ML20207G189
| ML20207G189 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 12/23/1986 |
| From: | Gucwa L GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207G194 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737 0993C, 993C, GL-82-33, SL-1736, NUDOCS 8701060384 | |
| Download: ML20207G189 (5) | |
Text
n Georgia Fbwer Compiny 333 Piedmont Acnue Atlanta. Georgia 30308 Telephone 404 526-6526 Of ox 545 gg Atlanta, Georgia 30302
-+
Georgia Power Ma age Nuclear Safety and Licensing SL-1736 0993C I
e December 23, 1986
'+
j U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C.
20555 NRC 00CKETS 50-321, 50-366 OPERATING LICENSES DPR-57, NPF-5 EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW SUM 4ARY REPORT AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Gentlemen:
In response to Supplement 1 of NUREG-0737, Georgia Power Company (GPC) hereby submits the results of a Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR) for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2.
The planning.,
phase of the Plant Hatch DCRDR began with the development of the Program Plan which was submitted to the NRC for review in October 1984..The final Plant Hatch DCRDR Program Plan included the incorporation of NRC r
review coments.
Prior to the submittal of the Program Pl an, GPC participated in the Boiling Water Reactor Owners' Group (BWROG) Control Room Improvement Program.
A human factors review of the Unit 1 and 2 control rooms was completed in 1981.
Georgia Power Company's implementation schedule for correcting the Human Engineering Discrepancies (HEDs) identified in the Plant Hatch DCRDR Summary Report is provided in Enclosure 1.
The Summary Report (Volumes 1, and 2) is provided in Enclosure 2.
The methodology and approach are described in Volume 1 and the HED results are discussed in Volume 2.
The DCRDR was coordinated with other post-TMI activities addressed in NRC Generic Letter 82-33, including Emergency Operating Procedures, the Safety Parameter Display System, and recommendations related to providing control room instrumentation in accordance with the requirements of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.97.
The DCRDR was also integrated with the 1981 BWROG control room survey and the Nuclear Utility Task Action Committee (NUTAC) on the DCRDR.
I h
/\\ 0@
8701060384 861223 PDR ADOCK 05000321 P
'\\' (
f Georgia Power A U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN : Document Control Desk December 23, 1986 Page Two A total of 760 HEDs were identified during the Plant Hatch DCRDR.
None were judged to require immediate correction based upon safety significance.
Since the 1981 BWROG survey, approximately 100 of the HEDs have been corrected.
In addition, about 230 of the HEDs have been judged to require no corrective actions.
The remainder will be corrected or resolved in accordance with the enclosed schedule.
Some HEDs will require further review before satisfactory corrective actions can be determined. The schedule for completing this review and implementing the resulting improvements is included as part of Enclosure 1.
If you have any questions in this regard, please contact this office at any time.
Sincerely,
- 4e-L. T. Gucwa GKM/lc Enclosures 1 and 2 c: Georgia Power Company U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr.t. P. O'Reilly Dr. J. N. Grace, Regional Administrator Mr. J. T. Beckham, Jr.
Mr. P. Holmes-Ray, Senior Resident Mr. H. C. Nix, Jr.
Inspector - Hatch GO-NORMS Mr. George Rivenbark, Licensing Project Manager 0993C
[
roorts
t Georgia Power A ENCLOSURE 1 NRC DOCKETS 50-321, 50-366 OPERATING LICENSES DPR-57, NPF-5 EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT' UNITS 1 AND~2 DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW SUM 4ARY REPORT AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE The DCRDR Summary Report divides 420 of the 760 Human Engineering Discrepancies (HEDs) identified during the Plant Hatch DCRDR into one of two resolution categories; surface enhancement or modification.
Four additional HEDs associated with the remote shutdown panel were also identified.
The remaining 336 HEDs were either corrected or were judged to require no corrective actions.
The HEDs were also assigned an importance category based upon, their potential to increase operator error.
The importance categories ranged from I to IV, with Category I being the most significant.
The Sumary Report supplies planned implementation dates, and where appropriate, ' the implementation schedule for HEDs requiring further engineering studies.
Note that approximately 100 HEDs:have been resolved prior to this submittal.
Any HEDs identified during the, investigation of the Plant Hatch remote shutdown panels will be considered separately and are not included in this DCRDR Implementation Schedule.
The proposed implementation schedule is summarized, on page El-3.
~ Almost 300 of-the 420 HEDs will be resolved by a control room surface enhancement program.
This program will include demarcation lines, labeling, color' coding, and other highlighting methods'.
The corrective actions for Unit 1 HEDs will be completed by November 30, 1988, or cycle 12 startup (whichever is later).
The corrective actions for Unit 2 will be completed April 30, 1989, or cycle 9 startup (whichever is later).
Hatch 1 is currently operating in cycle 10 and Hatch 2 has started up in cycle 7.
The remaining HEDs may require control room modifications, such as the relocation, replacement, regrouping, and modification of existing instrumentation and controls or the addition of new instrumentation and controls. 'For example, several of the main control room panels on Unit 1 are arranged differently from Unit 2.
It is appropriate in this instance to perform an engineering review to determine the optimum solution to this problem. Care needs to be observed in order to not introduce i
i 1
0993C El-1 12/22/86 v
e
~ * ' *
\\
\\
Georgia Power h ENCLOSURE 1 DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW
SUMMARY
REPORT AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
" negative transfer" into any new panel arrangements.
That is, the operators may not be able to easily reverse old habits or training.
Also, extreme diligence is necessary to to ensure that new HED: are not created with any resulting panel changes.
Therefore, a significant number of discrepancies will require further
- review, including cost / benefit analysis, before corrective actions can commerce.
Georgia Power Company will complete any further review required and define a course of action for each of the HEDs.
A description of the modifications necessary to correct the HEDs and an implementation schedule for the modifications will be submitted to the NRC prior to December 31, 1987.
GPC is committed to closing out all HEDs and completing the DCRDR program by December 31, 1992 0993C El-2 12/22/86 700775
l Georgia Power A ENCLOSURE 1 DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW
SUMMARY
REPORT AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE HED Resolution Category Quantity Completion Date A. Corrected HEDs 103 N/A B. No Corrective Action 233 N/A C. Remote Shutdown Panel HEDs 4
Note 1 D. Surface Enhancements 291 Note 2 E. Modification, Replacement, or Addition of Instrumentation and Controls 70 Note 3 F. Annuciator Discrepancies 39 Note 3 G. Miscellaneous Modifications 20 Note 2 Notes:
1.
Human Engineering Discrepancies associated with the remote shutdown panel will be resolved separately.
2.
For Unit 1 prior to November 30, 1988, or cycle 12 startup (whichever is later).
For Unit 2 prior to April 30, 1989, or cycle 9 startup (whichever is later).
Hatch 1 is currently operating in cycle 10 and Hatch 2 has started up in cycle 7.
3.
Prior to December 31, 1987, GPC will submit:
(1 )
a description of the modifications to correct HEDs requiring further review (or appropriate justification for resolution), and (2) a schedule for implementing the modifications.
All required modifications will be completed by December 31, 1992.
0993C El-3 12/22/86
,,