ML20138J287
| ML20138J287 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05200003 |
| Issue date: | 01/27/1997 |
| From: | WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138J282 | List: |
| References | |
| WCAP-14396, WCAP-14396-R02, WCAP-14396-R2, NUDOCS 9702060336 | |
| Download: ML20138J287 (68) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. .
> e *
,7 , , ' * . . .; . e , ',* , N' . ' "j
,- -, [-- f.'.',.,^'. .[ , .'
.. + , . .'ig,'.,
. i. g, -
.,[ ( . .: I ; j ?i ,*. _.
r (. -[ , .
;.,.. ... . . . ..f. - - ., . ; $ .. . , . , . . , . . .
.,,.c: . .} r.
., ., . . , . . *. +, . .
* ., .-, . . . 4. .(. ..r,
- 3. ...
.. ....,.p.4,..,s.....c..
4j-' .,.j . .",<* '. . ';
' . ,A - . j .-
.,...,..:.~,.
,,0 f,g
' . - ;.}? " ,z ' - - ; /* , /j h' . [ '. . .),'i .- [.f. gav , ': . .. ; :," h '
,- 6, *q's ..,",f ,: ,'.).. * '
,* . . , ; . ,. .. s } . y - , , ; ; . - .
. , 'r g ....,g ... - , , .- ,u, ... .,. *
' , ' ,. j ,,,, , 7.,,,:., . .c4'}.
q 9 '
,7:.1l,. y 4 l%,' y': , . . .
q.4 , ., .b, .: i g. 's,* y p ,. ., .. . ) , . - Tf . . .;. kl 3:,; .) g y? 4 s
*;j.f.
.._ m;,,;: . s
,y .., ','.'J3,.'.. .
'.3.,,*,-,./*<,J. ,, _ 7,* ;, . _ y_*
;2 ,
. , i .,. .. *.j . .' , *. .-1'JJ .Eg .,,,L : . - w. ,_
.. .~;;,;;.3 3.g _ _ ,_ ' .-,,
,.l,.,.J.',..-
- T.g 3;, '._'}l ..1;9,j-[:. ;., :y 2. :(.J' ,
.7. l'}
h d.:, #, -64. e , .g **' s ' J' , . * : :
.s
-- i.,. ,,;..(, .....,
*'.. ...$. i,., - ; g,y', . ./ i 4 4. t y , .i.,..
. I d . e. .
,~..g..}',g,('
- .y .-
' -, ,".e.,%. -<
. . g: ..- - *. .- .
,g , .F;!-
.,.V. . .:,f . . .j . :
- g. . e;
., . . . .,. .t~ r . .,;g\;
. .-;.-. ,,. .:._ .;. .- ,7*
. y . . ;, .,.u..x,,....a..-
.I ,s.. .;
; ..(. fs .,g...,
.. . . . v+3.......
.v> y. d.'.
gr_, ;~,'., .
. :, ,dr :--: ; q .ar g.....
- c- ., yr . . ._
...y. e a.. ,. , -_L, ~. ~ ;e. 2 . < ,. .. .;..~.- . , ;y .. ~:
o a e
;,.' y
;.-v'
.;. , ' . . . ,'.s ~ .s <,
a ;.- 2 )m ,a+.. - .,
,'.-,y-.s.{q.y3, ;; ;e,.-hp - ,., ...;',-
*u . . . . , , ,
.. ;' <s,. ' / g. ;.* ' - e= . - f, c :. : 4' '., :;,
- .3.. , . .
....,b.,".fp;.'......
..,',.....,l,,,o,e. .. .e,,..l:; '. . ac; . -.[ y^. .. e
.s.. - ,1.,sr ,
p.
~ - - a.,- ,. , ,;g . .. A. -. *-f..,1, . s, ~, . :, - ,. ...
% .C ?: j " , )' '.;.,f:%l.:,';W.
o .
',;.(, , t :
M.c'., l:.&* lg.& -l ?<.s t,'s -_ ';.? y ..'n ,' qf: [.y,l'. .&,' s. '. ' (
, . v: s ..
; ~*.* lf,': .*r
;.'...: ',f'..!: 9 j?! g . $. s *r;
? '.. "... g :g.. .)..:;}~. ~ :;; ? . ;u.r.;\ ~. . .. q:,L. .A.,,?
*.o ss.
<' :2 . _ < , *i a ;i;,. ,- s:fw,3..y: w.; gl,. _ .; :e: !V. . sf..,. ' . . ...:'
. . .;. b..s...~
8.
; s y .s :. t . W.uQ..c ,;-.. > ;. y a ..: < : .=. y i.b . :g % ,
- ..;.?? . a :.:.- ' sea .: f <:s :v. . . [ :. :, "
4 .
.' .I
* ^ ^
'y-
*~ , . ?. , ; _
- ,, . .l- . :. -
, _ l .*'i'if- l_ . i. ? , *l.R
. . ... ;
- c -Q n- ;
,; , '_ :, r-- ;p . '?* -
,fW 'h . .. . .l ' ;
. I i' { v Q .N, ^ ' '*l ' ., , .
w,h. ?! ?,%,* hQ,V, s . ,4*'!:h:,*v p?,;;;hp by- .:..'.. .3', .,,.ts.,.O. . .'. , . .. ,. . : r.,,.t',,.,..- y
- s. . .v:.. :r . z,. s .. ..,-
I. - v h n' .4,y, . ,Dll .'s ) ; *p,.
.m n 1' .
. - . . . . . v. g.
- y. ' '" * ... ,
1 -
.c
. 'g 't.} #', '.h'.4 ,;f. y - l ,\ .. 'j;,., . ~< ,,. ;} g* ,{f. g , ';. ,.N.;. ; ' .
.? << .; . jf.f - . , *g,i s',t", , 's .?, . ;", 's , . y T. ]. ).. .. ~<. , *
- . 4,!,*. :, t ] f ..-
. c. , . ., y;. ;/ @,. ) j.
,s. . . . . . . - .a. .'e 4 -..
g:.,.,.,...s,f..','-
-n.: p : $ ..g
. . - . . . . e ... s.g 3r. ... , 3 ..-($. .- , ..$,.
. , ....3 . . . . . . . . . :,.,,.,a..:.s.... >> .,,t?
.*-e,h./,.....,....,.wr'
. .,, :.: S.*.
- - . .:4- 3. . .. T . .. n. . .. . .,;. ,@s...
.c .4 . ;g - . .- . ,. 'j..,
. . . .r.....<-.
4..
. . , f...-
r.,..'.~,.*.#..' . ,' ....'.,s..\,.:s* .:.u...-'?'.. ,..y; y ,
.~..
.,...j*- .
; . c .-
\. -{ ;,--c.,
g , ,q y,J . f
...r,..y ..,,s ... 4.p ,, ;- o ...... 'v s.i
.. , g. --- .. <- ..g 3.. es&n
- - :.5 a -:1.
5 ., .t.., -
.j' 'If. v *ll " j.l.i; r.-;.T .;', ;e ,
;.. 'h{y;f._W,:. $.,' ,'c.
;..l. ', .y ; &n_ V.
1 {,ll, .;.*,, .,~..cy } E'. ,* . ' ' . .. -
<. - ' ! . . ;U *
..; ' l'f ., y :-_ h . ' ,*. . ,...c'",-:
. _..', ' j., ..(,*,
. . , .,' 'y-.; . :. , * %
^ - '
,* ,,:..s.
. - ..: x -
.,g, .,..,,,:... -' , . . - . ~ja "
* . _..,.m,-. ,e j,.- *; ., j -
*...3..l.g,,.A...
4.; , .,
- s. ,5.-
t, -
!.l,...-
e
,.( - . . . , .. - . - . i v..; **, ,:.,,..,...,.
a
,7 -
.c- -
4 ..> ;,...... - ... . . .
$.',.g, j .
;. . . . . .- . n. =, ..- - , - :.-*.> . . .
3,,, c,y ,
. ' .y , r 'o..
..,..."..e,,,, :
v .,,
. .*. . :' : s .:
s
. 1
. ., . , , . . "...,_.,,'.~:*...
.. e, . . ' . . . . <.. - . , . -
...l-
.s ' ;.*.. , . .s1m' w , . , . . + ,. - ~. .....,..f,,......:,,'y,,s
.. ., ;_.,. ...: ,....,f -. . . .. .._ ..-;'l l,: *. .. . <;; -
. , . . ~-
. . , . . . ..i.',,',.. ' '. .. ..>. . ,.-7
,' . ?.'. . . , . -.:,....'......!.......1,.
- . * ' . ' . ., . ' , . .*- a.3 -. ,,. , .'@.,..
t, s- , , , . . , - . ..k
)':'... '
.'. .. s.'i,-' : : ' '. *:' --
.-: . .. .'.....': ,; . s.
-,'..~*':r,,'... *: e . :'y; L, ._,,Wy e
.i . ' * ., ' . . ~ ..; :?*/-;
.. r.J~ ,,
.. : /, : ": . '
_;, .. . . ; .,- .. ... r;. - ' ,. . :-,,? '; .~..., .:--f
..y. ~.u- r ., . . , . , .: . . - .
? . :n,. , a _
-s,. . ; . . ..
. ... .';' ; ';, ,, : ( ( .. ^ :R. . : ,,n' - --
'. : : } c';.' )-
,. i -* ';, - .'- '.s .e. ,.,9 e )
*' . ' , - , , - . - ' ?-
.i
~-- G .
_ . ;t.-
,l-
. - . , .'. a *-. .,.. - , ., .
,._, . . . - . . ~ . .* ?.. . ' ..s ' '..'/.,'!. .4.,. 4.:.s.. - :. - ;':.- .,. ' . . , - . . . ... , . . c..- ? .6- - * . ..
. ..*.a-v s .r:;.. *... .. .. , ..e. ,' *.; ,{ .-. ..*.'- _.g',, .
. '. ** ..,,.i'.,, e., . , . .
3
- ; . . ; f ;., , ' ( -' . .
' 4 .. . . . '
- ';....,.,. . . . . . .. .. . . - : ~ .+ : .- .y_; ' : '. ... J. * ...',;'.'. , :;,. . ,, ~, .:..
e :. v. .- . .; ; .: : . n. : . -
.. n : .:::. ...,.
. .. . .,. -. .. .. . :. .. . . . .,.,.':". ...'.-...y..,....
..~.c. .., ...-.. . ~ ..:
,., * ... . . - : . r.> '.
c' 4..- - .-
,. . . ',. .: n. . * . -
' < , _ , -' *: ; .: s,,,. ;, :. , :.. . . . . ... ., '.. .. ... - .- *
- .-r~ ,m*.....-
1, r
.,.~,.%.........; . .' .:.;.
. .,*?.,3: '. : :: *,:
. . . .. .- ;.'.y..,...,..r..',........
t.. :. .- - . - . ,.. .,:. _.. ..,.);.. .-,.p..., .-,_..;%...',,..:,. e-;. 2.
.,e s.. . . . . 7....,.;- >
,.-.v . .... .
.- n ;,, ....';~ ' , ,
.,..s..<,,g.,,c.n.. ,7 n
l- . ;4
,b, ,_,.,....:. :
.1 o
.- - - .l_ .
*.- ,'- .,.a....t.......-l
' ~ ,. ; u c,, i., q -p ,. ' r 's v..
e.; :;! .; .t*;. .. .
. _, _ : . e .. . ... . . - ; * .
4
- e. 3. s ,, ; ; .
a; , , . . ..- , ' ' . - i- . , _ , . . - ,,1
'....K,'_;- ;L ^ , .. , . . ,:,,- ._r
.,_-:7... , . _ , , . *., 'e g ;'.= 'j. .: .t . ..;
.; _- ' . . , : , . , q_: .-
., G. -
r: .; . _;
; . , .,..f,,. , e,.i.,;. t #
..;.,. l._.,-
...';,-l..:..' ,o -; . :
.. . s ' qz , '
, ';. : ..., e., ._ . ,
..';.-* -e . u .% . . -- V. ,'.., _ *...: t c .... ;<; .] ..; -J... . 9 . - t . t
.g .;r,
,'.L "; } ,.
..., -y v. ' . =:... ?.'
..e.' .:... '..,*' ..-.f.... . . -,' ; ,4.:s, ,...:.:. ;;.(. . ..,.; ..
., ..? . , . - . .
s 1 ..
,q .,( .. . ;.. . .. .g. .:. . , 5 . t,.
. .: e f. .r - l . ' : r .. _
~ - :
~3;,y. - : u .g.! _. : _y ..
.e r.. ., f ,. ,: . ' . p. . .
. , , . . ~ ,. > , ,. a.
. - ; ...,g. ;g , . .gf,,,:g.. . , ...,,.. v.. . . :....,;.t...:. ....,.
. .. '...y.
...i...y. .-U.,. c
. ,., , . . , - . , . . .;y ,;; t 7; . g ..
- r. ...: s... _
.*e. j.3..; ....L. .n; ...< . . ,'m, . . ;w'..;.*.-. ; ; . . .
s.r -...,...;...~
. .p ,,.'.'.s., ,,;..Tv_...;....
- : . -. ; .. : . .L. ..:f...,.........:
. . , . . y, .
4.,...,t>...;
.. . . .a.... -.*.. . . . .
- n. .. . ,g:,..,..w s - . u ~. . .
e
.2... .-
- c. .
... .~ - .
' *.. ? ....,.....:..'
..0., .: .,.,. Q, . .' tb 2. ' ......'.'..,',N..I.O:, . .Y: -:. ..:a. .?.l;l': -
{ .... .; . ......n..,..,.>....,.. ; . .G. ..l.>: f. 5. .- ".b{W. [f :l l ':.; . ,',.y, : u.O._
.v. .. .' :.,...t ; ;;?dl. D.
_. . . . . . qi ','; ,.
.'4. e , .. ** *.. 4, :t 'i g;. , . . . - ."..
._.._.1
.,). #-, 9 . a,;: .- . *. . e *I?'. . ; '
%] 4 ' - . .$ :
-l)J ., '.; ; , .. . . ; L..' ..
f Y : ;. ?- O
':l,:, , n. l- : - :
- .r':, . /: % :*i
., ' _ .y .. 7: .- L .L %. :;p 3. , ,. o5- %. . :-)~y :,[, . . .. ;,.. '. . : . ..-.;. :
..,;h * .G . . % ' ' ; ' ':" . .s.., g,: : . ? ' ?.' . ,.; .f . . - - <-
- ; y
- .:g "_'t._ ).;. . .
s. A .:.. . .,:. ;
.Q. p q;. . . .Q ':_
....'.:...,. ... _ . . ' . . . .. . .;. . . . :r. ; . .L, :.:.:p ,: ,.. ,-,.-.c s:. .; . v.d.. w. . .y > ., ;. ' i. . .. . -n .j .; u; r.
s. a r ,. , q. x. #.:: ...*: . ;..:-~-.;,_ c. . .. -.. .:.. . _,$.. :+.v3,:..._ q, , .: . , . . : . w o :;. s .. ~. s. ,r s ;~< .: .....w:4:n< 4 . ._ _.......r~.
. s .: . . ,
.. .: .~ : :-
i > v p. , g h ;,,. ; v ;; .; >.; .; gn: .y: _ .. . ;; . . . .y
., s !.!...,...:.
. -. .,...,.y-
* : : :. .r , ; . ;; r ~ ; . . :.; R: .;p:,b. . w :. : -;;;:.* , . . .} c. :?. ;y ::. ;t ; . e..: q: b ; . 2 ::: / . - -k. '..; .q: p. - y.
;.L. y ,.; , . . ' = y' _ .,,: ' .;'_:;' g. >.y
- , ;;') ;r e . -
- i.- .* ..:: : . .. .. . s: :, - - .y .
. . - y...
- .::.:.\.'... , r
. .:..',...s.-
. ,- ' ; .. . ,, .. g
/ ._,t, .g-,;;,. f-.. ..u.:' : . ;;: * ' . 4, : ya.. , 1 w ,.',. v : .*
. . - . . . . .; .s - i -
.'*.. . ; ; ',. ;; < < . .: :_ ; : :. .:. _..,. ;* c ; : . .;:.; , : . , :: .. .. . R ... . ;..-.K.
k,,,:._'.'.:-...1,.T..,...:
. ;', : e 1.,.!; .
......r..;2.,,..u.4.~.m- . ;
. ,p ;.*.; :+:- e..- s.>..
.p,,.., ..s.'m. . :-. :.9 .er- . ' . , . . ..
.~o ..s -s s . .:.
.,a. . . /: ,s...:.
.... L :
g :3.- . n ... .:4. . . z. . , ; .c V= ,f. . .- .e u..,. .' .;. . , . . . . . s.- . s- s .c
,..f....e.'.'....i j; '; ; .. * * .A.
b,: ,:' .' h ; ., : [ :.: ., j ' j;, . ., s.R .y ,. . ., C*'__ J ., . , ;
- . '{ :: .' J.'. . . ..l . *.
J,,,
.4 7 (.. . \. g .,4 ,., .'.. %,; - ' ';i:M.,n
.;.'.% .% ,,,: 9. ' % ' . ' % ,l: ".,. 't . l :. .o..,". ,. . '. s ?'. c f.. .
. . t
.. , . , ..l ; ; .,, . .- ,.
' . -. ;...; .-. ,.._ ',y:. , b. ;1 :qs:.- ;,. ;;. , c : , .. , e; ;- - y... ..f,,._.._-. ' , ,t, .;,;: y 4 ~ , . '.
- _: .L
- uf;. ... f ; . _ -
[ -l .g*. 3..-4, s
- v. .y;, y. .,_..;.i , . .,.3...;w
, . . - r;
_;- s ,.:..t'.. ;; - .,y..'- i,.,.m.. c ,.' ...-;y.. !.;.',.,.:..* g.. c- ,.. ;.,,.n.,
': ;n ; . ; ...
..;;,Q,,..,,',.~,..".
r.- . .t .
'..: >; ' .* 4 ,._. . .
. ;*. ',; - ~ . . , :g;,\ --3' ; } .s;.' .. .,e3.'.~.,,.,{_'..,,.*- ;,..,
.,.,.;.ov .r.s,, : - _ . . . . . . , . . ' .
.- ;h'. .V. .',.. . .: ' . *f.. '. <:n..v:.,* -*'.:
; O.-
, . . . , ..: *. e :. t*...: . ?... r . :' . . 'c. .O.m.
~,-
. L,' . h.* ,co - .c .:. .\ *
.:. ' .. . .. .. . ..n
. s: .. ' . .
- s y ,y . .y.g a, . n . ... g .&,s
.. . . . . ..-.s...m.
..a . . , , . . .,y . ; ..
,e s < ,
. v.-.;.L.7..:.'.**".;,.-< , . , . . . . , . . . . --
f.,> 9... .- . .. , . .=.,.e.......c+g:,.<' .t,.,. r .
, ., s,... ..:... . ,,.c.g,.>
- g. f :4 . ..;; .: .
.,. mc. . %,; ;r .t....: =.,. . . ;r. .<a;
. . - s, . ;. . . , . ' . , -
, " < ,.,i..~..+
.c.g.',.,..,,... .:... : .
. . ,, s:. $'. , c. . . . s;.'.-,,...-
;$.v. g . . . . . . . . f .y. .e.. . . ...:e.,<
..a,,>< ; . ,c . .. . -
.,-:..: q.g. .,.,e
. y. .. , .,g., i .
.n.-
+ * ,,,, /* ..c..u..,..,:
* .
- d. : . . , , , q.
-:.;.x.,..,...,....gy( . ., . . .,. :.,.;;..,-.,
*uo, . - [
,,l .,s.
- q; y;
;..: . ,. .*.;s, ? , .~..,,3.*Q*-.;..,.,o.;*'., .s e, s, - . . . . .-,e...~~..,g;..,.,.',::+..,;
o
. ,.: 3
...2 , b ;lu;%, , . .. , . .~. .s...:..-
e
;>;,7,.
. ..~: : . . ..
.'s.,.>. u, g .: ;'.
;z, . . ,, . . e.
... ...;....:,.e..-:* _ f., , s-
,5.~...,.r.._,.
; ,g* 1,.. -
a...,
.. ' h , ;..
;- . - ._s '
.?...
,a t ,.i s, . . ' , . . . . . . .. '
s.
;;, e '. * * :" .: , . :,. .. : -',
. ;s
- '**; 2...l_ 4
,r.
-f y'. ::, ;t., *;.e.. ,. ,*. ,,,
.'.M.;; . *V.? ..',:.
f*,f W '+ '. q - '~j.;*:. ;:l .. ",; ',,c,f'; ?'.f' .\ .d:
,Fi.'<. a I_ , n ', ,*;..' , . y-;','- . . ~G
- q ,,. .;,' f,*.;.4c,: *:.; n.. . .;. .n d',* ; , ,,;.. _3. .
K '?..,*.;', y,. 9 ;g , . . ,;J '_ * ')'- ,7.v.
.'1..'.
_.*3*
*, , - J ,* : ..* . t.
*- ? . 4 ' *
" ;> ' * - -*i.'.- .. '*: ; .. ,,
'.....,yn,,'3;, ,A , . (
.v'd.+. :) .,;*
y., ,C: ,,a'....; ;:..q
*<.,..f..".'W,:.."
- c. .. ;*
,' i-[4., .wW. d
.S.;.,'. .' l
. .. n f.;., . g.
.- . .G 31 / a.h,:q,; n. ;. .- .,.
,'.1' .
.r , ;h *,'. ,.. c:
*y
. -: . : . c..
- a. n,,.,.;. . - - .,
, .- . , .e
, ; ,,. . .s e
- + s s
,...,.f..;<~.1.'* .,. f'., . ; ; e ,/ . .~7, / ,,, ,'4 } . . .-,.;r
- - . . . .'c
- < I .b,'...'
',..3.,.c.. 9 , -l...., .; .- ..3 .
W/. h ! .'c?:*; .. . ;f,iJ,- y.-. ;:# ,:.- .'..D. .:
'*.,,v.. . ...-'t. ~s ; ..._" .;. . . . . . :. . ,; . +. , - " .' :s%.
.. ::**: , . .:f .j f. ' % *.,.:,,.g.a. ; . . ;*;;., , ::, 9 .l ..e.';), .,,?.,;.;< . 7. .,j ... l.9. . -.. . ; . pp . ,. ,. .:-e ,,. n .. -;.~
, g
. p.
.,j.-- . , . . ,,..3 :
~ . .Q'.i.
,.W,.'.'.,_,,
';.-...*,..'.,.,,;s,-
a g. .-
- , . : 4.. 5:a . . -
, . . . - 5 . : v , ,~.$. %.. ; .q . . .
-: .,3,;
.- -' .:'Wy :; n'i..
~ , . tv-
.s .n~.e e
* . .: c.2 .' . - -.
.: y - ; :-Q,*i. i :;._ f, , . . .!, i *; .f_ L y,.. ..,...-i ' N':
' f. 4;,~.c.._...','.i.t**j~.
