ML20083M601
| ML20083M601 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 03/07/1984 |
| From: | HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20083M504 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8404180220 | |
| Download: ML20083M601 (62) | |
Text
-
L F
fiARCil 7 h8 GDittmlRoomResignReviem 7
[
Operating Experience Review g
Validation Report
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
The SouthTexas Project
[
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
[
[
[*aSB8!!J'ya a
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM 1GHTING g gggg y gg ygg y
(
. _._ POWER CO.
{
[
[
t 1
OPERATING EXPERIENCE REVIEW l
{
VALIDATION REPORT
(
l 1
(
l l
9.1/09013 3375W/0104W
HOUSTGN CONTROL ROOM LIGHTING DESIGN REVIEW
. _..M POWER CD, OPERATING EXPERIENCE REVIEW VALIDATION REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title
- Page, TABLE OF CONTENTS i
LIST OF TABLES 11
SUMMARY
iii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS iv PREFACE vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1-1 2.0 M ETHODOLOGY 2-1 2.1 VALID ATION QUESTIONNAIRE 2-1 2.2 D AT A COLLECTION 2-3 2.3 DATA AN ALYSIS 2-3 REFERENCES 3-1 APPENDICES APPENDIX A
OPERATOR EXPERIENCE REVIEW VALIDATION QUESTIONNAIRE B
SUMM ARY OF OPERATOR RESPONSES TO OER VALIDATION QUESTIONNAIRE i
9.1/09013 3375W/0104W
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM UGHTING gggggy ggyggy
.._E POWER CO.
LIST OF TABLES Table No.
Title Page 2.1-1 NUMBER OF PROBLEMS REPORTED IN 2-2 THE OER REPORT 2.3-1 PROBLEMS RECEIVING OPERATOR 2-4 CONCENSUS 2.3-2 PROBLEMS NOT RECEIVING OPERATOR 2-5 CONCENSUS B-1
SUMMARY
OF OPERATOR RESPONSES B-1 TO OER VALIDATION QUESTIONNAIRE 9
e 11 9.1/09013 3375W/0104W
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM lGHTING g gggg y g g ygg y
_._. POWER CO.
SUMM AR Y During the May 1983 NRC Audit of the new layout of the STP control room panels, it was decided to have 33 percent or more of the operations personnel that provided the basic data for the Operator Experience Review (OER) report review and validate the new panel layouts. This report documents the review of the new panel layouts to determine if the problems identified in the OER had been corrected and if any new problems were created.
A validation questionnaire, addressing the 78 problems identified during the OER, was completed by 4 of the 11 operators that responded to the questionnaire in Reference 1.
The operators responding to the validation questionnaire used the Bechtel full-scale mock-up and the current set of panel design drawings.
Results of the responses received from the validation questionnaire reveal that 74 problems generated during the OER were corrected to the operators' satisfaction. Four problems, two with controls, one with annunciator and one with Panel Layout / Integration were not corrected. The four problems are discussed herein and the disposition of each adequately resolved to satisfy the human factors specifications according to the Criteria Report, Reference 2.
Further, no new problems or human engineering observations were identified as a result of this OER validation effort.
ill 9.1/09013 3375W/0104W
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM LIGHTING gggggy ggyggy POWER CO.
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ARO Auxiliary Reactor Operator ASSOC Associated ASST Assistant AUX Auxiliary CAT Category CLO Checklist Observation CONT Control CR Control Room CRDR Control Room Design Review CRT Cathode Ray Tube CVCS Chemical Volume Control System EES Emergency Event Sequences EOF Emergency Operating Facility EPRI Electric Power Research Institute ESF Engineered Safety Feature (s)
EST Estimate (d)
EXPER Experience FW Feedwater HE Human Engineering HED Human Engineering Discrepancy HilSI High Head Safety Injection HL&P Houston Lighting and Power Company HPSI High Pressure Safety Injection I&C Instruments and Controls IN PO Institute of Nuclear Power Operators INSTR Instrument LDR Leader LHSI Low Head Safety Injection LOCA Loss of Coolant Accident LOSP Loss of Offsite (AC) Power LPSI Low Pressure Safety Injection iv 9.1/09013 3375W/0104W
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM LIGHTING DESIGN REVIEW
_._ POWER CO.
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Cont.)
LR01 Licensed Reactor Operator #1 LR02 Licensed Reactor Operator #2 M/M Man / Machine MCP Main Control Panel MON Monitor MSR Moisture Separator Reheater MT Management Team MW(e)
Megawatts (electric)
NOS Numbers NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission OERT Operating Experience Review Task Group OSC Operational Support Center PORV Power Operated Relief Valve PRT Project Review Team PSAR Preliminary Safety Analysis Report RAS Recirculation Actuation Signal PZR Pressurizer RCB Reactor Containment Building RCP Reactor Coolant Pump RCS Reactor Coolant System RECIRC Recirculating R EQ'D Required RG Regulatory Guide RIIR Residual Heat Removal RO Reactor Operator RWST Refueling Water Storage Tank RX Reactor SBCS Standby Cooling System SFTA System Function and Task Analysis SG Steam Generator SIS Safety injection System v
9.1/09013 3375W/0104W
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM lGHTING g gggg y gg ygg y POWER CO.
