ML13322A058
| ML13322A058 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 10/23/1984 |
| From: | Rood H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TAC-51201, TAC-51202 NUDOCS 8411140303 | |
| Download: ML13322A058 (22) | |
Text
OCT 2 3 1984 Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362 LICENSEES:
Southern California Edison Company (SCE)
San Diego Gas and Electric Company City of Anaheim, California City of Riverside, California FACILITY:
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING TO DISCUSS THE DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW Enclosed are the minutes of the subject meeting between the NRC staff and the San Onofre 2 and 3 licensees, held on August 30, 1984. At the conclusion-of the meeting, the NRC staff requested that the licensees submit a supplement to the SONGS 2 and 3 DCRDR Program Plan and Summary Report dated January 31, 1984.
The staff also requested that the licensees provide a date for submittal of the supplement.
The supplement should include the type of documentation suggested in the enclosed meeting minutes. The staff's decision regarding an on-site audit of the licensee's DCRDR will be postponed pending receipt of this supplement.
The staff also stated that if necessary, based upon the adequacy of the licensee's supplement, a post-implementation audit will be scheduled and conducted by the staff.
08000"A SiGBt4WBy H. Rood, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
See next page DL:LB#3 HRood 4W t o n 10/11/84 1O v/84 8411140303 841023 PDR ADOCK 05000361 F
San Onofre Mr. Kenneth P. Baskin Vice President Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue P. 0. Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 Mr. James C. Holcombe Vice President - Power Supply San Diego Gas & Electric Company 101 Ash Street Post Office Box 1831 San Diego, California 92112 Charles R. Kocher, Esq.
Mr. Mark Medford, James A. Beoletto, Esq.
Southern California Edison Company Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue P. 0. Box 800 P. 0. Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 Rosemead, California 91770 Dr. L. Bernath Manager, Nuclear Department Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe San Diego Gas & Electric Company ATTN:
David R. Pigott, Esq.
P. 0. Box 1831 600 Montgomery Street San Diego, California 92112 San Francisco,-California 94111 Richard J. Wharton, Esq.
University of San Diego School of Alan R. Watts, Esq.
Law Rourke & Woodruff Environmental Law Clinic Suite 1020 San Diego, California 92110 1055 North Main Street Santa Ana, California, 92701 Charles E. McClung, Jr., Esq.
Attorney at Law Mr. V. C. Hall 24012 Calle de la Plaza/Suite 330 Combustion Engineering, Inc.
Laguna Hills, California 92653 1000 Prospect Hill Road Windsor, Connecticut 06095 Region Administrator-Region V/NRC 1450 Maria Lan/Suite 210 Mr. S. McClusky Walnut Creek, California 92672 Bechtel Power Corporation P. 0. Box 60860, Terminal Annex Los Angeles, California 90060 Resident Inspector, San Onofre NPS c/o U. S. NRC Mr. C. B. Brinkman Post Office Box 4329 Combustion Engineering, Inc.
San Clemente, California 92672 7910 Woodmont Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Mr. Dennis F. Kirsh U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Region V 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, California 94596
MINUTES OF MEETING BETWEEN NRC AND SCE ON THE DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW (DCRDR)
FOR SAN ONOFRE, UNITS 2 AND 3 The following are minutes of a meeting held on August 30, 1984 between the NRC and Southern California Edison (SCE). Also in attendance were staff from Science Applications, Inc. (SAI) and Combustion Engineering. Specific attendees and organizations which they represented are shown in Attachment 1.
The meeting was held to provide SCE the opportunity to address and clarify issues which had surfaced as a result of the NRC review of the SCE combined DCRDR Program Plan and Summary Report submittals for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), Units 2 and 3, dated January 31, 1984. Based on its review, the NRC believes that SCE's work, conducted between 1980-1981, although sufficient for a Preliminary Design Analysis (PDA) and licensing, does not address all of the requirements of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 for conducting a DCRDR. Specific NRC concerns and issues were documented and transmitted to the licensee by letter dated August 9, 1984. At this meeting, SCE, by addressing and clarifying those issues relevant to DCRDR requirements, attempted to demonstrate to the NRC's satisfaction that.its previous activities were extensive enough to satisfy both the licensing and Supplement 1, NUREG-0737 DCRDR requirements.
