ML20080P103
| ML20080P103 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 02/06/1984 |
| From: | Jens W DETROIT EDISON CO. |
| To: | Spessard R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20080P089 | List: |
| References | |
| EF2-67-208, NUDOCS 8402220438 | |
| Download: ML20080P103 (117) | |
Text
'
f.
Wayne H. Jens New[ptons W l I
n *oEo2EnYaNE2s 6, 1984 II W 3)s86
- Februar EF2-67,y 208 Mr. R. L. Spessard, Director Division of Engineering U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co%m;.ssion Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
Dear Mr. Spessard:
Reference:
Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2 NRC Docket No. 50-341
Subject:
Improvements to Preoperational Test Program In your letter of October 21, 1983 transmitting Inspection Report No. 50-341/83-21, you requested Detroit Edison to provide a description of actions taken to improve the quality of the conduct of the preoperational test orogram at Enrico Fermi Unit 2. A summary is provided below of the more recent actions taken to improve the quality of the preoperational' test program. The summary addresses the four specific areas of concern as they were related to Detroit Edison in recent meetings with your staff. In addition, all actions taken since January 1932 to improve the preoperational testing program are delineated in the attachment.
Testing Coordination Early in 1982, Detroit Edison established the Activities Coordination Team (ACT) to coordinate construction and testing activities with Nuclear Operations. This organization provided an interface for the coordination and processing of maintenance and ' work orders (PN-21's).
Recently, the Joint Test Group (JTG) was formed to strengthen the test coordinatiot. effort. The Assistant Superintendent-Startup is chairman of the JTG with the Startup Director serving as Assistant Chairman. The JTG meets once a day to coordinate activities, resolve con-flicts, and to determine the status of equipment, system operations'and testing. In addition, the JTG prepares and issues a Plan of the Day (POD) to provide a listing of activities and their duration, identify operations support re The JTG Shfuired,etc.ineersandtheAssistantfor ft Test Eng the following 24-hour Shift period.
Supervisor are. assigned to coordinate, direct and provide the inter-face between organizations to ensure that all work, main-tenance, testing and other related activities proceed, and that conflicts are resolved. Startup Instruction 8.5.0.01, g h00 0 e .
<ee 1e ug3
~
Mr. R. L. Spessard February 6, 1984 EF2-67,208 Page 2
" Joint Test Group," provides details of the functions and responsiblities of the JTG.
In addition, to assure design changes don't invalidate the test program, the Startup Organization has initiated an ongoing review of design changes to assure that design changes are reviewed and a determination is made as to the effect on system testing. The program is described in S.I. 4.7.1.02, " Design Change Document Review Within Startup." The System Completion Organization has also written and revised Configuration Control procedures to establish a means of tracking design change documents issued by Document Control to provide an up-to-date status of change documents.
A related topic concerns temporary modifications to systems. Temporary modifications are used to perform certain evolutions to a system prior to, during, and in special cases, after testing is completed. These modifications are now controlled by Nuclear Operations in accordance with POM Procedure 12.000.25T, " Interim Temporary Modification." This procedure places the responsibility of control of temporary modifications with the Nuclear Shift Supervisor and provides continuity for overall plant operations and testing.
Finally, QA/QC support during the conduct of. pre-operational tests has been improved by reassigning QC inspectors to shifts to provide 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> coverage of preoperational testing. This ensures that inspectors are always available to witness testing and designated hold points. In addition to witnessing tests, the QC inspec-tors are also available to conduct surveillances relative to the test underway.
Control of FSAR Commitments and Acceptance Criteria Procedure changes have been implemented to provide additional assurance that design parameters, testing requirements and acceptance criteria are correctly
-described in the PSAR and that preoperational' test results comply with the appropriate information from the FSAR. These changes include a better definition of responsiblities of the various engineering organizations involved in the review, and the development of checklists to provide a more consistent and thorough review.
F:
Mr. . R. L. Spessard February 6, 1984 EF2-67,208 Page 3' Some of the more important checklist items that the reviewers are required to verify include:
For Test Procedures
- 1. Test objectives are stated.
- 2. Test boundaries are defined.
- 3. FSAR and other licensing document commitments are included in the test.
- 4. Acceptance criteria and basis are stated.
- 5. Parameters required for test results review are
, specified, including acceptable tolerances, are measured and recorded.
For Test Result Packages
- 1. Test results are in compliance with the FSAR including the requirement to:
- a. Document the applicable FSAR sections reviewed and provide a summary statement for each section reviewed that addresses pertinent result parameters..
l b. -For results not in. compliance with the FSAR criteria, but are acceptable, document the rationale for technical acceptability and how the FSAR will be revised or otherwise addressed.
- c. For results not in compliance with FSAR criteria, and are not acceptable, document the' system and/or equipment changes required before crproval of test results can be permitted.
- d. For parameters that are in the FSAR, but are not testable or not intended to be tested, the reviewer may ' provide an explanation in the results approval memo.
i
b
~Mr. R. L... - Spes sa rd February 6, 1984 EF2-67,208-Page'4
- 2. Test changes, exceptions and deviations are dispositioned properly and that test changes did not change the intent of the procedure ~ relative to the test results.
Comments made to preoperational test procedures and the disposition'of the comments are documented _on Comment-Control Forms. 'These forms are retained for historical
-purposes. .
Comments nade to the test results package are documented rin an addendum to the Test Analysis -Report af ter all comments have been 'dispositioned. _ The test results package is;then sent to the~ Technical Review Committee for their review'and approval.
SYSTEM COMPLETION CONTROLS Detroit Edison recognizes the importance of maintaining system cleanliness and the unique problems posed by conducting construction and rework activities around completed systems. In the past year, several procedure
. changes have 'been made to address the issue of naintaining system cleanliness.
- Plant Operations Manual (POM) procedures have been revised to incorporate good housekeeping practices when opening pressure. boundaries for maintenance or' rework in order to preclude intrusion of foreign materials. Closure of the system requires an inspection and is designated a-QA hold
~
. point. 'The Project Procedure Manual (PPM) is currently being_ revised'to incorporate'a similar requirement. The PPM procedure will require compliance of all site construction contractors.
EProcedures in the POM and PPM had been issued in 1982 and 1983, which require maintaining cleanliness of work and storage areas; segregated storage and' identification of materials; and tagging, segregation and dispositioning of nonconforming _ items. In addition,_a new PPM procedure which ,will be issued soon, requires end protection on open
' systems and; surveillance coordinators to monitor areas for compliance to the above' procedure.
f n
Mr. R. L. Spessard February 6, 1984 EF2-67,208 Page 5 Management Controls of Test Procedures and Results As previously stated, an improvement in the delineation of responsibility for test procedure preparation and review has been implemented as described in Startup Instruction S.I. 8.4.2. 01, " PREOP /ACPT Procedure Preparation. "
Improvements have also been made regarding the control of changes to test procedures. Changes to test procedures fall into two categories: minor and major. Minor changes cannot alter prerequisites, test boundaries, plant con-ditions, precautions or acceptance criteria. Approval of minor Test Change Notices (TCN) requires approval of the Nuclear 'Shif t Supervisor prior to implementing the change and continuing testing. Major TCNs will necessitate stopping the test until the change has been reviewed and approved by the reviewers that originally reviewed and approved the test. procedure. A recent change allows the Joint Test Group Shift Engineer and Nuclear Shift Super-visor to provide-interim approval of major TCNs followed by review by those reviewers that originally reviewed and approved the test procedure. The interim approval of a major TCN must be reviewed and approved by the minimum reviewers as specified in the Startup Manual, within 14 calendar days. If any of the reviewers disapprove the major test change, testing will be halted and an evalua-tion will be made to resolve the problem and retesting will be performed as determined by the Technical Review Committee (TRC).
-Changes to procedures are delineated in S.I. 4.5.1.01,
" Administrative Controls of-Startup Originated Procedures and Test Changes Notices," which was revised to allow for page replacement when it was found that the review and performance of test procedure changes was difficult when I the TCNs were physically separate from the main body of the procedure. Review.of the TCNs was enhanced at the same time by issuance of Startup letter SU-ll,941, which provides ' guidance and training in the review of TCNs.
Several changes have occurred in the review of test result packages, the details of which are contained in S.I. 8.4. 2. 05, " Test Results Package Preparation / Review. "
Mr. R. L. Spessard February 6, 1984 EF2-67,208 Page 6 To summarize, this instruction provides guidance not only in the preparation of the package but most importantly, the review of the test results. Upon completion of testing, a test analysis report is written and the test results package assembled. Copies are sent-to all organizations ~for their review and comments. After the review has been conducted, a meeting is held to discuss and resolve comments. When all comments are resolved, an addendum to the test analysis report -is issued to provide assurance that all comments-have been dispositioned. The test results package is then sent to the Technical Review Committee for approval.
Detroit Edison believes these changes and others discussed in the attachment have made the necessary improvements in the quality of the conduct of preoperational testing.
We believe this satisfies the request for a supplemental response made in your letter of December 9, 1983. -Detroit Edison would be pleased to meet with representatives from your office, either here or in Glen Ellyn, to discuss our efforts to ensure the quality of the preoperational testing program.
Sincerely, t
cc: P. M. Byron R. C. DeYoung J. E. Konklin l
i i
I l
l
t oena Edison .. .
Mov .
Date: December 27, 1983 , % % :, %pg SU - 12,553 i ECEIVE To: E. H. Newton - Supervisor S Construction Quality Assurance 3 JAN0 61933 From: F. E. Agosti /
Manager - Startup esting NCId hk Assumme
Subject:
NRC Inspection Report 50-341/83-21 (DE)
Responae of Actions Taken to Improve the Quality of the Preoperational Test Program In response to su'aject NRC inspection report, the Manager - Startup Testing initiated a program to review precedures that were changed subsequent to January 1, 1982. The review was conducted to deter-mine how these changes improved the Fermi II Preoperational Test Program.
Startup, Startup Engineering Assistance, System Completion, Nuclear Operations, Operational Assurance and Nuclear Administra-tion Organizations' procedures were reviewed with the results attached for your information.
2 M jab _
Attachment cc: L. Bregni W. Miller T. Mintun T. Nickelson G. Trahey D. Wells ARMS File 11.4.4 SUA File
--.... .. ..~. . ~ ..-. - ..
MI Edison 1 -
= ,a__
Date: December 9, 1983 SU - 12,437 To: F. E. Agosti Manager - Startup Testing From: .R. L. Boyles f M Performance Evaluator
Subject:
Administrative Procedure Review Startup letter SU - 12,096, (copy attached) requested specific organizations to initiate a review of their administrative procedures to determine what changes were made to improve the Fermi 2 Test Program.
Attached, please find the results of each organization's review.
Attachment RLB/ jab Noted by:
H. E. Haver Startup Assurance Engineer cc: W. F. Colbert W. J. Fahrner W. R. Holland W. H. Jens T. L. Mintun T. S. Nickelson S. H. Noetzel J. L. Piana R. A. Vance ARMS File 10.2.4 -
f 3
....n. - ... -
~ . . - . s- - - - - - - - - - - . :-
, F. E. AGOSTI l
- e
"~
.' . j n3 Detrol,t t'
' EdlgQ O ,- - . ~_ -- -- ra n - -,.am
.r. -.
_ wa.-2sz 7 m .r ---m
_- mm- m.:.m.2.:T.:- g & - - -
- _ z - ,.. w , ,
r- g-p --- _--
1 i e . c. .. . .
DATE: Octobet 26, 1983 ,
SU-12496 i '" .' ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~
~ ~
TO: M. J . Gavirn--. '
C. R. Gelletly ,. c rs . . .. .- --.-
R. S. Lenart - - - - - - - - - ~
- W r-E c H-i-14e r FR03:: F. E. Agosti . M Manager-Startup Testit g
SUBJECT:
Ad=inistrative Procedure Review The recent NRC Region III Exit meetings have identified certain deficiencies in the EF2 Project test program. These deficiencies are not limited to Startup only but also include orEanizations
- interfacing with Startup through the test program. ,The progra:
deficiencies include but are not linited to such items as test criteria, test performance, data collection, procedure review, cor. figuration control, test control, test results review, test approval, objective evidence of actions taken, supporting pro-cedural documents and etc. Startup has initiated a review for the period January, 1982 to-date to determine what procedure changes have been made to improve the test progra=.
I requer.t that you initiate a similar review of the ad:inistrative procedures and doeurents for your respective organization as they may impact to the EF2 test program. I further request that you docu=ent this review and provide ce with a copy of your findings.
Specifically, Startup would like to know those procedure changes that were made. to assure an improved test program.
May I please have your response by Novecber 11, 1953. If you have any questicIns please advise ce accordingly.
,FEA:TSN:cbc C..t h
- cc: W. F. Colbert W. J. Fahrner _
W. H. Jens W. R. Holland S. H. Noetzel J. L. Piana R. A. Vance ARMS Fila 10.2.4 Ft
.. ___._ _.. . =._ . . . . = _ _ _
N{IOl{
IOVIl-
_= mm Date: November 10, 1983 SU - 12.179 To: '
T. S. Nickelson Startup Engineer From: M. E. Haver [$ dr, Startup Assurance Engin r
Subject:
Review of Startup Ad=inistrative Procedures.
In accordance with Startup Letter 12,019 a review was conducted of Startu,p Administrative procedures.
For the purpose of this review the Startup Instructions have been subdivided into two categories, testing related and non-testing related. Please note that measuring and test equipment (M&TE)
Startup Instructions were not evaluated since these particular Startup Instructions only provide guidance for the proper use of M&TE.
The review is documented as follows:
A. Startup Manual B. Testing related Startup Instructions C. Non-Testir g related Startup Instructions Also note the review of the Startup Manual was started with Revision 16, approved on January 15, 1983 at which tiee the Startup Manual
- was co=pletely rewritten and reissued. The review consists of a i brief description of all changes, since Revision 16, that relate to testing or the test program.
l Attachment i
b15 RLB/ jab 1
cc: F.E.kgoiti T. L. Mintun J. J. Adams ._'
l R. k'. Cas ton i l J. Bross i
ARMS Tile 10.7 l .~
l
A1. Startup Matical Revision 17 _ March 22, 1982
-The STE and SCE will update the Electrical portion of the MIL 30 days prior to the turnover (transfer) of the system to SCO..
-Deleted Configuration Control from the Startup organization.
-Made mandatory a review by Operational Assurance of QA-1 CAIO test procedure.
-Addad Quality Assurance section (Section 10) to the Startup hanual.
-Revised to allow approval of minor changes (TCN) to CA10 procedures by approval of the LSTE or, in his absence, the NSS. Change to FRET procedures (minor) must be approved by the NSS.
-Clarified members of the TRC necessary to approve test },rocedures, releases, results, etc.
-Added that all modifications, repair / rework and testing in the Control Center area, Control Room, Relay Roo=, Cable Spreading Room and Cocputer Room will be the responsibility of the Startup Control Center Group.
Revision 18 June 3, 1982 .
-Removed use of ' Type A' turnovers.
-Revised the use of Test Change Notices and the rethod of icplementing them. Changed the definition of Major and Minor Test Change Notices.
-Allowed for minimun reviav of test procedures.
-k'ith Startup Engineer / Director's permission, allowed for omission of Final Draft (yellow) review.
_Re_ vision 19 August 31, 1982
-Revised to ensure trial runs are documented and data is retained, as
, is final test data.
-Added Assistant Superintendent - Nuclear Production to TRC.
-Add Structural Inspections to construction test activities.
-Removed reference to RRR's.
l
-Defined types of Startup Procedure Status Listing.
-Included use/ reference to f1'wo charts for procedure approval.
-Aeplified approvals required for various types of procedures.
-AJded two addition.: ee.bers to OSRO and STP proudure review.
i
T. S. Nickelson November 10, 1983 SU - 12.179 Fage 2
_ Revision 19 August 31,1982 (con't)
Revised to allow for partial preoperational testing of a system.
-Added requirement to ensure availability of test procedures for Nhc review 30 days prior to performance of test.
Revision 20 October 5, 1982
-Added clarification to ensure PRET/ACPT are forwarded to Operatioani Assurance for assignment of witness / hold points.
-Added requirement that the STE check that no NRC com=itments are omitted when a TCN is implemented.
-Redefined inspections / memorandums issued by Field Hanger Engineering
_ Group.
Revision 21 December 14, 1982
-Deleted the requirement for an STPE to be designated for performance of each.Startup Test Phase procedure.
-Clarified OSRO review of Startup Test Phase procedures.
-Substituted SRO for NES approval of temporary changes to Startup Test Phase procedures.
-Nade the STP procedure format a recommendation instead of a requirerent.
-Added requirement that only controlled copies of procedures will be used during Startup Test Phase.
. -Added requireeent to document skipping of steps in a STP procedure by using a test exception.
-Defined that when the TRC approves PRET test release, it is also approving the CAIO test results.
d
-Defined that when the TRC approves PRET test results, it is also approving CAIO test results performed during PRET.
Revision 22 April 12, 1983 ~
-Requires a revision to a procedure, vice a TCN, when a procedure has not been released for performance.
-Removed statement that TCN's are to be small in nunber.
-Added restriction that TCN's are not to be issued against Generic Test Procedures.
t
, T. S. Nickelson s
j November IL, 1983 SU - 12,179 Page 3 Revision'22 April 12. 1983 (con't)
-Recoved use of START /STOP forms and added Supplemental fest Forms.
-Revised Generic Test procedure section to incorporate use of I&C procedures.
-Added Preventative Maintenance - Electrical section in that STE will test using a Maintenance Instruction.
Revision 23 September 6. 1983
-Revised to incorporate use of POM procedure 12.000.25T for Temporary Modifications.
-Revised requirements so t' hat test equipment will be controlled within the responsible organization.
-Revised to ensure cleanliness control is raintained during work not requiring a PLC.
-Revised to ensu,re only TCN's are used for procedure changes af ter a test has been released for performance (excluding Generic CA10's).
Revisien 241 November 14, 1983
-Revised to eliminate need for an FMR if a FDDR is issued for warranty replacement / rework.
-Revised to describe how test results will be corrected if errors are discovered after test results are approved.
-Revised to allow release for performance of a STP procedure by the Lead Startup Test Phase Engineer.
-Revised to include implementation of the Joint Test Group.
-Revised to update the manner in which Startup testing is scheduled.
-Removed statement concerning any future use of the RRR.
-Designated the Assistant to the Startup Director as the alternate for the Startup Director on the TRC; in place of the Administrative Engineer-Startup.
-a T. S. Nickelson
', November 10, 1983
( SU - 12, 179 Fage 4 A2. The second part of the Startup Hanual (SUM) Review was to evaluate whether or not the SUM truly reflects how Startup is doins business now, from procedure preparation through approval of test results. '
Startup Assurance's evaluation is that upon approval of revision 24
- to the SUN, the SUM will reflect the way Startup is doing business,.
from procedure preparation through approval of test results.
f e
f r
6
T. S. Nickelson November 10, 1983 SU - 12,179 Page 5 - -
- 3. Testing Related Startup In:tructions 4.1.0.01 System Boundary Packages
- 1. Cancelled 9-20-82; System Completion Organization assumed control of boundary identification packages.
4.2.0.01 Material Identification List
- 1. No changes occurred subsequent to January 1, 1982.
4.5.1.01 Administrative Controls of Startup Originated Procedures and Test Change Notices
- 1. Revision 0,4-18-82; S.I. 4.5.0.01 was developed to delineate a format for review, approval and distribution of generic, specific, flushing, preoperational and acceptance test procedures and test change notices.
, 2. Revision 1, 6-3-82
- a. Incorporated S.I. B.3.3.01 (eajor/ minor test change netices (TCN)) into this Startup Instruction.
- b. Established a forcat for implementing changes to procedure numbers and titles, and provided a means by which to concel procedures.
- c. Specified the difference between major and cinor TCN's.
- d. Addresses the use of " minimum reviewers" for expediting the
, review of Startup originated procedure revisions / changes.
- e. Added the requirement for stopping testing when a major TCN is initiated until the major TCN is reviewed by the "manieur, reviewers".
- 3. Revision 2,8-3-82; Revision 2 was basically administrative changes, reordering steps for better flow, and renumbering forms to minimize confusion.
- 4. Revision 3,1-13-83
- a. Added requiremen s for generic CAIO procedures to becoce ef fective on the day of approval, but, testing in progress eay continue as long as the new revision does not affect previous testing. Five working days after approval of all procedure revisions a nes revision rust be used for initiating testing.
i
T.S. Nickelson
. November 10, 1983 SU - 12.179 Page 6 5 b. Required that chan9as to generic procedures will be by revision only.
- c. Pen and ink changes to specific, flushing, acceptance and preoperational test procedures can be implemented via a TCN.
- 5. Revision 4, 5-27-83; all Generic CAIO testing started subsequent to procedure approval umst use a new revision. -
6 '. Revision 5, 9-26-83
- m. A process was added to alter steps in an acceptance or preoperational test, which reflected the use of syste=
operating procedures.
