U-600261, Forwards Dcrdr Summary Rept. Major Tasks Included in Dcrdr Enumerated.Human Engineering Design Discrepancies Identified by Dcrdr Categorized: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) StriderTol Bot insert |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) StriderTol Bot change |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:* | {{#Wiki_filter:* | ||
U- 600261 L30- (09 -20 )-L 1A.120 | U-600261 L30- (09 -20 )-L 1A.120 | ||
/LLINDIS POWER COMPANY CUNTON POWER STATION. P.o. 804 678. CliNTON. ILLINOIS 61727 September 20, 1985 Docket No. 50-461 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: | |||
Mr. W. R. Butler, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
| Line 27: | Line 28: | ||
==Dear Mr. Butler:== | ==Dear Mr. Butler:== | ||
The purpose of this letter is to provide the NRC Staff with the Illinois Power Company (IP) CPS Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR) Summary Report (Attachment). This report is required by NUREG-0737, Supplement #1, entitled " Requirements for Emergency Response Capability". Section #5 of NUREG-0737, Supplement #1, delineates the requirements for performing a DCRDR. | The purpose of this letter is to provide the NRC Staff with the Illinois Power Company (IP) CPS Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR) Summary Report (Attachment). This report is required by NUREG-0737, Supplement #1, entitled " Requirements for Emergency Response Capability". Section #5 of NUREG-0737, Supplement #1, delineates the requirements for performing a DCRDR. | ||
The CPS DCRDR began in July 1984. The DCRDR Program Plan was submitted to the NRC Staff in September 1984 (reference IP Letter U-0741, dated September 28, 1984). A meeting was held between IP personnel and the Staff on February 27, 1985, to discuss the DCRDR Program Plan. CPS responses to the Staff's questions on the Program l | The CPS DCRDR began in July 1984. The DCRDR Program Plan was submitted to the NRC Staff in September 1984 (reference IP Letter U-0741, dated September 28, 1984). A meeting was held between IP personnel and the Staff on February 27, 1985, to discuss the DCRDR Program Plan. CPS responses to the Staff's questions on the Program l | ||
Plan were subsequently provided via IP Letter U-0817, dated April 24, 1985. | |||
The DCRDR was performed by IP with assistance from Torrey Pines Technology, a division of CA Technologies Inc. The major tasks included in the CPS DCRDR were as follows: | The DCRDR was performed by IP with assistance from Torrey Pines Technology, a division of CA Technologies Inc. The major tasks included in the CPS DCRDR were as follows: | ||
1. | |||
Development of the Program Plan and supporting implementing procedures; 2. | |||
Operating Experience Review; 3. | |||
Control Room Survey; 4. | |||
System Function and Task Analysis (SFTA); | |||
5. | |||
Control Room Inventory; 9 | |||
6. | |||
Verification and Validation Activities; Id y | |||
'W I | |||
E' g9 AJSTA 904 uun | |||
= | |||
U-600261 L30- 85(09-20)-L 1A.120 | U-600261 L30- 85(09-20)-L 1A.120 7. | ||
Assessment and Implementation; and 8. | |||
Preparation of Documentation (this task was performed on a continuous basis throughout the DCRDR tasks and culminated in the issuance of the attached Summary Report and the follow-up supplement to be provided). | |||
In addition to these tasks, the DCRDR included the Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) Verification and Validation (V&V) Program. | In addition to these tasks, the DCRDR included the Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) Verification and Validation (V&V) Program. | ||
Performance of the E0P V&V Program within the DCRDR supported the goals of the SFTA and enhanced the results achieved. Finally, the open items from the 1981 Preliminary Design Assessment have been addressed. | Performance of the E0P V&V Program within the DCRDR supported the goals of the SFTA and enhanced the results achieved. Finally, the open items from the 1981 Preliminary Design Assessment have been addressed. | ||
The DCRDR has been a positive contribution to the implementation or an acceptable Main Control Room design at CPS. The Human Engineering Design (HED) discrepancies identified by the DCRDR were categorized as follows: | The DCRDR has been a positive contribution to the implementation or an acceptable Main Control Room design at CPS. The Human Engineering Design (HED) discrepancies identified by the DCRDR were categorized as follows: | ||
Schedule | Schedule Number of Category Explanation for Correction Items A | ||
* Documented /high | * Documented /high Before Fuel Load 29 potential for error, or | ||
* High safety importance, or | * High safety importance, or | ||
* Could violate Techni-cal Specifications. | * Could violate Techni-cal Specifications. | ||
B | B | ||
* Documented /high | * Documented /high 180 Days After 34 potential for error, Fuel Load (two or will be done | ||
* Low safety importance, prior to fuel or | * Low safety importance, prior to fuel or load) | ||
* Could result in an unsafe condition in conjuction with other errors. | * Could result in an unsafe condition in conjuction with other errors. | ||
C | C | ||
* Documented /some | * Documented /some Before restart 42 potential for error, from first or refueling outage | ||
* Potential significant | * Potential significant (eleven will be financial loss, or done prior to | ||
* Could reduce plant | * Could reduce plant fuel load) reliability /availa-bility, or | ||
* Low safety importance a | * Low safety importance a | ||
a D U 600261 L30-85(09-20)-L 1A.120 Schedule | a D | ||
* Low potential for | U 600261 L30-85(09-20)-L 1A.120 Schedule Number of Category Explanation for Correction Items D | ||
* No safety implication, (one will be or | * Low potential for Selected items 97 error, or to be corrected | ||
* No significant | * No safety implication, (one will be or done prior to | ||
* No significant fuel load) financial loss, or | |||
* Not interactive or cumulative with other H EDs. | * Not interactive or cumulative with other H EDs. | ||
As of this date, HEDs 6.4.003, 6.5.003, 6.6,001 and 6.6.005 (all but 10 labels) have been completed per the Preliminary Design Assessment efforts. These HEDs involve labelling of switches. | As of this date, HEDs 6.4.003, 6.5.003, 6.6,001 and 6.6.005 (all but 10 labels) have been completed per the Preliminary Design Assessment efforts. These HEDs involve labelling of switches. | ||
Section #8 of the Summary Report identifies DCRDR work still in progress. Essentially this includes completion of the Main Control Room environmental survey (upon construction completion), performance of a validation review for all corrective actions from this environmental survey, and development of a procedural guide for applying human factors criteria to any future control room modifications. The Supplement to the DCRDR Summary Report will address the results of these tasks and will be submitted to the Staff six months after the fuel load. | Section #8 of the Summary Report identifies DCRDR work still in progress. Essentially this includes completion of the Main Control Room environmental survey (upon construction completion), performance of a validation review for all corrective actions from this environmental survey, and development of a procedural guide for applying human factors criteria to any future control room modifications. The Supplement to the DCRDR Summary Report will address the results of these tasks and will be submitted to the Staff six months after the fuel load. | ||
IP considers the results of the DCRDR to fully meet the applicable requirements of NUREG-0737, Supplement #1. The changes made as a result of the HEDs will, upon implementation, provide an enhancement to the operators' capabilities to prevent and/or cope with postulated plant transients / accidents. | IP considers the results of the DCRDR to fully meet the applicable requirements of NUREG-0737, Supplement #1. The changes made as a result of the HEDs will, upon implementation, provide an enhancement to the operators' capabilities to prevent and/or cope with postulated plant transients / accidents. | ||
IP understands that the Staf f will perform an audit of the DCRDR results during the month of October. IP requests that the week beginning September 30th be confirmed for this audit. Also, IP personnel vill be contacting the Staff reviewer (R. Froelich) to finalize arrangements and the audit agenda. | IP understands that the Staf f will perform an audit of the DCRDR results during the month of October. | ||
IP requests that the week beginning September 30th be confirmed for this audit. Also, IP personnel vill be contacting the Staff reviewer (R. Froelich) to finalize arrangements and the audit agenda. | |||
If the Staff should have any questions regarding the DCRDR Summary Report, please contact me. | If the Staff should have any questions regarding the DCRDR Summary Report, please contact me. | ||
Sincerely yours, | Sincerely yours, | ||
: b. w u) & L F. A. Spangenberg Director - Nuclear Licensing Nuclear Station Engineering TLR/kaf Attachment ec: | : b. w u) & L F. A. Spangenberg Director - Nuclear Licensing Nuclear Station Engineering TLR/kaf Attachment ec: | ||
B. L. Siegel, NRC Clinton Licensing Project Manager NRC Resident Office Regional Administrator, Region III, USNRC lilinois Department of Nuclear Safety | |||
O | O DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW i | ||
DETAILED CONTROL ROOM | |||
DESIGN REVIEW | |||
==SUMMARY== | ==SUMMARY== | ||
REPORT | REPORT 1 | ||
i I | |||
i | |||
;O | ; O | ||
[ \ | [ \\ | ||
3p | 3p | ||
_f_n. | _f_n. | ||
ame CLINTON POWER | n ame 4 | ||
CLINTON POWER STATION i O lLLINOIS POWER COMPANY 4 | |||
lLLINOIS POWER COMPANY 4 | .}} | ||
Latest revision as of 02:43, 12 December 2024
| ML20135H712 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton |
| Issue date: | 09/20/1985 |
| From: | Spangenberg F ILLINOIS POWER CO. |
| To: | Butler W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20135H713 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737 U-600261, NUDOCS 8509240152 | |
| Download: ML20135H712 (3) | |
Text
U-600261 L30- (09 -20 )-L 1A.120
/LLINDIS POWER COMPANY CUNTON POWER STATION. P.o. 804 678. CliNTON. ILLINOIS 61727 September 20, 1985 Docket No. 50-461 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention:
Mr. W. R. Butler, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Subject:
Clinton Power Station (CPS)
Detailed Control Room Design Review Summary Report
Dear Mr. Butler:
The purpose of this letter is to provide the NRC Staff with the Illinois Power Company (IP) CPS Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR) Summary Report (Attachment). This report is required by NUREG-0737, Supplement #1, entitled " Requirements for Emergency Response Capability". Section #5 of NUREG-0737, Supplement #1, delineates the requirements for performing a DCRDR.
