ML20215J844
| ML20215J844 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 09/12/1986 |
| From: | TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215J430 | List:
|
| References | |
| DAP-5, NUDOCS 8610270209 | |
| Download: ML20215J844 (9) | |
Text
__ _ _
6 i!Ejp, ., . n,f TITLE REVIEW OF CALCULATIONS, EVAL ATIO MO OTI-ER , o , i; [ fll't /
IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS ' II NUMBER DAP-5 Revision Prepared Date Reviewed Date Approyed Date 0
hw hw.buidy T ( j Dhf h 'l4/76 l ft 'b/g :l15l%
y%x she Q4 % $44 Gk 3 7ffp CJ/w/94 Vag 4ll}&
\
CONTROLLED C JPY NO._ l l D K 50 0 45 A PDR TN-85-6262/5 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS Seetion Page Cove r S he e t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Tab le o f Con t e n t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii I l.0 P URP OS E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 2.0 SCOPE..................................................... I 3.0 DEFINITIONS AND RESP ONSIBILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 4.0 I NS TR U CT I O N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5.0 D O CU E NT A T I ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 b
l
(
I TN-85 6262/5 li
, COMANCFE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-5
Title:
REVIEW OF CALCULATIONS, Revision: 3 O EVALUATIONS AND OTHER IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS
, 1.0 PURPOSE This procedure defines the methods fo- the review of calculations, evaluations, and other implementing documents.
2.0 SCOPE This procedure opplies to Review of implementing Design Documents such as calculations and evaluations used in the design of the systems oddressed by the Design Adequacy Program Implementing documents will be reviewed against the oppropriate design criteria. Calculations and evaluations will be reviewed for the odequacy of the applied methodology as well as occuracy of the implementation of the l methodology.
1
! This procedure does not address the review of output documents (drawings and
! specifications). The review of output documents is oddressed in DAP4.
i 3.0 DEFINITIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES l 3.1 Definitions 3.1.1 Implementing Documents l
The documents which provide for implementation of the design criteria such as Flow Dior ams and Instrument Control Diagrams.
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-854262/5 Page I of 7
- l. _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ . _ _ - - _ _ - - - ~ - _ - - - - - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - -
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-5
Title:
REVIEW OF CALCULATIONS, Revision: 3 EVALUATIONS AND OTHER O IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS capable of performing its design function or to be in compliance with a project requirement or commitment.
3.2 Responsibilities 3.2.1 Discipline Coordinator The Discipline Coordinator is responsible for selecting the type and number of implementing docum'ents, calculations, and evoluotions in each area to be '
reviewed. The Discipline Coordinator is responsible for assigning Reviewers.
3.2.2 Reviewer i 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 t'
correct.
3.2.3 Assigned Personnel Assigned personnel perform verification activities 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.
l l
TN-85-6262/5 Page 2 of 7 i
-- m--w-- y,,,7 --.-w,,-,-.--yr- s- -re.ymm---eg-a.--- - - -----w,-+--,yr,- -
_,--mm.-%----- - .-------w-- .- , .----- -
4 COMANCE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-5
Title:
REVIEW OF CALCULATIONS, Revision: 3 EVALUATIONS AND OTHER IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS 4.0 INSTRUCTION 4.1 Identification of Reviewer For each review topic listed in the description of the DAP self-initiated evoluotion contained in the CPRT Program Plan, the appropriate Discipline Coordinator shall select an individual who shall function as the Reviewer for that
. topic and shall be responsible for the completion of the checklists associated 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 accordance with DAP 4). The identified Reviewer shall meet the qualification requirements of DAP-15. The Discipline Coordinator may oct as the Reviewer, provided that he meets the qualification 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 training deemed appropriate by the Reviewer, but need not meet the qualifica-tion requirements applicable to the Reviewer. If the Reviewer determines ihot such technical training is necessary, the requirement of the training, its scope, I
and its completion shall be documented.
l 4.2 Customization of Checklist Forms and Identification of Specific Documents For Review l
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 modification as provided for in DAP-4 (including the supplementary review items contained in Attachments D and E of. DAP-4). He may make whatever changes he deems appropriate to customize the checklist form for a particular review topic.
TN-85-6262/5 Page 3 of 7 I
, COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-5
Title:
REVIEW OF CALCULATIONS, Revision: 3 EVALUATIONS AND OTHER Cg IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS For self-initiated review areas, documents shall be selected for review in accordance with DAP 21. Those specific items identified to be reviewed, shall be the latest revision of the applicable documents. If the opplicable document revision has on approval date prior to April I,1985, it shall be used for review.
Otherwise, the latest revision with on approval date prior to April I,1985 and all b the following revisions shall be used as described in Section 4.4.
For overview of corrective action programs, the documents shall be the latest revision of the applicable document selected in accordance with DAP-20.
The Reviewer or Assigned Personnel under the direction of the Reviewer, shall enter the appropriate 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.
x 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 accordance with DAP-4 as customized in occordance with Section 4.2. The purpose of the review shall be to determine whether individual design documents appropriately comply with the opplicable design criterio. The Reviewer or Assigned Personnel shall examine all items on the ld checklist and indicate whether each item was found to be satisfactory, unsatis-factory, not checked, or not opplicable. "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 opplicable area was excluded from the review scope. "Not TN-85-6262/5 Page 4 of 7
e COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-5
Title:
REVIEW OF CALCULATIONS, Revision: 3 EVALUATIONS AND OTHER IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS b
Applicable" or "NA" may be used when on item on a standard checklist form is not opplicable to the subject being reviewed. Where the oppropriate use of "NA" or "NC" would not be apparent to o qualified reviewer, the use of "NA" or "NC" on the checklist should be accompanied by on explanation in the " Comments" column or os on attachment to the checklist which provides the basis for use of d
"NA" or "NC". Although not required, it is recommended that a reference be provided to the check list(s) where the items marked "NC" are reviewed. The Reviewer or Assigned Personnel shall also indicate the basis for determining the verification conclusion (e.g., visual inspection of document, field walkdown, calculation review, and independent calculation) and the acceptance criteria
'(e.g., agreement with alternate calculations within X%, agreement between documents X and Y, etc.)If not otherwise included in the checklist form.
For self-initiated review areas, completed checklists shall indicate the homo-geneous design activity (HDA) number associated with each checklist item (ottribute). This con be accomplished by indicating the HDA number in the
" Comments" column or on on attachment that clearly establishes the correlation.
This is not required for checklists used for overview of corrective action programs.
d The " Comments" column may also be used for any other comments about on attribute, its implementation, or its verification.
l 4.4 Current Document Revisions After March 31,1985 This section only applies to self-initiated review scopes.
ld As noted above, special review considerations are applicable to documents for which the current revision of the document is dated later than March 31,1985.
TN-85-6262/5 Page 5 of 7 O
l
I COMANCFE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-5
Title:
REVIEW OF CALCULATIONS, Revision: 3 EVALUATIONS AND OTHER IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS in such cases the following steps shall be completed by the Reviewer or Assigned Personnel:
o The lost revision prior to April I,1985, shall be obtained.
o All revisions between the revision obtained in the previous step and the current revision shall be identified and obtained.
o 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 evalua-tion checklist completed.
o Appropriate design review evoluotion checklists shall be completed to document the review ogainst the review 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 "Unsot" in the previous revisions shall be processed in accordance with 4.5 (below) in spite of any correction' that may have been made in the current revision.
4.5 Processing Unsatisfactory items l
l Items found to be unsatisfactory shall be noted on the checklist and shall also be l separately compiled and processed in accordance with the procedures outlined in DAP-2. The DIR number assigned to each unsatisfactory item shall be listed in the " Comments" column, or os on attachment to the completed checklist with suitable traceability to each unsatisfactory item.
t l l
l 4.6 Approval i
If the checklist is completed by Assigned Personnel, the " Comments" column TN-85-6262/5 Page 6 of 7 i
COMANCE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number DAP-5 Titla: REVIEW OF CALCULATIONS, ' Revision: 3 EVALUATIONS AND OTHER IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS O
shall be annotated with the nome or initials of the person who performed the verification. The Reviewer shall ossure himself of the odequacy of the completed checklist and sign the " Reviewer" space.
After a checklist is completed and signed by the Reviewer, the Discipline Coordinator shall designate o Checker.
The Checker shall verify the occuracy of the checklist by reviewing at least 10
_ percent of the checklist items or a minimum of 5 items. After all comments or questions are resolved with the Reviewer, the Checker shall sign the checklist in
. the " Checker" space and return it to the Discipline Coordinator. The checklist shall be opproved by the Discipline Coordinator, who shall sign the " Approved By" line of the checklist sheet. if the Discipline Coordinator is also the Reviewer he shall sign both spaces.
5.0 DOCUMENTATION Upon opproval, checklist identification numbers are assigned in accordance with Section 5.3 of DAP-4. Eoch completed checklist shall be forwarded to the DAP Monoger for filing in accordance with DAP-14.
l l
l l
TN-85-6262/5 Page 7 of 7 O