ML20197G103

Forwards SER Suppl Re Preliminary Design Assessment Audit of Control Room & Remote Shutdown Facility.Applicant Must Submit Detailed Control Room Design Review (Dcrdr) Program & Plan,Conduct post-licensing Dcrdr & Submit Summary Rept

ML20197G103
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	11/28/1983
From:	Russell W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
CON-WNP-0687, CON-WNP-68, CON-WNP-687, TASK-1.D.1, TASK-TM GL-82-33, NUDOCS 8312090015
Download: ML20197G103 (20)

Text

1 DISTRIBUTI0ft:

NOV 2 51993 Central Files HFEB Files DHFS R/F VMoore HFEB Members 6q r o "g i,Ei!0R/4!!DUtl FOR: Thomas it. l'ovak, Assistant Director D for Licensing Division of Licensing FR0ft: Lifllian T. Russell, Deputy Director Division of Hunan Factors Safety

SUBJECT:

lluf!Aff FACTORS EllGIffEERIflG SRAflCll SER IrlPUT FOR WASillfiGT0f!

PUBLIC PO!!ER SUPPLY SYSTEl!flUCLEAR PROJECT fl0. 2 The enclosed SER provides the results of our preliminary design assessnent (PDA) audit of the UflP-2 control roon and renote shutdown facility. The applicant requested a PDA review in February 1982, and subnitted an acceptable PDA report in April 1983. Our on-site audit was conducted June 6-9, 1983 and our audit report was fornally transmitted to the applicant on September 20, 1983. The applicant responded to our audit report on October 14, 1983 and a staff / applicant neeting to discuss our audit report and the applicant response was held _cn f!ovenber 2, 1983.

The applicant will be required to subnit a Detailed Control,Roon Design Review (DCRDR) Progran Plan, cond ct a post-licensing DCRDR, and submit a Sunnary Report. The agreed upon schedules for these actions are addressed in the SER.

Ilith conpletion of those SER f tens recuired prior to licensing, before exceeding 5 percent power and within 4 nonths of licensing, we conclude that frcn a human factors standpoint an operating license can be granted for 1flP-2. The license should be appropriately conditioned to require conpletion of the identified post-licensing actions.

This report was prepared by R.11. Froelich (x24883) of the Hunan Factors Engineering Branch. The reviewer knows of no differing technical opinions.

Original Signed by Vo c /. . '.'e ci a

!?  !

i

/ Willian T. Russell, Deputy Director Division of Hunan Factors Safety 7 ~

Enclosure:

~s SER Input / ' yd '

0312090015 S31128 i cc: See next page s

'9f" ADocK 05000397 n== ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '

er /

Contact:

R. / Froelich @Vh' omer > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..d.4/HFE B .., ,,,J[$ ,, ,,,.HFEd,,b,, g fg[ g , j F :00,,,,,, , , , , , , , , , , ,

sua m o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.R.&..ro.e 1..i.ch,;.pcKc6.P..am.i re.2 ..D9nd.i.. .. .ggrg,... j a.us.se11,.,

T , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

out> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .l..I./. . .d. 2.. ./.83l,..I /,3. 3.. ..../. 8. 3... 11./.... 2.7.../..83..1 1../.J..._..j,..../.

J ' .18.

1./...f....d.../.

3. .' . 8 3..

Mc rocu ais oa.aa; e.acu a:4a OFFIClAL RECORD COPY um im-e

Thenas 11. flovak NOV 2 8 1993 cc: A. Schwencer R. Auluck I

I o,na. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................... ........................ ....................... ....................... ..................... .....................

$U.INA%E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... ....................... ........................ ....................... ........................ ........................

CAit) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... ..................... ...................... ........................ ........................ ........................

sac ronu sis tio-aoi r4acu o24o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY uscro:ini-mm

HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING BRANCH CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT SUPPLEMENT WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM NUCLEAR PROJECT N0. 2 Position All licensees and applicants for an operating license are required to conduct a Detailed Control Room Desict Review (DCRDR) in response to NRC Task Action Plan Item I.D.1 (NUREG-0660, May 1980; and NUREG-0737, November 1980 as supplemented by Generic Letter 82-33, December 17,1982). The purpose of the DCRDRistoidentifyandcorrecthumanengineeringdiscrepancies(HEDi)that might affect the operator's ability to prevent or cope with an accident.

