ML18092A281
| ML18092A281 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 09/18/1984 |
| From: | Liden E Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18092A282 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737 NUDOCS 8409250139 | |
| Download: ML18092A281 (7) | |
Text
I
--:_,fi, Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Nuclear Department September 18, 1984
- u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Division of Licensing Washington, D. c. 20555 Attention:
Mr. Steven A. Varga, Chief Operating Reactors Branch, No. 1
Dear Mr. Varga:
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW SUPPLEMENT 1 TO NUREG 0737 SALEM GENERATING STATION UNITS NO. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 30-311 In a letter, dated March 28, 1984, the items concerning Detailed Control Room that required additional information.
each of those items follows:
NRC identified six Design Review (DCRDR)
PSE&G's response to
- 1.
Verify that the review process addressed both control rooms to determine differences.
The review process did address both units.
The applicable unit is specified at the top of each HED form in Volume 2 of the Summary Report submitted on December 29, 1983.
The control rooms are basically identical, with a few exceptions, but are not mirror imaged.
The differences between the units are in the following systems/components:
The Energy People 95-2168 (25M) 6-84
Mr. Steven 9/18/84 Radiation Monitoring System, Demineralizer Plant, Meteorological System, Tide Level Recorder, Station Air Freshwater System and Gas Turbine. gives the differences in tabular form with respect to the recorder panels.
This was used during the review process.
The layout of the instrumentation on the control console and all recorder panels are identical.
The differences between units are emphasized during operator training.
- 2.
Explain how the task analysis developed operator information and control requirements and how the control room inventory was used.
See Enclosure 2 "Revised Task Analysis Methodology Report"
- 3.
Provide details on how the control room survey was conducted.
Identify survey team members, describe checklists and environmental survey data forms, and discuss the process of applying and integrating "dynamically-oriented" guidelines.
- a.
The team members who conducted the survey are indicated on the top of each HED form.
The following persons from General Physics Corporation conducted the survey:
P. Doyle L. Schroder
- c. Lempges F. Rogalla
- b.
The checklists, as provided in NUREG-0700, were used in the survey.
- c.
The checklists provided in NUREG-0700 were also used for the environmental survey.
In addition, environmental survey data forms (Enclosure 3) were used by General Physics Corporation.
- d.
The process of applying and integrating "dynamically-oriented" guidelines is addressed in.
- 4.
Verify that the HED assessment process addressed cumulative and interactive effects and that safety-related discrepancies w~re properly categorized.
Mr. Steven 9/18/84 The HED assessment process did address cumulative and interactive effects of the category 4 HEDs.
This was accomplished by using computer-aided sorts, as recommended in NUREG-0801.
HEDs sorted by system, panel, and component were examined for their cumulative or interactive effects.
- 5.
Describe the process for arriving at design solutions and verify that selected design improvements provide the needed correction and will not introduce new HEDs.
HEDs were generated in groups during the consultant site visits and as a result of the task analysis.
After each site visit an exit meeting was held to discuss the consultant findings.
A group of HEDs were then submitted to PSE&G.
The resolution process was as follows:
When a group of HEDs was generated, it was discussed and reviewed by the PSE&G review team to determine if the HEDs were valid and if so whether it should be corrected.
These HEDs were further discussed among the PSE&G and Consultant review team members for purposes of clarification.
Resolutions were suggested and discussed by members of PSE&G and the Consultant review teams.
These resolutions were then given to the appropriate personnel from the Operations Department for their evaluation and comments.
A design resolution was then determined based on the effects of a specific HED or a combination of HEDs on plant safety, operator performance, acceptability of design, consistency with control room characteristics and cost., Administrative Procedure No. 8 (AP-8) "Design Change, Test and Experiment Program," will ensure that the selected design improvements will provide the necessary correction and will not introduce new HEDs.
- 6.
Provide additional justification for not correcting the HEDs listed in Appendix c Of the SAI TER.
The HEDs were reviewed again and we have concluded that our original categorization is satisfactory.
Several of the justifications have been revised to better explain why the HEDs are not being corrected.
In some cases, the original justification was found to be adequate.
These are indicated by an asterisk in the Enclosure 5 entitled "HEDs in Appendix C of SAI Report".
Mr. Steven 9/18/84 Of the total of 725 HEDs generated only 469 HEDs appeared in the summary report, because during the review process, several redundant HEDs were discovered and subsequently deleted.
In the summary report the HEDs were not renumbered which resulted in the apparent discrepancy in numbers.
Enhancement type implementations are considered as design changes and will be done by design change packages.
All changes will be implemented on the same schedule.
The schedule for correcting the HEDs was given in terms of refueling outages and the dates are, the sixth refueling outage for Unit No. 1 (February 1986) and the third refueling outage for Unit No. 2 (September 1986).
Should you have any questions, please contact us.
Enclosures (all)
C Mr. Donald c. Fischer Licensing Project Manager Mr. James Linville Senior Resident Inspector Sincerely, E. A. Liden Manager -
Nuclear Licensing and Regulation
ENCLOSURE 1 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RECORDER PANELS UNIT 1 RPl Radiation Monitoring Boron Analysis Digital Readout Wind Speed and Wind Direction Recorders SEL Sw (Wind Spd. & Direction)
Component Cooling Valve Postion Indication RP2 Ambient Temperature and Delta Temperature Recorder RP3 TV Monitor (Gate Surveillance)
RP4 Tide Level Recorder
.DR7.l 1/02 UNIT 2 RPl Radiation Monitoring RP2 RP3 RP4
\\
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RECORDER PANELS -
Continued UNIT 1 UNIT 2 RP6 RP6 New Freedom Line No. 3 Gas Turbine Keeney Line RP7 RP7 Two Printing Demand Meters DR7.1 2/02
Enclosure.2 Revised Task Analysis Methodology Report