ML19305C843
| ML19305C843 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/10/1980 |
| From: | Hancock D BAKER & BOTTS, HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| To: | TEXAS PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004100532 | |
| Download: ML19305C843 (19) | |
Text
-
~
~
e k gs e, 4
.a 3 MAR 1 3 000> d UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Omce of the Cdefing & Smica Se: etarf
% kanch e
BEFOPE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA Oh cn In the Matter of S S
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER S COMPANY S Docket No. 50-466 S
(Allons Creek Nuclear S Generating Station, Unit S No. 1) S APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO TEXPIRG'S EIGHTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO HOUSTON LIGHTING &
POWER COMPANY In response to the interrogatories propounded by Texas Public Interest Research Group, Inc., Houston Lighting
& Power (Applicant) answers as follows:
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
With respect to control room displays for valves or other manually operated, remotely controlled instruments at Allens Creek:
Are there any signals or visual indicators in the control room in which changes of display status signify changes in control actuation alone rather than changes in functional status of the valve or instrument?
ANSWER:
Yes, INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
(a) If the answer to #1 is "yes", state which controls are-involved and the relationship of these controls to the safety of the plant; h 8004100 5 32
(b) If the answer to #1 is "no" list and produce any and all documents which confirm that answer;-
(c) If HL&P is unable to determine the precise answer to #1 at this time, state to what extent the matter raised in #1 has been considered by HL&P and/or its vendors up to this time.
ANSWER:
(a) This information may be extracted from the system process and instrumentation diagrams and elementaries contained in Chapter 7 of the PSAR.
(b) Not applicable.
(c) Not applicable.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
The following interrogatories relate to control room design for Allens Creek:
(a) Is there a displayed indication of flow through the relief valve discharge line? If "yes", list and produce any documents which confirm that answer.
(b) Will the absence or extinguishment of a signal or visual indication be used to denote a 'go ahead', ' ready,'
'in-tolerance,' or ' complete' condition' for any instruments? !
If "yes," state what displays are involved.
(c) Is there a displayed indication or alarm to indicate whether the emergency feedwater system is in a misaligned or inoperative status? Is there a displayed indication of emergency feedwater flow to the steam generator?
(d) Are the indicator lights for emergency feed-water control valves located in a close and consistent juxtaposition to their associated controls? List and produce documents consulted in answering this question.
- (e) How much panel space (in square feet) will exist? Provide an approximation, if precise figure is not known.
}
e (f) How many controls will exist? How many displays? How many integrated control / display arrangements?
How many annunciators?
(g) Will there be a plant TV monitor?
i (h) How many CRT's in the control room?
(i) The following relate to " Exhibit I" of Appendix 1 attached:
(1) Does that diagram show the basic shape of the primary control room?
(2) If "no" to that question, what is inaccurate about the diagram?
(3) If "yes" to that question, provide the dimensions shown by "A" and "E" in the diagram.
(j) Is the primary control room designed for single operator monitoring during normal operation? If "no," how many operators?
(k) During control room monitoring, what is the maximum viewing distance and the maximum walking distance?
(1) Is the control room's emergency overhead lighting of equal strength and shine to normal lighting?
State the basis for that answer.
(m) Will meters have integral emergency backlighting?
(n) Will auditory displays associated with annunicators utilize directional properties to assist operators in locating the alarming annunciators? If "yes,"
state the extent and nature of such directional properties.
(o) Will there be uniform standards for common operating modes of different controls (e.g., all controls turn " clockwise" to change from " manual" to " automatic")?
For what types of common operating modes will such constant mode selection exist?
(p) Will valves use displays which show the " dis-tance traveled" or " percent open" in order to allow operators to fine tune valve positioning?
(q) Is there an annunciator for reactor trip?
(r) Will the displays include moving-pointer, arc-scale vertical indicators? Which of the following con-trol units will include such indicators: reactor core cooling; reactor control; nuclear system protection; re-circulation; leakage and CAM; CRD control?
(s) of the indicators mentioned in (r) above, how many will be located higher than six feet from the floor? How many will be located higher than seven feet from the floor? Which systems contain those indicators?
