ML20006E651

Discusses & Forwards Results of Field Verification Testing of Unit Spds,Per Licensee Commitment to Submit Rept within 30 Days After Unit SPDS Declared Operational.No Significant Problems Encountered W/Spds During Power Ascension Testing

ML20006E651
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	02/15/1990
From:	Hunger G PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-0991, RTR-NUREG-1342, RTR-NUREG-737, RTR-NUREG-991 GL-89-06, GL-89-6, NUDOCS 9002260181
Download: ML20006E651 (10)

Text

_

..c.w

~~

b. .

6 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY NUCLEAR GROUP HEADQUARTERS 955 65 CHESTERBROOK BLVD.

WAYNE, PA 19087 5691 lat o **0-5000 February 15, 1990 Docket No. 50-353 License No. NPF-85 L U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 'Comission

. Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC '20555

SUBJECT:

. Limerick Generating Station Unit 2 Safety Paramster Display System Results of Field Verification Testing and Operational Status

Dear Sir:

By letter dated December 5, 1988, Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo)~ rcavested that Limerick Generating Station (LGM, Unit 2 be allowed to complete Sc.fety Parameter Display System (SPDS) verification testing during the Poever Ascension Test Progrst., and initially declare the LCS Unit 2 SPDS ope n tional.within,30 da.ys e.fter completion of the LGS Unit'2 100-Hour K4rrar.ty Q'

Ren. -In that letter. PECo also comitted to provide the NRC with a ~ report sumnarizing the' problems encountered,- if arty, during the verification testing, the solutions implemented to make the SPDS operational, and the results of-the f_ield verification tests within 30 days after declaring the LGS Unit 2 SPDS operational. ~ The NRC found this schedule acceptable as stated in Section 18.2.2 of NUREG-0991 (tne LGS Safety Evaluation Report) Supplement No. 8 (SSER-8)-

dated June 1989. However, the same paragraph of SSER-8 later indicates that the NRC expects PECo to submit the report within 30 days after completion of the 100-Hour Warranty Run. We understand that PECo's comitment is to submit the SPDS report within 30 days after the LGS Unit 2 SPDS is declared operational.

Submittal of the attached report satisfies this comitment.

The validation process for the LGS Unit 2 SPDS has been completed I_-

-successfully.- The attached report outlines the field verification test program for the Unit 2 SPDS and indicates that no significant problems were encountered

-with the SPDS during LGS Unit 2 power ascension testing. The 100-Hour Warranty Run for LGS ~ Unit 2 was completed on January 6, 1990, and as a result of the successful validation testing, the LGS Unit 2 SPDS was declared operational and released to the operations personnel for their use on January 16, 1990.

Additionally, Section 18.2.2 of NUREG-0991 Supplement No. 8 states that PECo is required to certify to the NRC the status of the SPDS for LGS Unit 9002260181 900215 DR ADOCK O g3 pd C W i

. 'bS. . Nuclear Regulatory Commission february 15, 1990 Document C:ntrol Desk Page 2 ,

2 in accordance with Generic Letter 89-06, " Task Action Plan item I.D.2 - Safety Parameter Display System " dated April 12, 1989. By letter dated July 11, 1989 PECo responded to GL 89-06 indicating at that time that LGS Unit 2 was ir.volved in the startup testing program and committed that the LGS Unit 2 SPDS would meet the requirements of NUREG-0737, Supplement 1, " Requirements for Emergency i Response Capability " taking into account the guidance provided in NUREG-1342, "A Status Report Regarding Industry Implementation of Safety Parameter Display Systems," when it is declared operational. This letter verifies that the SPDS, t in accordance with GL 89-06, meets the requirements of NUREG-0737 Supp1 m ent 1 n

taking into account the guidance provided in NUREG-1342.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.  !

Very truly yours, .

L

1. b G. A. Hunger, Jr.

Director Licensing Section Nuclear Services Department ,

AttSchment ,

cc: W. T. Russell, Administrator, Region I, USNRC  !

