ML20134A562

Rev 2 to Design Reviews

ML20134A562
Person / Time
Site:	05200003
Issue date:	01/15/1997
From:	WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML20134A548	List: ML20134A550 ML20134A555 ML20134A562 ML20134A580 ML20134A585 ML20134A590 ML20134A600 ML20134A606 ML20134A615 NSD-NRC-97-4938, Addresses Dser Chapter 18 Open Items for NUREG-0711,Elements 1 & 7 Which Are Related to Info from WCAP-12601,Rev 19, AP600 Program Operating Procedures. Requests That Draft WCAP-14822,be Reviewed
References
AP-3.5, NUDOCS 9701280364
Download: ML20134A562 (5)

Text

-.

i 4

y AP 3.5 2

W Westinghouse Electric Corporation

" Nuclear Projects Division DESIGN REVIEWS AP600 H. J. BruscN. General Manager j

Program Operating Procedure Nuclear Projects Division AUTHOR / COGNIZANT Contact Manager, AP600 Quality Assurance, on j

FUNCTION questions concerning this procedure.

l ws l

PURPOSE T*re procedure describes the method for preparing, conducting, and documenting formal Design Reviews (DR) performed for the purpose of Design Verification. This procedure may also be used as a guide for non-verification Design Reviews.

I SCOPE This procedure applies to all Design Reviews conducted for the AP600 project.

DEFINITIONS See Procedure ESBU 4.12 I

General Design Reviews for the AP600 project shall be per' armed in I

accordance with procedure ESBU 4.12 of the ESBU Ouality i

Policy / Procedure Manual with the following modifications:

I 1.

In addition to the responsibilities established in I

ESBU 4.12, the Cognizant Design Manager is responsible I

for.

i I

a.

obtaining an AP600 document number for the I

design review report, and I

b.

ensuring that design review action items are I

entered into the AP600 open item tracking system.

i 2.

The Cognizant Design Manager, rather than the Design l

Review Chairman, is also responsible for following design j

i review action items and ensuring that they are completed.

I 3.

The general design review checklist per ESBU 4.12 is I

provided for guidance. Altemate checklists may be used I

as deemed appropriate by the Design Review Chairman.

i l

in any case, in addition t responsibilities established I

in ESBU 4.12, the Dosi yvjew Chairman is responsible i

for determining the ;ppli

wfity of the Human Factors I

Checklist per Appendix A of this procedure and I

incorporating it into the review as applicable.

m M mA344sw.wyt:1b 011697 Page 1 of 5 0008.FRM 9701280364 970115 PDR ADOCK 05200003 A

PDR

AP 3.5 2

1 4.

Intermediate and Final Design Reviews shall include a i

review of the Preliminary and Intermediate Design l

Reviews (respectively) to assure closure of outstanding I

actions.

I S.

The Design Review report format is given in Appendix B l

of this procedure.

I REFERENCES A.

ESBU Quality Policy / Procedures Manual FORMS / EXHIBITS AP600 Document Cover Sheet, Form 58202, Exhibit 10 I

I APPENDICES A.

Human Factors Engineering Checklist B.

Design Review Report Format A

w 6

4 m:044sw.wpf:1b-011697 Page 2 of 5 0008.FRM

)

\\

4

j.

AP 3.5 2

~

l APPENDIX A l

HUMAN FACTORS CHECKLIST i

l A.

Product / User identification:

1 1.

Are the objectives of the product user system appropriately defined?

i 1

2.

Are the functions required to achieve the product user system objectives j

l appropriately defined?

i l

3.

Are the fur,ctions shared between the user and the product allocated in a way

[

l that mest effectively utilizes the capabilities of each (automation or manual or I

combination)?

I 4.

Are the users' tasks appropriately defined for anticipated modes of operation?

I S.

Has an operating experience review been conducted to identify human factors I

issuer, encountered in previous designs so that they can be avoided in the j

i development of the current system, or in the case of positive features, to l

l ensure their retention?

i i

B.

Information Requirements for the Human System Interface:

I 1.

Are the user's information requirements clearly defined for each of the tasks j

I defined above?

I 2.

Do the displays, reference materials, and navigation lin pear to satisfy I

these information requirements by providing the required amount of data with I

the necessary accuracy and response time?

I 3.

Are data presented in a concise, directly usable form? If not, can the user I

interpret the provided data quickly and accurately enough to complete the I

identified tasks successfully?

i l

l 4.

Have the data provided to the user been limited to that which is necessary to l

l satisfy the identified information requirements?

i i

C.

Data Presortation and Controls for the Human System Interface (HSI):

I 1.

Do. o 1 trol and display hardware and organization appear to match operational I

requirements as defined by utility requirements?

1 2.

Are numeric data presented in units which the user expects and understands?

{

l Does the range of numeric displays encompass minimum and maximum i

l operational values?

4 m:u44sw.wpt:1b-ot1697 Page 3 of 5 0008.FRM

AP 3.5 2

l APPENDIX A (Continued) l 3.

Are the schemes for labeling and coding controls, disolays, and data legible, I

meaningful, and consistent? Does the HSI design fahow a set of HSI design guidelinesgo that there is consistency across displays and controls [

I l

4.

Does the HSI resource include features to minimize errors and facilitate users I

in detecting, and recovering from, potential errors they may make?

I 5.

Are display mechanisms fault tolerant? For example, are there provisions for l

loss of color in a CRT display, are there provisions for loss of an indicator light, l

etc.?

W l

6.

Do the displays include data quality coding to clearly indicate Ahen sensors I

have failed or values are out-of range?

l i

D.

Work Station (Operation and Control Center System; MCR, TSC, RSR, Local):

I 1.

Do the physical dimensions of the HSI resource take into account reach, I

strength, and sensory limitations throughout the range of anticipated users?

l 2.

Does the layout of the HSI resource provide an optimal arrangement for I

interactions between users and between the user and the equipment?

I 3.

Do the illumination, sound, temperature, and ventilation levels permit the user to i

perform required tasks satisfactorily?

I 4.

Are these provisions for the user's safety and comfort?

I E.

Maintenance and Repair

• ge#

I 1.

Have the maintenance requirements of the HSI resourceevaluated and i

documented?

l 2.

Do maintenance and repair tasks for the HSI resource place reasonable I

technical and physical demands on service personnel?

I F.

Design Verification:

1 1.

Is the HSI resource evaluated through walk through studies, simulation studies, I

or some analysis to verify that the product-user system objectives (see g.5<tf I

above) and functions have been achieved?

A.4 i

)

mA344sw.wpf:1t@t1697 Page 4 of 5 0008.FRM o

=

~

AP 3.5 2

1 j

APPENDIX B J

DESIGN REVIEW REPORT FORMAT COVER PAGE AP600 Document Cover Sheet, Form 58202 4

i AP600 DOCUMENT NUMBER A document number should be assigned to the i

Design review report in accordance with GW GMP 005, ' Document Numbering Procedure.'

i a

i j

. SECTION TITLE i

1 Introduction Give data and place of design review; identify design review Chairperson, members, and secretary, 2

Scope Define scope of the design review (e.g., ' Scope was to evaluate the design impacts involved in changing from Design 'A' to Design "B').

3.

Summary Sate the number of action items and provide an overview of the action item concems.

4.

Conclusion j

State DR committee's conclusion (s) based on material presented in the DR meeting (s) 5.

Attachments a.

List of all presenters and observers in attendance at the Design Review meeting (s) b.

Design Review Information Sheet (s) c.

Design Review agenda which identifies the items presented in the Design Review meeting (s) d.

Action item Chits issued e.

List and copy of the Design Review presentations

.c_

m244sw.wpt:tb.ot tso7 Page 5 of 5 0008.FRM o

s