,i
. '* . -.'b s - ' Y.
i
;'n_ , * *l'f, . .l l.L. . , a.y.-..:; ':..V' ;* . n. . . f..- _r ,., .
-.; . . . - -:' . .: Y*&,!'9 y:r . e - .
.. , * ^ :1.
a.
- ,,q.*
. L.:.*< ' ' ,
- '1 ~ : Y. s :*
v,;:..;' y, ,:
*' , . -io . . %. :
^ . ;
r
. ..> : ' s : .:. .- ?c,. .) ...~v.. ;.. .., ;..,s;:;. .
.s.,. s 1. ;. .' ....:, . r .;,. . , .: . - ,, ,p . .::.. .' .%
, , '. '.. - g'. -.::., :.:. .s :;. " . 4. ,.. . . ? ...e. L $,.:. . , . .. _:. .._ :[: . . , . *. .'s . ., s . .p:s. e. . e 'c..: . ?. .
.o
..>;...v...,s,'.,
; ; ; :*. ,4 : 'Qi:[ ] -li,. ", .,: ; 7.*;,! e.- .l j,a Q f.~, f:p. . ., . }.'t. > *.'.):}: .. ' ., \.. . , . .
. ,* . . .; j *,,
.y* l V' , ,, .
_3...- .. ^~ i l:, ; j~..,_. y M; : , ;;;.,, . , 2 ; ;;. .: z.,..-.? ..: 1.',, . - - ..
. v. g .2...
L:.:7..$.l' .. 3 :,%m ..y.; 7:; ..;;
..p p.4 a v,;; g..;.%s..,;, - .., .y. ..w.. s..;; .*a. :.:.~. . . _,;;:. :. ;. ;g:;::;
*.. ,n,. .,. .* ,;
wl -.: ,y.) .;v.. . ;; #.:,.e
% ."..? * ;^ .r.*
....x 3, %.? -'
*:.* .'..i g. .t .- n,1;-:...:; s .,r. i..';:+.
* :;,, f,s . .* ;- ), ' %. .: * *l:;; y.y_- . . . .m. 1:,.X .:' ... ;s . -y^:. : .; : ' . , ,. .. .;.
, :. ..;.. . ':', .g : ,:. .'., J._.-.. .. 6Q
^D v:. ;.l % . . L' ; ; ., *
.'.:..p, ,4 . ? , * . , : :le ._: . :
, . . . . ,ce , , . . . . , . , g p. h*
5 s
......,r._n,- dl: , (._ .;;. ;..K,
, g;.f-, '/. ._ .., . . ; -*; '*:Jt'(f:;{$
...s,,1j....j,,:.'....,
$$ . n kp". _ ' ' ) . . . . < .: .
'..ej.l rr f.
.; ,3 :
.*.'n... pp. -. 7;; , s .
; .,,.,.l.
s- ..._,.,..,,.:.......,*
,- . - .....v.=.. .t :, . *; . - * ,: .
' ' :. '..,:. :~ :M. g-.'. ., .;.,
., A.,sov*' ..~ . - -.' .;,y: ;..f. , .4.. +. '.i. s. f. >: .g - (r " 1sc... . '.
.,..s.-s:
., :.% - -' .ls : . s ' *. :. .:'.'. g .,'* .:,e:',r, *,
a ':.g..,:s :s ' 4"a c ' ;-_q . . ' *. .. . -
.r'*
.n p ;, & ;. *s.
. ^
l, d'I)'.:._'I j {tl,..?w ?:',;;{ * ;;lt h..; f.;ff -'d ! ?l'.:!:k'. gf [^ f.,^.l !. . . is
^;',.. ' l' $'lt
. . . ' . . : f.*.N _ l .11 -:.,. . .f::_ k, 'n,*
r '['. s,:;..,.;,
.a .*
. . ;e; .._. .r-
. , . . ${v..h*..;.
g , , */ s t-r .e v
,y a.
?.,., , 7l. 4h. s.- ..v. .~. f.",.-.. ' ".,?.<.-'.s. . ."**, f ;' .t',?
,./ . . of . y.7 ; . .
. . . . . i* . ;g.. ?.t:.(., , ;; a
; . :u , ,*[:- , . (;._ . .:r.*d*.. . , .r, :r
.. 's' c.;
;:. *,.:.'['._t_,- ,. . .:.'.* . :; .; ;j
),.':.*. y.f; * , ..::-' .,;s :.qm'.
i , .g , ;; ,. _y. ) 6rM . >1; B;y..!
- . ' . %, sv.t y .;_,;;, J,9 * .':.y_g:.; q
,c...-p',_.,.-,;*
- . (M . .,,[*.,.. * '. * . y* _.'; ?. - "f.Q.'. z ._. '
~
n,.-' ; ;%.'... . . ~ -.. .. . , . - < s . ... ',3.
?* i,o.A-.1,-
~P.y' 5. . '.. '..:.r,:e -,~.,.,~...??,,;..
) -'-. :l.. .*. i;:.- ..
',. ..' ..'a..f .y; ,:. '.-. :. '; ; *; . ; e'.*G f,. ":.;- -
4 \ : * . ,.
' - ;y',.".,.,_.;,,..r..,.,.;.;m..<'...~.,..,'..
- k. t., *...n..,-. ' . ,.*: ., y; r.,.,,_.. 8v s . . _ .
.;.(s I* ),E.'I:'? . ! '
. W* :
, . "..:. ; .. ,k. . v:
?*
- S E
s
,l. ?.e*. ^.*g,;b ., . , , : ,,, _, ; ;va. ' :' ' f ',h, f .,f...g. .i Q;)r*. .. .. ,w.... .h;'b; : v* f, ,?- } & f.;',d.h.. .' ..nY,s' -
i.-s-* ..';.> /.\. . t. .' &, . . ,. p. .. -. -s. . _r ;,;; Y .. ,: _ '* *
- v. c. f
~?.~; ::1.g.: .
A. u.M .l i g.. ..R . ;, i,', y;c_ ;g ....r 7.n .0 ;; .hs-t.r.,;*. ,.:: , , . . ..r...:: .. :,ney, .s +, ty: & #f ,,;y'
- s. g x,3.:.IE. .M. . !. ,q, Q.w ..@m. .T. . c.;j.,h.R..
m y @_ v.}yl h.T.@y. :.... e....,
'e .[l 'O. *.
.E.M. 3..,f. M..m..,.k.
J
. @Q..e s
), , * .
m ... v. .,./?,
* .,.. y . R$. c., .D%, . ..g)Q @... .
'# ' .+ M e*
k@. W. .m.: M. .)m. ;g ' f.
.j. ,j,)w"{s, . ,& .. *. .=._- ,
5, e.,: 1.8.- .. ', h , '.*ql, b.*' a.*'d,^ ,I."w ,a. , p...v. .v, b' [ .
.*J #'.'u. .,g.fl. 'y' . ff**/e..:::k*,".'1.r.
- ..: ,s, , ' ,
..'.v..e.#
a s,,'. ~ . . A.,,.."g , '* ' s
,,,A
.^". ,:*
. . . . . . -'
- e^ d *
- 4
. g . ,... , ..,-' y.- f. *s*.gM
~
.+..NV,.(:...,...,
i} *
.7 l*.
' * . . '..','..r
. ' .* [
. . '. - ':. ; ,f ._,*;.s.
. . . , .#3',. .' o . .
t.e [. : . . ....n_;.q. ;r.. .' . '.Ih ' . '5: ..=? ..;*,. .O . . , a
'.h.
e
- s ,
~
.. , . Y )* .y' %;,....- N' '
_\, q . . 8 .
.' . . .;;. ;:. .*.l' ..g.'N.'y '., . , ; . R,. : .. s, i, m . , . .
; ?. , t *: '. :: . .
(? q'
. n i. ..:. ;...'*:>. ,s ,c;y. .: .* : ^. ;, v) a.%
. ~: ~ , .:: -i . . . '::%:- - ,:. . . y .; ,, - 'i h ,.
* %]; W". v. %' h'
. 3
.* .'* 3}ns',m,. a~ j.us a?.;;p,. ..l
' : - : %'% % '9 ':~.' % : .. .. ..
n.~. h.d.*%7^' s\.rac.> '. '?r ,* ; ,. u
.-{ t ~
I
.ws ,.,n v.. .,' : c.w.~ gw: ve.. n.:E.
. .w w.:. m w,. -. .
*a.c::
, . . ... :.xw.:w.,.. . .- -/.-;.: g. ..: n . m.,i .,:..".,.a.m... m. a...n . . . ma n ch w nwe~a ,; w:>a..; 4.p.. c. . .y,.e.p n .4,..,.s...c . .
m:..w<
. n.m.
~ :. ., :..,.g.;
, .z
. m.
t
. . . . . . - . .. . . m. - ... -
g...4 o.. pa. a n.< A 4
'9;[j.:.9..% .C ... f '. ,] [ } O Q. ...s.,.f .[. ;; };;&~ ..c.. ..] Q Wg Q.,).',{.h,,..&c.pC:.].([,.[Qp[.Q.'9)gg: ,
. .-QQ. . . - .,.. i. 3Gf&gWQ...,y.:je[.Qj:':.: : ::
6-Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 h WC AP-14396
$ '$ '$ $ $-'$ .$ $' Revision 2 Man-In-The-Loop Test Plan- '
Description s W e s tinghou se En e rgy Sys tems W -
@ 7 ';i 2 0 e 0 ] 3 '- 9 7C 1 f L+ r. ::n:n ' r _%< j g , 'o
l WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 ; I WCAP-14396 : Revision 2 ! MAN-IN-THE-LOOP TEST PLAN DESCRIPTION : [ l
- S. Kerch l E. Roth R.Mumaw l
l January 1997 i
- AP600 Document No. OCS-TS-001 l
i WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION Energy Systems Business Unit Nuclear Technology Division P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230-0355 C19% Westinghouse Electric Corporation j All Rights Reserved m:\3462w3pf:Ib412397
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 1.0 SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT l-1 2.0 CONCEPT TESTING AS PART OF HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING (HFE)/ 2-1 HUMAN SYSTEM INTERFACE (HSI) DESIGN PROCESS 2.1 Role of Concept Testing in the HSI Design Process 2-1 2.2 Overview of Concept Tests to be Performed 2-1 2.3 Testbeds for Concept Testing 2-2 2.4 Test Participants 2-3 2.5 Number of Participants 2-4 3.0 FORMAL V&V OF FINAL HSI DESIGN 3-1 3.1 Crew Sampling 3-2 3.2 Scenario Sampling 3-2 4.0 MAN-IN-THE-LOOP CONCEIrr TEST DESCRIPTIONS 4-1 4.1 Soft Controls 4-1 Concept Test 1. Simple control action execution and feedback
- Preliminary design concepts 4-1 Concept Test 2. Simple contrcl action execution and feedback
- AP600 Functional Design 4-3 Concept Test 3. Keeping pace with plant dynamics 4-3 4.2 Workstation Displays 4-4 Concept Test 4. Ability to navigate displays to find information 4-4 Concept Test 5. Coordination of physical and functional displays 4-5 4.3 Computerized Procedures 4-6 Concept Test 6. Usability of computerized procedures 4-6 Concept Test 7. Coordination of computerized procedures with workstation displays and soft controls 4-8 4.4 Wall Panel Information System (WPIS) 4-9 Concept Test 8. WPIS support for situation assessment 4-9 Concept Test 9. Ability of WPIS to support multiple crew member situation awareness 4-10 4.5 Alarm System 4-11 Concept Test 10. Alarm system organization and prioritization scheme 4-11
5.0 REFERENCES
5-1 m:\3462wspf Ib-012397 iij
. _ _ _ . _ . _ _ , _ . . . . _ . . _ . . _ _ . _ . _ . . ~ . _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _ . . _ _ . . _ _ _ .
1 I LIST OF TABLES , Table Title Pane i 9 2-1 List of Concept Tests 2-5 2-2 Mapping of Concept Tests to SSAR Evaluation Issues 2-6 ' f I i 1 i l r l l i p
.I i
l 1 l l l l l l l t l m:U462w.wpf.ItM)12397 jy
. _ . . _ _ . . , . _ . . . . ~ , ...- _ _ _ , _. . . . _ _ ___ _ .. _ ._. _ . _ . _ _ .
i i LIST OF FIGURES " Firure Title pm { 2-1 The Role of Concept Testing in the HSI Design Process 2-7 i i f l
?
l l l l I-i i i l t l l l l l , l
\
l i I l ! l l' . i i I t l l i 4 X-m:0462w.wpf;1b.012397 y
- _ . . _ . - . . . .. - .- -_. . .. .. . . .=-.- . . ._ - . -._ - . ._.. . . - . . _ . . . _
i l 1 LIST OF ACRONYMS l I CMT Core Makeup Tank l EOP Emergency Operating Procedure l HSI Human System Interface i LOCA Lors-of-Coolant-Accident , NPP Nuclear Power Plant , PCD Process Control Division l PRA Probabilistic Risk Assessment , PRHR Passive Residual Heat Removal I l l PWR Pressurized Water Reactor j
- SGTR Steam Generator Tube Rupture j l
SSAR Standard Safety Analysis Report l 4 i TS Technical Specifications j l V&V Verification & Validation I l 'VDU Video Display Unit l WPIS Wall Panel Information System l l i f I mA3462w.wpf:ll>012397 vi i
l 1.0 SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT l 1 This document describes the Man-in-the-Loop tests that are planned as part of the AP600 human i system interface (HSI) design process. It is intended as an adjunct to the HSI Design Verification and ! Validation (V&V) process provided in Chapter 18 (Section 18.11) of the Standard Safety Analysis j Report (SSAR).
)
i This document provides information supporting preparation for and scheduling of the Man-in-the-Loop tests to be conducted as part of the HSI design process. The document: Specifies the set of the Man-in-the-Loop tests that are to be conducted as part of the AP600 HSI design process l l
- Provides methodological details supporting preparation for conducting tests, including:
- Number and type of participants that will be required for different tests
- Hardware / software requirements for prototyping the HSI resources to be tested, and collecting human performance data
- HSI resources that will need to be designed, and specific displays that will need to be created to support testing.
In addition, this document clarifies which of the set of 17 Evaluation Issues specified in Chapter 18 of the SSAR are to be addressed as part of the HSI design process, and which are to be conducted as part of the formal human factors V&V to be performed on the final AP600 HSI design. This document does not provide detailed test procedures for the Man-in-the-Loop tests. At this stage in the AP600 HSI design process, it is not possible to develop complete and detailed specifications for all tests to be performed, specifically because the AP600 HSI has not been fully designed and test details will depend on the HSI design and the operational philosophy developed for how the HSI resources are to be used. Detailed test procedures will be prepared for each test when the test is to be conducted. This is intended to be a living document. Details of the Man-in-the-Loop tests are expected to be updated as the design evolves and feedback from Man-in-the-Loop tests are obtained. There are two testbeds available for implementing and testing AP600 HSI desigri concepts: (1)a low-fidelity testbed that has been implemented in the AP600 Main Control Room Test Facility at the Energy Center, and (2) a higher-fidelity, dynamic testbed being implemented at the Waltz Mill site. mV462w.wpf.It> 012397 l-1
! ? I i i The AP600 Main Control Room Test Facility established at the Westinghouse Energy Center was used to conduct the Concept Test 1 (Soft Control test). Refer to " Effects of Control Leg and Interaction l Mode on Operator's Use of Soft Controls," OCS-J1-008, for the report on the results of this test. l 1 i Several HS1 resources included in the AP600 control room are relatively mature designs that are in the I process of being implemented as retrofits in conventional pressurized water reactor (PWR) plants. t Examples of mature HSI resources include computerized procedures, the alarm system, and , workstation display system. These HSI resources have been installed in a high-fidelity training l simulator at the Westinghouse Waltz Mill site under a separate program funded by a utility customer , for acceptance testing of the HSI resources, and requalification training for their operator crews. This facility will be used to conduct Man-in-the-Loop tests of the HSI resources under dynamic plant ! simulation-driven conditions. ; l ' f , l l : l l l l I 5 l i i I I 1 l i I i m:\3462w.wpf.It>012397 12 l I
2.0 CONCEPT TESTING AS PART OF HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING (HFE)/HSI DESIGN PROCESS 2.1 Role of Concept Testing in the HSI Design Process l l Figure 2-1 shows the phases in the HSI design process and the role that concept testing plays in the j design process. Concept testing is performed as part of the functional design phase of the HSI design j process. It is during the functional design phase that the core conceptual design for an HSI resource and corresponding functional requirements are developed. An integral part of this phase is rapid I prototyping and testing of design concepts. Concept testing during the functional design phase serves two purposes:
- 1) It provides input to aid designers in resolving design issuesfor which there is no well-established ,
human factors guidance. An example might be assessing whether a system response time is I adequate to support operator performance on a time-critical task. A second example might be aiding a designer in selecting between alternative design concepts that have different strengths and weaknesses. An example might be determining whether it is preferable to include soft controls in information displays or dedicate a separate video display unit (VDU) for control stations.
- 2) It establishes the adequacy of the design concept andfunctional requirements that are produced in thsfunctional design stage. A main objective of concept testing is to establish that the conceptual design resulting from the functional design stage is adequate to support operator performance in the range of situations anticipated to arise. A major element in designing a concept test is to specify test scenarios representative of the range of situations and task complexities that can arise in actual events, ensuring that the HSI conceptual design is adequate to support operator performance in those complex cases.
2.2 Overview of Concept Tests to be Performed The starting point for the concept tests to be performed is the Human Factors V&V process description provided in Chapter 18 of the SSAR where 17 Evaluation Issues are defined. The first 15 Evaluation Issues are organized around particular human performance issues. Issues 16 and 17 correspond to formal verification and validation of the final HSI design, respectively. The concept tests described as part of Evaluation Issues 1-15 in the SSAR constitute the basis for the Man-in-the-Loop tests that are proposed as part of the HSI design process. These tests are consistent with rapid prototyping and testing activities described under Element 7 of the proposed NRC Human Factors Engineering Program Review Model for Advanced Nuclear Power Plants (O'Hara, Higgins & Stubler,1994). In Chapter 18 of the SSAR these concept tests are organized around human performance issues ensuring that all major human performance issues are covered. The present document takes the same performance issues to be evaluated, and reorganizes them around specific mM462w.wpf:ll>-ol2397 2-1
e i (
; HSI resources. This was done to enable concept testing to begin early in the HSI design process before all HSI resources have been fully designed and integrated.
The HSI resources addressed in these Man-in-the-Loop tests are:
- Soft controls i 1
- Workstation displays -
; .* Computerized procedures [
- Wall panel information system (WPIS) !
- Alarm system i Human performance issues addressed in Evaluation Issues 1-15 of SSAR Chapter 18 were reviewed and reorganized around the specific HSI elements associated with those issues. Based on this analysis, i i
Man-in-the-Loop concept tests were defined that could be conducted to examine human performance :
' issues associated with individual HSI resources, and Man-in-the-Loop concept tests that examined the !
- coordination of two or more HSI resources. ' The goal was to define Man-in-the-Loop tests that were ;
narrowly focused, enabling early testing of HSI design concepts. I j Table 2-1 lists the 10 concept tests proposed as part of the AP600 HSI design process. Table 2-2 ! j shows the correspondence between the concept tests and evaluation issues presented in Chapter 18 of . l l the SSAR. The majority of evaluation issues identified in Chapter 18 of the SSAR are addressed in l' j' one or more of the 10 concept tests proposed. The exceptions are Evaluation Issues 7-10 and 15. a These evaluation issues examine the impact of all the HSI resources on crew performance using a
- high-fidelity dynamic plant simulation. These issues are beyond the scope of this revision to the test )
- l. plan, but will be included in a future revision. l
- 2.3 Testbeds for Concept Testing l
The HSI resources included in the AP600 control room vary in their design maturity levels. The alarm system, computerized procedures, and workstation displays, and much of the functional design activity has already been completed as part of earlier Westinghouse projects. Concrete examples of these HSI resources exist for conventional pressurized water reactor (PWR) plants. Other HSI resources to be included in the AP600, specifically the WPIS and soft controls, have not been ; previously implemented in Westinghouse Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) control room designs. These l; HSI resources are in an earlier stage of the functional design process. Early concept testing will focus on the less mature HSI resources, since this is the area where input from concept testing can be most beneficial. l l An AP600 Main Control Room Test Facility, established at the Westinghouse Energy Center, included i capabilities for rapid prototyping of HSI design concepts. This facility enabled execution of the first I soft control test (Concept Test 1) under low-fidelity conditions. The AP600 Main Control Room Test Facility has been moved to the Waltz Mill site (April 19%) to take advantage of the high-fidelity j SNUPPS/Beznau plant simulator located at that site. m:042wspf:Ib.012397 2-2
l I l Versions of the advanced alarm system and workstation display system have been installed in the high-l fidelity SNUPPS/Beznau training simulator at Waltz Mill. This facility is being developed under a separate program funded by a utility customer for the purposes of acceptance testing of the HSI resources, and requalification training for their operator crews. Current plans are to conduct these acceptance tests in the simulator at Waltz Mill during June through August 1996. This high-fidelity simulation facility will enable Westinghouse to conduct AP600 HSI resource tests under dynamic, plant simulation-driven conditions. While the application being implemented at Waltz Mill is a conventional PWR plant rather than a passive plant design, key elements important to human performance (e.g., characteristics of the HSI, plant dynamics, operational philosophy) are sufficiently similar in the two types of plants that the ) results of concept tests performed at the Waltz Mill simulator facility will be valid for the AP600 plant. 2.4 Test Participants 1 In human factors literature, a distinction between two types of evaluations is made. There are: '
- l. Heuristic Evaluations - where experts in HSI design, human factors, and operations review prototypes that illustrate conceptual design
- 2. User Tests - where individuals from the target user population (i.e., actual NPP control room operators) are observed as they try to use a prototype under controlled conditions Several human factors studies have been conducted examining the relative value of Heuristic Evaluations and User Tests (Jeffries, Miller, Wharton, & Uyeda,1991; Jeffries & Desurvire,1992).
Generally these techniques are complementary, and a test plan combining both evaluations are advocated. Heuristic Evaluations identify serious problems early. User Tests are more definitive in establishing design adequacy. In the AP600 design, the distinction between Heuristic Evaluations and User Tests is obscured because no one has operating experience on AP600 plants. There is a proposal to use Westinghouse personnel from the training, procedures development, and HSI design groups who have NPP operational experience as test participants in the early concept tests. In later concept tests, operators from existing NPPs will be used, since they bring a complementary experience base and perspective. 2.5 Number of Participants l An issue surrounding the number of participants that should be included in each concept test has l surfaced. Recently, research has explicitly examined the proportion of usability problems detected as a j function of number of users tested or heuristic evaluators employed (Virzi,1992; Nielson & Landauer, 1993). A general finding is that the relationship between the number of test participants and l proportion of usability problems identified is well modeled as a Poisson process. m:\3462w.wpf;lb-012397 2-3
l x. , I l I i These studies suggest that five participants in an evaluation or test typically is sufficient to detect most ' (70 to 90 percent) of the serious HSI problems (Virzi,1992). This is particularly true with an iterative evaluation approach where repeated evaluations are conducted until the number of problems identified is very low.