- b. Directions were included for " marking up" the master copy of the system operating procedure located in the Contrcl Room. At the finish of testing the " marked up" copy of the system operating procedure would be revised to include the coerents.
I 4.7.,0.01 PN-21 Flow Sequence
- 1. Revision 5, 2-12-82; changed to incorporate SCO into the administrative flow path.
- 2. Revision 6, 4-10-02; incorporated Operations Clerk for entry of PN-21's to PN-21 list.
l
- 3. Revision 7, 10-6-82
- a. Removed references to RRR's.
- b. Added procedure for voiding of PN-21's.
l l
- c. Revised PN-21 form.
l
- 4. Revision 8, 1-6-83 l
- a. Incorporated Intergrated Work Authorization procedure (for work which overlaps jurisdiction of Permi I ESS).
I
- b. Incorporated references for processing Civil PN-21's.
- c. Incorporated use of retest required stamp for PN-21's.
l
- d. Added requirements to circle " Operating" or " Maintenance" on PN-21's.
t
._,-y ,,
- . _ . . . . . .. ..-__ _ . - = . . . . -
~
T.S. Nickelson November 10, 1983 SU - 12,179 Fage 7
'5. Revision 9, 3-21-83
- a. Redistributed previous responsibilities of the Startup Log Clerk and section secretaries.
- 6. Revision 10, 4-15-83
- a. Incorporated method for processing Electrical Preventative Haintenance PN-21's.
- 7. Revision 11, 11-2-83; incorporated change in the administrative flow path of PN-21's.
4.7.1.01 Data Collection for Diagnostic Purposes
- 1. Revision 0, 1-13-83; estahlinhed a process of collectins data for purposes other than verification of system performance.
- 2. Revision 1, 7-19-83; added the allowance for use of MDL's in conjunction with diagnostic data collection.
4 3. Revision '2, 10-21-83; ensures a more formal review of Sequen:e of Events.
4.7.1.02 Design Change Document Review within Startup
- 1. Revision 0, 5-5-83
/
- a. Ensure proper ratesting of design changes by evaluating all design change documents for impact on previous testing.
- b. Provide a means to ensure configuration control is cain-tained in Startup regarding design change documents.
4.7.2.01 Temporary Medifications of Equipment
- 1. Revision 4, 1-21-82; added requirements for temporary storage conditions and proper identification of removed equipment.
- 2. Revision 5, 4-20-82; included the requirement to tag control devices of equipment _af fected by rodifications and their effect on the Plant.
- 3. Revision 6, 11-30-82; provided clarification of instructions and changed the process of logging for temporary modifications.
- 4. Revision 7, 12-9-82; added the requirement to state the re..en
( for modification on the v ecporary Modificatio: Request Tere.
T. S. Nickelson November 10, 1983 SU - 12,179 Fage 8
- 5. Revision 8, 1-17-83
- a. Allow Technicians and I&C shop personnel to sign verifying placement of tags,
- b. Added approval process for temporary modifications made
, after preoperational or acceptance test release for performance.
- 6. Cancelled 8-24-83; instructicas fcr temporary modifications are contained in administrative procedure 12.000.25T.
4.7.3.01 Control and Storage of Electrical Measuring and Test Equipment
- 1. Revision 2, 3-8-82; added " red line notice". A process for evaluating post test calibration failures for iepact on previous testing.
- 2. Revision 3, 1-13-83; administrative change for clarification of S.I.
- 3. Revision %, 7-7-83; minor change to the " red line notice" procedure for determining the extent of impact on previous testing when measuring and test equipment fails a post test.
calibration.
- 4. Revision 5, 10-11-83; adeinistrative change for clarification of S.I. regarding the " red line Notice".
4.7.3.26 Control and Storage of Air Balance Group Heasuring and Test Equiprent i
- 1. Revision 0, 1-12-82; initiated a procedure to ensure proper control, storage and handling of measuring and test equipment used for air balancing.
- 2. Revision 1, 1-21-83 l a. Added " instrument deficiency notice" for evaluating post i
test calibration failures for impact on previous testing.
- b. Renumbered and clarified steps.
- c. Added instrument variation checks to check for differences between two instruments of the same type.
- 3. Revision 2, 7-5-83; removed instrument variation checks since all instruments are in a calibration program.
k i
. T. S. Nickelson November 10, 1983 SU - 12, 179 Fage 9 4.7.3.07 ' Electrical Measuring and Test Equipment Ir.-House Performance Checks
- 1. Revision 1, 2-2-82
- a. Adds provisions so that the instrument being used as a reference does not have to be the same type as the instru-ment being checked, (i.e. a DMM and calibrated shunt could be used to check an ammeter).
- b. Removed requirement to take a minimum of 3 readings.
- 2. Revision 2, 7-30-83
- a. Revised Startup Form 4.14 to include the person's name performing the calibration check.
- b. Allow calibration check Interval to exceed 6 weeks at the discretion of the measuring and test equipment controller.
4.7.2.02 Control and Handling of Electrical Section Drawings
- 1. Revision 1, 10-26-82; administrative changes in the method for issuing prints.
4.7.4.04 Operatiog of Startup Document Control Sattelite
- 1. Revision 0, 11-9-82; provide instructions for Document Contrcl
, Sattelites located within Startup.
4.9.2.01 Verbal Approval of Design Changes
- 1. Revision 1, 7-9-82; removed names of personnel and replaced
.. the names with titles, l
4.9.'6.01 Startup Field Reports
- 1. Revision 1, 2-9-82
- a. Allowed SUEA to respond to SFR's in conjunction with l Resident Engineering.
l -
l b. Added section t o state that SFR's could not be used to l '
change the configuration cf a system (a design change I
docueent. DCN, DCP, etc. approved for construction would still be required).
- c. Started sending copies of QA-1 SFR's to Operational
( Assurance vice Project QA with provision for Operational A. surar.ce to for6 ard app-opr iat u ! CK's /DD).'s 10 FCh: QA.
l
T. S. Nickelson November 10, 1983 SU - 12,179 Fase 10
. 2. Revision 2, 8-2-82
- s. Provided method for inputting SFR's to the Type 4 Punch-list.
- b. Add flow chatts for SFR's.
- 3. Revision 3, 10-i-82 *
- a. Deleted requirement for adding STR's to the Type 4 Punchlist.
- b. Added requirement to include attachment with all STR's when forwarding for distribution.
4.11.0.01 Miscellaneous Startup Forr.s
- 1. Revision 1, 1-28-82; revised to incorporate changes due to formation of SCO.
- 2. Revision 2, 11-15-22
- a. Added instructions for cocpletion of mechanical 7.8's.
t
- b. Moved Startup Form list to Attachrent 12.
4.14.0.01 Protection of Safeguards Information
- 1. Revision 0, 11-6-82
- a. Establish administrative controls to be used for protec-
, tion of Safeguards Inforeation.
4.19.0.01 Backcharges
\
i
- 1. Revision 1, 6-29-83 l a. Backcharge Request Form modified to require Startup l
Engineer.
- b. Also revised to reflect use of PLC vice RRR.
4.20.0.01 Configuration Control - Design Change Documents
- 1. Revision 1, 2-9-82; revised to reflect Rev. 16 of th'e Startup l Manual. S.I. uas cancelled on Septecher 20, 1962. Section l 4.20 of the Startup Manual 'was deleted with the transfer of the Configuration Control group from Startup to the Syster Completion Organization. Configuration Control Group work
, , responsibilities are outlined in the SCO precedures.
, t
-, , ~ , ,,--n.., ~-,,, - . - - . . - , . , , - , . . . . . - . - - , . , -
-~----- .
T. S. Nickelson
- - November 10, 1983 SU - 12.179 Page 11
, 4.20.0.02 Cable Pull. Cards
- 1. Revision 1, 12-15-81; S.I. cancelled on 5-18-83. Activities described in this instruction are detailed in other procedures.
,5.3.2.01 Activities Coordination Teams
- 1. Revision 0, 1-28-82; S.I. cancelled on 9-20-82. Activities Coordination Team is no longer a part of Startup.
5.3.2.23 Civil Turnover
- 1. Revision 0,10-2R-82; define Civil turnover responsiblities.
- 2. Cancelled 5-13-83; Civil responsibilities no longer part of Startup.
7.3.0.01 Startup Request for Construction Services
- 1. Revision 1, 1-29-82; revised to include SCO.
- 2. Revision 2, 6-18-82; included instruction for routing of completed Startup Request for Construction Services for=.
(
7.4.2.02 Configuration Control of Code Related (ASNI or ANSI) Piping Syster
- 1. Revision 1,1-29-82; added SCO to routing.
- 2. Rivision 2, 10-1-82; renoved references to RRR's.
7.4.3.01 System Electrical Walkdowns
, 1. Revision 2, 1-27-82; deleted references to Pre / Post Punchlist.
7.4.3.02 System Mechanical Walkdowns
- 1. Revision 2, 1-28-82; revised to reflect Project reerEanizatien and eliminate the Syster Punchlist (Post).
- 2. Revi.sion 3, 8-2-82; revised to ensure construction strainers are punchlisted.
7.4.3.03 Punchlist and the Punchlist Card (PLC)
- 1. Revision 0, 2-20-8 ; purpose - to discuss th'e evolution of the system punchlists, the generation of PLC's and the processing of PLC's to achieve work corpletion.
- 2. Revision 1, 10-12-82 l a. Added Type 4 Punchlist
- b. Added requirement for retest review of Punchlist cards for impact on previous testing.
t I
l T.S. Nickelson i November 10, 1983 SU - 12,179 ,
Page 12 7.4.3.03 Retest Review 5equirement l
- 1. Revision 0, 3-29-83; purpose - to provide instructions for conducting reviews of completed construction and/or mainten-ance related documents to determine the need for retesting.
- 2. Revison 1, 1-18-83; revised to ensure proper retest review of MDL's for work which overlaps system boundaries.
7.4.5.02 Equipment Refurbishment and Upgrading
- 1. Revision 2, 1-29-82; revised to reflect foreation of SCO.
7.4.5.03 Administrative control of the Control Air Dryers Temporary Nodifications
- 1. S.I. cancelled on 4-28-83.
7.4.5.04 Minor Deficiency Log (MDL)
- 1. Revision 1, 8-31-82
- a. Re' quired traceability of work and parts for QA-1 work.
- 2. Revision 2, 10-1-82
- a. Added requirerent to use cable pull card for cable terein-ation revisions.
- 3. Revison 3, 1-4-83
- a. Clarified instructions.
4 Revision 4, 4-23-83 l a. Added Local Leak Rate Team review of MDL's used on
- containment isolation valves.
1 l S. Revision 5, 7-30-83
! a. Clarified use of MDL vs. NCR. Added Operational Assurance I review of I&C shop work under MDL (QA-1 only),
i
! 7.4.6.01 Control Center Traveler Procedure l
l 1. Revision 1, 8-27-82 l
- s. General updat ing,in particular, addresses interfaces with l g SCO and Operational Assurance, i
. . . - :.f.... .-.:.--...._-.. .=_.-.a...=..
T. S. Nickelson November 10, 1983 SU - 12, 179 Page 13
- 2. Revision 2, 10-4-82
- a. Added reference for use of Act 21 by SCO to track PN-21's
.and reference procedure nusber.
o
- 3. Revison 3, 4-14-83
- 4. Revision 4, 10-3-83
7.4.6.02 Control Center Haterial Requisitioning
- 1. No revisions to this precedure made.
7.4.6.03 Control Center Material Purchasing
- 1. No revisions to this procedure cade.
t 7.5.1.01 Equipmerd Status identification Devices
- 1. Revision 1, 1-6-82
- a. Added requirement that the LSTE evaluate recalibratien requirements when work is being done on calibrated equip ent.
- 2. Revision 2, 1-19-83 l
1
- a. Clarified the use of calibration stickers.
7.6.2.01 Filling out Electrical 7.6 Forms
- 1. Revision 2, 2-2-83
- a. Revised to reflect Rev. 16 of the Startup Manual, l
7.6.4.01 Reporting of Testing Incidents and Experiences
- 1. Revision 2, 3-13-8 ; clarified Startup Experience Reperting process. _
- 2. Revision 3, 7-15-82; incorporated a process to report abnereal events.
t
~
a
' T. S. Nickelson November 10, 1983 SU - 12.179 Fage 14
- 3. Revision 4, 1-19-83
- a. Administrative correction for a typographical error.
- b. Updated phone number listing.
- 4. Revision 5, 1-31-83
- a. Added requirement to record time and date the experience occurred.
- b. Included a process to assign action iters.
- 2. Revision 3, 4-12-83
- s. Revised to outline a method for processing Electrical Preventative Maintenance 7.8's.
7.7.2.01 Electrical Checkout Instructions
- 1. Revision 1, 1-29-82
, s. Clarified responsibilities.
- 2. Revision 2, 1-15-83
- a. Incorporated processing of Relay sheets.
- 3. Revision 3, 4-14-83
- a. Include instructions for processing Electrical Freventative Maintenance 7.8's.
7.7.3.01 Instrument and Control Checkout Instruction i
l
- 1. Revision 3, 9-17-82 l
- a. Revised 7.8 flow paths.
-b. Added instructions for t.dding or deleting items from 7.E's.
- c. Added section for clarification and instructions for QC Witness / Hold points.
- 2. Revision 4, 3-21-83 i
i
- a. Added flow path for specific CAIO testing.
! 4
- b. Clarified 7.8 requirements for retesting.
l l
[
1 l
. .. . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . - . . . . - . .. ~ .. . . . . . . . . - . . ..
. T. S. Nickelson November 10. 1983 SU - 12, 179 Page 15
- 3. Revision 5, 10-13-83
- a. Revised to require 7.8 form for PRET/ACPT instrument and loop calibrations. ,
- b. Specified use of loop calibrations in lieu of individual instrument calibrations when calibrating instruments for use in PRET/ACPT.
7 6.0 01 Centrol of System Cleanliness
- 1. Revision 1, 11-16082
- a. Identified responsibilities of the SCO/Bechtel/ Maintenance Flushing Coordinator,
- b. Addressed t'he use of Punchlist cards.
- c. Added reference to POM 71.000.07T - Equipment lay-up and Preservation.
8.1.0.01 Testing Progr,ess Checklist
- 1. Revision 1, 1-21-82; revised to reflect TRO policy reEarding Preoperation test release.
- 2. Revision 2, 3-15-82; added requirements for:
- a. PRET/ACPT release memo from PQA.
- b. Supportability memo from Ingineering.
^
. 3. Eevision 3, 7-26-82; added requirement to review CAIO test data for release of PRET.
i l 4. Revision 4, 12-21-82 1
- a. Outlined a process for reviewing CAIO test data.
- b. Added process instrument calibration requirements.
- 5. Revision 5
- a. Clarified explanation of PRET/ACPT exception sheet.
- b. Incorporated a log co log test exceptions which could iepact i PRET/ACPT and the dates when they are cleared.
. l
- 7. S. Nickelson' November 10, 1983 SU - 12. 179 Page 16
- 6. Revision 6, 3-12-83; complete revision of.S.I. to shorten guidelist.
- 7. Revision 7, 7-9-83; added review of Design Change Documents for impac: on testing.
8.3.3.01 Use of Minor Test Change Notices
- 1. Revision 2, 3-26-82; allow MTCN alternate approval by h6: lear Shift Supervisor when the Lead Startup Test Engineer is not available.
- 2. Cancelled 6-25-82; procedure for test chanEes is in Startup Instruction 4.5.1.01 (Administrative Controls of Startup Originated Procedures and Test Change Notices).
8.4.2.01 Preoperational/ Acceptance Test Procedure Preparation
- 1. ** vision 2, 1-25-83; revised to reflect foreation of Syste=
Completion Organization.
- 2. Revision 3, 10-29-82; revised to reflect testing on A7100 logic.
- 3. Revision 4, 1-11-83
- a. Clarified wo. ding in respect to Ter-t ChanEe Notices.
- b. Removed reference to CAIO test results approval.
- 4. Revision 5, 6-29-83; clarified steps to satisfy concerns of Operational Assurance which arose during Preoperational Test C5115.001.
- 5. Revision 6, 10-18-83
- a. Included the process to raark up" the caster copy of a 50F when the SOP is found to be inadequate during testing.
- b. Allowed loop calibrations to be done in lieu of instrument calibrations.
8.4.2.03 Supplemental Testing
- 1. Revision 0, 10-4-82
- a. To establish a procedure for conducting retest using approved CA10 procedures; trial run tests using approved procedures or portions of procedures); testing stop/ restarts; and retesting of portions of a specific test procedure such as preeperational 4 ecceptance, specific CAIO 6 rpacific flush preerdu'es.
. T. S. Nickelsan
(- November 10, 1983 SU - 12, 179 Page 17
. b. This instruction (with Attachment A) replaces SU form 8.4 Preoperational Test Stop/ Restart.
- 2. Revision 1, 2-24-83
- a. Included in purpose provisions for repeating generic CA10 test not considered as completed testing.
- b. Definec generic CAIO retest as: repeated test conducted after 7.8 for the ori inal E testing has been reviewed by the STE.
- c. Allowed continued testing without issuance of a nev 7.8 for inconolete generic testirg. Repeated test' listed on original 7.8 as additional item.
- 3. Revision 2, 5-13-83
- a. Added use of index of procedure change documents.
( b. Required STE to ensure delivery of supplemental test forms to Nuclear Shift Supervisor's office.
- 4. Revision 3, 10-18-83
- a. Added criteria for which no supplemental test form is
- required.
- 1. Correction of problem resulting in a halt to testing can be effected in fB hours.
. 2. Re-alignment of system to meet prerequisites or initial j conditions can be accoeplished quickly and easily.
- 3. No change in key test personnel.
l 4. Concurrence has been obtained form Nuclear Shift l Supervisor.
8.4.2.04 Resolution of Test Exceptions
( 1. Revision 0, 11-23-83 i
- a.
Purpose:
1.1 To establish a procedure for dceus-nt ing, dispos ition-i ing, reviewing and appr..ving Tes+ Exceptions ide nt i fied l during specliic L lO, CA10 Flsst.2ng, Fieoperational and l Acceptance testing.
. T. 5. Nickelson
, November 10, 1983 SU - 12.179 Page 18
, 1.2 The intent of a Test Exception Disposition (TEDR) is to allow completion'of a test procedure, including review and approval of test results, with some iters still open in the procedure. The TEDR provides a means of tracking and closing these open items, including review and approval of the disposition.
1.3 Review and approval of TEDR's will be by the same authority that review and approves associated test procedure results.
- 2. Revision 1, 12-18-82
- a. Revised to ensure Punchlisting of open TEDR's.
- b. TEDR to remain with official STE copy of procedure unless it cannot be dispositioned prior to the approval of test results.
- 3. Revision 2, 6-11-83
- a. The TEDR shall be used to document testing that failed to meet acceptance criteria for steps that were co=pleted within the procedure or steps that were deferred.
- 4. Revision 3, 10-18-83 1 Added 2 definitions of test exceptions.
- a. An initial condition relative to lining up the systet per the SOP cannot be met because of the system or plant status.
- b. An initial condition relative to availability of Annunciators / Sequence Recorder points cannot be cet but personnel can be stationed locally to protect equipment.
- 2. All TEDR's remaining open at the time of submitting a systen's test results to the TRC/Startup Engineer for approval, vill be addressed in the Test Analysis Report in accordance with S.I. 8.4.2.05 and entered on the Type.4 puceblist for the system. -
8.4.2.05 PRET/ACPT Yest Analysis Report
- 1. Revision 0, 2-3-83
- s. Pievide a mechanism for a complete and concisc report of the results of PRET/ACPT.
~ . . . . . - . . . _ . . . . . . . - ..- --.: ........;.... ..:... - . , ,
O
- 7. S. Nickelson
- 3 Now?mber 10, 1983 SU - 12, 179 Psge 19
- 2. Revision 1,4-23-83
- a. Added " conditional releases" statement of clearance to TAR.
- 3. Revision 2, 11-9-83
- a. Revised entire instruction to address preparation of a Test Results Package and incorporate the review of the Test Results Package.
8.4.4.01 Computer Software Configuration Control
- 1. Revision 0, 7-1-83
- a. Provide requirements for coeputer software configuration control during PRET/ACPT, 9.4.2.01 Startup Test Phase Procedure Preparation Control and Distribution
- 1. Revision 1, 3-11-82
- a. Added the generic stateeents to be incorporated into all procedures.
- 2. Revision 2, 6-28-82
- a. Modified forms for clarity.
- 1. Clarified initial conditions generic staterents.
- 3. Revision 3, 9-17-82
- a. Added a process fcr control and use of "information copies" of procedure.
- 4. Revision 4, 11-27-82 '
- a. Added revision approval form,
- b. Deleted Test Phase Stop/ Restart form.
- 5. Revision 5, 10-20-83
- a. Deletion of release for performance.
- b. Delete Plant Design Engineer froe review cycle.
