ML18092B254
| ML18092B254 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 08/22/1986 |
| From: | Fischer D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Corbin McNeil Public Service Enterprise Group |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8608270371 | |
| Download: ML18092B254 (10) | |
Text
Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311 Mr. C. A. McNeill, Jr.
Vice President, Nuclear Public Service Electric and Gas Company Post Offici Box 236 Hancoc ks Br1 dge, New Jersey 08038
Dear Mr. McNeill:
e August 22, 1986 DISTRIBUTION Docket File PD#3 Rdg.
NRC PDR Local PDR D. Fischer C. Vogan R. Eckenrode Enclosed for your information are the meeting minutes for the July 1, 1986 meeting concerning the Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR).
A followup meeting on the DCRDR has been tentatively set for September 23, 1986.
Much of the material discussed in these minutes will provide the agenda matter for the September 23rd meeting.
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
See next page PD#3~
DFischer 8/v.)86 8608270371 860822 PDR ADOCK 05000272 P
PDR Sincerely,
'0Mg1hal Signed byt Donald C. Fischer, Project Manager Project Directorate #3 Division of PWR Licensing-A
l.
Mr. C. A. McNeill Public Service Electric & Gas Company cc:
Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esquire Conner and Wetterhahn Suite 1050 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 Richard Fryling, Jr., Esquire Assistant Gen~ral Solicitor Public Service Electric & Gas Company P. 0. Box 570 - Mail Code T5E Newark, New Jersey 07101 Gene Fisher, Bureau of Chief Bureau of Radiation Protection 380 Scotch Road Trenton, New Jersey 08628 Mr. John M. Zupko, Jr.
General Manager - Salem Operations Public Service Electric & Gas Company Post Office Box E Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Robert Traae, Mayor Lower Alloways Creek Township Municipal Hall Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Thomas Kenny, Resident Inspector Salem Nuclear Generating Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Drawer I Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Richard F. Engel Deputy Attorney General Department of Law and Public Safety CN-112 State House Annex Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Frank Casolito, Action Chief Bureau of Radiation Protection Department of Environmental Protection 380 Scotch Road Trenton, New Jersey 08628 Salem Nuclear Generating Station Richard B. McGlynn, Commission Department of Public Utilities State of New Jersey 101 Commerce Street Newark, New Jersey 07102 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Lower Alloways Creek Township c/o Mary 0. Henderson, Clerk Municipal Building, P.O.. Box 157_
Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Mr. Bruce A. Preston, Managet Nuclear Licensing & Regulation Public Service Electric & Gas Company P. 0. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Mr. David Wersan Assistant Consumer Advocate Office of Consumer Advocate 1425 Strawberry Square Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 c'_-,
'I" -
.e NRC Meeting on July 1, 1986 With Public Service Electric and Gas Company Concerning the Detailed Control Room Design Review for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station The NRC met with Public Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G)
Company to discuss the unresolved issues for the Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR) being conducted at the Salem Nuclear Generating Station.
A meeting was held March 21, 1986, which resulted in some clarification of PSE&G's DCRDR methodologies and of NRC concerns on the unresolved issues.
The primary purpose of the meeting held July 1, 1986, was to resolve those human engineering discrepancies (HEOs) considered open items by the NRC.
-The meeting also included further discussion on the unresolved issues regarding OCROR methodologies.
The meeting resulted in most, but not all, open items being resolved, with additional information on several HEDs and issues still to be provided by PSE&G.
- Also, PSE&G's draft guidelines for human factors design in the Salem control rooms were provided to the NRC for review.
The following are the results of discussions held in the meeting, including the NRC judgments on PSE&G's responses to the unresolved HEOs and the control room human factors guidelines.
Attachment A to this report is a list of meeting attendees.
Qualifications and Structure of the DCRDR Team As previously documented in NRC reports, PSE&G has satisfied this requirement.
Function and Task Analysis, and Comparison of Display and Control Requirements With a Control Room Inventory PSE&G will include a task analysis of information and control requirements and needed characteristics in its effort to upgrade its present EOPs to symptom-based EOPs.
The results of this analysis, the EOP walk-throughs (and verification of requirements in the control rooms),
and information from the setpoint study relevant to the task analysis will be submitted by PSE&G to the 1
I NRC.
The acceptability of this effort in closing out these requirements will be determined by the NRC's review of PSE&G's submittal.
Control Room Survey A review of the draft *salem Nuclear Generating Station Control Room Human Factors Guidelines,* provided by PSE&G in the meeting, found this document to be acceptable as guideli~es for development of corrections to HEDs, application to the present control
- room, and use for future changes.
lf PSE&G intends to make its present control room lettering and labeling, abbreviations, and color coding consistent with these guidelines (e.g., Section l, Section 2.5, and Section 3), then the NRC's concern is satisfied regarding the adequacy of the standardized abbreviation list, *color-cooing conventions, and lettering guidelines.
These guidelines refer to application to areas of the plant other than the control rooms (e.g., remote shutdown panels).
The NRC commends such application and encourages PSE&G to establish con-sistency among the plant areas where operators and others must interface, including the SPDS and EOPs.
Assessment of HEDs and Selection of Design Improvements The consideration of cumulative and interactive effects of HEDs by PSE&G will be reflected in the individual and overall HED correc-tions.
The NRC found this response to be accceptable and will complete its review of such consideration as PSE&G provides final responses to the remaining, unresolved HEDs.
Verification That Improvements Will Provide the Necessary Corrections Without Introducing New HEDs As previously mentioned in the Control Room Survey section of this report, the draft of the guidelines provided in the meeting were found to be acceptable for developing HED corrections.
In addi-tion, these guidelines are also acceptable as a basis from which HED corrections can be verified.
Provided that all sections of 2
j
).
the guidelines are applied to HED corrections, then the NRC's concern regarding the basis for verifying HED corrections will have been satisfied.
Coordination of the DCRDR With Other Improvement Programs General Physics Corporation, PSE&G's human factors consultant, will be developing a program plan for coordinating the post-TM!
activities for PSE&G.
PSE&G should provide information which describes the plans for coordinating the post-TMI activities (if not the program plan itself) and training for review by the NRC.
Implementation Scehdule for HED Corrections PSE&G stated that the implementation of HED corrections will occur over the next three refueling outages (approximately 4.5 years).
The NRC does not agree with the schedule and believes that without sufficient justification, the implementation of HED corrections should occur over the next two refueling outages (approximately 3 years).
Resolution of HEDs Appendices A through D of SAIC's Supplement to its Technical Evaluation Report (dated December 2, 1985) contains the lists of HEDs found to be acceptably and unacceptably resolved from a review of PSE&G's Supplementary Summary Report (SSR)
(dated September 16, 1985).
These appendices (Attachment B to this report) served as an agenda for discussion during the July 1, 1986, meeting.
The results of these discussions are presented below according to the order in which they appear in the appen-dices.
Appendix A - HEDs (by HED number) from Section 6.1 of the SSR in which resolutions were proposed and were found to be (1) accept-able, or (2) sufficiently described or resolved.
Section 1 - PSE&G's proposed resolution to these HEDs remained acceptable to the NRC.
3
Section 2.a - PSE&G's proposed resolutions to these HEDs, except HED 583, were found to be acceptable by the NRC.
HED 583 - PSE&G will submit a description of the human factors review of the new Rad.
computer system in the September timeframe.
Section 2.b. - PSE&G's proposed resolution to HEDs 25 and 306 were found to be acceptable.
The following HEDs are still unresolved.
HEDs 97 and 98 - These HEDs concern the ability to conrnunicate using the Scott air packs and emergency masks.
PSE&G will check into the technology available which will correct these HEDs.
HED 667 - PSE&G will describe the results of a study and how this HED will be resolved.
Section 2.c - PSE&G's proposed resolutions to these HEDs were found to be acceptable.
Section 2.d - PSE&G's proposed resolution to this HED was found to be acceptable.
Appendix B - HEDs (by HED number) from Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of the SSR in which resolutions were proposed and were found to be (1) adequate or (2) insufficiently described or resolved.
Discussion on the cumulative and interactive effects of HEDs was provided but
- found to be insufficient to resolve these concerns.
Section l - PSE&G's proposed resolutions to these HEDs remained acceptable to the NRC.
4
~-
Section 2.a - PSE&G's proposed resolutions to the following HEDs were found to be acceptable:
The 2
80 152 320 430 523 6
114 204 358 478 625 13 121 282 402 521 635 19 126 313 405 522 658 following HEDs are still unresolved:
HED 41 - PSE&G will study this HED further for possible corrective action.
HED 133 (and 39) - PSE&G's present response to this ~ED is inadequate.
This HED will remain open until PSE&G develops an acceptable response or plan to mitigate this HED.
HEDs 533, 534, and 538 - Have been moved from this section for discussion in Section 3.e of Appendix B.
Section 2.b - PSE&G's proposed resolutions to these HEDs were found to be acceptable.
Section 2.c - PSE&G will provide more information on HEDs 3 and 5 describing the exact reach distance to the top-most control, what the control(s) is, and what effect or conse-quences operator errors associated with reach problems would have upon operations.
Section 2.d - PSE&G's proposed resolutions to these HEDs except HED 39 were found to be acceptable.
HED 39 (and 133) - PSE&G's present response to this HED 1s inadequate.
This HED will remain open until PSE&G develops an acceptable response or plan to mitigate this HED.
5
/. '
Section 2.e - PSE&G's proposed resolution for HED 14 is that the SPDS will provide this information in a more readable location. However, the SPDS is not a qualified IE instrument and is not reliable enough to be used as the primary source of this information.
This HED will remain open until a more acceptable resolution is proposed by PSE&G.
Section 2.f - PSE&G's proposed resolution for this HED was found to be acceptable.
Section 2.g - PSE&G's proposed resolutions for these HEDs, except HED 140, were found to be acceptable.
HED 140 - PSE&G's response to this HED is pending
~or rective action on another HED.
PSE&G will need to provide NRC with a response to this HED.
Section 2.h - PSE&G's proposed resolutions for these HEDs were found to be acceptable.
Section 3.a - NRC's position on the overall panel layout and control-display integration problem represented by the summa-tion or product of the HEDs in this section is that PSE&G should improve the affected panels and components where possible.
PSE&G has stated that it intends to replace its Bailey controllers and to add demarcation to improve control-display association and grouping.
PSE&G has also stated that while it does not have the vertical arrangement of control-display associates as recommended in NUREG-0700, the horizon-tal arrangement of control-display associations it has in the Salem control rooms is consistent.
PSE&G will investigate viable improvements to control board layout and control-display associations and report to the NRC on its final plan for this.
Section 3.b - PSE&G's proposed resolutions for these HEDs were found to be acceptable.
6
I Section 3.c - PSE&G will be obtaining a new computer system and will provide information describing how the new computer system resolves each of these HEDs.
Section 3.d - PSE&G will provide a response to each of the four HED groups or areas.
Section 3.e - PSE&G will provide a response describing how the new annunciator system will resolve these HEDs, including HEDs 533, 534, and 538.
Appendix C - HEDs (by HED number) from Section 6.3 of the SSR in which rationale for the assessment was provided and found (1) to be acceptable, (2) to be unacceptable, or (3) was not provided-at al 1.
Section 1 - PSE&G's proposed assessments for these HEDs remained acceptable to the NRC.
Sections 2 and 3 - PSE&G's rationale and proposed assessments for these HEDs were found to be accepable.
Appendix D - HEDs from Section 6 of the SSR which are associated with labeling discrepancies and should be addressed by t~e application of satisfactory standards or guidelines.>
A review of the draft "Salem Nuclear Generating Station Control Room Human Factors Guidelines,* provided by PSE&G in the meeting, found this document to be acceptable as guide-1 ines for developing corrections to the HEDs in Appendix D of the SAIC STER.
If HEDs are corrected to be consistent with Sections 1, 2,
and 3 of these guidelines, then these HEDs with the exception of HED 244 will have been resolved accept-ably.
HED 244 includes a color-coding inconsistency involv-ing the colors green and blue to indicate "normal" status.
The control color-coding conventions listed in Table 1 of Section 3 of the guidelines does not decree a color code for
- normal."
PSE&G should clarify how this HED will be cor-7
I.
0 l
I
\\/
rect~d and whether a modification to the crintrol color-coding convention will be made.
8