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Cont.)
)
SO E Selected Operational Event (s)
SPDS Safety Parameter Display System SRO Senior Reactor Operator SS Subsystem STAT Systems Task Analysis Team SUPVR Supervisor SW Switch SYS System TMI Three-Mile Island TSC Technical Support Center l
l l
vi 9.1/09013 3375W/0104W
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM
\\
LIGHTING gggggy ggyggy l
POWER CO.
PREFACE l
The control room design review (CRDR) of the South Texas Project (STP) Nuclear Generating Station was started in September 1982. This review is being performed by Torrey Pines Technology for Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P) with Bechtel Energy Corporation (Bechtel) acting as agent.
Prior to completion of the CRDR, a decision was made by HL&P to redesign six of the ten main control panels. This redesign effort was required to accommodate design changes resulting from plant design evolution and Reg. Guide 1.97 requirements. Human engineering discrepancies determined in the CRDR have been or are in the process of correction.
The CRDR is described in the Program Plan document. It contains a detailed description of the plans for the majors task elements. Due to the control room redesign effort, a modified approach was required to complete and document the CRDR program. The following changes have been made in the CRDR Program Plan:
l A.
The documentation program described in the Program Plan was changed to allow reporting of results on the individual CRDR tasks.
B.
An Implementation Plan Report, was written to describe the background and reasons for the redesign effort. It outlines the approach to be used for implementing panel layout changes.
C.
The tasks described in the Program Plan have been completed for the original design. The SFTA and the control room survey have been updated to validate any design revisions.
vil 9.1/09013 3375W/0104W
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM LIGHTING ggggg y gg yjg y a
_._ _ __ POWE R CO.
The following is a description of the documents covering this CRDR (see figure P-1):
A.
Program Plan - Defines the plan for performing tne CRDR.
B.
Criteria Report - Provides the detailed guidelines and basis for the CRDR and describes the interface between the control room and plant systems.
C.
Operating Experience Review (OER) Report - Describes the review process results, conclusions and recommendations of the operating experience review (OER) task defined in the Program Plan.
D.
System Function and Task Analysis (SFTA) Report - Describes the methodology, results, conclusions and recommendations for the SFTA effort defined in the Program Plan.
E.
Control Room Survey (CRS) Report - Describes the review process, results, conclusions and recommendations of the control room survey task defined in the Program Plan. This report also includes the final results and dispositions for the human factor observations obtained from the OER and the SFTA.
F.
Annunciator Report - Describes the review process, results, conclusions and recommendation of the annunciator review task defined in the Program Plan.
G.
Special Studies Report - Describes details of miscellaneous studies performed as part of the CRDR. This includes the anthropometric study, the hierarchial labeling study and the demarcation study.
l l
viii 9.1/09013 3375W/0104W
i l
l HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM i
MHMG gggggy ggyggy a
POWER CD.
H.
Implementation Plan Report - Summarizes the CRDR, the control room design changes, and the proposed methods of implementing the design changes.
I.
SFTA Validation Report - Summarizes the second SFTA review based on relayed out panels and walk-through/ talk-through validation.
J.
OER Validation Report - Summarizes the review made by operators to determine if the redesigned panels corrected concerns reported in the OER Report and if any new problems were created.
K.
CRS Validation Report - Summarizes the review made to determine if the category A and representative samples of the Category B HEDS are satisfactorily corrected and it any new problems were created.
L.
Executive Summary - Summarizes the CRDR, results, conclusions and recommendations. Technical details are in the Operating Experience Review Report, the System Function and Task Analysis Report, the Control Room Survey Report, the Special Studier Report, and the Annunciator Report.
l ix 9.1/09013 3375W/0104W
$q HousTO CONTROL ROOM
,gg g
DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT POWER CD.
b h
PLANNING 2
h l>
g REVIEW &
DESIGN SUPPORT j
!$a -lT si y
s a
=
e ti!
85 !!
k
/
//
Affafb
!I l85 ASSESSMENT y>
q "g
stg IMPLEMENTATION GE y
I-h EFFECTIVENESS 3l 3
es 53 5
If !hf O
/
/ i! I
. STP CRDR MAJOR REPORTS Figure P 1 X
houston CONTROL ROOM UGHMG gggggy ggyggy POWER CO.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The STP Control Room Design Review (CRDR) Program Plan defined, " Operator Experience Review" (OER) was completed in the first quarter of 1983, Reference 1. This report was submitted to the NRC in support of their audit of the CRDR facility during May 1983. During this audit the NRC was advised that 33 percent or more of the operations personnel who provided the basic data for the OER report would be asked to review the new panellayouts. The objective of this review was to determine whether the reported discrepancies were corrected and if any new problems were created.
This document contains the data, analysis and results of the validation process.
1-1 9.1/09013 3375W/0104W
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM LIGHTING DESIGN REVIEW
~
._ECI OWER CD.
2.0 AIETIlODOLOGY 2.1 VALIDATION QUESTIONNAIRE The problem areas identified by the eleven (11) operators in response to the questionnaire, Reference 1, were organized into a validation questionnaire, Appendix A. The problems used in this questionnaire were the result of 13 questions that were answered "No" by nine (82%) or more of the 11 respondents to the OER questionnaire.
