ML20114D428

Control Room Design Review Program,Development & Methodology

ML20114D428
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	08/01/1983
From:	BWR OWNERS GROUP
To:
Shared Package
ML20114D418	List: ML20114D425 ML20114D428 ML20114D437 ML20114D445 PY-CEI-NRR-0167, Responds to SER Outstanding Issue 7 Re Control Room Design. Summary Rept of Detailed Control Room Design Review Providing Detailed Discussion of Methodology,Conduct,Results & Conclusions Encl
References
NUDOCS 8501310304
Download: ML20114D428 (27)

Text

Ui ,

P ATTACIDfENT A te

.. BWROG CRDR PROGRAM - DEVELOPMEffr AND METHODOLOGY g r b:

I j :.

t t,

t.

i .-

I i.

t ..

p r.

p i ,

f

[<. s i:

v t

h-

+,

% , '.(

S S

- E b

x

,, - -*w#. ,

~ - _,

. _., _,. . 1

. .. i ., . . . . . ..-.. . . . . . . . . .

e ' 9 ene, - a v M . ee e ~ ~ , l

y. . . . . - .. . . . . . i I

l i

l l

f, h I. I l

I .

i 1

,..g $. 9 e l . . . .. .. . . . ..

. . -.. . .; a . : -

[.-

j .

, I i

4 . .

4 >

6 ATDCHMENT A

)-

- ' BWR'0WNERS GROUP

.- CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND METHODOLOGY

[ 8/1/83

!1

b. .

r .

i, * .*: .

1 T'

l r-l 0

- p

.r I

I i

t' I-I. _

I I:

1..

i K '.

i a

l

' i; L .

/s,.* .

\

.)

7_

h

,,.,e-

• +-.c- , e.-p#.ed-- .".=%.-.e - . . . . , ,- m._.%,..,,.n.e.,m,3,.wr,,,w.mm-,ww,.y..,m__ _,ne.e.-,,-g%-,,m _ ww ww y,w y, ww w , emy , w-

..:..i.--

TABLE OF CONTENTS f .

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1 2.0 DEVELOFMENT OF DESIGN REVIEN METHODOLOGY 1 2.1 Task Force Membership 1 2.2 Program Development 5 g

30 TRAINING OF REVIEW TEAMS g

4.0 VALIDATION SURVEY 0'

5.0 PERFORMANCE OF DESIGN REVIEWS 9 o 5.1 Program Elements 9 5.1.1 Operator Interviews 11 5.1.2 Licensee Event Report Analysis 12 5.1 3 Control Poom Survey 12 5.1.4 Procedure Walkthroughs and Task Analyses 14 5.2 Evaluation Methods 17 53 Survey Teams 18 21 6.0 RESULTS REPORTING AND PRIORITIZATION 7.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTROL ROOM MODIFICATIONS 22 O

O i

. a ... . . _ _ _ . . . . . . . _ . . . .

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS D.-

Figure ,. , , , , ,

Title . . Page 1 Control Room Design Review Timeline 4 2 Control Room Design Review Program Development 6 3 Control Room Design Review Methodology 10 4 Task Analysis Format 15 5 Task Analysis Instructions 16 6 Evaluation Product Classification 19 LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page I Utilities Participating in the BWR Owners Group Design 2 Review Program II General Electric Task Force Membership 3 III Design References 7 IV Checklist Subject Areas 13 V Team Member Responsibilities 20 it

^

1

f. -

1 l

. 1.0 Ilmt0 DUCTION Increased awareness of the importance of the human element in reactor safety has recently spawned' new regulatory requirements questioning the role of human factors in the nuclear power industry. NUREC-0660, i Task 1.D.1 mandates design reviews of all nuclear power plant control rooms to identify. human factors enhancements which may reduce the potential for operator error. The BWR Owners Group has responded to this requirement by formulating, as a cooperative effort between the Control Room Improvements Committee and General Electric Company, a generic control room review program for perfomance of these reviews. Utility participation is listed in Table I.

As illustrated in Figure 1, the BWR Owners Group Control Room Review program has been designed and instituted in six stages: (a) development of design review methodology; (b) training of review teams; (c) performance of a validation survey; (d) performance of control room design reviews; (e) results reporting; (f) implementation of control room modifications. Extensive manpower and expertise has been applied to each stage of the review process, with final results the culmination of many man-years of dedicated effort.

2.0 DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN REVIEW METHODOLOGY The BWR Owners Group Control Room Design Review Frogram was developed through a cooperative effort between the Control Room Improvements Committee and General Electric Company. After progressing through a series of design iterations and being subjected to several reviews by outside agencies, the program was given final approval by the Control Room Improvements Committee in January,1981.

2.1 Task Force Membership l Initial work on the Control Room Design Review Program was performed j by a multi-disciplinary task force within General Electric, working under the direction of the Control Room Improvements Committee. The composition of this group, detailed in Table II, was specifically selected to bring into play a wide cross section of General Electric's experience in reactor design. Included were seabers with L

l' 1

O l

Table I UTILITIES PARTICIPATING IN THE BWR OWNERS CROUP

~

~ ~

CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM l

• Boston Edison Company

• Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company -

Commonwealth Edison Company.

• Detroit Edison Company

• Georgia Power Company

• Culf States Utilities Illinois Power Company.

• Iowa Electric Light and Power Company

• Nebraska Public Power District

• Niagara Mohawk Power Company

• Northern States Power Company Pennsylvania Power and Light Company.

• Philadelphia Electric Company

• Power Authority of the State of New York e Taiwan Power Company.

• Tennessee Valley Authority

• Washington Public Power Supply System

• Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Company

• Participated on inter-utility survey teams P

O 2

d

. Table II

O.

CENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW TASK FORCE COMPOSITION Function Qualifications Program Management (1) BS - Nuclear, UCLA PE - Alabama 16 years experience in startup testing and planning, reactor operations (2) BS - Mechanical Engineering, Union College PE - New York 27 years experience in systems design, training, operations, management 4

C&I Engineering BS - Psychology, USF SRO License 21 years experience in reactor operations,

training, control systems and design, human factors engineering, biotechnology Training SRO Certification 7 years experience in reactor operations,

training i Systems Engineering 27 years experience in C&I engineering, 4

panel layout and design, seismic evaluations, human engineering Startup Test Operations SRO License 31 years experience in startup engineering, training, project engineering, performance j improvement Mechanical and Nuclear Testing BS - Chemical, U of I PE - Nuclear (Calif) 29 years experience in reactor operations, startup i

L Nuclear Services Engineering BS - Electrical, Colorado 19 years experience in reactor operations, service engineering, maintenance and testing Industrial Design (1) BPA, Ims Angeles l 15 years experience in industrial design, human factors (2) BS - Industrial Design, SJS 15 years experience industrial design, human factors 1

3 E __ _ _ _

?'

o

• 4 O O  :

i l

l:

t I I i l l

! ' twelvetten and Implement.tten I Developsaent I Training Validation Data Action Plan l I Collection g Formation l 1 I '

I l l

• l l l l 1

.k l I l .

PM l l l ' '

1 I I I I Interview l I l leRC NUREG l BWR l ' Seneric poport 8 e5 Workshop valIdet1on Survey

- $waary Report --D ,

C*

1 _g,_i 9

_,_4_s l Checklists g-g l l l { Walkthrough l ,.

a j _ . . . _ _

" l ,,

I l n I, I y"',j, ,

I l

i  : i,i .t.u s

Company l l i:

! l l I:

l 0 l I I t I ' I l:

I i .

! J; Merch October Merch October l Nomi6er j 1919 1919 l1980 .l Igmi g insto l [

t

, I f_igure_1 i

) -

Control Room Design Review Timeline_

i l

. -. -- . l . . .. . .

~

-.~_. ^

~

knowledge of reactor operations, human factors engineering, control systems and design, service engineering startup, testing and opera-

' ~ ~'

tions, training, industrial desian, and control'and'1'nstrumentation e ngineering. Additional human factors support was provided by a team ,

of specialists from the Massachusetts Inctitute of Technology, in-cluding Dr. T.B. Sheridan, Dr. D.D. Lanning, Dr. J.M. Christensen and _

Dr. P. J. Nicholson. Total manpower was approximately thirty people.

2.2 Program Development

The scope of the Control Room Design Review Program was carefully defined to insure a complete human factors review of BWR control rooms addressing all aspects of the requirements of NUREC-0660, Task 1.D.1. However, it was recognized that other requirements related to human f actors and control room design are currently being considered in parallel, and that there already exist many specific control room

design requirements. To avoid duplication of effort and repetition of reviews already performed, subjects included in the Control Room Design Review were selected to eliminate overlap. For example, O because a detailed review of training programs is required by NUFIG-0660, Task 1.A.2, training program content was not addressed in the Control Room Design Review Program.

4 Figure 2 illustrates the series of reviews performed in the development of design review checklists, all steps being under the direction, and subject to the approval of the Control Room Improvements Committee. Using the sources listed in Table III and the experience of General Electric engineers as a data base, a

~

preliminary set of checklists was developed. Items included in these checklists were selected based upon the criteria that each (a) was within the defined scope of the task requirements specified by NUREG-0660, Task 1.D.1, (b) was applicable to BWR control rooms, and (c) could potentially cause or contribute to operator error. Then followed an exhaustive series of design iterations incorporating comments from comprehensive internal and external reviews. This process was intended to verify that all task requirements were satisfied, that the approach used was valid, and that all necessary aspects of control room design were addressed.

l l

l 5 l

.. . .. t. _. - : : .. 2 ___

l d) Data Base u

NUREG -

' Within Scope of Task 0660 Applicable to BWR Potential for Error v

Preliminary Checklist v v Internal Reviews: External Reviews:

GE MIT BWROG INPO

O Workshop v

Validation Survey v

Owner's Group Review sr.

Final Checklist D Figure 2 Control Room Design Review Program Development 6

... . ..;,.. .. w ..'

~

, _, . . ..; . . . . . - . - . . . . - . ~. 1. . -

Table III DESIGN REFERENCES ,_ .

1. Baker, C. and W. Grether, Visual Presentation of Information.

2. - Dreyfuss, H. , The Measure of Man, Whitney Publications Inc., NY,1967.

i

.3. Kemeny, J. G. (Chairman), " Report of the Presidents Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island," October,1979.

4. Malone, T. B. , et al., " Human Factors Evaluation of Control Room Design and Operator Performance at Three Mile Island-2," NUREG/CR-1270, Essex Corporation, January,1980.

5. Malone, T. B. et al, " Human Engineering Guide to Control Room Evaluation,"

NUREG/CR-1580, Essex Corporation, July,1980.

6. McCormick, E. J. , Human Factors In Engineering and Design, 4th edition, McGraw-Rill Inc., NY, 1976.

3

-7. Rogovin, M. , and G. T. Frampton, Jr. , "Three Mile Island, a Report to the

-Commissioners and to the Public".

8. Sahley, L. , Dimensions of the Human Figure.

9. Seminara, J. L., et al, " Human Factors Review of Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Design," EPRI NP-11/8.

10. Seminara, J. L. et al, " Human Factors Methods for Nuclear Control Room Design," EPRI NP-11/8

11. VanCott, H.P. and R. C. Kinkade (Eds), Human Engineering Guide to Equipment Design, Rav ed. , Dept of Defense, GPO,1972.

12. Woodson, W.E. , and D. W. Conover, Human Engineering Guide for Equipment Designers, Ind. ed., University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1964.

7 h

Table III (Continued)

.o . . _ . . .

13. IEEE Std 566-1977, " Recommended Practice for the Design of Display and Control Facilities for Central Control Rooms of Nuclear Power Generating Stations." -

14. IEEE Std 567-1979, " Criteria for the Design of the Control Room Complex for a Nuclear Power Generating Station."

15. MIL-STD 803A-1 (USAF), " Human Engineering Design Criteria".

16. MIL-STD 1972-B, " Human Engineering Design Criteria for Military Systems, Equipment and Facilities."

17. NUREG-0578, "IMI-2 Lessons Learned Task Force Status Report and Short-term Recommendations."

O 18. NUREG-0585, "IMI-2 Lessons Learned Task Force Final Report".

19. NUREG-0660, " Action Plans for Implementing Recommendations of the President's Commission and Other Studies of the THI-2 Accident."

20. NUREG-0659, "Staf f Supplement to the Draf t Report on Human Engineering Guide to Control Room Evaluation."

I e

O 8

. An independent six week review of the BWR Owners Group program was performed by a consultant team consisting of seven contributors from two departments of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This team tested the program for completeness, adequacy and validity.

Comments were also received from a review performed by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations.

The revised program resulting from this series of reviews was utilized in a six day workshop for utility personnel, and validated through a trial survey. Feedback from these sessions was incorporated into the final version of the BWR Owners Group Control Room Review Program, approved by the Control Room Improvements 1

Committee in January,1981. This final version was used in performing all subsequent design reviews.

l 3.0 TRAINING OF REVIEW TEAMS In October of 1980, a six day workshop was held at the Generel

i. Electric BWR Training Center in Morris, Illinois to present the design review program to utility personnel and provide instruction in

human factors evaluations. This training program encompassed all phas'es of the review process and included practice time on General i

Electric 's BWR-3 simulator.

4.0 VALIDATION SURVEY

. Validation of the design review process was performed at the Duane Arnold Energy Center in November of 1980 with representatives from General Electric, MIT, 'and three utilities present. Feedback f rom this first review, and inputs received during the workshop, were incorporated into the final version of the BWR Owners Group Control Room Design Review Program.

L - 50 PERF0EMANCE OF DESIGN REVIEWS 5.1 Program Elements As illustrated in Figure 3, the BWR Owners Group Control Room Design l

O Review Program consists of four phases: (a) obtaining direct A

operator input through operator interviews; (b) an evaluation of l.t 6' 9

I i

4 l

(E ..

Phase Function Method I Operator Interview Direct Operator Input Representative Selection Prepared Questionnaire I

Cross-reference to Checklists LER Analysis Historical Review LER's Previous 2 years ,

II Identify Known Problems Review for Operator Errors Cross-reference to Checklists 1

'- .III Control Room Survey Compare Engineering Aspects Checklists and Surveys with Established HFE All Inclusive Review O C,iteria IV ' Emergency Procedure Evaluate Operational Selected Emergency Procedures Task Analysis'and Aspects of Control Task Analysis Walkthrough Room Design Traffic Patterns J

Videotape C

h i

Figure 3 o Control Room Design Review Methodology 10

. -+--,,,--y,

-, _,,,y#.. ,,~e-n g-- ~~,-+ww+we- mm.w+w-w,r-w-e--wen-erw-'=*-w=wwwwe-

. plant operating experience through analysis of Licensee Event Raports (LER's) and scram reports; (c) an evaluation of control panel design utilizing a series of prepared checklists compiled from recognized human factors standards; and (d) task analyses and walkthroughs of selected procedures. These techniques were selected from known human l I

factors evaluation methods and closely conform to those used in previous successful review efforts. Data collected in each of the I

four review phases are collated into plant summary reports.

l l

5.1.1 Operator Interviews l The operator interviews are designed to obtain directly the benefit

, of day-to-day plant operating experience. Since many aspects of panel design may not be readily apparent without actual involvement in plant activities, interviews represent an integral part of the survey process.

, Approximately one-third of the licensed operators at each plant were selected to participate in interviews. This sample size was judged sufficient to encompass a wide variety of operator opinion, determine-areas of common concern, and provide for accumulating data on operators' physical characteristics. An attempt was made to include a complete spectrum of operator experience, education, ability, and physical size.

Because experience has demonstrated that more complete responses are obtained when operators are allowed time to deliberate the questions, a prepared questionaire was devised for the Control Room Survey.

Operators were asked to complete these questionaires prior to the arrival of .the survey team, based upon their own knowledge and experience and without consulting other, operators. Their responses then served as topics for more detailed discussions during a later, in-depth oral' interview with a survey team member.

Topics included in the interview questionaire were carefully selected to allow for operator input on a wide variety of subjects and to address the concerns for which operating experience must serve as the primary source of information. To assure maximum credibility, 11

~

. - .:. . . ;__. . y; , , _._ _ _ ,

.(" persons with experience in operations were chosen to conduct the interviews. Generally, the interviewer would not be an employee of the host utility to provide for a free flow of information.

5.1.2 Licensee Event Report (LER) Analysis Aspects of control room design which have been contributing factors in past operator errors may sometimes be identified through analysis of plant operating experience. In the Control Roan Design Review program, this information is obtained through operator interviews and through review of plant LER's 'and scram reports for the two year period preceding the survey. These doctaments were searched for examples of operator error possibly caused, or compounded by, design related considerations. Any events so identified were designated for further review during the survey process (checklist evaluations, task analyses, and procedure walkthroughs). ,

5.1.3 control Room Survey The Control Room Design Review Program uses, as a central evaluative technique, a series of checklists compiled from accepted human factors standards and adapted specifically for BWR's. As such they comprise a generic program directly applicable to the product line beirs surveyed. Extensive consideration has been given to assuring that, while all desired aspects of control room design are addressed, superfluous, redundant, and non-applicable items were eliminated.

l Where possible, the emphasis has been placed on verifying that the functional requirements of panel components are satisfied, rather than recommending specific types or designs of hardware.

The checklists of the Control Room Design Review were structured to cover the subject areas listed in Table IV within the intended scope of the survey requirements. Checklist sections addressing (a) panel layout.and design, (b) instrumentation and hardware, and (c) annunciators are used in performing evaluations of individual panels. Sections addressing (d) computers, (e) procedures, (f) environment, (g) maintenance activities, and (h) training and manning apply to the control room as a whole.

l^

gg a

_.. . _ . . . . ~

~..~..____.~

e

. Table IV 1

CHECKLIST SUBJECT AREAS A. PANEL LAYOUT AND DESIGN D. COMPUTERS

'Anthropometrics and control Console room layout Capability Demarca' tion lines and simics CRTs Control / Display grouping Typers Color codes Labels Temporary modifications E. PROCEDURES Traffic patterns and panel arrangement Availability Access and recognition B. INSTRUMENTATION AND HARDWARE Format Content Controllers References Indicators Revision Recorders Logkeeping Indicating lights Switches F. CONTROL ROOM ENVIRONMENT Emergency switches Key-lock switches Communications O. _ Auditory displays j C. ANNUNCIATORS Lighting Heating and venti 11ation Grouping Fire control Window design Emergency situations

Visual alarm General Audible alarm Acknowledgement C. MAINTENANCE AND SURVEILLANCE-Visual alarm Procedure s Operator functions

Maintenanc e Jumpers and lifted leads l Nuisance alarms Permanent modifications Tags Spare parts Procedures H. TRAINING AND MANNING Training Control room manning Shif t change -

O .

13 L-

. . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - . - - - . . ~ . . . _ _ . . . ... .- .

, .- 5.1.4 Procedure Walkthroughs and Task Analyses A -

Task analyses and walkthroughs of selected emergency procedures are performed in order to evaluate operational aspects of control room design. Included in this evaluation are control / display relation-ships, availability of information, visual and consnunication links, traffic patterns,- and manning levels. -

Using written plant procedures as a guide, task analyses are prepared using the format shown in Figure 4. Each sequential step identified I

within the procedure is then evaluated according to instructions

, provided with the form (Figure 5). This analysis consists of the following steps:

, (1) Operating events are defined (2) Operator tasks are identified for each event under consideration (3) Control and instrumentation requirements are specified for each operator task (4) The completeness of the control room inventory is verified through comparison with instrumentation identified in the task l analysis ,

(5) The task sequences are validated with walkthroughs of scenarios j encompassing the events being considered. Traffic patterns, i

I communication requirements and manning -levels are also considered.

1 As a minimum, walkthoughs are performed of existing plant procedures for a scram and a loss of coolant accident.

t

( Because the event-oriented procedures currently in use will soon be replaced with symptom-bssed procedures, task analyses performed l during the design review are centered primarily around the Emergency Procedure Guidelines developed by the NWR Owners Group. While plant l

l. . 14

. ' ' ,I If t

. '; l' i . ?t! I 'l i : ;iii; . . !i lhI  : ! . :

D s

e) t5 o(

N s

- n

/o ei ct na ac) ti4 sn(

iu sm sm Ao C t a

m r

o F

. 4 n s o e i O da ec i

t i

r u

g l s

y a

t o F n

_ aL) A i/3 cs( k s

oe a sc si T Av e

D n

- i o

t

_- a c

- o)

L2

- /(

e i

c v

e D

O k

s) a1 T(

_ a

.= -.- .-....2. :a . . . . . . - , . . . . , .  :.... . .

n. . - .

k-

.Q hN (1) . TASK -

The task sequence is developed fmm the procedure being evaluated and the predetemined scenario. Each required operator action is listed as a separate task with diagnosis considered the fimt task for emergency precedures. 32btaska are listed in the same coltan, identified by indentation.

(2) DEVIG A0 CATION For each task or subtask considered in Colynn (1), the primary control or display utilized by the operator in acceeplishing this task is identified and lomted.

(3) ASSOCIA1TD DEVICESAOCATION Listed is this coltan are any devices associated with the primary control or display listed in Column (2). This nay include backup instrinentaticn, indicating li@ts, alarms, etc.

(4) ASSISTANG/CDMMUNICATIONS Notatim is made in this colten if assistance is required ty the operater to complete the task or if a consunication must be made.

( 5) NOTES Any item fomd discrepant in the walkttrough will be listed in this colten. For each task, coltans (1) threu$ (4) are analyzed in tems of the following considerations:

- Is the sequence valid and complete?

- Is sufficient informaticn innediately available to the operator to emplete the task?

- Does each critical control and display identified in coltans (2) and (3) confom to checklist evaluation criteria?

- Do control / display relaticnships meet checklist criteria?

- Are shift manning levels adequate to perfom the task?

- Are traffic patterns motstructive?

- Is direct feedback used to verify control ftnetions?

Figure 5 O Task Analysis Instructions

, 16

. specific procedures based upon these guidelines are not yet N

• available, the analyses performed provide much useful information on the adequacy of present control room instrumentation and the ability of the operator to respond in accordance with the Guidelines within the framework of existing control room design. As such, they serve as a valuable method of integrating procedure and control room upgrade efforts. More detailed analyses are expected to be performed at the time actual plant specific procedures are prepared.

52 Evaluation Methods An in-depth analysis of control room design requires review of every panel containing controls and displays normally used by operators, including auxiliary and back panels. Evaluations are therefore performed on a panel-by-panel basis, checklist Sections A, B, and C being completed separately for every panel.

Each checklist item is evaluated by means of two numerical ratings:

(1) a " compliance factor" indicating the degree to which the panel under consideration complies with that criterion, and (2) a

" potential for error f actor" representing the relative likelihood that non-compliance with that checklist item could cause or contribute to operator error.

( A graded system of compliance evaluations is employed because a simple yes/no judgement of design compliance with a given human factors standard may provide only limited information when a wide spectrum of actual design effectiveness is possible. D erefore, each panel is rated on a scale of one to four for each checklist iten.

l "One" indicates full compliance with a given criterion on the panel being reviewed, "two" indicates that the criterion has been "mostly" I complied with, "three" indicates "somewhat" compliance, and "four" l

indicates total non-compliance. A " sero" signifies that the criterion is not applicable to that panel.

Re " potential for error factor" has been preassigned for each O checklist ites, based on the work of a task force consisting of approximately thirty General Electric and utility engineers from 17

j i

1 a wide variety of disciplines. Each item was independently evaluated

'~

by each task force member, based upon his own knowledge and

. experience. Prom this data base, a final value was assigned based

! upon the statistical frequency distribution of the ratings.  ;

Each rating factor was reviewed and approved by the Control Roon l Improvements Committee of the BWR Owners Group. The resulting factors ranged from one to three, "three" indicating "high" potential for operator error, "two" a " moderate" potential, and "one" a " low" potential for causing or contributing to operator error.

These two rating factors, the degree of compliance assigned by the 4

survey team, and the predetermined potential for error, are multiplied together to obtain a final Evaluation Product. These i

Evaluation Products are then utilized in forming preliminary prioritization recommendations for control room enhancements (see Figure 6). Final corrective action will be determined in an item-by-ites review of these suggested areas, addressing safety significance of the components and systems involved, frequency of use 3 and the consequences of required operator retraining.

I i 5.3 Survey Teams The BWR Owners Group Control Roon Design Review is intended to be

! performed by inter-utility review teams composed of members with l expertise in a variety of disciplines.

l .

Four such teams have currently been formed, each typically consisting of representatives from three or four utilities with backgrounds in  !

operations, control and instrumentation or engineering, a human 1

[" factors consultant and a General Electric engineer. The host utility l t

t provides additional support as required in the areas of computers, '

i operations, engineering, maintenance, and training. The resulting l

team structure thus includes expertise in all necessary fields. One j utility employee is designated as the " team leader," responsible for scheduling the review and coordinating review team activities.

Individual team member responsibilities are listed in Table V.

L 18

_....a_..... ._,__,...u. __

O Prioritization recommendations are based on Evaluation Products O o. tea #ined for each caeckiist item.

Evaluation product = Potential for Error x Compliance Factor 9-12 correction recommended 3 = High 4 = No 6-8 consider correction 2 = Moderate 3 = Somewhat 0-4 action unnecessary 1 = Low 2 = Mostly 1 = Yes 0 = NA Potential for Error 4

1 2 '3 0 0 0 0 L.

$1 c

1 2 3 O  : 2 2 yggg 3 3 WE h 9 Corrective action recomended Justification: minimize potential for error h 4 Consider corrective action Justification: may reduce potential for error 0 No corrective action necessary Justification: avoid extensive reconditioning Figure 6 O

Evaluation Product Categories 19

, ,; . - _.~... ;_. -

._ ,__;.. _ ,m , , . . ,. . . . .

TABLE V SURVEY TEAM MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES O.

TEAM LEADER Schedule survey, coordinate between plant management, on-site team mester, survey team, and General Electric Ensure preparations have been completed prior to arrival of the .

i survey team Assign and coordinate survey functions Determine survey sequcnce Lead exit interview Resolve problems arising in the course of the survey ON.51TE TEAM MEMBER Complete advance survey preparations Coordinate with team leader and plant management in scheduling the survey Ensure plant personnel are cognizant of the survey program Interface with plant management Provide or obtain plant-specific expertise in survey effort Resolve administrative details, such as security access, badging, obtaining operators, scheduling interviews and providing secretarial support GEhERAL ELECTRIC (cptional)

Advis? team leader in survey scheduling Assist t=am leader in resolution of problems Advise team leader in survey methods Provide guidance on scope and intent of the survey Collect and maintain survey records Ensure information required for Plant Sumary Report is obtained Collect data for generic report Frepare Plant Sumery Report Assist in performance of the survey HUMAN FACTOR $ CONSULTANT Advise team members in human factors considerations relating to checklist items Perform independent evaluation of the control room Assist in performance of the survey O

y 20

.. - - . - . - . -. .. ~__ . -.

. . .._.. .-  :. . .. u - . ..r. . . - . .. . ....

6.0 RESULTS REPORTING AlO PRIORITIZATION General Electric Company has been asked by the participating utilities to compile data obtained during each control room design review into a Summary Report, ' working under the direction of the survey team. These plant summary reports are approved by the cognizant team leader and forwarded to the host utility.

Each Plant Summary Report is designed to identify areas of con' trol room design far which modifications should be considered, and f provides a comprehensive list of specific examples for which these concerns are applicable. A preliminary prioritization of potential enhancements is included in the summary reports through use of Evaluation Products, discussed in Section 5.2. These products are l derived from numerical ratings indicating the degree to which the panel ccaplies with a given human factors criterion and the likelihood that non-compliance with that criterion could cause or contribute to operator error (see Figure 6).

O Evaluation products are then categorized as follows:

9 Modifications are recommended 8 - Modification should be strongly considered i 6 - Modification should be considered i

4 - Modifications may be beneficial in some cases Final recommendations for backfits will be determined by each utility l

in a concerted, ites-by-ites analysis.

I l A generic BWR Control Room Design Review Report will be compiled f rom all individual Plant Suissary Reports. This report will identify areas of concern common to all BWR's and suggest possible alternatives for modification.

O 21

. . - . - . .:. -  :...; ._~ - -

e I

I I

Based upon the Plant Summary Report prepared by General Electric and i upon the Generic Report, each utility will submit a plant-specific 1

. . . . r. :::: : . report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. These reports will j itemize findings of the review team and outline a schedule for implementing control room modifications. ,

1

7. 0 IMP 1JMENTATION OF CONTROL ROCH MODIFICATIONS The plant summary reports identifies human factors criteria which will be considered in implementing centrol room modifications.

Because modifications to existing designs will be performed as a solution to a complex set of interrelated concerns, topics such as control panel layout will be subjected to careful, detailed analysis prior to instituting a change. Inputs will be obtained from operations, engineering, training and human factors personnel.

./jf, Final determination of corrective action will be based upon the

-) importance and frequency of use of the components involved, the consequences of required operator retraining, engineering feasibility

- and possible decremental effects upon safe' operation of the plant due to the change itself.

s Each topic identified in the plant summary report will be subjected to this type of analysis and implemented on a control room-wide basis as part of an integrated approach to control room upgrades.

O 1

. .22

}, -

I:

.s -

ATTACHME!fr B s'

.1 5

i:

BWROG HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING CONTROL ROOM SURVEY 1

r lic i

4 r

l l -

t

.'t I

(. I l.

l. .

i I?2 c .s t.

i' l -

i r

{ '< :

l ..

c h

0 4 s

,. n 4

4 s

I

.y. ~ ,

1

-r

\ =: .

',xy _

3 e 5

e E

. .\

i ( ,. se l !h- \

d d a m I' m M k x = y g u d ,9 s w *

q 6

p .

6 r

> 't . .

..s .~ . . ,,7 . - .

..___.e _ m _... :... ... . . . . . . - . ' . . . . .

a .

?. .

s.

. ATIAQiMENT B

'I BWR OWNERS GROUP a ..

. CONTROL ROOM IMPRO M NTS COMMIITEE

11. HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING

.c CONTROL ROOM SURVEY

,.y .

_' 4

i. " . .

L' l 's 9

1m l-IL t

t

%.k.

D G --

k

' E ,_ .

t.

4 d

I :' .

L..

4

- f(

, BWR OWNERS' GROUP CONTROL ROOM IMPROVEMENTS COMMITTEE HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING CONTROL ROOM SURVEY O,

Prepared by: /!/2((#

D. R. Pankratz Date General Electric Company X.'C. & 1/r u/g/

K. C. Ross Dats General Electric Company l -'

Reviewed by: /M N G. R. Mullee A- -

t/,7 /s t Date Control-Room Survey Project Mgr.

General Electric Company Approved by: . meM . //////

W/J. Aytrong ./

Chainnan, Control / Room Improvements Comittee

/ Date

> BWR Owners' Group LO

_ 1

• BWR OlNERS GROUP CONTROL ROOM SURVEY b

!;b PLANI / UNIT :

DATE PERFORED: PHASE I II III IV SURVEY TEAM MEMBERS: .

Team Leader f

OTHER PARTICIPANIS (HFE CONSULTANT, GE A-E, et c .) :

i l

l t

l NOTE: CHECKLIST ITEMS FOR WHICH ADVANG RESEARCH IS NECESSARY HAVE BEEN IDENIIFIED WITH AN ASTERISK IN FRONI 0F THE ITEM NUMBER.

l Revisicri 1 01/01/81 1

CONTROL ROOM SURVEY TABE & CONTENTS f.L" I TERATOR INTERVIEW l

Diseussion 4 Introductim to Questionaire - 5 6

- Questimaire Comnent Tom 11

• Summary Fom 12 II LIGNSEE EVENT REPORT ANALYSIS Discussim 13 ERs 14 III (%)NTROL ROOM REVIEW Dis mssion 15 Coment Fom 17 A. . PANEL LAYOUT AND DESIGN' A1 Anthropmetries and control room layout 18 A2 Demarcatim lines 4 and mi=ics 18 A3 control / Display grouping 23 A4 Color codes 25 AS Labels 25 A6 Tenperary modificatiens 29 A7 Traffic patterns and panel arrangement 30

~

B. INSTRUMENTATICN AND HARDWARE B1 Controllers 31 B2 Indicators 31

.. B3 . Recorders 34 B4 Indicating lights 37 B5 Switches 38 B6 Emergency s -itches 40 B7 Key-lock switches 41 C. ANNUNCIATORS C1 Grouping 42 C2 Window design 42 C3- Visumi alarm 43 44 C4 Audible alam

C5 Acknowledgement 44 l

45 j' C6- . Visual alam 46 C7 Procedures L\ C8 Maintenance 46 C9 Nuisance alarms 47 i ._

1.

. _- ~ - . _ . . . . -- . . _ - -

CONTROL ROOM ' SURVEY TABE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

'(

\ il! CONTROL ROOM REVIEW (Continued) .. . .

D. COMPUTERS D1 Censole 48 D2 Capability 48 D3 CRTs -

49 D4 Typers 51 E. PROCEDURES El Availability 53 E2 Access and recognition 54 E3 - Fo m at 55 E4 Content 56 ES References 60 E6 Revision 61 E7 Logkeeping 62 F. CONTROL ROOM EN7IROIMENT F1. Cc==unicaticns 64 F2 Auditcry displays 65 F3 Lighting 66

(( F4 Heating and venti 11ation Fire control 67 67 F5 F6 E=ergency situations 67 F7 General 69 G. MAINTENANCE AND SURVEILLANCE G1 Operator functicns 71 G2 Ju=pers and lifted leads 71 G3 Per=anent c:odificaticns 72 G4 Tags 72 G5 Spare parts 73 G6 Procedures 74 H. TRAINING AND MANNING B1 Training 76 H2 Control room manning 76 H3 Shift change 77

.IV EERGENCY PROCEDURE WALICHROUGH Dis cussicn 78 Transient scenario 80 Task analysis instructions 81 Task analysis 82

((OC' Checklist 83 CONTROL ROOM ARRANGEMENT 84

I OPE 5!ATOR INTERVIEW DISCUSSION .

A O - - The. purpose..of the Operator Interview is to obtain direct operator input to aid in identifying potential or actual deficiencies in the control room layout or design or in operating procedures that result in confusion (mental activities), difficulty (manual activities) or distraction (the envimnaent).

Using the attached questicriaire, operators are asked to respond in writing based on their operational experience and knowledge of control rooms.

Copies of the written responses will be sent to the strvey team for a i

preliminary review prior to team arrival at the site. Interviewees will retain their copies and review them with a survey' team member during a later oral interview. If additional space is needed, the attached Coment Fom is to be used.

For the interview a representative group of crie-third or more of the operators is selected covering a range of experience, education, ability and physical size. If available, at least two should have a current SRO license and two a current 70 license.

. The interviews should be conducted by utility persennel and survey team me=bers with background or experience in operations and engineering or design with a positim conducive to a free flow of infomaticn. It is expected that the oral interview will take one to two hours for each

, operator with the entire interview taking about one day.

Following the interviews, the survey team will consolidate the infomation obtained and analyze it to help identify specific areas of concern for detailed analysis during the control roem review.

O

.4-

~ .. .. . - . . . . . . . - . .

w- --- __ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . . . . _ _ . . . _ . - . . _ . ..- . ..

