The Site Qualified Reviewer List is maintained by the Training Department. /R4

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO. REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 68 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX A DEFINITIONS (Page 6 of 6)

12. Responsible Procedure Group A person or group assigned/delegated the responsibility for generating, revising, reviewing, and approving a specific type of plant procedure. Except for the procedure upgrade effort currently being implemented by the IS Procedure Development Group, each department is responsible for generating, revising, reviewing, and approving their own departmental procedures. The IS Procedure Development Group is responsible for the upgrade of Operations, Maintenance and Administrative procedures.

13. Security Force Instructions Detailed step-by-step instructions used solely by the security force to perform the requirements of the Physical Security Plan and Safeguards Contingency Plan as outlined in the implementing procedures. These instructions are NOT within the scope of QI-5-PSL-1.

14. Training Relevancy New or revised procedures are training relevant if they affect existing training materials or should be addressed by an activity which implements a departmental training plan or an accredited training program.

15. Upgraded Procedure A procedure that is written in the updated format in accordance with ADM-11.02, St. Lucie Procedure Writer's Guide, and has gone through the upgrade process contained in this instruction.

END OF APPENDIX A

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 69 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX B CONTENTS OF REGULATORY GUIDE 1.33 A endix A AND NUREG-0737 TYPICAL PROCEDURES FOR PRESSURIZED WATER REACTORS (Page 1 of 13)

The following are typical FRG Required activities that shall be covered by written procedures. This appendix is not intended as an inclusive listing of all needed, procedures since many other activities carried out during the operation phase of nuclear power plants should be covered by procedures not included in this list.

1. Administrative Procedures A. Security and Visitor Control B. Authorities and Responsibilities for Safe Operation and Shutdown C. Equipment Control (e.g., locking and tagging)

D. Procedure Adherence and Temporary Change Method E. Procedure Review and Approval F. Schedule for Surveillance Tests and Calibration G. Shift and Relief Turnover H. Log Entries, Record Retention, and Review Procedures I. Access to Containment J. Bypass of Safety Functions and Jumper Control K. Maintenance of Minimum Shift Complement and Call-In of Personnel L. Plant Fire Protection Program M. Communication System Procedures

2. General Plant Operating Procedures A. Cold Shutdown to Hot Standby B. Hot Standby to Minimum Load (nuclear startup)

C. Recovery from Reactor Trip D. Operation at Hot Standby E. Turbine Startup and Synchronization of Generator F. Changing Load and Load Follow (if applicable)

G. Power Operation and Process Monitoring H. Power Operation with less than Full Reactor Coolant Flow Plant Shutdown to Hot Standby J. Hot Standby to Cold Shutdown K. Preparation for Refueling and Refueling Equipment Operation L. Refueling and Core Alterations

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 70 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT 8 'PPENDIX CONTENTS OF REGULATORY GUIDE 1.33 A endix A AND NUREG-0737 TYPICAL PROCEDURES FOR PRESSURIZED WATER REACTORS (Page 2 of 13)

3. Procedures for Startup, Operation and Shutdown of Safety-Related PWR Systems Instructions for energizing, filling, venting, draining, startup, shutdown and changing modes of operation should be prepared, as appropriate, for the following systems:

A. Reactor Coolant System B. Control Rod Drive System (including part-length rods)

C. Shutdown Cooling System D. Emergency Core Cooling System E. Component Cooling Water System F. Containment

1. Maintaining Containment Integrity

2. Special Containment Systems

a. Atmosphere

b. Subatmosph eric

c. Double-Wall Containment with Controlled Interspace

d. Ice Condenser

3. Containment Ventilation System

4. Containment Cooling System G. Atmosphere Cleanup Systems H. Fuel Storage Pool Purification and Cooling System I. Main Steam System J. Pressurizer Pressure and Spray Control Systems K. Feedwater System (feedwater pumps to steam generator)

L. Auxiliary Feedwater System M. Service Water System N. Chemical and Volume Control System (including Letdown/Purification System)

O. Auxiliary or Reactor Building Heating and Ventilation P. Control Room Heating and Ventilation Q: Radwaste Building Heating and Ventilation R. Instrument Air System

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 71 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX B CONTENTS OF REGULATORY GUIDE 1.33 A endix A AND NUREG-0737 TYPICAL PROCEDURES FOR PRESSURIZED WATER REACTORS (Page 3 of 13)

3. (continued)

S. Electrical System

1. Off site (access circuits)

2. On site

a. Emergency Power Sources (e.g., diesel generator, batteries)

b. A.C. System

c. D.C. System T. Nuclear Instrument System Source Range

2. Intermediate Range

3. Power Range

4. Incore System U. Reactor Control and Protection System V. Hydrogen Recombiner

4. Procedures for Startup, Operation and Shutdown of Safety-Related BWR Systems Not Applicable to St. Lucie Plant

5. Procedures for Abnormal, Off Normal or Alarm Conditions Since these procedures are numerous and correspond to the number of alarm annunciators, the procedures are NOT individually listed. Each safety-related annunciator should have its own written procedure, which should normally contain (1) the meaning of the annunciator, (2) the source of the signal, (3) the immediate action that is to occur automatically, (4) the immediate operation action, and (5) the long-range actions.

I REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 72 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT

. APPENDIX B CONTENTS OF REGULATORY GUIDE 1.33 A endix A AND NUREG-0737 TYPICAL PROCEDURES FOR PRESSURIZED WATER REACTORS (Page 4 of 13)

6. Procedures for Combating Emergencies and Other Significant Events A. Loss of Coolant (including significant PWR steam generator leaks) inside and outside primary containment) (large and small, including leak-rate determination)

B. Loss of Instrument Air C. Loss of Electrical Power (and/or degraded power sources)

D. Loss of Core Coolant Flow E. Loss of Condenser Vacuum F. Loss of Containment Integrity G. Loss of Service Water H. Loss of Shutdown Cooling I. Loss of Component Cooling System and Cooling to Individual Components J. Loss of Feedwater or Feedwater System Failure K. Loss of Protective System Channel L. Mispositioned Control Rod or Rods (and rod drops)

M. Inability to Drive Control Rods N. Conditions Requiring Use of Emergency. Boration or Standby Liquid Control System O. Fuel Cladding Failure or High Activity in Reactor Coolant or Offgas P. Fire in Control Room or Forced Evacuation of Control Room Q. Turbine and Generator Trips R. Other Expected Transients that may be Applicable S. Malfunction of Automatic Reactivity Control System T. Malfunction of Pressure Control System U. Reactor Trip V. Plant Fires W. Acts of Nature (e.g., tornado, flood, dam failure, earthquakes)

X. Irradiated Fuel Damage While Refueling Y. Abnormal Releases of Radioactivity

0 0

Jt

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 73 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX B CONTENTS OF REGULATORY GUIDE 1.33 A endix A AND NUREG-0737 TYPICAL PROCEDURES FOR PRESSURIZED WATER REACTORS (Page 5 of 13)

7. Procedures for Control of Radioactivity (For limiting materials released to environment and limiting personnel exposure)

A. Liquid Radioactive Waste System

1. Collection, Demineralizing, Filtering, Evaporating and Concentrating and Neutralizing

2. Sampling and Monitoring

3. Discharging to Effluents ll B. Solid Waste System

1. Spent Resins and Filter Sludge Handling

2. Baling Machine Operation

3. Drum Handling and Storage C. PWR Gaseous Effluent System

1. Collection, Storage, and Discharge

2. Sampling and Monitoring

3. Air Ejector and Stack Monitoring

4. Ventilation Air Monitoring D. BWR Air Extraction, Offgas Treatment, and Other Gaseous Effluent'ystems Not Applicable to St. Lucie Plant E. Radiation Protection Procedures

1. Access Control to Radiation Areas Including a Radiation Work Permit System

2. Radiation Surveys

3. Airborne Radioactivity Monitoring

4. Contamination Control

5. Respiratory Protection

6. Training in Radiation Protection

7. Personnel Monitoring

8. Bioassay Program

9. Implementation of ALARA Program

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 74 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX B CONTENTS OF REGULATORY GUIDE 1.33 A endix A AND NUREG-0737 TYPICAL PROCEDURES FOR PRESSURIZED WATER REACTORS (Page 6 of 13)

7. (continued)

F. Area Radiation Monitoring System Operation G. Process Radiation Monitoring System Operation H. Meteorological Monitoring

8. Procedures for Control of Measuring and Test Equipment and for Surveillance Tests, Procedures and Calibrations.

A. Procedures of a type appropriate to the circumstances should be provided to ensure that tools, gauges, instruments, controls and other measuring and testing devices are properly controlled, calibrated and adjusted at specified periods to maintain accuracy. Specific examples of such equipment to be calibrated and tested are readout instruments, interlock permissive and prohibit circuits, alarm devices, sensors, signal conditioners, controls, protective circuits and laboratory equipment.

B. Specific procedures for surveillance tests, inspections and calibrations should be written (implementing procedures are required for each surveillance test, inspection or calibration listed in the technical specifications):

1 ~ Pressurized Water Reactors

a. Containment Leak-Rate Tests

b. Containment Isolation Tests

c. Containment Local Leak Detection Tests

d. Containment Head and Radioactivity Removal Systems Tests

e. Containment Tendon Tests and Inspections

f. Service Water System Functional Tests

g. Main Steam Isolation Valve Tests

h. Fire Protection System Functional Tests i ~ Boric Acid Tanks - Level Instrumentation Calibrations

j. Emergency Core Cooling System Tests

k. Control Rod Operability and Scram Time Tests I. Reactor Protection System Tests and Calibrations

m. Permissives - Tests and Calibrations

n. Refueling System Circuit Tests

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISiON, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 75 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX B CONTENTS OF REGULATORY GUIDE 1.33 A endix A AND NUREG-0737 TYPICAL PROCEDURES FOR PRESSURIZED WATER REACTORS (Page 7 of 13)

8. (continued)

B. (continued)

1. (continued)

0. Emergency Boration System Functional Tests

p. DNB Checks and Incore-Excore Flux Monitor Correlations

q. Emergency Power Tests

r. Auxiliary Feedwater System Tests

s. NSSS Pressurization and Leak Detection

t. Inspection of Reactor Coolant System Pressure Boundary

u. Inspection of Pipe Hanger Settings

v. Control Rod Drive System Functional Tests

w. Heat Balance - Flux Monitor Calibrations

x. Pressurizer and Main Steam Safety Valve Tests

y. Leak Detection Systems Tests

z. Axial and Radial Flux Pattern Determinations aa. Area, Portable and Airborne Radiation Monitor Calibrations ab. Process Radiation Monitor Calibrations ac. Environmental Monitor Calibrations ad. Safety Valve Tests ae. Turbine Overspeed Trip Tests af. Water Storage Tanks - Level Instrumentation Calibration

2. Boiling Water Reactors Not Applicable to St. Lucie Plant

9. Procedures for Performing Maintenance A. Maintenance that can affect the performance of safety-related equipment should be properly preplanned and performed in accordance with written procedures, documented instructions, or drawings appropriate to the circumstances. Skills normally possessed by qualified maintenance personnel may not require detailed step-by-step delineation in a procedure. The following types of activities are among those that may not require detailed step-by-step written procedures:

1. Gasket Replacement

2. Trouble-Shooting Electrical Circuits

3. Changing Chart or Drive Speed Gears or Slide Wires on Recorders

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 76 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX B CONTENTS OF REGULATORY GUIDE 1.33 A endix A AND NUREG-0737 TYPICAL PROCEDURES FOR PRESSURIZED WATER REACTORS (Page 8 of 13)

9. (continued)

B. Preventive maintenance schedules should be developed to specify lubrication schedules, inspections of equipment, replacement of such items as filters and strainers, and inspection or replacement of parts that have a specific lifetime such as wear rings.

C. Procedures for the repair or replacement of equipment should be prepared prior to beginning work. Such procedures for major equipment that is expected to be repaired or replaced during the life of the plant should preferably be written early in plant life. The following are examples of such procedures for major equipment:

1. Repair of PWR Steam Generator Tubes

2. Replacement and Repair of Control Rod Drives

3. Replacement of Recirculation Pump Seals

4. Replacement of Important Strainers and Filters

5. Repair or Replacement of Safety Valves

6. Repair of Incore Flux Monitoring System

7. Replacement of Neutron Detectors f

D. Procedures that could be categorized either as maintenance or operating procedures should be developed for the following activities.

Instructions for these activities may be included in systems procedures.

Exercise of equipment that is normally idle but that must operate when required.

2. Draining and Refilling Heat Exchangers

3. Draining and Refilling Recirculation Loop

4. Draining and Refilling the Reactor Vessel

5. Draining and Refilling Steam Generators

6. Removal of Reactor Head

7. Disconnection and Reconnection of Wiring Penetration Reactor Vessel Head

8. Demineralizer Resin Regeneration or Replacement

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 77 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX B CONTENTS OF REGULATORY GUIDE 1.33 A endix A AND NUREG-0737 TYPICAL PROCEDURES FOR PRESSURIZED WATER REACTORS (Page 9 of 13)

9. (continued)

E. General procedures for the control of maintenance, repair, replacement and modification work should be prepared before reactor operation is begun. These procedures should include information on areas such as the following:

1.. Method for obtaining permission and clearance for operation personnel to work and for logging such work and

2. Factors to be taken into account, including the necessity for minimizing radiation exposure to workmen, in preparing the detailed work procedures,

10. Chemical and Radiochemical Control Procedures Chemical and radiochemical control procedures should be written to prescribe the nature and frequency of sampling and analyses, the instructions maintaining water quality within prescribed limits, and the limitations on concentrations of agents that may cause corrosive attack or fouling of heat-transfer surfaces or that may become sources of radiation hazards due to activation. These procedures should specify laboratory instructions and calibration of laboratory equipment. Extreme importance must be placed on laboratory procedures used to determine concentration and species of radioactivity in liquids and gases prior to release, including representative sampling, validity of calibration techniques and adequacy of analyses.

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 78 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX B CONTENTS OF REGULATORY GUIDE 1.33 A endix A AND NUREG-0737 CLARIFICATION OF TMI ACTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS (Page 10 of 13)

The following is a list of those sections contained within NUREG-0737 which pertain to Pressurized Water Reactors. For a detailed discussion of a particular subject, see the applicable section as indicated.

I.A.1 ~ 1 Shift Technical Advisor I.A.1.3 Shift Manning I.A.2.1 Immediate Upgrading of Reactor Operator and Senior Reactor Operator Training and Qualifications I.A.2.3 Administration of Training Programs I.A.3.1. Revise Scope and Criteria for Licensing Examinations-Simulator Exams (Item 3)

I.B.1.2 Independent Safety Engineering Group I.C.1 Guidance for the Evaluation and Development of Procedures for Transients and Accidents I.C.5 Procedures for Feedback of Operating Experience to Plant Staff I.C.6 Guidance on Procedures for Verifying Correct Performance of Operating Activities I.D.1 Control Room Design Reviews I.D.2 Plant Safety Parameter Display Console II.B.1 Reactor Coolant System Vents II.B.2 Design Review of Plant Shielding and Environmental Qualification of Equipment for Spaces/Systems Which May be Used in Postaccident Operations II.B.3 Postaccident Sampling Capability

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 79 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX B CONTENTS OF REGULATORY GUIDE 1.33 A endix A AND NUREG-0737 CLARIFICATION OF TMI ACTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS (Page 11 of 13)

II.B.4 Training for Mitigating Core Damage II.D.1 Performance Testing of Boiling Water Reactor and Pressurized Water Reactor Relief and Safety Valves (NUREG-0578, Section 2.1.2)

II.D.3 Direct IndicatIon of Relief and Safety Valve Position II.E.1.1 Auxiliary Feedwater System Evaluation II.E.1.2 Auxiliary Feedwater System Automatic Initiation and Flow Indication II.E.3.1 Emergency Power Supply for Pressurizer Heaters II.E.4.1 Dedicated Hydrogen Penetrations II.EA.2 Containment Isolation Dependability Attachment 1, October 30, 1979, Interim Position for Containment Purge and Vent Valve Operation Pending Resolution of Isolation Valve Operability II.F.1 Additional Accident Monitoring Instrumentation Attachment 1, Noble Gas Effluent Monitor Attachment 2, Sampling and Analysis of Plant Effluents Attachment 3, Containment High-Range Radiation Monitor Attachment 4, Containment Pressure Monitor Attachment 5, Containment Water Level Monitor Attachment 6, Containment Hydrogen Monitor

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO. REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 80 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX B CONTENTS OF REGULATORY GUIDE 1.33 A endix A AND NUREG-0737 CLARIFICATION OF TMI ACTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS (Page 12 of 13)

II.F.2 Instrumentation for Detection of Inadequate Core Cooling Attachment 1, Design and Qualification Criteria for Pressurized Water Reactor Incore Thermocouples II.G.1 Emergency Power for Pressurizer Equipment II,K.2.13 Thermal Mechanical Report-Effect of High-Pressure injection on Vessel Integrity for Small-Break Loss of Coolant Accident with No Auxiliary Feedwater I I.K.2.17 Potential for Voiding in the Reactor Coolant System During Transients I I.K.2.19 Sequential Auxiliary Feedwater Flow Analysis II.K.3.1 Installation and Testing of Automatic Power Operated Relief Valve Isolation System II.K.3.2 Report on Overall Safety Effect of Power Operated Relief Valve Isolation System II.K.3.5 Automatic Trip of Reactor Coolant Pumps During Loss of Coolant Accident I I.K.3.17 Report on Outages of Emergency Core Cooling Systems Licensee Report and Proposed Technical Specification Changes II.K.3.25 Effect of Loss of Alternating Current Power on Pump Seals II.K.3.28 Verify Qualification of Accumulators on Automatic Depressurization System Valves II.K.3.30 Revised Small-Break Loss of Coolant Accident Methods to Show Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K II.K.3.31 Plant Specific Calculations to Show Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50.46

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 81 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX B CONTENTS OF REGULATORY GUIDE 1.33 A endix A AND NUREG-0737 CLARIFICATIONOF TMI ACTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS (Page 13 of 13)

III.A.2 Improving Licensee Emergency Preparedness-Long Term III.D.1.1 Integrity of Systems Outside Containment Likely to Contain

. Radioactive Material for Pressurized Water Reactors and Boiling Water Reactors III.D.3.3 Improved Inplant Iodine Instrumentation Under Accident Conditions III.D.3.4 Control Room Habitability Requirements Attachment 1, Information Required for Control Room Habitability Evaluation END OF APPENDIX B

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 82 Of 106 Ql-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX C (Page 1 of 1)

THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLYLEFT BLANK

/R4

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 83 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX D PROCEDURE CHANGE REQUEST (Page 1 of 2)

1. Procedure

Title:

Procedure Number: Current Revision:

2. Request Type:

0 Procedure Change Request (PCR) 0 Periodic Review (attach completed Appendix J) 0 Procedure Cancellation 0 TCs Modified and Incorporated TC No(s):

3. Reason for Request: 0 F. Procedural Improvement 0 A. Response to INPO, QA, 0 G. PC/M(s) or NRC Requirements No.

0 B. Cycle Specific/Documented 0 H. Condition Report(s)

Setpoint Revisions No.

0 C. Tech Spec Rev./Licensing Requirements 0 I. PMAI(s)

(List Tech. Spec. Amendment No.) No.

0 D. Aftects Plant Operability/Availability 0 J. Technically Incorrect 0 E. Tech. Manual Requirement/Revision 0 K. Other

4. Brief Summary Of RequeSt (usa additional pages, If necessary):

CC 0

I

5. Review Evaluation: YES NO

1. Does this change affect the other Unit's procedure, another equipment train, or channel? If YES, the responsible department shall submit a PCR for the opposite Unit's procedure, equipment train, or channel, as applicable. (N/A for unit common procedures).

2. Is this change to a Q.l. or Administrative Procedure? If YES, obtain Q.A.

Manager/Designee review.

3. Is this a PCR for a Maintenance Procedure? If YES, obtain Q.C. review.

4. Does this change reference any new chemical? It YES, obtain Chemical Control Supervisor review.

g, 5. Does this change alter the order of initiating signalsof a test'? If YES, Engineering review for potential to adversely impact design functions is required.

6. Does this change delete or change a procedure number? It YES, obtain Operations Support Supervisor review.

7. Does this change affect the clearance procedure? If YES, obtain Nuclear Business Unit Joint Safety Committee (NBUJSC) Review.

8. Is this change resulting from a new or revised PC/M or Safety Evaluation'?

If YES, verify that the PC/M / Safety Evaluation is FRG approved.

6. Author:

Signature Print Phone Date ~~

/R4

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 84 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX D PROCEDURE CHANGE REQUEST (Page 2 of 2)

7. 10 CFR 50.59 Screening Lu A 10 CFR 50.59 Screening shall be performed in accordance with ADM-17.11, 10 CFR 50.59

5. Screening. Upon completion, attach the documented results to the associated PCR package.

5 tc.

Cl'l LL

8. Services Projects, IS, HP, Chemistry, Security, etc.

~~

O O ~

-~o Reviewed by: Date CO (g Signature Print Name K

9, Responsible Department Head YES NO

1. Was the subcommittee review performed by qualified individuals?

2. Are the changes valid and technically correct?

3. Are the changes relevant to any training programs?

If YES, identify the target population or affected departments.

4. Do the changes require pre-implementation training?

If YES, complete and attach Appendix O.

0 0 0

~~

5. Processing priority 1 CI 2 3 4 Dept. Head Date Signature Print

10. Facility Review Group FRG Chairman Initials: FRG ff

11. Plant General Manager Approval of FRG Minutes FRG Secretary:

/R4

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 85 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX E UPGRADED/NEW PROCEDURE REQUEST FORM (Page 1 of 6)

1. PROCEDURE IDENTIFICATIONAND REVIEW

1. Procedure

Title:

Procedure No.:

Brief Summary of Request (use additional pages if necessary):

2. Author.

Signature Print Name Date: ~~

The Author signature here verifies Section 2, Procedure Evaluation Checklist and Section 3, Human Factors Adequacy Evaluation are complete.

K 2. PROCEDURE EVALUATIONCHECKLIST 0

A check mark indicates the step has been completed (write N/A if Not CHECK I

Applicable).

1. Additional Management oversight and controls are included if the procedure addresses an infrequent test or evolution.

2. Review for duplicate procedure is completed.

A. A PCR has been initiated to delete those sections from existing procedures which are now contained in this procedure.

B. A PCR has been initiated to delete procedures superseded by this procedure.

C. All references of deleted procedures in other documents have been reviewed and deleted.

D. All outstanding TCs have been incorporated.

3. Procedure consistent with design basis documents (List paragraph numbers referencing this procedure).

A. Applicable Tech. Spec. Sections:

B. Applicable UFSAR Sections:

g,, C. If applicable, list Tech. Spec. Sections and UFSAR paragraphs in A and 8 above in the procedure references section.

/R4 S OPS DATE DOCT PROCEDuRE DOCN svs COMP COMPLETED ITM

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 86 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX E UPGRADED/NEW PROCEDURE REQUEST FORM (Page 2 of 6)

PROCEDURE EVALUATIONCHECKLIST (continu'ed) CHECK

4. Regulatory commitments have been complied with and referenced.

A. Plant Administrative Procedures B. Plant Quality Instructions C. Notifications and Reports (LERs, CRs, PMAIs)

D. Regulatory Documents (Technical Specifications, UFSAR)

E. Nuclear Division, Plant or Department Policies NOTE For questions related to environmental efforts, contact the Protection Services Supervisor.

F. There is no environmental effect nor,environmental question that has not been evaluated by the NRC. Contact the PS Supervisor for support, if needed.

5. Independent Verification Requirements have been included in accordance with ADM-17.06, Independent Verification.

6. Critical Characteristics have been identified, and have appropriate Quality Control Attributes (as defined in Appendix A of this procedure).

7. Setpoints used in this procedure have been checked for accuracy against TEDB and other Engineering documentation.

8. Provisions for jumper installation/removal, including sfgnoffs and IVs, have been incorporated.

9. The purpose of this procedure is clearly stated.

10. The instructions are sufficiently detailed to ensure the stated procedural objective(s) are met.

A. Actions requiring notification of regulatory agencies are specified.

B. Initial conditions are specified.

C. All documents referred to in procedural steps are listed in References section.

D. Actions, procedures, systems or equipment conditions which must be completed or exist prior to use of this procedure - are to be addressed in the Prerequisites section.

E. All Hold Points are clearly identified.

11. Provisions for recording data, securing data takers signatures and ensuring supervisor review are properly provided.

12. Restoration steps are included and sufficiently detailed.

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 87 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX E UPGRADED/NEW PROCEDURE REQUEST FORM (Page 3 of 6)

2. PROCEDURE EVALUATIONCHECKLIST (continued) CHECK NOTE If a simulator or training mock-up walkdown is possible, this is expected to be performed hands-on.

13. A walkdown of the procedure has been conducted to ensure adequacy and accuracy of procedure scope and information.

14. The structure and content of the procedure meets the requirements of ADM-11.02.

15. Notation Symbols:

A. Steps identified with a g or 5 are listed in an appendix or the References section with a description of the document used to develop the step.

B. Steps which require a signoff in the data sheets should be identified with a y to the left of the step number.

NOTE If a procedure change resulting from the upgrade process is technically compatible with the other unit's corresponding procedure, a PCR/TC to the other unit's procedure is NOT necessary.

16. Procedure checked for opposite unit applicability and compatibility.

17. Adequate foreign material exclusion (FME) controls are specified.

18. References to plant organizations contained in this procedure are in accordance with those referenced in Organizational Q.l.'s.

19. Techniques used in developing the draft procedure'(check as applicable) 0 Field Walkdown Q Training Mock-up 0 Others (list) 0 Simulator Cl Observation

/R4

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 88 of 106 Ql-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX E UPGRADED/NEW PROCEDURE REQUEST FORM (Page 4 of 6) 3A. HUMAN FACTORS ADEQUACY EVALUATION Yes No N/A

1. Does each page of the procedure provide the following identification information?

I A. Procedure Number and/or Title B. Current Revision Number C. Page Number

2. Does the procedure provide a purpose which briefly describes the procedure function?

3. Are procedure steps limited to a single action verb whenever possible?

4. lf a step contains more than two actions, are the actions listed rather then embedded in the same sentence?

5. Are the actions to be taken clearly identified'?

6. Have grammatical errors been eliminated (capitalization, typographical errors, punctuation, etc.)?

7. Are equipment numbers and/or nomenclature used in the procedure identical to those displayed on the equipment'?

8. Are cautions placed immediately ahead of the step(s) to which they apply?

9. Do cautions and notes avoid the use of action statements

,O,

'K (are they expressed in a passive voice)?

10. Are graphs, charts and tables easily readable, so that values can be accurately extracted and interpreted?

11. Are acceptance criteria and limits expressed in quantitative terms?

12. Are the quantitative acceptance criteria and limits expressed as a range with a mid-point rather than a point value (100 psig, between 95 psig and 105 psig rather than 100 k5 psig)?

13. Are check-off requirements (signature/initials) used to denote completion, performance, acceptance or permission, included in applicable portions of the body, data sheets or appendixes of the procedure?

14. Are methods of emphasis used consistently (i.e., underlining, bolding, etc.)?

15. Has a walk-through been performed to assure the procedure can be performed in the sequence written?

16. Can the user locate and identify all equipment referenced in the procedural steps'?

17. Does the procedure and attached alignments reflect the current as-built condition of the plant?

18. Are units used in the procedure (i.e., psig, gal/min, etc.)

the same as displayed on instrumentation?

REVISION NO.: 'PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 89 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX E UPGRADED/NEW PROCEDURE REQUEST FORM (Page 5 of 6) 3B. REVIEW EVALUATION YES NO

1. Does this change affect the other Unit's procedure, another equipment train, or channel? If YES, the responsible department shall submit a PCR/TC for the opposite Unit's procedure, equipment train, or channel, as applicable. (N/A for unit common procedures)

2. Is this change to a Q.I. or Administrative Procedure? It YES, obtain Q.A.

Manager/Designee review.

3. Is this a PCR for a Maintenance Procedure? If YES, obtain Q.C. review.

4. Does this change reference any new chemical? If YES, obtain Chemical Control Supervisor review.

5, 5. Does this change alter the order of initiating signals of a test? If YES, Engineering review for potential to adversely impact design functions is required.

8. Does this change delete or change a procedure number? If YES, obtain Operations Support Supervisor review.

7. Does this change affect the clearance procedure? If YES, obtain Nuclear Business Unit Joint Safety Committee (NBUJSC) Review.

8. Is this change resulting trom a new or revised PC/M or Safety Evaluation?

If YES, verify that the PC/M / Safety Evaluation is FRG approved.

4. 10 CFR 50.59 SCREENING A 10 CFR 50.59 Screening shall be performed in accordance with ADM-17.11, 10 CFR 50.59 Screening. Upon completion, attach the documented results to the associated PCR package.

1$

5. END-USER WALKDOWN 4

Print Name Signature Department Phone: Date ~~

/R4

C

~

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 90 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX E UPGRADED/NEW PROCEDURE REQUEST FORM (Page 6 of 6)

6. SERVICES PROJECTS, IS, HP, CHEMISTRY, SECURITY, etc.

Reviewed by:

Signature Print Name Date ~~

7. RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT HEAD YES NO

1. Was the subcommittee review performed by qualified individuals?

O- 2. Are the changes valid and technically correct?

3. Are the changes relevant to any training programs?

If YES, identify the target population or affected departments.

4. Do the changes require pre-implementation training?

If YES, complete and attach Appendix O.

A 5. Processing priority 0 0 2 0 3 0 4

~~

1 Dept. Head Date Signature Print

8. Facility Review Group FRG Chairman Initials: FRG ¹ - Date:~~

9. Plant General Manager Approval of FRG Minutes FRG Secretary

/R4

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 91 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX F Page of PROCEDURE COMMENT FORM (Page 1 of 1)

The following department(s) are affected by or responsible for the implementation or review of this change request:

0 QPs 0 ELEG 0 PRQJ 0 QA 0 ENG 0 NMM 0 sAFETY 0 PRQTsERV 0 QTHER

=

CI GHEM 0 l&c 0 PLAN CI Qc 0 scE 0TRNG CI sEcuRITY 0 Doc cNTL 0 QTHER 0 HP 0 MEGH 0 Ltc 0 sTAs CI FP CI woRK coNTRQL Procedure Number.

Return Form To:

Rev. No. Date Orig. ~~ Req'd By~~

Dept.

Please document comments below and attach additional sheets as necessary.

Item Page/Step No.

Reviewer Comments Response or Resolution No.

, 0 I have performed a Technical Subcommittee Review per the requirements of Ql-5-PSL-'t.

Reviewed/Approved By:

Signature Print Phone Date The comments above have been satisfactorily resolved.

" Resolution Sign-Off:

Signature Print Dept. Date Comments that cannot be resolved between the Author and the Reviewer should be brought to the attention of and resolved by the next highest chain of command. This signature is ONLY required when the reviewer has comments.

/R4

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 92 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX 8 COMPLETED PRE-OPERATIONAL TEST PROCEDURE FORM (Page 1 of 1)

TEST PROCEDURE TYPE TEST PROCEDURE NUMBER REVISION

1. TEST CONDUCTED BY; Date / /

2. RESULTS REVIEWED BY: Date /~

3. RESULTS REVIEWED BY: Date / /

4. RESULTS ACCEPTED AND APPROVED BY DEPARTMENT HEAD: Date /~

'5. SITE ENGINEERING REVIEWED BY: Date / /

6.

7, VENDOR REPRESENTATIVE REVIEWED BY: Date TEST REVIEWED BY FRG, DESIGN PARAMETERS ACHIEVED, TEST

~ /

SATISFACTORY, RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

Date /~

FRG 0 FRG CHAIRMAN INITIALS

8. PLANT GENERAL MANAGER APPROVAL Date /~

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 93 Of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX H PRE-OPERATIONAL TEST

SUMMARY

(Page 1 of 1)

UNIT NUMBER PRE-OP NUMBER Page of SYSTEM ENGINEER Date Remarks

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 94 Of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX I LETTER OF INSTRUCTION REQUEST FORM (Page 1 of 2)

1. Letter of Instruction

Title:

Letter of Instruction Number:

Reason for Request

Print Name: Dept: Phone:

Signature:

2. Review Evaluation: YES NO ~

1. Does this change affect the other Unit's instruction, another equipment train, or channel? If YES, the responsible department shall submit a PCR/TC for the opposite Unit's instruction, equipment train, or channel, as applicable. (N/A for unit common instructions)

2. Is this change to a Q.l. or Administrative Instruction? If YES, obtain Q.A.

Manager/Designee review.

3. Is this a PCR for a Maintenance Instruction? If YES, obtain Q.C. review.

4. Does this change reference any new chemical? If YES, obtain Chemical Control Supervisor review.

5. Does this change alter the order of initiating signals of a test? If YES, Engineering review for potential to adversely impact design functions is required.

6. Does this change delete or change a procedure number? If YES, obtain Operations Support Supervisor review.

7. Does this change affect the clearance procedure? If YES, obtain Nuclear Business Unit Joint Safety Committee (NBUJSC) Review.

8. Is this change resulting from a PC/M or Safety Evaluation? If YES, verify that the PC/M / Safety Evaluation is FRG approved.

/R4 S OPS DATE DOCT PROCEDURE DOCN SYS COMP COMPLETED ITM

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 95 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX I LETTER OF INSTRUCTION REQUEST FORM (Page 2 of 2)

3. 10 CFR 50.59 Screening LLl 0

uj A 10 CFR 50.59 Screening shall be performed in accordance with ADM-17.11, 10 CFR 50.59 Screening. Upon completion, attach the documented results to the associated LOI package.

4. YES NO

1. Was the subcommittee review performed by qualified individuals?

2. Is the LOI valid and technically correct?

3. Are the changes relevant to any training programs?

If YES, identify the target population or affected departments.

4. Do the changes require pre-implementation training?

If YES, complete and attach Appendix O.

Dept. Head Signature Print Date ~~

5. Reviewed by Facility Review Group NOTE The expiration date is optional for the FRG to set. If a date is not specified, the date will be one year from the issue date.

