ML18092A285

Rev 6 to AP-8, Design Change,Test & Experiment Program.

ML18092A285
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	01/05/1983
From:	Public Service Enterprise Group
To:
Shared Package
ML18092A282	List: ML18092A281 ML18092A284 ML18092A285
References
AP-8, NUDOCS 8409250149
Download: ML18092A285 (39)

Text

• * .> ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE NO. 8 REVISION NO. 6 DESIGN CHANGE_, TEST AND EXPERIMENT PROGRAM APPROVED : _____

General Maniger -Salem Operations

.....

PDR ADOCK 05000272 F PDR * .

Date TABLE OF CONTENTS

• SECTION TITLE PAGE ** 1. 0 PURPOSE 1 2 .. 0 SCOPE 1

3.0 REFERENCES

1 4.0 DEFINITIONS 1 5.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 3 6.0 OCR SCHEDULING AND PLANNING 15 7.0 DOCUMENT UPDATING 15 Form AP-8-1 Design Change, Test or Experiment Request Form Form AP-8-2 Form AP-8-3 Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment r AP-8 1 2 3 4 5 ' . . Field Questionnaire Document Update Notification Form Instructions for Completing the Design Change, Test or Experiment Request Form Instructions for Completing the Field Questionnaire Field Questionnaire Flow Chart Priority Definitions and Worksheet Design Change Package Notification (Part A, B, C) i Rev. 6 *.

.... * * ,. aINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE e SALEM GENERATING STATION ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE NO. 8 DESIGN CHANGE, TEST AND EXPERIMENT PROGRAM 1. 0 PURPOSE This procedure describes the program_for design changes, tests and experiments.

2.0 SCOPE

3.0 This procedure encompasses design changes which include, but are not limited to, the following:

Replacement of equipment by items of another type, size or mode of operation (alteration of mode of operation through the use of non-permanent plant equipment shall require a OCR) Relocating or resizing piping or structural elements Drawing revisions Setpoint *revisions*.

(*outside allowa:Ole

• • tplerances*)

REFERENCES NOTE Tool modifications shall be implemented by Deficiency Reports in accordance with AP-20, Nonconformance Program. 3.1 lOCFRS0.59, Unreviewed Safety Question 3.2 AP-20, Nonconformance Program 3.3 Salem Nuclear Generating Station Technical Specifications, Unit 2 4.0 DEFINITIONS

'"?' 4.1 Design Change 4.1.1 Change -An alteration of station structures, systems or components, which is not by its nature operational, upkeep, maintenance or in kind. 4.1.2 Experiment

-Performance of those station operations carried out under controlled

• conditions in order to establish characteristics or values not previously known. *. AP-8 Page 1 of 16 Rev. 6

• AP-8 4.1.3 of those necessary to determine that a system or functions in accordance with predetermined specifications. (This test is not to be confused with the testing required for 4.1.1 above.) 4.2 Operations Working Drawing File -Operations Department file.of selected pl*nt drawings -Functional Diagrams, Logic Diagrams, One Line Diagrams, and Piping Diagrams -which are used in day-to-day plant operations.

These drawings are to be updated within a target of 30 working days o.f receipt of Attachment 6 by Engineering Control. A list of the Operations Working Drawings shall be provided by SNGS Operations to Engineering Control for identifying such drawings.

4.3 Unreviewed

Safety Question -A proposed change, test or experiment shall be deemed to involve an unreviewed safety question if one of the following conditions exist: 4.3.1 4.2.2 .The probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of eguipment important to safety previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report may be increased.

i I ! i* A* *possibi*lity*

for *an accident :or mal.furiction of* a different type than any evaluated previously in the Final* Safety Analysis Report may be created. . I 4.3.3 The margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification is reduced. 4.4 Design Change Package (DCP) -An all inclusive package of engineering information required to implement a design modification.

A design change may be comprised of one or more packages.

4.5 Operational

Test (OTG) -The OTG performs a review of each DCP to determine testing requirements and generates a Design Change Package-Test Package. They also direct operational tests (when required) and review and accept results of all DCP related testing. 4.6 Design Change Package-Test Package (DCP-TP) -The DCP-TP lists the systems and/or components to be tested or calibrated, required procedures, and the performing department.

The DCP-TP is.generated by the OTG. 4.7 Construction Verification (C/V} Testing -Those tests performed to verify proper installation of components.

These may include, but are not limited to: hydrostatic testing, flushing, cleaning, equipment alignment checks, ground resistance checks, motor rotation, instrument calibration, etc. Page 2 of 16 Rev. 6 ' *.

• r 4. 8 e e Operational Testing -A testing program which ensures that equipment and system modifications conform to the design intent prior to, or in conjunction with, returning the system to plant service.

• 5.0 RESPONSIBILITIES AP-8 INITIATION

5.1 Station

Originated Requests 5.1.l The initiator shall complete Design Change, Test or Experiment Request (DCR) Form (form AP-8-1), Sections I-1 thru I-6 and forward to his ment head. 5.1.2 The department head shall: a) Review form AP-8-1 (sample format included) and indicate whether the request should be implemented or not (Section I-7). b) c) If the DCR' is approved, *complete Sect'ibn i-8, as applicable.

If the DCR is rejected, return it to the initiator with a letter explaining the rejection . Assign priority, implementation date and mode required for implementation (see Attachment 4 for Priority Definition Worksheet and fication list). Priority Definition Worksheet shall be completed and to DCR. d) Sign and date Section I-9 and forward to the Station Planning Engineer.

5.1.3 The Station Planning Engineer shall: a) Assign a sequential DCR number of the form ABC-DDDD-E-FG. A -Station Unit 1 -Unit 1 or Common 2 -Unit 2 3 -Unit 3 B -Originating Organization

• E Engineering Department S -Station I* . Page 3 of *16 Rev. 6 r *

• AP-.8 C -DCR c T -x -Type Design Change (including setpoint revision)

• Test Experiment

• DDDD -Four digit sequential number E -Major DCR Revision A -First Revision B -Second Revision FG -Alpha-numeric designation assigned when applicable to permit control of packages/subpackages for partial implementation. (See Section 5.2.2.f.l)

-*There are separate numbers used for Engineering Department originated DCR's. b) Return a copy to the requesting department head for tracking.

c) Forward the request to the General Salem Operations for approval.

If accep_table, Manager shall sign and date Section I-10 . d) Forward the DCR to the Manager -Nuclear Engineering Control to coordinate the ment of the DCP. 5.1.4 Go to step 5.2.2, "Sponsor will", to continue the DCP development process. 5.2 Non-Station Originated Changes 5.2.1 Initiation of changes by other than Nuclear Engineering or Salem Operations shall be via letter from initiating department manager. to Manager -Nuclear Engineering Control or General Manager -Salem Operations.

In all cases,Section I shall be completed and signed off by the Sponsor Engineer and the appropriate Nuclear Engineering Manager. 5.2.2 The Sponsor Engineer a) Ensure all Engineering Safety Evaluation(s) are performed and, when complete, sign and date Section II-1. -* b)

• Determine if the DCR involves a Technical Specification change or unreviewed safety question (Sections II-2 and II-3). If answer is no for both, go to Section 5.2.2.d. Page 4 of 16 Rev. 6 I I ----------* . -*-* ---------------

• * *r AP-8 c) IP a Technical Specif icatio.hange is required or an Unreviewed Safety Question is involved, forward the OCR (with appropriate TS or USQ forms) to the Nuclear Review Board (NRB) for evaluation.

1) The NRB will perform an evaluation of the OCR and verify that the Technical Specif *cation revision, FSAR amendment or Unreviewed Safety Question are reviewed and NRC approval has been obtained.

Following the review the Chairman -Nuclear Review Board will complete Section II-3 and forward the OCR to the Sponsor Engineer.

d) Request the funding necessary, as specified by departmental procedures.

e) Compile the required Design Change Packages (DCP) in accordance with departmental procedures.

1) Each DCP shall consist of one each of the following:

• (a) Table of c*onterits (b) Package Revision History (c) DCR (d) Construction Work Package Definition Record *(e) Cost Estimate *(f) Statement of Applicability to Other Station Unit (g) Executive Summary -A description of the proposed modification or change to provide station personnel with an overview of the total DCP (affected systems, operating changes, etc.) 2) Each DCP shall have one per Engineering discipline of the following: (a) Safety Evaluation (b) Engineering Instructions

• (c) List of Materials

• May be omitted if the DCP issue is of an emergency nature. Page 5 of 16 Rev. 6 .;. * . --***--*-*--*---------------

,. * * ** AP-8 e . (d) Design Change Doc.nt Status List (DCDSL) (e) Operational Design Change Notice{s) (ODCN) (include System Description ODCN's .(f) Document *Update Notification form (Form AP-8-3) identifying all affected drawings as to update priority.

f) Perform a constructability review where possible in conjunction with Nuclear Construction Support. (Section II-4) 1) DCR's having a large number of components requiring installation/replacement will be reviewed during DCP preparation to mine if DCP's can be partially implemented as packages or sub-packages without adverse affect on safety (i.e., operation of a partially modified system). DCR's designated for partial implementation (as indicated .on the Const;.ruction Wo'.Fk Packag_e Definition Record) shall be controlled at the lowest package level. This shall .. include provisions for testing and update of affected engineering documents (i.e., drawings, vendor manuals, etc.) upon (partial) completion.

2) DCR's designated for partial tion shall be coordinated with the Station Planning Engineer prior to issuance for implementation. (Section II-4A) g) Assess the scope of the work to be performed to determine if there is a .potential impact upon Station Security and/or the Fire Protection programs.

If so, coordinate the DCP with the Nuclear Security Administrator and/or the Nuclear Fire and Safety Administrator, as appropriate.

h) Perform a testing requirements review in conjunction with the Operational Test Group. (Section II-4C) i) When authorized by the Lead Change Sponsor Engineer, incomplete DCP's may be distributed for information only; i.e., for procurement of long-lead items, preparation of preliminary Page 6 of 16 Rev. 6 * /

• AP-8 *ks instructions, testing etc. information, which doe91ot require SORC review, shall be stamped "PRELIMINARY" and shall not be used for installation or receiving inspection . 5.2.3 Upon approval for implementation (Section II-5), the Manager -Nuclear Engineering Control will formally transmit the DCP to the General Manager Salem Operations/Station Planning Engineer.

5.2.4 The Station Planning Engineer shall: a) Log the receipt of the DCP. NOTE All packages associated with the DCR (as listed on the Construction Work Package Definition Record) should be included in the transmittal.

b) Coordinate the assignment of responsibility for implementing the DCP with the responsible department head(s). 1) The .department head be to all contractors work for its department.

• . i I I : . "i c) Review the DCP for completeness per Section I 5.2.2.e. If the DCP is incomplete, it shall be returned to the Manager -Nuclear Engineering'.

Control for resolution.

• d) Forward the DCP to the Manager -,2uality ance Nuclear Operations for e) Retain all SORC-rejected DCP's and coordinate resolution of problems with the System Sponsor Engineer.

5.2.5 Quality

Assurance Review The Manager -Quality Assurance Nuclear Operations will review the DCP in accordance with the Quality , Assurance Instructions (QAI) and if the package is i acceptable, sign off Section II-6 and forward it to : ' the responsible department head in preparation for ; SORC review. 1 If unacceptable, initiate a letter to the Sponsor Engineer with a.copy to the Manager -Engineering Control detailing the reason for non-acceptance and attach a copy of the letter to the package and return it to the Station Planning *Engineer.

The Sponsor Engineer is responsible for resolution of identified deficiencies.

Page 7 of 16 Rev. 6

• AP-8 IMPLEMENTATION 5.3 The* responsible department head shall: 5.3.1 I Present the DCP to the Station Operations Review Committee (SORC) .for review. If the DCP is acceptable, SORC shall sign Section II-7 and forward to the General Manager -Salem Operations. (Step 5. 5) 5.4 If SORC does not accept the DCP, the department head shall: 5.4.1 Initiate a letter detailing the reason for acceptance and transmit it to the Manager -Engineering Control and a copy *.:to the System Sponsor Engineer.

5.4.2 Attach

a copy of the non-acceptance letter_ to the DCP and return the package to the Station Planning Engineer, where the package is held pending of deficiency. (Step 5.2.4.e) 5. 5

• The Ge.neral Manager -* Salem Operations shall: 5.5.1 Review the DCP and* if acceptable, indicate so sign Section II-8, then return the DCP to the Station Planning Engineer.

5.5.2 If unacceptable, return the DCP to the responsible department head for resolution of deficiency.

5.6 The Station Planning Engineer shall: 5.6.l Initiate work order(s) per AP-9, Control of Station Maintenance, as required to implement the DCP. 5.6.2 Record .the package number and associated work order numbers in Section III-1. When more than one DCP comprises the DCR, complete Section III-1 and check the block indicating "Partial Package".

5.6.3 Issue

the DCP for implementation.

5.6.4 Ensure

proper accounting is assigned on the work order and DCP.

• 5.6.5 Transmit a copy of the work order to the OTG. 5.7 Upon receipt of the DCP for implementation, the PSE&G/ contractor supervisor in charge of the work shall: 5.7.1 Prior to starting the work, issue Part A of the DCP Notification (Attachment

5) to advise the appropriate personnel of (X). Page 8 of 16 Rev. 6 I I i *I I ! '

• * *-r AP-8 a) wlln the physical work of th.DCP is complete, Part A is marked (X) Complete -DCR close out in progress and the form is distributed . b) If the work cannot be completed, details of the partial completion are included and the form is distributed.

5.7.2 If not in possession of a DCP-Test Package prepared by the OTG, initiate Part B of the DCP Notification (Attachment

5) to request a determination of test/retest requirements and procedures.

One copy shall be sent to the Operational Test Engineer.

Other departments as marked shall provide any needed information.

5.7.3 When the DCP work reaches an appropriate level of completion, fill out Part C of the DCP Notification (Attachment

5) to notify the appropriate departments of tests, procedures and work orders required to perform the test/retest.

One copy shall be sent to the Test Engineer.

s.a When information necessary to implement the DCP is not clear, missing or in error: 5. 8 .1 The supervisor perf arming the DCP shall-: 5.8.2 a) Initiate a Field Questionnaire (FQ) (form AP-8-2). (3-part form -white, yellow, pink) b) Complete Sections I and II of the FQ. c) Forward the FQ (all three parts) to the cognizant Sponsor Er.gineer.

The department shall maintain an FQ *. log by DCR number, which shall contain as a minimum: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) DCR number Package number Affected DCP section FQ number Date -initiated Initiating supervisor's name Action taken (i.e., ODCN revision, no action required, etc.) Page 9 of 16 Rev.* 6

• -' * * ,.....,

• AP-8 5.8.3 Engineer wili the stated and enter a response III of the FQ (i.e., information and/or work instructions).

The Engineer keeps the yellow copy, returns the white copy to the originator, and sends the pink copy to the Station Planning Engineer.

5.8.4 For work which also requires a minor DCP revision, the.Sponsor Engineer will indicate that the DCP is required.

5.8.5 The Sponsor Engineer will be responsible for preparing the DCP revision after answering the FQ. Transmittal of the DCP revision shall be accomplished within 7 days of FQ disposition.

date. NOTE FQ's may be used to implement minor DCP revisions except for the addition of one or more Engineering disciplines (Section 5.9.3 below). In this case, implementation shall not proceed until the DCP revision has been reviewed by SORC and Quality Assurance arid approved by the General Manager.-Salem Operations or h"is designee.

Revision of. the DCP may be accomplished by adding a new package or revising an existing package. 5.8.6 The Engineering group will maintain a log of all FQ'.s, the DCR number, date received, date answered, description of problem, *indication of whether a DCP revision is needed and Transmittal Number containing revised ODCN(s) to correspond to the answer on the FQ. All DCP revisions generated by a FQ shall be identified Ly the applicable FQ nurnber(s) placed on the affected ODCN. 5.8.7 The supervisor performing the work shall: a) Perform the work per the FQ b) Attach the FQ to the DCP. NOTE Site Contractor attaches the FQ to the DCP and his control work package. c) Discard the FQ upon receipt of the *revised ODCN(s) after assuring the FQ and revised ODCN(s) agree. Page 10 of 16 Rev. 6 **-------*

--*-* ----*------------------------------

• AP-8 5. 9 Revisions Revisions may be made to Design Change Packages.

These are classified as minor or major. Major revisions are those which alter the function of the design, result in a change to the Technical Specifications, impact logical safety, or present an unreviewed safety or mental question.

All other revision?

are minor. All visions shall be reviewed for cost impact in accordance with Engineering Department procedures.

5.9.1 Revisions

may be classified as minor if they meet one of the-following:

a) Minor by Inspection

1) Are basically arrangement in nature, 2) Affect only items presently within the scope of the DCP, and 3) Require only work of a type already planned and approved for those items. b) Minor by Evaluation The the revision as: 1) Not affecting system function . 2) Not affecting Radiological Safety or Technical Specifications.

3) Not involving an unreviewed safety question.

4) Not affecting the Environmental Technical Specifications.

5) Not involving an unreviewed mental question.

5.9.2 Documentation

of Minor by Inspection/Evaluation shall accompany each minor revision to the DCP. This documentation becomes an addendum to the DCP Safety Evaluation(s).

A Safety Evaluation addendum shall be prepared for each discipline included in the DCP minor revision.

5.9.3 DCP revisions which add one or more Engineering disciplines shall require SORC review if the original DCP was SORC reviewed.

SORC review is also required if the new DCP is safety related, fire protection or security related.

• 5.9.4 All ODCN's issued subsequent to the original issue of their respective DCP's shall indicate major or minor if being added to an *existing DCP. *. Page 11 of 16 Rev. 6 .. -*--*--------------------------

.. * * **-r AP-8 5 *. 9 .5 The aager -Engineering Contr4twill transmit a copy of all revisions to a DCP to the OTG for evaluation of changes to the testing/retest requirements . 5.9.6* Copies of all station approved revisions will be forwarded to the TDR by the Manager -Nuclear Engineering Control for distribution to the appropriate departments by the TDR per AP-3, Document Control Program. 5.10 The supervisor completing the work shall: s.10.l Indicate all work and C/V testing has been completed by signing and dating Sections III-2 .and III-3. a) For DCP's designated for partial implementation (as indicated on the Construction*

Work Package Definition Record),Section III shall not be completed until all "partial" packages have been completed; i.e., completed Sections III-1 thru III-3 for each "partial" package. b) Prior to release of a system or component back to a review of* the work . and testing performed on the DCP must be accomplished with the Senior Shift Supervisor.

A DCP that has been partially completed must be identified to the Senior Shift Supervisor and those portions reviewed for possible impact upon plant operations and procedures.

This review must be documented in the design change package implementation Section III-3A prior to the release of tags and attached to. each partially completed package. c) DCP's returned for partial close out and review fall into two (2) categories.

Category I are those partial DCP's which will continue to work in the field after the unit startup and are being returned to the Sponsor for subsequent document and system description update. Category II partial DCP's are those partial DCP's for which no further work is planned and the DCP is going to be reviewed by the Sponsor Engineer for possible future reissue under a new OCR number or final close out. Category I partial DCP's shall contain the following:

a copy of the work order under which all. work has been performed; a copy of all completed ODCN's; signed Sections III-1 thru III-4 for the affected DCP; a completed "Design Change Package Notification"" (Part A of Attachment 5); a signed copy of all support/ Page 12 of 16 Rev. 6 *.

r * * **? ,. AP-8 t.ting work orders which we9 required to be completed prior to return of the system for service . Category II partial DCP's shall be processed in the same manner as a completed DCP and s.hall contain all documentation as a Category I partial close out. The tion shall be *the originals under which the work was performed.

No further work will be allowed on the system unless reissued by the Sponsor Engineer under a new DCR. NOTE close out of a DCP at any level lower than the entire package, requires written approval of the Lead and appropriate Discipline Sponsor

• Engineer (s) . d) Reviews of partially completed DCP's will be similar to the reviews performed on fully completed DCP's. Prompt and timely reviews shall be conducted to ensure update of station document(s) is accomplished within the required time. 5.10.2 Ensure all FQ's are closed and the latest of the ODCN's are enclosed in the package. Verify the latest approved ODCN revision numbers have been transcribed on the Design Change Document Status List (DCDSL) . 5.10.3 Sign the DCDSL entries and each ODCN. NOTE For all outside contracted work assigned the Nuclear Construction Support Department, the Manager -Nuclear Construction Support, or his designee, will sign for all completed or partially completed DCP's. 5.10.4 Obtain the completed DCP -Test Package from the Operational Test Group (OTG). The OTG performs the following:

a) For DCP's which are_ not test or experiment, collect and review all test results and documentation to ensure they are satisfactory and resolve possible deficiencies.-

-b) For test or experiment DCP's, monitor the test or experiment while it is in-progress, and notify the Sponsor Engineer of the end of the test or experiment to obtain proper follow-up and close Pag_e 13 of 16 Rev. 6 --------------*--

• .. ****------------------

• AP-8 c) Sign Section III-3B for C/V test review and .m..cceptance.

Make one the signed-off and transmit it to 1!1111 TDR to provide notification for ODCN distribution.

d) Notify the Operating Engineer in writing if any Operational Tests must be deferred until a different operating mode is achieved.

Sign Section III-4 as applicable.

5.10.5 Forward the completed or partially completed DCP to the implementing department head. 5.11 The implementing department head shall: 5.11.1 Review the DCP and indicate in Section III-5 any procedure (SP(O), Maintenance Procedure, etc.) that should be performed by the station to ensure the correct functioning of any systems affected by the completed DCP or partial package. 5.11.2 Review all work completed under the DCP and if acceptable, sign and date Section III-6. If unacceptable, return it to the applicable visor for resolution.

5.11.3 Ensure that a copy.of all workorders associated.

with the OCP is attached to tne package. 5.11.4 Forward* the partially complete or complete DCP the Station Planning Engineer as soon as possible so document update can proceed

• REVIEW 5.12 The Station Planning Engineer shall: 5.12.1 Transmit Form AP-8-3 (Document Update Notification) with appropriate DCDSL, ODCN's or other documents to Engineering Control to initiate the drawing/document update process. A copy of the Notification shall be sent to the TDR for tracking the document update requirement.

5.12.2 Review the DCP to ensure that all FQ responses have been included-as revised ODCN's. Indicate in Section III-7 which department(s) in addition to the Operating Engineer shall receive the DCP for procedure revision and a) The department head(s) or designated engineers shall complete the applicable part of

• Section III-7 and return the DCP to the Station Planning Engineer.

5.12.3 Forward the DCP to the Manager -Quality Assurance Nuclear Operations for review. Page 14 of 16 Minor Change of 5/6/83 Rev. 6

• * ,.,.-* r a)

Assurance will review the DCP in with applicable Assurance Instructions and if acceptaoie, complete Section III-8 and return it to the Station Planning Engineer.

If unacceptable, return it with a copy of the rejection letter to the Station Planning Engineer for resolution.

5.12.4 Forward the DCP to SORC for review. 5.12.5 Notify the Office Supervisor of DCP number and completion date. 5.13 The SORC shall review the DCP and, if acceptable, the SORC Chairman shall sign Section III-9 and return it to the Station Planning Engineer.

If unacceptable, return it to the Station Planning Engineer for resolution.

5.14 The Station Planning Engineer shall transmit the DCP to Engineering Control for subsequent review and close out. A copy of the DCP may be retained by Station Planning for record purposes.

6.0 DCR SCHEDULING AND PLANNING 6.1 The Station Planning Engineer shall be responsible for *resolving DCR priori ti.es and f9r ens\J.rihg the DCR' s necessary to meet station needs and commitments are planned and accomplished as required.

AP-8-1 forms shall be initiated in a timely manner to permit Dcp* development and completion . 6.2 Engineering Control is responsible for providing the necessary support within the Nuclear Department to ensure timely preparation and issuance of DCP's for implementation and issuing updated drawings within the indicated time interval.

6.3 For outage planning, a list of required DCR's including priority and required date will be developed by the General Manager -Salem Operations, General Manager -Nuclear Support, and General Manager -Nuclear Services.

Changes to this list will be approved by the above personnel or their designee(s).

• . 7.0 DOCUMENT UPDATING AP-8 7.1 Engineering will update all drawings and system descriptions within a target period of 30 working days from date Form AP-8-3 is received (Step 5.12.1). 7.2 The TDR shall maintain a "tickle" file to track DCR document update deadlines in accordance with TDR procedures.

A list of overdue drawings shall be sent weekly to the Assistant General Manager -Engineering, Station Planning, Manager -Quality Assurance Nuclear Operations and General Manager -Salem Operations

• Page 15 of 16 Rev. 6 Minor Change of 5/6/83

• AP-8

• 7.3 The TDR_shall make distribution of specified DCP ODCN's upon receipt of the DCDSL from the Operational Test Group. Page 16 of 16 * . Rev. 6

GENERATING STATION DESIGN CHANGE, TEST OR EXPERIMENT REQUEST FORr" DESIGN CHANGE REQUEST 'NO. l PRIORITG [LJ. w w w w . IMPLEMENTATION DATE REQUESTED

_

MODE REQUIRED FOP IMPLEMENTATION Cl) I. IN ITIATI OU AP-8 l. TYPE: DESIGN CHANGE 0 TESTQ EXPERIMENT m 2. SYSTEM(S)

3. UNIT lo UNIT UNIT 3 m COMM0Nm 4. DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ____ G):i.,.4_.L.----------------------

• I

• . I ------------------------------------

I 5.

6. REQUESTED BY

---

=T::::!>'6dc::6._,.

____ _ 7. RECOMMENDATION:

IMPLEMENT YES© B. **r 9. 10. INSTALLATION OF THIS DCR IS AN NRC COMMITMENT.

YES (!) NO* (!} IF YES, LIST COMMITMENT DOCUMENT/DATE

=---.....a..0,,:,7,,.it---------------

DEPAR'l'MENT HEAD (STATION ORIGINATED CHANGES)/

0s SPONSOR ENGINEER: .

