ML20127L451

Safety Evaluation Accepting Justification to Cancel Commitment on Seven Human Engineering Discrepancies

ML20127L451
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	11/18/1992
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20127L448	List: ML20127L447 ML20127L451
References
NUDOCS 9211240262
Download: ML20127L451 (2)

Text

.

g ucq

/ o

~g UNITED STATES i  !" n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

$ $ WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 i

l

\...../

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION l GEORGIA POWER COMPANY. ET AL.

EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLFAR PLANT. UNIT 2

. p_0CKET N0. 50-306

(

1 i The NRC staff has reviewed the September 16, 1992 request by Georgia Power Company, et al. (the licensee), for Hatch Unit 2 to cancel the commitment on seven annunciator-related human engineering discrepancies (HEDs) Nos. 295,

96, 298, 301, 302, 303, and 472.

Four of the seven HEDs were Category 3, which include safety-related items 4

having a low. probability of ever causing an operational or s afety problem.

, These HEDs (Nos. 295, 301, 3;3, and 472) involve grouping annunciators in proximity to other related annunciators. The remaining three HEDs.(Nos. 296, 298, and 302) were nonsafety-re'ated Category 4 HEDs.

i The licensee conducted an evaluati n of the present design and the proposed t

j relocations of annunciators to determine whetner it should proceed with i implementation of the proposed relocations to resolve HEDs identified in the 3 detailed control room design review. The licensee determined that the changes (1) would not provide a significant enhancement of the operator's response to the alarms of the associated systems, (2) might result in negative transfer of training and experience, and (3) might actually decrease the level of safety.

The licensee, therefore, concluded that the seven HEDs should not be

! corrected.

i l The staff's evaluation of this issue included the review of the licensee's

submittals dated February 6 and September 16, 1992, and the July 8, 1992 l ouite meeting and control room review to examine the differences in the

[ annunciator arrangements between Unit 1 and Unit 2.

i The staff found that (1) the licensee's review of 25 licensee event reports

(LERs) -- since the annunciator reloct.tions on Unit 1 -- identified no LERs

! due to differences in the annunciator relocations between units; (2)

annunciator relocations on Unit I were completed-to locate annunciators above -

controls; however, the relocations increased the dif ferences between the uniu - (3) operators respond to annunciators based on the illuminated tile and by reading the window rather than the location of the annunciator; (4) the-

, annunciators required to enter into Plant Hatch's emergency operating procedures are white banded for clarity and quick recognition; (5) the

- oroposed anndaciator relocations would actually increase the differences j between the units; and (6) control room operators were opposed to the proposed changes for Unit 2 because they did not believe the changes would be beneficial .

9211240262 921118 6 i- PDR ADOCK 0500 P-b . - - . .- ..

0 On the basis of the results of its review, the NRC staff finds that the licensee's justification to cancel the commitment on the seven HEDs is acceptable. The staff, therefore, considers HEDs Nos. 295, 296, 298, 301, 302, 303, and 472 closed.

Principal Contributor: C. West, Jr., NRR Dated: November 18, 1992

+

L l

l

.. . ..... ..._ .-.... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - ----- - ----_-- ---- ----- J