TXX-4284, Forwards Response to 840827 Request for Info Re Status of Human Engineering Deficiencies & Clarifications to Control Room Design Review Implementation Audit

From kanterella
(Redirected from TXX-4284)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Response to 840827 Request for Info Re Status of Human Engineering Deficiencies & Clarifications to Control Room Design Review Implementation Audit
ML20095L433
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  
Issue date: 08/24/1984
From: Schmidt H
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To: Youngblood B
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
TXX-4284, NUDOCS 8408300239
Download: ML20095L433 (6)


Text

e--

-c' TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY Log # TXX-4284 MKYWAY U)WER

  • 400 NONTH OMVE MTHEET.1,.B. Mt
  • DAM,AM, TEXAM Wol File # 10010 907 clo August 24, 1984 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: Mr. B. J. Youngblood, Chief Licensing Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555

SUBJECT:

COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION I

DOCKET NOS. 50-445 AND 50-446 RESPONSE TO HUMAN FACTORS CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW IMPLEMENTATION AUDIT

Dear Sir:

During the week of July 30, 1984, an implementation audit was held at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) to audit the status of Texas Utilities' efforts to resolve identified Human Engineering Deficiencies (HED's) and to discuss those actions necessary with l

respect to the CPSES Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR) or l

Preliminary Design Assessment (PDA) that must be completed to issue an Operating License (OL) for CPSES. At the conclusion of the audit, a list of less than 50 HED's remained to be closed and several items requ' ired clarification. As discussed during the audit, any items that were not adequately closed or clarified by Aug tst 27, 1984, would probably be includad in a license condition that required completion by a given time or as part of the DCRDR.

The SER would recommend the OL for CPSES on the basis of a PDA.

This letter provides the requested August 27, 1984, information.

The status of the HED's and the requested clarifications are attached.

If you have any questions, please call Don Woodlan of my staff.

Respectfully, H. C. Schmidt

-DRW:tls 8408300239 B40824 Attachments PDR ADOCK 05000445 A

PDR Original + 40 copies

...........A.-..........c...c....

m o

q:

4.'

m

. ATTACHMENT'A LHED' NUMBER STATUS COMMENT 3-

.3

Open 9-21-84

.(6) 42 Open (1) 59-Open (2) 68 Open' 9-21-84 (6) 80

-Open 8-30-84 (6)

' 88 Open 1-84 (6) 93 Open 9-21-84 (6)~

'103 Closed-

~

'(4) 8-23-84

.106-Open 8-30 (6)

-120

'Open.

9-21-84

-(6) 122 Open 9-21-84 (6) 130 Open 9-15-84 (6) 137E Closed (4) 8-23-84 151 0 pen (5) 154 Open (1)

'170 Open (1) 179 Closed ~

(4) 8-23-84 181 Open 8-30-84 (6) 183 Closed (5) 184 Open 10-1-84 (6) 200 Open (5) 201 Closed (4) 8-24-84 203 Closed Clarification requested.

See Attachment B.

'214 pen 9-15-84 6)

O 225 Open 8-30-84 6) 226 Open 8-30-84 6) 267 Open 9-15-84 6) 269 Closed.

(4) 8-23-84 285 Closed Clarification required.

See Attachment B.

(4) 8-23-84 307 Closed Clarification requested.

See Attachment B.

308 Open (2

310.

Open (2

-311 Open (2

321 Open 8-30-84 (6) 338 Closed (4) 8-23-84 342 Open-(5) 345 Open 9-15-84 (6) 346 Open (2) 347 Open (2) 348 Open (1) 349 0 pen (1) 352 Open (1) 353 Open (3) 354

-Open (5)

(1)

Action Required, To be closed by follow-up lighting survey.

-(Estimate' completion during first quarter of 1985).

(2)-

Action Required.

To be closed by follow-up noise survey.

(Estimate completion during first quarter of 1985).

(3)-

Action Required.

To be closed by follow-up environmental survey.

(Estimate completion prior to end of 1984).

(4)

Resident Inspector confirmed closure on noted date.

(5)

Final response and closure deferred to the DCRDR.

(6)

Date estimated that item will be ready for confirmation of closure by the Resident Inspector.

. (7)

An HED on the phone cords at the main control panels was closed but still of concern. Action being considered includes adjusting the tension of the retractor and installing ball-stops on the phone cord.

4 W-._

-_--__-_---...--_-_.---____L-_-___.___.--__--------_L-----..-

.-__.-_-----_-__.____._.__-_--.....-____-.-._..---..-._._.-.-a

.4-HED CONTROL NO. 203

' A.

HED DESCRIPTION Decimals are used on scale numbers.

B.

GUIDELINE REFERENCE NUREG/CR-1580:

VD-63.

.C.

LOCATION CB-09.

D.

POTENTIAL SAFETY CONSEQUENCES I

None.

E.

ASSESSMENT PROCESS-No assessment necessary.

F.

BACKFIT j

Decimals will be eliminated on these scales by using a smaller scale 6

multiplier (i.e., 108 ratherthanlg). The exception is on CB-08 where decimal points are used with the 10 scale multiplier.

In this case, the indigator with the decimal point is in a bank of indicators which all have a 10 scale multiplier. The same multiplier is used here for clarity.

i 1

.o HED ~ CONTROL No. 285

.A.

HED DESCRIPTION

. Layout of electrical distribution. system controls / indicators is mirror-imaged.

B.-

GUIDELINE REFERENCE

.NUREG-0700:

6.8.2.3 C.

LOCATION CB-11 D.

POTENTIAL SAFETY CONSEQUENCES Misoperation of Diesel Generator controls E.

ASSESSMENT PROCESS 1.

Reviewed feasibility of rearranging components.

2.

Reviewed operability of panel in its present layout.

F.

BACKFIT l

The electrical distribution system controls are best mimicked in a l

" mirror-image" layout. Demarcation and hierarchical labeling was added to the electrical distribution system indicators to enhance their layout and improve control / display intergration.

Diesel Generator controls will be demarcated out of the mimic. The benefits of rearranging the layout of the Diesel Generator 1 controls, is not great enough to warrant making the change.

2

.G.

HED CONTROL No.'307' k.

A.

RED: DESCRIPTION b

Shared alarms are duplicated in each control room.

B.,

GUIDELINE REFERENCE NUREG-0700: 6.3.1. 2.d. (1). and ' (2)

C.

LOCATION' Control Room D.

POTENTIAL SAFETY. CONSEQUENCES Failure to react to alarm.

E.-

ASSESSMENT PROCESS Alternatives were assessed to-improve operator response to alarms.

F.

BACKFIT Unit 2 alarm response procedures will address how the Unit 2 operator should. respond to these shared alarms in cooperation with the Unit 1-operator, Unit i response procedures will not be affected by the existance-of Unit 2 response procedures for these shared alarms.

3

- - _-______-_-_ -