I OPERATOR INTERVIEW INTRODUCTICH TO QUESTIONAIRE O

• ' .,,) .

-- -- Job Pceitien -

-- - - 2 ;- - ' -~r "; " ---~ # " ; ; - -- '- ---

C ;' ' -

Ycars Experience Cornercial Nuclear Fossil Navy Nuclear D;te of first License RO SRO Educaticn/ Degrees Ag] Sex Height -

Weight In response to a post-TMI NRC requirement , your utility, alcng with other BWR cwners, is conducting a control room review to identify and correct design d2ficiencies in the operator-control room interface to minimize the potential for human error. This review is perfomed by a survey tea = composed of representatives of several utilities using checklists prepared by the Centrol Room Improvements Subgroup of the BWR Owners Group.

You are asked to complete the attached questicnaire basing your responses cm your operational experience and knowledge of your control roca and inter-fccing syste=s. You may complete this questicnaire in the control roc = if you d7 sire but please do so without discussing your detailed responses with other operators completing this survey. If additicnal space is needed, the attached Cc:: cent Fom is to be used.

Folicwing completicn, a survey team representative will review your responses with you. Upcn completicn of all interviews , the survey team will consolidate th2 infor=atien obtained and apply it in their evalmtien of your control roc =

for compliance with hu:an factor engineering principles.

The biographical infomatien requested above will be used in compiling statistics en operating personnel physical characteristics. Current reco=cendaticns for panel design are based largely on data obtained from l

Beasure=ents of military personnel; there are few statistics presently l cvailable on , for example, the average height and weight of operators.

This survey provides you with a valuable opportunity for applying your knowledge and experience toward improving operating conditicns in both you-l control rocn and future control rocc desig.s. Your honest and forthright opinicos are not cnly welcomed , but needed.

m I N

_. __. _.___. ,n _ ; , _ .

- 1 _ --

i-I OPERATOR INERVIEW QUESTIONAIRE

~

s------A Would you reconnend any changes';in#the following areas: -- -- " -

[ A1 shift coverage A2 shitt turnover A3 training A4 color coding O

A5 control roe = access A6 control panel layout or access A7 co==tnicatien syste=s A8 heating or ventilation O

^ ^ ^

.. .....-. .. .. ... . . . . . . . ~ . - . . _ . . _ .  : _. .

I OPERATOR IN'IERVIEW QUESTIONAIRE

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~'

. -..g - - M Mng '~or W0is e Tete 15 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' "

A10 special test equipment 7

i A11 maintenance or strveillance testing A12 data recording and los entries O A13 infomation flew A14 furnittre , equi; cent or workspace i.

A15 computers l'

i A16 other?

l LO o

I

~.:......_ .. . . _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ . . _ . . . _ . . _ . . . . . _ . . . .

l I OPERATOR INTERVIEW l

QUESTIONAIRE l

B . .Are may controls difficult to operate? . __. . . _ .... __._ . .. . _, .

C Are any controls designed, positimed or labeled in a manner that causes Tisk of inadvertent operation? .

D Are any recorders or indicators difficult or confusing to read?

E Are any important indicators located such that they are difficult to see during nor ::a1 or emergency operatien?

O.

F Do you feel any control roce displays are unnecessaay, provide unimportant infomatim or needlessly clutter the control panels?

G Based on your operational experience, does your control room lack any controls or displays needed in your response to nor=al or emergency sit ua*d ons?

D

.g.

I OPERATOR INTERVIEW QUESTIONAIRE II !

b---H- Bo-yo:r-mnsider the annunciator syste:i to-be 'ette'etive-in conveyin5 - ^ ~

important infomation to you?

I Do you have any problems locating or using procedures or operatimal instructions?

J Are individual responsibilities and chain-of-command clearly understood during all operating conditions?

K Is there an adequate nu=ber of operators available in the control room (or imediately available) to effectively operate the plant during all conditims ?

L Are you required to perfom any duties that you consider unreasonable or distracting in your responsibility as an SRO or RO?

M Based on your operatimal experience , have any errors or incidents occured which could have been averted through improved control rom design?

I i

O

. - . _ . . a. . . . _ _ _ _ . . . . _ . , ,

]

l 1

I I OPERATOR INERVIEW QUESTIONAIRE

• " '--"' N~~Have- you *zperience'd any pi obreitis~usirig or TindeFst~auiding f6FWe'eifuresT -- ~ ~ ~ '

F Is there a particular panel which you consider more difficult or confusing to operate than the others?

Q General Coments:

O V

l

~

. .. . . . . . .....~.....:..... .. _ ....:. .... . . . . . . . - . .. .........-

I TERATOR INERVIEW (I)MPENT FORM iO .

- "l' 'This form is fer use by the operat'6r-~6r'id.ebtieser' Tot'~expattde5 ~Fespons&s tF ~' ~

the Operator Interview questions. When used, each response will be identified by item number on this form and also so noted in the space following the applicable question to assure proper cross-referencing.

Item __

Res ponse -

O O

-11

I (PERATOR INTERVIEW

SUMMARY

FORM

<O GJ

' " This fom is used by the Interviewer to stanmarize the information obtained during the Operator Interview. Each entry is to be cross-referenced to the specific checklist item for further evaltaticri during the Control Room Review.

Item or Area of Concern Checklist Item (s)

O 12.-

.. . _ _ . . _s ._. _

II LIGNSEE EVENT REPORT ANALYSIS DISCUSSION

~ -

• - - -The purpose of the Licensee Event 1teport~(LER)-Analysis'is to identify

• plant" opecific design deficiencies known to have previously contributed to operator errors and to document the need for further evaluation during the Control Room Review.

Prior to the arrival of the'strwy team, the host utility will review their plant 12Rs and scram reports from the past two years. Any occurence for which operator error was identified as a contributing factor will be listed en the tttached IIR fonn indicating the LER ntanber and a description of the operator E*ror.

The strwy team will then analyze each event to identify possible deficiencies in the htanan engineering design of the control roan by cross referencing the corresponding criteria from the Control Room Reviet checklists . These items will be included in the detailed evaluaticri during the Control Room Review.

1;O

.O

=-

II LIGNSEE EVER RDORT ANALYSIS LIGNSEE EVEE REPORTS (IERs)

{(t

- -. .el2R WINGER - - - 4WE R ATOR E RROR -- - * * ~*~ * - - -- - - --MIST ITEM -- -* - -

F 1

/

1 f

i )

4 t

5-i l

e h

'(

14

.___..__r._ _ _ _ _ ,.

- . - -- . . . - . . .- -. .. ...n - . . . . .

( III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW DISCUSSION

( . -...-- - J- --The . purpose .of-the Control Room Review is to review .and. assess .the . . . . . - . - - - . - .

adequacy of the arrangement and identification of important controls and displays, the usefullness of audio and vis al alarm systems, plant status infomation pmvided, pmcedures and training with respect to limitaties of existing instrtmentation, infomation recording and recall capability, the control room layout and environment, and other areas of human factor engineering that potentially impact operator effectiveness . The ultimate objective is to identify potential modifistims of the operator-control room interface which will reduce the potential for human error.

Each Control Roce Review is conducted by the sewy team using the attached checklists which are titled , in order, ( A) Panel Layout and Design , (B) Instrumentatim and Hardware, (C) Annunciators , (D)

Computers, (E) Procedures, (F) Control Room Environment, (G) Maintenance and Surveillance , and (H) Training and Manning. Checklist ( A), (B) , and (C) will be completed for each panel in the control room, including back panels, auxiliary panels and peripheral equipment that contain controls and displays nomally operated by the control roce operator. The remaining checklists will be completed only once for each control room since they are appliable to the entire control roca.

In completing the checklists, particular attentim must be given to O it == ia atirt e >=t ati 1 > ~ *2 = r ta ** oa r *=r tat rvi -

or the LER Analysis to ensre complete coverage. These items will have been cross-referenced to the checklist items where appliable.

kpplemental infomatim is provided in the workshop to give additimal guidance 1.1 completing the checklists.

It is anticipated that perfomance of the Control Room Review will take approximately one week. Due to the ftsletional approach of the surwy,

, in many ases input fmm on-shift operatims perscnnel will be necessary

['

in evaluation compliance for a given checklist ites. In other cases ,

additional technimi infomaticn will be required. Checklist items for which advance research is necessary have been identified with a .

asterisk in fmnt of the item ntanber. It is expected the host utility will compile this infomation prior to the arrival of the sevey team and also provide operaticns persmnel support.

Each checklist item is presented in the fom of a question for

-consideraticn by a sevey team member. Following that questien is a series of numbers in which the specific ites being myiewed is evaluated . The first set of numbers (4 3 210) indicates the degase of compliance wherein 4 indications no compliance, 3 indicates somewhat compliance , 2 indiamtes mastly compliance ,1 indicates full compliance and 0 indicates the specific question being considered is n_oj applicable or cannot be considered at this time since the plant being evaluated is

! not operational. As each specific question is evaluated, the team member (s) acttally doing the evaluation of that questian indicates the L relative degree of compliance by circling the appliamble nsanber.

1 0

_ .= -. . - . - . . - .

-_.,.---..~

. . ..- u . . . . _ .

L III CONIROL ROOM REFIEW DISCUSSION (Continund) -

-" - " - -Following%he nimber indicating"the' degree of"nonpliance TotNch itein""* -'* -" " -

i being evaluated is a predetermined number ranging from one to three i which indientes the relative importance of that item with respect to the '

L 1

potential for causing or contributing to operator error. A 3 indicates bg potential for operator error, 2 indicates moderate potential and 1

indicates low potential. In the final evaluation of each item consideredUt is the product of the degree of compliance times the i potential" for operator error that detemines if the consideration of

, . corrective acticri is justified. Since some items will not be applicable

!- fcr consideration in all control rooms, it should be noted that a

general comparison of several control rooms by bomparison of " scores" is not valid.

j Fo11 cuing each checklist item is space for the persen perfoming the i evaluation to enter comments. For each specific checklist item, these comments will identify items or components of ncn-compliance , the scope of review, or any qualifying statement judged to be appmpriate to the i

evaluaticri . If, for example, a large maber of components are reviewed and only a few are in non-compliance, these would be specifically noted in the comment space and the general rating would be "mostly ecapliance" . To provide additional doctmentation, still photographs

!.. will be taken of major items or components of non-compliance such as mi=1c layouts, control / display smupings , labeling systems or equi;nent locaticns . These gttotographs are cross referenced to the specific checklist item by a notation in the coment sliace. Due to the i importance of comments in the evaluation, additicnal Comment Foms will

! be attached for more detail when necessary.

! e As an exanple, a review item would possibly be as follows: 2*

\.

13 x it tt y

' . t*

e M U 3*

uk k 1

& R2& 2* t L

E1 Does the control room operator Compliance have available: 4 3 GD 1 0 x3 =7 E1.1 a full set of up-to-date Surveillance pmcedures plant procedures are incomplete and not all are latest revision; others are OK 3

! Since all pmcedures except strveillance pmcedures are available to the I control room operator and are up-to-date, 2 is circled indicating  !

! "mostly" compliance and multiplying that by 3, the potential for ermr, gives a product of 6.

l-kO 1

16-

.: .. . a . . . :. . n : .-

III CDNTROL B00M REVIEW Panel m\ PANEL LAYOUT and DESIGN

((f.A1) .

For. control panels: .. - .. - - . .. - - - ~ ~ - ... .. .. . . . - - - - - - . - - - . . ~ . .

A1.1 does the design generally meet measurement 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

standards per the attached anthropometric diagrams (complete and attach)

A1.2 are they of the same layout and design on 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 multi-mit plants (not mirror image)

A1 3 when panel components are per=anently 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

removed, are spaces covered to prevent debris or dust fra entering panel internals and repainted to avoid visual distinctiveness O

A1.4 have sharp corners and edges been 4 3 2 1 0 x 1 =

eliminated?