NUREG-0700, " Guidelines for Control Room Design Reviews," dated September 1981, provided guidance for conducting the DCRDR. Applicants who had a supplement to their Safety Evaluation Report published before June 1983 may be licensed on the basis of a DCRDR or a Preliminary Design Assessment (PDA).

Applicants whose license is based on a PDA must also conduct a DCRDR following licensing. That DCRDR will be conducted on a schedule to be negotiated with the NRC.

Discussion The applicant submitted a Preliminary Control Room Human Engineering Report in January 1982 and informed the NRC in February 1982 of its intent to conduct a PDA before licensing. The staff's SER, issued in March 1982, concluded that it was appropriate for the applicant to seek a PDA review of the control room, but that the Preliminary Control Room Human Engineering Report did not satisfy the NUREG-0737 requirements for a PDA report. The SER

noted that an acceptable PDA report would be needed before any additional control room review could be accomplished by the staff. In April 1983 the applicant submitted a Control Room Design Review Preliminary Report which satisfied the requirements for a PDA report. The staff conducted an on-site audit of the WNP-2 control room on June 6-9, 1983. The staff was assisted by consultants from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The audit was based on the applicant's Control Room Design Review Preliminary Report and an independent assessment of the WNP-2 control room and remote shutdown facility. The staff's audit report summarizing the results of a review of the applicant's PDA report and of the on-site audit was transmitted to the applicant September 20, 1983. The report addressed the following:

a. Control room features that could not be evaluated at the time of the audit

b. Applicant identified HEDs that had been satisfactorily correcteif at the time of the audit

c. Applicant identified HEDs for which the proposed correction was satisfactory but which had not been corrected at the time of the audit

d. HEDs identified by the staff during the audit

R

e. Applicant identified HEDs for which the proposed correction was judged unsatisfactory,

f. Applicant identified HEDs for which the proposed correction was satisfactory but.which had unsatisfactory implementation schedules.

The applicant's response to the audit report was submitted to the staff on October 14, 1983. It addressed parts a, d, e and f of the staff's audit report. A meeting with the staff and applicant to discuss the audit report and the applicant's responses was held November 2, 1983.

Conclusions l

At the November 2, 1983 meetfng, the applicant verbally proposed, and the NRC accepted, schedules for correcting certain HEDs prior to escalation above 5 percent power, and within four months after licensing. The NRC believes that the proposed schedules for correcting HEDs will not present a significant safety risk to the public. However, the staff will require correction of the most significant HEDs before licensing, and some HEDs which require further analysis are being deferred to the DCRDR. Many of the HEDs were identified by the applicant in its PDA report, and plans for their correction '

are in progress or completed. The NRC has accepted interim solutions for some HEDs which require further analysis to arrive at permanent or optimum solutions. The NRC believes that correction of HEDs discussed under Paragraphs B and C below prior to escalation above 5 percent power and within four months after licensing, respectively, will not impact safe operation of the plant during that period.

, ~ - _ -,

A. HEDs To Be Corrected Before Licensing

1. Attachment A lists those HEDs for which acceptable solutions were proposed by the applicant in its Control Room Design Review Preliminary Report. The NRC will verify that the proposed design improvements have been implemented before licensing.

2. Attachment B lists those HEDs for which acceptable solutions were provided by the applicant in its August 26, 1983 response to NRC's Human Factors Engineering Preliminary Design Assessment Audit Report. The NRC will verify that the proposed design improvements have been implemented before licensing.

I j B. HEDs To Be Corrected Before Exceeding 5 Percent Power Attachment C lists those HEDs for which acceptable solutions were proposed by the applicant in its response to NRC's Human Factors Engineering Preliminary Design Assessment Audit Report. The proposed

, corrections are to be implemented and verified before exceeding 5 percent power. The applicant verbally committed to provide a letter report to the staff verifying correction of these HEDs.

l C. HEDs Which The Applicant Proposed To Correct Within 4 Months After Licensing l Attachment D lists thosed HEDs for which acceptable solutions were proposed by the applicant in its response to NRC Human Factors l Preliminary Design Assessment Audit Report. The proposed corrections i

are to be implemented and verified not later than 4 months after licensing. The applicant verbally committed to provide a letter report to the staff verifying correction of these HEDs.

