ML20155G453

Results of '1,000 H Test' After SPDS Implementation for Confirmatory Review

ML20155G453
Person / Time
Site:	Cooper
Issue date:	04/07/1986
From:	SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP. (FORMERLY
To:
Shared Package
ML20155G449	List: ML20155G453 ML20155G463 NLS8600153, Forwards Results of '1,000 H Test' After SPDS Implementation for Confirmatory Review, Documentation That Info Displayed on SPDS Readily Perceived & Does Not Mislead Operators.Validation Test Plans & Results Also Encl
References
TAC-51232, NUDOCS 8605060136
Download: ML20155G453 (40)

Text

- -. .. - -- - - ._ - . - - .

l l

l E

E E

i Attachment 1 Results of the "1,000-hour Test" after SPDS Implementation for Confirmatory Review I 1

t

'I 8605060136 860428 PDR ADOCK 05000298 p PDR

NPPD STTE AVAILABILITY TEST REPORT 07 April 1986 1.0 Purpose The purpose of this report is to describe the results of the 1000 hour0.0116 days <br />0.278 hours <br />0.00165 weeks <br />3.805e-4 months <br /> Availability Test. Included with this Test Report will be the following Attachments:

a. Revised Availability Test Plan (2/20/86)

b. Test Logs

1. PMIS Availability Test Log (P ATL)

11. PMIS Availability Test Problem Report (PATPR)

c. Problem reports written during Availability

d. A list of spare parts used

e. A list of accumulated outage time (included on the PMIS Availability Test Lo g)

A list of accumulated hold time (included in the PMIS Availability Test Log)

I f.

g. A calculation of system availability.

The Availability Test took place on 21 February 1986 through 04 April 1986 at Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS) Brownsville, Nebraska, 2.0 Test objectives E The objective of the NPPD Availability Test was to have at least 99.5 percent system availability for the 1000 hour0.0116 days <br />0.278 hours <br />0.00165 weeks <br />3.805e-4 months <br /> test. The purpose of the Availability Test is to demonstrate that the system, as installed, provides a high degree of availability in a normal plant operating environment.

3.0 Test Environment The Availability Test was performed at the Cooper Nuclear Station, using the DEC Computers and other associated hardware in their final configuration.

4.0 Test Tools No special tools or test equipment were used during the Availability Test.

5.0 Test Results During the Availability Test, the total run time was 1005.73 hours8.449074e-4 days <br />0.0203 hours <br />1.207011e-4 weeks <br />2.77765e-5 months <br />. This includes 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> 11 minutes of accumulated hold time and 33 minutes of accumlated outage time. Two problem reports were written during the test.

These are PATPR 1 and PATPR 2 which are attached to this test report.

The System Availability Test was completed successfully on 04 April 1986 with an availability of 99.945%.

6.0 Spare Parts No spare parts were drawn from the DISTRICT's inventory; however Digital Equipment Company provided two disk packs under the maintenance agreement.

Disks DULO and DUL1 were replaced on the "B" system.

EMM~

m T fg: 2y=

M E -

Pa; e :

NPPD Site Availability Test Report 07 April 1986 I

7.0 Attendance j i

The following is a list of personnel who were directly involved in the NPPD Availability Test:

Mike Culjat 57PD Leo Parks NPPD Mel Hawkins NPPD (I&C)

Pete Sukup NPPD Jeff Jones NPPD Paul Ballinger NPPD Ray Perterson NPPD Jay Scheuer =an NPPD Control Operator Personnel NPPD Daniel Pate SAIC (HSV)

David Chandler SAIC (HSV)

Allen Massey SAIC (ALT)

E 9

i E r , , _ , = , -

inQ- f}!gui35

~

-j $ .

E ATTACID!ENT A AVAILABILITY TEST PLAN (REVISED 2/20/86) i I

I i

E E

=

=m. gyr

-- ,mem/M Im w - ._. _._

1

E I 1. INTRODUC ION -

This test plan defines the conduct, rules, and record keeping requirements associated I

with the availability test for the SAIC supplied PMIS syste= installed and operational at NPPD's Cooper Nuclear Station.

The purpose of this availability test is to de=onstrate that the system, as installed, provides a high degree of availability in a nor=al plant operating environ =ent.

This test plan concentrates on the definition and record keeping require =ents l

associated with the conduct of this Availability de=enstration. No special tools is required and the intent is to minimi:e impact on DISTRICT personnel or test equipmentin their day to day plant operations consistent with obtaining the data required to I

j clearly docu=ent whether or not the Availability objectives have been successfully I

achieved. .

B Previous system testing, including both Factory and Site Acceptance Tests, have l de=enstrated that the supplied system is in co=aliance with the requirements of the Contract Statement of Work. As such, this availability test does not atte=pt to reverify individual program or ce=ponent accuracies. Any probles of this type that 1s detected during the Availability Test vill be expeditiously addressed and resolved l

by SAIC but will not in any way i= pact the conduct or successful completion of the availability test. During this test SAIC will support NPPD requested data base changes per the existing Site Procedures. NPPD will be allowed nor=al access to l the backup system, but no program development activity will be allowed on the Only those items as defined under " Accu =ulated OW. age Time" of B' pri=ary system.this test plan will count against SAIC in the completion of availability statistics to =eet the availability test requirements. "b ;; it::: : definm-l under uholdei=e" l

ha cpecific pre zisions-where-considerable-amounts-of-holdtime-esy-result-in-the s;r- _1 ;i_; cf _.11 a..; a;; cf Accr ul;;cd Lesg sTine ,gg I

i n

l

2. SPECIFIC RULES FOR THE AVAILABILITY TES.

This test plan is governed by the existing NPPD State =ent of Work. During the l evolution of thi's test plan, certain 50W provisions, such as the definition of downti=e for hardware maintenance, have been specifically modified and agreed to by tical" reali:ation of the S.O.W. requirements.

I both parties to represent a "prag$YVl% 5f l A. This availability G"'will start at a ti=e and date that is

=utually agreeable to SAIC and NPPD, but in no case vill I be initiated until the following requirements have been cet. SAIC vill not be held liable for NPPD's readiness to initiate this Availability Test.

1. All SAIC supplied personnel training associated with f this contract will be co=plete (except SAIC 201/501).

2. All SAIC supplied spare parts associated with this I contract will have been delivered to CSS.

3. All SAIC supplied software and system docu=entation associated with this contract vill have been delivered to CNS as specified in Part 1, Paragraph 5.3 of the 50W.

m a rence excepe L. L. .... .a J_u A 11 L u um gul -

g.... %

sa dufi.._d m..du. "heldm._m" i .. ;ha ;c;; p b2n .

a p/2o/Jfo I _ _ - - - - - - - - -

C. Alteratien to SAIC supplied software shall not be per=itted unless required to correct an error.

These alterations c:ust be approved I by SAIC prior to imple=entation.

D. Alterations to the hardware shall not be per=itted unless required to correct a failure, or in the opinion of SAIC, such changes will i= prove system reliability.

,g E. Availability test logs and records as defined in this test 5 procedure will be maintained by DISTRICT personnel.

F. During the availability test the DISTRICT or its authorized agents will operate and =aintain the FMIS system in accordance I with SAIC supplied docu=entation and procedures. The DISTRICT or its authorized agents will supply qualified service engineers or agents to perform all required system =aintenance, both E preventative and remedial.

C. SAIC shall support the DISTRICT by providing a service representative on-call 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> / day, 7 days / week for duration of the availability E test.

H. Outages resulting from causes external to the cc=puter system, caused by negligence, misoperation, or misuse or abuse of the computer system by employees or agents of NPFD, or due to exceeding environ = ental and input specifications applicable to the equipment, I shall not be charged as accu =ulated outage ti=e but shall be accrued as holdtime. ,

I. All accu =ulated outage time,,holdti=e, and systen operating time shall be mutually agreed upon by the DISTRICT and SAIC.

J. All spare parts used during the availability test will be drawn SAIC will I from the DISTRICT inventory purchased with the system.

repair or replace all spares used during the test. If a part is required which is not in inventory, due to the failure of SAIC 5 to recc==end appropriate spare parts, the systes will be considered down until the part is obtained. Tne part will be repaired / replaced and an additional unit placed into the inventory at no cost to the DISTRICT.

K. SAIC will have ready access to the DISTRICT's Availability Test log at all ti=es.

f 3. TEST DEFINITIONS SYSTEM AVAILABILITY - The system availability shall be at least A.

99.5 percent for the 1000-hr test. Availability is calculated as follows:

AVAILABILITY (PERCENT) = ((TDT-A0T)/ TDT)*100 B. TEST DURATION TIME (TDT) - Total elapsed time from start of E,, test to ec=pletion of test excluding holdtice. This time i shall be a mini =um of 1000 hours0.0116 days <br />0.278 hours <br />0.00165 weeks <br />3.805e-4 months <br />.

3 E ._ _ ._

L

E E TDT = Tt - Th Tt = ci=e the FMIS syste= is undergoing the test E Th = ti=e declared as holdti=e W .b W C. ACCL'.!L7.ATED OUTAGE TIME (W - Acc=mlated Outage Time occurs whenever any system function, hardware or software, is unavailable in the Control Room TSC or EOF. A0T is not accu =ulated when the function unavailability is caused by holdt1=e except as defined g

in this test plan. In the event of =ultiple f ailures, the total elasped ti=e required for the DISTRICT or its authorized agents to repair all problems, per the -!cfinitir in !tc= 5 of thic,, gd R:in, will be counted as. A0T regardless of the nu=ber of T maintenance personnel available.

I paaaak M W A0T will W accumulate under the following circu=stancesT M

• 1.

& W0 Loss of any I' critical inputs" required for SPDS displays

~Y h[

due to the failure of any SAIC-specified equip =ent.

Critical inputs are defined to include:

-~ .. -.

B000 F085 NO26 NO38 N079 N797 E- B001 G032 NO27 N040 N041 N082 N083 N798 N799 B002 C033 NO23 B003 N011 NO29 NQ42 N084 N800 N085 N801 E -

B004 B005 N012 N013 NO30 NO31 N043 N061 N276 N802 B021 N014 NO32 N062 N277 NS03 D530 N017 NO33 N063 N627 N804 E D531 N018 NO34 N065 N628 N629 N806 5807 D554 NO23 NO35 N069 D555 N024 NO36 N073 N630 E F084 NO25 N019 NO37 NO21 N074 N631 N632 N020 NO22 N633

2. Loss of entire =ultiplexor, both IRCU's not co==unicating with Host Computer.

3. Loss of both host processors or data concentrators. The loss of a single processor or data concentrator will not require downti=e since automatic failover of all functions and peripherals is provided.

4. Loss of the ability for an operator or engineer to be able E to access the system from at least one ter=inal in either the Control Room Technical Support Center, or E=ergency Operations Facility due to failure of a disk drive or other peripheral device. This ites is further a:plified in Item 6, below.

~

+ # ."'

E - - . - - - . . .-. . _

I l

L

5. Loss of SPDS functions due to a peripheral switch failure.

[ 6. Loss of all CRT displays and printer at one or more locations:

Control Room, TSC and the EOF.

As a sini=um, one CRT and the printer will be operable in the Control Room and the TSC, and the CRT or printer in the EOF will be operable in order to avoid accu =ulation of A0T per the definition given below.

I A0T will start to accu =ulate from the ti=e that the DISCTICT's ,

qualified service =an or its authorized agent starts to correct J the failure.

l ACT will not accu =ulate for any period of ti=e that a qualified service =an is not actively working on problem correction.

l t

I Any repairs requiring call-out for SAIC service shall not l be counted as outage ti=e until the SAIC representative has arrived or 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> have elasped, whichever occurs first.

A0T will not be accu =ulated for the brief periods of ti=e when a system failover is taking place if failover is successful.

W The ti=e between equipment failure detection and initiation of l corrective action by the qualified DISTRICT service =an or its authorized agent will be counted as holdti=e. In the event.

of SAIC call-out, this holdti=e =ay be up to twenty-four hours in duration.

All ti=es will be recorded to the nearest minute.

In the event that the accu =ulated outage ti=e (A0T) exceeds 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />, the test start ti=e shall be shif ted to delete I some of the previous outage until the accu =ulated outages during the 1000-hour test no longer exceeds 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />. The shifted start ti=e shall be =atually agreed upon between the DISTRICT and SAIC.

I In order to establish that all failures have been satisfactorily I repaired no AOT will have occurred within the last 240 hours0.00278 days <br />0.0667 hours <br />3.968254e-4 weeks <br />9.132e-5 months <br /> of the conclusion of the test. The test =ay have to be extended to satisfy this require =ent. l I Any ti=e the system is down due to a noncomputer-related event,

'such as power failure, this ti e will not be counted as outage ti=e. See the section on availability run "holdtime".

I I .

+

O E ~

D. HOLDTIME - During a test of this nature, certain contingencies =ay occur which otherwise would cause the syste= to be accu =ulating outage I ti=e (ACT), but which are not valid for the purpose of measuring syste= availability. Such periods of ACT =ay be declared "holdti=e" by cutual agree =ent of the DISTRICT and SAIC. These periods will not be considered in availability statistics for acceptance purposes.

Specific instances in which a he oding period =sy be declared are:

1. POWER INTERRt!PTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL EXCUR3ICN: Loss of power or manual shutdown in the event of loss of environ = ental control will be considered holdt1=e. If the syste= is operated during the periods of power or environ = ental conditions E beyond those specified, any resultant outage ti=e will not be counted.

2. INTERMITTE'iT FAILURE: Periods during which an inter =ittent, recurring 'sof tware or hardware failure is experienced will be considered holdtime, providing SAIC is actively engaged in re=edial action and nor=al functions can be restored by a partial systes restart whenever the failure occurs. In lieu of accounting for the actual inter =ittent outage ti=e which might occur during such a period, one hour of A0T will be counced I for each 101 hours0.00117 days <br />0.0281 hours <br />1.669974e-4 weeks <br />3.84305e-5 months <br /> of otherwise successful operation while the problem persists.

3. CORRECTED DESIGN DEFECT: Holdt1:e may be declared by c:utual agree =ent, if a failure occurs due to a defect in the hardware design for which SAIC defines and imple=ents corrective measures to ensure against si=ilar future occurreness. In such cases, .

I holdti=e will be allowed in incre=ents of 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> so as to effectively extend the test period to allow verification of the corrective action.

4. LOGISTICS DELAYS: In the event of delays in co=pleting repairs which would otherwise accu =ulate AOT due to lack of SAIC reco== ended spare parts in the DISTRICT inventory, holdtime =sy be declared by mutual agree =ent if the delay is beyond the control of -- n --

either party and if SAIC is pursuing replace =entl parts in anjwe. (rd expeditious fashion. One hour of A0T and opcrat-ing es=e will r I be counted for each 25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> of oldti=e under these circu= stances.

N /*

ne C# W ' s SCHEDtILED SHUTDOWN /PERVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE: During scheduled 5.

shutdowns, preventative maintenance, or if an equip =ent failure I occurs while its backup device is scheduled out of service, the resulting system outage will be considered holdti=e, providing that service can be restored according to SAIC procedures within ..

