ML20065N756

From kanterella
Revision as of 05:50, 6 January 2021 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Rev 4 to Administrative Procedure RW-001-210, Process Control Program
ML20065N756
Person / Time
Site: Waterford Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 08/24/1990
From:
ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML20065N588 List:
References
RW-001-210, RW-1-210, NUDOCS 9012120276
Download: ML20065N756 (23)
v • d • e


Text

. - .. .- . . .. . . . . . . . . - _ . _ _ - . . _ . ..

s i-PORC/PORG-SC---R RW-001-210 REVISION 4 EFFECTIVE DATE SAFETY-RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE PROCESS CONTROL PROGRAM 0

l 9012120276 901207 PDR P ADOCK 05000382 PDC UNT-001-002 Revision 12 Attactunent 6.3 (1 of 2) 41

+

PORC ANB-PORC---S/E REVIEW AND APPROVAL SHEET -

REVIEW 0F: M O - 00 \ - Q_ \ o - 9Wt

. as PORC 20 C.Ad Ph.u% Ub_o %h '

PORC - S/C D D \ I The PORC or PORC S/C has reviewed this item and determined that a Safety /- l Commitment Review was performed, (if applicable) that a Safety Evaluation was performed (if applicalle), that an unreviewed safety question does not exist and that nuclear safety is/was not adversely affected.

PORC MEMBER SIGNATtHIE REOMED FOR AMM DATE MEMBER YES NO p

, rn ent Wp g eri dent '

) 7/$

Radiation Protection Superintendent (3 /

p 4

Operations Quality

/

Assurance Manager a

/

Plant Engineerin,t Superintendent 8h3 g "

Assistant Plant Manager PORC-S/C Member PORC-S/C Member PORC-S/C Member PORC-S/C Chairman -

n i _~ / >

PORC Chairman [, / (;

Meeting No.% O -o M tem NoT\\ - b Date: 93kC\b This item is recommended for approval? 00 YES O NO I This item requires SRC/NRC review prior to implementation? O YES 20 NO If.yes, ensure documentation. supporting review is attached.

PLANT MANAGER-NUCf. EAR APPROVAL y Comments: Abners, %Ab [4eud i u,rm b, Y Aa ou a duciJ LM RJL~ , d6,uL ~ ask vre 1% 9 ///f/ -- n , i Approved by [ kRA NM arm ' tfa na ge r-Nuclea r Date f f df 4c

('

l. {

UNT-001-004 Revisiod 12 Attachment 6.1 (l of 1)

WATERFORD 3 SES g9 PLANT OPERATING MANUAL Ch3ck Block Balow

. CHANGE / REVISION / DELETION REQUEST 1[PORC-((lPORC-S/C Sotess f @ M

~ProcedureNo.k 1-2_10 Title ROC 1Rtim >

Effective h te N @ e f o'7 (if different from approval'date) i Complete .4, 3, and C A. Change No. O \ h ((lPermanent l[lDeviation' Expiration Date B. Revision No. M Deletion l[ LYES KINO C.

DESCRIPTION OF PROCEDURE NAkedE 55 boko 1 SECAltoM 9R&0(d65 SueWr h A M u R F. dret PLI A co # LOI Tt+ THE LIMosI 46, MEc63 ES llEOuBLMEOTS ,

i i

REASON FOR CHANGE, REVISION, OR DELETION 16 esennPitT194, o H ARAr-i PEOtES TFh EY LtdE95t tc A to fsb 200 71 As adhoed._

'o i ML k2EMR\ L LETTER T 9- 01, f,r oERfvtLV nE.5E' -

ALLoto % R6Moodl o@ %E, 0.RACAE6 BRF IMTActEh 4n "PR N P REDalREMEpTS

. FReM %K W 3 66% TancEnl 6PEttFIMTioc6 BY IMcRPOMTt9A TREM u)To -rwis PRodEbuRE.

'Thh c1A94# At.S e A D DRF6S E $ T M ( 0AMF- 0 H AME THRT REWLT6d i evm L0 W h eledie< mM PnRd_MfMEh TW 036sinMMotse' Wh PLd6 Ah ur01iEh -T"R6lR To mcNie E e n lc n v ~/$ A o u O N d.i

[SEM hu910E65 - MT. _

AUTHOR ~ Mce n_h bairrih DATE (c -l % -9 0 SAFETY SCREENING /EV UATIO au s hb' - -

DATE - (o

  • 2'8- 9 0 TECHNICAL REVIE h ,, m bm l' _ DATE lo 2.6 @

GROUP HEAD REVIEWMQYt N/ /dtf/ DATE 7M"/90

< v DATE TEMPORARY APPROVAL * (SRO)

DATE TEMPORARY APPROVAL *

  • Temporary approval must be followed by Plant Manager - Nuclear approv.a1 within I s.

14 days.

UNT-001-003 Revision 12 Attachment 6.5 (1 of 1) l 31

" " * ~ , . . .- , ,

_ . . ~ . . _ _ . - . - _ _ . . - __. - _ _ . _ _ . . . __ .. . ~ . . _. . _ _ _ . .

s Administrative Procedure RW-001-210

2.0 REFERENCES

3.0 DEFINITIONS 4.0 RESPONST.BILITIES 5.0 P.ROCEDURE 5.1 Program Description 5;2 Solidification. Process Parameters 5.3 Administrative Controlo 5.4 Waste Charadterization and Classification 5.5 Quality Assurance 6.0 ATTACEMENTS LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES Title Revision 4 1-11 Revision 4 i

i l

I 1

s Adainistrative Procedure RW-001-210

. Process Control Program Revision 4 l 1.0 PURPOSE 1.1 The purpose of Waterford Steam Electric St ton - Unit Number 3 (Waterford 3) Process Control Program (PCP) is to describe the program which provides reasonable assurance of the complete stabili-zation and/or solidification, as ar,,licable of various radioactive

" wet wastes" which may include :.esin slurries and evaporator bottoms are in accordance with applicable Department of Transportation (DOT),

Nuclear Regul tory Commicslon (NRC), State and licensed burial facilities acceptance criteria for packaging and shipment to an approved burial site. Compliance with these criteria will be achieved through implementation of the PCP and related Waterford 3 and vendor supplied procedures. Containers engineered and built to comply with the stability requirement may be used. Waterford 3 SES typically relics on Vendor supplied systems and/or services for stabilization and solidification services.

2.0 REFERENCES

2.1 Waterford 3 Documents 2.1.1 FSAR Chapter 11.4, Solid Waste Management System 2.1.2 FSAR Chapter 13.4, Review and Audit 2.1.3 FSAR Chapter 13.2, Training l l

l 2.1.4 FSAR Chapter 13.5, Plant Procedures l

2.1.5 Nuclear Operations Management Manual,Section VI, Chapter 5 j 1

1 2

' Administrative Procedure RW-001-210

, Process Control Program Revision 4 [

2.2 Vendor Controlled Documents 2.2.1 LN Technologies Corporation, TR002, Topical Report on 10CFR61 Qualified Radioactive Waste Forms, May 1984 2.2.2 LN Technologies Corporation FI-013, Process Control Prograr for Dewatering Liner with LN Technologies Corporation Internals, LN Technologies Corporation 2.2.3 Scientific Ecology Group, Inc., OP-4.34, Process Control Program for Dewatering Bead or Powdered Resin with Quick Dry Dewatering System No 8814, 2.2.4 Scientific Ecology Group, Inc., OP-4.31, Operating Procedure for SEG Rad Waste Solidification System.

2.2.5 Scientific Ecology Group, Inc., OP-4.30, Process Control Program for Rad' Waste Solidification Service 2.2.6 RW-2-401, Use of Radman Operating Program 2.2.7 RW-2-41'1, Use of Radman Data Base Manager and Recover 2.2.8 RW-2-110, Waste Sample Collection and Isotope Evaluation 2.3 Other Documents 2.3.1 10CFR61, Licensing Requirements for Land Di,sposal of Radio-active Waste 2.3.2 10CFR20.311, Transfer for disposal and manifests 2.3.3 10CFR71.91, Records l

l 3

- - -~ . - _ -. -.

Administrative Procedure RW-001-210

. Process Control Program' Revision 4 3.0 DEFINITIONS 3.1 Stability means structural stability as per 10CFR61.2 3.2 Solidification means the immobilization of wet radioactive wastes such as evaporator bottoms, spent resins, sludges, and reverse osmosis concentrates as a result of a process of mixing the waste type with a solidification agent (s) to meet the requirements of the licensed disposal site and 10CFR61.

4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 4.1 Radiation Protectioc Superintendent 4.1.1 The Radiation Protection Seperintendent is responsible for the overall effective management of the plant Process Control Program. The Radiation Protection Superintendent ensures that changes are initiated to the Process Control Program procedures when necessary and that appropriate Health Physics support is,provided.

4.2 Lead Supervisor-Radwaste 4.2.1 The Lead Supervisor-Radwaste who reports to the Radiation Protection Superintendent holds key responsibilities for implementation of the Process Control Program such as:

4.2.'1.1 The preparation, review and approval of the-Process Control Program procedures pertaining to the processing and packaging, of radioactive materials; 4.2.1.2 Data collection, trend analysis, long-term planning, and problem solving for the plant Process Control Program; 4 l l

Ad31nistrative Procedure RW-001-210

. Process Control Program Revision 4 l 4.2.1.3 Managing radwaste stabilization, dewatering and

. packaging; 4.2.1.4 Preparing procedures for stabilization, dewatering and packaging; .

4.2.1.5 Interfacing with other groups as necessary to analyze and resolve problems relating to the Process Control program such as the design of Radwaste Systems and Equipment; 4.2.1.6 Preparing periodic reports summarizing the Process Control. Program; 4.2.1.7 Procurement of materials and supplies required for implementation and maintenance of the Process Control Program; 4.2.1.8 That personnel receive appropriate training and are qualified for their respective duties; 4.2.1.9 Adequate staffing and sufficient resources for efficient and economic operation of the Process Control Program.

4.3 Operations Superintendent I 4.3.1 The Operations Superintendent is responsible for the effective operations of permanent plant radwaste systems and will coordinate radwaste activities with the radwaste department, j 5

, 1 Administrative Procedure RW-001-310

, Process Control Program Revision 4 l l l

i l

1 4.4 Plant Chemist i l

4.4.1 The Plant Chemist is av.yonsible for interfacing with the Radwaste Engineer on items or problems relating to radwaste processes and chemistry controls or chemical reactions and performing chemical and radiochemical analyses of samples of radioactive waste or materials.

4.5 Quality Assurance 4.5.1 Quality Assurance is responsible for:

4.5.1.1 Assessing the implementation and effectiveness of the quality assurance aspects of the Process Control Program through regular-audits and selective monitoring of activities.

4.6 Director Operations Support & Assessmsnt 4.6.1 The Director of Operation Support & Assessment is responsible for providing the following services:

4.6.1.1 State-of-the-art technical advise, support, and assistance as required; 4.6.1.2 Licensing and regulatory compliance support; and 4.6.1.3 Appraising the Waterford-3 Process Control Program and recommending improvements.

4.6.2 The Operations Support and Assessme.t staff interfaces directly with the plant staff in providing these services, i

5.0 PROCEDURE l

i

, 5.1 Program Description 6

l

y

~ Administrative Procedure RW-001-210 q ' Process Control Program-Revision 4 l 4

5.1.1- Solidification System

Description:

Waterford .3 uti!!zes vendor supplied portable solidification equipment for radioactive waste solidification. References' l

2.2.1, 2.2.4 and 2.2.5 provide a general description of respec-tive vendor solidification processes and process control features; Reference 2.2.6 describes the method which will be I 1

utilized to classify wastes in accordance with 10CFR61; and '

Reference 2.1.1 through 2.1.5 are Waterford 3 documents which -l [

either implement or describe activities which provide reasonable assurance that wastes are solidified or dewatered in accordance .

with all applicable regulations and criteria.

l

.5.1.2 Sources of Waterford 3 Stabilization / Solidification-Feeds:-

The Cement solidification will be used to stabilize resins, evaporator bottoms and boric acid concentrates. During resin stabilitation, vendor equipment will be connected to the Resin' Wasto Management System outlet.to allow'for the transfer of resin. Vendor equipment will be connected to the Solid, waste Management System outlet when evaporator bottoms from the rad-waste evaporator and boric acid concentrates.from the Boron Management System evaporator are to be stabilized. Solidi-feation using Aquaset/Petroset media will be used to process resins, oil, water / acid, evaporator bottoms and. boric acid

, concentrates. This process will not-be connected.to any plant waste systems and will.be processed on a batch basis.

)

1 l

1. .. .

Administrative procedure RW-001 210

. Process Control Program Revision 4 {i 5.2 Solidification Process Parameters:

5.2.1 Solidification formulas and solidification process parameters are incorporated into the applicable vendor process control program. No exceptions or deviations from vendor supplied procedures or topical reports are anticipated for stabilized waste. The formulas are used to calculate the ratio of waste, cement, water and other reagents required to achieve an acceptable solidified product. Compatibility requirements of the waste stream with respect to the solidification media are described in the vendor process controls program. Vaste stream parameters are adjusted as necessary to meet these requirements.

5.2.2 Test solidifications are performed on waste stream samples to verify vendor calculated solidification f ormulas.

5.2.3 Radioactive wastes shall be solidified or devotered in accordance with the process control program to meet shipping and transportation requirements during transit, and disperal site requirements when received tt the disposal site, 5.2.4 With solidification or denatering not meeting disposal site and shipping and transportation requirements, suspend shipment of the inadequately processed wastes and correct the process control program, the procedures, and/or the solid waste system as necessary to prevent recurrence.

5.2.5 With solidification or dewatering not performed in accordance with the process control program, test the improperly processed waste in each container to ensure that it meets burial ground and shipping requirements and perform appropriate corrective action if required.

8

l Ad2inistrative procedure RW-001-210

. Process Control Program Revision 4 l 5.2.6 Solidification of at least one representative test specimen from at least every tenth batch of each type of wet radioactive wastes (e.g., filter sludges, spent resins, evaporator bottoms, boric acid solutions and sodium sulfate solutions) shall be verified to accordance with the vendor's process control program.

5.2.7 If the initial test specimen from a batch of weste fails to verify solidification, the process control program shall provide for the ecliection and testing of representative test specimens from each consecutive batch of the same type of wet waste until at least three consecutive initial test specimens demonstrate solidification. The process control program may be modified if practical to assure solidification of subsequent batches of waste.

5.2.8 If any test specimen fails to verify solidification, the solidification of the batch under test shall be suspended until such time as additional test specimens can be obtained, alternative solidification parameters can be determined in accordance with the vendors process control program, 4od a subsequent test verifies solidification.

Solidification of the batch cay then be resumed using the alternative solidification parameters determined by the process contro; program.

4 9

Administrative Procedure RW-001 210

. Process Control Program Revision 4 l 5.3 Administrative Controls 5.3.1 Administrative controls utilized to insure compliance with applicable state and federal regulations id burial site criteria are detailed in the radioactive waste solidification

< surveillance procedure (s). These implementing document (s) for radioactive waste solidification and dewatering describes the requirements which must be met prior to processing radio-active vaste, as well as the condition of the solidified 4

or dewatered waste. Test solidifications, full se: ale calcula-tions and operation of the solidification equipment are performed by vendor personnel. Dewatering operations will be performed by vendor personnel or by qualified Plant staff.

Plant staff provides Health Physics and Quality Assurance coverage, operates plant radioactive vaste systems, collects

, waste stream samples and performs isotopic analyses. Copies of all referenced documents are available on site for use by personnel engaged in solidification activities.

5.3.2 Changes to this Process Control Program shall be described in the semi-annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report for the period in which the change is made. I 5.4 Waste Characterization and Classification 5.4.1 Waste Classification 5.4.1.1 Solidified wastes are classified in accordance with the requirements of 10CTR61.55, as implemented by reference 2.2.6 and plant waste classification and characterization procedure (s).

1 10 l

Ad31nistrotive Procedure RW-001-210 Process Control Program Revision 4 l

$.4.1.2 Annual analysis will be performed on the vaste streams to determine the isotopic abundance of gamma emitting isotopes in the streams as described in Reference 2.2.8. Scaling factors for

the non-gamma emitting and transuranic constituents will be developed from this annual analysis using References 2.2.6 and 2.2.7. The activity of each radionuclide in the solidified waste will be deter-mined by a core sample or a calculational method employing the percent abundance and scaling factors with a dose to curie conversion factor as described in Reference 2.2.6.

5.4.2 Waste Characteristics 5.4.2.1 Solidified wastes will meet the characteristics of 10CTR61.56(a). Stabilized wastes will meet the characteristics of 10CFR61.56(b). Waste containers will be labelled to identify the waste class.

5.4.2.2 The manifesting requirements of 10CTR20.'311 are implemented and records are maintained in accordance with 10CTR71.91.

5.5 Quality Assurance 5.5.1 Quality Assurance related activities for the Radioactive Waste Program are implemented as described in the Nuclear Operations Management Manual (Reference 2.1.5). These activities provide verification that the solidified wastes meet applicable state and federal regulations and burial site criteria.

6.0 ATTACRMENTS NONE 11

TECBICAL REVIEW CECKLIST PROCEDt!RE NO. hO- l -2. l O REVISION N0. E CHANGE NO.

TITLE hh 0 M S S CyCMtk fRC4RMA ASSIGNED TECKNICAL REVIEWLR TECHNICAL 5.E'!!EW StTBC0!9 TITTIE FORMED l[ LYES Ik1NO LIST StTBC0ref!TTEE EMBERS /DEPARTMFWTS

1. Is this procedure, revision, change, or deletion technically and administratively correct? y_/) YES l_l

_ NO

2. Is this procedure, revision, or change capable of being perfor3ed? y/l YES l[1NO
3. Is this procedure, revision, chang' or deletion compatible with other plant procedures? I YES l __j N0
4. Does this procedure, revision, on change reference and adequately implement (or in the case of a deletion, adequately compensate for) commitments (CMS Report) made in the FSAR, SER, and other licensing documents? I 7ES 1_I N0~
5. Is this procedure, revision, change or deletion correctly numbered, formatted and prepared in accordance with ,

,j approved procedures? lyl YES l_1 NO

6. Does this procedure; revision, change, or deletion adequately address and/or reference Technical.

Specifications and other matters that may affect nuclear safety?

l YES l~l NO

7. Was the Safety Screening adequately performed? l S l_~l NO
8. Was the Safety Evaluation, if applicable, adequate i to determine whether or not an unreviewed safety question exists?

l[ LYES l'_l NO $ NA

9. Does the procedure maintain the level of Fire Protection as outlined in the approved Fire Protection Procedure? l((YES l[lNOT2)NA

. I have reviewed this procedure and all items checked "N0" above have been resolved with the Author (or responsible Group ad) and documented on Document Review Comment sheet). '

ASSIGhEDTECHNICALREVIE.  % . 4-- DATE b J

UNT-001-003 Red sion 12 Attachment 6.7 (1 of 1) 33

] . i y .

i .

~

i SUNO%RY INFORMA*nON FOR 10CFR50.59 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

! SCREENING AND EVALUATION  %-  :>

.. . J,.

N tivity Tide: RW-1-710 Procesi. Control Procram E 1. Descripdon of the proposed change P

Remove Tech. Spee. references recuested by licensine in PETR 20071 ne a

]

i out lined in NRC Cenert e l et ter 840*01. Also addreer Vendor name ehnnees.

l i

a 2, Documents and FS AR secdons reviewed i

Technicel Socciffentions 6.13 and F9AR 11.4.

1 l . i i  !

3. Funedon of affectEl equipment / procedure '

i 3

j- Procedure drovides reasontibic assurance of the comolete cenbillention nnd /or polidi fien t ion an atinlienble of variot e radinnetive " vet uneter" a

3 '

in order to conniv vith DOT. NRC nnd licenmed'burini tite faellitica 'D acceptance criteria. '

4. Impact of change on funcdon of equipment / procedure

! Same requirements that were in the Technical Secef fientions are included l

' in the procedure.

t i

5. Brief summary of screening / evaluation results A charge to the Technical Specifications will he-reautred to effect t s this change, s A- -

y

, an.

i .g Lr iJ .

' NOP 013 REV.I.0 ATTACHMENT 7.1 PAGE 1 of 4

SCREENINGS Screenine Instructions: Attachment 7.5, Guidelines for Performance of 10CFR50.59 Safety and Envimnmental Irnpact Evaluations," should be refened to when perfonning the screening.

Assumptions, references and technical bases used in answering the screening criteria should N documented in sufficient detail so that an independent reviewer can reach the same conclusions.

Answer PART A. If the answer to any of the questions is YES, further screenings are not necessary and no 10CFR50.59 evaluations should be made. However, a subrnittal to NRC requesting approval of the activity may need to be prepared (Questions 3,6,7) with the assistance of Nuclear Licensing and Regulatory Affairs. If all are NO, additional screenings per PARTS B, C and D must be made.

Answer PART B. If the answer to any of the questions is YES, a 10CFR50.59 safety evaluation must be performed per Attachment 7.2 to detennine if an unreviewed safety question (USQ) exists.

If all answers are NO, then the proposed change or activity does not require a 10CFR50.59 safety evaluation.

Answer PART C. If the answer to either question is YES, an EnvironmentalImpact Evaluation per Attachment 7.3 must be performed. If both are NO, no evaluation is needed.

Answer PART D. If the answer to this question is YES, s Radioactive Waste Systems Additional Safety Evaluation per Attachment 7.4 must be made. If it is answered NO, no evaluation needed.

PART A PRELIhENARY 10CFR50.59 SCREENING Does the proposed change or activity represent:

YES X NO (1) A change or activity which, in its entiretv. has received prior NRC appmva!?

YES _ __ NO X - (2) A change or activity which,in its entirety. is addressed by nn existing f- approved 10CFR50.59 evaluation?

YES _ _ NO x (3) A change or activity which,in its entiretv. constitutes a change to the QA Program, Emergency Plan, Secunty Plan or Operator Requalification Program?

YES __._ NO x (4) A change to correct a typographical error?

YES ._ _ NO _ X (5) A correction of a nonconformance which results in preserving any applicsble' licensing basis?

YES _ NO X (6) A change to the Technical Specifications and/or Operating License?

YES NO x (7) A chan;;e to the approved fire protection program which would adversely affect (1e ability to achieve and maintain safe shutdown in the event of a fite, or a significant change to the basemat cracking surveillance program?

Provide an explanation and references for any YES answer below:

This procedure chance to in accordance with NRC Cenerie Letter 90-01.

l This revision vill become ef fective nfter NRC Review nnd Annrovn1 of the chance to Teebnten1 Specifications (TSCR #80-07). The NRC Reviev vill include review of thin p ro c e r'u te .

y i

NOp.01'4RFY!.n ATTACHMENT 71 PAGE 2 of 4

)

! +

4 PART B . FINAL 10CFR50.59 SCREENING

')

3

Does the proposed change or activity represent
,

i YES _ NO _ (1) A chuge to the facility which ahers, or has the potential to alter, the information, operation, function, or ability to perform the function of a f

' system, structure, or component described in the S AR7 Explain:

l I N/A l

l 2

1

) .

! YES NO (2) A change to a procedure which alters, or has the potential to alter, a .

procedure described, outlined or summarized in the S AR7 Explain:

2 N/A j

..)

k 4

YES NO (3) A test or experiment not desedbed in the SAR or which requires that h system be operated in an abnormal manner that is not described or

previously analyzed in the S AR7 Explain:

i N/A ,

E' i

aj

),

' n) !

i a; j

' 't .

43 y PAGE 3 of 4

~L NOP-013 REV.1.0 ATTACHMENT 7.1

,..,, PART C ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION SCREENING

'i As the proposed change or activity represent:

'fES NO _ (1) A change to the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP)? Provide the basis for the answer below:

n/A YES _ NO (2) Measurable non radiological effects not confined to onsite areas previously disturbed during site preparation and construction? Provide the basis for the answer below:

11/A c r.

44 a PART D RADIOACTIVE WASTE SYSTEMS SCREENING YES 'NO . Does the proposed change or activity alter or affect a radioactive waste system (eg. Gaseous, Liquid, Resin, or Solid Waste Management, Airbome

  • Radioactivity Removal, Post Accident Sampling, Process Radiation  :

Monitoring)? Provide the batis for the answer below: l P/A Preparer /Date M 'e

/ <

f f.

j//

Reviewer /Datd a o- P / 9/So 2k};

Supervisor /Date  !/ 4 M9/I6 l -

! NOP-013 REV.1.0 ATTACHMENT 7.1 PAGE 4 of 4

. - . . _ - - - - . _ . . . _ . _ _ _ . .. _ _ ~ _ ...- _. - .- - . _ _ . - .

7WN w DOCUtENT REVIEW CottENTS Page I of /

DOCUtRNT NO. (d hl- ) 'l / O SION No. 4 DRAFT No. W A TITLE: Mum k root (9 6 N Cot 0fENT RES NO. C0tefENT NO. RESOLUTION l C 67,io n ww s \.

ps owe) 63 s, c

~ W & h>^O "' N

()a Da,4.s $r- 4 5 L#> [A "

c.#, ,s w r S 7 ph V.

Qv Ho s e- 1. 1, *&

() '

p . ,u r s% W" ,s 2 k k lst -

, ,- w . u , wc . 637_J%

W a v[ c63._ _ -

3 sn str o ms, 1 -

D' Q ,, , ,

,h g ,

b"G v ' M5 f Y gwm,n c a vo r b. EA Cm & v 5 g e c., e h"'E u., h p.M M wc4

  • cs y
1. Reviewed By: &(4 f& o w. 2. ts Res Ive  : t Al/f/"

Reviewer (erint) l[Af!/-/NK Y wusnor ~

1 $

o.tq l O 4 +t; 2'/h'd) 3. Resolution of Comments Accepted By:

Re p r (Signature) / Date .

M WM unt-oot-cos R.visio. 12 ^** '" * *"

RECEIVED l , Oltti 8 1990 PORC

- . - _ . . . __ . . _ _ _ _ .- a

_ _ _ . _ z _ . _ . . . _ _ . _ . _ _ - _ _ . _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ = - _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - -

l DOCl2E.NT REVIEW CONNENTS Pago I

/ et 1

) DOCUMENT NO. Rt0 2 i O REVISION NO. 9 DRAFT NO. I i

TITI.E: hbe.E55 CoeyTRol k(AR(4M 1 CO.tE.NT RES j NO.- COMMENT NO. RESOLUTION Q 6haatJ 3,w fqc wncea c '.i G)

. i, ? be dchW- K g._ ,y A.0.rd d)

?W{M%to f' 2) Nd b ApA g .y ,IJ hotdCl h' (lc(L{tcI (t110[' 0 oCII i

f((la lff01,lis* Ch i h 0[] /).'ll O/ (?[ /0 /} ,

f7(4 T)W ' / !U* ? Ul, fy l lll)/)IA Y 0'*k T l llg /)k.1diAf/ A lWl'

, At(cnq' /ltv & / Ni -

l uwp si .b &&9&n -

cucl 10$ { &&afal/m a

1. Reviewed By: 2 C e ts, Resolved By:

J 9/ Ml$ f V611b W --

Reviewer (Print) Author Date 72/Io J (M 6hG H 3. Resol m on of C m e m Anege O y: i evtewer' (Signature)

~

Date IFeviewe r Date 4

UNT-001-003 Revision 12 Attachment 6.6 (1.of 1) 32 i

l-DOCLMENT REVIEW COMPE.NTS 1,, Page 1 of {

Docar.NT No. Ru3 2 t o REVISION No. 4 DRAFT No.

TITI.E hee _ESS C et1T9,ok kMRAM

! co m ats i, so. co m so. ats0wtION j g G4(P tt.1 do:Jc) N (;p Qr M l

Ofang(c/ b Dmicl&1 OpUotyCT4 Syff cH-meof Quby,nimb i

6n3 54tp 51. I dth (

@ beN cLlah Q(ingt  ?. ? 7 l

@ Sly G S.L dlO  % ,

'pohxica( fvofcak11 l'

1 6, / s".

l g g.f?g G 4/,/./ AN @ \c M i

ff . l()Xf 'S?' 0 i

.& shy 5 (/r /l b6'l & WW

{$f f(f C1 kib' Y N-

1. Reviewed By:

2 pbntsResolvedBy: 1 b'f)AIS $ fik'715 t {N. & 'Lla 9

  • Reviewer (Print) TuthW '

lDate b'7?* /A #

//h114 /2 9 d Date

3. Resolution of Consents Accepted By:

Reviewer (S t adathre) .

Reviewer Date UNT-001-003 Revision 12 Attachment 6.6 (1 of 1) 32

UN$

1M  %

( PORC AND-POR6---6/6 REVIEW AND APPROVAL SHEET E# ,, 2,& , ,

p M a - Process Control Program PORC E o PORC,- S/C D

  • k NkW' , (. lA%+

[I U i reviewed this item and determined that a Safety /

M bbg erformed, (if applicable) that a Safety Evaluation 9

{( /7W . hDp

able), that an unreviewed safety question does ear safety is/was not adversely affected.

PORC OW.MD TOR AMRON' MEMBER SIGNATURE DATE MEMBER YES NO g' Maintenance Superintendent g y Mpg Operations Superintendent Radiation Protection '

Superintendent dM 4 84 % v bM'*

Operations Quality Assurance Manager Plant Engineering Qh/ V g/6ffa g //

Superintendent Assistant Plant '

pgA. h IIh le Manager PORC-S/C Member PORC-S/C Member PORC-S/C Member PORC-S/C Chairman j PORC Chairman {

7.2.24 hw '4 Meeting No.90-072 Item No. VIII-A Date: 8/16/90 This item is recommended for approval? E YES O NO This item requires SRC/NRC review prior to implementation? O YES E NO If yes, ensure documentation supporting review is attached.

PLANT MANAGER-NUCLEAR APPROVAL Comments:

ih-U U d W) .

N b U i St- bt

% v\ osk \ \

W -sW \

Approved by ___

Date Plant Manager-Nuclear UNT-001-004 Revision 12 ,

Attachment 6.1 (1 of 1)

_ - _ - _ _ _ -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20065N756&oldid=3074622"