ML20136B278
| ML20136B278 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 12/03/1981 |
| From: | ROBERT L. CLOUD ASSOCIATES, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136B092 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-293 NUDOCS 8601020503 | |
| Download: ML20136B278 (27) | |
Text
. . . _ . .
- o 5 .
DESIGN VERIFICATION P OGRAM SEISMIC SERVICE RELATED CONTRACTS PRIOR TO JUNE 1978 I
s i
December 3,.1981 .
s .
4 Project 105-4 ar Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
125 University Ave. P.O. Box 687 4
Berkeley, CA 94710 West Falmouth, MA 02574
! (415) 841-9296 (617) 540-5381
~
8601020503 851125 PDR -
FOIA LEIGHTOS4-293 PDR rga--4 4W 7 mm .,w y. g .. ,,.y. - - .e .y -pc.- -.m..-9g- g *r- -e9w-+.-p .-
+t- g- -.%e .~ e y g
~.
( ) .o, y u Gr,
- s. .
7,, -
e gr )
DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM SEISMIC SERVICE RELATED CONTRACTS ,
PRIOR TO JUNE 1978 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- 1. 0 : Int r o duc tion i S c o p e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 Scope ....................................... 2 2.0 Development of the Seismic Design Chain ...... 3 2.1 The Seismic Design Chain ...................... 3 2.2 Development ................................. 3 2.2.1 Information to Seismic-Design Chain ........ 3 2.2.2 Seismic Design Chain Map ................... 4 3.0 Quality Assurance Review...................... 5 3.1 Controlling Documents ....................... 5 3.1.1 Specific Documents to be Reviewed ......... 5 f, 3 . 2 Revi ew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' 5 3.2.1-Design Control ............................ 6 3.2.1.1 Design Input ............................ 7 3.2.1.2 Design Process ~..........................
, 7
. 3.2.1.3 Change Control ......................... 8 3.2.1.4 Interface Control ...................... 8 3.2.1.5 Documentation and Records ............... 8 3.2.2 Instructions,. Procedures and Drawings ...... 8 3.2.3 Document Control .......................... 9 4.0 Review of Implementation of Quality Assurance Controls.......................... 10 4.1 Development of Audit Plan................... 10 4.2 Audit Scope and Depth....................... 10 h
4
1 TABLE OF CO'.iTENTS 5.0 Independent Sample Calculations .............. 12
~
5.1 Types of samples ............................. 12
- 5. 2 Sampling Philosophy ar.d Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.3 Repeat Samples and Evaluation A............... 13 -
5.4 Independent Requalification .................. 15 5.4.1 Building Requalification ................... 15 5.4.2 Piping Requalification ..................... 16 5.4.3 Pipe Supports .............................. 17 5.4.4 Conduit Supports ........................... 17 5.4.5 Equipment .a................................. 18
~
6.0 Field Verification ........................... 21 1
7.0 Program Approach ............................
22
\
8.0 Conclusion.................................... 23 8
t L
9 e
9
1 4
DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM SEISMIC SERVICE RELATED CONTRACTS PRIOR TO JUNE 1978 .
1.0 Introduction & Scope .
On September 28, 1981 Pacific Gas and Electric Co. re- t ported that a diagram error had been found in a portion of the seismic qualification of the Diablo Canyon Unit 1 i
Nuclear Power Plant (DCNPP-1). This error resulted in an in-(
correct application of the seismic. floor response spectra in i
the crane wall-containment shell annulus of the Unit 1 Con-I tainment Building.
3 The response spectra were computed correctly, but as a result of the diagram error were applied to the opposite :
hand geometry of the Unit 1. building. The origin of the er-ror was in the transmittal to a consultant of a sketch.
of the Unit 2 opposite hand. geometry- identified as Unit 1 geometry. Although seismic failures would not be expected a's a result of.this misapplication of spectra, nevertheless
' some few pipe and conduit supports may require strengthen-ing to restore design margins.or safety factors.
l The effects of the error were being rectified and a re-
l verification program was initiated and underway during the -
I months of October and' November. The'NRC Commissioners met dur-ing the week of November 16, 1981 to review the situation. On ,
i Nove'mb'er 19 the Commission issued an Order, Suspending License, ',
Pacific Gas and Electric Company to load fuel and conduct low l power tests up to 5% of rated power at the DCNPP-1. In I Attachment I to the order certain actions'were specified that t would be' required'before the suspension would be revoked.
These actions consist primarily of an independent Design i Verification Program and completion of a technical recovery
- program.
L
(- l
2 This report presents a description of the Design Verification Program on Seismic Service Related Contracts Prior to June 1978. ,
1.1 Scope The reverification program includes the safety related Design Class I buildings and equipment that were re-qualified considering-the Hosgri 7.5 M earthquake. The scope of this Design Verification Program includes the design and analysis work performed associated with seismic-related service contracts in effect prior to June 1978.
h
)
8 9
,-E s
e er E
F e
1 0
- t 6
b f
?
-- - - - _ - _ _ _ = - _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ - - - _ _ - _ _ ____ _ _
~
, 3
- 5. . . . .
. 2.0 Development of the Sei-smic Design Chain
- t. -
2.1 The Seismic Design Chain .
The. term " seismic design chain" designates the separate but linked process of providing seismic . design for a j nuclear plant. Each. step in the process is usually linked -
3 to'another step via flow of information. The design results obtained in one step may affect the design of systems '
or components in another step of the process. For example,the' floor response spectra'obtained in building analysis are .
usedasinputto.theanalysisofpipingsystem(oftheparticu-
- lar floor. The piping analysis provides piping support loads .
which in turn are used for the design of piping supports.
1' Figure 1 illustrates a# typical seismic design chain for a r
j -
nuclear power plant based'on the site seismic design criteria.
2.2 Development of Seismic Design Chain T'he seismic design chain applicable to the Diablo Canyon j .
Nuclear Power Plant will be developed by the following ap .
l proaches:
, 2.2.1 Information to Seismic Design Chain l l
p i
,o The information necessary to develop the seismic '
- d
.P' .' , -design chain for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant ,
r 2, .i- is as followsi A
h
,,,f w ,- . Names of PGandE's contractors involved in'the n .
seismic safety-related work.,pri~or to June, 1978.
. Work scope of.each contractor ,
. r i
?
. .. - . . - --- . - - . ~ . . - . ~ - . .
l . ' .
z
. Commencement and ending dates of each contractor's~
work. ,-
. Design groups within PGandE responsible for the work of contractors.
. Interfaces of design groups within PGandE.
2.2.2 Seismic Design Chain Map The map of the seismic design chain involving service-related contractors prior to June 1978 will be develop-ed using information described in Section 2.2.1. 'This map will illustrate all interfaces, describe the inform-ation passing between interfaces, and list the respon-sibilities of all contractors at each step of the seismic design process. When the entire chain has been mapped, it will facilitate the review of all interfaces when design information was transmitted between PGandE internal design groups and each contractor.
J
- W s
9 D
b l
5 3.0 Quality Assurance Review The objective of this portion of the Design Verification -
Program is to evaluate the appropriate QA Programs against 10CFR50, Appendix B.
3.1 Controlling Documents The review team shc11 collect controlling Quality Assurance related documents associated with EIch of the organizations identified in the seismic design chain in Section 2.0. These documents shall include applicable revisions used in design control for the equipment being reviewed in the period prior to June 1978. -
3.1.1 Specific Documents to be Reviewed The specific documents to be r7 viewed during this phace e,
,j f ,
of review shall, as a minimum, include:
e' :
The PGandE Diablo Canyon Safety Analysis Report
> a)
% 7, b) The Quality Assurance Manuals and Quality Asturancef 4
Quality Control Procedures of each of the organiza-Y( e.4 f t tions in the design chain which were applicable dur-
,fef ~
- ing this design period.
c) The applicable procurement and design specifications used by each of the organizations in the design chain.
3.2 Review '
/h T
'd The review team shall conduct the review of the documents listed in Section 5.1.1 for compliance with the requirements of 10CFR50,
,3 /
4 i Appendix B,s< applicable to Design Control and the related criteria, u -
e.g. Reg. guides, NUREGS, ANSI, etc., for Instructions, Procedures f
and Drawings, and Document Control. This approach was selected
./ 4/
because these are the immediate criteria applicable to a desi5n verification program. However, there may be some
6 organizations in the design chain, e.g. a test lab, whose design activities include functions such as testing, equip-ment calibration,and controlling material. When reviewing these types or similar organizations it will be necessary for the review team to include additional Appendix B criteria in the review. Each such case will be evaluated to assure that the appropriate criteria are included in the review and imple- _
mentation audit.
3.2.1 Design Control i
The Review of the Quality Assurance Manual and Proce- !
, 3 dures shall determine whether: -
l
' 'g
., ./e .,- l CT applicab1p regulatory requirements (and the design j
} .J^ 0^ )/ a) basis were correctly translated into specifications, ;
3 , M,,. drawings, procedures and inst. ructions), and the (e ,p' , .
1 <
@~,,j'g[ appropriate quality standards were specified and !
! 6' included'in the design process and that deviatiens 4 ' s, 1 . ,9 '
- a from such standards were controlled; s i ,,.- ,
\t !
0 b) the control of design interfaces snd the coordina-tion among participating design organizations was adequate and included the establishment of
' ; procedures among participating design organizations
, ~for the revi'ew, approval, release, distribution, and r a
revision of documents: -
t
! c) control measures were provided for verifying or
\
1 checking the adequacy of design, such as by the performance of design reviews} by the use of al- ,
ternate or simplified calculation-methods, or by ;
the' performance of a suitabic testing program and
'that-the verifying or checking process was performed r -- ----r , e - + ww- m- -e,. -ews ----em-, - -a w .---re ,wn. -..,eg~.-m e- -
o- .-- - - ~-- , e a
- ? '7 by individuals or groups other than those who performed the original design; d) design changes were subject to design control measures commensurate with those applied to ;
. . the original design and approved by the organization that performed the original _
design.
3.2.1.1 Design Input The review ~ team shall determine whether applicable design inputs, such as design .
bases, performance requirements, regulatory requirecents, codes and standards were i-
~
dentified, documented, and their selection reviewed and approved, and whether the design input was specified and approved to the level of detail necessary to permit the design
^
activity to be carried out in a correct manner and to provide a consistent basis for making design decisions, accomplishing design verific-ation measures and evaluating design changes.
w s 3:2el.~2 Design Process ,
The review-team shall determine whether de-sign control measures were applied to verify '
the adequacy of design, such as by one or more of the following: the performance of de-sign reviews, the use.of alternate calcula-tions, or the performance of qualification tests.
g 4 , .,
3.2.1.4- Change Control -
c.
The review team shall determine whether changes to final design, were justified and subjected to design co,ntrol measures com-mensurate with those applied to the original design and approved by the same affected .
groups or organizations which reviewed and
~
approved the original design documents.
3.2.1.5 Interface Control The review team Ahall determine whether design -
interfaces were identified and responsibility defiped, lines of communication established and the design efforts coordinated among'the participating organizations.
3.2.1.6 Documentation and Records The review team shall determine whether design documentation and records, which provide evidence that the design and design verifica-tion processes were properly performed, were ~'
collected, stored, and maintained in accor '
dance with documented procedures. r 3.2.2 Instructions, Procedures.and Drawings The review team shall determine whether activities affecting seismic design were prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings of a type appro-priate to the circumstances and accomplished in.accor-dance with these instructions, procedures,sor drawings.
- e s-s _
. 9 1
J 1
3.2.3 Document Control ,
) . The review team shall determine whether measures were est ablished to control the issuance of documents, such as instructions, procedures, and drawings, including _
~
changes thereto, which prescribed activities af-fecting quality and that documents , including changes ,
were reviewed for adequacy and approved.for Telease I ,
by authorized personnel and are properly distributed.
l '
}
1
- t. .
J i.
1 ,
l e.
t a p.
I a
4 e
y
+
,i 1
- ' - ~ ~ -
e .
, 10 1
i ,
- 4.0 Review of Implementation of Quality Assurance Controls
The objective of this portion of tl.a Design Verification ,
j Program is to evaluate the implementation of the appropriate QA Programs assessed in Section 3.0.'
' 4.1 Development of Audit Plan _
The review team shall develop and conduct' verification audits ,
to assess the design control implemented by each contractor to cover his design activities for his contract (s).
I Where the review of Section 3.0 shows a method of control , .
ling design activities in an organized and documented manner which meets the requirements of 10CFR50, Appendix B, the
- audit will consist of-a review of objective evidence to verify l that the program was adequately implemented and documented.
} Where the program review team considers'that the contractor's ;
f program does not contain the controls of 10CFR50, Appendix B, j the audit will consist of a determination whether the design -
activities were controlled in a manner consonant with the criteria requirements of Appendix B.
I 4.2 Audit Scope and Depth -- '
I The scope of these audits will include a review of the
- implementation of Quality Assurance Procedures and controls ~I used by and for
i a) PGandE internal design groups that interfaced with j
- I the seismic contractor; H
b) each contractor's design group; -
t i !
- 11 c) transmittal of information between PGandE and each contractor; pp -
d) and transmittal g of contrsctor developed informa-
~' ' tion with4.n PGandE.
It will be necessary to use qualified engineers to review at least some of the calculations and analyses of each de-sign contractor. The review may consist of reviewing de-sign input and output for consistency, or a check review by use of simple calculations to approximate results, or a de-tailed check of a portion of the calculations for analysis to assure the results are correct. The results of each audit will have a direct bearing on the type and depth of sampling of design., See also last p'aragraph, Section 5.2.
' 4 If any contractors sublet dasign activit.es, it will also be
- necessarytoreviewthat subcontract r and his interfaces with others. Design interfaces will be reviewed whether they are internal or external to the group. Again, the ,
~
depth of review will dep,end upon the results of the implement-ation audit.
Some of the specific items to be addressed during these audits and subsequent design verification are:
. Correct application of design input data
. Documentation of design assumptions ,
. Applicability of quality requirements
. Identification of applicable codes, standards, and reg 61 story regnirements ',
. Adequacy of design interfaces
. Appropriateness of design methods used'
. Reasonableness of design input to' design output
. Verification that acceptance criteria was met
[
i^ .- .- i 12 i I
i .
i
+
5.0 Independent Sample Calculations l r
i s
- f
- 5.1 Types of Samples j
, i f
The sample size of equipment and buildings to be design j verified by independent calculations is shown in Table 1. [
j This sample is termed generic since it is chosen independently ~ [
p of the service related contractors and covers the entire plant. l j The generic sample will cover the significant design activities i of service contractors. l f i t .
I However, to provide for_the case where deficiencies are found ,
l in the review of Quality Assurance procedures and controls ,
{ of a given contractor, provisions have been made for additional !
f specific samples of design work to be chosen and checked by i-independent calculation. A specific sample will be chosen [
if it is' established that design control measures ~ of a given
< f I contractor are inadequate. This specific sample size will !
be determined by the type and extent of the deficiency, but it -
l ,
will' be at least-two items, if possible. Obviously the l l' . samples contained in the generic sample will.be reviewed to j determine if this requirement is met already. !
i --
I 5.2 Sampling Philosophy and Criteria !
! .l The fundamental objective of the independent calculations is. q to characterize the engineering applied to the buildings and -
l l . equipment by determining its accuracy and/or degree of conser- l vatism. To accomplish this objective, the generic sampic is 1
l '
i chosen on a judgment basis.
]
- The specific items of equipment were chosent
. -to obtain a sample from different contractors ,
{ . to obtain a sample of the more significant equipment.
i
- j. +
i
!- 13 The size of the sample was determined on the basis that the cross-section of the total engineering work provided is more than sufficient to establish the adequacy of the seismic design or indicate if significant errors exist. Again, more specific samples will be added to the generic samples if QA deficiences are determined. This will be done in the same _
manner as indicated in paragraph 5.1.
5.3 Repeat Samples and Evaluation If an error is found in a given sample, then a second sample will be chosen, and independent calculations performed ,
of the second sample. A finding as to the significance, cor-rect' ions and cause of the error will be made.
The sampling philosophy or sampling plan is technically described in inspection theory as " Multiple Sampling"*. In a general way when applied'te inspection of arbitrary lots of some product, multiple sampling is described as follows.
A certain sample of the general population is chosen and inspected. If there are no rejects or the rejects are fewer than a predetermined acceptance criteria, the lot is said to be acceptable. If rejects exceed the acceptance criteria then a second sa=ple is chosen and inspected and so on.
Since the product at hand cons,ists of seismic qualification of complex equipment, the formal procedure described above re-quires modification and interpretation. Nevertheless, the '
general philosophy behind the formal procedure can be followed.
However, actual errors will be found by a study of the engineer-ing work, and then by acquiring an unders.tanding of the sources of errors. For example, if an error is found,is it due to
- Guide for Sampling Inspection, Quality and Reliability As-surance Handbook H53, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Washington, D.C., June 30, 1965.
, 14 choiceofmethod,arithmeticaldiscrdpancy, carelessness, or poor understanding? By means of engineering interpreta*: ions of. error sources, and the conduct of repeated samples, it will be possible to' determine any errors in the plant seismic qualifications.
As an example,the following procedure given below will be adherred to as a minimum. .The modification and interpreta-tion to the referenced procedure primarily introduce ,the use of engineering judgment to the process. Thus, upon the detec-tion of any error in the process the following criteria will be used:
- 1. The error will be assessed for its significance to the discrete activity in~which it was contained. If insignifi-cant it will be logged and justified. If it is assessed as significant the process will proceed to step 2. -
! 2. The sensitivity of the activity to the design chain will be assessed and it will be dstermined if any limits are exceeded or if any negative implication to safety exists.
If either of these exist, a description of the error will
.be logged with the correction or recommendation. The cause of the error will be identified along with any indications of its potential to exist elsewhere. If it.
is determined that neither of the parameters are exceeded i the error will be logged with its cause and dispositions ,
" justified. ,
To illustrate the engineering interpretation of an error, :
suppose the seismic qualification of ten vertical cylindrical tanks containing fluid is under study, is a sample, 2 tanks are requalified independently and one fails to qualify, be-,
cause the center of gravity was chosen too low. The first nonqualification would be reported, and then a second sample of two would be selected at random and independently s
l' ,
15 requalified. Suppose the result were the same, and for the same reason. At this stage it.would be reasonable to stop taking samples.and instead go back and check all calculat' ions for center of gravity location. In other words, the formal sampling procedure will be interpreted and modified by the engineering facts within the framework of the multiple sampling plan.
5.4 Independent Requalification -
In this phase of the program the seismic qualification of equipment will be performed on a.. completely independent basis.
In each case, the starting point will be the engineering
. drawing which will -ine ' checked for applicability. All data required for the quglification will be obtained or calculated independently to guard against errors in common sources of data.
The requalification of buildings represents a special case, as described below. #
5.4.1 Building Requalification One of the five buildings will be chosen for re-verification. Present plans are to conduct a re-
' verification study on the auxiliary building.
Beginning with the drawings of the building, the ,
dynamic model will be reviewed. If it is found that {
the model is a reasonable representation of the build- l ing, the configuration of the model will be accepted. l Next, all input to the model willbe calculated inde- {'
pendently, including masses, stiffness, etc..The completemodelpropertiesfwillbecomparedthatwerc l used for.the Hosgri building qualification.
1 9
16
.The criteria for acceptance will be based upon the dynamic properties of the building in comparison with the ground motion. If the first mode natural fre-quency of the building lies on the peak of the ground
. response spectra, 10% variation of properties will be accepted. If the first mode natural frequency is -
not on a peak, then a 15% variation in properties will be accepted. If model properti;s are not acceptable, then the model will be re-analysed to determine the effect of variation of_ properties. Reverification of the building is an important step because most of the models were developed nearly 10 years ago.
. 5.4.2 Piping Requalification
! For analysis purposes, the piping is divided into piping " problems". A piping problem is a section of piping that is convenient to model for computer analysis.
In the Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Plant, there are approx-imately 230 Seismic Category I piping problems. Of ,
these roughly 5% are in Westinghouse scope (excluding the RCS). ,,
i
~
For reverification, a first sample of 10 problems will ;
be established, 1 of which is in Westinghouse scope.
Beginning with the drawings, new models will be develop . ,
ed in an independent manner. The models will be analysed with a different verified computer program so that a complete verification will be accomplished. Pipe stress, support loads,~and nozzle loads will be considered and
- a variation of 15% will be accepted so long as the allowable stresses or loads are not exceeded.
J f
t
17 ,
I If an unacceptable result is found, a report will be i made and a second sample of 10 will be re-analysed.
There is a certain amount of small bore piping in the plant that is required for cold safe shutdown. The
- s. mall bore piping is not computer analysed, but de-signed by a preset criteria for spacing of supports. _
This piping will be verified to have been des ~igned correctly according to the design criteria. A sample size of 200' of small bore piping will be chosen.
5.4.3 Pipe Supports .
A sample size of 20 pipe supports will be chosen for verification. These supports will be chosen from the group of supports that support the pipe of the 10 piping problems. In this way the piping loads can be independently verified. ,
The stress in,the pipe support will be computed in an independent manner and compared to the stress com-puted in the Hosgri qualification. A variation in computed stress of 15% will be the acceptance criteri'a.
As long as the allowable limits are not exceeded. If this occurs, 'a separate evaluation will be made.
5.4.4 Conduit Supports ,
A sample size of 20 conduit supports will be chosen for reverification. These supports will be a random sampling of trapeze and cantilcher type designs. Sup-ports that clamp the conduit to the wall will not be chosen. Actual conduit sizes and cable loading will be determined, thus verifying the support loading.
Stresses will be calculated using the quasistatic method
}
employed during the Hosgri verification.
, 18'
. If the reverification philosophy were followed, a second sample would be taken, reverified, etc. However, in this case if the calculated stresses vary ~by more than 15%'and as long as allowable stresses are not exceeded, a different procedure will be followed since the quasi-static method of calculation is believed to be very conservative, and the basic interest of this -
program is to determine that equipment meets design
criteria or st'ress limits.
If a variation in stress of more that 15% is found then l a dynamic model will be developed of a portion of the conduit support system containing.the suspect supports. -
A dynamic analysis will be performed that considers the dynamic response of the conduit and conduit sup-port system. -
5.4.5 Equipment A sampling of equipment will be independently verified as follows:
~~
. 2 tanks 2 heat exchangers ,
. 2 pumps
. 6 valves (with operators)
~. I safety related ventailation duct & supports
. 6 electrical instrumentation and control equipment qualified by test These items will be requalified to the Hosgri acceptance criteria. If any do not meet the criteria, another sampl'e will be chosen.
e L_
19
- 1 4
Regarding the electrical equipment qualified by test, the response spectra generated on the shake table (TRS) will be compared to the required response spectra (RRS) for the electrical equip-ment qualified by test. Re-testing is not envisioned unless unqualified equipment is found. _
The valves will be chosen from those that form a part of the piping sample. In this way the loads acting on the valves will be independently derived. ,
1 k
'e e
S O.
'f
+
4 e
e 9
l 1
. e
20 TABLE OF ITEMS TO BE ,
INDEPENDENTLY REQUALIFIED ITEM -
SAMPLE SIZE w- BUILDINGS 1 ,
PIPING PROBLEMS 10 SMALL BORE PIFING 200 feet PIPE SUPPORTS -
20 CONDUIT SUPPORTS 20 TANKS 2 HEAT EXCHANGERS 2 i PUMPS 2 VALVES . 6 ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 10 \
~
HVAC DUCTS 1 O
9 dP TABLE 1 e
l i
1 9
' . , . ....\e , - . .. . . -
-__._.---.---x - - -
.. - 21 ,
- 9. ..<..
6.0 Field Verificatio,n In order to ensure that the equipment is built and installed i in the manner for which it was qualified a subse'quent indepen-dent field verification will be made.
- O 1
J l -
t 4
7 n
e, 4
J e
$ 1
- e e I l
- {
- I h
. ,o l
- " - - = ___ . . _ . _ _ - - - _ _ . - _ . _ _ - _ . _ - - - _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _
. ~
, ..- 22 7.0 Program Approach ,
The review team (s) shall establish review plans,' checklists, schedule (s), priorities for accomplishing the Design Verific- .
ation Program.
The findings of the program shall be documented. The applic- - i able findings will be contained in the bi-weekly report with .
all the findings, resolutions, causes and dispositions included in the final report.
l l
. t I
i
- i I
J ,
~
f,
. r a
g l
4 t
i o
I i
t
. t l
i b
- - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - -_-_______--_-______-_-____.___2-_--____._
o ,
'f* 23 8.0 Conclusion -
The Design Verification Program presented in this' report is designed to be responsive to each point of the request for information listed in Attachment 1 to the NRC order suspend-ing license, CLI-81-30, for DCNPP-1, dated November 19,.1981.
This verification program is designed to establish the correct-ness of the seismic design. "I't will detect errors in the
.eismic design process that arise in the generation of data, in the transmission of data, or in the use of data. This will be accomplished by an in-depth review of Quality Assurance practices, independent. sample calculations, and field verifica '
tion of as-built conditions. A sampling approach employing engineering judgment will be employed which is designed to expand the scope of the program upon detection of an error.
Bi-weekly reports will be submitted as requested. A final report will be prepared and submitted upon completion of the ,
program. The significance of errors found will be evaluated.
'If any errors are found to be significant, recommendations will be made. This will include a description of the error; correctio~n, if required; implication to safety, if any; .
the,,
a cause of the. error with a statement as.to whether it is' generic 4 or not and a justification. Errors' determined to be insignifi-cant will be explained. ,
e J
\
l M
6 9
,. . .; v , . 4 -
---'i-- " '