60 =inue e s . Jf .ItM #I-^

• L 00 **~",3 A O Q* * ~

W a~L W d.h,1$

6. FAILURE OF DISTRICT SUPPLIED SOFIWARE: Ti=e during which the syste=

is down due to failure of sof tware written by the DISTRICT will be considered holdti=e. (Sea ;he; ;Le DISTRIGT I..%ed-Schwere Such periodsby SAIC will bedcca ac;short kept as apply as;cpessible thi; ::st-soprovisienrp'to as not 8M E interfere with the availability test. If a failure in such sof tware cannot be overcone by a syste restart, execution of the failed program will be suspended. -

I g 6 & h/%

l

_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ .______________.____._...______J

j 1

t 7. SERVICE RESPONSE TIME: A caxi=:= 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> hold:i=e will be allowed for SAIC to respond to each call for =aintenance support.

The ti=e between the detection of a f ailure and the start of diagnostic procedure, when perfor ed by the DISTRICT personnel, l< will also be considered holdti=e.

E. TEST SATISFAC* ION - After 1000 hours0.0116 days <br />0.278 hours <br />0.00165 weeks <br />3.805e-4 months <br /> of cu=ulative test ti=e have f

elapsed, the test records will be exa=ined to deter =ine confor=ance with the availability criteria. If the test objectives have not been =et, the test will be extended until the specified availability I is achieved.

F. AVAILABILITY TEST LOG - SAIC will supply the Availability Test Log I Notebook. DISTRICT personnel w:.ll =sintain the Availability Test f Log which will include, at the =ini :u=, a listing of all syste=

proble=s/ failures that are potential candidates f or accu =ulating I A0T or holdti=e. Each entry will include:

1. Proble= description in adequate detail that DISTRICT or j SAIC personnel could effectively troubleshoot.

2. Ti=e proble: " detected."

3. Ti=e corrective ac: ion initiated by qualified DISTRICT personnel.

l 4 Any subsequent ti=e span ti=e during which qualified DISTRICT personnel were not actively engaged in solving the proble=s. ,

l

5. Identification of DISTRICT personnel working on the proble:

resolution.

t.' ken, i.e.: diagnostics

6. Identification of all correc:ive action l run, boards replaced, etc.

7. Identification of all spare par:s used, replaced, or added to l

the spare parts inventory.

8. Time proble= corrected or syste= restored to service whichever

, occurs first.

I

9. Rco: for SAIC concurrence with A0T/Holdti=e declaration.

G. TEST REFORT - SAIC will prepare a test report at the conclusion f of the availability test that will include:

E- 1. The availability test plan.

2. DISTRICT =aintained Availability Test Log signed by the DISTRICT I- and SAIC.

3. A listing of all failures and problems encountered during the test, and the resolution of sa=e.

f g , a uM6 p- _ . . _ _ _ .. _ _ . _ . _.

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

4. A list of all' spare parts used, replaced or added to the spare parts inventory.

{ 5. A list of all ACT, with causes and resolutions.

6. A listing of all holdti=e, with causes and resolutions.

7. A calculation of system availability.

TEST PLAN CONCURRENCE:

SAIC: d e gC,[

7 DIS m cT: 44%4/

DATE: J d O [,5f.

i <

[

g yL sg A w~ a a ap h p n m a q r_ , o y y rd y dn w u n

_qap p u,. s p ., n - -

%. ,~A -- ~ can eo A Puh

& ~ n P P I)

Qp (,.aQ ~ nfPO-CNS h w P. X ~ W C-gg~ d = -- - Sase c.

g uu-1 l

l l

l e-

A p , n '

ATTACllHENT B t

.PMIS AVAILABLITY TEST LOG (PATL)

COOPER NUCLEAR STATION (CNS)

PAGE / OF AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT l TlHE IIT OT SOT AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT .

START STOP CODE

• TilIS TilIS Tills AllT TO A0T TO SOT TO CONCURRENCE DATE TIME TlHE (SEE OCCUR OCCUR OCCUR DATE DATE DATE COMMENT OR (MM/DD/YY) (Illt:MM) (Ilit:MM) BELOW) (HIN) (HIN) (IIR) (llR) (IIR) (llR) SAIC ,,CNS PATPR HUMBER

? .2 / - 96 02:00 3 9:00 So 7' - -

/6'OO ~ -

/d 'lD Pf' -ft/7e TD && arco M:so Sor~ - -

2/:eh - -

Yo:co DW w?c .

2-> N 'c m:co a co S07~

3/!ao -

61/ lco DW tt/7c -

LJJ-o'C m i c'o M:Co SO T' -

2/?Jo - -

PP!OO 0W W/7 c-2 21 +'l

^

LD.'CD N :tJJ SOT

^ ~

2 {l&D - '~

//) lO0 DW 77)c.-

2 _2 & -l'6 Co'OO /J l10 SOT ~ ~

/?lJO - -

/.?V:JO N 77/JC-2 -x >% n :Jo n:n D 7~ -

oz - -

02 u Y:Jo 2Yh/ 71/n- vi

. u. -f L /)

3I /l:Co Y7~ lJ 7 -

~~

l*/ 7 lO1 G V:ja Dynf 737 7 (_, up 2 -2 6 -PC /l:0 0 M:co 107' - -

//!00 U7 l of G.s':Jo .0"'f' 7//G

,7-?7- FC Co ' 00 2J:co for - -

2 V!Go !J7 l0f /rf:Jo bW 71/}L

,7 PC 00'Co M!co sot - -

.2Vtoo lJ) lO1 /rs:Jo DW 777r-1-/ - YG m'co 3V:co Zor - -

M:Go lJ7 l o1 por:Jo 87 4 77;r.-

1 9C Cc:co 24:oo for - -

.2f:00  !)7 lo1 3riua Bn" 7777c -

x -r sc cc:c o ve:co ser - -

2:00 ur l oi .wuo s>+ 7x>u PATL = PMIS AVAILABILITY TEST LOG PATPR = PMIS AVAILABILITY TEST PROBLDI REPORT

• TIME CODES:

AUT = ACClHULATED OUTAGE TIME IIT = Il0LD TIME TilIS OCCURRENCE i SOT = SYSTDI OPERATING TIME AllT = ACCUMULATED 110LD TIME ' OT = OUTAGE T1HE TilIS OCCURENCE

M

• Om o O

s

(_ . _ _ _ _ _ _

M w _.

o mM 8! ,

b n tb 4, s

4 M

O 5

g -- _

< W to g C C ~'

g to -

p E

'Q .

• A "

so o s u w  % A

". d Z b* W Q h 3 sh .

h D .) '

• - D . . .

BE5 $ R I % % k 2 N q et s m ts m ,a s 4 % %

t % 5 % k j 3 E _ .. . _

<= -, -

4 HO 5  % 5  % 5 5 5 5  % 5 h gg

^ b eagc D -

• b bh sa x

= w p5 y

.__ _ c . =v 3 G E a -p o o HWe op<= ex N

% \

5 N N s x%

k s .

A

.s .

.x

• k As

s. . .

A s..

.s.

,s m

O e

[

$h kk

N N D q N 9 $ S b b Fe b W $

C - M k

Q 3  % D Q h b 59 582  % .D .D 9 h b E ey gassa -

i s i e sN s4 s.D s.D s.D 4 5 g g s 5-  % T T N a t-

%5 Ec et t ws2 D 1 I i =

8 80:PQ- 8E M I l I l g g 1

I I g ( I i t

t:

e C

..__c g S

l t was \

' ' ' \ \ t l 8 ;8s so-N 8 I w i M i t g

y D

wigg L L ko k k k k \s t k Is E coma e g 9 k o k ss k c3 2 e s o k o o =

HU"y M M N  % H M M S M $

< W

^

O O Y D D D b

@W b '? 4 %

q a

q s D

.k 3 .9 Q

's s 5 hG* N g 4 .S m< H f Oe E r:s "H  %

e t sf s s N

s. 5 m % n 3 3 Q s ;q-t S.

g %

E

~ gc 8 D C

• 1

-_ , .. s .. . ..