A2 Are lines of demarcation, mimics or other graphic displays:

A2.1 used to distinguish between comonly shared 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 syste=s or components in multiple tait control rooms A2.2 used to enciese related displays 4 3 2 1 0 x 3-=

O lu

^

III Centrol Room Review i

A PANEL LAYOUT and DESIGN (Continued)

YERTICAL PANEL MEASURDENT (A1.1) Anthropometric Diagram FANEL O

IV

~~

, . . - - - - ~- -- ~L--- '- -- --

/

annunciator

/c-

\

height ,

\g -

[ g k-t A b C -

1. display height (min / max) a

1. control height (min / max)

O l

-~ -~ .

! ltmits measurement dimension coments min. max. min. max.

a h2 60

. b LB 68 e -- 88 --

"~

o < u y i

L c_

1 . - . - . _ _ .- .. .. ... .. .. . . . . . . . . . - ...~....-.......~...... . . . ,

III Control Room R* view -

l

. I A PANIL LAYOUT and DESIGN (Continued) l CONSOLE / DESK MEASUR r T3T

.h (A1.1) Anthropometric Diagram PANEL 1

i i

l

- =y - -

~

/

c}

i / . ,

k '

d I

depth A f

I a

l control het ht (min / max

- t d W l l

O

_ see.over height

[ l I

f knee space foot space "

u e

U <

ir V 4k

< c  ;

leg space limits measurement dimension

• min. max. min, max.

a 25 SL d .- h2 --

10 - 2n -- --

d -- 25 --

a b .. -

t 25 --

n

~

-. - .- .~~--. .. . . . . .

III Control Rocn R; view A PANEL LAYCUT and DESIGN (C ntinu:d)

BENCHBOARD MEASUREFr.:rt (A1.1) Anthropometric Diagram PANEL

!O M i s'

l .-

\

e \

\

annunciator height .

g

\ .'

o

/ .

/ A i

Y a control height m m d depth (min / max) b display height (min / max) p v

l

~~ ,_

• ""# " "t dimensier c-- c-ts min. max. ntn. -ax, a y) 60 b 30 68 e 6 -- -

f d -- 28 .

c .. 88 --

~~ ~~

" (\ v ,

--->- C h foot Space ,g,

III G)NTHOL ROOM REVIEW Panel N, PANEL LAY 0tTr and DESIGN (Continued)

!!;j A2.3 used to separate similar subgmups of 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 a components within system groupings A2.4 used to distinguish between primary and 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

secondary flow paths A2.5 visually distinctive between each other 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

and panel / background O A2.6 pemanent and maintained 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 :

A2.7 laid-out so that flow paths and arrangements 4 3 2 1 0 x T s-are orderly and easily recopized A2.8 identical in lay-out for repetitive 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

groupings of components o

.n.

l L

._~..--._. . _ _. . . . . .

III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW Panel

. PANEI, LAY 0tTT and DESIGN (Centinued)

A2. 9 clearly marked with arrows to show 4 3 2 1 0 x _2 m directicn of " flow" A2.10 identified with starting and end points 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

A2.11 used to integrate switches, puops , manual 4 3 ,2 1 0 x 2 =

and remotely-operated valves , isolaticn paths , etc .

s '

A2.12 consistent in the applica*' en of sy=bols 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 for p;=ps , valves and other process ele =ents (describe *on Coment For= and attach)?

A3 For controls and displays:

A3.1 are they generally grouped by oyt com 88 3 2 1 0 x .S (with identical lay-out fer repetitive groups )

A3.2 is ordering for cccponents of similar 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

fLncticn consistently from lef t-to-right or tt.p-to-bottom

/7 v

7. .. - _ . . . . . , . _ . . _ . . _ . .. ..

III CONTIOL ROOM REVIEW Panal A PANEI, LAYOUT and DESIGN (Continued) v A3 3 . are groupings arranged in fisictional or 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

segaential relaticraships A3.4 when strings (6 or more) or matrices 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

(greater than 4x4) of components of si:nilar or cocaen functicri are installed, are they vistally distinguishable by lines-of-demarcaticri, hierarchical labeling, color contrast , spacing, shape , etc.

A3 5 are coding methods as used for item 3 4 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

oonsistently applied (list en Cccment For= and attach)

C A3 6 are they generally located in zone 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

"a" or "b" en the anthropometric diagram (see A1.1)

A3 7 are control components located within an 4 3 2 1 0 xT=

arms reach of feedback indicaticris?

O i

. . ._._ .... ..  :- .~ ^

- . _ _ : __..:.: ._ . . : .z ; - -- . :: -

III CONTROL R00f! RI. VIEW Panel PANEL LAY 0tTr and DESIGN (Continued)

A4 .. For, color use: . ... . . . . . . . .... .. ........e . . . . . . .

eA4.1 is them a plant standard 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

(complete attached list) 2 A4.2 is selected use of colors consistently 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

applied for alarm prioritizatim, indicating lights , labels , lines-of-demarcation , legend plates , graphic displays , indicating devices ,

ta gs , et c .

A4.3 when there is a possible dual meaning for 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

colors , is there an additimal indicatim for visual distinction?

KD A5 Are labels, legend plates and escutcheons:

AS.1 used to identify couponent rection 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

'(A5.2 used to identify operational limits 4 3 2 1 0 x ~5'~ =

or warnings i

iO

-. -_ _ a ~ - .--.,...,,r.4-- . ~ . . . . .. . , . ...

III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW A PANEL LAYOUT and DESIGN (Continued) s

( A4.1) To evaltate the consistency of the applicaticn of color standards in the control eq roca, complete the following for each meaning:

-(Q Col e -. c R M n; M  :- -

Valve Open Valve Closed Breaker Open

_ Breaker Cicsed Mid or Transitional Position 5

p On or Operating Off or Not Operating SL' art S2p i ,

Danger or Warning Caution, Tmuble or Pre-Trip Trip or Failure O. Autcznatic Operation or Control s

Manual Operaticn or Ccr. trol Limit Condition General Status Hot o

. Cold E

Other (specify)

CRTs Alpha-Ntmeric Identification Process Variable (in limits)

Pmeess Variable (out of limits)

Process Diagram lines and Symbols o

.O Reference or Scale Markings Other (specify)

III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW Panni A FANEL LAY 0tTT and DESIGN (Continued) fr..

( O 45 3 a to 1a =tirr r t a 1== t1==

• 3 2 = 2 -

. _ _ ' _0 . . _ _ _

A5.4 used to identify panel by neber and 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

tmetim AS.5 consistent in nmenclature, use of 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

acronyms , abbreviatims , etc. (list on Comment Form and attach)

AS. 6 consistent in type style and the 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

f applicatim of type size (ie, larger letters in headings, all letters same height , etc .)

A5. 7 size coded in a hierarchical system 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

l

! AS. 8 visually distinctive (light letters on 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

dark background or dark letters on light background )

t l

l

.A-G l

III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW Panel

~ ( e .. PANII. LAYOUT and DESIGN (Continued)

A5. 9 easily read when stationed at.the panel 4 3 2 1 ox 3 =

(see A1.1)

' A5.10 succinctly worded and accurate with respect 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

to rtncticn or inpat signal AS.11 consistently positioned above or below 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

devices and readily associated with corresponding controls and displays A5.12 pe=anent but replaceable 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 :

A5.13 conspicuous and visually distinctive from 4 3 2 1 C x 3 =

the panel background AS.14 oriented to read from lef t-to-right? 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

O

__.m_ = _ _ _ -_- __ _ _

l III CONTROL Room REVIEW I Panel

( PANEL LAYOUT and DESIGN (Continued)

~

l A6 when temporary changes or modificatims are made, are they:

A6.1 minimized . 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

'A6.2 controlled in applicatien (for infomation 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

or status, corrective or cautimary purpme only)

'A6.3 consistent and controlled in nemenclature, 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

fcnt and color O

eA6.4 accurate with respect to use or design intent 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

1. A6.5 incorporated into procedures (if infomative, 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

cauticnary or corrective)

A6.6 applied to not obscure adjacent cr background 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

informaticn or colors O

III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW Panel 4

h PANEL LAYOITT and DESIGN (Continued) i

• A6.7 reviewed periodically and made permanent 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

or removed?

17 From the operator's pri=ary control area:

A7.1 is the path to the control panel unobstructed 4 3 2 1 0 x-3 =

A7.2 are control surfaces visible 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

0 A7.3 are anntr.ciator windows visible and 4 3 2 1 c ._ x3=

identifiable i

L r

.. .-._...s.. . - . . . . .

II CONTROL ROOM REVIEW Panel INSTRUENTATICN and HARDWARE sk B1 Are controllers that require manual operatim:

B1.1 easily reached (see A3.6) 4 3 2 10 x 3 =

• B1.2 designed to facilitate precise control where 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

fine adjustments are required B1.3 marked to clearly show manual or 4 -3 2 1 0 x 2 =

automatic mode O

'B1.4 pmvided with mechanical stops at the 4 3 2 1 0 x-1 =

beginning and end of travel B1. 5 provided with space for hand support? 4 3 2 1 0 x 1 =

l l

l' B2 - Are indicating ' devices:-

B2.1 marked to show nomal or abnomal, safe or 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 -

unsafe, or expected or mexpected range of L . operation where applicable LO l

. -- .____...___..n...... . ._ . . . .; .__

III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW Panel

'[, INSTRtDENTATICN and HARDWARE (Continued)

B2.2 free fran glare and parallax when 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

statimed at the panel (see A1.1) eB2.3 scaled in process units that relate to 4 3;2 1 0 _ x _ 3_ =

system operatim B2.4 pmvided with visual contrast or distinctive- 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

ness between scale g: adtttims , process mits ,

ntanerals, backsmund and pointer

' f3 V

B2.5 designed so that peinters do not obscure 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

graduatim marks , numerals or process mits B2.6 designed so that peinters move frem bottem- 4 3 2 1 ox 2 =

to-top, left-to-right .or clockwise , depending at the display design and orientation

'B2. 7 designed so that indicator direction follows 4 3 2 1 O_ x 2 =

control movement i

E

III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW Panel

'! INSTRUENTATICN and HARDWARE (Continued)

' i. I

\

l eB2.8 easily correlated with backup indications, 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 = l especially those instrtments with elevated zeros B2. 9 aligned between pointer or moveable indicator 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

and sale without need for vistal e xtmpolation 4

B2.10 visually aligned and pmvided with identical 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

scales to facilitate comparative reading in gmups of similar displays 1 -

• B2.11 marked with subdivisions that are consistent 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

with the accuracy needed by the operator 1 0 x 2 =

B2.12 scaled with a maxistz: of nine intermediate 4 3 2 l

g aduaticns between numbered markings l

I B2.13 scaled with subdivisions in decimal multiples 4 3 2 1 0 x 1 =_

of 1, 2 or 5 l

i i n

( U:

!. t P-

l 1

l 1

III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW l Panel l

. i

(

1 INSTRUENTATICN and HARDWARE (Continued)

B2.14 marked or color coded to pmvide visual 4 3 2 1 0 x 1 =

distinctiveness between the case, panel or similiar components B2.15 marked with numerals oriented in an 4 3 2 1 0 x 1 =

upright . positicn i

8B2.16 maintained, calibrated and surveillance 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

tested cn a regular basis 1

'B2.17 designed so that a failure mode is evident 4 3 2 1 0x 3 =

B2.18 marked or color coded to differentiate ,4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

between scales en multiple range meters?

-B3 For recorder charts:

B3 1: are printed values easily read and 4 3 2 1 0 x- 3 =-

distinguishable O

1 III CDNTROL ROOM REVIEW I Panel j 1

B INSTRUENTATICN and HARDWARE (Continued)

= A If ,

~ B3 2 a-e printins_ devices pmperly aligned such 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 = l that printed value corresponds to sale value  !

4-1 B3 3 is the alarm point identified 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

B3 4 is there adequate distinction for markings 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

on multi-pen recorders i

where fast tracking rates or trends are 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

, Q C33 5

~

periodically required, is there Hi/Lo speed

- espa bility 23 6 is point select es; ability available on 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

. multi-point recorders l~ is reeerder clearly marked indicating pmper 4 3 2 1 0 x 1 =-

" B3 7 - type and size or chart paper .

4

. . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . _ . - . . = . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . .

III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW Panel

([ INSTRUENTATICN and HARDWARE (Continued) u .. .:._...~.. . : . .- . . ; .- . . . : . _ :::. . . .. .

• B3.8 is paper replaceable without physically 4 3 2 1 0 x 1 =

disconnecting wiring or linkage

• B3 9 can the ink supply be maintained without 4 3 2 1 0 x 1 =

disconnecting wiring or linkage B310 are pen colors consistent from one recorder 4 3 2 1 0 x2 =

to another and/or is the color associaticn unambigtrus and clearly displayed O

• B3 11 does chart paper not bind , eli=inating 4 3 2 1 0 x 2- =

fregent manual correcticns

'B3.12 are charts marked periodically (at least 4 3 2 1 C x 2 =

once per shif t) and when chart speed is changed with date , time and initials to aid in data recovery

1. B3 13 has administrative procedure been established 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

for chart u.arkf.ng and used cPart/ record retention

.O-III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW Panel B INSTRIDENTATION and HARDWARE (Continued)

B314 are they free frcan glare and parallax when 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

stationed at the panel (see A1.1)

B315 are they marked to show nonnal or abnomal, 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

safe or unsafe, or expected or unexpected range of operation where applicable?

l l

B4 For indicating lights:

l B4.1 does intensity provide adequate visual 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

distinction between lit and extinguished lights

(h

.x.)

• B4.2 does the use of lit indicating lights 4 3 2 1 0 xT=

consistently indicate a positive state or positive response (an unlighted condition only indicates " power off")

B4 3 is the size and intensity of alann lights 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

adequate to coenand attenticn

'B4.4 is there a positive means of diagnosing 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

failed indicating lights

< vb

III CDNTROL ROOM REVIEW i Panel J

B INSTRU)ENTATICN and HARDWARE (Continued)

UO i i(v cB4. 5 is bulb replacement easily and safely a 3 2 1 0 x 2 a 1 performed l B4.6 are sets of lights in alignment to facilitate 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

comparison between related system elements cB4.7 is direct indicatim used in preference to 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

implied indicaticn that a ftncticn has been perfomed I

i l

c0 CB0 8 .when direct indicaticn is not practical, is 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

there backup instri:mentaticn to indicate that a functicn has occurred?

B5 For switches:

B5.1 do handles move consistently in the same 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

direction in accordance with expectaticns i- (i .e . , right f or en or start; lef t for o ff

or stop; center for. tripped, standby, or l nomal; pull-to-lock, etc)

L B5.2 is each positien clearly marked 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

L

(

n i N )-

l

, , ,7 . , .._ _y, .

l III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW

, Panel

.( INSTRUPENTATIGi and HARDWARE (Continued) t.- . ..: . . . . .. .: _ - .  : .. ..._..:.. . .. . . . . .

B5 3 is each reactable at a nomal operating 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

4

' distance B5.4 .are handles that are located near the edge 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

of the control panels protected with a guard to prevent' inadvertent operation I

4

'S5. 5 do handles require nemal hand pressure 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

to operate (i .e . no thumb-busters )

CO .

35.6 are handles dumble and of adequate size 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

i L

I j *B5.7 is switching action responsive and precise 4 3. 2 1 ox.2 =

I l: B5. 8 are associated- displays , indicating lights, 4 3 2 1 0 x1=

and fabels fme fmm vistal obstruction by hand or am when the switch is operat.ed

[{

- l Y --eg'- py,- _ ,_ _ , ,, _, _ ___ _ _

7- . . .... .

III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW Panel

.h - INSTRlNENTATION and HARDWARE (Continued)

B5.9 is there adequate hand space between them 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

B5.10 is physical distinction provided between 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

pumps, valves, indicating lights, divisional separation, power source, etc. i ,

- B5.11 are handles or knobs shaped so as to clearly 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

indicate position without obstruction of legends or confusion of direction?

36 Are switches for emergency or abnormal use (such as turbine trip, scra=, e=ergency trip, etc.):

B6.1 clearly marked 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

B6.2 protected from inadvertent operation 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

B6.3 readily accessible 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

I L

III (DNTROL B00M REVIEW Panel e

INSTRUEFrATICN and HARDWARE (Continued)

• B6.4 controlled by specific procedural 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =  !

instructims?

l i

B7 Where key-lock switches are used: l

• B7.1 is imediate actuation not required during 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

. plant operatien.

B7.2 are keys emveniently located and 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 = '

imediately available

'3/

V.

B7 3 are keys clearly identified for 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

specific use i

! *B7.4 is key use administrative 1y controlled 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

l I

l

l. 837.5 do procedures provide specific instructions 4 3 2- 1 0 x 3 =

l for use n

O t

• B7.6 is switch action .mooth and positive without 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

u use of excessive force?.

l t.

41-

.- = .--.._.--_:----- -__ _ - - - -

.._... _ . , . _ _ . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ~ .

III C0hTROL ROOM REVIEW Panel f(' AlWLWCIEORS U -~~ -- ~ - '

C1 Are annt:1ciators gronped:

. C1.1 within annunciator box by specific systems 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 C 1.2 above related controls and displays 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 C13 such that warning and diagnostic alarms are 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 seg egated from infomaticrial and advisory dis plays?

C2 Is alam window:

C2.1 consistent in nccenclature , use of 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 m acronyms, abbreviaticr2s , etc.

f C2.2 . consistent in type style and the application 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 z of type size C2.3 easily read when stationed at the panel 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

O 18 2 -

III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW l Panel l

A A)MINCIRORS (Continued) .

I Cz.T in~ ace'rdance'~with checklist criteria for o 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

changes or modificatims (see A6) eC2.5 succintly worded and accurate with respect 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

to input signal fmetim C2.6 pmvided with setpoints for parameters with 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

multiple trip levels (water level, vacuum, contairs:ent pressure etc.)

O C2.7 without multiple choice indication 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

j (high/ low level / pressure) f C2.8 prioritized for required response 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

level by legend plate color (preferred) cr bulb color in accordance with color use standards (see A4.1) l l

C2. 9 provided with an alpha-ntneric code in 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

, addition to legends for prompt response and positive procedure identification d

6 Lo 43-

[-

1 III CDNTIDL ICOM REVEW Panel AltiINCIE0RS (Continued) '

C3 when an anntneistor window is acttated:

C31 is there adequate visual distinction between 4 3 2 1 ox 3 =

lit and extinguished li$ts 9

C3 2 is the size and intensity of alam lights 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 adequate to command attenticn?

C4 Does the audible f eature meet checklist criteria 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

for audible displays (see F2) ?

1 C5 For alam response , are the following provided:

10 C5.1 silence button 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

t-C5.2 acknowledge butten 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

C5 3 reset button 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

i'.1

(, C5. 4 visual and audible test f eature 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

t

l III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW Panel 1 -

AINITJ"IEORS - (ContinueQ gO -

C5. 5 silence and reset buttons of consistent 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

size , shape , color, segaence and locaticri between panels 1

1 i C5.6 a "first-out" feature or dual reset for 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

infomatim retrieval for high priority alarms?

C6 For vistal annunciaticri, will each window:

C6.1 flash for initial alam input 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

l' -

C6.2 remain in alam state (solid light) when 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

acknowledged but alarm input has not cleared i

i C6.3 reflash for second alam input 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

i l

l r

l l

C6.4 autmatically blink (at slower rate) 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 s __

j. when alarm input clears I'

L

'O .

I 45-

---

w.-.+--m[,.-. [ ...,-----+-,.m..,.. -

.-,.---.,,,.r- ,<,--~._,-..,,.-.-..,-w,----...--,,...,_..- ,,-e..-,%.wy...,,, _-.w-,---y,- . - , , , . , + - , . - + . , . - - +

. _ ._. _ . ~. - . _ , . . _ _

III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW Panel

( AININCIATORS (Continued)

• M C6.5 clear only en operator action? 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

C7 Do anntriciator response procedures meet pmcedure checklist criteria for:

C7.1 fomat (see E3) ,

4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

1 l C7.2 content (see E4) 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

C7 3 - reference material (see E5)? 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

l OC8 For annunciator maintenance:

C8.1 if bulb mplacement requires legend plate 4 3 2 1 0 xT=

l removal, is there a method to asstre plate

~

mplacement in correct location I

L C8.2 has an administrative pmcedure been 4 3 2 1 0 x1=

implemented to allow prcmpt recopiticri of an out-of-service annunciator O,-

1 I.

i 46-1

t. . .

III COEROL ROOM REVIEW Panel AWWCIEORS (Continued)

C8.3 are anntmeiators periodically tested? 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

f i

C9 Are only mear.ing"tc alarm present during a given 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

operating state (list cri Comment Fom)?

O h

h I

l l'.

I-l l-O.

l:

l. . .

9

III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW

w. l GNU 1ERS

D1 fre the computer console and output devices:

D1.1 cmveniently located and readily available 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

for operator use .

D1.2 generally laid-out per standards of the 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 :

anthropometric diagrams (see A1.1) 1 D13 arranged for visual distinctim and 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 use of dials, buttons and switches?

1

1. D2 Is the computer:

D2.1 - m;stble of displaying selected input . 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 infomatim i

i i

g.

D2.2 equipped with display change capability 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 :

I

!=

D2.3 available for on-danand use by the control 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 = __

room operator l

(O P

b

==P I yv- -w_ y,. w- wviw.* + - -,.s-c+ a,.peemaY** -

+-~+e~r eFw* =m- We'T '"-,"w=*e =-+*e &*'wie T---7Pr

III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW Pj'~' (DMPUERS (Continued)

D2.4 m;nble of receiving all inputs and 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

perfor1ning progaammed functims without becoming overloaded D2.5 available after power transients 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

or accident conditims D2.6 ca;able of use in post-transient evaluation 4 3 2 1 0 x 1  :

O D2.7 ca;able of autmatic or manual switchover 4 3 2 1 0 x 1  :

, for processor failure ("failover")?

D3 Are CRT displays:

D3.1 accessible and easily visible when 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 stationed at the centrols s

i D3.2 caprehensible with a minimt= of vbual 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

search

, III C0!UROL ROOM REVIEW P- CDMPUERS (Continued)

(

~ ~

D3.3 or adequate brightness for lighting '4 3 2 1 0- xT oonditicns or equipped with conviently located focus, brightness, and/or contrast controls D3.4 consistent with color standards (see A4.1) 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 :

'D3 5 color coded so that loss of a primary color 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

gun does not result in lms of a numerical value or scale O D3.6 centistent with checklist standards for 4 3 2 1 c x 2 =

procedural for::at (see E3)

D3 7 identified by system or progra= 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 :

D3.8 provided with an access mode for display 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 selecticn (either display menu or sectoring mode)

)

i III CONTRO'L ROOM REVIEW l

% (DMPUERS (Continued)

D3 9 provided with verification that the 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

computer is operatialal and that data is being updated cri a periodic basis?

D4 For the typer/prirter:

. 'D4.1 is output prioritized 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

'D4.2 is output periodically reviewed and 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

updated so that crily useful intermaticri is printed O

'D4 3 is capacity surricient (output not over- 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

icaded)

D4.4 is the output identified by time, date, 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

cc=penent and system

'D4.5 is a backup available 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

o

.51-

III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW

/ (I)MPUTERS (Continued)

D4.6 is it silenced to not be a no'ise distraction 4 3 2 1 0 x 1

'D4.7 are paper and ribben easily replaced 4 3 2 1 0 x 1  :

D4.8 are printout easily readable (spacing, 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 headings , f emats , print , etc.) ?