T. J. Kenn), USNRC Stnior Resident Inspector, LGS l

P t

L-'-

-s. ,w.,:4...u e._

- R.: -g,eAA1 eas,...aa.-. zJ-

.2.= < . .c. u . .~.. o -..- w.. a.m.&, ~; . , 3.. __..a ..>

p, , ' - N p,. .. 4.- .

. ~ . . , ,

v: ..<. s.

i

• .g i ,

t 1

[. '

'.i L

t..

ATTACHMENT A 4

t

?

RESULTS OF THE FIELD VERIFICATION TESTING OF THE -

s LIMERICK GENERATING STATION UNIT 2 SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY SYSTEM 1

k

'h.

.i

" .> f f

t e

,n t

i r'

l l

l 1

\

l I

l-_

l5 l

1

pp-- w. . .a,.- -. .:;.u-a-.: n . .

,.;.. . . .. - a ~ n : . :-, . ;--.. a h ., 4 .'

L 3:.

t 1.o sCRP.E This report documents the results of field  ;

verification; testing of the Limerick Generating Station (LGS) ' Unit 2 Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) . A summary of SPDS related problems encountered during LGS Unit 2 power ascension testing and the resolutions implemented is also provided.

i 2.o BACKGROUND The LGS Unit 2 Safety Parameter Display System.was purchased from the General Electric Company (GE) by the Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO). The system is essen-tially identical to the GESSAR II Safety Parameter Display System 1 , In 1984, the Nuclear Regulatory-Commission (NRC) _

l audited and reviewed the GESSAR II SPDS and concluded that the design was acceptable 2. The NRC also concluded that utility applicants who reference the GESSAR II SPDS must complete' plant specific validation programs and report the results of those programs to NRC staff.

1

e :-- wtsmamac.s  :.m m.aug i; a_u, ,,,,. __2 _ _;2 c.,_una i

9 i

". 3.0 FIELD VERIFICATION TEST PROGRAM

-The objectives of the LGS Unit'2'SPDS field verification testing were: ,

'l) to verify proper installation and configuration  ;

of the system, and

2) to verify that the system would function as -

designed in the plant environment.

t These objectives were accomplished during the Preoperational and Power Ascension' Test phases of the LGS Unit 2 Startup-Test Program, Section 6.0 provides a listing of SPDS. test  !

procedures. The results are summarized below.

3.1 Component Technical Testina, (PreoDerational Test

-Phase)

The individual components within the scope of the SPDS were inspected, tested, and adjusted in'accordance with the LGS Unit 2 Startup. Technical Program. Correct component-

l. installation, configuration and operation were verified.

L 3.2 System Intearation Testina, (Preoperational-Test Phase) l '

System Integration Testing successfully verified l that the entire SPDS met its functional, performance, and interface design requirements. The results of this testing l-l l 2 H

E

c.sg ma_x.a_._ - '

r _ a.- w .a u~~e m w h ~2- G - h-+--- - - *-

3

' were used to generate system problem reports (SPR) which were transmitted to GE for resolution. Any SPR resolution

- which resulted in a change to the system required subsequent L

reperformance of all related/affected integration test procedure sections. This process was repeated several times until all SPDS problems were resolved.

3.3 Simulated Bienal Testina, (PreoDerational Test Phase)

Simulated Signal Testing verified that the SPDS correctly responds _to abnormal plant operating conditions.

Input values which simulated emergency conditions were provided to the SPDS. The SPDS response was then verified against its design specifications.

3.4 System Acceptance Testina, (PreoDerational Test Phase)

System Acceptance Testing _ verified correct-

~~

physical termination and calibration of-field inputs to the SPDS. Each plant input to the SPDS.was loop checked and the input point database was verified and validated. After completion of this testi,ng, all subsequent input calibra-tions and point database changes were controlled and documented by plant procedures to ensure the continued validity of the database and to provide a high level of confidence in the information being processed and displayed by the SPDS.

3

a uzXas: s Lic-.ad L.a.- - - .. - J < a ~ .a w - a. ~ .... ~ u

,-_ *e-3.5 Hot Functional Testinc,-(Power Ascension Test Phase)

Hot Functional Testing was performed at various plant power levels during the LGS Unit 2 power ascension testing. Validation of the SPDS was performed under-cold shutdown, heat-up, low pressure, IRM / APRM overlap , and rated conditions. For each condition, the SPDS displayed parameters were compared with other-plant indicators for accuracy and cons 3stency. The algorithms used by SPDS to calculate and display parameters and flags were verified.

In addition, plant specific constants used-in the SPDS were calculated, verified, and entered into the database under site procedura1' control.

4.0 PROBLEM

SUMMARY

l l

l Problems encountered during LGS Unit 2 power ascension testing were~ minimal. This can be attributed to a _

1 number of factors:

l l- 1) the experience gained by GE and PECO in-implementing the SPDS on Limerick Unit 1,

2) the experience gained by GE in implementing similar SPDS's at other plants,

3) the similarity of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 systems, 4

g up ... r p m .. . . . .

a]

,s. *-

+-

L 4)-the maturity of the GE SPDS product, and i 5)'the quality and quantity of testing performed  ?

during the preoperational test phase. i o

A small number of equipment failures did occur 4

during power ascension testing. These failures were antici- ,

pated, and were'quickly resolved under existing plant

{l procedures. ,

'During STP 31.1, " Loss of Turbine-Generator and offsite Power," a disturbance on the non-safeguard 125 VDC- ,

bus caused several data aquisition system (DAS). power i supplies to shutdown and restart (i.e. , cycle). The power supplies cycled as designed to protect' downstream DAS input  :

s modules from damage. This only resulted in a temporary loss 5 of data to the SPDS since the power. supplies returned to normal automatically within several seconds. The actual data _

l loss for any single input was of a short duration (5 to 90

! 1 seconds). The DAS power supplies fed from safeguard 125 VDC buses, the computer system, and operator display stations were not affected by the disturbance on the non-safeguard 125 VDC bus. Since the temporary loss of data from such a disturbance is of a short duration, this would have a neg-ligible effect upon overall SPDS availablity and operabil-ity.

5

ad

, i su 6 w mze,an/xc= a.u 2a L.a.a . . .; . :a ..,;4 .u -..u. . A o. . .ca ;:_a; .. As i 4.'

. 1 v

L.0 CONCLUBION i

The SPDS field verification testing demonstrated ,

that the LGS Unit 2 SPDS was properly installed, is correct-ly configured, and will perform in the plant environment as d 1

designed. The test results have been reviewed, approved, and .

accepted by the plant. Documented test results are on file i

for review. In summary,.the LGS Unit 2 SPDS was successfully_

• i field tested and will perform its intended function with a high degree of accuracy and reliability and is considered operable. I i

6.0 SPDB TEST PROCEDURES i-1:

2A-31.1A Acceptance Test Procedure, Plant Monitoring System, Functional Testing.

~

l 2A-31.1C Acceptance Test Procedure, Plant Monitoring System, Input / Output Point Test.

C95-00125-TRVZ General Electric Company, Field Disposition Instructions, Site Integration Test Procedure.

Limerick Unit 2 Plant Monitoring System, Simulated Signal Test Document. f p 2HF-050 Hot Functional Test Program, Plant Monitoring System, Plant Variable Display Test.

l 6

gm ., .q . . = . 2a , , , . . . ,;;aw ,; a .w  :. . ):,a_,;g .

as 1 cc Nt 1A' I w ,

s .<

I

.2MF-051 . Hot Functional Test Program, Plant Monitoring  ;

System,. Regulatory Guide 1.97, Reasonableness Test. .$

f i a ,

a r

m. -i 1: General Electric, Licensina Tonical' ReDort for the s.

j General Electric Emeraency ResDonse Information Syste.g.

NEDE-30284-P, November 1983. l 1..

2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Safety Evaluation; i

'ReDort Related'to the' Final'Desian ADoroval of-the GESSAR IIJ J

.BWR/6 Nuclear Island Desian, NUREG-0979, Supplement No. 4 ', I July .19 8 4 -~ ,

1 z

-e >

i 7

, l