ML20212J166

Notification of 870310-11 Meetings W/Util in Joliet,Il to Review Dcrdr Corrective Actions & SPDS Operation & Continue Discussions on Encl Human Engineering Discrepancy Justification/Schedule Questions.Agenda Also Encl

ML20212J166
Person / Time
Site:	Byron, Braidwood, 05000000
Issue date:	03/02/1987
From:	Stevens J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8703060335
Download: ML20212J166 (9)

Text

._  :-

. . .' March 2, 1987 Docket Nos. STN 50-454/455 and STN 50-456/457 MEMORANDUM FOR: Steven A. Varga, Director Project Directorate #3

-Division of PWR Licensing-A FROM: Janice A. Stevens, Project Manager Project Directorate #3 Division of PWR Licensing-A

SUBJECT:

FORTHCOMING MEETING: DCRDR AND SPDS SITE AUDIT-BYRON AND BRAIDWOOD STATIONS DATE & TIME: March 10, 1987 (8:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.)

March 11,1987 (8:30 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.)

LOCATION: Braidwood Station Site Joliet, Illinois PURPOSE: Visit control room to review DCRDR corrective actions and improvements and SPDS operation; and continue discussions with Comonwealth Edison Company (CECO) on the HED justification / schedule questions listed in enclosure 2.

A detailed agenda is included as enclosure 1.

PARTICIPANTS: NRC/ Consultants CECO R. Eckenrode (NRC) S. Hunsader, et.al.

J. DeBor (SAI Corp)

T. Carlson (COMEX) i Janice A. Stevens, Project Manager Project Directorate #3 Division of PWR Licensing-A

Enclosures:

As stated cc: See next page NOTE: NRC meetinos are open to interested members of the public to attend as observers. Members of the public who wish to attend these meetings must contact J. A. Stevens, (301) 492-7829.

PD#h PD#3 JStetans L01shan

-af /87 3/ 2 /87 l

P"2889o9888% PDR L

l

MEETING NOTICE DISTRIBUTION A

l0scket: File NRC'PDR " '"

Local PDR NSIC PRC System PD#3 Rdg.

J. Stevens C. Vogan ORAS H. Denton H. Thompson C. Rossi S. Varga G. Lear B. Youngblood.

V. Noonan L. Rubenstein R. Ballard C. Berlinger J. Milhoan F. Rosa V. Benaroya OGC-Bethesda J. Partlow B. Grimes l E. Jordan

! ACRS (10)

OPA Receptionist PPAS/TOSB R. Eckenrode (NRC)

J. DeBor (SAI Corp)

T. Carlson (COMEX)

s.

E6.

Mr. Dennis L. Farrar Braidwood Station Commonwealth Edison Company Units 1 and 2-cc: Ms. Lorraine Creek Mr. William Kortier Route 1, Box 182.

Atomic Power Distribution Manteno, Illinois 60950 Westinghouse Electric Corporation ~

Post Office Box 355 Douglass Cassel, Esq.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 109 N. Dearborn Street Joseph Gallo, Esq.

Chicago, Illinois 60602 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Elena Z. Kezelis, Esq.

1150 Connecticut Ave., N. W. Isham, Lincoln & Beale Suite 1100 Three First National Plaza Washington, D. C. 20036 Suite 5200 .

C. Allen Bock, Esq. Chicago, Illinois 60602 Post Offices _ Box 342 Mr. Charles D. Jones, Director Urbana, Illinois 61801 Illinois Emergency Services and Disaster Agency Thomas J. Gordon, Esq.

Waaler, Evans & Gordon 110 East Adams Street Springfield, Illinois 62706 2503 S. Neil Champaign, Illinois 61820 George L. Edgar Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.

Ms. Bridget Little Rorem 1615 L Street, N.W.

Appleseed Coordinator Washington, D.C. 20036

' 117 North Linden Street Essex, Illinois 60935 Michael Miller, Esq.

Isham, L~incoln & Beale Mr. Edward R. Crass One First National Plaza Nuclear Safeguards and

.c Licensing Division 42nd Floor Sargent & Lundy Engineers Chicago, Illinois 60603 55 East Monroe Street Chicago, Illinois 60603 .

