ML20036C000
| ML20036C000 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05200001 |
| Issue date: | 06/02/1993 |
| From: | Poslusny C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9306080259 | |
| Download: ML20036C000 (10) | |
Text
dY fQ
\\
UNITED STATES
[T; NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 y' w -
/
June 2, 1993 Docket No.52-001 APPLICANT:
PROJECT:
Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR)
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING OF MAY 13, 1993 A public meeting was held between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and GE technical staff on May 13, 1993, in the White Flint offices of the NRC in Rockville, Maryland. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the resolution status of several issues included in the draft final safety evaluation report for the ABWR related to the human factors engineering (HFE). Two topics were discussed during the meeting:
(1) the minimum inventory of alarms, controls, and displays for the ABWR, and (2) operating experience review input into the design process. Enclosure 1 lists the names and affiliation of the attendees. details the staff's position of the minimum inventory of fixed-position controls, displays, and alarms. was a handout provided by GE on operating experience reviews (0ERs).
For the first topic, the staff's position is that the minimum inventory shall be a Tier 1 requirement and shall consist of the minimum fixed-position instrumentation and controls sufficient to accomplish the success path defined for each critical safety function as well as the critical operator actions identified through se probabilistic risk assessment analysis. GE accepted this position, and a path towards closure was established. GE will start with its initial list of fixed inventory from Amendment 25 of.the standard safety-analysis report and will justify the removal of-functionally duplicate items; in addition to removing the parameters to be displayed on VDUs and divisional VDUs. The Tier 1 design control document will contain the minimum fixed inventory list defined functionally. Tier 2 will contain functional descrip-tions of the remaining parameters from the task analysis and a non-proprietary description of the task analysis process used to develop the inventory.-
For the second topic, the staff indicated that the HFE process for the ABWR needed to include a requirement for the combined license applicant to perform an OER. GE indicated that the design process for the ABWR control room would automatically incorporate lessons learned from existing designs at the time, without having to specifically identify this OER requirement, and questioned the value of adding it. The staff stated that significant value and insight could be gained, and the commitment is needed to support the staff's safety finding. The staff's position is that issues identified from an OER early on 9306080259 930602 g
cr q
PDR ADOCK 05200001
. 2 " 1!
\\
~
.3)Fo J i
b
I June 2, 1993 in the process need to be fed into an. issue tracking system so that'the
" process" can, in fact, resolve the identified issues.
No agreement was reached in the discussion; however, the path towards closure is as follows:
a member of the staff will work with GE to establish a plan of action for the OER in the ABWR control room design process. The agreement will have closure l
by June 10, 1993.
The meeting ended when the proposed issues were presented i
to W. Russell.
1 (Original signed by)
Chester Poslusny, Project Manager Standardization Project Directorate Associate Directorate for Advanced Reactors and License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
Meeting Attendees 2.
Letter to GE 3.
GE Handout cc w/ enclosures:
See next page DISTRIBUTION w/ enclosures:
Docket File PDST R/F CPoslusny PDR PShea Q1STRIBUTION w/o enclosures:
TMurley/FMiraglia DCrutchfield RBorchardt WRussell, 12G18 SKoenick JNWilson JMoore, 15B18 CGoodman, 10024 JStewart, 8H7 GThomas, 8E23 REckenrode, 10D24 GGalletti, 10D24 WSwenson, 10D24 MRubin, 8E23 BBoger, 10H5 JMonninger, 8D1 MChiramal, 8H7 EJordan, MNBB3701 ACRS (ll)w/o encl.
J0'Brien, RES BHardin, RES LShao, RES GGrant,'ED0 SNinh p
0FC:
LA:PDST:AD PM: DST:ADAR HHFB*
d 9 S :ADAR NAME: PShe CPoslusny:tz REckenrode JNW lon DATE: 0$/l/
06/S /93 05/28/93 Og/2ff93 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY:
HFESM513.CP
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE-(
k d
-[-
GE Nuclear Energy Docket No.52-001 cc:
Mr. Patrick W. Marriott, Manager Mr. Joseph Quirk-Licensing & Consulting Services GE Nuclear Energy GE Nuclear Energy General Electric Company 175 Curtner Avenue 175 Curtner Avenue, Mail Code 782 San Jose, California 95125 San Jose, California 95125 Mr. Robert Mitchell General Electric Company 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95125 Mr. L. Gifford, Program Manager Regulatory Programs GE Nuclear Energy 12300 Twinbrook Parkway Suite 315 Rockville, Maryland 20852 Director, Criteria & Standards Division Office of Radiation Programs U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.
20460 Mr. Sterling Franks U. S. Department of Energy NE-42 Washington, D.C.
20585 Mr. Steve Goldberg Budget Examiner 725 17th Street, N.W.
Room 8002 Washington, D.C.
20503 Mr. Frank A. Ross U.S. Department of Energy, NE-42 Office of LWR Safety and Technology 19901 Germantown Road Germantown, Maryland 20874 Mr. Raymond Ng 1776 Eye Street, N.W.
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 Marcus A. Rowden, Esq.
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20004 l
Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq.
Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
1615 L Street, N.W.
i Suite 1000 Washington, D.C.
20036 i
~.
l ABWR HFE MEETING ATTENDEES MAY 13, 1993 NAME AFFILIATION Son Q. Ninh NRR/ADAR/PDST-Clare Goodman NRR/DRCH/HHFB Jim Stewart NRR/DRCH/HICB Stephen Koenick NRR/ADAR/PDST George Thomas NRR/DSSA/SRXB Richard Eckenrode NRR/DRCH/HHFB Greg Galletti NRR/DRCH/HHFB Warren Swenson NRR/DRCH/HHFB Mark Rubin NRR/DSSA/SRXB Bruce Boger NRR/DRCH John Monninger NRR/DSSA/SCSB Matt Chiramal NRR/DRCH/HICB Monty Ross GE 3-4 t
I
-Enclosure 1 i
UNITED STATES ~
/ 3 S-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION D
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666-0001 k...* /
a May 13, 1993 Docket No.52-001 Mr. Patrick W. Harriott, Manager Licensing & Consulting Services GE Nuclear Energy 175 Curtner Avenue
. San Jose, California 95125
Dear Mr. Harriott:
StlBJECT: STAFF POSITION ON THE MINIMUM INVENTORY OF FIXED-POSITION CONTROLS, DISPLAYS, AND ALARMS FOR THE ADVANCED BOILING WATER REACTOR (ABWR)
During the last two years, the staff has worked with GE Nuclear Energy (GE) to establish in the ABWR an acceptable minimum inventory.of fixed-position controls, displays, and alarms (instrumentation & controls (I&Cs)) based.on the implementation of the GE.ABWR emergency procedure guidelines (EPGs) and-additional critical operator, actions identified through the ABWR probabilistic ri'sk assessment (PRA). As a' result of recent senior management meetings between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and GE, the staff has been tasked with providing GE additional clarification on the development of the minimum set of fixed-position I&Cs.
It is the staff's position that the minimum inventory shall be a Tier 1 requirement and shall consist of fixed-position I&Cs sufficient to. accomplish the success path defined for each critical safety function as well'as the critical operator actions identified through the PRA analysis. A success path provides a sufficient means to accomplish a safety function and assumes that each sequence of operator actions through a success path is accounted for.
For example:
reactor power control, as defined in the ABWR EPGs,. consists of subpaths which:
(I) ensure rod insertion and monitoring of reactor power,-
a g
(2) establish alternate rod insertion (ARI) if automatic rod insertion does i
not occur, (3) initiate boron addition using the standby liquid control system (SLCS) if conditions require, and (4) reset ARI and establish other means for controlling rod insertion. Additionally, reactor power control requires o
specific actions to be taken if certain conditions exist including, but not
+
limited to, tripping the reactor internal pumps and SLCS pun.ps.
For Tier 1, the staff has determined that the minimum inventory of fixed-position I&Cs shall be comprised of those -items described in Tables IBF ;
through 18F-3 of Appendix F to Chapter 18, in Amendment 25 of the GE ABWR.
i standard safety analysis report (Appendix F).
If GE disagrees with the staff-determination and proposes removing E.y items from'the set of-fixed-position I&Cs described above, GE sha11' provide in a timely submittal the technical just.ification for such removal by explicitly describing' which ~other fixed-position I&Cs provide the information or control capabilities of the removed-j l
l
Mr. Patrick W. Marriott May 13, 1993 item (s) necessary to carry out its intended function. The staff will promptly evaluate this information prior to completing its final safety evaluation for Chapter 18.
In addition to the fixed-position I&Cs required for the minimum inventory, Appendix F provides additional I&Cs currently allocated,to divisional. and non-divisional video display units (VDUs). While the staff does not envision these VDU-based I&Cs as required for the minimum inventory of fixed-position I&Cs, they should be retained as supplemental I&Cs for EPG implementation.
Individual items from this supplemental I&C list may be removed by providing a technical justification for such removal as described above.
GE should be sensitive to the initiatives already taken by the staff and GE systems engineers to define acceptable system design. descriptions and inspec-tions, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC). These efforts have been based on the presumption that the minimum inventory of I&Cs described in Appendix F would be a Tier I requirement. Therefore, any changes'to the minimum inventory must be scrutinized with regard to the appropriate systems design descriptions, and especially the impacts on the main control room and remote shutdown panel. Any I&Cs removed from the minimum' inventory which are required to adequately define the systems design descriptions or which are reflected in ITAAC must be incorporated directly into the affected system design description or ITAAC.
The minimum inventory issue safety finding is one of the most critical.for the human factors engineering review. The staff firmly believes it has a sound technical basis for the position discussed in.this letter and strongly requests a response from GE within'two weeks of receipt of this letter to-facilitate timely and ultimate resolution of this issue.
If you have any questions concerning this letter please contact Chet Poslusny, the Senior Project Manager, on (301) 504-1132.
This requirement affects less than ten respondents; and, therefore, is not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Public Law 96-511.
Sincerely,
' /
'k.
f Dennis M. Crutchfield, Associate Director for Advanced Reactors and License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: 'See next page
~ ---
a
--4,,,
I l
1 h
t GENuclearEnergy B
HSIOperating Experience Reviews l
1 Presentedto
(
U. S. NuclearRegulatory Commission
- 1
- ?
M. A. Ross 2
E i
May 13,1993 P
4
-m---
r-
s Perspective - HFE Practices Regarding OERs l
Can provide inputs to design modifications l
- Post-TMIregulations t
Recognized as having rapidly dimenishing value as the differences
(
in the systemsincrease L
3 l
Not a commonly recommended HFEpractice for development of
[
newsystems L
l New systems addressed through comprehensive top /down process ;
- Incorporation of current HFEguidance l
-. =.
~
1 t'
ABWR HSI-Consideration of Operating Experience f
Development of HSI Standard Features 4
OperatorInterviews Operator WorkloadAnalysis Review ofIndustry Trends and Experience Automation Studies HSIEquipmentand Technologies l
i Validation Testing of HSI Standard Features Experienced Operating Crews BroadScope TestScenarios 4
i e
w.
m
= - e e-e
-t n
m.--wa-ww m a v w w
~-W' w
--r v.
=
s r
4w--
e
t ABWR HSI-Consideration of Operating Experience (Cont'd)
Existing Definition of HSI Design implementation Process is Sufficient to Assure Adequacy ofimplemented HSI
- HSIStandardFeatures
. Specific Guidance Documents Specific Requirements
- Designimplementation Implementation Plan Structure Specific Guidance Documents-l Specific Requirements Consistent with HFEPractices Further HSI OERs are Neither Necessary Nor Sufficient i
- Add cost and complexity to design implementation but withoutcorresponding added value'
- Possible exception would be if a " reference design"is used as the basis of an implementation
.~ s m
-