Control of Engineering Margins
General Course Description:
This course is intended to build upon "Response to Conditions Adverse to Quality." The model used in that course to describe Installed Capability, Full Qualification, and Required SSC Function is expanded to include the requirements of Design Control.
This course examines the regulatory and technical requirements for the design process. As the legal requirements become more extensive, the value of the Three-Ball Configuration Management Model becomes more apparent. This model is introduced and ten examples are used to illustrate the learning objectives, along with commonly-encountered errors. INPO's plans to evaluate each site's configuration management program is compared to the course material.
Recommended Student Population:
This course is intended for engineering, licensing, and configuration management personnel. This course presumes familiarity with basic engineering practices such as modifications, 10 CFR 50.59 qualification, use of calculations, and a working knowledge of operability and corrective action.
Course Length:
The course is two to two and a-half days in length, depending on options selected.
Method of Instruction:
The class initially establishes a common understanding of the terminology used to describe the design control and licensing processes. The multiple interrelationships are graphically summarized. The Three-Ball Configuration Model (CM) is introduced and compared to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
The CM model is used to analyze ten illustrative examples. The more complex examples are examined against the more fundamental Appendix B requirements. These examples provide a forum for discussion and examination of commonly-encountered processes and errors.
The use of calculations and analyses within the design control process is illustrated. Five commonly-encountered calculation alterations are examined to identify their characteristics that dictate varied treatment. The distinctions are summarized with tables and graphics.
Degree of Site-Specific Customization,
if developed for a single site:
The class is intended to be customized for a specific site. Site-specific design documents, specifications, drawings, and calculations are acquired and the class will categorize each into their proper location and use within the design control/CM process.
The site-specific procedures used to implement the ten classroom examples, when these activities are performed at that site, are marked-up and reviewed by the class. During that review the site-specific procedural controls governing the critical activities associated with each of the ten examples are identified and discussed.
If the class is delivered at a central location, such
as Chicago, Illinois, then a review of EPRI's Optimized Change Process
will be provided.
All Instructional Material required to deliver the class, including lesson plans, exam banks, presentation files, posters, etc, is available.
Special Course Features or Prerequisites:
As described above, this course is not an entry-level course.
The student should be:
| > | 10 CFR 50.59 qualified, with some experience performing screenings as described in NEI 96-07 or the USA Resource Manual |
| > | Familiar with the separate goals of the Operability and Corrective Action Processes |
| > | Capable of discussing the site’s design and operation using terms from Generic Letter 91-18 such as Full Qualification, Required/Specified Function, and Final Design Point |
| > | Generally familiar with the use of calculations within the design process |
Graduates of the course “Response to Conditions Adverse to Quality” would satisfy the second and third prerequisites.
Major Course Goals Extracted from the Presentation:
The student shall define and identify:
| 1. | Design Control using terms from Regulatory Guide 1.186, 10 CFR 50.2, and industry standards. |
| 2. | The major elements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, “Design Control.” |
| 3. | The relationship of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B criteria to Design Control. |
| 4. | The structure and use of a Configuration Management Model. |
| 5. | The relationship of Design Control to the activities described below: • Routine Modifications • Corrective Action • Operability Determinations • UFSAR and DBD Updating • Calculation Control • Discrepancy Resolution • Alternate Parts Replacement • Engineering Margin Management |
| 6. | The use of XXX’s procedures to implement the activities described above. |
| 7. | The relationship of course learning objectives to INPO’s assessment plans. |
is available here: Designintro.pps