ML20202J444
| ML20202J444 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 12/09/1985 |
| From: | Timmins D TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202J051 | List:
|
| References | |
| DAP-21, NUDOCS 8607170082 | |
| Download: ML20202J444 (30) | |
Text
.
TITLE HOMOEFEOUS DESIGN ACTIVITY VALIDATION AND SELECTION OF SPECIFIC ITEMS FOR REVIEW NUMBER DAP-21 Revision Prepared Date Reviewed Date Approved Date o
ikT;'L; lYK "
&$ '%hr A& 'thltf O
$$[ Apo!k [
A O
I TN-85-6262/21
TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Cover Sheet ................................................... I T ab le of Con t ent s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.0 P URP OS E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l .
2.0 SCOPE................................................... l 1
3.0 DEFINITIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I i
4.0 I NSTR UCT I ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5.0 DO CUME NT ATI ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ATTACHMENTS A INTERPRETATION OF HOMOTEOUS DESIGN A CT IV IT Y A TT R B UTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-l B HOMOGEOUS MSIGN ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION AND VALIDATION CE CKLIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-l C SYSTEM AND STRUCTURE BASES FOR SELECTION . . . . . . . . . . . C-1 D COMPOENT AND DOCUMENT BASES FOR S E LE CT I ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1 l
l
\
TN-85-6262/21 li
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-21
Title:
HOMOGENEOUS DESIGN ACTIVITY Revision: 0 VALIDATION AND SELECTION OF
-) SPECIFIC ITEMS FOR REVIEW l.0 PURPOSE This procedure provides a means to confirm and document the homogeneity of homogeneous design octivities and establishes requirements for documenting the
" bases for selection" of specific items for review (e.g., calculations, drawings, components) within homogeneous design activities and for selecting systems and structures (other than those identified in Rev. 2 of the CPRT Program Plan) for incorporation into the DAP review scope.
2.0 SCOPE ~
This procedure applies to the DAP self-initiated review scope. This procedure does not apply to selection of specific items for DAP overviews of project activities or for DAP reviews of corrective actions that are controlled by '
DAP-20.
3.0 DEFINITIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES i
3.1 Definitions 3.I.I Homogeneous Design Activity i
A homogeneous design activity (HDA) is a collection of individual design tasks that are similar in the following attributes: 1) criterio; 2) design considerations, approach and methodology; 3) performing organization / discipline; 4) design control process; and 5) design interfaces. The sum of homogeneous design activities is the overall AE safety-related design scope os represented by calculations, engineering evaluations, specifications, and design drawings which are the products of these activities. A homogeneous design activity may also be dex:rlbed as a lowest common denominator task that does not include meaningful differences in the attributes mentioned above (meoningful being applied to the manner in which on engineer would perform o design task).
TN-85-6262/21 Page I of ll 1
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE
. Number: DAP-21
Title:
HOMOGENEOUS DESIGN ACTIVITY Revision: 0 VALIDATION AND SELECTION OF v SPECIFIC ITEMS FOR REVIEW 3.2 Responsibilities 3.2.1 Discipline Coordinators Discipline Coordinators shall validate the homogeneity of their discipline matrix homogeneous design activities and develop and maintain o list of items reviewed within the DAP self-initiated scope. They shall ensure that the bases for homogeneity validation and selecting each item are documented in accordance with this procedure.
3.2.2 Reviewers Reviewers shall provide the Discipline Coordinators with information as directed to validate the homogeneous design activities and to document the selection of individual items for review.
(
4.0 INSTRUCTION 4.1 Validation of Homogeneous Design Activities Homogeneous design activities shall be validated relative to the attributes of homogeneity.
4.1.1 Identification of Documentation The Discipline Coordinator (or designee) shall identify and develop a cross-reference of design documentation relevant to the HDA by reviewing Gibbs &
Hill and TNE documentation lists. (These documents are expected to be primarily calculations and evoluotions.) Any other documentation determined to be relevant shall also be included in the cross-reference. For HDAs performed by organizations other than Gibbs & Hill or TNE, the relevant documentation shall be identified using oppropriate project records.
TN-85-6262/21 Page 2 of II
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE 1
Number: DAP-21
Title:
HOMOGENEOUS DESIGN ACTIVITY Revision: 0 VALIDATION AND SELECTION OF SPECIFIC ITEMS FOR REVIEW 4.1.2 Scanning of Documentation A minimum of five documents shall be selected by the Discipline Coordinator (or designee) from the set of documents identified in accordance with Section 4.1.I.
to confirm homogeneity relative to criteria and to design considerations, approach and methodology. The selected documents shall be scanned by a reviewer to identify if they reveal differences in these homogeneity attributes such that odditional HDAs may be required. if the document population is large ,
(e.g., greater than 50) or based on the scanning, it appears that the opportunity for the use of multiple design methodologies exists, the reviewer shall increase
! the number of documents to be scanned beyond a minimum of five until the reviewer has confidence that homogeneity has been established or it is clear that
, the subject HDA should be subdivided. The basis for the reviewer's confidence in i homogeneity for such HDAs shall be documented in the checklist described in Section 4.1.3. Guidance on the interpretation of the attributes of homogeneity is l provided in Attochment A. The items selected shall be distributed approxi-mately even through the period of performance of the work as indicated by the l current revision date of the documents.
4.1.3 Preparation of Checklists
- i j A reviewer shall complete o Homogeneous Design Activity Description and Volidation Checklist (Attachment D) to document the examination of documents scanned and the conclusion reached by the reviewer regarding the validity of the I HDA. (The attributes related to organization / discipline, design control process, l
and design Interfaces may be reviewed and documented at the programmatic level. If this is the cose, the programmatic engineering evoluotion may be referenced as appropriate.) Where it is determined that on HDA should be subdivided because of differences in any of the five attributes, the HDA shall be redefined as oppropriate. Additional Attachment B checklists shall then be prepared for the new HDAs offer the new set of relevant documents have been scanned ir occordance with Section 4.1.2 TN-85-4262/21 Page 3 of II
--,e,, _ - - - , , - - , , - . - -..nn-- , , _ - -_
i COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE I
' Number: DAP-21
Title:
HOMOCENEOUS DESIGN ACTIVITY Revision: 0 VALIDATION AND SELECTION OF
) SPECIFIC ITEMS FOR REVIEW I
i If it is determined during the preparation of the checklist that aj of the work in l c homogeneous design activity performed by a particular organization has been superseded, the applicable HDA number shall be voided by writing the word
' VOID" in the upper right corner of the checklist (above the HDA number) and describing the basis for voiding the HDA number in the space identified as '
" Describe basis for conclusion."
4.2 initial DAP Review Scope
)
~
The initial DAP review scope was documented in Rev. 2 of the CPRT Program I
. Plan and was validated through phases I and 2 of the scope validation process described in DAP-3. The basis for selecting the systems and structures for review by DAP within this scope was established during phase 2; however, the homogeneous design activities associated with this initial scope shall also be
- validated as per Section 4.I. Within that initial scope, the selection of individual Items for review shall be documented in accordance with Section 4.5.
)
4.3 Additional DAP Review Scope l The phase 3 process described in DAP-3 results in the identification of homo.
- i geneous design octivities that were not included in the initial DAP review scope.
To gain the maximum benefit from the review associated with phase 3-Identified homogeneous design activities, the selection of systems and structures for the i phase 3 scope addittor.2 shall make use of the " vertical-slice" approach in the
! vertical-slice approoch, the selection of systems and structures is mode to I
maximize, where practicol, the number of design activities within a single ;
system or structure. In Implementing the vertical-slice approoch for the phase 3 scope odditions, the following considerations shall opply:
i o Where procticable, the selected system or structure shall i be the some as that selected for the Initial review scope i (e.g., if the AFW system contains a homogeneous design j octivity thet was not part of the original scope, the TN-85-6262/21 Page 4 of II
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-21
Title:
HOMOGENEOUS DESIGN ACTIVITY Revision: O VALIDATION AND SELECTION OF C3 SPECIFIC ITEMS FOR REVIEW system selected for phase 3 Implementation shall be the AFW system).