(t) of the indicators mentioned in (r) above, how many will use a mirrored scale plate and/or " critical alarms" which identify critical or degrading conditions?
(u) Will there be a displayed indication when the core system reaches saturation condition? If not, how will the control room operator be expected to infer such conditions' (sic] existence?
(v) Will the control room use vertical panels behind the benchboard to support primary operations? How many displays will be located on the panels? How high are the vertical panels mounted?
(w) Are there any operating controls for which meters must be read while performing the operation? Indicate which control room systems contain such controls?
(x) Is there assurance that all such meters in (w) above are facing in a direct manner the associated controls? How is assurance maintained that an operator does not have to leave his controls to read the appropriate meter?
(y) What size lettering will be used on labeling?-
Are labels' lettering size different depending upon the height or distance of the display from the normal position of the operator?
(2) Does Applicant intend to use system or function demarcation lines and labels on control panels?
ANSWER:
(a) No.
(b) No.
(c) The ACNGS design does not incorporate an emergency feedwater system.
(d) See response to (c).
(e) At the present time, there are approximately 450 square feet of direct operator interface and surveillance panel space, and approximately 900 square feet of supporting BOP back row panel space. A further estimate, including square feet of supporting NSSS panels, may be extracted from Figures 7.5-1 through 7.5-6 of the PSAR.
(f) A rough estimate of the number of controls, displays, annunciators and integrated control / display ar-rangements may be had by reference to the system elementary disgrams contained in Chapter 7 of the PSAR.
(g) No.
(h) Thirteen.
(i) (1) No.
(2) See PSAR Figures 1.2-33 and 7.5-1. '
i (3) Not applicable.
(j) Yes.
(k) See PSAR Figure 7.5-1.
(1) No. Emergency lighting in the control room is 25 percent of normal. This level provides adequate lighting to maintain the various panels.
(m) No.
(n) No.
(o) Yes. The following table shows the standard operating mode for the stated types of components:
Operating Modes (Switch Position Component Left to Right)
- 1. Circuit breakers Trip--close
ii. Circuit breakers Trip--auto--close 111. Valves close--open iv. Valves Close--auto--cpen
- v. Pumps, compressors Stop--start vi. Pumps, compressors Stop--normal--start (p) On valves which require precise valve indication, displays are provided in the control room. For example, the MSIVs have position indication for 10 percent and 90 percent closed, the recirculation flow control valve can be monitored from full-open to full-closed via meters in the control room.
(q) Yes.
(r) The exact types of indicators for the systems identified have not yet been specified for ACNGS.
(s) None in both cases.
(t) See (r).
(u) No. A BWR, as opposed to a PWR, always operates at saturated conditions.
(v) No. No displays supporting primary opera-tions will be located on the panels. The vertical panels are the same height as the bench board.
(w) Yes. Each and every operating control of the variety described has not been identified by Applicant.
Obviously, all testing of controls involves the monitoring of meters or CRTs during the testing operation. Beyond this, the Applicant has not made an investigation of the type inquired about.
(x) Yes. By proper engineering and placement, meters are placed in close proximity suitable for direct viewing.
(y) Lettering size will vary between the smallest, consisting of Helvetica 12 (switch name plates), to the largest at 3/8 of an inch. Letter size does not depend upon the height or distance of the display from the " normal" position of the operator.
(z) No demarcation lines are used, but systems are grouped logically with labels. Mimicks are used for some systems.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
The following questions also relate to control room design at Allens Creek:
(a) Will the control room displays use color coding?
(b) If (a) is "yes," the following pertain to the color coding system:
(1) Will one meaning per color be utilized. If ,
a not, state how many meanings per color may be used? l (2) How many colored lights will be used?
(3) Will meter faces be color coded?
(c) Will three-position switches or "j-handles" be used in which the control must be placed in the " start" position and held there until the mechanism starts? State which controls will use such design.
(d) Are controls for borated water storage tank and high pressure injection located in continguous (sic]
positions? If not, state how far apart the two controls are?
(e) What is the criteria determining what in-formation will be placed on the computer printout and when the information will be printed out?
(f) In what manner is documentation of procedures made available to operators in the control room during normal and emergency operation?
ANSWER: 1 (a) Yes.
(b) (1) Yes.
(2) Four different colored lights are used.
U (3) No.
(c) Yes. Regardless of handle type, momentary contacts control switches are used for most equipment.
(d) There is no Borated Water Storage Tank in '
the ACNGS design.
(c) Information to be printed on the line printer is not determined until the control room desigr. is complete.
Generally, as a minimum, items such as sequence of events and alarms are included. Information can be printed on demand.
(f) Control copies of operating and emergency procedures will be maintained in the control room.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Does HL&P have the following document in its possession: HUMAN FACTORS REVIEW OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT CONTROL ROOM DESIGN, EPRI NP-309, Seminara, Gonzalez, and Parsons, Lockheed Missles & Space Co., Nov. 1976? If so, please produce that document.
ANSWER:
Yes. This document may be inspected and copied at the Applicant's Energy Development Complex.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Is the ACNGS control room designed so.that operators at the South Texas Project can be transferred there? If so, state the manner in which compatibility between the two designs is maintained.
ANSWER:
t No.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Which vendor is' designing the ACNGS control room?-
List other nuclear power plant control rooms designed by that vendor.
ANSWER:
G.E. designs the NSSS portion of the control room panels and EBASCO designs the BOP panels. See PSAR Chapter 1 for EBASCO's and G.E.'s experience.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
What is HL&P's role in the designing of the control room? Has HL&P placed constraints--cost, schedule, panel arrangement, overall layout, or organization of dis-plays--on the designer of the control room? Describe generally any such constraints.
ANSWER:
HL&P reviews and approves the design of the control room.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
In designing the control room, is HL&P or a vendor evaluating experience of operators at other GE nuclear facilities? Has HL&P and/or a vendor evaluated the extent to which control operators at these other facilities place new labels or tags on controls or displays? If so, how many changes did operators make in labeling of the con-trol room displays in those plants?
ANSNER:
During the design of the control room, G.E. ex-tensively evaluates the experience of operations at all G.E. plants, including a human factors analysis.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
During the design process for the control room panels, were alternative panel configurations taken into consideration? If so, what were the principle (sic] factors used in selecting the final configuration?
ANSWER:
Yes. Principal factors in selecting the final configuration are:
l
(a) Panels having direct operator interface and surveillance are designed to allow the operator '
to operate the plant during all normal conditions.
(b) During accident conditions, the design allows the operator quickly to assess the status of safety system performance at the divisional or train level and to take action at that level.
(c) The back row panels are designed to allow the operator to assess the operation of individual components or component groups and allow the operator to take action at the component or component group level.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
In the control room, how many physically separate control panels are there? Consider each geometric change a separate panel.
ANSWER:
Seventy-four.
INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
In the control room, how are multiple, simultaneous alarms to be handled by the operator? Are alarms coded by their severity?
ANSWER:
The operator actuates the " silence" and then the
" acknowledge" push buttons. Alarms are not ordered by
" severity".
INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
Are all control room instruments capable of measuring or indicating conditions which are beyond tha limits of conditions expected in a design basis accident?
What criteria is [ sic] used in placing limitations or outer bounds on calibration and measurement values?
ANSWER:
Instruments are designed to measure expected and/or accident events plus some margin. Control room indication recorders are specified with calibrated ranges in a manner similar to the specification of set points for by-stables and process switches. See PSAR Chapter 7.1.2.10.
INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
In what ways are [ sic] operator error taken into account in design of the control room?
ANSWER:
Most safety-related systems are automatically initiated and require only operator supervision. Further operator error is minimized by:
(a) Arrangements of controls and instrumentation.
(b) Administrative controls.
(c) Operating procedures.
(d) Automatic overrido systems which will not allow system manipulation if safety systems are called on to operate.
INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
Have any of the following been performed in the design of the control room:
(a) drafting a set of operator procedures; (b) a complete analysis of tasks operators must perform, including time limits, types of instru-ment interfaces, etc.;
(c) a set of human engineering criteria determined; (d) analysis of failure modes and analyses / fault trees relevent to operator errors?
Produce documents cited in the answer.
ANSWER:
(a) No.
(b) No.
(c) See answer to Interrogatory No. 9.
(d) No.
INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
Update the power interchange table shown in Ex-hibit II of Appendix 1 attached. (Please provide figures up to this year).
ANSWER:
Power Interchange (MWH)
Year Interchange 1979 + 812 1978 -
777 1977 - 1,187 INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
What is the reserve margin for the ERCOT region?
In particular, isn't it true that ERCOT reported a reserve margin of over 37% in 1979? (Figures used here are for reserve at peak).
ANSWER:
Reserve margin for the ERCOT region in 1979 was 37.8 percent.
INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
How many concrete voids at South Texas Project have been found in 1980? What is the size (dimensions)
of the largest void? Produce the Brown & Root survey which found these voids. Produce all documents in HL&P's posses-sion which relate to this interrogatory.
ANSWER:
1?one.
INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
Has HL&P received a citation from the NRC for a bulge in the ateel-liner of the containment building at South Texas Project? When was that bulge reported to the NRC? Why was the citation issued? Produce all documents relating to this interrogatory.
ANSWER:
Yes. Tia subject matter of the referenced cita-tion was reported to the NRC on February 7, 1980. Reasons for the issuance of the citation are held exclusively by the NRC; one explanation of the reasons is apparently con-tained in the citation itself.
i INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
State the dates for each of the incidents mentioned in fis and #18 aiove in which:
(a) the deficiency was found by the Applicant or Brown & Root and
- 03) the deficiency was reported to the NRC.
ANSWER:
This interrogatory is inapplicable inasfar as it references the " incidents mentioned in #18." As to
-Interrogatory No. 19:
(a) January 16, 1980.
- 03) February 7, 1980.
INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
What criteria did HL&P use in selecting Ebasco as the Architect for ACNGS?
ANSWER:
HL&P selected EBASCO as architect engineer for ACNGS after (1) reviewing EBASCO's proposed contract terms, and (2) comparing EBASCO's capabilities with those of other architect engineers with reference to indicators of expertise, including past experience, management capability, personnel employed, technical depth, research capability, involvement in advac.ced technology, size and other relevant points of comparison.
Respectfully submitted, OF COUNSEL:
hwsM y G J. Gregory Copeland C. Thomas Biddle, Jr.
BAKER & BOTTS Darrell Hancock 3000 One Shell Plaza Charles G. Thrash, Jr.
Houston, Texas 77002 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, Jack R. Newman AXELRAD & TOLL Robert H. Culp 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPLICANT HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
. .. .. - _ . ~ . = . - -
i THE STATE OF TEXAS S S :
COUNTY OF HARRIS S j
. BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this ,
day personally appeared-L. R. JACOBI, who upon his oath ,
stated that he has answered Interrogatories No. 1, 2, 3, I 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, :
and 20 of the foregoing Applicant's Response to TexPIRG's !
Eighth Set of Interrogatories to Houston Lighting & Power [
Company in his capacity as Supervising Engineer for Houston Lighting & Power Company, and that all statements contained therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
L. R. Jacobi v'
U-
// SUBSCRIBED and SWORN TO before me on this the
//)
( / //L_ day of y////0[b ,1980.
Y O h!{ k w 5 /// Ab O N Notary /Public in and for Harris County, Texas My Commission Expires ,/ /
l //
3 t
i t
- -- -.r . - , . .n --u--- - - - - - - - -, r- - - .< n-- -- Sp - , -
o THE STATE OF TEXAS '
COUNTY ^OF HARRIS i
.BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared E. A. TURNER, who upon his oath stated that he has answered Interrogatory No. 21 of the foregoing Applicant's Response to TexPIRG's Eighth Set of Interrogatories to Houston Lighting & Power Company ,
)
in his capacity as Vice President of Power Plant Construc-l tion and Technical Services, Houston Lighting & Power Company, and that all statements contained therein are
.l true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief, i
i
- =H E. A. Turner
.j SUBSCRIBED and SWORN TO before me on this the
[NL. day of N 7)/'[ / , 1980. ;
b
' <- /: i hll:^}//(' ff ,'f f//h//%^V/Y 2
Notary/ Public in and for Harris County, Texas My Commission Expires e'!' /
2 a
h 4
-=,, , - - - . - - , , , , .-
- - w,e , -
w . n
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of S S
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY S Docket No. 50-466 S
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating S Station, Unit No. 1) S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I he eby certify that copies of the foregoing Applicant's Response to TexPirg's Eighth Set of Inter-rogatories to Houston Lighting & Power Company in the above-captioned proceeding were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, or by hand-delivery this lith day of March, 1980.
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman Richard Lowerre, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel for the State of Texas U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 12548 Washington, D. C. 20555 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum Route 3, Box 350A Hon. Charles J. Dusek Watkinsville, Georgia 30677 Mayor, City of Wallis P. O. Box 312 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Wallis, Texas 77485 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Hon. Leroy H. Grebe U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission County Judge, Austin County Washington, D. C. 20555 P. O. Box 99 Bellville, Texas.77418 Chase R. Stephens Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary of the Appeal Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 R. Gordon Gooch, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Baker & Botts Board Panel 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D. C. 20006 Commission Washington, D. C.. .20555
I Steve Sohinki, Esq. Carolina Conn Staff Counsel 1414 Scenic Ridge .
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Houston, Texas 77043 Washington, D. C. 20555 Elinore P. Cumings John F. Doherty Route 1, Box 138V 4327 Alconbury Street Rosenberg, Texas 77471 ,
Houston, Texas 77021 '
Stephen A. Doggett, Esq.
Robert S. Framson P. O. Box 592 Madeline Bass Framson Rosenberg, Texas 77471 i
4822 Waynesboro Drive Houston, Texas 77035 Robin Griffith 1034 Sally Ann Carro Hinderstein Rosenberg, Texas 77471 8739 Link Terrace Houston, Texas 77025 Leotis Johnston .
1407 Scenic Ridge D. Marrack Houston, Texas 77043 420 Mulberry Lane Bellaire, Texas 77401 Rosemary N. Lemmer 11423 Oak Spring Brenda McCorkle Houston, Texas 77043 6140 Darnell '
Houston, Texas 77074 Kathryn Otto Route 2, Box 62L F. H. Potthoff, III Richmond, Texas 77469 7200 Shady Villa, #110 Houston, Texas 77055 Frances Pavlovic 111 Datonia Wayne E. Rentfro Bellaire, Texas 77401 P. O. Box 1335 Rosenberg, Texas 77471 Charles Perez 1014 Montrose James M.- Scott, Jr. Houston, Texas 77019=
8302 Albacore Houston, Texas 77074 William Schuessler 5810 Darnell Bryan L. Baker Houston, Texas 77074 1118 Montrose Houston,_ Texas 77019 Patricia L. Strelein Route 2, Box 395C Dorothy F. Carrick . Richmond,_ Texas ,
Box 409, Wagon Rd. Rfd. #1 i Wallis, Texas 77485~
i i
l
- - . . - . - . . . . .-.- . = . . - - - .. _...- . -. - - - . .- . - .
r .
I l
L l Glenn Van Slyke Donald D. Weaver l
~
i 1739 Marshall P. O. Drawer V l
Houston, Texas 77098 Simonton, Texas 77476 +
t Connie Wilson , J. Morgan Bishop '
- l. 11427 Oak Spring 11418 Oak Spring n
Houston, Texas 77043 Houston, Texas 77043 !
- i
, t (N *- J Darrell Hancock l i
I t i
- i
- t
}
i u
l i ,i b
4 I
, - c.., ,. , .g - ~__ , . , . , . _ . . , _ . . _ _ . , _ . , , ,