.. .. , . .D. m --

N N 4

@h -  % o R s s

,,)

a  % w ~ e C e g-5 - G5E a v c N~ M s xG $, (

W(

~= S w , . N. .  ;

t A, s

- O v

No $ M '3 M k 5 7

'm 9 N 9

^

T h% h9 5 ys [

E 44eM A A M

a5

lifll)) \ l E

M I

R T M. RE OB G M N F , TU I 0 NN T E A MR R MP E OT P 8 CA P /

T O

e R M _

ll E O E T _

i G P i A . E S P . - R Y c C G [" o o c

~ 'c_

S E S -

c c c f ?l ,  !

C N

N C 7,,

7

/ n i e,i 7

/

i u i  ?

E =

?x 7t n<  ? L i

E R

R m ,

1 7 p- v Jr 7 t

7  ?)f S i

w 7 B O

R T

O S  !

U P C

N O

C 2

/ /h & 4 dn W f T B p @ W D Y Y }l9 I S C A S n h 7 Y 2 L W E

T T

1 n ci t / 6 t c t 6 (. bl l 1 TO o u i J / i :n s ti

/ / l L NTE)

U OTAl TRl w r. ?s  !  :

6 u /

/

p:

ur &'

O ll] v w  :

6'-

0 I

B b a c i A MOD (

AS v e Y d Y s s s i s l(/ 7 L I

{: A V

I A

$ i z 5

TO s 3 1 J J 3 I 1 E 1 n s u l1 NTE) 1 1l J J 3 I S E C TR u 1 -

) U  ! I C N L ) OTAll 1: l 2:  :  !

M N E T S IUD ( P E R A N P C MA =

R R

U C

i( (

U C R C O G N TO / / t P C

, O O L I NTE)

U TR v. ;i /

/

/

/ a /

/

/

/  !

/

! // / /

n i i /

! T A

O S l

OTAl  !

f: [: :c :c C l

T S E [ E

: P li K'

Ml D(

5 5 :c T l

T A I S T AA  ?. .

2 l i

E S T E T M R o o o E I Y

T I

A E

L T

N UTl CR SU)

R o o rt -

C.

5:  :

w , J G 0

0 0

0 W O

l o

o o 0 O I M T T E f' Yl L C 0Ol Cl l

V / -

Y G w: 8 / l!

i B U 1 STO( 7 ) a w D A

- L A N M ..

) J 'H. 2 ) J. } L T 0 U I R l I O A E V P T R) = =

A O N SUN O UTI CI - T T S C 0OiCM l

- - ~ ~ ~

~ I O

I 1

TO( - - - - I M M

' ' P G O

L T R)

N SUN 0 ~ ' - ~ ^ ' -

~

~ T UTl CI 0I I li CM - - 7 - -

S E

1 TO( / T M

Y T

EEEW MDEO I

OSL

)

7 0 ro /7 f0 1r0 TO 0 ro r r f V ro o O 0 0 s s r

~

7 0

I L

I B

A TC( E 5 J S $ E 3 B S s / 1 L L I

A E V M PEM

)

M oo tr o r 0 0 o o

J o

c :c o O J du :c D

o o 0 w lJ A

S I

T M E

I OM:t  :

l'C h } A a a }

ll ts l I E T N:cM

/ f )

TI ll t: / M G STI (

)., a 6

/ y N 2 -

P A D T L

= U 0

)

O l I

T M o c a i c o e o 0 O ) s L REH AM:

c  : t c e c e o 0 U k

'd :w uc a C

T A

P D D E E T T

'1 'a 'c

: r I 0 W0 t '

TI '.

c ]

STI (

l l

o c o / c c c w C a> o J JL A A L L r t

/

c U

t t

U M

)

S U U F C C Y

C 6 c c &  % G L u

t n $5 D C C Y

f 4 G

% R f i e O A A xn 1

E/

TD -

J' f i J-

^

C f ~ f l = =

AD /

D/ t o l i

2 1 a / n f i / 1 f f

.E ' E M T T M - - - - - -

h 3 5

( U l M E

(

1 1 1 3 1 l 3 1 l I T

A A l

l l\

M M M M M i M  !

f OI I

O c

(

PMIS AVAILABLITY TEST LOG (PATL) ,  !

COOPER NUCLEAR STATION (CNS)  !

I i

PAUE [

OF l 1

I AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT TIME IIT OT SOT AMOUNT A110UNT AMOUNT START STOP CODE

• Tills TilIS Tills AllT TO AUT TO SOT TO CONCURRENCE DATE TIME TIME (SEE OCCUR OCCUR OCCUR DATE DATE DATE COMMENT OR (MM/DD/YY) (Illi:MM) (Illt:MM) BELOW) (MIN) (MIN) (llR) (llR) (llH) (IIR) SAIC CNS PATPR NUMBER 1.111b co 00 3 /:,u lor - ~

2/:<.h 3:// :D 710:/C W ?rr/c W

l Z-MB (W m 2s/:cn Sof As/:oo s :st :R 7sy'K 7)Hc 2-11 SG (Wm ,'/' &b SOf D V!% 3 // :KI 77/:/6 W x17 c LX h. in' m O/:.J< > ~fo r -

Mx 1:n :11 Roa:n .0bst v?ir hDk. , n :a, , .?/*du Sor~

~ ~

324:ay C.'tr l2 2M:/C .&?nl' 7117c -

$2P-}4 CD!b) 2d:00 50r - -

?/:on E:// Lfl Pm!// DW zu 7t 1#h co'av n':ao So r - -

)/:00 r:y W 279ll& Mf > vie 1.Io+% 00 %U 24:00 301~

- ~

3l'a> 5:H W 99put D?>f 7W/c p)lca ,2d!W f)J:f(. Ey{'

1-]I - t'c 00'.00 jo l' E:// )) 7y7c Y-1-YG rn'Co pst:co lor - -

.2 s/ta, s:ll :B 9%c/c &mt0 7/7c- ,

hM% CC:O;2 ?st:.y tor - -

yqno ;y ;g fro:/6 gypf >7ppz-Y

• 5 0 b' 00:00 ) N 0] ECT ' ~

_2 V![0 ,St // lJJ f!ll- 71/fL d- v' 96 CO'CO swV Jor ' -

s:M rt/ ul /ctvia) 8711f nt7c l

PATL = PMIS AVAILABILITY TEST LOG PATPR = PMIS AVAILABILITY TEST PROBLEM REPORT

• TIME CODES: 1 AUT = ACCUMULATED OUTAGE TIME IIT = 110LD TIME Tills OCCURRENCE , SOT = SYSTDI OPERATING TIME Ai T - Arrimist ATrn sini n TTMr nT . nitTacr Tipir T :v c necitorure

4 -

ATTACHMENT C PACE / Or .T L' PMIS AvAItABItIrv TtST rRnBtEM REPORT (PATPR) NO. / .

NOTE: ALL times to be in 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> for=at - use PMIS tire if available. Use continuation sheet if necessary.

[(

DATE & TIME DETECTED .2-) / - 9(. /2;l') DETECTED 05 /)-,t/ t, DETECTED BY (NAME) /) n- PRIMARY = / BACKUP =

%,_,,', /, , [ 4 _, , , u.a, f ,m> ,f

( DESCRIPTION Or PROBLEM: _ f,, ,, f,, , . ,. ,. .. . , , o ., , m/

c .

A,,-,.J; w'L ,,- h:n H,,,-r ~ , A R ,, ~ ..~. .

s

• Y! b9 / ** 1 fl* ** / 2  !?1? rs* -

! -**** /-A4 A-f -** r es 4 [f. -

4

/

/ of /

./*4 4 M9 b / & M // ft//A

• A4*' "l?_'* s * -

/ l 9 Lf J/r J ,=*e - _

s g

N 4 s) k sk s w.s Nr",- - .

