ML20054C287
| ML20054C287 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/06/1982 |
| From: | Goodman L DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054C280 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-1.D.1, TASK-TM NUDOCS 8204200310 | |
| Download: ML20054C287 (24) | |
Text
.
LA CROSSE BOILING WATER REACTOR DETAILED C0t4 TROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM PLANNING REPORT APRIL 6, 1982 L. S. G000 MAN WP-6 8204200310 820408 PDR ADOCK 05000409 P
LACBWR Detailed Control Room Design Review Program Planning Report The La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR) is a small, unique 50 MWe Allis-Cnalmers reactor, owned and operated by the Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC).
During its almost fif teen years of operation, some human factor changes have been nade to the Control Roon, as operating problems have arisen. The experience gained in these years will provide important input to the Detailed Control Roua Design Review (DCRDR) being ipplemented as part of the NRC TMI fask Action Plan.
The major goals of the LACBWR Detailed Control Roon Design Review are:
(1) To detennine whether the control room provides the system status infonnation, control capabilities, feedback, and analytic aids necessary for control roon operators to acconplish their functions effectively.
(2) To identify characteristics of the existing control roon instrumentation, controls, other equipment, and physical arrangements that may detract fran operator performance.
(3)
To analyze and evaluate the problems that could arise fran discrepancies of the above kinds, and to analyze means of correcting those discrepancies which could lead to substantial problems.
(4)
To define and put into effect a plan of action that applies human f actors principles to improve control room design and enhance operator ef fectiveness. Particular emphasis will be placed on improvements af f ecting control room design and operator performance under abnormal or emergency conditions.
(5)
To integrate the control roon design review with other tasks identified in the NRC Task Action Plan.
1.
Overall Review Plan Due to the unique nature of the plant, the review will be conducted on an individual, rather than generic basis.
Use will be made, however, of existing literature and guidance fran industry experts involved in the human tactors review of Control Roons.
The DCRDR will be basically conducted in accordance with the guidelines presented in NUREG-0700, " Guidelines for Control Room Design Reviews."
Following the planning phase, the recommended six prong review process will commence. This process consists of the following activities which will be discussed in more detail in Section 4 of this report.
(1)
Review of Operating Experience (2)
Systai functions review and task analysis (3) Control Roaa inventory WP-6
_1
1 I
(4) Control Roaa Survey (5) Task Performance capabilities verification (6) Control Room validation as an integrated system 4
Once the human engineering discrepancies have been identified, they will be evaluated to determine their safety significance. Corrective action will be i
detemined on a cost / benefit basis.
Implementation of modifications will be scheduled on the basis of discrepancy importance, and the scope of the cnange.
Figure 2 presents a simplified diagram of review activities.
2.
Management and Stafting Due to the unique design and small size of LACBWR, the basic DCRDR team will be composed of plant personnel. All engineering work involving the nuclear plant is nomally handled at LACBWR. The DCRDR team leader will be the LACBWR Operations Engineer, who reports directly to the Plant Superintendent. The LACBWR Plant Superintendent has authorized and will support the conduct of the Control Room review.
The team will have full access to all documentation, people, and facilities necessary to complete the DCRDR. All team members will have the freedom to document dissenting opinions.
LACBWR management will be l'
responsible for making final decisions where differences exist. All proposed l
Control Roun modifications, other than simple enhancements, will be initiated via the methodology specified in LACBWR Administrative Control Procedures, be reviewed by the plant Operations Review Committee, of which the team leader is a pemanent member, and approved by the Plant Superintendent prior to being implemented. This review process will help assure that beneficial modifications are selected.
t The basic review team will consist of the Operations Engineer, a Technical Support Engineer, a Senior Reactor Operator and a Reactor Operator. This core group will work on all phases of the study to maintain continuity, bring their varied viewpoints to each task, and to keep the team well versed in all aspects of the review.
The basic team will be augmented, when necessary by specialists, including the Instrument and Electrical Supervisor / Instrument Engineer, the Electrical Engineer and a photographer.
In addition, a consultant, with experience in nuclear power plant control room design, human f actors engineering, and human perfomance theory has been consulted during the planning stage and has helped determine the methodology to be used in i
l perfonaing the study.
He will also review the results of the DCRDR, including l
all human engineering discrepancies and their proposed resolutions.
It is planned to provide the core group with fomal training in human factors engineering and control roon design.
Team members will attend different j
seminars, when possible, to assimilate a range of philosophies fran human i
factors experts. The qualifications of DCRDR team members are as follows:
LACBWR Operations Engineer Bachelors Degree in Engineering from Purdue University, Department of Interdisciplinary Engineering.
Greater than 5 years experience in the nuclaar industry, including work at Zion Station, LaSalle Station, Collins Station (oil), Stone and Webster Engineering, Nuclear Energy Services, Duane Arnold Er ergy Center, 2-1/2 years at LACBWR. Experience in analysis, procedure writing, event trees, planning and scheduling, design changes, plant WP-6
-2 I
- ~.,
--,u-----,
,,,..._...._,,-...,,.--,-,,.n
n,-v.--
an,--,
,e 0
.O conounications systems.
Involved in other TMI NRC Task Action Plan items, including transient and accident analysis, modifications of procedures to reflect I&A analysis, dissemination of operating experience, Emergency Response Facilities, and Control Room Habitability, Licensed SRO.
Technical Support. Engineer Bachelors Degree in Business from University of Wisconsin - La Crosse. Course work in sociology and psychology.
Fonner Plant Operator. 8-1/2 years at LACbWR, Licensed SRO.
Senior Reactor Operator Licensed Senior Reactor Operator, working on Associate Degree in Industrial Engineering Technology, coursework in industrial psychology and psychology in human relations. Nine years at LACBWR, Electronics technician in U. S. Navy Nuclear Program.
Reactor Operator Licensed Reactor Operator, Associates Degree in Electrical Power from Western Wisconsin Technical Institute, including coursework in industrial psychology and psychology in nunan relations.
Two years at Whitewater State College, with Business Administration Major. Eight years at LACBWR. Assistant Crew Chief at Argonne National Laboratory and Fermi National Accelerator, fiachinist Mate in U. S. Navy Nuclear Program.
Instrument and Electrical Supervisor / Instrument Engineer Twenty-three years in nuclear industry,18 at LACBWR, including construction dnd startup of Control Room; previous experience at Allis-Chalmers in reactor startup and nodifications and Research and Developnent for nuclear power plants. Degree in Industrial Electronics from the Milwaukee Institute of Technology. Also involved in other TMI Items.
Electrical Engineer Bachelors Degree in Physics and Math f rom Bemidji State College.
Reactor Operator Instructor in U. S. Navy Nuclear Program, Division LP0 on Bainbridge.
High School teacher of physics and physical science.
Instrument Supervisor at Saleai Station for 4 years, including construction, initial startup and operation.
Stone and Webster Engineering at Fermi Station, with l
responsibilities in startup, startup planning and spare parts procurement.
l Two years as LACBWR's Electrical Engineer. Also involved in other NRC Task j
Action Plan items, including Emergency Response Facilities.
Consultant - Black fi Veatch - D. Morris l
B. S. in Electrical Engineering 1961. Graduate courses in Contral Engineering Power Systems Analysis, State Variable Methods in Automatic Control and Logical Design and Implementation WP-6
-3 l
..o Prof essional Experience Mr. Morris has been continuously employed in the areas of control room panel design, process control systems, and reliability studies since 1964 His nuclear plant experience covers design of control board layout, design and programming of automatic control systems, conceptual design and implementation of a control room interactive CRT display and automatic control system, on-site commissioning of control room systems, and retrofit of control room systems in operating plants.
This experience was obtained while working on the control room designs of four separate heavy water moderated reactor generating plants with a combined total of 10 units, and one BWR-6 two-unit plant.
Mr. Morris has also participated in FSAR and Post-TMI licensing submittals to the NRC.
Mr.
Morris has performed a number of reliability studies on coal-fired and nuclear generating plant systems of all types.
While employed by Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd., Mr. Morris developed the detailed design of Ontario Hydro's Bruce A. nuclear generating plant computer based interactive CRT display system.
The development and implementation of this system extended over a four-year period. The objective of the interactive system was to replace the majority of the conventional control board meters, recorders, controllers, and alarm annunciators with 10 CRT terminals and keyboards.
The CRT/ keyboard stations are inset in the control board at the sections assigned to major plant systems such as the reactor, turbine / generator and reactor regulating systems, for example.
Each unit of the four-unit plant is controlled by a dual digital computer system; therefore, the unit operator controls the major systems by entering control commands and setpoints in the control computers via the interactive CRT/ keyboard stations on the control boards.
To develop the technical criteria for the CRT displays and keyboard functions, Mr. Morris analyzed conventional control panels of similar nuclear generating units and interviewed control roon operators, shif t superintendents, and plant process control engineers who had experience with the conventional control roon units.
Elementary task analysis were performed for the major systems on the basis of the interview i nfo naa t ion.
The designs of the graphic and tabular CRT displays, the keyboard layout, and the remaining conventional control panel displays and controls implemented human factors guidelines similar to those provided in NUREG-0700.
Mr. Morris provided design engineering support in the design and coamissioning of conventional analog instrument control room and local panels for three separate nuclear generating plants. Color coding, control board mimics, demarcation and other human factor criteria were utilized in all cases. A full size mock up of the control room panels was built for one of these plants so that work station analyses could be performed. Experienced operators reviewed preliminary layouts on the mock up by simulating start up, shutdown and response to scram procedures.
WP-6
-4
,o
..o Mr. Morris was Project Engineer. Nuclear Instrumentation anu Control, on the Black Fox Station project.
In this capacity, he was responsible for Chapter 7 of the project PSAR and performed studies 'for, or acted as reviewer of studies on the Post-TMI issues that pertained to the BWR-6 unit's instrumentation, such as the Technical Support Center, the s
Energency Of fsite Facility, and the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.97 Revi sion 1.
A full scale mock up of the control roon panels for the unit s
were built and regular design reviews were held with representatives of
-t the client, and General Electric Co. ~The engineers participating in these reviews had either nuclear plant operating experience or control roon design experience.
The nock up was used to test the relationships between display and control instrunentation during normal and abnormal operator functions, the adequacy of the proposed instrumentation, and the 4
details of the panel layout.
s When General Electric Co. built the BWR-6 simulator facility on the Black fax,6ite, the control panel layouts that formed the balance of plant panels for their; advanced control room simulator.were the drawings oroduced from tne revigd6 ~nf-the Black Fox, Station panel moc( up.
In addition to 'inf tial review nf the Black Fox 7anel, drawing 5,,Mr. Morris also reviewed tne control 'l0gic drawings.
Mr. Iforris has had a continuint; involvement wi,tp reliability studies s
since 1964 tie' reviewed AECL's Douglas Foint G.S. safety systen logic for soparation criteria, evaluated operating aYiflahility of datonatic control sySY? asset the same plant, specif #ed and supervistd larga analog and digital' system availability tests and performed reliability Calculations on plant process systems for fossil-fueled, nuclear generating units, and industrial chenical plants.
These later studies were endertaken to support either productivity or risk assessment studits.
Seninars Attenced'
" Man Conputer Commnications," May 1971 sponsored by the National Research Council of Canada
" Specialists Meeting on Control Room Design," July 1975 sponsored by the International Atomic Energy Agency and Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc.
