ML19274C820
| ML19274C820 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/05/1978 |
| From: | Donna Anderson, Brickley R, Hale C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19274C806 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900403 NUDOCS 7811170358 | |
| Download: ML19274C820 (9) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _ _
VENDOR INSPECTION REPORT U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTI0fl AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No.
99900403/78-03 Program No. 44082
.,q Company: The General Electric Company Nuclear Energy Business Group 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95125 Inspection Conducted: September 11-15, 1978 Inspectors: W /y' 7 8,r. E I ' I e
/o///7E R. H. Brickley, Prirttipal Inspector, Vendor (Date)
Inspection Branch
'4(M
/
d==-
/o/:r/p:#
D. G. Anderson, Principal Inspector, Vendor (Date)
Inspection Branch f
N/sG 7?
A I
J. Guttman, Nuclear Engineer, AB/NRR, Hqs.
(Date)
. Ae Jo/s/Af Z. R. Rosztoczy, Chief, AB/NRR, Hqs.
(Date)
.e W /d S n.
th
/6/d*l77
- 8. W. Sheron, NuclearOEngineer, AB/NRR, Hqs.
(Date) rz.M.Tdable/ur so/s/77
.j
. G. Spraul, Nuclear Engineer, QAB/NRR, Hqs.
(Date)
Approvad:
T M Mr
/4/8/77 C. J. Hale, Chief, Prdjects Section, Vendor (Date)
Inspection Branch, P1'i 78111ygass'
. _.... ~
1 Summary
- --g Special Inspection conducted on September 11-15, 1978 (99900403/78-03) i Areas Inspected:
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, and Topical Report NED0-11209-04A as applied to the establishment and implementation of procedures to control the development and revision of safety analysis computer codes. The inspection involved sixty-six (66) inspector hours on site by two (2) NRC, Region IV inspectors.
Results:
In the area inspected there were no unresolved items and one deviation identified as follows:
Deviation:
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, and Section 5 of Topical Report NED0-11209-04A - three (3) examples of a failure to follow procedures in the development and revision of safety analysis computer codes.
(See ggg4 Notice of Deviation, Enclosure.)
9 f
- DETAILS SECTION y
(Prepared by D. G. Anderson and R. H. Brickley)
A.
Persons Contacted L. S. Bohl, Manager, Design Review; Reliability Engineering; Nuclear Energy Engineering Division (NEED)
- J. D. Duncan, Manager, ECCS Engineering
- D. E. Lee, Manager, Quality Control; NEED
- R. B. Linford, Manager, Systems Dynamic Methods; NEED
- J. L. Murray, Manager, Quality Assurance; NEED A. S. Rao, Technical Leader, ECCS Analysis; NEED R. W. Schrum, Engineer, Systems Dynamic Methods
- B. S. Shiralkar, Manager, Thermal Hydraulic Methods; NEED 4,
- J. M. Sorensen, Technical Leader, Thermal Hydraulic Methods; NEED
- J. E. Wood, Manager, Nuclear Core Technology; NEED A. I. Yang, Responsible Engineer (REFLOOD)
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
B.
Introduction This report covers a special inspection conducted to examine the establishment and implemertation of procedures controlling safety analysis computer code development. The objectives of this inspection are:
1.
To determine that adequate procedures to minimize the potential for analysis errors to go undetected have been established for control of the development and revision of these codes.
2.
To determine that these procedures were fully implemented during the development and revision of selected codes.
C.
Control of Safety Analysis Computer Cades 1.
Establishment of Procedures a.
Inspection (1) An examination of the NEED Engineering Operating Proce-dure (E0P) Manual, which contains procedures implementing Topical Report NED0-11209-04A (Nuclear Enercy Business Group Boiling Water Reactor Quality Assurance Program Description) revealed that procedure E0P 40-3.00
__ (Computer Programs) is the principal document governing this activity. Requirements for independent design verification, the design review program, and the design
-1 record files were found in E0Ps 42-6.00, 40-7.00, and 42-10.00 respectively.
(2) The examination of E0P 40-3.00 (formerly EP&P 5.36) revealed that it defines responsibilities and procedural requirements for the control of digital and hybrid Engineering Computer Programs (ECP). The procedure was found to assign status levels for all ECPs that were defined as follows:
Level 1: ECPs under development and those not authorized for design applications.
Level 2: Approved Production Programs i.e., ECPs verified g~ p-and documented for design applications and for all technical activities used in developing design related information.
Level 2R: Restricted Approved Production Programs i.e.,
ECPs that do not satisfy all requirements for Level 2, but may be applied to specfic design tasks with the approval of cognizant managment.
Level 3: Archive Programs i.e., ECPs approved for design use but which are no longer the most recent approved version.
Level 4: Historical Program i.e., ECPs that are inactive o
and not currently used for design.
This procedure further requires that:
An Encoded Technology Review be conducted in accord-ance with E0P 42-6.00 (Independent Design Varification),
to provide independent verification and qualification of the ECP and Program Data Library before approval of a Level 2 status.
A Methods Procedures Committee be established to provide user / developer interfaces, technical specifications reviews, and appropriate assistance to control devel-ment and use of ECPs.
1
'I Changes to ECPs be controlled via change verification and documentation, and reassignment of status levels.
An ECP Design Record File (DRF) be established and
,,4 maintained in accordance with E0P 42-10.00 (Design Record Files).
(3) An examination of E0P 42-6.00 (fomerly EP&P 5.38) revealed that the following four (4) methods of design verification were established: checking, alternate calculations, testing, or design review. When verifica-tion is by design review, the procedure requires the reviewers consider specified criteria 1.e., the basic questions from subsection 6.3.1 of ANSI N45.2.11 plus additional NEED criteria.
In addition, this procedure establishes factors which effect the extent of design verification, provides criteria on the verification method to be used, and assigns responsibility for the WM conduct of procedural activities.
(4) The examination of E0P 40-7.00 (fomerly EP&P 5.39) revealed that reviews conducted under this program evaluate the adequacy of product designs including concepts, the design process, methods, analytical models, criteria, materials application, and development programs.
These reviews may be used to verify that product designs meet functional, contract, safety, regulatory. industry code and standard, and GE requirements. This procedure also requires:
The establishment of a Design Review Board consisting
.i of individuals independent of the item being reviewed.
The development of an Action Plan in response to design review open items which must identify specific action items, scheduled close-out, and the responsible individual.
The placement in the DRF of the Design Review Report, Action Plan, and action item completion when the design review is a part of design verification.
The written notification to Quality Assurance when significant design deficiencies appear to resu;t from the engineering management system.
(5) The examination of E0P 42-10.00 (formerly EP&P 5.1.10) revealed that it require-the establishment of a DRF consisting of informathn related to a specific design
'h
. activity or engineering problem so as to provide traceable and retrievable documentation for design verification and satisfy GE, code, and regulatory design
-A record requirements. The types of information to be placed in a DRF are listed e.g., design basis data, design notes, calculations, records, design conclusions, and evidence of appropriate design verification.
b.
Findinas During the examination of the NEED procedures, the following items were identified and General Electric management stated they would consider further action, as appropriate. Any action taken by General Electric will be examined during a future inspection.
(1) E0I 40-3.00 (Computer programs)
(a) The procedure does not provide a specific definition of originator, verifier, or reviewer e.g., neither the Methods Review Committee nor the Design Review Team are specified as the verifiers of the computer program.
(b) The procedure does not define what constitutes a qualified program.
(c) The procedure does not require a check of the formulation of the equations that make up the computer program.
4 (d) The procedure does not require that the Methods Committee document their review and concurrance with any restrictions on use of the computer program.
(e) The procedure does not require that a computer program known to have errors be retired.
(f) The procedure does not require that a warning notification be transmitted to the user organiza-tions of record of a computer program found to contain an error.
(g) The procedure does not require a formal distribu-tion of computer certification changes.
. (h) The procedure does not impose a restriction on the length of time permitted to renove a computer program from the program Library fcllowing a Level 4 certification.
mq (i) The procedure does not require the signature of authorized personnel on computer program abstracts.
(j) The procedure does not require documentation of all computer program errors that are identified and the results of their evaluation.
(2) E0P 42-6.0C (Independent Design Verification)
(a) The procedure does not require the formal documenta-tion of the contents of the Design Review Package and its submittal to each o'i the reviewers (Methods Review Committee / Design Review Team) prior to the qq review meeting.
(b) The procedure does not require the signature of authorized persannel on documentation of completion of responsibilities e.g., designate verifier, define extent, and depth of verification.
(c) The procedure does not require the verifiers of a computer program (Methods Review Committee / Design Review Team) to check the adequacy of the calcula-tions used in the program check.
(3) E0P 40.700 (Design Review Program)
Although the DRT chairman must concur with the action plan, the L rocedure does not require that the Methods Review Comittee/ Design Review Team document the close-out and their acceptance of actions taken on open items and recomendations resulting from their review.
(4) E0P 42-10.00 (Design Record Files) 1 The procedure does not require that the Design Record File for a computer program contain a cross reference to other Design Record Files that contain documentation of activities performed as part of the review process e.g., a reference to the DRF containing verification calculations.
.' i 2.
Implementation of Procedures a.
Inspection g
The development and revision of computer programs CHASTE (Core Heatup Analyses Model) and REFLOOD(Analytical Model for Loss of Coolant Analysis) were selected by AB/NRR personnel for examination. The inspectors examined the DRFs maintained on these programs consisting of seven (7) topical reports, four (4) user manuals, seven (7) notices of design reviews, eighteen (18) design review reports, forty (40)
IOMs, eight (8) design verification cover sheets, four (4) design review repert/open items lists, seven (7) ECP status sheets, three (3) ECP abstracts, two (2) program logs, three
- 3) microfiche files, four (4) functional specifications, one
- 1) programer's manual, three (3) computer program submittal forms, and one (1) design procedure.
b.
Findings (1) The IOMs examined covered a variety of subjects concerning these programs e.g., CHAST 06, Sensitivity Studies, dated July 13, 1977; Closure of CHAST 06 Design Review Open Items, dated October 25, 1977; Fuel Properties for LOCA Analysis dated February 5,1978; GEGAP III - CHASTE Interface dated April 24, 1974; Minutes, Design Review Board, dated January 9,1975; Response to Design Review Report - BWR LOCA Models, dated February 28, 1974; Design Review Board Minutes, BWR LOCA Evaluation Models, and Improvement Programs, dated July 11, 1975; Thermal Hydraulics and Transient Analysis Methods Procedures Committee Meeting Minutes, dated July 21, 1977; eh.
(2) Three (3) examples of a single deviation were identified.
(See Notice of Deviation. )
(3) There were no unresolved items identified.
9.
Exit Interview An exit interview was held with management representatives on September 15, 1978.
In addition to those individuals indicated by an asterick in paragraph A, those in attendance were:
J. Barnard, Manager, Nuclear Energy Product and Quality Assurance Operations (NEP&QA0)
R. C. Boesser, Manager, Quality Assurance and Operating Methods; 3
Nuclear Energy Projects Division (NEPD)
.{
A. Breed, Manager, Quality Assurance, NEP&QA0 D. L. Fischer, Manager, Nuclear Engineering, NEED L. K. Holland, Manager, Plant Performance Engin., ;ig, NEED A. I. Kaznoff, Manager, Product Assurance, NEP&QA0 A. J. Levine, Manager, Project Licensing #1, NEPD
"'!'* *1 D. F. Long, Manager, Engineering Services Operation, NEED i
F. M. Paradiso, ECCS Engineering, NEED W. J. Roths, Manager, Reliability Engineering Operation, NEED H. E. Stone, Vice President and General Manager, NEED R. N. Woldstad, Principal Licensing Engineer, NEPD The inspector smanarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
Management comments were generally for clarification only, or acknowl-edgment of the statements by the inspector.
tf8W4N y
i a
3:
.