ML20092H551

Rev 5 to Project QA Plan, CPC Midland Idcvp

ML20092H551
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	06/15/1984
From:	TERA CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML20092H550	List: ML20092H546 ML20092H551
References
PQAP-3201, NUDOCS 8406260191
Download: ML20092H551 (81)

Text

1 .

I I

PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN (q/ PROJECT:

I PQAP- 3201 Consumers Power Company 5  ;

REV DATE:6/1984 Midland Independent Design and r PAGE 4 of 33 Construction Verification Program i

l I.3 Implementation 1.3.1 This Project Quality Assurance Plan is to be implemented, os  ;

opplicable, by all individuals assigned responsibility for per-formance of technical, managerial, and administrative func-tions related to the quality assured activities identified previously. ,

l l.3.2 Revisions are effective and shall be implemented within ten ,

! (10) working days of the date of issue of the revision. All l activities are to be in compliance accordingly. '

2. ORGANIZATION f i

2.1 Project Organization Figure I provides the organizational chart for the project. Technical and administrative personnel (not shown) will receive assignments directly from the Project Manager (PM). The Project Manager will serve os the principal point of contact with Consumers Power l

Company. The Project Quality Assurance Engineers will report directly to the Vice President. They will identify internal quality 5 assurance deficiencies, work with the Project Manager in providing clarification relative to identified deficiencies and any recommendations made by them for resolution.  ;

i O 8406260191 840622 PDR ADOCK 05000329 A PDR

, PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN PQAP- 3201 PROICT: Consumers Power Company '

Midland Independent Design and REV.: 5 DATE: 6/15./84 Construction Verification Program 8 og 33 PAGE between each other to assure that IDV and ICV interfaces are adequately addressed. These individuals report directly to the Project Manager. The Manager of Design Verification may perform the responsibilities of the Managers of the }

AFW, SEP and CR-HVAC reviews. The Manager of 5

Construction Verification may perform the responsibilities of the Manager, Site Activities and Construction Verification LTRs. l 2.2.9 The Managers of the AFW, SEP and CR-HVAC Reviews are responsible for management and implementation of design g review activities necessary to complete on integrated review of their respective systems, coordination of activities between LTRs under their supervision and coordination with the ICV program LTRs. These individuals report to the Manager, Design Verification. The Managers of the AFW, 5

SEP and CR-HVAC reviews may perform the responsibilities of their respective LTRs.

2.2.10 The Manager, Site Activities is responsible for planning, management and supervision of all Midland site related activities and the Construction /Installotion Documentation, Verification Activities and Verification of Physical Configuration categories of review. He reports directly to the Manager, Construction Verification.

O

l l

PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN i PQAP- 3201 PROJECT: Consumers Power Company REV.: Midland Independent Design and 5 DATE: 6/15/84 Construction Verification Program PAGE 8a of 33 l

l l

I i

3. PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS AND CONTROL 3.1 Management Personnel I 3.1.1 Principal-in-Charge - Donald K. Davis I Mr. Davis has broad experience in plant and reactor systems, safety analysis, design, and licensing areas of the nuclear 5 l power industry and has been selected by the TERA President

! to provide corporate overview of the project. He is Senior g Vice President of TERA's nuclear services orgonization. A

( 'd l

copy of his resume is presented in Appendix C and provides l documentary evidence of his qualifications.

l l

l t

l l

l

!O 1

l PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN  ;

PQAP- 3201 EJECT: Consumers Power Company REV.: 5 DATE: 6/15/84 Midland Independent Design and 9 of 33 Construction Verification Program PAGE 3.l.2 Project Manager - Howard A. Levin r

Mr. Levin has broad experience in the areas of nuclear plant engineering and licensing as well as managing engineering projects. He has been selected by the TERA President as Project Manager to manage and direct the implementation of i the project. A copy of his resume is presented in Appendix C and provides documentary evidence of his qualifications.  ;

3.1.3 Project Quality Assurance Engineer - Mark Polit t

Mr. Polit is highly qualified'in the area of nuclear power plant quality assurance and has been selected by the TERA I President as Project Quality Assurance Engineer for the project. A copy of his resume is presented in Appendix C and provides documentary evidence of his qualifications.

l l 3.1.4 Management Personnel l

The following personnel have been selected by the Project Manager based upon their unique technical and management t

I O

l PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN l PQAP- 3201 PROJECT:

l Consumers Power Company

! REV.: 5 DATE: 6/15/84 Midland Independent Design and Construction Verification Program I

i i j qualifications for the project. The following lists management personnel along with a short description of their  ;

areas of expertise. Copies of their resumes are presented in I Appendix C providing documentary evidence of their  !

qualifications. '

l Manager Areas of Expertise Frank Dougherty Nuclear power plant mechani-Manager, Design Verifico- col design, safety and re- 7 tion, and Manager, Auxiliary liability analysis, system 5 Feedwater System Review design / criteria development N Donald Tulodieski Project management / control, Manager, Construction start-up testing, engineering Verification analysis and design, licensing, plant reliability analysis >

Martin Jones Nuclear power plant con-  !

Manager, Site Activities struction management, quality control, training, start-up, electrical engineering Doug Witt Nuclear power plant systems Manager, Control Room , and mechanical design, safety HVAC System Review analysis, equipment design, licensing, HELBA, thermal-i hydraulics "

Geiold Setka Electrical engineering, Manager, Standby Electric nuclear power plant opero-Power System Review tions, design implementation, equipment qualification O

,n-, -

, , - - - - - - - - --------<-r-, ----------v- - - - - ,en-e-----m- - - - - , - - - - , - ~ - - - - - - - - - - , , - - -

l PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN (y3 N 3201 Nm Consumers Power Company REV.: 5 DATE: 6/15/84 Midland Independent Design and Construction Verification Program PAGE 11 of 33 3.l.5 Senior Review Team The Senior Review Team (SRT) has been selected by the Principal-in-Charge based upon their many years of experience in the nuclear industry, broad areas of personal l<nowledge, and specific nuclear design review expertise. The following lists the SRT members along with a short description of their areas of expertise. Copies of their resumes are presented in Appendix C providing documentary p evidence of their qualifications.

t i SRT Member Functional Areas of Expertise Joseph M. Hendrie Nuclear plant design, safety and licensing, plant and 5 reactor systems, operations, physics, accident analysis William J. Hall Engineering analysis and design, structural engineering, struc-tural mechanics and dynamics, soil mechanics, fracture mechanics, engineering criteria development for major projects l

Robert Wilson 1/ Nuclear power plant operations, l5 engineering and design, licensing project management i

I 1/ Mr. Wilson is on an extended medical leave. His responsibilities have been assumed by Dr. Hendrie and Dr. Hall at the request of the Principal in-Charge. 5 l

l 0 l

l l

, PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN _

PQAP- 3201 PROJECT:

Consumers Power Company REV.: 5 DATE: 6/15/84 Midland Independent Design and Construction Verification Program PAGE 12 of 33 3.1.6 Senior Review Team Chairman - William J. Hall i

Dr. Hall has extensive experience in nuclear plant engineering and has been selected by the Principal-in-Charge for the project. He will coordinate and direct Senior Review Team activities.

3.1.7 The Managers, Design and Construction Verification are controlled and their performance evaluated under direct supervision of the Project Manager who provides input to the s Principal-in-Charge for his review and concurrence. LTRs, the Managers of the AFW, SEP and CR-HVAC Reviews, and the Manager, Site Activities are controlled and their ,

performance evaluated under the direct supervison of the Managers, Design or Construction Verification, respectively, who provide input to the Project Manager for his review and concurrence.

I 3.l.8 Management control is provided by TERA President, Robert 5 W. Felton and Vice President, Larry H. Wight, through review of project reports, audit findings, and evaluations conducted I

in the normal course of business. Mr. Felton and Mr. Wight have extensive experience in the management of large-scale projects involving engineering, licensing and quality assurance. Their resumes are provided in Appendix C.

O O

i PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN O PQAP- 3201 PROACT: Consumers Power Company REV.: 5

"" '" " " 9" l DATE: 6/15/84 Construction Verification Program l

PAGE 1A of 11 l

l Technical Reviewer Functional Areas of Expertise Forzin Romezonbeigi Structural and mechanical engineering, usage and interpretation of structural / mechanical computer codes l

Christian Nelson Nuclear power plant operations, design, safety analysis, seismic i l design evaluation, inspec- l l tion program development t

r Jim McIlvaine Nuclear power plant design, licensing, mechanical en-gineering, waste monogement John Richardson Nuclear power plant operations, licensing, safety and engineer- 5 ing analysis, project management l 3.2.3 Stoff personnel are controlled and their performance evolu-ated under direct supervision of the LTRs and Manager, Site Activities who provide input to the Managers of the AFW,  !

SEP or CR-HVAC System Reviews or the Manager, Construction Verification for their review and concurrence.

. 3.2.4 Lead Technical Reviewers t

The Lead Technical Reviewers (LTR) have been selected based upon their unique technical qualifications for the project. ;The following lists the LTRs along with a short description of their areas of expertise. Copies of their l resumes are presented in Appendix C, providing documentary l

' O evidence of their qualifications, t

l

1 1

l

! I PROJECT QUAUTY ASSURANCE PLAN PQAP- 3201 l bq l PROJECT:

Consumers Power Company l REV.: 5 DATE: 6/15/84 .

Midland Independent Design and l Construction Verification Program PAGE 17 of 33 ,

l r

Lead Technical Reviewer Functional Areas of Expertise Joseph Martore Nuclear power plant structural, '

AFW and CR-HVAC Struc- mechanical design and construc-

, tural Review tion, equipment qualification, l operating reactor safety, licens-l ing, project management Frank Dougherty Nuclear power plant mechanical l AFW Mechanical and design, safety and reliability 5 Systems Review analysis, system design / criteria development Lionel Bates Nuclear power plant electrical, Electrical Review instrumentation and control systems design, equipment quali-Q G'

fication, plant operations and maintenance Doug Witt Nuclear power plant systems ,

CR-HVAC Mechanical and mechanical design, safety and Systems Review analysis, equipment design, licensing, HELBA, thermal-hydraulics l Gerald Setka Electrical engineering, nuclear SEP Mechanical and power plant operations, design 5 Systems Review implementation, equipment l qualification l Christian Mortgat Nuclear power plant structural /

l SEP Structural Review mechanical design, engineering l mechanics, earthquake engineering Randy Cleland Power plant mechanical design, I ICV Verification Activities piping / hanger design and con-struction, review and inspec-tion of mechanical systems, construction supervision and management, results engineering l (Vacant) (Position to be filled prior ICV Construction / to commencement of ICVP 5 Installation activities)

Documentation L

PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN PQAP- 3201 PROJECT: Consumers Power Company REV.: 5 DATE: 6/15/84 Midland Independent Design and og 33 Construction Verification Program PAGE 20 l

l l ,

Associate Functional Areas James Owens Nuclear and fossil power plant  ;

l design and construction, nuc-leor steam supply systems j

design and construction, pro-ject management, control systems, safeguards, licensing Stanley Kaut Design review, construction, testing, operation and licens-ing of electrical power, in- ,

strumentation and control  ;

systems and equipment; project management, plant procedures development, quality assurance ,

O g Edward Beck Nondestructive testing, Level l Ill in radiography, ultrasonics,  !

. magnetic particle, liquid penetrant, materials testing Robert Reneau Nondestructive testing, Level 11 ,

in radiography, ultrasonics, magnetic particle, liquid i penetrant, materials testing l

Orin Kilgore Corporate quality assurance,  ;

I construction, startup and -

operations l

i William Pryor Mechanical, piping, electrical and instrumentation quality inspections, startup, testing

( and operations 5

D ,

t i

PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN O PQAP- 3201 PROJECT: Consumers Power Company ,

Midland Independent Design and l REW 5 DATE 6/15/84 Construction Verification Program l

PAGE 22 og 33 i

Associate Functional Areas Joseph Penzien Structural engineering, earth- ,

quake engineering, reinforced concrete response ,

Daniele Veneziano Engineering statistical analysis, probabilistic analysis, civil engineering Lenny Lookso Structural / mechanical analysis and design of nuclear power plant buildings and equipment, specifico-tions, planning and scheduling l David Pococha Mechanical engineering, welding, nondestructive testing, ultro-sonics Paul J. Brunner, Jr. Quality control, acceptance testing, construction inspec-tion, nondestructive testing John Smith Ultrasonics testing, structural l failure analyses, quality l control i l

Richard Norris Engineering materials evoluotions, '

fracture face analyses, I metallurgist Robert D. Phillips Nondestructive testing, Level lil in radiography, ultrasonics, magnetic particle, liquid pene-tront, weld inspection William M. Copps Nondestructive testing, shop fabrication, metallurgical engineering 5

David A. Rumrill Nondestructive testing, Level

/^g lll In radiography, ultrasonic, l V i magnetic particle and pene-

! tront inspections, materials j testing i

PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN  :

N 3201 PROJECT:

Consumers Power Company REW 5 DATE: 6/15/84 Midland Independent Design and 33 Construction Verification Program  !

PAGE 22a of Myle J. Holley, Jr. Structural engineering, nuclear power plant analysis and de-  !

sign, structural mechanics and dynamics, fracture mechanics David Segal Structural and civil engineer- '

ing, nuclear power plant regulo- l tion, design and analysis, soils mechanics Paul L. Streeter Dynamic analysis, seismic analy-sis, structural mechanics Howard E. Lambert System safety and reliability analysis, probabilistic risk assessments, nuclear safety, N

[b Jean-Lou A. Chameau accident analysis Seismic hazard analysis, soil 1

mechanics, design and con- 5 struction of nuclear power plants Greg A. Reimers Electrical engineering, nuclear i power plant operations and sys-l tem design, licensing, instrumen-tation and control '

Jonathan Stanley Licensing, design and operations of nuclear power plants, piping analysis, and support design John M. Biggs Structural engineering, structural mechanics and dynamics, fracture mechanics, nuclear power plant analysis and design i

i O

t

4 9 a PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN gi M 3201 EJECT: Consumers Power C( ov REV.: 5 DATE: 6/15/84 Midland Independent Design and Construction Verification Program PAGE 22b of 33 l l

4. ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL 4.1 Subject File f I

The following numbers shall be used as subject file identifiers to identify controlled documents in that file. Documents in a file shall 1

have on I.D. number that includes the project identifier and the r

subject file identifier foFowed by a unique sequence number (001-999).  ;

S h

I s

k U

4

PROJECT QUAUTY ASSURANCE PLAN n

V.

PQAP- 3201 EJECT: Consumers Power Company REV.: 5 DATE: 6/15/84 Midland Independent Design and Construction Verification Program PAGE 26 of 33 File Register Correspondence Type Designator CPC to NRC A NRC to CPC B CPC to TERA C NRC to TERA D

- TERA To CPC and NRC E i CPC to Bechtel F Bechtel to CPC G NRC to Bechtel H Bechtel to TERA J CPC to/from B&W K Project Miscellaneous L l5 Bechtel to/from B&W M Bechtel internal and Miscellaneous N l5 ,

Miscellaneous NRC P

(^}

Uf TERA to Bechtel and B&W To and from Stone & Webster G

R

! 4.8.2 A register (sample shown in Attachment D) will be main-

' toined for each file. The file control stamp or equivalent  ;

(example shown on Attachment E) shall be used to record the identification number assigned to each document.

4.9 Potential Open, Open, Confirmed and Resolved item Reports, Finding Reports, Finding Resolution Reports and Observations l

Potential Open, Open, Confirmed and Resolved item Reports, Finding ,

, Reports and Finding Resolution Reports are controlled in compliance with the requirements or Project Instruction PI-3201-008; Preparation

? of Open, Confirmed and Resolved item Reports, Finding Reports and y Finding Resolution Reports."

l

PROJECT QUAUTY ASSURANCE PLAN PQAP 3201 PRCUECT:

Consumers Power Company 5

Midland Independent Design and REV.: DATE: 6/15/84 Construction Verification Program PAGE 28 og 33 and register will be maintained for various categories of source documents at the discretion of the Project Manager or his designated representative. f 4.13 Scope Change Requests Scope Change Requests are controlled in comptionce with the requirements of Project Instruction PI-320!.012, " Scope Change Requests, Midland IDCV Program." The Project Manager shall maintain a register (Attachment H) for Project File 3201-012.

(w1

5. PROCEDURES AND INSTRUCTIONS 5.1 Engineering Control Procedures

.l 5.1.1 Engineering Control Procedures (ECP) and revisions are implemented at project level by issue of the PGAP or by ,

revision thereof. ECPs are corporate level documents pre-pared under the supervision of the Quality Assurance Manager and approved by the Executive Vice President.

i l 5.l.2 The following ECP's are hereby implemented for the subject project:

(1) ECP-5.2, "Colculation Preparation and Control", Rev. 4 5 fl a

PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN PQAP- 3201 PROJECT: Consumers Power Company REV.: 5 Midland Independent Design and DATE: 6/15/84 Construction Verification Program PAGE 31 of 33 t t

i PI-3201-XXX d k dk A Sequence number (001-999)

Project No; Project Instruction 5.2.6 Project Instructions The following Project instructions are hereby implemented ,

for this project.

l

[

(1) PI-3201-001, " Engineering Evaluation Preparation and Control", Rev. 4 l,]\.s 5 l

(2) PI-3201-00 LOA, " Audit Checklist for Engineering Evalua-tion Preparation and Control", Rev. I -

(3) PI-3201-002, " Document Control Cover Sheet", Rev. 2 4

(4) PI-3201-002OA, " Audit Checklist for Document Control

• Cover Sheet", Rev. I l  ;

(5) PI-3201-004, " Midland Project Engineering Program Veri- '5 fication", Rev. 0 (6) PI-3201-005, " Documentation of Observations", Rev. I ,

PROJECT QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN PQAP- 3201 PROJECT: Consumers Power Company V

REV.:

Midland Independent Design and 5 DATE: 6/15/84 Construction Verification Program i

PAGE 37 of 33

. (7) PI-3201-006, "Use of Design Verification Checklists",

Rev.0 1

(8) PI-3201-007, "Use of Construction Verification Check- i lists", Rev. 0 (9) PI-3201-008, " Preparation of Open, Confirmed and Resolved item Reports, Finding Reports, and Finding l Resolution Reports", Rev. 3 5 (10) PI-3201-009, " Engineering Program Plan", Rev. 3 I) v~

(ll} PI-3201-010, " External Communications: Preparation of r

l 5 Contact Log Sheets",-Rev. 2 (12) PI-3201-011, " Control of Subcontractors", Rev. 0 5 l

(13) PI-3201-012, " Scope Change Request, Midland IDCV", ,.

Rev.I i

Copies of the implemented revisions of these project instruc-l tions are attached in Appendix B with the exception of Project Instructions PI-3201-006 and PI-3201-007 which will be provided ,

at a later date.

l l

6. QUALITY ASSURANCE 6.1 Records All quality assurance checklists, audit reports and records document-  ;

I ing activities related to the Quality Assured Activities of Section 1.2

r NUCLEAR REGULATORY CONSUMERS POWER COMMISSION COMPANY I I l q

i LEGD o L. -__________

le J  !

Q l

,__ Lees or CommuMcATKwe SENIOR REVIEW TEAM i NO PROKCT DIRECTM PRINCIPAL IN-CHARGE William Hall, Chrm.

im

) ....... gy,7g m Donald Davis Joseph Hendrie f

l or PROKCT)  !

l  !

PROJECT QA ,,,,,

PROJECT MANAGER ,

Mark Polit Howard Levin

{

r i

I I i MANAGER, CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION MANAGER, DESIGN VERIFICATION f

Donald Tulodieski Frank Dougherty i MANAGER, AUXILIARY FEEDWATER f SUPPLIER DOCUMENTATION

- SYSTEM REVIEW i Donald Tutodieski, LTR Frank Dougherty

{

1  !

{

STORAGE & MAINTENANCE e MECHANICAL & SYSTEMS i DOCUMENTATION Frank Dougherty, LTR i; Robert Snyder, LTR e ELECTRICAL, I&C  !

Lionel Bates, LTR  !

e CIVIL / STRUCTURAL I Joseph Martore, LTR

- MANAGER, SITE ACTIVITIES Marfin Jones l 1

MANAGER, CONTROL ROOM HVAC SYSTEM REVIEW Doug Witt CONSTRUCTION / INSTALLATION }

- DOCUMENTATION Vocont e MECHANICAL & SYSTEMS Doug Witt, LTR l e ELECTRICAL,I&C VERIFICATION ACTIVITIES Lionel Bates, LTR ,

Redy Cleled, LTR e CIVIL / STRUCTURAL i Joseph Marfore, LIR t l

~

VERIFICATION OF PHYSICAL

- COTICURATION MANAGER, STANDBY ELECTRIC r

- POWER SYSTEM REVIEW l h in M LTR Gerald Setko .

[

l FIGURE 1 e MECHANICAL & SYSTEMS  :

Gerold Setko, LTR PROJECT ORGANIZATION e ELECTRICAL, I&C MIDLAto INDEPENDENT DESIGN AfO Lionel Bates, LTR CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM e CIVIL / STRUCTURAL Christim Mortgot, LTR L

ENGINEERING CONTROL PROCEDURE ECP- 5.2 REV.: 4 DATE: 8/1/83 CALCULATION PREPARATION @ ( j

's PAGE 1 OF 7 (y) e M . q\Ae OMEDiBY.

PREPARED BY:

J p F ~ ~.

l l t r

1. PURPOSE '

This procedure shall be followed in the preparation and control of calcula-tions, when required by the POAP. Calculations are to be prepared to establish or verify designs, design parameters, design criterio, reduce dato, establish performance and economic parameters, and otherwise provide quantitative information in accordance with accepted analytical and moth-emotical methods.  !

l

2. PREPARATION i

l 2.1 Eoch calculation shall be prepared following accepted engineering lO('l practice and shall include sufficient sketches, notes and explanatory l

information to allow any person not familiar with the work, but  !

technically qualified, to understand it~ without extensive additional inquiry and research.

2.2 Calculations shall be complete and orderly and shall include problem ,

statement and input requirements such as assumptions, basic criteria, methodology, dato referenced to the source, and applicable codes and l standards. Major equation sources shall be given and the source or derivation of any uncommon equations introduced in the calculation. ,

l 2.3 References shall be listed and identified sufficiently to allow easy

! recovery. Title, revision number or date, author, copyright date, 1

edition, etc., shall be included as necessory identification information.

B-82-15 5.2- 1 pJ .

TERA CORPORATION 1 - . . . .. .- ._ - _ - _ . - , - - _ _ _ .

ENGINEERING CONTROL PROCEDURE ECP- 5.2 O CALCULATION PREPARATION AND CONTROL

\] REV.: 4 DATE: 8/l/83 m ,-.

c. 4 PREPARE BY c- . P ROK/ :c -

PAGE 2 OF 7

+

2.4 All final calculations shall be made on standard Control Sheets r

l (Attachment A) or on sheets stamped with the Control Stomp

! (Attachment B) with all required information completed by the originator. A Calculation Cover Sheet (Attachment C) shall also be prepared and ottoched as sheet 0 of each final calculation prior to verification and approval.

2.5 Computer calculations shall be identified by a Calculation Cover [

Sheet with attachments as necessary to define the calculation being performed, the assumptions and input dato used, basic mothematical  ;

l models applied and references as appropriate. Additional require- i l ments for the control of computer calculations are found in ECP-5.4, (g Computer Program Certification.

U

3. VERIFICATION AND APPROVAL 3.1 Status i Calculations shall be designated as preliminary until verified by' I

checking and approved by the Project Manager or his designated i representative, or until he determines that such review and opproval are not required. Preliminary calculations not upgraded to final calculation status shall be maintained in a separate file.

3.2 Verification 3.2.1 Eoch final calculation shall be checked by on individual ,

who has qualifications at least sufficient to originate the calculation. The checker shall not (1) be the originator or B-82-15 5.2-2 TERA CORPORATION l

ENGINEERING CONTROL PROCEDURE ECP- 5.2 rs CALCULATION PREPARATION AND CONTROL

() REV.:

PAGE 3 4

OF DATE:

7 8/1/83 PREPARED  :

, m sk

\ ,BY

/

p- '

l j  ; the originator's immediate superior, (2) have specified o sin-r gular calculational opproach, (3) have ruled out certain considerations, or (4) have established the input for o certain i aspect being verified.

l

( 3.2.2 The extent of verification required is a function of the

! importance of the calculation, its complexity, degree of standardization and relation to the state-of-the-ar t.

l Based on these considerations, the input, assumptions, and  ;

method of calculation may be reviewed as well as the

! reasonableness of the results. The depth of verification can range from o detailed check of the whole calculation  !

to a limited check of the calculation opproach and on alternative or simplified calculation technique.

(

3.3 Documentation of Verification 3.3.1 To provide a basis for project manager opproval and future traceability, the extent and method of verification l

shall be clearly indicated by such methods as check marks on the original calculation and a description of the verification on the Calculation Cover Sheet or a separate sheet. The checker shall flag all errors. However, only the originator may alter the original calculation. In all l

cases when the propogotion of the error is not corrected i in the calculation or later in the design process, the l originator shall clearly discuss its significance either on i

l the cover sheet or on the original calculation.

+

B-82-15 5.2-3 l  %

TERACORPORATION i

1 l

ENGINEERING CONTROL PROCEDURE ECP- 5.2 CALCULATION PREPARATION AND CONTROL REV.:

4 DME: gf)fg3 \ f PAGE 4 OF 7 gp -

l

. 3.3.2 In cases where only certain ospects of a calculation were r verified either due to the perceived need (Section 3.2) or any limitations in the qualifications of the checker, this sho!! be stated explicitly on the Calculation Cover Sheet or ottochments os necessary.

l 3.3.3 After checking, the checker shall sign and date the Calcu-lation Cover Sheet and each calculation sheet. When more than one person contributes to checking a calculo-tion (for example when one checks the methodology and the other checks the moth) one of them shall take responsibility for the full check by signing the Cover Sheet. The roles of other checkers may be described in the verification space of the Cover Sheet or by their t i signatures on the pages which they verified. Any com-i

! ments shall be resolved with the originator prior to signoff.

3.4 Approval i

l The calculation shall then be possed to the Project Manager or his '

l designated representative for opproval. The extent and method of l verification must be reviewed and determined to be satisfactory prior to signoff. The Project Manager or his designated representative will

' sign only the cover sheet.

B-82-15 5.2-4 TERA CORPORATION

u_ -__ __

ENGINEERING CONTROL PROCEOURE ECP- 5.2 '

CALCULATION PREPARATION AND CONTROL C) REV.: 4 DATE: 8/l/83 PREPARED BY m _ ,t Vx

/

u PAGE 5 op 7 l

l 5 4 DOCUMENT CONTROL F

4.1 Identification -

l Calculations shall be assigned a control identification number by the Project Manager or his designated representative in the following format:

XXXX-XXX-XXX

! LSequence number i Subject file identifier l

Project identifier O

Q

• Project and subject file identifers are established in the PGAP.

The Project Manager or his designee shall insert the control identi- ,.

fication number on the cover sheet and each page of the final [

calculation.

4.2 Retention The final calculation shall be indexed, Attachment D, and filed in the appropriate subject file. Calculations shall not be stored loosely but shall be filed in binders or contained in folders.

Further controls resulting from contractual agreement or project l

specific needs may be stated in the PQ AP.

i O e-82-is s.2-s TERA CORPORATION

ENGINEERING CONTROL PROCEDURE

SUBJECT:

ECP- 5.2 CALCULATION PREPARATION AND CONTROL  !

REV.: 4 DATE: 8/l/83 ,m, f PAGE 6 OF 7 PREPARED B : C

~

i 4.3 Distribution r

4.3.1 Distribution of final calculations, calculation input, and other design documents shall be controlled by the Project Manager or i

his designated representative.

i 4.3.2 When the size of the project and complexity of interface warrants, distribution shall be controlled by distribution registers (such as Attachment E) maintained in the project GA files. These registers shall be kept current to assure that the proper personnel are sent all the documents required to perform I the work and that the current revision is being used. When a design document revision is issued, all individuals on the distri-bution register shall be forwarded a copy of the revised l information.

I l 4.3.3 Special project circumstances that may warrant use of distri-( bution registers include the distribution of documents to other  :

offices of TERA, to associates, or outside of TERA. When TERA is issued controlled design documents, such as drawings I and other source material, for which TERA is on a revision distribution list, these materials shall be controlled pursuant to j Section 4.3.2. Independent verification of the determined need for distribution list will be provided by the internal audit process.

i B-82-15 5.2-6 l

TERA CORPORATION l

1

t ENGINEERING CONTROL PROCEOURE ECP- 5.2 CALCULATION PREPARATION AND CONTROL REV.: 4 DATE:

8/1/83 m ,, f PREPARED B :

PAGE 7 OF 7 5

r. REVISIONS 5.1 Revit ons to final calculations shall be made, verified, and approved in the same manner as the original calculation. I 5.2 Superceded final calculations shall be so identified and transferred to a superceded calculation file. This action shall be noted by com-pleting the " Superceded By" blanks on the Calculation Index for the superceded calculation. Superceded final calculations shall either be identified as such on each page or shall be securely bound with at l least the cover page so identified.

!,A 5.3 Calculation packages may be revised by inserting replacement pages .

or additional pages with the revision number added to tN Control I.D. number on these pages. Appropriate page numbers shall be supplied with subpage numbers used if necessary (e.g., 41 A, 41B or 41.01, 41.02, etc.). The Page Revision Record, Attachment F, must be used to record all removed, replaced or revised pages and shall be  ;

l attached to the Calculation Cover Sheet. Superceded pages shall be l identified as such and transferred to a separate file.

6. QA AUDIT CHECKLIST l

6.1 Audits of the implementation of this procedure shall be conducted by the PQAE using Audit Checklist ECP-5.20A.

l r

, B-82-15 5.2-7 l

l i

TERA CORPORATION 1

t

l SHEET OF SHEETS PREPARED BY DATE I

PROJECT NO.

CONTROL LD. NO CHECKED BY DATE l

{

l l

I r  !

i l

I I l i l

l

?

i l

i l

I t

V.  !

\

l i

e I

I 'I l r i

+

l l t

h i  !

l l  ;

1 l

i t

5 t

l

[

t

I I

ECP-5.2, Rev. 4 Attachment B t

t P

I l

i

. i i  ! I r

CONTROL STAMP i L

l r

f E

CON 436 ID NO PREFARED EY CA~ii i I

L VE A ic E Ei /DA's t i  !

l r

PA3E O- >

l i

l i

i

(

b I

l 1

I

[

t i

i

[

i I

I I

l i

TERA CORPORATION I

t . . _ , _ . _ - . _ ___ _ .- _..___-__ _ -___. _ . _ _ . . _ ,

ECP-5.2, R:v. 4, Attochm:;nt C CALCULATION COVER SHEET SUBJECT CONT.10. NO.

PROJECT NO. OF SHTS.

SUPERCEDES CALC. NO.

REV. NO. REVISION ORIGINATOR OATE VERIFIED BY OATE APPROVEO BY OATE i

r VERIFICATION PURPOSE / INPUT REQUIREMENTS

.O C

r r

SOURCES OF OATA. FORMULAE ANO REFERENCES C g (References may be listed on a separate sheet) TERA CORPORATION

D t 6 _

n _

e m

h 5 _

c _

t a _

t OA 4 _

4 ve 3 R

2 5 2 _

P C _

E I O _

X E _

D N

I N _

O I

T E o A L

TI T _

L U

C ,

L _

A _

C _

D E ._

D _

E .

C" R

E P _

U _

S _

g .

g _

y _

A9!

M _

i;

ll R

E T S

t I n D e

m h

Y O,v A

E R

4 v &

n R

2 D

_ S P R C T 5

E f S O N O

_ O I N

_ T E A L I V.

E C  : F R

I T T F CC I

E E C J J E OB

_ P RP SU #

S D

h f

U N

A

_ S R

_ G T S

N I I

D W

A R

D V E

R R O

F R

E &

T S

I G D

_ E R

L O R R E T  : B N N M U

O O I

N C  : T D

T E A I PC N Y O E T L M

U C

O D

E

_- L T

I T

T

- N -

- E M

U C

O O O

D N.

J E OG R A

- P P

' ll! i 'l 4 i , (, !l

' ! ! ! l1 <! i l i ili!

I ,

ECP-5.2, Rev. 4, Attachmsnt F  !

PAGE REVISION RECORD i

\ CONT. l.D. NO. PREPARED BY DATE 1 I

REV. DATE CHECKED BY DATE l SUBJECT l l

PAGE REV PAGE REV PAGE REV PAGE REV PAGE REV PAGE REV I

i 6

[

b l

b L

f

?

I r

l f

s l

i TERACORPORATION l

j PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI 3201. 001

SUBJECT:

Engineering Evaluation Preparation and Control l REV.: 4 DATE: 6/15/84 s ,

PREPARED B APPROVED BY-f PAGE 1 d R 1.0 GENERAL 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this instruction is to establish the requirements for preparation and control of engineering evaluations required for the Midland Independent Design and Construction Verification (IDCV)

Program.

l.2 Scope O Engineering evaluations are the principal rraans of documenting the

!'"J 1DCV review process and the bases for conclusions. As a minimum, an engineering evaluation shall address each topic within the scope of the program. A single engineering evaluation may cover multiple l related topics. Alternatively, it may be necessary to have several 4 supporting engineering evaluations serving as input to a primary engineering evaluation which documents the final resolution of a particular topic. The scope of individual engineering evaluations and i

the combinations of engineering evaluations which form the basis of 1

the final report depend upon the technical scope which is appropriate for the particular topic and review area and the area of expertise of the assigned individuals. As a minimum, each engineering evaluation shall clearly indicate the topics and review areas within its scope.

The Project Manager and the Design and Construction Verification Managers shall be jointly responsible for assuring that all reviews are appropriately documented in engineering evaluations, l O V

l c _

I PROJECT INSTRUCTION Engineering Evaluation T 201 . 001 a

SUBJECT:

Preparation and Control '

4 DATE: 6/15/84 l REV.:

lPAGE 6 of 8 PREPARED B p APPROVED BY w

3.2 Eoch final engineering evaluation shall be verified by the review of on individual who has qualifications at least sufficient to originate the evoluotion. The reviewer shall not be the originator but may be the Project Manag-r, Managers, Design and Construction Verification, Managers, AFW, SEP or CR-HVAC reviews, Manager, Site Activities or on LTR. After reviewing, the reviewer shall sign and date the engineering evaluation cover sheet. To provide a basis for future traceability and opproval, the extent and method of review shall be clearly described on the Engineering Evoluotion Cover Sheet.

! Any comments shall be resolved with the originator prior to signoff.

O g) 3.3 The objective of engineering evaluation verification is to provide l

assurance that:

e the engineering evoluotion meets the intent of the format ~

! guidelines of PI-3201-001, 1

e the engineering evaluation scope statement is met by the l content of the engineering evaluation, i

l e the scope and content of the engineering evaluation are oppropriate and adequate considering the opplicable portions of l

the Engineering Program Plan (PI-3201-009), and l

l l' e the engineering evaluation is internally consistent and correctly represents NRC regulations.

l

> ) -

1 O l

l l

L PROJECT INSTRUCTION 3201 . 001

SUBJECT:

Engineering Evaluation T. Preparation and Control l REV.:4 DATE: 6/15/84 n ., ,

lPAGE 6a of 8 PREPARED g APPROVED BY.

3.4 Each AFW, SEP or CR-HVAC review manager and Manager, Site Activities should discuss with their respective Manager of Design or Construction Verification the most appropriate choice for assignment of originator and recommend people to perform the verification for each engineering evaluation.

Upon completion of the preliminary engineering evaluation, the AFW, SEP or CR-HVAC review manager and Manager, Site Activities should determine whether to proceed with verification or wait until OCRs and other open items are resolved. They should advise their respective Manager of Design or Construction Verification of their

/ 'i plan for performance of the verification step.

LJ 3.5 The verifier / checker should complete the following minimum steps:

l 3.5.1 Compare the format and content of the engineering l evoluotion against that specified in PI-3201-001. The reviewer should note any significant differences; however, j

he should be aware that flexibility exists in meeting the intent of the format guidelines for engineering evaluations. The critical factor is whether the eng.neering evaluation meets the scope specified within itself and is sufficiently documented considering the recommended contents for evaluations. The reviewer should also consider the OA checklist attached to Pl-3201-001.

U

[ 3201 . 001 PROJECT INSTRUCTION

SUBJECT:

Engineering Evaluation y

i Preparation and Control l REW 4 DATE: 6/15/84 n 3 lPAGE 6b d 8 PREPARED B g APPROVED BY 3.5.2 Compare the scope contained within the engineering evaluation (considering the results of the previous step) with the descriptions in the engineering program plan for both the depth of review (columns in the review matrix) and review topics (rows in the matrix) covered by the engineering evaluation. For example, if an engineering evaluation scope includes criteria, implementing document, and calculation reviews for two review topics, the person doing the verification step should verify that the activities described in the engineering program plan for criteria, implementing document, and calculation

("'g reviews have been performed and that any specific requirements outlined in the engineering program plan for 4

the two review topics have, in fact, been accomplished.

3.5.3 Review the engineering evaluation for appropriateness of acceptance criteria and reasonableness of results. The review should be in detail sufficient to determine whether the acceptance criteria stated in the engineering evaluation have been met. The review should further determine whether there is sufficient detail and justification in the engineering evaluation to conclude that the scope has been adequately reviewed.

3.5.4 Discuss with the originator (and the LTR, AFW, SEP or CR-HVAC system manager, Manager, Site Activities and other IDVP management personnel as necessary) any areas u .

I PROJECT INSTRUCTION 001

SUBJECT:

Engineering Evaluation 7 PI 3201_. Preparation and Control l REV.:4 DATE: 6/15/84 n 8 PREPARED g APPROVED BY /

lPAGE 6c of s ea which he feels should be changed. The originator and the verifier should mutually agree upon the engineering evaluation and the originator should revise the evaluation as mutually agreed. If they cannot agree, the matter should be referred successively to the LTR, the AFW, SEP or CR-HVAC system manager, Manager, Site Activities, the Manager, Design Verification, Manager, Construction Verification, and the Project Manager until agreement is reached.

g 3.5.5 Upon resolution of comments, the verifier should sign the lj engineering evaluation cover sheet and describe the extent of the review as required by PI-3201-001. The 4

l engineering evaluation should then receive further l processing as defined in that project instruction.

i 3.6 The Managers, Design and Construction Verification, the Project Manager, or his designated representative shall indicate approval by signing only the cover sheet when the evaluation and its review have been completed.

l l

l lp l

.L PROJECT INSTRUCTION

SUBJECT:

Engineering Evaluation '

7 .l 3201 . 001 Preparation and Control '

l REW 4 DATE: 6/15/84 n 6d og 8 PREPARE g APPROVED BY /

fPAGE -

v ,

4.0 DOCUMENT CONTROL 4.1 Identification After all approvals have been obtained, the final engineering evolu-otion shall be assigned a control identification number by the Project Manager or his designated representative in the following format:

3201-001-XXX A J L J L Sequence Number Subject File Identifier Project identifier t l

l 1

l p

l I

V

PROJECT INSTRUCTION pg_ 3201. 004

{}

U

SUBJECT:

Midland Project Engineering REV 0 DATE: 5/7/84 Activity Verification I 8 PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY; PAGE of

, l .0 GENERAL r

1.1 Purpose The purpose of this instruction is to establish the requirements for the preparation of evaluations of Midland Project engineering activitie . Such evaluations supplement end product reviews addressed under Project in-struction 3201-001, Engineering Evaluation Preparation and Control. In particular, this instruction addresses those situations where ongoing engi-neering activities by the Midland Project prevent performance of the end product reviews contemplated by PI-3201-001. It provides guidance for identifying such circumstances and required implementation necessary to meet the objectives of the Midland Independent Design Verification Pro-gram.

l.2 Scope This Project Instruction applies to the Design Verification Program. Itis used as o supplement to the requirements of PI-3201-001, which covers the normal preparation of engineering evaluations, and supplements PI-3201-009, the Engineering Program Plan. This instruction provides guidance for defining the scope of documentation to complete evaluations of selected review topics where Midland Project design-related activities are ongoing.

This instruction shall be used in conjunction with PI-3201-001 and PI-3201 009 such that the sample selection criteria and the objectives of the Engineering Program Plan are met.

n b B-84-266 TERA CORPORATION

PROJECT INSTRUCTION C

s PI- 3201. - 004

SUBJECT:

Midland Project Engineering REV.: 0 DATE: 5/7/84 Activity Verification ,

.4 PAGE 2 og 8 PREPARED BY:g / APPROVED BY: /

~. l.3 Applicability r

This project instruction opplies without further opproval to the following specific design areas (topics) and scopes of review which are defined in the Engineering Program Plan.

Design Area Topic Number Technical Specifications I.4-1 1.4-2 1.4-3 Seismic Design / Equipment Qualification l1.4- 1 11.4 - 2 11.4 - 3 High Energy Line Break Accidents / Pipe Whip ll.6-1  ;

Environmental Protection / Equipment Qualification 11.1 0 - 1 11.1 0 - 2  :

II.10-3 Fire Protection l1.12-1 11.1 2 - 2 II.12-3 Systems Interaction l1.14-1 11.1 4 - 2 11.1 4 - 3 The procedure out!*ned below may be used for the above topics without further opproval of the Project Manager. Application of this procedure to other aspects of the Midiond Independent Design Verification Program may be authorized only in accordance with Section 3.0 of this Project Instruc-  !

tion.

I B-84-266 7 TERA CORPORATION

PROJECT INSTRUCTION pl.3201 004

SUBJECT:

(]

G Midland Project Engineering REw 0 DATE: 5/7/84 Activity Verification , a PAGE 3 og 8 NNEQ NE%/ . .

l.4 Project Instruction Overview r

Figure I presents o graphical overview of this Project Instruction.

2.0 RESPONSIBILITIES AND APPROVAL 2.1 Lead Technical Reviewers The Lead Technical Reviewers (LTR) shall be aware of the status of completion of Midland Project engineering activities within their scopec of review. If an LTR finds that engineering products which were selected in accordance with the sample selection criteria of the Engineering Program Plan are not complete, he shall determine the extent to which his sample is affected and the schedule for completion of the design activities required O)

\~ in those areas. In performing this review, he shall determine whether the remaining work represents a revision to previously completed work, or the Initial completion of the material. Where the incomplete work is due to revision of the engineering products, he shall determine the reasons for the revision. Based upon his review of the end products, the remaining work and the schedule for that remaining work, the LTR shall evaluate the following four courses of action e Hold completion of the offected engineering evalua-tion until the revised documents are completed.

i e Apply the sample selection criteria to other asso-clated completed work products such that a revised sample is selected which meets the criteria for the original sample.

TERA CORPORATION

FIGURE I

,gm IDVP REVIEW APPROACH TO SAMPLE SELECTION

, ty FOR SPECIFIC DESIGN TOPICS t

ORIGINAL IDfd SAMPLE  !

r i '

. j L

1 P 1 F END PRODUCTS EPO PRODUCTS AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE 1 P 1 P 9 P P  !

SELECT MW END SELECT KW Eto SELECT INTERMEDIATE COMPLETE PER PRODUCTS MEETING PRODUCTS PARTIALLY AND EPO PRODUCTS 2

' SAMP CTION M ING SA P PART A L MEE G DISPOSITION OCRs Ap E ,

CRITERIA s ,

1 P

• REVIEW ENGINEERING

, PROCESS FOR

, COMPLETING DESIGN t

! INTEGRATE Eto FINAL IDVP SAMPLE / PRODUCT AND

1. 5AMFLE SELECTION 4 ENGINEERING PROCESS

< CRITERIA MET REVIEWS AND DISPOSITION OCRs 1

1 1

1 P V i

PREPARE INPUT TO IDVP REPORTS ICYP t

I

i PROJECT INSTRUCTION Pl 3201. nna

SUBJECT:

V(D Midland Project Engineering Activity Verification gy; O DATE: 5/7/84 PAGE 4

W 8 PREPARED BY. APPROVED BY /

v

. e Select alternate end products which partially meet r the sample selection criteria and supplement the review by implementing Section 3.0 of this Project Instruction.  :

e Select a sample of end products and intermediate products to perform the engineering evaluation and supplement the review by implementing Section 3.0 of this instruction.

The LTR shall notify the responsible System Review Manager of the incomplete end products. He shall provide his recommendations for the course of action together with a status summary for the incomplete '

engineering activities. l l

2.2 System Review Manager a

Upon receipt of notification from an LTR that incomplete engineering ,

products may offect the sample selection, the System Review Manager  !

shall review the LTR's definition of the situation and recommend a course of action. The System Review Manager shall review the Engineering Program Plan with respect to the affected design areas and shall determine whether corresponding design creas in other systems within the scope of the IDVP are also affected. He shall consult, as appropriate, with the other Review Managers and LTRs to make this determination. The System Review Monoger may authorire placing the review activity on hold or substitution of equivalent engineering products based upon his review of the LTR's recommendation. He shall notify the Manager, Design Verifi-cation, if he anticipates cost or senedule impact due to his decision. if the System Review Manager determines that the appropriate course of action is to select a new sample and supplement it with a review of Midland Project engineering activities (process review ac defined in Section 3.0 i t ah-266 TERACORPORATION

PROJECT INSTRUCTION O' PI- 3201 - 004 -

SUBJECT:

Midland Project Engineering Activity Verification REV.: 0 DATE: 5/7/84 ,

PAGE 5 og 8 PREPARED BY APPROVED B /

, , ,~

~- below), he shall document his recommendation and request a review F

by the Project Manager; Manger, Design Verification; and Manager, Construction Verification.

2.3 Manager, Desian Verification The Manager, Design Verification shall effect a project team meeting or telephone conference (i.e., himself; the Project Manager; Manager, Con-struction Verification; and other appropricte personnel) to review the recommendations of the System Review Manager with respect to imp!e-menting the review procedure of this instruction. These personnel shall weigh all appropriate considerations and alternatives available, including impact upon the design verification program sample, the ability to extrapo-late results, and the overall ability to meet IDCVP ebjectives. They shall consider the interface between the design and ,nstruction verification programs and the cumulative effect of sample nudification in accordance with this instruction. They may direct the system review manager to implement Alternatives I or 2 (described in Section 2.1).

2.4 Project Monocer Upon review by the project team and their determination that on engineer-ing process review is the most appropriate course of action, the Project Manager shall authorize the System Review Monoger to implement the process review of Midland Project engineering programs defined below in addition to performance of engineering evaluations using end or inter-mediate end products. The Project Manager shall determine whether or not implementation of the identified actions constitute substantive matters previously unoddressed and, if nmired by the IDCVP Protocol, take the t'

x B-84-266 TERACORPORATION

PROJECT INSTRUCTION (N PI 3201 - 004

SUBJECT:

Midland Project Engineering Q REV.: 0 DATE: 5/7/84 Activity Verification PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY: j' PAGE 6 og 8

. ~v y

. appropriate course of action with respect to notification of the NRC, CPC, r and the public regarding implementation of this alternative. Where appropriate, the Project Manager may request guidance from the Principal-in-Charge or the Senior Review Team.

3.0 PREPARATION 3.1 Process Review A process review is defined as an evaluation of the Midland Project engineering progtoms, procedures, and other activities required to com-pleta engineering work in progress at the time of sample selection. The process review shall be performed only when authorized by the Project I Manager in accordance with Section 2.0 of this instruction.

3.2 Process Review Program Definition Upon authorization to perform a process review, the Manager, Design Verification shall assig, a reviewer to perform the process review. The reviewer may be the LTR who initially identified the issue; however, the Manager, Design Verification may select another person if he determines that it is in the best interest of the program. The Manager, Design Verification, the LTR, the assigned reviewer, and other appropriate project personnel shall discuss the nature of the remaining work and the nature of the sample of end or intermediate and end products which are being evaluated. With this information, the reviewer assigned to the process review shall prepare a review scope document.

(d B-84-266 k

TERACORPORATION

PROJECT INSTRUCTION O PI 3201 . 004

SUBJECT:

( 0 Midland Project Engineering Activity Verification REY.: DATE: 5/7/84 ,

PAGE 7 og 8 PREPARED BY.

g APPROVED BY:

_ . ,  :/,te s

i i v 3.3 Review Scope Document r

The review scope document shall define the procedure by which the process review of Midland Project engineering programs will be conducted. It shall consist of the following elements:

e Objectives This section shall define the objectives for the process review. It shall relate the process review to the sample selection criteria and indicate how com-pletion of the process review will affect completion of that topical area of the design verification program.

e Scope The review scope document shall define the scope of the process review in terms of the design topical areas and scope of review (see Engineering Program Plan) which are covered by the process review. If the process review affects more than one topic or more than one scope of review item, they shall all be appropriately listed. Furthermore, to the extent that a review scope item as defined on the sample review matrix for the system or systems is partly satisfied by an engineering evaluation and partially satisfied by a process review, the division of respon-sibility between these review methods shall be docu-mented in the review scope document. The scope section shall also identify the process items which are within its scope. For example, if the process review involves calculations and specification prep-oration, these activities should be noted in the scope section. Where different engineering groups (e.g.,

mechanical and electrical) are involved in the engi-neering activity, this fact should be noted. The scope section may include flow charts or similar graphic information to help identify the scope of the process review.

O B-84-266 TERA CORPORATION

PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI- 3201 - 004

SUBJECT:

Midland Project Engineering REV.: 0 DATE: 5/7/84 Activity Verification ,

i o PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY , /

PAGE 8 og 8 4,m e Acceptance Criteria r

The review scope document shall identify the cri-teria against which the process being reviewed is to be evaluated. The criteria shall be listed such that satisfaction of those criteria will demonstrate that the process meets its objectives and that the process review performed as part of the design verification program meets the objectives set forth for it in Section I of the review scope document.

4.0 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL, REVISIONS, AND QA AUDITS For the purposes of document control, evaluations performed as process

, reviews shall be numbered, controlled, filed, revised, and audited with other engineering evaluations performed as part of the IDVP. In this

~ respect, Sections 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 of PI-3201-001 shall apply to process review evaluation documents, respectively.

l O

a B-84-266 TERA CORPORATION

PROJECT INSTRUCTION

( PI- 3 201 .. 008

SUBJECT:

Preparation and Control of Open, Confirmed and Resolved item Reports, Finding Reports REV.: 3 DATE: 6/15/84 and Finding Resolution Reports PAGE _Aa og 12 NND { qA M M D W: g,g r

2.2 The Lead Technical Reviewers are responsible for the review of and concurrence in all Potential Open items and OCRs forwarded by their technical reviewers, the classification of OCRs, the preparation of Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reports, and the forwarding o'f all of these reports to the Project Manager (PM). The LTRs shall consider input provided to them by the technical reviewers. An LTR may perform the duties of the technical reviewer.

2.2.1 The Managers, AFW, SEP or CR-HVAC reviews and the Manager, Site Activities may perform the responsibilities of

their respective LTRs.

On V

l 2.2.2 The Managers of Design Verification and Construction 3

! Verification mcy perform the responsibilities of the Managers, AFW, SEP or CR-HVAC reviews and Manager, Site Activities respectively, and the responsibilities of their respective LTRs.

l a

PROJECT INSTRUCTION 7 PI- 3201 - 008

SUBJECT:

P. reparation and Control of Open, Confirmed (V REV.:

and Resolved item Reports, Finding Reports nd Finding Resolution Reports 3 DATE: 6/15/84 PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY:

PAGE 5 of 8 f

2.3 The Project Manager is responsible for periodically organizing meet-ings or telecons of the project team for the purpose of conducting on integrated review of the classification and significance of OCRs and Findings, and the resolution of Findings.

2.4 The Project Manager is responsible for forwarding OCR ltem Re- ,

ports, Finding Reports, and Finding Resolution Reports to the Prin-cipal-in-Charge and Senior Review Team (SRT); and forwarding Con-firmed item Reports, Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reports to outside parties. The Project Manager may perform the duties of anyone within the project organization reporting up through him. 3 2.5 The project team shall review all Potential Open items forwarded by the LTRs, review the classification of and attempt to resolve Open or Confirmed items, conduct further technical review or call for further technical review to clarify, expand or reassess Open or Confirmed items. The project team is responsible for verification of a Confirmed item leading to the declaration of a Finding, resolution of a Finding or the re-classification of a Finding as " resolved" by issuance of a Finding Resolution Report.

2.6 The Principal-in-Charge (PIC) is responsible for concurring with the classification of OCRs, Findings, Findings Resolution Reports, mal <-

ing a determination if a review of OCRs is required by the Senior Review Team, and directing the Project Manager to forward Con-O

PROJECT INSTRUCTION

(~ PI- 3201 - 00R

SUBJECT:

Preparation and Control of Open, Confirmed

( and Resolved Item Reports, Finding Reports REV.: 3 DATE: 6/15/84 andg Finding Resolution Reports PREPARED B% APPROVED BY:

PAGE 8 of 12 r '

4.0 VERIFICATION AND APPROVAL 4.1 OCR Reports, Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reports shcIl be designated as preliminary until verified by the review of the ,

project team and signing by the Project Manager. These reports are controlled in accordance with section 5.0 of this instruction upon  !

signature by the Project Manager.

4.2 The technical reviewers shall sign OCR Reports thereby verifying the occuracy of the information presented and signifying that the report l

has been prepared under his review.

(3

, V 4.3 The LTRs shall sign OCR ltem Reports signifying his concurrence.

I i

The LTRs shall sign Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reports

~

thereby verifying the accuracy of information presented and signify-ing that the report has been prepared under his review. The Managers AFW, SEP or CR-HVAC reviews and Manager, Site 3 Activities may sign for a reporting LTR provided that a verbal concurrence has been obtained.

l 4.4 The Project Manager shall approve OCR Reports and Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reports signifying completion of review and concurrence by the project team. The Principol-in-Charge may sign for the Project Manager provided a verbal concurrence has been 3 obtained.

l l

4.5 Potential Open items that are not approved by the project team and therefore never to become Open items are controlled in accordance l with section 5.0 of this Project Instruction.

l G

l

PROJECT INSTRUCTION O PI- 1Pn1.- nna

SUBJECT:

Preparation and Control of Open, Confirmed Q REV.: 3 DATE: 6/15/84 and Resolved Item Reports, Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reports PAGE 8a of 12 PREPARED BY

/ APPROVED BY:

{

r 4.6 The Principal-in-Charge shall sign OCR Reports, Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reports signifying his review, concurrence and determination whether OCRs reports require SRT review. The Project Manager may sign for the Principal-in-Charge provided 3 verbal concurrence has been obtained.

s O

O l l

PROJECT INSTRUCTION

'() PI_ 3201.,010 REV.: 2 DATE: 6/15/84

SUBJECT:

, External communications, Protocoi and the Preparation of Contact Log Sheets PAGE 2 d 7 PREPARED BY- APPROVED BY:

Qgg v

r 1.4 Definitions 1.4.1 Substantive Matters 1 As discussed in Attachment A, substantive matters are those matters where notice of public meetings are required prior to 3i discussion with external parties. In general, issues of a '[

technical nature will not be substantive unless a Confirmed 2

item has been made. Prior to Confirmed items, technical information exchange with external parties will be necessary to obtain information; however, at this stage the project team will not have reached its technical conclusion as to the matters under review. Ther efore, discussions prior to confirmed items should not concern project team judgments 2 on engineering assumptions, calculations, design bases, or interpretations of licensing or code requirements. Should any project team reviewer believe that his contacts with external 6 parties will include any of the areas described above, he should consult the Project Manager to solicit a decision on whether this discussion involves a substantive matter prior to engaging in discussions with external parties.

Should discussions with external parties, which were not anticipated to involve substantive matters, evolve into areas where substantive matters could be discussed, the project team reviewers are to avoid any such discussion until resolu- ,

tion with the Project Manager is obtained. This may require

J PROJECT INSTRUCTION

] PI 3201 _0lL

SUBJECT:

n 1 Subconuactors 0 DATE: 6/15/84 l REW ,

lPAGE._1__ of 9 PREPARED B g APPROVED BY:

r 1.0 GENERAL 1.1 Purpose The intent of this instruction is to define and establish the steps utilized to ensure that the TERA Corporation Quality ,.

Assurance Program (OAP) instruction for the Control of Purchased Services is applied to the Midland Project IDCVP in a manner consistent with the mandated " protocol" of the IDCVP and with other quality requirements unique to the conduct of the IDCVP.

.O V l.2 Scope and Applicability ,

l.2.1 During the conduct of the IDCVP, TERA management may find it necessary to supplement TERA's staff capabilities with technicci expertise as provided by a contractor or vendor. When such needs for outside assistance are identified, the steps delineated in Section 3.0 shall be rigorously followed and applied during the process of evaluating, contracting, and managing the contractor / vendor until contract requirements are met.

G

l I PROJECT INSTRUCTION l

• i.3201 . 011 $gCJ. l Control of Subcontractors l 0 D/.TE: 6/15/84

}REV.:

2 og 9 PREPARED B APPROVED BY / l lPAGE ,

~

i F l.2.2 l For the purpose of applying this instruction it is important to differentiate between the contributions which are made to the IDCVP by contracted personnel or organizations.

Specifically, certain personnel are retained by TERA ,

IDCVP management to provide a professional service and a deliverable while acting as on integral member of the IDCVP team. Other contributions to the IDCVP, however, are contracted, developed, and prepared independently from the IDCVP and delivered to the IDCVP staff for their evaluation and subsequent use in supporting IDCVP b'

Q conclusions. The difference between the contributions .

relates specifically to the manner with which the contracted deliverable is developed, prepared, and docu-mented. ,

APPLICABILITY CASE I:

In the case where on individual or organization is retained by TERA to participate in the IDCVP as on integral member of the IDCVP project team, the total scope of the contracted personnel's or organization's activities will be governed by the instructions contained within the Midland IDCVP Project Quality Assurance Plan (PQAP).

Additionally, the contracted personnel or organization will be directed and supervised by TERA program management O.

U

l PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI 3201. 011 ,

SUBJECT:

Control of Subcontractors REV.: 0 DATE: 6/15/84 PREPARED . APPROVED BY:

9 l PAGE 3 og who also must function in accordance with the requirements of the PGAP. Thus when an individual or organization is retained to participate as a member of the i IDCVP staff, his contribution / deliverable will be developed 1

and documented in accordance with and under the control of the Midland IDCVP project quality assurance program.

l l

APPLICABILITY CASE 11:

I i In the case where on organization or individual is retained l to provide a service and produce a deliverable independent p of the Midland IDCVP PGAP, specific criteria must be b applied to ensure that the deliverables developed are done .

so in accordance with acceptable , quality controls and standards. In this case the TERA staff views the contracted personnel / organization as a " black box" wherein the contract establishes the deliverable and criteria to be met. The contractor, using his own resources and processes, and relying upon his own quality control and quality assurance programs, produces the deliverable in accordance with the promulgated criteria. The deliverable, once received by TERA, would then be processed, evaluated, and utilized by IDCVP personnel subject to the requirements of the Midland PGAP.

l O

1 l

1 J PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI 3201. 011

SUBJECT:

Control of Subcontractors l REV.: 0 DATE: 6/15/84 ,

4 9 PREPARED APPROVED BY l PAGE W r

The steps delineated in Section 3.0 of this instruction have been annotated with a Roman numeral one or two (1,11) to indicate the applicability of a step to the service being con.tracted as defined above in Applicability Cases I & 11.

2.0 RESPONSIBILITIES

I IDCVP Management (Principal-in-Charge, Project Manager, Managers of Design & Construction Activities) shall when applicable ensure that the steps delineated in Section 3.0 of this l(~')

'V instruction are executed in all instances when the capabilities ,

of the TERA staff must necessarily be supplemented with j procured services / deliverables. The Midland IDCVP Project Manager retains the ultimate responsibility for the contractor's i

performance although day-to-day management and supervision

! of the contractor may be delegated to a TERA IDCVP staff l member who, for reason of review area, would be most knowledgable to evaluate the adequacy of the procured service / deliverable.

l 2.2 The Midland IDCVP Project Quality Assurance Engineer (PQAE) shall verify the consistent application of the steps delineated in Section 3.0 to ensure conformance to the TERA Corporation

] PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI 3201. 011

SUBJECT:

Control of Subcontractors m; O LAE 6/15/84 PREPARED APPROVED BY:

of 9 lPAGE 5 r

Quality Assurance Plan and the unique quality requirements mandated by the Midland IDCVP and as defined by the body of instructions which comprise this Midland POAP.

2.3 The Manager of Construction Verification Activities shall, in addition to activities delegated by the Project Manager as defined in Section 2.1, maintain this instruction current and in compliance with comments received from the Midland IDCVP Project Quality Assurance Engineer.

n

\s)

(

3.0 STEPS FOR THE CONTROL OF SUBCONTRACTORS .

The steps below have been annotated with either a Roman numeral one or two (1, II) to indicate their applicability as defined in Section 2.0 of this instruction.

3.1 The Project Manager, with assistance from the POAE, and congnizant discipline managers, will establish at the earliest possible date, consistent with the Midland IDCVP project schedule, the services required from outside organizations (I &

11).

O G

l PROJECT INSTRUCTION

^

,_3201 . 01L

SUBJECT:

Control of Subcontractors 0 DATE: 6/15/84 fREW APPROVED BY.

6 d 9 lPAGE PREPAREDQ r 3.2 The Project Manager, or designated TERA individual, shall establish a listing of potentially acceptable contractors. This  !

listing need not be formal and may be developed through discussions among cognizant IDCVP personnel (I & 11).

3.3 The Project Manager, or designated individual, shall review and evaluate potentially acceptable contractors. The focus of the review, for the purpose of this instruction, will be upon (n determining appropriate capabilities based upon documented ,

performance history and past affiliations with CPC and/or the Midland Project. Past affiliations with CPC or the Midland Project or lack of sufficient experience may be cause for rejection (I & il).

3.4 Prior to contract award, the PGAE or his designee shall evalute the prospective supplier from a quality assurance perspective relative to the proposed scope of work. In support of this effort, the supplier's history of providing the service or similar services may be reviewed, as well as personnel qualification records. In addition, a review of the supplier's quality assurance program or procedures may be warranted in order to verify that pertinent O

U

I PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI 3201 ._.01L

SUBJECT:

REV.: 0 DATE: 6/15/84 lPAGE 7 of 9_

PREPARED APPROVED BY: /

r A source audit may be performed to verify controls exist.

implementation of these controls (ll).

3.5 l

A scope of work will be prepared which will delineate the services / deliverables required and the terms and conditions attendant with their provision. The scope of work will be agreed to and signed by the successful contractor (I & II).

l 3.6

)

The successful contractor will sign on affidavit and have the .

{ affidavit notorized asserting the successful contractor's State-( ment of Independence (I & II).

l 3.6.1 l

In the case of an agreement entered into with on outside organization, a responsible officer of the organization shall, in addition to the Statements of Independence required by 3.6 above for each individual anticipated to be involved in executing the ogreement, sign a Corporate Statement of Independence. Such a Statement shall be notorized (II). ,

i I

l PROJECT INSTRUCTION l-3201 . 011_

SUBJECT:

Control of Subcontractors REV.: 0 DATE: 6/15/84 Qg APPROVED BY:

l PAGE8 og 9 PREPARED i

l

' 3.7 l i A project Quality Assurance Plan shall be prepared by the

successful contractor and be approved by the TERA Midland IDCVP PGAE and the Project Manager or Manager IDV or ICV l

prior to the start of work. As a minimum the project Quality ,

Assurance Plan shall identify: (11)

. Applicable criteria of 10 CFR 5'0, Appendix B (11).

e Quality Assurance procedures and instructions (11).

e Applicable codes and standards to be applied in the conduct of the work and execution of the Quality p)

La Assurance Plan (ll). -

e Internal Audit Schedules (II).

3.8 The Terms and Conditions attendant with the provision of contracted services / deliverables shall, as a minimum address 't he following: (11) e Specify that the scope of work as nuclear, safety-l related with the applicable criteria of 10 CFR 50, l Appendix B opplying (ll).

e Specify that the requirements of 10CFR 21 apply (11).

e Reporting requirements in accordance with the provisions of 10CFR 50.55(e)(II).

e Reporting and record keeping requirements in accordance with the provisions of 10CFR 20 and l

O V

i

J PROJECT INSTRUCTION

, Pl.3201. 011

SUBJECT:

Control of Subcontractors 0 DATE: 6/15/84 l REW PREPARED B APPROVED BY:

9 of 9 lPAGE r

j capability to demonstrate appropriate education and l experience (11).

I e Documentation requirements including the retention or submittal of records necessary to assure the quality of services provided including GA and/or QC programs and special process procedures /evalua-

[ tions, as applicable (ll).

e Assessment of the control of quality at intervals consistent with the importance and complexity of the service / deliverable provided. This assessment shall be accomplished either through periodic source audit or receipt inspection of deliverables, as appropriate. Should source audit be deemed appropriate, considering the particular scope of services, the terms and conditions shall provide for

/ ,) the right of access to the supplier's facility, the site D of service performance, and records, as appropriate ~

l (11).

l l e The incorporation of the pertinent quality assurance l

requirements in subtier procurement documents (11).

e Regulatory requirements, industry standards and regulations, as applicable (ll).

l 4.0 REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PROCUREMENT DOCUMENTS The PGAE shall review and verify the contract documents and assures that pertinent technical, regulatory, OA or other l ospects necessory to assure the quality of the services are j included. The procurement documents are then reviewed and

approved by Mr. L. H. Wight, Vice President, TERA Corporation prior to issue.

I o

l l

l

i l

i

)

r i ENGlEERING PROGRAM PLAN PROECT INSTRUCTION PI-3201-009 [

MIDLAto INDEPEtOENT  !

DESIGN AtO CONSTRUCTION  ;

VERIFICATION PROGRAM  ;

i PROXCT 3201 l

l O  !

i l

i i

JUPE 15,1984  :

REVISION: 4 COPY NO.  !

I k

P I

.--._ . .,:-:. ._ _ _______--_,._. . . ~ . . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . . _ . . _ _ __._- - _ - _ .-_- . - -

[

TERA CORPORATION QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM p)1 i Midland Independent Design and Construction Verification Program Engineering Program Plan 3201-009 l

r DOCUMENT REVISION RECORD l REV DATE DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES l

1 2/9/83 Pg.1 - Update status of NRC approval of TERA Corporation:

deleted "and approved by the NRC",

replaced with, " subject to NRC approval" l

l Pg. 24 -Update reference to P&ID M439:

l added, " revision 9" after 3A and changed rev. 9 to rev. 10 after 3B Pg. 25 -Add System Selection Boundary for HVAC:

add, "AFW pump room fan coolers and associated t

(j ductwork and supports" l

Modified to reflect the addition of the Standby Electric Power 2 5/18/83 (SEP) system and the Control Room Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system to the scope of the Midland IDCV program.

3 7/15/83 Changes reflect changes in the Project Organization and clarifi-cation of the scope of selected review topics.

l -

Changes reflect supplementation of scope of the design verification l 4 6/15/84 program to include an evaluation of selected engineering programs

and supplementation of the construction verification program to include a review of CPC's quality verification program; update of Project Urganization and miscellaneous clarifications.

l l

t

?

TERACORPORATION l

TERA CORPORATION OUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM Midland Independent Design and i Construction Verification ,

'C- Program DATE: 6/15/84 i

EPP REV: 4 i

PAGE REVISION RECORD PAGE'- REV PAGE REV PAGE REV PAGE REV PAGE REV PAGE REV Cover 4 Figl.2-6b 3 41 2 70 2 97 4 124 2 l

1 4 Figl.2-7 3 42 2 71 3 97a 4 125 2 l 11 2 15 3 43 3 72 2 98 2 126 2 [

iii 2 16 2 44 2 73 2 99 2 127 2 iv 2 17 3 45 2 74 4 100 2 128 2 l

v 2 Fig 2.1-1 4 46 2 75 3 101 2 129 2 vi 2 19 3 47 2 76 3 102 2 130 2 l

vii 2 20 4 48 2 77 3 103 2 131 2 viii 2 20a 4 49 2 78 2 104 2 132 2

[

ix 4 21 2 50 2 79 2 105 2 133 2 I N x 2 22 2 51 2 80 2 106 2 134 2 ,

xi 2 23 2 52 3 81 3 107 3 135 2 xii 2 24 2 53 2 82 3 108 2 136 2

[

xiii 2 25 2 54 3 83 2 109 2 137 2 1 2 26 3 55 2 84 3 110 4 138 2 2 4 27 2 56 2 85 3 110a 4 Fig 5.2-1 2 2a 4 28 2 57 2 86 3 111 2 140 3  !

3 3 29 2 58 2 87 2 112 2 141 2 r

4 3 30 2 59 2 88 2 113 2 142 2 L 4a 4 31 2 60 3 89 2 114 2 143 2 4b 4 32 2 61 3 90 2 115 2 144 4 Figl.2-1 3 33 2 62 3 91 2 116 2 145 2  ;

Figl.2-2d 3 34 2 63 2 92 2 117 2  !

Figl .2-2t. 3 35 2 64 2 93 4 118 2 <

Figl.2-3 3 36 2 65 3 93a 4 119 2 Figl.2-4d 3 37 2 66 2 93b 4 120 2 Figl.2-4t '

3 38 3 67 3 94 2 121 2 Figl.2-5 3 39 2 68 _

2 95 2 122 2 I Figl.2-6i 3 40 2 69 2 96 2 123 2 TERACORPORATION

. . _ - _ . . , , ,,_-____..,.._-__...,_____,.__.__.___.._--.c._, , - - . . _ _ , . _ _ _ - . _ , . - _

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE I.0 GEMRAL l

1.1 BACKGROUND

AND PURPOSE I r

1.2 OVERVIEW OF IDCV SCOPE 3 1.3 SYSTEMS SELECTION CRITERIA Ab 4 1.4 INDEPENDENCE REQUIREMENTS 15 2.0 ORGANIZATION Ato CONTROL 17 2.1 PROJECT ORGANIZATION 17 2.2 AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY 19 2.3 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL 21 3.0 ENGINEERING PROGRAM PLAN METHODOLOGY 21 3.1 INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION 22 METHODOLOGY 3.1.1 CATEGORIES OF REVIEW: THE DESIGN 24 s CHAIN 3.l.l.1 Review of Design Criteria and 25 Commitments 3.l.l.2 Review of implementing 2' Documents 3.l.l.3 Check of Calculations and 26 Evaluations 3.1.l.4 Confirmatory Calculations or 27 Evaluations 3.1.1.S Check of Drawings and 28 Specifications 3.1.2 BASES FOR SAMPLE SELECTION 28 3.l.3 DEFINITION OF REVIEW SCOPE FOR THE 30 AFW SYSTEM 3.l.3.1 AFW System Performance Criteria 33 3.l.3.1.1 System Operating 33 Limits - Topic 1.1-1 3.1.3.1.2 Accident Analysis 33 Considerations -

Topic 1.2-1 3.l.3.l.3 Single Failure - 34 Topic l.3-1 3.1.3.1.4 Technical Specifica- 34 L tions - Topic 1.4-1 DC-82-13 i

a TABLE OF CONTENTS  :

(continued) i

(]

La -

SECTION PAGE 3.1.6 DEVELOPMENT OF IDV PROGRAM 88 CHECKLISTS F 3.1.6.1 Development of Checklists for Review 89 of Design Criteria and Commitments '

3.I.6.2 Development of Checklists for Reviews 90 of implementing Documents 3.1.6.3 Development of Checklists for Checks 91 of Calculations and Evoluotions 3.1.6.4 Development of Checklists for Checks 92 i of Drawings and Specifications 3.l.7 PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL SAMPLING AND 93 i VERIFICATION l 3.1.8 MIDLAND PROJECT ENGINEERING 930 4 PROGRAM VERIFICATION 3.2 INDEPENDENT CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION 93b 4 METHDOLOGY 3.2.1 CATEGORIES OF REVIEW: THE CON- 95

~ STRUCTION CHAIN 3.2.1.1 Review of Fabrication Documento- 96 tion 3.2.1.2 Review of Storage and Maintenance 96 Documentation 3.2.1.3 Review of Construction / 97 Installation Documentation 3.2.1.4 Review of Selected Verification 97a 4 Activities ~

3.2.1.S Verification of Physical 98 Configuration 3.2.2 BASES FOR SAMPLE SELECTION 98 3.2.3 DEFINITION OF REVIEW SCOPE FOR THE 99 AFW SYSTEM 3.2.3.1 Mechanical Systems and Components 100 3.2.3.1.1 Mechanical Equipment - 100 Topic l.l-Ic j 3.2.3.1.2 Piping - 101 Topic l.2-Ic 3.2.3.l.3 Pipe Supports - 101 Topic 1.3-Ic 3.2.3.2 Electrical Systems or.d Components 102 g

LJ 3.2.3.2.1 Electrical Equipment -

Topic II.1-Ic 102 DC-82-13 ix t

PROJECT INSTRUCTION O PI 3201. 009

SUBJECT:

, Engineering Program Plan ,

!'~~"] Midland Independent Design and '

REV.: 4 DATE: 6/15/84 ,

Construction Verification, Program PAGE 2 of 145 PREPARED BY I APPROVED BY: {gg F TERA Corporation has been selected by CPC to scope, manage, and implement the Midland Independent Design and Construction Verification (IDCV) Program.

By a letter dated May 3,1983, the NRC approved the selection of TERA. The selection is based upon the firm's technical qualifications, experience, and independence from the Midland project. Such independence includes all

individuals who may contribute to the IDCV Program.

This project instruction, or Engineering Program Plan (the Plan), has been established to outline the scope, philosophy of review, methodology, independence requirements, organization, control, documentation, reporting, and quality assurance requirements for the Midland IDCV Program. On July 22,

,, 1983, the NRC issued a letter opproving the Plan for all three systems and the 4 Project Quality Assurance Plan (PQAP) for which the Plan is appended.

The IDCV approach selected is a review and evaluation of a detailed " vertical slice" of the Midland project with a focus on providing on overall assessment of the quality of the design and the constructed plant. Therefore, the primary emphasis of the IDCV evaluation is on the end results of the design and construction process and not on on evoluotion of the process itself which is typical of the more common quality assurance audit. The " vertical slice" constitutes a carefully selected sample of three safety systems from which the t

results of the IDCV may be extrapolated to other similarly designed and constructed systems. Thus, the IDCV is intended to provide the necessary assurance to CPC, NRC, and the public that the Midland Plant is designed and constructed such that it is capable of functioning in accordance with its safety design bases and that applicable licensing commitments have been properly implemented.

m DC-82-13

^

r PROJECT INSTRUCTION O

'uf PI 3201. 009

SUBJECT:

- Engineering Program Plan Midland Independent Design and j

REV.: 4 DATE: 6/15/84 Const,ruction Verification Program ,

, PAGE za of 145 PREPARED BY: / APPROVED BY: ((

P r

in a letter dated February 10, 1984, TERA identified a need to supplement ,

selected topical reviews within the design verification program with an l l

I evaluation of engineering procedures, action plans, and their implementation where Midland project design-related activities are ongoing. Additionally, it was indicated that selected Midland project Quality Verification Program documentation processes would be reviewed as part of the construction l verification program. Details of TERA's plans were discussed at a March 13, 1984, public meeting. The NRC issued a letter on June 6,1984, concurring with <

TERA's plans.

l C

o 6

6 I

DC-82-13

PROJECT INSTRUCTION pl 3201. 009

SUBJECT:

Engineering Program Plan Kidland Independent Design and REV.: 4 DATE: 6/15/84 i CansfructionVerificationProgram of 145 PREPARED BY / APPROVED BY: l PAGE 4a 7 r ,

The topic numbers used in the matrices have the following format: j X Y Z i n J L J L J L l

Construction Topic identifier i C = Construction Topic blank = Design Topic ,e System Number I = AFW System 2 = Standby Electric Power System 3 = Control Room HVAC Topic Numbers p Where identical design creas apply to each system, the number is the same. For example, topic l for each system is " System Operating Limits" and 23 is " Failure Modes and Effects".

Unique topics'(e.g. fuel oil system) are given numbers (e.g. 27) which apply to only one system.

4 Design Review Areas  :

I = System Performance Requirements  !

11 = System Protection Features  :!

lil = Structures Housing the System OR I 4 Construction Review Areas  !

I = Mechanical 11 = Electrical 4 ,

til = Instrumentation & Control  !

IV = HVAC  :

V = Structural l

VI = NDE/Moterials Testing l

l O  !

l DC-82-13

• 1 PROJECT INSTRUCTION

, yp) PI _3201:- 009

SUBJECT:

r ngineering Program Plan Midland Independent Design and REV.: 4 DATE: 6/15/84 Qonstryction Verification Program PAGE 4b of 145 PREPARED BY: / APPROVED BY: {g v

r 1.3 SYSTEMS SELECTION CRITERIA The selection of the auxiliary feedwater system was based upon the following six criteria:

I e importance to Safety - The s, stem should have o relo-tively high level of importance to the overall safety of the Midland Plant.

e inclusion of Design and Construction Interfaces - The system should be one which involves multiple interfaces among engineering and construction disciplines as well as design and construction organizations, such as the NSSS vendor, architect engineer, constructor, and subtier con-tractors. The system should also be one where design or p, constructiory changes have occurred and thus provide the ability to test the effectiveness of the design and con-V struction process exercised by principal internal and l

external organizations or disciplines in areas of design or construction change.

l t

{

o O

DC-82-13 I - - -- - _ --- -- ._.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY CONSUMERS POWER -

COMMISSION COMPANY I I L _________ --J LEM l.

, 1 i

'tj - Lacs Or ConunuscATiON5 SENIOR REVIEW TEAM NO PROECT DRECTM PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE William Hall, Chrm. ,

lON gg7ggAAE g Donald Davis Joseph Hendrie OF PROECT) L

~ ,

I 3

PROJECT QA ,,,,,

PROJECT MANAGER r Mark Pollt Howard Levin i I l I I 1 I  !

I MANAGER, CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION MANAGER, DESIGN VERIFICATION l Donald Tulodieski Frank Dougherty  ;

\ e:

4 i

1

.; s ? LIER DOCUMENTATION MANAGER, AUXILIARY FEEDWATER

- SYSTEM REVIEW Donald Tulodieski, LTR FM NWty f

I v I f

\

STORAGE & MAINTENANCE e MECHANICAL & SYSTEMS

% DOCUMENTATION Frank Dougherty, LTR Robert Snyder, LTR e ELECTRICAL, I&C 1 Lionel Bates, LTR e CIVIL / STRUCTURAL  !

MANAGER, SITE ACTIVITIES l

Marfin Jones .

MANAGER, CONTROL ROOM HVAC

- SYSTEM REVIEW CONSTRUCTION / INSTALLATION Doug Witt DOCUMENTATION 1

il" '

)'li Vocont l

Y e MECHANICAL & SYSTEMS ,

, Doug Witt, LTR l

' .T .

?-

VERIFICATION ACTIVITIES I e ELECTRICAL, l&C LIonel Bates, LTR Redy Cleled, LTR "

j e CIVIL / STRUCTURAL i l i Joseph Mortore, LTR i l .

VERIFICATION OF PHYSICAL

- CONFIGURATION MANAGER, STAFOBY ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM REVIEW t M in TR Gerold Setka i

s

! ,.l ,

~

FIGURE 2.I-1 e MECHANICAL & SYSTEMS j Gerold Setko, LTR PROJECT ORGANIZATION e ELECTRICAL,I&C MIDLAbO INDEPENDENT DESIGN abo Lionel Bates, LTR  !

CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM . CIVIL / STRUCTURAL  !

Christion Mortgot, LTR  :

i

- . , - , , . - - - , - , . - - - - - - , . , , , . , - - - - - -- , - , ,__~,.--n-----n. - . - - - ,

PROJECT INSTRUCTION 9

p PI-3201 - 009

SUBJECT:

Engineering Program Plan t G W.: 4 DATE: 6/15/84 Midland Independent Design and Construction Verification Program PAGE 19 of 145 PREPARED B /j APPROVED BY: g I

with CPC. The Project Quality Assurance Engineers report directly to the Vice 4 President, TERA. They will identify internal quality assurance deficiencies, work with the PM in providing clarification relative to identified deficiencies and any recommendations made by them for resolution.

2.2 AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY I The project authority and responsibility is addressed in Section 2.2 of the PGAP, Project 3201, as augmented by various project instructions and engineering control procedures which are referenced in the PGAP.

The Principol-in-Charge (PIC) is responsible for helping establish the general

[]

'd philosophy of review, setting forth guidance to the Project Manager and the '

Managers, Design and Construction Verification, assisting as on interface with ,

the Senior Review Team (SRT), NRC and CPC and reviewing / concurring in reports issued to CPC, NRC and other outside parties.

The Project Manager is responsible for overall planning and direct supervision of all in-house activities undertaken to fulfill the contract requirements. All documentation, correspondence, reports, calculations, etc., issued to CPC, NRC and other outside parties are to be issued under his signature or otherwise receive his opproval as required by the opplicable Engineering Control Procedure or Project instruction.

The Project Manager is responsible for overall planning and management of all outside activities performed by subcontractors or Associates, but may delegate responsibility for supervision to other individuals within the project.

k

'w DC-82-13

PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI 3201. 009

SUBJECT:

Engineering Program Plan Midland Independent Design and REV.: 4 DATE: 6/15/84 Construction Verification Program PAGE 20 of 145 PREPARED BY: f / APPROVED BY:

f r

Documentation may be issued to the subcontractor or Associate under the signature of the designated individual.

The Managers of Design Verification and Construction Verification are responsible for overall planning, management and supervision of all activities within the IDV and ICV portions of the Midland IDCV respectively, and ,

coordination between each other to assure that IDV and ICV interfaces are adequately addressed. These individuals report directly to the Project Manager.

The Managers of the AFW, SEP and CR-HVAC Reviews are responsible for management and implementation of design review activities necessary to

/W.

( ) complete on integrated review of their respective systems, coordination of activities between LTRs under their supervision and coordination with the ICV program LTRs. These individuals report to the Manager, Design Verificaticn.

The Manager, Site Activities is responsible for planning, management and supervision of all Midland site related activities and the Construction / Installation Documentation, Verification Activities and Verification of Physical Configuration categories of review. He reports directly to the Manager, Construction Verification.

The Managers of Design Verification and Construction Verification may perform 4

the functions of Managers reporting to them as appropriate.

The Senior Review Team (SRT) is responsible for the review of Open, Confirmed or Resolved (OCR) Item Reports, as requested by the PIC, Finding Reports, Finding Resolution Reports, as well as Interim Technical Reports and Final Reports. The SRT may at any time recommend to the PIC that the PM expand l (3 the scope of review, provide clarification or reassess elements of the review to L.l DC-82-13

l PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI 3201.. 009

SUBJECT:

. Engineering Program P1an Midland Independent Design and M

s REV.: 4 DATE: 6/15/84 or struction Verification Program PAGE 20a og 145 PREPARED BY: g APPROVED BY: g r

assess the technical validity and significance of project team conclusions and the proper classification of OCRs and Findings. (These reports are defined in Section 5.0 of this Plan). The SRT is otso responsible for the review of Monthly Status Reports, OCRs as directed by the SRT Chairman, and any Draf t Interim Technical Reports to maintain current awareness and assure a high level of ,

technical quality. They will also provide recommendations to resolve differing technical views which may arise among project team membes. The SRT Chairman is responsible for coordination and direction of SRT octivities.

The Lead Technical Reviewers (LTR) are responsible for implementation of all review activities within their discipline of review, including technical supervision

/.

V of individuals on the project and outside activities performed by Associates. The IDV LTRs report to the Managers of the AFW, SEP and CR-HVAC System Reviews. The ICV LTRs report to either the Manager, Construction Verification or the Manager, Site Activities os shown on Figure 2.1-1. The LTRs are responsible for the classification of OCRs and Findings, the preparation of Finding Reports and Finding Resolution Reports. The functions of the LTR may ,

be performed by the Managers of the AFW, SEP, and CR-HVAC reviews as appropriate. 4 The Project Quality Assurance Engineer is responsible for verification of the implementation of the PGAP and will perform audits evoluoting the implementation of applicable procedures and instructions in accordance with Section 6.3 and ECP-5.6.

po

PROJECT INSTRUCTION 9 PI 3201_. 009 REV.: 4 DATE: 6/15/84

SUBJECT:

. Engineering Program Plan Midland Independent Design and

,C3ns,truction Verification Program PAGE 74 of 145 PREPARED BY: / APPROVED BY:

gg r

Specific interface points are os follows:

CONTROL ROOM HVAC SYSTEM SAMPLE SELECTION BOUNDARIES Interfacing System Interfacing Point oc/dc Power System All portions of Class IE electric system serving the CR HVAC are included in the Standby Electric Power (SEP) System review (see Section 3.l.4 for SEP sample selection boundaries).

Plant HVAC Portion of the Control Room Area Ventilation System (CRAVS) (FSAR Figures 9.4-1 and 9.4-2) up to and g$

includ,ing

c)

Valves OMO 6545A OXV 6557 OMO 6545B OMO 6549 OMO 6543A OMO 6547A 4 OMO 6543B OMO 6547B OXV 6554 i

Equip. & Piping Supports includes all supports incorporated in the l

seismic qualification of the Control Room portion of the CRAVS as defined above.

ESFAS includes Control Room isolation System (CRIS) subsystem, FSAR Figure 7.3-5.

Accident Monitoring Inst. Portions essential for isolation of Control Room and operation of CRAVS, e.g.

l - intake duct radioactivity

( - charcoal filter temperature j - hazardous gas concentration l See FSAR Tables 7.5-1 and 7.5-3.

l Plant I&C Portions essential for isolation of Control Room and CRAVS operation.

q Control Room Structure Portions required for pressure boundary

, including penetrations and doors.

I DC-82-13

~

PROJECT INSTRUCTION 9 l PI 3201..

REV.: 4 009 DATE: 6/15/84

SUBJECT:

. Engineering Program Plan Midland Independent Design and

,Copstjruction Verification Program PAGE 93 of 145 PREPARED BY APPROVED BY: gg r

3.1.7 PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL SAMPLING AND VERIFICATION Additional sampling or verification within the scope of the IDV or outside the scope into other systems will be conducted if discrepancies are found. The level of odditional sampling or verification will be based upon the nature of the discrepancy. In all cases when discrepancies are found, on introspective 5 evoluotion will follow to identify the extent and root cause. The root cause may either be random or systematic (generic).' The additional review will attempt to verify whether the discrepancy is restricted to the specific system, component, or structure under review; restricted to work by a specific design organization; or if the discrepancy cuts across many interfaces and applies to similarly nf

'C/

designed systems, components, and structures. As a rule, mothematical errors will not precipitate additional sampling and verification unless these are found in significant numbers, leading to significant deficiencies or o compounding of errors. Judgement in making this assessment will be required on cose-by-case basis.

As necessary, additional sampling or verification within the scope of the system sample selection boundaries identified in sections 3.l.3, 3.I.4 and 3.1.5 of this Plan will be undertaken by TERA and approved internally. All such actions will be documented in the Moathly Status Report. Additional sampling outside this scope is considered a substantive issue and will be discussed between TERA, CPC and NRC prior to initiation.

)

()

L DC-82-13

I PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI-3201 - 009

SUBJECT:

Engineering Program Plan t REV.: 4 DATE: 6/15/84 Midland Independent Design and Construction Verification , Program APPROVED BY: (g PAGE 93a of 145 PREPARED BY: j i

r 3.l.8 MIDLAND PROJECT ENGINEERING PROGRAM VERIFICATION 3.l.8.1 Background The IDCV Program methodology assumes that items subject to verification within the scope of the program are complete or substantially complete, placing l emphasis on an evoluotion of the quality of end products. A portion of the Midland design-related activities are ongoing or are in revision as part of the normal design / construction reconciliation process (i.e., field change requests and design review). With the exception of the field change / design review activities, these design-related activities generally fall into o category of efforts 4 n associated with licensing / confirmatory evaluations of the compliance of the

/ i' Q design with design criteria and commitments and not the primary design completion cycle. Examples include ongoing fire hazards analysis and equipment qualification. These topical areas as well as others are within the IDV scope and therefore require independent verification. The ongoing field change / design review activities have a lesser impact on the IDV execution because most field l

changes do not fundamentally impact the design. TERA has determined that the l

IDV objectives con best be met by supplementing the existing end product reviews with a review of engineering programs and action plans for the l implementation of selected ongoing design-related activities. A summary of the approach was provided in a letter from TERA to CPC and NRC dated February 10, 1984. Details were discussed at a public meeting held on March 13, 1984. The NRC issued a letter on June 6,1984, concurring with the approach.

The following section outlines this element of the IDV reviews.

3.l.8.2 Scope and implementation IDV topical reviews con be divided into two major subcomponents: those areas

, /&

h l

\ where sufficient end products exist to permit application of the IDV methodology DC-82-13 1

l PROJECT INSTRUCTION Pl 3201. 009

SUBJECT:

Engineering Program Plan Midland Independent Design and REV.: 4 DATE:6/15/84 Constraction Verification Program PAGE 93b of 145 PREPARED BY] / APPROVED BY:

I I documented in Section 3.1 of this Plan and those arcos where design-related work is ongoing and end products are in intermediate stages of completion.

Project instruction, PI-3201-004, Midland Project Engineering Program Verification, documents the procedure for implementing the IDV review of typical areas offected by ongoing design-related activities.

In summary, the vertical slice approach to design verification by reviewing end products is maintained for the majority of the samples where sufficient end products exist. For design areas offected by ongoing design-related work, the 4 review will use available end products (or intermediate products) combined with a limited review of the engineering programs, action plans and implementing processes by which the design effort will be completed. This will ba q

Lj occomplished by confirming the status of all design areas and dividing them into those which are substantially complete and those which are subject to the modified program. For each incomplete design oreo the revised program will require identification of the processes to be used to complete the design area.

The processes thus identified will then be appropriately grouped and reviewed using available end or intermediate products as a means of verification of implementation. d is estimated that opproximately 10 to 20 percent of the IDV sample will be verified in this manner and that 80 to 90 percent of the sompte will be verified with emphasis on quality of the end product.

3.2 INDEPENDENT CONSTRUCTION VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY The independent Construction Verification (ICV) Program will consist of a review and evoluotion of the quality of construction of selected components and q

I I v1 DC-82-13

. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------------------------u

PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI 3201. 009

SUBJECT:

Engineering Program Plan Midland Independent Design and REV.: 4 DATE: 6/15/84 Colstr,uction Verification Program PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY:

PAGE 97 or 145 r

and associated activities (e.g. system layup associated with Construction Completion Program) observed to provide additional verification that compo-nents have been properly stored and maintained during the construction process.

3.2.l.3 Review of Construction / Installation Documentation A major factor in the evoluotion of the quality of construction is the review of those items constructed or installed on site. The review of documentation associated with the construction / installation process will be conducted to verify that the applicable requirements have been met (e.g. conformance to construction specifications will be verified). Included in this review will be fy) verification of the utilization of proper documents in the process such as design output requirements, construction specifications, erection specifications, installation requirements, construction procedures and other specified construction codes and standards, as applicable. Design changes, field modifications, and other input related to final as-built drawings will be reviewed. Included will be the review of documentation associated with such items as concrete materials, concrete, the welding process, bolting activities, .

NDE, etc. Inspection requirements, including personnel qualification and training, reports, and associated documentation will also be included in the review. Where possible, selected on-going construction / installation activities will be observed to provide additional information for the evoluotion of this process. An ongoing activity which exercises significant influence upon the conduct of this review is the Quality Verification Program (OVP). The OVP is that activity undertaken by CPC to verify the quality of safety-related 4 components and commodities which have been installed and inspected and considered complete os of December 2,1982. The products of the OVP will be

\st DC-82-13 J

PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI 3201., 009

SUBJECT:

. Engineering Program Plan Midland Independent Design and j REV.: 4 DATE: 6/15/84 Construction Verification Program PREPARED BY: f APPROVED BY:

PAGE 97a of 145 _ g v

r quality documentation packages for this portion of the Midland project installation. The construction / installation documentation review will sample packages assembled by the OVP as part of the end product ICV confirmation.

A supplemental ICV review will be conducted of the OVP documentation process 4

to aid the end product quality documentation verification by ensuring that QVP outputs are complete, valid and retained in a secure and consistent manner effectively integrated with the Midland project Construction Completion Program (CCP) activities. The OVP attributes to be reviewed range in scope from evaluating the information sources used to generate and assemble the quality verification documentation packages to observing the manner with which these quality verification packages are utilized in demonstrating the quality of

? previously installed and inspected items. The combination of reviewing the OVP L )/ documentation process and evaluating specific end products of this process is intended to enhance extrapolation of the ICV conclusions.

3.2.1.4 Review of Selected Verification Activities Verification activities conducted subsequent to the construction / installation /

Inspection activity will be reviewed and evaluated. Included will be over-inspection activities associated with cable separation verification, bolt hardness testing verification, the pipe support reinspection program, the Construction l

l g

[M }

DC-82-13 1

g PROJECT INSTRUCTION h v PI 3201..__009

SUBJECT:

Engineering Program Plan Midland Independent Design and REV.: 4 DATE: 6/15/84 Cons}ruction Verification Program PAGE 110 of 145 PREPARED BY / APPROVED BY:

i r

performance of NDE and material testing on selected material, components, and structures of the AFW system. The program will be conducted as on integral part of the ICV and will include over-inspection and testing of selected shop-fabricated / vendor-supplied components in addition to the over-inspection and testing of on-site welding, weld repair, NDE and other site-material related testing and inspection programs. Results of the testing performed as part of the .

NDE/ Materials Testing Program will be documented, reviewed, and compared against vendor supplied and site-generated material testing and NDE test data and against applicable codes and standards.

The direction and degree of testing performed as a part of the NDE/ Materials Ol i ) Testing Program will be initiated and influenced by the results of the LJ v construction / installation documentation review as described in sections 3.2.3.1 through 3.2.3.5. The results of the documentation review will be integrated with the consideration of a statistical sampling opproach and sound engineering judgment to arrive at the quantity and types of components and structures to be tested and the type of testing to be employed.

An intermediate output of the NDE/ Materials Testing Program will be a listing defining the components / structures to be tested and the corresponding test to be performed. Rationale for component / structure selection will also be provided to enable reviewers to easily discern the derivation of the sample and the sompte size. The NDE/ Materials Testing Program will be documented in a Project Instruction to be issued prior to intiation of the program.

Law Engineering Testing Company (LAW) has been selected by TERA to assist in ,

the execution of the NDE/ Materials Testing Program. This selection is based 4 A)

(A DC-82-13

PROJECT INSTRUCTION PI 3201. 009

SUBJECT:

Engineering Program Plan Midland Independent Design and

'~ REV.: 4 DATE: 6/15/84 Const,ruction Verification Program  !

PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY:

PAGE 110a of 145 l v l

r  !

I upon LAW's technical capabilities and independence from Midland project 4

activities. The NRC issued a letter dated March 7,1984, accepting TERA's selection of LAW.

1 l

DC-82-12

, PROJECT INSTRUCTION rs

[j

'~

PI 3201. 009

SUBJECT:

. Engineering Program Plan Midland Independent Design and REV.: 4 DATE: 6/15/84 Construction Verification Program PAGE 144 of 145 PREPARED BY: / APPROVED BY:

r 6.0 OUALITY ASSURANCE 6.1 APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS The Midland IDCV shall be performed in accordance with applicable quality assurance requirements of the NRC's regulation 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.

Furthermore, the IDCV will comply with:

e NRC Regulatory Guide 1.28 (6/7/72) including Sections I, 2,3,5,7,17, and 18 of ANSI N45.2-1971 e NRC Regulatory Guide 1.64 (Revision I, 2/75) including Sections I,2, and 6 of ANSI N45.2.11-1974 These requirements are implemented by the TERA Corporate Quality Assurance Plan (QAP), Revision 3 (January 1,1980) and the Midland IDCV Project Quality Assurance Plan (PGAP), Revision 5 (June 15,1984). 4 6.2 VERIFICATION OF COMPUTER CODES All computer codes utilized by IDCV analysts shall be verified as follows:

o Program Verification - The quality of the code should be '

determined from a comparison of the code generated solutions with known solutions of selected problems.

e Facility Verification - Given that the generic quality of the code has been determined, the capability to reproduce known results utilizing hardware and sof tware available to TERA must be determined.

/~

DC-82-13

..