ML20042D053
| ML20042D053 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 06/07/1988 |
| From: | SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP. (FORMERLY |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042D054 | List: |
| 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 a SAIC-87/3112 - 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 ,
e Post OMer Box 1321.1710 G 33w , Mcleen, vapinia 22102, (7tzt) mt.4300 l s y ,
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 Review leam ..................................plinary '
................ 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
.r
- 2. Outline proposed schedules for implementation.
t
- 3. Provide sumary justification for HEDs with safety significance to ,
be left uncorrected or partially corrected, j 2 -c
., ,,. ,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. I g L(Reference 4 9). The Summary Report was reviewed by the NRC's' contractor, i P . Science' Applications International Corporation (SAIC).. Wpre-implementation
]
audit was conducted between November 30 and December 4, 1987. The: review I 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 _ _ . . , . _ .- _ ~..___-
.,7 1 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 - p instrumentation and controls to' determine their suitability. A 'HED was 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. j i ' 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 80TR w/Cooldown Using Backfill
- o. Seenarto 5 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 1 1 Figure 1. ' Emergency Scenarios- - 4 l 6 l 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 ,
- 4) .On a~ scale of one to five'(most~ difficult to least difficult), what was- l 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-statements or duplication. . These HEDs were not assessed .by the'- team.
~
I 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
. , , ~ - . . -
-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. ' I
- 4) HED 608 indicates that procedure-CSP-S.1 instructs.the operator to. .
borateatmaximumrate(40GPH)',but,themeterrangeisL0-15GPM. ' e The licensee response is that it is not necessary for the operator -l
- 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- l 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 -
1 Y $ \ f ( 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. l., q 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 u is the same and thereby acceptable, j j
- 7) HED 809' pertains to' limited charging pump ; activation; indication. -
There is only; total flow indication, but not individual flowi'The i ~
~
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. g beyond ' the -licensee's second refueling outage -(1990), only' four- HEDs t' -
'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 n 9. Control; Modification- '12/31/90 ...
- -'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 - 4
- 14. Procedural Change - 12/31/88
- t
' ~
(1) This date reflects l the latest expected idate' for. completing' ~ these: l resolutions on both' Point'8each units. Modificationsttothe control -. [
- boards will usually be implemented during the annual refueling outages
[ for each u' nit'(Spring for Unit It and Fall for Unit 2). Where possible,.
]
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. .
!. 1 (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
<
- m_i ._.______I_____-___________ ____---___E_.____.___,/-,____ ._mm__,.___m___
- 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 0737,- Supplement 1 requirement ~ for selection of design improvements. p 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 i- New HEDs. l 1:
p As discussed in Section 2.7 above, it is the review' team's : judgment' L tut the licensee has met the NUREG-0737, Suppleinent 'l requirement for g 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
,4
' validation' of- instrumentation and controls,- and. control room functions.
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 I operating procedures the licensee conducted a system function and task analysis . utilizing; the upgraded plant-specific , emergencyf ' operatihg _ procedures. - The validation of control room functions wa's: integrated, with j 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 - another, while_ the cuarging pump! room is located 'in the contro11ediarea .. ofi j[ the pl ant.- Keycard accessiis necessary to enter into each ' of1 the three: rooms. A concern was raised regarding the fact that'the-instrumentation ^for-l ' 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. I L 4.0 _ CONCLUSIONS 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= #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 ,
Ib-; ) bI
- 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
. Room Design Review Program Plan for Point Beach Units 1 _and 2,* I
~
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 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 -i
! -r, 1
= ', 1
*\
t 'l l 4 , j 4
^
1 1 l r
-1
> -I l
l
.l
-l
.l
.o ;
vr l
,1 eci r r: ,
l
.s- 1 if1 1
;1
- s.
7
'16 l
.: 1 'ii: l
-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
'.f .
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
, * . +, ., w . - . = . . - , ,. - -- . . ,a4a ,+ w ..-, - _.,
J 1 %
. , .~ ;
t
, 9; SI" 5
(I t 8, . -
~
i F
.. .t .
..e
.t1 .
s f 1 , t
.i. l f
i
* ;v b
9 1 f
, 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 l i 1
-l l
l 1 l J
- t. .
1e t i
.1
- 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's ent Chronology of DCRDR Documentation- .
>- 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 L Guide 1.97,' Upgraded (SPDS,OperatorTraining, Reg., E0Ps)- i 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 r ' ~I
[ _ JTENTATIVEAGENDA-(Continued)
~
=3:00.p.m. Conduct Sample Survey. of; the. Control Room Modifications-in p'
1 the Control: Room. - Implemented Modifications:
~
ll ?
-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 i
- 2:30;p.m.
BREAK' .: 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-e o i 5:00 p.m. Adjourn .l 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) o Disp ay Location (CR ' , o Disp ay Format (TSC)) 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 4
li et,,' I
. . q
.$- 2
-TENTATIVEAGENDA(Continued).' j
-: 10perationsReviewi(NRC)L
(
' 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
.o. , Response, Times (Display Call-up nda(CR) 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 y
.,;4 j q-Q '.
- I p.,
, ; w.s-
. s d
t Ih' 1
.1
.i l
l
'./.
15:' (ATTACHMENT 3-
- MODIFIED /APPROVEDHEDs- -
,1
'he 5
A e l l a 0 6
.,w--
,.- u! y-ww-q w
o c,. . . . .
.- 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 : #
l CONTROL ROOM AREA: MADI CONTROL ROOM MAIN CONTROL ROOM .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 '
COMP NO: NO S.PSA' COMP DESC: CEARODie PUMP
- q. ,
'i
. ~
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 i ;; > COMP NO: ,-NO 1.PSC : COMP DESC: CRARODIO PUMP > (' i DESCRIPTION OF DISCREPANCY ' < b'
.f j;
- SoVRCE Or DfFORMATION FOR DfDICATION OF CEARGING PUMP ACT!YATION IS LDCTED i 1
. COMPARED TO OTMER PUMPS. TIERE la ONLY TOTAL FLOW OF TEE TEREE CEARODf0 j
' PUMP; TEERE IS NO DfFORMATION FOR INDIVIDUAL PUMPS. TEE CEARODIO PUMP RELIEP EAS SEEN - ,
;i M18USED AT LEAST 10 TDdES Di PSNP OPERATDIO EISTORY. '
.i f
3 {l - a
.PREPAhED SY TOBEY :
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 c < j o , n
_ . , . . ~' I . WUMAN ENODfEERDt2 CISCREPANCY 3800RD P3Dff BEACE NUCLEAR PLANT e BED M Off, e ........... .....=...O.: Da6e of................................. .....
& IDENTIFJCADOM Palatout:01/97/88 7
oRioDs: YERPICATION - SUIDELDfE/CERCKLttT MO.18J . a . .
. GUIDELDrE AREA: ANNUNCIATOR WARNDIO 8YSTEMS PROBLEM CATEGORY: N/A . '
PROBLEW SUS CATEGORY: N/A
%CCAT10N :
CONTROL ROOM AREA:MADt CONTROL ROOM ' PANEL: 001 s SYSTEM: SIS } ! SQUIPMENT ANNUNCIATOR 8 DESCR.tPTION OF DISCREPAMCY: (EOP.O. CAUTION' PRE 85)) WEEN RESETTING 81, BAVE 4 IS To MANUALLY RESET TEER ONLY ONE ALARM WD(DOW POR BOTH UNITS ARM. WIT 8 4 CRANNELS C 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 YES ExPECTEDT 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 ~
1
.pe ,
.. ,1 c OUIDELDfE/CF2CNLIST NO. SA '
C#
' OUIDELDit AREA: SUIDELINE AREA MOT POUND - i 7
4 PROBl.EM CAT 500RY: N/A . !m f PROBLEM SUS CAT 50F'1Y4 N/A ' 4 E l ,i
, tecATION : .
CONTROL ROOM AREA:MADI CONTROL ROOM ] is PANEL 90K 4 L SYSTEM:RCS,00W = SQUIPMENT: PROCEDURE ' 4 DESCR2PMON OF DISCREPANCY: L , . (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 . g ,. ; j
' BOTE WERE LOST.i NEED TO CUT IT IN SLOWLY. ALSO NOTE OP48 DOES NOT 00VER '
' RECOVERY OF /
SEAL /CCW ON LOSS.
' PREPARED SY: TOBEY. DATE:18/18/88 )
^ PROPOSED RESOLUTION:
;j Cl.1,'RCP OPERAtl0N OUIDE*,18 A BETTER PROCEDURE REFERENCE POR TE18 STEP
. H j
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) - ,
-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 I 1
~
SUIDELDfE/CEECKLIFF NO. SA ' SUIDELDfE AREA: VISUAL DISPIAYS * * -I 1 PROBLEM CATEGORY: N/A . l PROBLEM SUS. CATEGORY: N/A 1 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 i ADDED 70 TEE PROCEDURE STEP R2CARDDiG THE PLOW PATE TO BE USED TO DfDICATE Tms STEP is (sEE NOTES) r i RECOMENDATION BY: CRDR TEAM ' s
....... ......... ..... .... .... . .....................n...... ...
1 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 1 i l l
.l
\' ,
...,...u._u,...._-
G
~ ~ - ~ ~ ~
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 !
easeDlivEkranATs0N l .... 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.: $$/88/08 . l PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ' TNE D18CREPANCY la WORD 2D INCORRECTLY SECAUSE TEERE 18 ONLY ONE ANNUNCSATOR. LOCATED ON 001.A AT P081710N S 4, POR SI RESET DtDICATION. IT 18 NOT NECE8BARY POR 7538 ANNVNC1ATOR TO D1871NOV185 DETP!ERN UNITS BECAUSE AT TEtt P0 TNT IN TEE (SEE NOTES) ' RECOMENDATION SY CRat TEAM e........................ ........s..... ....................................
- 5. EVALUATION RED EXPr.RIENC@ DEPOREt YE8 l ACCIDENT RELATEDT ' YE8
- l. TECENICAL SPECIPICATIONTt NO ERROR RECOGNT710N / RECOVERY EXPECTEDT VB8 l
SUBJSCTIVE PRIORITY EATDf0 8.s + 4 EED PAJORfTY: 8 EED CATECORY:Ma ACTION , ,
...............................c. ........PATE:3jp/gd REVIEWED AND APPROYED . CRDR TEAM NOTES:
PROCEDVI.E TKE OPERATORS WILL CLEARLY XPOW WEICE UNIT EAD TIE Bl. e e O
- - - - . - . , , ,. . ._ . . - - . . _ - . . . - . . _ . . _ . - - - - , - . . . . - ~
. . _ _ _ __. ___ _ ___ _ - --__ ._...- .._ ____ q
- BUWAN SNODf8thDec CCCSSPANfW R300tD PODff St. ACE IfUCLEAR P&ANF !
EEDC'04 #F.
, c oese . ... . . b .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . se. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ap . . . . . . se 1 , 3. B>SNTIPlCATBON Date etPdstout:91/9f/08 C
o C&l0DIiVR43F6 CAT 80N 'l i, CVIDt1JNE/CEECKL187 MO.:9A ' DVIDELDfE Ah&Ai 0UIDEAJNE AAAA MOT POWND ~ * ' PA081AW CATS 00RY: N/A , PADtLIN $US. CAT 500tV 81/A
&OCAT10W 00NTROL 800W AREA WADI 00NTROL RetW l
-. PANELt NOT $4CAtl0N APPUSASLB
' SYSTEW: WYC,hte l SeVIPMEJi7:REACTot YB883b DSSCI@ TION DP DISCREPANOVs t
-l (ECA 8418) NO ADVEME LEVEL VALVB4 AkB DfCLUDED WITE A& ACTOR VB888L 8.NVEIA Di TE18 SYSP. ($L #1.Ble#8) i l
PREPAASD BY:709tY . DATS: $$/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 'i 03N7WT. WEERE TERY AAE (882 NOTES) i RECOMENDATION SY:CRDR TEAM B. NYALVATION . t i RED EXPSAIENCED DEPOREt NO 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 ,!'.
- .,meess-----4 n y e. w ,y ~
)
e 4 g., WUMAN ENGDfBRAD80 DICERPANCY R80003 PODff SRACE NUCLBAR PLANT
.0 EED NO.t 838 , . . messessessessnessesse. .....mee....... see oome=====================e ' . o'
- 3. EDBMTIFICAT5088 Deh af Pdenoot:01/9f/88 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
\
)
.}}