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspectors Office RR#1, Box 79 Braceville, Illinois 60407 Regional Administrator, Region III U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 i

_ . _ , _ . . _ _ . _ _ . . . . . _ . . , _ _ . . ~ . , _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . , . - - _ _ , , , , _ - _ . . _ _ _ . . _ . . . . . _

ENCLOSURE 1

• AGENDA RYRON/BRAIDWOOD DCRDR AND SPDS SITE AUDIT AT BRAIDWOOD STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 Day One NRC Entrance Briefing and Introductions 8:30 am 9:00 am Detailed Discussion of HED Justification / Schedule Questions (See Attachnent 1) 1:00 pm Visit Control Room to review HEDs in Question 3:00 pm Review SPDS Operation and Open Item Status Day Two 8:30 am Visit Control Room to review DCRDR Corrective Actions and Improvements as Completed (e.g. color padding, mimicking, and green board) 1:00 pm NRC Caucus 2:00 pm Exit Briefing 4

j t

l L -. . . . _ .

~

ENCLOSURE 2 b

ATTACHMENT 1 HED JUSTIFICATION / SCHEDULE QUESTIONS e

4 m

G s

N,

• s -

BYRON /BRAIDWOOD HED QUESTIONS

1. HED No. 0283, Page 7.

The second refueling outage schedule for removal of the auto-closure feature on the steam generator water hammer prevention system appears excessive. If removal of this feature "will eliminate many reactor trips," - why not implement the modification during the first refueling outage?

2. HED No. 0363, Page 31.

The justification for leaving this Category 1, Component Cooling Water HED uncorrected is not adequate. Why not provide system pressure indication in the control room in order to help operators determine Component Cooling Water leakage?

3. HED No. 0372, Page 36 The justification for leaving this Category 2, control room noise HED uncorrected is not adequate. During emergency operations, the number of annunciator alarms would not be "relatively small" as stated in the justification.

Is direct voice communication difficult in the center desk area of the control room during abnormal or immediate post-trip operations?

4. HED No. 0003, Page 65.

The justification for leaving this Category 3, shared plant equipment HED uncorrected is not adequate. What is the safety significance of sharec' equipment conflicts?

5. HED No. 0447, Page 101.

l t

Under what circumstances can radio operation cause inadvertent i activation of safeguards systems? Is this a generic problem in the nuclear industry, or just at Byron and Braidwood? Are Braidwood areas in which radio use could have a negative impact being marked before the first refueling outage?

6. HED No. 0473, Page 127.

The justification for leaving this Category 2, remote panel alarm HED uncorrected is not adequate. There is a difference between an

( inappropriate alarm and a nuisance alarm. Are there remote panel alarms which should not be in the control room? If there are

[ inappropriate alarms in the control room, what is being done about it?

I 1

7. HED No. 0019, Page 138.

The justification for leaving this Category 2, illuminated annunciator HED uncorrected is not adequate. Why should the " Spent Fuel Pump Trip" annunciator box be illuminated during operations above 30% power when the dark board concept is in place?

8. HED No. 0400, Page 166.

The justification for leaving this Category 1, diesel generator control switches HED uncorrected does not address the problem finding. The problem finding states that the operator tripped the output breaker when he intended to adjust the diesel generator governor. Since the switches are identical, the operators feel that it is easy to make this mistake, therefore, they would like shape coded switches. The justification statement addresses synchronizing tasks with the output breaker instead of analyzing the governor switch shape problem. Since the switches are close together, wouldn't shape coding be helpful?

9. HED No. 0257, Page 202.

The justification for leaving this Category 1, ESF systems reset HED uncorrected is not adequate. What is the safety significance of no immediate feedback for ESF resets?

10. HED No. 0280, Page 205.

The justification for leaving this Category 2, steam generator level control HED uncorrected is inadequate. If the operators now have difficulty maintaining level with auxiliary feedwater because they do not have a narrow range SG level display, will there be any improvement in the future?