o Where the above condition cannot be met, the selection of systems and structures shall be made to include, where practicable, systems and structures that have direct de-sign interfaces with the systems and structures included in the initial scope.
l o if neither of the above conditions is applicable, the selection of systems and structures shall be mode, where l
i practicable, to result in additional "verticol-slice" selec-tions that maximize the number of design activities -
l within a given system or structyre, with due consideration
, given to the following factors 1/
Stanificance to Sofety - The system or structure (including major structural eiements) should have a relatively high level of significonce to the overall -
safety of the CPSES.
l -
Sensitive to Previous Experience - The system or
, i structure should include designs which have pre-l viously exhibited problems for the industry or CPSES and thus verification of the system or struc-ture should be Indicative of any generic condition
- and whether or not CPSES has appropriately dealt with the problem. .
l Inclusion of Desian Interfaces - The design of the system or structure should involve multiple inter-
! faces among engineering organizations / disciplines as well os the NSSS vendor, and design service controc- >
tors.
Desian Chonaes - The system or structure should include design changes to provide the ability to test the effectiveness of the design change process exer- ,:
cised by Gibbs & Hill.
j i
I/ if the system or structure is unique by virtue of the fact that it is the dont i
one to which the homogeneous design activity applies, then it shalITe j selected, irrespective of its profile against these factors.
i
) TN 85-6262/21 Page 5 of II
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-21
Title:
HOMOGENEOUS DESIGN ACTIVITY Revision: 0 VALIDATION AND SELECTION OF v SPECIFIC ITEMS FOR REVIEW Diverse in Content - The system or structure should include multiple types of equipment or ele-ments and/or perform multiple functions under o variety of operating conditions or loodings. Thus, j the major engineering disciplines should have input into the design of the system or structure.
i - Ability to Extrapolate Results - The system or i
structure should be representative of other safety systems or structures in complexity to support the extrapolation of findings.
The bases for selectino systems and structures for review as a result of phase 3 j ,
shall consider the above factors and shall be documented in accordance with i
Section 4.4. The bases for selectino specific components (includina structural i
components) and documents shall also consider the above factors and shall be
{ documented in accordonce with Section 4.5. The factors listed above shall be I
used in a proctical and balanced manner; no one factor is mandatory or should be considered to override the other factors.
4.4 Documentation of System r.nd Structure Selection
)
Attachment C shall be completed by each discipline to document the system or .
structure to be reviewed for each homogeneous design activity, i
l 4.4.1 Listing of Selections and HDAs i
j All homogeneous design activities subject to DAP review (i.e., both those in the -
- initial scope and those odded through completion of phase 3) shall be listed with j the opplicable system or structure. The bases shall be documented as defined in
! Sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3.
t 4.4.2 Primory Selection Basis i
i
! An "X" shall be entered in one of the following primary-selection basis columns
- for each homogeneous design activity
! ) TN-85-6262/21 Page 6 of Il 1
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-21
Title:
HOMOGENEOUS DESIGN ACTIVITY Revision: 0 O
\g VALIDATION AND SELECTION OF j SPECIFIC ITEMS FOR REVIEW o initial Scope (i.e., the homogeneous design activity was in the initial DAP scope).
o Phase 3 Initlo! Scope System or Structure (i.e., that which applies where the homogeneous design activity will be ._
evoluoted using the initial scope systems and structures).
l o interfacing System or Structure. "
~
o Other.
(Note: Where more than one design organization was identified in phase 3 as having responsibility for a homogeneous design octivity, each such organization
, shall be listed in Attochment C as a soporate line item. Furthermore, if odditional homogeneous design activities are subsequently identified and voll-dated, odditional oppropriate entries shall be mode in Attochment C. If all the work of one or more of these contractors within on HDA has been superseded, no selection shall be mode. This fact shall be documented by entering words "HDA
% volded - work superseded" In the " Comments" column.)
i 4.4.3 Secondary-Seleetion Basis i
Where the "Other" column in the primary-selection basis columns is marked, the '
! secondary-selection factors columns shall be reviewed and on "X" placed in each applicable column. This marking shall be accomp!!shed using the factors described in Section 4.3. The " Comments" column may be used to reference any other factors that influenced the selection of systems or structures, i
l 4.4.4 Cg!neering Evoluotions l
i i Copies of the oppropriate System and Structure Bases for Selection form j (Attochment C) shall be included in engineering evoluotions to document the selection of systems and structures.
