ML20207J757
| ML20207J757 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 09/20/1988 |
| From: | Bailey J GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| References | |
| GN-1488, NUDOCS 8809280113 | |
| Download: ML20207J757 (2) | |
Text
_
e '. ~
m,, ccm m en <. so. m Warestcea Georg a %8"30 I 4C#</4 434 s'4 W41 t
+
4M 724 8114
- .outrem Company Serv ces. t%
% on<e w ms B revam. A;at+ama 35202 Vogtie Project we-e xs.'*"
e September 20, 1988 f
United Statas Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:
Document Control Desk Files X7BC35 l
Washington, D. C.
20$55 Log:
GN-1488 NRC DOCKET NUMBER 50-425 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NUMSER CPPR-109 VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT - UNIT 2 SER Open Ites lebt Safety Parageter Display System (SPDS) i The Unit 1 SPDS was considered fully operational by the NRC staff in Section 18.2 of Supplement 6 to the Vogtle Safety Evaluation Report.
However, the staff stated that similarity of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 SPDS's must be demonstrated.
Georgia Power Company's discussion of this similarity is attached.
l If your staf f should require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely.
l k-J. A. Bailey i
Project Licensing Manager l
JAB /sen J
Attachment l
xct NRC Regional Administrator J.B. Hopkins (2)
NRC Resident Inspector O. Bockhold. Jr.
P. D. Rice J. E. Joiner. Esquire J.
P. Kane R. J.
Goddard. Esquire R. A. Thomas R. W. McManus B. W. Churchill, Esquire Vogtle Project File j
f jbOO7 i
l E
l:
l$p03 88092801{K 05000425 3 880920 3
I lR ADOL P
Poc
e..s SPOS SIMILARITY BETWEEN UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 The software used in the verification and validation of the Unit 2 SPDS is the same sof tware used in the verification and validation of the Unit 1 SPDS.
With regard to the similarity of the Unit 2 Emergency Response Facility (ERF) computer to the Unit 1 ERP computer the dif f erences are outlined below.
The Unit 2 ER? computer hardware le identical to the Unit 1
computer except the meteorological data (16 inputs), the common radiation data (26 inputs), and some miscellaneous HVAC damper positions (17 inputs) are not terminated in the Unit 2 computer.
Therefore the Unit 1 and Unit 2 software is !dentical except for the following:
1.
There is no data base information in the Unit 2 computer pertaining to the inputs above.
2.
The software which drives the radiation status lights as part of the Unit 2 SPDS does not "look" at the common radjation data.
This is the only difference in the SPDS portion of the two EdF computers.
3.
The software which computes the met tower data averages and drives the three (3) met tower displays has been deleted from the Unit 2 software.
If should be noted that there may be some normal and alarm setpoint differences in ti;e two d; ta bases due to operating dif f erences in the units.