ML20140E524

Forwards Wordperfect Version as Requested

ML20140E524
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	10/29/1996
From:	Curtis Rapp NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	Boland A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
Shared Package
ML20140E502	List: ML20140E497 ML20140E508 ML20140E514 ML20140E519 ML20140E524 ML20140E530 ML20140E536 ML20140E541 ML20140E557 ML20140E573 ML20140E580 ML20140E590 ML20140E594 ML20140E620 ML20140E652 ML20140E659 ML20140E667
References
FOIA-96-485 NUDOCS 9704290015
Download: ML20140E524 (2)

Text

.

l t

t From:

Curtis Rapp, /ttg To:

ATP2.ATB e4 doc 4wajgp Date:

10/29/9611:04am

Subject:

Additinal VIO for St. Lucie l

Here is the Wordperfect version as you requested.

l I

I i

l l

l J

9704290015 970423

/'

PDR FOIA BINDER 96-405 PDR L

s i

i The licensee also identified that BEACON was placed into service on Unit I without any benchmarking against IMPAX, the on-line core performance monitoring code BEACON was replacing. Instead, BEACON was installed on Unit 2 and benchmarked against CECORE, j

which did not require any modifications to accommodate the core midplane offset. Engineering

~

Quality Instruction (QI) 3.7, Computer Software Control, revision 1, Section 5.4. requires that SQAl software shall be validated and verified (V&V'ed) in accordance with Section 5.6.

Section 5.6 states that new software shall be V&V'ed prior to use. V&V includes the use of test cases to ensure the new software produces correct results. Item 4 of Section 5.6 states that technical adequacy shall be determined by comparing the test case to results from altemative

' methods such as functionally equivalent and previcusly validated software. In the case of l

BEACON, IMPAX would have been functionally equivalent software. Benchmarking BEACON against IMPAX may have identifed the design error concerning core midplane offset because the two codes would not have yielded the same results. Contrary to this requirement, BEACON was placed into service on Unit I without benchmarking against IMPAX. This is a i

Severity Level VI violation.

l NOTE TO PANEL: This could be considered another example ofinadequte PMT as identified in EA 95-182. V&V is the post-mod acceptance test for software.

i l

i i

I 1

4