ML20207K118
| ML20207K118 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 09/20/1988 |
| From: | Bailey J GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| References | |
| GN-1489, NUDOCS 8809280246 | |
| Download: ML20207K118 (4) | |
Text
.'
Georg44 Fbart Cepeny Fost Off te Boa 252 War 42ca Gerg a 3MM c
Te'e94W 4M SM 9A1 404 724 8114
$%theth CortpaN Serstet. Inc nw ou<.w,2as etgh r-s 8 rm,ngham, Alabama 35202 Vogde Pioject September 20, 1988 i
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:
Document Control Desk File X7BC35 t
Washington, D. C.
20555 Log GN-1489 1
NRC DOCKET NUMBER 50-425 3
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NUMBER CPPR-109 VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT - UNIT 2 SER 0cen Ites ida:
Control Room Deeien Review (CRDR)
The NRC concluded in section 18.1 of SSER 5 that for resolution of the Unit 2 detailed control room design review (DCRDR), Georgia Power Company should demonstrate similarity between the Unit 1 and the Unit 2 control rooms.
Attached is a discussion of the Vogtle Unit 1 and Unit 2 control rooms similarity, i
If your staf f should require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
. ft.
J. A. Baile Project Licensing Manager JAB /sem Attachment xct NRC Regional Administrator J. B. Hopkins (2) f NRC Resident Inspector O. Bockhold, Jr.
l P.
D.
Rice J. E. Joiner, Esquire J. P. Kane R. J. Goddard, Esquire R. A. Thomas R. W.
McManus B. W. Churchill, Esquire Vogtle Project File I
t jbO10 i
i 8809280246 88092o PDR ADOCK 050004;5 g
b PDC
+.
e UNIT 1/2 CONTROL ROOM SIMILARITY Vcgtle Units 1 and 2 show a comon control room (see Figure 1) The controls in both units are essentially identical.
The Unit 2 Main Control Board (QMCB) is
- t. rotated image of the Unit 1 Main Control Board.
On sections A. B and C of the Main Control Board the lef t-right relationship for all the controls and displays is identical.
This identical relationship for the A. B, and C sections includes the board layout and labeling.
The one exception to identical layout on the Main Control Board is the D section.
The D section was a backfit af ter the control rooti design was completed and floor space did not allow an identical arrangement.
Section D contains the same equipment on both units (RVLIS, PSMS, and Main Steam Bypass ! solation Valves).
Section D is on the left end of section A on Unit 1 and to the right of section B on Unit 2.
This will require looking left on Unit 1 and right on Unit 2 to verify that the Main Steam Bypass isolation Valves are shut on a Main Steam Isolation.
There should be no impact on routine unit operation.
The rest of the Unit 2 Control Boards appear as if the Unit 1 Boards were moved west.
Their appearance on Unit 2 will be the same as on Unit 1 if you are standing in front of them.
The Electrical Auxiliary Board (QEAB) will appear somewhat different from the center of the control room.
In Unit 1 it is over the right shoulder and in Unit 2 it will be over the left shoulder.
This will require a slightly different scanning pattern during imediate operator action in the E0Ps but should have no impact on unit ope ration.
The high voltage section of the QEAB is different to reflect the differences in the switchyards but the Unit 2 inplant distribution systems will appear identical to Unit 1.
The comon distribution system is on the Unit 1 QEAB.
The QPCP (Process Control Panel) in Unit 2 will not have the shared system controls located on the Unit 1 QPCP.
These systems (fire pumps, river makeup, auxiliary boiler, etc.) are controlled by the Unit 1 crew in support of both units.
Control Room Wall A security wall was erected through the center of the comon control room to separate Unit 1 from Unit 2 when Unit I security went into effect.
Original plans were for this wall to be removed when Unit 2 security went into effect.
Current plans are to leave most of the wall to provide unit separation, and reduce inter-uni t noise.
The wall will be open on the Shift Supervisors station, near the south door, and behind the QPCP.
Plant Computers The plant computer (PROTEUS and ERF) terminals will be in mirror image locations.
The PROTEUS computer function will be different in that nc comon inputs go to Unit 2.
The ERF computer will be identical except that the comon radiation monitors and weather data Will be displayed only on Unit 1.
1
L 1
PLAN FOR IDENTIFYING FINAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN l
i UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 CONTROL ROOMS l
4 Similarity Verification l
At the present time it is not feasible to conduct a detailed comparison of the Unit 1 versus Unit 2 Control Room.
This is due to the still out-standing Unit 1 Human Engineering Discrepancies (HEDs) to be completed l
1 on Unit 2.
Upon the completion of the great majority of Unit 1 HEDs on j
Unit 2 the CROR team will conduct an in-depth. visual walkthrough and verification of sameness between the Ur.it 1 and Unit 2 Control Rooms.
.l Differences in the operator interface will be documented for further evaluation. No significant differences are known, f
i Differences Review l
Only differences in the Unit 2 controls, compared to Unit 1 will be reviewed against applicable sections of NUREG 0700.
Only new HED's identified l
by that review will be evaluated and corrected.
4 l
Unit Similarity Maintenance l
Georgia Power intends to maintain the two units as nearly identical as i
practical to facilitate operations and training.
Changes from Unit 2 are being installed on Unit 1 as well.
Engineering design changes are generally applied to both units to maintain essentially identical control l
rooms.
planned Differences s
1.
Process Control Stations (temperature, pressure, etc) on Unit 2 use l
a slightly different meter face style (previous model discontinued).
2.
Alarm Window engravings on Unit 2 are different as equipment differences l
dictate (ie Unit 1 switchyard is 230KV. Unit 2 500kv).
i i
.' e Figure 1 i
~
V0GTLE UNIT 1 & 2 l-COMMON CONTROL ROOM i'
1,.
i 9
i, j
\\
S D
D A
l Y
,V m
{
j P
M P
B i
A H
g R
c; c,-
~
s 1
I f AB j
[
OEAR j
4 l
UNIT 2 UNIT 1
1 ROTATED WALL j
P - PROTEUS COMPUTER E - ERF COMPUTER
,