ML20202J118

From kanterella
Revision as of 09:59, 1 January 2021 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Rev 3 to DAP-4, Preparation of Checklists
ML20202J118
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 01/15/1986
From:
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:
Shared Package
ML20202J051 List: ... further results
References
DAP-4, NUDOCS 8607170027
Download: ML20202J118 (24)
v • d • e


Text

__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

TITLE PREPARATION OF CFECKLISTS NUMBER DAP-4 Revision P_repared Date Reviewed Date 4pproved Date o hk&A Gr p .e s , %f 1%W "Mec I

pN4A h/73/ frf C ##!#Y  !

2qaa +w a l< "%IbG alw g

3 G$% %S 1%Q% /' </*

hD ADO K 000 45 A PDR Gi TN-85-6262/4 i

i l

I TABLE OF CONTENTS Section E95Le Cove r S hee t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I . .

Tab le of Con ten t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ii. . . .

1.0 P URP OS E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I . .

2.0 SCOPE..................................................... I 3.0 DEFINITIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 -

4.0 INS T R UCT ION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -

i 5.0 DOCUME NT ATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ATTACHMENTS A DESIGN CRITERIA REVIEW CECKLIST ...................... A-1 B DESIGN REVIEW

SUMMARY

CECKLIST ..................... B-l C DESIGN REVIEW EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1 1

D ADDITIONAL CE CKLIST CONSIDE R ATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-l E

QUALITY ASSURANCE CECKLIST CONSIDERATIONS ......... E-I F

DISCIPLIE/ SUBJECT CODES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-I C

i CE C KL IS T L OG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1 ..

J i

TN-85-4262/4 II I

l 1

^ ^ --

.ANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE

, aber: DAP-4

Title:

PREPARATION OF CifCKLISTS Revision: 3 (D

U l.0 PURPOSE This procedure specifies the requirements for preparation of design document review check!!sts to be used in the performance of the CPSES Design Adequacy Progrom (DAP).

2.0 SCOPE This procedure applies whenever a design document review checklist is required by a Discipline Specific Action Plan, o DAP procedure, or through a Discipline Instruction issued by the Review Team Leoder, Design Adequacy Program Manager, or Discipline Coordinator.

3.0 DEFINITIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 3.1 Definitions 3.1.1 Criterion A criterion is any statement of a performance, design feature, or design requirement which a system, structure, or component must meet in order to be capable of performing its design function or to be in compliance with a project requirement or commitment.

3.1.2 Commitment A commitment is any statement made by the project as part of the public record which identifies a system performance requirement, design feature, or design requirement which will be met by the project.

TN-8S-6262/4 Page I of 7

1 COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-4

Title:

PREPARATION OF CHECKLISTS

  • Revision: 3 73

(

3.l.3 Implementing Document i

implementing documents are design documents (such as calculations, evaluations, 1 ond analyses) that translate design criteria into design output documents.

3.1.4 Output Document Output documents are design documents (such as drawings and specifications) that define technical requirements of systems, structures, and components.

3.2 Responsibilities 3.2.1 Checklist Developer Checklists shall be developed by personnel assigned by the Discipline Coordino-tor. The Discipline Coordinator may also be a checklist developer.

O 3.2.2 Discipline Coordinator The Discipline Coordinator shall assign personnel to develop checklists. He shall define the purpose and scope of each checklist. This definition may be in the form of verbal direction to checklist developers.

4.0 INSTRUCTION 4.1 Evoluotion Design Criteria and Review Topics Checklists will be prepared to ensure a consistent and complete review of design criteria for the various review topic areas. Design criteria review checklists shall be prepared using the format of Attachment A for each design discipline TN-85-6262/4 Page 2 of 7

COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE

, Number: DAP-4

Title:

PREPARATION OF CECKLISTS l

Revision: 3 I Q  !

review topic area to verify that the review topic criteria are complete, consistent, and adequately defined. Design review summary checklists shall also  !

be prepared using the format of Attachment B to summarize the verification of the implementation of the review topic criteria. Where appropriate, the Discipline Coordinator may allow more than one review area to be evaluated on a single checklist (Attachment A or B). The Discipline Coordinator may authorize alternatives to the format of Attachments A and B; however, the olternative format shall contain comparable information. The Discipline 1 Coordinator shall maintain a log of checklists used in the format of Attachment G to this procedure. This log meets the requirements of DAP ll and be filed in accordance with DAP 14.

