ML20079H298
| ML20079H298 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 12/06/1982 |
| From: | Longenecker J ENERGY, DEPT. OF, CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PLANT |
| To: | Check P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| HQ:S:82:141, NUDOCS 8212160200 | |
| Download: ML20079H298 (7) | |
Text
.
\\
DESIGNAT ORIGINAL bl#
'N ceitified By Department of Energy
/
Washington, D.C. 20545
/
Docket No. 50-537 HQ:S:82:141 DEC 0 61982 Mr. Paul S. Check, Director CRBR Program Office Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Check:
MEETING
SUMMARY
FOR CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PLANT (CRBRP) CONTROL ROOM DESIGN WORKING MEETING The purpose of this letter is to transmit comitments the CRBRP project made at the December 2 and 3,1982, meeting with the Nuclear Regulatory Comission that discussed the CRBRP control room design process. is the agenda for the meeting. Enclosure 2 contains the comitments regarding the items discussed. Enclosure 3 provides a draft of the revisions to be made to Appendix H, item I.D.1.
Enchsure 4 is the list of attendees.
Any questions regarding the information provided or further activities can be addressed to Mr. R. Rosecky (FTS 626-6149) or Mr. A. Meller (FTS626-6355) of the Project Office Oak Ridge staff.
Sincerely, b
ft W lb J n R. Longenep r I
Acting Director', Office of Breeder Demonstration Projects Office of Nuclear Energy l
l 4 Enclosures O
cc: Service List Standard Distribution 3
Licensing Distribution f
8212160200 821206 PDR ADOCK 05000537 PDR
AGENDA CRBRP CONTa0L Ro0M DESIsN l'.EETINs WITH NRC DECEMsER 2 - 3, 1982
(
OAa RIDst, TENNESSEE - WESTINEMOUSEKNERsY OFFICE CENTEt, CONTROL CONFERENCE ROOM IntatinN:
1 - DISCUSS THE CABRP CONTROL ROOM DESIGN MD THE Bell 4N REVIEW METMODOLOG k
Pua,mn:
2 - M TERMINE SPECIFIC INFORMATION NEEDED sY TNE mRC 70 sAtl8FY c M RP PSAR, APPENDIX M, SECTION 1.D.1,
- CONTROL ROOM Dell 4N REVIEN" 3 - IDENTIFY ANY SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT OPEN ITEMS THURSDAY, DECEMER 2,1982 8:30 A.M.
INTRODUCTION -
P. PLANCMON I - PURPOSE OF MEETING 2 -
SUMMARY
OF CONTROL ROOM INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY &lVEN TO NRC 3 - AsENDA DISCUSSION OF CONTROL R00M DESIGN AND DESIGN REVIEW METHODOLOGY 9:00 A.M.
} - EXPLANATION OF THE CRBRP DESIGN AND REVIEW PROCESS, AND CORRELATION OF
- P. sRADsURY THE DESIGN PROCESS WITH NUREs-0700 APPENDIX s, FUNCTION ANALYSIS
- T. ROCIALSKI, T. BOWERS 2 - STATE OF THE ART COMPUTER IN THE CRSRP DESl&M Lil5CtL1h00.t.m. h00.t.h DISCUSSION OF CONTROL ROOM DESisN AND DESIGs REVIEW METHODOLOGY (CON 1:00 P.M.
- P. PLANCH0N 3 - DISCUS $10N OF CONTROL ROOM REVIEW PPDCESS -
- J. C0X A.
SELECTION OF EVENTS TO BE ANALYZED 3.
TRAINING OF PERSONNEL IN HUMAN FACTORS CONSIDERATIONS - D. WOODS
- J. COX C.
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF EVENTS iG
... BEL 0C&IE.10.00' JIB 0LB000.00CtTE.AI.B&Itat:EB.BU1LD t!
1:50 P.M.
4 - DEMONSTRATION OF EVENT NALKTHROUGHS - REVIEW PHASE
- J. COX A.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CONTROL ROCM LAYOUT
- J. DILLON (SRO),
IIOPFRATIONS B.
SETUP OF M0CKUf
- D. BROOKS (RO)
. P. PLANCH0N WALKTHROUGHS q Trew. rNn.
ANALYSIS MtMAN FAETORE FMSturre
- D. WOODS
- R. MORGAN f(RFCORDEffPFR CAUCUS
- J. C0X C.
ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION 3:f5 P.M.
CORRELATION Or CONTROL ROOM REvlEW WITH NuPEG-0700 APPENDIX n TASK ANALYS 4
- P. PLAntwoM 4:15 P.M.
SUMMARY
OF THE DAYS PRESEr'TATIONS -
FRIDAY, DECEMSER 3, 1982
- D. ELIAS SPECIFY DESIGN INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED TO NRC AS A FOLLOW UP TO COMMITM 8:30 A.M.
IN PSAR, APPENDIX H, SECTION }.D.}
A.
DES 16N DOCUMENTS DRANINGS OF PANELS IN VIEWING AREA 0F OPERATOR 3.
DESIGN VERIFICATION MUMAN FACTORS CHECKLISTS FROM NUREs-0700 SECTION 6 FOR THOSE PANEL 9:30 A.M.
comENTS FROM NRC A.
RELATIVE TO CRBRP SATISFYING I.D.}
RELATIVE To SER OPEN ITEMS ASSOCI ATED WITH CONTROL ROOM 3.
10:30 A.M.
AsREEMENTS AND Com lTMENTS 12:00 P.M.
ADJOURN t
G
Enc 1csure 2 CRBRP Commitments with NRC Regarding CRBRP Control Room Design 1.
CRBRP will perform a study of techniques to reduce alarm overload and assess their applicability to CRBRP alarm systems. The report will be submitted in conjunction with the FSAR.
2.
The main control panel layout, a completed human factors check list for the MCP (addressing applicable portions of Section 6 of NUREG-0700 as guidelines) and a summary report of the control room design process showing equivalence to NUREG-0700 Appendix B, will be submitted three months prior to initiation of main control room hardware fabrication.
3.
The functional basis of computer graphics and examples of typical top level graphics will be made available for audit prior to main control room panel fabrication.
4.
PSAR will be modified to reflect the following revisions to Appendix H item 1.D.I.
I l
s e
4 l.D.1 CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIFWE REQUIREENT:
Applicants shall provide preliminary design Information at a level consistent with that normally required at the construction permit stage of review.
Applicants shall provide a general discussion of their approach to control room designs that rofIoct hunan f actor princtples by spectfyIng the design concept selected and the supporting design bases and criteria. Cosmetic revisions to conventional (1960 technology) designs are unacceptable.
Applicants shalI also demonstrate that the dosign concept Is technically 1
feasible and within the state of the art, and that there exists reasonable assurance that the requirements will be implemented properly prior to the issuance of operating licenses.
Applicants shall commit to < ontrol roca designs reflecting human f actors principles prior to issuance of a CP or M.
and shall supply design Information for review prior to committing to f abrication or revIslon of f abricated control roan panels and layouts.
APPL 1 CAT 10N TO DERP:
This requirenant Is applicable to QBRP. The control room in the plant wIII se.rve the same function as in any other power reactor and accordingly the same j
kinds of operational and human f actors design ensiderations must be applied.
lW4.EENTATl0N:
Following the incident at Three Mlle Island, GERP conducted an In depth review of the control room design. The objective of the review was to ensure that the design of the control room and the operations procedure outlines will fccilitate safe operability of the plant, through the application of state-of-the-art human-factors principles in systems design and Integration and in control room configuration.
A review toen was selected with expertise in l
design, analysis, operations, testing and human f actors engineering.
l The review process included manual simulation of a spectrum of actual plant events and supporting analyses of the required operator actions, detailed analyses of transients, corresponding control room Indications, the controls available to the operator for responding to those Indications, and the role and f unction to be f ulfilled by the operator for each situation. This simulation was conducted using a full-scale mock-up of the main control rocm panel. The methodology required analysis of each simulated event to derive l
expected control panel Indications, operator walk-throughs of procedure outiines for that event, and evaluations of the procedures. Recommendations for changes were prepared for the appropriate assessment and Implementation by af f ected line organizations within the.. project.
The CRBRP cmtrol room design reflects state-of-the-art human factors principles.
Docunents will be subnitted to demonstrate that our design methodology is equivalent to that described in NUREG-0700 " Guidelines for Control Room Design Review," includin Appendix B which describes methods of systems analysis, functional analysis, task analysis, and sequence analysis. The control rom incorporates an advanced design informaticn sysurn, including conputer based CRr displays. The control rom design and the docments that denonstrate that the design methods are equivalent to those described in NUREG-0700 will be provided to NRC prior to camnitting to fabrication of the main control panel or simulator mntrol panels.
- control Room Design Ibviews Page 'Iko NUREG-0700 presents human factors engineering guidelines and sanple decklists for analyzing operator-control rom interfaces. Appendiv. B to NUREG-0700 describes the analyses which the NRC believes is an acceptable approach to control rom design. Se methodology defines the equiptent, personnel, and procedures required to meet all functional cbjectives of the control room.
The methodology is stmmarized in the following.
The first step is to perform a systems / operator analysis to define functicns and interaction.
The next step in the developtrent of control rom design is the allocation of functions to operator or machine. S e basis of the allocaticn is actual /
anticipated performance of the operator or the machine in the inplenentation of the functicn. The actual / anticipated performance is based on actions in which hunans excel, such as the ability to exercise judgment where events cannot be ocmpletely defined, and on actions in which machines excel, such as carrying out many tasks simultaneously. Function allocaticn based on actual /
anticipated performan of the operator or the machine is preferred over rands allocation.
S e tasks required to perform each function are then defined and analyzed to establish design details. The design details for functions and tasks allocated to machines becrme performance requirements, data needs, and decision points in operaticnal sequences. Sese design details will inpact work station design, operator training requirements, and elements of normal and emergency operating procedures. Preliminary lesign is then conducted by specifying work station configurations and by establishing guidelines for procedures.
The next step in the design process is to verify the integraticn of hmans and machines at the work station level. B is process is achieved by analyzing work station design, operations sequence, operator workload, human error l
rate, and work station links. The goal is to verify that the hunan can l
indeed perform all assigned functions and tasks with the specified work station design. If the goal is not achieved, then a re-design beginning with a re-allocaticn of function is necessary. In re-allocating the function, the designer should consider all options, such as work station re-design, new training, new procedures, new jcb aids, the addition of nore operators, and autmation of the function.
The control roca configuration design is achieved by integrating work stations based on their functions and interactions. The control rom configuration design l
is then validated against the functional requirements established from operations analysis. This pro ss is achieved by simulating operaticns with a control rocm
(
nock-up or a ccntrol room simulator. Alternatively, conputer program synthesis of control roca design and operations may prove to be cost effective in evaluating the integrated design..The goal is to validate that humans and work stations can interact to achieve all required functions. When a failure to verify / validate a task /functicn occurs, it will be necessary to re-allocate /re-design and then re-verify and re-validate. The final step in the design process is to document the ccntrol rocm design specificaticos.
l
Control Rocm Design Reviews Page Three
'Ihe Project has utilized and is otmtinuing to use a design and review process which is equivalent to the process outlined above and detailed in NUREG-0700 Appendix B.
Further demonstration of this equivalence will be provided in docunentary form in advance of initiaticn of fabrication of the main control panel.
Enclcsure 4 00tfrHL KDM RE: VIEW EE7FING Decenber 2, 1982 ATTENIEE:
ORGANIZATICE James Jay Cbx Westingho M Ridge Bob lbsecky CRBRP/PO Dallas Hicks CRBRP/PO Neil W. Brown E/WLIID David Woods Westinghouse-R&D J. L. Dillon W-OR Dan Brooks W-OR Terry Bowers W-OR Victor Amons Burns and Boe R. J. Schemel NRC/ DES /HEEB Voss Moore hWDES/HEEB H. P. Planchon W-OR P. Bradbury W-OR D. Elias CRBRP/PO T. Kocialski W-WM
- _ -,. - -