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

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