O O

.c. . . , _ _ . _ . -

III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW

%.iQ PROCEDURES El Does the control room operator have available:

E1.1 a full set of up-to-date plant procedures 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

E1.2 a full set of up-to-date emergency, 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

atriomal and nomal procedures for each unit on multi-unit plants with a conmon control room E1 3 a complete s et of up-to-date , as-built flow 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

diagra=s and sche =atics E1. 4 a set of up-to-date Technical Specifications 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

l E1 5 storage space for pmcedures and 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

l reference materials i

l l

I l

• E1. 6 pmcedural instructions for the operation of 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

both manual and automatic controllers

(.

I

(

L

- - a- - - . - - . . . . . . . . . . , , _ _ , ,

E III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW o'J' . PROCEDURES (Continued)

?

,- E1 7 lay down space for use of pmcedures 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 and reference materials?

r E2 For inscediate access and recognition:

E2.1 are pmcedures readily available and 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

centrally located l

(1 E2.2 is each procedure binder or folder 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 clearly markmd O

E2 3 does each procedure binder or folder have 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

an index or table of contents E2.4 are emergency procedures in a separate 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

binder' or folder E2.5 _ are anntaciator response pmcedures in a 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

separate binder or folder O

54-

III CONIROL ROOM REVIEW

' (j PROCEDURES (Continued)

E2.6 are individual procedures readily locaced 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

(i.e., tirough use of inder tabs or alpha-n e eric code)?

OE3 Has an administrative procedure been implemented to assure standardization of procedure romat for:

E3 1 type size and style 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

. E3 2 use of ncx::enclature, gra::c:ar, ter=inologr, 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

synony=s, acronyms, and abbreviations LO E3 3 use of as-labeled designations for 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

components, systems and process mits E3 4 nmbering of procedures , paragraphs , steps 4 3 2 1 0 x 1 =

and sub-steps for increased levels of detail

! E3 5- step or paragraph spacing and page layout 4 3 2 1 0 x 1 =

and identity i(

. . . . . . . . . , . . . . . : a. ..-.-  : . ~ .: . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .u .

III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW PROCEDURES (Continued)

E3 6 identity or purpose or scope 4 3 2 - 1 0 x 1 =

b E3 7 entry and exit conditions 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

E3 8 cross-ref eren cins 4 3 2 1 0 x 1 =

E3 9 rapid identification and recognition of 4 32 1 0 x 2 =

revisicns or changes?

E4 Do procedures that' require operator action:

E4.1 have succinct action verbs 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

E4.2 have succinct action statements 4 3 2 1 0-x 2 =

- uD

__ ._. s_. . . . . _u._ ._-._.__.__a...... . . . . ..,4 _-- . ... . . _

III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW

- PRO DURES (Continued)

E4.3 separate steps from each other and from 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

cauticns , notes , refarence material, etc.

• E4.4 ' provide cautionary statenents (that are 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

4 positicried to relate to the consequences or results of that action)

E4.5 minimize the need for cemorization 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

of acticns O

E4.6 distinguish between required (shall) and 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

opticnal (should) actials E4.7 distinguish between autccatic and manual 4 3 2 1 0x 3 =

acticns E4.8 provide symptomatic or diagnostic analysis 4 3 2 1 0 x3 =

or entry event guidance to assure correct procedure is in use

, . . . _ .. .-_.. _.,_ __ ._. _. .s  ; .

J l

l l

i III COEROL ROOM REVIEW l l

. ;t%

V PROMDURES (Continued)

• E4.9 give required operational sequencing of acticns and identify acticris which 4 3 2 1 0 _x 3 =

should be perfomed in parallel

'E4.10 identify critical steps where errors of 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

cc:issien , commissicn or sequence cannot be tolerated E4.11 integrate charts , diagrams , and graphs 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

into body of procedure as needed to directly supplement steps E4.12 provide physical panel locations of 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

referenced instru=entaticn and hardware, especially those that are infrequently used w

.E4.13 give nor= ally expected . results (such as 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

valve pesiticns , flow rates , currents ,

l alar =s indicating lights , etc .) where

) a ppro priate i

r l

l l E4.14 give setpoints and sensor identity for 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

l -- , anntaciator response I.

t (O

1 l

7 III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW j 1

.n PROCEDURES (Continued) l l

eE4.15 give equipnent and administrative limits 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 = l for operatim 1 I

i l

E4.16 give contingency actions or conditional -

4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

instructims if expected results or actims are not achieved 4

E4.17 emphasize the use of multiple or indep.!ndent 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

indicaticris to provide feedback that an action has occurred in response to a control command 10

'E4.18 limit actions to those that are 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

essential and effective t

l

~ 'E4.19 explicitly contain all essential 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

i acticos and not require use of reference material for these actions

(

5

- E4.20 identify how or when emergency systems or 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

automatic controls may be manually controlled or overridden after autcaiatic

! initiation

< O

III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW PRO DURES (Continued)

E4.21 identify conditions under which instrtment- 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

aticn may be inaccurate and stress the use of multiple indications

• E4.22 provide direction for placing and maintain- 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

ing the plant in cold shutdown with multiple failures of non-safety grade systems or components?

E5 When reference material is identified in a procedure:

E5.1 is it readily available 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

~O E5.2 is the latest available revision identified 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

E5 3 are steps or actions compatible with the 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

procedure from which it is entered i

E5. 4 is it standardized or condensed for ease 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

of use?

i

. , . , - , ~ , - - - - . -. -- , , _ , . , , .

III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW

. PROCEDURES (Continued)

' OE6 For revisien or correctims to procedures, is

i. there a controlled method:

E6.1 to assure operator review and walkthru 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

l to verify correctness, understanding and ability to use i

4 E6.2 for operator feedback and to clarify intent 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

of changes recommended by operators y

E6.3 'for feedback to the operator as to 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

resoluti:n of recommended change l

l E6.4' to permit temporary or interim revision 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

l by shif t personnel to allow deviaticn frem appmved procedures E6.5' to assure prcampt revision (both interim 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

and permanent) to incorporate design changes or operational deviations L .E6.6 to assure. prompt ' review and appmval by. 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

!. personnel experienced in operaticms and engineering or design I

, . . . - _._, _~.1._.. ___.;_.._. _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ . . , , _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ , _

III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW

//

PB0CEDURES (Continued)

E6.7 for prompt distributicri and updating of 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

oontrolled sets (especially control room)

E6.8 fer destruction of superseded controlled 4 3 2 1 ox 3 =

copies E6.9 for updating of Index or Table of Contents 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

to show latest available revisiens of all pro cedures O

E6.10 to evaluate and incorporate changes made by 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 operators cn control panels such as scales or process ua.its , cautionary or infomative netes , power sources , charts and graphs ,

etc . ?

l l OE7 Has an administrative procedure been established to require:

E7.1 recording of time , date and signature (or 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

initials) on all log book entries ET.2 marking of charts and graphs cri a regular 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 basis l#

i

7 '

III CONTROL Ro0M REVIEW PRO DURES (Continued) l E7.3 recording of both pennanent and temporary 4 3 2 1 ox 2 =  !

plant and equipnent status change, including maintenance and testing activities

, E7.4 recording of verbal instr,tetions and 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 feedback on executicn 4

E7.5 recording of cyclic operations or transients 4 3 2 1 0 x2 =

'O E7.6 recording of other infor=ation useful to 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 other operators or supervisors E7.7 reading and initialing of log books by 4 3 2 1 ox 2 supervisory persennel en a regular basis E7.8 retention of log books and recorder 4 3 2 1 ox 1 =

charts in permanent plant files 'for

. required periods of time?

. . . : .:...u.... .. :.. = .. . -

III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW h

. CONTROL ROOM ENVIRCNENT F1 Are commtmication ayatems:

F1.1 redundant, diverse or varied (such as hand- 4 3 2 1 oxT=

held, sound powered, dedicated to specific panels , radio, bell)

'F1.2 available for acergency or abnomal use 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

(such as a 1 css of nomal power)

F1.3 accessible frcxs each panel, unobstructive, 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

and organized O

'F1.4 available to the control room operator 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

, cn 'a pricrity basis l

l

'F1.5 ca;a ble of accessing all in-plant areas 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

l l

l l

l F1.6 designed to pemit hand free operation 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

i O

L

- . .  :. .-.: ::.= : ...= = = - . _ -- = : .:: .~..;----

l l

III CONIROL ROOM RE7IEW l

Q CONTROL ROOM ENVIRCNENT (Continued) l F1. 7 equipped with channel select 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 '

F1.8 physically adjustable for individual users - 4 3 2 1 0 x 2  :  ;

F1.9 provided for dedicated links to the 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

l TSC, ET and OSC F1.10 distinctive / color coded 4 3 2 1 0 x 1  :

F1.11 - clearly understood , intelligible and free 4 3 2 1 0 x 1 =

from reverberatim?

4 F2 Are audible signals (such as bells, klaxons and airens ):

F2.1 distinguishable for alam location 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 i

l O

- _ . _ . . . . ~...- . . . . .. . i ^ ~- - - -- L

_ . w:.-.---.

III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW l D

'L/ CONTROL ROOM ENVIRCNMENT (Continued) l F2.2 prioritized 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 i.

7 #F2.3 tested on a periodic basis 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 F2.4 audible in all parts of the control room 4 3 2 1 0 x 2

. ~O F2.5 not irritating or excessively loud (90 db 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

i maximum)

, F2.6 loud enough to be heard during noisy 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 l- periods (at least 20 db over background)7 l

l l

l F3 Is lighting:

F3.1 adequate at panel surfaces (30 rooteandles 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 ministat . 50 rootcandles recommended.

Measure at each operating area and

record on Control Room Arrangement L Diagram) t

O L.

. . . . . . . _ _ . . . . _ _ . . . - __. ._ . . . - _ .~ .._...-. ...._- _ ..-...

III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW

.i

' . .t CONTROL ROOM ENVIRODENT (Continued)

F3 2 diffuse or indirect to eliminate glare? 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

F4 Is control mom heating and ventillaticri:

F4.1 adequate for both operator comfort and 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

equipnent perfomance (nomally between 65-750F and 25-455 relative humidity)

F4.2 diffuse to eliminate areas of stagnation or 4 3 2 1 0 x 1 =

direct - hiewing?

O F5 In case of fire:

F5.1 is fire-fighting equip:ent imediately 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

accessible i'

l

1. FS.2 is there an autcmatic warning system? 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

F6- Dtring, emergency sittatierts:

'F6.1- is access to the control roca procedurally 7 3 2 1 0 x "T =

controlled I

-,.,._,_.m.. _._,.._ . . . . , , , , _ . . _ , . . . , _ . , , , _ . , _ _ _ . . _ . _ , _ , . _ . . . , . . _ _ _ _ . _ . . . . . , . , _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _ . ,

L.; - - ..

n_ . . . . . . _ _ . , . _ _ . . _ . _ _ ,

1 h>

e III CONTROL ROOM RE7IEW '

1 4 / CONTROL ROOM ENVIRGIENT (Continued) {

. F6.2 is protective clothing accessible 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

1-F6.3 is breathing apparatus accessible 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

F6.4 is portable radiation monitoring equipnent 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

accessible

(

eF6.5 is special clothing or breathing equipnent 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

compatible with required operator functions for visibility , reach, tactile sensitivity ,

commtr2icaticri, hearing and weight F6.6 are sanitary facilities and drinking water 4 3 2 1 0 x 1 =

accessible 4

'F6 7 have provisions been made for handling of 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

tele $one commmi=aticris when operator is occupied 4

LO

]

I 4- III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW p

~ "s ~CONIROL ROOM ENVIRm!ENT '(Continued) eF6.8 are emergency lighting levels adequate 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

(20 footoandles minimm at pnel sta faces.

Measure at each operating area and doctment cr2 Control Room Arrangement Diagram.) -

F7 In general:

F7.1 is the noise level mutinely below an 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

interference level for nomal conversation (65 dbA ma ximum . Measure in both dbA and dbC at each operating area and document on Control Room Arrangement Diagram)

F7.2 have noise distractions free both inside 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

and outside the control room been reduced O

F7 3 is there adequate , organized storage space ,7 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

for protective gear , persmal belmgings ,

spare parts , tools , etc.

'F7.4 are smoking and eating areas controlled 4 3 2 1 0 x 1 =

F7.5 is the control room clean and free of 4 3 2 1 0 x 1 =

unnecessary loose pper, books and other 3

materials ,

t-

. . - . - . . .- .... ..- .. .~. . . - . . - - - . - - - - - . . . . - - - - - . .

III CONTROL ROOM RE7IEW CONTROL ROOM ENVIRCHENT (Continued)

F7.6 is the control room free of safety hazards 4 3 2 1 0 x 1 =

such as 1oose floor sata , Icrig phone 1 ands ,

defective furniture , etc.

F7.7 is seating provided at consoles for control 4 3 2 1 0 x 1 =

room operators adjustible fmm 15 to 18 inches?

.O t

0 0

.O

.. w .

^ ^^

-:..~.-..

.... _ .- ...- -..--. . .- . . . . --- _ .. a . ..

III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW

% MLINTENANCE AND SURVEILLANG CG1 Are operator maintenance fmetions and strveillance responsibilities:

G 1.1 clearly established 4 3 2 1 0 xT=

G 1.2 adminstratively controlled? 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 4

i O G2 Are jta:1pers and lifted leads:

G2.1 precedurany controlled 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 :

O G2.2 approved and periodically reviewed 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

.G2.3 distinctive or color coded 4 3 2 1 C x 3 =

G 2. 4 tagged and logged for traceability? 4 3 2 1 0 x1:

O

s. - . .- -. ...-.

T . ..  : ... =:: . .- ;.. . ; .. ~. : z .. .; . . . . ., :

III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW it' -

MAINTENAN2 AND SURVEII. LANCE

• G3 Are permanent modificatims:

03.1 recorded on as-built drawings 4 3 2 1 0 x2 =

to show specific changes G 5.2 incorporated into operational pmcedures? 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

OG4 Are tags:

G 4.1 procedurally controlled 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

O G4.2 readily available 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 G4 3 installed to not otscure components to 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

which they are attached or adjacent emponents 04.4 distinctiw for each ftmetional use 4 3 2 1 0 x 2_=

O

III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW O MILINTENANCE AND SURVEILLANCE (Continued)

'd G 4. 5 readable _4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

G 4. 6 temporary 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 :

G4.7 logged fer traceability 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 :

A V

G 4. 8 periodically reviewed? 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 :

G5 For operaticrial s;mre parts:

G5.1 is there an adequate supply or fuses, 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

indicating lights, ink and inking pens ,

recorder charts , canputer paper , etc.

G5.2 are they readily accessible 4 3 2 1 0 x 1 =

\V III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW

[p

.a MLINTENANCE AND SURVEILLANCE (Continued) 8G5 3 are necessary or special replacement 4 3 2 1 0 xT=

tools available G 5. 4 is adequate storage space available 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 G 5. 5 where ditterent types , sizes , or styles 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

are required, are they clearly and dis-tinctively marked to avoid misapplication O 0 x 2 =

G 5. 6 can they be installed without dis connect- 4 3 2 1 ing linkage or removing component internals?

OG6' Do maintenance and surveillance procedures require:

f 06.1 operability verification when returning 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

l any system or component to service C6.2 notification of operations personnel 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

! both prior to and upon completicri of all

! activities? -

,O i.

~ ~ ~ ~

_ _. ~. .~ ~ ~".Z^ _ . _ _ .

III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW

, MAIN'IENANCE AND SURVEILLANCE (Continued)

~

G 6.3 out-of-service ccaponents and equipnent 4 3 2 1 o x 3 =

to be clearly marked at the control station to preclude inadvertent operation and to provide distinction of that condition G6.li use of checklists or status boards 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

to identify out-of-service equipnent G 6. 5 use of checklists or status boards 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

for routine activities O

06.6 prioritization of control room 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

ma. int enance ?

O O

75-

III CONTROL ROOM REVIEW

.It TRAINING AND MANNING ,

• H1 Does the training /requalificaticn program:

51.1 use new or revised pmcedures as they are 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

imp 1emented H1.2 identify known limitations of instrunent- 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

aticn displays in the control room

.H1 3 pmvide for perodic review and walkthru of 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

emeagency procedures by operators Il LJ H1. 4 include training in the use of the 4 3 2 1 0 xT=

cociputer and CRT displays?

cH2 For control rocc: manning, are administrative gut delines established:

H2.1 to limit the nmber of hours an operator 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 a may work in any given period of time H2.2 to evaluate the physical and mental 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

6, conditicn of on-coming shift operators cm

^

/X a daily basis V

a e

III (DNTROL ROOM REVIEW TRAINING AND MANNING R2.3 to define specific duties, responsibilities, 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

work locatims and authority for all shift membem, especially during emergency situations? -

• H3 During shift change: ,

H3 1 are cmgestion and potentially disruptive 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

situatims averted H3 2 are administrative pmcedures established 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

to require reading of log entries and revisw of atatus boarda by on-coming shitt personnel fmm time of previous shift coverage .

H3 3 are written instructions and checklista 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

used?

l

\

,,0 k

i

_ _ _ . _ ___ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _,s_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _

i i

IV DERGENCY PICCEDURE WALKTHROUGH j . ,,e DISCUSSION i 'j( .

The purpose of the Emergency Walkthrough is to evaluate the operational aspects of control room design in tems 'of control / display relationships, 1

display grouping, control feedback, visual and communication links, manning

. levels and traffic patterns.

As a miniatmi, walkthroughs will be conducted for emergency procedures for a

{ small break inside the containment, a stuck open relief valve and a loss of j feedwater. Additional procedures for nomal or transient conditions may be selected at the discretion of the sm vey team.

! The walkthrough is conducted in the following sequence:

l

1) Evaluate the selected procedure for confomance to procedure critetia as given in part III E of the Control Room Review checklists. Record the results of this evaluation in part IV A.

2) Develop a scenario for each selected procedure. Include the entry

conditions , symptoms , transient trends, equipment failures and end points that the operators must take into consideration when performing the procedure. An experienced SRO should validate the developed scenario.

3) ~ Develop a task analysis for each transient using the selected i

. ,O proo aoe aa c rio- ra t x a 11 1= a==ta 14 #tirr ta t a sequence, critical controls and displays, annunciators and required j operator actions to be evaluated during the walkthrough. This task analysis is to be validated by an experienced SMO.

34 ) Perform a walkthrough of the transient using the procedure and task analysis. This is accomplished by first giving the control room operator the preselected symptoms (entry conditions). The operator must select the correct emergency procedure and complete a j- step-by-step simulation cf that procedure, pointing out each control / display used or referenced and communication links or tasks where assistance is required. As the walkthrough progresses, additional infomation (contingencies , equipment failures , etc.) is presented to the operators as necessary to reach the predetermined end point. Additional operators may assist the control ree:

operator only if they would nomally be expected to be available.

Traffic patterns , equipment locations and operating areas are recorded on the Control Room Arrangement drawing that most closely depicts the control room being evaluated. Solid, dashed or dotted lines may be used to identify operators by primary responsibility or functim. Indicate the locations of desks, chairs , procedures, panels, cabinets, consoles or other pieces of equipment or furniture as near to scale as possible.

,,g,

IV DERENCY PROCEDURE WALKTHROUGH DISCUSSION (Continued)

[b

• As och task is addressed, determine if adegante informaticri is provided, if sufficient personnel are available to complete the task and whether each critical control and display meets checklist criteria given in part III of the Control Room Sevey. Note disrepancies in Column 5 of the Task Analysis as the walkttrough progress es. Notation should also be made of omissions or errors in the procedure or task analysis if identified by the operator during the walkthrough.

5) samarize deficiencies noted in review of the arrangement drawings and column 5 of the task analysis. List these deficiencies by general ategory in part IV B of the Control Room Survey, cross referencing to checklist criteria where applicable.

4 o

O .

4 i

\

IO

- e

. IV DERGENCY PR03 DURE WALKTHROUGH TRANSIENT SGNARIO Procedure Selected SRO Review I

Incitsfe entry conditims , symptoms, transient trends , equipment failtres and and points.

1 i

?

l 4

I

(O .

I l

i l

1 i

l l

<O

IT EM:RENCY PRONDURE WALKTHROUGH TASK ANALYSIS INSTRUCTIGIS (1) . TASK The task sequence is developed from the procedure being emitated and the predetermined scenario. Each required operator action is listed as a segurate task with diagnosis considered the first task for -

emergency procedures. Sibtasks are listed in the same coltan, identified by indentation.

(2) ' DEVIG/ LOCATION For each task or subtask considered in Coltan (1), the primary control or display utilized by the operator in accomplishing this task is identified and located. .

. ( 3) . ASSOCIA1ED DEVICES / LOCATION Listed is this coltan are any devices associated with the primary control or display listed in Coltain (2). This may include backup instrtmentation , indicating li$ts , alarms, etc.

(4) ASSISTAN2/MfJNICATICNS Notatim is made in this coltan if assistance is required by the operator to emplete the task or if a comunication must be made.

( 5) NOTES Any item fotrid discrepant in the walkt&ough will be listed in this coltan. For each task, coltans (1) throup (4) are analyzed in ter=s of the fo11 cuing considerations:

- Is the sequence valid and ccaplete?

- Is sufficient infomaticm immediately amilable to the operator _ to complete the task?

- Does each critical control and display identified in coltn= (2) and (3) confom to checklist evaluation criteria?

- Do control / display relationships meet checklist criteria?

- Are shif t manning levels adequate to perform the tas'.-

- Are traffic patterns tr: obstructive?

- Is direct feedback used to verify control ftstetions?

O a

i

i' .

IV. EMERGENCY PRO

• HE WALKTHROUGH

_ TASK ANALYSIS PROCEDURE SELECTED SRO REVIEW SHEET OF F

Task Device / Location Associated Assistance / Notes (1) (2) Devices / Location Communications (5)

(3) (4)

O e

IV DERENCY PROCEDURE WALKTHRU

^ CHECKLIST b

Procedure Selected:

A Does the emergency procedure selected meet ,

checklist standards for procedure:

A1 standardization and romat (see III.E3) 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

12 operator actim (see III.E4) 4 3 2 1 0 x 3 =

A3 use of reference material (see III.ES)? 4 3 2 1 0 x 2 =

sO B. Summary: Area of Cmeern Checklist Ite (s)

P

~_ _ _. . _ _ . 83 ._.- . _ . . _ , _ . _ _ _ _

+ ~^ . . . . . _.-b- . . . . . . . , .

CONTROL ROOM ARRANGDENT

h. PLANT / UNIT PROCEDURE DATE ~ COMMENTS

\

\\

'N \\\ \\

x s\-

s\

o I

1 n i l i

\

r ._

CONTROL ROOM ARRANGIMENT

,if' \ PLANT / UNIT PROCEDURE DATE CCFRNTS A

5s N'  %

N

\

N

'O i

l l

l l

t 1

'O -

I l

e.

4

/n CONTROL ROCM ARRANGEMENT 1

.. - PLANT / UNIT PROCEDURE DATE COPEENTS

/ -

N l

/ / x

/ \

/ '\

6 M

- M

/ _ -

M -

f I

i l

t I

l l (vn-r

. - , . - - - - - - -, ,- ,ie-'v w w- *'W*T*-' ~ ' - " " * - * ' ' ""'T'~~ ^ " " " * "

I I

. I l

I f

l CONTROL ROOM SURVEY  ;

PHOTO LOG

( . - - . . _

' P] ant / Unit i

Photo - Panel Checklist Nesnber Number Item Notes 1

1 e

r

}.

t et i

c / [yn

' Q'

. . - . . . . - . - . - . . - . - . - . - . ~ . - . - - - . . - , , . - . - . . - - . . . - , . - . . - . . - . - - - - . . - . -