ML20042D053

Technical Evaluation Rept of Dcrdr for Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant,Units 1 & 2

ML20042D053
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	06/07/1988
From:	SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP. (FORMERLY
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20042D054	List: ML20042D053
References
CON-NRC-03-82-096, CON-NRC-3-82-96, RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737 SAIC-87-3112, TAC-51190, TAC-51191, NUDOCS 8806170056
Download: ML20042D053 (33)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. e-a e I SAIC-87/3112 a TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT. l OF THE i DETA! LED CONTROL ROON DESIGN REVIEW -FOR WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER'CONPANY'S POINT BEACH NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 I i l ' TAC Nos. 51190 and 51191-t l. + i June 7,--1988 =SAIC i a i t i. Prepared for: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission" Washington, p.0. 20555 1 Contract NRC-03 82-096 Task Order 19 y7 33w e Post OMer Box 1321.1710 G , Mcleen, vapinia 22102, (7tzt) mt.4300 l s y 4 .,, ~,..

i i l TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 i Section lagt t

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1-2.0 EVALUATION................................................. 3 2.1 Establishment of a Qualified Multidisci leam..................................plinary Review 4 i a l 2.2 System Function and Task Analysis..................... 4 2.3 Comparison of Display and Control Re Control Room Inventory.............quirements with a 4 2.4 Control Room Survey to Identify Deviations from Accepted-Human Factors Principles.............................. 5 2.5 AssessmentofHumanEngineeringDiscrepancies(HEDs).. 7 2.6 Selection of Design Improvements...................... 7 ,'i 2.7 Verification that the Selected Design Improvements Will Provide the Necessary Correction................. Il 2.8 Verification that the Selected Design Improvements Will not Introduce New HEDs................................ 11 2.9 Coordination of Control Room Improvements with Changes d from Other Improvement Programs such as the safety. Parameter Display System Operator-Training, i Regulatory Guide 1.97 Instrumentation, and Upgraded Emergency Operating Procedures........................ 12 3.0 REMOTE SHUTDOWN PANEL REVIEW............................... 12

4.0 CONCLUSION

S................................................ 13 REFERENCES........................................................... 15 ATTACHMENT 1 - MEETING ATTENDEES ATTACHMENT 2 - AGENDA i ATTACHMENT 3 - MODIFIED / APPROVED HEDs i i L 11 l f

-"BIiI IiIi 11I l ll d iI' h I y TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT -0F THE-. DETAILED CONTROL' ROOM DESIGN REVIEW: FOR~ WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY'S' POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 1.0. INTRODUCTION. The Wisconsin Electric Power Company submitted a Detailed Control ' Room; Design Review (DCRDR): Program Plan to'.the. Nuclear? RegulatoryL Commission (NRC)' on' July 31,'1984:(Reference 1)"in order to' satisfy the+ Program Plan' requirementsi_of NUREG 0737, Supplement,1,(Reference ~ 2) for the PointJ Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. The'NRC staff reviewed the Program-Plan. with reference - to the nine.DCRDR requirements of NUREG 0737,' Supplement - 1, and theguidanceprovidedinNUREG-0700(Reference 3)andNUREG0800 (Reference 4). NUREG;0737, Supplement -l requires that a Program PI'an fbe, submitted z within-two months of the start Lof the DCRDR. Consistent.with the requirements of NUREG 0737, Supplement 1 ithe Program Plan.should describe how the following elements of'the DCRDR will be accomplished:. 1. Establishment of a qualified multidisciplinary review team; 2. Function and task analyses to identify control room operator tasks. and information and-control requirements during emergency operations. 3. A comparison of information and control requirements with a control room-inventory. 4. A control room survey to identify deviations from accepted human factors principles. 5. Assessment of human engineering discrepancies (HEDs) to -determine which HEDs are significant and'should'be corrected. 1

n.- =m W.# ~ ?. 6. Selection of design improvements. 7. Verification that selected design improvements will; provide the' - necessary correction. 8. Verification that improvements will not' introduce.new HEDs; a* 9. Coordination of. control room improvements with changes;from? other programssuchasSafetyParameterDisplaySystem-(SPDS),;. operator j - training, Regulatory Guide 1.97 instrumentation, and-upgraded emergency operating procedures. The-staff coments on Wisconsin Electric Power Company's DCRDR - Program ' Plan reviev were forwarded to Wisconsin Electric Power Company 'by letterL dated January 22,1985 (Reference' 5)y Wisconsin. Electric Power Company requested _a' meeting to discuss the NRC coments on their-DCRDR Program Plan. A meeting was held :in Bethesda, l Maryland on April 3, 1985, the results; of. which were documented :in= L memorandums ' dated April 10, 1985 (Reference 6) and May 21, 1985.(Reference-7). i Based on the Program Plan review,1the staff concluded ; that-an in-progress audit was necessary in order to address _; concerns. regarding_ Wisconsin Electric Power Company's. approach to satisfying the. requirements of NUREG-0737, Supplement 1. An in-progrest audit was conducted December 2: through December 6,- 1985. The results of the ' in-progress : audit '. were-forwarded to the licensee, via a letter dated March 12; 1986 (Reference 8).. j I' NUREG-0737, Supplement I requires that a Sumary Report be: submitted at the end of the DCRDR. As a minimum, it shall: - \\ 1. Outline proposed control room changes. l 2. Outline proposed schedules for implementation. . r t 3. Provide sumary justification for HEDs with safety significance to be left uncorrected or partially corrected, j 2 -c w ,e,, .- n v y .nvsn ,w y w +n+ 4 w e- ,a

V, 'r + Wisconsin Electric Power Company submitted a DCRDR Sumary R'eport for ~ the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2 to the NRC on March ~ 31, 1987. g L(Reference 4 9). The Summary Report was reviewed by the NRC's' contractor, i . Science' Applications International Corporation (SAIC).. Wpre-implementation ] P audit was conducted between November 30 and December 4, 1987. The: review team consisted. of an NRC staff member, two SAIC representatives and~'a~ h representative; from Comex Corporation. Together, the team represented : the 1 disciplines of nuclear systems engineering, reactor. operations, andt human- ) factors l engineering.. In order to'promptly address the'NRC concerns ident'ified 'during ithe preimplementation n audit,Ethe licensee conducted a technical evaluation - of < the open issues and provided their " Response to_NRC Audit of.DCRDR:and SPDS, Point ' Beach Nuclear P1' ant Units'I and 2,5 dated March 29,1988'(Reforence-10). The licensee's response to NRC documents the idisposition Eof human engineering discrepancies (HEDs) that;were pending at theltime of the audit and includes the remaining confirmatory commitments made during the audit. 1 1 1 ~ This ' Technical Evaluation Report presentsi the

consolidated observations,- findings and conclusions lcf the pre-implementation audit as well as an evaluation of the licensee's March 29, 1988: response ' t>

NRC concerns identified during the audit.' A list of: audit meeting' attendees--is provided in Attachment I and the audit agenda is provided'in Attachment 2. The specific HEDs that were revised.and presented in the Narch 29, 1988-response to NRC are provided in Attachment 3. 2.0 EVALUATION The purpose of the evaluation was to determine whether the nine DCRDR - requirements in NUREG-0737, Supplement 1: had been satisfied. The evaluation-was performed by comparing the information provided by Wisconsin, Electric Power Company with the criteria in NUREG-0800, Section 18.1, Revision 0, Appendix A of the Standard Review Plan. The reviewers' evaluation of the l DCRDR for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant is provided below. 3 l i ~..

1 .,7 7 ) 2.1- - Establishment of' a Dualified Multidiscinlinarv ' Review Team z j The Point Beach DCRDR team was managed by the licensee and comprised of i representatives from plant . operations,' nuclear engineering, . and: instrumentation and control engineering.. Human factors support was provided by Genera 1' Physics Corporation. The team was supplemented by personnel from other disciplines when required, a p 'A two day orientation program ~was provided.to the review team members, y The orientation focused one day on applied human factors'(presentationi was-made by General Physics) and th'e second day-.on the DCRDR approach for -the-Point Beach. Nuclear Plant. It is the review team's judgment that the licensee has met the. NUREG- '0737, Supplement 1~ requirement for the establishment of a qualifled i multidisciplinary review' team. 2.2 System Function and Task Analysis The. licensee performed a.comg:.nensive-system Jfunction-and task g analysis based on the upgraded plant-specific Emergency Operating Procedures-(EOPs) which were -based on the Westinghouse 0wners Group ~ Revision 1 I Emergency Response Guidelines. The operator tasks,. and information and control requirements were identified independent of the existing control-room and documented on task analysis worksheets. i 3 J It is the review team's judgment that the licensee has-met the' NUREG : i 0737,. Supplement 3 requirement for a, system function and task; analysis. 1 2.3 Comoarison of Disolav and Control Reauirements with a~ Control Room Inventory L h The inventory was developed using a mockup of the control room and when - necessary, the actual control boards. Data was documented on the.' Equipment ' Characteristics

• form and included: Panel-ID, I&C Description, I&C Number, i

Instrument Type, Range, Units, Divisions,' States, Panel Drawing Number, and Instrument Drawing Number. L-. l 4 i m m _,.,._,g.,, ~,.c, e - 4 _,. e. .-,c,

J ~.. -Verification of the availability.and suitability of instrumentation and

controls was conducted during.walkthroughs. The availability of instruments identified in the task analysis was determined and a HED was written for any instrument-or control' which was detemined necessary during, task analysis but was absent from the control room.

3 The DCRDR team evaluated display range and-units -control range, precision,= control type, and feedback and system response - for-existing - instrumentation and controls to' determine their suitability. A 'HED was p written for any which were deemed unsuitable. ~ Validation 'of control room functions was conducted during walkthroughs of 14 scenarios (see Figure 1) developed from'the EDPs.. Any. steps not covered: in the-- scenarios were covered in residual' walkthroughs. The validation team included training and operations personnel familiar with the { procedures _and. lthe design and operation of the mockup Land control room. ) During a debriefing period with human factors specialists following each j walkthrough, problems were identified an~d documented as HEDs. i j It is the review'teamts ludgment that the licensee'has met the NUREG-0737,,$upplement 1 requirement-for a comparison of display-' and control-- requirements with the control room inventory, a 2.4 Control Room Survey to Identify Deviations from Accent'ed Human' Factors-1 Princioles I i The licensee conducted. a control room survey using ;a checklist-developed from NUREG-0700 Section 6 and design guidelines provided by the 1 Nuclear-Utility Technical Assistance Committee' (NUTAC). The checklist, which was provided in the Summary Report, was a combination of all NUREG- -j 0700, Section 6 items, and 23 items from NUTAC; guidelines which - were not j included in NUREG-0700. The human factors specialists conducted the survey using a full-scale . control room mockup, and when necessary, the actual control room. Any criteria which were not met were identified and documented as HEDs. 1 5 )

.5 '. _f. 'h 3 (,, - 3 l. Scenario 1 Reactor Trip w/o SI: Natural. Circulation Cooldown Scenario 2 ATWS/ Loss. of Reacte! #colant.. Scenario 3 .Large treak LOCA. l Scenario;4. Uncontro!. led Depressurisation of.toth steas Generators Seenarto 5 80TR w/Cooldown Using Backfill o. scenario 8 80TR w/Cooldown Using slowdown-

Scenario.1

-80TR w/Cocidown Using;8 team Dump Scenario 8 secondary Break lInside Containment with Loss of Spray. Capability Scenario 9 Loss of Secondary 5 eat Sink Scenario 10 Loss of All AC Power w/88LOCA- ' Scenario 11 Loss of All AC Power. - scenarto 12 80TR w/LOCA' Scenario 13 SCTR with Loss of Pressuriser Pressure control Scenario 14 SGTR w/LOCA ? i-U J i i- >1 a Figure 1. ' Emergency Scenarios-4 6 i-e s..

m y w v u +

10

-111 is the review team's judgment.that the licensee has. net the NUREG- [ 0737, Supplement 1; requirement; for~a control room--survey! to' -identify ' deviations froml accepted human factors principles. -2.5~' Assessment of Human Enoineerina Discrenancies fHEDs)- Th'e licensee.1 assessed.each HED for safety D significance.' and: error potential. Each HED 'was evaluated with respect.to^ the following four, questions: 1) Had the HED been experienced before, 2)- Was' the. HED l ~ accidenti related, 3) -Was the HED related to Technical Specifications,. ' and l

4).On a~ scale of one to five'(most~ difficult to least difficult), what was-the ' likelihood 'of. error recognition and' error recovery if -an ' error ' was committed because 'of thisI HED.. Based on this evaluation the HEDs were:

assigned La priority rating'of one (most serious)_to nine-: (leastL serious) using the~ 'HED Assessment Flowchart.' Average subjective ratings of the-team members were used.in determining if a HED should have a higher priority? than was'already assigned. L ~A total of 812 HEDs,were documented for assessment _ by the DCRDR team. Seventy-three of the totalc HEDs were determined to be invalid'due' to. mis- ~ I statements or duplication.. These HEDs were not assessed.by the'- team. Review of the HEDs summary listings provided in Appendix A of? the' Summary Report indicated that the licensee followed their formal. assessment process. It is the. review team's judgment that the licensee has met the NUREG-y 0737, Supplement 1' requirement for an assessmentf of-HEDs to determine' which" J K are significant and should be. corrected.. 1 2.6 iglection of Desian Imorovements i Similar HEDs were grouped-together in order. to provide-common i resolutions. Resolutions for HEDs were proposed by selected members of1the DCRDR' team. These. resolutions were then reviewed, approved,. and. verified by - the entire. DCRDR team. The selection of design ; improvements utilized a control roomsmockup in order to review alternative designs of proposed. l changes. Resolutions were documented in the " Definition" area of the " Resolution / Documentation" section of the HED fors. i 7 i i .i m . ~... .,, ~ -..

