ML20248D768

Supplemental Safety Evaluation Supporting Util Actions in Response to Open Items in 890510 Safety Evaluation Re Plant Safety Monitoring Sys

ML20248D768
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	09/29/1989
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20248D750	List: ML20248D745 ML20248D768
References
NUDOCS 8910040392
Download: ML20248D768 (3)

Text

_ _ - _ __. . _ _ _ _ _

/ , *,, UNITED STATES Enclosure f -

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n .j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 l

SUPPLEMENTAL SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION PLANT SAFETY MONITORING SYSTEM (PSMS)

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY UNIT 2 (BVP2)

DOCKET NO. 50-412

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated May.10, 1989 a safety evaluation (SE) was issued to the licensee. The SE provided a hardware, systems configuration ano software assessment of the PSMS and found it acceptable with three exceptions:

The first item was that the staff relied, in part, on the similarity of the PSMS to equipment at other plants which the staff had previously accepted; the licensee was requested to docket a copy of their similarity comparison document.

The second item involved the V&V plan which the staff concluded was incomplete and unacceptable. To fulfill the license condition the staff required that, as a minimum, the licensee develop a functional requirements matrix. The matrix should provide a listing of each applicable requirement and a corresponding line-by-line listing of ths specific test or review which demonstrates that the requirement has been implemented.

The third item required that the licensee implement an ongoing V&V program for the PSMS for future modifications in accordance with ANSI /IEEE 7-4.3.2

" Application Criteria for Programable Digital Computer Systems in Safety Systems of Nuclear Power Generating Stations." This SSE provides an evaluation of the licensee response to these items.

891004o392 1590929 (LR (4 DOCK 05000437 FDC

4 2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION In response to our first request for a docketed similarity document the licensee submitted Attachment B " Comparison of Beaver Valley Unit 2 and Plant Vogtle l PSMS" in their July 7,1989 letter. This comparison provided system overview information which shows that the BVP2 system requires less analog and digital  !

inputs then the previously approved plant Vogtle design. Hardware and software I comparisons were also provided down to the level of listing the type of Random i Access Memory (RAM) and Input / Output cards. The staff finds the submittal l acceptable and this item requires no further action by the licensee or staff. l In response to our second conclusion that the original V8V plan was unacceptable, the licensee submitted Attachment A " Functional Requirements Matrix " in their July 7, 1989 letter. As requested this matrix did provide a line-by-line comparison of the functional requirements to the test performed for verification.

Though the SE allowed for comparison of functional requirements with previously l performed testing if adequately documented, the licensee performed a new set of l validation tests.

The validation test procedure used was developed by an independent group following the new functional requirements matrix and software development q decomposition. Performance of the validation testing discovered 41 procedural  !

deficiencies, 5 decomposition deficiencies, 6 firmware deficiencies, I hardware  ;

. deficiency, and 4 miscellaneous deficiencies. All discrepancies hav been either resolved or analyzed to assure no operation impact on the PSMS. The staff finds this acceptable.  !

l l

The third conclusion in the SER required that a V&V plan be in place for any l future modifications of !"e PSMS. The software review criteria was explained i in the SER. The licensee provided their pion in Attachment C of the July 7, 1989 letter. The licensee committed in the letter that this V&V plan will be l implemented for future software changes on the PSMS. One key feature of the  ;

new plan is that the software verification and validation portions of the plan l will be performed by a group (s) that is independent from the design team. The  !

staff has reviewed the plan and has concluded that it is acceptable for future l software changes on the PSMS and therefore complates this item.

.4 -

_3,

3.0 CONCLUSION

The licensee has adequately addressed the three items from the SE and no

further action is required by the staff or the licensee for this evaluation.

Principal Contributor : Jim Stewart, with contractual assistance provided by Jim Leivo and Ray Ets.

Dated : September 29, 1989 9

W L _ - -_ _ _ - _ . - _ - - -_ __ .__ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ - . _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .