ML20215M041

Supplemental Safety Evaluation Re Human Factors Design of SPDS

ML20215M041
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	10/20/1986
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20215M040	List: ML20215M035 ML20215M041
References
NUDOCS 8610300003
Download: ML20215M041 (3)

Text

.

/ p n a.yh UNITED STATES I

! k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I

$  ; ,I WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Y-  % e

%, . . . . . ,8 SUPPLEMENTAL SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT FORT CALHOUN STATION UNIT NO. 1 i DOCKET NO. 50-285 HUMAN FACTORS DESIGN OF THE SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY SYSTEM I. INTRODUCTION All holders of operating licenses (licensees) issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and applicants for an operating license must provide a Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) in the control room of their plant. The Commission-approved requirements for the SPDS are defined in Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 (Ref. 1).

The staff's Safety Evaluation (SE) on Fort Calhoun's SPDS is presented in Reference 2. An open issue identified in the SE was a human factors evaluation of the licensee's design. The licensee conducted a human factors evaluation of the SPDS and submitted the results of that review (Refs. 3 and

4) to the staff. The staff held a meeting with the licensee at the plant site on February 26-27, 1986 to discuss the human factors review, the resolution of

)

human engineering discrepancies (HEDs), and to evaluate the SPDS within the control room (Ref. 4). By letter dated September 5, 1986 (Ref. 6), the licensee submitted a Human Factors Maintenance Plan for SPDS display formats and techniques for staff review. The staff's safety evaluation is based upon the evaluation of the above described material.

Il. EVALUATION

• The staff's evaluation of the licensee's human factors review of the Safety Parameter Display System concluded that a thorough review had been conducted.

The licensee hired a contractor to perform the review and submitted the contractor's report (Ref. 3) for staff evaluation. The report contained the guidelines used in the review, the method used to perform the review, and details on each of the HEDs identified. The staff's evaluation of several of these HEDs concluded that a thorough review had been conducted.

During February 26-27, 1986, the staff met with the licensee at the plant site to discuss the disposition of the HEDs. It was noted that a large number of HEDs had been set aside for investigation to determine if and how desired changes could be made. The staff was concerned that these HEDs would be evaluated and a design effort made to correct them. During the meeting, the staff found that some of the HEDs had already been corrected by design 8610300003 061020 5 PDR ADOCK 0500 P

i3f modifications, and these were evaluated. It was found that many of the changes were made without the benefit of a formalized set of design guidelines. The licensee stated that a Human Factors Maintenance Plan was under development and a portion of the plan was dedicated to SPDS display formats and techniques. The staff requested that this portion of the plan be submitted for staff review. .

i Also during the visit to the plant site, the control room was inspected for the location and use of the SPDS. The staff noted that the SPDS work station in the control room was not useable due to its inconvenient location and lack of workspace. It was recommended that the workspace be improved prior to the declaration of SPDS operability.

On September 19, 1986, the staff spoke with the NRC resident inspector for Fort Calhoun to determine the status of the SPDS work station. The inspector reported that modifications had been made and that the work station appeared useable. Also, by letter dated September 5, 1986, the licensee submitted the SPDS portion of the Human Factors Maintenance Plan for staff review. The staff's review of this document concluded that a reasonable set of guidelines had been assembled. The staff recommends that these guidelines be used in the resolution of the remaining HEDs and to evaluate design changes to date.

J Furthermore, it is recommended that as design experience is gained and new design guidelines developed, the new guidelines should be added to the Human Factors Maintenance Plan.

III. CONCLUSIONS Based on the staff's review of the licensee's Human Factors Maintenance Plan and the licensee's effort at improving the SPDS work station within the control room, the staff confirms that the licensee has committed to a human factors program in the development of the SPDS and that implementation of the SPDS may continue.

The conclusion that SPDS implementation may continue does not imply that the SPDS meets or will meet the requirements of Supplement I to NUREG-0737. Such on confirmation can be made only after a post-implementation audit or when sufficient information is available for the staff to make such a determination.

Implementaiton of the SPDS is scheduled for September 1987. This schedule is contingent on resolution of the two remaining issues associated with the SPDS. These are isolation devices and SPDS parameter selection. If either of these items requires hardware changes that must be accomplished during an outage, then this date could be delayed until the fall 1988 outage. Licensees are required to inform the Commission, in writing, of any significant changes in the estimated completion schedule identified in this Safety Evaluation and when the action has actually been completed.

{ V. REFERENCES

1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements, Requirements for Emergency Response Capability,"

U.S. NRC Report NL' REG-0737, Supplement 1, January 1983. .

T

2. Letter from E.J. Butcher, NRC, to R.L. Andrews, Omaha Public Power District,

Subject:

Safety Paramter Display System, dated June 7, 1985.

3. Letter from R.L. Andrews, Omaha Public Power District, to E.J.

Butcher, NRC,

Subject:

Control Room Design Review (CRDR) Report Supplement on Safety Parameter Display System, dated August 15, 1986.

4. Letter from R.L. Andrews, Omaha Public Power District, to A.C.

Thadani, NRC, Subject; Detailed Control Room Design Review, dated January 28, 1986.

5. Letter from A.C. Thadani, NRC to R.L. Andrews, Omaha Public Power District,

Subject:

Safety Parameter Display System, dated February 14, 1986.

6. Letter from R.L. Andrews, Omaha Public Power District, to A.C.

Thadani,NRC,

Subject:

Safety Parameter Display System, Human Factors Review, dated September 5, 1986.

e i

I