Quantcast Perform walkdowns and compare the existing physical configuration to the facility documentation

 

Click here to make tpub.com your Home Page

Page Title: Perform walkdowns and compare the existing physical configuration to the facility documentation
Back | Up | Next

Click here for thousands of PDF manuals

Google


Web
www.tpub.com

Home

   
Information Categories
.... Administration
Advancement
Aerographer
Automotive
Aviation
Construction
Diving
Draftsman
Engineering
Electronics
Food and Cooking
Logistics
Math
Medical
Music
Nuclear Fundamentals
Photography
Religion
   
   

 

Share on Google+Share on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on TwitterShare on DiggShare on Stumble Upon
Back
Figure 2-16. Assessments Element: Vertical Slide Methodology
Up
Chapter 2 Implementation Guidance for Operational Configuration Management
Next
Figure 2-17. Assessment Element: Horizontal Slice Methodology


DOE­STD­1073­93
attention should be given to consistency between the assumptions made in different design basis
calculations; the design basis documentation and design requirements documentation; and, the design
requirements against one another and as reflected in the SAR, procedures, vendor material, and other
sources of design requirement information. Another comparison should made between documents
containing the design requirements and the as-built documents (such as drawings and procedures).
Inconsistencies, technical inadequacies, and missing information should become preliminary
assessment findings to be analyzed further.
Perform walkdowns and compare the existing physical configuration to the facility documentation.
Walkdowns are an integral part of a vertical slice assessment. They are performed to establish the as-
found facility physical configuration, the results of which are compared to the associated documentation
in order to identify discrepancies. Initial walkdowns provide insight Into the accuracy of existing facility
drawings. Walkdown methods and follow-up actions are addressed in the discussion of physical
configuration assessments In Section 2.5.3.2.
Evaluate preliminary assessment findings to identify programmatic strengths and weaknesses.
Correcting each specific finding without determining the programmatic deficiencies that allowed these
findings to occur is not the objective. Final analysis of the findings should result in the determination of
the extent of weaknesses and the underlying causes. For example, a discrepancy between the existing
configuration and the as-built documentation might be due to inadequate interfaces between the
change control and document control programs, while differences between the design basis
information and design requirements might be due to inadequacies in the design engineering process.
Once programmatic strengths and weaknesses are identified, this information should be factored into
the associated CM program plans to assist in CM program development.
Develop corrective actions. As a result of the initial assessments, corrective actions should be
developed to address the identified weaknesses. Recommendations should be made addressing
programmatic deficiencies that, if corrected, will prevent these types of problems from occurring in the
future. The CM program management will evaluate the initial assessments, including recommended
corrective actions, and determine the appropriate actions for the facility. Program management should
take immediate corrective actions to remedy the major programmatic weaknesses. Further, specific
interim upgrades may be prudent in areas such as change control, document control, design control,
and physical configuration determination.
2.5.1.2 Horizontal Slice Assessments
The horizontal slice assessment process is described in the following sections. An overview of that
process is presented as Figure 2­17.
ldentify the programs or topics to be assessed. Likely candidates for horizontal assessments are the
change control program, the document control program, the design change process, a topical program
common to many SSCs, the design requirement documentation and design reconstitution efforts (if
underway at the time). As defined by the CM program criteria, at least two initial horizontal
assessments should be performed. One is to be conducted on the change control program and
another in a topical area such as seismic, fire protection, or environmental qualification.
Develop evaluation criteria that define the requirements for the program. These evaluation criteria are
similar to the performance objectives and criteria used by DOE and the commercial nuclear power
industry for conducting performance-based assessments. Examples of upper-tier evaluation criteria in
various areas of the CM program are as follows:
II-50


Privacy Statement - Press Release - Copyright Information. - Contact Us

Integrated Publishing, Inc.