ML20071Q047
| ML20071Q047 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 12/22/1982 |
| From: | Oprea G HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| To: | Jay Collins NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| References | |
| 10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, ST-HL-AE-916, NUDOCS 8212290202 | |
| Download: ML20071Q047 (4) | |
Text
..
The Light Company n-n ughong & r~r m nox im n-n. rexas 77ooi (7 33 22s.92ii December 22, 1982 ST-HL-AE-916 File Number: G12.96 SFN: V-0530 Mr. John T. Collins Regional Administrator, Region IV Nuclear Regulatory Comission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76012
Dear Mr. Collins:
South Texas Project Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. STN 50-498, STN 50-499 Sixth Interim Report Concerning Computer Program Verification on May 8, 1981, Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P), pursuant to 10CFR50.55(e), notified your office of an item concerning computer program (code) verification. The verification methods lacked adequate visibility to the user as to whether or not the program versions in use had been verified.
Attached is the sixth interim report concerning this item.
Our next report will be submitted to your office by May 12, 1983.
If you should have any questions concerning this item, please contact Mr. Michael E. Powell at (713) 877-3281.
Very truly yours, r.
t
/
/
[
,4 Exe tive V e President MEP/mg h-Attachment 8212290202 821222 PDR ADOCK 05000498 5
Houston Lighting & Power Company December 22, 1982 cc:
G. W. Oprea, Jr.
ST-HL-AE-916 J. H. Goldberg File Number: G12.96 J. G. Dewease Page 2 J. D. Parsons D. G. Barker
~M. R. Wisenburg R. A. Frazar J. W. Williams
-R. J. Maroni J. E. Geiger H. A. Walker S. M. Dew J. T. Collins (NRC)
H. E. Schierling (NRC)
W. M. Hill, Jr.
(NRC)
M. D. Schwarz (Baker & Botts)
R. Gordon Gooch (Baker & Botts)
J. R. Newman (Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, & Axelrad)
STP RMS Director, Office of Inspection & Enforcement Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C. 20555 G. W. Muench/R. L. Range Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire Central Power & Light Company Chairman, Atomic Safety & Licensing Board P. O. Box 2121 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 Washington, D. C.
20555 H. L. Peterson/G. Pokorny Dr. James C. Lamb, III City of Austin 313 Woodhaven Road P. O. Box 1088 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Austin, Texas 78767 J. B. Poston/A. vonRosenberg Mr. Ernest E. Hill City Public Service Board Lawrence Livermore Laboratory P. O. Box 1771 University of California San Antonio, Texas 78296 P. O. Box 808, L-46 Livermore, California 94550 Brian E. Berwick, Esquire William S. Jordan, III Assistant Attorney General Harmon & Weiss for the State of Texas 1725 I Street, N. W.
P. O. Box 12548 Suite 506 Capitol Station Washington, D. C.
20006 Austin, Texas 78711 L&nny Sinkin Citizens for Equitable Utilities, Inc.
Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power c/o lis. Peggy Buchorn 5106 Casa Oro Route 1, Box 1684 San Antonio, Texas 78233 Brazoria, Texas 77422 Jay Gutierrez, Esquire Hearing Attorney Office of the Executive Legal Director l
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Washington, D. C.
20555 Revision Date 10-18-82 1
,._.m...
-s
.i Sixth Intsrin Rap 3rt C:ncarning Computer Program Verification I.
Summary Bechtel has developed a method for the review u. Brown & Root. Inc.
(B&R) computer calculations. This method is in place and is being successfully addressed by the various Bechtel engineering disciplines.
This report constitutes our sixth interim report concerning this item.
II.
Description of the Incident on May 8, 1981, Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P) notified the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), pursuant to 10CFR50.55(e), of a concern relative to computer program (co, verification. The verification methods lacked adequate visibility to the user as to whether or not the program versions in use had been verified.
The concern was raised as the result of an independent engineering review conducted of Brown & Root (B&R). The findings of this review stated that computer program verification reports (CPVR's) were not in place for all programs, and that non-verified programs may have been applied to safety-related design calculations. The findings of this independent review however, did not define technical inadequacies which would have compromised the safety of the plant.
Interim reports concerning this item were submitted by letters dated June 15, 1981, August 27, 1981, December 18, 1981, April 22, 1982 and September 13, 1982 (reference ST-HL-AE-678, 720, 769, 819, and 880 respectively).
III.
Corrective Action As part of Bechtel's efforts to resolve this issue, a method was developed for use by the various Bechtel engineering disciplines for review of B&R computer calculations. Details of the Bechtel method for finalizing B&R computer calculations were provided in our fifth interim report.
The independent review of B&R's Nuclear Analysis Disciplines' computer progran-verification reports (CPVR's) and calculations included 26 CPVR's and 147 cad:rlations. However, there was not necessarily a one-to-one correla t ion of calculations and CPVR's (i.e. QAD CPVR's were reviewed, but no calculations using these codes were). Therefore, status of CPVR's and calculations is presented separately.
The report by the independent reviewer identified 147 B&R calculations performed by the B&R Nuclear Analysis Discipline that had utilized computer codes. Of that number 56 were not used in the design or had been superseded by other calculations primarily performed by NUS.
Sixty-Six (66) calculations have been or are in the process of being superseded by Bechtel calculations either because the design has changed or inadequate computer i
program verification was found.
Seventeen (17) calculations base been i
i f
a
~ --,,.,,- --
,c-=
e identified as desirable to keep pending verification of the computer programs. The remaining eight (8) are still awaiting completion of the review.
Of the 26 CPVR's reviewed by the independent reviewer, Bechtel will retain 12 codes and not retain 14 codes. The calculations utilizing the 14 retained codes may be superseded by Bechtel calculations. The 14 codes are not being considered for retention because the calculations utilizing them have been redone by NUS, require rework because of design changes or the CPVR is inadequate. For those codes not retained the calculations will be redone using a verified code.
B&R also identified 57 significant computer programs used by the remaining disciplines on the South Texas Project (STP). Of this number BPC will retain 37 codes and not retaining 20 codes. The reasons for not retaining the 20 codes are either deficient CPVR's or a need to redo calculations for other reasons.
IV.
Recurrence Control Well established Bechtel Engineering Department Procedures, regarding the verification of computer codes and calculations, are strictly in force at this time. These procedures will insure against any recurrence of this deficiency.
V.
Safety Analysis A detailed safety analysis was not performed; however the findings of s
the independent review did not define technical inadequacies which would have compromised the safety of the plant.
l