FRG Chairman Initials: FRG No.:

6. Plant General Manager Approval of FRG Minutes FRG Secretary:

/R4

A REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 96 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX J PERIODIC REVIEW OF PLANT PROCEDURES (Page 1 of 1)

Procedure

Title:

Procedure Number: Current Revision:

Yes No

1. Does the purpose of the procedure clearly state all the evolutions and tasks contained in the procedure?

2. Are plant conditions clearly specified for tasks which could affect plant operations or operability?

3. Are the processes delineated in this procedure in agreement with Quality Instructions?

4. Are personnel safety issues addressed in the limits and precautions section and in the appropriate areas of the body of the instructions?

5. Are references to plant organizations contained in this procedure in accordance with those referenced in organizational Quality Instructions'

6. Are all required records specified per Ql 17-PR/PSL-1, Quality Assurance Records?

7. Are all critical steps evaluated for proper use of Independent Verification in accordance with ADM-17.06?

'If No to any of the above questions, a Procedure Change Request is required.

Completed by: Date: / /

Department Head: Date:~~ S OPS DATE DOCT DOCN sYs COMP ITM

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 97 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX K PROCEDURE RESPONSIBILITY TRANSFER (Page 1 of 1)

Procedure Number Current Rev. No.

Title Reason for Re uest Does this Transfer of Responsibility affect the procedure type? Yes No If yes, a PCR is necessary.

~Rd d:

NOTE Signatures below indicate the responsibility of this procedure has been transferred from one department to another.

Current Responsible Department Head:

(Department Name)

(Department Head Signature)

Date:~~

New Responsible Department Head:

(Department Name)

Date: / /

(Department Head Signature)

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 98 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX L UFSAR USER COMMENT FORM (Page 1 of 1)

Page of UFSAR errors or improvement suggestions should be identified below by UFSAR Users and forwarded to Site Engineering Manager.

Originator Dept Location Phone Plant PSL t PSL 2 UFSAR Areas Affected Sections Ptriures Comments Attached Below En ineerin Review Accepted Insufficient Information No Change Required Disposition:

Assigned User Comment ¹ Reviewing Engineer

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 99 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX M NEW GUIDELINE/INSTRUCTION REQUEST (Page 1 of 1)

1. Guideline Number.

Title:

Brief Summary of Request: (use additional pages, if necessary)

OP This document meets the criteria to be a guideline/instruction.

Request FRG concurrence to make this document a guidelinefinstruction.

Author.

SIG NATUAE PAINT NAME HEPT. PHONE

2. 10 CFR 50.59 Screening lr. A 10 CFR 50.59 Screening shall be performed in accordance with ADM-17.11, 10 CFR 50.59 Screening. Upon completion, attach the documented results to the new associated guideline/instruction package.

.F' ill

, Cl The content of this document meets the guideline/instruction criteria.

Cl; ill, 0 This document does NOT meet the guideline/instruction criteria.

Reviewed by:

Signature Print Name Date ~~

3. Responsible Department Head YES NO

1. Was the subcommittee review performed by qualified individuals?

2. Is the content technically correct?

3. Is the content of this guidelinefinstruction relevant to any training program? If YES, send copy to Training Department Library.

4. Does this guideline/instruction require pre-implementation training?

If YES, complete Appendix 0 and conduct training in accordance with departmental training plans.

Dept. Head:

Signature Print Dept.

4. Reviewed by Facility Review Group FRG Chairman Initials: FRG ¹

5. Plant General Manager Approval of FRG Minutes FRG Secretary:

/R4

REVISION No.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE No.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 100 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX N GUIDELINE/INSTRUCTION CHANGE REQUEST (Page 1 of 1)

1. Guideline Number. Current Rev. No.

Title:

Brief Summary of Request: (use additional pages, if necessary)

Author.

SIGNATURE PRINT NAME DEPT. PHONE

2. 10 CFR 50.59 Screening A 10 CFR 50.59 Screening shall be performed in accordance with ADM-17.11, 10 CFR 50.59 Screening. Upon completion, attach the documented results to the associated guideline/instruction change request package.

0 The content of this document meets the guideline/instruction criteria.

0 This document does NOT meet the guideline/instruction criteria. (Return to Author)

Reviewed by:

Signature Print Name Date ~~

3. Responsible Department Head 0 Changes are valid and technically correct.

"O Pre-implementation training is required for this change'? CI YES 0 NO

'I C3 lf YES, pre-implementation training has been completed in accordance with the Departmental Training Plan.

.z.

This guidelinefinstruction change is approved.

NOTE lf this is a revision to a guideline/instruction which affects Accredited Training Programs, then route this revision to the Training Department Library.

Department Head:

SIGNATURE PRINT DEPT Date: ~~

/R4

t REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 101 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT APPENDIX 0 PRE-IMPLEMENTATION TRAINING NOTIFICATION FORM (Page 1 of 1)

Procedure

Title:

Procedure Number. Revision No.

The Information Services Department is hereby requested to distribute the above listed procedure to the following personnel indicated for pre-implementation training with a copy of this form attached. Pre-implementation training on this procedure is required for these groups:

0 All 0 Human Resources Manager Q Corrective Action Group Supervisor Q Engineering Manager 0 Operations Manager 0 Plant Engineer Manager Operations Support Supervisor 0 Op. Support Eng. Mgr. 0 Health Physics Supervisor 0 System Engineering Mgr. 0 Operations Supewisor 0 Administrative Supe wisor Q Chemistry Supervisor 0 Sewices Manager Q Maintenance Manager 0 Protection Services Supv. 0 Maintenance Sewices Supv.

0 Security Supewisor 0 Mechanical Maintenance Supv.

Q Training Manager 0 Electrical Maintenance Supv.

Q Information Sewices Supv. 0 l&C Maintenance Supervisor 0 Sewices Projects Supv. 0 Predictive Maintenance Supv.

0 Land Utilization Supv. 0 Licensing Manager 0 Work Control Manager 0 Business Systems Manager 0 Materials Manager 0 Contracts 0 Protection and Control Supv. 0 Management Inf. Systems 0 Quality Manager 0 Other PROCEDURE IMPLEMENTATIONDUE DATE:

Date Distributed by Information Se'wice's to Mariagers/Department Heads for-Tiafning: ~ ~~

PMAI ¹ All of the required notifications and/or document modifications will be completed by the implementation date.

The Responsible Manager or Department Head shall ensure by signing this form that required training is complete prior to performance of activities addressed by this procedure.

Is this change applicable to ALL of my personnel? 0 YES 0 No Is this change applicable to my documents? Q YES Q No Is this change applicable to some of my personnel? Q YES Q No List the organizational level(s) (e.g., Mechanics, Journeyman) to whom training would apply.

Training required for Manager/Department Head

.SIGNATURE PRINT TITLE PHONE Date~~

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 102 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT FIGURE 1 PROCEDURE CHANGE PROCESS FLOW PATH IS TO A Ql OR ADMIN QUAUTYhssvRANcE PROCEDURE IS THIS A YES QUAUlYCONTROL Mh!NTENANCE PROC EDVRE REVIEW IS CHEMICALCONTAOL YES THIS A CHANGE svpETMsoR TO ANYCHEMICAL AEVIEW REFERENCES DOES ENGINEEAING THIS CHANG E REVIEW ALTER THE ORDER OF INrrIATING DOES THIS CHANGE YES TESTS DELETE OR CHANGE A PROCEDURE NUMBERT gA 5080 REVIEW AND MINOR CHANGE SCREENING SUBCOMMrrTEE REVIEWS REVIEW BY RESFONSIBIE PAOC GAOVP DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEWS IS COMPLETE lRAIKINQ REQUIRED IS A ATTACH TRAININO APPENDIX 0 BEFORE ISSUANCE REQUIRED YES OF PAOCEDUR NORFY APPIIOPRIATE TRAININQ COORDINATOR PROCESSING PAE. HOID WHILE MPLEMENTATIO PEAFORMINQ TRAINING TRAINING REQUIRED TRAININQ coMpLETE DOCUMENT CONTROL NUCLEAA RECORDS VAULT (Q/-5-1A. WPG)

/R4

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 103 of 106 Ql-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT FIGURE 2 UPGRADED/NEW PROCEDURE PROCESS FLOW PATH IS IS THIS A YES MAINTENANCE OUAUIYCONTROL PROCEDURE REVIEW CHEMICALCONTROL YES THIS A CHANO E SUPERVISOR TD ANYCHEMICAL REVIEW REFERENCES DOES ENOINEERWO THIS CHANOE AEVIEW ALTER THE ORDER OF INIAATINO DOES THIS CHANO TESTS DELETE OR CHANOE A PROCEDURE NUMBER?

SUSCOMMITTEE REVIEW RESPONSTILE PROCEDURE OROUP REVIEW DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW IS COMPLETE TRAININO A ATTACH REOUIAED IS TRAININQ APPENDIX 0 BEFORE ISSUANCE REOUWED YES OF PAOCEDUA PROCEDURES TRACIONO NOTIFY APPROPRIATE TRAINWQ COORDWATOR PQM APPROVAL PRE. HOID WHIIE MPIEMENTATIO PERFORMINQ

?RAW WQ TRAIMNQ REOIARED TRAININQ COMPLETE DOCUMENT CONTROL NUCLEAR RECORDS VAULT (Q/-5-1E. WPG)

/R4

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 104 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT FIGURE 3 LETTER OF INSTRUCTION PROCESS FLOW PATH IS THIS CHANCE YES TOAOIORADMIN PROCEDURE TIISA YES MAINTENANCE PROCEDURE IS YKS THIS A CHANCE TO ANYCHEMICAL REFERENCES DOES TlOS CHANC E ALlERTHE ORDER DOES THIS CHANOE OF UImATUIO A DEIETK OR CHANCE TESTS A PROCEDURE NUMSERT OUAUFIED REVIEWER 5050 SCREENING OPERATlONS SUSCOMMITTKE SUPPORT REVIEW SUPV REVIEW DEPARTMENT HEAD RENEW PRE. HOLD WHILE IMPIEMEIRATION PERfORMINO TRAININO TRAININO RECUSED NUCIEAR RECORDS VAULT (QI-5-1 C.WPG)

/R4

r; V

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

4 PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 105 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT FIGURE 4 PRE-OPERATIONAL TEST PROCEDURE PROCESS FLOW PATH TO MAKE CHANGES TO A TO WRITE A NEW PRM)PERATIONAL PRENPERATIONAL PROCEDURE PROCEDURE REFER TO FIGURE 2.

REFER TO FIGURE 1.

PRENPERATIONAL TEST CONDUCTED DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW IS PALP YES RE&TED ENGINEERIIIG NO IS YES VENDOR REVIEW VENDOR REQUIRED REVIEW TEST PACKAGE TO FRG NO TAKE ACCEPTED NECESSARY ACTIONS YES PGM APPROVAL TAKE ACCEPTED NECESSARY ACTIONS YES PREAMP NUCLEAR RECORDS VAULT COMPLETE (QI51D. WPG

REVISION NO.: PROCEDURE TITLE: PAGE:

PREPARATION, REVISION, PROCEDURE NO.: REVIEW/APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES 106 of 106 QI-5-PSL-1 ST. LUCIE PLANT FIGURE 5 oem GuIOELIWEJIWSTRueVIOW r ROCESS FLOW r ATH DOES THE DOCUME MEET THE NO GUIDEUNEIINSTRUCTION PROCEDURE CRITERIA PROCESS YES AUTHOR ORIGINATES QUALIFIED REVIEWER 50.59 REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE REVIEW DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEWS INFO SERV FOR NO. ASSIGNMENT AND TRACKING DOES THE DOCUME NO MEET THE YES GUIDEU NE/INSTR UCTIO CRITERIA PGM GROUP APPROVAL TRACKING WORD LOG AND PROCESSING RETURN TO ORIGINATOR DISTRIBUTION TO DEPARTMENT (QI51B. WF'G)

8 t

(t Jd

~

i A y'