4.2 Preparation of Checklists Unless otherwise directed by the Discipline Coordinator, Design Criteria and G Design Review checklists shall be prepared in occordance with the format of Attachments A and B for the various review topics. The Discipline Coordinator shall assign one or more individuals to the preparation and completion of the checklists. The Discipline Coordinator may develop checklists.

A Design Review Evoluotion form is prepared for each review topic in accor-dance with the format of Attachment C. The criterio/ commitments (from the list developed in accordance with DAP-1) opplicable to the topic are reviewed and selected for inclusion on the checklist. The checklist preparer may select fewer than 100 percent of the opplicable criterio provided that the bases for such selection are documented'as on ottochment to the Design Review Summary form. Where o criterion / commitment listed in the criterio/ commitments list is itself a source of criteria that is not expanded upon in the list, the checklist TN-85-6262/4 Page 3 of 7

, - . . . - - - _ . .-.m.- . , - ,

COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE

, Number: DAP-4

Title:

PREPARATION OF CECKLISTS Revision: 3 O should use detailed criterio extracted from that source. Where fewer than 100 percent of the opplicable criterio/ commitments are used, the bases for the selection of specific criteria shall be documented as on ottochment to the Design Review Evoluotion. * ' e selected criterio/ commitments (including more detailed criteria obtained from the source document) are entered in the " Attributes Reviewed" column of Af tochment C.

The " Description of Verification" column of Attachment C shall be completed to describe the method by which implementation of the criterion will be verified (e.g., line-by-line check of a calculation, comparison of selected calculation pages against selected drawings, etc.). If necessary, this column may be cross-referenced to on ottochment that contains more information on the verification methodolgy. If the criterion itself does not represent odequate acceptance criteria for the review the description of verification column shall contain this information.

) Specific documents to be reviewed are selected in accordance with DAP-21.

Where appropriate, development of the Design Review Evaluation form and the selection of specific documents may proceed in parallel if necessary to ensure the adequacy of the checklist form. In addition, the person preparing the Design Review Evoluotion form should also give consideration to the following factors:

o Whether similar document type.4 exist such thot a combi-nation of document types is mieded to reach c conclusion about the odequacy of a portion of the design process (e.g., there may be eight types of mechanical calculations and selecting one of each type, as required above may provide on odequate test of the calculation process, such that no significant benefit is gained from testing multiple examples within each type) o Whether the criteria that could be verified by additional examples of the document type con also be verified by other document types or through other means (e.g., by comparison with pre-operational test results).

I i

TN-85-6262/4 Page 4 of 7 l

COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-4

Title:

PREPARATION OF Cl-ECKLISTS Revision: 3 l

l 4.3 Additional Checklist items in addition to the speelfic checklist items extracted from the criteria / commit-ments list, the checklist developer shall consider the items in Attachments D and E and shall incorporate them into the checklist os determined to be appropriate by the checklist develcper and the Discipline Coordinator. In considering these items (which are defined in ANSI N45.2.ll-1974, Section 6.3.1), the developer and Discip!!ne Coordinator shall take into consideration that not all items are opp!!coble to each document type, that other aspects of the review may odequately oddress these topics, and that the wording of the item may need to be clarified for use in the checklist.

4.4 Approval of Checklists Formats Each Discipline Coordinator shall opprove all checklist forms developed for his discip!!ne. This approval requirement applies to design review evaluation forms (whether in the format cf Attochment C or in an citernative format), to checklist forms that are used as alternatives to Attachments A and B (Discipline Coordinator approval of Attochments A and B is not required), and to any other checklists developed for his discipline. The opproval of the Discip!!ne Coordino-for to use a checklist form shall be in the form of a memo to appropriate personnel authorizing them to use the forms noted in the memo. Supplemental attributes added to o checklist form in occordance with Section 4.5 below shall not require Discipline Coordinator approval prior to completion of the checklist.

4.5 Use of Checklist Other DAP procedures and discipline Instructions govern the use of checklist forms developed in occordonce with this procedure. Prior to using any checklist form to conduct a review in occordance with a procedure governing its use, the person intending to use the checklist form shall assure himself or herself that the TN-85-4262/4 Page 5 of 7

COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-4

Title:

PREPARATION OF CHECKLISTS Revision: 3 O checklist form is odequate for its intended purpose, in particular, the user shall consider whether any item on Attachments D and E should be odded to the checklist form. Furthermore, the reviewer may odd any additional attributes that he or she feels is necessary to ensure the adequacy of a design review evoluotion form (Attachment C or equivalent). Such additional attributes or other checklist form supplements may be added without prior Discipline Coordinator opproval. Discipline Coordinator opproval is achieved when the completed checklist is approved.

5.0 DOCUMENTATION 5.1 Identification Of Checklist Forms Design review evoluotion checklist forms (i.e., checklist forms similar to the format of Attachment C that contain the review attributes, but which have not been used for o review) shall be given a checklist form number, revision number, j } and date. The checklist form number shall be placed in the lower right hand corner of each page of the form if Attachment C is used; otherwise the checklist form number may be placed where it is deemed appropriate by the Discipline Coordinator. The initial version of each form is designated "Rev. 0".

The format of the checklist identificotton shall be:

DAP Form No. g-YYY, Rev. N, ZZy/ZZ Date Revision Number Sequentlo! Number Discipline / Subject Code (See Attachment F)

TN-85-6262/4 Pooe 6 of 7

COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-4

Title:

PREPARATION OF CFECKI ISTS Revision: 3 O This numbering requirement for checklist forms is retroactive and shall be applied to all checklist forms. The Discipline Coordinator shall maintain a log of checklist forms (See Attachment G).

5.2 Revision of Checklist Forms The Discipline Coordinator may direct that checklist forms be revised at anytime. Unless specifically directed by the Discipline Coordinator, the revision of a checklist form shall not invalidate any checklist completed using a previous revision of a checklist form. The appropriate revision number and date shall be entered onto the forms. The sections of the form affected by the revision shall be marked with a vertical line and revision number in either the left or right hand margin of the form. Supplemental attributes entered into a checklist by a reviewer in accordance with Section 4.5 of this procedure shall not be considered revisions to the checklist form.

( l 5.3 Checklist identification After upproval of a completed checklist has been obtained in accordance with the DAP governing its use, the checklist shall be assigned a control identificotton number by the Discipline Coordinator. The identification number shall be of the following format:

DAP-CL-XX-YYY a o

-Sequential Number Discipline / Subject Code (See Attachment F)

The Discipline Coordinator shall enter all checklists used in the discipline for which he is responsible in a Checklist Log (Attachment G).

I TN-85-4262/4 Pooe 7 of 7

ATTACHMENT A COMANCE PEAK DESIGN CRITERIA REVIEW CECKLIST DSAP CRITERIA LIST NUMBER /REV CHECKLIST NUMBER

]h L

l Review Topic Number (s)/ Title (s)

List the Design Criteria Sources:

General Design Criteria FSAR Section(s) ,

Regulatory Guide (s)

List Criteria Which Are Being Reviewed:

Criteria No.

9 i

g Attachment A

n. - u- 2 -- - e a 4 - a - v--- - - - - - - - -

Are the Design Criteria for this Design Topic Complete?

"no," describe the missing design inputs.

Are the Identified Design Criteria for this Design Topic Consistent?

If "no," describe the inconsistencies.

i i

Are the Design Criterio Adequately Defined to the Level of Detail Necessary to:

1. Allow the design activity to be carried out in a correct manner? Yes
No
2. Provide a basis for making design decisions and evoluoting design changes?

Yes No .

3. Provide a basis for accomplishing design verification? Yes No If any of the above are answered "no" describe the lack of dock of detail i

i l

l l

1 -

l 3

85-4262/4 A-2

sochment A Rev. 3 s

4'

__._ ... - - -- - -- - - - - - - -- -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - ~ ~ ~ - ' ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

p~ummarize Results of the Review.

(

i 4

1 d

Reviewer Date ld Discipline Coordinator Date l

4 f

i j 4-85-6262/4 A-3 Rev.3

! Attochment A ~

l 1

1

  • p e

'., ,- ,,.p-- -, w.m m,e.-pe,-w-e-----metem~~w*"-*--C"W'" " " " * " * " ' ' ~ ' ' ' ' ' '

, ATTACHMENT B COMANCE PEAK DESIGN REVEW

SUMMARY

CECKLIST CHECKLIST NUMBER DSAP Review Topic Number (s)/ Title (s) .g Documents Reviewed:

Document Name Number Rev Date Safety-Related Yes No

)

t escription of Review Scope and Purpose, i

l l

.s 1-85-6262/4 B-I Rev.3 lochment B

s List Design Criteria for this Review 4

1 Assumptions Listed for Each Document? Yes No e the Assumptions Reasonable and Valid? Yes No tions Consistent with Are Design theCriterio Assump/ implementing Documents? Yes No

!' Have all Assumptions which Require Verification Been Verified? Yes No Comments on Assumptions (Discuss Each "No" Answer Above) l 85-6262/4 B-2 Rev.3 sochment B i

. i i

Are the References including Data Sources (for the Documents

}eviewed) Listed? Yes No i

/

' re References Suf ficiently Identified with Revision or Date? Yes No i

1 Comments on

References:

(Discuss Eoch "No" Answer Above) l l

s l

j O a l

Were Changes from Specified Design Criteria identified, as well as the Reasons for the Change?

Was on Appropriate Design Method Used?

Explain:

2 4

4

" 85 4262/4 B-3

. tochment B Rev. 3 4

,~.,w,,--r,..nnn-.-, - - - - . .- - -. , , - ,n,,,-en-,.w,-nn---,,,w,--n-,,,.-.,--.----_-,,a.,,.-,._,.,~.,_,..__n,,._.-,,,--,__na.,

l List Computer Progroms Used.

Verified Proaram Reference Yes/No i

l i

i Are the Cornputer Outputs Reasonable Compared to inputs?

Explain l

[

l i

i

{

N-85-6262/4 B-4 Rw. 3 Attochment B ,

d r-w-~m,--vw-,m-

.- -. - =, . .__ .- - _, . _ . _ _ _ _ . - . _ _ _

-Summarize Results of the Review.

1 1

Discrepancies identified (if applicable) (Reference DAPTS DIR Number) i

)

List Attachments:

i l

Reviewer Date ld l

Discipline Coordinator Date l

l TN-85-6262/4 B-5 Rev.3 l Attachment B

- - , - --- , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - _ , - - - _ _ - . . . - - - - . . . . . -.-. ,. . . , , _ .. ~ . . . .

T A3/

ll t

s n

e m

m

~ - o /

' C

/

. e /

vt t ea aA s

RD nN U/

/C tN a

S v e -

R f

ono ol a ni ot Nv t o i

t pic a

e r jf ep .i N hp SA n xre O

T I i t

o DeV -

A i p

CU i xa T L A N/

{j D 1 l

a C

^ r Qt AV GRE e n

e )eg E G G e a hR A U cP n,

AN N et rn m G

I T ee ee r o

S S f F

I t t aa e m E

D L K DD Rcou P C A D

( D

-W C

d. .

kv e

R s

s e e

c t

u s b 4

) r e

n i

/

e r t r 2 b 6 m f e A t

2 u e 6-

.t N R 5

.i s

.l i a y r

8-kc .k r e a N ye t i m T i

eh r r RC C P

1 ATTACHMENT D ADDITIONAL CECKLIST CONSIDERATIONS

1. Were the inputs correctly selected and incorporated into design?
2. Are assumptions necessary to perform the design activity odequately described and reasonable? Where necessary, are the assumptions identified for subsequent re-verifications when the detailed design activities are completed?
3. Are the appropriate quality and quality assurance requirements specified?
4. Are the applicable codes, standards, and regulatory requirements, including issue and oddenda, properly identified and are their requirements for design met?
5. Have applicable construction and operating experience been considered?
6. Have the design interface requirements been satisfied?
7. Was on appropriate design method used?
8. Is the output reasonable compared to inputs?
9. Are the specified parts, equipment, and processes suitable for the required opplication?
10. Are the specified materials compatible with each other and the design environmental conditions to which the material will be exposed?

I 1. Have odequate maintenance features and requirements been specified?

12. Are accessibility and other design provisions odequate for performance of
needed maintenance and repair?

l

! 13. Has odequate accessibility been provided to perform the in-service inspection expected to be required during the plant life?

14. Has the design properly considered radiation exposure to the public and plant personnel?
15. Are the acceptance criteria incorporated in the design documents sufficient to allow verification that design requirements have been satisfactorily accomplished.

, I6. Have odequate pre-eperational and subsequent periodic test requirements been oppropriately specified?

TN-85-4262/4 D-l Rev.3 Attochment D

ATTACHAENT D (continued

17. Are adequate handling, storage, cleaning, and shipping requirements specified?
18. Are odequate identification requirernents specified?
19. Are requirements for record preparation review, approval, retention, etc.,

odequately specified?

.i

.i l

l l

l '

i i l TN-85-6262/4 D-2 Rev. 3 Attochment D

ATTACHAENT E l

QUALITY ASSURANCE CECMLIST CONSIDERATIONS

! o

- Are design analyses sufficiently detailed as to purpose method, ossumptions, design input, references and units such that a person technically qualified in the subject con review and understond the onolyses and verify the odequacy of the results without recourse to the originator?

o Was a design review performed and documented?

4 o Was the extent of design verification or review commensurate with the importance of the design to safety, its complexity, degree of standardization, relation to the state-of-the-art, and similarity with the previously proven designs?

o Do appropriate design documents have review and approval signatures?

o Were changes in designs (including field changes) justified? Were they subjected to design control measures (such as review and approval) commensurate with these opplied to the original design?

o Are the Design Criteria defined to the level cf detail necessary:

1. To allow the design activity to be carried out in a correct manner?
2. To provide a basis for making design decisions and evaluating

, design changes?

3. To provide a basis for accomplishing design verification?

o Are assumptions listed?

l i o Are assumptions reasonable and valid?

o Are there assumptions which conflict with Design Criteria j Implementing Documents?

o Have assumptions which require verification been verified?

4 i

i TN-85-6262/4 E-l Rev.3 Attochment E i

1

ATTACHMENT F COMANCFE PEAK DESIGN ADEQUACY PROGRAM DISCPLDE/SUBECT CODES Code Discipline C/S Civil / Structural P Piping and Supports M Mechanical EIC Electrical / Instrumentation PGl Programmatic / Generic Implications E Electricol*

OI instrumentation

  • A
  • NOTE: Use of T" and "1" codes are optional alternatives to the TIC" code.

EIC may be used for both Electrical and l&C. T" may be used when the document is relevant only to the electrical discipline. "I" may be used when the document is relevant only to Instrumentation and Control.

TN-85-6262/4 F-l Rev. 3 At tachment F

- w ml .

W

  • 4 0

5 m tR 5

E N k -

I -

b B g w

e 7

a E!

d

  • e

< v8 a

i o

o s W >-

xx w

m 6

2 i

! d e

p-

' b J u l TN-85-4262/4 C-l Rev. 3 Attochment C

_.. - - . _ , . . . _ _ _ - _ . . _ , _ _ . _ _ _ ,._.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20202J118&oldid=3070925"