ML20215J818
| ML20215J818 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 09/12/1986 |
| From: | TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215J430 | List:
|
| References | |
| DAP-4, NUDOCS 8610270200 | |
| Download: ML20215J818 (26) | |
Text
I N
n-~~.--.--._ ._
_Ni_._^ l __ _~ 'I i f _
TITLE PREPARATION OF CTCKLISTS;'{ Q 0y j'g[ jig s
- a NUMBER DAP-4 Revision P_repared Date Reviewed Date A Date o
gj,4 Gr $4 5% $pproved/#r i Q 9 An unc ?hf 4M & !aln/d Qna we k "MrJbxLs alw hp !6ffS ~
$ If/IfIE esp wu ggg s., @ w l
t;/; rPOU.E0 COPY ,
' ~~~
O !*^"*888"88686!:"
TN-85-4262/4 i
(
a TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Poae C ov e r S h e e t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 3 T ab le o f Con t e n t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.0 P URP O S E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 2.0 SCOPE..................................................... I 3.0 DEFINITIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 4.0 I NS TR U CT I ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5.0 DO CUME NT AT I ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ATTACHMENTS A DESIGN CRITERIA REVIEW CECKLIST ...................... A-l B DESIGN REVIEW
SUMMARY
CHECKLIST ..................... B-1 C DESIGN REVIEW EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1 D ADDITIONAL CHECKLIST CONSIDER ATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-l E QUALITY ASSURANCE CHECKLIST CONSIDERATIONS ......... E-l F DIS CIPLIE/ SUBJECT CODES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1 G CHE C KL IS T L O G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1 H DESIGN REVIEW EVALUATION A REVISION COVER SHEET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-l 411 i
I i
l TN-85-6262/4 11
i .
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE O
V Number: DAP-4
Title:
PREPARATION OF CFECKLISTS Revision: 4 1.0 PURPOSE This procedure specifies the requirements for preparation of design document i review checklists to be used in the performance of the CPSES Design Adequacy Program (DAP),
i I
2.0 SCOPE This procedure opplies whenever a design document review checklist is required j by a Discipline Specific Action Plan, a DAP procedure, or through a Discipline Instruction issued by the Review Team Leader, Design Adequacy Program Manager, or Discipline Coordinator.
O 3.0 DEFINITIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES i
3.1 Definitions
, 3.1.1 Criterion I
i A criterion is any statement of a performance, design feature, or design j requirement which a system, structure, or component must meet in order to be l capable of performing its design function or to be in compliance with a project
! requirement or commitment.
a 3.1.2 Commitment A commitment is any statement made by the project as part of the public record which identifies a system performance requirement, design feature, or design requirement which will be met by the project.
O TN-85-6262/4 Page I of 8 l
]- .
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-4
Title:
PREPARATION OF CIECKLISTS Revision: 4 i
4 3.l.3 Implementing Document i
implementing documents are design documents (such as calculations, evaluations, and analyses) that translate design criteria into design output documents.
i i
3.1.4 Output Document j Output documents are design documents (such as drawings and specifications)
} that define technical requirements of systems, structures, and components.
l ..
3.2 Responsibilities i
3.2.1 Checklist Developer Checklists shall be developed by personnel assigned by the Discipline Coordina-for. The Discipline Coordinator may also be a checklist developer.
1 3.2.2 Discipline Coordinator I The Discipline Coordinator shall assign personnel to develop checklists. He shall I
l define the purpose and scope of each checklist. This definition may be in the form of verbal direction to checklist developers.
1 4.0 INSTRUCTION l 4.1 Evaluation Deslan Criteria and Review Topics Checklists will be prepared to ensure a consistent and complete review of design l
criteria for the various review topic areas. Design Criteria Review Checklists shall be prepared using the format of Attochment A for each design discipline lk i TN-85-6262/4 Page 2 of 8 l
1 - . _ . _ . _ . ._ _ . _ . _ _ . - - --- .---
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE O; !
V Number: DAP-4
Title:
PREPARATION OF CHECKLISTS Revision: 4 review topic area to verify that the review topic criteric are complete, consistent, and adequately defined. Design Review Summary Checklists shall olso be prepared using the format of Attachment B to summarize the verifica-l[
tion of the implementation of th review topic criteria. Where appropriate, the Discipline Coordinator may allow more than one review area to be evaluated on a single checklist (Attachment A or B). The Discipline Coordinator may authorize alternatives to the format of Attachments A and B; however, the alternative format shall contain comparable information. The Discipline Coordi-notor shall maintain a log of checklists used in the format of Attachment O to this procedure. This log meets the requirements of DAP ll and shall be filed in accordance with DAP 14.
4.2 Preparation of Checklists Unless otherwise directed by the Discipline Coordinator, Design Criteria and Design Review Summary Checklists shall be prepared in accordance with the format of Attachments A and B for the various review topics. The Discipline lk l
Coordinator shall assign one or more individuals to the preparation and comple-tion of the checklists. The Discipline Coordinator may develop checklists.
t l
Design Review Evaluation Checklist forms are prepared as appropriate using the format of Attachments C-l and C-2. Attachment C-2 is the format for j continuation pages. As used herein, Attachment C refers to both C-l and C-2.
l Alternate formats may be used provided they contain comparable information.
The criterio/ commitments (from the list developed in accordance with DAP-1) opplicable to the scope of the checklist form are reviewed and selected for inclusion on the checklist. The checklist preparer mcy select fewer than 100 g
percent of the applicable criteria for inclusion in the Design Review Evaluation form (s) provided that the bases for such selection are documented in the Design l Review Summary Checklist (Attochment B) form or in another oppropriately referenced document. Where a criterion / commitment listed in the criterio/ commitments list is itself a source of detailed criteria that is not TN-85-6262/4 Page 3 of 8 l
l l
1 - - _ _ _ , - _ - - - . _ _ _ _ _ ._. - _
~
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-4
Title:
PREPARATION OF CHECKLISTS Revision: 4 expanded upon in the Criterio List (DAP-l), the checklist should use the detailed criteria extracted from that source. The selected criteria / commitments (includ-ing more detailed criteria obtained from the source document) are entered in the
" Attributes Reviewed" column of Attochment C.
The " Description of Verification" column of Attachment C shall be completed to describe the method by which implementation of the criterion will be verified (e.g., line-by-line check of a calculation, comparison of selected calculation pages against selected drawings, etc.). If necessary, this column may be cross-referenced to on ottochment that contains more information on the verification
' methodolgy. If the criterion entered in the " Attributes Reviewed" column does not represent adequate acceptance criteria for the review then the " Description of Verification" column should otso be used to provide necessary occeptance g
critero detail.
Specific documents to be reviewed are selected in occordance with DAP-21.
Where oppropriate, development of the Design Review Evoluotion form and the selection of specific documents may proceed in parallel if necessary to ensure the odequacy of the checklist form. In addition, the person preparing the Design Review Evoluotion form should also give consideration to the following factors:
o Whether similar document types exist such that a combi-notion of document types is needed to reach a conclusion about the odequocy of a portion of the design process (e.g., there may be eight types of mechanical calculations and selecting one of each typa, as required cbeve, may provide on odequate test of the calculation process such that no significant benefit is gained from testing multiple examples within each type) o Whether the criteria that could be verified by additional examples of the document type con otso be verified by other document types or through other means (e.g., by comparison with pre-operational test results).
O TN-85-6262/4 Page 4 of 8
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-4
Title:
PREPARATION OF CECKLISTS Revision: 4 4.3 Additional Checklist items in addition to the specific checklist attributes extracted from the criteria /
commitments list, the checklist developer shall consider the items in Attach-lk ments D and E and shall incorporate them into the checklist as determined to be appropriate by the checklist developer and the Discipline Coordinator, in s
considering these items (which are defined in ANSI N45.2.11-1974, Section 6.3.1),
the developer and Discipline Coordinator shall take into consideration that not all items are app!! cable to ecch document type, that other aspects of the review may odequately address these topics, and that the wording of the item may need 2 j to be clarified for use in the checklist.
l 4.4 Approval of Checklists Formats I
i Each Discipline Coordinator shall approve all checklist forms developed for his discipline. This approval requirement applies to Design Review Evaluation forms (whether in the format of Attachment C or in an alternative format), to ld checklist forms that are used as alternatives to Attachments A and B (Discipline
, Coordinator approval of Attachments A and B is not required), and to any other checklists developed for his discipline. The approval of the Discipline Coordina-for to use a checklist form shall be in the form of a memo to appropriate personnel authorizing them to use the forms noted in the memo. Supplemental attributes added to a checklist form in accordance with Section 4.5 below shall not require Discipline Coordinator approval prior to completion of the checklist.
4.5 Use of Checklist
(
Other DAP procedures and discipline instructions govern the use of checklist forms developed in accordance with this procedure. Prior to using any checklist form to conduct a review in accordance with a procedore governing its use, the person intending to use the checklist form shall assure himself or herself that the I
l TN-85-6262/4 Page 5 of 8 I
L -- _
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-4
Title:
PREPARATION OF CHECKLISTS Revision: 4 checklist form is odequate for its intended purpose. In particular, the user shall consider whether any item on Attachments D and E should be added to the checklist form. Furthermore, the reviewer may odd any additional attributes '
that he or she feels is necessary to ensure the adequacy of a design review evoluotion form (Attachment C or equivalent). Such odditional attributes or other checklist form supplements may be added without prior Discipline Coordinator opproval. Discipline Coordinator opproval is achieved when the completed checklist is opproved.
m 5.0 DOCUMENTATION 5.1 Identification Of Checklist Forms Design review evoluotion checklist forms (i.e., checklist forms similar to the format of Attachment C that contain the review attributes, but which have not been used for o review) shall be given a checklist form number, revision number, and date. The checklist form number shall be placed in the lower right hand corner of each page of the form if Attachment C is used; otherwise the checklist form number may be placed where it is deemed appropriate by the Discipline Coordinator. The initial version of each form is designated "Rev. 0".
l The format of the checklist identification shall be:
DAP Form No. XX-YYY, Rev. N, ZZ/ZZ/ZZ
\ n a o o l
Date Revision Number i
Sequent 1o1 Number Discipline / Subject Code l (See Attochment F) l TN-85-6262/4 Page 6 of 8 l
l l
I - _ - - - . . _ _ - - _ . . - - -- . --. - - - -
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-4
Title:
PREPARATION OF CHECKLISTS Revision: 4 This numbering requirement for checklist forms is retroactive and shall be opplied to all checklist forms. The Discipline Coordinator shall maintain a log of checklist forms (See Attachment G).
5.2 Revision of Checklist Forms lk The Discipline Coordinator may direct that checklist forms be revised at anytime. Unless specifically directed by the Discipline Coordinc,ts:, the revision of a checklist form shall not invalidate any checklist completed using a previous revision of a checklist form. The appropriate revision number and date shall be entered onto the forms. The sections of the form offected by the revision shall be marked with a vertical line and revision number in either the left or right hand margin of the form. Supplemental attributes entered into o checklist by a reviewer in accordance with Section A.S of this procedure shall not be considered revisions to the checklist form.
l 5.3 Checklist identification After opproval of a completed checklist has been obtained in accordance with the DAP governing its use, the checklist shall be assigned a control identification number by the Discipline Coordinator. The identification number shall be of the following format:
DAP-CLZ-XX-YYY (Supplement No. ),Rev. .
G o See Section 5.4 -
Sequential Number Discipline / Subject Code (See Attachment F) g Checklist Type Code A = Design Criteria Review Checklist (Attachment A)
B = Design Review Summary Checklist (Attachment B)
C = Design Review Evaluation (Attachment C)
TN-85-6262/4 Pone 7 of A
l COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TE AM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE l l
Number: DAP-4
Title:
PREPARATION OF CHECKLISTS Revision: A l l
The Discipline Coordinator shall enter all checklists used in the discipline for l which he is responsible in a Checklist Log (Attachment G).
5.4 Revisions and Supplements to Completed Checklists Supplements to completed checklists shall be used to document any changes in findings based on the review of additional information including the review of later revisions to the documents being evoluoted. Supplements shall use the some checklist forms originally used. They shall be completed in the some manner os the original checklists. However, only those attributes required to achieve the objectives of the supplementary review shall be completed and all -
others will be marked "NC". Upon approval, the checklist number assigned will be the some os the original checklist number with the additional indication of a supplement number. Supplement numbers will be assigned in sequential order beginning with I. Supplements shall be entered in the Checklist Log as a separate line entry by the Discipline Coordinator.
Approved completed checklists and/or supplements may be changed by means of a Revision to correct errors associated with DAP implementation of the checklists or to provide additional information required by DAP procedures.
Examples include the correction or addition of criteria numbers, HDA numbers, DIR numbers, misspellings and/or omissions. Revisions shall not be used to change any findings of the original review or to modify the context of the original review to reflect the review of later revisions to the documents being evoluoted. A revision package shall include all of the some material contained in the original checklist package or supplement and shall be approved using the Design Review Evoluotion Revision Cover Sheet (Attachment H). Revisions shall be initiated and checked by reviewers and opproved by the Discipline Coordinator. The Discipline Coordinator may also sign as either the initiator or the checker. For checklists completed prior to 9/15/86, cover sheets shall be opplied to the checklists if a revision or supplement becomes applicable.
i Previous "Rev. 0" checklists do not require a backfit. The original issue of completed checklists and/or supplements shall be noted as Rev. O with sub-sequent revisions assigned in sequential order beginning with I.
TN-85-6262/4 Poae 8 of 8
ATTACHMENT A COMANCFE PEAK DESIGN CRITERIA REVEW CFECKLIST DSAP CHECKLIST NUMBER CRITERIA LIST NUMBER /REV Review Topic Number (s)/ Title (s)
List the Design Criterio Sources:
General Design Criterio FSAR Section(s) l Regulatory Guide (s)
List Criteria Which Are Being Reviewed:
Criteria No.
O TN-85-6262/4 A-1 Attachment A
Are the Design Criteria for this Design Topic Complete?
If "no," describe the missing design inputs.
P Are the Identified Design Criteria for this Design Topic Consistent?
If "no," describe the inconsistencies.
O Are the Design Criteria Adequately Defined to the Level of Detail Necessary to:
- 1. Allow the design activity to be carried out in a correct manner? Yes No
- 2. Provide a basis for making design decisions and evaluating design changes?
Yes No
- 3. Provide a basis for cccomplishing design verification? Yes No if any of the above are answered "no" describe the lack of detail d
O TN-85-6262/4 A-2 Attachment A
Summarize Results of the Review.
O O
l Reviewer Date Discipline Coordinator Date TN-85-6262/4 A-3 Attochment A
l I
ATTACHMENT B COMANOE PEAK .
DESIGN REVIEW
SUMMARY
CECKLIST CHECKLIST NUMBER DSAP Review Topic Number (s)/ Title (s)
Documents Reviewed: ,
Document Nome Number Rev Date Sofety-Related i
Yes No .-
O Description of Review Scope and Purpose.
l TN-85-6262/4 B-1 Attachment B
j
! List Design Criteria for this Review l
Assumptions Listed for Each Document? Yes No Are the Assumptions Reasonable and Valid?
-Yes No l
l Are the Assumptions Consistent with Design Criteria / implementing Documents? Yes No
! Hove all Assumptions which Require l Verification Beea Verified? Yes No Comments on Assumptions (Discuss Each "No" Answer Above)
O TN-85-4262/4 B-2 Attochment B
O Are the References including Data Sources (for the Documents Reviewed) Listed? Yes No Are References Sufficiently identified with Revision or Date? Yes No Comments on
References:
(Discuss Each "No" Answer Above)
O Were Changes from Specified Design Criteria identified, as well as the Reasons for the Change?
Was on Appropriate Design Method Used?
Explain:
O TN-85-4262/4 B-3 Attachment B I
, List Computer Programs Used.
Verified l Program Reference Yes/No O
Are the Computer Outputs Reasonable Compared to inputs?
Explain l
l lO TN-85-6262/4 B-4 Attochment B
Summarize Results of the Review.
[
- O Discrepancies identified (if applicable) (Reference DAPTS DIR Number)
List Attachments:
Reviewer Date Discipline Coordinator Date TN-85-6262/4 B-5 Attochment B
g s
t n
e m
m o /_
C e / v t e t
a aA s R D nN ,
. U/
/C tN a
S v
e R
)
f on
. l nio o a ot v ia N o t
pic -
t r i f
n p ri cr N e p n se A
DeV O
I m
e i o
T l p
t p
lA p i r
U S u c s
( e f
D u l o a WW I r
e l
HEI t
e n
e
)
e C CV e G g
a AE h e TR T
S cP n, m r
AGN et rn o I ee f ee F S t t aa e m P E Rcou A D DD D
(
D R
E 3
M U
N T
S I
L K
C E d C e w
i e
v e -
R s
s t e
e c u s b r n i r
e e r t b
m f e A t
4
/
u e 2
. N R 6 2
..r a y 6
.e i r r a
'a e 5 8
v t m -
e i i r r N l[ 'T l[ F
ATTACHE * -2 DESIGN REVIE', UATION CIECKLIST NUAEER (Supplement No. ), Rev. .
Sheet of Reference Description of Sat /Unsat/
Attributes Reviewed (Document, Page) Verification NC/NA Comments DAP Form -
,Rev. , /
TN-85-6262/4 C-2
ATTACHMENT D ADDITIONAL CIECKI IST CONSIDERATIONS
, I. Were the inputs correctly selected and incorporated into design?
- 2. Are assumptions necessary to perform the design activity adequately described and reasonable? Where necessary, are the assumptions identified for subsequent re-verifications when the detailed design activities are completed?
- 3. Are the appropriate quality and quality assurance requirements specified?
- 4. Are the opplicable codes, stondords, and regulatory requirements, including issue and oddenda, properly identified and are their requirements for design met?
- 5. Have opplicable construction and operating experience been considered?
- 6. Have the design interface requirements been satisfied?
- 7. Was on appropriate design method used?
- 8. Is the output reasonable compared to inputs?
- 9. Are the specified ports, equipment, and processes suitable for the required application?
- 10. Are the specified materials compatible with each other and the design environmental conditions to which the material will be exposed?
I 1. Have adequate maintenance features and requirements been specified?
- 12. Are accessibility and other design provisions adequate for performance of needed maintenance and repair?
- 13. Hos odequate accessibility been provided to perform the in-service inspection expected to be required during the plant life?
- 14. Has the design properly considered radiation exposure to the public and plant personnel?
. 15. Are the acceptance criteria incorporated in the design documents sufficient to allow verification that design requirements have been satisfactorily occomplished.
- 16. Have adequate pre-operational and subsequent periodic test requirements been appropriately specified?
O TN-85-6262/4 D-l Attachment D
l e l l
ATTACHMENT D (continues 0
- 17. Are adequate handling, storage, cleaning, and shipping requirements specified?
- 18. Are adequate identification requirements specified?
- 19. Are requirements for record preparation review, approval, retention, etc.,
odequately specified?
O O TN-85-6262/4 Attochment D D-2
O ATTACHMENT E QUALITY ASSURANCE CECKLIST CONSIDERATIONS o Are design analyses sufficiently detailed as to purpose method, assumptions, design input, references and units such that a person technically qualified in the subject can review and understcnd the
, analyses and verify the odequocy of the results without recourse to the originator?
o Was a design review performed and documented?
o Was the extent of design verification or review commensurate with the importance of the design to safety, its complexity, degree of standardization, relation to the state-of-the-art, and similarity with the previously proven designs?
o Do appropriate design documents have review and approval signatures?
o Were changes in designs (including field changes) Justified? Were they subjected to design control measures (such as review and approval) commensurate with these applied to the original design?
o Are the Design Criteria defined to the level of detail necessary:
- 1. To allow the design activity to be carried out in a correct manner?
- 2. To provide a basis for making design decisions and evaluating design changes?
- 3. To provide a basis for accomplishing design verification?
- o Are assumptions listed?
l l o Are assumptions reasonable and valid?
l o Are there assumptions which conflict with Design Criteria l Implementing Documents?
o Have assumptions which require verification been verified?
lO TN-85-6262/4 E-I Attochment E
O ATTACHMENT F COMANCE PEAK DESIGN ADEQUACY PROGRAM DISCIPLIE/SUBECT CODES Code Disipline C/S Civil / Structural P Piping and Supports "M Mechanical EIC Electrical / Instrumentation PCI Programmatic / Generic Implications E Electrical
- I Instrumentation *
- NOTE: Use of T" and "1" codes are optional alternatives to the TIC" code.
EIC may be used for both Electrical and l&C. "E" may be used when the document is relevant only to the electrical discipline. "1" may be used when the document is relevant only to Instrumentation and Control.
l l
l l
O TN-85-4262/4 F-1 Attachment F
O O~
~
O ATTALHMENT G DAP-4 a COMMANCE PEAK DESIGN ADEQUACY PROGRAM E
= CNCKLIST LOG U
M
~ REVISION DATE 3 SUPERSEDED CONTROLID.NO. BY TITLE O I 2 3 4 5 6 9_
4 ATTACHMENT H O DESIGN REVIEW EVALUATION REVISION COVER SHEET Checklist Number Supplement No. . Rev.
Description of Revision:
)
O Initiated by: Date:
Checked by:
Approved by:
O TN-85-6262/4
- . _ _ - . . - - _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ - .. ._