ML20104A628

From kanterella
Revision as of 04:38, 28 April 2020 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Info Re Simulator Control Room Comparison Study,For Review & Development of Ser,Section 18.Info Will Be Incorporated in Future Suppl to Detailed Control Room Design Review Summary Rept
ML20104A628
Person / Time
Site: River Bend Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 01/23/1985
From: Booker J
GULF STATES UTILITIES CO.
To: Harold Denton
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
RGG-19-936, NUDOCS 8502010413
Download: ML20104A628 (4)


Text

6 yn

. -:q :

GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY POST O F FIC E BOX 2951 . BEAUMONT, TEXAS 77704 AREA CODE 409 838 6631 January 23, 1985 RBC-19,936 File Code: G9.5, G9.19.2, G9.33.4 Mr.' Harold R. Denton, Director

' Office of' Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S.~ Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,-D.C.- 20555

Dear Mr. Denton:

~

~

River Bend Station - Uniti 1 Docket No.'50-458

.The attached information.is being provided as requested by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission-(NRC)_ Human Factors. Engineering Branch

_( HFEB) for~its, review and-development of Safety Evaluation Report (SER)

. Section'18.--

Information provided herein will be incorporated into a future s supplement of the DCRDR Summary Report currently scheduled for submittal prior to' fuel load.

. Sincerely, i- .

. - E. Boo e Manager-Engineering Nuclear Fuels & Licensing

, River Bend Nuclear Group IJEB/RJK/je Attachment t-

/ l 9

.~

\'

Y 8502010413 850123 1

PDR ADOCK 05000458 E l\

PDR w

+

/_ 9 a.

Attachment Page 1 of 3 SIMULATOR / MAIN CONTROL ROOM COMPARISON STUDY IMPLEMENTATION OF FINDINGS As outlined'in Section 1.5- of the DCRDR Summary Report, GSU contracted General Physics Corporation (GP) to perform a detailed comparison of the main control room to the simulator.

The documentation used in performing this compar'ison study was the latest revision to the main control room panel layout drawings. Due to

-the construction status of RBS at the time of this study, there were many issued E&DCRs that were incorporated into these drawings that had not yet been implemented in_the main control room. Since GP was not supplied with these E&DCRs, discrepancies noted in Section 1.5 were

-identified between-the documentation and both the-main control room and the simulator, therefore, GP was not able to identify the correct design. In all of these cases, the latest revision of the drawings combined with. issued E&DCRs represent the correct main control room design. -Therefore, the discrepancies noted in Section 1.5 documented the fact that there were issued design changes to the Main Control Room that had not been implemented at the time of the study.

SPDS Implementation

, Those HED resolutions that recommend modifying the SPDS prior to

. fuel load will be implemented to that schedule. However, in GSU's ,

. letter to H. R. Denton from J. E. Booker' dated April 15, 1983 a response was provided on Generic Letter 82-33, "NUREG-0737 - Supplement 1 -

Emergency Response Capability", item I.D.2, which identified a SPDS fully functional date of. February 1986. Fully functional is defined as designed, installed, and tested, with approved operating procedures.in existence, and training performed.

. 7

.v ,

1 Attachment (cont'd.) Page 2 of 3 DCRDR HED RESOLUTIONS Sb 'To finalize and implement the DCRDR HED Resolutions, CSU established an on-site organization of engineering and operations personnel

- dedicated to this effort. .The core personnel of this group are the

-Startup'. Engineering Coordinator,'the Operations Coordinator, and the

Design Documents Review Coordinator.

-The' responsibility of the Startup Engineering Coordinator is to provide the panel drawings, documentation and HEDs to the Operations

' Coordinator,' assist.the group in developing and applying human. factors 1 conventions.(that do not currently exist), review completed drawing 1 markups to ensure that~all HED resolutions were included and-that human

-factors principles were; consistently applied, and provide overall Lecordination for the group.

The Operations Coordinator is responsible for coordinating the receipt of required. design information from operations and engineering, proposing human factors conventions and marking-up design drawings to reflect HED resolutions..

The Design Documents.. Review Coordinator assists the Operations

' Coordinator in his duties, develops specifications for-new enhancement features.,and. prepares the HED resolutions.for submittal to the labeling Lvendor_and GSU design organization.

RHuman factorsEconventions that do not presently exist are developed 7by a group' effort. -The Operations' Coordinator.and Design Documents

Review Coordinator identify the needLfor a convention. . Using.

u' LNUREG-0700, the RBS Maintenance Plan, and input from the simulator training instructors and RBS Operators, they develop-a convention that is consistent:with NUREG guidance'and. existing human factors

conventions.' In' addition, this: ensures'that the type of information/ enhancement that the operator requires is included. _ The

~

~

i Econvention is.then submitted to the.Startup Engineering Coordinator who

reviews = it to
ensure consistency with ' human factors principlesL and' that "any-HEDs_. relating to the convention will'be' adequately addressed..

~

Donald ~Burgy, GP. Human Factors Specialist, is available to provide 7expertihuman' factors advice to the Startup Engineering Coordinator.

.Each convention-is submitted'to a Human ~ Factors Specialist for review

-and concurrence. Once an approved' convention is established it is documented for use throughout the main control roon..

T fA~ majority of conventions-developed to date. pertain to labeling.

, _'ForLexample, equipment power supply information is being added to the-

.present label design. Since=this was not a past practice, new labels

-had to be developed to accommodate this additional information.: Another-

example.is hierarchical labeling which had not been consistently applied lin the'past. ,Using'NUREG-0700, specifications for hierarchical labeling were' developed for use throughout the main control room.

I 4

-,w,,,,'4 e.,---- eem+,,---r

,. 1 Attachment _(cont'd.) Page 3 of 3 A number of HEDs provided recommendations which indicated additional-

' review and/or analysis would be performed to determine their final

-resolution.. From this group of HEDs, those HEDs resolved as "no further action" will be submitted by the first refueling outage. This schedule is consistent.with the current implementation dates described in the DCRDR Summary Report.

.