ML20009F198
| ML20009F198 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/27/1981 |
| From: | Schemel R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20009F186 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8107300115 | |
| Download: ML20009F198 (8) | |
Text
.
JUL 2 71931 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY )
Docket No. 50-466 (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1)
)
i NRC STAFF TESTIMONY OF ROBERT J. SCHEMEL ON POST ACCIDENT MONITORING
[TEXPIRG AC 28]
Q.
Please state your name and position with the NRC.
A.
My name is Robert J. Schemel.
I am employed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a Senior Human Factors Engineer / Scientist in the Division of Human Factors Safety.
A copy of my professional qualifica-tions is attached.
Q.
What is the purpose of your testimony?
A.
The purpose of this testimony is to respond to TEXPIRG Additional Contention 28.
TEXPIRG Additional Contention 28 The intervenor contends that the control room design and the post accident display instrumentation for the Allens Creek plant are not sufficient to insure that the operators can safely control the plant under all accident conditions. As a Three Mile Island the operator may make one or more critical mistakes because of defictive instruments or their location in the control room.
DOCK 050 0 66 PDR
Q.
Since the accident at Three Mile Island, has action been taken to improve the control room design to insure that operators can safely control plants under accident conditions?
A.
Yes. A proposed rule under 10 C.F.R. 50.34(e) (See 46 Fed. Reg. 18045 (1981)) contains additional licensing requirements applicable to pending construction permit license applications, including the license application for Allens Creek Huclear Generating Station Unit 1.
The additional requirements are a result of lessons learned from the accident at Three Mile Island.
Section (2)(111) of the proposed rule requires construction permit license applicants to provide a control room design that applies state-of-the-art human factors principles prior to comit-ting to fabrication or revision of fabricated control room panels and layouts.
In addition, proposed Section (2)(iv) would require a plant safety paraneter display system that will display to operators a minimum set of parameters defining the safety status of the plant, be capable of displaying a full range of important plant parannters and data trends on demand, and be capable of indicating when process limits are being ap-proached or exceeded.
Q.
Re:ognizing that the Commission has not adopted this proposed rule, what is the status of the rule and how is it factored into NRC Staff reviews of pending construction permit (CP) applications?
A.
The Commission has decided that pending CP applications should be measured by the NRC Staff and by licensinc, boards in adjuuicatory proceedings against the existing fegulations, as augmented by the proposed rule. Accordingly, CP applicants must demonstrate conformance with existing
approval before they commit to construction of the control coraplex provide assurance that the control room design for ACNGS will be sufficient to insure that the operators can safely control the plant under all accident conditions.
l Ae D e'O m
regulations as well as this proposed rule in order to satisfy require-ments relating to control room design, layout and display consoles.
Q.
Has the Staff established any additional guidance for applicants to meet these requirements other than the proposed rule that evolved from TMI action plans?
A.
Yes. Additional guidance for meeting these requirements has been set forth in several Staff documents. NUREG-0659, " Staff Supplement to the Draf t Report on Human Engineering Guide to Control Room Evaluation,"
March 1981, describes, in Appendix B, techniques used to define a control room design that applies state-of-the-art human factors principles.
These principles apply systematic analysis to define the functions, tasks, equipment, personnel, procedures, and information requirements that are necessary to operate the sontrol room for normal and abnormal conditions.
The systematic analysis includes systems / operations analysis, functional analysis, task analysis, operational sequence analysis, link analysis, work load analysis, and Human-Error analysis. These are state-of-the-art human factors analytical techniques.
In essence, a control room design that applies state-of-the-art human factors principles means an advanced design control room which has been designed after a thorough systems l
analysis as described above and utilizes Cathode Ray Tubes (CRT) and f
I computers.
In addition, NUREG-0700 (pending) provides guidance for dis-covering and correcting human factors engineering deficiencies.
Finally, NUREG/CR-1580, "Hu. nan Engineering Guide to Control Room Evaluation," July 1980 (draft), p[,e'sents guidance useful in evaluating control room designs and provides a means to locate and remove causes for operator error in nuclear power plant control rooms.
)
-4a Q.
Has the Applicant for Allens Creek Huclear Generating Station Unit 1 described its proposal for complying with the section of the pro-posea rule pertaining to control room design?
A.
Yes.
In Amendment 59 to the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, the Applicant stated that the ACNGS control room design will meet the guidance of NUREG-0659, Appendix B and NUREG-0700 (pending).
Fages 38-70 of Amendment 59 describe in detail the way the Applicant applied the guidance of the above NUREGs. The Applicant on PSAR, p. 38 states that the ACNGS will use the GE NUCLEHET/1000 Control Complex which was developed through a methodology virtually identical to the guidance set forth in the NUREGs. Af ter reviewing the Applicant's design methodology, the Staff believes that the NUCLENET/1000 Control Complex will meet the cur-rent NRC requirements pertaining to control room design as set forth in the proposed rule and the above-listed NUREGs.
In fact, the Staff con-siders the control complex described in the PSAR to be one of the best we have seen in our reviews of control room design in pending CP and operating license applications from the standpoint of human factors engineering design objectives.
Q.
What does the Staff conclude with respect to the control room design for the Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 based upon the review performed for the construction permit.
A.
The Staff concludes that the design metnodology described in the Applicant's PSAR utilizes state-of-the-art analytical techniques, and preliminary design concepts indica.te the use of computer-based CRT display systems. These facts combined with the stated intention to apply accepted human factors principles and the requirement to submit the design for our 1
_ _ -. ~. - - _ _
ROBERT J. SCHEMEL PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS i
HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING BRANCH DIVISION OF HUMAN FACTORS SAFETY
! am a Senior Human Factors Engineer / Scientist in the Human Factors Engineering Branch in the Division of Human Factors Safety.
In this position I plan, coordinate, and conduct the review and evaluation of assigned nuclear power f
plant designs and operations from the standpoint of human factors and man-machine systems interfaces to enhance the functional effectiveness of operator interaction with plant operation and plant shutdown following normal operation, transients, and accidents.
I participate in studies and analysis of human factors in man-machine interface problems as they pertain to plant operations and to centrol room design and operations.
I studied Electrical Engineering at Drexel Evening School, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from 1936 to 1941.
I served in the U.S. Army Ai-Corps from 1942 to 1945 where I carried out surface and upper air meteorological obser-vations and assembled and operated upper air observation stations in the European Theater.
I received a Bachelor of Science degree in physics and mathematics from The University of Scranton, Scranton, Pennsylvania, in 1950, and a Master of Science degree in physics from Union College, Schenectady, New York, in 1953.
I studied Human Factors Engineering at The University cf Southern California in the spring of 1980 and in a course given by Oak Ridge Associated Universities in the Summer of 1980.
In 1950. I was employed by the Ge$eral Electric Company, Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, where I conducted experiments on intermediate spectrum reactor cores which aided in the design of the reactor used in the nuclear submarine "Seawolf". This involved basic nuclear phusics as well as dynamic behavior of i
reactors.
I acted as a physics advisor to the operating crew during startup and initial tests of the submarine.
I also conducted studies" of the physics of reactor and plant control with emphasis on safety system design requirements and control schemes.
In 1958 I was employed by Allis-Chalmers -Atomic Energy Divi'sion.
In my first assignment, I directed a group involved in studying the physical characteristics of gas cooled reactors, the associated energy transfer systems, and the control J
and safety systems.
I fomulated equations, devised electronic analog circuits for these systems and components, and conducted a dynamic analysis which resulted in the conceptual design of plant safety and control systems.
In my second assignment, I had complete responsibility for startup, testing, and delivery of the 30 Mw R-2 Research Reactor, Studsvik, Sweden.
I specified and directed the test program required to demonstrate the performance of the plant from startup t rough full power operation.
In January 1962 I returned to the home office after completing this foreign assignment. At this time, I was Section Head, Reactor Operations $s-tion for startup and operation of all Allis-Chalmers built reactors. This responsibility included review and direction of the preparation of preoperational tests, reactor startup tests, plant operating manuals, technical specifications, revisions to technical specifications, and radiological physics procedures.
In March 1967 I joined the Atomic Energy Comission on the staff of the Division, of Reactor Licensing. From 1967 to 1974 I perfomed technical reviews, analysis and evaluations of the nuclear se.fety aspects of (1) applications for license amendments and technical specification changes for power, test N
and research reactors and critical facilities, and (2) applications for construction permits and operating authorizations for research reactors and critical facilities.
In addition, I am responsible for continuous review of all operating reactors assigned to Operating Reactor Branch No.1.
From 1974 to 1980 I per. formed technical reviews, analysis, and evaluations in the area of core performance. This work was in reactor physics concerning such things as; core power distribution and reactivity effects in steady state and transient conditions; reactor physics measurements, accuracy of core measurements, and core technical specifications.
In 1980 I joined the Division of Human Factors Safety.
I am a member of the American Nuclear Society.
@d 9 e
we
--s.
,m
,,,n-m--
n..
-.-4
,, -m-
~ __
-,,