-t e < ') During2 the' audit'.approximately 65.I. safety relatEd.HCDS' for.- which' the L justification -. of aNo Action" resolution'was unsatisfactory,' or for x which the proposed resolutions were unsatisfactory, unclear orLindefinite,twere-reviewed. 'These HEDs related_tol concerns regarding1 missing.information, range. and accuracy, control display problems; coordination 'with' emergency 's operating procedures, set point, problems',:and unusual technical problems.. l During the' audit',Jthe licensee resolved the NRC's concerns for'all' but seven HEDs. The resolutions ~of the following HEDs remained "pending*:' 329, - 497,.540, 608, 634,.647, and 809L~The licensee responded ~to.NRC concerns in 'their Harch 29, 1988' letter to NRC. Thei evaluation : of tho' licensee's 4 response to-ench'of the 7-HEDs is provided below.- 1)- HED 329. pertains to controlling component cooling' water.to reactor-coolant pump seals'on loss of A.C. Power. -'The licensee's response li ..to the problem includes procedural.and operational. guidance. This. is an acceptable response. . (' 2)- HED 497 indicates that there are no adverse level values included in the procedure step.13. for.ECA 3.2. The licensee has made a-commitment to calculate the:cetpoints', and if they are needed to-determine normal and adverse containment conditions, they will be added. This is an acceptable response, y 3) HED 540 pertains to a shared safety injection reset tile on panel. i Col-A. that-does not distinguish.between units. -The licensee responded by stating that other indication exists in the -control-1 room <that tells the operator which unit.-has safety. injection. This is an acceptable response. 4) HED 608 indicates that procedure-CSP-S.1 instructs.the operator to. borateatmaximumrate(40GPH)',but,themeterrangeisL0-15GPM. The licensee response is that it is not necessary for the operator -l e j. to know a specific < rate. In addition, more information will' be .I added to the procedure step regarding the flow path to be used to-p indicate that this step is not specifying the use of emergency boration. This is an acceptatsle response. 8 y i' v -,er m _s______-___--,6

Y $ \\ f 1 ( y E, ' 5)- HED 634 pertains. to the possible need for a caution step prior < to; ~ ~ E0P-1.1-22 Ethat describes the potential damage from thermal shock. -to reactor coolant pump seals. The licensee states' th'at 01-1,- Reactor: CoolantiPump Operation Guide" is being converted tot an - abnormal-operating procedure.and' appropriate referenc'e's will be-made? to this procedure in the; E0Ps. ' This-is _an' acceptable i E response. q l., 6). HED 647 pertains'to the same shared safety injection. annunciator J tile that is' described in HED 540 above. The licensee's 1 response l [ is the same and thereby acceptable, j j u 7) HED 809' pertains to' limited charging pump ; activation; indication. - ~ i There is only; total flow indication, but not individual flowi'The ~ licensee stated that they do not consider this a.. safety related: problem and listed other indications that-c'an' be used to interpret ~ [ isystem performance. This is an-appropriate response. 4 In order to clarify additional concerns during the audit', the. licensee-indicated that modifications will be made.to the. resolution:of several HEDs'.- The HEDs noted during the audit included-HEDs 258, 290, 295,'355, 632,,~653, 672, 703, 716. 758, 761; 776. and :777. The, licensee provided-the. 4 confirmatory descriptions!:of the dispositions of most of the HEDs. listed "q l above. However, they did not submit a revised discussion of HED 258'. that' pertains to the lack of lamp test' capability. Since HED 258 was categorized as non safety significant, this is'not considered to :be ao significant 1 concern by the review team. The schedule for implementing HED resolutions by resolutionicategory is L shown in Table 1. The licensee indicatad that,' when practical, 1 higher y priority HEDs within each category will be addressed first.. The ' proposed resolutions, including estimated cost and schedule, was presented to the-Point Beach.Hanager's Supervisory Staff and ' upper management for review 'and [ approval. Although the schedule indicates that some resolutions extend. beyond ' the -licensee's second refueling outage -(1990), only' four-HEDs t' g 'actually affected and they were determined to be non-safety significart. These are HED 321 (Control Mf Aations Category) and HEDs 290, 295, and 355 (New Instrumentation C t.r:9ory). The licensee " committed, in the ' March ~ o 9 v 4 1:

• .- L

= ~ ,,. a_. 3..

.... ~ /* ' \\; -{ 1 x j 1 TABLE l' 'HED RESOLUTION SCHEDULE. [ Expected Comolation L^ Cateoorv DatefH ,g 1. Instrument' Air Modification' 112/31/89-- q .2.- Lighting' 12/31/88 j 3. Relocation 12/31/90' 4. Computer '12/31/88 - 5. Communications 1 12/31/90' l p 6.--- Training : 12/31/88 '7. EnhancementL '12/31/89. d I 8..'Annuriciator-12/31/89 9. Control; Modification- '12/31/90 n -'10. ' Control Modifications 12/31/93(2) -11. New Instrumentation 12/31/91(3)-

12.. Meter, Face Modification 12/31/90s

' 13.. Labeling:

12/31/89 -

14. Procedural Change -

12/31/88 4 ~ reflects l the latest expected idate' for. completing' ~ these: t (1) This date l resolutions on both' Point'8each units. Modificationsttothe control [ boards will usually be implemented during the annual refueling outages ] [ for each ' nit'(Spring for Unit It and Fall for Unit 2). Where possible,. u the highest priority resolutions in each: category will' be ' completed: .first. i i (2) Control modifications are expected to be-implemented by-12/31/90 with l the exception 'of installation of instrument bus : static'. transfer o ' switches. (3). New ~ instrumentation is expected to be: installed by 12/31/90 withithe t exception of - controls and instrumentations for the modified.13.8 H kilovolt ' system. 1 i. i, F b lo n l e m i I ____---___E_.____.___,/-,____ ._mm__,.___m___ u

m. s o, 129, 1988 response to NRC, that allL HEDs with assessment priorities' of-1 or 2 .(safety-significant)- that' require. further: action Lare scheduled - to be - corrected 'before the end of 1990 - KThisL scheduleDcorresponds to the commitments:madi during t'he audit.. It' is the~ review team's judgment;that.the licensee has met-the NUREG 1 p 0737,- Supplement 1 requirement ~ for selection of design improvements. l 5 2.72 Verification that the Selected Desion'Imorovements Will Provide;,1hg L .Necessary correction- + s

