ML20245D791

Dcrdr Onsite Meeting Rept for Philadephia Electric Co Peach Bottom Atomic Power Stations,Unit 2 & 3

ML20245D791
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	09/30/1988
From:	SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP. (FORMERLY
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20244E030	List: ML20244E027 ML20245D668 ML20245D791
References
CON-NRC-03-82-096, CON-NRC-3-82-96 SAIC-88-1818, TAC-56149, TAC-56150, NUDOCS 8810070154
Download: ML20245D791 (14)

Text

- - _ _ _ - _ .

-,.e.

SAIC-88/1818 DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW ON-SITE MEETING REPORT FOR i Pi!LADELPH A ELECTRIC COMPI'sY'S -

PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION UNITS 2 AND 3 I

c. TAC N0s. 56149, 56150 .

N )

O September 30, 1988 i

EAE 1

0 Prepared for:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Contract NRC-03-82-096 Task Order No. 19 -

1 l

, Pont One Box 12. m0 Goo &@e Ek Mct.enn, Vapinie D1W. rm mim

( '

L _Q0 wy' K& I' )p34 - .- --

n1 i

L.

• j ,

1;  ;.

ll .a :

q .;.

DETAILED CONTROL A00N DESIGN REVIEW ON-SITE NEETING REPORT FOR PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY'S PEACH B0T703 AT0NIC POWER STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3 INTRODUCTION.

This report documents the findings of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission-U (NRC) team during-an on-site meeting of the detailed control room design review (DCRDR)~ for Philadelphia Electric Company's Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2-and_3. The meeting was conducted on September 28, 1988.

The NRC team consisted of a representative from the NRC's Human Factors O Assessment Branch and a contractor from Science Applications International Corporation.. The meeting was conducted on-site at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. This report was prepared by Science Applications International Corporation, but is intended to reflect the consolidated g observations, conclusions and recommendations of the NRC team members. An outline of the meeting agenda and a list of meeting attendees are included in' Attachments 1 and 2 to this report.

BACKGROUND DISCUSSION O ,

Philadelphia Electric Company submitted the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. Units 2 and 3 DCRDR Summary Report to NRC by letter dated February 28, 1986 (Reference 1). The Summary Report was evaluated by Science l Applications International Corporation who submitted a DCRDR Technical Evaluatien Report to'the NRC (Reference 2).

A pre-implementation audit of the DCRDR was conducted on July 14 and 15, 1986. As a result of the pre-implementation audit, the NRC identified three areas of concern that needed to be resolved before it could be judged that the licensee satisfactorily met all nine NUREG-0737, Supplement I requirements (Reference 3). The three concerns are listed below.

First, the plant-specific emergency operating procedures derived from the Boiling Water Reactor Owners' Group Revision 3 Emergency Procedures 1 i l

- _ _ _ _ _ 1

,?

Guidelines were not subjected to DCRDR function and task analysis process.

Therefore,- the pre-implementation . audit team could not judge whether a comprehensive set of emergency tasks had been identified as a result of the DCRDR task analysis. The Revision 3 based procedures include Radioactivity Release Control and Secondary Containment Control.

The second concern was that information and control requirements for Radioactivity Release Control and Secondary Containment Control were not compared to the control room inventory to identify human engineering discrepancies (NEDs).

t. <

The third concern was that the licensee did not have a formal procedure for coordinating control room modifications resulting from DCRDR with other NUREG-0737, Supplement I upgrade programs.

O In summary, the NRC had previously determined that the licensee met six of the nine NUREG-0737, Supplement 1 DCRDR requirements. The purpose of this on-site meeting was to determine if the licensee met the remaining three NUREG-0737, Supplement 1 DCRDR requirements and to evaluate O

implemented DCRDR modifications in the control room.

FINDINGS O The NRC . team findings are listed below in terms of NUREG-0737, Supplement I require:nents.

Requirement 2. Function and Task Analysis Subsequent to the NRC preimplementation audit, the licensee contracted General Physics Corporation to perform a function and task analysis of the L Peach Botton 2 and 3 procedures that were derived from the Boiling Water s Reactor Owners' Group Emergency Procedure Guidelines Revision 3. The General Physics Corporation task analysis effort included the Radioactivity Release Control and Secondary Containment Control procedures.

The review team evaluated the task analysis worksheets that were documented on a computerized database management system. Samples of the task analysis worksheets are included as Attachment 3 to this report. The 2

i l

b

f.

l task analysis worksheets utilized a two page fonnat. . Page 1 documented the operational steps required for each procedure. Page 2 of the' task analysis worksheets documented the appropriate information and control requirements.

l The operator information and control requirements documented on the task analysis worksheets were identified independent of the control room instrumentation. The availability and suitability of instruments and '

controls was determined during the verification and validation walkthroughs.

in the control room, and the results entered on Page 2 of the task analysis worksheets.

L It is the review team's judgment that the licensee has met the NUREG-0737, Supplement I requirement for a function and task analysis to identify l control room operator tasks and information requiremen.ts during emergency o operations, Requirement 3 i Comoarison of Disolav and Control Requirements with a '

Control Room Inventory O I Following the identification of the information and control j requirements for the Radioactivity Control and Secondary Containment Control J

Procedures, the licensee conducted a verification of the instrumentation and

]

controls in the control room. This verification process resulted in the  !

C' identification of instrumentation numbers, and documentation of availability j ar.d suitability. i l

Following the implementation of the Radioactivity Control and Secondary C Containment Control procedures, the licensee conducted validation

]

walkthroughs in th'e control' room itsing shift operators. The validation l consisted of scenarios that exercised the procedures. Deficiencies in j the procedures were documented as validation discrepancies, i

Examples of validation discrepancies are:

o Lack of enhancements on Area Radiation Monitor labels.

1 o No indication of temperature alarm setpoints/ action levels for j secondary containment temperatures.

t 3

l

__ - _ _ _- l-

1 i

o Inadequate laydown space for the procedures which were large and flimsy.

Validation discrepancies were assessed and corrected in the control room. Review of the discrepancies listed above, indicated that they were corrected and no new discrepancies were introduced as a result.

It is the review team's judgment that the licensee has met the NUREG-0737, Supplement I requirement for a comparison of operator information and contral requirements to the control room inventory.

L Requirement 9 - Coordination of Control Room Improvements with Chances from Other Prooram3 Such as the Safety Parameter Disolay System (SPDS). Ooerator Trainino. Reculatory Guide 1.97 Instrumentation. and Uooraded Emeroency o Ooeratino Procedures.

The licensee provided a detailed description of the ways that the DCRDR modifications were coordinated with other NUREG-0737, Supplement I programs.

n A discussion of how each program was coordinated is provided below. j u

l The Safety Parameter Display System was coordinated with the DCRDR in several ways. First, the nomenclature standard E-540-4, Revision 3 was used for all nomenclature in the SPDS design. Second, the Safety Parameter )

O Display System. program included a human factors plan that used human factors standards such as NUREG-0700 guidelines. Third, a full scale mockup of the new l

Safety Parameter Display System was developed along with a redesigned j unit operator console using the DCRDR human factors experts and team c manager.  !

Regulatory Guide 1.97 Category I and 2, instrumentation was enhanced with a vertical yellow strip attached at the right hand side of every display and recorder. This modification was completed successfully in the control room.

i The upgraded emergency operating procedures were used as the bases for the DCRDR function and task analysis. This includes Secondary Containment I Control and Radi, activity Release Control.

4 ,

c

_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . n

.----.._.-,..-m..

gA e) l (o IMAGE EVALUATION

[/"

Nbk k///7%Y q% [/ TEST TARGET (MT-3) 4% pd$(g  ?

4y,y>

+ g,,;+;

1.0 lf M L'A e a gi" 2.2 b tu l,l

1. bN l.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 4 150mm >

• 6" >

4 y ,y,, f 4

f b) + a

////

%e.

(%..,S._---.__----- - - _ _ - - _ _ - - --_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

$,$+* k Q)f l .O a* x# IMAGE EVALUATION /+r,4 h

/o

/ t[@#f' t+ f// TEST TARGET (MT-3)

/ g),4'4f, g4 4

////

23

\

\ . /

+

• 6" >

p% N4 /sp,3,9a$ 4 5jy , --

s*a se.

6 0, skck +7

( f&

3,,, .

'?lllb_

ik

1. ,%*I,*9 h t' A .

IMAGE EVALUATION 4(

)[Ofi [ /

• ) f/ TEST TARGET (MT-3) g[,  ??g,/g

/// ,

N /////

+ y,,,

77 ,

s I.0 ?M M tu p==

m l,l .M lllll 1.25 1.4 1.6 4 150mm >

4 6"

• b% 4$ /4-qqp ,3p v .

g,gs r 9 l

%s s ______ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _

ax, ,

l m

%y < /

s i ,

f '

m c!

With regard to operator training, the operations staff and training '

staff received formal training on the DCRDR enhancements. Training is part of the requalification cycle for licensed operators and progressive training p for new operators.

It~ is the review team's judgment that the licensee has met the h3 REG-0737, Supplement I requirement for coordination with other programs i including Safety Parameter Display System, Regulatory Guide 1.97 instrumentation, upgraded emergency operating procedures, and operator training.

l CONCLUSIONS '

The purpose of the September 28, 1988 on-site meeting at Philadelphia C Electric Company's Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 Atomic Power Station, was to assess the status of the licensee's compliance with the r.ina NUREG-0737, Supplement I detailed control room design review requirements. Based on the findings, it was the review team's judgment that the licensee has met all g nine NUREG-0737, Supplement I detailed control room design review requirements.

O s

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ R.

~,';

, 3,1" t

REFERENCES

1. Philadelphia Electric Company's Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Control Room Design Review Final Report, Philadelphia Electric Company, fl. February 28, 1986.

I'

2. Detailed Control Room Design Review Pre-Implementation Audit Report for Philadelphia Electric Company's Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and .3, Science Applications International Corporation, t September 14, 1988.

)~

, 3. NUREG-0737, Supplement 1, Requirements for Emergency Response 5

Capability, (Generic Letter No. 82-33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory C, Commission, December 1982.

O C

C l

6 1

_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ RJ

\

1. 6 4

e

. g

1. ,+

a o

ATTACHMENT I MEETING AGENDA C

O O

?

e E

. I J

l I

1 I

l O

- i t .

TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR ON-SITE DCRDR MEETING AT PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3 Wednesday. September 28. 1988 1

9:00 a.m. Introduction of the NRC Staff Introduction of the Licensee's Personnel i

Statement of Purpose of Meeting 1 To bring closure to staff's review of licensee's DCRDR Comparison of DCRDR Documentation Between Staff and Licensee 9:15 a.m. Open DCRDR Items Resulting from Pre-Implementation Audit of July 14-15, 1986: l l

(NUREG-0737, Supplement 1 Requirements) 0 -

Regarding function and task analysis requirement, has not completed an analysis of the BWROG Revision 3 upgraded E0Ps which is consistent with the DCRDR.

Radioactivity Release Control Secondary Containment Control Regarding control room inventory, has not compared the BWROG Revision 3 upgraded E0P task requirements with the control room inventory.

Regarding coordination of control room improvements with O other programs, has not developed a formal process for coordinating the new SPDS and future control room modifications with the DCRDR.

9:30 a.m. Brief Presentation on Status of DCRDR Program by Licensee '

Addressing Open Items 10:30 a.m. Control Room Review of DCRDR Modifict,tions NOON LUNCH '

1:00 p.m. Visit Remote Shutdown and Local Control Stations 2:00 p.m. Review Documentation Rev. 3 Task Analysis  !

Control Room Modifications Standards 2:30 p.m. Caucus 2:45 p.m. Exit O'

______.-___m. _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ J

i r~*'. . . ...

4

-1 l

4 l ,

k ATTACHMENT 2 MEETING ATTENDEES O

9 9

l m I e

L._a__. .._..__.

y 1' t i g~

3 fg . . . j

py ' .

- MEETING ATTENDEES

'l i l

Garmon West NRC l Joseph DeBor SAIC/NRC~

' Jack Winzenried 'PECO David Horne PECO Richard Andrews PECO Thomas Cabrey. PECO Charles Behrend PECO u a

.l J

i A. .

)

i I

.O.

i 0

1 1

i l

G l'

l 6

i i;

- _ . . - _ . _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ .~

y i

e '

3-' ( h

-Q  !

$5 P \

l 1

j l

L ATTACHMENT 3 TASK ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS O

O i.

f e

i 4

l l

. _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ E

my . '

? l

.4.

( t. .

L . . .V

.e .

.E ,

w .

. o g

i. = m g ...

- . =,

w .a D

~

w

.a =

a m.

.- . m

- e u u

(,  ! E E E  %

m E2

. .E d

u

- m- . .

zm .

= *

.m.

u-

- w =

.=. =.

- g . .

= s.,

. =

m . -

. w 0 l. E "

a =a $e a -

m.

g w

=

w-6 =

=. .

, w =

m w

~ -

a.  : 3 - 3

. u 2 3 .=

. .- .a . . .

=

=s

.a_ r, u . .

O

" w. - _.

l, .  !  !

v 6

wm ..

. . * " 4 .g te l w v.

~ ~ .

• EO M WM

=

u 4.

e a=m  !

E .,s '

s s~ a

~ _

s

~.

~ ,

.~ ~ . . .

- =. .

7- .m .v .v I

I,

-O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O\

-_____..____.._..__m_ .__ ._ .11 i

e 1m. . t, s. . A es ,i ?  ;

1

r. g , y '* -

i i

p 2

1=

.= 2 w

= l . . . . . e 3 I. W = W

• g =

1

.....,. , ~-

- . c.

g . m .a .a . d$

W W

. I W W W W W 'Go oj,7

! Qp2.

s 6 4'/04't b j g e - E 7:e '-

=., . . G G .

w w a s e M w g..y g..

g j E IE 5 55 YY ,

3333 $33. Du  ?

("  : 5  ? $ . FV 2 l

I sams Essa a & -

s &

l b

s

. . m h . 3 e z.= --

n z-un wgIEE - e -

=-

a w.

s.-.c 5 5 a

= - .r. -

.s g, ,s os s=

= g. l=r ~g sr=es s.- =gv.

je sts a =rv. -

O -

3 m

=- ,

je-

.gtg Ex, Ag. g=

s=I

-- s E-sg

-s== ER==

_g s; e- -

sa g V s. g}s a Es=sig ! gs! ,=

g

- c ! z, mf z.~ . . . . . . . .

Ism ~ .s. ... E Em==

$ la 55 l' e 5

0 # $ f*5

= . . g.g

. E I E" B2 5:

= 5 5 =E =S =$

W W E *s

• S= s=

l -

= * :. =3 = 5 n3 s

w Re.. - - -

E E-83

! 3E ..- Ew E E. 5 E. s

= :

= :

v3

.) .

r , _.

~*s=

=I- d-

..s ==

s3

=

acg

,e seg 4

me is-  ! s 1 .. = Egg g 3 tl' 1

=g ..

E E u

• g g =S=U -== 1

v. sEE sg E a v.- E Blan l=eg s

=,s =12 a

-~a - -

==- 4 -

I

g2-a 32 1 68=

8 M- = a -

- = E.

Es-

- w I.

~~.

wa- = i..

.e *w.E. ..s d .a. E .

Er-f --z 4.s-r I

- A E I

= , i E s s

- - w =. r X8 as a

= s fu g-

.I SE . E E Eg! g*f=a

(

=

e-

-r h- =a E

Es 8 =s l-

.i E

=

sa-s

-f f_a

-:g s

)

k I

_ ==

==

=

=

=g

=- CE

=. = E *- .g, 25

=I

• - .ns 1.5 m - e = = = =

.. as a x n =

n c n 3  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?

'1 '3

. 3 3 3 . 3 .

3 t - .e n. ..- .. .- ..- . ..-

1 1

j