ML18092B451
| ML18092B451 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 03/02/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18092B450 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8703060355 | |
| Download: ML18092B451 (5) | |
Text
I y
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION RY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATING TO DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC ANr GAS COMPANY SALEM GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 BACKGROUND By letter dated December 29, 1983, Public Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G)
Company submitted its Detailed Control Room Desiqn Revie\\'I' (DCRDR) Surrrrnary Report.
The staff reviewed the Summary Report and issued a Safety Evaluation Report (SE) to PSE&G on March 28, 1984.
A meetino was held in Bethesda on May ?.3, 1984 and PSE&G provided additional information September 18, 1984.
The staff assisted bv consultants from Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) conducted an on-site audit of the DCRDR on November 26, 1984 and transmitted the results via Supplemental SE and Technical Evaluation Report (TER) in April 1985.
PSE&G responded with a Supplemental Summary Report (SSR) on September 16, 1985.
The staff and SAIC reviewed the SSR and transmitted a Supplemental TER to PSE&G on January 8, 1986, along with a request for a meetino since many issues were still open.
The meeting was held in Bethesda on March 21, 1986, and most of the methodological issues were resolved.
PSE&G submitted minutes of the meeting on March 31, 1986 (Ref. 1).
Two more meetings were held July l and September 23, 1986 to resolve individual Human Enoineerinq Discrepancies (HED).
Our consultant, SAIC, prepared meeting minutes (Ref. 2) and an addendum to the TER (Ref. 3).
By letter dated November 14, 1986, (Ref. 4) PSE&G documented the Salem Gener-atinq Station Control Room Human Factors Guidelines ar.d resolutions to outstand-inq HEDs.
This document was reviewed bv the staff and several clarifications were discussed by phone on December 18,- 1986.
Documentation of these clarifi-cations was provided by letter dated January 20, 19R7 (Ref. 5).
DISCUSSION The staff evaluation of the Salem DCRDR is provided below, arranged in order of the DCRDR elements identified in Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737.
This evaluation is based on all information available to date and includes the results of earlier evaluations of satisfactory elements.
-~ 5
- aio302 r-- 9703060030
-::..~'. 05000272 PDR A
PDR p
~*
' 1.
Multidisciplinarv Review Team As stated in the staff SSER dated April 17, J985, the licensee has satisfied this requirement of NUREG-0737, Supplement l.
?.
Svstem Function and Task Analvsis PSE&G conducted an initial Function and Task analysis e~fort for the DCRDR in 1982.
Subsequently, as part of the F.OP upgrade program, an analysis was conducted of the availabilitv and suitabilitv of instruments and controls required to perform the-procedures.
Th~ staff expected that the combin2tion of the two would satisfy the NUREG-0737, Supplement 1 require-ment once a description of the human factors effort to ensure a comprehen-
~ive analysis of tasks and information and control requirements were provided.
PSE&G will include a task analysis for information and control requirements and needed characteristics in its EOP upgrade program scheduled for December 1986.
Resµlts will be reported in early 1987.
This DCRDR requirement of NUREG-0737, Supplement J remains open until revie\\v of PSE&G's submittal.
- 3.
Comparison of Display and Control Requirements with a Control Roorr Tnventorv Part of the EOP upqrade program discussed above includes a verification of control and display requirements in the control room via EOP walk-throughs.
The results of this verification will be included in the EOP submittal.
This DCRDR requirement of NUREG-0737, Supplement 1 remains open until re-view of the submittal.
- 4.
Control Room Survey to Identify Deviations from Accepted ~uman Factors Principles The staff SSER dated April 17, 1985 found the control room survey to be satisfactor~* with the exception of environmental survey methodologies and results, and plant specific human factors standards for color coding, abbreviations, etc.
The Supplemental Summary Report of Septem~er 16, 1985 provided satisfactory information regarding the environmental surveys.
Review of the Salem Nuclear Generatinq Station Control Room Human Factors Guidelines provided by PSE&G in draft-form at the July 1, 1986 meetina and in final form by letter dated November 14, 1986 found this document to contain acceptable human factors standards for development of corrections to HEDs in the present control room and for use in future control room changes.
This requirement of Supplement 1 ~o NUREG-0737 has been satisfied.
' 5.
Assessment of ~uman Enqineering Discrepancies to Determine Which are Siqnificant and Snou1d Re Corrected The findings of the pre-implementation on-site audit indicated that docu-mentation consirlering the cumulative and interactive 'effects of certain groups rf HEDs and a description of the rationale used ~or assessinq some
~EDs was insufficient.
PSE&G responses to the unresolved HEDs and consider-ation of the cumulative and interactive effects of HEDs as described in the meetings of July 1 and September 23, 1~86 resolved these issues.
The HED assessment requirerrent of Supplement 1 to M!IREG-0737 has been satisfied.
- 6.
Selection of Desiqn Improvements
- 7.
Based on the staff's initial evaluation of the HED assessment process, PSE&G chose to combine the re-assessment of certain HEDs and the assessment of the cumulative and interactive effects of certain groups of HEDs into the precess for selection and development of corrective actions.
The staff has monitored this design improvement process throuah three meetings with the licensee and review of the proposed corrective action for every HED.
Part of this pro-cess involved the development of the Salem Nuclear Generating Station Control Room Human Factors Guidelines to be applied on all control room improvements and modifications.
This requirement of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 has been satisfied.
n Improvements Will Provide Necessary Correction s
The control room human factors guidelines are acceptable both for develop-ing HED corrections and as.a basis from which corrections can be verified.
PSE&G has confirmed that all sections of the guidelines have been applied to HED corrections.
Thus, this requirement of NUREG-0737, Supplement ! is satisfied.
- 8.
Coordination of the DCRDR with Other NUREG-0737, Supplement 1 Improvements General Physics Corporation, PSE&G's human factors consultant is developing a program plan for coordinating the post-TMI activities for Salem.
Once this plan is approved by PSE&G, a description of how the program will in-tegrate all of the Emergency Response Capability iritiatives will be pro-vided to the staff.
It is the staff's judgement that this plan is extremely late in coming since most of the NUREG-0737, Supplement 1 activities are well underway.
This coordination activity should have been in effect before the DCRDR Suri-mary Report was submitted in December 1983.
This requirement of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 has not been satisfied.
I L! -
Jn its submittals of November 14, 1986 and January ?0, 1987, PSE&G has provided satisfactory resolutions to all previously unresolved 1-lEDs resvltinq from tl:e DCRDR.
These submittals included seven recommended modifications to the raria-tion computer system and a long list of design requirements to resolve approx-imately 18 ~EDs on the annunciator system.
The staff considPrs these to be com-mitmPnts by PSE&G to implement the computer svstem recommended modifications and all annunciator system design requirements.
PSE&G has stater that implementation of the control room imorovements wili occur over the next three refueling outaoes (approximately 4.5 years).
The staff c0r-siders this schedule to be excessive in view of the time it has already taken to complete the control room review and propose acceptable improvements.
NUREG-0737, Supplef'!'ler.t 1 states, 11 Improverrents that can be accomplished with an enhancement program (paint-tape-label) should be done promptly."
In the interest of public safety, it is clearly the intent of NUREG-0737, Supplement 1 to move ahead with control room improvements.
The staff believes that a well planned anr inteorated control ro0m improvement program should be implemented within two refuelina outages.
A schedule exceeding two outages should be satisfactorily justified.
In summary, the staff concludes that PSE&G has satisfied the requirements of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 except for the following items:
- 1.
A task analysis for information and control requirements anci their needed characteristics -- This item is to be reported for review under the EOP upgrade program in early 1~87.
- 2.
Comparison of display and control requirements from the task analysis with a control room inventory -- This item is to be accomplished in the control room via EOP walk-throughs and reported for review as part of the EOP upgrade program.
- 3.
Coordination of the DCRDR with other NUREG-0737, Supplement 1 improvements -- Once PSE&G approve~ the program plar, a description will be provided to the staff for review.
In addition, the staff concludes that implementation n~ the control room improve-ment proqram should be completed before startup from the second nf the next two refueling outages unless a longer schedule can be satisfactorily iustified.
,....,....., *.*. Y**
- RP.~erences J.
letter to S. Varga, NRC from C. McNeill, PSE&~, "Notes of Meetinq, Detailed Control Room Design Review. Sr.1em Generatino Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 11 March 31, 1986.
?.
letter to C. McNeill, PSE&G from D. Fischer, NRC, "Meetinq Minutes for July 1, 1986 11, August 22, 1986.
- 3.
"Addendum to the Technical Evaluation Report for the Detailed Control Room Desiqn Review for the Salem Generating Station," October ?.7, 1986.
- 4.
letter to V. Noonan, NRC from C. McMeill, PSE&G, "Control Room Design Review, Resolution of ~uman EnginPering Deficiencies, Salem Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 11 November Jl!, 1986.
- 5.
1.etter to Document Control Desk, NRC from C. McNeill, PSE&G, "Control Room Design Review, Resolution of ~uman Enqineerin~ Deficiencies, Salem Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 11 January ?O, 1987.
Date:
Contributor:
R. Eckenrode