)
i At an initial estimate, there will be at least five participants in each concept test. In later l l Man-in-the-Loop evaluations, the number of participants in a study may be adjusted to achieve a specific level of thoroughness in detecting problems that may exist. The math model parameters for the best-fit Poisson curve specific to AP600 Man-in-the-Loop testing will be better estimated when proceeding with the evaluations. Once these parameters are estimated, it ; is possible to specify a priori the number of participants that need to be included in a Man-in-the- , Loop test to identify a specific percentage of usability problems that exist in an HSI design (Nielson & Landauer,1993). For example, the number of participants that need to be included in the Man-in-the- ! Loop test in order to catch 95 percent of the usability problems could be specified. , ) l i i i l I I l m:\3462w.wpf:Ib-012397 2-4 i i I
-- - .=. - - _-. . . _ _. -
TABLE 2-1 LIST OF CONCEPT TESTS Soft Controls
; Concept Test 1: Simple control action execution and feedback (Preliminary design concepts)
Completed September 1994 Concept Test 2: Simple control action execution and feedback (Prototype based on functional requirements document) t Concept Test 3: Keeping pace with plant dynamics Workstation Displays Concept Test 4: Navigating displays to find information Concept Test 5: Coordinating physical and functional displays 1 Computerized Procedures I l
- Concept Test 6
- Usability of computerized procedures i Concept Test 7: Coordinating procedures, displays, and soft controls a
, Wall Panel Information System i Concept Test 8: Support for situation assessment (single person) 1 Concept Test 9: Support for multiple crew member performance Alarm System Concept Test 10: Alarm organization and prioritization scheme i 1 m:\3462w.wpf.lb-012397 2-5
.. . . - . - ~_. ._ __ _ _ .=. _ .-
1 l TABLE 2-2 MAPPING OF CONCEPT TESTS TO SSAR EVALUATION ISSUES Concept Test 1 Soft Workstation Computerized Alarm SSAR Evaluation Issues Controls Displays Procedures WPIS System
- l. Passive Monitoring Test 8 d
- 2. Directed Search Test 8 (WPIS)
- 3. Directed Search Test 4 l (Request)
- 4. Group Situation Test 9 Assessment
- 5. Alarm System Test 10
- 6. Interpretation and Test 5 l Planning
- 7. Response to Single-Fault Events
< 8. Response to Multiple- ' Fault Events ,
- 9. Interpretation and Planning - Crew
- 10. Interpretation and Planning - with TSC
- 11. Simple, Operator- Tests 1,2 Tests 6,7
, Paced Control
- 12. Conditional Operator- Test 2 Tests 6,7 Paced Control
- 13. Multiple Procedures Tests 6,7
- 14. Event-Placed Control Test 3 Tests 6,7 4
- 15. Control Tasks with 4
Crew Coordination mA3462wspf;1b-012397 2-6
s ; G \
?
4 _E
- i 9
m dii- M-MIS M-MIS j M-MIS Function-Based Functional Implernentation Desi n p Design + Task Analysis
+ Design + (Hardware Software + Integr ion !
- Basis Integration)
Y
- e
$ H a Resolve design issues P.t,
- Design concepts o
- Establish adequacy of E
- Functional 2 requirements design concept and w functional requirements s %
4 4 3 if 5'. 5 Concept Test o
~
3 Man-in-the-loop test of concrete example of functionaldesign: 2 i' Rapid p Wotype m g = Actual M-MIS for similar plant 2
l l l 3.0 FORMAL V&V OF FINAL HSI DESIGN Evaluations 16 and 17 in Chapter 18 of the SSAR represent the formal HFE/HSI design V&V. They will be performed when an AP600 plant has been purchased. The tests will be conducted using an AP600 dynamic, high-fidelity, training simulator. The formal V&V evaluations are not covered in this document; however, a high-level description of how the Man-in-the-Loop Validation Test (Evaluation Issue 17 in the SSAR) will be conducted clarifying the proposed approach is provided. As the evaluations proceed, a better estimate will be made regarding the math model parameters for the best-fit Poisson curve specific to AP600 Man-in-the-Loop testing. Once these parameters are estimated, it is possible to specify a priori to the number of participants needed in a Man-in-the-Loop l test to identify a specific percentage of usability problems that exist in an HSI design (Nielson &
)
Landauer,1993). For example, one could specify the number of participants that need to be included in the Man-in-the-Loop test to catch 95 percent of the usability problems. The purpose of the final V&V test is to establish that crews can achieve mission goals using the l AP600 HSI, and that no serious human factor deficiencies remain. The methodological approach l proposed is analogous to the methodology currently used to validate emergency operating procedures (EOPs) (cf. NUREG-0899; NUREG-1358; WCAPI1638; WCAP10599; INPO 83-006). The current process for validating EOPs employs a formal process for identifying, tracking, and resolving potential problems. An interdisciplinary observation team, which includes specialists in plant design, operations, procedures, and human factors, is brought together to observe operator crews go through pre-defined scenarios on a high-fidelity training simulator. The scenarios are selected to exercise different procedure branches and include a variety of complicated situations. The observation team documents any problems identified on discrepancy forms. These discrepancy forms are then reviewed, and recommendations for resolving the problem a- made. Westinghouse proposes to use an analogous approach for final validation of the AP600 HSI. Operator crews will be observed as they go through a predefined set of scenarios on an AP600-specific, high-fidelity training simulator. An interdisciplinary observation team will observe crew performance and document any problems observed. Since the AP600 HSI design will have undergone a series of tests prior to final validation, many problems should not be detected in the final validation test. Any problems that are detected will be evaluated for severity and recommendations for resolving the problem will be made. l l mA3462w wpf;1b-012397 3-1
l To ensure a thorough evaluation, an emphasis will be placed on: A representative sample of crews ;
=
A representative sample of scenarios that reflect events known to be important to maintain plant safety, and events known to be demanding from a human factors / cognitive perspective Use of redundant and convergent measures - More details on the performance measures included in the final validations are provided in Chapter 18 of the SSAR. 3.1 Crew Sampling ! I Participants in the final validation test will be the control room operators and related staff from the , I first AP600 plant to be built. All individuals undergoing training to operate the AP600 plant will participate in the validation study. This will include individuals who will be training to be plant control room operators and the management and administrative staff who will be receiving training for licensing purposes. Inclusion of all personnel licensed to run the AP600 plant in the validation test ' should ensure a representative sample that includes a wide range of experience and skill levels. 1 Final validation will be conducted when personnel will be undergoing training on the AP600 plant and j its operation. ! i 3.2 Scenario Sampling A multi-dimensional set of criteria will be used to derme the set of scenarios included in the final validation ensuring a wide sampling of situations. The dimensions considered include: A range of operational modes including normal and emergency operations
- Design basis events specific to AP600
= AP600-specific design features j
Scenarios including human performance actions identified as critical to plant safety Situations that produce cognitive challenges identified in the V&V process description in the SSAR, including AP600-specific scenarios that may: i l - Complicate situation assessment by providing degraded or conflicting plant state { information m:\3462w wpf:1b-012397 3-2
l l l l l
- Complicate response (e.g., require balancing of multiple goals; require manual takeover of
- automatic systems) l i
- Complicate performance by increasing personnel communication / coordination requirements
- Introduce high physical or mental workload l While it is premature to define the set of scenarios that will be included in the final AP600 validation, a preliminary list of the types of scenarios that need to be considered has been deve!oped based on l
discussions with engineers and training instructors familiar with the AP600 design:
- 1) Major Plant Transitions - Major transitions, such as significant heatup or cooldown transitions, cover multiple plant modes and require transitions for several types of equipment. These are typically hi h-workload t operations that also have significant surveillance requirements.
- 2) Reactor Startup - This component of plant startup is one of the most difficult and sensitive operations. The AP600 needs to be able to demonstrate its effectiveness here.
- 3) Power Production System Changes - During power operations, a critical role for the control room is to make transitions between power levels (e.g , transition to full power). In addition to the traditional reasons why this maneuver is imponant, the AP600 design introduces gray rods for cenain power transitions.
- 4) Mode 1 High-Power Operations - In Mode 1, an important maneuver is the load-follow evolutions.
The AP600 relies on gray rods and boron control for this set of operations.
- 5) Maintenance Support at Full Power (tag-out) - Tag-out is an imponant element of operation.
AP600 validation needs to show that testing and maintenance are well supported, and that there are adequate ties to the Technical Specification document.
- 6) Shutdown Operations - The control room has a number of important duties during shutdown. One element of operations important in the AP600 is the transition from RCS intact to RCS open (mid-loop).
- 7) Accidents and Emergency Operations - Emergency operations are always an important part of V&V. Cenainty within a range of events is important. AP600 design issues indicate that the following events may be appropriate to include in the final validation:
= Loss of main feedwater where passive residual heat removal (PRHR) is required
= Sequence involving core makeup tank (CMT) actuation l
= Steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) l
= Very small losc-of-coolant-accident (LOCA) with CMT recirculation m:\3462w.wpf Ib-012397 3-3
- Instrumentation & Control (I&C) failures of Protection and Safety Monitoring System (PMS) !
l (crossover to DAS)
- Shutdown events The actual set of scenarios included in the final validation will be defined by an interdisciplinary team, l including input from AP600 design engineers, EOP developers, training instructors, HSI designers, ;
human factors specialists, and human reliability analysis /probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) analysts. i l J I i l m:\3462w.wpf:Ib-012397 3-4
. - . - - - , _ - _ . - - - .-. _ _ . _ . - --. . - ... . _ ~ .
i i 4 i l 4.0 MAN IN-THE-LOOP CONCEPT TEST DESCRIPTIONS i i : i ] Below are descriptions of concept tests to be conducted as part of the HSI design process. The j i descriptions are organized around specific HSI resources. i i Each concept test includes a description of the issue (s) to be evaluated, the test method to be , employed, testbed characteristics required to run the test, type of materials required, performance measures to be recorded, and expected test outcome (i.e., types of conclusions and recommendations i expected). ! I The evaluation issue (s) specified in the SSAR that are addressed by the concept test are presented in parentheses under the issues headmg. ! These test descriptions are not intended to replace detailed test procedures. A detailed test procedure should be prepared for each test close to the time that the test is to be conducted. t 4.1 Soft Controls ! Concent Test 1: Simple control action execution and feedback - Preliminary design concepts. This [ test was completed September 1994. Issue: The ability for the soft controls provided in the workstation to adequately support the operator ! in execution of simple, operator-paced, control actions. (Evaluation Issue 11) t The initial test evaluated preliminary soft control design concepts that draw on current soft-control designs and soft control capabilities of the Process Control Division (PCD) graphics software. The concept test assessed the ability for the soft controls to support operators in selecting and bringing up a control station, raking the control action and receiving feedback with respect to whether the control action was actua':d as intended, whether the control action had the desired effect on plant state, and where the control was not actuated as intended, the reason why. Specific issues include: 1
- Ability of the soft control design to support a range of control activities that:
t
- Arise in discrete and continuous control actions
- Require simultaneous control of several controls i
- Require sequential execution of controls
- Require monitoring automated systems and taking manual control as necessary, m:\3462w.wpf:lb-012397 4-1
l
- Ability of operator to:
- Evaluate current control state, target, and limit values ,
- Determine possible and desired control action ,
- Enable effective control when there are time lags j
- Obtain and interpret feedback on actuation of control action i
- Identify and recover from errors
- Determine when action cannot be performed because desired conditions are not satisfied ;
(such as interlocks or limits on rates) Test Method: The participant was asked to perform simple, operator-paced control actions. For l example, the panicipant was asked to open a valve, increase flow to some target value, perform a simple proceduralized sequence, and monitor the activity of an automated system and take manual I control if necessary. The participant was required to bring up the appropriate control (s), take the I control action (s), indicate whether the control actions were actuated, and whether the desired plant state 'was achieved. I Testbed Characteristics: This test was performed in the AP600 Main Control Room Test Facility, located in the Westinghouse Energy Center. Conceptual designs were developed as workstation-based , prototypes. The set of displays and controls were dynamic in functionality (activating soft controls j resulted in appropriate changes in the displays) but were not tied to a high-fidelity plant simulation. I Rudimentary math models that enabled changes to occur in displayed plant parameters based on
]
control actions were used to drive the displays and soft controls. The math model used to drive the l display allowed specification of different functional relationships between control actions and their i effect on plant pararneters (linear relation, logarithmic relation) and different lags to mimic different : types of controls. ] 1 Type of Materials: A set of control scenarios were defined that exemplified types of control j activities expected to arise in the AP600 plant, (such as discrete control tasks, and continuous control .; tasks). ; Performance Measures: To assess that performance issues' response times were recorded, sequences of actions were documented, and subjective ratings were obtained. Subjective ratings gave subjective j feedback on design adequacy. l Outcome: Test results provided data to support development of the functional requirements for soft controls for AP600. mA3462w.wpf;Ib-012397 4-2
I Concept Test 2: Simple control action execution and feedback - AP600 Functional Design 1 This test is similar to Concept Test 1, but is performed later in the functional design process. The test will be conducted using prototype displays that are representative of the AP600 soft controls functional 2 design. This test establishes the adequacy of the AP600 soft control functional design and functional l requirernents for simple, self-paced control tasks. j 4 Issue: The types of issues to be addressed will be similar to the issues addressed in Concept Test 1. l j The specific issues addressed will depend on the results of Concept Test 1, and the set of design issues that arise during the AP600 soft control functional design process for which Man-in-the-Loop concept test data is desired. The test will address the issues described in Evaluation Issues 11 and 12. d Test Method: The participant will be asked to perform simple, operator-paced control actions. The participant will be required to bring up appropriate control (s), take the control action (s), indicate whether the control actions were actuated and whether the desired plant state was achieved, and, in cases where the control action failed, indicate why it failed. J Testbed Characteristics: This test will be performed in the AP600 Main Control Room Test Facility. The set of displays and controls will be dynamic in functionality (i.e., activating soft controls will result in appropriate changes in the displays) but need not be tied to a high-fidelity plant simulation. i Type of Materials: A set of control scenarios will be defined that exemplify the different types of control activities that are expected to arise in the AP600 plant (such as discrete control tasks, continuous control tasks, and tasks that involve simultaneous control of multiple controls). These scenarios will include cases where the control action is blocked (due to interlocks, limits on rates, and equipment malfunction). Performance Measures: To assess performance issues identified above, response times will be recorded, sequences of actions will be documented, and subjective ratings obtained. Subjective ratings
- allow for subject feedback on design adequacy.
j Outcome: Test results will establish the adequacy of the functional requirements for soft controls for AP600 simple control tasks. Concept Test 3: Keeping pace with plant dynamics Issues: Soft controls supporting the operator in executing control actions and evaluating feedback in f pace with the event. (Evaluation Issue 14) I d Workstation Physical and Functional Displays should support the operator in locating relevant displays and executing soft controls at a rate that allows operators to keep pace with the event. (Evaluation Issue 14). mA3462w.wpf:Ib-012397 4-3
This evaluation determines whether the soft control design that comes out of the first evaluation supports performance in a more realistic setting where operators are required to keep pace with a plant evolution. Test Method: The participants will be asked to perform several control evolutions involving both manual and supervisory control of automated systems. Examples will include cases where the plant dynamics are rapid and cases where the plant dynamics are slow. It will include cases where the control maneuvers go as planned, cases where components fail, and cases where automated systems fail and manual takeover is required. Testbed Characteristics: This test will be performed in the high-fidelity simulator at Waltz Mill. A workstation-based prototype that is tied to a plant simulation will be used, allowing simulation of several common plant evolutions. For example a plant startup or a change in power level. Type of Materials: The prototype will present process and control displays built around the plant evolution scenarios identified. Performance Measures: To assess each user's ability in soft controls efficiency, without error, and maintaining pace with the simulated event, the sequence of control actions and the time required for each control action will be recorded. To ensure that the participant was able to control the plant evolution, key plant simulation parameters will also be recorded (for example, key plant parameters stayed within target range and limits were avoided). Performance will be videotaped. In addition, subjective judgments will be elicited to identify and rate the severity of problems and to assess subjective workload. Outcome: This test will assess whether the AP600 soft-control functional design is adequate to support operators in keeping pace with dynamic plant evolutions. 4.2 Workstation Displays Concept Test 4: Ability to navigate displays, finding information Issues:
- Operator accuracy and efficiency, when given a specific request in locating and selecting the correct workstation display where that information is located (Evaluation Issue 3)
= Effective operator use of zoom and pan capabilities to locate information
- The coding scheme should indicate active display points where more information is available (e.g., through zoom and pan, or through transitions to another display)
- The coding scheme should be adequate to locate information within a display m-\3462wspf:ltr012397 44
Test Method: The participant will be asked to locate a particular piece of information requiring navigation through the displays. Specific information requests will be defined to exercise various available navigation mechanisms. Testbed Characteristics: This test will be performed in the high-fidelity simulator at Waltz Mill. Type of Materials: The test will be performed using physical displays and possibly functional displays for the plant simulated in the high-fidelity simulator at Waltz Mill. The displays, while not AP600-specific, will be representative of the AP600 Functional Requirements for workstation displays. Performance Measures: To assess the performance issues, the following will be recorded:
= Whether the information is located
- Response times The navigation path taken to get to the target display The navigation path length to get to the target information will be compared to the optimal navigation path identified a priori by the designer.
In addition, subjective judgments will be elicited from the participants regarding the adequacy of display coding conventions and navigation mechanisms, and to assess workload. Outcome: This test will assess the adequacy of the AP600 Functional Requirements for display l coding and navigation. l l l Concept Test 5: Coordination of physical and functional displays Issue: This test addresses the use and coordination of physical and functional displays supporting situation awareness and response planning (Evaluation Issue 6), including the types of information expected to be drawn from physical and functional displays, when these displays should be accessed, and how physical and functional displays are to be coordinated. Specific issues include whether the workstation physical and functional displays support the operator in:
- Distinguishing situations where physical displays should be examined from situations where functional displays should be examined
= Understanding interrelationships among systems and processes
- Assessing whether currently active processes are performing correctly m:\3462w.wpf:1b-012397 4-5
6 l l
* - . Assessing whether automated systems are performing correctly i
- Assessing goal satisfaction 1
Identifying implications of plant state for plant goals Assessing the availability of altemative processes for achieving a given goal Making choices among alternative means for achieving a given goal (recovery path) Assessing the effect of the selected recovery path on other plant goals (side effects) Test Method: Participants will be presented with several scenarios that require forming a situation assessment and determining a course of action based on examination of physical and functional j displays. They will be asked to assess plant state, determine implications for plant goals, determine a l course of action, and assess a selected course of action on other plant goals (determine whether there are any side effects).- Testbed Characteristics: This test will be performed in the high-fidelity simulator at Waltz Mill. I 4 ! Type of Materials: The test will be performed using physical and functional displays for the plant ! simulated in the high-fidelity simulator at Waltz Mill. The displays, while not AP600-specific, will be j representative of the AP600 Functional Requirements for workstation displays. 1 4 Performance Measures: The main measure of performance will be accuracy of response to questions l related to situation assessment and response determination aiid evaluation. The displays that are accessed and the order in which they are accessed will also be recorded and examined to determine j whether the participants accessed the physical and functional displays that contained relevant ! information. Subjective judgments will also be elicited from participants regarding the adequacy of ) the physical and functional displays for supporting plant-state interpretation and planning.- Outcome: This test will assess the adequacy of the AP600 Functional Requirements for the use and coordination of physical and functional displays. 4.3 Computerized Procedures Concept Test 6: Usability of computerized procedures Issue: The computerized procedure design should be adequate to support operators in performing tasks that involve following procedures. m:u462w.wpf;1b.ol2397 4-6 l
L I i-f Current Westinghouse EOPs are paper-based and employ a two-column format. Operating experience l with current procedures has revealed a number of situations that are difficult for operators to handle
- l. and can lead to error, including:
1 ~
=
Complex logical statements and branching found in the response not obtained (RNO) column i f
=
Pending procedure steps . i
=
- Nested procedures, in which a separate procedure must be completed before returning to ,
j complete the current procedure f = Multiple, independent procedures that must be executed in parallel (for example, when a procedure attachment is handed to one control room operator to perform, while the rest of the crew continues with the main procedure) It is important to determine how effectively computerized procedures handle these difficult situations. It is also important to determine whether computerized procedures introduce new difficulties not found in current paper-based procedures. The current Westinghouse HSI design for computer-based procedures offers a new medium with new support features, including support for procedure steps and foldout pages that require continuous monitoring, place-keeping aids, and automatic assessment of whether plant-state requirements specified in the procedure step are met. These support features should facilitate operator performance and reduce potential for error. However, user tests are required, insuring that no new problems are introduced by the change in technology. The test will determine the impact of having a narrower field , of view, the impact of display navigation requirements on ability to look ahead and look back in the procedure, and the fact that the computer automatically determines whether a procedure step is met, resulting in a more passive review role for the operator. This study addresses the types of issues raised in Evaluation Issues 1I through 14. These issues address: How the HSI features support the operator in performing control tasks that require assessment of preconditions, side-effects, and postconditions (Evaluation Issue 12)
=
How the design of the procedure display interfaces prevent operators from getting lost in nested procedures (Evaluation Issue 13)
=
How the design of procedure display interfaces supports the concurrent use of multiple, independent (not nested) procedures (such as, specific alignment procedures that appear as EOP attachments and are normally handed to the reactor operator or balance of plant operator to accomplish) (Evaluation Issue 13) m:\3462w.wpf:Ib-012397 47
How operators are able to perform the next steps (suspend a step) and retum to complete the pending step at the appropriate time, in a case where event dynamics are slow (Evaluation
' Issue 14)
Test Method: Participants will be observed as they respond to several simulated emergency events , l using computerized procedures.- The test objectives will be met by observing utility crews using computeriz::d procedures in the high-fidelity simulator at Waltz Mill as part of acceptance testing of : the computerized procedure or as part of crew requalification training. l i i l Testbed Characteristics: This test will be performed in the high-fidelity simulator at Waltz Mill.- l Type of Materials: The test will be performed using computerized procedures for the plant simulated i_ in the high-fidelity simulator at Waltz Mill. The computerized procedure, while not AP600-specific, l will be representative of the AP600 Functional Requirements for computerized procedures. Performance Measures: How operators follow procedure steps and keep up with the simulated event l' will be assessed. t l Outcome: The test will assess the adequacy of the AP600 Functional Requirements for computerized procedures. Concept Test 7: Coordination of computerized procedures with workstation displays and soft controls Issues: The workstation displays and soft controls should be coordinated with procedures to allow efficient location and execution of control actions. (Evaluation Issues 11 and 13) The HSI features should support the operator in performing control tasks that require assessment of preconditions, side-effects, and post-conditions. (Evaluation Issue 12) Procedures should be coordinated with workstation physical and functional displays, allowing the operator to keep pace with the event. (Evaluation Issue 14) Workstation physical and functional displays and procedures should allow the operator to perform the next steps and return to complete the pending step at the appropriate time in cases where event dynamics are slow. (Evaluation Issue 14) 1
- The soft controls should support the operator in executing control actions and evaluating feedback in pace with the event. (Evaluation Issue 14) mA3462w.wpf:1b-ol2397 4-8
_ _ . ~ . - - .- l l l Test Method: Participants will be asked to perform several simulated tasks using computerized procedures in combination with functional and physical displays and soft control mechanisms. They will be required to take control actions using soft controls.
- Testbed Characteristics
- This test will be performed in the high-fidelity simulator at Waltz Mill.
The plant simulation will be modified so that control actions can be executed using soft controls. l l Type of Materials: The test will be performed using displays and computerized procedures for the ! plant simulated in the high-fidelity simulator at Waltz Mill. The displays and computerized ( procedures, while not AP600-specific, will be representative of the AP600 Functional Requirements for workstation displays, soft controls, and computerized procedures. Several scenarios will be defined l that exemplify the types of system monitoring and control executions that are performed using these procedures. The scenarios should include cases where plant dynamics are rapid and extensive manual action is required, cases where plant dynamics are slow, and cases where supervisory control of automated systems and manual takeover from automated systems is required. Ideally, there should be overlap between the scenarios included in Concept Tests 3 and 7. Performance Measures: To assess performance issues identified above, the following will be recorded:
=
Whether the right display is brought up, correct information located, and correct control action taken
. Response times
. Ability to detect and correct execution errors In addition to these objective measures of performance, subjective judgments will be obtained from participants regarding HSI design adequacy.
Outcome: This test will assess the adequacy of coordination between workstation displays and soft control mechanisms and procedures. 4.4 Wall Panel Information System (WPIS) Concept Test 8: WPIS support for situation assessment Issue: Completeness The WPIS display should present sufficient information for the operator to maintain awareness of the plant state during different modes of operation. (Evaluation Issue 1) I, i i m:\M62w.wpf;1b-012397 4-9 l
The WPIS should support the operator in getting more detail about plant status and system availability by directed search of the workstation functional and physical displays. (Evaluation Issue 2) Initial concern will be with the completeness of the information presented on the WPIS. Also, this test will determine if the WPIS modes are appropriate. Test Method: Participants will view a WPIS display and be asked to make a series of judgments or decisions regarding current plant state, system availability, and on the conducting of a shift tumover. Testbed Characteristics: Conceptual WPIS designs will be developed as workstation-based prototypes. Testing actual hardware is not a concern at this point. This test may be conducted either in the low-fidelity simulation in the AP600 Main Control Room Test Facility or the high-fidelity simulator at Waltz Mill. Type of Materials: WPIS displays will be developed to show plant state for the full range of plant modes to be addressed by the WPIS. For each mode represented, a range of plant states will be presented. Performance Measures: The ability of participants to accurately determine plant state based on information in the WPIS will be assessed. In addition to objective measures of performance, subjective judgments will also be elicited from panicipants regarding the adequacy of the WPIS design concept. Outcome: This test will assess the adequacy of the AP600 WPIS functional design, supporting single individuals in maintaining plant situation awareness. Concept Test 9: Ability of WPIS to support multiple crew member situation awareness Issue: The WPIS should support multiple member crew awareness of plant conditions (Evaluation Issue 4). Specifically: The HSI should support the crew in maintaining awareness of plant conditions and those implications. The HSI should support the crew in maintaining awareness of each others' actions, intents, and information needs. The HSI should support effective and efficient shift tumover. ms462w.wpr.ib-ol2397 4-10
The HSI should support new personnel entering the control room to develop an awareness of plant conditions and their implications. It is critical that the WPIS supports operators in maintaining awareness of the plant state as they operate the plant. It is also critical to show that the WPIS supports operators in maintaining awareness of each other's activities. Evidence of changes in operator behavior motivated by the information presented on the WPIS should be noted. These behavior changes will indicate that the WPIS is communicating effectively in that critical information is salient and timely. Test Method: The WPIS prototype will be located where it affords easy access for a multi-person crew. For each scenario, the WPIS will indicate an important event that should alter crew operations. The ability of the crew to assess plant state and perform maneuvers that require shared plant knowledge will be assessed. Testbed Characteristics: This test will be performed in the high-fidelity simulator at Waltz Mill. The simulator will be modified so that the WPIS will be driven by dynamic, simulated plant data Type of Materials: The test will be performed using a WPIS for the plant simulated in the high-fidelity simulator at Waltz Mill. While the scenarios employed will not be AP600-specific, the WPIS will be representative of the AP600 Functional Requirements for a WPIS. Performance Measures: Objective measures of the ability of crews to assess plant state and to perform maneuvers that require shared knowledge of plant state will be obtained. In addition, subjective judgments will be obtained from participants regarding the adequacy of the WPIS functional design. Outcome: This test will assess the adequacy of the AP600 WPIS functional design, supporting group situatica awareness. 4.5 Alarm System Concept Test 10: Alarm System organization and prioritization scheme Issue: The Alarm System should organize alarm messages so that it facilitates operator understanding of the alarmed state and its implications for the plant operational goals. (Evaluation Issue 5) Specific issues include:
=
Alarm System presentation format should enable rapid detection and interpretation of alarm messages. (Evaluation Issue 5) Alarm System prioritization scheme should facilitate operator understanding of the relative importance of alarm conditions. (Evaluation Issue 5) miu62w.wpf:1t412397 4-11
Alarm System p/oritization scheme, including the management of redundant or low importance alann messages should facilitate operator understanding of the relative importance of alarm conditions. (Evaluation Issue 5) Alarm System should enable operators to identify and interpret the implications of lower priority alarms. (Evaluation Issue 5) Test Method: Participants will be observed as they respond to the Alarm System during simulated emergencies. The participant will be asked to indicate the alarm messages presented and their priority for response from most to least important. The participant will also be asked to describe the implications of the alarms to plant safety and productivity goals and any causal interrelationship among alarms. In addition, the participant will be asked to identify other alarm conditions that may have existed but were not displayed on the main alarm panel. Following this, the display of additional alarms will be presented, and the subject will be asked to describe the implications of these alarms. Testbed Characteristics: This test will be performed in the high-fidelity simulator at Waltz Mill. Type of Materials: The test will be performed using scenarios for the plant simulated in the high-fidelity siruulator at Waltz Mill. The Alarm System, while not AP600-specific, will be representative of the AP600 Alarm System Functional Requirements. A set of plant upset scenarios will be defm' ed that vary in severity from single malfunction events to multiple failure events. Alarm messages will vary in number and level of abstraction. Upsets will include cases where a single fault leads to a cascade of alarms (where the objective is to determine whether the participant can correctly assess the interrelation between the original fault and the consequent disturbances), multiple fault cases (where the objective is to determine the subject's ability to identify, prioritize and track the implications of multiple functionally unrelated alarms), and where additional alarm queues of varying types (redundant versus low priority alarms) and number exist. Performance Measures: The objective of this test is to identify if operators are able to correctly interpret tnd assess the implications of alarm messages. This is assessed through objective performance measures and the participant's subjective assessments. Objective dependent measures will be collected, including the:
- Number of alarms correctly identified Participant's assessment of alarm priorities compared to the priorities assigned during the development of the test scenario a
Extent to which the alarm implications for present and future plant state are correctly assessed Extent to which the causal interrelationship among alarms is recognized f mA3462w.wpf:Ib-012397 4-12
Ability to infer alanns not displayed on the main alarm panel Ability to interpret alarms In addition, subjective judgments will be elicited from participants regarding the adequacy of the Alarm System Functional Design. Outcome: This test will assess the adequacy of the AP600 Alarm System Functional Design. mA3462w.wpf Ib412397 4-13
5.0 REFERENCES
Electric Power Research Institute, Chapter 10, " Man-Machine Interface Systems," Advanced Light Water Reactor Utility Requirements Document. Volume III ALWR Passive Plant, Palo Alto, Ca., Revision 4, Dec.1992. Hoecker, D. G. & Roth, E. M., " Effects of Control Leg on Operator's Use of Soft Controls," OCS-J1-008, September 23,1994. Jeffries, R., Miller, J., Wharton, C. & Ulyeda, K., " User Interface Evaluation in the Real World: A Comparison of Four Techniques," Proceedings of CHI,1991 (New Orleans, Louisiana, April 28-May 2,1991) ACM, New York,1991. pp. I19-124. Jeffries, R. & Desurvire, H. " Usability Testing Versus Heuristic Evaluation: Was There A Contest?," SIGCHI Bulletin, 24(4), October 1992, 39-41. Kantowitz, B. H. " Selecting Measures for Human Factors Research" Human Factors, 34 (4), 1992,387-398. Nielsen, J. & Landauer, T. "A Mathematical Model of the Finding of Usability Problems," INTER CHI
'93 Conference Proceedings (Amsterdam, The Netherlands, April 1993), ACM,1993.
pp. 206-213. NUREG-0899 Guidelinesfor the Preparation of Emergency Operating Procedures, Division of Human Factors Safety, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, US Nuclear Regulator Commission, August 1982. NUREG- 1358 Lessons Learnedfrom the Special Inspection Programfor Emergency Operating Procedures, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, April,1989. O'Hara, J. M., Higgins, J. C., & Stubler, W. F. Human Factors Engineering Program Review Model for Advanced Nuclear Power Plants, draft technical report prepared for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, January 25,1994. Westinghouse, AP600 Standard Safety Analysis Report, " Human Factors Engineering," Chapter 18. DE-AC03-90SF1 8495, June,1992. Virzi, R A. "Refm' ing the Test Phase of Usability Evaluation: How Many Subjects Is Enough?," Human Factors, 34(4), 1992,457-468. f m:\3462w.wpf.Ib.012397 5-1
AP600 DOCUMENT COVER SHEET TDC: IDS: I S Form 58202G(5/94) AP600 CENTRAL FILE USE ONLY: 0058.FRM RFS#: RFS ITEM #: AP600 DOCUMENT NO. REVISION NO. ASSIGNED TO AP600 Doc. No. OCS-GEH-00-002 1 Page 1 Of 8[ ALTERNATE DOCUMENT NUMBER: WCAP-14396, Rev. 2 WORK BREAKDOWN #: 3.3.2.4.5 DESIGN AGENT ORGANIZATION: WESTINGHOUSE TITLE: Man-in-The-Lwp Test Plan Description ATTACHMENTS: . DCP #/REV. INCORPORATED IN THIS DOCUMENT REVISION: CALCULATION / ANALYSIS
REFERENCE:
ELECTRONIC FILENAME ELECTRONIC FILE FORMAT ELECTRONIC FILE DESCRIPTION m:\3462w.wpf Wordperfect (C) WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 1996. O WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 2 This document contains information proprietary to Westinghouse Electric Corporation: it is submitted in confidence and is to be used solely for the purpose for which it is fumished and retumed upon request. This document and such information is not to be reproduced, transmitted, disclosed or used otherwise in whole or in part without pnor written authorization of Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Energy Systems Business Unit, subject to the legends contained hereof. O WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 2C , This document is the property of and contains Proprietary information owned by Westinghouse Electric Corporation and/or its subcontractors and suppliers. It is transmitted to you in confidence and trust, and you agree to treat this document in strict accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement under which it was prcnnded to you.
@ WESTINGHOUSE CLASS 3 (NON PROPRIETARY)
COMPLETE 1 IF WORK PERFORMED UNDER DESIGN CERTIFICATION~OR COMPLETE 2 IF WORK PERFORMED UNDER FOAKE. 1 @ DOE DESIGN CERTIFICATION PROGRAM - GOVERNMENT LIMITED RIGHTS STATEMENT [See page 2) Copyright statement A license is reserved to the U.S. Govemment under contract DE-AC03-90SF18495.
@ DOE CONTRACT DELIVERABLES (DELIVERED DATA)
Subject to specified exceptions, disclosure of this data is restricted until September 30,1995 or Design Certification urxler DOE contract DE-ACO3-90SF18495, whichever is later. EPRI CONFIDENTIAL: NOTICE: 1 3 2 3 4 0 5 0 CATEGORY: A@ B C DD E F 2 O ARC FOAKE PROGRAM - ARC LIMITED RIGHTS STATEMENT [See page 2) Copyright statement A license is reserved to the U.S. Govemment under contract DE-FCO2-NE34267 and subcontract ARC-93-3-SC-001. O ARC CONTRACT DELIVERABLES (CONTRACT DATA) Subject to specified exceptions, disclosure of this data is restricted under ARC Subcontract ARC 93-3-SC-001. ORIGINATOR SIGNATURE /D TE S. P. K:rch
/ ) [7 AP600 RESPONSIBLE MANAGER SIGNATURE
- APPROVAL DATE SV/d I* YA4Lh* h k U f
- Approval of the responsible manager signifies that document is con $lete, all req 66d reviews are complete, electronic file is attached and document is r; leased for use.
AP600 DOCUMENT C3VER CHEET pig 2 2 Form 58202G(5/94) LIMITED RIGHTS STATEMENTS DOE GOVERNMENT LIMITED RIGHTS STATEMENT (A) These data are submitted with limited rights under govemment contract No. DE-AC03-90SF18495. These data may be reproduced and used by the govemment with the express hmitation that they will not, without written permission of the contractor, be used for purposes of manufacturer nor disclosed outside the govemment; except that the govemment may disclose these data outside the govemment for the following purposes, if any, provided that the govemment makes such disclosure subject to prohibition against further use and disclosure: (l) This
- Proprietary Data
- may be disclosed for evaluation purposes under the restrictions above.
(11) The " Proprietary Data
- may be disclosed to the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), electric utility representatives and their direct consultants, excluding direct commercial competitors, and the DOE National Laboratories under the prohibitions and restrictons above.
(B) This notice shall be marked on any reproduction of these data, in whole or in part. ARC LIMITED RIGHTS STATEMENT: This proprietary data, fumished under Subcontract Number ARC-93-3-SC-001 with ARC may be duplicated and used by the government and ARC, subject to the hmitations of Article H-17.F. of that subcontract, with the express hmitations that the proprietary data may not be disclosed outside the govemment or ARC, or ARC's Class 1 & 3 members of EPRI or be used for purposes of manufacture without prior permission of the Subcontractor, except that further disclosure or use may be made solely for the following purposes: This proprietary data may be disclosed to other than cummercial competitors of Subcontractor for evaluation purposes of this subcontract under the restnction that the proprietary data be retained in confidence and not be further disclosed, and subject to the terms of a non-disclosure agreement between the Subcontractor and that organization, excluding DOE and its contractors. DEFINITIONS CONTRACT / DELIVERED DATA - Consists of documents (e.g. specifications, drawings, reports) which are g:nerated under the COE or ARC contracts which contain no background proprietary data. EPRI CONFIDENTIALITY / OBLIGATIONNOTICES NOTICE 1: The data in this document is subject to no confidentiality obligations. NOTICE 2: The data in this docurnent is proprietary and confidential to Westinghouse Electric Corporation and/or its Contractors. It is forwarded to recipient under an obligation of Confidence and Trust for hmited purposes only. Any use, disclosure to unauthorized persons, or copying of this document or parts thereof is prohibited except as agreed to in advance by the Electnc Power Research Institute (EPRI) and Wes house Electric Corporation. Recipient of this data has a duty to inquire of EPRI and/or Westinghouse as to the uses of the information contai herein that are permitted. NOTICE 3: The data in this document is proprietary and confidential to Westinghouse Electnc Corporation and/or its Centractors. It is forwarded to recipient under an obligation of Confidence and Trust for use only in evaluation tasks specifically authorized by the Electric Power Research irrttute (EPRI). Any use, disclosure to unauthorized persons, or copying this document or parts thereof is prohibited except as agreed to in advance by EPRI and Westinghouse Electric Corporation. Recipient of this data has a duty to inquire of EPRI and/or Westnghouse as to the uses of the information contained herein that are permitted. This document and any copies or excerpts thereof that may have been generated tre to be retumed to Westinghouse, directly or through EPRI, when requested to do so. NOTICE 4: The data in this document is proprietary and confidental to Westinghouse Electric Corporation and/or its Contractors. It is being r;vealed in confidence and trust only to Employees of EPRI and to certain contractors of EPRI for limited evaluaton tasks authorized by EPRI. Any use, disclosure to unauthorized persons, or copying of this document or parts thereof is prohibited. This Document and any copies or excerpts thereof that rnay have been generated are to be retumed to Westinghouse, directly or through EPRI, when requested to do so. NOTICE 5: The data in this document is proprietary and confidental to Westinghouse Electric Corporation and/or its Contractors. Access to this data is given in Confidence and Trust only at Westinghouse facilities for hmited evaluaton tasks assigned by EPRI. Any use, disclosure to unauthorized persons, or copying of this document or parts thereof is prohibited. Neither this document nor any excerpts therefrom are to b2 removed from Westinghouse facilities. EPRI CONFIDENTIALITY / OBLIGATION CATEGORIES CATEGORY *A* -(See Delivered Data) Consists of CONTRAC'OR Foreground Data that is contained in an issued reported. CATEGORY *B* -(See Delivered Data) Consists of CONTRACTOR Foreground Data that is not contained in an issued report, except for computer programs. CATEGORY *C"- Consists of CONTRACTOR Background Data except for computer programs. CATEGORY *D" - Consists of computer programs developed in the course of performing the Work. CATEGORY *E* - Consists of computer programs developed prior to the Effective Date or after the Effective Date but outside the scope of the Work. CATEGORY *F"- Consists of administrative plans and administrative reports. 1 I
AP600 Open Ikm a racking Syst:m Database: Execttiva Saman:ry Dat:: U30/97 Selection: [nrc st codelo' Resolved' And [DSER Section] like '18$' Sorted by item # Item DSER Section/ Titic/Desenption RcSP (W) NRC No litanch Question Type Detail Status Engineer Status Status tener No. / Dase 1307 NRR/lilllB 18.233-3 DSLR-OI MMIS Confrm-N Action N Westmghouse should provide information regarding the integration of design activities. Westinghouse should provide WCAP-12601, WCAP- t 9817. OCS-GES-011, and any additional documents that desenbe the integration of the design activities of the llFE design process as identified in this criterion. ; Meeting of 3M/95: Action N: NRC will review our design process as described in the SSAR, RAls and in WCAP 12601,9817 and the MMIS Devekyment Plan and provide us feedWk. Resolved Per NRC letter of 3/22/96. SSAR revision needed for closure. Revised AP600 human factors engineering program plan included as SSAR I8.2 in Revision 9,7/31% Meeting of 3N85: Action N: NRC will review our design process as described in the SSAR, RAls and in WCAP 12601,9817 and the MMIS , Development Plan and provide us feedback. ! 4/l SS5 - NRC Conference call (J Bongarra, J O'llara, J.lliggins,S Kerch, J Easter, K.Klocs): NRC had reviewed WCAP 12601 and 9817 which was made available in the Rockville office. NRC questions as transmitted by 4/10M5 fax were adressed. Action N: NRC action to re-evaluate based on the discussions. NRC stased that additional information may be needed to eventually close open items I8.233-n. In the case of I8.233-3, solution may be to revise the MMIS Development Plan by adding a section 4.5 titled " Integration ofIIFE and (Xher Plant Iksign Activities
- and descnbe examples of integration and how it is done (e g., SSD sections 7,8; allocations; FBTA output and verification ofI & C needs; ERG's, ERG ,
1 A C task analysis; ). Another option would be to include this info in Q620.15 revision and then laser in the development plan for consistency. Action N: NRC action to re-evaluase based on the 4/l885 discussions. Following NRC feedback / clarification, Westinghouse will send a draA c-f docwnent addressing this open item by 6/23S5. Action N - See NRC letter dated 12MN NRC to confirm acceptability of WCAP-14822 draft so that W can provide WCAP-14822 by end-Feb. rkn 1/28 ~ t i i Page: I Total Records: 45
AP600 Open It:m Tracking Syst;m Dat:. base: Exec;tiv2 Summary Dat;: 1/30/97 Selection: [nre st codej<>* Resolved
- And [DSER Section]like'l8** Sorted by item #
Item DSER Sected Titic/ Description Resp (W) NRC No. Ilranch Question Type Detail Status Engineer Status Status letter No. I Dee 13C3 NRR/Illit B 182.33-4 DSER-OI MMIS Confrm-N Action N Westinghouse should provide information regarding the life program milestones. Westinghouse should provide WCAP-12601, WCAP-9817 OCS-GES-011, and any additional documents that desenbe the llFE program milestones as identified in this criterion. Meeting of 3/9/95: ! Action N: NRC will review our design process as described in the SSAR, RAls and in WCAP 12601,98I7 and the MMIS Development Plan and provide us feedback. Resolved Per NRC letter of 3/22N6. Formal SSAR revision needed for closure. > Revised AP600 human factors engineering program plan included as SSAR 18 2 in Revision 9,7/3 tN6. Meeting of 3NNS: Action N: NRC wi!! review our design process as described i.s the SSAR, RAls and in WCAP 12601,9817 and the MMIS Development Plan and provide us feedback. ; 4/l8N5 - NRC Conference call (J Hongarra, J O'Itara, J liiggins,S Kerch, J Easter, K Kloest NRC had reviewed WCAP 12601 and 9817 which was made available in the Rockville office. NRC questions as transmitted by 4/10N5 fax were adressed. Action N: NRC action to re-evatuate ' based on the discussions. NRC stated that additional information may be needed to eventually close open items t 8.2.3.3-n in the case of I8.2.3.3-4, solution may be to revise the MM S Development Plan by adding a subsection to section 3.0 titled
- Relative Schedule ofIIFE Program Milestones"(use the simplified MMIS Design block diagram that was presented during March 9 meeting.) and revise the Scheduled FOAKE Tasks and Committments subsection to reflect the current i OAKE schedule (use the high level bar graph schedule )
Action N. NRC action to rc< valuate based on the 4/18N5 discussions. Following NRC feedback / clarification, Westinghouse will send a draft of document addressing this open item by 6/23N5. Action N - See NRC letter deed 12NN6. NRC to confirm acceptability of WCAP-14822 draft so that W can provide WCAP-14822 by end-Feb. rkn 1/28 i i Page: 2 Total Records: 45 !
?