The operators were given one week to study the questionnaire prior to the exercise. A short orientation was given to the operators to make sure they understood the objectives of the review.
The one half scale panels 001 - 010 mosaic was used to show the panellayout at the time the OER concerns were surfaced. The relayed out mock up, and revised panel layout drawings were used for comparison.
There was a short debriefing period and additional operator communications to clarify some of the questionnaire responses.
Table 2.1-1 shows the number of problems reported in the OER report by area.
2-1 9.1/09013
- 3375W/0104W l
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM IGHTING g gggg y g g ygg y
. _. POWER CO.
TABLE 2.1-1 NUMBER OF PROBLEMS REPORTED IN THE OER REPORT NUMBER OF QUESTIONNAIRE Alt EA PROBLEMS REPORTED SECTIO NS*
WORKSPACE 7
A CONTROIS 25 B, C and D ANNUNCIATORS 28 E, F, G, H and I LABELS & LOCATION AIDS 8
J and K PANEL LAYOUT /INTEGilATION 10 L and M
'IOTAL 78
- Each section is associated with a specific question used in Appendix A of Reference 1.
Each of the 78 problems was identified separately and grouped by section to conform with the specific question used in Appendix A of Reference 1.
Operators were requested to address each problem and mark one or more of the following categories as appropriate.
o Problem Corrected o
Problem Not Corrected o
No New Problems o
Created New Problem l
l l
l l
2-?.
9.1/09013 3375W/0104W
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM LsGHTING g gggg y g g ygg y
.._ E POWER CO.
The operators were asked to clarify their response in the " Remarks" column for the Categories marked with " Problem Not corrected" or" Created New Problem."
2.2 DATA COLLECTION On August 16,1983, four (4) of the original eleven (11) operators that completed the initial questionnaire used for the OER report, Reference 1, completed the validation questionnaire, Appendix A at the mockup facility. A complete set of the current panel design drawings were continuously available for this review.
The operators verified the problems on the one-half scale mosiac, then examined the relayed out panels and answered each problem query.
l 2.3 DATA ANALYSIS The responses to the 78 problem areas were consolidated onto one data collection form and summarized in Table B-1 of Appendix B. Table 2.3-1 shows the number of problems, by area, where operator consensus reported that the problems were corrected. Table l
2.3-2 shows that four problems did not receive operator consensus as being corrected.
2-3 9.1/09013 3375W/0104W
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM LIGHT lNG gggggy ggyggy POWER CO.
TABLE 2.3-1 PROBLEMS RECEIVING OPERATOR CONSENSUS PROBLEMS PER PROBLEM AREA A REAS CORRECTED WORKSPACE 7
7 CONTROLS 25 23 ANNUNCIATORS 28 27 LABELS & LOCATION AIDS 8
8 PANEL LAYOUT /INTEGR ATION 10 9
'lVTAL 78 74 i
i 1
1 2-4
\\
9.1/09013 3375W/0104W
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM UGHTING gggggy ggyggy POWER CO.
TABLE 2.3-2 PROBLEMS NOT RECEIVING OPERATOR CONSENSUS PROBLEM NUM BER STATEM EN l' Controls - Cl
" Boards are too tall" Control' - D8 "Feedpump Master Controller should s
be nearer the middle of 006" Annunciators - E4 "Permissives need auditory tone when actuated and when reset" Panel Layout / Integration - L6 "Feedpump Master Controller should be located between individual controls" The category " Creates New Problem", received only three single responses, indicating that the new design did not introduce any new problem.
The "No New Problem" was marked by only three of the four operators when their response to the " Problem Corrected" category was marked. This category did not provide any differential or meaningful data; therefore, it was not used in this survey evaluation.
6 2-5 I
9.1/09013 3375W/0104W
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM LIGHTING gggggy ggyggy
$_M OWER CO.
'!he data from the completed questionnaire reveals that four problems previously identified in the OER Report have not been changed. 'lhe reported problems are:
C-1
" Boards Are Too Tall":
Although the boards are still the same height, most of the controls have been lowered.
Approximately 20 switch controls on panel CP-010 exceed the upper height limits for control according to the Criteria Report, Reference 2. An examination was conducted to determine the trade-off between (1) lowering the switches on CP-010 and (2), providing an effective mimie. Results of the examination revealed that the 20 switches are not safety-related nor critical and are used infrequently. Further, lowering the switches would disrupt an operationally effective mimic. Based on this examination, the results of the current design arrangement were selected as being optimum. Other operator comments regarding the board height concern the changing of recorder paper. It should be noted that recorder paper is not changed during high activity periods and an " operator aid" (mobile ladder) will be procured for the control room. This is a commonly accepted practice in current control rooms.
Two problems, D-8 and L6, are essentially the same but reported in two separate areas, i.e.:
D-8 "Feedpump Master Controller should be nearer the middle of 006", and L6 "Feedpump Master Controller should be located between incividual controls".
The Feedwater Pump Master Controller is located to the far right of panel 006.
Ilowever, comments of the four operators associated with these queries indicate that the location of this control does not create a problem.
2-6 l
l l
9.1/09013 3375W/0104W L
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM UGHTING DESIGN REVIEW
.._ 31 POWER CO.