" Nuclear Systems Reliability Engineering and Risk Assessment," June 1977, sponsored by the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics "EPRI/ DOE Workshop on Power Plant Availability Engineering and Productivity Improvement," February 1979, cosponsored by EPRI, 00E, EEI, and NERC
" Working Conference of Advanced Electrotechnical Applications," January 1980 cosponsored by IEEE and NRC Reactor Operators Workshop, June 1980 sponsored by American Nuclear Soci ety WP-6
-5
Workshop on PRA Procedure Guide, NUREG/CR-2300, October 1981, sponsored by IEEE Pertinent Publications
" Prospects for Computer Control in Nuclear Power Plants," by J. E. Smith and D. I. Morris, presented at Nuclex 69, Basle, Switzerland,1969
" Direct Digital Control Systems in the 1970's," by D. I. Morris, published in Canadian Controls and Instrumentation, March 1970
" Developments in Computer Control of Canadian Nuclear Power Stations," by D.1. Morris, Present6d at the American Nuclear Society's 19th Annual j
Meeting, 19 73
" Reliability of Digital Control Systems," by D. I. Morris, presented at the 16th Symposium on Process Automation, April 7,1974, Newport Beach, California
" Computer Control at Bruce Nuclear Generating Station," by D. I. Morris, published in Nuclear Safety, November-December,1974
" Reliability Analyses of Class IE Power Systems," by K. Hestand and D. I.
Morris, presented at IEEE/ASME/ASCE Joint Power Generation Conference, Buffalo, New York, September 19, 1976 With this wide base of experience and the many years some members have worked with the Control Room at LACBWR, it is believed this team can do a more than adequate review of the control room design.
This is especially true due to the unique design of LACBWR, which would be a new experience, involving significantly dif ferent systems and methods of operation for non-plant j
personnel.
The consultant, therefore, is applying his human factors and control roan design expertise to advise on methodology of the study, possible problems f rom a human engineering aspect, and to review the plant findings and proposed means of ameliorating problem areas. All work done on this study will be performed under the direction of the LACBWR Operations Engineer. The involvement of team members in other NRC Task Action Plan items will serve to integrate the DCRDR with other activities.
As discussed earlier, the core group of the team will be involved in all aspects of the study, including review of other member's tasks. The consultant has been involved in the planning stage and will later apply his expertise in the assessment phase of the study.
The Instrument and Electrical i
Supervisor / Instrument Engineer and the Electrical Engineer will possibly be participating in the Control Room Inventory and Survey and definitely in the i
l Assessment and Implementation phase of the DCRDR. Other personnel will be consulted as needed to accomplish the study in a meaningful manner.
1 l
l WP-6
-6
,o*
..o 3.
Documentation and Document Control A considerable amount of information and data will be used and generated during the DCRDR. Much of the infonnation will need to be easily accessible during the study and stored for future reference.
Therefore, methods of data management are being established.
A substantial amount of reference material will be needed. Many of the documents are normally readily accessible by the review team members. This inf ormation includes Licensee Event Reports, internal incident Reports, energency procedures revised to reflect the analyses performed per the NRC Task Action Plan, the transient and accident analyses, normal operating procedures, the Safeguards Report and operator training materials. Copies of j
Control Room drawings have been obtained for use of the team and panel photographs will be taken.
Control Room human factors literature is also being consulted. Sources include NRC reports, Power Engineering and Power articles and reports of other control roon studies.
A considerable amount of data will be generated during the review.
In order to keep track of the infonnation gleaned from the various phases of the study, fonns will be used.
The types of forms will include the human engineering l
guideline checklists in Section 6 of NUREG-0700, Human Engineering Discrepancy Reports, inventory logs, and function allocation tables. Sample forms are included in the Appendix to this report. The forms may be refined as experience is gained with their use.
Some of the data generated will be entered into a word processor to facilitate l
updating of tables. Most material obtained for the study will be stored in a designated area of the Operations Engineer's Office. Responsibility for document control will be with the team leader. Documentation will be generated throughout the course of the study. Upon completion of each phase of the DCRDR, documentation will be reviewed. When the entire study is I
finished, documentation will be maintained in an auditable state.
4.
Review Methodology A.