Y rs_k ~ b l. N l 1ws.hb/

- / , -

'7~

-A> YtD

- ~ 4 a* ,N . ls > sur u' , Abu-l - o.

SPARE PARTS USED: /Sk.9/ /),,'tbu mr /)Uf():JArtjjl _ ,, , p / ,, ,1Jp.,/),.,

/ /)Z

< /

PROBLEM CORRECTED AND SYSTEM OUTAGE TIME fo*

( RETURNED TO NORMAL (DATE & TIME)

NPPD CONCURRANCE (NAME / DATE) 7// //, ,

HOLD TIME f to

/ T ,7/")-/6 SAIC CONCURRANCE (NAME / DATE) .

/ 3 -M -d I START /STOP TIME & DATE INITIALS CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN

~

?? ' 10 2 ~26 R ><r v e _ l . ,_ _ s/t N .Wlt/ $.shir /$8ssl,1 t,< ./j.1,. ers m &

l~ ~ , ir or. h its l i,ar s)sto.,.. lw.

l [ h a -,-. ,'~ t

, /w rJ r s

~/

. c, w A ,,,m-sf re A,. j,3 fk _ A s r o,

/

M 1s # t l -

),

4,<u)J ,.sk - n,A / i,O,,' .

is .

l I fl] O * .' (

• Yf MrH

/ / M 4t J /!$ Mr / r*>sbj ** UsY J ,

ir ?, s . u. - 4 ,,,ic (%AJ o,.) ~. s,d. / /

. ,9 A. , L L, /

,, 3e. s<>

• s l,' ' ? Q. / r y]/m/ssds p* tJ C b , . .: u-, A. . . uL~a l ( l,J ~, Il q,d ,,, n,,, r.tw.)N

l l

_,.4 -

FMIS AVAILABILITY TEST PROBLEM REPORT (PATPR) NO. / PAGE 2 OF 7 g

.. (Continuation Sheet)

START /STOP __

e TIME & DATE INITIALS CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN 1 Y .. * . bNJ S . .s . _ kl. .' g. si w .! c'ah

• f 6 il t)G C l,l'?,.s /,.

~~

3, d *, _ i1, w e 4,

- * /

/ b .-s l Ital a.a.1,'/ 4? //il) .1 n,XA ,& OEC-l -w d.e~,,/N/5~LasscDfko,,J ~~

l b. //u u (^k/L,.4 ),,i,j &X 7 Z ,,

^-

I I A. ,s n as l is/ As.> ~.'< .u%. . .- - //w m

/

/

f m ,r. Arn ,< h

~

$ }/ & Ale,,, _!a K L -

Y]ii tevWiaiiib lAs masAl,i l,r l<b,T

.\ ,.

/ Jr 1.2 1 / 11 /i A M'l //t J *

'// _ n

.y..

$ 2'un/bb/Ti$f.~~~6.f;if/ ,n. ,^,k /jaje.] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

( r.) .' ?v-] >t. ?/ '7tr7e ,.//L,v/, //fC l//.lo $1c)-sTio) krejr/s).

5, a f~ .. _ n, 4 Ax w <. s., < L . bj s a _,n

- . i

/S ' C f 9-ft. 7tr7e . . x1 ) - _ _.

/ i i .

m.A . /J. A th b / s l fs , ~.L. _ $ k 4 ra e ,o . .,, e ..

h-- L l far.. > i m . } si, y , $ m ,.s / / iYe,,,..o , ,

Ir:o 7 1-9-/s 711 c A, ,A,,, . f '7 ni ,, / /4.///E.L. ) - _ - _

01:co 1-il-9e N7e (%fA.iAfc'n/ '

Ac h *

//h d dr'.' .-

-- f) .

,, _j.. ;./,.9-b y ,,);, />s

-f J,2. /,,,n 2 79.~, L , A ,,,.. , __

.- > , ,n) A.... h.~.L. /%, Y LL ///rc w/

.. ~ ~ - - - - - - - - l . g*,, 9_r S_ j q .,.ppy , g }, g , y __ f, _.

bi ,A; L u... J A/, A . A 72-,

E-- -

, , , , . , ~,. n ,,,,c si.,.,;L. x / w ..

-l -- -

/>l:oa 1.il-p(, . 7,r 7f-

/)Ef n,/n:,/ Jnp 4, ,.,, 'P /hr'sW dteJ: -.-

.[- '

AJN/ima u 1 /,,,, ,/_ f .,. , ,L /.,n fE / _

-- V- iLJL mil

- - - ,~ N m m_ M s ,s i c o a > ?? + wo x,AL Lh L,., ut, . ,,, ~ 6 ~.s ,

3 FMIS AVAILABILITY TEST FROBLEM REPORT (PATPR) NO. / PAGE 3 0F J

! (Continuation Sheet)

-~

START /STOP TIME & DATE INITIALS CORRECTIVE ACTIOS TAKEN i _ _

f f .*rf 1-a .f(r WG OFC awvY ennewl lt ?_4 L,'t. R > > _j hn 51. ^

b s L ~ X i;2, L, ..L L ,wm :A1AL S l & N r.'s L J k 1 2 ,.JJ L . A ..: ~'

- . - . _ . ( ~L L LJ~ db Lw. El C 's LJ ~~

N L, L. ~317Ai JAL ::^ ~ ' ' - _ .

/

-. l L A . J) J a:c s 1.~xx-s -tL, AJ . .

H:or N Cn/ 1, ] E ,, s,. ;h-k/n,J

^~

l f - . h *O h ,

/ / /

f_Yw j ., .n e ,c f* . t{ .. ? . A a xi /

E--

a r r1 e.) .-

4 tj s) , . . ' s f fr 1 ji ,

.h 'll lf $  ! *E 1 l // N .' { Ab _d. .

1 - WIf

/ .f /

f

- lf.-?OV l-/E-fl ~llf ? & t i,r) .

? , <] rit f) dt) YrJ /J S/ i -

r<<

Je- -

.aee w - .m.. , De m-h._____ __ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . . _ _ _

1 I

1

,e e . .

.w. -. -. , _ . - . . . - . .

L .

E lf' b PMIS' AVAILABILITY TEST PROBLEM REPORT (PATPR) NO. A. PAGE / OF .I NOTE: ALL times to be in 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> for=st - use PMIS time if available. Use

( continuation sheet if necessary.

t?s#CO DETECTED ON f/ /](

7 d. Afl,1 f.

DATE & TIME DETECTED 7- 7.-/6 .

DETECTED BY (NAME) b % /c PRIMARY = / BACKUP =

DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM: .N & n i) J'.,.t):.if,.,) ,.. ), ,, . l 0 ti,,, fi / u ,</," , , ,s.,,,,'fy m,

_Yb- CM t l nlla, . . vus ,Y i.3n/f a  ?. b >> a s b$r s ?.b . </klr's ll-ll*~,a

. m , ,' . m . /r -1, ew kueri. // t. l .

/

Y ! r! ber " .1. r. H . ',ir b k* -l Y o

n. /" ./

,/),* t se f / /) /> .- ** W ~ J f s, J . .L . .): .-11%4 . ** fA4 f/. L '/ _

d.r% ,

. r wi r.k e ,,*b

~

h ,'. fi , . ._: -, db,, ~. . k

• n.w s <* ln- w r

//

/ . . - . . - .

~ ~

~ -~

SPARE PARTS USED: d r-

~

PROBLEM CORRECTED AND SYSTEM OUTAGE TIME /70

( RETURNED TO NORMAL (DATE & TIME)

NPPD CONCURRANCE (NAME / DATE) '/7/ 7 , [fn HOLD TIME /f 3 /

/ J- JO -/6 - ._ .

