B13622, Forwards Crdr Human Engineering Discrepancy Info for Plant

Forwards Crdr Human Engineering Discrepancy Info for Plant

ML20059E394
Person / Time
Site:	Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date:	08/30/1990
From:	Mroczka E CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO., NORTHEAST UTILITIES
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
B13622, NUDOCS 9009100167
Download: ML20059E394 (6)

Text

p.=

m b,'.

2 I"

General Offices e Selden Street, Berlin, Connecticut :

M3 -

NsIENIm N(Ua P.O. BOX 270 HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06141-o270

.l

'r

.ex i-n. %.c" "

I k

L J ENj [,U Z Z (203) 665-5000-j a

m t

August 30, 1990 s

Docket No. 50-213 B13622

^

h P o c No. 1.19 j

+

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission JAttention: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:

Haddam Neck Plant j

Response to-NRC Staff Request on j

Control Room Design Review 1

Human Enaineerina Discreoancy Resolution This ' submittal ~ forwards' Control Room Design Review (CRDR) Human Engineering:

j Discrepancy (HED) information-for the~Haddam Neck P1 ant, from the Connecticut:

1 Yankee Atomic Power Company.(CYAPCO) to the NRC Staff. ' During our June 13, '

~

• 1990' meeting, CYAPCO: reiterated previous statements' made in the' CRDR Summary.

'l Repor.t, that -the HEDs ? identified would be. resolved utilizing the Integrated

]

. Safety Assessment - Program (ISAP) relative' ranking 3.

At the time of the -

meeting, only a portion:of the HEDs (groups LI-6 containing 317 HEDs) had been-evaluated using the:ISAP' analytical ranking methodology-(ARM), scheduled in the? integrated implementation schedule (IIS) and; reported in tthe AprilL 30, 1990 LISAP) submittal.

The ' balance of ther HEDs. (groups 7-13 containing 131-

HEDs) wereLundergoing - evaluation a the time and, would be L ranked with the

~ earlier evaluated groups upon - completion.< CYAPC0 committed to communicate-thel results of the initial analytical ranking Lmethodology' (ARM) results tol 1

he L NRC

Staff ~ by L August. 30,-1990, stating which. groups of HEDs would..be

'l t

l implemented, and justify 'those groups which would not be implemented.

This ARM L evaluation and the initial ranking ~ have now been completed.. The I

!information which was committed for submittal by' August is contained in the' i

'attachr.ents to this. lette'r; Attachment :1 provides' the' initial. ARM rankings, i

R

with :the' CRDR topics annotated.. : Attachment : 2. lists' those.' groups of HEDs whichi CYAPC0. is: Jcommitting to implement : : or resolve by some type of-E

, supplemental - action-(i.e.,

p1 ant design-change,

training, procedure L

modification, etc.). KAttachment 3 addresses those HED groups that CYAPC0~has u,

? judged.'do :not warrant further action. ' Aj =brief : Justification for. : this ~

i _

o positionf s alsor provided.

Additional supporting detail, as' appropriate, i'

lwill be provided in the.ISAP Summary Report scheduled for submittal: by LSeptember 28,~ : 1990.

j l

-We-trust. that this letter fulfills the August 30, 1990 commitment for the 9,

. Haddam: Neck. Plant CRDR information-submittal.

Further CRDR details,

<.o H j q

.g

'Ikd

/osam ntvles 1

Jl9009100167900s30' i?

i DR - ADOCK 05000213).

]

am

Rt p

(

i l

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission hv

-B13622/Page 2

-August 30,'1990 e

includ'ing the IIS for the later groups, will' be submitted subsequently in tne

~

next41 SAP Summary Report.

If you have any questions-or comments on this information, please contact my istaff.

We remain available to discuss this matter with you at your convenience.

Very truly yours, CONNECTICVT YANKEE ATOMIC. POWER COMPANY f

6 E. 0 f oczka-ff Seniof Vice President cc:

T. T. Martin, NRC Region I Administrator A. B. Wang, NRC Project Manager, Haddam Neck Plant-

'J. T. Shedlosky, NRC Senior Resident Inspector, Haddam Neck Plant C..O. Thomas, NRC Deputy Director, Division of-Licensee Performance and Quality Evaluation

n n,.

"s, g

Page 1 Haddam Neck' Plant ARM Initial Rankinas t

i n

8/16/90 1

1 I

9~

NA00AM ncit ARr, aamiNGs Overall Pelle temenic Persemet Persomet Remainite - 1stal See igAP 8 fitte PA #

tort safety Performence safety Preestivity Project Cost VolWe WetWR 2323 FLW NAP 91N8 SYSTEM AfPLACEMENT 95 065 1

0 768566 1924 10240 308000 54<@6.:e 177.34 2 104 stavlCE Watta tvsttM sutet ANALYSTS 85 000 2

48100 0

480 0

68000 til44.,0 100.44 2

1 02 NIGN\\ LOW PRtslultt valvt INTERLOCKS Lot 3

15794 0

0.5 1280 35000 2 S4.iif 61.61 2

1.19. 9 __ CONTROL ROOM HslGN REvitW Gp 9 88 005 4

2620 880 0.5_

0 11500 4'WS.' 3 37.47 1.19.7 CONTROL Roon MslGN REvitW Go 7 88 005 5

1310 800 0

0 20000 2<dLl.10 13 32 i

1,19.5 CONT RM. Ots. RivitW Gs6 90 020 6

2620 0

0 0

44000 3694.20 8.40 Q09 DN Mov 310 RfPLACEMENT 86 257 7

0 0

1909 1280 52000 3262.06 6.27 1.19.4 COMN. Of S. REVlfW Gp4 90 021 8

1805 9211 9

0 160000 8994.69 5.62 2.114 SW CONTROL SWITCN\\POSlfl0N INDICAfl0N 09 064 9

3938 0

8.5 1280 123000 6267.97 5.10 2.111 ALARA 4GifICAfl0NS 87 044 10 0

0 8600 38400 760000 32644.00 4.30

@9.1 CONI. kM. Ms, RivitW Got 90-019 11 15725 2131 0

1280 570000 24367.95 d.28 1.19.10 CONTROL ROOM MslGN RtyltW Gp 10 88 005 12 2620

_880

- 0.5 0

141000 4309.53 b.06 i-1.'9.12 CONTROL Rom DEslGN RtyttW Go il 88 005 il 2620 880 0

1280 257000 5014.20

.95 1.'9.11 CONTROL Ro0M OtslGN Rtyttw Go 11 88 005 14 1310 880 0

1280 218000 3167.10 1.45 2.' 10 sicutif t COMPutta REPlactMENT 87 010 15 0

0 9

38400 1535000 21132.06 1.38 1.19.8 CONTROL Rom OfSIGN REV1EW Go 8 88 005 16 2620 880 60 0

381000 4229.80 1.11 1.04 stisMIC oual. Of SArtif REL. PIPING 81 05F 17 30650 0

76 1280 4612000 42410.66 0.92 2.115 slit f ACIL618ES Maps.

87 068 18 0

0 0

66560 4837000 36608.00 0.76 1.19.13 CON 1ROL ROOM DislGN RiviaW Gp 13 88 005 19 b

880 0

1200 186000 1320.00 0.71 1.05 tilsMIC situctuRAL MODiflCAtt0Ns 83 036 20_

6356 0

0 0

1521000 8961,96 0.59 1.19.2 CONT. RM. Ms. REYlfW 6p2 88 005 21 15F25 3195 0

0 4600000 24408.75 0.53 2,14 RA01 Afl0N McNitoRING SYsitM UPGRAct 86 043 22

,0 0

8.5 1280 266000 715.39 0.27 l.12 CONTROL Rom NASITA8ttiff 80 113 23 1805 9231 9

0 3389000 8994.69 0.27 1.19.3 CONT. RM. Ots. RivitW 6p3 88 005 24 2620 0

58 0

Sia5uuu 3616.48 0.07 b

l.19.6 CONT. RM. HS Rtyltw sp6 88 005 25 0

0 0

0 65000 0.00 0.00 2.03 400lfl0NAL AfM08PutRIC sitAM OWP 82 192 26 37 0

9 1280 1000000 663.09 0.07

??

0 0

0 1280 1000000 704.00 0.07 i.104 CONT.150. VALVE P0s. INDICAfl0N i

t

<4

}-

9. i

=a,.

a. --

,g

!Page 1 H

Haddam Neck Plant.

ISAP Topic 1.19 Control Room Design Review Groups Which Will be Resolved 1.19.9--Main Control Board Railina ISAP' topic 1.19.9 deals with the installation of-a rail around the Main Control Board (MCB) at the leading edge of the apron section.

Its purpose is "g

--to prevent an operator from inadvertently-operating a control switch on 'the

- lower - portion of the apron while trying to manipulate controls on the vertical section above.

Althouah we have not observed specific instances where this has been a problem, we judge' it appropriate to take action on this-topic.

4,

1.19.7--Imoroved Communications in Breathina Masks ISAP topic 1.19.7 deals with control room operators communicating while wearing respiratory protection.

The project addresses communication aids that will ensure that adequate communications could be carried out while wearing respiratory protection.

The most likely solution here would be a different-type of respirator that includes a communication -device.

Other

. devices, such as ear transceivers or throat microphones were discussed end will be considered.

1.19.5--Master Silence Switch for Noncritical Audible Alarms ISAP Topic 1.19.5 deals with silencing less important main control board-

' annunciators during a significant event.

This involves installation of a switch that would silence these selected annunciators.

l'.19.4--Control Room HVAC Imorovements ISAP Topic 1.19.4 deals with control room ventilation.

This involves upgrading the air conditioning. equipment as necessary to ensure an adequately cooled environment for equipment and personnel.

l.19.1--Additional Benchboard & D/G Control Relocation ISAP Topic 1.19.1 deals with emergency diesel generator controls in the Control Room. -

The controls for starting, stopping and adjusting currently on the auxiliary board in back of the MCB.

This project will r all or part of these controls to the front of the MCB.

c n.

/-

Page 2 l

1.19.10--Auamented Imoortant to Safety Operator Computer Disolay1 ISAP= Topic 1.19.10. deals with control room computer termir.nl displays.

This

involves development of video display screens that will provide improved parameter indication and monitoring to operators.

.m 1.19.12--Climinate Annunciator Nuisance Alarms i

n ISAP Topic 1.19.12 deals with MCB annunciators.

This will make changes such as elimination of windows with multiple inputs, elimination of nuisance alarms and potentially some relocation of windows.

1.19.11--Correction of Meter and Recorder Scales ISAP Topic 1.19.11 deals with the scales of instruments on the MCB.

This will involve changing scales and perhaps some minor instrument changes to more clearly conform' to NUREG-0700 guidelines.

1.19.8--1ndividual Main Steam line Radiation Monitors ISAP Topic 1.19-8 deals with. steam generator tube rupture (STGR) accident detection and mitigation.

This involves installation of radiation monitoring-instruments on each of. the main steam lines that control room operators ~ could e

use to identify radiation levels in each steam generator.

This topic also considered installation of motor operators on the small main steam nonreturn L

valves, but this will' not be done since the plant operator needs to operate L

other manual valves in this same plant area to isolate a steam generator.

This project will also consider the need for some form of aid to the operator a'

for valve manipulation.

I.19.13--Standardize Control Board Relabellina ISAP Topic 1.19.13 deals with MCB labelling.

This involves upgrading labels L

_ to standard acronyms, conformance with Emergency Operating Procedures, and

~ tandard color coding.

s l'.19.3--Containment Isolation Valves Position Indicatiqn y

ISAP Topic 1.19.3 deals with position indication for Containment Isolation Valves (CIVs).

This will add remote indication for valves that do not i

currently have remote indication.

The scope will likely be limited to Li providing indication on -the primary auxiliary building (PAB) control panel for 10 valves that are in remote areas, i

i I

i

-w

fy y

e;._

s-y.7,3 I

4 4

Attachment'3 i

-Page 1-t t

Haddam Neck Plant ISAP Topic 1.19 Control Room Design Review Groups Which Do Not Warrant Further Action L

1.19.6--Rewirino Turbine Drain Valve Switches (Stereotvoe)

ISAF Topic 1.19.6 (extremely low initial ranking 25 of 27) deals with the control switches for 'the turbine drain valves.

These switches operate backwards from some others and this topic deals with revising them to make them consistent with others. Operations management has not observed problems with operators manipulating these switches.

In addition, the consequences of operating them incorrectly h6ve no safety significance.

'l.19.2--Modification to 400 Control Room Board Comoonent.1

[

ISAP topic 1.19.2 (low ranking 21 of 27) deals with Main Control Board (MCB) indicators and control for. a number of systems including the Reactor, Engineered Safety Features, Chemical and Volume Control, Reactor Coolant and Auxiliary Feedwater.

This group of HEDs, associated with these systems, l

involves a major sequenced relocation of MCB devices so that equi 3 ment.

controls and indicators are arranged in more logical groupings for luman factors consideruions.

j This topic deals with many important controls and indicators, that would fideally be arranged differently.

As stated in the CRDR Summary Report (pages 32 & 33) the ' core team philosophy during the overall panel enhancement analysis was established to " ensure that the enhanced panels be designed for a newly licensed operator, _with minimal operating experience."

The licensed control room operators have demonstrated their capability over many. years to operate the plant (or the simulator) effectively in both normal and emergency situations with the current control and indicator arrangement.

Operations 1 management' personnel have not observed operator response difficulty related to existing locations of these controls and indicators at the simulator or in l

the plant control room.

The high quality INP0 accredited operator training program (i.e., procedures, staff, simulator, etc.) provide further assurance of the ability of the operators to perform with controls and indicators in

-the existing configuration.

The. low ARM relative ranking combined with the above discussion support and justify the conclusion that the existing -configuration is acceptable and no further rearrangement action is warranted with one exception.

During the resolution (i.e., evaluation, engineering, design, installation and - testing of design modifications) of the current Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) system issue, -which was described in our correspondence to you dated August 25, 1990, applicable portions of this topic will be resolved to the degree feasible. Our objective will be to maximize the safety benefit to be derived from these enhancements without incurring the total estimated project cost of

$4.6 million.