GENERAL MANAGER -SALEM OPERATION TATION IGINATED CHANGES APPROPRIATE NUCLEAR ENGINEERING MANAGER Form AP-B-l Page l of 3 Rev. 6

,,

• II. r * *-r fl >>-8 e DESIGN OIANGE REQtlEST NOii G) PAGE 2 OF I I ENGINEERING REVIEW I l. ENGINEERING SAFETY

@ I (SEE ATTACHED 6AFE'n' EVALUA'l'ION(s))

SPONSOR ENGINEER DATE I 2. TEomICAL SPECIFICATION alANGE: nsQ NOQ I SECTION AFFECTED (lo) I I . 3. UNREVIEWED SAFETY QUESTION (lOCFRS0.59):

ns [.£) NoQ THIS SECTION m:QUIJmD IF 'DUS CHANGE 1 TEST OR EXPE:RIMENT:

.1 I (l) INVOLVES A a!ANGE TO '1'HE 'l'!amICAL Sl'ECIFICATION.

l (2) INVOLVES AN 'CNllEVIJ!!WED SAFE'l"i QUESTION.

i Gi) 67) I N:RB :REVI'EW O!AI JIMAN -NllB DATE NRC APPROllAL RECE?VED @ MANAGER -NUCLEAR l.Ia:NSING AND JIEGUIATION

'l'Ec:JfNICAL SPECIFICATIC11 REVISICIJ RECEIVED Gi) .JCANAGER

-R!JCI.EAR LICENSING AND REGOLATION

• ' @ ., !'Sll AMENDMENT

• StlBMI'l"I'ED IWJAG!R -HtlCUAR l.ICENSING AND REGULATION NO(] ' 4. CONSTRUCTAllILITY REVnW PERFORMED:

4A. PAJlTIAL IMPLEMENTATION lS AtmlOJIIZEJ:I:

No@

ENGINEER (@ DATE *JIEFER 'l'O CONSTlWC'l'lON WO* PACDGE RECORD. 4B. lF '1'HE O!ANGE IS SA!'E'lY m.A'l'ED:

us NO Q, FIRE PROTECTICl9 REU'1'!:D1

'fZS OR SECOJUTY JIEI.ATED:

us Uil NO U31 I 'lm:N QA IS J!EQUIJmD.

INSTALLATION OF 'mlS tlC1l DQlllRES WO* IN PLANT BUIU>INGS WHlO! CONTAIN SAFETY RELATED SYSTEMS. llO IF YES, INSTAU.ATICl1 Q.C. COVERAGE IS REQUIRED 4C. TESTING DQUIUMERTS 1IEVIDf PIRFOMED1 NO U3J s. ZNGIN!:ElUNG DEPAM'M!N'l' APPJIOllAL POil IllPIZM!NTATICl1:

us [i;J RO ruJ (i;') 6. QA JIEVIEW @ 7. SOIC JllV'lDf ftO. e. CZll!DL IWWZll -IAIZM Cl'ZMTICllS .IPPJIOVAZ, POJl IJIPLZNZN'l'ATICl11

'fZS rm IZREJIAI.

DDGn CllDATICIE ...._ .,.,. __ 1'99* 2 of 3 .RIV. 6 * . I I I I i I I '

.

• III

• I I I I ! '

• I I ' I ! *r e DESIGN CHANGE REQUEST @ PAGE 3 OF IMPLEMENTATION/EVALUATION COMPLETE PACKAGE El PARTIAL PACICAGE w l. PACKAGE NO./WORK ORDER NUMBER(S) 11 ** TESTING WORX ORDE!tS 2. WORK COMPLETED

@ (REVIEWED WI'l'H SENIOR SUPERVISOR IN OIARGE O"l WO:RX SBlFT SUPERVISOR)

3. C/V TEST PROGRAM COMPLETEO

(@ StJPDVISOR IN OiARGE OF WOJ'U< JA. PARTIAL DCP DOCUMENTATIOl'I Q SENIOR SHIFT StJPERVISOP.

3B. REVIEW/ACCEPTANCE OF C/V TEST RESULTS i. RATIONAL TEST ENGINEER 4. . OPERATIONAL

'l'ESTING (check one) g CCl!PLETED 5 RESULTS REVIEWED DEFERJ!ED ONTIL MODE . G.92 . Cl'ERATION.AI.

TES't ENGINEER s. DEPARTMENT BEAD PROCEDUM:

6. WORK COMPLETE AND ACCEPTED Q IMPLEMENTING DEPARTMENT HEAD 7. (ii) OPERATING PROCEDUM:S PROCEDtmE NO. :REV. NO./OSC NO. TRIS UPDATED BY STANDllD TAGGING REQUEST BY OPERATING ENGINEER *i1 PROCEDtmE NO, :REV. NO./OSC NO. ZHGINEER:

PROCEDtmE NO. :REV. NO./OSC NO. ZHGINEER:

&. QA JIEVIEW @ 9. IOJIC llEVIZW @ 10.

BVIDf @ Pon AP-8-l lqe 3 Of 3 @ DATE Q DATE DATE DA w DATE @ DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE i:IATE @ DATE .. (@ MEETING NO *. DATE 11ev. 6 *.

.. I .. INITill_L FQ NO . FI ELD OU EST I I PE 000000

• I. TO: FROM: PHONE NO.: .. PHONE NO.: DCP NO.: ODCN NO. /REV. : DRAWING NO. : WORK ORDER NO. : REPLY REQUIRED BY: II. PROBLEM: . . I . I ** * --! -IDENTIFIED BY DATE III. RESOLUTION:

NEW ODCN(S) REQUIRED:

YES D NOD DCP REVISION ODCN (S) AFFECTED:

IS MINOR BY: OTHER DOCUMENTS Jl_FFECTED:

INSPECTION D EVALUATION D "?" -. . . SPONSOR.ENGINEER DATE .. Form AP-8-2 Rev. 6

.. DOCUMENT UPDATE

• TO: Manager -Nuclear Engineering Control

• The following drawings must be updated within the specified time and forwarded to the Salem1Technical Document Room for inclusion into applicable'station documentation.

These documents were affected by work performed under: DCR No.: Work Order No. : DOCUMENTS TO BE :REVISED/UPDATED WI'niIN A TARGET PERIOD OF 30 WORKING DAYS: . . System

Sponsor Engineer DOCUMENT UPDATE TRANSMITTAL Date Transmitted to Engineering Control for update By Station Planning Engineer cc: General Manager -Salem Operations Assistant General Manager -Engineering Manager -Quality Assurance Nuclear Operations Station Planning *-r Technical Document Room -Salem AP-8 Form AP-8-3 l I ; . * . Rev. 6

• * * ,, 1. 2. 3. 4. s. 6. 7. 8. ATTACHMENT 1 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE DESIGN CHANGE, TEST OR EXPERIMENT REQUEST FORM Station Planning Engineer or Sponsor Engineer Department Head or Sponsor Engineer DCR Initiator DCR Initiator DCR Initiator DCR Initiator Dep.artment Head or Sponsor Engineer Department Head or Sponsor Engineer Assign record sequential number with proper station number and pref ix code on all pages. Assign priority-(1 = highest, 5 = lowest) , implementation date and mode required for implementation. (See Attachment 4 for priority definition)

Indicate the type of request, system(s) affected, and whether it is Unit 1, 2, 3 or common. Give a complete statement describing the change. Provide a thorough statement describing the reason for the change (i.e., increased

• -:fficiency, N'.RC requirement.,.

etc .. )*. Sign, give title and date. * . Indicate if the request should be implemented, and if an NRC commitment is involved.