Subsequent to the completion of the questionnaire, a debriefing was conducted with four operational personnel regarding the control location. The operators were unanimous in stating that, "the current feedwater control arrangement is satisfactory".
E-4 "Permissives need auditory tone when activated and when reset." Specifications for the Westinghouse startup ( ermissives, interlocks, and blocks " Permissive Panel" will be modified to include an auditory tone when an annunciator is activated and when the panel is reset.
Although not identified as a problem, two comments suggested that the labeling on the sample " Permissive" annunciator panel is not consistent. The Annunciator Study Group has reviewed this labeling and the necessary changes have been made.
Based on the responses to the validation questionnaire, no human engineering observations resulted from this review.
2-7 9.1/09013 3375% /0104W
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM LIGHTING DESIGN REVIEW POWER CD, REFERENCES 1.
Houston Lighting & Power Company, Operating Experience Review Report, haarch 25,1983.
2.
Houston Lighting & Power Company, Criteria Report, February 4,1983.
3.
Human Engineering Guide for Enhancing Nuclear Control Rooms, EPRI NP-2411, May 1982.
i l
9.1/09013 3-1 3375W/0104W J
I
",* U '
CONTROL ROOM anti DESIGN REVIEW
\\
n
_. POWER CO.
l APPENDIX A OPERATOR EXPERIENCE REVIEW VALIDATION QUESTIONNAIRE i
l I
i 9.1/09013 3375W/0104W
\\
i l
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOnt i
UGHTING DESIGN REVIEW
_._... POWE R C O.
OPERATOR EXPERIENCE REVIEW VALIDATION PHASE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The STP Control Room Design Review (CRDR) Program Plan defined, " Operator Experience Review"(OER) and was completed in the first quarter of 1983. Rev. O of the OER report is dated March 15,1983. This report was informally submitted to the NRC in support of their audit of the CRDR Facility on May 1983. During this audit the NRC was cdvised that 33 percent of the operations personnel who provided the basic data for the OER report would be asked, to review the new panel layouts and determine if the r: ported discrepancy had been corrected and if any new problems were created.
This document covers the " data input" portion of the validation process.
2.0 Methodology 2.1 The STP Operations Department is to designate four (4) of the original elevs.
(11) operations personnel to complete the attached questionnaire.
2.2 Completed questionaires are to be submitted to TPT.
l l
9.1/07/15/3 2572W/0072W
NOUSTON CONTROL ROOnt DESIGN REVIEW POWER CO.
i INSTRUCTION 1.
Operator shall review stated problem by review of the mosaic.
2.
Check the new panellayouts and determine if the revised layout corrects the problem. If it does not, state why in remarks column.
3.
Check to see that the revision does not create a new problem. If it does, indicate why in the remarks column.
f l
l 9.1/07/15/3 2572W/0072W
v.
.s 3
j !
l
, \\,
4
'\\
/
PROBLEM REPORTED iN DER' REPORT
- 3 5
$b $* 4
' " " ^ * '
+*
- 1. INDICATORS (PRESSURE, TEMPERATURE, FLOW) TOO HIGH ON PANELS s
REMARKS:
s
- 2. ANNUNCIATORS HARO TO REA0 REMARKS:
s
\\
s
- 4. RECORDERS TOO HIGH ON PANEL REMARKS:
N s
3
- 5. SYNCH. SCOPE ON 010 TOO MIGH REMARKS:
h
\\.'
\\g 9[
/
PROBLEM REPORTED IN DER REPORT 8
& se A. WORKSPACE
- [
- 6. BISTABLE STATUS LIGHTS HARD TD READ REMARKS:
i I
- 7. AUXILIARY FEED FLOWINDICATOR$ HARD TO READ REMARKS:
l REMARKS:
i REMAR KS:
l l
l REMARKS:
{
w
. =
1 l
A PROBLEM REPORTED IN DER REPORT 8
4
+8 ##
i O. CONTROLS g
l
- 1. TURSINE CONTROLS AND GENERATOR VOLTAGE AND BREAKER CONTROLS ARE T00 FAR APART REMARKS:
4 4
- 2. AUXILIARY FEEDWATER CONTROLS ARE SCATTERED REMARKS:
j I
- 3. CONTROLS ARE NOT MGilCEO ANO HARD TO IDENTIFY REMARKS:
i 4
- 4. VCT CONTROLS ARE POORLY ARRANGED REMARKS:
l E. IAAIN FEEDWATER SYSTEM CONTROLS NOT GROUPED PROPERLY REMARKS:
y
PROBLEM REPORTED IN DER REPORT g
B. CONTROLS
- 7. STEAGA OutAP CONTROL SWITCHES ARE T00 FAR AWAY FROAISTEAll OuaAP CONTROLLERS REMARKS:
- 9. HVAC SPREAO ALL OVER PANELS REMARKS:
- 18. CONTROLS REGulRE EXCES$1VE OPERATOR ISOVEIAENT
^
REMARKS:
u______
A
l A
PROBLEM REPORTED IN DER REPORT
$5
- $[
B. CONTROLS t
1
- 11. CONTROLS ARE NOT STANDARDlZED BY CONTROL FUNCTION I
l REMARKS:
1 I
REMARKS:
I l
4 REMARKS:
(
REMARKS:
REMARKS:
g y+'e PROBLEM REPORTE0 IN DER REPORT g
C. CONTROLS g
[
- 1. BOAROS ARE T00 TALL REMARKS:
i
- 2. SMALL OPERATORS WILL HAVE PROBLEMS REACHING CERTAIN CONTROLS ON VERTICAL PANELS REMARKS:
- 3. SOME CONTROLS AND ALL RECORDERS ARE HARD TO REACH,EVEN FOR TALL PERSONS REMARKS:
l
- 4. ORPI CONTROLS ON Del E*DSSIBLE TO REACH REMARKS:
1 1
l
- 5. BTR$ CONTROLS ON 004 HARD TO REACH REMARKS:
1 l
e
PROBLEM REPORTED IN DER REPORT 8
&&, 53 D. CONTROLS
- 1. 3041LLOGICALLY ARRANGED REMARKS:
1
- 2. TURBINE DRAIN SUFITCHES ARE SCATTERED REMARKS:
- 3. GENERATOR CONTROLS SHOULD BE NEARER TURBINE CONTROLS REMARKS:
- 4. CONTROLS FOR SAME SYSTEM ARE ON DIFFERENT PANELS OR SPREAD TOO MUCH ON ONE PANEL j
REMARKS:
'I
- 5. RESET SurITCHES ON ESF BOAROS POORLY ARRANGED REMARKS:
7 N'T' s
m-wy-.+
n,
w
-iw-.,
_.,,.-%m
..,e,a
(
[g gg*A 4
g g
- g PROBLEM REPORTED IN DER REPORT
+
[
D. CONTROLS E. CVCS SYSTEM CONTROLS NOT INTEGRATED REMARKS:
- 7. AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM ILLOGICAL REMARKS:
- 8. FEEDPUMP MASTER CONTROLLER SHOULD BE NEARER THE M10DLE OF006 REMARKS:
- 9. CONTROLS ARE TOO SCATTERED ABOUTTHE PANELS REMARKS:
REMARKS:
1
)
PROBLEM REPORTED IN DER REPORT 8
- 5[9 se E. ANNUNCIATORS t
- 1. ANNUNCIATORS SHOULD BE ARRANGED BY DEGREE OF IMPORTANCE (NEED PRIORITIZATION)
l
- 2. LAYOUT IS INCDNSISTENT WITH WESTINGHOUSE DESIGN FOR PERMIS.
SIVES AND IS NOT (ABELED FOR CLEAR UNDERSTANDING REMARKS:
- 3. PERMISSIVES SHOULD BE ON SEPARATE PANEL WITH PERMISSIVE l
NUMBER l
REMARKS:
- 4. PERMISSIVES NEED AUDITDRY TDNE WHEN ACTUATED AND WHEN RESET REMARKS:
i l
l I
I
- 5. NEED FIRST-0UTINDICATIONS REMARKS:
i l
1 PROBl.EM REPORTED IN DER REPORT 8
- s[? se E. ANNUNCIATORS
- 8. ANNUNCIATORS ARE HARD TO READ REMARKS:
- 7. COMMON SYSTEMS ARE NOT GRobPED TOGETHER REMARKS:
- 8. MANY ALARMS ON 007 (e4. RCB AND LOOSE PARTS MONITORING)
SHOULD BE ON 005 REMARKS:
- 9. ANNUNCIATOR LAYOUT 15 ILLOGl;Ai.WITH RESPECT TD SYSTEMS REM AR KS:
- 10. SHOULD BE ABLE TO SILENCE AN ALARM FROM ANY PANEL AND ACKNOWLEDGE FROM SYSTEM PANEL REMARKS:
1 I
PROBLEM REPORTED IN DER REPORT
/
l
+$ $3 E. ANNUNCIATORS g
i
/
- 11. RECOMMEND COLOR CDOED ANNUNCIATOR SYSTEM 4
REMARKS:
- 12. PANELS CDNTAIN TOO MANY MISCELLANEOUS ALARIAS REMARKS:
- 13. CONTROLS FOR A GIVEN SYSTEM ARE ON OlFFERENT PANEL FR0tl THEIR CORRESPONDING ANNUNCIATOR WINDOWS REMARKS:
1 4
f REMARKS:
f
{
I REMARKS:
l
/
,# /~#
8, PROBLEM REPORTED IN OER REPORT F. ANNUNCIATORS
- 1. TOO MANY HIGH/ LOW lNPUTS (NEED INDICATION OF STATUS NEARRY IF MULTIPLE INPUT ALARIAS ARE TO BE USED)
REMARKS:
1 L COM880N ALARM ANNUNCIATORS SHOULO BE CAREFULLY REVIEWE0 REMARKS:
l
- 3. THESE ARE SEVERAL GENERAL CATEGORY ALARats REMARKS:
REMAR KS:
1 REMARKS:
[g/y k
g
- g PROBLEM REPORTED IN DER REPORT G. ANNUNCIATORS i
- 1. THERE ARE NO FIRST 0UTS (THEY ARE NEEDED BADLY' )
)
REMARKS:
i
- 2. HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT FIRST4UT FEATURE BE INCORPORATED INTO DESIGN REMARKS:
.i
- 3. IN THE EVENT OF COMPUTER OUTAGE, OPERATOR HAS NO WAY TO OIAGNOSE WHAT CAUSED A PLANT TRIP REMARKS:
a REMAR KS:
I REMARKS:
I I
PROBLEM REPORTED IN DER REPORT 8
et n H. ANNUNCIATORS
+[
- 1. NO ANNUNCIATOR PRIORITIES HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED REMARKS:
1
- 2. ANNUNCIATORS NEED TO BE COLOR-CODED BY PRIORITY REMARKS:
REMAR KS:
1 REMAR KS:
l l
I REMARKS:
l l
l I
-m
/
A PROBLEM REPORTED IN DER REPORT
[ $[ $ 8 1.
- 1. TILES ARE TOO SMALL AND TD0 CLUTTERED REMARKS:
- 2. TOO MANY LETTERSIN SMALL AREA REMARKS:
- 3. DIFFICULT TO DISTINGUISH AMONG TILES REMARKS:
- 4. POOR LABELING REMARKS:
- 5. INCONSISTENT ABBREVIATIONS REMARKS:
A 6
PROBLEM REPORTED IN DER REPORT p[$ 93 1.
- 6. HARD TO READ AND IDENTIFY REMARKS:
- 7. LABELS ARE INCONSISTENT WITHIN PANELS AND ACROSS PANELS REMARKS:
l
[
l I
l REMARKS:
l REMARKS:
REMAR KS:
A g
,g /g [g PROBLEM REPORTED IN DER REPORT p,
E J.
LABELS AND LOCATION AIDS q.
- 1. LABELING NEEDSTO BE REVIEWED FOR ACCURACY AND CONSISTENCY WITH FSARs AND WESTINGHOUSE TECH MANUALS l
l REMARKS:
a
- 2. RECOROERS (e.g. STEAM GENERATOR LEVEL, STEAM FLOW) ARE POORLY LABELED REM AR KS:
i
- 3. NEED MAJOR SYSTEM LASELS (ESPECIALLY ON ESFs)
REMARKS:
i
- 4. LABELS ON CONTROLLERS NEED TO INCLUDE THE SYSTEM OR FUNCTION BEING CONTROLLED REMARKS:
REMARKS:
l
k PROBLEM REPORTED IN DER REPORT g j#g g
5,k K. LASELS AND LOCATION AIDS
[
8
- 1. VERY LITTLE DEMARCATION IS USED REMARKS:
)
L DEMARCATION IS USED ONLY ON ESF PANELS ANO IT IS NOT LASELED REMARKS:
l
- 3. DEMARCATION IS NEEDED ON PANELS 804,306,OO7,000 ANO OOO REMARKS:
I l
l t
REMAR KS:
l REMARKS:
i
PROBLEM REPORTED IN DER REPORT
+8 g
y L. PANEL LAYOUT / INTEGRATION h
pg
- 1. NEED MORE LOGICAL AND FUNCTIONAL GROUPINGS REMARKS:
)
l
- 2. NEED BETTER DEMARCATION ANO BETTER LABELING REMARKS:
- 3. 384,005,006 AND 007 ARE ESPECIALLY POORLY LAID OUT REMARKS:
l
- 4. MANY OF PERIPHERAL PANELS THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE PRIMARY OPERATING AREA NEED TO BE INCLUDED IN MAIN PANEL LAYOUT REMARKS:
- 5. ELECTRICAL CONTROLS ARE MUCH T00 FAR FROM TURBINE CONTROLS.
REMARKS:
I
__m_ _ __ _,.,,
,+ --
,..%4 em
,y-
PROBLEM REPORTED IN DER REPORT 8
4 or L. PANEL LAYOUT / INTEGRATION g
- 6. FEED PUMP MASTER CONTROLLER SHOULD BE LOCATED BETWEEN IND!VIDUAL CONTROLS REMARKS:
- 7. PANELS NEED EXTENSIVE REARRANGEMENT REMARKS:
1 REMARKS:
REMARKS:
l l
REMARKS:
I l
l l
PROBLEM REPORTED IN DER REPORT 8
4 or M. PANEL LAYOUT / INTEGRATION g
l l
- 1. THE FOLLOWING SYSTEAAS ARE ILLDGICALLY EROUPED:
l TURBINE TO GENERATOR REMARKS:
i l
RIAIN FEEDWATER 4
REMARKS:
AUXILIARY FEEDWATER REMARKS:
t i
ENC CSNTROLS REMARKS:
I
+'O 5
g#
PROBLEM REPORTED IN DER REPORT g
l M. PANEL LAYOUT / INTEGRATION d
- 2. STEAM GENERATOR CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS ARE SPLIT REMARKS:
l 1
- 3. ROD POSITION INDICATION AND CONTROLS COULD BE BETTER INTEGRATED REMARKS:
REMARKS:
REMAR KS:
i
"*US CONTROL ROOM lGNTING DESIGN REVIEW g
POWER CD.
APPENDIX B 1
SUMM ARY OF OPERATOlt RESPONSES TO OER VALIDATION QUESTIONNAIRE t
i f
i 9.1/09013 3375W/0104W
houston CONTROL ROOM LIGHTING DESIGN REVIEW
. _ _... POWE R CO.
TABLE B-1 Sth1\\WlY OF OPalNIU1 RESIONSES 'IO 081 VALIDATION QJESTIONNAIRE RESIONSE HGIS1 10 OtENITS QUETIONNAIRE HGIE1 HGIRI NX NBV NBV SELTION NihEH1 G31RFflTD CDlRECIID HGIE1 PflOBIRI RE\\WlIG/Ghh1ENT i
A 1
4 3
W 2
4 3
O R
3 3
3 1
Markings not K
consistent for "P"
S ntmbers. New P
permissive not on A
panel; cannot C
evaluate.
E Permissives should be readily available e.g.,
4 3
2 5
3 1
2 Synch Q{ on 007.
No problan with Synch on 007.
6 3
1 2
New lights not on panel.
7 4
3 Interchange FI indicators. (Note:
In.dicators fell off mock-up).
B-1 9.1/09013 362SV/0113V
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM LIGHTING DESIGN REVIEW
_ - _ POWER CD.
TABLE B-1 SIMINLY OF OPERTIOR RESIONSES 'IO OER VALIDATION QUESTIONRAIRE RESIONSES PHOBLSI to OtEATES QUESTIONNAIRE 100B131 PROBLSI ME NBV NBV SILTION NIABER GDRRFLTED CERFLTED PHOBLSI PHOBISI RS1 ARKS /GM1ENT B
1 4
3 C
2 3
3 Still scattered, O
but inproved.
N T
3 3
3 In general, mimics R
incorporated where O
necessary.
L
/dl controls and S
systens not mimiced.
4 4
3 5
4 3
6 4
3 7
4 3
8 1
1 2
No SI switch on ESF panels. Gone on 005.
9 4
3 10 4
3 11 4
3 I
B-2 9.1/09013 362SV/0113V
l HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM LIGHTING gggggy ggyjg y
. _... POWER CD.
TABLE B-1 SGl\\1ARY OF OPEAEJR RESPUNSES 'IO OER VALIDATION QUESTIONNAIRE l
RESBJNSES FHOUIS1 to QtEATES QUESTKNNAIRE 1H0B131 1H0B131 KTT NBV NBV SECTION NGEER GERECIID ERRFLTED W08I31 EBOBIE1 RE\\1 ARKS /Ghl\\1ENT C
1 1
2 3
Do not know what can be done.
Qinnot correct problen. Yes C
2 3
1 2
Possibly, with O
short operators N
changing recorder T
paper, CP-010 and R
006 still have O
problens.
L S
3 3
1 2
Sane controls and generator recorder EORV on 006; current and voltages on 010; valve leak on 001, surge tank 002 and sane on 004.
4 4
3 5
4 3
B-3 9.1/09013 362GV/0ll3V
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM LIGHTING DESIGN REVIEW
_ _ _.._ POWE R CO.
SIMWlY OF OPDWIOlt itESIONSES 'IO 081 VALIDATION QJESTIONNAIRE ILESIONSES HGlJM ND OtEA'ITS QJESTIONNAIRE IPOBLB1 HGIE1 N7I' NBV NBV SFLTION NIAUFR WHILECIID GJRRFflID PHOBIB1 IHOBIE1 RB1 ARKS /GM1ENT D
1 4
3 Mimies help a lot.
Very good.
C 2
4 3
O N
3 4
3 T
R 4
4 3
Situation still O
exists but layed L
out best.
S 5
4 3
6 4
3 7
4 3
k 8
1 2
2
'Ihe control is functional where it is.
9 4
3 L
l B-4 9.1/09013 362GV/Oll3V
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM
\\
'GHT'NG DESIGN REVIEW
_... POWER CD.
j TABLE B-1
)
i SLA14\\RY OF OPERA'lut RESIONSES 'IO OBt VALIDATION QJESTIONNAIRE RESIONSES l
HGIB1 to GEATES QUESTIONNAIRE HG131 RGIE1 M71' NBV NBV SFLTION NCA1BER GJHRECIID GJRRECIID PROBIE1 PROBIR1 RFAWIKSKGh1ENT E
1 4
3 2
4 2
1 See A-3 Permissives l
A 3
4 2
1 See A-3 Pennissives N
N 4
1 2
1 Not ready yet U
N 5
4 3
C 1
6 4
3 Should be N, if A
2" x 3".
T O
7 4
3 R
S 8
4 3
i 9
4 3
10 4
3 True 11 3
1 3
12 4
3 13 4
3 B-5 9.1/09013 362&V/OllM
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM LIGHTING gggggy ggyggy
..._._E POWER CO.
TABLE B-1 SlLhWlY OF OPERAlat itESIONSES 'IO 081 VALIDATION QJESTIONNAIRE RESIO SB RGIE1 to OtFAES QJETIONNAIRE PROBIEl HEIE1 NJT NBV NBV SECrlON NCL1BH1 GEtECTED RIUtECTED RGIE1 HGLE1 RS1ARIG/GLhlENT F
1 3
1 3
Still have Hi/Lo but with indication, agree with parenthesis s tatenent.
A N
2 3
1 3
Reviewed with N
respect to "1F" U
indication on N
function i.e.,
C flow Hi/lo is near I
A T
3 4
3 O
R S
B-6 9.1/09013 362&V/Oll3V
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM UGHTING DESIGN REVIEW N
POWER CD.