Verification of-selected design improvements Gas conducted l bye applying -

i proposed changes.to'.a" full-scale mockup.. A human factors review 'was conducted' to ensure that the HEDs were corrected and no n new' HEDs1 were introduced.. Feedback 'was solicited from operations personnel,: and 'where extensive changes were required, walkthroughs of the appropriate: E0Ps were conducted. i The Point Beach Nuclear Plant Design Document will be:used. to ensure-incorporation.of human factors principles in the review of J future-control ~ 7 room' changes - during ' design and implementation.- This document utilized .[ NUREG-6700, as wellm cther human factors guidelines,. to provideL guidance in the areas of panel layout, control-display integrationi controls,' visual displays, labels-and enhancements, annunciators and environment. A cross-reference between sections in the Design Document'and specific NUREG-0700 - guidelines is provided as well.. It is-the review team's-judgment that the licensee has met'the: NUREG-0737, Supplement. I requirement for verification that selected improvements will provide-the necessary correction. y 1 - 2.8 Verification that the Selected Desian Imorovements Will Not-Introduce New HEDs. l i-1: p As discussed in Section 2.7 above, it is the review' team's : judgment' g L tut the licensee has met the NUREG-0737, Suppleinent 'l requirement for verification that the selected improvements do not introduce new HEDs. i l 4 p 11 L l t ? c

p y, ( p ~.. 2.9-Coordinatio'n' of Control Room-Imorovements With-Chances From /0ther Imorovement Procrams. such as the Safety Parametey Disclav' System. 1; 'Doerator Trainino. Reoulatory Guide 1.97 Instrumentation. and-Unoraded Emeroency Doeratino Procedures.- i. ~ Coordinat' ion' of_ control room improvements with' the S.tfety; Assessment -System (SAS)/SPDS,. included evaluating HEDs.which havei arisen' from 'thej evaluation > cf; newly installed control room computers by the',same method!: specified.in the assessmentLprocedure used in the DCRDR. In' addition, the b licensee conducted and documented a SAS location study.as part of the DCRDR.. ^ Training and operations personnel were involved in the. verification and ' validation' of-instrumentation and controls,- and. control room functions. ,4 l conducted during the system' function and task-analysis.- . Two ~ Auxiliary Safety Instrument Panels (ASIPs) were' installed' in e the control room to accommodate Regulatory Guide 1.97 instrumentation.-- These= a panels _were reviewed as 'part of the control: room designi review,,:and Wisconsini Electric Power Company has indicated thatttheyL.have nearly. completed the upgrading of post-accident monitoring equipment per Regulatory-Guide 1.97. In coordinating.the control room improvements with,the emergency operating procedures the licensee conducted a system function and task analysis . utilizing; the upgraded plant-specific, emergencyf ' operatihg _ j procedures. - The validation of control room functions wa's: integrated, with H the verification and validation'of the upgraded E0Ps. During the selection; R of des.ign improvements, proposed procedure changes were inserted into, marked -up copies of the procedures for review by the DCRDR team. i It. is the review team's judgment-that the licensee has met'the NUREG-0737, Supplement I requirement for coordination of control room improvements with changes from other improvement programs, f 3.0 REMOTE SHUTDOWN PANEL REVIEW Although it was not part of the DCRDR program, the_ team reviewed the remote shutdown panel during the pre-i_mplementation audit. Thet followingi l' 12 l. k 4

.. -. ~ .. ~ ^ ,k, + 4 discussion describes the Point Beach remote shutdown panel.and the concerns raised-during the review. Thet Point Beach Nuclear Plant does not ' have a' panel, per say, at which local operations'_ are co'nducted for safe shutdown. -) local operations are' conducted in three areas--the auxiliary feedwater room,, the diesel generator: room,-and the charging pump room.- 'Thi auxiliary-feedwater room'.and diesel ' generator room are located across. from'~one j[ another, while_ the cuarging pump! room is located 'in the contro11ediarea.. ofi the pl ant.- Keycard accessiis necessary to enter into each ' of1 the three: l rooms. A concern was raised regarding the fact that'the-instrumentation ^for-remote shutdown is. spread <out,-. requiring _ coordination of H tasks - and comunications between auxiliary operators in three different' areas of the r plant. f While reviewing the displays-and'controlstin each area.the review. team raised la concern regarding the absence'of label'ing on many' of the displays 1 and controls.- The lack of labeling makes it difficult' for an, operator to, quickly identify instrumentation. The labeling. problem is' magnified. by the-fact that'the remote shutdown procedure is' rarely usedt and thus familiarity with displays and controls in these areas is limited. In ~ one instance during. the review,~the operator traced a-service water. pump meter toL-its connecting pipe in' order to identify it. The fact that' Unit.l~and LUnit instrumentation are located within-the same area 'also, serves to" increase the problem. As previously indicated," review of the remote shutdown panel was not L part of-the DCRDR efforts. and thus was not considered in relation to the-nine DCRDR requirements of NUREG-0737, Supplement 1.- The above discussion, however, raises concerns which should be considered by the licensee. L 4.0 _ CONCLUSIONS I a Wisconsin Electric Power Company submitted a Detailed -Control Room Design Review (DCRDR) Summary Report for Point Beach Power Plant, Units. I-and 2, -to the NRC on March 31, 1987. A preliminary evaluation of. the s Summary Report was conducted by SAIC which resulted in the identification of a number of concerns.,In order to resolve the cancerns and evaluate the Point Beach Power Plant DCRDR, a pre'-implementation' audit-was conducted between November 30 and December 4, 1987. During the audit', the NRC staff, 13 t i P + = m-e #wr. d

a. -s a=

1. 4- + -.

.--.o,-o,,,,.rs -,.rs e m.m or w -.w-fv m v. - s +ve n -- v r -y,,--e y t< e.

~ 7 AF. accompanied by SAIC and Comex representatives, 'perfom. an evalu'ation ' of Wisconsin Electric Power ' Company's-DCRDR. : The- - evaluation? ' included examination. of Wisconsin Electric Power Company's DCRDR documentation,-- l discussions with the licensee's DCRDR team, and inspection of. the corrective. [ action modifications. ' The team also reviewed the remote shutdowh panels 'Las; discussed in: Section 3'.0.. The remote shutdown panel was not-partof the' DCRDR. program, and thus its review did not impact the--nine NUREG-0737,, ( SupplementE1; requirements.. L

In order to address the concerns. identified by the NRC during the pre-implementation ~ audit',

' the licensee evaluated the ' issues,: and : documented' their -response to.NRC in a letter to NRC dated' March 29 - 1988.-

