Quality Assurance and Peer Review

DOE-STD-1020-2002

annual probability of exceedance for the SSC under consideration was 10-4, it would be

acceptable to reconsider the SSC at hazard annual probability of exceedance of 2x10-4. This

would have the effect of slightly reducing the seismic, wind, and flood loads in the SSC

evaluation by about 10% to 20%. This amount of relief is within the tolerance of meeting the

target performance goals and is only a minor adjustment of the corresponding NPH design and

evaluation criteria. In addition, it is consistent with the intent of the Federal Program (Ref. 1-8)

developed by the Interagency Committee on Seismic Safety in Construction. When upgrading

becomes necessary, the design should be based on the current design criteria in the standard for

the new facility. The DOE G 420.1-2 Guide provides guidance for facilities with a remaining

service life of less that

5 years.

1.4

Quality Assurance and Peer Review

All DOE structures, systems, and components must be designed or evaluated utilizing a

formal quality assurance plan as required by 10 CFR Part 830. (Ref.1-13) and DOE O 414.1

(CHG 1) (Ref.1-12). The QA and peer review should be conducted within the framework of a

graded approach with increasing level of rigor employed from Performance Category 1 to 4.

Specific details about a formal quality assurance plan for NPH design and evaluation should be

similar to the seismic plan described in the Commentary, Appendix C. The major features of a

thorough quality assurance plan for design or evaluation for natural phenomena hazards are

described below.

In general, it is good practice for a formal quality assurance plan to include the following

requirements. On the design drawings or evaluation calculations, the engineer must describe the

NPH design basis including (1) description of the system resisting NPH effects and (2) definition

of the NPH loading used for the design or evaluation. Design or evaluation calculations should

be checked for numerical accuracy and for theory and assumptions. For new construction, the

engineer should specify a program to test materials and inspect construction. In addition, the

engineer should review all testing and inspection reports and visit the site periodically to observe

compliance with plans and specifications.

For Performance Categories 2, 3, and 4, NPH design or evaluation must include

independent peer review. The peer review is to be performed by independent, qualified

personnel. The peer reviewer must not have been involved in the original design or evaluation.

If the peer reviewer is from the same company/organization as the designer/evaluator, he must

not be part of the same program where he could be influenced by cost and schedule

consideration. Individuals performing peer reviews must be degreed civil/mechanical engineers

or qualified professionals in the field of review with 5 or more years of experience in NPH

evaluation. Section 2.3 of RP-6 provides good guidance about the qualifications of designers

and reviewers.

1-7