ML20132C389

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Rept of 840726-27 in-progress Audit Re Detailed Control Room Design Review (Dcrdr).Dcrdr Proceeding Satisfactorily.Concern Expressed Re Differences Between Unit 1 & 2 Control Rooms & Role of Human Factors Specialist
ML20132C389
Person / Time
Site: Beaver Valley
Issue date: 08/23/1984
From: Moore V
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Knighton G
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML19283C868 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-84-926, FOIA-85-926, RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737 NUDOCS 8408300080
Download: ML20132C389 (7)
v • d • e


Text

_ _ _ _

h.

W l

W DISTRIBUTION:

AUG2 3 S Central Files HFEB Files VMoore HFEB Members MEMORANDUM FOR:

George W. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing FRW1:

Voss A. Moore, Chief Human Factors Engineering Branch Division of Human Factors Safety

SUBJECT:

IN-PROGRESS AUDIT MEETING OF BEAVER VALLEY P0miER STATION, UNIT 2, DETAILED CONTROL R00ft DESIGH REVIEW Duquesne Light Company (DLC) is required by Supplement I to NUREG-0737 to conduct a Detailed Control Room besign Review (DCRUR) of the Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 2 (BY-2) prior to licensing.

The staff has reviewed and consnented on the BV-2 Program Plan and has conducted a brief on-site in-progress audit July 26 and 27,1984.

Results of tne audit indicate that the 8V-2 DCRDR is proceeding in a manner that will satisfy tne requirements of Supplement I to NUREG-0737.

The staff did identify several concerns that were brought to the attention of the applicant. A major concern is in the differences between the Unit 1 and Unit 2 control rooms since the applicant indicated a desire to apply for dual-unit licensing of its operators.

Those differences will require careful evaluation to detemine if a potential exists for inducing operator error.

Although the Function and Task Analysis process appears to oe satisfactory, the staff is concerncd that (1) a human factors specialist is used cnly as a reviewer and has no direct input to the analysis, and (2) selected event sequences to be evaluated may not cover all emergency operations.

A full evaluation of the BV-2 DCRDR will be accomplished following subuittal of the Sunnary Report, scheduled for June 1,1985.

Contact:

R. J. Eckenroda x24862 Y

97t @t=zogtb4) XA

'"'c ' V

.....~......~......

~.- - ~ ~ ~ ~.- -

~. - - - ~ ~.~.- -

- -.- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "

'=>

.... - ~.- ~. - -

... ~. ~. - ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " "

.................................................................-~...........--.-~~~.7.;~~~~~~r"""""-"-

George W. Knighton AUG 2 31984 The enclosed report presents the results of the in-progress audit meeting of the DCRDR program for BV-2.

Please transmit the report to DLC for their use.

Voss A. Moore, Chief Human Factors Engineering Branch Division of human Factors Safety

Enclosure:

As Stated cc:

M. Ley W. Troskoski, R. I R. Peterson, LLNL D. Beckham R. Starostecki

. })2fA cence>

..... H. F..E. B.....fT....'......V...F.EF... 8

~

f..

= = < >

..r. M....e.

.m.e..c.....D..T.o..n..d. i...

.....V. A..M..o. o..r. e......

...g/.;13.../.84...

="'> 8./......... /.8. 4...

. 8.(.. A....%...(.8.4....3

=: rna sie no sei ncu ono OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

  • u5 " " "-*
  • 2 '

Nuclear Regulatory Commission In-progress Audit Report Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2 BACKGROUND Duquesne Light Company (DLC) is performing a Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR) of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2 (BY-2) in accordance with the requirements of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737.

By letter dated August 8,1983 DLC submitted a DCRDR Program Plan. Staff review comments on the plan were submitted to the Division of Licensing December 12, 1983, along with a request for an in-progress audit meeting when the applicant was beginning the task analysis phase of the DCRDR.

DISCUSSION An onsite in-progress audit of the DCRDR activities was cnducted by the staff on July 26 and 27, 1984. The audit consisted of a visit to the BV-2 j

control room to review its status and similarity to the Unit 1 control room, and a meeting to discuss the details of the applicant's review processes as requested by the staff in a letter dated January 23, 1984.

Control Room Visit s

The control room visit verified that there are many differences between Unit 1 and Unit 2 control rooms.

The importance of these differences and their significance with respect to operator performance and dual unit licensing of operators must be carefully investigated. A report is being prepared by DLC which documents the distance deviation in the location of each control and display in one unit with respect to the like control and display in the other unit. This report, however, does not take into account the direction of the relocation and reversals in position can occur.

For example, two switches may be shown.in the report as having been moved only four inches each.

If the four-inch move is in opposite directions the result may be a reversal of switch location with respect to the other unit, or a very large distance between switches in which case it is likely that something else has been installed.

This type of difference between units can be expected to leao to operator error.

The staff audit verified that this type of difference does exist.

Another significant difference exists between annunciator systems.

Unit 2 has approximately one half the number of tiles as Unit 1 and the tile identification scheme is different between units.

Several video displays are to be installed in Unit 2 in place of annunciator panels still in Unit 1.

New instrumentation has been developed since BV-1 went into operation and some of this new equipment (e.g., automatic bypassed and Inoperable Status Indications, ICC instrumentation) is being installbd in Unit 2.

The Boron Injection System is different and it appeared that some instrumentation related to boron concentration has been deleted from Unit 2.

l

o CRDR Meeting The agenda and list of attendees for the CRDR meeting are provided in l

Attachments 1 and 2.

The purpose of the meeting was for DLC to present responses to the NRC review coments to the Program Plan for BV-2, and to 1

review, in detail, the DLC System Review and Task Analysis (SRTA) j methodology.

The staff's Program Plan comments, addressed by DLC at the meeting, were in the following areas i

1.

Qualifications of review team members and level of involvement in review tasks 2.

Human factors specialists' involvement in detailed planning 3.

Need for more than one human factors specialist in the many review tasks 4.

Description of the data base and data base management system 5.

Description of the standardized fonns/ checklists to be used 6.

DLC reference material should include conventions and standard abbreviations 7.

Independence of function and task analysis (F&TA) from other review tasks 8.

Everyts to be considered in the F&TA 9.

Event-based vs function-based emergency operating procedures (E0Ps) 10.

Specific E0Ps to be considered in the F&TA 11.

Information and control requirements and characteristics to be detennined from F&TA 12.

Function and task analysis methodology 13.

Control room inventory of instrumentation 14.

Control room inventory forms 15.

Verification methodology and tools

16. Human factors guidelines and criteria to be used in the control room survey

17.

Process for identifying and recording human engineering discrepancies (HEDs)

18. State of control room in which survey will be conducted l

19.

Implementation schedule for correction of HEDs l

20.

HED assessment methodology

21. Selection of design improvements traceability i

22.

Criteria for selection of design improvements

23. Methodology to ensure that improvements correct the HED without introducing new HEDs
24. Approach to coordinating the DCRDR with other post-TMI activities 25.

Control room modifications resulting from post-TMI actions.

With the exception of item No. 11, all responses were satisfactory to the staff.

The oetails of the definition of information, display, and control requirements (Item No. 11) have not yet been finalized by DLC.

CONCLUSION i

Based on the presentations made at the DCRDR meeting and the documentation reviewed, it is the staff's opinion that DLC is proceeding on a program of control room review and improvement that will enhance the safety of operations in BV-2.

l The major concern resulting from this meeting was that, because of the desire to dual-license operators on both BV 1 and BV-2, a concerted effort be made to coordinate design improvements between control rooms.

Differences already exist between the control rooms and their significance, with respect to operator performance, needs to be determined.

Related to this concern is the fact that the plant specific simulator will be of the Unit 1 design.

Since Unit 1 already has experienced operators, it appears that more benefit would be gained by having a Unit 2 simulator since all operators will need training on Unit 2.

The Function and Task Analysis process appears to be satisfactory.

Two concerns still exist:

1) that a human factors specialist is used only as a reviewer and does not have direct input into the analysis, and 2) that i

sequences not on the current list (e.g., Station Blackout) will be identified and evaluated.

TENTATIVE AGENDA Beaver Valley Unit 2 Detailed Control Room Design Review l

In-Progress Audit DATE:

July 27, 1984 l

TIME:

8:00 a.m. - 1:30 p.m.

LOCATION:

Robinson Plaza II Large Conference Room I.

Introduction to BVPS-2 Control Room Design Review A.

Presentation of the following:

1.

CRDR organization (Core and Support Team) 2.

Detailed implementation flow diagram 3.

Overall schedule II. NRC Comments to Program Plan l

A.

Discuss DLC responses (except for SRTA related) l B.

Present and discuss the following:

l l

1.

Data collection forms l

2.

HED evaluation criteria l

III. SRTA Presentation l

A.

SRTA schedule B.

SRTA methodology C.

Discuss NRC comments /DLC responses (SRTA related)

IV.

Conclusion A.

Sumary remarks B.

Address any additional NRC coments I

PERSONNEL IN. ATTENDANCE BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION UNIT 2 N mC 0F PROJECT CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW - NRC MEETING Pup ost or uttTING ROBINSON PLAZA g,7g

,ygy,y 77. igat LocArfoN NWC ORGANIZATION T I TLE/ RESPONSI BI LI TY idm.rce. T. TALLEY ESSEK HF SPEGAUST-Co2E TEM men 86Q i % fc q k'c u w y id u 2..

sen, t cuc.uote -cece cum YILLTAM 0.

TULLONk W M41D M EMDIPG4 hl fror., RAM lodkDTL'4TCA k At.PH SvRm AN td MTD systems bivoEE2 IA% k,MLS Roger-AINE Jd WTD SYSTEMS E%/NEER, TASK. AAIALYst.s Resear G. oscuoi w

uTo seuien exsiossa co.te Team % Iuse SW1 sie.L D7a stu PC u:L N T-D Lde65'inq b c.inea Cete Tm rn E. E G r e ai.

ci.c-Me.x Asuurey Arme R. I Eckenrodn

  1. Rebas/sto HMA kew hr.MRDR m >,:. u o eaw sc..e / a l u n uc c s,..~. n c. :.. u.

,r,w,: ca,t J.n M n e.rs N&c./D.bS/HFE6 EyggAlgggjyg koglQgggygsz, Dem -T'b a L, ute/DHFs/Hrst Nf25 Sect'ad Len40t/ $$W f D. Cowoues DJ. C hwCy/u;**/m,Aem.iene1 M E~ 7 EiU4AA/A/

h'C L EM ur EMsa/ca.be toef 7'sawLee M f. DEfuAl bl C CAD /t 7tcAlmc A L eso2 Dwe70,r,

--

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20132C389&oldid=4247084"