If an NRC commitment is involved list the document and the commitment date. Sign and date. 9. Station Manager Sign and date. 10. 11. AP-8 or A.ppropriate Nuclear Engineerin0 Manager Sponsor Engineer Chairman -NRB .and Manager -Nuclear Licensing and Regulation After engineering safety evaluation is performed sign and date the form. Also indicate if a Technical Specification change or unreviewed safety ouestion is involved.

If a Technical Specification change and/or unreviewed safety question is involved, complete all sections within block. Attachment 1 Page 1 of 2 Rev. 6 I

• 12. Sponsor Engineer 13. Appropriate Department Engineer 14. QA 15. SORC Chairman 16. General Manager -Salem Operations

17. Station Planning Engineer 18. Supervisor In Charge of Work 19.

Shift Supervisor

20. 21. Operational Test Engineer Implementing Department Head and Appropriate Department Engineer(s)

22. QA 23. SORC Chairman 24. Sponsor Engineer ...... AP-8 Indicate yes or no for each appropriate item, sign and date . Indicate if approved, sign and date. Sign and'date.

Sign, date and record SORC meeting number. Sign and date. Identify the DCP as a partial or completed package. Record the package number and work order number. Sign and date when the work is completed and reviewed with Senior Shift Supervisor.

Sign and date when the C/V testing is completed. (Close out those testing work orders required for package completion on Attachment

.5, Part.s B and c.) .For DCP' s **designated for "partial" implementation,Section III shall be completed indicating all "partial" packages have been completed*, 1 Sign and date to indicate review of partial DCP documentation.

Sign to indicate review of C/V test results. If no Operational Tests required, indicate "None" on Line III-4; if Operational Tests are to be def erred to a different operating mode, so indicate.

Record the procedure(s) revised, the revision number or on-the-spot change number, then sign and date for work completion and acceptance.

Sign and date. Sign and date for entire package. Sign and date. Attachment 1 Page 2 of 2 Rev. 6 i I I I ' -' I i i

• I .1. ! i I i. I I I ' i. j --------*-----*------------*-----------------

'* *

• _,. ATTACHMENT 2 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE FIELD QUESTIONNAIRE SECTIONS I AND II The initiator shall fill out section. SECTION III NOTE The pref ix to the FQ number shall be the department designation.

The Sponsor Engineer or his designee shall enter the required information and/or action and return FQ to the The initiator shall complete the log showing of completed FQ's. For FQ's requiring the preparation of a new ODCN, this must be so indicated in the block provided.

As part of the response the Sponsor Engineer must include reference ( s} .to an ODCN ( s) which would be affected by the indicated response.

AP-8 Page 1 of 1 Rev. 6 I . i * .

• • DCP REVISION

• STATION PLANNING ENGINEER **-r

• AP-8 1'.TTACHMENT 3 FIELD QUESTIONNAIRE FLOW CHART IF APPLICABLE STARTS REVISING DCP RECEIVES DCP REVISION OBTAINS GENERAL MANAGER -SALEM OPERATIONS APPROVAL.

AND INCORPORATES COMPLETED REVISION INTO DCP SUPERVISOR PERFORMING WORK YELLOW, SPONSOR ENGINEER INITIATES FIELD QUESTIONNAIRE BY COMPLETING TOP HALF OF F E ORM AND TRANSMITS TO SPONSOR NGINEER. ENTERS FQ NUMBER ND DESCRIPTION IN LOG, A WAITS RESOLUTION.

A WHI TE AND PINK COPIES p c ROVIDES RESOLUTION BY OMPLETING BOTTOM HALF OF ORM, RETURNS QUESTIONNAIRE F 0 SUPERVISOR, RETAINS YELLOW OPY AND SENDS PINK COPY TO TATION PLANNING ENGINEER.

T c s * . WHITE COPY SUPERVISOR PERFORMING WORK I I I I I . I I SUPERVISOR PERFORMING WORK Pag.e 1 of 1 p p ERFORMS WORK PER RESOLUTION ROVIDED BY SPONSOR ETAINS WHITE COPY WITH DCP R UNTIL DCP REVISION IS ECEIVED, IF APPLICABLE.

R D 0 ISCARDS WHITE COPY OF FIELD UESTIONNAIRE UPON RECEIPT F REVISED DCP, UPDATE LOG. Rev. 6 ATTACHMENT 4

• DCR PRIORITY DEFINITIONS

• PRIORITY l A design change supporting*a specific commitment to a regulatory agency (e.g. NRC} or satisfying a current regulatory requirement*

which, if not performed will probably result in a unit being directed to shutdown or not start up. (This includes satisfaction of regulations regarding plant security, environmental matters, fire protection, etc). OR ----A design change required to resolve a severe safety hazard (*). PRIORITY 2 .A design c;:hange, which :i,.f not performed, would

• probably cause a forced unit sl'iutd.own*

over the** short term (one year), or .if modification design & procurement is not started immediately would cause shutdown within 1 year plus equipment lead time. ----OR A design change required for the resolution of *a general safety hazard (**). PRIORITY 3 A design change required to prevent or arrest equipment degradation, not recoverable by continued plant maintenance, which would decrease the level of power production, and while not causing a unit shutdown within the near term (one year), would cause a long term decrease of power production possibly-resulting in a shutdown beyond one year.

OR ----A design change required to allow a component or system to function as originally intended.

• • -r ----OR ----A design change required to eliminate frequent exposure (weekly or more) to conditions endangering the general safety of plant personnel.

(***) AP-8 Attachment 4 Page 1 of 3 *. Rev. 6 I I I I I I I I ' I l I I I I I ! .

., PRIORITY 4

• A design change which would increase unit ** availability, reliability, or manpower efficiency, or improve the general safety of plant personnel regardless of the exposure frequency

• . Note: This type change work must be cost/benefit justified against continued or current operating practice.

PRIORITY 5 A design change recommended for general convenience or plant betterment, which is not necessarily cost/benefit justifiable.

Definition of Safety Terminology

• Sev.ere Safety. Hazard :-a or a postulated circumstance wh.i.ch im1;>>oses a life-threatening to plant personnel, with exposure encountered during daily discharge of routine duties or reasonably required during a short term to keep the unit on line . ** General Safety Hazard -a known situation or condition*.

which, when combined in a scenario with reasonably likely, but not daily, circumstances, creates risk of an accident causing bodily injury. I *** Conditions Endangering The General Safety Of Plant Personnel

-conditions of plant facility and equipment

• which cause risk of accident or injury to plant personnel.

