ML20205Q143

Forwards Results of Second Audit of Qualified Display Processing Sys Design Process & Validation & Verification Activities,Concluding General Acceptability.Third Audit Scheduled for June 1986

ML20205Q143
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	05/19/1986
From:	Kadambi N Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Goldberg J HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO.
References
NUDOCS 8605280182
Download: ML20205Q143 (25)

Text

-

. v MY 19 %

Docket Nos: 50 -498 and 50 -499 Mr. J. H. Goldberg Group Vice President - Nuclear Houston I.ighting and Power Company Post Office Box 1700 Fouston, Texas 77001

SUBJECT:

SECOND AUDIT OF TFE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT (STP)

QUAI.IFIED DISPLAY PROCESSING SYSTEM (QDPS).

Enclosed are the results of the second audit conducted by the staff of the QDPS at the Westinghouse facilities in Monroeville, Pa. Based on our audit of the design process and of the verification and validation activities for the Plant Safety Monitoring System (PSMS) and Qualified Control System within the QDPS, the staff concludes that it is generally acceptable to continue the design and manufacture of these systems and to execute the verification and validation plan. However, this acceptance is conditional on having a validation plan sufficiently broad in scope to address any discrepancies in the design process and to compensate for the lack of independent, formal design verification.

The staff's review of the validation plan will be conducted at the third audit In addition, we have identified issues on software maintenance and documentation, which will also be audited.

The tnird audit in this series in tentatively scheduled for the third week in June, 1986. Please contact me at (301) 492 -7272 if you have any questions.

N. Prasad Kadambi, Project Manager PWR Project Directorate No.

Division of PWR I.icensing-A

Enclosure:

1. Audit Report, Houston I.ighting & Power Company Qualified Display Processing System

2. Attendence I.ist cc: F. Rosa (EICSB)

Distribution

. Docket J11es PD#5 R/F EJordan PKadambi NRC PDR TNovak JPartlow ACRS(10) 1.ocal PDR OE!.D B. Grimes NRushbrook PD#5 PKadaa i (f V IR: #5 onan 5 /86 5 6 8605280182ggo ADOCK 98 PDR PDR A

i M

' UNITED STATES es 3 [g), t j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, O C. 20555 f....h.-

une as Docket Nos: 50 -498 and 50 -499 Mr. J. P. Goldberg Group Vice Dresident - Nuclear Houston t.ighting and Power Company Post Office Box 1700 Pouston, Texas 77001

SUBJECT:

SECOND AUDIT OF THE SOUTP TEXAS PROJECT (STP)

QUAT.IFIED DISPl.AY PROCESSING SYSTEM (QDPS).

Enclosed are the results of the second audit conducted by the staff of the QDPE at the Westinghouse facilities in Monroeville, Pa. Based on our audit of the design process and of the verification and validation activities for the Plant Safety Monitoring System (PSMS) and Qualified Control System within the QDPS, the staff concludes that it is generally acceptable to continue the design and manufacture of these systems and to execute the verification and validation plan. However, this acceptance is conditional on having a validation plan sufficiently broad in scope to address any discrepancies in the design process and to compensate for the lack of independent, formal design verification.

The staff's review of the validation plan will be conducted at the third audit In addition, we have identified issues on software maintenance and documentation, which will also be audited.

The third audit in this series in tentatively scheduled for the third week in June, 1986. Please contact me at (301) 492 -7272 if you have any questions, f

,. 4 . cdl. .

N. Prasad Kadambi, Project Manager PWR Project Directorate No.

Division of PWR Licensing-A

Enclosure:

1. Audit Report, Pouston I.ighting & Power Company Qualified Display Processing System

2. Attendence f.ist cc: F. Rosa (EICSB) 4

. _ . . . . . -.;_:.a. .

Mr. J. F. Goldberg Fouston lighting and Power Company South Texas Project CC' Brian Berwick, Esq. Resident Inspector / South Texas Assistant Attorney General Project Environmental Protection Division c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 12548 P. O. Box 910 Capitol Station Bay City, Texas 77414 Austin, Texas 78711 Mr. Jonathan Davis Mr. J. T. Westermeir Assistant City Attorney Manager, South Texas Project City of Austin Fcuston 1.ighting and Power Company P. O. Box 1088 P. O. Box 1700 Austin, Texas 78767 Fouston, Texas 77001 Ms. Pat Coy Mr. F. L. Peterson Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Mr. G. Pokorny Power City of Austin 5106 Casa Oro P. O. Box 1088 San Antonio, Texas 78233 Austin, Texas 78767 Mr. Mark R. Wisenberg Mr. J. B. Poston Manager, Nuclear licensing Mr. A. Von Rosenberg Pouston lighting and Power Company City Public Service Boad P. O. Box 1700 -

P. O. Box 1771 Fouston, Texas 77001 San Antonio, Texas 78296 Mr. Charles Falligan Jack R. Newman, Esq. Mr. Burton L. Lex Newman & Holtzinger, P.C. Bechtel Corporation 1615 1. Street, NW P. O. Box 2166 Washington, D.C. 20036 Fouston, Texas 77001 Melbert Schwartz, Jr., Esq. Mr. E. R. Brooks Baker & Botts Mr. R. L. Range One Shell Plaza Central Power and light Company Fouston, Texas 77002 P. O. Box 2122 Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 Mrs. Peggy Buchorn Executive Director Citizens for Equitable Utilities, Inc.

Route 1, Box 1684 Brazoria, Texas 77422

. -- . c ,

. l Houston lighting & Power Company South Texas Project l i

l CC:

Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Executive Director for Operations 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 <

Mr. I.anny Sinkin, Counsel for Intervenor Citizens Concerned about Nuclear Power, Inc.

Christic Institute 1324 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20002 licensing Representative Pouston lighting and Power Company Suite 1309 7910 Woodmont Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 i a

~,

ENCLOSURE 1 SECOND AUDIT REPORT HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY QUALIFIED DISPLAY PROCESSING SYSTEM

1. BACKGROUND The Houston Lighting and Power Company (HL&P) is developing a microcomputer based system, which will perform functions that will directly impact upon the safe operation of its South Texas Project (STP). The STP is a dual 1250 MW Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) Nuclear Generating Station, which is currently scheduled for completion and licensing by June 1987.

The microcomputer based system is being designed by Westinghouse and is called the Qualified Display Processing System (QDPS). This system is described in the applicant' FSAR and it is being designed to perform the following functions:

Data acquisition, processing, and qualified (Class 1E) display for Post Accident Monitoring, 4

Data acquisition, display, and analog control for Safe Shutdown and to address separation / isolation concerns for a postulated Control Room / Relay Room fire, Data acquisition and digital processing of steam generator water level signals and primary coolant system hot leg temperature signals and transmission of these processed signals for use by the Reactor Trip System.

The staff's review of the QDPS began with an audit of the Verification and Validation Plan, which was conducted during August 26-29, 1985. The staff's

, audit results and recommendations are presented in Reference 1.

i .

I j a 1

In preparation for a second staff audit on the QDPS, the applicant requested a meeting with the staff, which was held on March 18, 1986, at NRC Headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland. During'the meeting, the applicant identified and discussed a functional requirements matrix, which had been prepared for the j design. Also, the applicant identified the design documents that would be-l available for staff audit, including procedure and module listings within the

}

software. Based on the large bulk of design information available, the staff decided to review a thread of infonnation (described later) within the design and we informed the applicant and Westinghouse's personnel of this decision.

The staff's second audit of the QDPS was conducted during March 24-27, 1986, at Westinghouse Electric Corporation's Nuclear Facilities, located in Monroeville, Pennsylvania. The audit was conducted by Mr. J. L. Mauck, Mr. L. Beltracchi, and Mr. J. Joyce of the NRC Staff. Enclosure 2 contains j a list of personnel at the audit.

4 II. SCOPE OF AUDIT

\ l The purpose of this audit was to conduct a functional review of the design process for the Plant Safety Monitoring System (PSMS) and the Qualified 1 Control (Class 1E) System within the QDPS. The PSMS is a gas plasma type of I

_ display system, which serves as an operator interface in response to Regulatory Guide 1.97 requirements on post accident monitoring capabilities.

Data for the following functions may be monitored from the system:

1) subcriticality, 2) reactor core cooling, 2) heat sink maintenance,

4) reactor coolant system integrity, 5) containment environment, and

6) reactor coolant system inventory. Also, trend data for process variables and process variable versus process variable, such as pressure versus temperature type of plots, are available within the library of display formats in the display system. A human factors review of the display formats was not performed.

l The Qualified Control System function within the QDPS performs valve control including: (1) closed loop control and position indication for the steam generator power-operated relief valves, (2) contact output signals for automatic control and position indication of auxiliary feedwater control valves within the upper and lower flow limits, (3) open-loop control and .

position indication for the reactor vessel heat vent valves, and (4) closed loop control and position indication for essential cooling water flow control valves to safety related HVAC chillers.

During the audit, a period of time was spent evaluating the applicants and Westinghouse's response to open issues identified during our first audit (Ref. 1) of the the QDPS. Also, the staff provided clarification on some of these issues in response to questions from Westinghouse personnel.

III. AUDIT METHOD To conduct the audit, the staff reviewed a thread of design information to evaluate the PSMS and the Qualified Control System. Specifically, a sensor signal was selected and the signal was then followed from the sensor through the hardware and software components of the QDPS until an interface with another system / component was reached. Design documentation in the form of wiring diagrams, technical data sheets, and computer program listings were used to trace the signal and evaluate the operations upon it. Furthermore, the staff requested Westinghouse personnel to identify points in the thread where design verification and validation (V&V) activities had occurred or were planned. At identified points where V&V activities had occurred, the staff requested the results of the activities in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the design process and the independent design verification.

The above described audit method was used to trace a flow transmitter's signal through the Qualified Control System function within the QDPS. This signal measured auxiliary feedwater flow. The review of this thread was terminated

at the interface of the QDPS and the auxiliary feedwater flow control valves.

A pressure transmitter's signal was traced through the PSMS function within the QDPS. This signal measured containment pressure. The review of this signal was terminated at the display surface (plasma display) at the point where the value for pressure was displayed. The results from our audit, which follow next, serve as the basis of the staff's evaluation of the design used to develop the Qualified Control System and Plant Safety Monitoring System's functions within the QDPS.

IV. AUDIT RESULTS j

The first patt of the audit was dedicated to the resolution of open review issues identified in our first audit report (Ref. 1). The second part of the audit concentrated on the review of the three major sub-systems within the QDPS by means of the thread concept. This concept allowed the staff to evaluate the effectiveness of the design process and the V&V program.

A. Open Issue and Clarification from First Audit

1. Audit Trial As stated in our first audit report, we noted that the design process from

- functional requirements through implementation was difficult to follow.

On March 18, 1986, during a meeting in Bethesda, Md. the applicant presented a Functional Requirements Matrix Document to address this concern. Based on this meeting, the second audit, and our evaluation of the matrix, we conclude that the matrix identified a structure of the design from the functional requirements document down to the software code. We were successful in the use of this matrix to demonstrate decomposition from the functional requirements to the design specifications. Therefore, this issue is resolved.

i

2. Question of Independent Design Verification As identified in our first audit report, we noted the lack of independent design verification within the design process. It is our engineering judgment that the validation plan should be sufficiently broad in scope to address discrepancies in the design process and to account for the lack of independent, formal design verification. Therefore, based on this judgment, the question of independent design verification within the design process has been shifted to the validation plan, which will be evaluated during the third audit.

3. Software Criticality During the first audit, our consultant (SoHar) was concerned that the V&V process did not allocate resources proportional to safety functions and task performed by the software. During the second audit, we were informed that Westinghouse went to the same (stringent) level of V&V effort on all software units because designers were unable to justify lack of interactions between units. We conclude this is a conservative approach and acceptable to the staff.

4. Clarification of Physical Media One of the open items in our consultants (SoHar) audit report was the verification of the physical media that represents the program. The applicant and Westinghouse requested clarification / interpretation of this item. The verification of physical media means those activities performed to ensure that the burned in programmable read only memory (PROM) contains the authorized program (i.e., security and safeguard measures). The staff plans to evaluate these verification activities at a future audit.

l

5. Other Open Items The following items were also noted in our first audit report, but were not addressed at this time. These items will be addressed during the third or fourth audit:

a. Software maintenance practices prior to and during operational use,

b. User and maintenance documents.

c. Reliability analysis,

d. Verification of the program listing.

B. Results from Second Audit As mentioned above, the thread concept was used as a method to audit three sub-systems of the QDPS (see Figure 1). This concept was effective

, during the review of RESAR-414. .This audit technique allows the staff to evaluate the effectiveness of the design process and the independent design verification.

