ML20117P888
| ML20117P888 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1988 |
| From: | Science Applications International Corp (SAIC) |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20116D885 | List:
|
| References | |
| CON-NRC-03-82-096, CON-NRC-3-82-96, FOIA-96-237 SAIC-88-1815, TAC-51148, NUDOCS 8810070206 | |
| Download: ML20117P888 (10) | |
Text
.
TTACHMENT SAIC-88/1815
(
h TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT OF THE DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW FOR BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY'S CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2
\\.
}
1 SAE Prepared for:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Washington, D.C. 20555 Contract NRC-03-82-096 Task Order No. 19 yk_ h8IQO:
n, -
/97; 7 0 2 o (a X y s/c
TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Engg
1.0 INTRODUCTION
I 2.0 EVALUATION.......................
3 2.1 Establishment of a Qualified Multidisciplinary Review Team....................
3 2.2 System Funt'.
n and Task Analysis.........
4 2.3 Comparison of Display and Control Requirements With a Control Room Inventory...........
4 2.4 Control Room Survey................
4 2.5 Assessment of Human Engineering Discrepancies (HEDs) to Determine Which Are Significant and Should Be Corrected................
5 2.6 Selection of Design Improvements 5
4 2.7 Verification That Selected Design Improvements Will Provide the Necessary Correction 6
2.8 Verification That the Selected Design Improvements Will Not Introduce New HEDs............
6 2.9 Coordination of Control Room Improvements With Changes From Other Improvement Programs Such as the Safety Parameter Display System, Operator Training, Regulatory Guide 1.97 Instrumentation, and Upgraded 6
Emergency Operating Procedures 7
3.0 CONCLUSION
S......................
4.0 REFERENCES
8 11
)
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT OF THE DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW FOR BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY'S CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
l The Baltimore Gas & Electric Company submitted a Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR) Program Plan to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on September 1,1983 (Reference 1) in order to satisfy the Program Plan requirements of NUREG-0737, Supplement 1 (Reference 2) for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2.
The NRC staff reviewed the submittal with reference to the nine DCRDR requirements of NUREG-0737, Supplement I and the guidance provided in NUREG-0700 (Reference 3) and NUREG-0800 (Reference 4).
l NUREG-0737, Supplement I requires that a Program Plan be submitted j
within two months of the start of the DCRDR.
Consistent with the requirements of NUREG-0737, Supplement 1, the Program Plan should describe how the following elements of Qe DCRDR will be accomp?ished:
1.
Establishment of a qualified multidisciplinary review team.
l 2.
Function and task analyses to identify control room operator tasks and infomation and control requirements during emergency operations.
a control 3.
A comparison of display and control requirements with room inventory.
4.
A control room survey to identify deviations from accepted human factors principles.
5.
Assessment ofhumanengineeringdiscrepancies(HEDs)todetermine which HEDs are significant and should be corrected.
I l
l l
l
e 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.
9.
Coordination of control room improvements with changes from other programs such as Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS), operator training, Regulatory Guide 1.97 instrumentation, and upgraded emergency operating procedures.
The staff's comments on Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant's DCRDR Program Plan review were forwarded to Baltimore Gas & Electric Company by letter dated December 30, 1983 (Reference 5).
NUREG-0737, Supplement I requires that a Summary Report be submitted at the end of the DCRDR. At a minimum, it shall:
1.
Outline proposed control ioom changes.
2.
Outline proposed schedules for implementation.
3.
Provide summary justification for HEDs with safety significance to be left uncorrected or partially corrected.
Baltimore Gas & Electric Company submitted a Summary Report, with a commitment to provide a supplemental report, for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant to the NRC on December 31, 1984 (Reference 6).
In a letter dated September 20,1985 (Reference 7), Baltimore Gas &
Electric Company responded to the NRC's comments to include a function and task analysis and new control room survey in the DCRDR. Baltimore Gas &
Electric Company submitted the DCRDR Supplemental Program Plan to the NRC on November 1, 1985 (Reference 8). On May 29, 1987, Baltimore Gas & Electric Company requested an extension in the schedule for meeting the DCRDR requirements (Reference 9).
2
I I
On ' October 6,
1987, an on-site audit was conducted to review the implementation of the supplemental DCRDR and to assess the need for further extension of the proposed schedule. As a result of the meeting, the staff requested additional information regarding the conduct of the DCRDR and a commitment to a schedule for the completion of the implementation of HED resolutions (Reference 10).
I On June 30, 1988, Baltimore Gas & Electric Company submitted a DCRDR Supplemental Summary Report (Reference 11).
Science Applications i
International Corporation reviewed the submi'.tal with respect to the nine DCRDR requirements specified in NUREG 0737, Supplement 1.
This Technical Evaluation Report reflects the consolidated observations,
- findings, and conclusions of the review team members.
2.0 EVALUATION The purpose of the evaluation was to determine whether the nine DCRDR requirements in NUREG-0737, Supplement I had been satisfied. The evaluation was performed by comparing the information provided by Baltimore Gas &
j Electric Company with the criteria in NUREG-0800, Section 18.1, Revision 0,
Appendix A of the Standard Review Plan. The reviewers' evaluation of the DCRDR for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2 is provided below.
2.1 111,511shment of a Multidisciolinary Review Team
\\
The DCRDR team consisted of nuclear engir,eering, instrumentation and control engineering, reactor operations, training, and human factors repre-sentatives.
Overall administrative leadership was provided by the utility and additional assistance from other disciplines was available when needed.
Review of the resumes provided in the Supplemental Summary Report indicated that team members were qualified to perform their associated tasks.
During the October 6, 1987 on-site meeting the staff raised a concern questioning the role of the oversight committee which provided support to staff management. The licensee satisfactorily addressed this concern in the Supplemental Summary Report by explaining that this committee was formed as an informal administrative body to provide additional support to the DCRDR 3
team. At the time of the meeting, the function of the committee with regard to the assessment of HEDs had not been established.
The licensee further stated that since that time, the oversight committee has been dissolved, and the corrective actions recommended by the assessment team have been imple-mented.
It is the review team's judgment that Baltimore Gas & Electric Company has met the NUREG-0737, Supplement I requirement for establishment of a qualified multidisciplinary review team.
2.2 System Function and Task Analysis As per the October 6, 1987 audit findings, it is the review team's judgment that Baltimore Gas & Electric Company meets the NUREG-0737, Supple-ment I requirement for a function and task analysis to identify control room operator tasks and infomation and control requirements during emergency operations.
2.3 Comoarison of Disolav and Control Reauirements with a Control Room imentory As per the October 6, 1987 audit findings, it is the review team's judgment that Baltimore Gas & Electric Company meets the NUREG-0737, Supple-ment I requirement for a comparison of display and control requirements with the control room inventory.
I 2.4 Control Room Survey As per the October 6, 1987 audit findings, it is the review team's i
judgment that Baltimore Gas & Electric Company meets the NUREG-0737, Supple-ment I requirement for a control room survey to identify deviations from accepted human factors principles.
i 1
4 I
~
2.5 Assessment of Human Enaineerino Discrecancies to Determine Which Are i
Sionificant and Should Be Corrected The licensee conducted a NUREG-0700 based assessment process.
The
[
assessment committee held twenty-six weekly meetings with quorum being j
comprised of an operations, a human factors, and an engineering representative.
)
l During the assessment process, approximately 1097 HEDs were reviewed and ' assessed by the safety committee. Of. these, approximately 361 were categorized as safety significant. The licensee defined safety significance as HEDs associated with components that are essential for the direct accom-plishment of a safety function or those which have an impact on plant safety in conjunction with a high potential for operator error or violation of l
technical specifications. Review of the 361 safety significant HEDs by the review team indicated that the licensee adhered to this assessment process.
I It is the review team's judgment that the licensee meets the NUREG-0737 Supplement I requirement for an assessment of HEDs to determine which are significant and should be corrected.
2.6 Selection of Desian Imorovements Review of the resolutions to the HEDs provided in the Supplemental Summary Report indicated that the licensee has completed the selection of design improvements process. Many of the HEDs had facility change request numbers and maintenance request numbers associated with their resolutions.
Those safety significant HEDs which had resolutions of "no action" were satisfactorily justified.
All safety significant HED corrections are scheduled for implementation prior to the completion of the second refueling outage in both units. The actual implementation dates are dependent on availability of materials and engineering.
It is the review team's judgment that the licensee's schedule for implementation of HED corrections is acceptable.
It is the review team's judgment that Baltimore Gas & Electric Company meets the NUREG-0737, Supplement I requirement for selection of design improvements.
i l
1 i
2.7 Verification that Selected Desian Imorovements Will Provide the Necessary Correction Verification of proposed modifications was accomplished through the use of photographs and control room walkdowns. Each modification was evaluated to ensure that it conformed to the applicable human engineering practices; that it did not introduce any new HEDs; that information and control requirements, as well as other requirements necessary for effective task i
performance, would continue to be met; and that the modification did not detract from the integrated performance of the task.
I It is the review team's judgment.that Baltimore Gas & Electric Company meets the NUREG-0737, Supplement I requirement for verification that selected design improvements will produce the necessary correction.
2.8 Verification that Selected Desian Imorovements Will Not Introduce New HEQi As discussed in Section 2.7 above, the implementation of HED corrective action at Calvert Cliffs was evaluated using photographs and control room walkdowns to ensure that modifications will correct the HEDs and that no new HEDs will be introduced.
It is the review team's judgment that Baltimore Gas & Electric
(
Company meets the NUREG-0737, Supplement I requirement for verification that the selected improvements do not introduce new HEDs.
2.g Coordination of Control Room Imorovements With Chances From Other Procrams.
such as the Safety Parameter Disclav System. Doerator Trainina. Reaulatory Guide 1.97 Instrumentation. and Unoraded Emeracnev Doeratina Procedures As per the October 6, 1987 audit findings, it is the review team's judgment that Baltimore Gas & Electric Company meets the NUREG-0737, Supple-ment I requirement for coordination of the DCRDR with other Supplement 1 improvement programs such as SPDS, operator training, Regulatory Guide 1.97 instrumentation, and upgraded emergency operating procedures.
6
3.0 CONCLUSION
S Baltimore Gas & Electric Company submitted a Summary Report, with a commitment to provide a supplemental report to the NRC on December 31, 1984 for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. The NRC reviewed the report and requested that additional analysis be conducted. On November 1,
- 1985, Baltimore Gas & Electric Company submitted the DCRDR Supplemental Program l
Plan to the NRC which included a function and task analysis and a new control room survey. By letter dated May 29, 1987; Saltimore Gas & Electric I
Company requested an extension in the schedule for meeting the DCRDR requirements.
In order to resolve concerns regarding the change in schedule and to evaluate more completely the Calvert Cliffs DCRDR, an on-site audit was held on October 6, 1987. As a result of the audit, several concerns were raised regarding the DCRDR process. The staff requested additional information regar')ing the conduct of the DCRDR and a commitment to a schedule for the completion of the implementation of HEDs.
On June 30, 1988, Baltimore Gas & Electric Company submitted a DCRDR Supplemental Summary Report. Science Applications International Corporation reviewed the submittal with respect to the nine DCRDR requirements specified in NUREG
- 0737, Supplement 1.
This Technical Evaluation Report reflects the consolidated observations, findings, and conclusions of the review team members.
It is the review team's judgment that Baltimore Gas & Electric Company meets all nine NUREG-0737, Supplement 1 DCRDR requirements.
1 l
I l
l 7
l f.
~
4.0 REFERENCES
l 1.
" Program Plan for the Calvert Cliffs Unit I and 2 Control Room Design l
Review,"
Attached to Letter from A.E. Lundvall, Jr. (BG&E) to R.A.
)
Clark (NRC), September 1, 1983.
l l
2.
NUREG-0737, Supplement 1,
" Requirements for Emergency
Response
Capability" (Generic Letter No. 82-33), December 17, 1982.
l l
3.
" Guidelines for Control Room Design Reviews," September 1981.
4.
" Standard Review Plan," Section 18.1,
" Control Room," and Appendix A.
" Evaluation Criteria for Detailed Control Room Design Reviews (DCRDR)," September 1984.
5.
" Review of the Calvert Cliffs Detailed Control Room Design Review Program Plan," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, December 30, 1983.
6.
" Control Room Design Review Summary Report for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Units I and 2," Baltimore Gas & Electric Company, December 31, 1984.
7.
" Response to the Review of the Calvert Cliffs Detailed Control Room Design Review Program Plan," Letter from A.E. Lundvall, Jr. (BG&E) to E.J. Butcher, Jr. (NRC), September 20, 1985.
8.
" Detailed Control Room Design Review, Supplemental Program Plan,"
Letter from A.E.
Lundvall, Jr. (BG&E) to E.J.
Butcher, Jr.
(NRC),
November 1, 1985.
9.
" Request for DCRDR Schedule Extension," Letter from J.A. Tiernan (BG&E) to NRC, May 29, 1987.
10.
" Detailed Control Room Design Review Audit Report," Letter from NRC to BG&E, October 6, 1987.
l i
11.
" Supplemental Report for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant DCRDR,"
l Letter from J.A. Tiernan (BG&E) to NRC, June 30, 1988.
8