ML20140E524
| 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: |
| 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
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