ML20151P416
| ML20151P416 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 12/17/1985 |
| From: | SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP. (FORMERLY |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151P420 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-03-82-096, CON-NRC-3-82-96 NUDOCS 8601130023 | |
| Download: ML20151P416 (11) | |
Text
.
s i
ATDO9ENT s
DCRDR VALIDATION WALK-THROUGH AUDIT RESULTS FOR PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY'S PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3 December 17, 1985 Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation 1710 Goodridge Drive McLean, Virginia 22102 Prepared for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 1
Contract NRC-03-82-096
%C) GOO D M
upp
Introduction s
This report documents the findings of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) audit team during a one-day audit of validation walk-throu-h activities which are part of the Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR) conducted for Philadelphia Electric Company's (PEco's) Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3.
The DCRDR audit was conducted on November 25, 1985. The NRC audit team consisted of a representative from the NRC Divi-sion of Human Factors Safety. Human Factors Engineering Branch (HFEB), and consultants from Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC).
The audit was conducted at PEco's control room mock-up facility in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
This report was prepared by SAIC, but it is intended to reflect the consolidated observations, conclusions, and recommendations of the NRC audit team members.
Discussion PECo submitted the DCRDR Program Plan (Reference 1) for Peach Bottcm Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3, by letter dated October 31, 1983. In order to check the Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 DCR3R activities against the requirements of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737, an in-progress audit was con-ducted on February 19 through 22, 1985.
During the in-progress audit, the licensee was informed that the NRC audit team was interested in observing a validation walk-through on the mock-up when the DCRDR reached that stage.
The results of the in-progress audit are contained in Reference 2.
DCRDR Status During the November 25, 1985, audit, the licensee provided the NRC with an overview / update of its DCRDR progress. The control room surveys and operating experience reviews are completed. The task analysis activity is 955 complete. A list of procedures analyzed in the task analysis is pro-vided as Attachment I to this report. The task analysis included a compre-hensive analysis of operator's emergency tasks including cautions, warnings
' and notes. Human Engineering Discrepancy (HED) assessment and proposed design modifications are 955 complete.
HED resolution schedules are about 50% complete.
Finally, the licensee expects to submit a DCRDR Summary Report to the NRC in February 1986.
1
Validation Procedure The primary purpose of the one-day audit was to observe a validation walk-through on the mock-up. The validation is a final check on the overall DCRDR process.
It is conducted as a real-time walk-through of control room procedures with the proposed enanges and enhancements that resulted from the DCRDR in place. The validation brings together all changes preposed as a result of the control room improvement program to determine how well they all work together and to ensure that improvements are integrated. The procedures used by the licensee for validation walk-throughs are included as to this report.
During the audit, the NRC team observed the licensee's DCRDR team walk-through several emergency operating procedures. including level / power control and RPV control.
The validation walk-throughs were conducted according to the established " Validation Procedure" which was developed to meet the process described in the Program Plan.
The validation walk-throughs on the modified control panels did produce a number of discrepancies in the proposed modifications.
For example, one of the reactor operators identified problems with a new system mimic. The problems identified during the validation process are being recorded for later analysis.
Proposed Control Room Modifications The Peach Bottom mock-up now includes the complete set of proposed control room modifications. It also includes the proposed modifica:fons for the remote shutdown panel. The proposed changes include:
o Basic Control Panel Color o
Color Pads o
Colored Outlines o
Boxes o
Brackets o
Dividing Lines o
Mimics o
Label s 2
o Push Button Coding o
DC Powered Instrumentation o
Group Isolation Notation o
Regulatory Guide 1.97 Instrumentation Notation o
Interim Safety Parameter Display System Notation o
Common Reference Leg Notation o
Information Plates and Diagrams o
Plexiglass Protective Covers o
Normal Valve State The audit team concluded that the control room modifications have been developed on an integrated control room-wide basis.
In addition, the modi-fications proposed for the remote shutdown panel have been coordinated with the control room changes.
Conclusions NRC team audit of the Peach Bottom validation walk-throughs indicated that the PEco DCRDR team is ;,v*opriately conducting them according to the Validation Procedure.
The proposed control room and remote shutdown panel modifications are essentially complete and mocked-up on the photo mock-up.
The mock-up is serving as an excellent validation tool.
PECo expects to complete the validation walk-throughs by December 6 1985. A Peach Bottom Unit 2 and 3 DCRDR Summary Report is scheduled for February 1986.
3
References 1.
Letter to A. Schwencer. NRC, from J. S. Kemper, Vice-President.
Philadelphia Electric Company, dated August 31, 1983, " Limerick Generating Station. Units 1 and 2 Control Room Design Review " with enclosure entitled " Detailed Control Room Design Review Program Plan for Philadelphia Electric Company's Limerick and Peach Bottom Plants."
2.
Letter to John Stolz, Chief Operating Reactor Branch No. 4. Division of Licensing, NRC, from William H. Regan, Jr., Acting Chief Human Factors Engineering Branch Division of Human Factors Safety, NRC, "Results of NRC's In-Progress Audit of Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3 Detailed Control Room Design Review," April 16, 1935.
o l
5 9
4
r k
ATTACHMENT 1 EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURES ANALYZED DURING TASK ANALYSIS 5
u
PEACH BOTTOM UNITS 2 AND 3 Review Rev.