• -? AP-8 Attachment 4 Page 2 of 3 *. Rev. 6 PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION WORK.SHEET . A OCR SELECT THE CRITERION ARE USING TO JUSTIFY YOUR PRIORITY, CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BLOCK AND EXPLAIN HOW THE CCR MEETS THAT CRITERION. PRIORITY l "I / THIS DESIGN CHANGE SUPPORTS A SPECIFIC COMMITMENT TO A REGULATORY AGENCY, E.G. NRC. FILL IN COMMITMENT, COMMITMENT DATE, AND COMMITMENT DOCUMENT.

THIS DESIGN CHANGE SATISFIES A CURRENT REGULATORY REQUIREMENT WHICH, IF NOT PERFORMED WILL PROBABLY RESULT IN THE UNIT BEING DIRECTED TO SHOT DOWN OR NOT START UP. INCLUDES REGULATIONS REGARDING PLANT SAFETY, SECURITY, ENVIRONMENT.AI., FIRE PROTECTION, ETC. FILL IN COMMITMENT, COMMITMENT DATE, AND.COMMITMENT DOCUMENT.

f_/ TRIS DESIGN CB.ANGE IS REQUIRED '1'0 RESOLVE A SEVERE SAFETY HAZARD.!-*)

EXPLAIN BOW SITUATION KEETS CRITERIA POR SEVERE SAFETY KAZ.ARD. I I PRIORITY 2 I I THIS DESIGN CHANGE, IF NOT PERFORMED, WILL PROBABLY CAUSE A PORCED UNIT SHUTDOWN OVER THE SHORT TERM (ONE YEAR). EXPLAIN WHY AND BOW. t::::::J FOR TRIS MODIFICATION, IF DESIGN AND PROCUREMENT ARE NOT STARTED IT WILL CAUSE A SHUT DOWN WITHIN ONE YEAR PLUS EQUIPMENT I.!:AD TIME. EXPLAIN WHY AND BOW. L___/ THIS DESIGN CHANGE IS REQUIRED FOR TBE RESOLUTION or A GENER.AI.

SAFETY HAZARD.(**)

EXPLAIN BOW SITUATION MEETS DEFINITION OF GENER.AI.

SAF!'l'Y HAZARD. I I PRIORITY 3 I / THIS DESIGN CHANGE IS REQUIRED TO PREVENT OR ARR.EST EQUIPMENT DEGRADATION, NOT RECOVERABLE BY CONT:NUED PLANT MAINTENANCE, WBICB WOULD DECREASE:TBE.LEVEL OF.POWER"PRODUCTION

• . WHILE-NOT CAUSING A UNIT SHUT DOWN WITHIN THE NEAR TERM (ONE YEAR), IT WOULD CAUSE A LONG"TERM DECREASE OF POWER PRODUCTION POSSIBLY RESULTING IN A SHOT DOWN BEYOND ONE YEAR.

• EXPLAIN HOW AND WHY. I I THIS DESIGN CHANGE IS REQUIRED TO AI.I.ow A COMPONENT OR SYSTEM TO FUNCTION AS ORIGINALLY INTENDED.

EXPLAIN BOW AND WHY. *. I I THIS DESIGN CHANGE IS REQUIRED TO ELIMINATE FREQUENT EXPOSURE !WEEKLY OR MORE) TO CONDITIONS ENDANGERING THE GENERAL SAFETY OF PLANT PERSONNEL.(***)

EXPLAIN HOW CONDITION MEETS DEFINITION or ENDANGERMENT AND REASON FOR FREQUENT PERSONNEL EXPOSURE.

I I PRIORITY 4 I / TBIS IS A DESIGN CHANGE WBICB WOULD INCREASE UNIT AVAILABILITY, RELIABILITY, OR MANPOWER EFFICIENCY.

NOTE: TBIS TYPE CHANGE WORlt BE COST/BENEFIT JUSTIFIED.

BOW AND WBY -ATTACH JOSTil'ICATION INDICATING SAVING TO COMPANY. THIS DESIGN CHANG! IS REQUIRED TO IMPROVE TBE GENERAL SAFETY OP PLANT PERSONNEL REGARDLESS OF THE EXPOSURE FREQUENCY.(***)

EXPLAIN BOW CONDITION ENDANGERS GENERAL SAFETY OF PLANT PERSONNEL.

L.____/ PRIORITY 5

• I / TBIS DESIGN CB.ANGE IS RECOMMENDED FOR GENERAL CONVENIENCE OR PLANT BETTERMENT, AND IS NOT NECESSARILY COST/BENEFIT JCSTIPL\BL!!.

EXPLAIN WBY TBIS CHANGE MOST I! DONE. EXPLANATION:

• • -r PlUORffy c:tiSSIFICATION PEJlFOiKEb BY DATE SAPZ'l'Y DEFINITIONS

• SEVERE SAPETY HAZARD -A KNOWN SI'l'OATION OR A POS'l'Ol.A'l'ZD CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH IMPOSES A LIFE-THREATENING CONDITION TO Pl.ANT PERSONNEL, NI'l'B ZXPOSU.S:

ZNCOUN'l'ZJ\EI)

DURING DAILY DISCHARGE or ROUTINE DUTIES OR* REASONABLY llZQOIJl!D DOJtING A SBORT TEltM TO KEEP Tll! ONIT ON LINE. ** GENERAL SAPETY HAZARD -A KNOWN SITUATION OR CONDITION WHICH, WHEN COMBINED IN SCENARIO WITH REASONABLY tIXELr, IUf NOT WLY, CIRCUMSTANC!S, CRZATES A RlSJt or AN ACCIDENT CAUSING ltODILY INJURY. *** CONDITIONS ENDANGERING THE GENERAL SAPETY or Pl.AN'l' PERSONNEL

-CONDITIONS or Pl.ANT FACILITY AND EQUIPMENT WHICH CAUSE RISK OF ACCIDENT OR INJURY '1'0 PLANT PfRSONNEL.

Attachment 4 _. ___ !'age 3 of 3

?\'P-8 REV. 6 I

-, t *

• ATTACHMENT 5

CHANGE PACKAGE NOTIFiamPION (PART A) TO: Distribution DATE: DISTRIBUTION:

FROM: Manager -Nuclear Construction.Support Manager -Nuclear Engineering Control Assistant General Manager -Salem Operations Maintenance Manager Technical Manager Operations Manager Operating Engineer Operational Test Engineer Originator File Work Order No.: Design Change Package No.: The modification is: to be implemented.