11. HED No. 0455, Page 207.

The justification for leaving this Category 2, Safety Parameter Display System HED uncorrected is inadequate. The problem finding states that SPDS octagon does not form a uniform shape because the system is designed to operate on particular points rather than ranges.

Therefore, when the plant is operating normally, the SPDS iconic octagon is not uniform. Is this misleading to the operators'/

12. HED No. 0417, Page 210.

The justification for leaving this Category 2, remote shutdown panel HED uncorrected is inadequate. The justification states that wide range RCS pressure is not needed at the remote shutdown panel, but the operators state that they "must constantly go to the high rad sample system" room for this purpose. What is the safety significance of not having wide range RCS pressure on the remote shutdown panel? Is there a CRT at the remote shutdown panel which can be used to display wide range RCS pressure? Is the CRT going to be operable during events when operators would be using the remote shutdown panel?

2

13. HED No. 0292, Page 227.

The justification for leaving this Category 2, feed and condensate flow conversion HED uncorrected is inadequate. Why are operators required to manually convert kilopounds per hour to gallons per minute? What is the safety significance of inadequate task performance?

14. H'ED No. 0526, Page 228.

The justification for leaving this Category 2, condensate booster pump flow conversion HED uncorrected is inadequate. Why are operators required to manually convert kilopounds per hour to gallons per minute?

What is the safety significance of. inadequate task performance?

15. HED No. 0090, Page 246.

The implementation schedule for this Category I HED modification to allow direct comparison between the hot leg and cold leg temperatures appears long. Why is this modification scheduled for the second refueling outage rather than the first? What is the safety significance of inadequate operator comparison of hot and cold leg temperatures?

16. HED No. 0271, Page 247. ,

The implementation schedule for this Category 2 charging and letdown flow meter scale increments HED appears long. Why is this modification scheduled for the second refueling outage rather than the first?

17. HED No. 253, Page 276.

The justification for leaving this Category 1, bulb test capability HED uncorrected is inadequate. Is there a bulb check program with an established schedule? What bulb failure rates have been experienced?

Is there a program to replace all bulbs on regular intervals in antici-pation of bulb failure?

18. HED No. 0459, Page 277.

. The justification for leaving this Category 1, short life light bulb

! HED uncorrected is inadequate. If up to 60 bulbs per day burn out, it t

is apparent that the operator's primary source of control actuation feedback is lost in each of those cases. The fact that bulbs are easy

. to change does not solve the problem. Is there a longer life bulb, i such as a light emitting diode (LED) bulb, available? Other plants are ,

l using LED bulbs with an average life expectancy of 11 years. i L 19. HED No. 0524, Page 294.

! The justification for leaving this Category I centrifugal charging pump i indicating light HED uncorrected is inadequate. Why should the

indicator lights for these pumps violate the green board concept?

l 3 a

a

, , - ~,,.-r--,e., .w,.-m..,_-,,,,_ _ ym m n w . - ,

'.s .

s

20. HED No. 0529, Page 348, and HED No. 0533, Page 349 (G-58).

The justification for leaving this Category 2 switch position labeling HED uncorrected is inadequate. Is the pump breaker labeling convention

" trip and close" or " start and stop?" Are the pump switches consistently labeled across the boards?

21. -HED No. 0530, Page 350.

The justification for leaving this Category I switch labeling HED uncorrected is inadequate. One of the purposes of the DCRDR was to establish labeling that was consistent across the control boards and consistent with the procedures. Why make an exception for these pull-out-to-lock switches?

22. HED No. 0490, Page 387. ,

The licensee's response to this HED is not clear. If the BTRS mimic is not confusing why divide it into a dilution and boration mimic? What is the schedule for implementation of the new mimic?

23. HED No. 0549, Page 442.

The justification for leaving this Category 2 color coding HED uncorrected is inadequate. Might not a color coding scheme on the CRTs that is different than the control boards be confusing?

24. HED No. 0165, Page 446.

The justification for leaving this Category 2 printer speed HED uncorrected is inadequate. Does the printer speed accommodate the operator's information needs during accident conditions, when demand for timely information is greatest?

e 4

f

. _ _ _ _ . _ _ , -