ML20114B805

Suppl 5 to Human Factors Control Room Design Review of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station

ML20114B805
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	09/01/1992
From:	TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:
Shared Package
ML20114B804	List: ML20114B803 ML20114B805
References
NUDOCS 9208310257
Download: ML20114B805 (4)

Text

~

i l Attachment to TXX-92401 4

Sl!PPLEMENT NO. 5 HUMAN FACTORS CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW 0F COMANCllE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION SEPIEMDER 1, 1992 l

l l

9208310257 920828 5 DR ADOCK 0500

_ . , . , . . _ _ . _ .__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ ._ .m ._. _ _ _ _ _ _

l i

, - A'ttachment to TXV. 92401 Page 2-of 4 i

1.0 1813201tLI103 l A comprehensive review has beer accomplished utilizing detailed color photographs of Unit 1 Main Control Boatds as the basis for comparison. [

These photographs show the configuration of Unit ' after the first refueling

- outage and were compared compo,ent by component tu the current Unit I detail Computer Aided Design (CAD) control board layout drawings. Thase drawings  :

show all surface enhencements such as labels, mimic, demarcation, legends, and component layout. The Unit I drawings were then compared to Unit 2 drawings with emphasis on the Human Engineering attributes outlined in the original Unit 1 DCRDR. These NUREG 0700 attributes have been captured as CPSES specific by Technical Procedure EEE 5.13 ' Human Factors Engineering Guidelines". Consistency between units was further maintained by having engineering personnel who had worked on the original Unit ) DCRD9 conduct the Unit 2 DCROR.  !

The Unit 2 drawings were reviewed and compared component by component to 9.e Unit 2 cc7 trol boards to identify all unit differences, discrepancies, and  ;

work remaining. This comprehensive information has then recorded in a PC  ;

database for tracking and reporting.

- Some definitive information must be established to clarify what is ,

classified as a unit difference. The f ollowing are not considered design unit differences:

e All common controls and indicators are installed solely in the Unit 1 control boards: e.g., boric acid storage tank level indicators are not installed in bnit 2. The annunciators for these common tanks are repeated in Unit 2 as -are all alarms for common equipme.:t.

j. o Design Modifications - This category of differences is very-Jynamic and I changes day to-day during the Unit 2 construction "hase. Unit 2 has been the lead unit for many design changes and Unit I for others; e.g.,

all Hagan recotders (28 units) have been replaced in Unit 2, and the balance of 23 units is scheduled to be installed in Unit 1. Another

• ma.ior change of this nature is the new Plant Process Computer System which is being installed in Unit 2. This system integrates the Westinghouse P2500 computer-and Emergency Response Facilities (ERF) functions and other minor computer systets. 'The features of the ERF i system reteio-the Safety Parameter Displav system (SPDSL displays and format. . The 19 inch monitor in the contrs , board has been replaced with -

L a 25-inch monitor and is controlled by a new board. mounted touchpad.

All these changes have been reviewed and comply with NUREG 0700 guidelines, o Electrical Switchyard'- The +.ag numbers for the electrical switchrard equipment'have no unit designatcrs. On the electrical panel in both units, the layout is the same but the tag numbers for similar svitchyard breakers and buses are different.

1 d

---

.r,r-w , ,4,,-m.., - - .,,,w,r., .,_w,- gor.e,-,4- c%.,.,-,.em,,.,,,my,,.,,,,, my,-,_.e--c.m.,. ,m,. c.y,,,.e,,vg-m e-w v-n- e1 v'+=--r'ew=*y-weW-'

4

$ Attachment to TXX 92401

' Page 3 of 4 A programmatic revitw is conducted by both system and design engineers on

~

each design change for either unit, and all ut+it differences are identified and evaluated in accordance with procedure, STA-820, ' Reporting and Evaluation Unit Difference,' and tracted by a FC database. All unit differences must have Statica Operations Review Committee (50RC) approval.

for the Annunciators and Monitor Light Box engravings, the Unit 1

• photographs and drawings have been compared with the Unit 2 design drawings.

No significant unit differences have been noted. Minor syrnbols, forniat and '

abbreviations are being corrected during the final testing and turaover process for Unit 2 systens. A recent review of all annunciators was ,

conducted to resolve ' nuisance

• alarms which detract from the ' dark board' concept for Unit 1. All associated design changer were reviewed for j applicability to Unit 2'during their initial development for Unit 1.,

2.0 OlFFERENCES IN DEslGN e

2.1 Color Coded Oberatina Bandi

, Main Control Board indicator color coded operating bands have been reviewed and unit differences evaluated. The following systems .

have different operating bands:

o The Steam Generator level bands dif fer due to the dif ference in the Steam Generator models. A Westinghouse Model 04 is used in Unit 1, and a Modei 05 is used in Unit 4.

o The Steam Generator feedwater flow split between nozzles have

.different restriction orifices and corresponding aifferent bypass flow.

o- The Overtemperature N-16 trip setpoints are higher in Unit 2.

lhis 1s due to updated parameter values being used in the analysis for determining the Unit 2 setpt nts, it should be noted that these operating bands are based on engineering d6ta and operating experience and are subject to change as operating experience is gained. The bands are

- controlled by 0Wi-109, " Operations Maman Factor Controls.'

1:

2.2 Mirror imaae Unit Difference Th13 difference developed from different techniqucs in system- I configuration

" mirror image" philosophy of-the steam system,-

" slide along' pr'inciple for the terbine equipment and *180' rotation

• of some auxiliary skids. A major effort to resolve the interfacing of these. systems has been accomplished to minimize the '

main control board configuration and tagging differences without making actual equipment moves in the Plant.

l

- . _ . . . . - - , . . . , _ _ . - , _ . . , _ . . ..__,.~m.,..____.__..._-,., . . , _ . . . . _ , .,.Jm-,. ,. ,,,..., ,..m--.._,_,_-~, - ,- - - -m _ e

l l

Attachment to TxX-92401 Page 4 of 4 o The final Unit 2 design which affects the control boards is the ' mirror image' configur ation of the two Moisture Separat ors and the f our Main Steam Lines. These differentes affect twelve valve position indicator descriptive labels. No controls, tag numbers, or component layout differences erist.

A control board graphic operator aid has been developed to depict the actual configuration of each unit to assist in recognition of the differences.

2.3 liandtwitch Mdide Deletion _

During the design validation of Unit 2. it was determined that the control of four isolation dampers was not needed. The corresponding two handswitch modules were deleted f rom the design of Unit 2. Thtse modules were on a back panel which is not constantly manned by an operator. Removal of the Unit I switches has been determined to be a low risk potential for operator error.

3.0 CONCLUSION

CPSES remains committed to the DCRDR program and continues to evaluate Human Engineering Discrepancies. In addition, the Unit 2 DCRDR environmental surveys will be conducted when all control room and remote shutdown systems are operational. The results of the ,urveys, together with eny proposed corrective action plan, will be transmitted to the NRC prior to issuance of the Unit 2 operating license. The Human Engineering Discrepancies identified as o result of this comparison have been resolved and the related documentation is available on site. _

__..u____._ ._m.m _____.___m_ _

_ _ _ _._,.._ _ _. _