TEMPORARY CHANGE REQUEST - PPPL … PRINCETON PLASMA PHYSICS LABORATORY PROCEDURE No. ENG-033 Rev 6...

TEMPORARY CHANGE REQUESTTCR NO.TCR-ENG-033,R6-001

(e.g., TCR-ENG-021,R0-001)

The Temporary Change Request (TCR) Form is to be used to process urgent or minor changes for PPPL Policies, Organization/Mission Statements and Procedures. The TCR should be used when changes are:

1) urgent, and can not wait the 2-4 week period for Department Head review/comment, or2) minor, and do not warrant Department Head review.

Person Requesting Change: Valeria Riccardo Phone Ext:

Department Name: Engineering

Document Number: ENG-033,R6-001 Revision No.: Revision 6, TCR -001

Document Title: Design Verification

Reason for change: 1. Provide guidance for review and verification of tooling used in the manufacturing of structures, systems,

and components.

2. Remind users of the need for “identification of items”.

3. Provide a form to waive CRDs and PDRs.

4. Remind about USI/USID.

Change description: (Summarize and attach changed pages, with changes clearly indicated) 1. The guidance is attached as Appendix A to this procedure (ENG-033, Rev 6, Design Verification). The

Appendix provides guidance for review and if needed verification requirements for tooling. It provides aprocess and responsibilities for determining and performing such verifications.

2. Reference to “identification of items” added in the FDR material, and ENG-012 listed in the references.

3. The Design Review Waiver is in Attachment 6.

4. “USI/USID” quoted on CDR/PDR/FDR lists.

1. Does this TCR significantly alter the intent or scope of the document? YES: NO: X

2. Does this TCR significantly impact ES&H? YES: NO: X

If 1 or 2 is YES, Explain why the changes should not be routed for Department Head review:

Department/Division Head Approval Date

Chief Planning Officer/designee Date

Release/Effective date of this TCR: 02/14/2018

Incorporate this TCR into next revision of this document? YES: X NO:

Printed copies of this document are considered UNCONTROLLED/Information only copies. The official document can be found at http://bp.pppl_docs.html

The Planning Office maintains the signed originals.

PPPL PRINCETON PLASMA PHYSICS LABORATORY PROCEDURE No. ENG-033 Rev 6

page 1 of 11 Subject:

Design Verification

Effective Date:

January 31, 2018

Initiated by:

Head of Engineering Supersedes: Rev. 5 dated

August 14, 2015 and TCRs 1-6

Approved:

Director

TCR-ENG-033,R6-001 Management System (Primary): 03.00 ENGINEERING (ENG) Management System Owner: Head, Engineering Management Process: 03.06 Technical Project Management Process Owner: Head of Engineering Sub-Process: 03.06.07 Design and Peer Review/Verification Sub-Process Owner: Head, Engineering Subject Matter Expert Head, Engineering; Head, Design Group; Head,

Fabrication Group; Head, Power Systems Group Applicability

This procedure implements the PPPL Graded Approach in accordance with approvers and requirements listed in Table 1, Graded Approach for Required Design Review Packages and Approvals. Scope This procedure covers design verification for all systems, components, and structures. Design verification encompasses technical requirements, scope, cost, schedule, ES&H, human factors, and risk assessment. Verifications required for “tooling” shall be performed in accordance with the guidelines attached as Appendix A to this procedure. TCR-ENG-033,R6-001 Reviews cover approved work scope per the Work Plan (WP). Reviews are prepared and presented by the Cognizant Individual and contributors for the project, and are conducted by the designated Design Review Chairperson (DRC) per this procedure. For changes that are intended to be temporary (typically <90 days) and are not meant to modify the intended configuration as documented in drawings a T-MOD (see ENG-036) should be employed. For off-site collaborations where reviews may be held elsewhere, the Cognizant Individual shall act as coordinator of the review process and insure that the review complies with the minimum requirements of this procedure. (Collaborators may impose additional requirements.) Consistent with Procedure ESH-025, the Design Verification process shall evaluate hazard potential and avoid or mitigate hazards as appropriate. Design considerations shall be weighed against any applicable Job Hazard Analyses, Safety Assessment Documents (SADs), Safety Certificates (for High Hazard Operations), and Accelerator Safety Envelopes (ASEs) (for Accelerators). Any design process for an existing project that potentially may affect an approved SAD, Safety Certificate or ASE shall be communicated as necessary with the CE, ES&H, Activity Certification Committee




page 2 of 11 TCR-ENG-033,R6-001

(ACC) (where applicable) and Accelerator Readiness Review (ARR) Team (where applicable). All proposed design changes to a High Hazard Operation or Accelerator that has an approved SAD, Safety Certificate (High Hazard Operation) or ASE (Accelerator) must be evaluated by the Unreviewed Safety Issue Determination (USID) process provided in ESH-025 before being implemented. In some cases for Accelerators, DOE-PSO approval to implement such changes may be required. This procedure satisfies the requirement of The DOE Order 414.1 Order, Quality Assurance, 4.b(2)(b)4, that requires "The adequacy of design products shall be verified or validated by individuals or groups other than those who performed the work. Verification and validation work shall be completed before approval and implementation of the design." Reference Documents

O 420.1C Facility Safety EQP-004 PPPL Institutional Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) QAPD Quality Assurance Program Description P-010 Design Reviews ENG-010 Control of Drawings, Software, and Firmware ENG-012 Identification and Control of Items TCR-ENG-033,R6-001 ENG-032 Work Planning Process ENG-030 PPPL Technical Procedures for Experimental Facilities ENG-036 Control of Temporary Modifications ENG-057 Project and Governance Roles and Responsibilities ESHD 5008 ES&H Directives ESH-025 Operations Hazard Classification Criteria and Safety Certification System. Procedure

This procedure contains five sections: A – Calculation and Design Analyses Checks B – Peer Reviews C – Design Reviews D – Prototypes E – Comparisons to Working Systems

A. Calculation and Design Analyses Checks Calculation and design analysis checks support the design development and contribute to its validation. Calculations used to support design decisions and design development shall be specified in Work Planning Forms, documented and checked, and/or added when their need is identified by reviewers in chits and endorsed by the Design Review Chairperson. Design checks and modifications may be an iterative process − the final design must be validated by calculations. Responsibility Action Cognizant Individual 1. Obtains number for Calculation Form (Attachment 1) from Ops

Center.





Preparer (Analyst or RE or Cognizant) Individual)

2. Develops calculation in accordance with Calculation Form. For software calculations using code or software applications, Analyst shall so document the input and code used that a competent reviewer could determine validity of the calculation. Cognizant Individual and Preparer signs form.

Relevant TA 3. Appoints a qualified checker or reviewer for the calculation.

Checker 4. Reviews the calculation using the minimum requirements of

Attachment 2. It is the responsibility of the Checker to use methods that will substantiate to their professional satisfaction that the calculation is correct.

5. Resolves concerns with developer of calculation and signs

calculation sheet or project equivalent.

Cognizant Individual 6. Submits calculation to the Ops Center. Note: This procedure allows and recommends Calculation Logs to be held and maintained by the project during the design phase or longer. The numbering system for Calculations should be project specific and related to the project through Work Planning or WBS or similar means.

B. Peer Reviews

Peer Reviews are used to examine detailed aspects in preparation for a larger review (e.g. PDR, FDR). The scope of the review is determined by the Cognizant Individual and approved by the relevant TA, or the CE if more than one TA are involved. Peer Reviews can also be used to supplement off site reviews at the request of the Performing or Requesting Department Head or the Chief Engineer. Inputs to a Peer Review include a subset of the following:

• Requirements • Identified hazards and appropriate mitigation techniques. • Resource, schedule, and cost considerations. • Review SAD/ASE considerations including USI/USID

Objectives for a Peer Review include a subset of the following:

• Assure that the proper requirements are identified. • Identify hazards associated with the work or its impact on operations and appropriate

mitigation. • Identify SAD/ASE considerations. • Alert impacted organizations or systems of the change.





• Specific issues that the Cognizant Individual or Project Manager have identified to be evaluated. These should be stated in a charge to the peer review team.

Responsibility Action Cognizant Individual 1. Obtains a Design Review Summary Number from the Operations

Center for the Design Approval Form from the Ops Center.

2. Proposes the Design Review Chairperson (DRC)

CE 3. Confirms with the Ops Center that there is a number for the Design Approval Form and approves the DRC.

Cognizant Individual 4. Proposes the attendees for the peer review. Consideration should be given to the need for representatives from ES&H, QA, security or other support organizations.

DRC 5. Approves the list of attendees.

Cognizant Individual 6. Conducts the Peer Review addressing its objectives.

Attendees 7. Document on a chit (Attachment 3 or other means) questions, concerns, and recommendations raised during the review that were not adequately resolved.

Cognizant Individual , DRC

8. Resolve chits or assign action items immediately after completion of the review. The Cognizant Individual may request QA to track and verify closeouts of chits.

Cognizant Individual 9. Catalog, record, track, and resolve chits electronically. This

information shall be filed in project files and the Ops Center as appropriate and the paper forms can be discarded.

DRC 10. Document the purpose and results of the Peer Review per

Attachment 4, listing date, time, attendees, and chits and their resolution.

Cognizant Individual 11. Reviews and concurs with the Peer Review summary.

DRC 12. Sends Peer review results to Cognizant Individual.

Cognizant Individual 13. Forwards full documentation pack for the review to the Ops Center.

C. Design Reviews





Design reviews are formal reviews of a design by qualified individuals to verify compliance with functional and project requirements. Design Reviews are planned at major project milestones prior to making decisions that may prove costly, time consuming, or difficult to reverse. Objectives of Design Reviews are listed below. Conceptual Design Review (CDR)

• Assure that the proper requirements are identified and can be satisfied within acceptable envelops.

• As appropriate identify if more than one approach can satisfy the requirements and provide a tradeoff study of the benefits and costs.

• Review configurations or designs that are novel to PPPL. • Obtain input when competing design approaches exist. • Review development and design plans and schedules. • Review cost and schedule estimates, including contingencies. • Identify hazards associated with the work or its impact on operations, and

appropriate mitigation. • Review SAD/ASE considerations.

Preliminary Design Review (PDR)

• Verify that all requirements are being addressed. Identify requirements or design conflicts and potential "show-stoppers".

• Assure the appropriate incorporation of recommendations from previous reviews. • Review the results of analyses, calculations, and tests conducted to obtain

additional information for the design. • Review the ability to implement the proposed design taking into consideration

capabilities, tolerances, costs, quality, reliability, human performance and ergonomics, security, and ES&H security.

• Review updated design • Review manufacturability. • Review development plans and schedules. • Review procurement issues, e.g. build vs. buy. • Review test requirements and plans. • Review SAD/ASE considerations.

Final Design Review (FDR)

• Review and verify that the final design satisfies the requirements and is ready for implementation.

• Assure the appropriate incorporation of recommendations from previous reviews. • Assure that detailed analyses, calculations, and tests to validate the design are

complete and documented. • Review and verify that the final product can be manufactured, inspected,

assembled, stored, delivered, and installed reliably, safely, and cost effectively. • Review and verify that appropriate documentation is available for producing the

final product (e.g. drawings, installation procedures). • Review and verify that procurement issues have been identified and resolved. • Review and verify that appropriate test plans for the final product have been

established. • Review and verify that identification and control of items has been addressed.





• Review and verify any SAD/ASE considerations have been resolved. • Review and verify that human performance and human factors considerations are

appropriately addressed in the design. • Approves the design output via the Design Approval Form (Attachment 5).

The typical content of the Design Review Package is listed below: CDR Requirements

Minutes and chit progress from underlying peer reviews Design and development plan Resource, schedule, and cost considerations FMEA considerations SAD/ASE considerations Minutes and chit assignments

PDR Revised requirements Resolution of high priority chits Minutes and chit progress from underlying peer reviews Design and development information Calculations Procurement strategy Cost & Schedule considerations SAD/ASE considerations Minutes and chit assignments

FDR Revised requirements Resolution of chits Minutes and chit progress from underlying peer and design reviews Final calculations, FMEA Drawings, Tech Specs, SOWs Procurement plan Lists of items, including spares, requiring identification TCR-ENG-033,R6-001 Test plans Cost & Schedule SAD/ASE review Minutes and long term chit assignments

In the following table, the Design Review requirements and approvals are listed as a function of the Risk classification. The risk classification of a design review is the highest among all of the items being considered in the review. All items being reviewed require a risk classification. If any item is missing its risk classification, the Responsible Engineers needs to follow ENG-057 to obtain it. TABLE 1. Graded Approach for Design Review Requirements and Approvals Risk Classification A1 A2 A3





Approvals Chief Engineer Design Review Chair (DRC) ES&H (for issue relevant to ASE, Safety Certificate or USI) TAs RE

DRC ES&H (for SAD or Project Hazard Analysis) TAs RE

DRC RE

Main Approver Chief Engineer DRC DRC

CDR Optional* Optional* Optional*

PDR Optional* Optional* Optional*

FDR Required Required Required

*Note: CDR and PDR can be waived when deemed unnecessary by the RE and PM, using the form in Attachment 6. The waiver for A1 and A2 shall also be approved by the CE. TCR-ENG-033,R6-001 Examples of circumstances when a Design Review Waiver can be used include but are not limited to: 1. If the scope in similar to previous projects, 2. If the scope definition is very mature, 3. If the nature of the work does not require multiple reviews Waivers can be filed when initially filling the Work Planning form, see ENG-032, or at any point the need arises before the FDR, in the latter case the Work Planning form will have to be revised. A single form can be used to waive both CDR and PDR if convenient. Approved Design Review Waivers are sent to the Ops Center by the Cognizant Individual. TCR-ENG-033,R6-001 The DRC is proposed by the Cognizant Individual and approved by the Chief Engineer. The scope covered by a CDR could be as broad as a whole project when it serves to identify the overall project scope and to confirm its feasibility. The scope of PDR/FDR needs to be narrow enough to allow for a sufficient technical detail to be covered. For large and complex projects, it is recommended to develop a Design Review plan which includes integration CDR, individual system (or sub-system or even component) PDRs and FDRs, prototype, working system comparisons and in depth Peer Reviews feeding into the PDRs and/or FDRs. Subsequent development of the design as presented at a Final Design Review requires remedial review steps to reestablish that the design has been properly vetted. The Main Approver may determine that the changes are minor and may allow the design process to continue unabated. However, when the Main Approver determines that the changes require more review, the Cognizant Individual will be asked to run an Additional FDR to cover the scope affected by the new developments. The Cognizant Individual has the full responsibility for the design process and shall ensure that the design as presented and vetted has been captured in drawings and other documents. The Cognizant





Individual has the responsibility to ensure that FDR chits have been incorporated into the design and the Main Approver vets and documents whether the chits have been adequately addressed. The Cognizant Individual ensures that chit logs have been dispositioned properly and forwarded to the Ops Center. Responsibility Action Engineering Department Head

1. Selects and maintains a roster of Design Review Chairpersons, list on the Engineering Department home page.

Cognizant Individual 2. Obtains a number for the Design Review Summary from the Ops Center.

3. Proposes the DRC. The DRC shall be independent of the design work

being reviewed.

CE 4. Confirms with the Ops Center that there is a number for the Design Approval Form and approves the DRC.

Cognizant Individual 5. Briefs DRC regarding the work to be reviewed.

6. Recommends the composition of the Review Board, typically, the

Design Review Board shall consist of: - Design Review Chairperson - Cognizant Individual - RE - All relevant TAs - Engineers or physicists with background and skills required to

thoroughly assess the functional needs and design adequacy. - Representatives from interfacing or impacted organizations. - QA and ES&H - Fire Protection Engineer, if fire protection related activities are

required. Design Review Board can also include:

- Reviewers from other National Laboratories, other fusion facilities, or universities with relevant experience.

- Other external reviewers including industry specialists and consultants.

DRC 7. Approves the Design Review Board.

Cognizant Individual 8. Secures a room for the review meeting and issues an invitation and a charge letter to the Board and invitees.

9. Supplies the pre-review documentation package to the Review Board members at last one week before the review meeting.

DRC 10. Accepts the design and documentation as ready for the review or





confers with Chief Engineer about delaying the review until the design and documentation is ready.

Cognizant Individual , and team

11. Presents and defends the design at the review.

DRC 12. Conducts Design Review to ensure that it addresses the objectives.

Attendees 13. Document on a chit (Attachment 3 or other means) questions, concerns, and recommendations raised during the review that were not adequately resolved.

Cognizant Individual , DRC, Design Review Board

14. Discuss chits (assign as actions, close as already covered, or reject as not relevant) items immediately after completion of the review. Catalog, record, track, and resolve chits electronically. This information shall be filed in project files and the Ops Center.

Cognizant Individual 15. Summarizes in table form the Design Review Board chit discussion immediately after the chit discussion. Files this information in project files and with the Ops Center. The Cognizant Individual may request QA to track and verify closeouts of chits.

DRC 16. Prepares a report within 5 working days using Attachment 4, which includes the list of attendees, a summary which states whether the design review was successful as well as any significant observations or recommendations, and the Cognizant Individual’s chit table.

DRC 17. Ensures that the Cognizant Individual is aware of the outcome of the review. If concurrence is not obtained, the DRC shall meet with the Requesting and the Performing department heads to resolve differences.

18. Sends the report the Cognizant Individual and files it with the Ops Center.

Cognizant Individual 19. Completes modifications requested during Chit Review and reports those modifications during subsequent design reviews, or to the Main Approver for a FDR.

QA 20. After a FDR, verifies that the requested modifications have been implemented and identifies the differences in the design and design documentation before and after the chit resolution.

Main Approver 21. If minor or no changes where required to address the FDR chits, asks the Cognizant Individual to circulate the Design Approval Form, Attachment 5.





22. If significant changes had to be implemented to address the FDR chits, asks for an Additional FDR to review the scope affected by the new development.

Cognizant Individual 23. Forwards Design Review presentation materials and chit resolution action plan to PPPL Operations Center within five working days.

Cognizant Individual 24. Ensures that the Design Review documentation is complete in the Ops Center.

D. Prototypes Prototypes are used for various design verification steps, including the need to test a concept, clarify requirements, demonstrate the feasibility of a design approach, validate analysis, perform software simulations, or evaluate techniques for hardware fabrications. In the design verification process, the use of information gathered from producing and/or testing prototypes shall be reviewed per this procedure. Responsibility Action

Cognizant Individual 1. Documents the requirements for the prototype listing the objective for the prototype, technical information about how the prototype was performed, the results of the prototype, and the impact of the results on the design.

Relevant TA 2. Reviews the documentation and indicates concurrence with the results

by signing the documentation.

Cognizant Individual 3. Forwards the documentation to project files or the Ops Center.

E. Comparison to Working Systems

Comparison to working systems may be used to validate a design to provide confidence that a selected design will work. Systems with a risk classification equal or higher than that of the system being qualified can be used in the comparison. Responsibility Action

Cognizant Individual 1. Documents the comparison identifying the objective for the comparison, technical information about how the comparison was performed, the results of the comparison, and the impact of the results on the design.

Relevant TA 2. Reviews the documentation and indicates concurrence with the results

by signing the documentation.





Cognizant Individual 3. Forwards the documentation to project files or the Ops Center. Training Section Author

1. Ensures the training listed below is provided and informs the Training office.

Target Audience: Cognizant Individual , PM, PD, RE, TA, CE, QA, ES&H Instructor: Head, Engineering Training Method / Frequency:

X Briefings (major re-issue, new positions) X Email distribution (minor revisions)

Management System Owner or Designee

2. Notifies the Human Resources Training Office of the training so that they will be aware of the training requirements and be able to provide assistance and guidance in the course development, implementation, tracking, and maintenance

Records Requirements Specific To This Procedure Records Custodians must assure records are maintained as follows:

Record Record Custodian

Location Retention Time

PPPL Calculation Form

Operations Center

*Operations Center

Until project completion or termination whichever is earlier. Reference: Admin 17 Cartographic, Aerial Photography, Architectural & Engineering Records (30.A)

Design Review Chit Form

Cognizant Individual then Ops Center

Project files Destroy after the information has been converted to an electronic medium and verified, when no longer needed for legal or audit purposes or to support the reconstruction of, or serve as a backup to, the electronic records, or (applicable to permanent records only) 60 days after NARA has been provided the notification required by 36 CFR 1225.24(a)(1), whichever is later. Reference: Admin 20 Electronic Records (2.a.4)

Design Review Chit (Software)

Cognizant Individual, then Ops Center

* Operations Center

Destroy after the expiration of related disposable records or when related system is removed from service. Reference: Admin 20 Electronic Records (10.1.a)





Design Review Chit (Other)


*Operations Center


Design Review Results Form


*Operations Center

Various retention times; see Admin 17 Cartographic, Aerial Photography, Architectural & Engineering Records (30.c) for specific record type

Design Review Waiver


*Operations Center


*All of these files must be sent to the Ops Center unless otherwise directed by project-specific document control procedure approved by Head, Engineering. TCR-ENG-033,R6-001 Attachments 1. PPPL Calculation Form. 2. Minimum Requirements for Checking of Calculations. 3. Design Review Chit Form 4. Design Review Results Form 5. Design Approval Form 6. Design Review Waiver TCR-ENG-033,R6-001 Appendixes TCR-ENG-033,R6-001

A. Specific Guidance Concerning Tooling Verification




Attachment 1 PPPL Calculation Form Page 1 of 1

TCR-ENG-033,R6-001 PPPL Calculation Form - No: #

Calculation # _________________ Revision # _____ WP #, if any ________ (ENG-032)

Purpose of Calculation: (Define why the calculation is being performed.) Codes and versions: (List all codes, if any, used) References (List any source of design information including computer program titles and revision levels.) Assumptions (Identify all assumptions made as part of this calculation.) Calculation (Calculation is either documented here or attached) Conclusion (Specify whether or not the purpose of the calculation was accomplished.) Cognizant Individual (or designee) printed name, signature, and date

___________________________________________________________________________

Preparer’s printed name, signature and date ___________________________________________________________________________ I have reviewed this calculation and, to my professional satisfaction, it is properly performed and correct. Checker’s printed name, signature, and date

___________________________________________________________________________




Attachment 2 Minimum Requirements for Checking of Calculations Page 1 of 1

TCR-ENG-033,R6-001

1. Assure that inputs were correctly selected and incorporated into the design. 2. Calculation considers, as appropriate: - Performance Requirements (capacity, rating, system output) - Design Conditions (pressure, temperature, voltage, etc.)

- Load Conditions (Electromagnetic (Lorentz Force), seismic, wind, thermal, dynamic)

- Environmental Conditions (radiation zone, hazardous material, etc.) - Material Requirements - Structural Requirements (foundations, pipe supports, etc.) - Hydraulic Requirements (NPSH, pressure drops, etc.) - Chemistry Requirements - Electrical Requirements (power source, volts, raceway, and insulation) - Equipment Reliability (FMEA) - Failure Effects on Surrounding Equipment - Tolerance Buildup 3. Assumptions necessary to perform the design activity are adequately described and reasonable. 4. An appropriate calculation method was used. 5. The results are reasonable compared to the inputs. NOTE: IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CHECKER TO USE METHODS THAT WILL SUBSTANTIATE TO HIS/HER PROFESSIONAL SATISFACTION THAT THE CALCULATION IS CORRECT. BY SIGNING CALCULATION, CHECKER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE CALCULATION HAS BEEN APPROPRIATELY CHECKED AND THAT THE APPLICABLE ITEMS LISTED ABOVE HAVE BEEN INCLUDED AS PART OF THE CHECK.




Attachment 3 PPPL Design Review CHIT Form Page 1 of 1

TCR-ENG-033,R6-001 WP # ______ (ENG-032) PPPL DESIGN REVIEW CHIT CHIT # ___

CAT: A1 A2 A3

COMPONENT/SUBSYSTEM/SYSTEM COGNIZANT INDIVIDUAL DATE OF REVIEW

PEER CDR PDR FDR

SUBJECT: (CHECK AS APPLICABLE) SAFETY REQUIREMENTS HARDWARE SECURITY & SAFEGUARDS ANALYSIS CONFIGURATION COST/SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE RELIABILITY/MAINTAINABILITY QUALITY COMMENT/CONCERN/RECOMMENDATION ORIGINATOR NAME/ORGANIZATION REVIEW BOARD COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION (Address technical, cost, and schedule impacts as appropriate. If CHIT is not adopted, provide technical reason - do not simply state “out-of-scope or N/A” without explaining.)

CONCUR DISAGREE

CHAIRPERSON DATE:




Attachment 4 Design Review Results Form Page 1 of 1

TCR-ENG-033,R6-001 DESIGN REVIEW DOCUMENTATION – RESULTS

Title: _____________________________________________________ WP#: ______ (ENG-032)

CAT: A1 A2 A3 Type of Review: Peer CDR PDR FDR Cognizant Individual: __________________________ _____________ Date of Review:

Review Board Members:

Chairperson ________________

RE ________________________

TA (Subject) Name __________

TA (____)__________________

TA (____)__________________

TA (____)__________________

___________________________

QA________________________

ESH________________________

Invited Attendees:

___________________________

___________________________

___________________________

___________________________

___________________________

___________________________

___________________________

___________________________

Other Attendees:

___________________________

___________________________

___________________________

___________________________

___________________________

___________________________

___________________________

___________________________

Regulatory Compliance ________

Items Reviewed: Sat. Unsat. Comments or n/a if not applicable Appropriate requirements identified _______________________________ Development plans and schedules _______________________________ Reg. compliance incl. USI/USID and NEPA _______________________________ Disposition of CHITS from previous reviews _______________________________ Cost objectives _______________________________ Other review objectives addressed _______________________________

SUMMARY OF RESULTS:

Disposition: [check one] Acceptable Acceptable pending resolution of concerns- CHITS identified above must be resolved prior to installation. _______ Incomplete - Additional design work is required prior to another design review. _______ Unsuccessful – Corrective actions must be taken and another review process must be initiated. Design Review Chair Person ________________________________________________ Date: _____________ Cognizant Individual Acceptance ______________________________________________ Date: _____________




Attachment 4 Design Review Results Form Page 2 of 1

TCR-ENG-033,R6-001 Distribution: Review Board Members, Operations Center, Responsible Engineer, Cognizant Individuals, Project Manager, Project Director, relevant Technical Authorities, Chief Engineer, Fire Protection Engineer, Attendees, QA, ES&H, Security, Requesting & Performing Dept. Head




Attachment 5 Design Approval Form Page 1 of 1

TCR-ENG-033,R6-001

DESIGN APPROVAL FORM – No: # Title: _____________________________________________________ WP#: ______ (ENG-032)

CAT: A1 A2 A3 Cognizant Individual: __________________________ _____________ Date of Review: Design Output: Drawings (List by number and revision level, append list if space is limited): Technical Specifications (List by number and revision level, append list if space is limited): Statements of Work (List by number and revision level, append list if space is limited): Other documents (List by number and revision level, append list if space is limited): Responsible Engineer _________________________________________________ Date: _____________ TA _____________________________________________________________ Date: _____________ (specify) ___________________________ TA _____________________________________________________________ Date: _____________ (specify) ___________________________ …add TAs if necessary… ES&H __________________________________________________________ Date: _____________ (for issue relevant to ASE, Safety Certificate, USI, SAD or Project Hazard Analysis) DRC ___________________________________________________________ Date: _____________ Chief Engineer ___________________________________________________ Date: _____________ (if applicable) Each TA signature is to confirm that the design output complies with the codes, standards, local rules and industry best practice within the scope of the TA. Distribution: Operations Center, Cognizant Individual, Responsible Engineer




Attachment 6 Design Review Waiver TCR-ENG-033,R6-001

Page 1 of 1

TCR-ENG-033,R6-001

DESIGN REVIEW WAIVER – No: # Title: _____________________________________________________ WP#: ______ (ENG-032)

CAT: A1 A2 A3 Type of Review: CDR PDR Cognizant Individual: __________________________ _____________ Date of Review: Waiver Rationale: Responsible Engineer _________________________________________________ Date: _____________ Project Manager _________________________________________________ Date: _____________ Chief Engineer ___________________________________________________ Date: _____________ (if applicable) Distribution: Operations Center, Cognizant Individual, Responsible Engineer




Appendix A Specific Guidance Concerning Tooling Verification TCR-ENG-033,R6-001

Page 1 of 1

TCR-ENG-033,R6-001 Tooling issues can potentially impact the quality of deliverable items (even if they pass acceptance tests), and/or the delivery schedule. Therefore, it is appropriate to review tooling in advance of its use and provide proper controls. The purpose of this Appendix is to provide specific guidance concerning requirements for the verification of tooling items or activities with a Risk categorization of A-1 or A-2.

1. PPPL in-house fabrications

a. Off-the-shelf tools do not require review, but any restrictions on their use shall be described in technical procedures or travelers. Examples: Screwdrivers, hammers, drills, simple instruments (voltmeters)

b. Custom tools shall be subject to review depending on their criticality as judged by the Responsible Engineer (RE), Cognizant Individual (COG), and approved by the appropriate Technical Authority (TA). Examples:

• Peer Review of design and usage of complex coil winding and Vacuum Pressure Impregnation (VPI) tooling

• Peer Review of usage (not design) of simple custom tools (clamps, bending tools, etc.)

c. Custom tools can be specified in sketches, instead of drawings, following ENG-010, as judged appropriate by the RE, COG, and approved by the appropriate TA.

2. For external vendor fabrications

a. Tools developed by vendors are generally their responsibility in terms of design and

usage.

b. Certain complex tools may require PPPL review and approval in accordance with the procurement documents.



TEMPORARY CHANGE REQUEST - PPPL … PRINCETON PLASMA PHYSICS LABORATORY PROCEDURE No. ENG-033 Rev 6...

Documents

Transcript of TEMPORARY CHANGE REQUEST - PPPL … PRINCETON PLASMA PHYSICS LABORATORY PROCEDURE No. ENG-033 Rev 6...