As a result of the meeting, the NRC determined that most of the work performed to meet the PDA requirement satisfies several of the DCRDR requirements of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737. However, many requirements have not been satisfied.
Establishment of a Multidisciplinary Team SCE elaborated on the expertise and task assignments of DCRDR team members and supplemental staff (see page 7 of Attachment 2).
SCE provided information on organizations responsible for completion of DCRDR activities (see page 5 of Attachment 2).
Although not reflected in the Summary Report, the licensee indicated that it relied heavily on SROs in the conduct of its efforts and utilized staff with extensive I&C expertise in a variety of fields including aerospace and the military. The licensee also addressed concerns raised in the evaluation of the Summary Report explaining that consultants from Whitston Associates provided human factors expertise.
Whitston was also responsible for conducting an orientation program for review team staff which extended over a six month period of time. Throughout the entire effort, SCE management supported the effort and placed no constraints on the review team to complete its work.
-2 As a result of the meeting, the NRC believes that SCE established a qualified multidisciplinary team to complete the work done in 1980 and 1981 to meet the requirements of a PDA for licensing. The information provided at the meeting should be documented and made available for audit. However, for work remaining to meet the requirements of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737, the licensee should continue to have human factor professionals involved. The licensee should provide information or documentation to show that human factors expertise is being or will be utilized.
System Function and Task Analysis The licensee described a function and task analysis process which relied on P&IDs and control panel drawings to identify operator tasks and associated information and control requirements. From the discussion, it appears that the licensee may have implemented a process for defining information and control needs necessary for system operation. Characteristics (e.g., scale range, trending needs, control modes, etc.) may have been identified.
However, it is unclear whether this was accomplished in an objective and systematic fashion in which the design of the control room was questioned from the operator's perspectives rather than solely relying on the availability of existing equipment. The licensee agreed to document and make available information concerning the evaluative process that was used to conduct the system function and task analysis.
Inventory SCE compiled an inventory which meets the requirements for the DCRDR. This includes, for each panel, a list of components cross-referenced to information provided by the manufacturer regarding each component. Although this constitutes a sufficient inventory, the licensee should document its methodology for comparing the inventory with the information and control needs identified from the task analysis.
Control Room Survey SCE clarified that its survey was based on guidelines it developed from draft NUREG/CR-1580 and other sources prior to the publication of NUREG-0700.
Quantitative criteria were developed for conducting measurements. Each control room panel was surveyed by a two-man team with expertise relevant to the panel.
Findings were then presented to the entire review team. SCE compared its survey guidelines to those of NUREG-0700 and found them to be comparable, at least on a topical basis. Although draft NUREG/CR-1580 was sufficient to satisfy PDA requirements, it does not satisfy NUREG-0737, Supplement 1 requirements.
The licensee should describe the comparisons made and their results to ensure that this DCRDR requirement has been satisfied. The guidelines that were used should be compared to NUREG-0700 or equivalent human factors guidelines on an item by item basis. Should gaps in the guidelines and criteria exist,
-3 the licensee should update the survey effort. Deviations from NUREG-0700 or equivalent guidelines should be documented and justified. The licensee should also describe the survey methodology in detail.
HED Assessment Information provided by SCE clarified some, but not all, issues which surfaced from the review of its Summary Report. For example, safety significance was the primary criterion for assessing HEDs while potential for operator error was considered secondarily. As shown on page 9 of, application criteria also were used in the assessment process.
The HEDs which surfaced during the review included but were not limited to:
identification of a few excess instruments, the identification of a few missing instruments, poor panel layout, and the need to adopt conventions such as labeling and color coding. How HEDs were assessed, individually and for aggregate effects, is unclear. The licensee should describe the formal HED assessment process in greater detail and provide relevant documentation.
It should be noted that a more rigorous assessment process is envisioned by the NRC staff for a DCRDR, in contrast to HED assessment for a PDA.
The licensee described an evaluation process which was conducted to arrive at an ideal panel design that would correct panel layout HEDs. However, the licensee compromised its solution, and rather than implementing the ideal design which would have required extensive rework, the licensee decided that color coding, demarcation lines, mimics, training and operator familiarity would resolve most of these problems. Justification for these decisions and the process used to arrive at them should be provided (particularly for those HEDs with safety significance that were only partially corrected).
Selection and Verification of Improvements SCE should describe and document the process that was used to resolve HEDs.
As shown on pages 11 and 12 of Attachment 2, an HED disposition process was in place at the plant. However, the mechanism by which the review team arrived at final improvement selection for HED resolution is still unclear.
Similarly, the method by which proposed solutions were verified using the mock-up should be described and documented.
Coordination There may have been some coordination between DCRDR activities and other Supplement 1, NUREG-0737 activities. The DCRDR should be coordinated and integrated with all of the emergency response activities of Supplement 1, NUREG-0737. The licensee indicated that work on the development of the new, symptom-based emergency operating procedures was coordinated with the control room improvements. However, a recent NRC staff review of the SONGS Emergency Response Facilities revealed human engineering problems with the SPDS that should have been considered in the DCRDR. When questioned about this at the
-4 meeting, the licensee indicated that they were not aware of these problems but would look into the matter. In order to satisfy the coordination requirement the licensee's specific coordination efforts should be described and documented.
Action Items 0 The licensee should submit a Supplement to its Summary Report which provides the type of documentation suggested in the preceding paragraphs.
The Supplement should also present the findings of the annunciator task force study and should present updated modifications made to the control room.
A decision regarding an on-site audit of the licensee's DCRDR will be postponed pending receipt of the licensee's Summary Report Supplement.
If necessary, based upon the adequacy of the licensee's Supplement, a post-implementation audit will be scheduled and conducted by the NRC.
SAN ONOFRE DCRDR MEETING August 30, 1984 Name Affiliation Joel Kramer NRC/DHFS/HFEB Jerry Prickett SCE/J&CENGRG F.R. Nandy SCE H. Rood NRC/DL Bob Pierce C&E Procedures Bill Bromley SCE Operations/Training Clay E. Williams SCE Licensing Ray Ramirez NRC/DHFS/HFEB Dom Tondi NRC/DHFS/HFEB Robert Liner SAIC/NRC Tech. Asst. Contractor Phuoc Le SAIC/NRC Dennis Cox SCE/Nuc. Proj. Development Ellen Levine SAIC/NRC Carol Kain SAIC/NRC
AGENDA CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS 2 & 3 AUGUST 30, 1984 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND F. R. NANDY
SUMMARY
OF AUGUST 29,1984CEOG B. PIERCE MEETING WITH NRC TO DISCUSS CEN-152. RELATIVE TO CRDR TASK ANALYSIS RESPONSES TO AUGUST 9, 1984 NRC NANDY/COX/PRICKETT/BROMLE CONCERNS REGARDING:
CRDR STAFF/EXPERTISE CONTROL ROOM INVENTORY CRDR SURVEY CRITERIA/PROCEDURE ASSESSMENT OF HED's & DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS CRDR TASK ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
F. R. NANDY
AUG 0 9 ;mAli 12 14 NUCLEAR LICENSING Docket Nos.:
50-361 and 50-362 Mr. Kenneth P. Baskin Mr. James C. Holcombe Vice President Vice President -
Power Supply Southern Carolina Edison Company San Diego Gas & Electric Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue 101 Ash Street Post Office Box 800 Post Office Box 1831 Rosemead, California 91770 San Diego, California 92112 Gentlemen:
Subject:
DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW (0CROR)
FOR SAN ONOFRE 2 AND 3 We have reviewed your submittal of January 31, 1984 on the San Onofre 2 and 3 OCRDR and find that it does not meet all the requirements of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737.
Our major concern is with the Task Analysis requirement of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737. The control room review that you conducted prior to licensing did not include a Task Analysis. Thus, this work still must be done. We also have significant concerns in the following areas:
Task assignments and level of effort of DCROR team members Composition and expertise of staff other than Working Group members Methodology for conduct of Control room inventory and comparison with task requirements Assurance that control room survey criteria were consistent with criteria from NUREG-0700 Control room survey procedures and sample data collection forms Procedures for assessment of HEDs
Procedures for verifying that improverments provide necessary correction without introducing new HEDs Coordination of OCROR with other Supplement 1, NUREG-0737 activites Because of the need to determine the level of task analysis conducted by the Combustion Engineering Owners Group (CEOG) for CE plants, we have delayed meeting formally with you to discuss our concerns. Contact has recently been made with the CEOG concerning the feasibility and desirability of meeting to discuss task analysis. A meeting with the CEOG has been scheduled for July 29, 1984.
We would like to meet with you as soon as possible after the CEOG meeting. We will contact you in the near future to arrange a mutually acceptable date for such a meeting.
George W. Knighton, C ief Licensing Branch No. 3 Oivision of Licensing cc: J. Kramer
"p 5ni C n~ti~
tP2I n t
~~
.n:
L rem,___n Task ass in-nts ana S..
2.0, p-js. 2-1
>Cscripcion and organization xeyed on Mgmt/Staff and level of effort 2-7 plus 4-2 hart; general task assign-Operations staff and ents.
breakdown of experience.
Note specific discipline for particqlar tasks.
2 Composition and expertise Sec.
2.0, pgs.
2-1 Have composition by organi-,
of staff thru 2-6 plus 2-13 zation.
3 Control Room inventory Sec. 4.3 thru 4.5, Used panel drawings and Instru-Checklist for inventory methodology and comparison pgs.4-5, 4-12 1 4-ent Index (xref. Tag Nos.)
lus xref. to tasks.
with task assignments 13, fig. 4.5-1 &
raceable to Inst. Data Sheets. Relocation findings in 4.6 Operator inputs for tasks on a Fig. 5.2-1 (documentation system by system basis; i.e.,
of HED's by exception).
system function validation.
4 Assure that Control Room Sec. 4.3, pgs. 4-5 Utilized panel drawings on NUREG-0700 based on Wood HF survey criteria are thru 4-10 plus chartwall for pseudo walkdowns of son's HF Book (ref. 3.6 consistent w/NUREG-0700 fig. 4.3-1 and operator sequences plus the in MUREG-0700)
Sec.
5.0 Whitson HF chart.
5 Control Room HF survey Same as above ame as above plus fig. 5.2-1 Same as above procedures and sample data collection forms Sec. 5.2, pgs.
5-1 HF chart and task analysis NUREG-0700 pgs. 4-1 and procedures thru 5-11, 5-46, result in tabulation on 4-2.
Four levels of HED's 5-48, 5-53, 5-60, fig. 5.2-1 for relocations and 5-85 and 5-103 list for DCP's. See pqs. 5-7 and 5-9 for 11 point criteria.
Three categories or levels of HED's with cats.
1 and 2 identified for implementation.
7 Procedures and criteria Sec. 5.2 thru 5.5, Criteria summarized in report for selection of design pgs. 5-4, 5-20, 5-was developed by the task improvements 30, 5-38, 5-42, 5-force and is in file.
50, 5-63, 5-94, and 5-95 8
Procedure for verification Sec. 4.7.9, p4 4-31EOI's, NOP's, simulator that improvements provide EOI list on pgs.
training.
necessary correction.
4-32-and 33 w/o introducing new HED's 9
Coordination of DCRDR with Sec. 4.7, pg 4-25 OSPDS & CM2s meet RG 1.97 other Supp.
1, NUREG-0737 and Sec. 5.3, pgs and NUREG-0696 and 0737.
activities 5-76 and 5-82 HF engineering done by CE. SCE procedure in place for HF evaluation for ongoing work.
-10 Task analysis Sec. 4.7.9 and 5.7 See Flowchart handout.
pg 5-111
STEERING COMMITTEE II. L.
Richter, SCE G. E. Reeder, SCE A. I. Pressman, BPC F. B.
Marsh, BPC I/C ENG INEEIG SPONSOR
';CE AND BPC VIIITSTON ASSOC.
LINE ORGANIZATIONS CR0R COORDINATOR HUMAN FACTORS CONSULTATT
- 41.
G.
Singer(BPC)
Management/Rtnff SCE C
S~gBPC CR fETl NSS EGIRxlCF BOP/ AUX.
II1 TSTON ASSOC.
OP.EATOR
.33 lillERT1 11MAN FACTORS.1 OPPRATORCONSULTANT
- 11. Cool W. J.
Itarrin J.
L. Prickett M.Alen VtJ
. Roth/
SII.k't H..Jecrint E. BakerA SCE -
Southern California Edison BPC -
Bechtel Power Corporation CE Combustion Englineering Part Time Figure 2.1-1 ORtGANIZATION CHART OF THE CONTROL ROOM
)ESIGN REVIEW WORKING CROUP
Bechtel Power Corporation (SCP)
CRDR Project Coordinator The CRDR Project Coordinator will manage the CRDR program and coordinate the various participants' activities as required to provide a complete review of all areas related to the CRDR required by NUREG 0585 and NUREG -
0660.
Combustion Engineering Corporation (CE) -
NSSS The CE representative's primary responsibility will be to provide technical support on all NSSS related items and input to the overall control room control and display analysis including the task (link) analysis.
Bechtel Power Corporation (BPC)
BOP/AUX The BPC representative's primary responsibility will be to provide technical support on all BOP/AUX related items and input on the overall control room control and display analysis including the task (link) analysis.
Southern California Edison (SCE) -
Operations The SCE Nuclear Operator's primary responsibility will be to input the operator's philosophy of system operation for NSSS and BOP/AUX Systems and assist in the review of selected operating procedures.
Be will also be responsible for recommending the list of procedures from which a sample group will be selected for review during the three month CRDR.
Southern California Edison (SCE) - Consultant The SCE Contracted Consultant's primary responsibility will be to provide the Human Factor's Engineering man/machine interface and related services.
He will also be responsible for guidance in the preparation of the final CRDR report.
Southern California Edison (SCE) -
I/C engineering The SCE Engineering Representative's primary responsibility will be to assure the Project direction is maintained and that all SCE discipline inputs are integrated into the CRDR.
CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW TASK FORCE RESPONSIBILITIES AND TASK ASSIGM.ENTS JERRY PRICKETT Southern California Edison (SCE) -
I/C engineering The SCE Engineering Representative's primary responsibility will be to assure the Project direction is maintained and that all SCE discipline inputs are integrated into the CRDR.
SPECIFIC
- 1.
Assist the Project Coordinator in development of the master work plan and work schedules, determination of key milestones, design reviews, and obtaining all necessary inputs from responsible SCE departments.
- 2.
Control Panels:
Responsible for demarcation, grouping, relocation recommendations, ETC., for the following:
CR-57:
Engineered Safety Features System CR-58, 50, 51:
STM-GEN,
- FDWTR, Condensate
- 3.
Criteria Development:
Support to all leads on criteria development.
- 4.
Procedures Review:
Lead responsibility for all abnormal procedure reviews.
- 5.
Final Report:
Inputs to the final report as assigned by the Project Coordinator.
CONT P.'L ROOM DESIGN REVEW STAFF PARTICIPANTS -
SCE, BPC, OTHER NAME ORGANIZATION/TITLE CRDR FUNCTION A. Pressamn BPC/ Engrg. Manager Steering Committee F. Marsh BPC/Project Engineer Steering Committee L. Delaney BPC/Controls Supvr.
Design Implementation J. Oliver Whitson Assoc./Mgr.
Steering Committee D. Chan H.F. Consultant Color Coding G. Reeder SCE/I&C Group Leader Steering Committee J. Powell SCE/Staff Sound A. Chan SCE/8taff Lighting M. Bin SCE/I&C Engineer Design Implementation V. Fisher SCE/Station Ocerations Operations Inout Supervisor/SRO D. Lokker SCE/Station Operations Operations Input Watch Engineer/SRO T. James SCE/Station Operations Operations Input Watch Engineer/SRO
Table
-1 CRITICAL SAFETY FUNCTIONS FOR MAINTAINING NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SAFETY Control Room Design ?e l SAFETY CONTROL SYSTEMS POWER PRODUCTION CONTROL SYSTEMS OPERATIAC INSTRUCTIONS San Onotre 2 3 CodIng. Accidental ActIvatIon VISUAL. DISFLAYS Orlantation. Location. Vissing
/
/
1
/
/
/
/
DIstance. Coding Scale Lans.**
Scale Coding. Lamp Tast------------------------------------------------
CONTROL/DISPLAY INTECRATION Location. croupins,.croup
/
/
/
/
/
/
I
/
/
/
~
~
/
/
Layout, Croup Identif ication LABELING Abbrevissions,.ConsItaencyo of
/
/
/
/
'/
/
LncatIon. Functional. Vi'ving Dia.tnc.. Coding AUDITORT COMMIIUNICATIONS Types. Signal Variation.
/
Dict iminst on STATIC ANTHROPOMETRICS Structural. Pas y L Access.. Reach. Movement.
Pos it ion ENV I RONMENT Ventistion. Temperature.
Illumination. Noise WORKSPACE DESIC Kichapace.Hns.
Work Surface.
Storae.
K Ro RAZARDS AND SAFETY Safety Lal.. Emersncy EIt. Stair. Obstructions.
Acc..
Edg.
Rounding. Electritcal.
Mechanical. Tonic DESIGN FOR MAINTAINABILITY Ilfucion Idntificatio.
/
Reoval. Repair., Adjustm.nts.
Acce...
In.truction.
INFORMIATION ENTRY.
- ACCESS, STORACE 6 RETRIEVAL Visual or Auditory. Type of Display. Stlaulus Dieenaton DESIS FR PERSONAL REIUgulaitE
//TS Sensory/Perceptual, Inteln
.cus../
Output.
Phy.ical Skill.
A-9/ to
APPLICATION CRITERIA All recommended component relocations are supported by one or-more of the following:
- 1.
Functional grouping of components within a common area or section.
- 2.
Improved symetry of demarcation boundaries for a functional group.
- 3.
Left to right or top to bottom orientation for operational sequences.
- 4.
Associated displays and controls in closer proximity.
- 5.
Exact same relative location.for identical controls and displays Units 2 to Unit 3.
- 6.
j.ayout of redundant channels to be identical (not mirror image).
- 7.
Adjacent location of displays which are compared to each other.
- 8.
Most important and/or most frequently used displays and controls should be in optimum viewing/use area.
- 9.
Devices whose functions are duplicated by another device, which uses a more reliable format, should be removed and not relocated.
- 10. Devices should be relocated to local panels if their functions only pertain to local processes and controls.
- 11.
Deleted.
- 12.
Device whose relocation is dictated by another device relocation.
in
SONGS UNIT 2 AND 3 PANEL SECTION:
CR-58, 50, 51 PRIMARY ENERGY RESULTANT PHYSICAL CHANGE CRITERIA WHICH SUPPORTS MOVE TO PANEL ITEM NOT CUT-OUT COVER NO CHlGD LOCATION TO WHICH MOVED I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 MODIFIED NEW REQ'D NONE 1
6 8
X 2
7 6
X 3
8 7
X 4
11 2 Spaces Left of 11 X
5 9
1 Space Left of 11 X
6 10 11 X
7 32 5
X 8
5 10 X
X 10 3
32 X
X
- 11 443 409 x
- 12 444 410 X
13 401 1403 X
X 14 403 401 X
X 15
- 16 409 407 XX X
- 17 410 654 XX X
19 20 NOTE:
Short-term items are identified by (*)
Figure 5.2-1 RECOMMENDED COMPONENT RELOCATIONS (TYPICAL)
57IZIA
-iC 7A1?, IN! 141&
316/
T4 TIO42
,5~~~A, TCv
,v
/6' 5CZ/&,O E 7/7 7J Cc/7-7Y
LEVEL 1 -
PANEL SECTION TITIDLV ETC..
LEVEL 2
-SYSTEM PROCESS (Ef61 E~~(/TO LEVEL 3 -
SUBSYSTEM PROCESS (where applicable) gOA/C AC/O ETT.
LEVEL 4 PROCESS COMPONENT VILUNE RELEF GROUPS (where W
kVE a p pli cable)
LEVEL 5
COMPONENT TEMP E
Figirc, I IIlERARCHIAL NAMEPLATES
.dianL, FJim er d
V-da a
tviewa-NUREG, IU o,
o List 5+:u T, Oli C.,-
P.
va MVAC
. to 0 w
LtvtlM
.. n
OCT 2 32yd MEETING
SUMMARY
DISTRIBUTION c-,Deck-e-t=N o:(s-)-2--5 0-3 61-/:36 2 NRC PDR Local PDR NSIC PRC System LB3 Reading Attorney, OELD GWKnighton Project Manager H. Rood JLee NRC PARTICIPANTS H. Rood R. Ramirez D. Tondi bcc:
Applicant & Service List