ML20210T512
| ML20210T512 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 02/11/1987 |
| From: | Tam P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Carey J DUQUESNE LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| TAC-64577, NUDOCS 8702180205 | |
| Download: ML20210T512 (4) | |
Text
_
FEES 1 W Docket No. 50-412-DISTRIBUTION:
6>
ACRS (10)
NRC PDR LFMB Local PDR PAD #2 r/f TNovak, Actg. DD Gray Files Mr. J. J. Carey, Senior Vice President NThompson, DHFT Duquesne Light Company OGC-Bethesda Nuclear Group EJordan Post Office Box 4 BGrimes Shippingport, PA 15077 JPartlow LRubenstein
Dear Mr.- Carey:
DMiller
SUBJECT:
BEAVER VALLEY UNIT 2 - PLANT SAFETY MONITORING SYSTEM VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION (TACf 64577)
Section 7.7.2.12 of the Beaver Valley Unit 2 FSAR addressed the use of a plant safety monitoring system (PSMS) to process and output inadequate core cooling variables. Since the PSMS is a computer-based system which uses programmable logic to process and display various safety-related variables, a verification and validation (V&V) plan in accordance with IEEE-ANS-7.4.3.2 (reference 1 of the enclosure) should be implemented on the PSMS software components. Details may be found in the enclosure.
We recognize that the PSMS V&V may not be totally complete prior to the proposed licensing date. We request, however, that information and commitment similar to that in references 5 and 6 of the enclosure be provided. The information should include the amount of V&V completed on BVPS-2 itself, or as a result of its commonality with another like system such as South Texas. The date when the total V&V is expected to be completed should also be provided.
Please have your staff call me to discuss a target date for your response.
4 This information request affects fewer than 10 respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P. L.86-511.
Sincerely, Ng21!D$$k$$$ok12 Peter S. Tam, Project Manager A
PDR Project Directorate #2 Division of PWR Licensing-A
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure:
See next page h.
PM/PA 1,
PD//A 2 Office:
LA Surname: DM tr/tg PTam j
LRubenstein i
Date:
02
/87 02/10 7
02// /87
/
Mr. J. J. Carey Duquesne Light Company Beaver Valley 2 Power Station cc:
Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
Mr. R. E. Martin, Manager Jay E. Silberg, Esq.
Regulatory Affairs Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Duquesne Light Company 2300 N Street, N.W.
Beaver Valley Two Project Washington, DC 20037 P. O. Box 328 Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077
- Mr. C. W. Ewing, Quality Assurance Zori Ferkin Manager Assistant Counsel Quality Assurance Department Governor Energy Council Duquesne Light Company 1625 N. Front Street P. 0.. Box 186 Harrisburg, PA 15105 Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 John D. Burrows, P.E.
Director, Pennsylvania Emergency Director of Utilities Management Agency State of Ohio Rtom B-151 Public Utilities Commission Transportation & Safety Building 180 East Broad Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Columbus, Ohio 43266-0573 Mr. T. J. Lex Bureau of Radiation Protection Westinghouse Electric Corporation PA Department of Environmental Power Systems Resources P. O. Box 355 ATTN:
R. Janati Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 P.O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Mr. P. RaySircar Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation BVPS-2 Records Management Supervisor P. O. Box 2325 Duquesne Light Company Boston, Massachusetts 02107 Post Office Box 4 Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 Mr. J. Eeall U. S. NRC John A. Lee, Esq.
P. O. 181 Duquesne Light Company-Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 1 0xford Centre 301 Grant Street Mr. Thomas E. Murley, Regional Admin.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15279 U. S. NRC, Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 15229 l
r i
l REQUEST FOR INFORMATION -
l BEAVER VALLEY UNIT 2 PLANT SAFETY MONITORING SYSTEM VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION 1
Section 7.7.2.1? of the Beaver Valley Unit 2 FSAR addressed the use of a plant safety monitoring system (PSMS) to process and output inadeouate core cooling
~
(ICC) variables. The PSMS uses plasma display modules to display the ICC vari-ables, and it appears from a review of FSAR table 7.5-1 that some additional RG 1.97 Category 1 variables are also displayed on the PSMS plasma displays.
Because the PSMS is a computer based system which utilizes programmable loaic to process and display various safety related variables, a verification and validation (VAVI. plan in accordance with IEEE-ANS-7.4.3.2 (reference li should be implemented on the PSMS snftware components. The VAV plan should also in-corporate the staff's comments contained in the four audit reports (references 2, 3, d, and the fourth report which will be available shortivi the staff has prepared on a similar system at the South Texas Project.
The staff recognizes that the PSMS VAV plan may not be totally complate prior to the Beaver Valley Unit 2 pro.iected licensing date; therefore information and commitments shnuld be provided similar to that which were provided for the Vogtle Electric Generating plant in references 5 and 6.
The information should include the amount of the VAV comoleted on the Beaver Valley Unit 2 PSMS itself or as a result of its commonality with another like system such as South Texas Project.
The date when the total VAV will be completed on the Beaver Valley. Unit 2 PSMS should be provided.
The Cateoory 1 Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision ? variables that are displayed on the Beaver Valley Unit 2 PSMS should be specifically identified. Those variables which have indications independent of the PSMS and are displayed on the control boards or locally displayed should be identified, and until-the VAV program is completed a commitment should be made to perform a weekly check between the diverse indications and the'PSMS displayed values. Acceptance criteria should be made available to the operators that instruct them on how to ascertain when the PSMS displayed information is unaccaptable and, therefore,
- When the instrumentation diverse from the PSMS should be used.
For those variables which do not have indications diverse fron the PSMS a similar commitment should be made to have instructions available to the operators on how to determine the information by an alternate method independent of the PSMS if the PSMS~ displayed information is unavailable or suspect as indicated by the ahnve weekly checks. The alternate methods to be used ~should be clearly described.
l The above procedures should be in place prior to exceeding 5 percent power and.
should remain in place until the Reaver Valley Unit 2 PSMS VAV process is completed.
l
r-
+
REFERENCES 1..
ANSI /IEEE - ANS 7.4.3.2. - 148?, " Application Criteria For Programmable-Digital Computer Systems In Safety Systems Of Nuclear Power Generating Stations."
2.
Letter from N. P. Kadambi, NRC _to J. H. Goldbero, Houston Liqhting and Power Company, Sub.iect: Audit Report on the CDPS at South Texas Pro.iect, Units 1 and 2, dated.lanuary 30, 1986 3.
Letter from N. P. Kadambi, NRC to J. H. Goldberg, Houston Lighting and Power Company,Sub.iect: Audit Report on the 00PS at South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, dated May 19, 1986 4.
Letter from N. P. Kadambi, NRC to J. H. Goldberg, Houston Lighting and Power Company, Sub.iect: Audit Report on the ODPS at South Texas Pro.iect, Units 1 and 2, dated October 7,198A.
5.
Letter from J. A. Bailey, Georgia Power Comoany to H. R. Denton, NRC,
Subject:
Vootle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 Plant Safety Monitoring Systen Verification and Validation, dated necember 22, 1986 6.
Letter fre.n.l. A. Railey, Georgia Power Company to H. R. Denton, NRC,
Subject:
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 Plant Safety Monitoring System Verification and Validation, dated January 5,1987 7
Safety Evaluation Report related to the operation of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, NUREG-1137, Supplement No. 5, dated January 1987.
.