ML20134J925

Safety Evaluation Re Dcrdr & Related Function & Task Analysis.Implementation Schedule for Control Room Human Factors Improvements Acceptable

ML20134J925
Person / Time
Site:	Callaway
Issue date:	08/27/1985
From:	NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML20134J918	List: ML20134J925
References
NUDOCS 8508290523
Download: ML20134J925 (2)

Text

_______ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

ENCLOSURE SAFETY EVALUATION CALLAWAY PLANT UNIT 1 .

DOCKET NO.: STN 50-483 .

POSITION Section 5, " Detailed Control Room Design Review." of Supplement I to NUREG-0737 (Reference 1), requires Itcensees to conduct a function and task analysis to identify operator tasks, and information and control needs. These needs are then to be compared with the existing control room inventory to determine the availability and suitability of the instrumentation and controls to satisfy the infonnation and control needs. Should discrepancies be identified, they are to be assessed for safety significance, corrective actions proposer', or no action justified, and an implementation schedule provided.

DISCUSSION The conclusions in $$ER No. 4 (Reference 2) indicated that the function and task analysis conducted by SNUPPS to satisfy the requirements of the Detailed Control Poom Desi As a result, license con-dition2.C.(7)(a)gnReview(DCRDR)wasincomplete.

was imposed on the full power license to assure that the function and task analysis, and subsequent actions based on the results of that analysis, would be accceplished and reported to the NRC.

Letters dated October 10, 1984 andApril1,1985(References 3and4) pro-vided descriptions of the procedure SNUPPS would use to perform the task analysis. By letter dated April 26,1985(Reference 5),theFinalReport for the Task Analysis for the SNUPPS DCRDR was submitted for staff review.

1985, additional FollowingatechnicaldiscussionbytelephoneonMay15,(Reference information wa!, provided in a letter dated May 24, 1985 6).

Resolutions to several of the findings are procedural in nature and will be resolved as part of the Procedures Generation Package (PGP) review.

CONCLUSION The staff concludes that the Union Electric Company, through the Standard Nuclear Unit Power Plant System, has conducted a DCRDR and has provided an implementation schedule for control room human factors improvements for the Callaway Plant Unit 1 that will accomplish the basic requirements estab-lished by the Commission in Supplement I to NUREG 0737. Condition 2.C.(7)(a) of the full power license is satisfied with respect to the DCRDR but the task analysis results are still under review as they relate to the upgrade

of emergency operating procedures.

i l ,

l 1

N) D 05 83 p PDft l

! i

REFERENCES

1. NUREG-0737 Supplement No.1, " Requirements for Emergency Response Capability," U. S. NRC, Washington, D. C., December 1982.

2. NUREG-0830, Supplement No. 4 " Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of Callaway Plant Unit No.1," October 1984.

3. Letter SLNRC 84-121 from N. A. Petrick, SNUPPS, to H. R. Denton, NRC, October 10, 1984 Task Analysis for SNUPPS DCRDR, (Procedure forTask. Analysis).

4. Letter SLNRC 85-11 from N. A. Petrick, SNUPPS, to H. R. Denton, NRC, April 1, 1985 Task Analysis for SNUPPS DCRDR, (Revised Procedure forTaskAnalysis).

5. Letter SLNRC 85-12 from N. A. Petrick, SNUPPS, to H. R. Denton, NRC, April 26, 1985, Task Analysis for SNUPPS DCRDR, (Final Report of Task Analysis).

6. Letter SLNRC 85-16 from N. A. Petrick, SNUPPS, to H. R. Denton, NRC, May 24, 1985, Task Analysis for SNUPPS DCRDR, (Clarification of HED ResponsesandImplementationSchedule).

.