The'hiiC:' review n teami consolidated its evaluation.of the March ~ 29, ~1988o licensee: response-to NRC concerns into the overall' evaluation of the DCRDR at ' Point Beach.- t Based on the pre-implementation' audit =and March 29, 1988 ~ licensee 0 response-to NRC concerns identified during the audit, it -is the, review. team's judgment that Wisconsin Ele:tric Power Company'satisfactorilyE meet's. all nine NUREG-0737, Supplement 1 DC.RDR requirements. l l t a t v l 14 L 1

bI Ib-; ) t. } ? * -., .' REFERENCES- ] ~' L '~~ 1. 'Pointi Beach Nuclear Plant Contro1' Room Design Review Program Plan,': AttachedtoletterfromC.W. Fay 1(WEPCO)toH.R.Denton(NRC), July 31', ? 1984. .2. NUREG-0737,< Supplement 11,~ " Clarification 'of TMI -Action Plan j Requ'irements,*.U.S.; Nuclear Regulatory Comission,' DecemberL1982. 3. -- NUREG 0700,'" Guidelines for Contro11 Room Design Reviews,' U.S. ~ Nuclear / Regulatory Commission, September,;1981._ i 4 '.,.NUREG-0800, " Standard' Review Plas,' Section 18.1,..' Cont'rol Room,' and a Appendix A, 'EvaluationE Criteria for Detailed Control ' Room' Design ' Reviews'(DCRDR),' September,31984. 5.' " Review of Point Beach Nu' clear Plant Control Room Design Review Program P1an,' Letter from J. Miller. (NRC) to C.W. Fay (WEPCO), : January : 22; 1985. 6.- Meeting :with Wisconsin' Electric Power Company to Discuss the -Control L I . Room Design Review Program Plan for Point Beach Units 1 _and 2,* Memorandum from' T.G. Colburn (NRC) to J.R.! Miller (NRC), April 30, ~ L 1985; l-( 7. " Resolution of NRC Concerns Regarding the' Control Room. Design -Review Program Plan Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units'1 and 2,' Letter from R. Britt (WEPCO) to.J.R. Miller (NRC),' May 21, 1985. 1 8. 'Results of In-Progress-Audit of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Detailed . Control Room Design. Review,' Attachment to memorandum from T. Colburn (NRC) toc. Fay (WEPCOMMarch 12, 1986. ] 9. " Point Beach Nuclear Plant Control Room Design Review Sumary-Report," Attached toletter<fromC.W. Fay (WEPCO) tog. Lear (NRC), March 31, 1987.. i 15 .= ,-w.I.., ~ e's .,wa--r,w v.. m , ~ ~.,,,, em., v -v, ~..<,e-,..-- m

~ .-g . ^. a ,. - - s. )

10. ' Transmittal of Response _ to.the NRC Audit of DCRDR'and SPDS, PointL Beach

• Nuclear = Plant, Units l' and 2, Wisconsin Electric Company,' - March 29,:

1988. - 1 g 1 - i 1 -r, =

• \\

'l t 4 j 4 ^ 1 r - 1 - I l . l -l .l .o vr ,1 eci r r: .s-if1

1 7

- s. '16 'ii: -g-. l. l,.. . 1.2. +

c ~ .r - t. P ..t 4 i i a 4 ( i' f 1 -: ATTACHMENT 1-AUDIT. MEETING ATTENDEES. .i T ) t r r ".j e .) i ? t 4 l' t j t k 1. t f 4 I; 't i

1 T' - g : .,.I N AUDIT ATTENDEES-L i i; G.J. Maxfield -Supt'.-Operations (PBNP)_ T.P. Sheley. Shift Superintendent (PBNP) R.K. Hanneman-Supt. - Nuclear Design & Analysis (NEAS) 1 E.J. Mercier. Engineer - Nuclear (NPERS)- S.A. Schellin Supt. . Reactor. Engineering (NSEAS) J.C. Reisenbuechler Supt.-EQRS:(PBNP) F.A.;Fleutre Admin.- Specialist. - EQRS (PBNP). H. Tobey: General l Physics -D. Burgy General Physics-i R.L". Hague SRI R-!!I-M.G. Keehan Engineer - Nuclear (NSEAS) R;J. Leewon RI-RIII' W. Martin General _ Physics G.- West, Jr. NRC/DLPQE/HFAB - J.: DeBor - SAIC-i B. Glickstein SAIC-G. Bryan Comex p 3 i : h - i . j 1. l L- ' t +, m. --e-w . -. =.. -,,. - --..,a4a ,+ w m

1 J .,.~ ; t (I , 9; SI" 5 ~ t 8,. i F ...t .. e .t1. s f 1 t .i. l f i

v b

f 9 1 , b . =

• f

..~ z ATTACHMENT 2 i AUDIT AGENDA J V 9s - t Y t 4 3 { 5 sF b + ':i -4', t ? o '4 -.i e t 3 4, l i 1 - l J t. 1e t i t. . i..

q, 4 L. .i TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR.THE-DCRDR/SPDS AUDIT.: 'i WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER: COMPANY!$ P0 INT, BEACH 1 & 2-NOVEMBER 30. THR00GH J December. 4, 1987.- 5 DAY"1'- Monday. November 30. 1987 .i - 1:00 p.m.. Introduction ~ofNRCAudit-Team;(NRC)- i Pre' ent Chronology of DCRDR Documentation-s Review DCRDR Requirements of.NUREG 0737, Supplement 11 j q 1:15 p.m. - Presentation of DCRDR' Program by Licensee; Confirm Chronology;of DCRDR Documentation Review: Team. System-Function:and Task Analysis' . Comparison of Display and Control Requirements Contro1LRoom Survey-- ~' Assessment of Human Engineering Discrepancies (HEDs) Selection.of: Design Improvements. Verification that Selected; Improvements Provide the Necessary Correction -Verification that Selected Improvements will not: 5 Introduce New HEDs Coordination of Control' Room Improvements with Changes from Other Programs Guide 1.97,' Upgraded (SPDS,OperatorTraining, Reg., i L E0Ps)- 2:30 p.m. Tour of Control Room. ^ 3:30 p.m. Review of Selected HEDs in Mockup Room-Proposed Resolutions of.HEDs are Unsatisfactory, Unclear andUndefined-(seeAttachment1)' - HEDs with Unsatisfactory Justification'for 'NO ACTION"- I (see Attachment 2); ' DAY 2 - Tuesday. necember 1. 1987' 8:30 a.m. Continued Review of Selected HEDs in Mockup ~ Room ~ Noon BREAK FOR LUNCH 3:00 p.m. Complete Review of Selected HEDs in Hockup Room-l 1 1 8 .,4-- a...,,,

.7 ,,+, t 4 4 5 'i l' : l ~I r [ JTENTATIVEAGENDA-(Continued) ~ =3:00.p.m. Conduct Sample Survey. of; the. Control Room Modifications-in p' the Control: Room. 1 ll ' ~ Implemented Modifications: ? -Items.of Concern - SPDS:- Computer, Systems 1 . 4:30 p.m.1 Discussion /P1anning'.for.Next Day; SPDSiDocumentation for Next Day:- - f o . Plant Specific EDPs - o- . Functional:Requirementsf 3 .o = Data Requirements- ~ o-System / Subsystem Requirements ~ .o -Program Specifications' -o- . Emergency Procedure Guidelines-o ' Detailed Algorithms-5 a. g 5:00 p.m.- 'Adjourni l DAY 3 - Wednesday. necemhLe 2. 1987-8:30 a.m. Introduction)and. Briefing.(NRC). ] Present Chronology of SPDS' Documentation ' l Review SPDS Requirements of NUREG-0737, Supplement 1 9:15 a.m. Overview of SPDS Implementation (Licensee)- I Confirm Chronology of SPDS_ Documentation:. Definition of SPDS (Scope) L Parameter Selection Process Human Factors Engineering Program Reliability-Verification and Validation Program t . Implementation' Program ~ Project Milestones. Noon BREAK FDR LUNCH j J ,} e. 2 p. i i

~,. - 7 q .i ~ J,, V 1 TENTATIVE' AGENDA- (Continued)..

w..

u 1:00 p.m.~_ Critical' Safety Function / Parameter Selection (Licensee) 'k Parameter Selection!. Critical:SafetyFunctions'(vs.NUREG-0737) a ' Critical Safety Functions / Parameter Relationships! Range of Events / Conditions Covered by Parameters-Safety. Evaluation Report concerns. ' ~ a Draft Technical Evaluation Report '(TER). Concerns '(see Enclosure 2, draft TER dated August 17 L1987)- 4 2:30;p.m. BREAK' i 2:45 p.m.:

System Design

i

1 System Description

D Display Configuration Data Validity Security System Verification and Validation-Verification Test-Plan Validation Maintenance and Configuration Control-i 4:30'p.m.- Discussion /PlanningforNext'. Day-i e o .l 5:00 p.m. Adjourn q DAY 4 - Thursday-Decamher t 1987 ] B:30 a.m. Visit Control Room -(CR)/ Technical? Support Center (TSC) ?! SPDSDemonstratihn(Licensee); i Human Factors Engineering Review (NRC) Disp ay Location (CR Disp ay Format (TSC)) o o F o . Disp ay Techniques (TSC) L. ' o Draft TER Concerns of August 17,1 1987; i. 3 i r 3 4 i t ..~.x---

.A g. ~ 9 R 'C li 4 et,,' q 2 -TENTATIVEAGENDA(Continued).' j 10perationsReviewi(NRC)L ( o Concise Display-(TSC)' oi Parameters Identified:in SAR'on'SPDS (TSC) oy Critical Safety: Functions (0737'and Plant) (TSC). J Reliability (Hardware / Software);

o, Response, Times (Display Call-up a(CR)

.o. nd Screen Update);- -(CR)- o nIntegrated'Into: Emergency Operations (CR) - o SPDS Parameter. Values vs. Fixed Panel Values- . (Comparison):.(CR)- ci ProceduresandTraining(Licensee.Requestedto-have O LMaterials Available) 4 Electrical Isolation I Noon BREAK FOR' LUNCH, 3 1:00 p.m. Operator Interviews

Shift Supervisor:

- Reactor Operator - Shift Technical Advisor 5 -Remaining Documentation Review 5:00 p.m. Adjourn f DAY 5 - Friday. December 4 1987 a l 8:30 a.m. Review Remaining DCRDR/SPDS Concerns. 1 , Noon' BREAK FOR LUNCH - 3:00 p.m. Audit. Team Caucus? 3:00 p.m. Exit Briefing f t' i 4 5 u .,y~ .._,,,\\ ,y ,y ',,. _,.....,,., 3 m,.. .,4 d,, w.,.., g

,lf .,;4 j y q-Q '. I p.,

w.s-s d

t Ih' 1 . 1 '.i l './. 15:' (ATTACHMENT 3- - MODIFIED /APPROVEDHEDs- ,1 'he 5 A e l l a 0 6 .,w-- I ft T-v--.. r-m.- u! gvi+ y-ww-q w

c,.. o .- f WUMAN ENODfEERING DICREPANCY R300RD J- - P;DiT SSACE NUCLEAR PLANT ' EED NO.: SBS. ............=..

s. mENTra0AT80N s pene et Pnen.w:eS/os/e8,

4 - OR10 Dis CONTROL ROOM SURVEY.NUtas 0958 lCUIDELDIE/CEECMLIST NO.: 6.5.1.8 ; c SUIDELDft AREA: VISUAL DISPLAYS i PROBLEM CAT 500RY: PRDfCIPLES OF DISPLAY PROBLEM SUS. CAT 500RY: OfPORMATION TO DE DISPMTED x &OCATION : CONTROL ROOM AREA: MADI CONTROL ROOM MAIN CONTROL ROOM l .i PANEL: 300s c; - SYSTEM: CVC - SQUIPMENT N/A. 4 .. COMP NO: NO S PSC E COMP DESC: CEARODf 0 PUMP 7

COMPMO

NO S.PS3, COMP DEScr CEARODIO PUMP

'i q. COMP NO: NO S.PSA' COMP DESC: CEARODie PUMP ~ CONTROL ROOM AREA: MADI CONTROL ROOM.MADi CONTROL ROOM i; PANEL: SON : i SYSTEM:CYC" l EQUIPMENT:N/A - COMP NO: NO. 8.PSA COMP DESC: CEARO PUMP Ll COMP MO: NO 1.PSS COMP DESC: CEARODie PUMP

j COMP NO: NO 1.PSC : COMP DESC: CRARODIO PUMP i

( DESCRIPTION OF DISCREPANCY ' i b'

SoVRCE Or DfFORMATION FOR DfDICATION OF CEARGING PUMP ACT!YATION IS LDCTED

.f j; . COMPARED TO OTMER PUMPS. TIERE la ONLY TOTAL FLOW OF TEE TEREE CEARODf0 i ' PUMP; TEERE IS NO DfFORMATION FOR INDIVIDUAL PUMPS. TEE CEARODIO PUMP RELIEP j 1 EAS SEEN -

i M18USED AT LEAST 10 TDdES Di PSNP OPERATDIO EISTORY. '

.i f 3 {l .PREPAhED SY TOBEY a DATE:18/34/SS 'l PROPOSED RESOLUTION:.: 'I LIFTING OF TEE RE1.lEP YALVES IS NOT CONSIDERED A SIONFICANT OCCURANCE. TEE - CEARCDl0 PUMPS ARE NOT SAFETY.RELATED. R A RELIEF 18 LPTED. CEARGING PUMP ; SPEED, RCP LABYRDf75 SEAL DFFERENTIAL PRESSURE, AND IM'DC WM TEMPERATURE N (822 NOTES)' i 3 l RECOMENDATION BY: CRDR TEAM ..===============.=====.=====================..====..=================.. t B. EVALUATION EED EXPERIENCED BEFORET YES 1 i I. 6 j c o n

~' I WUMAN ENODfEERDt2 CISCREPANCY 3800RD P3Dff BEACE NUCLEAR PLANT BED M e........... .....=...O.:

Off, e

& IDENTIFJCADOM Da6e of Palatout:01/97/88 7 oRioDs: YERPICATION - SUIDELDfE/CERCKLttT MO.18J GUIDELDrE AREA: ANNUNCIATOR WARNDIO 8YSTEMS a PROBLEM CATEGORY: N/A PROBLEW SUS CATEGORY: N/A %CCAT10N : CONTROL ROOM AREA:MADt CONTROL ROOM ' PANEL: 001 SYSTEM: SIS s } SQUIPMENT ANNUNCIATOR 8 DESCR.tPTION OF DISCREPAMCY: (EOP.O. CAUTION' PRE 85)) WEEN RESETTING 81, BAVE To MANUALLY RESET TEER 4 ONLY ONE ALARM WD(DOW POR BOTH UNITS WIT 8 4 CRANNELS C IS ARM. PREPARED BY TOBEY '.DATE; // PROPOSED RESOLUTION: SEEBED N0. RECOMENQATION SY CRDR TE m. ..... AM 3L EVALUATION t SED ExPEmENeED sEPOREt was ACCIDENT RELATEDT YES TECIDflCAL 8PECIPICATION87 MO ERROR RECOGNITION / RECOVERY ExPECTEDT YES SUBJECTTYE PRIONTY RATING: 4.4 EED PRJORITY 3 mED CATECORY:MD ACTION - REVIEWED AND APPROYED. CRDR TEAM DATE:fk//pg NOTEa: ' taEYtSED 18/8/st) i

~ _ ~- EED N A: ens. ^ mecoce so semesesseesom:seosassosaces====sce==es===s.oseosssoomsose %

& IDENTIFICATION ;

. Cete of Prietout: 01/87/88 - P,. oRaoDf VEkarscATION ~ .pe, c OUIDELDfE/CF2CNLIST NO. SA ' ,1 C# ' OUIDELDit AREA: SUIDELINE AREA MOT POUND - i PROBl.EM CAT 500RY: N/A. 4 7!m f PROBLEM SUS CAT 50F'1Y4 N/A ' 4 , tecATION : l,i E CONTROL ROOM AREA:MADI CONTROL ROOM ] is PANEL 90K 4 L SYSTEM:RCS,00W = SQUIPMENT: PROCEDURE DESCR2PMON OF DISCREPANCY: L, 4 (20P.1.188) POS$!BLY MEED CAUTION PR30R TO STEP TRAT NOTE 8 TEE POTENTIAL D AMACE FROM TrERMAL 830CN TO RCP SEALS ON RESTART OF SEAL INJECTION OR CCW IP. ' BOTE WERE LOST.i NEED TO CUT IT IN SLOWLY. ALSO NOTE OP48 DOES NOT 00VER ' g,. ; ' RECOVERY OF / j SEAL /CCW ON LOSS. ' PREPARED SY: TOBEY. DATE:18/18/88 ) ^ PROPOSED RESOLUTION:

j H

Cl.1,'RCP OPERAtl0N OUIDE*,18 A BETTER PROCEDURE REFERENCE POR TE18 STEP TRAN 07 43. 01118 CURRENTLY BEING CONVERTED TO AN ABNORMAL OPERAMNO j PROCEDURE (AOP) FOR ABNORMAL RCP OPERATION. ALL RCP REFERENCES Di TEE : j PROCEDURES WILL 32 (SEE NOTES) - 'j -i t RECOMENDATION SY: CRDR TEAM

==

IL EVALUATION l EED EXPERIENCED BEFORET NO i ACCIDENT RELATEDT YE8 TECENICAL SPECtr1CATIONSt MO SRROR RECOGNITION / RECOVERY EEPECTEDT NO-t SUBJECTIVE PRIORITY RATDf0: SA L ( EED P3JORITY: 8 1 EED CATEGORY: PROCEDURAL CIAM05 l t. REVIEWED AND APPROYED.CRDR TEAM. DATBif&t#$ = = = = =...... .............====== F ~ NOTES-REVIEWED TO DETERMINE WE!CE PROCEDURE 8BOULD BE REFERENCED, AND TEE i I y 5

- - - ~ - -- - ---~-- - -- - ~ ' - y NUMAN ENGDfEERDf0 DISCREPAMCY RECORD PODff BEACE NUCLAAR PLANT NED N2.2 000 - e .........................................=.............................., ' L IDENTIFICATION De4e af Printent:01/87/88 o . ORIGIMa VALIDATION SUIDELDfE/CEECKLIFF NO. SA ~ SUIDELDfE AREA: VISUAL DISPIAYS -I PROBLEM CATEGORY: N/A. 1 PROBLEM SUS. CATEGORY: N/A 80 CATION : CONTROL ROOM AREA: MAIN CONTROL 800M PANEL: 3004 SYSTEM: SIS SQUIPMENT: DrDICATORS -( CONTROL ROOM AREA: MADt CONTROL ROOM PANEL: 9004 . SYSTEM:CVC SQUIPMENT: DfDICATORS i DESCR2Pfl0N OF DISCREPANCY: (R.E8! DUAL DEBREF. CDP.O.1) CSP.S.1 INSTRUCTS OPERATOR 8 TO 50 RATE AT TEE 'i MAXIMUM RATE. MAX PLOW PROM TEE PUMP 18 40 GPM. 50 WEVER. TEE METER CAN ONLY READ 018 SPM. -l PREPARED BY: SCEMIDT DATE:13/18/88 p PROPOSED RESOLUTION: IT IS Not NECESSARY 70 MONTTOR PLOW RATE TO PERPORM TE18 STEP. T538 830VLD BE NOTED DURNC TRADfING ON TEls PROCEDURE. ALSO, WORE Dip 0RMATION WILL BE ADDED 70 TEE PROCEDURE STEP R2CARDDiG THE PLOW PATE TO BE USED TO DfDICATE i Tms STEP is (sEE NOTES) r i RECOMENDATION BY: CRDR TEAM 's .....................n...... B. EVALUATION EED EXPERIENCED REPORET. YES 4 ACCIDENT RELATED? YES TECENICAL SPECIPICA'fl0N57 NO tRROR REcocNm0N / RECOVERY EXPECTEDt TE8 4 SUBJECTIVE PR3DR27Y RATDf0: 8A ^ l-L aED PhiORrrY:s i .l \\' G ...,...u._u,...._-

~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ P0ert stACs pues,aAn Ps.4pt? 10 m . e.oes: e.cose.ooooooooooo=oonomenoonoowoooooon= canoe.o.conococooce..

5. CENT 1r:0An0N Cm ettetenu tt/St/e8 l....

easeDlivEkranATs0N l l t 0v DELDet/CuRCML187 NO.:e4 ii ev!DELDet ARak LASELS AND LOCAMON AIDS l PR$DLRN CAT 500RY: 91/A PROBLEM SUS. CAT 5004Ya II/A i leCAMON : 00NTROL 200M ARSA MAIN CONTROL ROOM PANELtW&R i SYSTBM: El B4VIPMENT:LASERA COMP MO: EED646 01 00MP 988C Si RR8t? CONTROL D80CRIPfl0N OF DISCREPANCY: (BOP 0 88) St TRAIN RESET DYPA88 ACT!VATED ANNVNC1ATOR 18 POORLY WRITTEN. + DOESN'T DtDICATE WEICE UNIT. MONE OF ANNVNCLATOR8 Opl+A 6 4 POR 81 RSSST INDICATTON D18TINOVISE SETWEEN Upfl78. l PREPARED BY TOSEY DATT.: $$/88/08 l PROPOSED RESOLUTION: TNE D18CREPANCY la WORD 2D INCORRECTLY SECAUSE TEERE 18 ONLY ONE ANNUNCSATOR. LOCATED ON 001.A AT P081710N S 4, POR SI RESET DtDICATION. IT 18 NOT NECE8BARY POR 7538 ANNVNC1ATOR TO D1871NOV185 DETP!ERN UNITS BECAUSE AT TEtt P0 TNT IN TEE (SEE NOTES) RECOMENDATION SY CRat TEAM e........................ ........s.....

5. EVALUATION RED EXPr.RIENC@ DEPOREt YE8 l

ACCIDENT RELATEDT ' YE8 l. TECENICAL SPECIPICATIONTt NO ERROR RECOGNT710N / RECOVERY EXPECTEDT VB8 l SUBJSCTIVE PRIORITY EATDf0 8.s + 4 EED PAJORfTY: 8 EED CATECORY:Ma ACTION ...............................c......... REVIEWED AND APPROYED. CRDR TEAM PATE:3jp/gd NOTES: PROCEDVI.E TKE OPERATORS WILL CLEARLY XPOW WEICE UNIT EAD TIE Bl. e e O , -.... - ~

.. _ _ _ __. ___ _ ___ _ - --__._...-.._ ____ q BUWAN SNODf8thDec CCCSSPANfW R300tD PODff St. ACE IfUCLEAR P&ANF EEDC'04 #F. c oese...... b.. ............................ se.................. ap...... se 1

3. B>SNTIPlCATBON Date etPdstout:91/9f/08 C

o C&l0DIiVR43F6 CAT 80N i, CVIDt1JNE/CEECKL187 MO.:9A DVIDELDfE Ah&Ai 0UIDEAJNE AAAA MOT POWND ~

• PA081AW CATS 00RY: N/A PADtLIN $US. CAT 500tV 81/A

&OCAT10W 00NTROL 800W AREA WADI 00NTROL RetW PANELt NOT $4CAtl0N APPUSASLB l ' SYSTEW: WYC,hte l SeVIPMEJi7:REACTot YB883b DSSCI@ TION DP DISCREPANOVs -l

t (ECA 8418) NO ADVEME LEVEL VALVB4 AkB DfCLUDED WITE A& ACTOR VB888L 8.NVEIA Di TE18 SYSP. ($L #1.Ble#8) i l

PREPAASD BY:709tY . DATS: $$/88/88 PROPOSED AE80LVT10N PRESUMASLY TEER2 AA2 NO ADVEMR LEVEL VALVE 8 IN TRE SENERIC PAOCEDVRE POR RV LEVEL SECAU8E TEE CENEPJC WE8 TIN 050V8E RYL18 ptSIGN LOCATES TEE DP f TRANSM2TTEM OUTSIDE CONTMT. TEE PSNP kVL18 EA8 DP TRAN8MITTEM INSIDE 03N7WT. WEERE TERY AAE (882 NOTES) 'i i RECOMENDATION SY:CRDR TEAM B. NYALVATION t RED EXPSAIENCED DEPOREt NO i ACCIDE)f7 RELATEDT Ytt 5 TECINICAL SPSCIPICATIONST 98 0 SAA0182 COGNITION / R100VTRY EXPSCftDt-T38 j SUh1ECT!YE PMORITY kAT1NO: SA i RED,,IO TE 8 EED CATEGORY: PAOCEDVRAL CRANet J krYIEWED AND APPA0VED.CADR TEAM DATEJ Jtijtg m ___.. mof 8 8VBJECT 70 EAR 85 ACCEDENT ENVIRONMENT 4 PSNP.$PECIPIC ADVERSE CONTWT 3 G 'q n .,meess-----4 y e. w ,y ~ ,,,-----,,,ogww----c- .we.--o. eve- -,_-e ---w-

) e 4 g., WUMAN ENGDfBRAD80 DICERPANCY R80003 PODff SRACE NUCLBAR PLANT .0 EED NO.t 838 messessessessnessesse. .....mee....... see oome=====================e

3. EDBMTIFICAT5088 Deh af Pdenoot:01/9f/88 o

ORl08M OPRAATOR QUB4fl0NNAIRES AND Df78RVIEWS OUIDELDft/CERCBCL197 NO. 64 OVIDELDft ARRA. 00NTReta ' PROBLEM CATS 40RY: SI/A PROBLEM $UD.c4TB40RY: 81/A 14 CATION : 00NTROL ROOM AREA. MADI CONTROL ROOM PANEL: 4096 i SYSTEM: COMPONENT 0008300 SQUIPMDft:00NTROL 00NTROL 200W ARRA. WADI 00NTROL 800W PANBL: 9096 8Y87EN 00MPONDft 000LDie ROVIPMDffs CONTROL VALUBs FOR RCP 9&AL 000LDee SESC9dPk10N OF DISCREPANCT: TEE WESTDIG4008E at%LLARY COOLANT SYSTEM (CCW) LACKS TEE REQUIRED CONTROLA TO LDc7 C00LD0wx RATS Or REACTOR COctANT PVup er.AL PACKACR4 70 00 DBS P/5R. OR LESS sVatteVr.NT TO Rast0 RATION OF A.C. POWER. O.G.P.7 - i PREPARED BY: BANND&AN CAtE:11/18/88 PROPOSE.D RESOLUTION: 015.'ACP bPEAATDIO OVIDE *.PROVIDta CVIDANCE HOT TO RXCRED to D20/ER SRAL C00LDOWN MTE, TIE $8.87 METEOD TO ACCOMPL185 TE18 IS LEFT UP TO TEE D88. CONSEQUENCES OF INADtQUATE R&BTORATION ARR POSSIBLE DAMAGE TO TER RCP & POSSIS 1.s stAL (SE: Mats 8) RECOMENDATION SYs C1DR TEAM e n sem es se s e n s eeses==== e s s e s = e- ---======= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = e e ss e s s e s see B. BVALUAT10M RED RXPER2.NCED SEPOREt 90 0 ACCIDUf7 RELATEDt TBS TECIDf1 CAL $PECIPlCAT10N81 NO RRROR RECOGNITION / RECOVERY EXPRCTEDt WO SUBJECT!YE PR30RITY RATDf 0: 6.8 EED PRIORITY:1 . \\ ) .}}