AP600 Open Item Tracking Sy;t:m Database: Executive Summary Detr: 1/30/97 Selection: [nrc st code]<>' Resolved And [DSER Section] like'18** Sorted by item # Item DSLR Section/ Titic/ Description Resp (W) NRC No Branch Question Type Detail Status Engineer Status Status i etter No / Date - 1310 NRR/lillFB 1823.3-6 DSER-OI MMIS Confrm-N Action N Westinghouse should provide information regarding the compliance of the life subs.iu. with IIFE requirements. Westinghouse should provide WCAP-12601, WCAP-9817,OCS-GES Oll, and any additional documents that describe how the subcontractor's compliance with IIFE sequirements is verified as identified in this criterion. Meetmg of 3NM5: Action N: NRC will review our design process as described in the SSAR, RAls and in WCAP 12601,9817 and the MMIS Devekyment Plan and provide us feedback. Resolved Per NRC letter of 3/22/96. Formal SSAR revsion is needed. Revised AP600 human factors engmeering program plan included as SSAR I8.2 in Revision 9,7/3166. Meetmg of 319/95: Action N: NRC will review our design process as described in the SSAR, RAls and in WCAP 12601,9817 and the MMIS Development Plan and provide us feedback. 4/l8Sb- NRC Conference call (1 Bongarra, J O'llara, J liiggins S Kerch, J Easter, K Kloes): NRC had reviewed WCAP 12601 and 9817 which was made available in the Rockville office. NRC questions as transmitted by 4/1085 fax were adressed. We stated that IIFE considerations were given to subcontractors through (I) the fact that WCAP 12601 is given to all sube im s and all must follow its procedures in content and format. Ex. AP3.1 sections 2g,5,6b and 7 arc examples ofIIF considerations.; and (2) through the fact that general design criteria are given to all subcontractors that are effected by them - Ex. I A C General Design Criteria, section 7. The technical document control procedures govern the distribution and release of AP600 documents (AP 6.I. 6.2 and 63) Provide this answer in 'evision to Q620.15 as Jim suggested or add a subsection to section 4.0 of the MMIS Deve:opment Plan. Action W is to make the I & C General L)esign Criteria Document available in the Rockville offme for their review and also proof that it went to applicable subcontractors. 4/25M5 - Fax sent to J Bongarra and J O'llars that provides a response to this open item. The I&C General Design Criteria document uas placed in the Rockville office (by A.Sterdis, attending an NRC meeting in Rockville) Action N. The NRC to review the response and determine whether it is acceptable / provide feedback. Revised AP600 human factors engineering program plan included as SSAR I8.2 in Revision 9,7/3166.1his includes SSAR I8 2.3.5,111E % Subcontractor EITorts. Action N - See NRC letter dated 12/9/%. NRC to confirm acceptability of WCAP-14822 draA so that W can provide WCAP-14822 by end-Feb. Also, SSAR 18.2 3.5 markup was approved and is to be incorporated into next SSAR revision. rkn 1/28 Page: 3 Total Records: 45
- _ . . . . . =- . .. .~. - .. .- - .- - .. -- - .- . _
AP600 Open It:m Tracking System Datchase: Execttive Summary Datn 100/97 Selection: pre st code)<>~ Resolved' And lDSER Section] like 'l8** Sorted by item # Item DSER Section/ Title / Description Resp (W) NRC No Branch Questu>n Type Iktail Status Engineer Status Status 1.citei No. I Date 131I NRR/IlllIB 182.34-1 DSER-OI MMIS Confrm-N Action N Westinghouse should provide information regarding the lil E issues tracking sysicm availability. Westinghouse should submit WCAPs-9565, 12601, and 9817, as well as any additional documents that describe the tracking system and checklists as identified in this criterion. Meetingof 3/9N5: Westinghouse described our design issues tracking system. Tracking ofIIFE related design issues is not a separate entitiy but is part of the overall AP600 design process and design issues tracking. Processes for tracking design issues, including IIFE issues, are (I .) the DCP process as described in WCAP 12601, AP3.2. (2.) the design review process as described in WCAP 12601, AP 3.5 and WCAP 98I7 (human factors checklist), (3.) Use of SSDs - AP 3.1 ansd AP3.14 of WCAP 12601. Also a writers guide exists for SSDs. The Interface Requirements or the iluman Factors Requirements of the SSDs will be used to document and track IIFE related issues not currently addressed by the design and identified prior to DCP or design review. Final closure of these issues is verified in the vahdation of the llSi versuses their functional requirements. (This description also applies to open items 18.2.3.4-2 thru 4-4.) Action W: Per NRC letter of 3/22/96, the NRC stated that they found our flFE issues Tracking System described in the draft of 18.4.4 as acceptable, but they wanted to know when they could visit us and verify its implementation. At this point, the red team decided that our system (as described in the draft of I8.4.4) had some problems and might not pass an inspection from the NRC. Intemal meetings are planned to discuss modifications to the tracking system. Meeting of 3/9NS: Westinghouse described our design issues tracking system. Tracking ofIIFE related design issues is not a separare entitiy but is part of the overall AP600 design process and design issues tracking. Processes for tracking design issues, including IIFE issues, are (l.) the DCP , process as described in WCAP 12601, AP3.2; (2.) the design review process as desenbeJ in WCAP 12601, AP 3.5 and WCAP 9817 (human ! factors checklist), (3 ) Use of SSDs - AP 3.1 ansd AP3.14 of WCAP 12601. Also a writers guide exists for SSDs. The Interface Requirements or
.the iluman Factors Requirements of the SSDs will be used to document and track IIFE related issues not cunently addressed by the design and identified prior to DCP or design review. Final closure of these issues is verified in the validation of the 11S1 versuses their functional sv.s.A..ts. (This description also applies to open items 18.2.3.4-2 thru 4-4.) Also consider using the URD compliance database as another method used to track design issues.
4/l BN5 - NRC Conference call (J Bongarra, J O'Itara, J liiggins,S Kerch, J Easter, K Klocs): NRC had resicwed WCAP 12601 and 9817 mhich was made available in the Rockville otTice. NRC questions as transmitted by 4/10/95 fax were adressed NRC stated to be sure to include in the i revision to Q620.I5 a description of the cutotT point for closure of design review action item chits (shipment of the product -if any oustanding chits, then per NQA 1 the customer must be informed ) instead of revision 2 to Q620.15, Westinghouse will sent a draft of SSAR section I 8.4.4 (IIFE issues Tracking) to the NRC 111IFB. Action N-NRC action is to review this draft and provide feedback. Revised AP600 human factors engineering program plan included as SSAR I8.2 in Revision 9,7/31/96. This includes SSAR I8.2.4, iluman Factors Engineering Issues Tracking. NRC to confirm acceptability of WCAP-14822 drall so that W can provide WCAP-14822 by end-Feb and NRC to confirm acceptability of DIT system info. rLn 1/28 _ Ptge: 4 Total Records: 45 i k
AP600 Opea Item Traciting Systm Datr. base: Execmtiv2 Summary Data 1/30/97 Selection: [nre st codej<>' Resolved
- And [DSER Section] like'l8** Sorted by item #
Item DSER Section/ Title / Description Resp (W) NRC No. Branch Question Type Detad Status Engineer Status Status Letter No. / Date I 1312 NRR/IlliFB 18.2.3 4-2 DSER-Ol MMIS Closed Action N Westinghouse should provide information regarding the ilFE issues tracking system method. Westinghouse should submit WCAPs-9565,12601, and 9817, as well as any additional documents that describe the method for handling IIFE issues as identified in this criterion. Action W: Per NRC letter of 3/2286, the NRC stated that they found our IIFE issues Tracking System described in the draft of 18 4.4 as acceptable, but they wanted to know when they could visit us and verify its implementation At this point, the red team decided that our system (as described in the draA of 18.4.4) had some problems and might not pass an inspection from the NRC. Internal meetings are planned to discuss modifications to the tracking system. Meeting of 3/9/95: Westinghouse described our design issues tracking system. TracLing ofIIFE related design issues is not a separate entitiy but is part of the overall AP600 design process and design issues tracking. Processes for tracking design issues, including IIFE issues, are (1 ) the DCP process as described in WCAP 12601, AP3.2; (2 ) the design review process as described in WCAP 12601, AP 3.5 and WCAP 9817 (human factors checklist), (3 ) Use of SSDs - AP 31 ansd AP3.14 of WCAP 12601. Also a writers guide exists for SSDs.1he Interface Requirements or the llumen Factors Requirements of the SSDs will be used to document and track life related issues not currently addressed by the design and identified prior to DCP or design review. Final closure of these issues is verified in the validation of the llSI versuses their functional requirements. (This description alsn applies to open items 18.2.3 4-2 thru 4-4.) Also consider using the URD compliance database as another metinod used to track design issues. 4/liu95 - NRC Conference call (J Bengarra, J O*llara, J liiggins,S.Kerch 1. Easter, K Kloest NRC had reviewed WCAP 12601 and 9817 which was made available in the Rockville office. NRC questions as transmitted by 4/10/95 fax were adressed. NRC stated to be sure to include in the revision to Q620. I 5 m description of the cutoff point for closure of design review action item chits (shipment of the product -if any oustanding chits, then per NQA-1 the customer must be informed.) Instead of revision 2 to Q620.15, Westinghouse sent a draA of SSAR section 18 4.4 (l!FE Issues Tracking) to the NRC lilIFB. Action N- NRC action is to review this draA and provide feedback Revised AP600 human factors engineering program plan included as SSAR 18.2 in Revision 9,7/31/96. This includes SSAR 13 2.4. Iluman Factors Engineering Issues Tracking Action N per NRC letter of 12/20/96. rLn 1/28 r
/ :
t Page: 5 Total Records: 45
AP600 Open It:sm Tracking Systeam Detsbase: Exec tivaSnamanary Det2: 1/38/97 ! Selecteen* [nrc st code]<>' Resolved' And [DSER Section] liite *18 Sorted by item # . r leem DSER Section/ Re p NRC Title / Description (W) No. - Branch Question ' Type Detail Status Engineer Status Status Letter No. / Date 1313 NRR!Illit H 182.34-3 DSER4M MMIS Closed Action N ! Westinghouse should provide inlotmation segarding the HFE issues tracking system documentation. Westinghouse should submit WCArs-9565, 12601, and 9817, as well as any additional documents that describe the method for documenting HFE issues as identified in this cneerum. ! Action W: I Per NRC letter of 3/22/96, the 3 AC staaed that they found our HFE issues Tracking System desenbed in the draft of 18.4.4 as - - _. but they ; wensed to know when they could visit us and verify its ' , --- 2-ion. At this point, the red team decided that our system (as descnbed in the ; draR of 18.4.4) had some problems and might not pass an inspection from the NRC. Internal meetings are planned to discuss noodifications to the [ eracking system. l Meeting of 3/9/95: Westinghouse described our design issues tracking system. Tracking ofIRE related design issues is not a sepersec entitiy but is part of the overall AP600 design process and design issues tracking. Processes for tracking design issues, including HFE issues, are (I.) the DCP ! j process as descnbed in WCAP 12601, AP3.2; (2.) the design review process as desenhed in WCAP 12601, AP 3.5 and WCAP 9817 (human ! , facsors checklist); (3 ) Use of SSDs - AP 3.1 ansd AP3.14 of WCAP 12601. Also a writers guide exists for SSDs The Interface Re v_ -^ or ,
- she Human Factors Requirements of the SSDs will be used to docenent and track HFE related issues not currently addressed by the design and identified prior to DCP or design review. Final closure of these issues is verified in the validation of the HSI versuses their functeunal 2- (This description also applies to open items 18.2.3.4-2 thru 4-4.) Also consider using the URD compliance dh as another i nueelied used to track design issues. [.
4/18/95 - NRC Conference call (J.Bongarra,10'Hara, J.Higgins S Kerch, LEaster, K.Klocs): NRC had reviewed WCAP 12601 and 9817 which was niede available in the Rockville office. NRC questions as transmitted by 4/10/95 fax were adressed. NRC stated to be sure to include in the - revision to Q62015 m desenpaion of the cutoff point for closure of design review action item chits (shipment of the product - if any oustanding chits, then per NQA-l the cussonner noust be informed ) [ i insaced of revision 2 to Q62015 Westinghouse sent a draft of SSAR section 18 4 4 (HFE Issues Tracking) to the NRC HilFB. [
~
Action N-NRC action is to review this draR and provide feedback. Revised AP600 human factors engineering program plan included as SSAR I8.2 in Revision 9,7/31/96. This includes SSAR I8.2.4,iluman v Factors Engineering issues Tracking. - ; Action N per NRC letter of 12/20/96 skn i/28 ; i i t e ! l i i t i ! I I I t i l' age: 6 Total Records: 45 [ l _ -.-_- -._ --____._ -- - _____ __- -__ - -__ ___- _ ___-___ _ _ - - _ __ - - . - . _ . , .-. - - - . -Y
AP600 Opea It:m Tracking Sy:tm Database: Execrtive S nimary Dat2: 1/30/97 f Selection: [nre st code]<>' Resolved
- And [DSER Section] like '18** Sorted by item # t item DSER Sectionf Titic/ Description Resp (W) NRC No Branch Question Type Detail Status Engineer Status Status 1xtter No / Date r
1324 NRR/lillFB 18.4.3.2-1 DSER-OI MMIS/Kerch Closed Closed NSD-NRC-96-4831 Westinghouse should provide information regarding the functional analysis methods. Westinghouse should describe the process for addressing function analysis -- _- - ss and accuracy. i Meeting of 3/9/95: Action N - Westinghouse has asked that element three be reviewed at the compicte element level. NRC to revisit the criteria for element 3 (15 open items; I8.4...) and re-propose a focused set of issues based on our discussion. Refer to new meeting open item which is dahase Item Number l 2064. t Action W & Meeting of 319AJ5; Action N ~ Westinghouse has asked that element three be reviewed at the complete element level. NRC to revisit the criteria for element 3 (.5 open items; I8.4...) and re-propose a focused set ofissues based on our discussion. Refer to new meeting open item which is i debase item Number 2064. Action W: Document (sent by the NRC on 5/15/95) that refocuses the element 3 open items was received on 5/22. Westinghouse will provide a draA response to this document.
?
DraA WCAP-14644 submitted by NSD-NRC-96-4722 on 5/14/96. Chapter 18 of the SSAR to be revised to reference this document. Revised Chapter i8 of the AP600 SSAR submitted in Revision 9,7/31/96. WCAP-14644 is referenced in SSAR I8 4, Functional Requirements 7 Analysis and Allocation. Formal WCAP transmittal will be made following receipt of NRC comments. i Element 3. I Comrnents Recieved from NRC on 8/13. To close this item, SSAR Chl8 was submitted and we owe a rev to WCAP-14644 Closed -In reference to letter NSD-NRC-96-4831 dated 9 October 1996. l Action N - See NRC letter dated 12/9/96. - NO. This was closed (repeat of 24(6). rkn 1/28 l 4
?
l' age: 7 Total Records: 45
_ .. ..m . - _ - , _ . _. _ _ _ _. . _ . _ . _ . . . - _ _ _ _ . AP600 Ope = It;m Tracking Syst:m Database: Exec-tiv2 Summ:ry pate: 1/30/97 Selection: [nrc st code l<>' Resolved
- And [DSER Section] like'I8 Sorted by item #
Ixm DSER Section/ Title / Description Resp (W) NRC No. Ilranch Question Type Detail Status Engineer Status Status txtter No I Date 1325 NRR/lilit B I84.3.2-2 DSERol MMIS/Kerch Closed G osed NSD-NRC-96-4831 Westinghouse should provide a detailed description of rnodified functions. Westinghouse should expand the canpartson between the predecessor plant and the AP600 to include an analysis of plant safety functions and processes. Meetingof 3/9/95: Action N - Westinghouse has asked that element three be reviewed at the complete element level. NRC to revisit the criteria for element 3 (15 s open items; I8 4...) and re-propose a focused set ofissues based on our discussion. Refer to new meeting open item which is dabase item Number ! 2064. Action W Meeting of 3N/95: Acten N - Westinghouse has asked that element three be reviewed at the complete element level. NRC to resisit the criteria for element 3 (15 open items; I 8.4...) and re-propose a focused set ofissues based on our discussion. Refer to new meeting open item which is dabase item Number 2064. Action W: Document (sent by the NRC on 5/15/95) that refocuses the element 3 open items was received on 5/22. Westmgtmuse will provide a draR response to this document. DraR WCAP-14644 submitted by NSD-NRC-96-4722 on 5/14/96. Chapter 18 of the SSAR to be revised to reference this document. Revised Chapter I8 of the AP600 SSAR submitted in Revision 9,7/31/96. WCAP-14644 is referenced in SSAR I8.4, Functional Requirements Analysis and Allocation. Formal WCAP transmittal will be made following receipt of NRC comments. Element 3. Comments Recieved from NRC on 8/13. To close this item, SSAR Chl8 was submitted and we owe a rev to WCAP-14644 Closed -In refereng to letter NSD-NRC-96-4831 dated 9 October 1996. Action N - See NRC letter dated 12/9/96. - NO. This was closed (repeat of 2466). rLn 1/28 l Page: 8 Total Records: 45 l
AP600 Open It:m Tracking Syst:m Dat: base: Execctiv2 Summ;ry Dat2: 1/30/97 Selection: lnrc st code l<>' Resolved' And [DSER Sectionllike'18$' Sorted by item # Item DSER Secten/ Titic/ Description Resp (W) NRC No. Branch Question Type Detail Status Engineer Status Status Letter No. / Date 1326 NRR/lfillB 18.4 3.2-3 DSLR-OI MMIS/Kerch Closed Ciosed NSD-NRC-96-4831 Westinghouse should identify and desenbe the basis for the modifed functions and pmcesses, Meeting of 3NN5: Action N - Westinghouse has asked that element three be revicwed at the complete element level NRC to revisit the cnteria for element 3 (15 open items; I8 4...) and re-propose a focused set ofissues based on our discussion. Refer to new meeting open item which is dabase Item Number 2064. Action W Meeting of 3M/95: Action N - Westinghouse has asked that element three be reviewed at the complete element level. NRC to revisit the criteria for element 3 (15 open items, I8 4...) and re-propose a focused set ofissues based on our discussion. Refer to new meeting open item which is dabase item Number 2064. Action W: Document (sent by the NRC on 5/l585) that refocuses the element 3 open items was received on 5/22. Westinghouse will proside a dran response to this document DraA WCAP-14644 submitted by NSD-NRC-96-4722 on 5/I4S6. Chapter 18 of the SSAR to be revised to reference this dacument. Revised Chapter 18 of the AP600 SSAR submitted in Revision 9,7/31% WCAP-14644 is referenced in SSAR I8.4, Functiot,al Requirements Analysis and Allocation. Formal WCAP transmittal will be made following receipt of NRC comrnents. Element 3. Comments Recieved from NRC on 8/13. To close this item, SSAR Chl8 was submitted and we owe a rev to WCAP-14644 Closed - In reference to letter NSD-NRC-96-4831 dated 9 October 1996. Action N - See NRC letter dated 12MN - NO. This was closed (repeat of 2466) rLn 1/28 Page: 9 Total Records: 45 u._ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
. . - - ---...~. , . . . . . .
AP600 Open It:ne Tracking System Det: base: Executive Srmanary Date: 1/30/97 > Selecties: [nre st codel<>' Resolved
- And [DSER Section] like 'I8" Sorted by item #
Iwm DSLR Section/ Titic/ Description Resp (W) NRC No. Branch Question T)pe Detail Status Engineer Status Status Letter No. / Date 1327 NRR/IlliFB 18432-4 DSLR-OI MMIS/Kerch Closed Closed NSD-NRC-96-4831 Westinghouse should provide information regarding the method- ological concerns with plant process descriptions. Westinghouse should address methodological concerns to provide assurance that there are no generic problems with the analysis method. Specifmally,(a) the RCS mass inventory FBTA should be completed (b) the topical report referenced on page 4 should be included,(c) the basic goal for high mass inventory should be addressed. (d) omission of the *ultimaec cooling
- injecten supply should be explained and justifwd, and (c) the function oflisted valves should be provided.
Per conference call with NRC (J Bongarra. G Galletti, J.O'llara, J.lliggins) of 2/2365: f Action W - Send the revised RCS Mass Inventory FBTA and send the RCS Pressure Control FBTA. Meetag of 3SSS: t Action N - Westinghouse has asked that element three be reviewed at the complete element level. NRC to resisit the criteria for element 3 (l 5 open items; I8.4. ) and re-propose a focused set ofissues based on our discussion. Refer to new meeting open item which is dabase item Number 2064. Action W l i Meeting of 3865;
?
Action N - Westinghouse has asked that element three be reviewed at the complete element level. NRC to revisit the criteria for element 3 (15 ! open items; I8 4._) and re-propose a focused set ofissues based on our discussion Refer to new meeting open item which is dabase item Number l 2064. Action W; Document (sent by the NRC on 5/1565) that refocuses the element 3 open items was received on 5/22. Westmghouse uill provide a f I draR response to this document. DreR WCAP-14644 submitted by NSD-NRC-96-4722 on 5/14S6. Chapter 18 of the SSAR to be revised to reference this document. ; Revised Chapter 18 of the AP600 SSAR submitted in Revision 9,7/3I% WCAP-14644 is referenced in SSAR 18.4 Furmtenal Requirements Analysis and Allocation Formal WCAP transmittal will be made following receipt of NRC comments. Element 3. i C- - - Recieved from NRC on 8/13. To close this item, SSAR Chi 8 was submitted and we owe a rev to WCAP-14644 Closed -In reference to letter NSD-NRC-96-4831 dased 9 October 1996. ; Action N - See NRC letter dated 12NS6. - NO. This was closed (repeat of 2466). rkn I/28 ;
)
I t t I s Ptge: 10 Total Records: 45
AP600 Open Itim Tracking System Datzbase: Exec tiveSummary Date: U3Gi97 Selection: lnrc st code]<>' Resolved' And [DSER Section] like 'l 8** Sorted by Itern # hem DSLR SectW Titic/ Description Resp (W) NRC No Branch Question Type Iktail Status Engineer Status Status Letter No / Date i 1328 NRR/Illll B 18 4.3.2-5 DSER-Ol MMIS/Kerch Closed Closed NSD-NRC-96-4831 1 Westinghouse should provide detailed descriptions for all modified Mant processes. l Per conference call with NRC (LBongarra, G Galletti, J 011 era, Liliggins) of 2/23N5: Action N - NRC to review the maserial presented on 2/2N5 by Terry Schulz ( AP600 functions and associated processes, comparison with current 5 Westmghouse PWRs) and provide feedback (new status). Meeting of 3N85: Action N - Westinghouse has asked that element three be reviewed at the complete element level. NRC to revisit the criteria for element 3 (l 5 open items; I8 4.. ) and re-propose a focused set ofissues based on our discussion. Refer to new meeting open item uhich is dabase item Number l 2064. Action W . Meeting of 3N85: I Action N - Westinghouse has asked that element three be reviewed at the complete element level. NRC to revisit the criteria for element 3 (15 open items; I 8.4.-.) and re-propose a focused set ofissues based on our discussion. Refer to new meeting open item which is dr.hase Item Number 2064.
. I Action W: Document (sent by the NRC on 5/1585) that refocuses the element 3 open items was received on 5/22. Westinghouse will provide a draA response to this &w, Draft WCAP-14644 submitted by NSD-NRC-%-4722 on 5/14/96. Chapter I8 of the SSAR to be revised to reference this document.
Revised Chapter 18 of the AP600 SSAR submitted in Revision 9,7/3186. WCAP-14644 is referenced in SSAR 18.4, Functional Requirements Analysis and Allocation. Formal WCAP transmittal will be made following receipt of NRC comments. Element 3. Comments Recieved from NRC on 8!!3. To close this item, SSAR Chl8 mas submitted and ut owe a rev to WCAP-14644 Closed -In reference to letter NSD-NRC-96-4831 dated 9 (ktober 1996. Action N - See NRC letter dated 12NN6. - NO. His was closed (repeat of 2466). rLn 1/28 j i
\
\
i Page: II Total Records: 45 l
I - . AP600 Open it:mi Tracking Syst:ni Dat: base: Exec tiva Summiary Date: I/30/97 Selection: lnrc st code]<>' Resolved' And [DSER Section] like *18*' Sorted 'oy itern # licm DSLR Sectum/ Title / Description Resp (W) NRC N6. 11 ranch Question Type Detail Status Engineer Status Status t etter No. / Date 1329 NRRililli t) 184.3.26 DSER-OI MMIS/Kerch Closed Closed NSD-NRC-96-4831 IWestinghouse should provide a commitment for updating the functional analysis as part of the function analysis methodology. Per conference call with NRC (J Bongarra, G Galletti 1 O'llara, Lili&gins) of 2/23MS: Action W - Send a draft of the associated document and/or revision to the applicable SSAR sections. Meeting of 3N95: Actum N - Westinghouse has asked that element three be reviewed at the complete element level. NRC to revisit the criteria I w element 3 (15 open items; I8.4...) and re-propose a focused set ofissues based on our discussion. Refer to new meeting open item which is dabase hem Number 2064. Action W Meeting of 3SS5: Action N - Westinghouse has asked that element three be reviewed at the complete element level. NRC to revisit the criteria for c!cment 3 (15 open items; I8.4 .) and re-propose a focused set ofissues based on our discussion. Refer to new meeting open item which is dabase item Number 2064. Action W: Document (sent by the NRC on 5/l585) that refocuses the element 3 open items was recessed on 5/22. Westinghouse will provide a draft response to this dccument. Draft WCAP-14644 submitted by NSD-NRC-96-4722 on 5/I4M6. Chapter 18 of the SSAR to be revised to reference this document. Revised Chapter 18 of the AP600 SSAR submitted in Revision 9,7/31/96. WCAP-14644 is referenced in SSAR 18.4, Functional Requirements Analysis and Allocation Formal WCAP transmittal will be made following receipt of NRC comments. Element 3. Comments Recieved from NRC on 8/13. To close this item, SSAR Chl8 was submitted and w we a rev to WCAP-14M4 Closed - In reference to letter NSD-NRC-96-4831 dased 9 (ktober 1996. Action N - See NRC letter dased 12MN6. - NO. This was closed (repeat of 2466). rkn 1/28 I age: 12 Total Records: 45
_ . _ . _. _ . __ _. . _ . . _ _ . . _ . __ _ m _ AP600 Open him Tracking Sy:t;m Dat . base: Exec 2tive Srmm ry Dat2: 1/30/97 Selecties: [nre st code l<>' Resolved
- Aiid [DSER Section] like '18** Sorted by item C ltem DSER Secton/ Title / Description Resp (W) NRC No. Branch Question Type Detad Status Engineer Status Status Letter No / Date 1330 NRR/IllllP 184.32-7 DSER-OI MMIS/Kerch Closed Closed NSD-NRC-96-4831 Westinghouse should progide information regarding the function requirements verification. Westinghouse should verify that all of the pmcesses necessary for achieving safe operation are identified and all of the requirements of each process are identified.
Meeting of 3/9M5: Acton N - Westinghouse has asked that element three be reviewed at the complete element level. NRC to revisit the criteria for element 3 (15 open items, I 8 4...) and re-propose a focused set ofissues based on our discussion. Refer to new meeting open item uhich is dabase Item Number 2064. Action W Meeting of 3/9/95: Action N - Westinghouse has asked that element three be reviewed at the complete element level. NRC to revisit the criteria for element 3 (15 open items; I 8.4 .) and re-propose a focused set ofissues based on our discussion. Refer to new meeting open item which is dabase item Nuraber 2064. Action W: Document (sent by the NRC on 5/l5/95) that refocuses the element 3 open items was received on 5/22. Westinghouse will provide a draA response to this document. DraA WCAP-14644 submitted by NSD-NRC-96-4722 on 5/14/96. Chapter 18 of the SSAR to be revised to reference this document. Revised Chapter 18 of the AP600 SSAR submitted in Revision 9,7/3 tN6. WCAP-14644 is referenced in SSAR I8 4, Functional Requirements Analysis and Allocation. Formal WCAP transmittal will be made following receipt of NRC comments. Element 3. Comments Recieved from NRC on 8/13. To close this item, SSAR Chl8 was submitted and we owe a rev to WCAP-14644 Closed - In reference to letter NSD-NRC-96-4831 dated 9 October 1996. Action N - See NRC letter dated 12/9/96. - NO. ~lhis was closed (repeat of 2466). rLn 1/28 Page: 13 Total Records: 45
AP600 Open It m Tracking Syst;m D:t; base: Exec tiv2 Summary Date: U30/97 Selection: [nrc si code]<>' Resolved And [DSER Section)like '18** Sotted by item # licm DSER Section/ Titic/ Description Resp (W) NRC + No Branch Question Type Detail Status Engineer Status Status letter No. / Date 1343 NRR/Illif B 18 6.3-1 DSER-OI MMIS/Kerch Closed Action N Westinghouse should provide infarmation regarding the number and qualifications of personnel. Westinghouse should provide additional mformation on how the IIFE design and implementation process will address the number and qualifications of personnel required during the full
, range of plant conditions and tasks, including operational tasks, plant maintenance, and plant surveillance and testing.
Conference call with NRC 3/21/95: (J Bongarra, G Galletti, T Kenyon, J 011 ara, J.fliggins, A.Sterdis, J Easter, E Roth, S Kerch) Action W: Westinghouse to revise the applicable chapter 18 SSAR sections to reflect the statements and process described in the closure path. State that staffmg levels outside of the operations statT, such as maintenance, is the responsibility of the COL applicant (COL information item l needed). The same approach will be applied to all the stafHng open items. Westinghouse is to clearly identify to the NRC where in the draR revision each open item is addressed. This will be done by utilizing this database; ie., in the database for each open item provide the map of the open item to the parragraph(s)in the draft revision where the open item is addressed. Action W Conference call with NRC 3/21/95: (J Bongarra, G Galletti, T.Kenyon, J 01Isra, J liiggins, A.Sterdis, J Easter, E.Roth, S Kerch) Action W: , Westinghouse to revise the applicable chapter 18 SSAR sections (Revision 4 to SSAR) to reflect the statements and process described in the closure path. Staae that stafHng levels outside of the operations staff, such as maintenance, is the responsibility of the COL applicant (COL information , item needed) " Die same approach will be applied to all the staffing open items. Westinghouse is to clearly identify to the NRC where in the drah . revision each open item is addressed. Action W: A draft revision to SSAR section 18.7 (Staffing) netds to be sent to NRC, addressing all element 5 open items. The NRC action will then be to review and provide feedback. 4/8/96: A draft of I 8.7 has finished red team review; comments have been incorporated or resolved. The draft is now in word processing. i Resolved. Per a discussion with the NRC on 5/22, staffing will be addressed as a COL responsibility. Closure will depend upon the revised submittal of Chapter 18. Revised Chapter 18.6 of the AP600 SSAR submitted in Revision 9,7/31/96 This includes combined license applicant responsibility for stafHng. hem will be closed when supporting WCAP on stafHng is transmitted. l Element 5. i With SSAR Ch 18 submittal and WCAP-14694 this is closed. t Action N - See NRC letter dated 12/9/96. NRC to confum completion of Element 5. rkn 1/28 r l i Page: 11 Total Records: 45
AP600 Open It;m Tracking Syst;m Database: Execc tiv2 Summary Dat:: 1/30/97 Selection: [nrc st ccde]<>' Resolved
- And [DSER Section] like '18t* Sorted by item #
Item DSI. R Section/ Titic/ Description Resp (W) NRC No. Ilranch Question Typc Detail Status Engineer Status Status Letter No / Date 1344 NRR/IllIFB 1863-2 DSER-OI MMIS/Kerch Closed Action N
' Westinghouse should provide information regarding the stamng level analysis. Westinghouse should discuss how the stamng design meets the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(m), and describe the analyses conducted to determine whether these requirements were appropriate for the AP600.
Westinghouse should also describe the process that will be used to validate staffmg requirements against the task analysis and against the physical design of the AP600 operations and control centers, as well as how the availability of plact infonnation from individual operator workstations will be used in the analysis of stamng levels. Westinghouse should also discuss the availability of operators considering other ongoing activities, and how that relates to stamng. In addition, Westinghouse should provide more information on the required interaction between operators for diagnosis, planning.and control activities, and interaction between personnel for administrative, communcations, and reporting activisies. Finally, Westinghouse should discuss how the actions required in 10 CFR 50.47 (and NUREG-0654) and stafTmg requirements in Sections 13.I .2 and I313 of NUREG-0800 and 10 CFR 50.54 will be taken into account in the stamng level decisions made for the AP600. Conference call with NRC 3/2tN5: (J Bongarra, G Galletti, T Kenyon, J 011 ara, J liiggins, A.Sterdis, J Easter, E.Roth, S.Kerch) Action W: Westinghouse to revise the applicable chapter 18 SSAR sections to reflect the statements and process describeJ in tM ckisure path. State that stafTmg levels outside of the operations staff, such as maintenance, is the responsibility of the COL applicant (COL Information item needed). The same approach will be applied to all the staffmg open items. Westinghouse is to clearly identify to the NRC where in the draft revision each open item is addressed. This will be done by utilizing this database; ie., in the database for each open item provide the map of the open item to the parragraph(s) in the draft revision where the open item is addressed. Action W Conference call with NRC 3/2IN5: (J lhmgarra, G Gallet*i, T Kenyon, J 01Iara, J liiggins, A.Sterdis, J Easter, E Roth, S Kerth) Actkm W: Westinghouse to revise the applicable chapter 18 SSAR sections to reflect the statements and process described in the closure path State that stafTmg levels outside of the operations staff, such as maintenance, is the responsibility of the COL applicant (COL Information item needed) The same approach will be applied to all the stafTmg open items. Westinghouse is to clearly identify to the NRC where in the draft resision each open item is addressed. Action W: A draft revision to SSAR section i8 7 (StatTmg) needs to be sent to NRC, addressing all element 5 open items. The NRC action will then be to review and provide feedback 4/8N& A draft of I8.7 has finished red team review; comments have been incorporated or resolved. lhe draft is now in word processing. Resolved. Per a discussion with the NRC on 5/22, stamng will be addressed as a COL responsibility. Closure will depend upon the retised submittal of Chapter 18. Revised Chapter i8.6 of the AP600 SSAR submitted in Revision 9,7/31N6. This includes combined license applicant responsibility for stamng item will be closed when supporting WCAP on staffmg is transmitted.
# Element 5.
With SSAR Ch I8 submittal and WCAP-14694 this is closed. Action N - See NRC letter dated 12NN6. NRC to confirm completion of Element 5. rkn 1/28 _. Page: 15 Total Records: 45 _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . .--__. _ _ ~
' AP600 Open It;m Tracking System Database: Executiv2 Scamary Date: 100/97 Selection: [nrc st code l<>' Resolved
- And [DSER Section] like '18** Sorted by Item #
Item DSLR Section/ Tit!/ Description Resp (W) NRC No Branch Question Type Det ail Status Engineer Status Status Letter No. I Date 1345 NRRilllIFB I863-3 DSER-OI MMIS/Kerch Closed Action N Westinghouse should provide information regarding the staffing analysis iteration. Westinghouse should escribe in more detail the iterative nature of the staffing level analysis Inaddition, Westinghouse should discuss how the task malysis will be modified if a determination is made that the staffing level is inadequate or if meeting the staffing level requirement adds substantial specialized automatic control of equipment, agiven that it is not clear that the task analysis is crew member-based. Conference call wnh NRC 3/2 t/95: (J Bongarra, G Galletti, T.Kenyon, J O'llara, J liiggins, A Sterdis, J. Easter, E.Roth, S.Kerch) Acytion W: Westinghouse to revise the applicabic chapter 18 SSAR sections to reflect the statements and process described in the clocare path. Action W Conference call with NRC 3/21/95. (J Hongarra, G Galletti. T Kenyon, J O Ilara, J.lliggins, A.Sterdis, J Easter, E Roth, S Kerch) Action W: Westinghouse to revise the applicable chapter 18 SSAR sections to reflect the statements and process described in the closure path. Action W: A draft revision to SSAR section 18.7 (Statling) needs to be sent to NRC, addressing all element 5 open items. The NRC action mill then be to review and provide feedback. 4/8/96: A draA of I8.7 has finished red team review; comments have been incorporated or resolved. The draft is now in word processing. Resolved. Per a discussion with the NRC on 5/22, staffing will be addressed as a COL responsibility. Closure will depend upon the revised submittal of Chapter 18. Revised Chapter I8 6 of the AP600 SSAR submited in Revision 9,7/31/96. This includes combined license applicant responsibility for staffing. Item will be closed when supporting WCAP on staffing is transmitted. Element 5. With SSAR Ch 18 submittal and WCAP-14694 this is closed. Action N - See NRC letter dated 12/9/96. NRC to confirm completion of Element 5. rkn 1/28 Page: 16 Total Records: 45
AP600 Open It;m Tracking System Dat; base: Exec-tivo Summary Date: U30/97 Selection: [nrc st code l<>' Resolved' And [DSER Section)like '18** Sorted by Item # leem DSI'R Section/ Titic/ Description Resp (W) NRC No Branch Queston Typc Detant Status Engineer Status Status Ictter No. / Date I346 NRR/lIlliB I863-4 DSER-Ol MMIS/Kerch Closed Action N ' Westinghouse should provide information regarding the compliance of staffing with the life PRM clements. Westinghouse should provide additional information, particularly for those elements of Criterion 4,
- Basis for Staffing," of this section, that are not specifically addressed for operations personnel, and for all the elements of Criterion 4
- Basis for Staffing,' of this scciton as they relate to nonwyerations personnel.
Conference call with NRC 3/21/95: (J Bongarra, G Galletti, T Kenyon, J 011 ara, J liiggins, A.Sterdis, J Easter, E.Roth, S Kerch) Action W: Westinghouse to revise the applicable chapter 18 SSAR sections to reflect the statements and process described in the closure path. Action W Conference call with NRC 3/21/95: (J.Bongarra, G Galletti, T Kenyon, J 011 ara, J.lliggins, A.Sterdis, J Easter, E.Roth, S Kerch) Action W: Westinghouse to revise the applicable chapter I B SSAR sections to reflect the statements and process described io the closure path. Action W: A draft revision to SSAR section 18.7 (Staffmg) needs to be sent to NRC, addressing all element 5 t wn items. The NRC action will then be to review and provide feedback. 4/8/96: A draA of 18.7 has finished red team review, comments have been incorporated or resolved. The draR is no v in word processing. Resolved: Per a discussion with the NRC on 5/22, staffing will be addressed as a COL responsibility. Closure will depend upon the revised submittal of Chapter 18. Revised Chapter 18 6 of the AP600 SSAR submitted in Revision 9,7/31/96. This includes cornbined license applicant responsibility for staffing. Item will be closed when supporting WCAP on staffing is transmitted. Element 5. With SSAR Ch 18 submittal and WCAP-14694 this is closed Action N - See NRC letter dated 12/9/96. NRC to confum completion of Elernent 5. rLn I/28 Page: 17 Total Records: 45
. . . _ __ ,_ _ _ .. _ . . _ _ _ _ . . . -. . . _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ ..m . ._
AP640 Open ItIm Tracking Syst1m Database: Execttiva S:mmaar7 Dat:: 1/30/97 Selection: [nre st code]<>' Resolved
- And {DSER Section] like 'IS** Sosted by Item # ,
item DSER Section/ Title / Description Resp (W) NRC i No. Branch Question Type Detail Status Engineer Status Status t etter No. / Date I 1347 NRR/lHM B 1863-5 DSER-OI MMIS/Kerch Closed Action N Westinghouse should provide information regardmg the stasmg necthodology source materials. Westinghouse should identify the industry j standards, guidelines, and practices on which the staEng implementation plan is bued. ; t Conference call with NRC 3/21/95: i (J Bongarra, G Galletti, T.Kenyon, J OHara, J liiggins, A.Sterdis, J Easter, E.Roth, S Kerch) + I Action W: Westinghouse to revise the applicable chapter 18 SSAR sections to reflect the statements and process descnbed in the closure path. Based on the discussions with the NRC on staEng and the information to be provided to address each staffing open item, this item will bc l covesed. We need to ensure that the staffmg COL Action item identifies the COL applicant responsibility and states the staffing assumptions that were snade in design certification. , 4 Action W t Conicience call with NRC 3/21/95: (J Bongarra, G Galletti, T.Kenyon, J Ollara, J liiggins, A.Sterdis, J. Easter E.Roth, S Kerch) Action W: i Westinghouse to revise the applicable chapter I8 SSAR sections to reficct the statements and process described in the closure path. Based on the discussions with the NRC on staffmg and the information to be provided to address each staffing open item, this item will be covered. We need to ensure that the stafrung COL Action item identifies the COL applicant responsibility and states the staffmg assumptions that were made in design certification. 4 [. Action W: A draR revision to SSAR section 18.7 (Staffung) needs to be sent to NRC, addressing all element 5 open items. The NRC action wit! then be to sevicw and provide feedback , i 4/8/96: A draR of 18.7 has finished red team review; conunents have been incorporated or resolved. The draR is now in word processing. Resolved: Per a discussion with the NRC on 5/22, staffung will be addressed as a COL responsibility. Closure will depend upon the revised submittal of Chapter I8. Revised Chapter I8 6 of the AP600 SSAR submined in Revision 9,7/31/96. This includes combined license applicant responsibihty for staffing. Item will be closed wher* opporting WCAP on staffing is transmitted. Element 5. With SSAR Ch 18 submittal and WCAP-14694 this is closed. i Action N - See NRC letter dated 12/9/96. NRC to confirm completion of Element 5. rkn I/28 i i i i s l' age: 18 Total Records: 45 1
' AP600 Open Itre Trackirg System Dat:, base: Executive Samarry Datu 1/30/97 Selecties- [nre st code]<>' Resolved' And [DSER Section)like *18" Sorted by Item # .i l
Item DSER Section/ Titic/ Description Resp (W) NRC _ No. Branch Question Type Detani Status Engineer Status Status letter No. I Date 1354 NRR/lilltB 18 8.1.3-1 . DSER-Oi MMIS Closed Action W NTD-NRC-97-4%I , Westinghouse should psovide information regardmg the 11S1 design process guidance. Westinghouse should descnbe how evaluation results will be communicated to designers, incorporated into design guidance, and reflected in final design documentation. The process by which i unplementation guidance will be developed must also be described. , a ceting of 3/10/95: Action N: NRC will review our oesign process as described in the SSAR, RAls and in WCAP 12601, and WCAP 9817 and provide us feedback De NRC will review the SSD procedures of WCAP 12601 to determine if they cover issues like "providing guidance to 151 designers for , addressing / utilizing design inputs such as the FBTA results". Note that the procedures will be at a higher level not specifically referring to the ; FBTA or other specific 11FE analyses or reposts. He staff will also review the Alarm System Design Guidelines and the Interim Report on t Technical Principics for Cosnputer Based Displays of Lata (both on file in Rocksille office). Informal feedback from NRC was that the display l document does provide the intended guidance. . 1 Meetsng of 3/10/95; NRC reviewed our design process as descnbed in the SSAR, RAls and in WCAP 12601, and WCAP 9817 and provided l feedback via a letter dated 7/25/95. ! Action W: Review and address NRC feedback issues. L t Revised SSAR Chapter 18 submitted in Revision 9.7/31/96. This includes SSAR I8.8, lluman System Interface Design and SSAR I8.2, iluman h ' ^ Factors Engineenns Program F _----- l NRC letter of Dec 19 says W action for element 7. ska 12/19 !
- Closed with submittal of WCAP-143% Rev 2. rkn 1/30/97 !
1356 NRR/IBIFB 18 8.1.3-3 DSER-Ol MMIS Closed Action W NTD-NRC-97-4%I Westinghouse should provide information regarding HSI characteristics. Westinghouse should describe how potential problems associated with j high workload will be identified early in the design process, and how the concems noted in the evaluation above will be addressed Westinghouse i should also descnbe how the design of workstations (inside and outside f.e MCR) ensa.rnupport ofoptimal operator performance under a range of ; i conditions i Meeting of 3/10/95: Same as the
- Action N* note in the open item description field for dbase item number 1354.
Meeting of 3/10/95: NRCreviewed our design process as described in the SSAR, RAls and in WCAP 12601, and WCAP 9817 and provided i feedback. He NRC reviewed the SSD procedures of WCAP 12601 with respect to covering issues like "providing guidance to list dei;::m for [ h addressing / utilizing design inputs such as the FBTA results* Note that the procedures will be at a higher level, mt spe:ifically referring to the ' FBTA or other specific flFE analyses or reports. De staff also reviewed the Alarm System Design Guidelmes and the 12erim Report on Technical t Principles for Computer Beed Displays of Data (both on file in Rockville office). Feedback from NRC was that the di*. play document does ; r provide the intended guidance. l 6/7/95: Fax of a response to this open item was sent to J. Bongarra. NRC reviewed the response and provided feedback indicating that the response is acceptable. See NRC letter dated 7/25/95. SSAR revision required for closure. i Revised SSAR Chapter 18 submitted in Revision 9,7/31/96. This includes SSAR 18.8, iluman System Interface Design and SSAR 18.2, iluman Factors Engineering Program Management. ; NRC letter rec *d 12/19 statusing Action w for El 7. rkn 12/19 ; Westinghouse activities completed with submittal of WCAP-143% Rev 2. rkn I/28/97. ! , L Page: 19 Total Records: 45
.._ _ . _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . , _ _ . . _ _ _-m. _.________.___.__.__.m-___.________.________________..____.__m_
. . . -... . . - . .- ~ _ - - - .. . . . . . .
i AP600 Open ItIm Tracki g Systm Dat; base: Executiv: Summary Date: 1/30/97 Selection: [nrc st codej<>' Resolved
- And [DSER Section] like'18** Sotted by item # .
Item DSI- R Section/ Titic/ Description Resp (W) NRC , No. Branch Question T)pe Detail Status Engineer Status Status letter No I Date 1360 NRR/lillFB 1881.3-7 USER-OI ITAAC/MMIS Closed Actkm W NSD-NRC-4875 Westinghouse should provide information regarding the llSI evaluation. Westinghouse should describe the rationale fer the llSis, design elements, and procedares selected for evaluation, and for the points in the design process at which the evaluations are to occur. Westinghouse should also describe the process for identifying and resolving conflicts in guidance, as well as the rationale for design decisions that conflict with guidance. Meeting of 3/10/95: 9 Same as the " Action N' note in the open item description field for dbase item number 1354. NRC reviewed the quideline documents and found them acceptable. See NRC letter dated 7/3/95. ITAAC required for closure. Revised SSAR Chapter 18 submitted in Revision 9,7/31% This includes SSAR 18.8, iluman System Intertae Design and SSAR 18.2, iluman Factors Engineering Program Management. Element 7. SSAR Rev 9 Ch 18 and WCAP-14396by I submittals. I Closed -ITAAC submitted by NSD-NRC-96-4875 of lin/96. Action W per NRC letter of Dec 19 for El 7. rkn 12/19 1361 NRR/IlliFB 1881.3-8 DSER4)I ITAAC/MMIS Closed Action W NSD-NRC-4875 Westinghouse should describe how the llSI design will be documented. Westinghouse should desenbe how the final iISI design uill be documented, incorporating the bases given in the criterion. Meeting of 3/10/95: Same as the
- Action N* note in the open item description field for dbase item number I354.
NRC reviewed the quideline documents and found them acceptable. See NRC letter dated 7/25/95. ITAAC required for closure. Revised SSAR Chapter I8 submitted in Revision 9,7/3 th This inclu es i SSAR I8.8,iluman System Interface Design and SSAR I8.2,iluman Factors Engineering Program Management. i Element 7. SSAR Rev 9 Ch 18 and WCAP-143% Rev I submittals. Closed - ITAAC submitted by NSD-NRC-96-4875 of II/7N Action W per NRC letter of 12/19 for El 7. rkn 12/19
/
i I P:ge: 20 Total Records: 45
AP600 Ope:a Itses Tracking Systems Database: Execntive S:mma*3ry pas 2: U3e/97 Selecteen: lnre st code]<>' Resolved' And [DSER Section] lil e'18 Sorted by iteln # tsem DSER Section/ ' Titic/ Description Resp (W) NRC No. Bruich Question Type Detail Status Engineer Status - Status letter No. I Daee 1362 NRR/HilFB 18.823-1 DSER4M SSARREV Confrm-W - Action N r Westinghouse should describe how the safety parameter display sysica (SPDS) design wing eje -d to meet all pertinent IISI design cracria. Westinghouse should provide assurance that the SPDS design will nicet all of the pertinent criteria as part of the HSI. Westinghouse should describe how the SPDS will privide a rapid and concise display of critical plant variables to control room operators.. Westinghouse should describe how the SPDS ' , ' -------ion will be convenient to control room personnel. Westinghouse should describe how the SPDS function will continuously display plant safety infornistion. Westinghouse should describe how the SPDS will achieve a high degree of reliability; Westinghouse should describe how the SPDS will be suitably isolated from elecerical or electronic LM.a with safety systeins. Westmghouse should describe how human factors principles will be incorporated into the SPDS. Westmghouse should describe how the SPDS will display sufficient information to deternme plant safety status with respect to safety functions. Westinghouse should describe how procedures and operror trauung, addressing actions both with and without the SPDS, will be ' , Per 2/16/95 conference call between Jim Bongarra, John OHara & Kerch. Easter, Roth, Murnaw: Action N - Send us any further s:.o.= .s from a review of our rev. I response to RAI 620.48 compared against the DSER issue'8 8,2.3 crieeria (3/8 meeting in Monroeville). Action W - AAct receiveing the deficiency list froen NRC, respond to it Meetingof 3/885: Action W - Westinghouse to adress the comments provided by the NRC staff during 3/8 enecting. Refer to meeting noses / minutes for the details. In general, one word answers (yes or no) as found in RAI 620.48 were irsisflicient. Each of the 10 CFR 50 34 requirements (la - le,2 - 9) and the additional informatson that was needed was discussed. Westinghouse tojustify difference between our critical safety function parameters on the SPDS and those specified by NUREG 1342 and the generic letter. Need to address the critical safety functions listed on page 8 of NUREG 0737. Refer to mectag notes / minutes for further detail. Action W
.Meetag of 3/8/95: Action W - Westinghouse to address the comments provided by the NRC staffduring 3/8 meeting. Refer to meeting noses /msnutes for the details. In general,one word answers (yes or no) as found in RAI 620 43 were insumcient. Each of the 10 CFR 50.34 requirements (la - le,2 - 9) and the addossonal information that was needed was discussed. Westinghouse tojustify difference between our critical safety function parameters on the SPDS and those specified by NUREG 1342 and the generic Icteer. Need to address the critical safety functions listed on page 8 of NUREG 0737. Refer to niectag noses / minuses for further detail. Westinghouse will fax to the NRC filiFB a response to this open item. His response will be sent as a dreR RAI revision 2 to Q620.48. The NRC action will be to review the response and provide feedback.
11 e formal docunnentation to close this item will be a revision to SSAR section 18.9.2.2.6 or the fumial revision 2 to RAI Q620 48, both of which would incorpersee NRC leedback as result of reviewing the draR RAI revision. 60/95: Fax of document providing responses to the 9 criteria identified in the open item was sent to J Bongarra. NRC reviewed this dacument and j provided feedback via fax of 9/2185. Six of the nine SPDS criteria are considered resolved. 1 Action W: To respond to remaining questions in fax of 9/21/95. (see NRC response letter sent 9/28N5) ' Revised SSAR Chapser 18 submitted in Revision 9,7/3186. His includes SSAR I8 8, iluman System Interface Design. Action W for 2-4 of the 9 SPDS items per NRC letter of Dec 19. rka 12/19 ! Action N - See NRC letter dated 12/9/96. NRC gproved the markup of SSAR 18.8.2.2. His item is open to confmn SSAR changes are incorporated into the next revision. rkn 1/15N7. i I l 1 Page: 21 Total Records: 45
1 AP600 Open Iten: Tracking Sy; tem Dat; base: Execctive Sunissary Date: 1/30/97 Selection: lnrc st code]<>' Resolved' And [DSER Section] like'18** Sorted by item # Item DSER Sectionf litic/ Description Resp (W) NRC No Branch Question Type Detail Status Engineer Staus Status lxtier No. I Due 1363 NRR/lilif B I893-1 DSER-Ol MMIS/ ERG Closed Action N Westinghouse should clarit'y the scope of the procedure development program Per 2/16/95 conference call between Jim Bongarra, John O'llara & Kerch, Easter, Roth, Mumaw: Acton W - Send the revised wrticup to applictSle section of SSAR chapter 18 Actiort W Westinghouse sent a draR revision of SSAR section 18.9.8 to the NRC. This section will reference 13.53 which will state that the development of procedures is a combined license applicant responsibility. The revised 13.53 mill be sent as part of the formal revision 3 to the SSAR. j NRC to reviewed draR of I8 9 8 see NRC fax of 2/20/96. ACTION W: to respond to concerns of the fax; was discussed in conference call of 3/21/96. Closed - Procedure development is addressed in revised SSAR Chapters 13 and I 8 submitted in Rev. 9,7/31/96. Action N - See NRC letter desed 12/9/96. 1365 NRR/Illif B 1893-3 DSER-OI MMIS/ ERG Closed Action W NSD-NRC-96-4805 Westinghouse should provide informwon regarding the writer's guide. Westinghouse should describe how the writer's guide will address the ! unique features of a paper- and computer-based presentation of procedures i Per 2/16/95 conference call between Jim Bongarra, John 011 ara & Kerch, Easter, Roth, Mumaw: Action W - NRC agreed to resolution path "in principle
- and we need to send revision to SSAR section.
, Action W Per 2/I6/95 conference call between Jim Hongarra, John O'llara & Kerch, Easter, Roth, Mumaw: Action W - NRC agreed to resolution path *in principle" and we need to send revision to SSAR section.
Westinghouse sent (via fax or fedex) to the NRC a draR revision to SSAR 18.9 8 rCl8/95 mhich will progide the response to this open item. Action N; NPC to review draR of I8.9 8 ; see NRC fax of 2/20% i ACTION W: to respond to concerns of the fax; was discussed in conference call of 3/21/96. Element 8. With subminal of SSAR Pev 9 ch 18 and WCAP-14690, the MMIS portion of this item is closed Nee 1 to determine what is required to close ERG portion ofitem. ResolveJ - Per DCP/NRC0589, this item will be closed with submittal of the at-power ERG's. No ERG changes required. rkn 12/3 i 1*rge: 22 Total Records: 45
AP600 Open Item Tracking System Database: Exec;tivaSumm ry Date: 1/30/97 ! Selection: lnre st cede)<>' Resolved' And (DSER Section] like 'l8** Sorted by item # leem DSER Section/ Titic/Descripikm RcSp (W) NRC No Branch Question T)pc Detail Status Engineer Status Status Ectier No. / Date 1366 NRR/IllH B 1893-4 DSER-OI MMIS/ ERG Closed Action W NSD-NRC-96-4805 [ Westinghouse should provide information regardmg the contents of procedures. Westinghouse should descnbe and proside a rationale for the differences, if any, between the paper- and computer-based presentations of the items in this criterion (or in NUREG-0899). Per 2/16/95 conference call between Jim Bongarra, John O'llara & Kerch, Easter, Roth, Mumaw: Acton W - NRC agreed to resolution path "in principic" and we need to send resision to SSAR section f
. Action W j i
Per 2/16/95 conference call between Jim Bongarra, John 011 ara & Ecrch, Easter, Roth, Mumaw: Action W - NRC agreed to recolution path *m principic" and we need to send revision to SSAR sectkm. Westinghouse sent (via fax or fedex) to the NRC a draft revision to SSAR I8 9 8 on 8/lBS5 mhich provided the response to this open itern Action N: NRC to review draft of I8.9 8 ; see NRC fax of 2/20/96.
- ACTION W; to respond to concerns of the fax; was discussed in conference call of 3/21M6.
Element 8. With submittal of SSAR Rev 9 ch I8 and WCAP-14690, the MMIS portion of this i*cm is closed Need to determine what is required to close ERG portion of this item Resolved - Per DCP/NRC0589, this item will be closed with submittal of the at-power ERG's. No ERG changes required. rkn 12/3 1367 NRR/lHGB 1893-5 DSER-OI MMIS/ ERG Closed Action W NSD-NRC-96-4794 Westinghouse should provide informaton regardmg the symptom- based emergency operating procedures (EOPs). Westmghouse should submit I the AP600-specific ERGS so that the statican verify that the EOPs will be s31nptom-based. Per 2/16/95 conference call between Jim Bongarra, John O'llara & Kerch, Easter, Roth, Mumaw: ; Action W - NRC agreed to resolution path "in principle" and we need to send the ERGS and background documents to NRC. Action W Per 2/15s5 conference call between Jim Bongarra, John 011 ara & Kerch, Easter, Roth, Mumaw: Action W - NRC agreed to resolution path "in principic" and we need to send the ERGS and background documents to NRC. These will he sent via a phased approach with phase 1 ERGS to be sent 5/31N5. Status updane provided by phone (D. Jackson 8/21): Action W is to romplete analytical basis for AE-1. AES-I 2. AE-2, and supporting documentation for shutdown ERG. Closed with submittal of ERGS Rev 2 cn Jan 10,1997. rkn 1/15/97. Closed - In Response to letter NSD-NRC-96-4794. Action W - See NRC letter dated 12/9/96. This item is closed with submittal of the ERGS Rev 2 Jan 10 rkn 1/15/97. Page: 23 Total Records: 45
AP600 Ope:2 Itens Tracking Systen Detbase: Executiva Sunissary Date: 100/97 Selection: [nre st code]<>' Resolved' And [ USER Section] like *18" Sorted by item # hem DSLR Section/ Title /Desenption Resp (W) NRC No Branch Question T3pe Detail Status Engineer Status Status Ixtter No. / Date ; 1368 NRR/Illifil 18 9.3-6 DSERol MMIS/ ERG Closed Action W NSD-NRC-96-4805 Westinghouse should provide infonnation regarding the V&V procedure. Westinghouse should clarify the relationship of the EOP V&V to the M-MIS evaluation issues. The V&V process for hardcopy pieccJ~ should also be desenbed. Per 2/16/95 conference call between Jim Bongarra, John O'Hara & Kerch, Easter, Roth, Mumaw-Action W - NRC agreed to resolution path *in principic" and we need to send revision to SSAR section. Action W Per 2/16/95 conference call between Jim Bongarra, Jo*in O'llara & Kerch, Enter, Roth, Mumaw: Action W - NRC agreed to resolution path *in principle" and we need to send revision to SSAR section. Westinghouse sent (via fax or fedez) to the NRC a drmA revision to SSAR 18.9.8 on 8/18/95 which provided the response to this open item NRC to review draA of 18.9 8 ; see NRC fax of 2/2&% ACTION W: to respond to concerns of the fax; was discussed in conference call of 3/21/96. Element 8. With submittal of SSAR Rev 9 ch 18 and WCAP-14690, the MMIS portion of this item is closed. Need to determine what is required , to close ERG portion. I Resolved - Per DCP/NRC0589, this item will be closed with submittal of the at-power ERGS. l No ERG changes required. WCAP-14401 provides the programmatic procedure V&V. rkn 12/3 1369 NRR/IlliFB 1893-7 DSER OI MMIS/ ERG Closed Action W NSD-NRC-96-4805 Westinghouse should provide information regarding the computer- based procedures. Westinghouse should describe the process by which human engineering issues associated with computer-based procedures will be resolved (e g, concept testing, and other analyses) Per 2/I6/95 conference call between Jim Bongarra, John Gilara & Kerch, Easter, Roth, Mumaw: Action W - NRC agreed to resolution path "in principle" and we need to send revision to SSAR section. Action W Per 2/16/95 conference call between Jim Bongarra, John 011 ara & Kerch, Easter, Roth, Mumaw: Action W - NRC agreed to rc=91ution path "in prmcipic" and we need to send revision to SSAR section. Westinghouse sent (via fax or fedex) to the NRC a draA revision to SSAR 18.9 8 on 8/18/95 which provided the resptmse to this open item. NRC to review draA of 18.9 8 ; see NRC fax of 2/20h ACTION W: to respond to concerns of the fax; was discussed in conference call of 3/21/96 Element 8 With submittal of SSAR Rev 9 ch 18 and WCAP-14690, the MMIS portion of this item is closed. Need to determine what is required to close ERG portion. Resolved - Per DCP/NRC0589, this item will be closed with submittal of the at-power ERGS. ; No ERG changes required. Refer to SSAR Sections 18 2 and 18.9 and Figure 18.2-3 for inputs to IISI design rLn 12/3 l. l l' age: 24 Total Records: 45
. 1
- _ . .r~. . _m.- --__._ .. _, ..~__m.... .
AP600 Open item Tracking System Dat base: Exec;tiv2 Summary Date: t/30/97 Selection: lnre st code l<>'Resobed' And [DSER Sectionj hke'IS" Sorted by item # Item DSL R Section/ Title /Descnption Resp (W) NRC No Branch Question Type Detail Status Engineer Status Status i.etter No / Date 1370 NRR/Illli B 1893-8 DSLR-OI MMISTRG Closed Action W NSD-NRC-96-4805 Westmghouse should provide information regardmg procedure maintenance. Westinghouse should describe the administratise puedures that will~ ensure that hardcopy procedures remain current and consistent with the computer-based procedures. Per 2/16/95 conference call between Jim Hongarra, John 011 ara & Kerch, Easter, Roth, Mumaw: Action W - NRC agreed to resolution path "in principle
- and we need to send resision to SSAR section
- Action W Per 2/16/95 conference call between Jim Bongarra, John 011 ara & Kerch, Easter, Roth, Mumaw: Action W - NRC agreed to resolution path *in principic" and we need to send revrsson to SSAR section Westinghouse sent (via fax or fedeal to the NRC a draft resision to SSAR 18 9 8 on 8/18/95 mhich presided the response to this open item NRC to review draft of I8.9 8, see NRC fax of 2/20/96 ACTION W: to respond to concems of the fax; was discussed in conference call of 3/23/96.
Element 8. With submittal of SSAR Rev 9 ch 18 and WCAP-14690, the MMIS portion of this item is closed Need to determine what is required to close ERG portion. Resolved - Per DCP/NRC0589, this item will be closed with submittal of th at-power ERG's No ERG changes required SSAR 13.5 notes procedure development , including administrative procedures, are COL apphcant responsibility. See also SSAR 18 9 which references WCAP 14690. rLn 1,2/3 1371 NRR/IllllB 18 9.3-9 DSER-OI MMIS/ ERG Closed Act on W N5D-NRC-96-4805 Westinghouse should provide information regardmg procedure use. Westinghouse should describe provisions for access to, and use of, hardcopy procedures, as backups either in the control room or at locations outside the control room. Westinghouse should also descnbe how disruptkm of ongoing activity by automatically accessed procedures will be minimized Per 2/16/95 conference call between Jim Bongarra, John O'llara & Kerch, Easter, Roth, Mumaw: Action W - NRC agreed to resolution path "in principic" and we need to send resision to SSAR sectien. Action W Per 2/16/95 conference call between Jim Hongarra, John O'llara & Kerch, Easter, Roth, Mamaw Actkm W - NRC agreed to resolution path "in prmciple" and we need to send revision to SSAR sectian.
; Westinghouse sent (via fas or fcdca) to the NRC a draft revision to SSAR I8 9 8 on 8/l8/95 which provided the response to this open item.
INRC la revkw draft of I$ 9 8 ; see NRC fax of 2/20/96. ACTION W: to respond to concarns of the fax; was discussed in conference call of 3/21/96 Element 8. With submittal of SSAR Rev 9 ch I8 and WCAP-14690, the MMIS portion of this item is closed Need to determine what is required to close ERG portion. Resolved - Per DCP/NRC0589, this item will be closed with submittal of th at-power ERG's. No ERG changes required SSAR 13.5 notes procedure development , including administrative procedures, are COI. applicant responsibihty See also SSAR I8.9 which references WCAP 14690. rLn 12/3 _ Page. 25 1otal Records: 45
Al%00 Open Item Tracking System Database: Executive Sammary Date: 1/36/97 Selection: [nrc st codej<>' Resolved
- And [DSER Section] like '18" Sorted by Item #
Item D51 R Section/ Title / Description Resp (W) NRC No. Branch Question Type Detail Status Engineer Status Status LetterNo / IMc 1372 NRR/Illif B 1893-10 DSER4)I MMIS/Kerch Closed Action N Westmghouse should provide inforrnation regardmg the source material for procedure devekyrnent. Westinghouse should descnbe the sources or experience drawn upon in developing guidance for the design of the computer-based procedures. . Conference call with NRC 3/2I/95: (J Bongarra, G Galletti, T.Kenyon, J O'llara, J liiggins, A.Sterdis J. Easter E.Roth, S Kerch) Action W: Westinghouse to revise the applicable chapect 18 SSAR sections to reflect the statements and process described in the closure path.1he NRCs intent of this open item is limited to the w...ya.k iion of procedures. Action W Conference call with NRC 3/21/95: (J Bongarra, G Galletti, T Kenyon, J O'llara, J liiggins, A.Sterdis, J Easter. E.Roth, S Kerch) Action W: Westinghouse to revise the applicable chapact I8 SSAR sections to reflect the statements and process descnbed in the closure path. The NRCs anecnt of this open item is limited to the computerization of procedures. Westinghouse sent (via fax or fedex) to the NRC a draR revision to SSAR 18.9 8 on 8/18/95 which provided the response to this open item. NRC to review draR of 18.9 8 ; see NRC faz of 2/20/96. ACTION W: to respond to concerns of the fax; was discussed in conference call of 3/21/96. Element 8. With submittal of SSAR Rev 9 ch I 8 and WCAP-14690, this item is closed. Action N - See NRC letter dated 12/9/96. l' age: 26 Total Records: 45
AP600 Open ItIm Tracking Sy; tens Dat:. base: Exec tivaSummary Date: 1/30/97 Selecties: [nrc st codeJ<>' Resolved' And [DSER Section] like 'l8** Sorted by item # item DSLR Section/ Titic! Description Resp (W) NRC No Brmch Questnon 1ypc Detail Statu, Engineer Status Status Letter No. I Date 1392 NRR/IllllB 18113 4-1 DSER-OI MMIS Closed Action W NTD-NRC-97-4061 Westinghouse should commit to developing a methodology for integrated system validatior. and related criteria Westinghouse should desenbe the tools to be used in evaluating dynamic task puIw..._ .;c in the V&V methodology. Westinghouse should describe how the V&V methodology will address the objectives listed as part of this criterion. Westinghouse should describe how the testing of critical human actions =ill be addressed in the V&V methodology. Westinghouse should describe how the V&V methodology will address the categories identified in Appendix A to RG 133 regarding procedure-relseed activitks. Westinghouse should describe how the V&V methodology will evaluate performance under a range of operational conditens and upsets, and provide additional information about the Evaluation 17 test scenarios. Westinghouse should describe how the validation scenarios wdl be made realistic as part of the V&V methodology. Westinghouse should describe how the VAV methodology will address performance measures to test the achievement of all objectives, design goals, and performance requirements Per 2/16/95 conference call between Jim Bongarra, John O'llara & Kerch, Easter, Roth, Mumaw: Action W - NRC agreed to resolution path "in principle" and we need to issue &xument & SSAR reviskm. I Action N - NRC to provide clarification on which y,4,w per RG 133 should be covered by V&V. Meeting of 3/10/95: Clarification provided (in writing) by NRC to Westinghouse (Emilic). Brief discussion followed. Westinghouse to issue SSAR reviskm and document. Resolved 4/I3/95 - Fax of the " Programmatic Level Description of the AP600 Iluman Factors Verificatkm and Validation Plan
- was sent to J Bongarra and J O'llara A mapping of each element 10 open item to its response / answer was provided. Action N: Review the &xument and determine whether the element 10 open items 18 I t's are adequately addressed.
Resolved 5/I7 phoncon with Jim Bongarra, Jim corsiders all the element 10 VAV open items resolved. Need to submit the revised 18 8 2.3 of chapter 18 of the SSAR as part of the formal SSAR revision. Closed - The iluman Factors Verification and Validation is addressed in revised SSAR Section I8.11, submitted in Rev. 9,7/31/96. Action W - See NRC letter dated 12/9/96. i Completed with submittal of WCAP-14401 Revision 2. rkn I/28/97 Page: 27 Total Records: 45
AP600 Open Itat Tracking Sy; tem Dat; base: Exec .tiv2 Susninary Date: 1/30/97 Selection: lnrc st codel<>' Resolved' And lDSER Section) hke'18" Sorted by item # Item DSI R Section/ Titic/Desenption Resp (W) NRC No. Ilranch Question 1)pc Detail Status Engineer Status Status Ixtter No. / Date 1395 NRR/IIIIIB 1812.31 DSER-OI MMIS Action W Action W NSD-NRC-4875 Westinghouse should submit an acceptable minimum inventory of fixed-position controls, displays, and alarms for transient mitigation. Westinghouse should describe how the task analysis will define a minimum inventoryof alanns, displays, and controls necessary to perform crew tasks. Westinghouse should describe the technical basis for the minimum inventory. Westinghouse should describe how an inventory will be identified of fixed-position controls, displays, and alarms necessary to permit execution of the operator tesks to place and maintain the plant in a safe-shutdown condition. Westinghouse should describe how additional detailed charactenstics of these controls, displays, and alarms (e g., ranges, scales, physical dimensions, and actual information presentation) will be identified, dermed, and implemented. Per 2/16/95 conference call between Jim Bongarra, John O liara & Kerch, Easter, Roth, Mumaw: Westinghouse to include this on the March meeting agenda Action N - Give Westinghouse feedback on our proposed resolution (proposed during 2/2/95 meeting in Rockville). 3/8/95 meeting: NRC requested Westinghouse consider that the detailed list remain completely in Tier 2. Tier I would include the process to select the final inventory. ACTION W: If the inventory list is provided in chapter 7, then make the cross reference strong from chapter 18. Also, the list should include the process / criteria that was used to generate the list. Westinghouse position is that this list is an expansion of the RG 1.97 critieria and philosophy to address controls and displays. Should a Tier i list be required we will pursue use of critieria presented at the Feb 2 meeting versus the NRC criteria used on evolutionary plants. Also prepare a draft Tier I list. Need to take a stab at defining acceptable ITAAC and supporting SSAR information as to how the final inventory will be defined (Use PRA, EOPs, ERGS, FBTA). Caution frotn A. Sterdis - There will be a strong push to be specific in defining these design ITAAC. ACTION N: NRC staff to prepare a position paper for NRC senior management, proposing Tier I include the process Icritieria Goal is to produce the paper to support the next scheduled Senior management meeting of April 4. 2/2N5: Presentation of above made in Rockville, NRC stafIto discuss and provide feedback. 2/9/95: Discussed during NRC/ Westinghouse senior management meeting as one of the top 50 open items Action N - to provide feedback on Westinghouse proposal for resolution. 2/27/95: Conference call with NRC (J. Bongarra, G. Galletti, J. 011 ara, J Easter, A.Sterdis & S Kerch) 1. Agreed to following definition of
" fixed position" - unique location in the control room / control panel for alarms, displays, controls uhere present information from the minunum inventory; continuously available not continously displayed, doesn't have to be class IE; always displayed at the same location; dedicated location where the operator can retrieve infremation that is part of the minimum inventory. 2. Scope of min inv. - failed to reach a mutual understanding on this; NRC stated that scope includes those controls and indications needed to execute the ERG high level operator actions including rmnsafety system actions; disagreed on this 3. Use of FBTA & ERG development task analysis I & C list. 4. % hen completed uhere does this go tier 1 or tier 2? Agreed to discuss at 3/8 meeting.
3/8/95 meeting- NRC requested Westinghouse consider that the detailed list remain completely in Tier 2. Tier I would include the process to select the final inventory. ACTION W: If the invemory list is provided in chapter 7, then make the cross reference strong from chapter I8. Also, the list should include the process / criteria that was used to generate the list. Westinghouse position is that this list is an expansion of the RG I .97 critieria and philosor.hy to address controls and displays. Should a Tier I list be required we will pursue use of critieria presented at the Feb 2 meeting versus the NRC criteria used on evolutionary plants. Also prepare a draA Tier I list. Need to take a stab at defining acceptable ITAAC and supporting SSAR information as to how the final inventory will be defmed (Use PRA, EOPs, ERGS, FUTA) NRC staff prepared a position paper for NRC senior management, proposing Tier I include the process / critieria. Goal is to produce the paper to support the next scheduled Senior management meeting of April 4. 4/19/95 - Fax sent to J Bongarra and G Galleni of NRC that provided a preliminary (draft) description of how the total inventory list was developed and where in the tier 2 (SSAR) document it was found. A description of how the minimum inventory would be selected from the total inventory list (the criteria to be used) was also provided. This would be placed in the Tier I document. A very preliminary dran of a minimum inventory list, using this criteria, was provided for the NRC's information and use as backup to their position paper. The NRC (G Galletti) has submitted the position paper for NRC maugement review. NRC to Determine whether the position paper is acceptable and the proposed Westinghouse appranch is acceptabic.
* *= w - NRC m- s war an N Page: 28 Total Records: 45
AP600 Open It;m Tracking Sy: tem Database: Executiva Summary Date: 1/30/97 Selection: lnrc st code]<>' Resolved' And [DSER Section] like '18" Soned by Item C ltem DSI R Section/ Titic/Descriptkm Resp (W) NRC No. Branch Question T3pe Detail Status Engineer Status Status Ectter No / Date
'~
Resolved - De mmtmum inventory as addressed in revised SSAR Section i 8 submitted in Rev. 9,7/31/96. An ITAAC wdl be prepared wluch will include the list of minimum inventory. Closed -ITAAC submitted by NSD-NRC-96-4875 of II/7/96 NRC action to review the mimmum inventory issue. See NSD-NRC-96-4874. rkn 12/19 Comments on Minimum inventory rec'd by NRC letter 1/I7/97. A telecon is scheduled for Feb 5 to resolve these actions. rf.? I/30/97 1396 NRR/Illli B I8133-1 DSERol ITAAC/MMIS Closed Action W NSD-NRC-4875 Westinghouse should develop the ITAAC/DAC for certain elements of the IIFE PRM. In each of the following areas Westmghouse should provide ITAAC/DAC addressing a -- "- = =t to complete the implementation plan and provide the results to the stafY for review :
- Element 3 - Functional Requirements Analysis / Allocation
- Element 4 -Task Analysis
- Element 5 - StafTmg
- Element 6-lluman Reliabihty Analysis
- Element 7 -Iluman-System Interface Design
- Element 8 - Procedure Devekyment
- Element 9 - Training Program Development Westinghouse should also provide ITAAC/DAC addressing a VAV commitment to (a) develop a detailed implementation plan, and (b) complete the implementation plan and provide the results to the staff for review. ITAAC identifying the minimum inventory must also be developed.
Action W: Westinghouse will discuss with the NRC lilIFB our approach to ITAACS/ Tier I document for chapter 18 Closed - ITAAC submitted by NSD-NRC-96 4875 of 11/7/96. 1397 NRR/IIIII B 18133-2 DSER-OI ITAAC/MMIS Action W Action W NSD-NRC-4875 Westinghouse should provide the specified level of detail for the DCD, ITAAC, and DAC. Westinghouse should. I . Provide a complete set of ITAAC/DAC describing the (a) design commitments; (b) inspections, test, and analyses, and (c) acceptance criteria for Element 3. " Functional Requirements Analysis and Alkwation*; Element 4.
- Task Analysis *; Element 5,
- Staffing *; Element 6, *lluman Reliabihty Analysis
- Element 7. *lluman-System Interace Design *; Element 8.
- Procedure Development *; and Element 9, " Training Prtyram Devek pment 2 Provide a complete set ofITAAC/DAC for all V&V activities, including 1151 task support verification, human factors issue resolution verification, and final ptant ilFE/SIII design verification
- 3. Resolve the staffs concern regarding the use ofIIFE guidelines 'or verification 4 Provide ITAAC/DAC for the minimum inventory _
j Action W: Westinghouse will discuss with the NRC 111IFB our approach to ITAACS/ Tier I document for chapter i8 Chned - ITAAC submitted by NSD-NRC-96-4875 of I1/7/96. Per NSD-NRC-96-4874, W action to respond to NRC comments on ITAACs. rkn 12/19 Page: 29 Total Records: 45 L
AP600 Open It;m Tracking Sy; tem Dat: base: Execrtiv2 Summary Date: U30/97 Selection: lnrc st code]<>' Resolved
- And {DSER Section] like 'l8" Sorted by item #
Item DSER Sectson/ Titic/ Description Resp (W) NRC No liranch Question Type Detad Status Engineer Status Status letter No / Date 2042 NRR/lif flin 18 DSER-Ol50 Kerch Closed Closed 46 Full Scope Simulator for CR Design Review 1he sta!T believes that a full scope simulator for the control room design resicw may be required. While describing the vahdation of the integrated MMIS in chapter i8 of the SSAR (l 8 8.2.3.5), Westinghouse has used the term "a near full scope, high fidelity simulator consisting ofintegrated MMIS components and a high fidelity, dynamic simulation of plant behavior". I believe that the term "near full scope" has made this an issue. This was discussed at a meeting with the NRC on 2/2N5 as part of the presentation on the AP600 ERG development process. Closed Meeting of 3/8N5: NRC indicated that satisfaction of the PRM requirements will address the role of the operator. This item uill be adressed by closure of the chapter 18 DSER issues. Actum N - NRC staff to prepare and issue a policy position paper. This open item is to remain on the top 50 list at least through June Commission paper issuance. The hope is that the policy identified in the June paper uill be sutTicient to remove this item from the list. Discussed at 2N/95 SMM - Issue to be redefined to focus on role of the operator in a passive plant. 5/2/95 Status: No longer considered a Ley licensing issue by staff. Resolution of related DSER issues should Icad to satisfactory resolution of this matter. Letter to be sent to W. Closed: Phoncon of 5/IEN5 with Jim Bongarra, Jim has closed this open item based upon the NRC letter of 5/12/95, DRC/DCP0189, Docket # 52-003, "AP600 Key Licensing issue-Full Scope Simulator / Role of Operator". 204) NRR/Illli B 18 DSER-Ol50 ERG Closed Action W NSD-NRC-96-8805
- 47. Content of ERGS Westinghouse, in response to a staff request for an AP600 ERG submittal, stated that the low-pressure reference plant's ERGS in combination with a design difTerences report, identification of high level operator action strategies, and the AP600 system /cvent matrices are sufficient for design certification The staff does not agree with this Westinghouse position because the passive safety system philosophy dilTers significantly from current plants This was addressed in the August 1994 position paper to Westinghouse as wcll as in the draft safety evaluation report (DSER)
(DSER open items 5.4.7.6-1,15.3 4-3,20 4-2,20 4-21) Westinghouse has indicated that they will submit the ERGS by May 1995. Westmghouse met the staff on February 2 and presented and discussed the ERG development process. Action W DISCUSSED AT 2/9N5 SENIOR MANAGEMENT MEETING- 47. Staff to confirm that technical agreement has been reached and impicmentation is the only issue. May be removed at next meeting. Westinghouse believes item 47 is resolved and waiting for staff feedback. Action W - NRC agreed to resolution path "in principle" and we need to send the ERGS and background documents to NRC. lhese will be sent via a phased approach with phase i ERGS to be sent 5/31/95. Status update provided by phone (D Jackson 8/21): Action W is to complete analytical basis for AE-1, AES-l.2, AE-2, and supporting documentation for shutdown ERG (need to submit background information on S/D ERGS.
/ Action N - Review at-power ,Imw power / shutdown ERGS and background for at-power and low power ERGS.
Resolved - Per DCP/NRC0589, this item will be closed with submittal of th at-power ERG's scheduled for 12/31. rLn 12/3. Closed with ERG Rev 2 submittal Jan 10. rLn 1/15/97. Page: 30 Total Records: 45
AP600 Opco It2m Tracking Sy:;tm Datbase: Execntiv2 Summ;ry Date: 180/97 Selection: lnre st code]<>' Resolved' And [DSER Section] like '18" Sorted by item # Item DSLR Sectmn/ Titic/ Description Resp (W) NF ., No Branch Question T)pe Detail Status Engineer Status Status Letter No. I Date 2044 NRR/Illil B 18 DSLR-Ol50 ITAAC/MMIS Dropped Action W NSD-NRC-4875 IES Minimum inventory of Controls and Displays Westinghouse has not submitted a minimum inventory of controls and displays for the AP600 (See DSER open item 18.12.3-l). This issue was discussed with the stafTat the 2/2/95 meeting in Rockville. A resolution to this open item was proposed and the staff stated that they needed to discuss it among themselves. (For closure, this open item may first require a completed set of AP600 ERGS ) See 1812.3-1 for further status. Action N: To review rev. 9 of ch. I8, specifically section i8.12. SM6: SSAR Rev. 9, which included a revision to Ch I8, was submitted to NRC. This included section i8.12 on " minimum inventory". 2/285: Presentation of above made in Rockville, NRC stafT to disuss and provide feedback. 2S35: Discussed during NRC/ Westinghouse senior management meeting as one of the top 50 open items. Action N - to provide feedback on Westinghouse proposal for resolution. 2/27s 5: Conference call with NRC (L Bongarra, G. Galletti, L 011 ara,3 Easter, A Stcrdis & S Kerch) I. Agreed to following definition of
" fixed position" - unique location in the conud room / control panel for alarms, displays, controls where present information from the minimum inventory; continuously available not continoussy displayed; doesn't have to be class i E; always displayed at the same location; dedicated location where the operator can retrieve information that is part of the miaimum inventory. 2. Scope of min. inv. - failed to reach a mutual understanding on this; NRC stated that scope includes those controls and indications needed to execute the ERG high level operator actions including nonsafety system actions; disagreed on this 3. Use of FBTA & ERG development task analysis I & C list. 4. When completed where does this go tier I or tier 2? Agreed to discuss at 3/8 meetmg.
3/8S5 meeting: NRC requested Westinghouse consider that the detailed list remain completely in Tier 2. Tier I would include the process to select the final inventory. ACTION W: If the inventory list is provided in chapter 7 then make the cross reference strong from chapter 18. Also, the list should include the process / criteria that was used to generate the list. Westinghouse position is that this list is an expansion of the RG 1.97 critieria and philosophy to address controls and displays should a Tier I list be required we will pursue use of criticria presented at the Feb 2 meeting versus the NRC criteria used on evolutionary plants. Also prepare a draft Tier I list; Need to take a stab at defining acceptable ITAAC and supporting SSAR information as to how the final inventory will be defined (Use PRA, EOPs, ERGS, FBTA). Caution from A. Stcrdts - There will be a strong push to be specific in defining these design ITAAC. ACllON N. NRC stalT to prepare a position paper for NRC senior management, proposing Tier I include the process / critieria. Goal is to produce the paper to support the next scheduled Senior management meeting of April 4. 4/1985 - Fax sent to J Bongarra and G Galletti of NRC that provided a preliminary (draft) description of how the total inventory list was developed and where in the tier 2 (SSAR) document it was found. A description of how the minimum inventory would be selected from the total mventory list (the criteria to be used) was also provided. This would be placed in the Tier i document A very preliminary draft of a minimum inventony list, using this criteria, was provided for the NRC's information and use as backup to their position paper. The NRC (G Galletti) has submitted the position paper for NRC management review. 5/2N5 Status: Discussed during March 8-9,1995 mtg. Proposed approach under NRC management review. Action N: Determine whether the position paper and Westinghouse approach is acceptable. May require a SSAR revision to chapter 18 Action W - see NRC response sent 8/2IN5 Closed -ITAAC submitted by NSD-NRC-96-4875 of II/7/96. Action N - See letter dated 12/9N6 This item is dropped since 1395 is a repeat (action is being followed under item 1395) rLn 1/30N7 l Page: 31 Total Records: 45 w _ ___. - _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ - - ~
AP600 Ope:2 It;m Tracking Sy;t;m Database: Exec tivaSummary Detr.1/30/97 Selection: [nrc st codel<>' Resolved
- And [DSER Section] like'I8** Sorted by item #
Item DSLR Section/ Titic/ Description Resp (W) NRC No Branch Question Type Detail Status Engineer Status Status Letter No / Dae 206l NRR/IllliB 18 10 MI~Gol MMIS Closed Action N ne Training Program Development open items of chapter 18 of the DSER (18103-1 through 18.10 3-15) were discussed with NRC during 3/8N5 meeting. It was decided that a COL action item would be written stating that training program development was the responsibility of the COL applicant. Once done this will close all I5 DSER items that it addresses. Ilowever, a new open item was agreed upon where Westinghouse is to commit to provide inputs to the COL appheant for their consideration in the development of their training prograrn Draft SSAR revision for section i8.9.9 sent to the NRC lillHL Closure will occur when formal revision 4 is delivered. Action N: NRC to review markup section and provide feedback. Action W - see NRC response sent iI/2 tN5; conference call held with NRC on 3/21N6 for clarifcation. Resolved. WCAP-14655, Designer's input for the Training of the iluman Factors Engiteering Verification and Validation Personnel, Draft SSAR Subsection The AP600 Training Program and Draft Subsection 13.2 Training were submined to the NRC as attachments to NSD-NRC-96-4722 on 5/I4N6. Item will be closed when Chapter 18 of the SSAR is issued. Closed - SSAR Section 18.10. Training Program Development, provided in SSAR Rev. 9,7/31N6, addresses the training program devekyment and designer's input to this program 2062 NRR/IlllfB I8 10 MTG4M MMIS Closed Action N The Traming Program Development open items of chapter 18 of the DSER (I8.103-1 through 18.103-15) were discussed with NRC during 3/8/95 meeting. It was decided that a CfL action item would be written stating that training program development was the responsibility of the COL applicant. Once done this will close all I5 DSER items that it addresses. Ilowever, a new open item was agreed upon where Westmghouse is to provide a description of the training for the llFE V A V crew. DraA SSAR revision for section 18 9.9 sent to the NRC IIIIFB. Closure will occur when formal revision 4 is delisered. Action N. NRC to review markup section and provide feedback. Action W - see NRC response sent i1/2IN5 ; conference call held with NRC on 3/2IN6 for clarifcation. Resolved. WCAP-14655, Designer's input for the Training of the iluman Factors Engineering Verification and Validation Personnel was submitted to the NRC as an attachment to NSD-NRC-96-4722 on 5/14N6. Item will be ckwed when Chapter 18 of the SSAR is issued. Closed - SSAR Section I 8.10. Traming Program Development, provided in SSAR Rev. 9,7/3 tN6, addresses the training program devekyment and designer's input to this program. WCAP-14401 provided the Programmatic Level Description of the AP600 Iluman Factors Verificaton and Validation Plan. o i Pige: 32 Total Records: 45 i w__ __ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ - . _ - . _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ - _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _
s . AP600 Open It:m Tracking Sytt;mt Dats.bese: Exec tiveSumnacry pat:: U30/97 Selecteen lnre st codejdResolves And lDSER Section] like'IB** Sorted by item # Item DSE R Section/ Titic/Descripten Resp (W) NRC No Branch Question . Type Detail Staus Engineer Status Status ' Letter No. / Date
-2063 NRR/IlllFB 18_3 MTG-Of MMIS/Kerch Closed Action N NTD-NRC-96-4845 Westinghouse to conduct operating expenence review of the human factor aspects of the experience /cvents listed in Appendix B of NUREG-071I and the February 13 NRC document. During the 3/8 meetag. Westinghouse stated position that the application of these issues neceds to be consistent across the review.
4/24/95 - Fan sent to J Bongarra and J.O'Hars that presents response to this open item. List ofissues not to be included in our OER based on review of App B and the 2/1385 letter against NUREG 0933 and section 1.9.4 of our SSAR was submitted for NRC reticw. NRC provided feedback. (via conference call of 6/19/95.) Action W: Provide dran OER addressing NRC issues. Dran of WCAP-14645 submitted 5/15196 leem will be closed when NRC comments are incorporated into the fmal WCAP. Element 2. r-- z_ recieved from NRC on 8/I3. To close this ince, SSAR chl8 was submitted and we owe a rev to WCAP-14645. Closed with WCAP submittal on 10/17/96. rkn 10/25 2064 NRR/HHFB 18 4 MTGOI Kerch / Easter Closed Closed Durmg meeting of 3/8 with the NRC, Westinghouse asked that element 3 (Functional Requirements Anslaysis and Task Allocation) be reviewed at the complete element level insecad of the : , --- - -ion plan level as was done for the DSER. NRC reevalussed element 3 and provided clarification. Westinghouse needs to respond to the NRC fecesck and clarification issues via a Functional Requirements Analysis and Allocation report. Considered " closed" per phone call of 2!96 (the element 3 DSER open items sufficiently cover the issues. 206i NRR/HHFB I88 MTG-OI MMis Closed Action N As a result of our discussions of element 7 (HSI design) closure paths during the meeting of 3/IO with NRC fillFB personnel, the need to review and revise chapter 18 of the SSAR for tenne and
- reality" implications was identified.
Complete revision of Chapter i 8 provided in Rev. 9 of SSAR,7/31/96. Action N - See NRC letter dated 12/9/96. i h a 6 J Page: 33 Total Records: 45 m____._._. .________-_.._._.______m.__.. __-______________m_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ m.m__ m_.__.m____ . __._.. .m_ _ _ _ _ __.
. .. - . . . . ~.. .- .. . _ . -. . . ~ . . - .- . .
~ , <
AP600 Open It;m Tracking System Dat; base: Executiv2 Summary Dat2: 1/30/97 Selection: lnre st code]<>' Resolved
- And [DSER Sectionl like '18" Sorted by item #
Item DSLR Secten/ Titic/ Description Resp (W) NRC No Branch Question Type Detail status Engineer Status Status txtier No. I Date 2466 NRR/Illli B 18 4-2 mig 4)I MMIS/Kerch Action N Action N A description of the AP600 functions, processes and systerns and a comparison to the reference plants / systems so that one can identify areas of difference that exist. To help provide a scope to the request,it should not be necessary to develop a comparison down below the system level (unless Westinghouse deems it necessary) The focus on prior systems isjustined since the successful esperience of predecessor systems appears to be the principal basis for AP600 design activities in this aren Further,one aspect of resolving concems of operator role change is to see how AP600 functions, processes, and systems have changed in comparision to prior systems. The response should address the staffs specific concerns identified in the evaluation section of DSER Section 18 4.32, criterion I. The response should also address how the results of functional requirements analysis are verified and how the results are updated w the design process pmceeds. Action N Information provided in draA WCAP titled "AP600 Function Requirements Anal) sis and Function Allocation", submitted by NSD-NRC-96-4722 on 5/I4/96. This WCAP will be referenced in a revsion to chapter 18 of the SSAR. Revised Chapter 18 of the AP600 SSAR submitted in Revision 9,7/31% WCAP-14644 is referenced in SSAR I8.4, functional Requirements Analysis and Allocation. Formal WCAP transmittal will be made following receipt of NRC comments. Element 3. Comments Recieved from NRC on 8/13. To close this item, SSAR Chi 8 was submitted and we owe a rev to WCAP-14644 Even with submittal of this WCAP, it is the NRC action to determine how to close this item, related to task analysis, not function allocation. Ln 10/8/96. Action N - See NRC letter dated 12/9N (This letter just says its NRC action as described previously in the status detail rLn 1/15/97) e t Page: 34 Total Records: 45 _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . - _}}