Review of Operating Experience The review of operating experience will involve two distinct tasks. The first will be a review of documented problems which have occurred in nuclear power plant control roons due to design deficiencies. All internal incident reports l
will be examined. A listing of all Licensee Event Reports (LER) involving 1
personnel errors and either circuit breakers, annunciators or instruments has been obtained. A second listing covering problems with the same components caused by design discrepancies has also been requested. Both listings will be 4
reviewed for problems applicable to the LACBWR Control Roon.
The second phase of the review of operating experience will entail interviewing all operators at LACBWR. All operators will be interviewed so that a wide variety of experience levels will be obtained, ranging from trainees of a few weeks to supervisors of more than ten years.
The interviews WP-6
-7
will be conducted on both a crew and individual basis, so that one operator's opinion may trigger another's and that no one is too overwhelmed by a group session to venture a suggestion. A list of questicos will be provided in advance to allow the operators time to consider their responses and consciously study the Control Room. Questions similar to these suggested will be used, but in less stilted language to encourage f reer conmunication.
The bdsic team members will conduct the interviews.
NUREG-0700 reconmends that non-plant personnel perform the survey. DPC feels that f amiliarity with the plant and knowledge of the tenninology and equipment of which the operators will speak outweighs any advantage a non-staf f member may have f rom the standpoint of objectivity.
The operators generally tend to be more open with other plant personnel than with strangers.
Since the interviewers are fellow employees, they will less likely be intimidated, than if consultants were asking questions.
The small staf f at LACBWR results in easy communications between personnel.
Since team members include fellow operators, the interviewees will not be intimidated by the postulated gulf between operators and utility management personnel. Many operators are looking forward to making their contribution to control room improvement.
B.
System Functions Review and Task Analysis Operating events will be selected for a detailed system functions review and task analysis.
Both emergency and nonnal event sequences will be selected to provide a wide variety of tasks operators perform regularly and may need to perf orm on an emergency basis.
The preliminary list of selected events includes normal startup, normal shutdown, scram, power increase, and tr6nsients and accidents analyzed under NUREG 0737, Items 1.C.I.
Once the events are chosen, a basic block diagram will be prepared for each event sequence.
The diagrams will show the systems involved in each sequence and the allocation of functions to man or machine, control roon or local.
Next, a nore detailed analysis will be conducted of control roa7 opera tor f uncti ons.
The analysis will identify control room operator interfaces and show the relative sequence of operator involvement within and across systems.
The table shown on Page A-3 will be used to document this review.
The analyses and updated procedures f raa Task 1.C.1 will be utilized in the review.
Following identification and documentation of control roo1 operator functions, tasks associated with each function will be identified.
The infonnation, knowledge and controls needed to perfon1 each task will be determined, as will the consequences of task ommission or operator error.
The format shown on Page A-4 will be used to document the task analysis.
The first seven columns of the table will be completed at this stage, the remaining co?Jmns Will be utilized during tiie verification phase.
The result of the system f unctions review and task analysis will be determination of what instrumentation and controls are needed in the Control Roua to operate the plant during major normal evolutions and energency situations. This infonaation will be used in the verification phase which g)lfbediscussedinSection4.EofthfsPlanningReport.
C.
Control Room Inventory
+
The objective of the inventory is to establish a reference set of data which identifies all instrumentation, controls, and equipment in the Control Room.
The inventory will be prepared on a work station basis.
Each instrument or control will be identified together with the system and subsystem with which it is associated.
In addition, the inventory will include an indication of component use and characteristics. The draft inventory form is shown on Page A-5.
The last two columns will be completed during the verification phase of l
the review.
The Control Roon Inventory will be prepared using drawings, photographs, the I
Haster Instrument Index and looking at equipment in the Control Room.
Drawings will be checked and updated when necessary. A photograph nosaic will j
be made of the benchboards and panels.
The mosaic will show all controls,
)
displays, annunciators, labels and markings.
l T
The result of the Control Room inventory will be a listing of all equipment in I
the Control Room. This listing will be compared to the task analysis results during the verification phase of the DCRDR.
D.
Control Room Survey The Control Room Survey is a systematic comparison of Control Room design features with human engineering guidelines.
The checklists presented in Section 6 of NUREG-0700 will be utilized with the exception of Section 6.7, Process Computers," since LACBWR does not have a process computer.
Discrepancies will be documented on the form shown on Page A-7.
Since the
. Control Room is readily accessible to team members, photographs of discrepant items will not be taken unless considered necessary for understanding of the discrepancy.
Compliance with most of the guidelines can be determined by inspection.
Specific measurements will be made only when there is doubt about conformance
}
to a guideline. For example, control resistance measurements will only be taken if a control is operated with difficulty or with too much ease.
4 I
Some guidelines in Section 6 of NUREG-0700 are too general and are better i
answered by another phase of the DCRDR. One such example is 6.1.1.1.a, which reads, " Control Room instrumentation and equipment should include all controls and displays needed for (1) detection of abnonnal conditions and, (2) bringing the plant to a safe shutdown condition."
The verification phase of the review j
addresses this item. Therefore, the checklist will be marked NA and will reference the verification process.
The result of the Control Roa7 Survey will be completed human engineering guideline checklists.
Human Engineering Discrepancy Records will be initiated for all items found not to meet the human engineering guidelines, i
1 I
WP-6,
.,_-,-...,,-,..m
,..,,.,.,.,___,,.e_,_,,__,....m_.-.-.,-m.-
.,,,_m..,__~.
..~...-~..-_.m.mm,_,
..,,.. _ _. -, ~. _ _ _
E.
Task Perfomance Capabilities Verification The objective of the Task Perfomance Capabilities Verification is to check to see if the Control Room provides all information and control capabilities called for by the operator task action requirements. The first step is to verify the presence, or absence, of instruments and equipment that provide the information and control capabilities necessary to implement each task. Thi s is done by comparing the results of the Control Room Inventory to the Task Analysis results.
The tables on Pages A-4 and A-5 will be completed as requirements are matched to available conponents. Human Engineering Discrepancy Records will be initiated for unfulfilled equipment needs and unused components.
The second part of the verification phase reviews human engineering suitability.
Interface problems that may affect task performance are identi fi ed.
This review is recorded on the Event Task Analysis and Verification form in the Usability Column. Any problems are documented on a Human Engineering Discrepancy Record, F.
Control Roan Validation as an Integrated System The objective of the validation process is to determine whether the functions allocated to the Control Roma operation crew can be accomplished effectively within the structure of defined operating and emergency procedures and the existing design of the Control Room. This review provides an opportunity to identify human engineering discrepancies that were not identifiable when examining individual components and to see how other discrepancies interact.
Control Room personnel will walk and talk through event sequences selected i
from among those studied in the systems function review and task analysis.
In addition, portions of an actual startup will be observed. The tentative list of selected procedures includes a plant startup, plant shutdown, scram, major primary leak, loss of power and ATWS.
The participating personnel will be briefed on the purpose of the walkthroughs and how they will be performed.
Timing of steps will be recorded. Movement patterns of the operators will not be recorded due to the compact size of the Control Room.
It is not planned to tape any walkthroughs or actual operations at this time, since taping may inhibit operator's performance.
Also, since the team members are familiar with the procedures, they will not need the tapes for debriefing or interpretation of operator actions.
If during the course of the review, it is determined taping will be beneficial, tapes will be made.
The primary results of the validation process will include observations concerning (1) operator dif ficulties in responding to e/ents, (2) impact of previously identified human engineering discrepancies, and (3) any specific discrepancies not previously discerned. Discrepancies will be documented on Human Engineering Discrepancy Records.
WP-6 i
l s
i Af ter the review process is completed, discrepancy findings will be compiled.
The two logsheets on Page A-6 will be used to keep track of discrepancies.
The first log, which is by HED number, will be used throughout the review process to document all HED records.
The second form will be used to conpile HED's by system to help assess their safety implications.
5.
Assessment Methodology The assessment process will analyze and evaluate the problems which could arise f rom the identified human engineering discrepancies. The significance of an HED will be assessed on the basis of any resulting increase in the potential for opera' tor error and its potential impact on safety. HED's will be categorized into levels of significance and potential consequences.
Methods for correction of tne discrepancies will be evaluated, including the j
impact of the correction on operating crew effectiveness and system safety. A benefit / cost analysis will be part of the assessment process.
Discrepancies not corrected will be justified.
After corrective actions have been determined, they will be scheduled for implementation.
Four categories of modifications will be assigned.
(1)
Immediate - Enhancement Corrections (2) Pranpt Action - Correct pranptly on schedule approved by NRC, generally at first refueling _ outage after receipt of equipment.
(3) Near Term - Correct on schedule approved by NRC, generally at second refueling outage af ter submittal of DCRDR report.
(4) 1.ong Tena (Optional) - Corrections of non-significant discrepancies The factors which will be taken into account in determining the modification categorization are:
(1) Safety consequences of operator errors that could be caused by the discrepancy.
(2) Degree of deviation from guidelines (3) Operator training / retraining requirements (4)
Integration with other Action Plan Items (5) Potential for partial or temporary correction (6) Outage schedules (7) Procurement schedules After the review team has assessed all discrepancies, the consultant will examine all HED's and proposed corrective actions. His recommendations will i
be weighed heavily in the final assessment of discrepancies and scheduling of modi fi cations.
I Upon coapletion of the review process, the Detailed Control Room Design Review Report will be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Canaission. This report will summarize the overall review process, describe the identified human engineering discrepancies, describe Control Room design enhancements l
implenented during the course of the review, and identify proposed design improvements and their schedules for implementation.
I WP-6 i
_ _. _... _. _. -. _ _,.., _, _ _ _,.,.. _. _ _ _ - -. ~. _ _,., _
The completion of the DCRDR will not signify the curtailment of human factor engineering in the LACBWR Control Rooa.
Human factors will be considered in future facility changes af fecting the Control Room.
Human factor engineering will remain an ongoing etfort at the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor, i
i I
l l
l l
l l
WP-6 l 1
FIGURE 1 1;0RTil-4 CONTROL AREA -
WALL -
/.
VERTICAL PANELS reym wsMMM
/?
/
/
/////////////// //
,/
/
'GE!;EH/ TOR PLANT tc t
HEACTOR PLANT
/
CCHTROL ROOM
,s
./
rOl'z/,/
m 15"7 Z / \\
AIR COND.
WATER SilIFT ECONDARY
~ WALL SUP.
\\ ALARM EMFRGENCY OFFICE
) STATION DOOR I
CONTROL ROOM BOUNDARY
'\\
Referonce: SerSont Ec Lundy drowing M-1, Rcvision A, dated J.snursry 7, 196fg, General Arranger ont, Mr.in Floor Finn, LACOWR Gencrotor Finnt.
WP-6 -_ _ _ _.
FIGURE 2 CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS PLANNING PHASE l NUREG-0700 l Determine review objectives l and resources allocated.
l l
Plan review process Planning and schedule Report REVIEW PHASE Review of l
Task Control
~ Control Ope rati ng Analysis Rosa Roan Expe ri ence l
Inventory Survey l Task Performance l Capabilities l Verification l
Control Room l Validation l
ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION STAGE l Analyze Safety Implications and l
ways of correcting discrepancies l l
l Prioritize and schedule modifications Subni t DCROR Report WP-6 FIGURE 3 TENTATIVt. utKux SCHEDULE TIME J
PHASE TASK 1981 1982 1983 l
' Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr i
l l
l Planning l Read NUREG's 0700 & 0801 Analyze Objectives Review Team Selection l Organize Methodology l
Prepare and Submit l
Program Plan l
NRC Review of Plan l
Team Training l
l
[ keview l Operating Experience j
l Review l
l System Functior, and l
Task Analysis l
Control Room Inventory l
Control Room Survey l
Verity Task j
Performance Capabilities Validate Control Room Functions l
Compile Discrepancy l
l Findings l
l Assessment i Determine Significance j and of HED's l Implemen-Select / Design Corrective j tation l
Actions l
l Prioritize and Schedule l
l Consultant Review l
Begin Im91ementation l} Report j Final Report l dnd j Interaction with NRC l Completioni Finalize NOTE - Refueling Outage 4-6/82 WP-6 APPENDIX A-1 FORMS TO BE USED DURING DCRDR i
WP-6 -. -... -..
APPENDIX A-2 OPERATING EXPERIENCE REVIEW LOG 1R or l
PLANT LER No. l LACBWR OTHER APPLICABLE PROBLEM RESOLilTION I
l l
l l
1 l
l 1
l 1
1 I
l l
i 4
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I i
i l
i I
I I
I I
I WP-6 O
O h h g
g APPENDIX A-3 EVENT FUNCTION SEQUENCE BY SYSTEM EVENT NAME 1
\\
SYSTEM 1 SYSTEM 2 SYSTEM 3 ETC.
I I
Function la Function 1b Function 2c Function ld Function 3e l
l l
I i
I I
i 1
l l
l l
l 1
l W
WP-6 a
Y d
N A
~.
P E
R C
S I
D TA S
Y T
I L
I BA S
U L
O.
RL TI NA OV CA RL TI SA NV I A N
O R
I O
T FR A
OR C
E I
S F
ER I
CO R
N E
EN V
UO 4
QI D
ES A
N SS A
NI X
OM I
S CM 9
D I
O 1
N S
E Y
S P
L LD P
A OE A
N RD A
TE NE K
ON S
C AT E
T GD N
DE E
ED V
LE E
WE ON N
K l
l N
O I
l ll lI I
l N
O I
TA C
O L
LA l
,ll iiIIllliIIilIIIillIIlI S
K SA T
ll llIIiIli I1IIIil1iii I IIIiIIIIillIII NO 6
I T
P C
W N
U F
ll Iilii!II IIil I iIiiIi ilIIilIlIIl
ge #
D, 8 APPENDIX A-5 CONTROL ROOM INVENTORY AND VERIFICATION PANEL /WORKBOARD llNSTRUMENTl l
l NUMBER INSTRUMENT SYSTEM l SUBSYSTEM USESI CHARACTERISTICS TASK DESCREPANCYl I
I I
I i
I I
I 1
1 l
l l
l l
l l
l I
I I
l I
1 1
l l
l l
l i
I l
l l
WP-6 [
f APPENDIX A-6 HUfiAN ENGINEERING DISREPANCY LOG SHEETS l Ht0 l
l l
BENCHBOARD HED l NO l COMPONENT SYSTEM l
SUBSYSTEM OR PANEL TYPE l
l l
1 l
l SYSTEM l
SUBSYSTEM COMPONENT HED NO.
HED TYPE I
I I
i 1
I l
l 1
I I
I I
f i
I WP-6
,jy,
m..
m
-4
._.,_m,..
m.-
m gA I*
yh 4
J i
APPENDIX A-7 HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCY RECORD I
jREVIEWER DATE HED NO.
1 l'
COMPONENT INSTR. NO.
LOCATION I
t DISCREPANCY TYPE DISCREPANCY 4
COMMENTS i
CATEGORY 4
RESOLUTION 1
1 WP-6 4 4
I 4
T
+ - - -,,
-v.--.---me e-,,=.--e-....
.m.-,.,-e.,-r
..-,.w--n.,,,-
,, -,..., -,,, _, --v
,.c...
APPEf4 DIX A-8 OPERATOR SURVEY RECORD OPERATOR (S)
EXPERIENCE CREW INTERVIEWER I
QUESTION l
l l
l l RESP 0flSE I
I I
l 1
I l QUESTI0fl l
l l
l RESP 0f4SE I
I l
l l
l QUESTION I
l l
l
[ RESPONSE I
I I
l l
1 l
WP-6