1. Steam Generator Water Level Compensation System (SGWCS)

For the SGWCS (Figure 2.0), we started tracing the signal at the sensor (RTD-TE 571) and continued up to the interface with the NSSS 7300

~ protection cabinets (Figure 3.0). The hardware walk through began at the input to the signal conditioner card via pins, jacks, cable, card edge connectors, and electronic devices terminating at the output of the A/D converter. The software walk through began at the output of the A/D converter and continued through modules and procedures, which processed the signal,-and terminated at the D/A converter. The analog signal then passed through the signal conditioner card that interfaced with the 7300 protection cabinets.  !

l l

l 4

e n q- y -,,-- ,y,g-- r-- .-g -y---,

=

We were able to successfully trace the temperature signal through the hardware and software logic, which converts the signal to engineering units. During this process, we noted the utility of the functional requirements matrix in following the thread through the softward.

2. Qualified Control System-AFW Throttle Valve Control Loop The second sub-system in which we used the thread concept was the Class-1E control system (Figure 4.0). As stated above, there are four control loops within this subsystem. The auxiliary feedwater (AFW) throttle valve control loop was chosen as part of the thread (Figure 5.0).

We started from the flow transmitter (FT-7525) and traced the signal through signal conditioning card, A/D converter, software modules and procedures, which process the signal. The software algorithms generated an output signal to the D/A converter for the valve position. We then followed this analog signal to the valve controller. During this process, we requested Westinghouse to identify and present independent design verification activities for our evaluation.

We assessed the verification activities for a procedure, which performed a square root function. We noted that the scope of the verification conformed to the V&V plan and contained detail documentation (i.e.,

trouble reports). We evaluated the trouble reports and their resolution and concluded they were satisfactorily addressed.

3. Plant Safety Monitoring System (PSMS)

The third and final sub-system we reviewed was the PSMS (Figure 6.0). We traced the signal from the containment extended range pressure transmitter (PT-9759) and followed the signal up to the plasma display (Figure 7.0).

..  : ~

We were successful in tracing the signal through the hardware, the software, and to the surface of the plasma display. As part of the software walk through, we randomly selected a requirement from the PSMS functional requirements matrix. We attempted to trace attributes of the functional requirements to the software design specifications and were unable to do so. From this exercise, we concluded that the decomposition from the functional requirements to the design specification maybe incomplete. We also made this observation during the first audit.

Therefore, we repeat our recommendation from the first audit; the validation plan be sufficiently broad in scope to address any discrepancy in the design process and account for lack of independent, formal design verification.

V. CHAPTER 7 FSAR REVIEW The following review topics have been highlighted by the staff for subsequent review during one of the remaining QDPS audits or during additional design review meetings, which would be scheduled at a later date.

Interface with alternate remote shutdown capability.

Isolation devices (interface with non Class IE systems).

- Interface with Class IE systems.

Testability (R.G. 1.22, 1.118 and IEEE-338) (including proposed Technical Specifications).

Bypassed and Inoperable Status Indication (R.G.1.47).

EMI Susceptibility.

R.G. 1.75 Separation of redundant safety trains within QDPS.

Manual initiation methods.

General compliance with IEEE-279 (e.g., single failure criterion, resetcapability).

b

VI. FUTURE AUDIT ISSUES As stated in the first audit report, we recommend a total of four audits to assess the QDPS. We have completed two audits. The third and fourth audits will address the following:

An evaluation audit of the Validation Plan; An evaluation audit of the test process and test results; and An evaluation of the open items identified in IV.A.4 and 5 above.

We recommend these audits be conducted at Westinghouse's facilities because design and test documentation will be required.

VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our audit of the design process and the verification and validation plan for the PSMS and Qualified Control System within the QDPS, the staff concludes that it is generally acceptable for the applicant to continue the design and manufacture of this system and to continue to execute the verification and validation plan. However, as stated in Item IV.B.3 above, this acceptance is conditional to having a validation plan sufficiently broad in scope to address any discrepancies in the design process and account for the lack of independent, formal design verification. This means that the validation plan should include a technique to demonstrate completeness between Functional Requirements and Software Design Specifications that were turned over to the validation team. The staff's review of the validation plan is the subject of the next audit. In addition, we have identified other issues

• da" Item IV.A.4 and 5, that will also be addressed during the third and rth audit of QDPS.

References:

1. Letter from N. P. Kadambi, NRC to J. H. Goldberg, Houston Lighting and Power Company,

Subject:

Audit Report on the QDPS at South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, dated January 30, 1986.

e

-- ~~ ' '

r  !

- ' l i .

l QUALIFIED DISPLAY PROCESSING SYSTEM (QDPS)

QDPS

~

STEAM GENERATOR PLANT SAFETY CONTROL WATER LEVEL MONITORING (CLASS 1E) COMPENSATION

~ SYSTEM (PSMS)

SYSTEM (SGWLCS)

.~ (PROTECTION) c Figure 1.0 t

4 e ,w n-e--we-e em.,.,n, . , - - - - , . - -en -g - - - , . _ , . -g- , , , - - , -nn,, - - - , , --, -r --~,,,---, -,-,-re,,., - , . , - - .-e,- -w-,,-e,ey-- -p en-,,-

i-

~

.~

QUALIFIED DISPLAY PROCESSING SY' STEM (ODPS)

FLOW DIAGRAM ODPS 1 T

~ CONTROL IlfYE COMo L EL PLANT SAFETY MONITORING (CLASS IE)

SYSTEu 5 OCS TEM (PROTECTION) )

SYfO!jP5MS)

OR)

[

CONTROL LOOP DATA LINK MAN-WACHINE IN E CE

~

"idirtJNE' PORTABLE TERMINAL F0t9 E L R J

• *, g . .

ODPS NSSS 7300 To M State i Auxiliary Process Cattnet APC-A2 Protection Cabinet I syst (SSP

.. s

~

! 4.sounA Signal Control Digital Signal 4.scinA Signal o, ,,, Matsis HI M j Cond. Loop , to Cond. j Cond. j ~ L ,,g l y input - Processor ** - o- Analog -* Output .  : Input .  :  :

j

LT-571 PC Card (CLP)

I(x)

Converter (D/A)

PC Card compenoeged PC Card Loves

]

Turbine Trip Signal N Analog L N h Nat:4s M Lo '

Data

Nd to I k b Reactor

• ' Trip

! fteelesence Signal f B (DLH) nsau -

j j Cond. U ,

1 TE - Input '

S ,

lTE-571A -ODPS- R8 -ODPS- RS fleentonce Man APC 422 422 l TE-571 hd  %

Inter ce (nea)

• • ]: """'""*

Unit (RPU) 2 Proc unsre (DPLfe) 1 i -

a i

e APC-Al e

< e I 4 l PortaMe ,

1 MMI j -

Tarnunal i

I v

I STEAM OENERATOR WATER LEVEL COMPENSAh0N SYSTEM (SGWLCS) CHANNEL Figure 3.0 '

3

', . 1 9

OUALIFIED DISPLAY. PROCESSING SYSTEM '

(ODPS)

FLOW DIAGRAM ODPS .

. STEAM GENERATOR PLANT SAFETY CU TROL WATER LEVEL WONITORING C P S "

(CLASS IE) Sy { CS)

SY P 5)

CONTROL LOOP CESSOR 2 -- CLP) -

l

! DATA LINK HANDLER (DLH) i a

, WAN-WACHINE 4

INTERFACE f

(WWI) -

WAN-WACHINE INTERF. ACE PORTABLE

.)" TERMINAL

Fioure 4.0

e. . ..

l i

l 4-20mA Signal AnaloQ Control j Cond. to Loop i  : Input -* Digital * +-*

y Processor PC Card Converter (CLP)

FT-7525 (A/D)

M M i RS232 U Data ,

--*  : To PSMS RPU Ha er (DLH) l U Man /

! Machine Portable

S .-. Interf ace --------------+ MMI ,

i Processor Terminel '

l (MMO Sign I '

contact  : Valve Control -

Digital Digital t High Limit B/S to input / -

PC ard -

Analog *

• Output Converter (1/0) CO  ; Valve Control-(D/A) Low Lknit B/S Signal pO-10V Cond.

Analog A_ Flow

) "'

indication

_ Output PC Card APC

. i AFW THROTTLE VALVE CONTROL LOOP BLOCK DIAGRAM Figure 5.0 4

i t

I I

QUALIFIED DISPLAY PROCESSING SYSTEM (QDPS)

FLOW DIAGRAM l

QDPS

, STEAM GENERATOR CONTROL WATER LEVEL PUNT MFETY (CLASS 1E) COMPENSATION MONITORING

-~

SYSTEM (SGWLCS) SYSTEM (PSMS)

. (PROTECTIONI ,_

~

REMOTE PROCESSING' UNIT (RPU)

DATABASE PROCESSING 1

- UNIT (DPU)

DISPLAY MODULE k

Figure 6.0

w PLASMA DISPLAY QUAL.

PAMS CNTMT PT9759 Z 4-20 mA h > APC DI D/L

> DPU A D/L

> DISPLAY 3

~

s

' sD/L f 1

sD/L im

' s e' P. 7 s  ! ID/L

\ ~

N OI

' s , D/L,be' .

s i \

,e \

DPU C I

DA' f ' 's

~ q RECORDER g i PR '

I DEMUX I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ y\9759 f, I

s-i_ _ ___ _ _I SIGNAL PATH FOR PT9759 (EXTENDED RANGE CONTAINMENT PRE Figure 7.0 s

, 'r -

ENCLOSURE 2 QDPS AUDIT (MARCH 24,1986)

Attendence List Name Organization Iris Tennenbaum W PCA Chuck Carl W Mgr. PCA Glenn Lang W Licensing Mary Moreton BEC Control Systems Leo Beltrechi NRC/PWR-B/PEICSB Joseph Joyce NRC/DSR0/RSIB Jerry Mauck NRC/PWR-A/EICSB

~

Jack N. Bailey HL&P Engineering Tom H. Crawford HL&P I&C Engineering Yvonne Williams BEC Control Systems Carl Vernon W STP Licensing Team John R. Smith W/I&C/Dignostic & Monitor Syst. Div.

Jay Amin BEC W. R. Spezialetti W Licensing R. J. Contratto W I&C Licensing Paul H. Mathewes, Jr. MASI Gary B. Glisan MASI W. W. Brotherton W PCA D. P. Adomaitis W I&CAE 9

9 QDPS AUDIT (MARCH 25,1986)

Attendence List .

Name Organization Iris Tennenbaum W PCA Chuck Corl W Mgr. PCA Glenn Lang W Licensing Mary Moreton -

BEC Control Systems Leo Beltrcchi NRC/PWR-B/PEICSB Joseph Joyce NRC/DSR0/RSIB Jerry Mauck NRC/PWR-A/EICSB Jack N. Bailey HL&P Engineering Tom H. Crawford HL&P I&C Engineering '

Yvonne Williams BEC Control Systems Carl Vernon W STP Licensing Team John R. Smith W/I&C/Dignostic & Monitor Syst. Div.

D. Adomaitis W I&CAE Jay Amin BEC F. R. Hughes W I&C Paul H. Mathewes, Jr. MASI Gary B. Glisan MASI W. W. Brotherton W PCA G. W. Hadden W Pyh.

k l

. t e QDPS AUDIT (MARCH 26,1986)

Attendence List Name Organization Chuck Corl W Mgr. PCA Glenn Lang W Licensing Mary Moreton BEC Control Systems Leo Beltrechi NRC/PWR-B/PEICSB -

Joseph Joyce -

-NRC/DSR0/RSIB Jerry Mauck , NRC/PWR-A/EICSB Tom H. Crawford HL&P I&C Engineering Yvonne Williams BEC Control Systems Carl Vernon W STP Licensing Team John R. Smith W/I&C/Dignostic & Monitor Syst. Div.

Jay Amin BEC Paul H. Mathewes, Jr. MASI Gary B. Glisan MASI D. P. Adomaitis W I&CAE E

o 4

6

.: ... - = . a .  : . w. w. -  :

.. . r e j

l l

QDPS AUDIT (MARCH 27, 1986)

Attendence List Name Organization Iris Tennenbaum W PCA Chuck Corl W Mgr. PCA Glenn Lang W Licensing Mary Moreton BEC Control Systems Leo Beltrechi NRC/PWR-B/PEICSB

~

Joseph Joyce NRC/DSR0/RSIB Jack N. Bailey HL&P Engineering Fred Twogoud W Drvs. Mgr.

Tom H. Crawford HL&P I&C Engineering Yvonne Williams BEC Control Systems N P. Kadambi NRC/NRR/PD#5 Carl Vernon W STP Licensing Team John R. Smith W/I&C/Dignostic & Monitor Syst. Div.

Jay Amin BEC W. R. Spezialetti W Licensing

• R. J. Contratto W I&C Licensing Paul H. Mathewes, Jr. MASI Gary B. Glisan MASI ,

N. J. Musicante W I&C W. W. Brotherton W PCA D. P. Adomaitis W I&CAE J. B. Wacio W I&C T. A. Pike CTG l

i

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