Revision Number Title Date No.
Date T-99 Post Scram Restoration 12-12-84 0-A 12-12-84 T-100 Scram 12-12-84 0-A 12-12-84 T-101 RPV - Control 12-11-84 0-A 12-11-84 T-102 Containment Control 12-11-84 0-A 12-11-84 T-111 Level Restoration 12-11-84 0-A 12-11-84 T-112 Emergency Blowdown 12-11-84 0-A 12-11-84 T-113 Blowdown Cooling 12-11-84 0-A 12-11-84 1-114 Spray Cooling 12-11-84 0-A 12-11-84 T-115 Alternate Shutdown Cooling 12-11-84 0-A 12-11-84 T-116 RPV Flooding 01-14-83 0
01-14-83 T-117 Level / Power Control 12-11-84 0-A 12-11-84 T-200 18 inch Drywall Vent 01-24-83 0
01-24-83 T-201 Containment Vent By Way of Sumps 01-24-83 0
01-24-83 T-210 CRD System SBL Injection 07-01-83 2
07-01-83 T-211 CRD System Boric Acid - Sodium Tetraborate Injection 05-18-84 2
05-18-84 T-212 RMCU System SBL Injection 07-01-83 2
07-01-83 T-220 Control Rod Select Block Bypass 01-24-83 0
01-24-83 T-221 Main Steam Isolation Valve Bypass 01-24-83 0
01-24-83 T-222 Secondary Containment Ventilation Bypass 01-24-83 0
01-24-83 T-223 Drywall Cooler Fan Bypass 01-24-83 0
01-24-83 T-224 ADS Auto Initiation Bypass 01-24-83 0
01-24-83 T-230 Torus to CST by Way of HPCI-RCIC 01-24-83 0
01-24-83 i
T-231 HPSW to Torus 01-24-83 0
01-24-83 l
T-232 Torus Filter Pump Isolation Bypass 01-24-83 0
01-24-83 6
L
e a
a 8
w k
ATTACHMENT 2 VALIDATION PROCEDURES e
h 7
VALIDATION PROCEDURE The validation is a final check on the overall control room design review.(CRDR) process. It will be conducted as a real time walkthrough using the mockup with the proposed changes and enhancements that resulted from the CRDR.
The validation brings together all aspects of the control room improvement program to determine how they all work together and to ensure that all improvements are integrated.
The Peach Bottom emergency TRIP procedures will De used as the walkthrough procedures.
The prescribed number of qualified operators will work together using th'a normal team operating organization for TRIP procedures.
They will walk through the procedures in a controlled manner under the direction of the CRDR team.
Operators and observers will be briefed prior to the start' of the validation process to familiarize them with the method-ology of a walk /talkthrough.
The following major points will be covered:
l l
- 1. Operators should describe each of their actions they take including any mental calculations or conversion.
(See attached.)
2.
Emphasis must be placed on describing how plant status is determined and how transients are recognized.
- 3. Operators or CRDR team members should stop the validation at any time to identify and discuss any difficulties or confusion factors with any aspect of the procedures,
- panels, and displays or how they all fit together to support safe operation of the plant.
- 4. CRDR team members can stop the action at any time to clarify a point, determine the reason for an action, or to ask "what if" questions.
i l
8
The performance of each procedure should be conducted as near to real time as possible to obtain a realistic understanding of the physical and cognitive loading, recognizing that there will be interruptions.
While this process cannot duplicate actual plant operations, the experience of the operators will be brought out more effectively if there is some time factor involved.
DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE
.Each operator will be observed by a dedicated member of the CRDR team to record movements and comments.
Members of the CRDR team will follow all the action and will record their own obser-vations.
Records will be kept during the course of the procedure walkthrough.
After each walkthrough the operators and CRDR team will assemble to critique the walkthrough.
The emphasis of the critique will be to draw out the operator's
' thoughts reg 5rding-the adequacy of the panel arrangements / interrelationships, and to identify the difficulties noted but not already mentioned.
The CRDR team members will also have the opportunity to ask anf other questions they may have.
The data will be collected using the operator activity and f
comment sheets (see attached).
The activity sheet will record the movement patterns of all operators, identify the relative length of time spent on each group of activities, record coordi-nation among operators, and record communications with other
- lant operators.
The comment sheet will be a
chronological p
record of comments by the CRDR team observer.
Comments and notes i
will be recorded at any time on any subject desired by the team member.
Comments are not ' limited to discrepancies, but are i
i i
intended to be rough notes to be used for later "interpreta-tion.
Both these sheets will be cued to the procedure by step number as listed on the TRIP procedures.
s A checklist will be used following each walkthrough to guide the critique (see attached).
Discussions are not limited to the items on the checklist, but the list will be use to ensure that some key items from the NUREG 9700 checklists are covered.
Critique comments will be recorded at the bottom of the checklist.
O e
4 e
a b
e 10
..