- SAIC CONCURRANCE (NAME / DATE) . / 3 -MM

~

START /STOP

- TIME & DATE INITIALS CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN np:,.,,- 1 7- 9(, 7n 7c.- 0l rb Nr s.,o f. ,,,b ,/.s),:,.,/fl<? , lbs .,,*.. '

" * " * *~'

^~~ ~

($ or/ j e e1,. s.e , s. * ~l* t -Y ? D $ M )l.

s,if .,,9s n 3 -.

' ^ ^ ~ " ~

~ ~ ~

/

• 1. tS t ) .< f%E s. 4.J

• 2 / 2" Y **,4 p

u - -

'T L... a ,)..y i,,, x ,-,n.

. - . (- ,, ,, /. .) W d s .i . n m ,. u J t, ,;. , A J D

/ /

) * /' V'. r'  ?, _ , , ,

• >Y (Y un l',l

~ fr r.9 . e >*/ /

- . -- <nu , , ye. 7v n. ,o,L/s o~J A: N,u.. /. , n, ..(76,n.,:nr)

{ ' /

~ ~

$? 'r' ~ Y ' ] 'f$  ?? f4t ? .fHr sus - aos 9 *' s e it . , , , . .i s ,<ld s r .,

S 4 n;f a ,u ,,r. J A A L A /. A ,. ., - l . J sig,)hg sias.sc,, N .)

jen/ fx.a,v/ ,,.,

/ /

6 e

.e5 A ._

PMIS AVAILABILITY TEST PROBLEM REPORT (PATPR) NO. 2 PAGE A 0F 1 C (Continuation Sheet)

__ START /STOP - -

l TIME &_DATE INITIALS CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN l ' u, -~A sc-. /~ As, &'d,2,2n

~ ~^

N rinr si n ts -f6 s,i/. M .,..h'e +v.- - -

l A ovN,

~ ~

Wth". [!dlu ..-/b m.'Oci

' ~

f_ l f g / / f ,

S

, n:)khl/ s ~)n,debi LL x,JJ.[

~ ~ ~ ~

f / /

~

r. ',An i 11.sh721 /. bh . *,* dsi d J H

. / # /

\ - k i? ~ . J / / a n ,'] w L,. sub4,/ -

~

~

~

\' ~0 m:ici,s s<y ,u./A~J A jd h ) -

n O s N di 1 ,, d .s - i s ~ J .i n & . 7J e t . .

~ ^ ~

l w h;e..,,,,n Ji m ,. A .V ---

C l W'A i n L 1/ M as 4 ,z - .

,,s

_ - - . - . . - ./t L , A4U W JE A_2, A A-9? l ll .9 _/ f f A *

- - - - . - . G* l l lle llL5 $ $ f%b t t N AL',' .

\ ~,~ nAL, . ; ,< . LJL & pus ~<;.- -

.. . . -. f l fit i ft Y. $N l ff kY

• _g- . I a d L.,J Mi <iu.., A tu L ~ L , ,, ___

. _ _ . - l 1 -u ~, n', s.b ;J L AS .sL, J2 ins.

( -,L.i/-. n h J ns-:ste: een.

6 -ew-... e _  ! #A_,. [

' /

u' '

., . - -- JL l.M2 - A-  ? th &f LL, r-J 4 f) & ,* I A 19l'

.l..-_-...

l Jo. J u.m Jl,n. (% in. , k ; Ea m i. k ,

. ._ l J, ~ , , s . , u , ,. , a , J i ,..,,, ,,., J 6 , ,, t h ..- -

- 1181_hh. l (th1 A A .

~

- [_ _ .- ,I/

q Y du x,., . /-.-,n ,,,, n, . /ut,o n) , , , . . . -

_ __ /0.'o'.?.f./c n /C. /?M5V. .-

g ) ,5 , f h h) y# ff d i /

h l,-

1 l(

l l

rx1s avuustun Ttsr raestas atroxT craTra)

(continuation sheet) s1AaTistor so. a rAct .3 or _f TIME & DATE INITIALS l CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN l

l  ?, .

v A L L J'h A r b L ~ .,,.

-., -l, lC _/']-$ 7W[ -Le -fh ^ Ys-L'A 4 J

. , . - m4 9 '/ A.n S/ $' ,

._ w 1 r-r , - . . - L A ._,;..<,$ d ,.Iil,,.NJ'Ah -

A ulk,.. A 4 N,,sh A 7 ../ .n, A A g...... , . ._

/ u o~ a z,a. a, w ._ ...

l , _ . . .. .__

y-

- *1 8f

/1 M L s h l

-1

^^

.d.2 s ,=/

'i L f l Je %1 _ af tJ _ '.

L YH l*YA -

0C:00 c-cA -w 'c , s . ,. , , L J > , 6 / n - ~ / a w l

g--- - _ _ _ _.

l w_ ,,

L-- -

{__._ .

l ~

l w'ee--sW .*

C eae.- + -

l -- - - - - - - - - - -

CpFM l ,

W  : ~g- j pm g 3 m~mN  ;

SELECT

! l !I ! !

4C.! KEY OR TURN-OH CODE i

I i

3-t1RR-1986l 08:34:12 E'

b  !

l Pt .

l c- l l  :

i

! i i i i , .

f i j  ! l l PMIS PEERid ORMANCid MdNITOR i -

l l  !!

'j i

RRCHIVE-FILE STRTUS i '

! e i l ,

! bPU I RRCHIVE FILE IS 22. % FULL UTILIZRTION 100 ret 10TE S'i STE11 STATUS vn.s s ua _

THE DRCKUP SYSTEM HRS FRILED /

- 80 FRILOVER HRS OCCURED /

~

• POINT Pil.OCESSING GuillinRY

- 70 NUNDER OF RNRLOG PTS /SEC 162.

NUMDER OF DIGITAL PTS /SEC 928.

- 80 NUMBER OF PULSE PTS /SEC 2. '

I NUMBER OF PR PTS /SEC 15.

l j c- so NUMBER OF BOOLEAN PTS /SEC 9.

~

y I

NUMBER OF TRANSFORt1 PTSrMIN O.

NUMBER OF RO PTS /SEC O.

i! l -9o p  ;

Nut 1BER OF DO PTS /SEC O.

ll. .- so NUMBER OF RRCHIVE TRAN LAST SEC 48.

t .,. Mut1SER OF RLARM TRAN GEN LAST SEC 2.

I p _2o l NUMBER OF SOE*S PROC LAST SEC O.

j l  !

TOTAL, NUMBER PTS. PROC LAST SEC 1416.

j j i ; _'go I '

Nut 1BER OF PROCESSING CYCLES /SEC '

8.

, n,.i  ; ,

i

! DATR CONCENTRATOR "A" STRTUS NORt1RL

}  ! I6 i o

l 2 ,

DATA CONCENTRATOR "B" STATUS NORt1RL j , ,

i .

i fWe 5 il w l ',.;"lil E (g 1  % '-L" 91F lf ' d 3 i ~ @N .

i O

I,. f;]fb..

' ~

11'l R3; "

it  ? .j. !ll' W  !

E51 J j

b10E w am l  :, .

,, g .

g,l .

n I t ,J, .a ekyr $1N .:

& l I N?O)Ne 6hW'M  ?&th31Y .ik k 5 h?5I.7 l im hkNiini .$

Fi= CLEAR .

F2= +

: F3= MENU' i

.F4=  ! F5=  !

F6=

PRIEV l CANc + i HARDCOPY=DUSY CONSOLE =PRIt1RRY MODE = RUM

'  ; j l l EVENT =i?iUTO' -

, i i l

l . l l l

.I . . ; l i ,

l l l l  ;

N.

ei i t  !

l 5 ATTACHMENT D

~~

SPARE PARTS E

_ _. No spare parts were drawn from the District's inventory. _

Digital Equipment Company replaced two disk packs (DULO &

DULL) under the Maintenance Agreement. -

6 e h

- m M

D-

- .i

~

~

=

~

= - .. i

~

~

= -

• • 2 .- - - . , _ ,,

=.1 _ _ ,

1 ,

wemm-i E

E -

ger,n

.axn

,merar as w -

-~~

4 I

l i

E ATTACHMENT E SYSTEM AVAILABILITY E

TDT = Test Duration Time = Total elapsed time from start to completion of test excluding holdtime Tt = Time the PMIS System is undergoing the test I.E. System Operating Time (SOT) + Acc. Hold Time (AHT) + Acc. Outage Time (A0T).

A0T = Accumulated outage time - This occurs whenever any system function, hardware or software, is unavailable in the control room, TSC or EOF.

TH = Time declared as hold time Tt = 1000 + 5.183 + .550 Tt = 1005.733 Hours TDT = Tt - TH TDT = 1005.733 - 5.183

• TDT = 1000.55 Availability (Percent) = ((TDT-A0T)/ TDT)

• 100

((1000.55 .55)/1000.55)

• 100 E (1000/1000.55)

• 100

(.99945 X 100)

Availability = 99.945% ,

E E

E E

E en=

MEXEE m-wrs aa w - _.

E E

l5 5

E E

'E E

Attachment 2 Documentation that the information displayed on Cooper SPDS is readily perceived and does not mislead the operator (s) (Man-In-The-Loop Testing).

E E

E E

E E

E

S AIC-86/3006 l E

5 MAN-IN-TIIE-LOOP TESTING FOR TIIE SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY SYSTEM

.E AT THE COOPER NUCLEAR STATION E

January 17,1986 E

~

.E Prepared by:

! Science Applications International Corporation

.E E

'E E

E E

E

I E 1. INTRODUCTION l

'Ihis document describes the procedures used and results of the man-in-the-loop 1 testing for the Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) at the Cooper Nuclear Station, owned and operated by the Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD). The SPDS is an l integral segment of the Plant Management Information System (PMIS) recently installed at the Cooper Station, and is intended to function as an aid to control room personnel during l abnormal, and emergency conditions in determining the safety status of the plant. The l

PMIS and SPDS were designed and built by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). The SPDS is described in detail in SAIC document no. 503-8500000-78 (Ref.1) i A considerable amount of attention has gone into the design of the SPDS to l

ensure consistency with accepted human factors principals and maximum usefulness to control room personnel. An extensive human factors plan was prepared and used in l designing the system (Ref. 2). Also, input from NPPD operators was solicited in the early phases of the project, and incorporated into the design of the SPDS displays. The purpose of man-in-the-loop testing is to serve as an additional check to ensure a smooth integration l

of the SPDS with the rest of the contro' room environment, the Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs), and the training of control room personnel.

1 1

l l

B -

1 I .

I 1

1

B l

g 2. METIIOD 2.1 PROCEDURE Man-in the loop testing of the Cooper SPDS consisted of having plant operating l crews view and evaluate the SPDS displays under simulated operational conditions.

Taped, time-dependent transient data was utilized to drive the displays in a real time mode,

( with the transient data displayed on the actual SPDS terminals installed in the Technical Support Center (TSC) at the Cooper nuclear station. 'Ihe transient scenario is described in j greater detaillater.

During the evaluation, each operating crew completed a two page " Display Characteristics Questionnaire" for each display they observed (not all crews observed every I

display). This questionnaire solicited operator opinions regarding the usefulness of the E display, as well as any observed deficiencies, and recommendations for improvement. A I copy of the questionnaire is provided as Attachment A. A copy of the test procedure, and the instructions to the operators is provided as Attachment B.

I Five operating crews (including a training crew) were involved in the testing, generating five sets of questionnaires. Test sessions were conducted over the period of November 7,1985 through December 3,1985. Questionnaire responses were quantified l

and reviewed by SAIC human factors staff during January,1986.

l 2.2 TRANSIENT SCENARIO The transient scenario utilized to exercise the SPDS displays was a " loss of cooling accident" (LOCA), which lasts approximately 22 minutes. During the transient, the following malfunctions occur:

I 1. Loss of feedwater flow

2. Reactor core isolation cooling trip l

3. High radiation in reactor building

4. Turbine bypass valves fail shut

5. Core spray trip j

6. Residual heat removal trip

7. Loss of coolant (recirculation pump suction line break) i This transient scenario tape was compiled from transient data previously obtained from the Brown's Ferry (BWR) simulator as part of the BWR Graphics Display System Dynamic Screening Program (Ref. 3) which was ccaducted by SAIC for the BWR Owner's Group, the EPRI Nuclear Safety Analysis Center, and the U.S. Department of I

l 2 E

1 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I l

Energy. The data was subsequently modified by SAIC specifically for the purpose of man-in-the-loop testing at the Cooper Nuclear Station. A graph of the RPV water level l

instrument readings depicting the transient scenario is provided as Attachment C.

l l

I l

l i' .

l 1

l l

l l

l l

1 l

l 3 l - - - - - - - - - - - -

3. RESULTS l

Questionnaire responses from the five operating crews were summarized and reviewed in order to obtain overall ratings of the displays, identify problem areas, and identify potential system / display enhancements. A summary of the questionnaire responses is provided below.

3.1 DISPLAY DESIGN Operating crews were asked to evaluate each display in terms of five specific design criteria. In every case, display design was rated favorably by the majority of the operating crews. In no case did any display receive an unfavorable rating from more than one (out of five) crews for a given design related category. Approximately 92% of all crew E

responses related to display design were positive.

3.2 AMOUNTOFINFORMATION l Operating crews were asked to evaluate the adequacy of the amount of information presented in each display. For 22 of 24 displays, the majority of operating crews rated the amount ofinformation provided as being appropriate. In two instances, the majority of responders indicated that they would like additional information provided. No displays were rated as providing too much information. Eighty percent of all crew responses received indicated that displays provided the appropriate amount of information.

3.3 USABILITY OF INFORMATION Crews were also asked to evaluate the information provided in the displays in terms of being directly useable versus requiring transformation. In every case, information was determined to be directly useable by the majority of responding crews. Overall, approximately 88 percent of all crew responses were favorable.

g 3.4 RELATION'IO EOPs Crews were also asked to evaluate displays in terms of how well they related to the new, symptom-oriented EOPs. Approximately 70 percent of the displays were rated as being "related" to the EOPs with the remaining 30 percent rated as being "somewhat related" by the majority of the responding crews. There were three instances in which a single crew (out of five) did not feel the display was related to the EOPs. It should be noted that some SPDS displays were not intended to be closely related to the EOPs. The "Izvel 2" displays provide information on the five key safety functions identified by the E

4

I NRC in NUREG-0737 (Ref. 4). The BWR Emergency Procedure Guidelines (Ref. 5) and the related Cooper EOPs an: not closely tied to these safety functions. An additional factor related to the man-in-the-loop test was that information from recently updated EOPs had not yet been incorporated into the displays at the time that man-in-the-loop tesdng was conducted. This has since been done, which should strengthen the perceived relationship been the SPDS displays and the EOPs.

3.5 USEFULNESS OF DISPLAYS Operating crews were also asked to rate the usefulness of the displays on a scale from " detrimental" to "very useful". Twenty-three of the twenty-four displays were rated as "useful" by the majority of the responding crews. One display was rated as "not useful", and there were no displays rated as being " detrimental". The single display rated as "not useful" was a static display, and it was recommended that some dynamic features be added to increase its usefulness to the operator.

3.6 OPERATOR COMMENTS I Operators were also asked to provide comments and specific recommendations for improveinents to the various displays. Overall, some 60 distinct recommendations were received. The majority of these recommendations suggested minor (potential) enhancements to the system rather than corrective actions that were required due to significant deficiencies. Many of the recommendations (primarily related to inclusion of updated EOP information) had already been incorporated into the system before the questionnaire data had even been reviewed. Other recommendations will be reviewed by SAIC and NPPD for possible future enhancement of the Cooper SPDS.

E E

E E

E t

l

4.

SUMMARY

l Overall, the findings of the man-in-the-loop testing were quite positive. No I serious deficiencies were observed in the system. The majority of comments and l

recommendations suggested minor enhancements which are currently being evaluated as to their potential value. It is anticipated that as operators become more familiar with the I system, through training and experience, their perceptions of the SPDS system, and the usefulness ofindividual displays will become even more favorable.

I l .

1 I

i l

l l 6 5

i

I S. REFERENCES B

l

1. Safety Parameter Display System, Detailed Description" - Revision 2, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC Doc. No. 503-8500000-78),

I February,1985.

2. " Human Factors Plan", Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC Doc.

No. 503-8500000-77), April 1984.

l 3. "BWR Graphics Display System, Dynamic Screening Program", Science Applications Intemational Corporation (SAIC Doc. No. 01381-364LJ), February,1982.

4. NUREG-0737, Supplement 1 (Generic Letter 82-33)," Requirements for Emergency

}

Response Capability," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, D:cember 17,1983.

j

5. " Draft Emergency Procedure Guidelines," Revision 3G, BWR Owner's Group, November 10,1983. ,

l l

l l

t l

l l

B 7

i

E l

Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMEr1T A COOPER NUCLEAR STATION

^

DISPLAY CHARACTERISTICS QUESTIONNAIRE E

Display Title -

B 1. Is the display h

E a. Understandable?

Yes No l b. Logically organized?

c. Uncluttered? ~

E d.

e.

Readable?

Updated data at a j

reasonable rate?

E Suggestions for improvements (if necessary, attach additional sheets I with comments).

E l

5

2. Is the amount of information presented E

. Too little? Too much? Adequate?

l Suggestions for improvements.

j E

l E

l

3. The information in the display l Requires transformation Is directly usable as is Suggestions for improvements.

E

I Pago 2 of 2 l

QUESTIONNAIRE (Continued)

4. Does ths.information in this display relate well to the information E needs of an operator who is using the new, sympton-oriented Emergency l

Operating frocedures?

Yes Somewhat No Don't know Please explain:

E I

I

5. How do you rate the usefulness of this display?

I Detrimental Not useful Useful Very useful l

Please explain:

I .

I I How do the features and data content of this display compare with 6.

similar displays?

I l

7. Additional consents.

Reviewer Date

ATTACHMENT B TEST PROCEDURES Following the classroom trainmg instruction on the Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS) SPDS, an operator evaluation of all of the CNS SPDS displays should be conducted. All tmining attendees should participate. He formal procedures follow. During the evaluation, no more than three people should be stationed at an IDT termmal. If necessary, the simulated transient should be repeated a number of times. He two page questionaire used during the I evaluation is attached.

1. Instruct the trainees as follows:

"A twenty-two minute transient will be run using the CVT simulator on the PMIS.

During this time, please view all of the 25 SPDS displays in any order or manner you desire. At the end of the transient you will be asked to evaluate each display individually. A two-page questionair.e will be filled out for each display. Before

-~ tartmg s the transient, you will be given the display questionaire to see what type of information is required from you. The only requirement during the testing is to view each SPDS display at least once during the transient." ,

2. Start the NUCVTZ simulator on a VT100-compatible terminal. When prompted for a tran;ient name, enter

3. The transient will last approxin:ately 22 minutes. At the end the output on the terminal will say

!END OF LOCA4 TRANSIENT

4. Instruct the trainees as follows:

' " Fill out the two-page display questionaire for each of the 25 SPDS displays.

Before filling out the questionaire, call up the appropriate SPDS display on the IDT display. When finished, retum the questionaires to the instructor."

l

- - - - . , , . - ..--w-

I ATTACHMENT C l LOCA4 Transient RPV Water Level Readings i ~

LOCR4 CASE l o 3 M

]

1 l e l N-1 B

= l J ~

! E- j

^

E E C 0 l C_ y 5 d!L I l n ~.

g U S_ c : c e e c -

1 6 s

j 5

l E

> @~

I 82 l 9 =

g_

Y 5

l o 5

~ ~

d~ _

o 5 N '

' b.0 3d0.0 600.0 900.0 1250.0 15b0.0 1800.0 TIME (SEC)

E l

l SUPPLEMENT TO ATTACHMENT 2 I

In design and development activities to date, the following measures have been taken to ensure that the information on the CNS SPDS displays will: a) be I readily perceived by users of the system, and b) will not mislead the users of the system:

Incorporating lessons learned in prior BWR SPDS projects.

Designing the CNS SPDS in accordance with human factors principles.

l -

Incorporating CNS operating personnel into the SPDS display design review process.

[ A discussion of each of these points is provided below.

A. Input from Prior BWR SPDS Projects The CNS SPDS design is an evolutionary development that is built on prior experience gained by SAIC during work on the following BWR SPDS projects:

BWROG dynamic screening of proposed SPDS displays.

BWROG prototype SPDS development and testing on the Perry Simulator.

BWR SPDS design, development, and installation at the Fermi II l

nuclear power plant.

i For example, the CNS SPDS uses the same display hierarchy that was used I in all of the above projects. The hierarchy is:

Level 1: Plant Overview l

Level 2: Safety Functions Level 3: E0P Support l Basic display format for bar charts, trend plots, and multiparameter x-y plots can be traced directly to the final formats that were produced by the dynamic screening project. In addition, the use of Safety Function Indicators was introduced in the dynamic screening proj ect and is t consistently implemented at CNS and in all BWR SPDS projects listed above.

l The CNS SPDS offers significant evolutionary improvements in:

a) detailed display format and content, b) communication of data between different levels in the display hierarchy, and c) degree of integration of the SPDS displays with the plant-specific Emergency Operating Procedures. These improvements, coupled with lessons learned by SAIC in prior BWR SPDS projects, help ensure that the CNS SPDS displays are readily perceived and do not mislead the users of the system.

B. Design of SPDS in Accordance with Human Factors Principles The Human Factors Plan (Document 503-8500000-77) identifies the human factors principles that are implemented in the design and development of the PMIS and SPDS. These human factors considerations help ensure that the CNS SPDS displays are readily perceived and will not mislead the f users of the system.

C. Review of the Prototype Displays by CNS Operating Personnel In March, 1984, SAIC and NPPD personnel met at the CNS site to review the displays from the three projects listed above and to solicit NPPD input on preferred SPDS display features.

A partial set of prototype CNS SPDS displays was provided to NPPD in April, 1984. These static displays were stored on a magnetic bubble and could be viewed on the SPDS terminals, yielding the same visual quality as a real SPDS display. NPPD comments on these prototype displays were incorporated into the first complete set of SPDS displays which was forwarded to NPPD in July, 1984. NPPD operators reviewed these improved static displays on an SPDS terminal set up in the CNS Control Room and provided recommendations for display improvements to SAIC in September, 1984. NPPD recommendations have been implemented in the final display design.

In addition to these reviews of display statics, NPPD persont.01 have, on several occasions, reviewed the latest CNS SPDS displays. These reviews have resulted in several revisions to the displays to further integrace the E0Ps, include the latest vendor data for equipment portrayed on the SPDS displays, and in general, to update and improve the displays in an iterative process with input from plant personnel.

In summary, NPPD input has been instrumental in finalizing the CNS SPDS display design. This input helps ensure that the CNS SPDS displays are readily perceived and do not mislead the users of the system.

l l

l l

l I

E

. R E

E E

i l

B I Attachment 3 I

i t

Validation Test Plans and Results, f t

..w-,.--..--,----- --_n-,--