ML20024F611

Rev 4 to Project QA Plan for Midland Independent Design Const & Verification Program.

ML20024F611
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	07/15/1983
From:	Levin H TERA CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML19292B413	List: ML20024F606 ML20024F611 ML20024F617
References
PROC-830715, NUDOCS 8309090519
Download: ML20024F611 (139)

Text

._ .

! PROECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN FOR MIDLAto INDEPENDENT DESIGN CONSTRUCTION Ato VERIFICATION PROGRAM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY PROECT 3201 o Prepared by: .

Verified by: bM' V Howard A. Levin Mark Polit Project Manager Project Quality Assurance Engineer TERA Corporation TERA Corporation

~

h-Approved by: /t), Approved by: ,

~--

Johb. Beck Rdert W. Felton Principal-in-Charge Executive Vice President l

Vice President TERA Corporation TERA Corporation Copy No. OAL July 15,1983 Revision: 4 i

l

< O l 8309090519 830906

, PDR ADOCK 05000329 i A PDR i

l . _ . - - .-. .-. - - , _

TER A CORPOR ATION OUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM I )

L.J Midland IDCV Program PQAP DOCUMENT REVISION RECORD REV DATE DESCRIPTION OF CHANCES Changes made reflect omission of required graphics - no substantive I I/17/83 chianges in content. Affected pages: PQAP - pg. 19; PI Document Control Cover Sheet - pg. 3; Pl - Engineering Eval. Prep. and Control - pg. 3 Pages 12a, 13, 14a: designation of personnel who may potentially 2 2/15/83 participate in the project and their functional areas of expertise.

Appendix A, ECP-5.2, and 5.2QA, " Calculation Preparation and Control" and " Audit Checklist...", updated to include corporate (v} revision. Includes reformatting, further detail and additional attachments.

Appendix C, Resumes: addition of resumes for personnel who may potentially participate in the project.

General Revision: Major areas of change include Personnel 3 5/2/83 Qualifications and improvements to Administrative Control Procedures. General clarification is found throughout.

Changes made reflect updated project organization, improvements 4 7/15/83 to Administrative Control Procedures and the initial issuance of PI-3201-006 and PI-3201-007

[ N.

i~ i

%)

TERA C,ORPORATION

l TERA CORPORATION Page 1 of 2 j OUALITY ASSURdNCE PROGRAM Midland Independent Design and Construction Verification

'Progran De,TE: 7/15/83 PQAP ggy 4 PAGE REVISION RECORD PAGE REV PAGE REV PAGE REV PAGE REV .PAGE REV PAGE REV 4 3201-001 3201-0022A 18 0 22 0 l Cover 4 24 i 4 4 -1 3 1 1 19 0 23 0 25 il 4 26 4 la 3 2 1 Exh! bit! 0 24 0 ill 4 27 4 2 3 3 1 Exhibit 2 0 25 0 Iv 4 28 4 3 3 3201-005 kxhibit 3 0 26 0 v 4 29 4 4 3 1 0 Exhibit 4 0 27 0 1 1 4 30 4 5_ 3 2 1 Exhibit 5 0 28 0 l 4 4 Sa 3 3 1 320l-007 n 29 0 2 31 4 6 3 4 1 2 0 30 0 3 4 32 i 4 3 5 0 3 0 31 0 4 4 33 7 ,

0 4 0 32 0 5 4 Fig. 1 4 8 2 Att. A 6 4 Att. A 3 Att. A 2 3201-006 5 0 Exhibit 1 0 4 Att. B 3 Att. B 2 1 0 6 0 Exhibit 2 0 7

8 4 Att. C 3 Att. C 2 2 0 7 0 Exhibit 10 Att. D 3 3 0 8 0 Exhibit 4 0 9 4 Att. 0 3 4 3201-001 QA 4 0 9 0 Exhibit 5 0 10 Att. E 3 4 Att. F 3 1 1 5 0 10 0 Exhibit f 0 11 2' 1 6 0 11 0 Exhibit 7 0 12 4 Att. G 3 13 4 Att. H 3 3 1 7 l0 12 0 Exhibit 2 0 14 4 Att. I 3 3201-002 8 0 !3 0 Exhibit 5 0 15 4 App. A 3 1 , 1 9 0 14 0 ExhibitlC 0 16 4 ECP 5.2 3 2 2 10 0 15 0 Exhibit 1 1 0 4 ECP 5.2QL 2 3 1 11

~

0 16 0 Exhibit 12 0 17 4 1 12 0 17 0 3201-008 18 4 ECP 5.3 1 Att. A 13' O 18 0 1 1 19 4 ECP 5.5 3 1 0 2 20 4 ECP 5.6 3 Att. B-1 1 14 ' O 19 2 0 Att.B-2 -15 0 20 0 3 1 21 4 ECP 5.15 1 22 4 App. B 3 Att.B-3, 1 i6 0 21 0 4 2 0 ha 2 23 4 17

TERA CORPOR ATION OUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM Page 2 of 2 Midland independent Design and Construction Verification Program DATE: 7/15/83 PQAP REV: L PAGE REVISION RECORD PAGE REV PAGE REV PAGE REV PAGE REV PAGE REV PAGE REV 3201-00 3 (Con ) Att. B 1 2 Att. C 1 5

6 2 3201-012 7 1 1 0 8 1 2 0 1

9 1 3 10 2 4 0 11 2 5 0

) I d 12 2 6 Flo. 1 1 7 0 Att. A 1 8 1 Att. B I 9 0 Att. C 1 Att. 1 0 Att.D-1 1 Att. 2 0 Att.D-2 1 Att.D-3 1 Att.0-4 1 Att.D-5 1 Att.D-6 1 Att. E 1 3201-01c I I 2~ 1 I

L 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 -

Att. A 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE

< POLICY STATEMENT i TABLE ~OF CONTENTS ii i 1. GENERAL I

> l.1 Purpose I l.2 Scope , 'l l.2.1 Engineering Evoluotions I l.2.2 Document and Report Preporation 2 1.2.3 Calculations, Analysis and Computer Analyses 3 1.2.4 Source / Reference Material 3 l.3 Implementation 4 Ch 4

( J 2. ORGANIZATION, 4

2.1 Project Organization 2.2 Authority and Responsibility 5

3. PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS AND CONTROL 8 3.1 Management Personnel 8 3.2 Project Personnel 13 3.3 Associates IS

4. ADMINISTPENE CONTROL 22 ,

22 4.1 S V ct > 'fe 24 4.2 E v.s og Evoluotions 4.3 Documentc and Reports 24

. 4.4 Calculations, Analyses, Computer Analyses 24 4.S PGAP 24 4.6 Quality Asurance Documents 24 h

O b

l Rev.O ii

O TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

SECTION PAGE 4.7 Personnel Qualifications 25 4.8 Correspondence File 25 4.9 Potential Open, Open, Confirmed and Resolved 26 Item Reports, Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reports 4.10 Engineering Program Plan 27 4 .11 External Communications 27 4.12 Source Documents 27 4.13 Scope Change Requests 28

5. PROCEDURES AND INSTRUCTIONS 28 5.1 Engineering Controf Procedures 28 5.2 Project Instructions 29

6. QUALITY ASSURANCE 32 6.1 Records 32 6.2 Corrective Action 33 6.3 Audits 33 FIGURES FIGURE 1: PROJECT ORGANIZATION CHART 1 .

.()

L Rev.O iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

ATTACHMENTS A. POAP REGISTER B. QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENT REGISTER C. PERSONNEL QUALIFICATION CONTROL REGISTER D. CORRESPONDENCE FILE REGISTER E. CORRESPONDENCE FILE CONTROL STAMP F. DOCUMENT CONTROL REGISTER FOR DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS G. DOCUMENT / REPORT CONTROL REGISTER H. SCOPE CHANGE REQUEST CONTROL REGISTER I. PROJECT INSTRUCTION HEADER PAGE APPEPOICES A. ENGINEERING CONTROL PROCEDURES ECP-5.2 "Colculation Preparation and Control" ECP-5.20A " Audit Checklist for Calculation Preparation and Control" ECP-5.3 " Drawing Preparation and Control" ECP-5.30A " Audit Checklist for Drawing Preparation and Control" ECP-5.5 " Project GA Plan Preparation and Control" ECP-5.6 " Quality Assurance Audits" ECP-5.15 " Corrective Action Procedure" Rev.3 iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

B. PROJECT INSTRUCTIONS PI-3201-001 " Engineering Evoluotion Preparation and Control" PI-3201-00lO A " Audit Checklist for Engineering Evoluotion Preparation and Control" PI-3201 -002 " Document Control Cover Sheet" PI-3201 -0020A " Audit Checklist for Document Control Cover Sheet" PI-3201-005 " Documentation of Observations" PI-3201-006 "Use of Design Verification Checklists" PI-3201-007 "Use of Construction Verification Checklists" PI-3201-008 " Preparation of Open, Confirmed and Resolved item Reports, Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reports" PI-3201-009 " Engineering Program Plan" PI-3201 -010 " External Communications, Protocol and the Preparation

' of Contact Log Sheets" PI-3201-Ol2 " Scope Change Requests, Midland IDCV" C. RESUMES 1

l I

l i

Rev.3 v

" ~ # ' ~

n , ,- ,- . , . - . , ,__

n- l V PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN 1

PROJECT: Consumers Power Company PQAP . 3201 Midi nd independent Design ane  ;

REV.: A DATE: 7/I5/83 Construction Verification Progra-PAGE I of 33

l. GENERAL 1.1 Purpose The Project Quality Assurance Plan (PGAP) establishes, describes, and defines the documented, ouditable, control measures to be imple-mented to ensure occurate engineering evoluotions, correct calculo-tional procedure and analysis, and correct dato application is the Midland independent Design and Construction Verification Program (IDCV) for Consumers Power Company (CPC).

(v l.2 Scope Quality Assurance (QA) requirements shall be applied to engineering design and co7struction evoluotions, analyses, computer onelyses, calculation p reparation, documentation and the development of findings and f nol reports. The specific activities to which the PGAP opplies and t' method of program opplication are os follows.

f.2.1 Em :eering Evoluotions l

Engineering evoluotions are the principal means of documenting the IDCV review process and the bases for its conclusions. Engineering evoluotions required for project review octivities ossociated with design and construction verification shall be controlled by Project Instruction PI-3201-001. They shall be performed by technically

)

sm U PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN 1

PQAP- 3201 PROACT: Consumers Power Company Midland independent Design and REV.: 4 DATE: 7/15/63 Construction Verification Progra-PAGE 2 og 33 qualified individuals, and will be reviewed by on individuo!

having qualifications at least sufficient to perform the evoluotion. Where calculations are required to be performed to support the engineering evoluotion, these shall be controlled in occordance with Section 1.2.3.

Engineering evoluotions shall be maintained in files at the Bethesda, Maryland offices of TERA for the duration of the project.

1.2.2 Document and Report Preparation Documents such as Monthly Status Reports, Draft and Final Interim Technical Reports, Draf t and Final Reports that ore prepared in the course of this project shall be controlled in accordance with Project Instruction PI-3201-002 through the use of Document Control Cover Sheets. Documents such as Open, Confirmed and Resolved (OCR) Item Reports, Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reports that are prepared in the course of the project shall be controlled in occordance with Project Instruction PI-3201-008. These documents shall be prepored by technically qualified individuals and shall be reviewed by another individual familiar with the project.

This review may be performed by the Project Manager.

Documents and reports prepared during this project shall be

(~^s maintained in files at the Bethesda, Maryland offices of.

- TERA for the duration of the project.

I

3 (V PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN PROACT: Consumers Power Company PQAP- 3201 _

Midland independent Design ane REV.: 4 D/.iE: 7/15/83 Construction Verification Progra-PAGE 3 of 33 l

I.2.3 Calculations, Analyses and Computer Analyses (1) Final calculations, analyses and computer analyses that are performed for purposes of confirmatory evoluotion of the Midland design or design bases shall be prepared and controlled in accordance with ECP-5.2, " Calculation Pre-paration and Control."

(2) Calculations shall be controlled through the use of calcu-lotion cover sheets os described in ECP-5.2.

(3) Final calculations shall be kept of the Bethesda, Maryland offios of TERA for the duration of the project.

l.2.4 Source / Reference Material

' Source or reference material obtained from Consumers Power Company or other organizations used in performing the engineering evoluotions, calculations, analyses, computer analyses or document preparation for this project shall be maintained in a file at the Bethesda, Maryland offices of TERA for the duration of the project. Control of this material shall be provided by use of file registers that list the information contained in that file, including date or revision.

Source material for which TERA is on a revision distribution list, such as drawings and specifications, shall be controlled O by use of registers which log the distribution of copies, or d originals, of these documents.

O PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN Consumers Power Company PQAP- 3201 PROACT:

Midland independent Design and REV.: A DATE: 7/15/83 Construction Verification Progra-PAGE 4 of 33 9

l.3 Implementation 1.3.1 This Project Quality Assurance Plan is to be implemented, as applicable, by all individuals assigned responsibility for per-formance of technical, managerial, and administrative func-tions related to the quality assured activities identified previously.

1.3.2 Revisions are effective and shall be implemented within ten (10) working days of the date of issue of the revision. All

/] octivities are to be in compliance occordingly.

J

2. ORGANIZATION 2.1 Project Organi20 tion Figure I provides the organizational chart for the project. Technical and administrative personnel (not shown) will receive assignments directly from the Project Manager (PM). The Project Manager will serve os the principal point of contact with Consumers Power Company. The Project Quality Assurance Engineers will report directly to the Executive Vice President. They will identify internal quality assurance deficiencies, work with the Project Manager in providing clarification relative to identified deficiencies and any recommendations made by them for resolution, rm k

u

O PROJECT QUAUTY ASSURANCE PLAN PQAP- 3201 PROKCT: Consumers Power Company Midland independent Design anc REV.: 4 DATE: 7/l5/83 Construction Verification Progra-PAGE 5 of 13 2.2 Authority and Responsibility 2.2.1 The Principol-in-Charge (PIC) is responsible for helping establish the general philosophy of review, setting forth 4

guidance to the Project Manager and the Managers, Design and Construction Verification, assisting as on interface with the Senior Review Team (SRT) Chairman, NRC and Consumers Power Company and reviewing / concurring in reports issued to Consumers Power Company, NRC and other N outside parties.

(b 2.2.2 The Project Manager is responsible for overall planning and supervision of all in-house activities undertaken as required to fulfill the contract requirements. All documentation, correspondence, reports, cokulations, etc., issued to Consumers Power Company, NRC and other outside parties are to be issued under his signature or otherwise receive his approval as required by the applicable Engineering Control Procedure or Project Instruction. The Project Manager is also responsible for overall planning and management of all outside octivities performed by Associates and any subcontractors, but may delegate responsibility for supervision to other individuals within the project.

Documentation may be issued to the associate or subcontractor under the signature of the designated individual.

>O )

\J 4

O PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN PROECT: Consuners Power Cor. pan y PQAP- 3201 M;dland n dependent Desig, anc REV.: 4 DATE: 7/15/83 Construction Verification Progra-PAGE 6 of 33 2.2.3 The Chairman of the Senior Review Team (SRT) is responsible for the coordination and direction of SRT octivities. He shall serve os on interface with the Project Manager (PM) to ensure resolution of SRT comments on Open, Confirmed and Resolved (OCR) Item Reports, Finding Reports, and Findin7 Resolution Reports before transmittal to the Principal-in-Charge (PIC) for opproval. The SRT Chairman will document recommendotions and comments crising from SRT review meetings to the PIC with copies to O the PM and Lead Technical Reviewers.

2.2.4 The Senior Review Team (SRT) is responsible for the review of Open, Confirmed and Resolved (OCR) item Reports as requested by the Principol-in-Charge (PIC), Findings and proposed Action Plans for resolution of Findings, as well as all interim Technical Reports and Final Reports prior to issuance. They will also provide recommendations to resolve f

differing technical views which may arise among project tecm members. The SRT may at any time recommend to the PIC that the Project Manager expand the scope of review, provide clarification or reassess elements of the review. The SRT is also responsible for the review of monthly status reports, OCRs, os directed by the SRT Chairman, and any Draft Interim Technical Reports to maintain current technical oworeness and assure a high level of technical quality, l

o r

e

O V PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN PQAP- 3201 PROECT: Consumers Power Company j l

Midi "d '"d*P'"d*"* U**I 9" *"d R N.: 4 DATE: 7/15/83 Construction Verificaticn Progra-L PAGE 7 of 33 2.2.5 The Lead Technical Reviewers (LTR) are responsible for implementation of all technical review activities within their discipline of review, including technical supervision of individuals on the project team and outside activities per-formed by Associates or subcontractors. The Independent 4 Design Verification (IDV) LTRs report to the Managers of the Auxiliary Feedwater System (AFW) Review, the Standby Electric Power (SEP) System Review or the Control Room HVAC (CR-HVAC) Review. The Independent Construction p Verification (ICV) LTRs report to either the Manager, V Construction Verification or the Manager, Site Activities as shown on Figure 1. The LTRs are responsible for the initial classification of OCRs and Findings, the preparation of Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reports.

2.2.6 The Projec^ Quality Assurance Engineer is responsible for verification of the implementation of the PQAP and will perform audits of applicable procedures and instructions implementation in accordance with Section 6.3 and ECP-5.6.

2.2.7 Lines of communication for identified deficiencies shall be in i

accordance with ECP 5.15," Corrective Action Procedure."

! . 2.2.8 The Monogers of Design Verification and Construction 4

l Verification are responsible for overall planning, management i

and supervision of all activities within the IDV and ICV portions of the Midland IDCV respectively, and coordination i

l t

i l

l l

(3 tJ PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN PROACT: Consumers Power Company PQAP- 3201 Midland Independent Design and REV.: 4 DATE: 7/15/83 Construction Verification Program )

PAGE 8 of 33 i

between each other to assure that IDV and ICV interfaces are adequately addressed. These individuals report directly to the Project Manager.

2.2.9 The Managers of the AFW, SEP and CR-HVAC Reviews are responsible for management and implementation of design review octivities necessary to complete on integrated review of their respective systems, coordination of activities between LTRs under their supervision and coordination with the ICV program LTRs. These individuals report to the L Monoger, Design Verification.

2.2.10 The Manager, Site Activities is responsible for planning, management and supervision of all Midland site related octivities and the Construction / Installation Documentation, Verification Activities and Verification of Physical Configuration categories of review. He reports directly to the Manager, Construction Verification.

3. PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS AND CONTROL 3.1 Management Personnel 3.1.1 Principol-in-Charge - John W. Beck Mr. Beck has brood experience in operations, systems, engi-((,- neering, environmental, and licensing areas of the nuclear power industry and has been selected by the Executive Vice

m U PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN PRO.ECT: Consumers Power Company PQAP- 3201 Midland independent Design ane REV.: 4 DATE: 7/15'83 Construction Verification Progra-PAGE 9 of 33 President to provide corporate overview of the project. He is on officer of TERA Corporation. A copy of his resume is presented in Appendix C and provides documentary evidence of his qualifications.

3.1.2 Project Monoger - Howard A. Levin Mr. Levin has brood experience in the creas of nuclear plant engineering and licensing as well as monoging engineering projects. He has been selected by the Executive Vice U President as Project Manager to manage and direct the implementation of the project. A copy of his resume is presented in Appendix C and provides documentory evidence of his qualifications.

3.l.3 Project Quality Assurance Engineer - Mark Polit 4

Mr. Polit is highly qualified in the creo of nuclear power plant quality assurance and has been selected by the Executive Vice President as Project Ovality Assurance Engineer for the project. A copy of his resume is presented in Appendix C and provides documentary evidence of his qualifications.

3.1.4 Monogement Personnel The following personnel have been selected by the Project V Monoger based upon their unique technical and management t

(oy PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN Consumers Power Company PQAP- 3201 PROECT:

Midland independent Design and REV.: A DATE: 7/15/83 Construction Verification Program PAGE 10 of 33 The fo!!owing lists qualifications for the project.

management personnel along with a short description of their creas of expertise. Copies of their resumes are presented in Appendix C providing documentory evidence of their qualifications.

Areos of Expertise Monocer 4 Frank Dougherty Nuclear power plant mechani-Manager, Design Verification col design, safety and re-liability analysis, system design /criterio development bsi V

Donald Tulodieski Project management / control, Manager, Construction start-up testing, engineering Verification analysis and design, licensing, plant reliability analysis Martin Jones Nuclear power plant con-Manager, Site Activities struction management, quality control, training, start-up, electrical engineering Richard Snaider Nuclear power plant opero-Manager, Auxiliary Feed- tions, maintenance and design, water System Review systems engineering, licensing project management, mechanical engineering l Doug Witt Nuclear power plant systems l

' Manager, Control Room and mechonical design, safety HVAC System Review onalysis, equipment design, licensing, HELBA, thermal-l' hydraulics 1

Gerold Setko Electrical engineering,

( Manager, Standby Electric nuclear power plant opero-l (q j

'"y Power System Review tions, design implementation, equipment qualification

O PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN PROACT: Consumers Power Company M- 3201 Midland independent Design and REV.: A DATE: 7/15/83 Construction Verification Progra-PAGE 11 of 33 3.l.5 Senior Review Team The Senior Review Team (SRT) has been selected by the Principol-in-Charge based upon their many years of experience in the nuclear industry, broad creas of personal knowledge, and specific nuclear design review expertise. The following lists the SRT members along with a short description of their creas of expertise. Copies of their resumes are presented in Appendix C providing documentory (3

( evidence of their qualifications.