9.5.0.01 Startup NRC Commitment Items, Process and Distribution I *
- 1. Res Isio:. O, 8-19-82
- a. Provide procedure for processing NRC commitment items as related to the Startup organization.
T. S. Nickelson November 10, 1983 SU - 12, 179 Fase 20 C. Non-Testing Related Startup Instructions 4.7.3.02 Transfer of Electrical M&TE to/from Calibration.Tacility.
- 1. Revision 1, 12-8-82; clarified an of f site calibratfor. fac!!ity.
Added instructions for transferring to/ fro ot. site cal.
facility.
4.7.3.24 Transfer of Test Equipment into/out of Fermi 2 Site by Sub-Contractors Working fcr Startup.
- 1. Revision 1, 6-11-83
- a. Added use of the Security Dept. caterial pass to the procedure.
4.7.4.01 Records Management
- 1. Revision 2, 1-29-S2; added provision to allov operational .
Assurance to check out doeutents from the Start.ip Resource Center.
- 2. Revision *3, 7-6-82
- a. Clarified site Docu ent Control Responsibi?ities.
- b. Added the responsibilities of the Startup Ad::inistrative Coordinator,
- c. Added Guidelines for organization of Startup syster. files.
- 3. Revision 4, 10-7-82
- a. Disallov reuse of Docneent Control nu=bers.
- b. Differentiate types of test results by color codes _
- 4. Revision 5, 2-25-83; incorporated periodie surveys of the Startup file system.
- 5. Revision 6, 4-5-83
- a. Added a requirement to ensure the Startup Resource Centcr reviews raterials received for accountabilit'y.
- b. Instructions were delineated for filing of documents.
- c. An outline regarding dispositions c f records was also added.
}
_ , , . _.....-_.--y v - n - - - - *
. . s:_" ' ' ..' '
T. 5. Nickelson November 10, 1983 SU - 12 Fage 21,179 l
- 6. Revision 7, 6-27-83
- a. Revised to corply with the Plant Operations Manual.
- b. Added guidelinea for filing Punchlist cards and PN-21's.
4.7.4.03 Correspondenca Authorization
- 1. Revision 2, 3-30-82
- a. Revised signature authority for correspondence going out-side Detroit Edison.
4.8.0.01 Feartup Training snJ Qualifications
- 1. Revision 1, 1-29 changed signature requirement for micinu:
expeticnce and education requirementt verification from Nuclear Operaticos - Trair.irg to :he Startup Engineer.
- 2. Revis2on 2, 3-11-92; changed approval signature requirements for 1.evel III certification to the Assistant Manager-Nuclear Operations-Startup Testing.
J, Revision 3, 8-27-82
- a. Added Licited Certification requirements for Detroit Edison erployes.
- b. Updated job titles, OJT and Test Book Sections.
4 Revis en 4, 12-2 -62; -larified L,e.ited Certification Require-cent..
, 5. ReIs c. .'. , ;- ? ' "
- a. L.;orpora?- ....
's chant,as.
I'- i fied "eti c. for all Startup M6TE programs.
- 6. Fr..sion G 3 / 33; aud.d "or d.f,Ignec' for Level III certif-iration.
- d. Revisian 7, 4-22-8*
- s. Ci rified Mr.'E int.truct;ons.
b heenneilr c Taartup Training F.:endance fctm to refleet the fo a cerrantly in use by (ne ' Jelear Operations Training De pa r t.r.ac t .
, - - . - - - w -
.- . , . . . . ... ~. ~ . m - . m o . . +- m .
~ . . . . . . . . . . ..
e
- T. S. Nickelson !
( November 10, 1983 SU - 12, 179 Page 22
- 8. Revision 8, 9-26-83; revised to allow selected Senior STE's to certify Level III.
'4.15.0.01 Record of NRC/Startup Interface Report .
- 1. S.I. cancelled 3-18-83 4.18.0.01 Startup Instructions
- 1. Revision 2, 2-2-82
- a. Added requirement that when Startup Manual contradicts with Startup Instructions the Startup Manual will over-ride the Startup Instructions.
- 2. Revision 3, 5-18-82 p.
- a. Added requirement for SAC to issue S.I. index.
- 3. Revision 4, 9-10-82
- a. Added requirement to include revision date on forms.
- 4. Revision 5, 10-26-62
- a. Added " Controlled" stamp.
- 5. Revisien 6, 12-19-82
- a. Originator is no longer responsible for subsequent revisions.
- b. Acknowledgement follow up for S.I. receipt added.
- 6. Revision 7, 5-27-83
- a. Updated distribution list.
- 7. Revision 8, 9-26-83
- a. Added instructions for cancelling S.I.'s.
5.3.2.02 Performance Evaluation R_eviews
- 1. Revision 0, 8-14-82
- a. Establish a procedure for self evaluation of adherence to in house controls.
7 P
T. S. Nickelson
- November 10, 1983 SU - 12.179 Page 23
- 2. kevision 1, 1-31-83
- a. Required the task leader to track action items.
S.4.2.02 Distribution of Nuclear Experience Documents in Startup
- 1. Revision 1, 8-23-82
- a. Revision to change flow paths and responsibilities.
- 2. Revision 2, 1-31-83
- a. Added Attachment 4 to provide for docu=ent folzow-up and audit records.
l s
e 1
i De l
i %
l e I
, - - . . .. ~ , , , , -- -.. . _- .. .,.... .. , , - . . .- . - _
NIDI Edison- -
1-Date: Dece=ber 9, 1983 FP-83-1989 To: F. E. Agosti Hanager - Nuclear Operations ,
From: C. R. Overbeck d O Assistant Superintendent - Nuclear Production
Subject:
Administrative Procedure Review In accordance with Startup Letter 12,096 a review was conducted of Nuclear Production's Administrative Procedures. Two areas were deemed relevant to this review: Administrative Procedures - General and I&C Procedures - Administrative.
Attached you will find an analysis of the significant procedure revisions and changes that may be related to the EF2 Project Test Program.
T' F. E. AgIOti December 9, 1983 NP-83-1989 Page 2 12.000.07 Procedure Preparation, Review Approval, Change, Revision, 1 Cancellation, control and Distribution Purpose To establish the organization of the Plant Operations Manual (POM) and provide guidelines for the preparation, review, approval, revision, cancellation, control and distribution of plant procedures that are safety-related or listed in Sections II and III of the POM Index.
Rev. 5 Clarification of interrelationships between organizational (01/25/83) divisions as they r& late to this procedure.
Rev. 6 To add a preparation, review and approval section for (05/24/S3) non-safety related procedures and procedure changes.
Rev. 7 Clarified procedure and incorporated the 79 series 1
(12/06/83) (Radiochemistry Procedures - Appendix I) and pen and ink changes.
12.000.17T Interim Preventive Maintenance ProFram Rev. O To establish a system for scheduling, performing and (04/20/82) reporting plant preventive maintenance for the purpose of minimizing plant equipment deterioretion and failures resulting from operation.
Rev. 1 Update procedure to reflect current program.
(01/25/83)
Rey, 2 Update procedure to reflect current progra=.
(08/23/83) 12.000.25T Interim Temporary Modifications Procedure
-Rev. O To control jumpers and lifted wires, mechanical blocks, (06/22/83) bypasses and temporary setpoints, etc., during the CAIO and preoperational phase of Fermi 2. Procedure contains requirements for records that must be maintained and identification of temporary modifications tha't must be made in order to operate equipment in a manner different from the normal operational mode.
Rev. I To place time constraints for independent verification, to (07/29/83) assure that the temporary modification record form does not leave the tagging center.
P-F. E. Ag!sti December 9, 1983 NP-83-1989 Fage 3 !
12.000.25T (Cont.)
Rev. 2 To clarify procedure and to include review / approval (11/22/83) aignatures on systems turned over to Nuclear Production.
12.000.26 Material control Rev. O Delineates the established administrative controls for (07/26/83) Fermi 2 material control activities prior to and in-clusive of material issuance and/or return.
Rev. I Cosmetic change.
(11/01/83)
Rev. 2 Cosmetic change.
(11/18/83) -
12.000.45T PN-21 (Work Order) Processing for Syste=s Under Systec Completion Organization (Title Change on 07/05/83)
Rev. O Describes the administrative controls which have been (02/23/82) established to ensure that maintenance is planned,
. performed and documented in accordance with the requirements of the FSAR and the Operational Quality Assurance Manual. This procedure in effect for those systems which fall under the jurisdiction of the System Completion Organization (SCO).
Rev. 1 To allow sign off of PN-21 packages by staff supervisor (05/25/82) in charge / designee and to remove unnecessary words.
70098 to include DECO stock No. on Attachment A, Enclosure 3 (11/11/82) as a planning aid.
70204 To allow maintenance on systems / components on weekends (06/17/83) and other times that SCO/Startup staff are absent from site to minimize delays.
70224 To clarify routing.
J (07/27/83) -
70322 To conform with controlled documentation practices as (11/08/83) set forth in 12.000.09 and 12.000.40.
.70283 To conform with the Maintenance Instruction guidelines (10/10/83) set forth in 12.000.15 and make reference changes.
._. . ,- . . .= - . _ - -.. .. - . , - - - .-
i F. E. Ag:sti December 9, 1983 NP-83-1989 Page 4 12.000.47 Incident Reporting System Rev. O To provide administrative controls for preparing, reviewing (11/18/82) and distributing plant Incident Reports. Results in each iatident being investigated, documented and analyzed to minimize possibility of recurrence.
Rev. 1 Procedure modified to be consistent with 12.000.10.
(07/26/83) 70287 Change responsibility for distribution of Incident Reports (10/25/83) from CSA to Technical Engineer.
41.000.02 I&C Instrument Records Control Purpose To provide guidance for distributing, maintaining, and storage of the various types of documents used by the I&C Group.
Rev. 6 The following sentence was removed from step 4.9 (05/25/82) "one (referring to a Drawing) will be marked FILE COPY and remain in the shop at all times while the remaining copy or copies will be used as working copies that may be removed from the shop".
Rev. 7 To add the availability of five additional copies of (10/26/82) generic calibration procedures for use by the Instrument Repairmen and delete a co=puter print-out not used by the I&C shop.
41.000.03 Usage of Calibration Software Purpose The purpose of this procedure is to explain how the PN-21's, Equipment History Folders, Loop History Folders, Calibration Procedures, Calibration Data Sheets and Loop Cbeck Data Sheets are used within the Instrument Group.
As is the case for all 4 I series procedures, the activi-ties and requirements contained herein are addressed to permanent plant conditions. Prior to system release to Operations, certain variations or departures may be necessary. However, where this occurs, the alternate methods will be adequatrly described in the Startup Manual or Startup Instructions.
g - - - ,_ , - , . _ . _ .
7 .
F. 5. Agrti December 9, 1983 NP-83-1989 Fage 5 41.000.03 (Cont.)
Rev. 5 This change added a paragraph 4.7 explaining the (06/21/83) maintenance of calibration foms and adding an Eaclosure showing flowpath of calibration forms.
Rev. 6 This change enabled easier verification that most (11/22/83) current data sheets are in use by having the same revision number on the procedure and the data sheets.
41.000.05 Control and Storage of Test Equipment Purpose The purpose of this document is to describe certain shop practices that are used to ensure the proper control, storage, identity and handling of Test Equipment (TE). This document also serves the following related purposes:
- 1. Describes the " Test Equipment Storage Area" and the " Calibration Lab".
- 2. Describes the categories of test equipment which exist and how these categories are handled.
- 3. Describes the custody control measures which are used to control the location of test equipment.
- 4. Describes the responsibilities for ensuring l measuring and test equipment calibration.
\
l S. Describes non-conforming items and their effects.
- 6. Describes shop practices used to maintain identity of equipment.
- 7. Describes I&C Group responsibilities relating to l_
the shipping of equipment.
Rev. 6 Made minor changes as to where reference standards and all (02/23/82) non-confoming and QA Hold Reference Standards are stored.
l Made minor changes to the Section of Field Test Equipment:
l Changes included a. Storage of FTE
- b. Storage of FTE requiring Post Test Calibration
- c. Added paragraph to notify users of FTE that calibration of that instrument is due. (S t ep' 4. 3.3. 6 )
L..
- p. n- . . . - . . . . .u.~-..-.~-- .- , - - - - - - - - + , . . . ..v.,
F. E. Agosti December 9,1583 NP-83-1989 Fage 6 41.000.05 (Cont.)
Rev. 7 Expanded the note to paragraph 4.3.2.2.c to allow (09/21/82) individuals who have not completed the training course on that specific M & TE by the Test Equipment Training Status Log to include equivalent qualification docu-mentation in order to allow use of M & TE.
Rev. 8 This revision clarified the term " Limited Use" (05/24/83) (Added Paragraph 4.6).
Rev. 9 This revision included making the FIE user responsible (09/20/83) for maintaining an FTE Use Log. Also added a log sheet (attachment 5). Also words were added to Attachment 2 on third party use of FTE, plus notice of unsuccessful post test calibrations.
41.000.06 Calibration of Reference Standards Purpose This procedure provides guidelines for the calibration of Reference Standards. It discusses identification of Reference Standards, the three basic categories cf Reference Standards and calibration requirements that are peculiar to soms Reference Standards. Included are considerations given to calibrating Reference Standards at an outside calibration facility.
s Rev. 6 Revised to define boundaries of Data Approval for (10/26/82) Reference Standards.
Rev. 7 Clarified and expanded on the three basic categories of (05/24/83) Reference Standards.
Rev. 8 Revised to delete requirement for including special (11/22/83) calibration requirements on Purchase Requisition. A copy of a specification sheet may now be substituted.
41.000.08 Calibration of Measuring and Test Equipment Rev. 7 Define boundaries of data approval.
(10/26/83)
Rev. 8 To expand data sheet used for test equipment calibraticas.
(05/24/83)
T
-- -- - - - - - ' - ~ :~ - '"~
- ' - "^ :' ':
- - ~ - - - - - -- - - -
e F. E. Agosti December 9, 1983 NP-83-1989 Fage 7 41.000.09 Frocess Instrumentation Removal From and Return to Service Rev. 3 Incorporate General Electric SIL f195.
(10/26/82) 41.000.11 Calibration of Process Instrumentation Rev. 5 Annual review and clarification.
(03/23/82)
CRO:PGH:11 cc: W. H. Jens R. S. Lenart J. H. Plona ARMS e.
-- . m +-- -.--,---u, , , ,-- , ---- - * ,, - - - - -__ e ---
. e, i
I bgn v3I - - _ -. . . - - . . -. - _ _ . __ . __ _ _ ._ . m m._
Enrico Fermi Unit II Project Startup Engineering Aesistance DATE: December 9, 1983 F2S83-9370 TO: F. E. Agosti Manager,Startup Testing FROM: C.R.Celletlyh a 8g ,tif Supervisor, SUEA
SUBJECT:
Review of Test Procedures and Results In order to assure that the timely and thorough review of test procedures, test releases, and test results packages occurs.
Engineering has or is in the process of implementing several in-house procedural changes. These changes have emanated from numerous meetings within the Engineering organization. The modifications have also been the subject of numerous discussions with Startup. The following paragraphs briefly describe the actions taken to date:
In October of 1983 F2S83-8715 was sent to Startup
< requesting all TCN's to be accompanied by the pertinent back-q) materials. These materials were to include as a minimum the test procedure and any documentation which initiated the need for the TCN. The TCN review was to be as rigorous as the original procedure review.
Also in October 1983, SUEA met several times with Startup to evaluate and redefine the review and approval cycles for test procedures, results, and releases. These cycle revisions are nearing completion and will be published in the near future. Many of the features of the updated cycles are already implemented. These include issuance of
! Test Results Package copies to all reviewers simultaneously, i and revision of the "30 day" test release notification
( meeting notice format.
In November of 1983 the division of primary responsibility for reviewing specific types of documents was discussed with Startup and within Engineering. This was done to gain assurance that the latest approved revisions of these doc-uments were being used as part of the review cylces. .In concert with this effort, checklists were developed within l engineering groups to provide evidence of the use of the appropriate documents during the reviews. These checklists are in use as of this writirg.
. , , ,
- F2S83-9370 December 9, 1983 Pzg2 2 I
Also in November guidelines for the review of procedures, etc., were issued to SUEA staff engineers. These guide-lines clearly define the objectives and scope of the re-views to be undertaken. Similar guidelines have been de-fined and implemented within Design Engineering in ECT.
FEWP 14 is currently being revised to reflect these guide-lines and checklists.
A program to review those PRET's which are completed, being evaluated by Nuclear Production for turnover or are already turned over for substantial compliance with the FSAR.was initiated within SUEA. The planned completion date for this activity is December 16, 1983. Of the original thirty such PRET's thought to be subject to this review, eight test results packages were not available for various reasons, and eight have been reviewed as of December 7, 1983. The compliance memorandums issued as a result of this program will carry the same approval signatures as the respective test results approval memorandums.
Should you require further information contact either myself or J. W. Contoni.
Written by: J. W. Contoni
- amj
( Attachments:
- 1. Schedule for PRET Review for FSAR Compliance.
- 2. Strategy for Reviewing Backlog of Thirty PRET's. for FSAR Co=-
pliance in Accordance with F. E. Agosti's Memorandum.
- 3. Engineering Review of Test Results Packages for PRET's.
- 4. Criteria for Engineering Review of Procedures.
- 5. Engineering Review of FSAR Relative to Preop Test Procedures and Test Results Package.
- 6. Project Design Checklist for TRP Review
- 7. Hemorandum F2S83-8715
- 8. Release of Systems for Preoperational Test ,
- 9. Review Cycle for Test Results Packeges cc:
1 R. P. Gies
( D. Spiers R. A. Vance ARMS Document Control -
SUEA File 300.03 i
t I
l l
7
,e Attr':hme:t #1 -
- . F2S83-9370 ,
Dee:aber 9, 1983 Delroit s- , , - - - - - - - _ . l L7-(lh,oti<, ___
._ __, m m_
\ ._
1;NitlCO l'lileil UNIT 11 l'RO.ll;CT STARTUP ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE November 11, 1983 To: C. R. Cellelly l' ROM : J. W. Cuntuni SillLil;CT:
Schedule l'ur PRl*T Review f or l'SAli Cogsliance Attached is a schedule for reviewing the PRET tests on systems either turnedover to Nuclear Production, lieing reviewed by Nuclear Production, or Lesting complete. The review will be for cumpliance with l'SAls text, or necept.inre criteria. It will also identify information only parameters contained in the PSAl!.
'l h e schedule will re..u l t in the cumplet ion of the L.ask by 12/ %/23:1.
\
Please note Line firhL column heading of Lest N/C means testing i t. not completc .n. ol t h i s, writion. Thescluse, t he:.e 4 s.ys t em..
were not put inLu the rumpletion entl d.Le portien of the schedule.
- l hey w j i I he adtla cr.:.et! .o. Lhe Lentiog i t. compleLed.
JWC/hju L
f .-
[ wi J. C;ntini' ... o u r .l. U .I U_0 3
. PRET FSAR REVIEW - T/0 SYSTEMS ..-.
, a.m o .- . e mi . - . ..s v :. mrt .. .:e : .e... .:.-e e-- --
COMPl.ETION N llCDULE TEST
.n .. . . s -- .. .
.. - - . N./C
.-.--m _.,/
ll 18
.s==
11/25 12/2 12/9 12/It Q )
- - - am . w= _ a = =w. .
r- . ,A . .. .(.E.S*1
. . .: m =r --
EL[qQdQL .CRD Man. Ct1. I I _.
gJ,1,,QZ. ,,Q4 l_,,,_ CHU 18us. Iniu. I __
'il50.UUI f ,
Cgu flytl. .
1 I .. __
- @h0gl, l' . W . L
- nn t ro l ll 1 "A IQ(1.Utit !! .11. l. . t!. ;
I I 3J J.2..put Luc,. r . Hu n'g . Hon .' 1 I C5115.UUI Hec. Flo. liias t .
3 . . . . . .
IJ2iOt).UIJ i A rt a l'.nl . Non . l .
Fj300 001 In Ves . Serv. Eq. 11 1
- 4100 0u1 l'PCCU 11 I . _ .
15_l.D.O.. UU l. .
TWMS , il I . . . . . .._
Nil 00.UUI Hain Stin. 1 I . . _ _
N2000.(H)I Contl . S y '. . Pin lnp - 1I I N2OO2.001 Cund. Pol . Dt mini. 11 I
_. . i li2100 001 l' . W . Sys. if i N.0 LOO. 01 M.d n Uund . 6 A u >. . Il I N7100. 01 Cire. Wa t t.r !Eyr. . e ill I _ _ _
l l PJ1D0.001 Cond. Si r . 6 X fi r. } II I .
I P.120.0.. CO. l _ Demin. 112 0 H . U . 6 De r _., 11 . _
_l P4100.0 01 CSW lli I P4200.0 01 H15CCW 3 P4 300.001 Tl!CCW l P 5_Q.Ql.r.0 0_1 Statio n Air il . ,l. .
R3100.001 Vital Power 1 6C 1 1 RJ.2.Ql .0 01 a . C . l' ower - II.i t t . I I ,_
_ ..i. ,
H3202.L 01 U.C.> 4 /4 tiV 1 i ,
T3100.l ul Rx. til tig . Cr. ni- 1 I T4 /UU.( 0l IJrywi l I Cool iny- 1 I W2
.. 5. 00.. l 0.1 C.W.P. II . 111 I . . . - -
X4103.lOi Hiln Pt inp Km. IIVAC , , , , , ,
.,,,I. , . , , _ , , , .,, i , . , _ . . ..
4 6 5 4 5 5 i
,,'. ,! Attachnert #2 -
F2S83-9370 Dec;mber 9, 1983 Detroit
' ~--
EdISOh -~ -
Ezb - -- -
Enrico Fermi Unit II Project Startup Engineering Assistance Date: November 11, l'sS3 To: C. R. Celletly From: J. W. Contoni
Subject:
Strctegy for Reviewing Backlog of 30 PRET's for TSAR Compliance in Accordance with F. E. Agosti's Memo.
I Identification of Criteria for Review.
a) FSAR - Latest Amendment (#51) i) Chapter 14 ii) Other chapters as applicabic (Typically 3 others) iii) Appendix A, C, C, H, & E-S b) Technical Specifications (Latest Draft) i) Applicable sections dealing with surveillance test criteria and parameters.
c) C.l;. Test ;peci ficat ions 22A227 lAN i) Applicable to C.E. scope of supply systems.
Parameters and procedureal step requirements.
II Conduct of the Review.
a) The SUEA Engineer should obtain a copy of the Test Results Package for the PRET he is reviewing, b) The SUEA engineer reviews and notes on a worksheet the criteria and parameters given in each resorce document. He identifies the source document by titic, r. umber, revision number, date, and appropriate section. He indicates whether the criteria or parameter is to be validated by test or is for information only, c) The SUCA engineer compares the information in the Test Re-sults Package with the requirements identified on the work-sheet. Any perceived deviations identified are so noted on the workshect.
d) The SUEA engineer calls the System Engineer and to discuss any perceived devi.itions.
l
~^
.,= P:r.2 Two
. november la, avus C. R. Gelletly e) The SUEA engineer issues a Comment Control Form to Startup, System Engineering, and froy Project Engineering and Nuclear Production as appropriate to inform all pertinent parties of the potential de-viations. Information transmittal to System Engineering and/cr Troy Project Engineering is via FAST. Typed speed memos may be used to transmit information to NUC Production and Startup. After the FAST's and Coimnent Control Ferms are sent out the SUCA engineer calls a meeting if required within 5 days to resolve the deviations.
f) Resolution of Deviations can take the form of:
- 1) A memorandum form the System Engineer explaining the rationale
, for the technical acceptibility of the deviatio.;s. Revision of the FSAR is to be addressed in the memorandum.
- 2) A memorandum being issued to revise the Technical Specifi-cations.
- 3) A retest and subsequent supplemental test procedure to cover any testinu requirements.
g) Following the meeting the SUCA engineer will issue a memorandum add-russing the extent of the review and the rationale and disposition of the perceived deviations listed on the worksheet. The memornndum will be addressed to the LSTE from the appropriate SUEA Lead Eng-incer und noted by J. W. Contoni, PRET Review Task Co-ordinator. In-put from the System 1:nnineer and other organizations will be attach-ed as appropriate. Copies will be sent to System Engineering, Troy Project Engineering, and Nuclear Production and PQA. Approval of the supervisor, SUEA will be required.
/jlm Attachments l
F --
e Atto:hment l' Sh ut of
. COMPLIANCE REVIEW WORKSHEET
, Reviewer: Date:
PRET No. Title Rev . __
, Dev. Document Title Date/Rev. Section Parat;e t e r/Sta t ement Test Inf.
64 -
4
,H L
l
.i L
I o .
.. , Ccvemb2r 11, 1983 F2S83-Attachment II TO: LSTE FROM: Lead Engineer - SUCA
SUBJECT:
Compliance Neview of PRET Rev.
SUEA has reviewed the FSAR Rev. , the Technical Specifications dated ,and the test specifications and compared the parameters and test requirements contained therein with the test results package for PRET Rev .
A meeting was held on to resolve the potential discrepancies identified by that review. The persons attending the meeting were , ,
...... The rationale and disposition of the potential discrepancies are listed on the attachment to this memo-randum. Pending the satisfactory execution of the di'spositions shown this PRET Rev, is considered by Engineering to be in satisfactory compliance with the previously listed documents.
Written by:
SUEA Staff Engineer Noted by:
J. W. Contoni PRET Review Task Co-ordinator Approved by:
C. R. Celletly Supervisor, SUEA cc: System Engineer Nuclear Production Project Engineering P.Q.A.
SUCA File #
ARMS
! Doc. Cel.
T se .
. Attm heent #3 *
'F2583-9370 December 9, 1983 1
[ November 10, 19413 Ent_,ineerine !! yi,a w ul Test itesult a._ PacLanes for PliET's t _
The test results paciuspe is asseuibled by the Startup Test Engineer after he hus cumpleted hin test. It includes a full copy of the test procedure wit h elat a blanks filled in, a tent analysis report (Tall's) which sununarixca the test results. Lest change notices (TCN's), test except ion dispositun report s. (TEul:'s), and other documents pertinent t u doen:nenL inn Llie successful completion of Ihe i e t;l :. . Tin- I s 7.1 . . .n I i :. pack.s;;er, aie of I en voluminous, 80use~
times being in excess ut several hundred pages. The engineering review of these tent r". nits is not neeensarily a page-by-page line-by-line review. Ibn -ver, enough u t Lin- individual sheets are s eviewed in det ail to achieve a satis.loctory level uJ confidence regardini; the quality of 1.he tesL.
The en;;ineering revice ia st ruct ured t o concentrate on the actual paranet ern measu red . uni con c l u n i on:. reached f o r cigu i pmen t or system acceptability. Fulloui*i. are the general guidelines for this review:
- 1. Review Lin 1: .I analysis report l'I AIO . This is noruuilly a live to l ur a l ., pa,,e darnewnt which riveu a sum.aa ry s tat em. ni of the succera.e ul cumpletjun uj Lhe LesL, and also discusses problems Lhat were encountered durin;; the test and how they were dispot.ilioned. Th i r, shonid be the f i rs t- it em reviewed.
Ila 'I Alt i: p.o i os one pioecdnie and is called " Appendix D".
In some packapr. i t- is brought to the front of the package, but in ut her:. Lin- reviewer will have to dig down to its localion in Ih proceshire.
- 2. The ;. cst procedure was reviewed by Engineering prior to releas:
ul the syt, tem nor Lest, lloweve r , it may be appropriate in reviewiny, ele i. ;t results, pachare to review so;ae portivus til
, the procedure relative to the guidelines listed previously.
- 3. The test c h a a,, notices should he reviewed to the extent necessary Io i n..n re that they did not cl.a n n e L h e inLent ul the prucedure s elat ive to test results. These are to be listed in the test results package and may not warrant a detailed review, dependinr. "n lle ir purposes.
- 4. Test exception. or deviulions from the approved proceture l (and TCN's) are each to be' reviewed by Engineering. -These are suusaarixed in the TAR and are det ailed in the TEDR's, which describe the p.ohle.u as well .n, inn. it is being disposit iv.wd.
l
F 1
. Novemb2r 10, 1983
. F ge 2 1
I a.
- 5. The list of discrepuncies identified by Quality Assurance
. is to be reviewed for deviations er excepticas that appear to exist without being covered on TEDR's. These stight include values that exceeded allowable colerances or other teclunical concerns. (Many of the OA concerns are procedural in nature, sneh as correct initials and dates. These are liaportant, but are covered in direct communicaLion by QA and Startup.) ,
- 6. The Lesi s i ,u l t :. a l su have t o in. eump. ired to the FSAli and other licensinn dueuments. Since the procedure has already received t hi:. I ype or review, the only discrepancies that should exist al Lhin point would be covered in test cxecpt-ions. For those exceptions which also are not is compliance with the FSAR a thorough engineering analysis is require <l 3
on the part of the System Ennineer, with support f rom Stil:A and Troy a:; appropriate. If the results are found acceptabic, the rationale for this acceptance must ba electly stated in an Engineerin.c memorandum, along with an explicit statement regarding revining ur the FSAR to reflect the new information.
Conflicts with other licensing docuu.ents weeld be trented accordingly.
/. Following tin i . v i"w o f t he tent reunlLs packat.e, an Enginee r-inn memur.unluc. i t, wriLLen consist ing of a cover page which contains Llie approval signatures, and attachments which provide the detail necessary to indicate the degree of review and how problems were s e. sui ved . Typically thin might consist of t wo or three typewritten pages, by SLICA, along with several briel memorandums trum the System Engineers and Troy to describ.:
their reviews. In the case of deviations from the FSAR, a specifle meuvrandum frou System Enuineers with their statement of the FSAl: revision action must be included.
CKG/umj 9
-m- -r_ -
. _ . . . . . m.. .
r
- Attachment #4 .
. . F2883-9370 December 9, 1983 Criteria for 1:npineering Review of Procedures In reviewing startup preoperational Lest prueedurcs Enginecting will be considering a number of aspects. Each of these aspects will be addressed in the foilueinn four ways:
perniannei !ialet y inpiipmen t lia r..i nt Design intent I.ieensing Cuuu. ente.
The followinn aspect t. of Ihe procedures ui1I he reviewed:
- 1. Test objectiven - is stated in the beginining of procedure und should be stated prior to major sections or subsections within Lht pioredore.
- 2. 'l e t.; L lipund;:r ies. - De fine what i t. heinn Lested.
- 3. Scope of Lei,1 ::
lat ive t o coomii ti::ents - to insure that test ineInde: .II o. i t s.:e n t - ia r:i.W !.nl ot her J icensinn docum. nt : .
- 4. /creptance i ri t i r.a - Un what b.n;i .. wi l l the decision be madt that t h e t. y =. t e n, i .. t.a t i s fac t ory .
- s. flata t.licel ;u s etjn i re rec o rd i a,- ul values and inelnde accepLubJe Iolviance.
L. Insure that all p e ranieLers respii red f or L est results review are actual ly .... as.ured and recurtled .
i lieview type on tent equipment unett generally, and especially for unusual ui . r i t ica1 incauu rement s .
13 . l<eview quality of air, water, and electricity specified for Lise Lest (I . u.. procedure., it i s .n, heen found that air en; water purity have not been adequately specified).
Ciote : The 1;nnineerine icview i t, not nere:.3arily a detailed line-by-line review of each pane. Thi. i t. done by :;s art up, ()A, and Nnelear Product ion.)
Documents used us seference by the variout. engineeriag p,roups are listed on the atLached par,e. -
CHC/amj 11-9-B3 At t acInnen t l'
I
Refwrrnet docuinarn Used b-/ Fanineeriu:: in Reviau or Preo. (33t P.>ceslures and s';st Results Packa::es 1
SCIA SYS;I:i' ENCI:.iERS IdOY CO:O;iMTS G. E. Test Specifications Check for (Are alread; revieced (Are already Prinarily a necessary steps : on :sgular Lasis)' reviewed on G. I.
l in PRET l regular basis) responsibility.
i Test Instructions (by (These have not beea curreatly upcated, and are caly an DECO for non-C. E...QA1 optional reference) systems.)
l i
Design Specifications Reference i Refereace ? imary ,1 desponsibility l '
Design Drawings and Reference I
Change Documents.
Reference ?rimary Responsibility l FSAR t Detailed review, 8 Detailed review, per .teview per Troy prorrjure.
per procedure. aesults pracedure.
devir io.:s
.-11 s.
addr.-ssed - dept.. !
a' Technical Specifica: ion ! Reference (Are reviewed on a '
Primarily regular basis.) Production i Respansibility i 8 Regulatory Guides
- l Olava already beea reviewed relati.e to plant uesign. Chaages l
, needed have been :corporated in ?asiga Documents.)
[,
t e
e
p Attachment #5 .
F2583-9370 Dezember 9, 1983 Engineering iteview of l' sal relative Lu Freup Test Frucedures and Test Results Packune
- 1. Chapler 14 will lie reviewed in ull cases as this chapter is inteniled to cunuulidate .e1I I ese resin i e emen t t. Irum tbruughouL Lhe l'SA!!.
'2. Major sections ul the l':iAll reiaLive Lu Llie specific system as islenti1ied in the f.ehle of conten!3. will be reviewed.
- 3. Uther portionn of the PSAll may also be reviewed as appropriate, a t. determined li um ..t ep>: I and 2.
- 4. DocumentuLiun pl neview of preup Lest procedure: Documentation of pruredure review i >, acceptahic by filling out Comment Control Forms. They are rollected by SlJCA and f orwarded to Startup.
- 5. Documentation of results review is accomplished by the Engineering Lust results approval memorandum, fu thi., memo there are four catagories of statements r.'lative to the FSAlt:
. A. "l e s t result: ..s e in cumpliance with FSAli - list major s ec t i un t, reviewed, and a sus; unary statement for each that I he rash ject .nhlrenses and Ihe pertinent renuitn pa rame t e r: .
H. For resulte, to.:i a re not in cu..:piiance with the FSAlt but are satin fartory, provide rationale for technical acceptabilit; and state how the FSAlt will In revised or otherwise a d d re!.t.cel . ( t u s .i n ear. n l d i ,. ;,i cemen t t h.it . ire not a ccins i e.vi ly acceptable, obviously the system or equipment will have to be modi fied prior to approval of Lest results.)
C. For values mentioned in the FSAll to describe the systeu, where the values are not testable or not intended to be tested, it inay be beneficial in suue cases to explain this in t he reaults approval memo. The purpose of this would be to save Lime that would otherwise be spent later in answering qu(:s L ion n .
D. Ni sue l 1. ne ane. r olauncial s.
CMG/cmj -
l1-9-43
(
Att:chment #6 jf, f g ~g 3
..- .. F2S83-9370 ,
~
NC'N " I* I903 SECO?D llRAFT Procedure 3.XX At cachment 3.XX-2 Revision - None -
Page I of 3
.I_'r_o.j.r e t I). : l e n Ch e c k l i n. t for THP Heview J 1: ' fin r!:1;r No. :
Reviewisy: Discipiine: _ , , , _ _ _ _ _
1:e v iewi nr.1s.:i e : , , , , , , , _ , _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _
.g.e..n ..r.o.l. .U. nie, i.el r.;
e
. . . i..o..n.*:. Yes No NA e h*.o r, t e r; t p r oce.io re reviewest prior I o test jur.? O O.
O Dit! 1;iy.,ince s in,, pi ociale o r a t;9; i t: t w i lli t e t; t scope? b 6 Dial Ety;inee riny wit net.f. test? O O O Cuni. i de s .it i_on te! O!!jec t ive t; and Crit eria Note:
A resp 0:ise of ";o" should be co;.plerented with mld i t .a nn.il i n f.orn:st icin an the adtlitional com-si ni: ?.r c t i .ni .
o Does test objectives address all Engineering require-mentt; pre t:en t in:
es FSAll? J O O es Det.i;;n Cal culat iono ? J O es P:,s D: O O O l se FSD? O O ee DI? O Q ee Specifications? .O LJ O l ee De a ir,n Drawi nr... - 0 0 L e Is acceptance criteria cons:istent with Enr,ineering i
requirement?
Considpration of Dispasit ion of Exceptions Not_t;: A re. ponst- o f ":;o" 3. hun t d be copiplemeet ed w i t h additional information in the additional com-
- , inents sect ion.
o Does Engineering ar,ree with all dispositions el except ionr? O O O
\
l
.. s.
Frucedurer 3.XX At t aeluiient 3.XX-2 Rev a.ston - None l' age 2 of 3 C?nsidtrn ion of Isispositio;. of 1:xcept ji.u- (.:ont 'd . ) Yes No NA o . J s cacle d isapu.5]t ion technical . ice. pt e.lele? O O O Arc cluany,et; segnared in I..a::ineci in; doen:r ut 3.
.o an a res.u l t ul L!n- al i:. pen i t i on:. ? O O O o J T d ir.po:. i t iunt. are unat rept .elsle , liar. recos.n eml. d act ion >;
or alt ernal ives 1.cen prov iilest? O O O Add i t j una l (:a: a.i-... .n_t 3.
Dispositiun of Ti(P Q Acccpted (liefer to addit lan.nl cot::nents 8ection tor justification relative to respunues of ".No".)
D Accepted wille following action required:
N Mh.-_
. e.
Procedure 3.y.X At t achna'nt 3.XX-2 Revision - None Page 3 of 3 lji s m. .s i t iii.i o f.. Tea..' ( rosit 'cl . )
Q Not Acceptid (The f ol lowliy: it reevim;vnded t o brin;- .
Tul' int u ca.canI i.i:we wit h I;nnii.. e riny.
re qu i ra :H'nt . . )
_ . . ..... . . . . . . - . _ . - . . . . . -. .= ..... _ _ . - - - - . _ -.
i-
~
keviewed by: - Date: ' Approved b Y: Date:
v 9
1 P
w -~
e w- -e- e- ---
- -+em---,e + + - - -
Attc:hmelt #7 1
. December 9, 1983
. F2S83-9370 ,
lb- ~V[} _-- -
Enrico Ferni Unit II Project Startup Engineering Assistance October 22, 1983 F2S83-8715 TO: T. S. Nickelson Startup Engineer FROM: C. R. Celletly d(O Supervisor, SUEA
SUBJECT:
Engineering Review and Approval of TCN's This is to confirm our phone conversation on October 22 regarding TCN reviews.
Based on feedback received from our on-site NRC inspectors, includ-ing the NRC exit meeting on October 21 with Steve DuPont, there is a need to raise our assurance that TCN's are being adequately re-viewed prior to approval.
Within engineering, when a TCN is reviewed we have been looking at i the entire package when warranted but have not alw.ys requested the Startup Test Engineer to bring over the entire test package. Many of the TCN's are very minor in nature and do not require extensive re-view. Others obviously do require extensive review. However, this does raise the question about the marginal cases where looking through the package may, for example, reveal other areas affected by the TCN that were not listed. If the package is not at hand and the TCN seems
" minor", the added assurances in this regard may not be obtained.
Therefore, as we discussed on October 22, I am proposing that every v TCN eust be accompanied by the associated test package, procedure, and
' related documents needed for review of the TCN, when it is brought to SUEA. This should not present a problem to the STE, since he obviously has and is working with the package. And it should improve both the quality and turn-around time for the engineering review.
I request Startup's concurrence in this and would like to make it effect-ive Monday, October 24.
i CRG/jlm .. Noted:
cc: F. E. Agosti Arms !W i E. Lusis File 5.3 T. S. Nickelson I
T. L. Hintun SUEA File 300.03 Startup Engineer J. W. Nunley i L. E. Schuerman l
I D. Spiera
) R. A. Vance l
EQ g; [: [{U
- ga5 STE sands cut Mtg.
'notico for "30 - day" Mts,
')
-)
A S. I "fG
. ~ :\
- " g* :::
- 2 #gF g" "30 day" meeting by STE tc
( review test scope and oper
.'t 5
1 7 7,* construction items. S3 ?R
- . "E2 t e. S E 4 " E 5' Procedure review by System 's Ib E o.
M, g" Engineer.
- h ! l f5 O O*" '
5% Obvious open items that will *
,g
.o prevent test performance g EE are addressed. W J
Y a.
g
- e. 1 E Y n 1 a d I
r 3
se g Test Release Schedule , ,
confirmed at TRC Mts.
- g SUEA obtains necessary open item lists: {e j g
Configuration Control Log a s,,,
PQA Open Items List Master Punch List. g 4
- SUEA Engineer statuses E. items, reviews with System Engineer & Troy as appropriate.
SUEA writes Test' Release memo, reviews with other engineering groups
.and obtains approvals.
r Test Released at
'5TRC Meeting.
i Test is started. .
a'
- s
s Attcchment #9 -
Decemb2r 9, 1983 ,.
. . 3-9370 REVIEW CYCf.E FOR TFST DESULTS FACKACES '
.O'p '
i p.' ,, /
- _ * / ._
4
/- ..'p '
' % * ,g- %+ .
V > .
e o y e a w ,
U P D 3
.E , a
{
u E
.g.- .
C ee U
.nt u
> er e .c s, e, o a, n.
O De & W =U .ad ee > & O. u e na ***
e d .E g y a
es er e **
67 u
O o M O
.-e es m
O
$ D
- u. er e* u a D. OO H %e
, e x< g 60 .* La = M o e-* .O *
- O un c es O \
e oO%
H cb E
R es .3 Ch ed U uO e
ta e 3 u er ee be y
.7 t%
c.
e
,oc C
"pp O 9 D. ' -
e o es es saa N 3H w se K p st'.l U e; +
- et s2 W ep he' J
Q 4
= SC H W
OE ;is ep er > 3 O
- e La O ,,
3 9
' G er * . .
se a .ei Of**
O D
,6.
u.
. w.5 w.
eJ *U .C c .u.
- -e 3.s
. S! eu re S.e w
4 u
3
- u. H g e4i u
un e e I . c .a .u ,,
- n. e en > oc e2 w w o sa 3 e.
- gz Y ' % f Y
+ v v + + +
14d 7d 124 2d (5 to le d) .
("d" means calendar days) 35 days f cm test completion to test results approval, t
REVIEWERS ,
. Production - (Supt. Asst Supt. Operations Engre Tech Engr.)
.Sys Engr. - NOC (E. Lusis)
. Trey Engr. - (J. W. Nunley)
.OA .
.SUEA - (Lead Engr.)
.Stortup Assurance (STE. TRC CHMU)
.Startup Director /0FS Mgr. (T. Mintun)
- Notice
- SIIN D. Spiers F. Agosti etc.
CRC /amj 10-18-83 i
i
s y, L AGOST) g SOV.17 L a Edison- - -
7 _--
tcTED -.
1 Date: November 14, 1983 l
OA-83-690 U.E &
l To: F. E. Agosti CW.0 -
Manager - Startup Testing ,
TOSS <
From: W. E. Millerd6hwtust/ce- _. . . -
Supervisor - Op(rational Assurance
Subject:
Test Program Improvements During the NRC Region III Exit Meeting of I1/21/83, deficiencies in the test program had baen identified. The deficiencies noted were primarily associated with the Preoperational Tests of the R3100 system 120V and R3200 system. The deficiencies were related to omissions in test procedures, unsatisfactory review of the test procedures and inadequate review of the test results.
As requested in your letter dated October 23, 1983 (SU-12.096),
a review has been performed to determine the changes made in the NQA involvement with the test program since January, 1982 to improve the test progres. The results of the review indicate that numerous changes have beer. incorporated in the test progra=, These changes involve a greater in-depth participation of NQA in the test program and the implementation of additional Quality Assurance Procedures (QAPs) which provide detailed direction for NQA activities that directly and indirectly affect the test program.
The QAPs issued since January, 1982 that affect the test program include the following. Those procedures identified with an asterisk have been revised and issued under a new procedure number. The double asterisk indicates that two procedures were incorporated into one procedurc.
No. Title Issued 9.701 QA Organization - Preop Testing Phase Mar. 1982 9.702 QA Organization - Startup Apr. 1982 9.704 Inspection of Test Activities Mar. 1982 9.706 Review of Test Packages Jun. 1982
- 9.708 Nonconformance Reporting & Tracking Jul. 1982
- 9.711 Surveillance of Plant Activities May 1982
- 9.713 Audit Schedule Apr. 1982
- 9.7 14 Audits May 1982 1
F. E. Ag sti November 14, 1983 OA-83-690 Page 2 No. 'litle Issued 9.718 QC Limited work Authorization Tags Nov. 1982
- 9.125 PQA Review of Procedures Har. 1983
- 9.128 PQA Preparation for Preop Testing Apr. 1982 9.131 QA Review of Turnover Packages Oct. 1983
- 9.171 Trend Analysis Program Feb. 1983
- 9.190 Quality Concern Report System Sep. 1982
- 9.0201 Indoctrination and Training Oct. 1983
- 9.0202 Qualification & Certification of Inspectors Oct. 1983 9.1001 P/NQA Inspection Oct. 1983 9.1601 Corrective Action Oct. 1983 9.1604 Stop Work Action Oct. 1983 Since January 1982, the QA review of test procedures has constantly been upgraded to provide greater in-depth reviews for quality considerations. The review has also been expanded to include co=pliance to FSAR commitments. The review of these results has also been greatly expanded since January 1982 as demonstrated by the attached guidelines for reviewing test data. These guidelines have been expanded from the single page used in January 1982, to the present 15 pages.
The methods for determining QC Hold / Witness points to test proc-edures has also been greatly refined to provide meaningful coverage during the test program. These cethods will also be utilized during plant operation for QC Surveillance.
The total QA involvement in the test program is presently under review. The objective of this review is to provide a good inter-face with the Startup Test Group and to ensure that all FSAR and other DECO com=itments relative to the test progra= have been satisfied. Additional QA Personnel with expertise in Startup and Operations are also anticipated in the near future to provide QA
' assistance in the Preop and Startup test program.
/acp Attachment
'. P1RSTER COPY N"i l96'/
. )
e TASKS TO DO f-
- 1. Physically orient oneself with the S/U complex and personnel.
- 2. Familarize oneself with the S/U Resource Center.
A. Files B. Procedures C. Filing systees D. Shirley Langton
- 3. Read /reviev SUM Fev. 9. Chap. 4, 5, 6, 7 thoroughly.
- 4. -Review T/9 packages with SUM as a basis for comments, punchlists (pre , post).
- 5. Review test data sheets with SUM as a basis for comments.
A. CAIO test data (eech. , elect., I & C)
B. Const. test data (hydro, align., etc.)
C. Flushing procedure data.
- 6. Review current procedures being used by S/U for testing.
A. I & C CAIO (loops)
B. Flushing k C. Electrical CAIO D. Ketest-Electrical (QA-1)
- 7. After item 6, above, assign vitness and hold points.
- 8. Perform a QA/QC documentation verification per SUM, Rev. 9, Chap. 7. Sections: 7.4.2, 7.6.5.
- 9. P,eview any deviation reporting on particular system being reviewed.
l l
i.
i
. . svwaa o
._ MASTER DOPY $$fi;'"
CUIPELINES FOR TEST DATA REVIEW
- 1. While reviewing 7.8's the following items are to be completed:
A. All " Item numbers" have been signed as complete or deleted.
B. The " Reviewed by" and " Approved by" are signed.
C. Test procedures recorded have the current revision number listed.
D. Compare the item numbers with the Data Sheets to ensure all items have been tested as stated.
E. (QA-1 Systems only) "QC Witness Required" or "No QC Required" has been stamped on the form.
A. For items that require QC Witness, review QC Inspection Log to verify close-out of the QC Inspection. ,
- 2. While reviewing Test Data Forms, the following items are to be completed:
A. Data Forms are from the current revision of the procedure being tested.
B. All blanks are complete (either with Data or N/A).
C. Comments or remarks are identifiable to a particular step, referenced to the Punchlist No. , M.D.L. or are self explanatory.
- D. Where acceptance values are given on the Data Sheets, compare values recorded to the requirements. If different, item should have an explana tion, i
l 3. While reviewing QA level 1 Systems, the following additional reviews are to be completed:
l Make copies of the following:
l 1. Master Instrument List l 2. Material Identification Lisi (Cable) l 3. System Boundary Package 4 Associated System Drawings
- A. Utilizing the copy of the Master Instrument List and the 16C 7.S 's, highlite the instruments that have been tested.
l B. Utilizing the copy of the Material Identification List and the Electrical and 16C 7.8's j highlite the cables that have been tested.
. . . .. . . . . ......n...-~-. . . . . ,- . . . , . - . . . . . . - . .. . . . . . . , ,.
}{fv/StVW O y '* MSrizoff
' MdA /983 i
, Guidelines for Test Data Review (cont.)
'\
. C. Utilizing the copy of the System Boundary Package and the Mechanical and Electrical 7.8's,highlite the equipment that has been tested.
D. Utilizing the copies of the System Drawings and the above highlited itensj highlite the drawings to reflect all the items tested.
E. Af ter all the Data has been reviewed and highlited, review all items from above to ensure all the items have been tested.
s l
(
r l
{
l l
l
. . - - ~ ~ . .
Revision 1 MASTER C0PY ' ***
n'e**?*'fs A. PREQUISITES FOR TEST DATA REVIEW
- 1. Read the following:
a) PDAP 9.128 f) FSAR Chapter 17.2 b) PDAP 9.706 c) Startup Manual d) S.I. 8.1.0.01 e) FSAR Chapter 14
- 2. Review the following:
a) Generic Test Procedures f) P.O.M. 41.000.11 b) CAIO Test Procedures g) P.O.M. 46.000.11 c) Coi? Test Procedures h) MI-IC 3000 d) Preop Test Procedures e) Startup Test Procedures
- 3. Fa .iliarize oneself with the test data review area within OA a) Doceentation used
( b) logging syste, c) System files
- 4. Physically orient oneself with the S/U c rplex and testing personnel a) LSTE's b) S.T.E's
- 5. Fa-iliarize oneself with the S/U Resource Center a) S.R.C. Technician b) Files c) Filing System
- 6. Familiarize oneself with the S.A.C. Area a) S.A.C. ..
b) Files B. GUIDELINES FOR TEST DATA REVIEW
- 1. While reviewing 7.8's the fo11cving items are to be k ccrpleted:
c) All " Item nebers" have been signed as ccrplete or deleted.
-- .--.. .~.... - .- .. - _ -. _ .- - -. :. =. _
Revision 1 Septa-ber 2,1982 Page l of 1 b) 'the " Reviewed by" and " Approved by" are signed.
c) Test procedures recorded have the current revision number listed.
d) Ccepare the itern numbers with the Data Sheets to ensure all items have been tested as stated, e) (OA-1 Systes only) "0C Witness Required" or "No QC Required" has been sta ped on the for:n.
A. For items that require QC Witness, review OC Inspection Iog to verify close-out of the QC Inspection.
f) Upon ccrpletion of the above, sta.p the 7.8's with the "QA Reviewed" sta.p.
- 2. While reviewing Test Data Foms, the following ite s are to be ccrpleted:
a) Data Foms are from the current revision of the procedure being tested.
b) All blanks are ccrplete (either with Data or N/A: .
c) Cctrnents or re arks are identifiable to a particular step, referenced to the Punchlist No., M.D.L. or are self explanatory.
d) Where acceptance values are given on the Data Sheets, ccrpare values recorded to the require. ents. If different, ite:n should have an explanation.
- 3. Up:>n ccrpletion of ite s 1 and 2, the following ite s are to be ccrpleted:
Make copies of the following:
a) Master Instrument List b) Turnover Control-Cable a c) Syste:n Boundary Package (Section 2.0) d) F.O.S. (Functional Operating Sketch) Valve Cross ,
Reference List '
i e) Associated System Drawings (As necessary, if one or more of the above are ineceplete) f) Open item status report I
- 1. Utilizing the copy of the Master Instrxent List and the IaC 7.8's, highlite the instrxents that have been tested.
2.
Utilizing the copy of the Tumover Control-Cable l List and the Electrical and I&C 7.6's, highlite l; the cables that have been tested.
i L
Revision 1 Sept e ber 2, 1982 Page 3 of 3
. 3. Utilizing the copy of the Systern Botmdazy Package and the Mechanical and Electrical 7.8's, highlite the equipnent that has been tested.
- 4. Utilizing the copies of the System Drawings and the abcVe highlited items, highlite the drawLags to reflect all the ite:ns tested.
- 5. After all the Data has been reviewed and highlited, review all ites from above to ensure all the itnes have been tested.
- 6. Review the "Open Item Status List" for open NCR's, .
CCR's,.........
- i 1
(
I u
I
~.w. _ - _ -- - , .,,- -
._y, - - --.,, ,*,y-, n .-.---g ,-y4
=.
, INDIVIDUAL TRAINING RECORD FOR TEST DATA REVIEk'ERS Name A. Frequisites for Test Data Review Signature Date
- 1. Read the following:
a) PQAP 9.128 Rev.
b) PQAP 9.706 Rev.
c) Startup Manual Rev. _
d) S.I. 8.1.0.01 Rev.
- 2. Reviewed the following:
a) Generic Test Procedures j b) CAIO Test Procedures
(-
c) CCMF Test Procedures d) PREOP Test procedures e) STARTUP Test Procedures f) P.O.M. 41.000.11 g) P.O.M. 46.000.11 i
h) MI-IC 3000 l
- 3. Familiarize oneself with the Test Data Review area within Q.A.
- 4. Orientated with Startup complex and Test Personnel. _
- 5. Familiarized with the Startup Resource Center.
l 6. Familiarized with the S.A.C.
area.
REVIEk'ED BY DATE
-~ ,__ .
)
l
, .- J Revisito 2 MASTER CDPY NUlf 1 I
3.0 FURPOSE AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR TEST DATA REVIEW f~
Ref. 5.1. (Intro) 1.1 ' The 0.A. Section is responsibile for reviewing Test R2f. 5.2, (17.2.11) Packages to assure test results meet the acceptance criteria...(by means of) comparing the recorded ,
test data to the acceptance criteria values listed
- in the Test Procedure.
R2f. 5.3 1.2 0.A.... reviews quality-related aspects of test (15.1.1.2.B) results.
R2f. 5.4 1.3 0.A. is responsible ... to assure that records (4.12.)) are complete.
Ref. 5.I 1.4 ... A sufficient number of Test Packages are reviewed to (6.1) establish the credibility of Testing Prograr. Activities and verify the accuracy of the Test Data.
Raf. 5.1 2.0 PRERE01;ISITES FOR TEST DATA REVIEW (4.1.b) 2.1 Read and document the following:
- 1. PQAP 9.128 7. S.I. 4.5.1.01
- 2. PQAP 9.706 8. S.I. 8.4.2.01 -
- 3. Startup Manual 9. S.I. 8.4.2.04 (I 4. FSAR Chapter 14. I 10. S.I. 8.4.2.03
- 5. FSAR Chapter 17.2 11. S.I. 8.1.0.01 a
- 6. S.I. 8.4.2.05 1 2.2 Review and document the following:
- 1. Generic Test Procedures 5. Startup Test Procedures
- 2. CAIO Test Procedures 6. P.O.M. 41.000.11
- 3. CCMF Test Procedures 7. P.O.M. 46.000.I1
- 4. Preop Test Procedures 8. MI-IC-30C 2.3 Familiarize oneself with the test data review area within QA and document:
- 1. Documentation used
- 2. Logging system
- 3. System files l 2.4 Physically orient oneself with the S/U complex and l testing personnel and document:
1
- 1. LSTE's
- 2. S.T.E's
\
l
1;visirn 2
. July 19, 1983 Prat 2 of 14 (f - ~
2.5 Familiarize oneself with the S/U Resource Center and document:
- 1. S.R.C. Technician
- 2. Files
- 3. Filing System 2.6 Familiarize oneself with the S.A.C. area and' document:
. 1. S.A.C.
- 2. Files 3.0 G IDELINES FOR GENERIC CAIO TEST DATA REVIEW 3.1 While reviewing 7.8's the following ite=s are to be reviewed for:
- 1. All " item numbers" have been signed as co=plete or deleted.
- 2. The " Reviewed by" and " Approved by" are signed.
- 3. ' Test procedures recorded have the current revision number listed.
- 4. Co: pare the item nu=bers with the data sheets to ensure all ite=s have been tested as stated.
L For items that require QC Witness, reviev QC Inspection Log to verify close-out of the QC Inspection.
i 6. Upon completion of the above, sta:p the 7.E's with the "QA Reviewed" sta p.
l 3.2 While reviewing Test Data Forms, the following ite=s are to be reviewed for:
l
- 1. Data forms are from the current revision of the procedure being tested.
l 1
l 2. All blanks are coeplete (either with Data or N/A).
- 3. Comments or recarks are identifiable to a particular l
j step, referenced to the Punchlist No., M.D.L. etc, or j are self explanatory.
( 4. Where acceptance values are given on the Data Sheets, t
toepare values recorded to the requirements. If different, item should have an explanation.
i i
t
. . . . . . - . . . - . . :. .n . . - . ...a .
.. Revisica 2 July 19, 1983 Page 3 cf 14 '
3.3 Upon completion of items 3.1 and 3.2, the following items f are to be completed:
Make copies of the following:
, . Haster Instrument List .
. Turnover Control-Cable Listing
. System Boundary Package (Section 2.0)
. F.O.S. (Functional Operating Sketch) Valve Cross Reference List (As necessary)
. c
. Associated System Drawings (if necessary). 4
- 1. Utilizing the copy of the Master Instrument List and the I&C 7.8's, highlite the instruments that have been tested.
- 2. Utilizing the copy of the Turnover Control-Cable List and the Electrical and I&C 7.6's, highlite the cables that have been tested.
- 3. Utilizing the copy of the System Boundary Package and the Mechanical and Electrical 7.8's, highlite the equip =ent that has been tested.
- 4. Utilizing the copies of the Syste= Drawings and the above highlited items, highlite the drawings to reflect all the items tested.
(
- 5. After all the Data has been reviewed and items highlited, review all items from above to ensure all the items have been tested.
- 6. Prepare a list of items that have not been tested. [
(Taken from items not highlited).
?
(Ref. 5.4) 4.0 GUIDELINES FOP PREOPERATIONAL TEST RESULTS DATA REVIEW I
4.1 The following are basic require =ents to be reviewed for:
(8.3.1/4.5.3) 1. Procedures are approved (4.5.3) 2. TCN's are approved (4.5.4) 3. TCN's are included in package (4.7.1) 4. Trial runs must be documented and number of 2 attempts madi indicated.
l (4.7.1) 5. No correction fluids or other means of masking j data is permitted. l I
l (8.4.4/4.7.1) 6. O.A. to be notified of witness points. ?
Master copy of Recorded Data, Test Results, Test
( (4.7.1) 7.
Analysis Reports are reviewed by LSTE. ,
i l
s
n . . . .- . Z . . . T___ ._ ~ .. _. T - ' "'f....., .... I RIvisica 2 July 19, 1983
. Page 4 of 14
. i (4.7.3) 8. M&TE must be documented. !
(8.1) 9. Test Analysis Report attached to completed test package.
(8.2) 10. TCN are recorded, reviewed & approved.
(8.3.2) II. Data sheets completed, signed & dated by STE 6' other personnel taking the data.
(8.3.2) 12. Temporary Changes will be documented and following testing completion, be removed.
(8.3.2)
- 13. Retesting performed on test exception are to be documented.
(B.3.3) 14 . Procedure modifications are documented and become part of final te.st procedure.
(8.3.3) 15. TCN reviewed & approved by appropriate people.
(8.3.3) 16. TCN verifies no omittion of FSAR Ch. 14 com=itments.
(8.3.4/8.4.5) 17. Test results package will consist of an evaluation of the following:
- 1. Original data sheets and data collected. ,
- 2. Preoperational test approval / release for performance. I
- 3. TCN's
- 4. Attached pertinent logs & charts
- 5. Completed preeperational test procedure
- 6. Test Analysis Report
- 7. CAIO test results for CAIO testing conducted during Preop testing.
(8.4.3) 18. In some cases, portions of test procedure may be completed during CAIO pending:
, 1. Test Procedure is the same.
- 2. Appropriate documentation has been referenced and included in the Data Package as shown in Appendix E Index.
- 3. Test was performed and/or witnessed by authorized STE/STT.
(8.4.4 ) 19. During the test, the Test Data will be accurately and properly recorded on appropriate Data Sheets.
(8.4.4 ) 20. Person actually taking Data shall FIRST sign his full name, initial & date at the first sign off point, THEN may use initials on subsequent signoffs.
(8.4.4) 21. If it is not possible to complete a test procedure the following action shall be taken:
( ).
2.
Ncted et the step not per forced as an e=ception.
Recorded in the Test Exception section.
,. 3. TEDR issued i
RIvision 2 July 19, 1963 Page 5 of 14 (8.4.4 ) 22. To re-release the test to complete the not tested steps, a STF shall be issued.
(8.4.4) 23. STT's will contain the following:
- 1. Pre-requisities
- 2. Initial conditions
- 3. Specify the sections of the test to be performed.
,(8.4.4 ) 24. STF's are to remain with and become part of test package.
(8.4.4 ) 25. All items found out of spec, shall be flagged in the test report.
(Ref. 5.7) 4.2 For Procedure Adaquacy Review the Following:
(4.1.4.2.A) 1. Each Te=p. circuit alteration will be logged in Appendix B.
(4.1.5.1) 2. Special test equip. cust be listed with:
Na=e Model No. (when possible)
Reg'd Range
( Accuracy (4.1.6.3) 3. ' Initial conditions" step:
" Exceptions listed in the TRP attending this section have been cleared".
(4.1. 6.18 ) 4 All supporting syste=/functiens (Instru=ent air, cooling water, lubrication, etc.) will be available l fro = the percanent source. If not available a
! TCN is req'd.
(4.1.6.21) 5. S.O.P. valve line up Data Sheets cust be attached f to the procedure in Appendix E.
' (4.1.6.23) 6. A copy of the response time testing surveillance procedure is to be attached to the PRET. (Attachment
! I identifies PRET vs. Surv. Test No's.).
l (4.1.6.24) 7. Sign off (Initials) at each step.
(4.1.6.26) 8. The person actually making a procedure entry shall print his full na=e, sign his full name, l
l and initial /date the first sign off entry he makes.
.
- Rivisicn 2 July 19, 1983 Page 6 of 14
- 9. Include Base Line Data for pumps in accordance l
{s4.1.9.2) with ASME code 11 for the following pumps. I l
E4100 - HPCI & Booster E5100 - RCIC El151 - RER SW P4500 - EESW R3001 - DGSW C4100 - SBLC E1100 - RHR T4102 - CCHVAC (Ref. 5.5) 4.3 For control of procedures and TCN's review the following:
(3.1.6.1) 1. PRET's become effective on the date of approval and are to be utilized from the next working day on.
(3. 2.1.2 /3. 2.1.4 ) 2. TCN number is to be entered in the Test Procedure at the point of the change that is to be made.
(3.2.1.3) 3. TCN's are to be approved prior to implementation.
(3.2.1.4 ) 4. TCN's are to be attached to the procedure.
( LSTE's are to sign TCN's.
(3.2.2.2) 5.
(3.2.6 6. TCN's beco=e effective at the time of approval.
(4.1.1) 7. Procedure Revision Su=ary will indicate pages affected by past revision.
(4.2.1) 8. Approved Procedures will be issued on white paper.
(4.2.2/4.2.13) 9. Approved Procedures will be sta= ped in red ink "IRC Approved" on the approval sheet only.
(4.2.4 /4.2.13) 10. All test procedures will be sta= ped in red ink
" Controlled" (After 1-10-83)
(4.2.13/4.2.10) 11. Each 'heleased for Performance" procedure will have the "TCN Stamp" on the approval sheet.
(4 .2.13/4.2.11) 12. Each page vill be stamped " Official Copy - STE" in red ink.
(4.2.14) 13. Replacement or supplemental pages are issued by supplemental test forms or TCN's. " Official Copy - STE" sta=p applies to these forms also.
(4.4.2.1) 14 . Major TCN's are reviewed and approved by the same people specified for the original procedure.
i
R1visien 2 July 19, 1983
. Page 7 of 14 f (4.4.3.6) 15. Minor TCN's requires the NSS only.
(4.4.4.2) 16. All TCN's will be noted in the righthand margin -
of the pro,eedure next to the affected steps.
Complete page change /page replacement TCN's will have the TCN number in the upper righthand corner instead of revision number.
- 17. TCN required signatures:
. (5.3.2.11) 1. Individual enteric: changes in the procedure (5.3.2.15) 2. STE initiating TCN (5.3.2.16) 3. LSTE (Major TCN's)
(5.3.2.17) 4. NSS (5.3.2.18) 5. TRC Chairman (Major TCN's)
(5.3.2.20) 6. G.E. site operation MGR, O.A., S.U.E.A.'(Major TCN's)
Ref. 5.9 4.4 For Resolution of Test Exceptions review the followi.:g:
(1.1) 1. TEDR's applicable only to: Specific CA10 CAI0 Flushing, PREOP Test. .
(4.5/1.2) 2. TEDR's purpose: Allow co=pletion of a Test Procedure with soee item still open.
k (4.3/1.3) 3. TEDR's approved by the same authority associated with 1est Procedure Results.
(5.1.1.3/3.1.3) 4. Maintain TEDR Log sheet (Appendix "C" of PRET's, SEC. 9.0 of CCMT/CA10's).
(3.2.1) 5. All TEDR's signed "Keviewed by LSTE's ".
- (4.6) 6. TEDR's may be initiated at any time.
.(5.1.1.6) 7. Attach original TEDR to the STE official procedure copy. (Unless not dispositioned prior to approval of test results).
l (5.1.1.2) 8. Signed by NSS.
(6.4) 9. TEDR's shall be completed as indicated. (See Attachment 2) l Raf. 5.6 4.5 For Testing Progress Checklist review the following:
(3.1.1.5) 1. System / Subsystem status checklist is to be l kept updated and current.
l (3.1.1.6) 2. Corpiling a PRET exception sheet of items which
(, impact specific seatic.a of the PREI.
i l
l
Ravisicn 2
. ' July 19, 1983 )
Pega 8 of 14 '
- \
(3.1.1.9) 3. Compiling a list of instruments essential to -
h acceptance criteria and attached to Appendix E.
(5.1.12/4 .2.1.14 ) 4. Items not previously tested which impact testing will be listed as exceptions on the exception sheet. .
. _(5.1.17) 5. Test exceptions will be documented on TEDR'a and logged in Appendix "C".
( Attachment 2, l.A.C) 6. Acceptance criteria is clearly stated and with
. a tolerance that meets the requirements of applicable design documents.
(Attachment 4 Note:) 7. (Configuration Control Change Paper) list each open itec separately with a statement as to how this item will impact the PRET Test Results.
(Ref. 5.8) 4.6 For Supplemental Testing Review the Following:
(3.1.1/3.2) 1. LSTE approval req'd prior to conducting a trial run test or retesting.
(5.2.1/3.1.2) 2. STF nu=ber to be entered on the procedure approval sheet in the "STF Stamped Block". ,. .
(4.3) 3. Following situations requires the use of STF's.
(4.3.2.1) 1. Test Stop/ Restarts where initial conditions Pre Red's;, or },recautions must be reverified.
(4.3.2.2) 2. Failure to meet acceptance criteria during initial testing.
(4.3.2.3) 3. Any preventive or corrective maintenance conducted which affects previously co:pleted i
t sts.
l (4.2.3.4) 4. Any design change work that affects completed tests.
(5.2 ) 4. Complete required entries on the form. Ftr steps that are not applicable, enter "N/A" & date.
l Obtain 1.STE approval signature.
(5.2.1) 5. Attach a copy of the completed STF to the procedure.
(5.4) 6. All Test Data must be retained and filed with
! rest results, regardless if superceded, orig-inal or unsatisfactory results.
(Ref. 5.10) 4.7 For Test Analysis Report Review the Following:
All problems encountered during testing are
( -(3.1.1/3.1.2) 3.
reouired to be documented on the test analysis i
report.
4 e
. R1visien 2
- July 19, 1983 Peg 29of14
-(3.1.3) 2. Test analysis report is to address the following: ,
["r (3.1.3.1) 1. Section 1 - Purpose and objectives -
(3.1.3.2) 2. Section 2 - Order in which the test was performed (3.3.3.3) 3. Section 3 - Acceptance criteria from section 8 of the procedure and how it was net.
(3.1.3.4) 4. Section 4 - Prrblem encountered (3.1.3.5) 5. Section 5 - Open TEDR's (3.1.3.6) 6. Section 6 - Unresolved items: NCR, Sur. Finding, Audit Finding, NRC open items. All hold tags must be addressed.
- 7. Section 7 - Verification that all design change (3.1.3.7)
Doc. issued since the release for perfor. have been reviewed and impact addressed.
(3.1.3.8) 8. Section 8 - Temp. Mods. that remain in place.
(3.1.3.9) 9. Section 9 - NRC committemnts resolved during testing (3.1.3.10) 10. Section 10 - A statement to the fact that all conditional releases have been cleared.
(3.2.3) 3. The TAR is included when the procedure results are submitted for TRC approval, g-
.s (5.1.2) 4. TAR to be generated within 10 working day of PRET co:pletion.
- 5. TAR to be attached to Appendix "D" of the PRET.
( (5.1.4 )
5.0 REFERENCES
5.1 PQAP 9.706, Rev. 1 5.2 FSAR Chapter 17, amend. 35 5.3 FSAR Chapter 14, acend. 43 5.4 SUM, Rev. 22 5.5 S.I. 4.5.1.01 Rev. A Ad=in. controls of S/U originated 5.6 S.I. 8.1.0.01 Rev. 4 Testing Progress Checklist 5.7 S.I. 8.4.2.01 Rev. 4, PREOP Procedure Preparation 5.8 S.I. 8.4.2.03 Rev. 1, Supplemental Testing 5.9 S.I. 8.4.2.04 Rev. 1, Resolutions,of Test Exceptions 5.10 S.I. 8.4.2.05.Rev. I,PRET. Test Analysis Report l_
I 6.0 ATTACEMENTS 6.1 Response time testing surveillance procedures 6.2 Instruction for completing a TEDR 6.3 Individual training record for test data reviewers
- l. - -. .-_ . - - _ - .- _ _ __
R2visies 2 '
July 19, 1983 I P 32 10 cf 14
.( -
Preep RTT Surveillance -
i
- 1. PRET.C7100.001 44.000.05 44.000.06 l 44.000.07 l 44.000.08 44.000.15
- 44.000.18 44.000.11
- 2. PRET.A7100.001 44.000.40 44.000.41 ;, .,
- 3. PRIT.C3300.001 44.000.43 44.000.44 44.000.46 e
- 4. PRIT.E4100.001 44.000.48 f; 44.000.49
- 5. PRIT.E1100.001 44.000.54 44.000.55 44.000.56 (f 44.000.33
- 6. PRIT.32100.001 44.000.34 44.000.37 44.000.57 44.000.58
- 7. .PRIT.74100.001 44.001.26 44.000.42 l
l Attachment I, Response Time Testing Surveillance Procedures
.n- - - - , .,-- - ,-
. tvisica 2
- July 19, 1983
- Pcg2 11 cf 14 i
I STARTtF F0lut 8.8 (Rev. 0) TEST E2CIFT106 D15F051710s REPORT (TEDR1 !
(11-2F821 .
I ENRICO FERM1 ATOMIC F0WER FMir7 - Wulf 2 FART A DL5tRIFT10p {-[ @ h3 ( g (( g?J K g g g/A3' ]
h Procedure 50.3 Revision No. h TEDR 50.1 i O ne'erres T == as @ va==tiir.ctarr t Re >=2 < = @ -
Af fe:ted Procedwr'l Steps Affected Procedure l,teps b
I Reason: b -
4 Proposed Disposition:_ b ,.
d Espected E.sp:sitien Date: h Submitted: b Revirwed: h Nuclear Shif t Superv. Date
(, STE Date FART 5 C15F051T10s [b, J[hj ,
]
eierence Doewments associated with this disposition:
- cF's:
O F*-21' :
SFR's:
C Functlist Cards:_
Cther _
C DCE/D R/FMR's:__
The following attached doewments satisfacterfly dispositioned this Test Enception:
I C Supplerental Test Forma: Comments: h Test Cheese Notice: ,
f C 7.8 Ro.st Cther: __
Swbeitted: b Reviewed:
LSIE b
Da:e Date SIL FAR7 C D11F0517105 AFFROYAL (, ' h.hhff 'h' 'h[M .
l hC Submitted for Approval with Test Results_sTt Dai, f h]TechnicalReviewCommittee(TRC)~ Apptowed:TRC Chairman Date I Approved:
h] Startup Engineer Startup Engineer Date
( .
Attachment 2. Instructions for Completing a TEDR l
ee-m ae. u. e. - .. n = _ . . . . . . - . . . ...
Rsvisien 2 July 19, 1983 Page 12 of 14
( e
(
I i
PART A: DESCRIPTION Block 1: Enter the applicable test procedure number.
Block 2: Enter the test procedure revision number.
Block 3: Enter the TEDR number. This will be the number fro = the TEDk Log
. Shee! (Attachment 1 or 2) attached to the test procedure.
Block 4: Check applicable boxes. If both deferred testing and unsatis-factory test results are involved with this Test Exception, check both boxes.
Block 5: Enter the affected procedure steps in the boxes checked. If an entire section or subsection is affected, then entering the section or subsection number is all that is required.
Block 6: Enter a brief reason for initiating this Test Exception.
Block 7: Enter a proposed disposition, if knovn. If unknown, then make ,
that entry.
Block 8: Enter your estimate of when this Test Exception vill be
( dispositoned.
Block 9: Startup Test Engineer signature and date.
Block 10: Nuclear Shif t Supervisor signature and date. :
PART 3: DISPOSITION Block 11: If FN-21's were used , check this block and enter nucbers.
Block 12: If PLC's were used, check this block and enter nu=bers.
Block 13: IfDCN/DCR[T}:R'swereused,checkthisblockandenternu=bers.
Block 14: If DCP's were used, check this block and enter numbers.
31ock 15: If STE's were used, check this block and enter numbers.
Block 16: If other reference documents support this disposition, check this '
box and enter document title and number.
Block 17: If Supplemental Test Forms were used to complete testing, check this box and enter the STT number (s). Attach them to the TEDR.
Attachment 2, Instructions for Completing a TEDR(continued) i
.. . . . . . . ~ . . . - . . . , _
l 1;visi n 2 )
July 19, 1983
., Page 13 of 14 l l
( Block 18: If TCN's wre to couplete testing, check this block, enter numbers, and attach copies. )
i l Block 19s If 7.8's were used to complete TEDR, check this block, enter -
l sunbers, and attach copies. ,
Block 20: If other documents were used, cheek this block, enter title of doeunent, document numbers, and attach to the TEDR. ,
NOTE Check all applicable boxes and attach all supporting documents.
Those listed as reference documents need not be attached. Where 7.8's were used, the associated test forms must be attached for review and approval of the TEDR. _w Block 21: Enter'any applicable coenents pertaining to this disposition.
Enter the type 4 punchlist number, if applicable.
/k Block 22: STE signature and date.
Block 23: Lead Startup Test Engineer sfE nstures and date.
pap.T C: DISPOSITIO!; APPROVA.1.
Block 24,, Check applicable block. This is based on the authority that 25, and approved the procedure test results. Obtain approval signatures.
26' If the disposition is completed prior to approval of test results, check block 24 only.
O Attachment 2. Instructions for Completing a TEDR (Continued)
R2 vision 2 July 19, 1983 P gt 14 cf 14
~
INDIVIDUAL TRAINING ,
f RECORD FC2 TEST DATA REVIEWERS Name ,
2.0 Prerequisites for Test Data Review Signature Date 2.1 Read the following:
I. .PQAP 9.128 Rev.
- 2. PQAP 9.706 Rev.
- 3. Startup Manual Rev. __
- 6. S.I. 8.4.2.05 Rev.
- 7. S.I . 4.5.1.01 Rev.
- 8. S.I. 8.4.2.01 Rev. ,
- 9. S.I. 8.4.2.04 Rev.
- 10. S.I. 8.4.2.03 Rev.
- 11. S .I . 8.1.0.01 Rev.
( 22 Reviewed the following:
- 1. Generic Test Procedures
- 2. CAIO Test Procedures
- 3. CCMT Test Procedures
- 4. PREOP Test Procedures
- 5. STARTUP Test Procedures
- 6. P.O.M. 41.000.11 Rev.
- 7. P.O.M. 46.000.11 Rev.
- 8. MI-IC-3000 Rev.
l 23 Familiarize oneself with the Test Data Review area within Q.A.
2A Orientated with Startup Complex and Test Personnel.
2.5 Familiarized with the Startup Resource Center. __
( 2.6 Familiarized with the S.A.C.
area.
l
[ REVIEWED BY DATE i
Attachment 3
~
Revisita 3 MA5'TER CCPY -
llgMIX' 4 1.0 PURPOSE AND RESPONSIBILITIES POR TEST DATA REVIEW
[ .Ref. 5.1 (Intro) 1.1 The 0.A. Section is responsibile for reviewing Test Ref. 5.2, (17.2.11)
Packages to assure test results meet the acceptance criteria...(by means of) comparing the recorded test data to the acceptance criteria values listed in the Test Procedure.
Ref. 5.3 1.2 0.A.... reviews quality-related aspects of test
( 14.1.1.2.5) results.
Ref. 5.4 1.3 (4.12.1) 0.A. reviews selected portions of completed test data to. assure that records are complete.
Ref. 5.I 1.4 ... A sufficient number of Test Packages are reviewed to i (6.1) establish the credibility of Testing Prograr. Activities and verify the accuracy of the Test Data.
Ref. 5.1 2.0 PREREOUISITES POR TEST DATA REVIEW (4.1.b) 2.1 Read and document the following:
- 1. PQAP 9.128 7. S.I. 4.5.1.01
- 2. PQAP 9.706 8. S.I. 8.4.2.01
- 3. Startup Manual 9. S.I. 8.4.2.04
- 4. PSAR Chapter 14.I 10. S.I. 8.4.2.03
( 5. PSAR Chapter 17.2 11. S.I. 8.1.0.01
- 6. S.I. 8.4.2.05 2.2 Review and docu=ent the following:
- 1. Generic Test Procedures 5. Startup Test Procedures
- 2. CAIO Test Procedures 6. P.O.M. 41.000.11
- 3. CCMF Test Procedures 7. P.O.M. 46.000. I1
- 4. Preop Test Procedures 8. MI-IC-3000 2.3 Pamiliarize oneself with the test data review area within QA and document:
- 1. Documentation used
- 2. Logging system
- 3. System files 2.4 Physically orient oneself with the S/U complex and testing personnel and document:
- 1. LSTE's
- 2. S.T.E's
..: - . ~
~
~
Revision 3 Pag 2 2 cf 15
[f 2.5 Fasiliarise oneself with the S/U Resource Ce ster and document:
{
- 1. S.R.C. Technician
- 2. FL1es
- 3. Filing System 2.6 Tamiliarine oneself with the S.A.C. area and document:
- 1. S.A.C.
- 2. Files (Ref. 5.4) 3.0 CUIDELINES FOR GENERIC CA10 TEST DATA REVIEW ,
2 3.1 While reviewing 7.8's the following items are to be reviewed for:
(4.7.1 ) 1. All " item numbers" have been signed as complete or
- deleted.
(4.7.1/7.6.2) 2. The " Reviewed by" and " Approved by" are signed. 3
'~
( 7.6.4 ) 3. Test procedures recorded have the current revision -
number listed.
(7.6.1.) 4. Co= pare the itee numbers v.ith the data sheets to .
(f ensure all items have been tested as stated. .'
(4.7.1/7.6.2) 5. (QA-17.8's only) "QC Witness Required" or "No '
QC Required" has been sta ped on the form.
L Tor items that require QC Witness, co=plete a !.
"OA witness point status" form (Attachment 4) l#
and give to the Lead QC Inspector.
I
- 6. Upon completion of the above, sta:p the 7.8's with the "QA Reviewed" stamp.
3.2 While reviewing Test Data Torms, the following ite=s are to be reviewed for:
(7.6.4) 1. Data forms are from the current revision of the !3 procedure being tested.
-3 '
(7.6.5) 2. All blanks are complete (either with Data or N/A).
(7.6.5) 3. Comments or recarks are identifiable to a particular i 3
step, referenced to the Punchlist No., M.D.L. etc, or .
are self explanatory.
(4.9.1) 4. Where acceptance values are given on the Data Sheets. .
compare values recorded to the requirements. If
(( different, item should have an explanation. I
Revision J ,
Pcge 3 af 15 3.3 Upon completion of items 3.1 and 3.2, the following items (f ere to be completed:
Make copies of the following:
. Master Instrument List
. Turnover Control-Cable Listing
. System Boundary reckage (Section 2.0)
. F.O.S. (Functional Operating Sketch) Valve Cross Reference List (As necessary)
. Associated System Drawings (if necessary).
- 1. Utilizing the copy of the Master Instrumedt List and the I&C 7.8's, highlite the instruments that have been tested.
- 2. UtilizinR the copy of the Turnover Control-Cable List and the Electrical and I&C 7.8's, highlite the cables that have been tested.
- 3. Utilizing the copy of the System Scundary Package and the Mechanical and Electrical 7.8's, highlite the equipment that has been tested.
- 4. Utilizing the copies of the System Drawings and the above high1(ted items, highlite the drawings to reflect all the items tested.
(7.6.5/7.7.)) 5. After all the Data has been reviewed and items e highlited, review all items from above to ensure ~~
all the itecs have been tested. .
- 6. Prepare a list of items that have not been tested.
(Taken from items not highlited).
(Ref. 5.4) 4.0 GUIDELINES FOR PREOPEMTIONAL TEST RESQTS DATA RIVIEW 4.1 The following are basic requirements to be reviewed for:
(8.3.1/4.5.3) 1. Procedures are approved (4.5.3) 2. TCN's are approved (4.5.4) 3. TCN's are included in package (4.7.1) 4. Trial runs must be documented and number of attempts mad ~e indicated.
(4.7.1) 5. No correction fluids or other means of masking data is permitted.
(8.4.4 /4.7.1) 6. 0.A. to be notified of witness points.
(4.7.1) 7. Master copy of Recorded Data. Test Results. Test
(' Analysis Reports are reviewed by LSTE.
.. Revision)
, Pcte 4 of 15 (4.7.3) 8. M&TE sust be documented.
l (8.1) 9. Test Analysis Report attached to completed test package.
(8.2) 10. TCN are recorded, reviewed & approved.
(8.3.2) 11. Data sheets completed, signed & dated by STE &
other personnel taking the data.
(8.3.2) 12. Tempo;ary changes will be documented and following testing completion, be removed.
(8.3.2) 13. Retesting performed on test exception are to be documented.
(8.3.3) 14 . Procedure modifications are documented and become part of final test procedure.
(8.3.3) 15. TCN reviewed & approved by appropriate people.
(8.3.3) 16. TCN verifies no omittion of PSAR Ch. 14 com=itments.
(8.3.4/8.4.5) 17. Test results package vill consist of an evaluation of the following:
- 1. Original data sheets and data collected.
- 2. Preoperational test approval / release for performance.
e
- 3. TCWs
- 4. Attached pertinent logs & charts
- 5. Co=pleted preoperational test procedure
- 6. Test Analysis Report
- 7. CAIO test results for CAIO testing conducted during Preep testing.
(8.4.3) 18. In some cases, portions of test procedure u.ay be co=pleted durinF CAIO pending:
- 1. Test Procedure is the same.
- 2. Appropriate documentation has been referenced and included in the Data Package as shown in Appendix
! E Index.
- 3. Test was performed and/or witnessed by authorized l
STE/STT.
(8.4.4) 19. During the test, the Test Data vill be accurately and properly recorded on appropriate Data Sheets.
I (8.4.4 ) 20. Person actually taking Data shall FIRST sign his full name, initial & date at the first sign off point. THEN may use initials on subsequent signoffs.
(8.4.4) 21. If it is not possible to complete a test procedure the following action shall be taken:
- l. Noted at the step not performed as an exception.
( 2. Recorded in the Test Exception section.
- 3. TEDR issued
- tevisioty P 32 5 cf 15
, (8.4.4) 22. To re-release the test to complete the not tested i steps, a STF shall be issued.
(8.4.4) 23. STT's will contain the following:
- 1. Pre-reguisities
- 2. Initial conditions
- 3. Specify the sections of the test to be performed.
(8.4.4) 24. STF's are to remain with and become part of test package.
(8.4.4) 25. All items found out of spec. shall be flagged in the t?st report.
(Ref. 5.7) 4.2 For Procedure Adaquacy Review the Tollowing:
(4.1.4. 2. A) 1. Each Temp. circuit alteration will be logged in Appendix B.
(4.1.5.1) 2. Special test equip. sust be listed with:
Na=e
. Model No. (when possible)
Req'd Range Accuracy C (4.1.6.3) 3. ' Initial conditions" step:
" Exceptions listed in the TRP. attending this section have been cleared".
(4.1.6.18) 4. All supporting syste=/ functions (Instru=ent air, cooling water, lubrication, etc.) will be available fro = the permanent source. If not available a TCN is req'd.
(4.1.6.21) 5. S.O.P. valve line up Data Sheets must be attached to the procedure in Appendix E.
(4.1.6.23) 6. A copy of the response time testing surveillance procedure is to be attached to the PRET. (Attach =ent I identifies PRET vs. Sury. Test No's.).
(4.1.6.24 ) 7. Sign off (Initials) at each step.
(4.1.6.26) 8. The person actually making a procedure entry shall print his full na=e, sign his full na=e, and initial /date the first sign off entry he cakes.
Revision,J P:ge 6 of 15 (4,3.9.2) 9. 2nclude Base Line Data for pumps in accordance
.,( with ASME code II for the following pumps.
(
P4400 - EECW E2100 - CS E4100 - EPCI & Booster E5100 - RCIC E1151 - RER SW P4500 - EESW R3001 - DG!;W C4100 - SSLC El100 - RER T4102 - CCHVAC (Ref. 5.5) 4.3 For control of procedures and TCN's review the following:
(3.1.6.1) 1. PRET's become effective on the date of approval and are to be utilized from the next working day on.
(3.2.1.2/3.2.1.4) 2. TCN number is to be entered in the Test Procedure at the point of the change that is to be made.
(3.2.1.3) 3. TCN's are to be approved prior to implementation.
(3.2.1.4) 4. TCN's are to be attached to the procedure.
(3.2.2.2) 5. LSTE's are to sign TCN's.
(3.2.6 6. TCN's become effective at the time of approval.
(4.1.1) 7. Procedure Eevision Sut=ary will indicata pages affected by past revision.
(4.2.1) 8. Approved Procedures will be issued on white paper.
(4.2.2 /4.2.13) 9. Approved Procedures will be stamped in red ink "TRC Approved" on the approval sheet only.
(4.2.4/4.2.13) 10. All test procedures will be sta= ped in red ink
" Controlled" (After 1-10-83)
(4.2.13/4.2.10) 11. Each 'heleased for Performance" procedure will have the "ICN Stamp" on the approval sheet .and/or" Procedure 2 Index of Change Documents'.' (form 4.9W)
(4.2.13/4.2.11) 12. Each page will be stamped " Official Copy - STE" in red ink...
(4.2.14) 13. Replacement or supplemental pages are issued by supplemental test forms or TCN's. " Official Copy - STE" stamp applies to these forms also.
(4.4.2.1) 14 . Major TCN's are reviewed and approved by the same
( people specified for the original procedure.
RevisionJ P:32 7 of 15 (4.4.3.6) 15. Minor TCN's requires the NSS only.
(4.4.4.2) 16. All TCN'6 will be noted in the righthand margin of the procedure next to the affected steps.
Complete page change /page replacement TCN's will have the TCN number in the upper righthand corner instead of revision number.
- 17. TCN required signatures:
(5.3.2.11) 1. Individual entering changes in the procedure ,
(5.3.2.15) 2. STE initiating TCH '
(5.3.2.16) 3. LSTE (Major TCN's)
(5.3.2.17) 4. NSS (5.3.2.18) 5. TRC Chairman (Major TCN's)
(5.3.2.20) 6. G.E. site operation NGR, 0.A., S.U.E.A. (Major TCN's)
Ref. 5.9 4.4 For Resolution of Test Exceptions review the following:
(1.1) 1. TEDR's applicable only to: Specific CAIO, CAIO Flushing, PREOP Test.
(4.5/1.2) 2. TEDR's purpose: All a co=pletion of a Test Procedure with so=e item still open.
g( (4.3/1.3) 3. TEDR's approved by the sa=e authority associated with Test Procedure Results.
(5.1.1.3/3.3.3) 4. Maintain TEDR Log sheet (Appendix "C" of PRET's, SEC. 9.0 of CCMT/CAIO's).
(3.2.1) 5. All TEDR's signed %eviewed by LSTE's".
(4.6) 6. TEDR's say be initiated at any time. '
(5.1.1.6) 7. Attach original TEDR to the STE official procedure copy. (Unless not dispositioned prior to approval of test results).
(5.1.1.2) 8. Signed by NSS.
(6.4) 9. TEDR's shall be completed as indicated. (See Attachment 2)
Ref. 5.6 4.5 For Testing Progress Checklist review the following:
(3.1.1.5) 1. System / Subsystem status checklist is to be kept updated and current.
(3.1.1.6) 2. Corpiling a PRIT exception sheet of items which impact specific sections of the PRET.
Revision; P:ge 8 cf 15
~
. (3.1.1.9) 3. Ccapiling a list of instruments essential to acceptance criteria and attached to Appendix E.
{
(5.1.12/4 .2 .1.14 ) 4. Items not previously tested which impact testing will be listed as exceptions on the exception sheet.
(5.1.17) 5. Test exceptions will be documented on TEDR's and logged in Appendix "C".
( Attachment 2, l.A.C) 6. Acceptance criteria is clearly stated and with a tolerance that meets the requi coents of applicable design documents.
(Attachment 4 Note:) 7. (Configuration Control Change Paper) list each open item separately with a statement as to how this item will impact the PRET Test Results.
(Ref. 5.8) 4.6 For Supplemental Testing Review the Following:
(3.1.1/3.2) 1. LSTE approval req'd prior to conducting a trial run test or retesting.
(5.2.1/3.1.2) 2. STF nu=ber to be entered on the procedure approval i sheet in the "STF Sta ped Block".and/or" Procedure '
Index of Change Docu=entst (form 4.9W)
(4.3) 3. Following situations requires the use of STF's.
(4.3.2.1) 1. Test Stop/ Restarts where initial conditions Pre Red's, or precautions cust be reverified.
(4.3.2.2) 2. Tailure to meet acceptance criteria during initial testing.
(4.3.2.3) 3. Any preventive or corrective maintenance
. conducted which affects p7eviously completed tests.
(4.2.3.4) 4. Any design change work that affects co:pleted tests.
(5.2 ) 4. Cocplete required entries on the form. For steps that are not applicable, enter "N/A" & date.
Obtain LSTE approval signature.
(5.2.1) 5. Attach a copy of the completed S7' to the procedure.
(5.4) 6. All Test Data must be retained and filed with rest results, regardless if superceded, orig-inal or unsatisfactory resul.:s.
(Ref. 5.10) 4.7 For Test Analysis Report Review the Following:
(3.1.1/3.1.2) 1. All problems encountered during testing are
( required to be documented on the test analysis report.
Revision 3 P:32 9 Gif 15 t (3.1.3) 2. Test analysis report is to address the following:
(3.3.3.1) I. Section 1 - Purpose and objectives (3.1.3.2) 2. Section 2 - Order in which the test was performed (3.1.3.3) 3. Section 3 - Acceptance criteria from section 8 of the procedure and how it was met.
(3.3.3.6) 4. Section 4 - Problem encountered (3.3.3.5) 5. Section 5 - Open TEDR's (3.1.3.6) 6. Section 6 - Unresolved items: NCR, Sur. Finding, Audit Finding, NRC open items. All hold tags must be addressed.
(3.3.3.7) 7 Section 7 - Verification that a11' design change Doc. issued since the release for perfor. have been reviewed and impact addressed.
(3.1.3.8) 8. Section 8 - Temp. Mods. that remain in place.
(3.1.3.9) 9. Section 9 - NRC ccccittee.nts resolved during testing (3.1.3.10) 10. Sectics 10 - A statement to the fact that all conditional releases have been cleared.
(3.2.3) 3. The TAR is included when the procedure results are submitted for TRC approval.
(5.1.2) ,4. TAR to be generated within 10 working day of PRET completion.
(5.1.4 ) *
- 5. TAR to be attached to Appendix "D" of the PRET.
5.0 REFERINCES 5.1 PQAP 9.706, Rev. I 5.2 FSAR Chapter 17, amend. 35 5.3 PSAR Chapter 14, amend. 43 5.4 SUM, Rev. 22 5.5 S.I. 4.5.1.01 Rev. 3. Admin. controls of S/U originated 5.6 S.I. 8.1.0.01 Rev. 6, Testing Progress Checklist 5.7 S.I. 8.4.2.01 Rev. 4, PREOP Procedure Preparation 5.8 S.I. 8.4.2.03 Rev. I, Supplemental Testing 5.9 S.I. 8.4.2.04 Rev. 1. Resolutions of Test Exceptions 5.10 S.I. 8.4.2.05.Rev. 1.PRET. Test Analysis Report 6.0 ATTACHMI.NTS 6.1 Response time testing surveillance procedures 6.2 Instruction for completing a TEDR 6.3 Individual training record for test data reviewers l
6.4 0.A. Witness Point Ststus '3 l
1 -
Revision)
P:32 10 of 15 r
Freep RTT Surveillance
- 1. FRET.C7100.001 44.000.05 44.000.06 44.000.07 44.000.08 44.000.15 44.000.18 44.000.11
- 2. PRIT. A7100.001 44.000.40 44.000.41
- 3. PRET.C3300.001 44.000.43 44.000.44 44.000.46
- 4. PRET.E4100.001 44.000.48 44.000.49
- 5. PRET.I1100.001 44.000.54 44.000.55 44.000.56
- 6. PRIT.B2100.001 44.000.33 44.000.34 44.000.37 44.000.57 44.000.58
- 7. PRET.74100.001 44.001.26 44.000.42 Attachment 1, Response Time Testing Surveillance Procedures h.
, .- P;visionJ P ge iI cf 15
- I f . . . . - . . . . .
stARnr Fots s.s rees. e) Ytst z.actnlom DisFoS1210s armt 17tnal (11-2FB2) lifRICO FltM1 ATOMIC FCWER Ftmrt - gu1T 3
- FART A DESCR1n30p(hNhjk hQ( [hh]
Frecedure Be.t b _
tevision so. _ M ftDR po.: b
- O Deterred Test +: @ O *nsatser.ct.r, Test me.11. @
Af fected Frocedst.l Steps Affected Procedure l:t e_p s
.easo.,
Proposed D2spositions h Espected Disp sitten Datet k submitted: M Date Reviewed: h Nuclear Shaft $wperv. Date STE FART 3
_lD15P051730s($hh p %-Q eference Doewments associated with this dispeittion:
C Pb-21's: DCF's:
C Fwnchlist Cards: STR's:
O och/D Rtr>at . _ Others l 7te following attached documeets satisfatterfly dispenitioned this Test Enception:
O s.,,le .ial T,si r r : Co e.i.: @
1 0 Test Charse mattee:
O 2 s 5 ==
C Other:
Swkitted: b Reviewed:- b-Date TfL Date L$TE FAP.7 C D15P0517103 AFFROVAL I hkh) h O $whitted for Approval witn Test Resvits Date TTL h] Technical Review Committee (TRC) Approved:
TRC Chair.an Date h]StartupEngineer Approved:
$tartup Ecgineer cete C -
Attachment 2. Instructions for Completing a TEDR
, , Esvisiraj3 P:32 12 ef 15 (1
PART A: DESCRIPTION Block 1: Enter the applicable test procedure number.
Block 2: Enter the test procedure revision number.
Block 3: Enter the TIDR number. This will be the number from the TIDK 1.cs Sheet (Attachment 1 or 2) attached to the test procedure.
Block 4: Check applicable boxes. If both deferred testing and unsatis-factory test results are involved with this Test Exception, check both boxes.
Block 5: Enter the affected procedure steps in the boxes checked. If an entire section or subsection is affected then entering the section or subsection number is all that is required.
Block 6: Enter a brief reason for initiating this Test Exception.
Block 7: Enter a proposed disposition, if known. If unknown, then aske that entry.
Block 8: Enter your estimate of when this Test Exception will be dispositoned.
(
Block 9: Startup Test Engineer signature and date.
Block 10: Nue? ear Shif t Supervisor signature and date.
PART 3: DISPOSITION Block 11: If FN-21's were used, check this block and enter numbers.
Block 12: If PLC's were used, check this block and enter numbers.
Block 13: If DCN/DCR[T):R's were used, check this block and enter nu=bers.
Block 14: If DCP's were used, check this block and enter numbers.
Block 15: If STR's were used, check this block and enter numbers.
Block 16: If other reference documents support this disposition, check this box and enter document title and number.
Block 17: If Supplemental Test Torus were used to complete testing, check this box and enter the STT number (s). Attach them to the TEDR.
(
Attarheent 2. Instructions f or Completing a TEDR(continued)
6' -
. 12visicaj)
Pcte 13 af 15 3, lock 18:
If TCN's were to complete testing, check this block, enter numbers, and attach copies.
Block 19: If 7.8's were used to complete TEDR, check this block, enter numbers, and attach copies.
Block 20: If other documents were used, check this block, enter title af docum-nt, document numbers, and attach to the TEDR.
NOTE Check all applicable boxes and attach all supporting doeunents.
Where Those listed as reference documents need not be attached.
7.B's were used, the associated test forms must be attached for review and approval of the TEDR.
Block 21: Enter any applicable coenents pertaining to this disposition.
Enter the type 4 punchlist number, if applicable.
Block 22: STE signature and date.
Block 23: Lead Startup Test Engineur signatures and date.
PAT.T C: DISPOSITION APPROVAL This is based on the authority that Block 24, Check applicable block. Obtain approval signatures.
25, and approved the procedure test results.
26 If the disposition is conpleted prior to approval of test results, check blotk 24 only.
l
^
f l
l l
Attachment 2. Instructions for Cocpleting a TEDR (Continued)
8
- *- Revisionj3 P:32 14 of 15 INDIVIDUAL TRAINING
( RECORD POR TEST DATA RIVIEWERS Name 2.0 Frerequisites for Test Data Review signature , Date 2.1 Read the following:
. 1. PQAP 9.128 Rev.
- 2. PQAP ).706 Rev. _
- 3. Startup Manual Rev.
- 5. TSAR CH. 17.2 Rcv.
- 6. S.I. 8.4.2.05 Rev.
- 7. S.I. 4.5.1.01 Rev.
- 8. S.I . 8.4.2.01 Rev.
- 9. S.I. 8.4.2.04 Rev.
- 10. S.I. 8.4.2.03 Rev.
- 11. S.I. 8.1.0.01 Rev.
2J2 Reviewed the following:
- 1. Generic Test Procedures
- 2. CAIO Test Procedures
- 3. CCEI Test Procedures PREOP Test Procedures 4.
l
- 5. STARTUP Test Procedures _ __
- 6. P.O.M. 41.000.11 Rev.
- 7. P.O.M. 46.000.11 Rev.
- 8. MI-IC-3000 Rev.
l- 23 Tamiliarize oneself with the __
Test Data Review area within Q.A.
'- 24 Orientated with Startup Complex __
and Test Personnel. _
- 2.5 Tamiliarized with the Startup __
Resource Center.
!-i' t 2.6 Tamiliarized with the S.A.C. _
area. _
M REVIEWED BY _ DATE __ --
6 Attachment 3 i
Etvisits3 O. A. Witnass Point Sfefus , ,, is o, is system no. - .
, do. 0.A. No. DATE CLOSED STILL OPEN
\
l l . _ , __
1 i
l l
l l
l l
l l >
RITURN TO :
L ATTACJ0ENT 4 l
F.E.AGosu DehoR Al0V.10 L.4 Edison- -
(
e Date: November 9, 1983 NA-83-2046 woTto _ -
To: F. E. Agesti PRE Manager - NucI Op rations From: M. J. Gavir General S sor Information Systems TOV.- -.--- '
Subject:
Administrative Procedure Review Ref:
SU-12,096, Agosti to Gavin, et.al, 10/28/83, same subject We have performed a review of our procedures, as your directed in the referenced correspondence, and find that we instituted no pro-cedural revisions to specifically support startup and test activities.
We have, however, instituted several activities which generically support your activity.
Specifically, we have established the " void after seven days" con-cept for design documents. This forces user personnel to be cogni-zant of the status of documents used in the startup and test activity.
We also initiated a 100'4 review of drawings in your Startup satellite during August to assure they are up-to-date. Results are not yet available, although your file should be at the highest accuracy l
l 1evel since its establishment.
Hopefully, this will be helpful in your effort to assure a sound startup and test program.
MJG:d1s l
l l
8
\
Ded Edison- -
ENRICO FERMI UNIT II PROJECT DATE: December 2, 1983 (F2583-6595)
TO: F. E. Agosti Manager Startup Testing P. P. Acharya, Superintendent [
FROM:
System Completion /SCO /, /%
REFERENCE:
F. Agosti Letter #5U-12,096 - Dated 10-23-83
SUBJECT:
SCO Administrative Procedure Review The System Completion Organization, per your referenced letter above, has reviewed their procedures regarding revisions made since January 1982 to the present time, to determine those procedural changes made to improve the Startup Testing Program. The following changes were made to acco=plish this:
- 1. Prior to SCO, work on turned over systems was acco=plished utilizing a TRR or RRR which required the Startup Engineers
( to physically verify work completion prior to signing off on these documents. With the inception of SCO, a new method of work authorization was introduced, known as a Type 3 Punchlist Card. The unusualness of this card as co= pared to a TRE or RRR was the additional verification signatures required, and not requiring the STE to take time from his busy schedule with Test Procedures to walkdown and verify these work items, which then became the responsibility of the SCE.
- 2. The creation of the Type 4 Punchlist, which segregated non-physical (software) items from the Type 3 Punchlist. This allowed Startup to track their TEDR's, Temp Mods, etc.
- 3. The issuance of PN21's to DECO Maintenance to allow the use of their procedures by utilizing their attachment "A", and also the contractors performing Startup(s) valve testing program.
- 4. The Type 5 Punchlist Card for Cable Tray and conduit tracking and statusing.
- 5. The inclusion of the Request For Service (RFS) which allowed the SCE to permit system up-keep work. This provided a means of system maintenance and clean-up during the testing phase.
- 6. Configuration Control procedures were written to establish a means of tracking Design Change Documents issued by Document
- i. Control and status these documents so Startup could review open change paper which may affect their system testing.
F2583 6595 Pas? 2
(
As you see, numerous revisions have been made and SCO will continually review their procedures and make any necessary changes required to assure an improved Startup Test Program.
cjh/
cc: A. Godoshian S. Noetzel W. J. Fahrner W. R. Holland ARMS File m
1 E. 0 04
~
F. . ACOSTI Detroit Ml3LJ1 , , _ .
Enrico Fermi Unit 11 Project Engineering DATE: December 13, 1983 EF2-66394 TO: Distribution FROM: R. A. Vance . . Mt . c._ (,,,, _
Assistant Project Manager-Engineering
SUBJECT:
Assignment of Responsibility for Engineering Review of Pre-operational Test Re.=ults The purpose of this memorandum is to describe in detail the engineering review of Preoperational Test Results. This material will be incor-
,porated as appropriate in Project Procedure 3.30, and in individual group procedures or work instructions if needed.
. Attached is a Responsibility Matrix (Attachment f/1) for assigning review responsibility to the various Project Engineering groups. The "X's" in-dicate responsibility to initiate action toward performing their reviews, in accordance with their procedures and as appropriate to the system being tested. An "*" indicates that specific items throughout the Test g Results Package (TRP) will be reviewed based on information in the Test Analysis Report (TAR) and the Test Change Notices (TCN's). Lack of an "X" or "*" means review would be in response to a specific request from another group, prompted by previous knowledge of the system, or the item may be used as a reference in the course of the review.
Note that the matrix c~ alls out certain portions of the Test Results Package for review. Engineering has not co=mitted to perform a detailed review of each page of the package (although this has been done in a few cases). It is the responsibility of the Startup Test Engineer to do this and call attention to exceptions or problem areas via the Test Analysis Report and Test Exception Disposition Reports (TEDR's). Also, Operational Assurance (OA) reviews the package in detail for deviations from accept-ance criteria or other problem areas. Their report is sent to Startup, with a copy to Engineering for appropriate response.
There is obviously a great deal of overlapping interest and responsibility, but the four engineering groups have primary emphasis as follows:
- 1. System Engineers - System purpose and performance requirements, and licensing requirements.
- 2. Startup Engineering Assistance (SUEA) - More detailed consider-ation of actual test performance and test results, from close Field Engineering perspective.
( 3. Design Engineers (Troy) - Specific design requirements regard-inr, performance parameters (pressure, flow, temperature, voltage, etc).
EF2-ob394 December 13, 1983 f Paga 2 6 (Cont)
- 4. :Resi, dent Engineering-Provides desiS n engineering support co SUEA in the Field, as needed for test results reviews.
( '
Either SUEA or System Fngineeting will set up a meeting soon after F each Test Results Package is received to coordinate ef forts between the vari ~ous engineering groups and minimize' wasteful duplication of review efforts.
Also attached are the following memoranda and checklists from the l various groups, which describe the reviews in more detail: ,
Attachment 2: Erileili for Engineering Review by System Engineering and SUEA of Preoperational Test Procedures (Note-The procedures are reviewed prior to performance of the test. These criteria are included for reference.)
Attachment 3: Engineering Review by System Engineering and SUEA of Test Results Packages.
Attachment 4: Engineering Review by System Engineering and SUEA of FSAR Relative to Preoperational T;st Procedures and Test Results Packages.
-Attachment 5: System Engineering and SUCA PRET Test Results
- Review Checklist.
(
Attachment 6: EF2-66,235 of 10-27-83, Nunley to Vance, " Project Design Review of Startup Test Re;ults Packages (TRP)."
Attachment 7: Project Design Checklist for TRP Review.
(Note: This memo addresses preoperational test procedures and results (PRET's), which are for QA 1 safoty related systems and certain other major plant systems. Acceptance tests (ACPT's) for the other systems are reviewed by the Startup Engineering Assistance group in Field Engineering; specific requests are made to other engineering groups as needed prior to approval by Engineering.)
>3 CRG:amj(-g Attachments: 1 - 7 Noted Above Distribution:
P. P. Acharyd W. J. Fahrner R. L. Raisanen W. M. Adair J. R. Fenton L. E. Schuerman F. E. Agosti L. C. Fron M. G. Sigetech T. A. Alessi A. Godoshian D. Spiers C. R. Bacon R. S. Lenart J. E. Stalmak W. M. Street R. W. Barr E. Lusis G. M. Trahey
~;
E. R. Bosetti W. E. Miller SUEA Members J. H. Casiplia T. L. Hintun ARMS W. F. Colbert T. S. Nickelson PM0 File P. V. DeBaeke S. H. Noetzel SUEA File 300.03
- 0. K. Earle J. W. Nunley SUEA File 300.14 L. E. Eix T, J. O'Keefe G. Overbeck Doc. Control
~
EF2-66396_ ;
' December 13, 1963 i Prgt 1 of 2 I RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX l
Engineering Review of Test Results Packages I
Responsible for Review SUEA Sys Des.
(Resd. Engr. Engr.
Test Results Package (Ti;P) Engr} NOC Troy
- 1. Test Analysis Report (TAR) X X X
-(Appendix D of PRET)
- 2. Test Change Notices (TCN's) X X X (Included in TRP)
- 3. Test Exception Disposition Report (TEDR's) X X *
(Included in TRP)
- 4. Supplemental Test Results X X (Included in TRP)
Review Aspects
- 5. Test Objectives X X *
- 6. Test Boundaries X X *
. 7. Acceptance Criteria X X *
- 8. All Necessary Data Recorded X X
- 9. Adequacy of Test Equipment X X
- 10. Proper Air, Water, Electricity Used X X Refarences
- 11. FSAR: Chap. 14, Major Specific X X X Sections, App. A, App. E.
- 12. Fermi 2 Technical Specifications X X
- 13. G. E. Test Specification X X
- 14. Safety Evaluation Report (SER) X X
- 15. Design Documents (Drawings, Specifications, X Change Paper, etc.
' 16 . System Diagrams (P & ID's, One-Line X
Diagtams, etc.
- 17. Operational Assurance Deviation List From X X TRP Review by 0A.
Continued--- -
@ M dimenti US OF2-66394
- Deccabar 13, 1983 Pcge 2 of 2 f
RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX J
Engineering Review of Te'st Results Packages NOTES: * *
- 1. An "X" indicates responsibility to initiate action toward performing a review in accordance with procedures and as appropriate to the system being tested.
- 2. An "*" indicates that specific items throughout the test resulcs package will be reviewed based on information in the test-analysis report and the test change notice.
- 3. Lack of an "X" or "*" means review is in response to a specific request from another group, prompted from previous knowledge of the system, or the item may be used as a re-ference in the course of the review.
CRG:amj -
I h
WUCiTuneng:
c 73
- EF2-66394 Decrber 13, 1983
('
Criteria for Engineering Review by System Engineering and SUEA of Preoperational Test Procedures.
In reviewing Startup preoperational test procedures Engineering will be considering a number of aspects. Each of these aspects will be add-ressed in the following four ways: .
Personnel Safety Equipment llazard Design Intent .
Licensing Connitments The following aspects of the procedures will be teviewed:
- 1. Test Objectives - Is stated in the beginning of procedure and should be stated prior to major sections or subsections within the procedure.
- 2. Test Boundaries - Define what is being tested.
. 3. Scope of Test Relative to Commitments - To insure that test in-cludes all commitments in FSAR and other licensing ducuments.
1
- 4. Acceptance criteria - On what basis will the decision be made that the system is satisfactory.
- 5. Data sheets are to require recording of values and include ac-captable tolerance.
- 6. Insure that all parameters required for test results review are actually measured and recorded.
- 7. Review type of test equipment used generally, and especially for unusual or critical measurements.
- 8. Review quality of air, water, and electricity specified for the test (in some procedures it has been found that eir and water purity have not been adequately specified).
(Note: The Engineering review is not necessarily a det 11ed line-by-line review of each page. This is done by Startup and QA)
CRG:amj l
l L
umsmusramrw Page 1 of 2 EF2-66394 D:c :ber D, 1983 Engineering Review by System Engineering 6 SUEA of Test Results Packages I
The test results packats is assembled by the Startup Test Engineer
~
after he has completed his test. It includes a full copy of the test procedure with data blanks filled in, a test analysis report (TAR) which summarizes the test results, Test Change Notices (TCN's),
Test Exception Disposition Reports (TEDR's), and other documents pertinent to documenting the successful completion of the tests. The test results packages are often voluminous, sometimes being in excess of several hundred pages. The engineering review of these test results is not necessarily a page-by-page line-by-line review. Ilowever, enough of the individual sheets are reviewed in detail to achieve a satisfact-ory level of confidence regarding the quality of the test.
The engineering review is structured to concentrate on the actual parameters measured and conclusions reached for equipment or system acceptability. Following are the general guidelines for this review:
- 1. Review the test analysis report (TAR). This is normally a five to twenty page document which gives a summary statement of the successful co=pletion of the test, and also discusses problems that were encountered during the test and how they were dispositioned. This should be the first item reviewed. The TAR is part of the procedure and is called
- " Appendix D". In some packages it is brought to the front of the package, but in others the reviewer will have to dig down to its location in the procedere.
- 2. The test procedure was reviewed by Engineering prior to release of the system for test, llowever, it may be appropriate in reviewiag the test results package to review some portions of the procedure relative to the guidelines listed previously.
- 3. The test change notices should be reviewed to the extent necessary to insure that they did not change the intent of the procedure relative to test results. These are to be listed in the test results package, and may not warrant a detailed review depending on their purposes.
- 4. Test exceptions or deviations from the approved procedure and TCN's are each to be reviewed by Engineering. These are summarized in the TAR and are detailed in the TEDR's,which describe the problem as well as how it is being dispositioned.
- 5. The list of discrepancies identified by Operational Assurance is to be reviewed for deviations or exceptions that appear to exist without being covered on TEDR's. These might include values that exceeded allowable tolerances or other technical concerns. (Many of the OA concerns are procedural in nature, such as correct initials and dates. These are important, but are covered in direct communication by OA and Startup.)
\
El'2-u G 3 94 Decarb?r 13,1983
( 6. 'The test results also have to be compared to the FSAR and other licensing document,s. Since the procedure has already received this type of review, the only discrep'ancies that should exist at this point would be covered in test except-idns. For those exceptions which also are not.in compliance with the FSAR, a thorough engineering analysis is required on the part of the System Engineer, with support from SUEA and Troy as appropriate. If the results are found acceptable, the rationale for this acceptance must be clearly stated in an Engineering memorandum, along with an explicit statement regarding revising of the FSAR to reflect the new information.
Conflicts with other*1icensing documents would be treated accordingly..
- 7. Following the review of the test results package, an Engineer-ing memorandum is written consisting of a cover page which contains the approval signatures, and attachments which provide the detail necessary to indicate the degree of review and how problems were resolved. Typically this might consist of two or three typewritten pages by SUEA, along with several brief memorandums and checklists from the System Engineers and Troy to describe their reviews. In the case of deviations from the FSAR, a specific memorandum f rom System Enginects with thcir statement of the FSAR revision action should be included.
Referenec: Startup Inst ruction No. 8.4.2.05 " Test Results Package Preparation / Review."
CRC:amj
.lOJ
. r -
At t achtent : . 4 EF2-66394 Decstbar 13, 1983 Engineering Review by System Engineering & SUEA of FSAR Relative to Preoperational Test Procedures & Test Results Package ,
- l. Chapter 14 will be reviewed in all cases as this chapter is intended to consolidate all test requircaents from throughout the FSAR.
- 2. Major sections of the FSAR relative to the specific system as id-entified in the table of contents will be reviewed. Appendixes "A" and "F." will be reviewed for Regulatory Guide Commitments and answers to NRC questions.
- 3. Other pnrtions of the FSAR may also be reviewed as appropriate, as determined from Steps I and 2.
- 4. Documentation of review of the Preoperational Test Procedure accomp-lished by filling out Comment Control Forms. They are collected by SUEA and forwarded to Startup.
- 5. Documentation of review of the Test Results Package is accomplished by the Engineering test results approval memorandum. In this memo there are four categories of statements relative to the FSAR:
A. Test results' are in compliance with FSAR - list major section.*
. reviewed, and a summary statement for each that addresses the pertinent results parameters.
B. For results that are not in compliance with the FSAR but are satisfactory, provide rationale for technical acceptability and
- state how the FSAR will be revised or otherwise addressed. (For areas of disagreement that are not technically acceptable, ob-viously the. system or equipment will have to be modified prior to approval of test results.)
C. For values mentioned in the FSAR to describe the system, where the values are not testable or not intended to be tedted, it may be beneficial in some cases to explain this in the results approval meme. The purpose of this would be to save time that would otherwise be spent later in answering questions.
D. Miscellaneous comments.
CRG:amj pfO })
id
-^
-attacament na EF2-66394 Deccabar 13, 1983 Page 1 of SUEA PRET TEST RESULTS REVIEW CHECKLIST
('
"S NO N/A
] ]
- 1. _ Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)
Revision .
Sections Reviewed:
Were Commitments tiet? ]
If "NO",-Are Concerns Identified in ] ]
Results ttemo?
- 2. Fermi II Technical Specifications Date
] ]
Revision Sections Reviewed:
Were Commitments tiet? ] ] ]
If "N0", Are Concerne Identified in Results Ilemo?
] ] ]
- 3. USSRC Regulatory Guides Reg. Guides Reviewed:
Rev.
Rev.
Rev.
Were Commitments tiet? ] ] ]
If "NO", Are Concerns identified in O Results tiemo?
- 4. Test Specification / Instruction ]
DECO # 3ev.
G. E. # Rev.
Sections g-L
EF2-66394
, December'13, 1983 Pega 2 ef 3 SUEA PPS.T TEST RESULTS REVIEW CHECKLIST YES NO N/A
'I 4. Were Com=itmenis Met?
If "NO", Are Concerns Identified in
] ]
Results Memo? O
- 5. Safety Evaluation Report (SER) O O Date Were Commitments Het? O If "NO", Are Concerns Identified In Results Memo?
- 6. Other Documents Reviewed; a
- 7. Test Procedure and Results YES NO N/A A. Are test objectives and bound-aries well defined? ] l 11 . Have required values been iden- O tified on data sijeets including acceptable tolerance?
C. Has test equipment been ident-ified in proper sections and C
utilized?
D. Have Test Change Notices been reviewed to assure change of ]
intent was not incorporated into procedure?
E. Have Test Exceptions or dev-iations been evaluated for impact to results? -
-F. Has deferred testing been doc-umented and evaluated for im-Q ]
pact or retest requirements?
(
LGRPiB%4
. December 13, 1963 Prge 3 of 3 SUEA PRET TEST RESULTS REVIEW CHECKLIST YES NO N/A
(
G. Does the Test Analysis Report *
[]} ((]
(TAR) adequately summarize and describe the test and the pro-
- blems encountered (to include disposition)?
H. Have Comment Control sheets been issued to Startup concerning [)) {)) {~)
testing or procedural problems?
w Have all engineering concerns I.
been addressed in Results Hemo? g
- 8. Remarks:
- 9. Reviewed by:
Date:
3' CRG:amj (fg f
(- EF2-66394
.' D2cember 13, 1983 l Detroli
, Edison m.ca--__.-
ENRICO FERMI UNIT 2. PROJECT 1
i E
' PROJECT DESIGN October 27, 1983 l
EF2-66,235 To: R.A. Vance Assistant Project Manager-Engineering From: J.W. Nunley, Director hV Project Design
Subject:
Project Design Review of Startup Test Result Packages (TRPs)
Project Design will provide a review of Startup Test Result Packages (TRPs). Our scope of involvement, method of approach, and basic procedure for reviewing each TRP is outlined below:
- 1. Scope of Involvement only safety-related systems will be reviewed by Project Design. No special review of non-safety-related TRPs will be made. However, Project Design will assist the Field through normal chart. ?ls (i.e. , FASTS, SFRs, Management feedback /directien) to support all systems,, safety and non-safety related.
II. Method of Approach for Review of TRPs - Project Design's Objective e Project Design will concentrate its effort on the review of stated " Test Objectives" and Test Acceptance Criteria" to ensure that System design objectives / bases are being addressed in the test procedures and TCN's.
e Project Design will review the "Dispositon of Exceptions" to assure that oveiall design commitments have not.been violated modified overlooked.
III. Procedure to be Utilized
- 1. Project Design will review the Test Analysis Report, Appendix D,Section I (Test Objectives) and Section III (Acceptance Criteria) and their respective annotated references to determine the true elements of the test plan.
..- t
.NEMO TO:
Octobor 27, 1983
., R.A. Vcnce Page 2- EF2-66,235 III. Procedure to be Utilized (contd)
- 2. Project Design will answer questions on a checklist (to be developed) to document compliance with design bases.
oject Design shall provide notation stating it's find-ings that the test is acceptable-or e Indicating recommended corrective actions to be carried out to bring the test into compliance with design criteria.
- 3. Project Design will review the Test Analysis Report (TAR),
Appendix D,Section V (Test Exceptions - Disposition Reports) to assure that the intent developed by it's re-view of TRP Sections I and III has not been compromised.
Project Design will provide a statement of results, which will be documented on a checklist.
IV. Documentation Project Design will document each review by utilizing a stand-ard " checklist" format. The format will contain the items referred to in this letter and be signed by the appropriate design discipline. Since multiple disciplin's reviews will occur, each discipline checklist will be combined and issued L
(via EF2 letter) under the Director of Project Design's sig-nature. The letter will be addressed to the Supervisor, SUEA.
Project Design will proceed in developing the required checklists i
and begin reviewing the TRPs in accordance with this criteria upon your approval.
Approved for action: .
kL h R.A. Vance Assistant Project Manager-Engineering JWN/sp _
i cc: R.W. Barr C.R. Gelletly E.R. Bosetti R.L. Raisanen J.H. Casiglia M.G. Sigetich P.V. DeBaeke David Spiers L.E. Eix W.H. Street i L.C. Fron Approval Control i
bare, Desieu birw ec- Td, Res.n:r Rm..rs -
Snrew Reca,co 5 x s ,r s_
T_EST gesoqs Wese
\ A % 'D'. Stel
\
g - ' T esT O em ci m s " g
'Tra
/ i wt.cris .:: . \ R : Ditsisa f.' r,, 6.3 l_rtv se m SutA
/
h ww-<sc _ _ _ _ _ . Im 1.r:M Stis _ _ _ _ _ _
- StaveqeuT e aspogs W sog s
\\ x Am 'D', Sec1II
/
f a Acccovee
/
- Ceres Lim w
\ "Accrytn,.rt Cunevid / c1 kloT Accep' net's E*** JVot WD D'scipesc
/ '
- wtvrwrocvs /
- Co:ste v. AeTi-o m
\ / %.s m,o couwon%es
\ / -
\ Arr*'D', -
rt 1 /
" T c' E - m is
l i
I.
4
~.
? .
l e .
< Attrchment: 7 EF2-66394
, { De'c ember 13, 1983 .SECOND DRAFT
\ -
Procedure 3.XX s
- f. Atrachment 3.XX-2 Revision - None Page I of 3
, Project Drnie.n Chteklist for TRP Review TRa' f or Pl:l'T Nu. :
Reviewing Diseipiine: , _ _ _ _
llev iewing D.it e : _ , , _ , __ __
Cen"rel Conslil.r; ion: Yes No NA
-e is'.u, t e s t proceiure reviewed prior t o testina;? O O O e Did-l.nginee r in,, pr ovide er ass ir.t with test scope? O O O e Did Engineering wit ness test? O O O
. Cons ider.it ion o f U_!i,.icc t ive s and Cr it e r i a Note: A resp 0ase of "No" should be c o:::p h r:c a t e d w i th add it i ona l information in the additional com-ment s sect ion.
- Does test objectives address all Engineering require-ments present in: .
es FSAR? ::::
l ee Design Calculations? -
ee P41D? O O es FSD7 0 ] O ee DI? ] l
]
ee Specifications? J .] O ee Design Drawings? O O O e Is acceptance criteria consistent with Engineering requirement?
Consideration of Dispasition of Exceptions Note: A response of "No" should be complemented with additional information in the additional com-
, monts section. .
e Does Engineering agree with all dispositions of except ions? O O O
-s
=
k.
T .,
3' '
Procedure 3.XX
)- Att ach:uent 3.XX-2 Revisiun - None Page 2 of 3
, (-
~
Cons icle rat ion o f liyos i t ion o f 1:xcey,t,iyl,;, Mont 'd . ) Yes No NA
~
e 3 s eacle. dispo.4it ion teclinical riccept able? C D o Are clianges realiti red in Ea;;inees ing clocuar'nt s a ; a resulL of Llie d i:,po::i L ions v 0 0 0 o- If dispos,itions-are unaccept.shle, has rerosai seinled ac t ions or alt ernat ives been proviiled? O O O Add i t iona l Corrient a .
. _ _ - _ .= .- - - - -_
-= =-- _ . .
. . = .-
[ _ . - - - - . . - . . _- -
Disposition of TRP f -
Q Accepted (Refer to addition il coc.ments section tor justification relative to responses of "No".)
O ^ccepted witti followinn ietion required:
9 0 -
4 s
-, - e. .
.Ir>
~' $.
Procedure 3.XX
- A t t aclitue n t 3.XX-2 Revisiun - None
' 1 Page 3 of 3
(
Dispo.s it ioa of TH1' (conL'd.).
'O Not Accepted 'fTlw following- is reevncended to bria;-
THP into covipliance with1Engineerinn requiremtnts.)
1 F
.___ _ _ _ _ . =
-t A
Reviewed by: Date: Approved by: Date: i
. l t
t y-c or 4 e--,,.9- --r- - --=-+ h= -
-F----