ML20211B650
| ML20211B650 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 02/12/1987 |
| From: | Stefano J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Sylvia B DETROIT EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8702190480 | |
| Download: ML20211B650 (9) | |
Text
_
February 12, 1987 Docket No. 50-341 DISTRIBUTION:
Docket;Non 50-341y Mr. B. Ralph Sylvia NRC PDR Atty, 0GC EMarinos Group Vice President - Nuclear Operations Local PDR JPartlow RRamirez Detroit Edison Company BWD-3 r/f EJordan CENorelius 6400 North Dixie Highway EAdensam BGrimes EGreenman Newport, Michigan 48166 JStefano ACRS (10)
EHylton RWHouston
Dear Mr. Sylvia:
RBernero GClainas 4
Subject:
Audit of the Fermi-2 Detailed Control Room Design Peview and Safety Parameter Display System Design Confirming telephone conversations held with your licensing staff in January 1987, the NRC plans to conduct a combined detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR) and Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) design audit at ti.e Fermi-2 plant site the week of March 16-20, 1987. The agenda for the combined audit is enclosed.
Note that the SPDS design audit agenda items are in " bold" type.
In preparation for the audit, it is requested that:
1.
DECO make available personnel (including contractors) knowledgeable in each of the DCRDR and SPDS design tasks to discuss the review process and to respond to questions raised by the NRC audit team members during the combined audit period.
2.
Deco provide up-to-date documentation of the organization, process and results of the DCRDR and SPDS design efforts to the NRC audit team as required.
3.
DECO provide conference and office space for NRC audit team meetings with Deco and for the NRC audit team and its consultants to meet privately.
l l
4.
Access be permitted to the control room, simulator, SPDS equipment, I
and remote shutdown facilities as required by the NRC audit team.
Unescorted access to these plant areas will not be required.
l 5.
Deco make arrangements in advance of the NRC audit team's visit to l
provide all necessary clearances enabling the audit team members l
to bring camera equipment on site to take photographs in the control I
room and other plant areas during the DCRDR and SPDS design audit.
The names of, and appropriate identification information for, each NRC audit team member will be communicated separately to your licensing staff at least one week prior to the team's visit.
Additionally, to enable the NRC audit team to prepare for the SPDS design audit, DECO is also requested to provide answers to the following cuestions and to submit 87021'70400 870212 PDR ADOCK 05000341 P
YDR l
1 I
Mr. B. Ralph Sylvia Detroit Edison Company Fermi-2 Facility cc:
Mr. Harry H. Voigt, Esq.
Ronald C. Callen LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae Adv. Planning Review Section 1333 New Hampsnire Avenue, N. W.
Michigan Public Service Commission Washington, D. C. 20036 6545 Mercantile Way P. O. Box 30221 John Flynn, Esq.
Lansing, Michigan 48909 Senior Attorney Detroit Edison Cou.pany Regional _ Administrator, Region III 2000 Second Avenue U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Detroit, Michigan 48226 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Mr. Dennis R. Hahn, Chief Nuclear Facilities and Environmental Monitoring Section Office Division of Radiological Health P. O. Box 30035 Lansing, Michigan 48909 Mr. Steve Frost Supervisor-Licensing Detroit Edison Company Fermi Unit 2 6400 North Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166 Mr. Thomas Randazzo Director, Regulatory Affairs Detroit Edison Company Fermi Unit 2 6400 North Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166 Mr. Walt Rogers U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspector's Office 6450 W. Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166 Monroe County Office of Civil Preparedness 963 South Raisinville Monroe, Michigan 48161
+
.re-,..
--,,. - e.
-._,n.
.~.--,
-__,..y-,
fomally answers no later than March 1,1987:
1.
On what date was the SPDS declared operational and what was the basis for scheduling that operational date (NRC Order, FSAR commitment,etc.)? If not operational, on what date will the SPDS become operational?
2.
On what date was the Verification and Validation program for the SPDS completed?
3.
Were the plant operations staff trained in the use of the SPDS equipment and are there SPDS procedures available to them?
4.
Has DECO reviewed the SPDS design against problems identified-in IE Information Notice 86-10? Have there been similar problems experienced with the Fermi-2 design?
5.
Are the SPDS procedures incorporated with the plant Emergency Operating Procedures?
6.
Who is the primary user of the SPDS equipment at Femi-2?
7.
Assuming the SPDS~is operational, have notifications been made, since the system was declared operational, and on what were the notifications made?
8.
Does the Fermi-2 plant operations staff find that the SPDS makes their jobs easier? If so, how? If not, why not?
9.
Describe to what extent the plant operations staff is using or relying upon information provided by the SPDS? If the SPDS infor-mation is not relied upon, why not?
An advance copy of this letter has been provided to your licensing staff.
Should there be any questions concerning this combined audit, please have your staff contact me by telephone at (301) 492-9473. While I will not be a member of the audit team, I do plant to visit the plant during the final 2-3 days of the audit and participate in meetings between the team and DECO.
Sincerely,
/S/
ilohn J. Stefano, Senior Project Manager BWR Project Directorate No. 3 Division of BWR Licensing
Enclosure:
As Stated cc: See next page EAdeh(sam: DBL LA:BWD-3: DBL BWD-3: DBL D:
-3 EHylton Stefano/vag EMarinos 02/ /87 2//J.;/87 02//2/87 02/17/87
~
- j..i TENTATIVE AGENDA I i i P. I FERMI-2
~
COMBINED SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY SYSTEM AND
, 'j l'
DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW AUDIT
.1 f} j
!' i DAY 1, Monday, March 16,1987 i.
8:30 A.M.
NRC Entrance Briefing FOR SPDS and Introductions 4
8:45 A.M.
Description of SPDS design program and current status by utility including Boundaries of the SPDS with respect to the EOF, TSC and/or plant computer i
i/
Basis for parameters displayed T
Human factors analysis, standards, and criteria used in the design process with emphasis on
,'T plant specific considerations 1
d..
Displays layouts and basis for displays selected
]:w I
System reliability and availability:
- :i
' fj Design characteristics to ensure high availability Methods used to estimate system availability
^q Methods planned to monitor operational availability f.
System security provisions l)
Data validation methodology used in the SPDS, includng data validation performed by any l j necessary sipport systems that provide validated data to the SPDS. Possible examples are jj RVLIS and radiation monitoring.
,t Operator training in the use of the SPDS i
i '!
s i
System maintenance philosophy and staffing i
i 3
i SPDS audit activities are indicated in boldface type.
DCRDR audit activities are indicated in normal type.
i
[4
'Sj
i.i.
l i
j 1:00 P.M.I.
hietion of Verification and Validation (V&V) Program, including:
is i
Description of the V&V team and discussion of the degree of i="+;zf-T-- from the design team l.'
Scope and depth of the V&V Program l ' '.
Test cases for validation of SPDS parameters and how they demonstrate the representativeness and usability of the selected parameters for evaluating transient conditions that do not fall j
within the plant design basis.
3 jl Discussion of SPDS Validation testing l.i Verification of human factors aspects of system 4
Coordination with other NUREG-0737 initiatives, with emphasis on control room design review f 9 (including a short discussion of SPDS-related findings).
4 l]
Overview of SPDS V&V documentation i1 I.3)I 3:00 P.M.
NRC human factors audit of displays, display formats, control devices, access and response times.
j:
De audit team will wish to operate or witness operation of the system to access and examine all j.
SPDS display formats. His activity may be conducted in the Control Room, 'ISC, EOF, Control l'
Room Simulator, or SPDS engineering simulator.
3 t j.}
4:00 P.M.
Discussion of outstanding questions resulting from audit of displays.
Day 2, Tuesday, March 17,1987 1
8:30 A.M.
DCRDR entrance briefing l
{
9:00 A.M.
Short tour of control room (supports both DCRDR and SPDS audit.)
ij 10:00 A.M.
NRC questions and review of V&V documentation. As part of the V&V documentation review, the audit team will want to select sample SPDS requirements and trace their implemption through 3
hardware and software specifications, source code, verification testing, integratea system testing, and field installation testing. He audit team will review documentation of V&V activities for each
}
step. A support this review, all existing system documentation in the following categories should be available for the SPDS and any necessary supporting systems that provide validated data to the SPDS.
i s
- S
i y3.-
1
' l-System functional requirements documents
!.-)
' j.,
Hardware and software specifications il Algorithm descriptions, and source code Emergency operating procedures
")
Data validity criteria
- ]
.}'
Software and hardware verification test procedures and results System validation test procedures and results
'l System availability study ji1 Documentation of iMt verification reviews of functional requirements doeurnents, hardware and software specifications, algorithms, test procedures, and results.
l
- ,d Drawings that document the make and type of SPDS electrical isolators and the interconnection of f
the isolators with safety-related inputs and the SPDS.
..]
l 10:00 A.M.*
Discussion of DCRDR activities and review of supporting documentation.
j
.<l DCRDR Team Discussion of team members qualifications, responsibilities, assignments, and level of effort in specific tasks.
j Operating Experience Review Discussion of process and results.
l 5
j Operator Interviews s
j i-Discussion of process and results.
i 1:00 P.M.*
Review the System Function and Task Analysis (SFTA) and comparison of operator needs with the i
control room inventory.
L
1 H
Brief overview of System Function and Task Analysis, control room inventory and comparison A
process by utility.
d U
Audit team to select a procedure and step-through procedure reviewing task analysis, inventory and comparison documentation.
+
,f 4:00 P.M.
Discussion of open items resulting from the SFTA step-through.
,h Identification of outstanding questions resulting from the V&V documentation review y
,[]
Day 3, Wednesday, March 18,1987 4
8:30 A.M.
Run through of plant-specific scenarios that involve monitoring of shutdown / start-g reactivity J
confirmation of containment isolation, monitoring of reactor building radiation levels and hy@ ogen i."
and oxygen concentration, and trends and monitoring of gaseous releases. 'Ihe run through should be j
performed by a plant operator who is familiar with SPDS operation and should make use of plant j
emergency operating procedures. 'Ihe run through will be most effective if it is performed using the
, y control room simulator. However, use of any SPDS display that can be drives by simulated plant l
transient data is acceptable.
l :q
.)
1:00 P.M.
Discussion of outstanding questions 2:00 P.M.
NRC audit team caucus fb M
3:00 P.M.
SPDS Exit Briefing
,I tj j :)
Day 4, Thursday, March 19,1987 8:30 A.M Review of control room survey e
1j Discussion of survey process and HED documentation by utility.
]
Review of IIED documentation.
1 i
i s'.
- sy-
I
.4-1 10:00 A.M.
NRC " Mini-Audit" of control room
'8R 1:00 P.M.',
Comparison of " mini-audit" findings with utility identified HEDs d3 2:30 P.M.
Review of HED assessment process Discussion of methodology for assessment process.
..J..
- i Discussion of schedule for HED corrective action implementation.
f.y Discussion of audit team questions on specific HED assessments.
- a
[j Discussion of outstanding questions resulting from survey and assessment reviews.
1
.1 Day 5, Friday, March 20,1987 8:30 A.M.
Review of process for selecting design improvements
,)
Discussion of selection methodology, by utility.
Discussion of HED correction schedule, by utility.
- -l
'l Discussion of audit team questions on specific design improvements.
9 10:30 A.M.
Review of process to verify HEDs are improved by corrections and do not introduce new HEDs.
.'l
}
Discussion of methodology, by utility.
~
Audit team examination of any verification documentation.
l documentation of completed verification reviews.
i
)
procedure (s) for verification review 1
human factors engineering guidelines j
11:30 A.M.
Review of process for coordinating DCRDR with other NUREG 0737 control room initiatives i
e
'T
. :O
,iJ
e..
4 1
1 i
a,
.3 Discussion of process, by utility.
(c.]
jji Brief review of DCRDR open items.
12:00 P.M.
NRC Caucus
.a, P
1:00 P.M.
DCRDR Exit Briefing j
2:00 P.M.
Combined Audit Completed
.,.o l"il e
4i
_l
<- ), I
[J
']
)
- if
,.5 1
i
'1 B
J e
i I
ii t
I'
. k'***
'Q.
_