TABLE B-1 Slhh1ARY OF OPERXIOR RESEONSES TO 081 VALIDATION QJESTIONNAIRE RESIONSES PHUBIE1 to GLEATES QUESTIONNAIRE PIGIE1 PIGIB1 N7P NBV NBV SECTION NIA1BER QRRECIID Q RRECIID PROB 1El PROBIE1 REnWS/CLhh1ENT G
1 4
3 A
2 4
3 N
N 3
4 3
Should have enough U
indication on N
board.
C I
A T
O R
S B-7 9.1/09013 362GV/0ll3V
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM uGHTING DESIGN REVIEW POWE R C D.
TABLE B-1 SGhW1Y OF OPERA 101 ItESIONSES TO OER VALIDATION QJESTIONNAIRE i
RESIONSES MGIE1 to OtEATES QUESTICNNAIRE 1F0B131 IECBIB1
?Or NBV NBV l
SECTION NGEER CDtf1ECTED GRIECTED IHOBIE1 PflOBISI RE\\1 ARKS /CGh1ENT 1
H 1
4 3
A 2
4 3
N N
U N
C I
A T
O R
S l
l I
l B-8
~.1/09013 9
362SV/Oll3V
l l
l houston CONTROL RCOM lGHMG gggggy ggyggy POWER CD.
TABLE B-1 SLAl\\WlY OF OPDIAIOR RESIONSES TO 091 VALIDATION QUESTIONNAlllE RESIONSES PHOB131 PO Q1EN1'ES QUESTIONNAIRE PROBISI PROBIBI
?OT NBV NBV SFCTION NthE DI G11RECTID GERECIID PHOBIB1 PROBISI RE\\1ARKSKut1\\1ENT i
I l
1 1
4 3
A 2
4 3
N N
3 4
3 U
N 4
4 3
C 1
5 4
3 A
T 6
4 3
O R
7 4
3 S
l
}
B-9 9.1/09013 362SV/0113W
houston CONTROL ROOM lGH M G g gggg y gg ygg y
. _.__._ POWE R CO.
TABLE B-1 SlMMRY OF OPERATOR RESRJNSES TO OER VALIDATION QUESTIOtNAIRE i
RESIONSES M108131 PO GENES QUESTICNNAIRE PI0B131 PROBLEW N71' NBV NBV SECTION NLABER 00RRELTED 00RRECIID PflOBIE1 FROBIE1 RENERKS/GMIENT J
1 3
1 3
" Blank" L
2 4
3 A
B 3
4 3
E L
4-4 3
S 5
3 1
3
" Blank" A
l N
D L
O
-C A
l T
I i
l O
N A
1 D
S B-10 9.1/09013 362SV/0113W
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM LIGHTING gggggy ggyjgy l
_._...._ POWE R C O.
~ GLE B-1 SLAhWlY OF OPBlATOR RESIONSES TO 081 VALIDATICN QUESTIONNAIRE RESIONSE PHOBLB1 to OtEA'ES QUESTIONNAIRE PROBIE1 PHOB1El POT NBV NBV SFLTION Nth 1 BBL GJRRECIID GHtFLTED PROBLE\\1 PROBIE1 RBWIKS/GLik1ENT K
1 4
3 L
2 3
1 3
Too nuch on A
003-subsysten B
labels. Should be E
the same color as L
their denarcation S
lines.
A 3
3 3
Single color N
denarcation D
inadequate.
L O
C A
T I
O N
A I
D S
B-11 9.1/09013 362GV/Oll3V
i l
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM
\\
UGHMG g gggg y gg ygg y POWER CD.
TABLE B-1 Sthh1ARY OF OPIRYIOR RESEONSES TO OER VALIDATION QUESTIONNAIRE RESIONSES PHOBLB1 10 G ZATES QUESTIONAIRE PROBISI ISOBLSI N70 NBV NBV SECTION hlh1BER CORRFLTED (DRRFLTED F' u 'I B 1 1E0B131 RB1 ARKS /Ehh!ENT L
1 4
3 P
2 3
1 3
" Blank" A
N 3
4 3
E L
4 4
3 Cannot determine if there are any L
new problems at A
this time.
Y O
5 4
3 U
T 6
1 2
2 See D-8.
Incated
/
on side but OK.
I
" Blank". No.
N T
7 4
3 E
G R
A T
I O
N l
i l
l t
i i
B-12 9.1/09013 362GV/0ll3V
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM lGHTING g gggg y gg yjg y
. _ _. POWER CD.
TABLE B-1 SIMWlY OF OPDIKIUt RESIONSES TO 001 VALIIMTION QJESTIONNAIRE RESIONSES P110BLB1 NO QLEATES QJESTIONNAIRE PROBLB1 ISOBLB1 M7f NBV NBV SECTION NLAUDI CQRELTED ERRECIID PROBIE1 PHOBLB1 RBWU{S/CDh!ENT M
1 4
3 P
2 4
3 With exception of A
N E
3 4
3 L
I L
A Y
l 0
U T
1
/
l
(
I N
T G
l R
l A
T I
l 0
(
N
{
l l
L B-13 9.1/09013 3626W/oll3V
-Cantral:Rcrom=DesigrEBeniew Operating Experience Review Report 1
1 l
The SouthTexas Project L
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY