Fully Developed Element

DOESTD107393

2.4.2 FULLY DEVELOPED ELEMENT

Under fully developed change control, changes may only be identified, reviewed, approved,

implemented, and documented through change processes that have been determined to be adequate.

The following discussion presents recommended features of, and methods for, accomplishing each of

the basic change control functions, presented in Figure 214.

2.4.2.1 Identification of Specific Changes

Specific changes should be identified only within established change processes. The need for a

potential change may be identified by anyone within the facility and should be documented by the

requester to support the processing of the change request. As defined by the CM program criteria,

each proposed change should be described adequately to support technical and management reviews

prior to approval. Change initiation should include the name of the requester, a description of the

proposed change, the affected SSCs and associated SSC grade, the reason for the change, alternative

solutions, due date, and constraints. It should also include any other information needed for review,

tracking, approval and further processing.

2.4.2.2 Technical Review of Changes

Effective change control involves formal, multidisciplined, technical reviews for each change. Some of

these are necessary to maintain configuration and others are defined as good management practices.

The technical reviews defined by the CM program criteria to maintain configuration can be grouped into

these areas: design envelope review; identification of affected hardware and documents; identification

of post-implementation acceptance criteria; and, safety, environment, and mission reviews.

Design Envelope Review. Design envelopes are pre-approved limits or constraints within which

changes may be made within the bounds of the design requirements. For example, suppose the

design authority has approved three different lubricants as acceptable for a given valve and specifies

that they may not be mixed. If the maintenance organization desires to switch from one approved

lubricant to another, the change needs to be recorded and documented; however it is not a design

change. As another example, suppose the design authority has specified a pump actuation setpoint as

55-65 psig and the operating organization has requested the actual setpoint of 62.5 psig to be reduced

to 57.5 psig to reduce spurious actuations. Again, the change is a physical configuration change, which

needs to be documented, but it is not a design change. As a third example, if the design authority has

determined, by evaluation, that the maximum number of plugged tubes for a specific heat exchanger

cannot exceed 15 percent, this value becomes the design envelope for future maintenance work. Up

to this limit, the maintenance organization does not have to check with the design authority each time it

needs to plug tubes because the number is within the design envelope. However, if the maintenance

organization needs to exceed this limit, evaluation and approval by the design authority needs to be

obtained, and a new design envelope may be established. The same approach may also be used for

setpoint changes, torque values, machining tolerances, vibration limits, or other routine activities where

design envelopes can be established.

Changes that are shown to be within existing design requirements or defined design envelopes do not

need evaluation by the design authority. Any personnel or organization, such as operations,

maintenance, technical support (i.e., system engineers), or others, may perform the design envelope

review, provided they are competent to make such an evaluation and have access to the appropriate

design requirements, or specific design envelopes. The CM equipment database provides access to

design requirements and design envelopes. Figure 215 shows the general approach for performing

design envelope reviews, described further below.

II-43