ML20245C609

Recommends That Existing SPDS Inputs Monitor Program Be Used for Util SPDS Signal Validation Process

ML20245C609
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	06/16/1989
From:	Tucker H DUKE POWER CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
NUDOCS 8906260221
Download: ML20245C609 (2)

Text

_ - _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

1. 9 x: <

_ q..

e 7.: ,

m

• Dunn POWER GOMPANY I.' I 4 i* P.O. BOX 33189

I *

. . CHARIATITE. N.O. 28242 1HALB. TUCKER. ratzenown

. me emmenn at ' (yo4) aya.4sa NUOLEAR PMODtNrFION y

LJune 16, 1989

- U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cormission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Document Control Desk

Subject:

Catawba. Nuclear Station L

Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414 Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS)

Dear Sir:

In my November 27, 1985 letter,.we committed to review the results of the-Electric Power Research Institutes (EPRI) Signal Validation Project.

The EPRI Signal Validation project results have been reviewed, and based on our review, our recommendation is to continue to use our existing SPDS Inputs Monitor (SIM) program for Duke's SPDS signal validation process.

-This recommendation is based on the following e The SIM program monitors all inputs used in the SPDS for out of service, invalid values, and blown fuse indications. The number of invalid points for each critical safety function is alarmed, if any exist, and the invalid point indications.are saved for future reference.

, The EPRI signal validation program is written in FORTRAN 66 and will require translation into compatible PAL code executable by Duke's station computers.

~

The time, effort and cost required by Duke Power to perform this conversion would be cost prohibitive in relation to benefits received.

e The EPRI signal validation program is based on an SPDS system which has multiple loops and inputs. A minimum of three (3) redundant and independent sensors per measured parameter are required for the EPRI program. Duke does I not incorporate this level of redundancy in it's SPDS design philosophy. i Additional sensory instrumentation would need to be installed and the entire design of the SPDS would require extensive change. A complete re-verification and re-validation of the entire SPDS would also be required.

8906260221 890616E fDR ADOCK O 3 3 I

i. ,

< U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission June 16, 1989 Page 2, ,

d e Duke has reviewed and tested similar front-end vendor-supplied filter networks in the past and found the additional system overhead (process time) significantly down graded the Operator Aid Computers' performance capabilities.

e Duke personnel review records associated with the SPDS program daily. This review, coupled with historical SPDS experic,ce, provides the confidence and understanding of the SPDS displays and indicad ons which the EPRI program could provide.

Any comments or questions can be directed to P. G. LeRoy at (704) 373-8466.

Very truly yours, l w Hal B. Tucker LTB12/lcs xc: Mr. S. D. Ebneter Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Dr. K. Jabbour Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. W. T. Orders NRC Resident Inspector Catawba Nuclear Station J

l l

_____ _ _ 1