ML20202J132
| ML20202J132 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 06/23/1986 |
| From: | TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202J051 | List:
|
| References | |
| DAP-5, NUDOCS 8607170029 | |
| Download: ML20202J132 (10) | |
Text
I TITLE REVIEW OF CALCULATIONS, EVALUATIONS AtO OTWR IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS 1
[T 'l l
NUMBER DAP-5 Approyed Date '
Revision Prepared Date Reviewed Date O $ ff w )( ,
kw.ke uv ;
i
@a//4 'Akc 3M %/g '/ ,/e/s
!#/S l
}9 A*L+ 4 k2o[66 57. -
C)
\
l CONT [
OLLED COPY PDT DO K 0 5 i
i V TN-85-6262/5 i
6 I
i TABLE OF CONTENTS Section ,
M Cove r S hee t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I Tab le o f Con t en t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . li ;
1.0 P UR P OSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I l 2.0 SCOPE..................................................... I ,
t 3.0 DEFINITIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 4.0 I NS TR UCT I ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5.0 DO CU ME NT AT I O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 l 4
1 1
i i
i i
1 l
i TN-85-4262/5 11 i l
I I ,
i 1
- i I
NW PMPWX%- . - " m
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE
', Number: DAP S
Title:
REVIEW OF CALCULATIONS, Revision: 2 EVALUATIONS AND OTHER
[VT IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS l.0 PURPOSE This procedure defines the methods for the review of calculations, evoluotions, and other implementing documents.
2.0 SCOPE This procedure opplies to Review of implementing Design Documents such as calculations and evoluotions used in the design of the systems addressed by the Design Adequacy Program implementing documents will be reviewed against the appropriate design criterio. Calculations and evoluotions will be reviewed for the adequacy of the opplied methodology os well as occuracy of the implementation of the g
n methodology.
(v) This procedure does not address the review of output documents (drawings and specifications). The review of output documents is addressed in DAP-6.
3.0 DEFINITIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 3.1 Definitions
! 3.1.1 Implementing Documents l
- The documents which provide for implementation of the design criteria such as Flow Diograms and Instrument Control Diagrams.
l 3.1.2 Criterion A criterion is any statement of a performance, design feature, or design requirement which a system, structure, or component must meet in order to be TN-85-6262/5 Page I of 7
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE
, Number: DAP-5
Title:
REVIEW OF CALCULATIONS, Revision: 2 EVALUATIONS AND OTHER
( IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS capable of performing its design function or to be in complionce with a project requirement or commitment.
3.2 Responsibilities 3.2.1 Discipline Coordinotor l
The Discipline Coordinator is responsible for selecting the type and number of I implementing documents, calculations, and evoluotions in each area to be reviewed. The Discipline Coordinator is responsible for assigning Reviewers.
3.2.2 Reviewer The Reviewer is responsible for completing reviews of assigned review topics in occordance with this procedure, using appropriate checklists, ensuring that the check is occurate, and and checking that work done under his (or her) direction is correct.
1 3.2.3 Assigned Personnel Assigned personnel perform verification octivities under the direction of the Reviewer.
3.2.4 Checker Checkers are responsible for verifying the occuracy of the Reviewers or Assigned Personnel's work.
TN-85 4262/5 Page 2 of 7
A COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE i Number: DAP-5
Title:
REVIEW OF CALCULATIONS, Revision: 2 EVALUATIONS AND OTHER IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS 4.0 INSTRUCTION j 4.1 ldentificotton of Reviewer i
) For each review topic listed in the description of the DAP self-initiated evoluotion contained in the CPRT Program Plon, the appropriate Discipline Coordinator shall select on Individual who shall function as the Reviewer for that topic and shall be responsible for the completion of the checklists ossociated with that topic (i.e., the Design Review Summary and Design Review Evoluotion described in DAP 4 as Attachments B and C respectively or alternative checklists developed in occordance with DAP 4). The identified Reviewer shall meet the qualification requirements of DAP-IS. The Discipline Coordinator may l oct as the Reviewer, provided that he meets the qualificotton requirements of DAP-15. Assigned personnel working under the direction of a Reviewer shall have been trained in this procedure and shall have received any technical trotning deemed oppropriate by the Reviewer, but need not meet the qualifico-tion requirements applicable to the Reviewer. If the Reviewer determines that such technical training is necessary, the requirement of the trotning, its scope, and its comptetion shall be documented.
4.2 Customization of Checklist Forms and Identification of Specific liocuments For Review The Reviewer shall review the Design Review Evoluotion checklist forms applicable to the review topic that have been released for use by the Discipline Coordinator. The Reviewer shall determine whether the forms require supple-mentation or other modificotton as provided for in DAP-4 (including the supplementary review items contained in Attochments D and E of DAP-4). He may make whatever changes he deems appropriate to customize the checklist form for a porticular review topic.
TN-85-4262/5 Page 3 of 7 l
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE i
Number: DAP-5
Title:
REVIEW OF CALCULATIONS, Revision: 2 EVALUATIONS AND OTHER IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS The Reviewer shaII select the Items for review In occordance with DAP 21. The '
Discipline Coordinator may outhorize others to complete h octivities required by DAP-21 under the direction of the Reviewer. Those specific items identified to be reviewed, shall be the latest revision of the applicable documents. If the applicable document revision has on opproval date prior to April 1,1985, it shall be used for review.
Ohrwise, the current revision and the latest revision with on approval date prior to April I,1985 shall be used. If multiple revisions occurred after April 1, 1985, each of those revisions shall be used. The use of these previous revisions, however, shall be limited as described in Section 4.4.
i The Reviewer or Assigned Personnel under the direction of the Reviewer, shall enter the oppropriate references for the selected documents in the " Reference" column of the checklist. The reference shall be sufficiently complete to allow another person to identify the specific portion of the document being reviewed.
For example, the identification number and renewal pages of the calculation, as well as the calculation page revision number and date, should be used. The reference information may be entered into the checklist form in the course of the review.
4.3 Completion of Checklist Each review of implementing documents shall be conducted by using the checklists developed in occordance with DAP-4 os customized in accordance with Section 4.2. The purpose of the review shall be to determine whether individual design documents appropriately include the applicable design criteria.
The Reviewer or Assigned Personnel shall examine all items on the checklist and Indicate whether each item was found to be satisfactory, unsatisfactory, not checked, or not appIIcable. "Not Checked" or "NC" may be used when a standard checklist form is used to perform a limited review of a given subject such that on applicable area was excluded from the review scope. "Not Applicable" or "NA" may be used when on items on a standard checklist form is not applicable TN-85 4262/5 Page 4 of 7
f COMANCtE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE
- t Number
- DAP-5
Title:
REVIEW OF CALCULATIONS, Revision: 2
! EVALUATIONS AND OTHER
. IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS l to the subject being reviewed. The Reviewer or Assigned Personnel shall also indicate the basis for determining the verification conclusion (e.g., visual j inspection of document, field walkdown, calculation review, and independent calculation) and the occeptance criteria (e.g., ogreement with alternate calculo-i tions within X%, agreement between documents X and Y, etc.) If not otherwise included in the checklist form.
The Reviewer or Assigned Personnel shall indicate the homogeneous design . .
octivity number applicable to each checklist item in the " Comments" column.
When all checklist items have the some HDA number o straight line may be drown through the " Comments" section to indicate a common HDA number. The
" Comments" column may be used for any other comments about on attribute, its g
i l Implementation, or its verificotton.
4.4 Current Document Revisions Af ter March 31.1985 i
As noted above, special review considerations are applicable to documents for l
which the current revision of the document is dated later than March 31,1985.
In such cases the following steps shall be completed by the Reviewer or Assigned 4 Personnat:
I o The lost revision prior to April 1,1985, shall be obtained.
I
! o All revisions between the revision obtained in the previous step and the current revision shall be identified cod obtained.
e The Reviewer or. Assigned Personnel shall determine the differences among the revisions and the causes for those revisions. ,
o A review shall be conducted using the current revision of the document and the appropriate design review evaluo-tion checklist completed, o Appropriate design review evaluation checklists shall be completed to document the review ogainst the review TN-8542915 Page 5 of 7 L _- --- _ - _ _ - _ . _ . . . _ -.-
COMANCE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE s Number: DAP-5
Title:
REVIEW OF CALCULATIONS, Revision: 2 i EVALUATIONS AND OTHER IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS attributes of those aspects of the revision of the docu-ments that were changed in the latest revision. The
" Sat /Unsat/NA/NC" column shall be marked as appro-priate. Items that are "Unsat" in the previous revisions
, shall be processed in occordance with 4.5 (below) in spite of any correction that may have been mode in the current revision.
4.5 Processina Unsatisfoetory items items found to be unsatisfactory shall be noted on the checklist and shall also be separately compiled and processed in occordance with the procedures outlined in DAP-2. The DIR number assigned to each unsatisfactory item shall be listed in Q
j the " Comments" column.
1 4.6 Approval
! If the checklist is completed by Assigned Personnel, the " Comments" column shall be annotated with the name or initials of the person who performed the verification. The Reviewer shall assure himself of the odequacy of the completed checklist and sign the " Reviewer" space.
After o checklist is completed and signed by the Reviewer, the Discipline Coordinator shall designate o Checker.
i j The Checker shall verify the occuracy of the checklist by reviewing at least 10 i percent of the checklist items or a minimum of 5 Items. After all comments or j questions are resolved with the Reviewer, the Checker shall sign the checklist in i the " Checker" space and return to the Discipline Coordinator. The checklist shall be opproved by the Discipline Coordinator, who shall sign the " Approved l
By" line of the checklist sheet. if the Discipline Coordinator is also the I Reviewer he shall sign both spaces.
i l
TN-85-6262/5 Page 6 of 7 l -
i ,
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE
> Nomber: DAP-5
Title:
REVIEW OF CALCULATIONS, Revision: 2
- EVALUATIONS AND OTHER IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS 5.0 DOCUMENTATION Each completed checklist shall be forwarded to the DAP Monoger for filing in occordance with DAP-14.
i 4
4
(
i l
1 l
TN-85-4262/5 Page 7 of 7 i
. - - , _ _ _ . - . _ _ , , , - . . - _ _ , - - _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . - __ - . _ .._ ._.- _,,,. _