D. HEDs To Be addressed In The DCRDR Attachment E provides a list of HEDs which have been identified at this time as problem areas to be addressed in the DCRDR. These HEDE do not represent the entire scope of the DCRDR process as described in Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737. A complete review of annunciator control l system design, location and operation is also required as a part of the DCRDR.

E. HEDs To Be Addressed On A Special Case Basis The following HEDs require special treatment:

1. Finding A 1.2 - Panel P-813.

Portions of Panel P-813 were under construction and could not be reviewed during the staff's on-site audit. The applicant shall complete this review, identify any HEDs, describe design l solutions and establish an implementation schedule for their correction prior to licensing. Review results shall be provided to the staff in a letter report. Verification of HED improvements shall be addressed in the DCRDR.

'~

/

6-2.' .Fidding A 1.17 - Operator Protective Equipment.

The applicant shall verify operator vision and communication capability while wearing Scott Air Packs. The review shall be y completed prior to licensing, and verification shall be reported to the staff by letter report.

~

3. Finding D 1.30 - Glare At Remote Shutdown Panel.

Glare elimination at Panel P-001 shall be corrected no later than 4 months after licensing. Temporary resolution of this HED is permissable pending installation and confirmati6n of permanent glare-eliminating diffusers.

F. Detailed Control Room Design Review The applicant will comply with the requirements of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 addressing the DCRDR. The applicant shall submit a Program Plan for this review no later than 2 months after licensing, and shall submit a Summary Report not later than 6 months pri.or to the scheduled first refueling outage.

b Y

g _

REFERENCES

1. NUREG-0660, Volume 1, May 1980; NRC Action Plan Developed as a Result of the TMI-2 Accident.

2. NUREG-0737, November 1980; Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements.

3. NUREG-0700, September 1981; Guidelines for Control Room Design Reviews.

4. Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737, December 1982; Requirements for Emergency Response Capability (Generic Letter No. 82-33).

5. Letter to A. Schwencer from G. D. Bouchey, January 11, 1982; Nuclear Project No. 2 Preliminary Control Room Human Engineering Desigd Report.

6. Letter to Director of Nuclear Regulation from G. D. Bouchey, April 14, 1983; Nuclear Project No. 2 Control Room Design Review, Submittal of Preliminary Report.

7. Letter to D. W. Mazur from A. Schwencer, September 20, 1983; Nuclear Project No. 2 Preliminary Design Assessment Audit Report.

8. Letter to Director of Nuclear Regulation from G. C. Sorensen, October 14, 1983; Nuclear Project No. 2 (Response to) Preliminary Design Assessment Audit Report.

i

, _ - . , _ - , - - .---___-,_-._...7- y _ ,y-, , , - - - ,

ATTACHMENT A HEDs TO BE CORRECTED BEFORE LICENSING The following HEDs are identified by the Finding number as given in Part C of the staff's Human Factors Engineering Preliminary Design Assessment Audit, and the corresponding WNP-2 HED number as given in the applicant's Control Room Design Review Preliminary Report. Staff comments associated with some of these HEDs are identified by a parenthetic number following the finding number. These staff comments are listed at the end of this section.'

Finding WNP-2 HED Finding WNP-2 HED Finding WNP-2 HED 1.13 '24.5.1 3.3 24.3.3 3.30 (5) 14.3.8.a 1.14 23.3.2 3.6 14.3.20 3.31 (5) 14.3.8.b 1 15 (1) 3.3.1.d 3.7 14.3.9 3.32 (5) 14.3.8.c 1.16 (2) 24.5.10 3.12 24.3.8 3.33 (5) 14.3.8.d 1.19 (3) 19.3.1 3.19 (4) 18.3.1 3.34 (5) 14.3.8.e 3.1 24.3.1 3.22 14.5.3.3 3.38 (5) 14.3.8.1 3.2 24.3.2 3.29 14.3.4 3.39 (5) 14.3.8.j 3.40 (5) 14.3.8.k 5.13 10.3.5 6.12 7.3.43 3.41 14.3.8.1 5.14 24.6.3 6.13 7.3.40.a 3.42 24.3.9.a 5.18 10.3.16 6.14 7.3.40.b 3.43 24.3.9.b 5.19 24.4.6 6.15 7.3.40.c 3.44 24.3.9.c 5.20 24.4.7 6.16 7.3.40.d 3.45 24.3.9.d 5.21 24.4.8 6.17 7.3.40.e 3.46 14.3.10 5.23 24.6.25 6.18 (8) 7.3.41 3.47 14.3.5 5.24 10.3.13 6.19 7.3.42 3.51 14.5.5.2.c 5.25 10.3.15 6.20 24.6.21

l l

I Finding WNP-2 HED Finding WNP-2 HED Finding WNP-2 HED 3.52 (4) 14.5.3.2 .5.26 6.3.2 6.21 5.3.4 3.53 14.5.4.3 5.27 24.4.4 6.22 7.3.33 3.54 14.3.12 5.28 24.6.30 6.23 7.3.34 4.9 13.3.7.c 5.29 24.6.22 6.24 7.3.8 4.10 13.3.13 5.30 (6) 11.3.7 6.25 7.3.35 4.11 3.3.2.b 5.64 (7) 12.3.2 6.26 7.3.36 4.12 13.3.1.a 5.65 (7) 12.3.3 6.27 7.3.37 4.13 13.3.1.c 6.1 7.3.1 6.28 13.3.17 4.14 13.3.3 6.2 6.3.8 6.29 24.6.7 4.15 13.3.2 6.3 7.3.2 6.30 24.6.14 4.16 13.3.15 6.4 -

7.3.4 6.31 24.6.16 4.17 13.3.16 6.5 7.3.7 6.32 24.6.17 4.18 24.6.33 6.6 7.3.9 6.33 24.6.18 5.2 10.3.6 6.7 11.3.6 6.34 24.6.19 5.5 11.3.2 6.8 24.6.8 6.35 5.3.14 5.9 24.7.2 6.9 24.6.9 6.36 7.3.3 5.10 24.4.3 6.10 7.3.10 6.37 7.3.6 5.12 24.4.2 6.11 7.3.3.2 6.38 7.3.38 6.39 7.3.39 6.70 5.3.1 8.25 24.5.2 6.40 11.3.8 6.71 5.3.2 8.27 5.3;19 6.41 11.3.9 6.73 24.6.1 8.28 24.6.6 6.42 11.3.10 6.74 6.74 8.29 5.3.18 6.43 7.3.15 6.75 5.3.3 8.30 5.3.12 6.44 7.3.16 6.77 5.3.8 8.49 5.3.16.b

Finding WNP-2 HED Finding WNP-2 HED Finding WNP-2 HED 6.45 7.3.25 6.79 24.6.3 6.47 7.3.17 6.80 5.3.5 6.48 7.3.18 6.81 5.3.6 6.49 7.3.19 7.2 15.3.2 6.50 24.6.10 8.1 5.3.16.h 6.51 24.6.11 8.4 12.3.4.d 6.52 8.3.13 8.5 24.5.6 6.54 7.3.21 8.8 5.3.16.j 6.55 7.3.22 8.10 24.5.8 6.56 7.3.23 8.12 13.3.10 6.57 7.3.24 8.13 -

12.2.4.a 6.58 7.3.26 8.14 12.3.4.b 6.59 7.3.27 8.15 12.3.4.b 6.60 24.6.12 8.16 5.3.16.d 6.61 24.6.15 8.17 5.3.16.f 6.62 24.6.20 8.18 5.3.16.g l 6.63 13.3.4 8.19 24.6.5

! 6.64 (9) 7.3.28 8.20 24.7.5 6.65 7.3.5 8.21 5.3.10 6.66 7.3.11 8.22 5.3.11 6.67 13.3.5 8.23 5.3.20 l

. 6.69 10.3.7 8.24 5.3.22 1

I t

l L

i .

Notes for Attachment A HED Listina

1. Legibility of illuminated status indicators should be reviewed and verified before licensing.

2. Glare and parallax should be reviewed and verified as acceptable before licensing.

3. See Finding 1.36. Diffusers for remote shutdown panel light fixtures should be installed before licensing. Temporary solutions are acceptable.

4. This HED should be reviewed in conjunction with Finding 3.22.

5. The wording of these alarm panels does not clearly define the meaning of the alarm.

6. Pen color parameter should be noted on all recorders.

7. Shift turnover procedures should be reviewed and verified before licensing. A detailed review of the single indicating light problem and potential design solutions should be made during the DCRDR.

8. Verification that an administrative procedure controlling the use of temporary labels should be provided before licensing.

l

9. See Finding 6.108 concerning labels with.too narrow stroke width.

(Section A.2)

I I

i I

)

_,.--._7 __ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . _

ATTACHMENT B HEDs TO BE CORRECTED BEFORE LICENSING The following HEDs are identified by the Part and Finding number as given in the staff's Human Factors Engineering Preliminary Design Assessment Audit Report. The applicant's proposed solutions were given in his response to the staff's Human Factors Engineering Preliminary Design Assessment Audit Report,

~

and reference the staff's Part and Finding number.

Finding Finding Finding Finding Part A Part D (Cont'd) Part D (Cont'd) Part D (Cont'd) 1.1 5.33 6.95 8.33 6.99 8.34 1.18 5.34-1.20 5.36 6.100 (1) 8.35 1.31 5.37 6.102 8.36 3.5 5.41 6.103 8.40 5.43 6.104 8.41 Part D 5.45 6.107 8.42 1.21 5.48 6.108 8.44 1.28 5.50 6.109 3.57 6.87 6.110 Part E 3.58 6.88 6.111 1.32 3.62 6.89 6.112 3.67 3.64 6.90 7.4 3.68 4.20 6.93 7.10 3.71 (2) 4.24 6.94 8.31 4.31

-_ .- .=

1 i

Finding Finding Finding Finding Part E (Cont'd) Part F Part F Cont'd) Part F (Cont'd) 5.8 3.72 5.60 5.76 3 5.62 (3) 3.74 5.68 8.48 6.53 4.32 5.71 6.113 4.36 5.73 w

Notes:

1. Temporary labels acceptable until permanent labels are installed.

2. Mushroom heads, main bench boards, i

3. Temporary markings on selected indicators.

i 1

I i

l ATTACHMENT C HEDS TO BE CORRECTED BEFORE EXCEEDING 5 PERCENT POWER The following HEDs are identified by the Part and Finding number as given in the staff's Human Factors Engineering Preliminary Design Assessment Audit Report. The applicant's proposed solutions were given in its response to the staff's Human Factors Engineering Preliminary Design Assessment Audit Report,

~

and reference the staff's Part and Finding number.

Finding Finding Finding Part A Part D (Cont'd) Part E 5.17 5.40 5.61 7.15 5.44 5.69 5.46 Part D 6.101 Part F 3.59 8.38 4.37 4.23 8.43 9.5

.O l

ATTACHttENT D HEDs TO BE CORRECTED NOT LATER THAN 4 MONTHS AFTER LICENSING The following HEJs are identified by the Part and Finding number as given in the staff's Human Factors Engineering Preliminary Design Assessment Audit Report. The applicant's proposed solutions were given in its response to the staff,'s Audit Report, and reference the staff's Part and Finding number.

Finding Finding Finding Finding Part A Part D Part E Part F 3.4 4.22 3.71 6.115 5.49 4.27 6.116 e

ATTACHMENT E HEDs To Be Addressed In the DCRDR The following HEDs are identified by the Part and Finding number as given in the staff's Human Factors Engineering Preliminary Design Assessment Audit Report.

~

Finding Finding Finding Finding Part A Part D (Cont'd) Part E (Cont'd) Part E (Cont'd) 1.3 6.97 4.29 5.70 6.105 5.11 Part D 7.3 5.51 Part F 1.27 7.6 5.52 3.76 2.2 7.14 5.53 5.72 3.55 9.6 5.54 5.73 3.57 9.8 5.55 5.75 3.59 5.56 6.114 5.32 Part E 5.58 8.50 5.38 1.

33 5.59 8.51 5.39 1.34 5.62 8.52 5.47 3.66 5.63 6.91 3.71 5.66 A complete review of annunciator control system design, location and operation is also required as a part of the DCRDR. HEDs that currently address the annunciator control system are as follows:

Finding . Finding Finding D 3.60 0 3.70 F 3.79 0 3.61 F 3.18 F 3.80 D 3.63 F 3.77 O