The CPS DCRDR began in July 1984. The DCRDR Program Plan was submitted to the NRC Staff in September 1984 (reference IP Letter U-0741, dated September 28, 1984). A meeting was held between IP personnel and the Staff on February 27, 1985, to discuss the DCRDR Program Plan. CPS responses to the Staff's questions on the Program l
Plan were subsequently provided via IP Letter U-0817, dated April 24, 1985.
The DCRDR was performed by IP with assistance from Torrey Pines Technology, a division of CA Technologies Inc. The major tasks included in the CPS DCRDR were as follows:
1.
Development of the Program Plan and supporting implementing procedures; 2.
Operating Experience Review; 3.
Control Room Survey; 4.
System Function and Task Analysis (SFTA);
5.
Control Room Inventory; 9
6.
Verification and Validation Activities; Id y
'W I
E' g9 AJSTA 904 uun
=
U-600261 L30- 85(09-20)-L 1A.120 7.
Assessment and Implementation; and 8.
Preparation of Documentation (this task was performed on a continuous basis throughout the DCRDR tasks and culminated in the issuance of the attached Summary Report and the follow-up supplement to be provided).
In addition to these tasks, the DCRDR included the Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) Verification and Validation (V&V) Program.
Performance of the E0P V&V Program within the DCRDR supported the goals of the SFTA and enhanced the results achieved. Finally, the open items from the 1981 Preliminary Design Assessment have been addressed.
The DCRDR has been a positive contribution to the implementation or an acceptable Main Control Room design at CPS. The Human Engineering Design (HED) discrepancies identified by the DCRDR were categorized as follows:
Schedule Number of Category Explanation for Correction Items A
- Documented /high Before Fuel Load 29 potential for error, or
- High safety importance, or
- Could violate Techni-cal Specifications.
B
- Documented /high 180 Days After 34 potential for error, Fuel Load (two or will be done
- Low safety importance, prior to fuel or load)
- Could result in an unsafe condition in conjuction with other errors.
C
- Documented /some Before restart 42 potential for error, from first or refueling outage
- Potential significant (eleven will be financial loss, or done prior to
- Could reduce plant fuel load) reliability /availa-bility, or
- Low safety importance a
a D
U 600261 L30-85(09-20)-L 1A.120 Schedule Number of Category Explanation for Correction Items D
- Low potential for Selected items 97 error, or to be corrected
- No safety implication, (one will be or done prior to
- No significant fuel load) financial loss, or
- Not interactive or cumulative with other H EDs.
As of this date, HEDs 6.4.003, 6.5.003, 6.6,001 and 6.6.005 (all but 10 labels) have been completed per the Preliminary Design Assessment efforts. These HEDs involve labelling of switches.
Section #8 of the Summary Report identifies DCRDR work still in progress. Essentially this includes completion of the Main Control Room environmental survey (upon construction completion), performance of a validation review for all corrective actions from this environmental survey, and development of a procedural guide for applying human factors criteria to any future control room modifications. The Supplement to the DCRDR Summary Report will address the results of these tasks and will be submitted to the Staff six months after the fuel load.
IP considers the results of the DCRDR to fully meet the applicable requirements of NUREG-0737, Supplement #1. The changes made as a result of the HEDs will, upon implementation, provide an enhancement to the operators' capabilities to prevent and/or cope with postulated plant transients / accidents.
IP understands that the Staf f will perform an audit of the DCRDR results during the month of October.
IP requests that the week beginning September 30th be confirmed for this audit. Also, IP personnel vill be contacting the Staff reviewer (R. Froelich) to finalize arrangements and the audit agenda.
If the Staff should have any questions regarding the DCRDR Summary Report, please contact me.
Sincerely yours,
- b. w u) & L F. A. Spangenberg Director - Nuclear Licensing Nuclear Station Engineering TLR/kaf Attachment ec:
B. L. Siegel, NRC Clinton Licensing Project Manager NRC Resident Office Regional Administrator, Region III, USNRC lilinois Department of Nuclear Safety
O DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW i
SUMMARY
REPORT 1
i I
i
- O
[ \\
3p
_f_n.
n ame 4
CLINTON POWER STATION i O lLLINOIS POWER COMPANY 4
.