I think you can cite ANSI N45.2.11 as a basis for saying the information is prepared by one person and independently checked by another. The ANSI standard doesn’t care so much as how the information is prepared or checked (though there are three methods allowed) as long as the two methods are independent.  If you can show that the tool used by the independent checker was not the same tool (nor developed originally by the same individual for instance) then you’re meeting QA requirements.

We do something similar to do hand checks of plant computer EFPD data and for validating rod drop timing. Other spreadsheets used without additional checking get Software QA checked like yours.

Hope this helps.

Carl

Carl D. Fago

Reactor Engineering Supervisor

Oconee Nuclear Station

Duke Energy Carolinas

Phone:  (864) 873-3047

Fax:  (864) 873-3374

Email:  Carl.fago@duke-energy.com

From: pwrrm@retaqs.com [mailto:pwrrm@retaqs.com] On Behalf Of Gore, Duane
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 2:22 PM
To: 'PWR Reactivity Management'
Subject: [Pwrrm] Use of Spreadsheets for Surveillances

We at STP use spreadsheets to perform surveillance calculations. The results are then independently verified by a second engineer using an independently generated spreadsheet. Neither spreadsheet has been formally verified per our station Software Quality Assurance procedure. In cases where the results are used without further verification, we do properly QA the spreadsheets (usually in the cases where other groups use the spreadsheets).

Our QA department is of the opinion that at least one of these spreadsheets used for surveillances must by fully verified and documented per our station Software Quality Assurance procedure.

It would help my case if I could cite other Rae’s practices with regards to the use of spreadsheets. What is the practice at your plant?

Thank you,

Duane Gore

Supervisor, Reactor Engineering

STPNOC

(361) 972-8909