ML20202J086
| ML20202J086 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 09/09/1985 |
| From: | Martore J TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202J051 | List:
|
| References | |
| DAP-3, NUDOCS 8607170022 | |
| Download: ML20202J086 (10) | |
Text
-_
TITLE DEVELOPMENT APO VALIDATION OF SELF-INITIATED REVIEW SCOPE rh
{ NUMBER DAP-3 Revision Prepared Date Reviewed Date Approved _Date o 2.6k& sl11(s5 p3.Ha4e ghlf SW W 9l*br o
u 8607170022 PDH 860711 A ADOCK 05000445 PDR CONTROLLED C-- PY NO. D _.
i TN-85/6262/3 i t
w TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Paoe Cove r S hee t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , g Table of Cont ent s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . il 1.0 PURPOSE................................................... l 2.0 SCOPE.................................................,,, g 3.0 DEFINITIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4.0 I NS TR UCT I ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5.0 DOCUMENTATI ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 i
9 4
l 1 TN-85-6262/3 i;
, 1 l .
l
b COMANCE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-3
- -(
Title:
DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF SELF-INITIATED REVIEW SCOPE Revision: 0 0
1.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this procedure is to define the process which, when completed, allows the overall results of the Design Adequacy Program to be extrapolated to envelop the safety-significont design aspects of the plant.
To occomplish this objective, the procedure:
o Specifies the four-phase process by which the Scope Development Process is performed o Specifies and defines the review ond opproval process for the scope development effort o Specifies and defines the procedural controls which ensure that consistency and completeness will be achieved across and between the various design discipline activities.
1 2.0 SCOPE This procedure defines the four-phase process by which the Discipline-Specific Action Plans (DSAPs) are developed and establishes the specific evoluotion methodology for validating the breadth and depth of the final Design Adequacy Program (DAP). During the performance of scope development and validation l octivities, the preparation of criterio lists and checklists, and review of documents will be corried out in occordance with DAP-l, DAP-4, DAP-5, and DAP-6. The activities covered by this procedure will result in input to the generic implications evoluotions; however, those evoluotions are covered by a separate procedure (i.e., DAP-7) and are outside the scope of this procedure.
3.0 DEFINITIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES i
3.1 Definitions I ) TN-85 &747/3 Pan. I nf 7
)
i r---, . --, , - - - . . , . . _ , , ,
.=. _ __ -
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE
' Number: DAP-3 Titlei DEVELGPMENT AND VALIDATION OF SELF-INITIATED REVIEW SCOPE Revision: 0 O
h 3.1.1. Design Criterio Category A design criteria category is a general performance requirement, design footure, or design requirement statement which describes a design function or project requirement or commitment which a structure, system, or component must meet. For the purposes of this procedure, the definition should be considered as upper tier statements which will be limited in depth to exclude specific quantitative criteria opplicable to individual items (i.e., consideration of temperature load or wind food are included in the definition, but specific values such as a temperature load of 9So, or wind lood of 300 mph) are not.
3.1.2 Design Activity A design activity is a specific, homogeneous effort or task, the sum of which comprise the overall design process (from initial design through final design implementation documents) which was used for CPSES. Design activities are considered, for the purposes of the scope development process, os those lowest common denominator tasks which reflect discrete organizational factors, design controls, criteria applicability, output requirements, or documentation and opprovals.
3.2 Responsibilities 3.2.1 Reviewer l
Development, review, and evoluotion of criterio category and design activity lists shall be performed by DAP reviewers, ossigned by the Discipline Coordinators and the DAP Monoger.
l 3.2.2 Discipline Coordinator The Discipline Coordinator shall assign personnel to develop, review, and evoluote criteria and design octivities. He shall opprove the evoluotions and submit them to the Scope Development Coordinator.
[ TN-8S-6262/3 Page 2 of 7 i
l COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-3
Title:
DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF SELF-INITIATED REVIEW SCOPE Revision: 0 p
V 3.2.3 Scope Development Coordinator The Scope Development Coordinator shall specify and define the methodology by
' which the scope development and validation is performed. He shall coordinate the efforts underteken within the various design disciplines and shall provide on integrated assessment (e.g., on overview of the opprooch taken by the design disciplines to verify the consistency of results, and a review of oreas of interfoce between design disciplines) to the Generic Implications Coordinator and the DAP Monoger.
4.0 INSTRUCTION 4.1 Phase I - Initial Scope Identification The initial scope identification is conducted using for comparison a review of Independent Design Verification Programs (IDVP) and integrated Design l I inspections (lDis) conducted at other nuclear power plants for licensing purposes.
The IDVPs which are reviewed are those performed on the Midland and Diablo Canyon nuclear power plants. (This selection was based upon the breadth and depth of these programs.) The IDis which are reviewed are those for the Perry, Colloway, Byron, Seabrook, and Sheoron Harris nuclear plants. A collective list is mode of the design areas oddressed in each of these IDVPs and IDis, which is compared against previous Comanche Peak design reviews. Those reviews include all four phases of the IAP conducted by Cygno; the SIT, SRT, CAT and TRT reviews conducted by the NRC; and the INPO evoluotion conducted by Sorgent & Lundy for TUGCO. The comparison thus developed will oddress the breadth of the reviews already conducted on Comanche Peak, the depth of those reviews, and the associated findings. The comparison is used to demonstrate that:
I o The scope of the review is comparable to that of other IDVPs and IDis, o That adequate depth was applied in the initial scope of review.
TN-05-G2G2/2 Pone 3 of 7
COMANCtf PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE
- Number: DAP-3
Title:
DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF y
SELF-INITIATED REVIEW SCOPE Revision: 0 2
0 The results of the comparison and appropriate explanatory material shall be maintained in auditable form in the DAP files.
4.2 Phose 2 - System Validation After determining that the initial DAP scope is comparable to IDI and IDVP i
scopes for other projects, a documented basis for confirming that the selected systems are representative of the systems at Comanche Peak is developed. This determination is mode by developing a list of safety-significant system design chorocteristics and comparing chorocteristics applicable to the AFW and electric power systems (those systems selected for the initial review scope) ogainst other safety systems in on effort to determine whether selection of the AFW and electric power systems provide o representative sample of CPSES safety systems. The selected characteristics include the general design criterio, internal and external interfaces involved in the design of the systems, types of
) components, system requirements, and types of design activities. The systems selected for comparison with AFW and electric power include service water, CCW, containment sproy, RHR, and ECCS. This review should demonstrate whether the AFW system and the electric power systems provide a good representation of the safety related systems at Comanche Peak. The system validation review and oppropriate explanatory material shall be maintained in l ouditable form in the DAP files.
4.3 Phase 3 - Engineerina Process Validotion 4.3.1 Organizational Structure The organizational structure which was in place during the design of the safety ,,
related systems, structures, and components shall be determined for each discipline. Any substantial changes to the organization (e.g., revised divisions of Th!.R LK747/3 Pooe 4 of 7
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-3
Title:
DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF t
SELF-INITIATED REVIEW SCOPE Revision: O responsibility within Gibbs & Hill, changes in scope between Gibbs & Hills and TUGCO, odditional of service contractors with safety-related design responsibility) that may have changed over time in a substantial manner that may offeet the design process should be identified. The size, structure, e
qualifications, interfaces, and review /opproval controls shall be considered.
4.3.2 Classes of Components and Structures Each discipline shall develop a tabulation of classes of safety-related components, systems, and structures included in the CPSES design. Classes shall be based upon consideration of commonalities such as whether the components
' were purchased under the some specification, whether the functions are similar, and whether the operating environment is similar.
4.3.3 Design Criteric Categories Based on a review of FSAR and SER sections applicable to the discipline, each discipline shall develop a list of design criteria categories used in the CPSES design. This list will provide input to and supplement the list of design activities to be developed, such that a comprehensive understanding of discipline design j efforts is obtained.
4.3.4 Design Activities Based on a review of the design criteria category lists and indices of calculations, specifications, and drawings, each discipline will produce a list of specific, homogeneous design activities which, token together, define the overall CPSES design process. In addition, any design activities performed by outside service contractors shall be identified. NRC generic letters and IE Bulletins shall also be reviewed to identify any other design activities which may have or should have been performed by each discipline.
TN-85-6262/3 Pooe S of 7
_. . .-- -- . .-. = - _ . -. - .__ _ __
< {
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEGUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-3
Title:
' DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF i s
SELF-INITIATED REVIEW SCOPE Revision: 0 l
The design activities should encompass and provide specifies for, as a minimum, the following brood octivities:
6 o initial design, where used as the basis for inputs to other disciplines o Criteria o Analyses /loodings o Final design o Design implementation (e.g., specs and drawings) o Special studies.
4.3.5 Scope Development Validation Based on the design activity and design criteria category lists, each discipline shall ensure that the standard A/E scope of design activities will be specifically I
reviewed within the DAP, or that the activities may be considered as enveloped by other reviews, or the activities are bounded by the results of tests or other means. Activities may be considered to be bounded or enveloped by other reviews if a commonolity of design process elements con be established (i.e.,
organizational, criteria, methodology, and procedural controls).
I Where specific design activities con not be demonstrated to have been reviewed or bounded by other reviews, odditions will be mode to the initial scope to ensure that this condition is met. The final objective of this task is to complete and validate the breadth and depth of the DAP, which then allows the DAP results to be extrapolated to other safety related syr.tems, structures, and components.
The results of this task shall be documented in a scope development validation i
evoluotion. This evoluotion documentation may take the form of a matrix comparing the total list of homogeneous design activities and criterio categories
! ogainst those topics reviewed within the scope of the DAP.
l l
l i
, TN-85-6262/3 Page 6 of 7 l
. ~ . - - - . _ . . _ - __ _ _ -- - _ -_ _ _- -
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-3 Titlei DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF SELF-INITIATED REVIEW SCOPE Revision: 0 v):
The Discipline Coordinators will transmit the results of their scope development validation (including any scope development expansion) to the Scope Develop-ment Coordinator. He will then review these packages for completeness and consistency, and will identify any creos of interface which may require oddi-j tional review or validation. The Phase 3 scope of the DAP will be considered to
{ be final when there is reasonable assurance that safety-significant deficiencies could not remain undetected because of inodequate breadth and depth of the j
design odequocy program. The documentation of this review and preliminary determination will then be forwarded to the Generic implications Coordinator <
and the DAP Manager for their review and approval.
4.4 Phase 4 - Final Scope Determination During the process of implementation of the DAP, it may be necessary to make i
odditions to DAP scope on a result of findings. The som of the Phase 3 scope i
plus these additions are in the Phase 4 final scope determination. The Phase 4 l scope allows the DAP to draw the conclusion that there is reasonable assurance j that no safety-significant deficiencies remain uncorrected at CPSES.
S.O DOCUMENTATION
- l Documentation required by this procedure os port of Phases I,2 and 3 shall be retained in the DAP files. The basis for further scope additions (that constitute
- the Phase 4 scope when combined with the Phase 3 scope) shall be documented in !
Discipline-Specific Results Reports and the DAP Final Report (See DAP 9).
l j !
I 1
i TN-85-6262/3 Page 7 of 7 e urew-a---vc *w--oisawr s w -e w.. mv- m--- ww-- , , .
u---wm---mme +-- e,w-,y-,,-w%-rw