I l,
TN-85-6262/21 Page 7 of Il I
I i
--__ _ _ - _ _ _ . _. _ _ . _ . ~ _ -._ -m_ . _ - - . _ _ , _ _
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEOUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-21
Title:
HOMOGENEOUS DESIGN ACTIVITY Revision: 0 VALIDATION AND SELECTION OF SPECIFIC ITEMS FOR REVIEW 4.5 Documentation of Component and Document Selection Attochment D shall be completed to document the bases for selection of specific components (including strucwre! components) and documents and to cross-
) reference between these items and homogeneous design activities.
4.5.1 Listing of Selections and Applicable HDAs i
All components (including structural components) and documents selected for
! , DAP review shall be listed and briefly identified / described with the applicable homogeneous design activity. A separate line item in Attachment D shall be completed for each component and document selected for review by the i
discipline. '
4.5.2 Unique items
)
l If the selected component or document is the sole example within the system (e.g., there is only one AFW flow diagram or one large motor in AFW), the
" Unique" column shall be marked with on "X".
- 4.5.3 Selection Factors 1
If the system or structure selected for the reasons indicated on the Attoch-ment C form has multiple examples of the component or document type, the bases for selection of a particular example shall be indicated by marking on "X" in the appropriate selection-factors column (s) of Attachment D.
l If multiple examples remain offer consideration of these factors, any other factor used for the selection of each particular item shall be documented in the j " Comments" column or the word "orbitrary" shall be entered into the "Com-ments" column. The use of an " arbitrary" selection basis shall only be used when l
l ) TN-85 4262/21 Page G of 11
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-21
Title:
HOMOGENEOUS DESIGN ACTIVITY Revision: 0 6 VALIDATION AND SELECTION OF SPECIFIC ITEMS FOR REVIEW it is the reviewer's judgment (confirmed by the Discipline Coordinator) that no significont differences exist among the items available for selection and that any one serves cs on equally voiid test of the homogeneous design activity.
Typically, the selection factors will more oppropriately apply to components or plant design features. A number of documents will be reviewed due to their association with a selected component or design feature. Such documents are not " selected," but are reviewed due to this relationship. For example, o particular pump may be selected due to its related design aspects and selection factors. A number ofdrawings and calculations will be reviewed that are associated with that pump to evoluote the related design of the pump. Such drawings and calculations are not selected, but are " tog-clong" documents.
Similarly, o design feature (particular room) may be selected to evoluote o
~
domoge study analysis, in this case, pertinent documents associated with that room and its contents are also " tog.olong" documents. These documents shall o be listed in Attochment D, but should be referenced in opplicable engineering not v' evoluotions. Other documents, however, are selected due to their nature (e.g.,
fire hozords analyses, shielding or dose assessment calculations, flooding onalyses, electrical degraded grid analyses, etc.). These latter type of documents shall be listed in Attachment D. .
4.5.4 Extrapolation The Discipline Coordinator shall determine whether review of the selected items con be extrapolated to the review of the homogeneous design activity. If so, the
" Ability to Ex*.ropolate" column shall be marked with on "X". Otherwise, odditional or otternative selections in occordance with Section 4.6 shall be mode.
4.5.5 Engineering Evoluotions Copies of the oppropriate Component and Document Bases for Selection form (Attochment D) shall be included in engineering evoluotions to document the TN-854262/21 Page 9 of Ii 1
l COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE I
. Number: DAP-21
Title:
HOMOCENEOUS DESIGN ACTIVITY Revision: 0 VALIDATION AND SELECTION OF
( SPECIFIC ITEMS FOR REVIEW selection of specific components (including structural components) ond docu-ments.
4.6 Determination of Number of items for Review t
4.6.1 Initial Number The Initial selection of the number of items for review in each homogeneous !
design octivity shall be such that a minimum of one review, odequate to test t!.e homogeneous design activity, shall be mode.
4.6.2 Additional Selections to Extrapolate Results The determination of the number of reviews shall consider the ability to extrapolate the results. The reviewer may expond his selections based upon his own experience either within the DAP or through the conduct of similar reviews elsewhere, if the items selected for review in occordance with Section 4.5 are not representative of the homogeneous design activity, odditional or alternative selections shall be mode os necessary, in particular, two special cases shall be -
considered:
! o if the selection within a vertical slice is such that the selection is not considered to be representative of the '
i homogeneous design activity relative to comprehensive-4 ness ond/or complexity, on additional selection from out-side the vertical slice shall be mode that is considered by the Discipline Coordinator to be representative, o Where there are a large number of possible selections in the homogeneous design octivity that involved numerous J
individuals, the number of items selected shall consider the total size of the population; that is, the number selected should exceed the single selection minimum. The l
exact number shall be determined by the Discipline Co.
ordinator using his engineering judgement. Additional or
- V TN.85-6262/21 Page 10 of l l l i
e--- -,--,.r--,+. _,,,------,,-..,---,---~,r---,,,-~~-
- - r me- - - - - - - - - - _.-_,w,--w-
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-21
Title:
HOMOGENEOUS DESIGN ACTIVITY Revision: 0 VALIDATION AND SELECTION OF l SPECIFIC ITEMS FOR REVIEW j
offernate selections of items for review shall be docu-j mented on Attochment D.
1
- 4.6.3 Additional Selections for Root Cause/ Generic implications Additional items in a homogeneous design octivity shall be selected os necessory i to comply with the generic implications, root cause, and trending commitments of the CPRT Program Plan (including the Design Adequacy Plan), and to comply
] with DAP-7. Refer to these documents for odditional Information. -
1 j 4.6.4 Engineering Evoluotions The rationale for the number of items selected shall be documented in -
appropriate engineering evoluotlons.
5.0 DOCUMENTATION i
An Attachment B checklist shall be approved by the Discipline Coordinator for each homogeneous design octivity. Completed checklists shall be filed in .
) occordance with DAP-14.
Compteted copies of Attochments C ond D shall be Incorporated into engineering evoluotions os appropriate. The review and approval process for the engineering ,
l evoluotions shall signify that the Discipline Ceordinator hos reviewed and l accepted the selection bases for systems, structures, components and documents
,' reviewed by the DAP.
f i
i TN-85 4262/21 voge ll of 11 1
- - - . _ , ~ . . , , - . _ . . . - _ _ ___-___ ._ _ _ _ . . - - - . _ . - _ _ _ . , - . -
O ATTACHMENT A INTERPRETATION OF HOMOGEPEOUS DESIGN ACTMTY ATTRBUTES A homogeneous design activity includes the following of tributes:
o Similarity in criterio. -
o Similarity in design considerations, approoch and methodology.
o Some design organization / discipline involved in performing the design -
(the discipline threshold is only applied to Gibbs & Hill).
t o Similarity in design control process.
o Some design Interface (s).
Further guidance on applying these attributes is provided below,
- l. Similarity in Criterio This attribute includes design criterio that belong to the some category (or type) and may be viewed as having similar considerations and opplication.
The criterio are considered to be within the some category if differences would not cause o meaningful change in the analysis or calculational opprooch. For example, applicable criteria associated with above ground atmospheric storoge tonks include codes /stondords requirements, con-figuration, woll thickness, materiots, venting and level measurement.
These criterio are of a similar type for various tanks, even though the speelfic numerical values of design parameters are dlfferent.
i l
i TN 85-6262/21 A!
1 s
1 j 2. $1milarity in Design Considerations, Approoch and Methodology ,
i, l This ottribute includes design or onalysis approaches / methodologies or ;
l mechonics in Implementation of the design such that meaningful dif-j forences in design complexities or considerations are not contained within i the subject design octivity. Two examples illustrate how potential differences in methodology ore discernible. In the first example, the ,
performance of pressure-drop calculations for water, boric ocid, fuel oil I -
ond steam (before phase-chonge considerations) are similar based upon a common opprooch and execution of similar steps in the onelytical process. I
- The parameters used in the calculations are different, but do not cause a ,
I meaningful change in the calculational opprooch; thus, homogeneity in design considerations, opprooch and methodology is established. In the :
, second example, the performance of seismic onelysis by equivalent static l methods, spectrol or time-history onolysis utilize common input paro- i meters (e.g. seismic input motion, domping, etc.); however, homogeneity is not established as the onalyses clearly require different design con- ,
siderations, opprooch and methodology.
1
) 3. Some Design Organization / Discipline
[ >
4
{ This attribute oddresses the consideration for the some organization or
{ discipline performing the porticular design octivity. If oil other ottributes j of a potential HDA ore confirmed, yet multiple organizations originate j similar designs, then such designs from each organization ore identified for i j verificotton. For example, if Gibbs & Hill and TUCCO Nuclear Engineering l (TNE) performed a similar type of design, the design performed by each j orgonization is considered separately. For design performed by Gibbs & l
) Hill, this attribute is also taken to the design-discipline level, and no l
further, unless it is determined that o discrete sub. unit of a discipline
! functioned independently. If separate Gibbs & Hill disciplines performed i ;
l TN-85-4262/21 A2 i 1
l
simllor types of design over time, the design performed by each discipline will be reviewed unless information is provided which demonstrates that the some controls were used for both cases and thereby resulted in comparable design. During phase 3, o specific review of Gibbs and Hill organizational changes was mode to determine the effect on homogeneity.
, An initial determination was mode that the organization was stable over the duration of the project with respect to any meaningful impoet on the execution of design. This determination will be confirmed during imple-
, mentation of the DAP. All other organizations are considered to have been responsible for their activities for o limited scope and over o short period compared to the overall project duration. Thus, organizations other than
~
Gibbs and Hill are not deemed a condidate for further breakdown.
, 4. Similarity in Design Control Process l This attribute provides that similar design control procedures were used for the design process which governed the performance of the subject design activity. Elements which ore considered in this context include personnel -
, qualifications, design origination, reviews, verificotton, opprovals and l Interfoce requirements. The Gibbs and Hill design control procedures underwent some revisions over the life of project; however, the design l
control process is considered similar unless the revisions included meaning-fut chonges which moy have effected the quality of the design end product.
During phase 3, design control wos concluded to be consistent of the j programmatic level; however, this will be further confirmed during the
! DAP os details of implementation of Gibbs and Hill's process are deter-mined. For other design service contractors, their limited scope and relatively short period of performonce do not worront oddressing this
, ottribute for their scope of des *gn because such conditions are judged to provide reasonable consistency in the design control process. Accordingly, definition of HDAs by organization provides sufficient breakdown with TN-85-4262/21 A-3 l
I I
l respect to design control homogeneity for design organizations other than Gibbs and Hill.
i 5. Some Design Interface (s)
This of tribute opplies to discipline design Interfaces within Gibbs and Hill and c.ddresses the consistency in communicotton of substantive design
' Information relative to information transfer and provisions for design Input. (Substantive design Information is Information essential in develop.
Ing the design.) It also oddresses consistency in cross-discipline review 3
responsibilities where relevant. The focus of ottention for design Inter.
~
foces is to Identify meaningful changes which may have offected the design process and thereby the quality of the design end product. For example, if the requirements for cross-discipline design reviews changed over the life of the project, the DAP review would need to address the related design octivity for different periods In time.
1 e
i i
l l
TN-85-4262/2 l A-4
ATTACHMENT B HOMOEPEOUS DESIGN ACTIVITY DESCRPTION APO VALIDATION OECMLIST DAP Discipline M)A NO.
DOA Title Org./ Discipline (os applicable)
Appliedste Design Category
Description of HDA O
("X"If applicable)
/_/ Based on few design activites involved, will review all items In homogeneous design activity.
/_/ Homogeneous design octivity applies only to o unique component or unique document.
Describe basis for conclusion.
\ if either of the above ore opplicable, do not complete the remainder of this form except for signing the lost sheet.
TN-85-4262/21 DAP Form 21 1, Rev. O Sheet I of 9
ATTACHMENT B HOMOEEOUS DESIGN ACTNITY v DESCRPTION APO VALIDATION CECMLIST (Continued)
- 1. FOA Applicability ("X" oli opplicable)
, /_/ Systems /_/ All Safety-related Systems OR /_/ All Safety-related Mechanical Systems
/_/ All Sofety-related Electrical Systems
/_/ All Safety-related Control Systems ,
/,_/ Specific System (s)(describe)
O /_/ Structures OR
/_/ All Safety-related Structures
/_/ AllSafety-related Concrete Structures
/_/ All Safety-related Steel Structures
/_/ Specific Structure (s)(describe)
/_/ Components /_/ All Mech / Elect /l&C Components *
/_/ All Structural Components
/_/ Specific Component (s)(deserIbe)
O
- Circle one or more.
TN-854262/21 DAP Form I ,Rev 0
1 l
ATTACHENT B HOMOGEEOUS DESIGN ACTNITY
,\
DESCRPTION APOVALIDATION CECKLIST (Continued)
- 2. Confirmatlan of Hamogeneity
- a. Similarity in Criteria This attribute principally opp!!es to the review of analyses and calculations.
Describe upplicable criteria categories.
O
- List the documents (minimum of five**) scanned in the HDA related document population to assess similarity in criteria.
Are the criterio similor? Yes/No*
If "yes", describe basis for this conclusion.
i
[
- Circle one.
- Distributed opproximately even through the period of performance of the work as indicated by the current revision dote of the documents. if there are less than five, so state.
l TN-85-6262/21 DAP Form 21 1, Rev. O Sheet 3 of 9
I ATTACHAENT B HOMOCEPEOUS DESIGN ACTNITY DESCRIP190N APO VALIDATION CECMLIST (Continued)
If "no", define the further dividing of the HDA required to have similar criterlo and describe the basis for this conclusion (include subdivided HDA Nos.). -
(if "no," do not complete this form except for signing the lost sheet.
Prepare new forms for each of the above HDAs.) *
- b. Simillority in Design Considerations, Approoch and Methodology.
This attribute principolly applies to the review of analyses and -
calculations.
O Q Describe general design considerations, opprooch and methodology.
List the documents (minimum of five**) scanned in the HDA related document population to assess similarity in design consideroflons, opprooch and methodology, os oppropriate.
i
- Distributed opproximately even through the period of performance of the work as indicated by the current revision date of the documents, if there are less than five, so state.
TN-85-4262/21 DAP Form 21-1, Rev. O i
Sheet 4 of 9
ATTACHMENT B HOMOGEPEOUS DESIGN ACTMTY DESCRPTION APO VALIDATION CFECKLIST (Continued)
Are the design consideroflons, opproach and methodology sim!!ar?
Yes/No*
if "yes," describe the basis for this conclusion.
If "no," define the further dividing of the HDA required to have such -
similarity and describe the basis for this conclusion (include subdivided HDA Nos.).
(if "no," do not complete this form except for signing the lost sheet.
- Prepore new forms for each of the above HDAs.)
l l c. Some Design Organization / Discipline i
This attribute shall be reviewed for the opplicable design category, it is assumed to apply to all related HDAs unless exceptions are noted in other HDA Description and Validation forms. If the similarity in design organization / discipline is ossessed for the applicable design category in another HDA Description and Validation form, refer to that HDA form by HDA No here . Otherwise,
- complete the following.
- Circle one.
TN-85 4262/21 DAP Form 21 1, Rev. O Sheet 5 of 9 L __
i ATTACHMENT B s HOMOEEOUS DESIGN ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION AfO VALIDATION CECKLIST (Continued)
' t.
Hos more than one Gibbs & Hill discipline performed design in the applicable design category? _Yes/No*
If "no," describe basis for this conclusion.
if "yes," identify multiple disciplines and define which HDAs are -
ossociated with each discipline. Describe whether multiple discipline involvement in the design category effects the manner in which the related HDAs should be reviewed (i.e., did they perform the some design activity) and identify resulting subdivided HDAs (by no.) If appropriate.
(if the HDA is subdivided, do not complete this form except for signing the lost sheet. Prepore new forms for each of the above HDAs.)
- d. Similarity in Design Control Process 1
- This attribute is applied only to Gibbs & Hill and shall be reviewed
, for the applicc6fe design category, it is assumed to apply to all 1
- Circle one.
TN-85-4262/21 DAP Form 21-1, Rev. O Sheet 6 of 9
j , ATTACHMENT B HOMOEEOUS DESIGN ACTIVITY 1
DESCRPTION AND VALIDATION CECMLIST (Continued) related HDAs unless exceptions are noted in other HDA Description and Volidation forms. If the similarity in design control process is ossessed for the opplicsle design category in another HDA Description and Validation form, refer to that HDA form by HDA no.
here . Otherwise, complete the following.
Hos the design control process been reasonably constant over time for this design category (i.e., did meaninoful changes occur)?
) Yes/No*
a O
If "yes," describe basis for this conclusion.**
- i i
If "no," identify substantive process changes and define which HDAs, if not all, are ossociated with each such change. Describe whether these changes effect the manner in which the related HDAs should be reviewed end identify resulting subdivided HDAs (by no.) If oppropriate.
i l
l l
I (If the HDA is subdivided, do not complete this form except for signing the lost sheet. Prepore new forms for each of the above HDAs.)
l
- Circle one.
- Reference to opp!! cable procedures may be appropriate.
TN-85 4262/21 DAP Form 21-1, Rev. O Sheet 7 of 9
ATTACHAENT B HDMOEPEOUS DESIGN ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION AND VALIDATION CtECML.lST (Continued)
- e. Some Design Interface (s)
This attribute is applied only to discipline design interfaces within Gibbs & Hill and shall be reviewed for the opplicable design category.
- it is assumed to apply to all related HDAs unless exceptions are noted in other HDA Description and Validation forms, if the similarity in -
l design interfoces is ossessed for the applicable design category in onother HDA Description and Validation form, refer to that HDA I
form by HDA no. here . Otherwise, complete the following.
Do G&H interdiscipline Interfoces exist for this HDA? Yes/No*
Describe, if appropriate.
$ Hos the design Interface (s) been the same over time for this design ,
category? (Refer to Attochment A for odditional information.)
Yes/No*
l If "yes," describe basis for this conclusion.
l l
If "no," define which HDAs are associated with changes in design interface. Describe whether these changes effect the manner in
- Circle one.
TN 85 4262/21 DAP Form 21 1, Rev. O Sheet 8 of 9 1 . - . ,
ATTACHMENT B HOMOEPEOUS DESIGN ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION AfC VALIDATION I CECKLIST (Continued) which the related HDAs should be reviewed and identify resulting subdivided HDAs (by no.) if appropriate.
l , (Prepare new forms for each of the above HDAs.)
4 Prepared by: Date:
Approved by: Date: __
Discipline Coordinator 1
i l
l l
TN-85-6262/21 DAP Form 21-1, Rev. O Sheet 9 of 9
-4 .
Z '
x
& c A434TC Sv5mm me5TRucTuRE ease 5 rORsEuCTum Z
ro
~
(Nacipline SELECTION PRIMARY SELECTION BASIS SECOtOARY SELECTION FACTORS Responsi- Phase 3 ble initiel later. Signifi.
Desipi Selected Scope lecing Ability core Emperience to New WA Orymnao. $reten er inittel System er System er inesstry/
No, tion Structure Scope Steveture Structure Other Unkpe to Inter- Diver. Entre- Vatical Sofety CP5ES fecer DCAs sity pelote Slice Comments U
9 3
- 3
'n . s .
o 1,
l o j
' ~
k I'k&l 1
a 5
m.
iI I IN 2
s
- >f k
l l
1 r Ij I :
i I I c
5 W
I i
j \~
5 e
w TN-85-4262/21 U-I DAP Form 21 3, Rev. O