ML20236L353

Informs of Plans for Combined Dcrdr/Spds Audit at Facility on 870914-17.Requests Approval to Use Camera to Take Pictures in Control Room.Response to Encl Questions on Status of SPDS Requested by 870821.Tentative Agenda Encl

ML20236L353
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	07/31/1987
From:	Bournia A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Andrews R OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
References
NUDOCS 8708100223
Download: ML20236L353 (8)

Text

- _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

, July 31, 1987 .

• Docket No. 50-286 .

Q Mr. R. L. Andrews Division Manager - Nuclear Productions O /h Omaha Public Power District 1623 Harney Street Omaha, Nebraska 68102 Dear Mr. Andrews

SUBJECT:

CDMBINED DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW (DCRDR)/

SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY SYSTEM (SPDS) AUDIT AT FORT CALHOUN, UNIT 1 The NRC staff and its consultant, Science Applications International Corporation, plan to conduct a combined DCRDR/SPDS audit at the Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1 from September 14 through 17, 1987. The staff requests spproval to use a camera to take pictures in the control room.

Enclosed is Enclosure 1 which the staff request, that this information be provided by close-of-business August 21, 1987. In addition, Enclosure 2 i provides a tentative agenda for your planning purposes, and Attachment 1 l indicates the DCRDR ccncerns to be discussed with personnel at the plant site.

( If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at l (301) 492-7591.

Sincerely, h

Anthony Bournia, Project Manager Project Directorate - IV .

Division of Reactor Projects - III, I IV, V and Special Projects

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/ enclosures: l See next page DISTRTRilTTON 1 A ocket File] NRC POR Lccal PDR PD4 Reading F. Schrde'~ der J. Calvo P. Noonan A. Bournia 0GC-Bethesda E. Jordan J. Partiow ACRS (10)

PD4 Plant File nigw CD PP4/LA PD4/PM PD4/DN,g PNoonan ABournia:sr JCalvo 7/M/87 7/y/87 7/y/87 I

8708100223 870731 PDR ADOCK 05000285 i p PDR j

I i

Mr. R. L. Andrews Fort Calhoun Station Omaha Public Power District Unit No. 1

cc

Harry H. Voigt, Esq.

)

l l l LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae i i 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW {

I Washington, D.C. 20036 l 1

Mr. Jack Jensen, Chairman {

Washington County Board of Supervisors ]

l Blair, Nebraska 68008 J l

Mr. Phillip Harrell, Resident Inspector {

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j P. O. Box 309 (

Fort Calhoun, Nebraska 68023 Mr. Charles B. Brinkman, Manager ,

Washington Nuclear Operations l C-E Power Systems  !

7910 Woodmont Avenue I Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Executive Director for Operations 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 Harold Borchert, Director Division of Radiological Health Department of Health l 301 Centennial Mall, South P.O. Box 95007 i Lincoln, Nebraska (8509 W. G. Gates, Manager Fort Calhoun Station P. O. Box 399 Fort Calhoun, Nebraska 68023

F ,

j o *

. l l

En :losure 1 Ouestions on Status of SPDS

1. Indicate date SPDS was declared operational. Was this in accordance  ;

with issued orders, or commitment dates?

2. Specify cate Verification and Validation program on SPDS was completed. l l

3. Were operators trained and are procedures available for using SPDS? j

4. Have you reviewed your SPDS against the problems identified in IE Information Notice 86-10? Do you have similar problems?

5. What is the operatiorial availability of your SPDS?

6. Is the SPDS incorporated in the Emergency Procedures?

7. Who is the primary user of the SPDSS l l

8. Have modifications been made to the SPDS since it was declared i operational? I

9. Does tt.e operational staff believe that the SPDS makes the operator's job easier?

10. To what extent are operational staff using or relying on information provided by the SPDS?

i l

t 4

I i

l I

Enclosure 2 Tentative Agenda for the Combined DCRDR/SPCS Audit at 0maha Public Power District's Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1 September 14 through September 17, 1987 DAY 1 DCRDR Audit Schedule

)

2 pm -

Introduction of the NRC Audit Team (NRC) 2:15 pn - Presentation on individual DCRDR requirements (NRC) 3 pm - Brief presentation on the DCRDR program by the licensee 4 pm -

Tour of Control Room

• l DAY 2 1 l

8:30 afe - Selec, tion of Design Improvements

a. Discuss the selection of desien improvcinent process (licensee).

b. Review the results of the selection of design improvements.

- Discuss the licensee's prepared responses to the HED concerns identified in Attachment 1.

Discuss the schedules for implementing design improvements. I 12 noon - BREAK FOR LUNCH 1 pm - Conduct Sample Survey of the Control Rocm Modifications in the Control Rooni (Consider use of mockup)

- NRC Audit team caucus

- Comparison of current NRC Audit Team's findings with licensee's DCRDR team

- Concurrently, it is requested that the following SPDS-related documentation be available for review:

- Functional Requirements

- Data Requirements

- System / Subsystem Specifications

- Program Specifications l

- D3ta Base Specifications

• Obtain authorization to use camera to take pictures of the control room.

I l

1

.2- I DAY 3 i j

8:30 am - Introduction and Briefing (NRC) l l

- Presentation on individual SPDS requirements (NRC) 9:15 am Overview of SPDS Implementation (Licensee) )

1 Definition of SPDS (scope)

I Parameter Selection Process l

- Human Factors Engineering Program i

- Reliabili ty

- Verification and Validation Program

- Implementation Pronram

- Project Milestones g 12 noon -

BREAK FOR LUNCH I 1 pm - Critical Safety Function /Paremeter Selection (Licensee)

Parameter Selection

- Critical Safety Functions (vs. ?!UREG-0737)

- Critical Safety Functions / Parameter Relationships

- Range of Events / Conditions covered by parameters  !

- Safety Evaluation Report Concerns {

l 2:30 pm - Visit Centrol Room (CR)/ Technical Support Center s'TSC)

]

- SPD5 Demonstration

- Human Factors Engineering Review

- Display Location (CR)  !

- Display Format (TSC) 4

- Display Techniques (TSC) J Open Concerns of SER of September 29, 1986: iluman factors {

review, report, and implementation schedule

- Operations Review

- Concise Display (TSC)

Parameter identified in SAR on SPDS (TSC)

- Critical Safety Functions (0737 and Plant) (TSC)

- Reliability (Hardware / Software) (CP)

- Response Times (Display Call-uo and Screen Update) (CR)

- Integrated into Emergency Operations (CR)

- SPDS Parameter Values vs. Fixed Panei Values (Comparison) (CR)

- Procedures and Training

- Controi doon SPDS vs Simulator SPDS Comperison

l l

l l

l DAY 4 l

8:30 am - System Design (Licensee) l l

l - System Description l l

- Display Configuration

- Data Validity

. - Security System Verification and Validation (Licensee)

Verification Test Plan

- Validation

- Mair.tenance and Configuration Control Electrical Isolation

- Provide feedback on licensee's response on March 13, 1987 to reovest for additional information i 10:30 am - Operator Interviews I l

- Shift Supervisor

- Reactor Operator Shift Technical Advisor l l

12 noon - BREAK FOR LUNCH , l 1 pm - Audit Team Caucus 4 pm - Exit Briefing (covering both DCRDR and SPDS)

, 1 s

'i ,

I

)

)

1 I

Attachment'l l Concerns Regarding the DORDR for Ft. Calhoun 1

1. Discuss how DCRDR HEDs 362 and 373 were corrected, by modifying the SPDS.

2. Review the modifications resulting from the labeling / demarcation color coding, and meter banding study on drawings and mockup.

3. Review the Annunciator l'pgrade program.

Discuss modifications made on remote logic cabinets.

l Discuss modifications involving new annunciator technology.

Discuss annunciator-related modifications made on existing i piant computer. l Discuss the process used to determine what alarms should be eliminated or added to the modified annunciator system.

Discuss what annunciator setpoints were changed and why they were s changed.

4. Review E0P-related HEDs 482 through 496. This review should inclufe an evaluation of the proposed modifications and justifications for leaving che HEDs uncorrected.

5. Discuss why containment radiation recorders (HED 44) are not useful and have not been operational since 1983.

6. Discuss the modification to reactor coolant cold leg temperature meter l CB-4 as part of HED 56 work request No. FC-85-142. Does this ,

modification correct the problem of deriving cold leg values.

7. Discuss why a meter which reads in degrees centigrade should not be changed to Fahrenheit? Is the meter scale consistent with procedures or E0Ps? See HED 69. .

8. Discuss HED 84 regarding legend pushbutton activation when replacing burned out lamps. How often do lamps burn out? Is there a program at Fort Calhoun 1 to implement long life bulbs?

'9. Discuss HED 102 regarding inconsistent control types used for valves.

Why not use the same type (spring or detent)?

10. Discuss HED 106 regarding the lack of wide range reactor coolant loop temperature indication. How do the operators determine wide range RCS temperature now? Do the E0Ps require the operators to know wide range RCS temperature?

1 1

l l

i l 11. Discuss HED 109 regarding the lack of printing on the RCS loop flow and l l pressure displays. Does the operator need engineer 8ng units or scale?

1

12. Describe HED 162 cold leg RCS temperature indication (Al-31) problem and modification. Is this HED related to HED 56 involving derived cold leg temperatures?

l l 13. Describe the modifications resulting from cold leg temperature instrumentation HED 164. How is this modification related to HEDs 56 and 162? )

l j

14 Discuss HED 222 concerning the isolation valves' emergency operate I button being very close to the isolation valve override switch problem and modification No. FC-85-148.

15. Review the DCRDR modifications implemented during the 1987 refueling outage.

16. Review the DCRDR modification packages for the 1988 and 1990 refueling ,

outages, j l

l 1

I l

I i

l l

l i