SRT Member Functional Areas of Expertise Donald Davis Nuclear safety and licensing, plant and reactor systems, thermal-hydraulic analysis, accident analysis William J. Hall Engineering analysis and design,

. structural engineering, struc-tural mechanics and dynamics, soil mechanics, fracture mechanics, engineering criterio development for major projects Robert Wilson Nuclear power plant operations, engineering and design, licensing project management G

o V PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN PQAP- 3201 NACT: Consumers Power Company Midland independent Design and REV.: 4 DATE: 7/15/83 Construction Verification Progra-PAGE 12 of 33 3.1.6 Senior Review Team Chairmcn - Donald Davis M'r. Davis has extensive experience in nuclear plant engineering and licensing and has been selected by the Principol-in-Charge for the project. He will coordinate and direct Senior Review Team activities.

4 3.l.7 The Managers, Design and Construction Verification are controlled and their performance evaluated under direct p supervision of the Project Manager who provides input to the U Principol-in-Charge for his review and concurrence. LTRs, the Monogers of the AFW, SEP and CR-HVAC Reviews, and the Manager, Site Activities are controlled and their performance evoluoted under the direct supervison of the Managers, Design or Construction Verification, respectively, who provide input to the Project Manager for his review and Concurrence.

3.1.8 Monogement control is provided by the Executive Vice Presi-dent, Robert W. Felton and Vice President, Larry H. Wight, through review of project reports, oudit findings, and evaluations conducted in the normal course of business. Mr.

Felton and Mr. Wight have extensive experience in the 4

management of large-scale projects involving engineering,

^

licensing and quality assurance. Their resumes are provided in Appendix C.

p V)

I

---

y- - - - - - -

gC PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN PQAP- 3201 PROACT: Consumers Power Company Midland Independent Design and REV.: 4 DATE: 7/15/83 Construction Verification Progra-PAGE 11 of 11 3.2 Project Personnel 3.2.1 Stoff technical and administrative personnel are selected by 0

the Project Manager or Managers, Design or Construction Verification as required, based on their qualifications and creas of expertise, to perform and/or coordinate the performance of activities undertaken in fulfillment of contract requirements.

,q 3.2.2 The fo!!owing lists the various TERA technical personnel that may participate in this project and the functional areas where each will provide input to the oroject. This listing shall in no way restrict the personnel used by TERA to complete this project. The Project Manager in consultation with the Managers, Design or Construction Verification may assign personnel in addition to those listed below; however, these other personnel must have qualifications that are odequate to the extent required for performing the specific task.

Technical Reviewer Functional Areas of Expertise Robert Cudlin Nuclear safety and licensing, reactor safeguards, plant and containment systems, equipment qualification l .

Henry George Quality assurance, training, nuclear plant systems procedures, project monogement

\p l

O O PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN PROECT: Consumers Power Company PQAP- 3201 Mid1 nd inee endent Design and REV.: 4 DATE: 7/l5/83 Construction Verification Progra-PAGE I4 of 33 Technico! Reviewer Functional Areas of Expertise Robert Snyder Nuclear power plant design and construction, project manage-ment, stort-up and operations Michael Aycock Nuclear power plant systems, operating procedures, licensing and project management Christion Mortgot Nuclear power plant structural /

mechanical design, engineering mechonics, earthquake engineering Engineering mechanics p Jormo Arros V Kenneth Campbeil Soil mechanics, earthquake engineering Norman Berube Design and analysis of mechanical systems, thermal-hydraulics, heat transfer, engineering, analyses Frederick Berthrong Engineering project management, planning, scheduling and field engireering Leonard Stout Design, construction, start-up and operations project control, schedule and cost control systems Susan Sly Burke Civil / mechanical design and construction, installation and inspection 1 )

v

m P

%J PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN consumers Power Company PROACT:

PQAP- 3201  ;

Midland independent Design and REV.: 4 DATE: 7/15/83 Construction Verification Program PAGE 15 of 33 Technical Reviewer Functional Areas of Expertise Richard MacDonald Engineering, construction, opero-tion, maintenance and project management systems, nuclear plant start-up and operations Sidney Brown Engineering and construction management, cost and scheduling, quality control, field engineering Douglas Witt Nuclear power plant systems and mechanical design, safety analysis, equipment design, licensing, HELB A, thermal-hydraulics fD v Randy Cleland Power plant mechanical design, piping /honger design and con-struction, review and inspec-tion of mechanical systems, construction supervision and management, results engineering James Long Engineering management, nuclear power plant safety and licensing George Trigilio Design and anotysis of waste treatment systems, health physics, radiological engineering Stephen Schreurs Engineering analysis computational methods, ECCS evoluotion, waste management, licensing

O d PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN PROECT: Consumers Power Company PQAP- 3201 Midland independent Design anc REV.: 4 DATE: 7/15/83 Construction Verification Progra-PAGE 16 of 33 Technical Reviewer Functional Areas of Expertise Forzin Romezonbeigi Structural and mechanical engineering, usoge and interpretation of structural / mechanical computer codes Christion Nelson Nuclear power plant operations, design, safety analysis, seismic design evoluotion, inspec-tion program development Jim McIlvoine Nuclear power plant design, fl V licensing, mechanical en-gineering, waste management 4

3.2.3 Staff personnel are controlled and their performance evolu-oted under direct supervision of the LTRs and Manager, Site Activities who provide input to the Managers of the AFW, SEP or CR-HVAC System Reviews or the Manager, Construction Verification for their review and concurrence.

3.2.4 Lead Technical Reviewers The Lead Technico! Reviewers (LTR) have been selected based upon their unique technical qualifications for the project. The following lists the LTRs along with a short

- description of their creas of expertise. Copies of their resumes are presented in Appendix C, providing documentory evidence of their q'uolifications.

(

v)

O PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN PQAP- 3201 PROACT: Consumers Power Co.pany Midland independent Design and REV.: 4 DATE: 7/i5/83 Construction Verification Progra-PAGE 17 of 33 Lead Technical Reviewer Functional Areas of Expert.ig Joseph Mortore Nuclear power plant structural, 4

• AFW ond CR-HVAC Struc- mechanical design and construc-tural Review tion, equipment qualification, operating reactor safety, licens-ing, project management Richard Snaider Nuclear power plant operations, AFW and SEP Mechanical maintenance and design, systems and Systems Review engineering, licensing project management, mechanical engineering O Lionel Bates Nuclear power plant electricol, V Electrical Review instrumentation and control systems design, equipment quali-fication, plant operations and maintenance Doug Witt Nuclear power plant systems CR-HVAC Mechanical and mechanical design, safety and Systems Review onalysis, equipment design, licensing, HELB A, thermol-hydraulics Christion Mortgot Nuclear power plant structurol/

SEP Structural Review mechanical design, engineering mechanics, earthquake engineering Randy Cleland Power plant mechanical design, ICV Verification Activities piping /honger design and con-struction, review and inspec-tion of mechanical systems, construction supervision and monogement, results engineering Fred Pellerin Development, implementation, ICV Construction / monitoring, supervision, and Installation evoluotion of quality assurance m Documentation and quality control programs (j

PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN PROACT: Consumers Power Company PQAP- 3201 Midi nd indepe, dent Design and REV.: 4 DATE: 7/15/83 Construction Verification Program PAGE 18 og 33 Lead Technical Reviewer Functional Areas of Expertise Martin Jones Nuclear pov.er plant construc-ICV Verification of tion manegement, quality con-Physical Configuration trol, tro:ning, start-up, electrical engineering Robert Snyder Nuclear power plant design and ICV Storage and Moin- construction, project manage-tenance Documentation ment, start-up and operations Donald Tulodieski Project management / control, ICV Supplier Documentation start-up testing, engineering onelysis and design, licensing, A plant reliability analysis

'Q 3.3 Associates 4

3.3.1 Associates are selected by the Project Manager and Managers, Design or Construction Verification as required to perform activities requiring specific detailed, state-of-the-art knowledge of selected scientific and engineering specialties.

i 3.3.2 Associates are controlled by direct supervision of the f 4 Monagers of the AFW, SEP or CR-HVAC System Reviews in consultation with the Monager, Design Verificotton and by the Monoger, Construction Verification with assistance os required by other staff personnel.

.O V

l

m (V PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN PQAP- 3201 PRO.ECT: Consumers Power Company Midland independent Design anc REV.: 14 DATE: 7/15/83 Construction Verification Progra-PAGE 14 of 11 3.3.3 The following lists the various TERA associate personnel that are expected to participate in this project and the functional areas where each will provide input to the project. This listing shall in no way restrict the personnel used by TERA to complete this project. The Project Manager in consultation with the Monogers, Design and Construction Verification may assign personnel in addition to those listed below; however, these other personnel must have qualifications that are odequate to the extent required for performing the specific task.

[))

\,_

Associate Functional Areas Monte Wise Engineering and project manage-ment, preservice/ inservice inspection, NDE, nuclear power plant operations and management, quality assurance Mehmet Celebi Nuclear power plant structural, mechanical design and construction Stan Fabie Thermal-hydraulic and hydo-elastic analysis, computer methods development (authored BLODWN-2, WH AM, G ASRAD, MULTIFLEX),

pipe rupture onolysis, containment analysis Albert Mortore Engineering, specification, con-struction fabrication, construction management and control, schedul-ing, supervision, inspection A

iv)

1 (V~'T PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN PQAP- 3201 PROACT: Consumers Power Company Midl "d '"d*P'"d*"t D*539 " 'd .

REV.: 4 DAT: 7/l5/83 Construction Verification Progra- I PAGE 20 d 33 Associate Functional Areas James Owens Nuclear and fossil power plant design and construction, noc-leor steam supply systems design and construction, pro-ject management, control systems, safeguards, licensing Stanley Kout Design review, construction, testing, operation and licens-ing of electrical power, in-strumentation and control systems and equipment; project j monogement, plant procedures L/ development, quality assurance Edward Beck Nondestructive testing, Level lil in radiography, ultrasonics, magnetic porticle, liquid penetrant, materials testing Robert Reneau Nondestructive testing, Level 11 in radiography, ultrasonics, magnetic particle, liquid penetrant, materials testing Orin Kilgore Corporate quality assurance, construction, startup and

- operations I

l William Pryor Mechanical, piping, electrical and instrumentation quality inspections, startup, testing and operations Frederick Pellerin Development, implementation, monitoring, supervision, and evoluotion of quality assurance and quality control programs

(

In) v PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN PQAP- 3201 PROECT: consumers Power Company "idI'"d '"d*P*"d*"* C**i 9 " *"d REV.: 4 DATE: 7/15/83 Corstruct. ion verification Progra-PAGE 21 of _ 11 Associate Functional Areas Stephen Driscombe Construction management, site construction services, con-struction supervision, electrical construction techniques, pro-cedures and specification development, design review, quality control Luis Flores Nuclear power plant licensing, operations, systems engineering, instrumentation and control sys-tems, failure analysis O

f Loren Stanley Nuclear licensing, design review, safety-related component deter-minations, probabilistic risk assessment Richard Keller Electrical, instrumentation and control systems design, plant protection systems / engineered safety features evoluotion, probabilistic risk assessment Edward Schrull Reactor safety systems, nuclear licensing, reliability and risk i

ossessment, instrumentation and l

control, computer analyses Peter Andersen Nuclear power plant safety and l

design analysis, heat transfer, fluid dynamics, computer modeling i

John Angelo Design, operation, maintenance, installation, testing and inspec-l tion of power plant systems and components, nuclear safety and licensing l

O V

PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN PQAP- 3201 PROJECT: Consumers Power Company Midland independent Design and REV.: 4 DATE: 7/15/83 Construction Verification Progra-PAGE ?? of it Associate Functional Areas Joseph Penzien Structural engineering, earth-quake engineering, reinforced concrete response Daniele Veneziano Engineering statistical analysis, probabilistic analysis, civil engineering Lenny Lookso Structura!/ mechanical analysis and design of nuclear power plant buildings and equipment, specifico-tions, planning and scheduling O

V David Pococha Mechanical engineering, welding, nondestructive testing, ultro-sonics Paul J. Brunner, Jr. Quality control, acceptance testing, construction inspec-tion, nondestructive testing John Smith Ultrasonics testing, structural failure analyses, quality control i

Richard Norris Engineering materials evoluotions, l fracture face onolyses, metallurgist

4. ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL 4.I Subject File The following numbers shall be used as subject file identifiers to fn

!C identify controlled documents in that file. Documents in a file shall have on I.D. number that includes the project identifier and the subject file identifier followed by a unique sequence number (001-999).

L

l O

V PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN PQAP- 3201 PROECT: Consumers Power Co.pany Midland independent Design and REV.: 4 DATE: 7/15/83 Consttuction Verification Progra.

PAGE 23 of_33_ _

File Identifier Subject File 3201-001 Engineering Evoluotions 3201-002 Documents and Reports 3201-003 Co!culations, Analyses, Computer Analyses 3201-004 PGAP 3201-005 Quality Assurance Documents 3201-006 Personnel Qualifications

• v] 3201-007 Correspondence File 3201-008 Open, Confirmed and Resolved item Reports, Finding Reports, Finding Resolution 4 Reports, Observations 3201-009 Engineering Program Plan 3201-010 Externo! Communications (Contact Log Sheets) l 3201-01i Source Documents

• 3201-012 Scope Change Requests l

• Source documents (file 3201-011) and Personnel Ovalifications documents l (file 3201-006) do not require ID numbers; however, these documents are l

logged by register in occordonce with sections 4.12 and 4.7 respectively.

O

i I

o

'v' PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN l

l PROACT: Consumers Power Company l PQAP- 3201 Midland independent Design anc REV.: 4 DATE: 7/I5/83 Construction Verification Prograr PAGE 24 of 33 4.2 Engineering Evoluotions Engineering evoluotions are controlled in compliance with the requirements of Project Instruction PI-3201-001, " Engineering Evo!-

votion Preparation and Control."

4.3 Documents and Reports Documents and reports such as Monthly Status Reports, Draf t Final Q

s U

Reports, Draft Interim Technical Reports, Interim Technical Reports, and Final Reports are controlled in compliance with the requirements of Project Instruction PI-3201-002," Document Control Cover Sheet."

4.4 Calculations, Analyses, Computer Analyses Calculations, Analyses and Computer Analyses are controlled in compliance with the requirements of ECP-5.2, Calculation Prepara-tion and Control. The Project identifier is the Project No. as listed on the cover sheet previously.

4.5 PGAP The PGAP is controlled in compliance with ECP-5.5, Project GA Plan Preparation and Control. For this project, the PGAP Register (Attachment A), will be maintained by the Project Monoger.

4.6 Quality Assurance Documents v

Quality Assurance (QA) Audit Reports, responses, follow-up documents, etc., are controlled in compliance with ECP-5.6, " Quality

k PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN PROJECT: consumers Poner Co pay f PQAP- 3201

" # *"d '"d***" *"* * " " '

REV.: 4 DATE: 7/15/83 Construction Verificatson Procra-25 d 33 l PAGE Assurance Audits." The Project Monoger will maintain a register (Attochment B) to log control numbers assigned to O A documentation per ECP-5.6.

4.7 Personnel Qualifications Documentation related to the qualifications of project personnel such as resumes and offidavits are logged (Attochment C) and filed in subject file 3201-006.

A

\ 4.8 Qrrespondence File Correspondence, including letters and memos, shall be routed to 3201-007. Each appropriate personnel and indexed in the subject file document will be assigned a unique identification number in the following format:

3201-007-XXX-X JL JL Jk JL Correspondence Type Designator Sequence Number (001-999)

Correspondence File Identifier l Project Number 4.8.1 The following correspondence type designotors shall be utilized:

A

(%

V PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN PROACT: Consumers Power Company PQAP- 3201 Midland independent Design ane REV.: 4 DATE: 7/15/83 Construction Verification Progra-PAGE -_26 of 1 File Register Correspondence Type Designator CPC to NRC A NRC to CPC B CPC to TERA C NRC to TERA D TERA To CPC ond NRC E CPC to Bechtel F Bechtel to CPC G NRC to Bechtel H Bechtel to TERA J CPC to B&W K Project Miscellaneous L b3 Bechtel to/from B&W M U' Bechtel Internal N P

Miscellaneous NRC TERA to Bechtel and B&W Q To and from Stone & Webster R l3 4.8.2 A register (sompte shown in Attachment D) will o; maintained for each file. The file control stomp or equivalent (example shown on Attechment E) shall be used to record the identification number assigned to each document.

4.9 Potential Open. Open, Confirmed and Resolved item Reports, Finding O

Reports, Finding Resolution Reports and Observations Potential Open, Open, Confirmed and Resolved item Reports, Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reports are controlled in compliance

• with the requirements of Project instruction PI-3201-008; Preparation of Open, Confirmed and Resolved item Reports, Finding Reports and A Finding Resolution Reports."

U

(03 PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN PROACT: Consumers Power Company PQAP- 3201 Midland independent Design anc REY.: 4 DATE: 7/15/83 Construction Verification Progra-PAGE 27 og 33 4.10 Engineering Progrom Plan Project Instruction PI-3201-009, " Engineering Program Plan" (EPP) is issued and controlled as a separate document from the Project Quality Assurance Plan (PGAP). The EPP is included as part of Appendix B. A distribution list for controlled copies of the EPP (Attachment A) shall be maintained by the Project Manager.

Preparation and control of Project Instructions are addressed in Section 5.2.

J 4 .11 External Communications Records of telephone conversations, meetings and exchanges of written documents between IDCV project personnel and external porties are controlled in compliance with the requirements of Project Instruction PI-3201-010, " External Communications, Protocol and the Preparation of Contact Log Sheets."

4.12 Source Documents Source or reference material obtained from Consumers Power Company or other organizations shall be routed to oppropriate personnel offer logging. The Document Control Register for Drawings and Specifications (Attochment F) will be used for these two categories. Source documents files except those for externally controlled drowings and specifications, will be controlled using o O

O Document / Report Control Register (Attachment G). A separate file

V PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN PROJECT: cons.3,ers po.er to-4ae, PQAP- 3201 "idlane indepeneent Desig. a-:

REV.: 4 DATE: 7/15/83 Construction terification Pro; a-PAGE 28 of 33 and register will be maintained for various categories of source documents of the discretion of the Project Manager or his designated representative.

4.13 Scope Change Requests Scope Change Requests are controlled in compliance with the requirements of Project Instruction PI-3201-012, " Scope Change Requests, Midland IDCV Program." The Project Monoger sSolf maintain o register (Attachment H) for Project File 3201-012.

5. PROCEDURES AND INSTRUCTIONS 5.1 Engineering Control Procedures 5.1.1 Engineering Control Procedures (ECP) and revisions are implemented of project level by issue of the POAP or bv revision thereof. ECPs are corporate level documents prepared under the supervision of the Quality Assurance Monoger and opproved by the Executive Vice President.

5.1.2 The following ECP's are hereby implemented for the subject project:

O (1) ECP-5.2,"Colculation Preparation and Control", Rev. 3

\j

O O

PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN NACT: consu,ers Power Co pany PQAP- 3201 e.ietanc inceaendent Desigr. a-:

REV.: 4 DATE: 7/15/83 Construction verification P r c,;- a-PAGE 29 of 33 (2) ECP-5.2OA, " Audit Checklist for Calculation Preparation and Controt," Rev. 2 (3) ECP-5.3," Drawing Preparation and Control," Rev.1 (4) ECP-5.5," Project GA Plan Preparation and Control", Rev. 3 (5) ECP-5.6, " Quality Assurance Audits", Rev. 3 (6) ECP-5.15," Corrective Action Procedure", Rev. O A copy of the implemented revision for each opplicable ECP is ottoched, Appendix A.

I 5.2 Project Instructions 5.2.1 Purpose Project Instructions are prepared by the Project Manager or under his direction by a designated individual for the control of special octivities not covered by any of the standard ECPs, or to clarify, expand, or otherwise supplement the stondord procedures to provide more oppropriate control for a specific octivity.

O

1 I

l pd PROJECT QUAUTY ASSURANCE PLAN _

PQAP- 3201 PROJECT: consumers po er com an, Midlane inde:eneen, Design a.:

REY.: 4 DATE: 7/15/83 Const ruct ion Ver if icalion Pro; a-PAGE 30 of 33 5.2.3 Format Project Instructions are prepared on stonderd header pape" (Attochment I) and shall state the purpose and genera:

opplicobility of the instruction and method of implementation.

The originator signs the " prepared by" block of the header on each page of th- instruction, l'\ 5.2.4 Verification and Approval

'V (l) Project Instructions not related to on implemented ECP require the review and opproval of the Project Monager or Principal-in-Charge.

(2) Project Instructions related to on implemented ECP are reviewed by the PGAE prior to issue. This review is noted by the PQAE's initials in the " Approved By:" block of the form.

5.2.5 Document Control Project instructions are controlled by assignment of a sequence identification number in the following format:

[ \.

I

O PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN PROECT: consu e 5 Pooer to ca ,

PQAP- 3201 DATE 7/15/B3 "idI*~d '"d*#'I#* I*' Y

Construction verification Pro; e-REV.: A PAGE 31 of 33 PI-3201-X XX n h & Sequence number (001-?9 )

Project No.

Project instruction 5.2.6 Project Instructions The following Project instructions are hereby implemented for this project.

O5 (1) PI-3201-001, " Engineering Evoluotion Preparation and Control", Rev. 3 (2) PI-3201-00lO A, " Audit Checklist for Engineering Evoluo-tion Preparation and Control", Rev. I (3) PI-320l-002, " Document Control Cover Sheet", Rev. 2 (4) PI-3201-0020A, " Audit Checklist for Document Contro!

Cover Sheet", Rev.1 l

(5) PI-3201-005," Documentation of Observations", Rev.1 (6) PI-3201-006, "Use of Design Verification Checklists",

Rev.0 i

O

O O

PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN PROACI: Consumers Power Co a'.y PQAP- 3201 Midland independent Design a-:

REV.: A DATE: 7/15/63 Construction Ver if ication Progr a-PAGE 32 at _ 33 of Constructio, Verificot;o, (7) PI-3201-007, "Use Checklists", Rev. 0 (8) PI-3201-008, "Preparotion of Open, Confirmed o,d Resolved item Reports, Finding Reports, and Finding Resolution Reports", Rev. 2 (9) PI-3201-009, " Engineering Program Plon", Rev.3 (10) PI-3201-010, " External Communications: Preparotion of Contact Log Sheets", Rev. l (ll) PI-3201-012, " Scope Change Request, Midland IDCV",

Rev.I Copies of the implemented revisions of these project instruc-tions are ottoched in Appendix B with the exception of Project instructions PI-3201-006 ond PI-3201-007 which will be provided of a later date.

6. QUALITY ASSURANCE 6.1 Records O All quality assurance checklists, oudit reports and records document-Q ing octivities related to the Quality Assured Activities of Section 1.2

l l

PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN PROACT: consu ers Power Company PQAP- 3201 Midlanc incecendent Design an:

REV.: 4 DATE: 7/15/83 Construction verification Procra-PAGE 33 of 33 herein ore retained and controlled as specified herein and in occord-once with the pertinent requirements of the applicable Engineering Control Procedure and Project instructions.

6.2 Corrective Action For significont conditions adverse to quality, corrective action take, is documented and resolved in accordance with Engineering Control Procedure ECP-5.15," Corrective Action Procedure."

6.3 Audits Quality assurance audits of project operations are conducted by the PGAE in accordance with ECP-5.6, " Quality As'surance Audits." For this project, audits shall be performed at least every 90 days of active project work.

l i

NUCLE AR RECUL ATORY CONSUVERS DOWEP l

COMMISSION COMDANY l

I I L _ -____ --.J umm l SENIOR REVIE A TE AY

. Lees or wwenos No putOACT DfECTOS PRIN0lDAL IN-CHARCE gaig gg, g,7,.

""" or"!MIM"eu!!"

moscn

• B* 20,=,2,,.

I PROJECT O A PROJECT MANAGER l Mark Polit Howard Levin I l I

MANAGER, CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION MANAGER. DESIGN VERIFICATlD*.

Frank Dougherty Donald Tulodieski MANAGER, AUXILf ADY FEEDS ATED ,

SUPPLIER DOCUMENT ATION - SYSTEM REVIEW I Denold Tulodieski, LTR O

Richerd Snoider STORACE & MAINTENANCE e MECHANICAL & SYSTEv5 Richard Sno; der, LTR l DOCUMENTATION Robert Snyder,LTR e ELECTRIC AL, l&C Lionef Botes, LTR e CIVIL / STRUCTURAL Joseph Mortore, LTR

- MANACER, SITE ACTIVITIES

'- M:rtin Janes MANAGER, CONTROL ROOY HVAC

-- SYSTEM REVIEW Doug Witt CONSTRUCTION /lNSTALLATION 1

-- DOCUMENTATION Fred Pellerin, LTR e MECHANICAL & SYSTEMS Doug Witt, LTR e ELECTRIC AL, I&C

=

Lionel Bates, LTR VERIFICATION ACTIVITIES

--a Redy Cleland, LTR e CIVIL / STRUCTURAL Joseph Marfore, LTR VERIFICATION OF PHYSICAL MANAGER, ST AtO6Y ELECTRIC

- COPTICURATION

- POWER SYSTEM REVIEW O* ktin h, LTR Gerold Setha 1

FIGURE l e MECHANICAL & SYSTEMS Richard Snoider, LTR PROKCT ORGANIZATION e ELECTRICAL,I&C Lionel Botes LTR MIDLM MNNT MSIGN M e @n WcEETAca _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

v PROJECT INSTRUCTION P1 3201 C1

SUBJECT:

g,: ee-i-: g.. .:::-

Preca a ick a-: Co "O REV.: 3 DATE: 7/15/E3 ,- ,

- a PAGE I of 8 PREPARED) w M' J . APPROVED BY.-

P. }' l/ {i ~~

l.0 GENERAL 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this instrsction is to establish the reasirements for preparation and control of engineering evoluotions required for t'e M.idland Independent Design and Construction Verification (IDCVi Program.

O l.2 Scoce Engineering evoluotions are the principal means of documenting the IDCV review process and the bases for conclusions. As a minim.; ..

of least one engineering evolvation shall be required for each toic within the scope of the program. It may be necessory to have severo'

supporting engineering evoluotions serving as input to the fine' 2

resolution of a particular topic. The scope of individso! engineerin; l

l evoluotions and the combinations of engineering evoluotions wh:ca form the basis of the final report depend upon the technical scope which is appropriate for the particular topic and review creo and tne orea of expertise of the assigned individuals. As o minimum, each engineering evolvation :holl clearly indicate the topics and review creas within its scope. The Project Monoger and the Design and l Construction Verification Monogers shall be jointly responsible for

~

ossuring that all reviews are oppropriately documented in engineering i[ } evolvations.

N./

c

O PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI 3201. 001

SUBJECT:

cng;neer;ng tvaivat;on Preparation anc Control i ,

REV.: 3 DATE: 7/15/83 MMD . ,, . .

PAGE la of 8 NEP (, Q.

2.0 PREPARATION Evolvatio,s shall be complete and orderly and sho!! include sufficient sketches, notes, and explanctory information to allow any person not f amiliar with the work, but technically qualified, to understand it without extensive additional inquiry and research. Collectively, these documents should be sufficiently detailed so that a qualified engineer who is unassoci-oted with the project could write the final report using only these inpsts.

l l

u k

f I

PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI 320]_. 001

SUBJECT:

eng;neering t,a ma:io-Precara:icn an Con:rol REV.: 3 DATE: 7/15/63 .

w 2 8 PREPAREpdp . eMA i- APPROVED BY.

d A- 1/l PAGE of , . -

Engineering evoluotions are the principal means not only of document";

the bases of the conclusions but of collectively providing the reqsire f history necessary to support o, auditable review process. Thus, specio!

requirements and guidance are laid forth below for their preparation and content.

2.1 Engineering Evolvation Cover Sheet O

An Engineering Evoluotion Cover Sheet (Attochment A) shcl1 be completed considering the following specific guidance. Wnile the title indicates the general subje:t of the evoluotion, the entries for

" primary" and " supporting" and topic number and title will more specifically define the evoluotion. The block for " purpose" should be used to describe the specific purpose of supporting evolvations. The l

purpose of primary evolvations is defined in this procedure. The

" contents" checklist is provided for guidance to the originator and as l o convenient overview of the contents. These categories cre described below.

2.2 Abstract An obstract of one page or less should summarize the evolvation and its major conclusions, os well as identify related topics and refer to 3

j . related OCRs, Findings, and Finding Resolution Reports.

i id l

2.3 Overview of Review Process All engineering evoluotions shall contain on overview of the review process within the scope of the evoluotion. This shall include, os l

O PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI 3201._001

SUBJECT:

eng;n,ering tvaivatien Preparation and Control i

REW 3 DATE: 7/15/83 APPROVED BY. .

PAGE 3 of 8 PREPARED g opplicable, on explanotion of the review approach and a chronology of events such as major discussions and meetings, requests for inf or-motion, and associcted reporting. Supporting evolvations document the disposition of the review process and summarize the history of that process to date. Primary evoluotions document on overall summary of the review process and the history of that process os applicable to final topic resolution, s 2.4 Bases for Sample Selection In view of the fact that the IDCV does not include a 100% review of the three systems within the project scope, the program must rely

1. vpon sompling. Therefore, sampling selection criterio and imple-mentation is extremely important, it is essential that the bases for sompte selection of specific plant components or elements be docu-mented as thoroughly as possible, and include on onolysis of the degree to which the selected items meet the sample selection criteria attributes documented in Sections 3.1.2 and 3.2.2 of the Engineering Program Plan. Attochment D outlines the steps in the sompte selection process. This may be completed within this section of the engineering evoluotion or in separate engineering evoluotions that broodly oddress sompte selection making reference to the primary and supporting evoluotions when oppropriate.

2.5 Sources of Information and References

] Sources of information and references shall be listed separately using Attochment B or o similar format. References shall include, when applicable:

O O

PROJECT INSTRUCTION Pl 3201. 001

SUBJECT:

gngineering tu u ics REV.: 3 DATE: 7/15/83 r PAGE 4 of 8 k $d - i h,k -

o Originating organization or author o Document number and date or revision o Title o Type of document (specificction, drawing, let-ter, etc.)

o Where/how located (e.g. from records center, l3 Bechtel engineer 'X', calculation file, etc.)

2.6 Background Data Background dato include inputs, assumptions, dato, and related engi-neering evoluotions, calculations, and computer onelyses. Sources of this meterial and associated references must be identified, os appli-cable.

2.7 Acceptance Criterio Acceptance criterio, upon which checklists and evoivations are based, shall be explicitly stated. These include design criterio contained in the FSAR and regulations or the guidance contained in the Standard Review Plon, Regulatory Guides, industry codes and standards.

2.8 Evoluotion

T (d Eoch evoluotion shall be prepared by performing and documenting a point-by-point compc'ison of the topic being evoluoted using design and construction evoluotion checklists os oppropriate. These check-lists shall be developed by the reviewer considering the generic

O '

I PROJECT INSTRUCTION Pl. 3201_ . 001

SUBJECT:

cng;n,er;ng cyai o:;on )

Preparation and Control REV.: 3 DATE: 7/15/83 PAGE 5 of 8 PREPAR {! APPROVED BY; 3

checklists issued for each review scope category, the design criteric centained in the FSAR and regulations, and, os applicable, the l3 guidance contained in the Standard Review Plon, Regulatory Guides, 3

industry codes and stonderds. Eoch modified checklist shall be reviewed and approved by the Lead Technical Reviewer (LTR) and Monoger, Design or Construction Verification before being used by the reviewer. For further discussion of the preparation and use of design and construction verification checklists see Pl-3201-006 and PI-3201-007, respectively. Checklists used in the evoluotion shall olways be appended thereto.

2.9 Conclusions Conclusions os well as the bases for conclusions should be summarized. Conclusions shall be written considering whether there are items which are open items, confirmed items, findings, and resolved findings.

e Conclusions for Engineering Evoluotions for Which There Were No Findings and No Current items Exist

- The conclusions shall state that the subject matter described on the Engineering Evoluotion Cover Sheet has beer, reviewed and been found to be

', consistent with the evoluotion criteria. A summary statement of the bases for this statement shall be included. The conclusions shall also state that there ore no potential open items or open items which

[ remain unresolved and that no findings for the scope of review exist.

,(O l

'j e Conclusions for Evoluotions for Which There Are j Findings or Currently Open items - The conclusions shall state that the subject matter described on the Engineering Evoluotion Cover Sheet has been reviewed and found to be consistent with the evoluotion criterio except as documented in

O PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI 32 01_ . 001

$UgjgCI: Engineering Eval m ien REV.: 3 DATE: 7/15/83 APPROVED BY og 8 PREPAR ${. .

PAGE _ Sa referenced OCRs and Findings. The conclusion shall further state that the engineering evoluotion shall be considered complete by the issvonce of Resolved item Reports or Finding Resolution Reports. The Engineering Evoluotion may be revised in accordance with Section 5.0 of this Project instruction of fer these reports are issued if deemed oppropriate by the Project Monoger.

3.0 VERIFICATION AND APPROVAL

( 3.1 Engineering evolvations shall be designated as preliminary until approved by the Managers, Design and Construction Verification, the Project Monoger or his designated representative. Preliminary evoluotions not upgraded to final status shall be maintained in a 3 separate file for reference purposes.

\

h PROJECT INSTRUCTION

SUBJECT:

Eng;neering tvaivatien PI 3201 ._ 001 Preparation and Con:rc!

)

REV.: 3 DATE: 7/15/53 FREPARED ,

APPROVED BY. /j 1 8

PAGE 6 of 3.2 Each final engineering evoluotion shall be verified by the review of an individual who has qualifications of least sufficient to originate the evoluotion. The reviewer shall not be the originator but may be the Project Monoger, Managers, Design and Construction Verification '[3 or on LTR. After reviewing, the reviewer shall sign and dote the engineering evoluotion cover sheet. To provide a basis for future traceability and opproval, the extent and method of review shall be Any clearly described on the Engineering Evoluotion Cover Sheet.

comments shol! be resolved with the originator prior to signoff.

("]

%j 3

3.3 The Managers, Design and Construction Verification, the Project Monoger, or his designated representative shall indicate approvoi Sv signing only the cover sheet when the evoluotion and its review have been completed.

4.0 DOCUMENT CONTROL 4.1 Identification Af ter all opprovals have been obtained, the final engineering evole-otion shall be assigned a control identification number by the Project Monoger or his designated representative in the following format:

- 3201-001-XXX Jk JL Jk g

\ i - Sequence Number v'

Subject File Identifier

- Project identifier

^

PROJECT INSTRUCTION l

]

SUBJECT:

cng;neering tvaivetice f PI 3201. 001 Preparation an:: Centrol DATE: 7/15/53 ,

l REV.:3 g APPROVED BY { }

8 PREPAREDA PAGE 7 of To facilitate reference between engineering evoluotion packages, the originator may call the project Administrative Manager in Bethesdc.

to reserve o Control 1.D. No. This number is not final or officicily recognized until all opprovals have been obtained and the date of revision entered on the Engineering Evolvatio, Register (Attachment C).

4.2 Retention A.

Each final engineering evoluotion shall be indexed using the Engineer- f ing Evoluotion Register (Attachment C) and filed in the oppropriate project engineering evoluotion file. Distribution of originofs shot! not be made unless specific written instructior ore issued to the contrary. All final engineering evoluotions shall be maintoined by the Project Manager or his designated representative.

5.0 REVISIONS 5.1 Engineering evoluotions may be revised to clarify misinformatio, (e.g., inputs). Supporting engineering evoluotions will not require revision to update the latest status of the review since these documents do not generally serve os design documents nor os vehicles to document the disposition of the current review process. To simplify internal control and preserve the history of evolving reviews, new supporting engineering evoluotions should be written as oppro-

[]

priate. These evoluotions, along with the reporting process docu-mented in PI-3201-008 will collectively provide the required history necessory to support on auditable review process. As discussed, the primary evoluotion will tie all of the supporting evoluotions together.

O PI-3201-001, Attachment D, Rey, 3 STEPS IN Tif SAMPLE SELECTION PROCESS The fo!!owing steps are to be followed in determining the initial sompte selection of AFW, SEP, and CR-HVAC subsystems, components, and structures.

1. Review of FSAR, P&lDs, Equipment Location and Archi-tectural Drawings, Isometrics, and other pertinent docu-ments to obtain on overview of the functional and physical cspects of the system (s).

2. Identify subsystems, components, and structures of parti-cular importance to safety. The criterio for design of these items should generally be representative of the other items important to safety to facilitate later extro-O polation of results. List these items on the ottoched table b by nome and I.D. in groups or categories occording to major disciplines. Identify the type, function, and loco-tion in the appropriate column. Mark the column "importance to Sofety." Ensure that major design and construction interfaces are included by idertifying these in the column "Interfoces" (e.g., Bechtel-vendor (Grinnell) or Bechtel-service controctor (e.g., Cygno).

3. Assess balance in number within each of these groups of items, and ensure o representative distribution (e.g., type, function, location, etc.). Modify the sample, either adding or subtracting as appropriate.

4. Review each group of items by discipline to evoluote diversity of type and function. Mark the appropriate columns on the table. Modify the sample os oppropriate.

S. Obtain Design Verification, Construction Verification, and Physical Configuration / Testing Verification sample matrices and take o first cut of identifying items to be reviewed. Mark oppropriate columns on the matrices.

Note that the Physical Configuration / Testing matrix requires qualifying statements within the matrix to provide o more detailed specification of what is within a the sample. Particular ottention should be paid to main-toining a logical link or chain through the design / con-struction process for individual components selected.

Review for balonce.

4

6. Conduct detailed review of crowings to determine the occessibility of the items selected, noting potential physi-col constraints.

7. Verify physical constroints vio o cursory field walkdown noting on the ottoched table in the column marked

" Physical Constroint" ony creas that are inaccessible o,d those that may require additional scaffolding.

8. Review the status of construction completion and any scaffolding requirements with CPC site monogement and internally determine where these constroints warrant a rescheduling of planned octivities or resompling to enable physical verification or testing.

At this point, the sompte should be opproximately 75% complete.

9. Obtain input from the Project Manager relative to industry and project design / construction / operating experience to identify any

" odditional items that should be odded to complete the remaining 25%

of the sample selection. Mark the appropriate column labeled

" Experience-industry or project" on the ottoched table to indicate the boses for including the items in the sample. Particular emphasis should be placed on creas within the project that experienced repeated problems or oreos which may not have received extensive prior review. Portions of steps 6 through 8 may need to be repeated:

however, less sensitivity to these constroints is acceptoble given the importonce of this item.

l l

l v

/%

v I

b 1

- 2 C5 52 55

-E u 5_

/ '.

\  %

N

• t v 4

~

D h m -

E I 5 W OE VI G

g3

-as s

0 b

a 5

. m

[N i )

'd-

{

Q

PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI _.llnl .202__

SUBJECT:

occom,n1 controi co,,, sse,1 REW 2 DATE: 7/15i83 t APPROVED BY.Wy-2 of 4 PREPAREk{>/-Q1,w ,

PAGE ..

3.0 REVIEW AND APPROVAL 3.1 All documents under the scope of this Project Instruction shall be designated as preliminary until reviewed and opproved within TERA.

Such preliminary documents shall be maintained in separate files for reference purposes only. Each document under the scope of this Project instruction shall be reviewed by on individual who has the qualifications to originate the document. The reviewer sho!I not be 2

the originator, but may be the Project Monoger or Managers, Desig, p or Construction Verification. Af ter reviewing, the reviewer shall

v) sign ond date the document control cover sheet. Any comments shall be resolved with the originator prior to signoff. The Project Manager (or his designoted representative) shall indicate his approval by signing only the cover sheet when the document and its review have been completed.

4.0 DOCUMENT CONTROL 4.1 Identification Af ter all required opprovals have been obtained, all documents under the scope of this Project Instruction shall be assigned a control identification number by the Project Monoger or his designated

- representative in the following format:

(3

l PROJECT INSTRUCTION

-l Aue;t Crealis: 'c o= ,:

I pj_ 3201 002QA

SUBJECT:

Co-:r:1 Co.e- Snee:

DATE 4/21/23 l REW 1 .

APPROVED BY.

IPAGE 1 of 3 PREPARE M '

e+

. p-

- _(,_~

1. PURPOSE This checklist shall be used by the POAE to verif y the impleme-*ct:o c' PI-8337-002, Document Control Cover Sheet, for those documents that 0 e to be controlled by PI-8337-002 as identified in the PGAP. It shcIl not be used for any other categories of documents or types of activities unless instructions to the contrary are establis5ed by the PGAP.

,7

2. CHECKLIST 2.1 References listed on cover sheet?

2.2 Document control cover sheet and each page properly prepared and identified?

2.3 Review and approvat signatures or initials included?

2.4 Control identification number per PQAP?

2.5 Document indexed and filed in controlled file?

2.6 Revisions processed in some manner os origincl?

l 2.7 Superseded documents identified on index l sheet and filed in separate file?

1, l %J l

l l

O PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI 3201 002QA

SUBJECT:

Audit Checklist for Do u e-t Control Cover Sheet REW 1 DATE: 4/21/83 PREPARE Bg APPRO"ED By [,_ _

PAGE 2 W3

3. COMMENTS 3.1 Identify document (s) used in preporing this checklist, state specific cause of ony unsatisf actory ratings, and recommend corrective action, if any.

O 3.2 Prepared by: Date: _

PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI 3201 0020^ SUBECT: Audit Checklist fer Document Control Cover Sheet I

REW 1 DATE: 4/21/83 c APPROVED B PAGE 3 d 3 PREPAREg{Q 2 _

4. FOLLOWUP 4.1 Recommended corrective action of item 3.! satisfo:torily implemented?

4.2 If not, state other oction taken to resolve the deficiency, j or state rationale justifying no corrective oction taken, and whether this item is closed or open.

( I 4.3 Prepared by: Date: _

O PROJECT INSTRUCTION

SUBJECT:

oocument, tion or oeserv.:;rns PI- 320i _ - oos .

PEW I DATE: 7/15/B3 PREPAR APPROVED BY. ,

p 2 d 5

~

, c. Is the item on obvious typographical error? (An example of on obvious typographical error would be the the state- '

ment "

. . in occordance with poragraph 3.?I of this specification" when no such paragraph exists and where paragraph 3.12 provides the expected information.)

b. Is o user of the document containing the item likely to become aware of the deficiency as he makes use of the document or !s he unlikely to apply the erroneous docu-ment in such a manner as to compound the deficiency?

(For example, o piping pressure drop coleufction for o normal flow condition which contains o difference of 0.2 psi in a 100 psi pressure drop is unlikely to result in a significant deficiency which could be compounded.)

c. Is the item such that when it is corrected, o change in the design, fabrication, or installation of equipment or components will probobly not result?

The LTR shall consider the answers to these questions in entering a recom-mendation onto the OCR form (reference: Attochment A to PI-3201-006). Af ter considering ne onswers to the above questions, using his own judgment, and deciding whether the item is symptomatic of a process deficiency, the LTR map recommend classification of the deficiency as on Observation in occordance with

? 2.2 below.

2.2 RECOMMENDATION FOR CLASSIFICATION AS AN OBSERVATION ,

if the LTR determines that a deficiency noted as a Potential Open item should be classified as on Observation, he shall enter o statement to that effect in the recommendation section of the OCR form, provide o'bosis for that recommendo-tion, and recommend processing of the item in accordance with this Project 3 instruction. The project team (see Project instruction PI-3201-008 for definition)

,/

k may determine that on Open item should be re-classified as on Observation. The 7- .-- .- -- ,.m ,-w,-. - e ___. .,m .- ,- ,e.

O l PROJECT INSTRUCTION )

PI _320L _22i_

SUBJECT:

ooro,ent.1 ion or cesera tion, REV.: 1 DATE: 7/15/83 ,.

PAGE 3 of 5 1$k b, ,N. -

procedure documented in Section 3.0 of this Project instruction sSoll be followed for preparation of OCRs as Observations.

2.3 ITEMS NOT CLASSIFIED AS OBSERVATION When the LTR determines that a Potential Open item is not on Observation, he shall complete the processing of the OCR in occordance with PI-3201-009.

2.4 REVIEW BY PROJECT MANAGER O

v All recommendations for classification as on Observation shall be reviewed by the Project Monoger or his designoted individual. He shall determine whether he l' ogrees with the recommendation and shall use one of the following alternatives for disposition:

a. If he ogrees that the item meets the criterio for on Observation, he shall apply paragropn 2.5 of this Project Instruction.

b. If he ogrees that the item probably meets the criterio for on Observation, but desires odditional review by the Project Team, he shall distribute the OCR in occordance with porograph 2.6 of this Project Instruction, with or without his odditional comments.

~

c. If he believes that the item probably does not meet the criterio for on Observation, he shall confer with the responsible LTR ond they shall determine whether the recernmendotion should be changed. They shall ogree to process the item in accordance with PI-3201-008 or paragraph 2.6 of this Project instruction.

,a -

1 4

> -- w- 2r 'v -

---w ==

- , , - - y,- . - , , - - - - .- - --%

~

i I

l l

i PROJECT INSTRUCTION .

PI 3201 . oos

SUBJECT:

poeunent.1;o, or oesuvatio-s

~

PEV.: 1 DATE: 7/15/83 p PAGE 4 of 5 NhY(d .

M . --

a

- 2.5 OBSERVATION CLASSIFICATION AND APPROVAL The Project Manager shall sign the Potentic! Open item OCR form for those items in which he ogrees with the LTRs recommendation for classification as on Observation. For Open Items re-classified as Observations, the Project Manager shall sign both the OCR form which documents the Observation and a Resolved item form, signifying completion of the project team's review. (Refer to Section 3.0 of this Project Instruction for procedures related to preparation of these documents.)

%J 4

2.6 PROJECT TEAM REVIEW If the Project Manager determines that on item classified by the LTR os on Observation (including Open items proposed for re-classification as on Observo-tion) should be reviewed by the project team, he shall distribute copies of the

, OCR and at on oppropriate time organize o meeting or telecon with the project team for the purpose of on integrated review of the classification. The project

-team may conclude that the item is properly . classified as on Ooservation.

! , Otherwise the project teom shall require that the OCR be processed in occordance with PI-3201-008.

3.0 PREPARATION Observations shall be 6>cumented on OCR forms (Attochment A to PI-3201-008).

. The OCR recommendation section shall indicate its proposed classification as on O)

(

-v Observation. This shall be occomplished by checking the " Resolution" space on the OCR form and the addition of a statement such as "This item is resolved by  ;

g classification as on Observation." If the project team determines that on Open item. should be re-classified as on Observation, the PM or his designated representative sho!! prepore o Resolved item report to document the n_ . _ . L ,__ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _

fi d

PROJECT INSTRUCTION

- Pi _3_201, 006

SUBJECT:

use of Desten verifica: ion c8e: : au REV.: o DATE: 7/5/B3 . / . I ,

PREPARED BY APPROVED B I of 19 PAGE M~

l

/ J

- 1.0 GENERAL 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this instruction is three-fold:

l.l.1 Specify and define the checklists to be used in conducting the independent Design Verification (IDV) review as port of the Midland independent Design and Construction Verification (IDCV) Program and thereby establish a consistent method for the acquisition and evoluotion of important dato and information by different technical reviewers.

1.1.2 Specify and define the dato and information which will necessarily be recorded and assimilated as port of the IDV review process. The dato and information specified on the checklists will constitute the minimum data base of design review-related information. These data will be subject to evoluotion to discern and verify the quality of the design.

l.I.3 Provide lead technical reviewers (LTR) and other personnel porticipating in the IDV review portion of the Midland IDCV Program with definitive instructions and guidance for completing the checklists.

1.2 Scope D

(U This instruction defines those formal generic checklists to be used in conducting the IDV review process and establishes the minimum omount of dato and information to be acquired in executing the IDV review mettedology.

B-83-247

PROJECT INSTRUCTION Pi 3201. 006

SUBJECT:

use of oesign verifica:ic- tne:a isu REV.: o DATE: 7/5/83 yA / ,

p 2 g 19 PREPARED BY /gAPPROVED B

/J

. l.3 Listing and identification of Checklists 1.3.1 Design Criterio Review Checklist - Exhi'uit i This form provides for the doeuraentation and evoluotion of the a design criteric applicable to each design review creo defined in Pl-3201-009.

l.3.2 Imp lementing Document Review Checklist - Exhibit 2

(

This form is used for evoluotion of implementing documents against the design criteria which were identified in the identificatio, of criterio and commitments activity.

l.3.3 Check of Calculations /Evoluotions Checklist - Exhibit 3 This checklist is used to evoluote selected calculations and evolut.

tions for proper implementation of criterio, consistency of assump-tions, and validity of results, etc.

l.3.4 Specification Review Checklist -- Exhibit 4 This form is used for evoluotion of specifications. Included in the scope of the checklist are comparisons ogainst design criterio, codes I

and stondords, and other requirements to determine whether the 1

- purchased materials will meet design requirements.

l t'

B-83-247

Ov PROJECT INSTRUCTION

SUBJECT:

use of Design verification creo : , u s PI _3201. 006 REV.: o DATE: 7/5/83 j , f ,

PREPARED BY. APPROVED BY PAGE 3 of 39 o -

a 7

. l.3.5 Design Drawing Review Checklist -- Exhibit 5 This form is used for evoluotion of design drawings. Included in the scope of the checklist are comporisons ogainst design criteric, calculations, evoluotions, and other implementing docu-nents.

2.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 2.1 Technical reviewers shall ensure that opplicable generic checklists are used when conducting their portion of IDV review and that the checklists are k completed in on occurate and thorough manner.

2.2 The technical reviewers and LTRs, in collaboration with the opplicable manager of each system review, will constantly monitor the adequocy of existing checklists and identify the oppropriateness and need for modifications or odditional checklists. Revisions to existing checklists or incorporation of new checklists for use in the IDV review will be the responsibility of the LTR, subject to the approval of the Manager, Design Verification.

2.3 LTRs are responsible for modification (" customization") of checklists, os necessory, to conduct the IDV review within the scope of their review creas. They are also responsible for training technical review personnel in the use of g~eneric and/or modified checklists.

2.4 Should a revision to on existing checklist be mode, the LTR shall be responsible for verifying that dato collected and recorded on checklists

[V] completed prior to the revisions reed not be supplemented or modified.

The LTR will direct the ocquisition of supplemental dato or modification of dato alreody collected in those instances where o revision to on existing checklist impacts the scope of review ofreody conducted using the previous checklist. This includes checklists completed prior to the initial issuance

_B-63-247-- . - - -

m PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI 3231. 006

SUBJECT:

use of Desien verific a ;on te lan REV.: o DATE: 7/5/83 ,j , ,

PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY P 4 W 19 _

- of this instruction. However, if completed engineering evoluotions contain the requisite information, new checklists will not be required.

3.0 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETION OF CHECKLISTS The following instructions will be used by technical reviewers porticipating in the IDV review. Checklists and the dato required will be collected so that the source of all information is known. To the extent proctical, all dato required to complete o particular checklist shall be collected and occurately recorded.

O U instructions for ocquiring and recording dato are provided in the following sections. These sections have first been categorized by the review category and then, within each review category, by the checklist (s) opplicable to that review category. The four review categories applicable to the IDV review process are os follows and correspond to the numbered sections of this instruction.

o Review of Design Criterio and Commitments l

l o Review of Irnplementing Documents o Check of Calculations and Evoluotions l

o Check of Design Drawings and Specifications.

3.1 Review of Design Criteria and Commitments One generic checklist (Exhibit 1) has been developed for the review of design criterio and commitments. Specific instructions for completion of this checklist

! ore os follows:

i

1. Enter the system nome, review topic number and review topic title for whch the checklist is being used. This information should be obtained from Figures 1.2-2,1.2-4, and 1.2-6 of PI-3201-009 as oppropriate.

l l' B-83 247

PROJECT INSTRUCTION Pl._32 01. 006

SUBJECT:

use of Design verification cne:u is:s REW o DATE: 7/5/83 ,f ,

PREPARED BY , APPROVED BY.

5 og 19 PAGE i--

yy

2. The reviewer should next determine applicable design inputs. The reviewer should review 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, and oppropriate sections of the Midland FSAR to determine appropriate entries for these categories.

Applicable Regulatory Guides should also be listed, but reviewers are

• cautioned to review FSAR Appendix 3A to determine the Midland project's stated degree of commitment to specific Regulatory Guides.

3. The reviewer should evoluote whether the identified design inputs offect other design review areas in the system being reviewed.

Example: General Design Criterion 17 requires consideration of the loss of offsite power. This in turn offects several design review creas including Component Functional Requirements. In pre-paring the Design Criterio Review Checi< list for AFW Com-ponent Functional Requirements review creas this desig, input should be listed as offecting other orcos (such as the Water Supplies and HVAC Design review creas).

The purpose of this cross-referencing is to maintain control of the interfaces between review creas and to assure efficiency in the review process.

4. The reviewer should evoluote whether the design inputs offect systems which interface with the system being reviewed.

Example: General Design Criterion 17, which opplies to the Component Functional Requirements review arco in the AFW system, also offects Class IE power system which interfaces with AFW.

B-83-247

L)

PROJECT INSTRUCTION Pl. 3201. 006

SUBJECT:

use of Design verificatio, tneatis:s REV.: o DATE: 7/5/83 ,f . , ,

PREPARED BY g, APPROVED BY p 6 d 19 '

/v

. The purpose of this entry is to assure that oppropriate design interfoces are being evoluoted in the review scope.

5. The reviewer should determine whether the design inputs for the review arco for the system being reviewed are complete. " Complete" means thct the set of design inputs, taken as a whole, provides on odequate basis for performance of the design octivities associated with review area being considered. if there are missing design inputs, the reviewer should note them in the space provided.

Example: If a Regulatory Guide is clearly applicable to o specific review area, but the FSAR contains neither a reference to it in Appendix 3A nor on alterr.ative elsewhere in the FSAR, then this Regulatory Guide should be listed as a missing design input.

6. The reviewer should consider whether the design inputs are consistent. If not, the reviewer should describe any inconsistencies.

7. The reviewer should consider whether the design inputs are sufficiently detailed to allow implementation. This question is closely related to item 5 above. Item 5 oddresses whether all relevant design inputs have been identified when those inputs are taken as a whole. Item 7 is concerned with the question of whether the design inputs, ogain token as a whole, provide odequate information to assure correct implementation of design input.

Example: Since 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, Criterion 4 is applicable to the

(' systems being reviewed, it is necessary that components be y] compatible with their environments, if no design inputs for temperature, pressure, etc, are provided in the FSAR, then the design inputs should be considered as M being odequately defined to permit implementation.

B-83-247 1

O O

PROJECT INSTRUCTION Pi _3201. 006

SUBJECT:

use or cesir verificatio, tne:.lisu REV.: o DATE: 7/5/83 , , .

PAGE 7 og 19 W M ED W g MNE p v

7

. 8. The reviewer should provide o summary evoluotion of the design criteric and commitments. In particular he should note whether certain design inputs deserve special consideration for implementation in conjunction with other review creas.

3.2 Review of implementing Documents One generic checklist (Exhibit 2) has been developed for the review of implementing documents. Specific instructions for completing this checklist are os follows:

(

C

l. Enter the system nome, review topic number and review topic title for which the checklist is being used. This information should be obtained from Figures 1.2-2,1.2-4, and 1.2-6 of PI-3201-009 as appropriate.

2. Enter the structure, subsystem, or component identification which further defines the creo being reviewed for implementation.

3. Enter the document title, number, revision number and date for the imple-y menting document being reviewed.

4. Enter the source of the document.

Example: o. Bechtel records center

b. CPC files

c. Specific individual. ,

i

5. The reviewer should develop a list of items for which the implementing l

document E to be checked for completeness and internal consistency.

B-83-247

(

PROJECT INSTRUCTION

SUBJECT:

use of Design verifica: ion ene m isu Pl _3201_ . 006 y

REV.: o DATE: 7/5/83 , ,- , #

PREPARED BY:

APPROVED BY; y p g , v

,,,, y

. Arecs of the implementing document which are found to be incomplete or inconsistent shall be identified.

6. The reviewer should determine whether there are any design interfaces which offect this implementing document or which this implementing document offects. The reviewer should determine whether these inter-foces are adequately specified. Enter into the checklist conclusions regarding the specification of interface requirements and explain the significance of the missing information.

7. The reviewer should determine whetsr the implementing document hos been checked by the originating organization. The evidence of such a check may be signatures in a title block, signatures on o document cover sheet, or o memo or other documentation indicating thct the review has been performed. If the docment has not been checked, describe the circumstances associated with the missing check.

Examnle: In the case of a document which has a title block with space for o " checked by" signature which is missing the signature, this fact should be noted. On the other hand, if the document hos no obvious space for o signoture, then this situation should be noted.

8. The reviewer should determine whether there are outstanding design or field change notices which offect the document. These changes should be listed by the oppropriate control number. The reviewer shall consider these changes in performing the evoluotion of the implementing document.

O The reviewer should evoluote the design criterio applicable to the review Q 9.

creo (see the checklist for design criterio) and determine for which of B-83-247

PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI . 3201._006

SUBJECT:

use of Des;gn ver m ca: ion twa i s u REV.: 0 DATE: 7/5/83 ,,, y , ,

PREPARED BY; APPROVED BY .

P 9 d 19

, a i " ~ ./

- these criteria the specific implementing docement should be reviewed.

Furthermore, he should consider whether it is oppropriate for design criterio associated with other review creas to be reviewed for implemen-totion as port of the review of the selected document.

Example: The P&lD for o system may reflect implementation of design criteria for several review creas. It is appropriate that a single review of the P&lD for all applicable criterio be conducted at one time.

This specific selection of criteria for which on implementing document is reviewed is to be determined by the reviewer in consultation with the LTR.

O)

(

Among the factors which the reviewer should consider are whether the design criterio and commitments were correctly interpreted in the imple-menting document. The reviewer should list the design criteria and commitments that he evoluoted and note any discrepancies such as on incorrect interpretation or o failure to incorporate on opplicable criterion.

10. The reviewer should list other implementing documents for the creo being reviewed that have been checked for consistency with the document being If not opplicable, the reviewer should so state. Any reviewed.

inconsistencies or other discrepancies between this document and others should be ne,ted, ll. The reviewer should determine if there are assumptions or other limit-otions ossociated with the document which offect its occuracy or appli-cobility. If such limitations exist the reviewer should determine whether they are odequately defined to occurately reflect the limitation and U

B-83-247

o V

PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI _3201. 006

SUBJECT:

use of Design veri <ication cne w is u REV.: 0 DATE: 7/5/83 , y , .

PAGE 10 of 19 , &_ , ~

whether the user is likely to be owere of the limitation. If the limitotio .s are not adequately described, the extent of this deficiency should be noted.

12. In some cases it may be oppropriate for the implementing document to contain quality assurance requirements. The reviewer should determine

• whether this item is applicable and whether the oppropriate requirements are specified.

l

13. A summary of the review and its conclusions should be provided by the reviewer to document the overall results of the review.

\s 3.3 Check of Calculations and Evoluotions One generic checklist (Exhibit 3) hos been developed for the review of i calculations and evoluotions. Specific instructions for completing this checklist are os follows:

1. Enter the system name, review topic number and review topic title for which the checklist is being used. This information should be obtained  !

from Figures 1.2-2,1.2-4, and 1.2-6 of PI-3201-009 as oppropriate. j

\

\

Enter the structure, subsystem, or component identification which further l 2.

defines the creo to which the calculation or evoluotion applies.

3. Enter the title of the calculation or evoluotion. ,

I

4. Enter the calculation or evoluotion number, revision number, and opproval

(,. date.

B-83-247 l

l

(l v

PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI 3201. 006

SUBJECT:

use of Design verification ene w is:s REV.: 0 DATE: 7/5/83 f PREPARED BY APPROVED BY P 11 d i9 a i -

, y

5. Determine whether the calculation or evolvation has been considered o "O" calculation or evoluotion. That is, determine whether the calculation or evoluotion is subject to the originating organization's GA progrom.

6. Determine whether the calculation or evoluotion has been checked and opproved by the originating organization. If not, describe missing signotare levels.

Example: A calculation may have signatures of the originator and check-er, but no approval signature. The missing opproval should be listed.

7. Describe the scope and purpose of the calculation or evolvation.

8. Based upon its intended scope and purpose and the review oreo for which it is being evoluoted, the reviewer, in consultation with the LTR, should determine which design criteria will be considered in the evoluotion. If there are any discreponcies between the design criteria and the calculo-tion's (or evoluotion's) input assumptions, methods, or results, these differences should be listed.

9. Consider whether o!! ossumptions used in the calculation or evoluc+ ion are clearly listed.

10. Determine whether the assumptions are reasonable and valid.

II. If assumptions are not reasonable and valid or if they conflict with design criterio or implementing documents, the difference should be listed.

g B-83-247 r -e*w- ' - - - " -'r* ' - -

~w --

w w -'w-"-* w----

O O

PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI _3201. 006

SUBJECT:

use of oesign verificau o, :neo itsu REW o DATE: 7/5/83 _,. t ,

PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY:

pg 12 g 19 .,

. 12. The reviewer may enter any other comments concerning the assumptions os he deems oppropriate.

Example: If an assumption is valid for the specific calculation being eva! voted, but may be incorrect in other situations, the re-viewer may wish to note this fact if the limitation is not

• specified in the calculation.

13. Are the references, including dato sources, listed? It is acceptable for the reference to be of the point where referenced information is used or to be cross-indexed to o separate reference list. The reviewer may odd any O

-l oppropriate comments on the references.

14. The reviewer should determine whether the equations and methods used are specified. The reviewer should evoluote whether the equations and methods are oppropriate for the intended purposes. For cases where computer programs were used the reviewer should obtain oppropriate evidence that the computer progroms have been verified.

I

15. The reviewer should compare the calculational /evoluotional objectives with the methods used. Is the use of the specified method consistent with the l

objective? Are there any limiting factors which influence the oppropriate-ness of the method given the objective? The reviewer should consider these and any other oppropriate questions concerning the objectives and methods and should provide o discussion of his considerations of these questions.

16. The reviewer should discuss the method used to verify the calculation or D evoluotion.

B-83-247

PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI _3201. 006 $UgjECT: use or oesign verification ene: 'isu REV.: o DATE: 7/5/83 , f . , ,

PAGE 13 of 19 r y

& / w Example: a. Alternative calculation

b. Comparison with test dato

c. Comparison with results at other plants developed by others.

17. The reviewer should determine whether the results are reasonable.

18. The reviewer should determine whether the calculation /evoluotion results have been compared to the acceptance criteria to allow verification that design requirements have been met.

19. The reviewer should provide a summary of the results of the review. The summary should contain comments on the significance or deviations or discrepancies discovered in developing the review.

3.4 Check of Specifications and Drawings j Two generic checklists have been developed for this review scope:

l 1. Specification Review Checklist - Exhibit 4 l 2. Design Drawing Review Checklist - Exhibit 5.

3.4.1 Specification Review Checklist

1. Enter the system nome, review topic number and review topic title for which the checklist is being used. This information should be obtained from Figures I.2-2, 1.2-4, and 1.2-6 of Pl-3201-009 as oppropriate.

r s B-83-247 l

f -. - - . - . .-- . -- . . . . __

i l

I i

\

J PROJECT INSTRUCTION l

SUBJECT:

use of Desien verification cne:u ;s:s Pl _3201 .co6

, I REV.: o DATE: 7/5/23 ,,

PREPARED BY.

APPROVED BY p

g 39 'v

/

y

. 2. Enter the structure, subsystem, or component to which the specifica-tion applies.

3. Enter the title of the specification, the specification number, re-vision number and dcte.

4. Indicate the source of the specification.

Example: a. Bechtel Records Center

b. Engineering files

c. CPC files.

v

5. List the design inputs (os determined from the oppropriate Design Criterio and Commitments Checklists) and other items for which the specification is to be checked for completeness and internal con-sistency. Any inconsistencies or other deficiencies should be listed.

6. List selected related calculations or evoluotions ogainst which the specification will be compared.

I Example: For o pump specification it is oppropriate to select calculations which provide the basis for the pump flow and heod.

Note that only selected calculations need be used, it is not necessory for the reviewer to troce every number in o specification to o I calculation.

7. Determine whether the specification hos been checked by the origin-oting organization. Lock of evidence of such a check should be noted.

B-83-247

PROJECT INSTRUCTION

SUBJECT:

use of Design verification cne:u i s t s Pl _3201. 006 REV.: o DATE: 7/5/83 , ,y- ,

NEWED BY MN B% W PAGE 15 of 19 -

I V

/v

- 8. List outstanding design or field change notices applicable to the specification.

9. In consultation with the LTR, the reviewer should determine the design inputs and other information (such as dato obtained from

• reviews or implementing documents and calculations) ogainst which the specification will be reviewed. Discrepancies should be listed.

10. For selected components the reviewer may review the specification for inclusion of oppropriate handling, cleaning or shipping require-ments. if such requirements are oppropriate, the lack thereof, or any

)

inconsistency in the requirements, should be described.

I1. For selected components the reviewer may review the specification for inclusion of oppropriate storoge, maintenance, installation, con-struction, repair or testing requirements. if such requirements are oppropriate, the lock thereof, or any inconsistency in the require-ments should be noted.

12. The reviewer should provide o summork of the review and comment on the significance of any deficiencies or inconsistencies which were identified.

3.4.2 Design Drawing Review Checklist - Exhibit 5

l. Enter the system nome, review topic number and review topic title for which the checklist is being used. This information should be obtained from Figures 1.2-2, l.2-4, and 1.2-6 of PI-3201-009 as l(

C) oppropriate.

l B-83-247 l

- . , ._ _._.- - - . - _ _ . . . _ . _ . _ . _ _ . - _ _ _ - . . = _ _ - _ - . -

O PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI _3201. 006 SUEUECT: use of oeston verification cneca is:s REV.: o DATE: 7/5/83 , , , , , j l PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY -

p 16 d 19 i ~"

7v

2. Enter the structure, subsystem, or component which is covered by the drawing being reviewed.

3. Enter the title of the drawing, the drawing number, revision number and date.

4. Identify the source of the drawing.

Example: a. Bechtel Records Center

b. CPC files O c. Engineering files b

5. The reviewer in consultation with the LTR should determine which design inputs are to be checked for completeness and internal consistency. Other items that may be checked include line numbers, volve numbers, specification numbers, sizes, weights, etc. Internal inconsistencies and any lock of completeness should be noted.

Example: a. A piping drawing may be compared against the P&lD. The reviewer would identify that the review will check that a selected volve shown on the P&lD oreo is properly shown on the piping drawing. Any difference between the P&lD and the piping drowing for the selected portion would be noted,

b. An FSAR commitment may require that a section of piping be Seismic Category 1. In performing the review of a piping drawing the reviewer may select to verify that the section of pipe is within the Seismic Category I boundory.

!A

' b l B-83-247 l . . -_ _ _ _ - __. ____ _ _ -

J PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI _32,g1_. 006 $UgjECT: use of Design verification tne:. t i s u REV.: 0 DATE: 7/5/83 , , ,, , ,

PAGE 17 of 19 PREPARED BY;

/ J M APPROVED BY<;%v~

l 'J

. 6. The reviewer should select calculations or evoluotions to compare the drawing against. The selection of the calculations should be made in consultation with the LTR. The calculations should generally be selected from calculations which were checked using the checklist in this Project instruction.

Example: o. A piping pressure drop calculation could be compared against a piping drawing for consistency of line sizes, run lengths, and number of fittings.

b. The piping stress analysis pockoge con be compared against the piping drawing for consistency of dimensions.

c. Electric circuit schedules con be compared against max-imum cable length calculations.

Any inconsistencies should be noted by the reviewer.

7. The reviewer should determine whether the drawing hos been checked by the originating organization. If a drawing has not been checked, this fact should be recorded on the checklist.

8. The reviewer should determine whether there are outstanding design or field change notices applicable to the drawing being reviewed.

Any such notices should be listed in the checklist. The review of the drawing should consider the change notices as well as the drawing itself.

The reviewer in. consultation with the LTR should identify the design 9.

inputs and the related subject orcos for which the drawing will be O reviewed. It is not necessory that all design inputs be reviewed for B-83-247

r O

PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI _3201. 006

SUBJECT:

use of Destsn verification cnecu isa REV.: 0 DATE: 7/5/83 ,g PREPARED BYg pPROVED BY PAGE 18 og 19 ~

i fv

. incorporation in the drawing being reviewed. The reviewer should select the design inputs cons dering whether other drawings will be reviewed for incorporation of that input, the project's experience in correctly using the input, and the significance of the input. The drawing is checked for incorporation of the selected inputs and any discrepancies noted.

10. Where oppropriate the reviewer may check the drawing to determine whether odequate allowance has been mode for inservice inspection, maintenance, repair and testing. This review item is optional. Its v use is to be determined by the reviewer in conjunction with the LTR.

I 1. Where oppropriate the reviewer may check the drawing to determine whether the drawing odequately addresses installotion and con-struction requirements. This review item is optional. Its use is to be determined by the reviewer in conjunction with the LTR.

12. The reviewer should provide o summary of the results of the review.

The summary should comment on the signif:conce of any deficiencies or inconsistencies which were identified.

4.0 MODFICATION OF CHECKLISTS As stated in Sections 2.2 and 2.3, Technical Reviewers and LTRs may modify

(" customize") individual generic checklists os necessary to satisfy the porticular requirements of a specific review item. In each such cose, the checklist section entitled " checklist modifications" shall be filled out, listing attochments (new p checklist items) os applicable. Items of the generic checklist that are not required to complete the review should be marked "not opplicable". Signatures of B-83-247

PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI _3201. 006

SUBJECT:

use of Design verifica io. cne w isa RIV.: 0 DATE: 7/5/83 ,, jf .

APPROVED BY P E I9 d g9 PREPARED BY./

, m

. the LTR and N,onoger, Design Verification shall be required in addition to that of the Technical Reviewer, indicating their opproval of the modified checklist.

O B-83-247

o V PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI 3201. 007

SUBJECT:

use of construction verification Checklists REV.: 0 DATE: 7/5/83 p. ,

PAGE I of 32 kB d APPROVED BY /

l.0 GENERAL 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this instruction is three-fold:

1.1.1 Specify and define those checklists to be utilized in conducting the Independent Construction Verification (ICV) review as part of the Midland independent Design and Construction Verification (IDCV)

Program and thereby establish a consistent method for the acquisi-(j tion of important dato and information by different technical re-viewers.

1.1.2 Specify and define that dato and information which will necessarily be recorded and assimilated as part of the ICV review process. The dato and information specified on the checklists will constitute the minimum data base of construction review-related information.

These data will be subject to evoluotion to discern and verify the quality of construction.

l.l.3 Provide lead technical reviewers (LTR) and other personnel porticipating in the ICV review portion of the Midland IDCV Program with definitive instructions and guidance for completing the checklists. The instructions specified herein address not only the preferred sequence for ocquisition of the dato but also o preferred sequence for utilization of each checklist - i.e., proceeding through summary levels of data ocquisition and data evoluotion.

D (v

PROJECT INSTRUCTION C) p;_ 3201. 007

SUBJECT:

use of construction verification Checklists REV.: 0 DATE: 7/5/83 n .

PRE Y APPROVED B%

PAGE 2 of 32 j vv l.2 Scope This instruction defines those formal generic checklists to be used in conducting the ICV review process and establishes the minimum amount of dato and information to be acquired in executing the ICV review methodology.

l.3 Listing and Identification of Check-Off Lists 1.3.1 Documentation Verification - Exhibit I Check-off list utilized to record those requirements imposed upon suppliers and

(]

V vendors which define the specific documents to be submitted to fulfill and satisfy procurement and specification requirements.

l.3.2 Documentation Availability Checklist (DAC)- Exhibit 2 The DAC is used to document the process and sources of information used to complete the Documentation Verification Checklist (item 1.3.1) and to provide o consistent format for documenting the results of evoluoting the completeness of vendor documentation submittols.

1.3.3 Supplier Documentation Functiono! Review (SDFR)- Exhibit 3 The SDFR provides the format and directs the recording of dato relevant to the following specific categories of vendor-supplied documentation.

(

\

n U PROJECT INSTRUCTION Pj_ 32o1 007

SUBJECT:

use of construction verification Checklists I

REV: o DATE: 7/5/83 APPROVED BY PAGE 3 of 32 PREY {

o Instructions (operation, maintenance, etc.)

o Cleaning & Coating Procedures o Certified Material Reports o Supplier Shipping Procedures 1.3.4 Verification of Supplier Documentation Adequacy - Exhibit 4 This form is used in consort with the SDFR (Item 1.3.3) to evoluote the adequacy of the vendor's documentation submittol. For each line item entry on the SDFR (item 1.3.3) o Verification of Supplier Documentation Adequacy form will be completed.

l.3.5 Time-Base Evoluotion of Vendor Documentation Submittals -

Exhibit 5 This form provides the format for establishing a method to evoluote the timeliness of certain vendor documentation submittals ossociated with a specific component. Vendor documentation submittals are compared on a time-base against two key events in the construction process.

i

1. Date the component is received of the site

2. Date the component is withdrawn from storage for installation.

l 1.3.6 Receipt inspection - Exhibit 6 The Receipt Inspection check-off list is used to record dato necessory to l chorocterize and identify the receipt inspection octivities performed for o O

V

,O V PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI 3201. 007

SUBJECT:

use of construction verification ,

Checklists I REV.: 0 DATE: 7/5/83 n .

PREP APPROVED BY  ;

PAGE 4 of 32 specific component and to provide a consistent method for documenting the evoluotion of the receipt inspection.

l.3.7 Storage and Maintenance Checklist - Exhibit 7 The Storage and Maintenance Checklist is utilized to direct the acquisition of dato and information necessary to evoluote the odequacy and efficacy of storage and in-place maintenance octivities os performed for a specific component.

l.3.8 Review of Selected Verification Activities Checklist - Exhibit 8 O

U This checklist provides a guide for the collection and recording of summary information related to the review of overinspection and related site verification progroms - e.g., cable overinspection, bolt hardness, PSDIV. This checklist is used in conjuntion with program-specific checklists to document the results of the ICV review of selected verification activities.

l.3.9 Overinspection of Selected Electrical Cables within Sample Boundaries - Exhibit 9 This checklist, derived in port from checklists used as port of the Midland Cable j Overinspection Program, provides for the recording of information pertaining to the execution and evoluotion of dato collected as port of the cable overinspection program. This checklist is used in consort with checklists 1.3.10, .

l ' Personnel Qualification and Training Checklist; 1.3.II, Test and Measuring l Equipment Checklist; and 1.3.12, Docurnent Control Checklist to record the i minimum omount of dato critical to the ICV review and evoluotion of the cable (3 overinspection program.

l ()

l

O PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI_ 3201._ 007

SUBJECT:

use of construction verification Checklists REV.: o DATE: 7/5/83 s

/

PAGE 5 of 32 PREPARE

{ APPROVED BY i ;-

l.3.10 Personnel Gualification and Training Checklist - Exhibit 10 The Personnel Qualification and Training Checklist is used in consort with verification program-specific checklists (e.g. l.3.9, Overinspection of Selected Electrical Cables Within Sompte Boundaries) to record and document the review of training and qualification of personnel participating in the applicable site verification program activities.

1.3 .11 Test and Measuring Equipment Checklist - Exhibit ll p) y Similar to the previous checklist, item 1.3.10, this checklist is used in consort with verification program-specific checklists to record and document the review of controls and methods of use employed for mesuring and test equipment during a site verification activity, l.3.12 Document Control Checklist - Exhibit 12 The Document Control Checklist is used in conjunction with verification progrom-specific checklists to record the results of the ICV review of document handling practices employed as on intergral part of the site verification program.

(Additional checklists are currently under developmert and/or in the approval cycle. These checklists will principolly guide ICV reviewers through the Construction / Installation Documentation and Physical Verification reviews. As

' these checklists are approved for use, their titles and descriptions will be added l fo this listing and on example of the checklist itself included as on exhibit to this instruction).

O v

m U PROJECT INSTRUCTION p;_ 3201. 007

SUBJECT:

use or construction verification checklists REV.: 0 DATE: 7/5/83 rs PREPARED ~ ' TST APPROVED BY: /

-t-PAGE 6 of _ u , m

. s s 2.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 2.1 Technico! reviewers shall ensure that opplicable generic checklists are used when conducting their portion of the ICV review and that the checklists are completed in on occurate and thorough manner.

2.2 The technical reviewers, LTRs and Monoger, Site Activities, in collaboration with the Manager, Construction Verification Activities, will constantly monitor the odequacy of existing checklists and identify the appropriateness and need for additional checklists. Revisions to existing

) checklists or incorporating new checklists for use in the ICV review will be g

the responsibility of the leod technical reviewer.

2.3 LTRs are responsible for modification (" customization") of checklists, as necessary, to conduct the ICV review within the scope of their review i oreos. They are also responsible for training technical review personnel in the use of generic checklists and/or modified checklists.

2.4 Should a revision to on existing checklist be mode, the LTR shall be responsib!e for verifying that dato collected and recorded on checklists completed prior to the revision need not be supplemented or modified. The LTR will direct the acquisition of supplemental dato or modification of dato already collected in those instances where o revision to on existing checklist impoets the scope of review ofready conducted using the previous checklist. This includes checklists completed prior to the initial issvonce of this instruction. However, if completed engineering evoluotions contain the requisite information, new checklists will not be required.

b

o O PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI 3201 . 007

SUBJECT:

use of construction ver nication Checklists i

DATE: 7/5/83 ,

REV.: o 3 PREPARED B APPROVED E PAGE 7 of 32 i -

3.0 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETION OF CHECKLISTS The following instructions will be used by technical reviewers participating in the ICV review. The first and foremost instruction is, "the checklists will be used and every effort will be expended to ensure that dato collected is done so from unimpeachable sources." To the extent practical, all dato required to complete o particular checklist shall be collected and collected dato shall be occurately recorded.

The instructions which follow range in detail from o general statement relative 0 to o checklist's applicability and use to very specific, step-by-step directions.

Q The level of detail provided in the following instructions is directly dependent upon the explanatory information contained on the checklist itself. Those checklists which are self-explanatory require less detailed instructions for completion thon' those checklists which require information and data which are more difficult to obtain or whose meaning is not readily apparent to the ICV reviewer based upon information provided on the checklist itself.

Instructions for acquiring and recording the dofo necessory to complete the checklists are provided in the following sections. The following sections have first been categorized by the review category and then, within each review category, by the checklist (s) oppi!coble to that review category. The five review categories applicable to the ICV review process are os follows and correspond to the five numbered sections of this instruction.

o Review of Supplier Documentation o Review of Storoge and Maintenance Documentation 1

o

~

4 O PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI 3201. 007

SUBJECT:

use of construction verification Checklists REV.: o DATE: 7/5/83 ,

f ,

PAGE 8 of 32 PREFARED gg APPROVED BY: ] '

l o Review of Construction / Installation Documentation 4

o Review of Selected Verification Activities

- o Verificoiion of Physical Configuration 3.1 Review of Supplier Documentation 3.1.1 Documentation Verification Form (Exhibit 1)

(Completed in consort with the Documentation Avollobility Check-list)

I) Enter the description of the component (s) for which the form is being initiated in the space provided offer the words " Applicable To:"

Example: Volve and operator for volve number 2LV-3975 A 5 2), Enter the opplicable specification number in the space provided. A new form will be initiated for each specification opplicable to the some component. A component typically will have o principal specification,

'which defines the design requirements of the component, in addition to other specifications of a more general nature which are incorporated as port of the procurement by the principal specification. Examples of

~

specifications of a more general nature would be the seismic design requirements spec., cleaning and coating spec., GA program requirements spec.,etc.

3) To complete the entries in the " SPEC PARA" and " DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENT" columns proceed as follows:

O f a

\m ' e f

=

4 n.- ,- -, . - - -

$ PROJECT INSTRUCTION

SUBJECT:

use of construction verification

. PI 3201. 007 .

Checklists

!?EV.: o DATE: 7/5/83 g / l [

PREPARED APPROVED BY PAGE 9 of 32 a) Obtain a copy of the lotest revision of the specifico-tion and material requisition opplicable to the com-ponent/ item being reviewed. A copy may be obtained from either site L%curnent Control or from l l

the Bechtcl-Ann Arbor Document Control Center.

b) Review each applicable specification and material requisition. The review will consist of noting each specification paragrcph which states or imposes a requirement upon the vendor to submit a form of documentation i.e., wiring drawings, welder qual.

records, CMTR's, etc. In the columns provided enter the applicable specification paragraph number and a brief statement of the documentation require-ment.

p (Note: A new form will be initiated for each

()- specification appliceble to the component / item under review.)

4) Having completed a review of the specifications, compare the documento-tion requirements annotated on the Documentation Verification form to the Bechtel-prepared G-321-D form. The G-321-D form is cn integral part of each material procurement and defines, in a tabular manner, the documentation requirements imposed upon the vendor / supplier.

c) When a documentation requirement, os entered on the Documentation ~ Verification form, is indicated as being required on the G-321-D form, enter a "YES" on the opplicable line in the "NOTED ON G-I~ 321-D" column and enter the document category

• number in the space provided. Associated with each G-321-D form is a listing of document category descriptions which assigns a number to o specific

, category of documents - e.g., 4.1 = Erection /Instol-J' lotion Instructions; 15.0 = Cleoning and Cooting j' Procedures & Verification Documentation.

j s J ,

i 1

O 007 PROJECT INSTRUCTION

SUBJECT:

use of construction verification PI 3201 Checklists DATE: 7/5/83 , t REV.: o n PAGE 10 of 32 PREPARED' g APPROVED BY b) Place o check on the G-321-D form next to each document category which has been entered onto the Documentation Verification form.

As a result of performing these steps the reviewer will have the following:

1. A Documentation Verification form delineating all documentation requirements imposed by a specific specification paragraph and entries indicating which documentation requirements are also indicated on the G-32I-D form.

2. A G-321-D form oppropriately checked to indicoie which document categories have been entered onto v the Document Verification form.

The next step in completing the Document Verification form is to enter onto the form those document categories indicated as a documentation requirement on the G-321-D form, but which are not indicated as a requirement on the Documentation Verification Form.

5) Using the G-321-D form, note those document categories which have not been entered onto the Documentation Verification form (or those document categories which have not been checked). For cae document category not checked on the G-321-D form, make a line entry cw the Documentation Verification Form by performing the following steps:

a) Enter o "YES" in the "Noted on G-321-D" column b) Enter the Document Category Number in the space provided (O) l

s i

I PROJECT INSTRUCTION Pi_ 3201 007

SUBJECT:

use of construction verincation Checklists REV.! o DATE: 7/5/83 , .

j PAGE 11 of 32 PREPARED {g APPROVED B

'f c) Enter the definition of the document category num-ber in the Document Requirement Column.

As a result of performing these first five (5) steps the Documentation Verifico-tion Form will have the following entries.

o) Specification Number b) Description of the component being evoluoted c) Entries indicating that a documentation requirement A colled for in a specification parograph is also C oddressed as a requirement on the G-321-D form d) Entries indicating that a documentation requirement coiled for in the specification is not indicated as a document requirement on the G-321-D form e) Entries indicating that a documentation requirement is indicated on the G-321-D form, but not specified as a requirement in the body of the opplicable specification.

The next steps relate to conducting a review of available vendor documen-totion and documenting the results of the review.

6) Enter a brief description and mark number of the component being reviewed at the head of a column in the area identified on the Documento-tion Verification form by the words " COMPONENT l.D.".

Examples: Valve 2LV-3975A; Motor 2POO5A; Flow Transmitter 2FT-3975AA2, etc.

V

p l V PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI 3201 . 007

SUBJECT:

use of construction verification Checklists REV.: o CATE: 7/5/83 s f f _

PAGE 12 og 32 PREPARED IL gg APPROVED BY

7) Obtain a copy of the most recent Supplier Document Register from Bechtel-Ann Arbor Document Control. The Supplier Document Register may be requested by providing the number of the principal procurement specification.

8) Obtain all operture cards and microfiche which contain images of vendor-supplied documents applicable to the component / item under review.

Similar to ocquiring the Supplier Document Register, the opplicable operture cards and microfiche may be obtained from Bechtel-Ann Arbor, Document Control by providing the principal spe:!ficofion number.

O G' Review the. vendor-supplied documentation using the operture cards / micro-9) fiche and Supplier Document register. When a vendor supplied document satisfies a document requirement as annotofed on the Documentation Verification form, enter the sequence number of the document on the approi riote line under the Component ID column. The sequence number is obtain3d from the Supplier Document Register.

Not oil of the vendor-supplied documentation is retained in Bechtel-Ann Arbor Document Control. Certain quality-related documentation such as Code forms, CMTR's, and welding qualification documentation is retained

(

in the OA vault located at the site. Access to this documentation is i obtained as follows:

10) Provide the Bechtel site Receiving QC organization with a description of l the component being reviewed and the applicable purchase order item number and principal specification number and request .he corresponding feT Ann Arbor Engineering Order (AEO) number.

V i

C"N PROJECT INSTRUCTION Pl 3201 . 007

SUBJECT:

use of construction verification

- Checktists j REV.: 0 DATE: 7/5/83 3

, /

NEM B .g NE W w, PAGE 13 of 32 II) Provide site OC vault custodians with the specification and AEO number and request to see the AEO packages.

12) Review the vendor-supplied documentation contained within the "AEO" packages. When a vendor-supplied document satisfies a document require-ment as annotated on the Document Verification Form, enter the AEO number on the appropriate line under the Component ID column.

3.1.2 Documentation Availability Checklist (DAC)- Exhibit 2 The dato and information required to complete the DAC will be obtained at the some time that the Documentation Verification Form (Article 3.1.1) is being completed.

1) Obtain a number for the DAC form from the LTR and insert the assigned number in the space provided.

2) Complete the first page of the DAC by noting the required information as information is collected in pre-paring the Documentation Verification form (Article 3.1.1). Of special note are the required entries os follows:

a) Item # 5.0 System, and 5.1 Startup System Desig-notor, may be obtained from cross-reference indexes os retained at the site Document Control Center b) Item # 6.6, Material Receiving Report No(s)., and 6.7, Ovality Control inspection Report No(s). are typically included as part of the AEO pockoge os obtained from the Site GC Vault custodion. (See Article 3.1.1, Step numbers 10 ond i t, for the octions necessary to obtain the AEO dato packages.)

o)

C) PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI 3201 007

SUBJECT:

use of construction verification checklists REV.: 0 DATE: 7/5/83 n i PREPARED B APPROVED B PAGE I4 of 32

3) Using as a reference the completed Documentation Veri-fication Form, complete item # 7.0 as follows:

Note those lines on the Documentation Verification form which do not have on entry in the "Noted on G-321-D" column and transfer the required information from the Documentation Verification form onto the DAC.

4) Using as a reference the completed Documentation Veri-fication Form, complete item # 8.0 as follows:

i Note those lines on the Documentation Verification form which have on entry in the "Noted on G-321-D" column, but do not have on entry in the " Spec. Poro" colurnn and transTer the required information from the Documento-O V

tion Verification form onto the DAC.

5) Using as a reference the completed Documentation Veri-fication Form, complete item # 9.0 os follows:

Note those lines on the Documentation Verification form which do not have on entry in the " Component ID" column and transfer the required information from the Documen-tation Verification form onto the DAC.

6) ltem # 10.0, Comments of IDCV Reviewer, shall contain the results of the reviewers evoluotion of the entries in item # 9.0. It is important to note that the reviewers comments will oddress the significance of not receiving the documentation as entered in item # 9.0 and will not address the adequacy of the documentation which hos been submitted.

if in the opinion of the reviewer the significance of the missing documentation

, warrants on OCR Report, the applicable OCR Report Number shall be entered in item # 10.l.

l l

? 3 (V

O PROJECT INSTRUCTION V

Pl 3201 . 007

SUBJECT:

use of construction verification Checklists REV.: o DATE: 7/5/83 rs ,

j PREPARED B APPROVED BY PAGE 15 of 32 ~ -

i 3.l.3 Supplier Documentation Functional Review (SDFR) Form - Exhibit 3 The SDFR will be completed subsequent to completing the Documentation Verification Form (Article 3.1.1) and the Documentation Availability Checklist (Article 3.1.2). For each line entry on the SDFR o Verification of Supplier Documentation Adequacy Form (Article 3.1.4) will be completed.

1 l} Obtain a number for the SDFR form from the LTR and insert the assigned number in the space provided.

2) Enter the requested dato os contained in the header

/~5 information. The requested data may be copied from the b opplicable Documentation Avollobility Checklist (Article 3.1.2). The entry for "Bechtel Specification" will be the number of the principle Bechtel Specification for the component under review.

3) Using as a reference the completed Documentation Veri-fication Form (Article 3.l.l), enter in the column entitled "Bechtel Doc. No." the Supplier Document Register Sequence No. or AEO Number corresponding to the op-plicable document category.

4) For entries in the "Bechtel Doc. No." column, which are Supplier Document Register Sequence Numbers, note the Spec and Sequence Number and request the corresponding operture cord / microfiche from Bechtel-Ann Arbor Docu-ment Control. Review the document which corresponds to the assigned sequence number and note and enter the following dato onto the SDFR.

c) "Date Reviewed for Use" will be the date written in the Stomped Review Block which appears on the first page of each vendor document submittal.

(3

\

v)

bw PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI 3201 007

SUBJECT:

use of construction verification Checklists REV.: o DATE: 7/5/83 3 , f PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY:

PAGE 16 of 32 f/-

o b) Vendor Document Number, Revision, Date and Vendor Document Title.

c) In those instances when the document category was l

not identified on the Documentation Verification Form os being a required document submittal, enter the words "Not specified as a required document" on the opplicable document category line.

l d) In those instances when the document category was specified as a required document on the Document Verification Form but was not supplied by the vendor, enter the words "SpeciTed but not supplied" on the applicable document category line.

e) In those instances when the document category is v obviously not opplicable to the component being i reviewed (e.g., impact Test Data for a Motor) enter  !

the words "Not Applicable" on the oppropriate docu-ment category line.

5) For entries in the "Bechtel Doc. No." column, which are AEO Numbers, note the Specification and AEO Number and request the corresponding AEO dato package from the Site GC Vault custodion. Review the document which corresponds to the opplicable AEO and document category and enter the following data onto the SDFR.

j a) "Date Reviewed for Use" will be the date that the entire AEO dato package was reviewed and deemed occeptoble I b) Vendor Document Number, Revision, Date and Vendor Document Title c) Refer to Step 4 of this procedure, items 4c,4d and 4e, for exception entries.

O

()

O PI 3201. 007 PROJECT INSTRUCTION

SUBJECT:

use of construction verification Checklists REV.: o DATE: 7/5/83 3

/

PREPARED APPROVED BY.

P E D C2 3.l.4 Verification of Supplier Documentation Adequacy Form - Exhibit 4 This form will be completed in consort with the SDFR (Article 3.l.3). A Verification of Supplier Documentation Adequacy form will be completed for each unique entry which appears on the SDFR under the column entitled "Bechtel Doc. No."

To complete the form, reference will be mode to the Document Verification Form (Article 3.l.1), and the SDFR.

O 1) Complete the form's header information by transferring O the opplicable data from the corresponding SDFR. Of special note is the entry to be made in the " Applicable Doc. Category" field. A vendor-supplied document, such as on instruction book, may be o,' o!Qable to more than one document category. In such instances, insert the document categories to which the vendor's document is applicable. Thus one Verification of Supplier Documento-tion Adequacy Form will be completed for each uniave entry which appears on the SDFR under the column "Bechtel Doc. No."

2) Acquire o copy of the opplicoble Bechtel Specification from either the site or Bechtel-Ann Arbor Document Control Centers.

3) Acquire the operture cord / microfiche which contains the images of the document, when the opplicable document is identified by on entry in the Bechtel Doc. No. field. The operture card / microfiche is obtained through Bechtel-Ann Arbor Document Control by providing the Spec. and Sequence Number.

When the desired document is identified by on entry in the "AEO" field, obtain the AEO dato package from the site v)

O PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI 3201. 007

SUBJECT:

use or construction verification Checklists REV.: o DATE: 7/5/83 n /

PAGE 18 of 32 PREPARED g APPROVED BY]

/

OC Vault custodion by providing the AEO # cnd Specifico-tion #.

4) Complete entries in item (s) 1.0 by referring to the Docu-mentation Verification Form and noting the opplicable document category and Document Number (Bechtel Doc.

No. or AEO).

5) As a result of conducting a review of the opplicable specification, enter the requested dato into item 2.

Entries in item 2 shall be those requirements contained within the body of the specification which stipulate the form or format of the required documentation or which stipulate the minimum amount of information content of the vendor submittal.

'u./ 6) Complete item (s) 3.0 by first entering requirements, os contained in items 1.0 and 2.0 of the f::rm, in the column entitled "Bechtel Specification Requirement". Review the vendor's documentation submittal and provide o brief description as to how the information contained within the vendor's documentation submittal satisfies, or does not satisfy, the Bechtel Specification Requirement.

Entries are made in the column entitled " Vendor Submit-tal in Response To Requirements".

7) Complete item 4.0. Entries in item 4.0 con be of a subjective nature wherein the reviewer opplies his sound engineering judgment to evoluoting whether or not the vendor has provided adequate and su'ustantive detail. The evoluotion and the results of the evoluotion documented in this section will address not only the adequacy of the vendor's submittal in response to specification recuire-ments, but also the usability of the vendor's submittal in maintaining, installing, storing, and operating the subject equipment.

h I

\j

l l

l O PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI 3201. 007

SUBJECT:

use of construc1 ion verif; cation 1 Checkiists REV.: o DATE: 7/5/83 , , f PREPARE PAGE 19 of 32 APPROVED BY]

f -

3.1.5 Time-Base Evoluotion of Vendor Documentation Submittals -

Exhibit 5 The information to be represented on this form enob!es a quick interpretation of the timeliness of vendor documentation submittols. The required information will be extracted from the Supplier Documentation Functional Review Form (Article 3.l.3) and the Storage and Maintenance Checklist (Article 3.2.2).

l) in the upper lef t-hand corner of the " Event Description" block enter the component nome and tog number - e.g.,

[  ; AFW Pump Motor 2POO5A; Flow Transmitter L' 2FT3975AA2; etc.

2) From the applicable Storage and Maintenance Checklist, item # 18, note the date the material / component was receipted for at the Midland site. On the line provided corresponding to l), Component Received at Site, place o triangle indicating the year and month. From the base of the triangle draw a vertical line downward to the line corresponding to item 4, Storage and Handling instruc-tions Reviewed for Use.

3) From the opplicable Storage and Maintenance Checklist, item # 19, note the date the material / component was issued from storage. On the line provided corresponding to 5), Component Withdrawn From Warehouse for insfol-lation, place o triangle indicoting the yeur and month.

From the base of the triangle draw a vertical line downward to the line corresponding to item 7, Long Term Storage Requirements Reviewed for Use.

4) Using information collected and entered onto the Supplier Documentation Functional Review Form (Article 3.l.3),

ploce o triangle indicating the month and year on the lines corresponding to the following:

r~N O

l

1 V PROJECT INSTRUCTION Pl 3201_.. o07

SUBJECT:

use of construction verification Checklists l

REV.: o DATE: 7/5/83 s

_ /

PREPARE APPROVED BY PAGE 20 of 32

(

2), Cleoning/Cooting Procedures Reviewed for Use 3), Shipping Procedures Reviewed for Use 4), Storage and Handling instructions Reviewed for Use 6), Erection / Installation instructions Reviewed for Use 7), Long Term Storage Requirements Reviewed for Use.

3.2 Review of Storage and Maintenance Documentation 3.2.1 Receipt inspection Form - Exhibit 6 l} Enter the description of the item / component under review. The descrip-tion will consist of a definition of the component plus the component / item tog number - e.g., AFW Pump Motor 2P005A; Flow Tronsmitter 2FT3975A A2; etc.

2) From the Documentation Availability Checklist (Article 3.1.2) obtain the information necessary for completing entries in items I - 5.1.

The

3) Complete the entries for item 6.0, Principal /Mojor Appurtenances.

entries in this item will be dictoted by the method the item / component, described in the header information, has been shipped by the vendor. As on example, o motor-operated volve will be comprised of the volve and the motor operator. Even though the ICV documentation review considers the

o 1 lV PROJECT INSTRUCTION pl 3201. 007

SUBJECT:

use of construction verification Checklists REV.: o ._DATE: 7/5/83 3 f PAGE 21 of 32

. PREPARE g APPROVED Bp i.

volve and operator as two distinct and separate components, the operator and volve are customarily shipped as one, assembled component. In this l instance, the motor operator would be considered as a principal / major opportenance to the valve and the dato and information opplicable to the operator would be entered here, in item 6.0.

4) The information necessary to complete the entries in items 7.0 and 8.0 are typically included in the AEO package os obtained from the Site OC Vcult Custodion. (See Article 3.1.1, Step numbers 10 and ll, for the actions O necessary to obtain the AEO dato packages.)

V Of special note are the entries made in item 8.2, Documents Noted on OCIR as Controlling the Receipt inspection. The entries mode in item 8.2 must be compared against the revision levels of the opplicable documento-tion used as source information for completing the Review of Supplier Documentation. Compare the revision levels of documentation noted in item 8.2 with the opplicable documents and information noted on the appropriate Documentation Avollobility Checklist (Article 3.1.2) and reconcile the differences. Reconciliation of different revision levels of the some document will be performed by noting the Record-of-Revisions page of the effected document to discern whether or not more recent revisions offect the requirements imposed upon the component / item subject to ICV review.

5) Information required to complete entries in item 9,0, Description and Disposition of NCR's, item 10.0, Applicable Supplier Design Deviation of Ci NCR's and item 10.0, Applicable Supplier Design Deviation Requests V

l g 007 PROJECT INSTRUCTION

SUBJECT:

use of construction ver:fication PI 3201 Checklists j

REV.: o DATE: 7/5/83 3 ,

PREPARED APPROVED BY PAGE 22 of 32 ,

(SDDR's) is obtained from the site Midland Plant Quality Assurance Department (MPOAD). Automated trocking systems utilized to status the dispostion of NCR's and other matters offecting quality are managed and maintained by MPOAD.

6) Associated with each AEO package is typically a G-321-D Form utilized by the receipt inspector / quality inspector to annotate the documentation received from the vendor. Obtain the opplicable AEO rockage (Step 4 above) and complete entries in items Il.1 and Il.2.

/m Entries in Item II.3 are to be made by the ICV reviewer to indicate his (v )

evoluotion of the completed G-321-D form. Special note should be taken by the ICV reviewer of those instances where documentation required by the vendor, as noted on the G-321-D, was not received or was not considered by the person completing the G-321-D form.

7) Entries in item 12.0 shall be mode by the ICV reviewer to document his for the findings relevant to the receipt inspection conducted component / item under review. As o minimum, comments must address:

- NCR Status

- SDDR Status

- G-321-D Review Status

- Reconciliation of the revision levels of documento-tion controlling the receipt inspection to most cur-rent revision levels of the opplicable documentation.

7

!v)

O V

PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI 3201. 007 Suis)ECT: use of construction verification

- Checklists REV.: o DATE: 7/3/83 ,

p _ j PREPARED APPROVED BY:

PAGE 23 og 32 3.2.2 Storage and Maintenance Checklist - Exhibit 7 I) Complete the header information (items 1-8) by noting the identical entries made on the Documentation Availability Checklist (Article 3.1.2).

2) Entries for item 9.0, Quality Classification, is obtained from the Material Requisition ond/or Purchase Order. Item 9.I, Storage Level, is obtained from the applicable F-l form (See Step 4).

3) In item 10, Reference Documents, enter the vendor-supplied documento-tion which provide guidance for the recommended storage and maintenance of the component / item under review. Entries wil be comprised of information extracted from the Supplier Documentation Functional Review (SDFR) form, item 4.3, Maintenance Instructions; Item 4.4, Site Storage and Handling instructions and, where applicable, Long Term Storage Requirements. Information to be entered in item 10 will be the following:

- Bechtel Document No.

- Vendor Document No.

- Revision

- Date

- Title k

(v)

O PROJECT INSTRUCTION Pl 3201 . 007

SUBJECT:

use or construction verification Checklists REV.: 0 DATE: 7/5/83 n , /

PREPARED PAGE 24 of 32 APPROVED B{

/ '

Bechtel documents controlling equipment storage are os follows:

FPG-4.000: Storage-Mointenance/ inspection cf Equipment and Materials FPG-5.000: Maintenance / inspection of Material and Equipment Released for Construction The ICV reviewer must ensure his familiarity with the above instructions prior to proceeding with the completion of this checklist.

7

4) For each classification of material and equipment "In Storage" (prior to issue from the warehouse for construction) on F-l form is prepared in

,occordance with the requirements of FPG-4.000. The F-l form delineates the specific storage conditions, storage level, periodic maintenance requirements and inspection intervals. For the component / item under review obtain the applicable F-l form from the Bechtel site Receiving OC Section. Note the F-l number and revision level and enter the noted information on the Storage and Maintenance Checklist, item i1.

5) F-2 forms are defined in Bechtel Procedure FPG-4.000 as F-l forms which have been used to document the requirements os delineated on +'e F-l form. F-2 form numbers are assigned sequentially as on imoection requirement comes due for performance. Deficiencies found during l

inspections, in addition to octual performance of the inspection, are recorded on the F-2 form. The opplicable F-2 form numbers are obtained t

' from the Bechtel site Receiving OC Section and are physically retained in

.s b

4 i

l 9 PROJECT INSTRUCTION Pl 3201. 007

SUBJECT:

use w construction verincation Checklists f

REV.: 0 DATE: 7/5/83 n PREPARED APPROVED BY: j PAGE 25 of 32 the Bechtel GC Vault or, if the component has been turned over to CPC, in the CPC vault. Note the beginning F-2 form number and date, and enter the noted information in item 12 of the Storage and Miointenance Check-list.

6) From the file of completed F-2 forms enter the most recent storage inspection report number in item #13 cnd the corresponding date of performance.

7) From the F-l/F-2 form, extroet the storage inspection intervals and enter p

i t

x_) the information in item # I4.

8) From the reference documents entered in item #10 and the applicable Specification (item #7), extract and summarize those storage requirements recommended by the vendor (s) and stipulated by the applicable Specifico-tion. The vendor's instructions may be obtained from the site vendor document control center or from the Bechtel-Ann Arbor document control center.

9) Compare the vendor recommended storage instructions to those instruc-tions delineated on the applicable F-1 form. Note the results of this comparison in item # 16.

10) Upon a review of the applicable F-2 forms, enter the required information in item #17.

,f'

\

l i

l

PROJECT INSTRUCTION Pl_ 3201. 007

SUBJECT:

use of construction verification Checklists REV.: 0 DATE: 7/5/83 (x /

I 26 of 32 PREPAREDg APPROVED SY: 3 PAGE II) Obtain the dates required by item #18, Date Material Received and item #19, Date Material issued from Storage from the Bechtel site Receiving GC Section.

Items 20 through 27 require information relevant to programs and proce-dures used to inspect and maintain the item / component once the item / component has been withdrawn from the warehouse and installed in the field.

n 12) For each item / component installed in the field on F-10 form is prepared in

'd accordance with the requirements of FPG-5.000 as follows. "Information for maintenance / inspection of material and equipment released for con-struction is provided by preparing the dual purpose maintenance / inspection form (Fl0/F20). The maintenance / inspection information is outlined in the main body of the form and is issued with a unique F-10 number for implementation." Obtain the F-10 form opplicable to the component / item under review and enter the F-10 number in item #20, Maintenance Procedure Number. The F-10 may be obtained from the responsible Bechtel Field Engineer.

13) Eoch time the requirements of the implemented F-10 Form are to be reported. compliance or non-compliance and corrective oction is reported on a copy of the F-10 Form. This marked-up F-10 Form is issued a unique F-20 number. Obtain the file, file numbers, of the opplicable F-20 forms from the responsible Bechtel Field Engineer ond/or from the Bechtel GC

' Vault Custodion. From the file of F-20 forms, enter the information required by items 21,22 & 23 on the Storage and Maintenance Checklist.

Lj

C PROJECT INSTRUCTION

SUBJECT:

use of construction verification PI 3201_ . 007 Cher.klists REV.: o DATE: 7/5/83 ,

g APPROVED BY PREPARED Bg PAGE 27 of 32

14) From the reference documents entered in item #10 and the opplicab!e Specification (Item #7), extract and summarize those in-place maintenance and storage requirements recommended by the vendor (s) and stipulated by the opplicable Specification. Enter these recommendations and require-ments in item #24.

15) Compare the vendor-recommended storage instructions to those instruc-l tions delineated on the applicable F-10 Form. Note the results of this comparison in item #25.

/~T U 16) Upon a review of the opplicable F-20 forms, enter the required information in item #'s 26 & 27.

l

17) Items 28, 29 & 30 of the Storage and Mointenance Checklist are to be completed based upon the reviewer's evoluotion of both the storage and in-place maintenance documentation and programs for the component / item under review. Access to information maintained by both the responsible Bechtel Field Engineer and the Midland Plant Ovality Assurance Deport-ment (MPOAD) may be required.

18) As port of the verification of storage and maintenance review, a visual inspection of the component / item under review will be conducted. The intent of the inspection is to verify installation status, occurate merking and identification and any obvious domoge or lock of maintenance (e.g.,

protective coverings rot installed, space heaters de-energized, etc.).

I Summarize the results of the visvol inspection in item #31.

,O U

O pl_ 3201 . 007 PROJECT INSTRUCTION

SUBJECT:

use or construction verificatio, 1 Checklist 5 REW 0 DATE: 7/5/83 , , _

/

PAGE 28 _ of 32 MENED g MN _1

19) Upon the evoluotion of all information collected during the Storage and Maintenance Review, record the results of the evoluotion in item #32. The findings documented in item #32, as a minimum should uddress themselves to those storage and maintenance activities which have, or have not, been performed and as a result could have a deleterious effect on the component under review.

3.3 Review of Construction / Installation Documentation (Checklists currently being prepared and/or reviewed for acceptability).

3.4 Review of Selected Verification Activities 3.4.1 Review of Selected Verification Activities Checklist - Exhibit 8 This checklist will be completed in its entirety for each overinspection/ site-initiated verification program subjected to ICV revew.

1) ICV reviewer will record and document information required by items I through 7 ensuring that sources of l

information and statusing of activities are confirmed with cognizont and designated CPCo personnel.

2) Coreful attention will be given to ensuring that the revision level and source of information for dato entered into items 8 and 9 is provided. These dato are necessary (3

Nj

i 1

/

f

\

,U PROJECT INSTRUCTION l l

Pl ]201 . 007

SUBJECT:

use of construction verin cation Checklists l REV.: o DATE: 7/5/83 _ (s PREPARED APPROVED BY PAGE 29 of 32 to ensure that a " benchmark" is established against which to gauge the status of the verlfication program at the time the ICV review was conducted.

3) Complete Section 3.3.3 of this instruction, Personnel Ovalification Checklist, and summarize inconsistencies, noted deviations, and other attributes of the training / qualification of personnel conducting the overinspection octivities in item 10 of this checklist.

f% Complete the checklist corresponding to the

1. d 4) overinspection/ site- verification program being reviewed (e.g., Section 3.3.2 of this instruction, Overinspection of Selected Electrical Cables within Sample Boundaries).

Enter the information requested by items 11 and 12 of this checklist.

5) Complete Section 3.3.5 of this instruction, Document Control Checklist, and summarize inconsistencies, noted discreponcies and other attributes of the document control systems used to manage and control the dissemination, retention, and acquisition of documented information generated by the program being reviewed.

Enter the required information in item 13 of this l

checklist.

i

(%,._)

1 1

O.

b PROJECT INSTRUCTION I

PI 3201. 007

SUBJECT:

use of construction verification I Checklists REV.: o DATE: 7/5/83 rs . I PAGE 30 of 32 PREPARED

]{ APPROVED BY

/ '

6) Complete Section 3.3.4 of this instruction, Test and Measuring Equipment Checklist, and summarize inconsistencies, noted discrepancies and other attributes of the utilization and control of test and measuring l equipment in item 14 of this checklist.  ;

7) Having completed the checklist corresponding to the overinspection/ site-verification program being reviewed (Step 4 above), enter the information required to complete item IS cf this checklist and summarize your findings in item 16, Summary.

(

3.4.2 Overinspection of Sciected Electrical Cables within Sample Boundaries - Exhibit 9 This checklist will be used and completed by the ICV reviewer when conducting a review of the Cable Overinspection Program. A checklist will be completed for each cable inspected and the results summarized on this checklist, item 25, and on the Review of Selected Verification Activities Checklist, Section 3.3.1 of this instruction.

3.4.3 Personnel Qualification and Training - Exhibit 10 This checklist will be completed for each overinspection and verification program subjected to ICV review ond the results of completing this checklist summarized on the Review of p

l 1

l l

() Pl 3201. co7 PROJECT INSTRUCTION

SUBJECT:

use of construction verification i

Checklists REV.: o DATE: 7/5/83 s ,

PREPARED APPROVED BY.

PAGE 31 of 32

/ ~

Selected Verification Activities Checklist, Section 3.3.1 of this instruction.

1) The information required by Section 1 of the checklist will be completed for each overinspection and verification program subjected to ICV review.

2) Section 2 of the checklist, which contains individual-specific dato and information, will be completed for each individual interviewed and reviewed. Thus the Personnel Qualification and Training Checklist will be comprised on one Section I, and as many Section 2's as necessary to correspond to the number of individuals reviewed for qualification and training.

3.4.4 Test and Measuring Equipment Checklist 3.4.5 Document Control Checklist The above checklists will be completed for each overinspection and verification program subjected to ICV review and the results of completing these checklists summarized on the Review of Selected Verification Activities Checklist, Section 3.3.1 of this instruction.

p G PROJECT INSTRUCTION Pl 3201 . 007

SUBJECT:

use of construction verification Checklists REV. 0 DATE: 7/5/83 n /

PREPARED Bg APPROVED BY PAGE 32 of 32_

3.5 Verification of Physical Configuration)

(Checklists currently being prepared and/or reviewed for ceceptability).

4.0 MODIFICATION OF CHECKLISTS As stated in Sections 2.2 and 2.3, ICV Reviewers and LTRs may modify

(" customize") individual generic checklists os necessory to satisfy the particular requirements of a soecific review item. In each such case, the checklist section b_

y entitled " checklist modifications" shall be filled out, listing attachments (new checklist items) as applicable. Items of the generic checklist that are not required to complete the review should be marked "not applicable". Signatures of the LTR and Manager, Construction Verification shall be required in addition to that of the ICV Reviewer, indicating their opproval of the modified checklist.

4 1

lh 1

v i

t I

l

PROJECT INSTRUCTION

$ PI 3201 - 008

SUBJECT:

Preparation and Control of Open, Confirred and Resolved Item Reports, Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reportp ,

REV.: 2 DATE:7/15/83 ,

APPROVED B g 2 or 12 PREPARg:{ -

PAGE /

tion procedures, thus requiring additional investigation or confirmatory analysis in creas such as: quality assurance or design control implementation, licensing criterio or commit-ments compliance, onolytical or mothematical technical op-proach, design onolysis evoluotion, specifications review, field configuation and constructed product verification, etc.

Potential Open item: that are verified by the project team i2 become Open items, unless they are classified as observations l In occordance with Project Instruction PI-3201-005.

7 Open item

! I l.3.2 v

The item has the potential for becorriing a Confirmed item, but additional investigation or confirmatory analysis is neces-sory to make o final judgement.

l.3.3 Confirmed item The item is judged to be on apparent Finding by the review team and will require oction, such as additional documento-tion not utilized by the team that documents the resolution of the item or additional analysis, design or construction changes or procedural changes that may be necessary to resolve the item. Confirmed items that are later verified become Findings.

'.,p.

a

f

$ 008 PROJECT INSTRUCTION

SUBJECT:

Preparation and Control of Open, Cor.firred PI 3201 and Resolved item Reports, finding Reports and Finding Resolution Repor$s REV.: 2 DATE:7/15/83 ,

APPROVED BY PAGE 4 of 12 PREPAREDp (( /

l.3.7 OCRs Reports written to summarize the status of disposition of items under review within the IDCV program prior to any definitive conclusion being mode. Definitive conclusions are mode at the Finding or Finding resolution stage in the reporting process. The term OCR may generally be in-terpreted as including Potential Open items.

2

- 1.3.8 Project Team (G

The Project Manager, Monoger, Design Verification and Manager, Construction Verification are permanent members of the project team. The Managers, AFW, SEP and CR-HVAC System Reviews and the Monoger, Site Activities are part-time members of the project team when issues under their direct responsibility are under consideration. Specific LTRs also participate on the team os required when technical issues within thei- discipline of review are being discussed.

2.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 2.1 The technical reviewers are responsible for preparing OCR ltem Reports, recommending the classification of OCR ltems and forward-ing these to their Lead Technical Revie-ar (LTR). Note that items initially identified by technical reviewers are Potential Open items until such a time that these items are reviewed and opproved by the n

project team os Opan items.

C PROJECT INSTRUCTION

SUBJECT:

Preparation and controi of open. corriered PI 3201 _29L and Resolved Iter. Reports, Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reporlts REV.: 2 DATE:7/15/83 n ha og 12 PREPAREQg gg l APPROVED B PAGE - J 2.2 The Lead Technical Reviewers are responsible for the review of and concurrence in all Potential Open items and OCRs forwarded by their technical reviewers, the classification of OCRs, the prepcration of Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reports, and the forwarding of all of these reports to the Project Manager (PM). The LTRs shall consider input provided to them b'y the technical reviewers. An LTR may perform the duties of the technical reviewer.

~

L)

~

/

l s

4 e

G

-- o,,- -

---m.-< , , --

2 PROJECT INSTRUCTION SUB, LECT: Pr eparation and Control of Open. Co-firred 0 320 L ._RB._ -- and Resolved Iten Reports. Fincing Re: orts and Finding Resolution Reports REV.: 2 DATE:7/15/83 g APPROVED BY 12 PREPAR g rg PIGE 5 of ,

i 2.3 Tne Project Manager is responsible for periodicofir organizing meet-ings or telecons of the project team for the purpose of conducting on integrated review of the classification and significance of OCRs and Findings, and the resolution of Findings.

2.4 The Project Manager is responsible for forwarding OCR ltem Re-ports, Finding Reports, and Finding Resolution Reports to the Prin-cipal-in-Charge and Senior Review Team (SRT); and forwarding Con-firmed item Reports, Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reports to outside porties. The Project Monoger may perform the duties of

(~ ,

,\> . the LTR.

2.5 The project team shall review all Potential Open items forworded by the LTRs, review the classification of and ottempt to resolve Open or Confirmed items, conduct further technical review or call for further technical review to clarify, expand or reassess Open or Confirmed items. The project team is responsible for verification of a Confirmed item leading to the dectoration of a Finding, resolution of o Finding or the re-classification of a Finding as " resolved" by issuance of a Finding Resolution Report.

2.6 The Principof-in-Charge (PIC) is responsible for concurring with the classification of OCRs, Findings, Findings Resolution Reports, mak-ing a determination if a review of OCRs is required by the Senior Review- Team, and directing the Project Monoger to fo.werd Con-7~

% s' 2

s 8 /m.

b PROJECT INSTRUCTION SUB.KCT: Preparation and control of open, confirmed Pi _3Ml_: 008 -

and Resolved item Reports, Finding Reports w and rinding Resolution Reports

DATE:7/15/83 r. ,

REV.: 2 PREPAREblgg APPROVED BY f/:

a .

of 12 L-PAGE _6 /

firmed item Reports, Finding Reports, and Finding Resolution Re-ports to outside parties.

2.7 The Senior Review Team is responsible for reviewing OCR ltem Reports os requested by the PIC or the Chairman of the SRT. The SRT shall review oi! Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reports, identifying the need for clarification, expansion of review or re-2 ossessment by iOCV project personnel. The SRT shall review the safety significance of forwarded OCR Reports and Finding Reports (D and may recommend a course of oction to the PIC and PM for V identification of root cause and extent. The SRT shal! review the Finding Resolution Reports to essess the occeptability of any re-medial actions taken by CPC and the original design or construction organization.

2.8 The Chairman of the SRT is responsible for reviewing all OCRs to

' determine whether o review by the SRT is necessary, independent of the PIC's request for o review of specific OCRs. He is also responsible for coordinating the SRT's review efforts associated with Findings and Finding Resolution Reports and reporting results and recommendations to the PIC and PM.

L

, 3.0 PREPARATION

(, 3.1 The preparation of reports under the scope of this Project Instruction

[ ,

shall follow the report generation process ~shown on the diogram, I

[

" " Report Flow Chart'(Figere 1).

7 i

e t g a # / 1

• /

a f

/ \, -m

' h___.__. _ _ _ _ _ _

O PROJECT INSTRUCTION

SUBJECT:

Preparation and control of open, confir ee PI 3201 - 008 and Resolved item Reports, Finding Repo"ts DATE:7/15/83 ,and Finding Resolution Reports REV.: 2 APPROVED BY:

PREPARED (g PAGE 10 or_12 5.1.1 The following report type identifiers shall be utilized:

P - Potential Open item Report O - Open item Report C - Confirmed item Report R - Resolve item Report F - Finding Report Z - Finding Resolution Report 2

B - Observations O Related OCR and Finding Reports or Finding Resolution b 5.1.2 Reports shall be assigned the some sequence number, starting from 000 to 999. Note that oil sequence numbers rnoy not be used for all report types.

5.2 Retention The Potential Open item, OCR, Finding, and Finding Resolution Reports shall be indexed using the oppropriate Document Control Register (Attachment D-l (Potential Open item Reports), D-2 (Open item Reports), D-3 (Confirmed item Reports), D-4 (Resolved Item Reports), D-5 (Finding Reports), and D-6 (Finding Resolution Reports), and filed in the oppropriate project controlled documents file. Distribution of originals shall not be made unless specific writte, instructions are issued to the contrary. All such final documents shall be maintained by the Project Manager or his designated representative.

p

O PROJECT INSTRUCTION

SUBJECT:

Preparation and control of open, confirned PI . 3201 - 008 and Resolved Iten Reports, Finding Recorts and Finding Resolution Repo[t]

REV. 2 DATE:7/i 3/83 ,

g PAGE I1 of 12 PREPAREp { APPROVED BY:

5.3 Tracking Potential Open items, Open items, Confirmed items, Resolved items, Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reports shall be trocked as to their current status of disposition utilizing the format shown on Attachment E. This tracking system shall be attached to each monthly IDCV program status report.

p 6.0 DISTRIBUTION AND lb'.tiRCHANGE OF INFORMATION V

6.1 Confirmed item Reports (and any associated Resolved item reports),

Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reports shall be distributed by the Project Manager to CPC (with a carbon copy to the original design or construction organization), NRC and other outside parties on the IDCV program service list upon receiving direction from the Principo!-in-Charge.

6.2 It shall be the responsibility of the Project Manager to determine when there is a need to have o meeting of the project team with CPC and the original design or construction organization to discuss Con-firmed items, Findings or the resolution of Findings. These meetings shall be controlled in occordance with the provisions of Project

, instruction PI-3201-010.

A U

A U PROJECT INSTRUCTION 3201.. Q08

$UBJECT: Preparation and Control of Open, Conf i r:,e d PI and Resolved item Reports, Finding Reports and Fincling Resolution Reports ,

REV.: 2 DATE:7/15/83 ,

12 PREP 87 APPROVED BY j 12 og PAGE 7.0 REVISIONS 7.1 Revisions to final documents shall be made, verified, and opproved in the same manner os the original document.

7.2 Superseded final documents shall be so identified and transferred to o superseded document binder. The document control register shall note this action by referencing the new evision of the document.

Revisions shall be entered into the Document Control Register.

l l

l 1

{

G

- -- - -,e m

O PROJECT INSTRUCTION

SUBJECT:

Scope Change Requests PI 3201. 012 "IdI*"d 9 REV.: 1 DATE: 7/15/83 m Construct.'"d*P'"d*"*9**I"*"d ion Verification Procram PAGE 3 of 9 PREPARE g ( AFPROVED BY f/

i i ./

2.0 RESPONSIBILITIES AND APPROVAL 2.1 The technical reviewers are responsible for promptly notifying the appropriate lead technical reviewer should they discover on area of program scope requiring modification.

1 2.2 The lead technical reviewers in consultation with the Managers, AFW, SEP and CR-HVAC System Reviews and Manager, Site Activities shall continually monitor the technical activities under their direction and compare the octivities necessary to achieve project objectives ogcinst

(,/ those activities which have been previously planned. Upon determination that additional octivities are needed to achieve project objectives, the lead technical reviewer shall document the odditionc! octivities on a Scope Change Request (SCR) form (Attachment 1) and associated dato on a Cost i and Schedule Considerations (CSC) form (Attachment 2) sign the form and obtain concurrence from his monoger.

2.3 The Managers, Design and Construction Verification shall review oil SCR and CSC forms and determine whether the proposed scope change is oppropriate and if odequate justification has been provided.

1 They may send the SCRs and CSCs back to the leod technical reviewers and their monogers for clarification or odditional detail. If satisfied that the scope chonge is oppropriate and that justification has been documented in accordance with this instruction, they shall sign the SCRs and CSCs I

signifying their opproval and forward these to the Project Manager. Upon his review and opproval, the Project Monoger shoff forward the SCRs and p

(_) CSCs to the Principol-in-Chorge.

l

PROJECT INSTRUCTION C1

SUBJECT:

scope Change Requests Pl. 3201 . 012 Midland independent Design and REV.: 1 DATE: 7/15/83 fs Construct, ion Verification Procra-PAGE 6 og 9 PREPARE % g APPROVED BY /

3.l.3.4 Description of increase in Scope The technical activities which will be performed if the scope change is approved shall be listed. The description I

shall be sufficiently complete to allow project management personnel, the Project Manager and the Principol-in-Charge to evoluote the need for the described octivities.

3.l.3.5 Basis or Cause of increosa

[]!

The lead technical reviewer shall explain why the scope increase is necessary. This explanation sho!! relate the additional activities to the engineering program plan.

3.l.4 Upon reviewing the completed SCRs and CSCs and obtaining citiKication, the Project Manager may odd his comments and recommendations for disposition in the space provided for

" Comments by PM" on each form. The Principol-in-Charge shall otso add his comments os oppropriate in the space provided for

" Comments by PIC".

3.2 Documentation of Cost and Schedule Considerations 3.2.1 For each Scope Change Request, a Cost and Schedule Considerations form (Attachment 2) shall be completed by the leod technical reviewer.

v

n PROJECT INSTRUCTION

(

SUBJECT:

scope Change Requests PI 3201. 012 Mid1 nd independent Design and REV.: 1 DATE: 7/15/83 c construction Verification Procra-PAGE 8 'd 9 PREP gg APPRCVED BY]

i -

4.0 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL 4.I - Upon completion of the Scope Change Request form and its associated Cost and Schedule Considerations form, the leod technical reviewer shall I sign the Scope Change Request and forward it through the concurrence and approvo! chain defined in section 2.0.

4.2 Each Scope Change Request form and its esociated Cost and Schedule Considerations form shall have a unique identif cation number consisting of I

the subject file number (3201-012) followed by a sequential three digit O

g number (001 thru 999). For example: 3201-012-001. The Project

' Administrator is responsible for assigning the sequential number upon opproval of the Project Manager.

4.3 The Project Monoger or his designee shall maintain on appropriate log of Scope Change Requests which he has received and their status. The dates of budget opproval and receipt of contract change notice shall be entered onto the Cost and Schedule Considerations form by the Project Manager when received from Consumers Power Company.

S.O INITIATION OF ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES S.I Additional scope items described in Scope Change Requests shall not be initiated without the approval of the Project Manager and Principol-in-Chorge. Where a lead technical reviewer believes that there are compelling reasons for initiating such new scope items prior to budget opproval by CPC, he shall request authorization to proceed from the Project Monoger and Principol-in-Charge, through his monoger. Reasons for requesting such outhorization may include inefficiencies which would result from waiting

Rev. I ATTACHMENTI MIDLAto IDCV V SCOPE CHANGE REQUEST Number System /IDCV Topic Review Activity Description of increase in Scope Basis or Cause of increase O v Comments By PM Comments By PIC Initiating LTR Date l '

Monoger, AFW, SEP, CR-HVAC Date or Site Activities r Manager, ICV or IDV Date Project Monoger Approval Date Principal-in-Chorge Approval Date

s STANISLAV FABIC Associate Principal Scientist EDUCA1 ION Ph.D. Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley M.S. Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley M.E. Mechanical Engineering, University of Melbourne, Australia B.E. Mechanical Engineering, University of Melbourne, Australia Naval Architecture, University of Zagreb, Yugoslavio l

SUMMARY

OF EXPERIENCE I

Present Principal Scientist, TERA Corporation.

1982-Present President, Dynotrek, Inc.

1973 - 1981 Chief, Analysis Development Branch, Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Supervised professionals (all GS-15 grade) engaged in monoging various research programs, conducted at five National Laboratories and various universities in the creo of analysis development and verification, for applictoion to nuclear safety.

Yearly budget over $10 M. As a Branch Chief, responsible for identification of goals, plans, work programs, selection of

(]v- contractors, review of work progress, and reporting of I accomplishments to NRC higher level management, Commissioners, Advisory Committee for Reactor Sofeguards, and Congressional Committees. From July 1979 was a member of the Senior Executive Service.

I Chairman of the NRC/RES Containment Review Group. Member of the following: (a) NRC/RES Advanced Code Review Group, (b)

NRC/RES Code Assessment Review Group,(c) CSNI/NEA Working Group on ECCS (Paris, France), (d) CSN!/NEA Working Group on Containments, (e) NORHAV (Nordic Countries) Review Group, and (f) Marviken IV Project Board (Sweden). l 1967 - 1973 Advisory Engineer, Westinghouse Nuclear Energy Systems. At Westinghouse, Pittsburgh, involved in the methods development for analyses of the following: (a) blowdown-induced forces on piping, reactor, and steam generator internols; (b) blowdown-induced thermal and hydraulic transients in the primary coolont system before and offer injection of the emergency coolant; (c) pipe rupture (break opening time); (d) choked two-phsoe flow during blowdown; and (e) steam generator feed-line break (hydro-elostic analysis).

Participated in draf ting Westinghouse position statements on matters pertaining to ECCS hearings.

'o TERA CORPORATION

O STANISLAV FABIC Page 2 Principoi Scientist At Kaiser Engineers, Project Engineer, Kaiser Engineers. (a) Hollogen and 1963 - 1967 Oakland, worked on the following projects:

noble gas removof; (b) blowdown analyses for th nuclear rocket exhoust plume at NERVA test facility.

Research Engineer, institute of Engineering. At the Institute of 1958 - 1963 Engineering Research, Berkeley, porticipated in a research project on transient boiling and boiling incipience.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION American Nuclear Society Sigmo-Xi O

e O .

O v

STANISLAV FABIC Page 3 Principal Scientist PUBLICATIONS AND LECTURES Books S. Fabic, " Review of Existing Codes for Loss-of-Coolont Accident Analysis", pp.

365-404 in ADVANCES IN NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Vol.10 Edited by E. Y. Henley, Y. Lewins, M. Becker, (Plenum Publishing Corp.,1977).

- S. Fobic, " Accident Analysis", Chapter 6.6 in HANDBOOK OF MULTIPHASE SYSTEM, Editor G. Hetsroni, (Hemisphere Publishing Corp.,1981).

Technical Paper (Sole Author)

"BLODWN-2: Westinghouse APD Computer Program for Calculation of Fluid Pressure, Flow, and Density Transients During a Loss-of-Coolont Accident", ANS Transactions Vol.12, No. I, p. 358 (1969).

" investigation of Methods for Coupled Structural Hydrodynamic Analysis of 4

O Reactor Internals" Proceedings, Conference on Flow induced Vibrations in Reactor System Components, ANL-7685 (1970).

"BLODWN-2 Code Prediction of Pressure Undershoot During Transition from Subcooled to Saturated Blowdown" ANS Transactions Vol.13, No. I, p. 386 (1970).

"Two- and Three-Dimensional Fluid Transients" ANS Transactions Vol.14, No. I,

p. 360 (1971).

" Comparisons Between Results of the Westinghouse Loss-of-Coolont Analyses and Semiscale (ECC) Test Data Port II: BLODWN-2A Code Results," CONF-730304, p. 702 (1973).

"Doto Sources for LOCA Code Verification," Nuclear Safety Journal, Vol.17, No.

i 6, Nov.-Dec.,1976).

" Computer Codes in Water Reactor Safety: Problems in Modeling of Loss-of-Coolont Accident," Conf. Heat-Fluid Flow in Water Reactor Sofety, Manchester, U.K., paper C201/77 in Proceedings, institute of Mechnical Engineers, London, England (Sept.1977).

" Analytical Modeling of Transient Two-Phase Flow," ANS Transactions 1979 Summer Annual Meeting in Atlanto, Georgia, Uune 1979).

" Code Assessment for Nuclear Reactor Accident Analysis Programs," 1980 Interno:!onal Conf. on World Nuclear Energy, Washington, D.C., pp. 254-255, ANS O Transactions Vol. 35, (1980).

1 e

, _ ,n, ,,m,.,.c ,m.m,.~,em,,,..,,,,-., -w..y,.,_ , y.

, . - - - _ . . . . - . , . - - _ ...,..,_,,.,,.__.,,._,,.,,,,,._..,,.-_,,-,%p,,,,,

O STANISLAV FABIC Page 4 Principal Scientist Reports

1. Company Reports (All Sole Author)

o. Kaiser Engineers Division of Kaiser Industries Corp.

l. "Early Blowdown (WATER-HAMMER) Analysis for Loss-of-Fluid Test Focility," 65-28-RA (1965).

2. " Digital Computer Blowdown Analysis for Loss-of-Fluid Test Focility, Port 1: Engineering," 65-29-R (1965).

3. " MERCURY: Digital Computer Program for Heat Transfer Analysis," 66-26-R (1966).

4. "CASRAD: Digital Computer Program for Calculation of Thermal Rodiation from Plumes," 67-Il-R (1967).

5. " Computer program WHAM for Calculation of Pressure, Velocity, and Force Transients in Liquid Filled Piping Networks," 67-49-R (1967).

b. Westinghouse, Nuclear Energy Systems, PWR Systems Division

1. "BLODWN-2: Digital Computer Program for Calculation cf Hydroulic Transients During a Loss-of-Coolant Accident,"

WCAP-7235 (1968).

2. " Tornado Induced Water Removal from Spent Fuel Storage Pool," WCAP 7313-L (1969).

Comparison

3. " Topical Report, Loss-of-Coolant Analysis:

Between BLODWN-2 Code Results and Test Dato," WCAP-7401 (1969).

4. "Colculation of Loss-of-Coolont Through a Propogoting Longitudinal Crock, Using the Modified BLODWN-2 Code,"

-- WCAP-7405 (1969).

5. " Preliminary Report on Synthesis of Equivalent Piping Networks for Blowdown Analysis of the Reactor Primary Coolont System, with BLODWN-2 Code," WCAP-7421-L (I969).

. 6. " Description of the BLODWN-2 Computer Code," WCAP-7593 (1970).

7. "Applicotton of BLODWN-2 Code to PWR Loss-of-Coolant Analysis," WCAP-7489 (1970).

8. " Feed-Line Break Analysis for Model-D Steam Generator,"

WCAP-8158 (1973).

O STANISLAV FABIC Page 5 Principal Scientist 11.

Government Sponsored Reports: Reactor Technology TID-4500 issued by Institute of Engineering Research, University of California, Berkeley, under AEC Contract AT(ll-1)-34, Project 42: " Reactor Heat Transients Project".

1.

" Reactor Heat Transients Research, Annual Summary Report," SAN-1032, TID-4500,16th Edition (Nov.1961) (co-author).

2. " Reactor Heat Transients Research,1962 Annual Report," SAN-1007, TID-4500,18th Edition (March 1963) (co-author).

3. " Vapor Nucleotion on Surfaces Subjected to Transient Heating: Ph.D.

Thesis," SAN-1008, TID-4500 (August 1964) (sole author).

4. "A High Pressure Test Focility for Transient Boiling Studies," SAN-1010, TID-4500 (June 1963) (principal outhor).

Ill. Reports issued by Nuclear Regulatory Commission S. Fabic and P.S. Andersen, " Plans for Assessment of Best Estimate LWR l

O Systerns Codes," NUREG-0676 (July 1981).

Lectures (All Invited)

" Design Basis Accidents and Containment Criteria for LWR's" Presented at IAEA Interregionul Training Course on Nuclear Power Plant Construction and Operations Management, of Argonne National Laboratory.

(Courses sponsored by the International Atomic Energy Agency).

Lectures presented during:

1. Fall Session (Sept.-Dec.,1976),

2. Spring Session (Jan.-April,1977),

3. Fall Session (Oct.-Nov.,1977).

4. " Emergency Core Cooling System Performance," Two lectures presented at the IAEA Training Course in Nuclear Power Safety Analyses Review, at Argonne National Laboratory (Sept.1978).

5. " Nuclear Reactor Safety Applications," Lecture presented at the course, "Two-Phase Flow" of Drexel University (Continuing Professional Education),

Philadelphia (Dec.18,1978).

l

l-P STANISLAV FABIC Page 6 Principal Scientist .

6. " Survey of LOCA Computer Codes," (Lecture #LWRS/80/7) and "LOCA Computer Code Assessment," (Lecture #LWRS/80/ll), Two lectures ,

presented of the ISPRA Course (1980) titled "Thermol-hydraulic Problems Related to LWR Sofety", sponsored by Commission of the European Communities Joint Research Center, ispra, Italy (May 19-23,1980).

7. " Application of Computer Codes to Resolution of LWR Sofety issues,"

Lecture presented at a Seminor on Two-Phase Flow, Mossochusetts institute of Technology (April 30,1981).

Ponels 1.

As a member of the panel on " Loss of Coolant Accidents in Nuclear Reactors," Eighth National Heat Transfer Conference (ASME-AICHE), in Los Angeles, presented e discussion of methods of blowdown analysis (August 8,1965).

2. " Summary Review of Meeting Highlights - Understanding NSSE Response to Design Basis Events," presented at ANS Thermal Reactor Safety Meeting of Sun Valley, Idaho (August 1977).

3

(

3. " Problems in Simulation of Nuclear Reactor Plant Thermal Hydroulics for I Postulated Small and intermediate Break Accidents," presented of the Simulation and Analysis Panel, Working Conference on Advanced Electro Technology Applications to Nuclear Power Plants, sponsored by NRC and IEEE, Washington, D.C. (Jan. 15-17, 1980).

4. "How Good the Cc, des Have To Be," Third CSNI Specialist Meeting on Transient Two-Phose Flow, California institute of Technology (March 1981).

O t

G

--=.-.-------e-r.=-,,w-e-w - - - , -%v - --ey--,-.e-e- - , - . -.- .,c-w, -- ----+p--,--- ---,,-,w-g y.g,y----+---v.--w.r---,--e,--.v..-.,1,,- . , + - ,..

DAVID S. POCACHA v Associate Welding Engineer EDUCATION M.S. Welding Engineer, Ohio State University B.S. Mechanical Engineering, Drexel University

SUMMARY

OF EXPERIENCE Mr. Pococho has experience in the creo of nondestructive testing. He has been responsible for the direction and supervision of engineering and welding technicians engaged in nondestructive testing and steel and metal inspection services for several major industry projects.

Present Associate Welding Engineer, TERA Corporation.

1980 - Law Engineering Testing Company, Metals Department Present Monoger/ Projects Metal Engineer at Lake Buena Visto, Florido.

Consulting engineer specializing in welding engineering, metallurgy and manufaturing processes. As Project Engineer for construction of EPCOT Center at Walt Disney World in Florido, responsibilities included coordination of all metals inspection

,(q )

services for shop fabrication and field erection. Metal consultant services were provided to project engineers to solve construction

}U ond QA problems.

1979 - 1980 Senior Manufacturing Engineer, Martin Marietto Serospace, Orlando, Florido. Responsibilities included providing welding engineering design and weld process development for manufacturing of aerospace components.

1975 - 1977 Welding Engineer, Perry Oceanographics, Inc., Riviero Beach, Florido. Duties involved total responsibility for qualifying welding procedures and welders, training and development, and fabrication methods and design.

CERTIFICATION /REIGSTRATIONS Professional Engineer, Florida Certified Welding inspector - American Welding Society l

l

. PROFESSIONAL Associations American Welding Society American Society for Metals (AGI American Society for Non-Destructive Testing - Centrol Florida Chapter Treasurer

)

TERA CORPORATION

(U PAUL J. BRUWR, JR.

Associate Construction Engineer EDUCATION s B.C.E. Auburn University Associate in Architectural Engineering Technology, Southern Technical Institute

SUMMARY

OF EXPERIENCE Mr. Bruner has held a wide variety of responsibilities associated with both technical and managerial services. Having spent some years performing the duties of an engineering technicion and considerable time in coordinating the activities of engineering technicians under his supervision, he is well ocquainted with construction practices and techniques and quality control, assurance and reliability of construction materials.

Supervisory duties have included review of test results, preparation of proposals for prospective projects, direction of engineering technicians involved in subsurface soil sampling, construction of observation wells, soil, concrete, reinforcing steel, structural steel, and asphaltic concrete inspection and a thorough understanding of professional liability. Performance of his work, including submittal of technical reports, has required extensive communication with external contacts to develop projects and relate findings, conclusions and recommendations. Special studies conducted or participated in by Mr. Bruner include soil investigations, hydrological studies, steel structure integrity surveys, radiograph / training, and asphalt mix designs.

Present Associate Construction Engineer, TERA Corporation.

h Monoger, Construction Services, Law Engineering Testing Company. Mr.

l Bruner has worked with oli the local power companies including Potomac l Electric Power Company, Virginia Electric Power Company, and Baltimore Gas and Electric. Services provided included materials quality control and acceptance testing, construction inspection and testing, and NDT work.

These services were provided at both fossil fuel and nuclear power plants including Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant and North Anna Nuclear Power l Plant.

REGISTRATION Professional Engineer - Virginia, Maryland and District of Columbia PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS American Society of Civil Engineers b

u TERA CORPORATION

~(

JOFN R. SMITH Associate Construction Engineer EDUCATION Civil Engineering / Electronics - Army, Navy and Marine Schools

SUMMARY

OF EXPERIENCE Mr. Smith is notionally known for his work and consultation on quality assurance nnd reliability on a diverse ronge of construction projects under o considerable variety of climatic conditions. His ability to investigate special and unusual problems is exemplified by his work pertaining to technical evoluotion of problems related to all types and phases of construction and of causes of structural failure, research and recommendations for corrective action, and disposition of nonconforming materials.

Mr. Smith's continuing research and continuing active porticipation in American Concrete Institute Committees and ASTM has resulted in numerous publications.

Among the topics oddressed are statistics, cost factors in concrete construction, concrete compoetion by internal vibration, summer concreting, use of calcium chloride, testing hordened concrete, and load tests of full scale construction (port of on ASTM symposium). Mr. Smith has appeared numerous times os a successful expert witness on ultrasonics, concrete, coatings and construction. His brood knowledge of construction, his familiarity with related disciplines, and numerous studies of construction problems and failures has given him o vast comprehension of construction techniques, materiots O. testing techniques and the ability to choose, evoluote and correlate findings provided by different testing methods.

Present Associate Construction Engineer, TERA Corporation.

Project Engineer / Consultant, Low Engineering Testing Company, in his position as technical head of inspection departments, he has developed expertise in defining the scope of problems, establishing and operating reporting systems, planning and executing projects requiring coordination of field and lab work and review of the work of outside and internal professional associates and technicions. Independent decision making and judgment are constantly required. His duties have included communication with external contacts to develop projects and relate findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

REGISTRATION Professional Engineer - Californio and Wisconsin PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

'American Concrete Institute (Member committees 303 and 309)

American Society for Testing and Materials (Member committees Cl2, Cl3 and E30)

National Society of Professional Engineers (National)

( American Society for Quality Control Professional Engineers in Private Practice

. cm-

in\

V RICHARD H. NORRIS Associate Metallurgical Engineer EDUCATION B.S. Materials Engineering, North Carolina State University Continuing Education Courses in Welding Design and Process Selection, Metallurgical Factors in Weidment Design, and Management Principles, North Carolina State University

SUMMARY

OF EXPERIENCE Mr. Norris has extensive experience in engineering failure analyses and occident reconstruction associated with engineering materials systems. He has conducted studies into failures in boots, engines, boiler systems, cooling systems, tools, machinery, equipment and sub-ossemblies. He has conducted fracture face analyses and composition analyses of many materials. Mr. Norris also has considerable experience in engineering materials evoluotion in determinlag comptionce of materials such as ferrous and non-ferrous metals and their alloys, lubricants, cooling mediums, etc. and related quality of the work in compliance with ASTM, AWS, ASME, ASNT and AISI stondords, specifications ci.d/or codes.

c)

V He has extensive experience in use of destructive and non-destructive testing techniques. Mr. Norris has porticipated in programs for the engineering evaluation and testing of engineering metallic materials to develop engineering data for special purposes or to characterize the material as to suitability, weldobility, electrochemical compatibility, etc. Other areas of expertise include corrosion of metals, joining processes of metals, heat treating and metallic materials manufacturing processes.

Present Associate Metallurgical Engineer, TERA Corporation.

Staff Metallurgist, Low Engineering Testing Company. Responsible for all of the metallurgy-related duties in the Charlotte, North Carolina Branch, where he is on expert on the opplication of metallic materials such as aluminum, copper and other non-ferrous metal, as well as carbon steels, stainless steels and other ferrous metals.

REGISTRATION Engineer-in-Training, North Carolina

' PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS American Society for Metals O

() American Welding Society American institute for Metallurgical Engineers

- - ------------- -_--- TERA CORPORATION

b)

D JAMES B. MclLVAINE, P.E.

Senior Mechanical Engineer Education M.S. Nuclear Engineering, Purdue University B.S. Applied Science, U.S. Naval Academy 1974 Radiooctive Waste Management for Nuclear Power Reactors Short Course,

. Georgic Institute of Technology Summary of Experience Mr. McIlvaine hos experience in all phases of nuclear power plant design and licensing, l

with extensive experience in radioactive waste management. He has been responsible for studies of waste generation, for conceptual and detailed engineering of processing systems, handling and storoge facilities, and transportation casks, for evoluoting process-ing system and interim on-site storage alternatives and performance, and for developing estimates of the cost of waste disposal.

Present Senior Mechonical Engineer, TERA Corporation.

1982 -- Supervising Engineer, EDS Nuclear, Inc. Performed a Radioactive Liquid Waste Monogement Study for Georgio Power Company's Plani E. l. Hatch, Units I ond 2. Worked on the project on radioactive waste classification for the Atomic Industriol Forum's National Environmental Studies Projects.

j 1978-1982 Engineering Supervisor, Bechtel Power Corporation. In Operating Services group, worked on projects to upgrade control room habitability, the preliminary engineering of a dry cask spent fuel storage facility, and a review of the solidification system and interfaces of the South Texas Project.

As assistant mechanical group supervisor on PWR project, provided direction and assisted in the evoluotion of proposals for a rodwoste volume reduction and solidification system. Directed a program to assure acceptable nozzle loads on all safety related components and assisted in the licensing activities necessary to obtain on operating license.

Member of the initial Containment Recovery Engineering team sent to Middletown, Pennsylvania, soon offer TMI occident and was a contributor to the Phase I Containment Reentry and Decontamination Study. Coordinated and contributed to the Phase 11 Study. Directed work and was principal author of the Rodwoste Monagement Study and contributed the technical onalysis section of the Solidification Planning Study prepared for Three Mile Island.

As engineering staff specialist, was responsible for coordinating stoff review and comment of all design documents requiring chief nuclear engineer's review and approval. Also responsible for licensing and state-of-the-art owareness of plant security systems, pipe break hozords, seismic II/I hozords, safe shutdown requirements, G-criterio requirements, experience feedbock, O lood combinations, and rodwoste systems.

12/82(2) 1 ERA CORPORATION

O J AMES B. MCILVAINE Page 2 Mr. McIlvoine was o member of a corporate task force which developed a manual oddressing inservice inspection requirements for use on Bechtel projects. He was also o member of a corporate-wide Rodwoste Design Committee.

Served as engin-1975-1977 Engineering Monoger, Hittman Nuclear and Development.

eering monoger in chorge of engineering design of radioactive waste solidi-fication systems, handling equipment, and casks and liners for transportction and disposal.

1972-1975 Engineer, Bechtel Power Corporation. Rodwoste group leader responsible for stoff review and evoluotion of rodweste systems for nuclear power plants, generic rodwoste systems, and Bechtel standard documents. Assigned to twin 850 MWe PWR project, resolved licensing questions regarding systems design commitments, issued and revised equipment specifications, bolonced system flows and other startup problems, determined shield requirements of field run pipe, and coordinated client requested changes.

Professional Memberships

\ American Society of Mechanical Engineers

[% Sigma Pi Sigma (Notional Physics Honor Society)

Registration Registered Professional Engineer in Maryland k

12/82(1)

TERACORPORATION

O JAMES B. MCILVAINE Page 3 Publications "Chonges Are Needed For Rodwoste Systems Design Criteria," presented at American Power Conference, April 1980.

"Rodioactive Wostes - Ailer it Leaves the Plant," presented at 8th Biennial Topical Conference on Reactor Operating Experience, August 1977 (co-author).

" Design Considerations for Piping Systems for Beod Resins," HNDC Repori No. HN-Ri i I 4.

"Hittman Nuclear and Development Corporation Topical Report Rodwoste Solidification System (Cement)"(primary outhor).

"A Study of the Feasibility of Applying the Neutron - Capture Gomma-Roy Spectroscopy Technique to Small Sample Analysis," Masters Thesis.

i i

l l

I l

l 12/82(l) l  %

TERA CORPORATION l

r 1

1 1

GERALD E. SETKA l Principal Electrical and Systems Engineer j i

EDUCATION B.S. Electrical Engineering, Illinois Institute of Technology B.S. Mechanic, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Illinois lnstitute of Technology introduction to Power Plant Operations, Westinghouse PWR Simulator Training

SUMMARY

OF EXPERIENCE Mr. Setko has been involved with the electric power industry since 1971, with extensive experience in the areas of nuclear and fossil power plant system operations, system design and modification, and design implementation. He has served as Engineering Manager of a Systems Design Group and has had leod technical responsibility for multi-discipiir'ed work, such as the design and modification of new and existing power plant systems, systems studies and evoluotions, and operating piant problem-solving.

Engineering disciplines involved in systems work include electrical, mechanical, instrumentation and control, nuclear, and human factors engineering. Mr. Setko has ocquired on extensive background in power plant systems through major backfitting work for Commonwealth Edison Company's nuclear and fossil plants. He has had q(*f electrical design responsibility for a high pressure coolant injection system, on essential service diesel generator system, and on off-gas processing system for he Dresden Nuclear Power Station. For fossil plants, he has retrofitted induced draft fan, precipitator, fly ash handling, flue gas conditioning, and waste treatment systems. Mr.

Setko has also authored or assisted in the preparation of several licensing reports, including on ECCS design report and a safe shutdown report, in addition to providing formal responses to questions from the NRC on backfit system design.

Present Principal Electrical and Systems Engineer, TERA Corporation.

1980 - 1983 Engineering Manager, Systems Design Group, NUTECH. Responsible for supervising equipment qualification activities for Detroit Edison Company's Fermi 2 plant. This required safety-related equipment list preparation, qualification documentation review and evoluotion, oction plan develoment, and centrol file preparation, which culminated in a successful NRC oudit at the site. For Northern States Power Company's Monticello plant, Mr. Setko was involved with fire protection modifications, and the additions of a containment atmosphere monitoring system and a post-LOCA sampling system. He otso had managerial responsibility for the SRV position indication and blowdown control system, combustible gas control system, and suppression pool temperature monitoring system.

t TERA C.ORPORATION

I

! GERALD E. SETKA Page Two 1972 - 1980 Electrical Project Engineer, Sorgent and Lundy Engineers.

1971 Construction Supervisor, Commonweoith Edison Company.

REGISTRATION Professional Engineer - Illinois PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

!. American Society of Mechanical Engineers O

l t

I g 1 ERA CORPORATION

__ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . . _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ .