ML20215J839
| ML20215J839 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/25/1986 |
| From: | Beckman J TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215J430 | List:
|
| References | |
| DAP-3, NUDOCS 8610270207 | |
| Download: ML20215J839 (13) | |
Text
.
I 1
r . . - . _ . . . - . . _ , _ . _
TITLE DEVELOPMENT APO Utiu VALIDATION OFiSELF-INITIATED REVIEW SCOPE
} . , t L .. : / i;Ui'a f g , - - . . - - -
NUMBER DAP-3
~
j Revision Prepared Date Rsviewed Date Approved Date 0
' "~
ElEA{E5 h 8NW Af*l0f f7.Hac4.e ,
\u \'%) 3/N[4 82, 9 #
O 8610270207 861010 PDR A ADOCK 05000445 NO* 9I m' PDR TN-85/6262/3 i
. l l
l 1
I i
\ i l
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- Sections Page Cove r S he e t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Tab le o f Con t e n t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . il 1.0 P UR P O S E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 2.0 SCOPE..................................................... I 3.0 DEFINITIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4.0 I NS T R U C T I O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5.0 D OC U ME NT AT I O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
, ATTACHMENTS 4
A DISCIPLitE SPECIFIC ACTION PL AN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-l b
- B DISCIPLINE ACTION PLAN CHANGE REQUEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-l I
l l
l l
l 1 -
i TN-85-6262/3 11
..~ - ..- - - . . - - _ _ _
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TE AM - DE51CN ADEGUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-3
Title:
DEVELOPMENT AND VAllDATION OF Revision: I SELF-INITIATED REVIEW SCOPE
~
I.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this procedure is to define the process which, when completed, allows the overall results of the Design Adequacy Progrom to be extrapolated to envelop the safety-significant design aspects of the plant.
To accomplish this objective, the procedure:
o Specifies the four-phase process by which the Scope Development Process is performed I
o Specifies and defines the review and opproval process for the scope development effort o Specifies and defines the procedural controls which ensure O that consistency and completeness will be achieved across and between the various design discipline activities.
l 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 activities, the preporqtion of criterio lists and checklists, and review of documents will be corried out in accordance with DAP-1, DAP-4, DAP-5, and DAP-4. 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.
O TN-85-4262/3 Page I of 9
_. _ _ ~.~. _ _ - _ ..__. _ _
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEOUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-3
Title:
DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF Revision: I O SELF.lNITIATED REVIEW SCOPE 3.0 DEFINITIONS AND RES3ONSIBILITIES 3.1 Definitions 3.1.1 Design Criterio Category A design criteria category is a general performance requirement, design feature, or design requirement statement which describes o 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 load are included in the definition, but specific values such as a temperature load of 950, or wind food of 300 mph, are not).
3.1.2 Design Activity A design activity is a specific, homogeneous effort or task, the sum of which comprises the overoll design process (from initial design t.hrough final design implementation documents) which was used for CPSES. Design activities are considered, for the purposes of the scope development process, as those lowest common denominator tasks which reflect discrete organizational factors, desig, controls, criterio applicability, output requirements, or documentation and opprovals.
3.2 Responsibilities 3.2.1 Reviewer Development, review, and evoluotion of criteria category and design activity lists shall be performed by DAP reviewers, assigned by the Discipline.Coordino-tors and the DAP Manager.
O TN-85-6262/3 Page 2 of
l COMANCHE PE AK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE o
f l Number: DAP-3
Title:
DEVELOPMENT AND VAllDATION OF Revision: I SELF-INITIATED REVIEW SCOPE 3.2.2 Discipline Coordinator The Discipline Coordinator shall assign personnel to develop, review, and evolvote criterio and design activities. He shall opprove the evoluotions and submit them to the Scope Development Coordinator. The Discipline Coordinator shall determine the final scope for his discipline upon which the Results Report is based.
d 3.2.3 Scope Development Coordinator The Scope Development Coordinator shall specify and define the methodology by which the scope development and validotion is performed. He shall coordinate the efforts undertaken within the various design disciplines end shall provide on integrated assessment (e.g., on overview of the opproach taken by the design disciplines to verify the consistency of results, and a review of creas of interface ,
between design disciplines) to the Generic Implications Coordinator and the DAP Manager.
3.2.4 Review Teom Leoder Tha Review Team Leader is responsible for the development and the review of the scope of the DS APs.
b 3.2.5 Senior Review Team The Senior Review Team is responsible for the opproval of the scope of the DS APs.
O l TN-85-6262/3 Page 3 of 1
)
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-3
Title:
DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF Revision: I O- SELF-lNITIATED REVIEW SCOPE 3.2.6 Generic implications Coordinator The Generic implications Coordinator is responsible for review and opproval of the Engineering Process Validation.
4 4.0 INSTRUCTION 4.1 Phase I - Initial Scope Identification i
j The initial scope identification is conducted using for comparison a review of Independent Design Verification Programs (IDVP) and Integrated Design Inspec-1 tions (ID's) conducted at other nuclear power plants for licensing purposes. The IDVPs 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 reviewed are those for the Perry, Colloway, Byron, Seabrook, and Sheoron Harris nuclear plants. A collective list, made up of the design areas oddressed in each of these IDVPs and IDis, is compared against previous Comanche Peak design reviews. Those reviews include all four phases
! by the NRC; and the INPO evoluotion conducted by Sorgent & Lundy for TUCCO.
! The comparison thus developed will oddress the breadth of the reviews already conducted on Comanche Peak, the depth of those reviews, and the ossociated
) findings. The comparison is used to demonstrate that:
1 1
I o The scope of the review is comparable to that of other IDVPs and lDis, o Adequate depth was applied in the initial scope of review.
The results of the comparison and oppropriate explanatory material shall be
, maintained in auditable form in the DAP files.
!O TN-85-6262/3 Page 4 of ?
i
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-3
Title:
DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF Revision: 1 O SELF-INITIATED REVIEW SCOPE U
4 4.2 Phase 2 - System Volidotion Af ter determining that the initial DAD scope is comparable to IDI and IDVP scopes for other projects, o documented basis for confirming that the selected i 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 ond electric
, power systems (those systems selected for the initial review scope) ogainst other l
l safety systems. This comparision determines whether selection of the AFW ond
! electric power systems provides a representative sompte of CPSES safety systems. The selected chorocteristics 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 i selected for comparison with AFW ond electric power include service water, CCW, containment spray, RHR, and ECCS. This review should demonstrate whether the AFW system and the electric power systems provide o good representation of the safety related systems of Comanche Peak. The system j validation review and oppropriate explanatory material shall be maintained in I ouditable form in the DAP files.
4.3 Phase 3 - Engineerina Process Validation
(
4.3.1 Organizational Structure l The organizational structure which was in place during the design of the safety l related systems, structures, and components shall be determined for each discipline. Any substantial changes to the organization (e.g., revised divisions of
( responsibility within Gibbs & Hill, changes in scope between Gibbs & Hills and
, TUCCO, odditional service contractors with safety-related design responsibility) that may offect the design process should be identified. The size, structure, qualifications, interfaces, and review /opproval controls shall be considered.
O TN-85-6262/3 Page 5 of a l
l
I I
i COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-3
Title:
DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF Revision: I SELF-INITIATED REVIEW SCOPE 4
4.3.2 Classes of Components and Structures 4
Eoch discipline shall develop a tabulation of classes of safety-related com-ponents, systems, and structures included in the CPSES design. Classes shall be based upon consideration of commonolities 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 Criterio Categories Based on a review of FSAR and SER sections opplicable to the discipline, each discipline shall develop a list of design critiero categories used in the CPSES design. This list will provide input to, and supplement, the list of design I octivities to be developed, so that a comprehensive understanding of discipline design efforts is obtained.
4.3.4 Design Activities i
i Based on a review of the design criteria category lists and indices of calculo-tions, specifications, and drawings, each discipline will produce a list of specific, homogeneous design activities which, taken together, define the overall CPSES i
design process. In addition, any design activities performed by outside service contractors shall be identified. NRC generic letters and I&E Bulletins shall also l
l be reviewed to identify any other design activities which may have or should have been performed by each discipline.
The design activities should encompass and provide specifics for, as a minimum, the following brood octivities:
o Initial design, where used as the basis for inputs to other disciplines i
TN-85-6262/3 Page 6 of 9 L . - . - _ _ - . - . - _ _ _ __ __
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-3
Title:
DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF Revision: I SELF INITIATED REVIEW SCOPE
~
i o Criteria o Analyses /loodings o Final design i 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 reviewed witin the DAP, or that the activities may be considered as enveloped i
by other reviews, or that the activities are bounded by the results of tests or other means. Activities may be considered to be bounded or enveloped by other l reviews if a commonolity of design process elements con be established (i.e.,
organizational, criterio, methodology, and procedural controls).
i Where specific design activities cannot be demonstrated to have been reviewed
^
l or bounded by other reviews, odditions will be mode to the initial scope to ensure l that. this condition is met. The final objective of this task is to complete and I
validate the breadth and depth of the DAP, which ther; allows the DAP results to be extropolated to other safety related systems, structures, and components.
The results of this task shall be documented in o scope development validation i evoluotion. This evoluotion documentation may take the form of a matrix l comparing the total list of homogeneous design activities and criterio categories against those topics reviewed within the scope of the DAP.
l 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 TN-85-6262/3 Page 7 of 9
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-3
Title:
DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF Revision: I s SELF-INITIATED REVIEW SCOPE consistency, and will identify any orcos of interface which may require addi-tional review or validation. The Phase 3 scope of the DA' will be considered to be final when there is reasonable assurance that safety-significant deficiencies could not remain undetected because of inadequate breadth and depth of the design odequacy program. The documentation of this review and preliminary determination will then be forwarded to the Generic implications Coordinator and the DAP Monoger for their review and approval.
4.4 Phase 4 Final Scope Determination During the process of implemeritation of the DAP, it may be necessary to make additions to DAP scope os a result of findings. Scope expansion is required for identified deficiencies, one or more deviations that would be likely to result in undetected safety-significant deficiencies if appearing elsewhere, and identified O root causes that con offect design octivities outside or inside the scope of review. The scope of the review will be extended to similar designs or design processes os o minimum, and to the level indicated by the nature of the potential root cause. The sum of the Phase 3 scope plus these additions is in the Phase 4 final scope determination. The Phase 4 scope allows the DAD to draw the conclusion that there is reasonoble assurance that no safety-significant deficien-cies remain uncorrected at CPSES.
4.5 Discipline Specific Action Plan (DS AP): Preparation, Review, and Approval The DAP Review Team Leader is responsible for preparing each specific DSAP.
The DS AP shall identify action to be taken to investigate, evoluote, and resolve d External Source issues and to expand the review scope if necessary. The RTL l shall submit the DS AP to the SRT for review and approval.
l The SRT reviews the DSAP and submits comments to the RTL for resolution.
O V
TN-85-6262/3 Page 8 of
- COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEOUACY PROCEDURE O Number: DAP-3
Title:
DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF Q SELF-lNITI ATED REVIEW SCOPE Revision: I Upon resolution of comments, the DSAP cover sheet (Attachment A) shall be signed by the RTL and a respresentative of the SRT.
Changes to the DSAP shall be prepared, reviewed, and opproved in accordance with the above procedure and documented on a Discipline Specific Action Plan Change Request (Attachment B) unless a general revision to a DSAP is prepared.
A general revision to o DSAP shall be submitted for SRT opproval in the some manner os the original. A Discipline Specific Action Plan Change Request shall be ottoched to the general revision prior to submittal to the SRT. Prior to SRT b opproval, work shall not proceed on revised aspects of a DSAP, except for revisions due to:
o Corrective actions undertaken by the Project that are subject to the requirements of Appendix H of the Program Plan and to the requirements of DAP-20.
o Scope expansions as required by Section 4.4 above.
o DSAP changes where the work being performed is re-quired by the Program Plon, or other CPRT/DAP imple-menting documents.
5.0 DOCUMENTATION Documentation required by this procedure os part 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 l O i TN-85-6262/3 Page 9 of 9 l
L
ATTACHMENT A DISCIPLIE SPECIFIC ACTION PLAN TITLE:
Revision No. O Prepared and Recommended by:
g Review Team Leader Date l
l Approved by:
Senior Review Team Date O
TN-85-6262/3 A-1
O b ATTACHMENT B DISCIPLIE ACTION PLAN CHANGE REQUEST Action Plan Number Action Plan Title Change to Action Plan Text Revise step Number Add step Number Delete step Number Other Substantive Change (Describe below)
Text Change O ^
Justification Recommended Review Team Leader Approved O Senior Review Team TN.85-6262/3 B-l
- _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ . . . - _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ . . . .. . _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ . .