ML20138J408
| ML20138J408 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 08/08/1985 |
| From: | Oprea G HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| To: | Seyfrit K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| References | |
| OL-A-073, OL-A-73, NUDOCS 8510290334 | |
| Download: ML20138J408 (33) | |
Text
w/97A n
//- Qa u
yyli gy cerstren Usv '
The Light 85 ccr 17 tig:53 COmpMy souuon ughiing & rower e o. nos i7oo nouuon.Te o 77ooi <7:3> 22.< "eii June 5, 1981 ST-HL-AE-678 SFN:
V-0530 Mr. Karl Seyfrit Director, Region IV Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76012
Dear Mr. Seyfrit:
South Texas Project Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. STN 50-498, STN 50-499 First Interim Report Concerning Computer Progran Verification On May 8,1981, Houston Lighting & Power Company Dursuant to 10CFR50.55(e), notified your of fice of an iten concerning conouter program (code) verification. The verification methods lack adequate visibility to the user as to whether or not the program versions in use have been vertfied.
An assessment of computer codes used on the South Texas Project is in progress. This assessment includes a review of the computer program verification reports (CPVR) to evaluate the qualification of the computer codes used on the South Texas Project and a review of calculations for approoriate applicat 3n of computer codes. To date, there has been no technical inadequacy identified in the use of computer programs which would preclude the safe operations of the plant.
The next interim report concerning this item will be submitted to your office by August 28, 1981.
If you have any questions concerning this item, please contact Mr. Michael C. Powell at (713) 676-8592.
Very truly yours,
[BA%B8MBi88lhe
./ /)f 4
G. W. Oprea, Jr Executive Vice President MEP/amj
{
- 4) y })
l I i ('('
/
8
- O p s>#' s
$/ / / w,/ /
A
/;ffl 4*lh' A
6 /s,t'$#'
p'e/
h y
p/s f (s/
/
/'
9e
,i Houston Ughting & Power Company cc:
J. H. Goldberg June 5, 1981
- 0. G. Barker ST-HL-AE-678 C. G. Robertson SFN: V-0530 Howard Pyle Page 2 R. L. Waldrop H. R. Dean D. R. Beeth J. D. Parsons L. K. English J. W. Briskin R. A. Frazar STP RMS H. S. Phillips (NRC)
J. O. Read (Read-Poland,Inc.)
M. D. Schwarz (Baker & Botts)
R. Gordon Gooch (Baker & Botts)
J. R. Newman (Lowenstein,Newman,Reis,&Axelrad)
Director, Office of Inspection & Enforcement Nuclear Regulatory Connission Washington, D. C. 20555 M. L. Borchelt Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire President Chairman, Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Central Power & Light Company U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission P. O. Box 2121 Washington, D. C.
20555 Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 R. L. Range Dr. James C. Lamb, III Central Power & Light 313 Woodhaven Road P. O. Box 2121 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 R. L. Hancock Mr. Ernest E. Hill Director of Electrical Utilities Lawrence Livermore Laboratory City of Austin University of California P. O. Box 1088 P. O. Box 808, L-123 Austin, Texas 78767 Livermore, California 194550 T. H. Muehlenbeck William S. Jordan, III City of Austin Harmon & Weiss P. O. Box 1088 1725 I Street, N. W.
Austin, Texas 78767 Suite 506 Washington, D. C.
20006 J. 8. Poston Robert Hager, Esquire Assistant General Manager of Operations Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power City Public Service Board 5106 Casa Oro P. O. Box 1771 San Antonio, Texas 78233 San Antonio, Texas 78296 A. vonRosenberg Lanny Sinkin City Public Service Board 2207-D, Nueces Sankn nio Texas 78296
(
Brian E. Berwick, Esquire Jay Gutierrez, Esquire Assistant Attorney for the State of Texas Hearing Attorney i
P. O. Box 12548 Office of the Executive Legal Director Capitol Station U. S. Nuclear Requiatory Commission l
j auctin Tavse 7R711 u wh4..+..
n e oneer K.1.01
O
' 'g o
The Light company s_,-u w.g u_ m nam s-,..mowi <1>3,228.e2i>
s August 27, 1981 ST-HL-AE-720 SFN: V-0530 Mr. Karl Seyfrit Director, Region IV Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 16012
Dear Mr. Seyfrit:
South Texas Project Units 182 Docket Nos. STN 50-498, STN 50-499 Second Interin Report Concerning Comeuter Program Verification On May 8, 1981, Houston Lighting & Power Company, pursuant to 10CFR50.55(e), notified your office of an item concerning computer program (code) verification. The verification methods lack adequate visibility to the user as to whether or not the program versions in use have been verified.
An assessment of computer codes used on the South Texas Project is in progress. This assessment is divided into two phases. The Phase I activities are being directed at computer work and program usage by the Brown & Root Nuclear Analysis discipline. This area has been selected for the initial assessment because of the significant interdiscipline usage of data develooed by Brown & Root Nuclear Analysis. Phase 11 of the assessment will focus on computer program usage by Brown & Root disciplines other than Nuclear Analysis.
For Phases I and !! activities, Brown & Root has engaged an independent agency to review existing computer program verification reports (CPVR's) in order to specifically judge the qualification of codes used on the South Texas Project. This review will address the appropriateness of the modeling options, acceptability of code usage, and acceptability and adequacy of the methods selected for computer program verification.
Subsequent to review of CPVR's, the independent agency will review calcula-tions. This review will address the appropriateness of the computer codes selected (including options), adequacy of technical approach, and sensitivity of results. The objective of the above activities is to determine the status and adequacy of the South Texas Project computer program application as well as computer program qualification.
Houston Ughting & Power Company August 27, 1981 ST-HL-AE-720 SFN: V-0530 Page 2 In addition to the assessment of Brown & Root's previous usage of conouter programs, procedural requirements are being revised and/or established to strengthen Brown & Root's existing program for the control, usage, and application of computer codes. The need for a technical reference document (TRD) to augment procedural requirements aimed at preventing a recurrence of this concern is being evaluated.
To date, there has been no technical inadequacy identified in the use of computer programs which would preclude the safe operations of the plant.
The next report concerning this item will be submitted to your office by December 15, 1981.
If there are any questions concerning this item, please contact Mr. Michael E. Powell at (713) 676-8592.
Very truly yours, ea r
Exec ive V President MEP/amj O
~
t-Houuon Ughdng & Power Company cc:
J. H. Goldberg August 27. 1981 J. G. Ocwease ST-HL-AE-720 D. G. Barker SFN: V-0530 C. G. Robertson Page 3 Howard Pyle R. L. Waldrop H. R. Dean U. R. Beeth J. D. Parsons J. W. Williams J. W. Briskin J. E. Geiger STP RMS H. S. Phillips (NRC)
J. O. Read (Read-Poland Inc.)
M. D. Schwarz (Baker & Botts)
R. Gordon Gooch (Baker & Botts)
J. R. Newman (Lowenstein,Newman,Reis,&Axelrad)
Director, Office of Inspection & Enforcement Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 R. L. Range /G. W. Muench Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire Central Power & Light Company Chairman, Atomic Safety & Licensing Board P. 0. Box 2121 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 Washington, D. C.
20555 R. L. Hancock/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 Livernore 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 for the State of Texas Harnon & Weiss P. O. Box 12548 1725 I Street, N. W.
Capitol Station Suite 506 Austin, Texas 78711 Washington, D. C.
20006 Lahny Sinkin Citizens for Equitable Utilities, Inc.
Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power c/o Ms. 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 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
og
~7 Houston n
t A
Li hting
?
M er li I
Electnc Tour RQ Box 1700 1
l HoustonTexas77001 December 18, 1981 ST-H L-A E-76 9 SFN: V-0530 Mr. John T. Collins Regional Administrator, Region IV Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76012
Dear Mr. Collins:
South Texas Project Units 152 Docket Nos. STN 50-498, STN 50-499 Third interim Report Concerning Computer Program Verification On May 8,1981, Houston Lighting & Power Company, pursuant to 10CFR50.55(e), notified your office of an item concerning computer program (code) verification. The verification methods lack adequate visibility to the user as to whether or not the program versions in use had been verified.
As stated in our Second Interim Report, the assessment of computer codes has been divided into two phases.
The Phase I activities have been directed at computer work and program usage by the Brown & Root (BLR) Nuclear Analysis discipline. Phase it was to have been a review of codes used by other disciplines.
To assist in the Phase I assessment a consultant firm was engaged by BER.
The review by the consultant firm addresses the appropriateness or the model-Ing options, acceptability of code usage, and acceptability and adequacy of the methods selected for computer program verification. The consultant has submitted to BER a preliminary report on the Computer Program Verification Reports.
BER is in the process of reviewing these preliminary comments. A final report by the consultant is scheduled for March,1982.
Phase I also includes a review of certain calculations that used the subject computer programs. This review would address the appropriateness of the com-puter codes selected (including options), adequacy of technical approach, and sensitivity of results. The consultant is in the process of performing this review and is scheduled to issue a final report in March,1982. This report will be studied by both B&R as well as Bechtel Power Corporation to determine what problems, if any, may exist in the nuclear analysis computer codes. To date, there continues to be no technical inadequacy which would represent a safety hazard identified by B&R or the consultant firm with the use of computer programs on STP.
Houston Lighting & Pow er Company December 18, 1981 ST-H L-AE-769 SFN: V-0530 Page 2 Planned Phase il activities have been modified. In the earlier report we stated that the consultant would assist in the Phase 11 assessment of computer program usage by BER disciplines other than Nuclear Analysis. Because of our decision to use Bechtel Power Corporation (BPC) as our Architect / Engineer, the Phase 11 activity is a part of the transition work package effort.
As discussed with you and your staff, BPC Engineering will perform design reviews necessary to satisfy BPC of the adequacy of the work it accepts and relies upon for use in further design. If there is insufficient evidence of their adequacy, calculations or design verifications that were performed by BER will be identified as work to be completed by BPC as part of the post-transition design work.
Our next report which will be submitted by June 1,1981, will provide the results of the consultant's final report and the status of the Bechtel review as it pertains to this item, if there are any questions concerning this item, please contact Mr. Michael E. Powell at (713) 676-8592.
Very truly ours,
/
i W
pre, J.
Ex tive President JGW/mmf
-p
_a__
__.u..~
J
__2 4
ma Houston Lighting & Powu t,v...rn, l
cc:
G. W. Oprea, Jr.
December 18, 1981 J. H. Goldberg ST-H L-AE-76 9 J. G. Dewease SFN: V-0530 D. C. Barker Page 3 C. G. Roben - -
H. Pyle,111 l
R. A. Frazar D. R. Beeth J. W. Williams J. W. Briskin J. E. Geiger D. E. Sells (NRC)
H. S. Phillips (NRC)
J. O. Read (Read-Poland, Inc. )
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 Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 R. L. Range /G. W. Muench Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire 1
Central Power & Light Co-" any Chairman, Atomic Safety & Licensing Board P. O. Box 2121 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 Washington, D. C.
20555 i
R. L. Hancock/G. Pokorny Dr. James C. Lamb, Ill j
City of Austin 313 Woodhaven Road P. O. Box 1088 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Austin, Texas 737:7 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 782 %
P. O. Box 808, L-46 Livermore, California 94550 Brian E. Berwick, Esquire William S. Jordan, Ill 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 Lanny Sinkin Citizens for Equitable Utilities, Inc.
Citizens Concernea.ac..n m.ciear Power c/o Ms. Peggy Buchorn 5106 Casa Oro Route 1, Box 1684 San Antonio, Texas 78233 Brazoria, Texas 77422 Jay Gutierrez, Esqui~
Hearing Attorney Office of the Exeevh. 8==f Director U. S. Nuclear Regulate. Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Revision Date 10-29-81
h)6
~
o The Light
(@M9 Company nousion u ating & Power no. Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 (713) 228-9211 s
?
April 22, 1982 ST-HL-AE-819 SFN: V-0530 Mr. John T. Collins Regional Administrator, Region IV Nuclear Regulatory Comission 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76012
Dear Mr. Collins:
South Texas Project Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. STN 50-498, STN 50-499 Fourth Interim Report Concerning Computer Procram Verification On May 8,1981. Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P), cursuant to 10CFR50.55(e), notified your office of an item concernina computer pro-gram (code) verification. The verification methods lacked adequate visi-bility to the user as to whether or not the program versions in use had been verified. The infonnation supplied in this report represents our Fourth Interim Report concerning this item. This report was previously scheduled to be submitted to your office by June 1,1982.
As previously discussed in our Third Interim Report, a consultant firm was engaged by Brown & Root, Inc. (B&R) to address the appropriateness of the modeling options, acceptability of code usage, and acceptability and acequacy of the methods selected for computer program verification. As a result of a review by BPC of B&R subcontract activities, BPC recomended that the consultant's work be teminated to avoid unnecessary duplication of BPC transition reviews of past B&R engineering work. Based on the BPC recorrrnendation and additionally, in recognition that the consultant's scope cf work was not dispositive of the comouter program verification issue; HL&P directed B&R to tenninate the consultant's work in December 1981 except for preparation of a report covering the work already accom-plished. The consultant has prepared and submitted a report on the work completed prior to contract termination.
Houston Ughting & Power Company April 22.1982 N
b 7
.HL&P has provided BPC with a copy of the report for their use in review of B&R work as part of the transition work package effort. A copy of the consultant's report is retained in the HL&P files and is available for in-spection by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC). The next report con-cerning this item will be submitted to your office by September 3,1982.
If you should have any questions concerning this item, please contact Mr. Michael E. Powell at (713) 877-3281.
Very trul rs,
.W.
O d.
Execu ive V ce President MEP/Imf 1
Houston Lighting & Power Company cc:
G. W. Oprea, Jr.
April 22,1982 J. H. Goldberg ST-HL-AE-819 J. G. Dewease SFN: V-0530 J. D. Parsons Page 3 gi D. G. Barker C. G. Ibbertson R. A. Frazar J. W. Williams (J. W. Briskin J. E. Geiger R. L. Ulrey S. M. Dew J. T. Collins NRC)
D. E. Sells NRC)
W. M. Hill, Jr.
NRC)
M. D. Schwarz Baker & Botts)
R. Gordon Gooch Baker & Botts)
J. R. Newman Lowenstein, Newman, Reit, & Axelrad)
STP RMS Director, Office of Inspection & Enforcement Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 R. L. Range /G. W. Muench 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. 8. 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 Harren & 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 Lanny Sinkin Citizens for Equitable Utilities. Inc.
Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power c/o Ms. Peggy Buchorn l
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 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Revision Date 03-30-82 i
e
.m.
__r- -. - - - - - - -. - - --,
-l s The Light MmPuy " ><
u ati s & re-er eo 8e i7oo "-
Te 77ooi <>>>> 228 92ii s
September 13, 1982 ST-HL-AE-880 File Number: G12.96 SFN: V-0530 Mr. John T. Collins Regional Administrator, Region IV Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76012 h
Dear Mr. Collins:
South Texas Project Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. STN 50-498, STN 50-499 Fifth Interim Report Concerning Computer Program Verification On May 8, 1981. Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P), pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(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.
The information supplied in this report represents our Fifth Interim Report.
As previously discussed in our Third and Fourth Interim Reports, a consultant firm was engaged by Brown & Root. Inc. (B&R) to address the appropriateness of the modeling options, acceptability of code usage, and acceptability and adequacy of the methods selected for computer program verification. As a result of a reviav by Bechtel of B&R subcontract j
activities, Bechtel recommended that the consultant's work be terminated to avoid unnecessary duplication of Bechtel transition reviews of past B&R engineering work. Based on the Bechtel recommendation and, additionally, in recognition that the consultant's scope of work was not dispositive of the I
computer program verification issue. HLat directed B&E to terminate the i
consultant's work in December 1981 except for preparation of a report covering the work already accomplished. The consultant prepared and sub-mitted a report oa the work completed prior to contract termination. This consultant's report was transmitted to EPC for resolution of this iten.
l As part of Bechtel s efforts to resolve this issue, a method was devel-i oped for use by the various Bechtal engineering disciplines during their review of B&R computer calculations. Details of the Bechtel method for finalizing B&R computer calculatiens are provided in Attachment 1 to this i
report.
l
~
September 13, 1982 ST-HL-AE-880 File No.: G12.96 SFN: V-0530 Page 2 The consultant's review of B&R's Nuclear Analysis Disciplines computer program verification reports (CPVR's) and calculations included 26 CPVR's and 147 calculations. However, there was not necessarily a one-to-one corre-lation 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.
4
. The consultant's report reviewed 147 B&R calculations performed by the B&R' Nuclear Analysis Discipline that had utilized computer codes. Of that number 54 had been revised, not used in the design or had been superseded by other calculations primarily performed by NUS. Ten calculations have been or are in the process of being superseded by Bechtel calculations either because the design has changed or inadequate computer program verification was found.
There are currently 43 calculations that have been identified as requiring change primarily for design criteria reasons. Four calculations have been identified as desirable to keep pending verification of the computer f
programs. Thirty-six calculations are still undergoing review.
Of the 26 CPVR's reviewed by the consultant Bechtel is considering retaining 5 codes, not receining 13 codes and has not completed its evaluation on the remaining 8 codes. The 13 codes are not being considered for retention because the calculations utilizing them have been redone by l
For NUS, require rework because of design changes or the CPVR is inadequate.
4 those codes not retained the calculations will be redone using a verified code. For those codes retained the CPVR will either be made consistent with paragraph 5 of Bechtel Engineering Department Procedure (EDP) 4.36 to the satisfaction of the Engineering Group Supervisor (ECS) or the calculation verified to EDP 4.37 as is shown in the figure in Attachment 2.
B&R also identified 57 significant computer programs used by the remaining disciplines on the South Texas Project (STP). Of this number 3PC is considering retaining 34 codes, not retaining 17 codes and has not completed its evaluation of the remaining 6 codes. Of those not being retained, 10 cases result from deficient CPVR's and 7 cases from a need to redo calculations for other reasons.
The next report concerning this item will be submitted to your office by December 22, 1982.
If you should have any questions concerning this ites, please contact Mr. Michael E. Powell at (713)877-3281.
Very truly yours, e
a, Execu ve Vi President MIP/ag Attachment i
1 1
Houston Ughting & Power Company cc:
G. W. Oprea, Jr.
S*Ptember 13, 1982 J. H. Goldberg ST-HL-AE-880 J. G. Dewease File Number: G12.96 J. D. Parsons SFN: V-0530 D. G. Barker Page 3
'C. G. Robertson R. A. Frazar J. W. Williams R. J. Maroni Ji E. Geiger H. A. Walker S. M. Dew J, T. Collins NRC) 4 i
D. E. Sells 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 Commission 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 1
J. B. Poston/A. vonRosenberg Mr. Ernest E. Hill City Public Service Board Lawrence Livermore Laboratory P. O. Box 1771 University of California l
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.
Lanny Sinkin Citizens for Equitable Utilities Inc.
Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power c/o Ms. 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 08-23-82 t
l l
BECHTEL'S PROGRAM TO FINALIZE BROWN & ROOT, INC COMPUTER CALCULATIONS Each Bechtel discipline will review the Brown & Root, Inc. (B&R)
' calculations and associated Computer Program Verification Reports (CPVR's),
turned over during the Transition Phase as part of the work package re-views, and develop their status. As a result of this effort along with his previous experience, the Bechtel Engineering Group Su'pervisor (EGS) will establish which calculations are required to document his design effort.
In order to minimize the recalculational effort the EGS will use B&R calculations previously transmitted in all cases where their appropriate-l ness and correctness can be verified in line with the attached flow chart 4
and as discussed below.
A.
If the calculation is not required as part of the design bases documentation it will be marked Preliminary and filed under Preliminary or Superseded Calculations.
B.
If the calculation is required as part of the design documentation and, in the judgement of the EGS, is appropriate and meets all other Industry Codes or Standards associated with the design, it must still meet certain standards of acceptability as delineated in Bechtel Engineering Department Procedures (EDP's) 4.36 and 4.37 before it can be marked Final.
l 1.
B&R calculations developed using codes with documented CPVR's consistent with B&R procedures may be marked Final if, in the l
judgement of the EGS, the verification adequately meets the requirements of Paragraph 5 of EDP 4.36. This level of l
acceptance is to be used only in the case of relatively simple "one of a kind" solutions and where, in the judgement of the EGS, the reasonableness of the solution is self evident.
2.
B&R calculations not w eting the "one of a kind" criteria of Paragraph 1 or calculations which, while meeting B&R criteria for code verification, do not meet the requirements of EDP 4.36 but, in the judgement of the EGS, were made with the valid codes, must be verified before acceptance as final in accordance with EX 4.37. As a minimum this verification can be accomplished using liriited reruns or bounding calculations of the design problems on the similar verified versions of BPC or contractor codes. If, in the judgement of the EGS, the reruns provide reasonable and consistent results, he can accept as Firal, single or groups of calculations encompassed by this verification.
3.
B&R calculations which, in the judgement of the EGS, do not meet the criteria of Paragraph 1 or 2 above, must be redone in accordance with EDP 4.36 or 4.37 before they can be^ accepted as Final by the EGS.
In addition to the above verification effort, from time to time, Disci-pline Chiefs, at their discretion, may require that calculations be given additional review prior to acceptance, and will so advise the EGS.
G g
Attachtnent 2 I!,i,-
I.II j,-
- g.
l I.
e I
3 I
-1.
sit
==
I II I.i
. E!~
s i
gg tav II
~}n
.-:=
!i 8
[*iS
'iiggi-i!i o
E o
s.
E E
E
(
5 i
! c.r.i.s..
.I..
Ig,.g.
g*E!='g:
= ::
- {!"[3.~ijl s.
IE g s-l
~
a a
o t
l
,s l,!,
~
85.ii,
- g,,i y
8 a.
I]g g
g 3
a
=
l I
j ERI I
l E!
&g*
The Light COmpMy nouston 13 hting 1: Power PO. Box 1700 Houston, Texas 7700I (713)228-921i 8
December 22, 1982 ST-BL-AE-916 File Number: C12.96 SFN: V-0530 Mr. John T. Collins Regional Administrator, Region IV Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76012
Dear Mr. Collins:
South Texas Project Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. STN 50-493, 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,
/
?
, s<'
p' Exe ' tive V e President MEP/mg Attachment i
1 l
Houston Lighdng & 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 Comission 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 f
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 Lenny Sinkin Citizens for Equitable Utilities, Inc.
Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power c/o its. Peggy Buchorn 5106 Cass Oro Route 1, Box 1684 l
San Antonio, Texas 78233 Brazoria, Texas 77422 Jay Gutierrez, Esquire Hearing Attorney Office of the Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C.
20555 Revision Date 10-18-82
O Sixth Interim Report Concerning Computer Program Verification I.
Summary Bechtel has developed a method for the review of 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&?) notified the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), pursuant to 10CFR50.55(e), of a concern relative to 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.
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-EL-AE-678, 720, 769, 819, and 880 respectively).
III.
Corrective Action As part of Bechtel'a efforts to resolve this issue, a method was developed for use by the various Bechtel engineering disciplines for review of BAR 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 program verification reports (CPVR's) and calculations included 26 CPVR's and 147 calculations. However, there was not necessarily a one-to-one correlation 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.
l 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 program verification was found. Seventeen (17) calculations have been i
I
o.
g I
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 r' done e
using a verified code.
B&R also identified 57 significant computer programs used by the remaining disciplinea 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 the independent review did not define technical inadequacies which would have compromised the safety of the plant.
c'
The Light company a_,
u s,,e,& em..,
s e o. e, ir,, s s,
.1<,
,11,, <1 3, 22
.,,2 i i June 13, 1983 ST-HL-AE-955 File Number: G12.96 Mr. John T. Collins Regional Administrator, Region IV Nuclear Regulatory Comission 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76012
Dear Mr. Collins:
South Texas Project tlnits 1 & 2 Docket Nos. STN 50-498, STN 50-499 Seventh Interim Report Concerning Computer Program Verification On May 8, 1981, pursuant to 10CFR50.55(e), Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P) notified your office of an item concerning computer program verification. The sixth interim report, submitted on December 22, 1982, indicated that the next report would be submitted by May 12, 1983.
In a subsequent conversation between M. E. Powell of HL&P and W. A. Crossman of your office, an extension of the submittal date to June 13, 1983 was obtained. The extension to June 13, 1983 was based on our plans to submit a final report at that time. However, all action items necessary to prepare a final report were not completed.
In particular, further corrective action related to certain codes used by the civil disciplines and pipe stress and supports group is required.
Enclosed is our seventh interim report concerning this item. We anticipate submitting our next report by October 14, 1983.
If you should have any questions concerning this item, ple 7 contact Mr. Michael E. Powell at (713) 877-3281.
Very truly yours,
/
y r
te Exec tive W e'e President SSR/kr Attachment i
l k
Houston Lighting & Power Company June 13, 1983 cc:
G. W. Oprea, Jr.
ST-HL-AE-955 J. H. Goldberg File Number: G12.96 J. G. Dewcase Page 2 J. D. Parsons D. G. Barker M. R. Wisenburg R. A. Frazar W. 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 Comission 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 C:rolina 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 i
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 Lanny Sinkin Citizens for Equitable Utilities. Inc.
Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power c/o Ms. Peggy Buchorn 5106 Casa Oro Route 1, Box 1684 San Antonio, Texas 78233 Brazoria, Texas 77422 Robert G. Perlis, Esquire Hearing Attorney Office of the Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C.
20555 Revision Date 04-29-83 l
~
(
Seventh Interim Report Concerning Computer Program Verification I.
Sunenary A review of the Brown & Root, Inc. (B&R) engineering effort on STP indicated that computer program verification methods lacked adequate visibility to the user as to whether or not the program versions in use were verified. The findings of the review did no; define technical inadequacies that would compromise the safety of the plant.
Subsequent to assuming design responsibility for STP, Bechtel developed and implemented a verification program for review and acceptance of, B&R's computer calculations and Computer Program Verification Reports (CPVRs). The results and status of this verification program are given in Section III of this report.
II. Description of Deficiency Refer to interim reports transmitted to the NRC by letters dated June 15, 1981 August 27, 1981, December 18, 1981, April 22, 1982, September 13, 1982, and December 22, 1982 (reference ST-HL-AE-678, 720, 769, 819, 880, and 916 respectively).
In the Sixth Interim Report, a larger number of computer codes and calculations were reported as being considered for retention.
Bechtel's corrective actions, (described below) have eliminated many of these from further consideration.
III. Corrective Action Bechtel implemented a program utilizing its Engineering Department Procedures (EDPs) for the review and acceptance of B&R's computer calculations and CPVRs which is described in detail in the Fifth Interim Report (ST-HL-AE-880) to the NRC. This program has been audited by the NRC (Inspection Report 50-498 and 499/82-12, dated January 7, 1983). The program was found to be adequate and to confom to ANSI N45.2.11.
A.
The Bechtel corrective action activities were directed towards i
first separating the computer codes into various categories of need for retention based upon a review a calculations using the program.
This categorization involved a detemination of the following:
l (1) Was the code utilized in design basis calculations? If not, do not complete the CPVR documentation.
(2) Were the calculations subsequently superseded / replaced by calculations using different acceptable computer codes? If yes, do not complete the CPVR documentation.
l (3) Are the calculations currently scheduled for revision by l
Bechtel using Bechtel calculational codes because of design evolution, or finalization of input data? If yes, do not complete the CPVR documentation.
1 l
1 (4) Upon review of the CPVR documentation, are significant documentation deficiencies identified? If yes, a parallel calculation will be completed by Bechtel to verify the calculation itself.
(5) Finally, for the remaining computer codes, supplement any missing documentation or provide for code verification using i
Bechtel EDP methods. If satisfactory, retain the computer code. If not, revise the calculation.
Retention of a computer code for the design basis of the plant is defined to mean tnat the program verifications were found to meet the essential elements of Bechtel EDPs 4.36 and/or 4.37 and therefore can be generically utilized in accepting the entire body of B&R calculations using that code and supporting the existing design.
As a result of this evaluation logic, relatively few computer codes were designated for retention under this strict definition.
It has been found that because of design evolution, identification of as-built conditions, and the need to revise design to meet new regulatory requirements, most codes, and therefore most related calculations, were l
eliminated from fomal CPVR upgrading actions.
B.
As part of a previous program,147 calculations and 26 CPVRs used by the B&R Nuclear Analysis discipline had received an independent review by Energy Incorporated (EI) as described in ST-HL-AE-819.
The status of these items as a result of the Bechtel evaluation described in paragraph A is as follows:
Fifty-eight calculations were not used in the design or were superseded by other calculations primarily perfomed by NUS.
Eighty-three (83) calculations have been or are being superseded by Bechtel calculations because the design has changed or corputer program verification was inadequate. Six (6) calculations are being maintained in support of existing project design as a result of completing verifications of the computer code and/or the calculation itself.
Review of the 26 Nuclear Analysis CPVR's resulted in only one code being retained and in 25 codes not being required for project use for various reasons.
If necessary to support the design basis, the calculations which utilized the codes not retained will be redone using verified codes or alternate methods.
C.
In addition Brown & Root had identified 57 significant computer l
programs used by the remaining disciplines (other than Nuclear Analysis) which had not been part of the El review. Bechtel's review of the programs has resulted in 32 not being required for project use and 7 being retained for project use.
The remaining 18 have been evaluated and determined to warrant,
further action since calculations which the project intends to maintain utilize these codes. Two (2) of these codes are industry-standard codes in the pipe stress analysis and pipe 2
-...w.
I support design area, and merely require confirmation through the code vendor / sponsor of certain documentation and retrievability requirements. The remaining sixteen (16) are all in the civil / structural design or geotechnical scope of responsibility.
Each has been evaluated and a worklist of remaining activities has been established to accomplish necessary action to allow retention of the computer program and any calculations based upon them.
D.
In addition, to the 57 codes identified by B&R, Bechtel has identified 6 more codes requiring evaluation. One (1) code has been identified as not being used for design. The other five (5) have been evaluated and added to-the worklist described above for the remaining eighteen (18) B&R identified codes, resulting in a i
total of twenty-three (23) codes.
j IV. Recurrence Control Bechtel Engineering Procedures require that computer verification be performed either generically (for standard programs) or individually before a In addition, they define calculation using the program be approved as final.
the required elements of such a verification. They thus provide adequate recurrence control.
V.
Safety Analysis Review of the B&R engineering effort during the transition program has not uncovered any technical inadequacies which resulted from the lack of computer verification that would have compromised the safety of the plant.
The program described above will provide final assurance that the safety of the plant is not affected.
I l
r i
l 3
.-_._%,.._~__-p._
,--.-w
.,,--m-
mv The Light Company nouston tigating & rose, e.o. sex ivoo nous,on.1,x,27ooi (2i33228 92ii October 14, 1983 ST-HL-AE-1017 File Number: G12.96 Mr. John T. Collins Regional Administrator, Region IV Nuclear Regulatory Comission 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76012
Dear Mr. Collins:
South Texas Project Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. STN 50-498, STN 50-499 Final Report Concerning Computer Program Verification On May 8, 1981, pursuant to 10CFR50.55(e), Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P) notified your office of an item concerning computer program verification. Enclosed is our final report regarding this item.
If you should have any questions concerning this item, please contact Mr. Michael E. Powell at (713) 877-3281.
Very truly yours, G. W. Oprea, Jr.
Executive Vice President SSR/mg Attachments l
~
I
Houuon Ughting A: Power Company cc:
G. W. Oprea, Jr.
ST-HL-AE-1017 j
J. H. Goldberg File Number: G12.96 J. G. Dewease Page 2 J. D. Parsons D. G. Barker M. R. Wisenburg i
R. A. Frazar J. W. Williams R. J. Maroni i
J. E. Geiger S. M. Dew J. T. Collins NRC)
A. Vietti NRC)
D. P. Tomlinson NRC) 1 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 l
Washington, D. C. 20555 E. R. Broo's/R. L. Range Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire Central Power & Light Company Chairinan, Atomic Safety & Licensing Board P. O. Box 2121 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 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 I
Austin, Texas 78767 J. 8. Poston/A. vonRosenberg Mr. Ernest E. Hill City Public Service Board Lawrence Liverinore Laboratory P. O. Box 1771 University of California San Antonio, Texas 78296 P. 0. Box 808, L-46 Liverinore, California 94550 Brian E. Berwick, Esquire William S. Jordan, III Assistant Attorney General Marinon & 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 Lanny Sinkin Citizens for Equitable Utilities, Inc.
Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power c/o Ms. Peggy Buchorn 114 W. 7th, Suite 220 Route 1. Box 1684 Austin, Texas 78701 Brazoria, Texas 77422 l
Robert G. Perlis, Esquire Hearing Attorney Office of the Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission l
Washington, D. C.
20555 Revision Date 10-10-83 l
. ~
ST-HL-AE-1017 Page 1 of 3 Final Report Concerning Computer Program Verification I.
Summary A review of the Brown & Root Inc. (8.8R) engineering activities on STP indicated that computer program verification methods lacked adequate visibility to the user as to whether or not the program versions in use had been verified. The findings of the review did not disclose technical inadequacies that would compromise the safety of the plant.
I Subsequent to assuming design responsibility for STP, Bechtel developed and implemented a verification program for review and acceptance of B&R's computer calculations and Computer Program VerificationReports(CPVRs). The results of this verification program are given in Section III of this report.
i II. Description of Deficiency l
Refer to interim reports transmitted to the NRC by letters dated l
June 15, 1981, August 27, 1981 December 18, 1981. April 22, 1982, September 13, 1982, December 22, 1982 and June 13,1983(Reference ST-HL-AE-678, 720, 769, 819, 880, 916 and 955 respectively).
III. Corrective Action Bechtel has completed a program for the review and acceptance of B&R's computer calculations and CPVRs in accordance with approved Engineering Department Procedures (EDPs). This program is described in j
detail in ST-HL-AE-880. The program has been audited by the NRC (Inspection Report 82-12, dated Jan. 7, 1983). The program was found to l
be adequate and to conform to ANSI N45.2.11.
The Bechtel corrective actions were directed first towards l
separating the computer codes into various categories of need for l
retention based upon a review of calculations using the program. This i
procedure was described in ST-HL-AE-955.
l Retention of a computer code for the design basis of the plant is defined to mean that the program verifications were found to meet the essential elenents of Bechtel EDPs 4.36 andAr 4.37 and therefore can be utilized in accepting the entire body of 8&R calculations using that code and supporting the existing design.
Because of design evolution, a better description of as-built conditions, and the need co revise the design to meet new regulatory requirements, most codes, and therefore most related calculations, were eliminated from fonnal CPVR upgrading actions and thus were not ' retained.
ST-HL-AE-1017 I
Page 2 of 3 As part of a previous program, 147 calculations and 26 CPVR's used i
by 'he the B&R Nuclear Analysis discipline had received an independent review by Energy Incorporated (EI) as described in ST-HL-AE-819. The status of these items as a result of the Bechtel evaluation described above is as follows:
i Fifty-eight (58) calculations were not used in the design or were superseded by other calculations primarily perfonned by NUS. Eighty-three (83) calculations have been or are being superseded by Bechtel calculations because the design has changed or computer program verification was inadequate. Six (6) calculations are being maintained in support of existing project design as a result of completing verifications of the calculation itself.
Review of the 26 Nuclear Analysis CFVR's resulted in none being retained. Two (2) additional Nuclear Analysis codes, not included in the EI review, have been reviewed and are being retained to support the 4
l design basis. If necessary to support the design basis, the calculations which utilized the codes not retained wi1 Fbe redone using verified codes or alternate methods.
In addition Brown & Root had identified 57 significant computer programs used by the remaining disciplines (other than Nuclear Analysis) which had not been part of the El review. Bechtel's review of the programs has resulted in 29 not being required and 27 being retained for project documentation of design calculations. The 27 programs being retained include three (3) programs which were preliminarily reported as being rejected in ST-HL-AE-955. One (1) additional code identified among the 57 was not used in design calculations but was retained because it l
may have been used to develop infonnation contained in responses to other licensing questions. Therefore, of the 57 significant codes identified by B&R, a total of 28 are being retained for project documentation.
In additicn to the 57 codes identified by B&R, Bechtel has j
identified 15 codes requiring evaluation. Nine (9) of these codes are
]
maintained by venders whose Quality Assurance programs have been included as part of this or other previous review programs. Of the remaining 6 codes, one was nat used in design calculations but was included because it may have bee 1 used to develop infonnation contained in responses to other licensing questions. All 15 of these codes were found acceptable and are being retained for project documentation.
IV. Recurrence Control Bechtel Engineering Department Procedures require that computer verification be performed either generically (for standard programs) or individually before a calculation using the program be approved as final.
j They define the required elements of such a verification and provide visibility to the user as to whether the program version l
~
ST-HL-AE-1017 Page 3 of 3 being used has been verified. These EDP's were included in the NRC audit (Inspection Report 50-498 and 499/82-12, dated January 7,1983) and determined to be adequate.
V.
Safety Analysis Review of the B&R engineering effort during the transition program has not uncovered any technical inadequacies which resulted from the lack of computer verification that would have compromised the safety of the plant. The program described above provides final assurance that the safety of the plant is not affected.
e i
s-ST-HL-AE-1017 Page 1 of 3 RETAINED CALCULATIONS AND PROGRAMS I.
NUCLEAR ANALYSIS A.
Calculations 3LO99NC724-B 3LO99NC727-B 3LO99NC728-A 3LO99NC729-A 2N179NC783-A 3C799NC0807-A B.
Programs NUCONTEMP3 MOD 3 COMPARE MODI, MODIA II. REMAINING DISCIPLINE SIGNIFICANT PROGRAMS ES-017 Fourier Series Expansion Program
~
ES-101 ICES COGO - Coordinate Geometry ES-209 Calculate Spring Constants for Mats CP-291 Structural Welds
- ES-213 Stress and Displacement in Elastic Half-Space ES-214 STP SYS - Settlement in Multi-Layer Soil BASEPLATE ES-408 ICES STRUDL/Dynal Structural Space Frame Analysis ES-417 NASTRAN ES-418 Static Shell Stress Analysis
- Not used in design but may have been used in response to NRC request for additional information.
.__.2,_
.7
ST-HL-AE-1017 Page 2 of 3 ES-423 Interaction Diagram Plot - Working Stress ES-424 Interaction Diagram Plot - Ultimate Stress ES-428 Penetration Tendon Analysis /NASTRAN Data Management ES-431 Response Envelope ES-432 Shear Flow ES-433 Composite Damping j
ICES STRUDL II NPS Baseplate EM-900 ADL Pipe 4
Superpipe i
CW-501 Hydrograph (Unit. Inflow, Outflow)
LIQSS Liquid Steady State Piping System Analysis Program CW-527 Water Surface Profile (HEC-2) l l
ES-420 Static Stress Analysis of Shells i
8050R - 4 Buckling of Shells of Revolution ES-415 Cross Section Properties and Weight System Resultant ES-434 Generation of New Time History Loads Slope - Stability Analysis III. BECHTEL IDENTIFIED PROGRAMS Stardyne ES-401 ES-419 l
ES-439 l
ES-212 i
TRANS2A l
l
~. -.,.
l ST-HL-AE-1017 1
Page 3 of 3 i
i SPECT1A PRINS EDSLIN EDSSAAS EDSMESH TMM TDISTRI A8AQUS CP-244*
- Not used in design but may have been used in response to NRC request for additional information.
(
I i