Complete -DCR close out in pr.ogress. . Originator . . . . Incomplete

-Details of the portion(s)_

of the modifications performed are follows: Date This notice must accompany the Work Order when presented to the Shift Supervisor for signature and tag release. AP-8 Attachment 5 Page 1 of 3 Rev. 6 \

• TO: ------ATTACHMENT 5 DESIGN CHANGE PACKAGE NOTIFICATION (PART B) TESTING REQUIREMENTS DETERMINATION Maintenance Department Engineering Manager -Nuclear Construction Support Technical Department (I&C , Chem. , Tech. ---------------x Operational Test Engineer Other Originator

-Title Request information regarding tests/retests required by the following DCP: DCP No.: Safety Related: QA Required:

• . Fire Protection:

Security Related: Unit No.; Yes No Yes No Yes Yes *--No No Work Order No.: Account No.: Author.iz.at'ion No. : *. *

Description:

APPLICABLE RESPONSIBLE TESTING TEST(S) REQUIRED PROCEDURE DEPARTMENT WORK ORDER NO . ..... Responsible Supervisor/Engineer Date Upon receipt of a completed form, a copy will be forwarded to the responsible department head(s) listed in the matrix above. This shall not be considered notification that the test is ready to be performed.

AP-8 Attachment 5 Page 2 of 3 Rev. 6 f *

• * ,, TO: A ATTACHMENT 5 A CHANGE PACKAGE NOTIFICA'.19fN (PART C) NOTIFICATION OF READINESS FOR TEST/RETEST Maintenance Department Technical Department Operations Department MIET Department Department Head Manager -Nuclear Construction Support X Operational Test Engineer Manager -Nuclear Engineering The following DCP is ready for test/retest:

DCP No. : Unit No. : Work Order No. : Safety Related: QA Required: . Fire Protection:

Security Related:

Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No Account No. : Authorization No.: TEST (S ). REQUIRED APPLICABLE PROCEDURE TESTING WORK ORDER NO. Originator

-Title .....

Upon completion of test(s) required for a DCP in accordapce with this notification, forward a copy of the signed Work Order to the initiating department.

.. AP-8 Attachment 5 Page 3 of 3 Rev. 6 *i I I I. I

,. .** Enclosure 5 BED'S in Appendix c of SAI Report

.* ,. HED # 3 5 13 14 532 533 534 538 *541 HEDS IN APPENDIX C OF SAI REPORT PAGE # 6 8 18 22 56 57 58 62 65 REMARKS This discrepancy does not pose a problem to the operators, and it will not degrade their performance from a safety stand point. There is no great effort required to reach the pushbuttons and the panel dimensions are fixed. Same as HED #3 The location of these meters does not impair readability.

These meters do not display parameters that are significant to the operators, or to the safe shutdown of the plant. There is no safety equipment on these panels. Same as HED #13 *The system logic was designed to operate in this manner. The operator action is contingent on the transient.

There is backup instrumentation e.g. temperature indicators and Doric Scanner. Same as HED #533 The layout of the overhead

• annunciator is in essence a method of prioritization.

The more important alarms are in the center and the less important alarms are to the left and right. The auditory clear tone is distinguishable from the alarm tone. auditory coding is adequate.

• Original justification has been reviewed and found to be satisfactory.

D8/7 1/05

==---_:c=====--==------=----

-** 1* ,v 540 *716 123

• 19 . 204 139 114 HEDS IN APPENDIX C OF SAI REPORT (continued) 66 67 114 119 405 410 415 Same as HED #541 The sound level of the audible alarms is adjustable.

These alarms have never failed to elicit operator response.

This HED will be corrected.

Red indicates closed for breakers.

Pushbuttons are consistent with the rest of the safeguards system. This is unique to the Safeguards System. Even though the controls and indications of the steam dump valves and the relief valves are laid out in a string on the same bezel, the spacing between the controls is adequate and the controls are easily able. This discrepancy is not safety significant.

The safeguard actuation equipment is divided into trains A & B. Each train is on a separate bezel with adequate space between bezels. The bezels are also adequately labeled and easily distinguishable.

It is difficult to use demarcation techniques on these consoles.

These meters are sequentially grouped by loop and adequately labeled to facilitate easy identification.

Hot and cold leg temperatures will be displayed on on the SPDS.

• Original justification has been reviewed and found to be satisfactory.

D8/7 2/05 i' ; ' .* 116 599 . 397 *146 242 .141 111 -HEDS IN APPENDIX C OF SAI .REPORT (continued) 422 427 428 429 435 437 438 This is not viewed as a problem because the operators are adequately trained on the Hot Shutdown Panel. Also there is no negative transfer because of the large difference in design. For Appendix R, training was done on this panel. There is no logical way of demarcating the Radiation Monitors keylock switches.

The laiout of the mimic is based on the logic. The indicators are read to determine lit versus unlit. The labeling system employed is adequate in identifying components.

Onset of light shows operator indication of concern. The service water valve indications are adequately subdivided.

Not used as primary means of indication.

The controls for the 12 (22) and 13 (i3) Component Cooling Water Pumps are located to the right of the indicators and the 11* (21) controls to the left. The reason for the location of the 11 (21) controls to the left is because of the dual indicator used for the 11 (21) and 12 (22) amperes. The control/ display relationship is considered to be satisfactory and does not pose a safety problem. In all systems; the relationship between controls and displays was reviewed and found to be satisfactory and does not pose a safety problem. The pressurizer relief valve controls are grouped together and explicitly labelled.

This location is not confusing t6 the operator and is satisfactory.

• 'Original justification has been reviewed and found to be satisfactory.

D8/7 3/05 37

• 38 *133 134

• 39 41 HEDS IN APPENDIX C OF SAI REPORT (continued) 445 446 447 450 449 453 Even though the recorders are on the vertical plane and the controls are on the horizontal plane of the console, the recorders are essentially located above the controls.

The association of controls and displays is not a problem with the operators.

Hot and Cold leg temperatures will be displayed on the SPDS. The recorders are useful for long term monitoring.

The design intentions were to have controls next to displays, which is an acceptable design, given that miniaturized pushbuttons are used rather than J-handle controls.

Generally there is consistency in the location of controls to the left of indicators.

The operator training program is very effective and the operators are trained for the present control/display orientation.

These guidelines do not seem to be applicable to the control room as designed.

Miniaturized controls help to afford good control/display arrangements.

The indicators are arranged in accordance with PSE&G separation criteria.

The power supply dictates the arrangement.

Channel identification is not important to the operators.

• Original justification has been reviewed and found to be satisfactory.

D8/7 4/05

' I *.-.* 480

• IN APPENDIX C OF SAI REPORT (continued) 455 Auxiliary feedwater controls and indications for #13 Auxiliary Feed Pump are on the same panel. Because of the types of controls and indications located on this panel (PL-207), the orientation of the panels (PL-213 and PL-207) does not pose a safety problem. *Original.justification has been reviewed and found to be satisfactory.

MHA: ljs 9/10/84 D8/7 5/05