Text

Line-By-Line Evaluation/Response to NRC Staff Review of Clinton Power Station Detailed Control Room Design Review Program Plan
	ML20205A827
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	03/31/1985
From:	; ILLINOIS POWER CO.
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20205A825	List: ML20205A824; ML20205A827;
References
	RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737 NUDOCS 8504260127
	Download: ML20205A827 (122)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:.: = a e,. 4 s. ATTACHMENT ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY CLINTON POWER STATION, UNIT 1 LINE-BY-LINE EVALUATI N / RESPONSE .TO NRC STAFF REVIEW OF THE CPS DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM PLAN k O-March 1985 0 g*26jo;ggggi F ~ - - ~ - - ~1 Z1. -" ~~ 7 T.. ~ T 1

O REFERENCES ~,f 1. NRC Staff Review. Schwencer to Spangenberg, " Review of Clinton Power Station Detailed Control Room Design Review Program Plan," dated January 8, 1985. 2. SAIC Report. SAIC Final Evaluation of the CPS DCRDR Program Plan. 3. NRC Staff /BWROG Meeting. Weiss to Moore, " Meeting Summary - Task Analysis Requirements of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737, May 4, 1984 Meeting with BWROG, Emergency Procedure Guidelines and Control Room Design Review Committee," dated May 14, 1984. O s, '/ \\_s wm-ws,,,

Q' NRC Staff Review of the CPS DCRDR Program Plan Item No. 1 Topic: The DCRDR Team

Reference:

NRC Staff Review, page 2 NRC Concern: Clinton's auditable documentation should include the resumes of the review team members. (Table 2-1 of Program Plan). CPS Response: The resumes of Jim Hall, Wardell Welsch-and Miguel Verdugo are submitted as a revision to the CPS DCRDR Program Plan. ~, .y).,: e e ( e "'"M w w e.- y,e aw mwww m.,e. m e m.,.

James M. Hall (-,) Results Engineer Illinois Power Company Member of Design Review Team a Education: Bradley University, Peoria, Illinois Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering Graduated December 1979 University of Illinois, Champaign, Illinois Nuclear Engineering Courses January 83 - December 83 Training: Mitigating Reactor Core Damage - September 1982 Clinton Pcwer Station Operator Systems - 1984 Certified IRD Mechanalysis Basic Course and Advanced Diagnosis Course - June 1980 and October 1983 i Ongoing: Clinton Power Station Shift Technical Advisor Experience: Illinois Power Company (January 1983 - Present) Results Engineer in Technical Staff Responsible for~ resolution of NSSS vendor and NRC Staff t comments on.EPG's/EOP's/ calculations and CPS Writer's [{/ Guide. Also responsible for estabi'ishment of the program (,,f for CPS' Plant Staff to receive systems from the Startup organization. Illinois Power Company (January 1980 - January 1983) ~ Engineer in Technical Staff Responsibilities included investigation and corrective action recommendation to industry identified concerns, writing and reviewing of system / testing procedures vibration analysis of miscellaneous pumps and motors. Illinois Power Company (April 1982 - August 1982) 1 l j Engineer on loan to Mississippi Power and Light at the ~ Grand Gulf Nuclear Power Station Responsibilities included observation of fuel loading program activities and assisting in the system release program. a

WARDELL B. WELCH HUMAN FACTORS SPECIALIST Torrey Pines Technology Member of Design Review Team 4 !j PROFESSIONAL SPECIALTY ij j Human Factors Engineering i EDUCATION ,1 4 B.A. General Psychology, San Diego State University,1966 1 Graduate study in Human Engineering, University of Michigan,1967 M.S. Industrial Psychology, San Diego State University,1968 i EXPERIENCE 6 _ Fourteen years experience as an Engineering Psychologist in the Human Factors Division of the Naval Ocean Systems Cantar, San Diego, California. Currently working on the Boston Edison Conpany Control Room Survey. Served as Human Engineering Project Manager for major center programs including: Naval Aviation Logistics Connand Management Information 5,' tam; Ocean Surveillance Information System; Hydrofoil and Advanced r SurNe Craft Development Programs, and -the IEECM Message Processing System. In this capacity, prepared plans,. collected and analyzed data on performace requirements for use by system design engineers and supervised other human engineering personnel.- Made recomendations on man-machine performance requirements to the system engineers. Performed command control and consunications studies for the Defense Consunications Agency on the National Military Conmand System for use by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This involved determining operator performance requirements, improving design of existing capabilities by recommending changes in man-machine workspace environments and solving operator-system interface problems. Originated development.of.a mockup facility at Naval Ocean Systems j .. Center with, an extensive capability for providing both reduced and full-scale mockups for use in systems analysis. Used neckups and video recording techniques extensively for analysis purposes to l support design recommendations. Using mockups, designed new operator consoles and electronic devises. When deadlines were critical, f.tricated prototypes of consoles, work stations and new equipment for evaluation, without detailed drawings e and specifications. t --~~~.,~, ~_ v4 y' m-m,,,-,-- w

,--,--o

,,e-,-w- ~,,w T

Wardell W. Welch Page 2 4 k i Recommended improved equipment and changes in equipment arrangements J for such spaces as the National Emergency Airborne Comand Posts for . )j the President and the Emergency Action Room in the Pentagon. This involved utilizing mockups in the analysis of operator control panel j layouts and control / display relationships to eliminate the possibility .] of operator errors during critical situation. ) Used MIL-STD 1472C " Human Engineering Critieria for Military Systams .i Eaufpment and Facilities" extensively in evaluating equipment and i systems. Also, used it as a primary reference in the design of new .j equipment. Analyzed Human Engineering and system safety aspects of weapons and connunications and subsystems for nuclear powered cruisers, redesigned connunications facilities for the 688 class nuclear attack submarine and the Navy's TACAMO aircraft. Monitored and evaluated contractor performance for the Inproved. Point Defense System, design of ecmuni-cations spaces of the TRIDENT submarine and a new multi-mode display console for SONAR operators. Developed an extensive maintainablility checklist based on human engineering criteria which has been incorporated in the Human Engineering Manual. for NAVSHIPS Development Programs. All work performed involved a close interaction with multi-disciplines in the scientific and engineering fields and all levels of operational personnel. ~ PUBLICATIONS Human Factors and ' Habitability Aspects of Hydrofoil Generalized Mission Trials, NELC, May 1968 (co-author), j Human Factors and Habitability Discrepancy Report of the PGH-2 (USS - Tucumcari), Technical Report No. 811814, NELC, November 1968 (co-author). Human Engineering in NAVSHIPS Development Programs, Vol. II, NELC, May 1970,(co-author). i Source Data Entry Requirements for Naval Air Logistics Comand i Management Information Systems, NELC, 1975 (co-author). National Military Comand Center Audio Visual Improvement Study, NELC, June 1977,(co-author). Human Engineering Analysis and Evaluation of the Integrated Record Data System for the EC-135 Aircraft, NELC, June 1977 (co-author), i 'I +,%-e. -ww.- w+++ e-*=---*- -W===" ~ * * .~..

MIGUEL A. VERDUGO s Engineer IV PROFESSIONAL SPECIALTY Control and instrumentation application; nuclear safety system design and licensing; and equipment qualification.' EDUCATION Los Angeles Pierce College West Coast University EXPERIENCE Responsible for the assessment of BWR NSSS safety systems and environmental qualification justification for interim operation report to the NRC for PP&L's Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Unit 1. Also responsible for the evaluation of all NSSS safety component functions. Responsible for controls and instrumentation technical responses to the Junta De Energia Nuclear (NRC) Questions on the Sayago PSAR A (Spanish PWR) on Sections 3, 7, 9, and 11. Also Responsible for the Q Mechanical Review of Technical Responses on Sections 3, 5, 6, and 9. Responsible on KNU S and 6 PWR Project for Solid State Interposing Logic System; general consulting to the control group including implementation of TMI lessons learned, fire and electrical separa-tion, main control room benchboards and console. Established Equipment Qualifications Requirements and compliance criteria for NRC Guides and IEEE Standards associated with safety-related equipment. Responsible for post accident monitoring, plant control, primary coolant, core auxiliary coolant and bid specification for Radiation Monitoring Instrumentation. Lead design engineer in nuclear and process instrumentation for Fast Flux Test Facility Closed-Loop systems. This included direction to the architect / engineer to develop an integrated control and process system. Included in the scope were new techniques in heating and instrument installation, control room console, review and checkout of system component installation in full scale mockup. Electrical and instrumentation design for high temperature sodium test loops, including project coordination through construction and testing phase. V 1 -~.

h (g./ M. A. Verdugo j Page 2 Facilities design engineer for reactor component test facilities. Responsibilities were to review and supervise insta11atinn of electrical and pneumatic instrumentation. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Registered Professional Control Systems Engineer, California,1975 Member, Instrument Society of America, Section Preside:nt i Metter, American Nuclear Society ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Instrument Piping and Tubing Standard for Nuclear Powr Plents, ANSI-N677. State of California Board of Registration for Professional Engineers, Expert Examiner. 0 3 e m,,,. - _, - - ,.--.-y

.*-,-.-_._m#,

myy.- -g --.w,. ww. 9 w

l ) NRC Staff Review of the CPS DCRDR Program Plan Item No. 2 ll 'i Topic: The DCRDR Team 1 l

Reference:

NRC Staff Review, page 2 ll NRC Concern: Illinois Power should give serious consideration l' to increasing the degree of participation by the human factors i specialist, especially during the conduct of the task analysis, HED assessment, selection of design improvements, and verifica-tion and validation tasks. i CPS. Response: The CPS DCRDR Program Plan will be revised to j show that one or more human factors specialists assigned to this project are full members of every identified project task. ..lj Table 2-1 of the Program Plan has been revised to reflect this. i8 Mr. W. Welch, a human factors specialist, has the lead responsibility for the Control Room Inventory. Mr. R. Sabeh, a human factors specialist, has been an active team member in the task analysis activities. He has assisted {'")?g in writing the task analysis procedures and verification and s_, ) validation (V&V) procedures. Table 2-2 has been revised to l accurately reflect the time allocated for Mr. Sabeh to work on the task analysis and verification and validation tasks. Control Room Survey (CRS) checklists 6.8 " Panel Layout," and l 6.9 " Control Display Integration," are executed as part of the task analysis and verification and validation tasks. Mr. R. Sabeh and Mr. S. Luna are full members of the Assessment and Implementation Team. They provide'the initial recommendations for corrective actions, which are reported in 1 the Human Engineering Observation (HEO) forms. During the !i assessment of HEOs a human factor specialist will explain each h HEO to the Assessment and Implementation Team (AIT). This team ? evaluates and classifies each HEO. The human factors specialist l} explains the recommended corrective actions. The team evaluates the initial recommendations and by consensus makes a final recommendation. l-l 1 l l <#5N, Y i 7.

k N TABLE 2-1 i DCRDR DESIGN REVIEW TEAM IMERS AND ASSOCIATED TASK ASSIGNENTS 4 l' Program Manager R. P. Bichel Principal Investigator M. J. Hollinden P. J. Telthorst (Alternate) . Project Engineer Sr. Human Factors Specialist ii S. F. Luna 9 System Function and Planning Task Analysis (EOP & OCRDR) S. F. Luna R. P. Bichel W. R. Arnold D. M. Antonelli R. Sabeh M. A. Krause* E. P. Gagnon J. M. Hall M. J. Hollinden S. F. Luna M. J. Hollinden 9 P. J. Telthorst R. C. Potter M. A. Krause* 8l R. Sabeh P. J..Telthorst M. A. Verdugo Verification of Task Capabilities and } Operating Experience Review E0Ps l.

5. F. Luna D. M. Antonelli W. R. Arnold D. M. Antonelli R. Sabeh

. M. J. Hollinden F. Scaletta M. A. Krause* R. P. Bichel E. P. Gagnon J. M. Hall R. Sabeh -J. R. Patten E.-A. Schweitzer Validation of Control Room Functions Control Room Survey and E0Ps W. R. Arnold D. M. Antonelli.. E. P. Gagnon D. M. Antonelli i E. P. Gagnon R. P. Bichel R. Sabeh J. M. Hall S. F. Luna M. J. Hollinden S. F. Luna M. A. Krause, R. Sabeh J. R. Patten W. Welch ~ Control Room Inventory E. P. Gagnon R. P. Bichel F. P. Scaletta M. J. Hollinden T. A. Sgammato W. Welch

lso a member of the E0P upgrade program.

L v) a 1.5/021185 VAXC/85 2-5 gw'pe,N

vye-w r

--,.w9m +-e.-, __,y y. y.,,g., ,ogn-.y ,3y-,,p ,w.7 -y,w,.,mm ygm,,y,.g,--.w ca.y ww-%

N A-TABLE 2-1 (cont.) v DCRDR DESIGN REVIEW TEAM MDBERS ] AND ASSOCIATED TASK ASSIGMENTS Assessments /and Im)1ementation Documentation l W. R. Arnold J. M. Antonelli E. P. Gagnon M. J. Holliden E. P. Gagnon R. P. Bichel S. F. Luna P. J. Telthorst I S. F. Luna M.J.Hollingen R. Sabeh R. Sabeh M. A. Krause J. P. O'Brien T. L. Riley P. J. Telthorst i l 0 I 1

I 1.5/021185 VAXC/85 l

2-6 ~ s,v-,--w m m--~.:. ,n. g v-ea-- t-

7wer -w ww-ww-w,w w

-w-vm, w-,.--,p--

e,r w wzw

--wme-w, ---w-- - - e um----- r =-------

l t ) Table 2-2 LEVELOFEFFORT(MAN-HOURS) 0F VARIOUS DISCIPLINE GROUPS IN PERFORMING THE DCRDR FOR CLINTON POER STATION ,i l: h Ii HUMAN NUCLEAR FACTORS REACTOR IE SYSTEMS DCRDR PHASE / TASK ENGINEERS OPERATORS ENGINEERS ENGINEERS 4 j P1anning 220 100 120

I Review:

Operating Experience Review 220 140 40 40 Inventory 200 200 Control Room Survey 200 120 40 i l Task Analysis 130 40 300 400 ./ Verification and Validation 130 120 100 400 Assessments 200 80 200 40 Correction / Effectiveness 120 80 80 80 l Occumentation 120 100 80 l'0 80 Project Meetings 80 40 0 \\. f 1; l! 1.5/021185 VAXC/85 2-7 -h-e- g*-MW-*7"

- es,"'

--i - ~ ,--w w4om.- aw<g.l-mie-+- N--e m-*-+ = * - - - ' - * * -P-rN*"e-**W*-

~ ~. l () \\ {) NRC Staff Review of the CPS DCRDR Program Plan Item No. 3 Topic: The DCRDR Team

Reference:

SAIC Report, page 3 SAIC Concern: This section of the program plan could be enhanced by the provision of information regarding the qualifica-tions and experience of Hall and Welsh and a description of the role of the Principal Investigator. CPS Response: The resumes are an attachment to Item 1. The Principal Investigator is the CPS plant staff engineer who coordinates the day to day activities of the DCRDR at CPS. l He coordinates the DCRDR with other emergency response capability activities ruch as SPDS and EOP verification and validation, he ensures that work progresses on schedule, he anticipates and coordinates 7CRDR tasks involving IPC personnel, and he makes regular rep' tits to management on the status of the DCRDR via the Emergency Response Capability Implementation Plan Project Manager. The Principle Investigator reports to the Program Manager who is responsible for the overall completion of the DCRDR Program Plan. i v. a e 1 l l-l i 1 (O J ____..___,.__.._m, ....,,._..,_...._,._,._..c.,,.

i f) Q^ NRC Staff Review of the CPS -DCRDR Program Plan Item No. 4 Topic: The DCRDR Team

Reference:

SAIC Report, page 3 SAIC Concern: Human factors personnel should play a greater role in the task analysis, verification and validation tasks, and assessment activities. -+ CPS Response: See Item 2. t 5 A f e s l ) O ~

* ~ " *

-+ w e-- yme -. -g... ---v,---*. --,,-,_,-,m. ..,_-m...._,._m.__.,_._ , _. _, _ _,,. _. _ ___,_ _,,_,__,____, - __ -,.,-... m .s. .-_--,_.r

~1 t~ NRC Staff Review of the CPS DCRDR Program Plan Item No. 5 Topic: Operating Experience Review ,I

Reference:

SAIC Report, page 4 1 SAIC Concern:,To ensure that survey and interview questions 1 are simple, clear, and objective, it is recommended that the survey instrumentation and procedures be pretested. A plan for analysis of open-ended responses will need to be developed as

i.

will procedures to ensure confidentiality and anonymity of respondents. If these issues are resolved, Illinois Power's operating experience review, as proposed, should augment the total DCRDR effort., j - CPS Response: The Torrey Pines Survey and interview questionnaires have been developed using DCRDR experience on five other plants. As'such, a pretesting philosophy has been used at CPS. l The confidentiality and anonymity of the respondents in the OER is ensured by h(/.! directly sending the responses to Torrey Pines Technology (TPT) for review. TPT performs an analysis of "open-ended" responses by evaluating the respondents ~ experience level and the human factors significance of the response. "Open-ended"' discussions are encouraged during the interviews by TPT. t 4 4 n 'i 1 l O y - w a-y rvrw-w -M-F--y r W g- - - T-w -'ees-m. W P - - = -=

1 4 i ( NRC Staff Review of the CPS DCRDR Program Plan Item No. 6 Topics System Function and Task Analysis

Reference:

NRC Staff Review, page 3 1 NRC Concern: The Program Plan does not describe a methodology in i sufficient detail to ensure that the determination of.the operator }' information and control needs for emergency operations is done independently from the existing control room design. a ' CPS Response: The DCRDR System Function Task Analysis is being d performed in ccnjunction with the applicable portions.of the }! EOP V&V. CPS has written plant specific EOPs from Revision 3 of f the BWROG generic EPGs. The following steps were performed in writing the plant specific EOPs: i

j 1.

Evaluated generic EPGs for plant specific differences. 2. Justification for all changes from the generic EPG to plant specific EPGs were documented in the CPS a Technical Basis (Appendix B of CPS EPGs) 3. Plant specific EOPs were written from the CPS EPGs. 4. New-instrumentation needed to carry out the plant specific EOP tasks were identified, evaluated, and installed in the plant as seismic Class 1E. New EPG instrumentation was added to the R.G. 1.97 instrumen-tation design package, with the same Class 1E seismic q-equipment qualification. Computer points from the safety grade R'.G. 1.97 and

.j EPG instruments-loops were added to the process j

computer to be displayed on SPDS. 1 The DCRDR Program Plan was written to be performed with i) the EOP V&V. The intent was to avoid the duplication of effort j in evaluating the operator information and control needs. 4 On May 4, 1984, the BWROG met with the NRC Staff to discuss how the EPG development effort and the DCRDR program addressed operator information and for the staff to determine any additional analyses or documentation needed for review of applicant and licensee submittals on the Detailed Control Room Design Review and Emergency Procedure Generation Package. The following is a summary of the staff's conclusion: i l. Revision 3 of the EPG provides a functional analysis that identifies on a high level, generic information and control-needs. However, the EPGs do not explicitly identify the plant-specific information and control ti d s. ~ ~., ' R.i f J. g ...2. a. m

I (f) needs which are necessary for preparing emergency operating procedures and determining the adequacy of existing instrumentation and controls. l 2. Because detailed plant specific information and control needs cannot be extracted directly from the EPGs, plant-specific analysis is required. 3. Each licensee and applicant must describe the process used to identify plant-specific parameters and other plant-specific information and control capability needs and must describe how the characteristics of needed instruments and controls will be determined. These processes may be described in either the 4 Procedure Generation Packages or.the DCRDR Program Plan with appropriate cross-referencing. 4. For. each instrument and control used to implement the EOPs, there should be an auditable record that defines the necessary characteristics of the instru-ment or control and the basis for that determination. The necessary characteris. tics should be derived from i analysis of the information and control needs identified in the NRC approved EPGs and from analysis of plant-i specific information. O') The plant specific EPGs and Technical Bases were submitted to the NRC Staff as an enclosure to the CPS Procedure Generation Package in May 1, 1984. The operators and engineers responsible for writing the plant-specific EPGs and EOPs identified the instruments and controls necessary to execute the EOPs. The range, accurancy, setpoints, resolution, speed of response and, units needed for trending of the parameter was evaluated by the CPS operators and engineers and a recommendation was made to our architect engineer who performed the final design. These instruments are being installed in the control room with the same qualification as the RG 1.97 instrumentation. The documenta-tion for these instruments is being assembled. In parallel with the Functions and Task Analysis, Verifica-tion of the EOPs is being performed. The assumptions and justifications for the Technical Bases in the plant specific EPGs is being checked. The verification of the EPGs and EOPs is a table top review performed independent of the control room and independent of'any previous work performed by CPS operators and engineers who wrote the EOPs and identified new EPG instrumenta-tion.- The CPS Emergency Operating Procedures Verification and Validation Program was submitted as an enclosure to the CPS Procedures Generation Package. The overlap in the EOP V&V and Function and Task Analysis for the DCRDR Program Plan lies in the systems evaluated, and the accident scenarios used to validate the operator information and con, trol needs. e e= ehe -.eme-ep--w-m - W, q p,

y.,.,,--,,y

..vs ,-,,gy-.,.r,--,~,.v,.-- s,---,. ,,...,,,.,.,,%,,g.,, ,m~w-y,-. .-mm -.awww,,.e. m,,,.-,,--.m,.,, -,---.,-.---m-m-.. ~,,,, -, -. -

-gs The adequacy of the control room as well.as the EOPs is ( ) evaluated. The instrumentation and control needs to execute \\75' the EOPs as well as the range, accuracy, setpoint, resolution, speed of response, units and the necessity of trending for each of the parameters is determined and documented independently in the verification process. The major steps of the SFTA/verifi-cation / validation process are as follows: 1. EOP systems are identified. 2. Functional description of each system is written. 3. The tasks to accomplish each step of the EOPs are identified. 4. Accident scenarios are selected that will exercise the EOPs and applicable portions of the referenced Operating Procedures. 5. Information and control needs to perform each procedural task are determined independent of Control Room. 6. Identify Control Room devices to accomplish tasks / steps. 7. The instrument list (needs) is then compared with the control room inventory (existing). () 8. Address / resolve EOP/SOE discrepancies. (- 9. Verification is performed via operator walk-throughs i and talk-throughs. 10. Validation is performed by programming accident scenarios on the plant simulator and evaluating the effectiveness of the operator to mitigate the accident using plant i specific EOPs and control room instruments and controls. Figures 1 and 2 enclosed show the relationship between the EPGs, EOPs, and the SFTA. The key elements of the auditable documentation is shown in Figure 2. The details of the SFfA methodology will be included in the DCRDR Summary Report. I l l llO I [ _,

... _. -- -- _..- -... -.. -~.-... 7 Figure 1 System Function and Task Analysis i Top Eevel' Documents Documentation / Justification BWROG Generic Technical Basis EPGs Plant Specific Technical Basis for EPGs plant specific differences l ' ~ ' Plant Specific General Description of EOPs Process used to write EOPs from EPGs t 1

j.

4 f l 1 i O a -=w+we_ w-- w. -m.

1 l

( fj Figure 2 System Function and Task Analysis Auditable Documentation Plant. Specific General functional steps i EPGs '} l -1 I EOPs For each functional step .( Action Steps in EPG - show specific j corresponding steps in EOPs that complete the EPG i functional task Are the specific steps in EOPs sufficient for the operator to complete the task ( Develop instrument and control needs from EOP tasks Develop instrument characteristics i i Perform above steps independent of control room } Compare final instrument i list to Control Room ] Inventory (actual control room instruments) { t I ~ t i i .e. r.7 , ; ; -.,*de'

f'~) \\p/] NRC Staff Review of the CPS DCRDR Program Plan Item No. 7 Topic: System Function and Task Analysis l

Reference:

NRC Staff Review, page 3 NRC Concern Illinois Power Company should retain auditable documentation of the methodology used by Clinton to make the transition from the BWROG generic guidelines to the plant-specific EOPs and to independently identify operator informa-tion and control needs. The applicant's documentation should include sufficient details of the procedures and methodologies used and the results obtained to enable the NRC staff to determine if an acceptable top-down function and task analysis was performed. CPS Response: The documentation of the transition from generic EPG to plantspecific EOPs is in Appendix B, CPS Emergency Procedure Guidelines Technical Basis, of -the CPS Emergency Procedure Guide-lines. The recommendations for the controls and instrumentation i needs from the operators and engineers responsible for writing and evaluating the emergency operating procedures-will be assembled. Design information of each instrument by the architect engineer O will also be assembled. In addition, the combined system function and task analysis and EOP V&V Program will independently check the adequacy of the control room instrumentation needed to execute the EOPs. The l method 61ogy of writing the plant specific EOPs from the generic EPG will be verified. Once the EOPs are verified, they will be used as the basis for system function and task analysis. Each step of the EOPs will be evaluated as a specific task and the instruments and controls needed to carry out that task will i be evaluated and documented as part of the function and task analysis. O i

~.. I \\ NRC Staff Review of the CPS DCRDR Program Plan .j Item No. 8 i Topic: System Function and Task Analysis

Reference:

NRC Staff Review, page 4 NRC' Concerns Comparison of Display and Control Requirements with a Control Room Inventory. Given the concerns discussed above regarding the identification of display and control 2 characteristics, it is not clear whether an adequate comparison of display and control requirements with a control room inventory will be performed. j CPS Response: See Item 6. O,

t 1 NRC Staff Review of the CPS DCRDR Program Plan f Item No. 9 4 I Topic: System Function and Task Analysis 'l

Reference:

SAIC Report, page 5 SAIC Concern: The licensee has not described in sufficient detail the processtes) to identify plant-specific parameters and other plant-specific information and control capability required for operator task performance. Also, IPC has not described if and how the characteristics of needed instruments and controls will be determined. i, J CPS Responses See Item 6. .I 1 i 'l i \\ J l' h i i, k l g 4 m s o e i l i e D O i e EJ i E ' - ~ ~ ' ~ ~

NRC Staff Review of the CPS DCRDR Program Plan 4 ] Item No. 10 if !ij Topics System Function and Task Analysis j N

Reference:

SAIC Report, page 6 d ll SAIC Concern: As stated on page 3-15 of the program plan, the j-licensee will be using the generic BWR EPGs and-plant-specific j EPGs as inputs.to the SFETA. However, examples of how this d generic documentation will be used are absent from the remaining l discussion of the SF&TA. This lack of specific information concerning procedures for integrating BWR EPGs into the SF&TA effort is necessary to assess the licensee's understanding of the NRC requirement. CPS Response: CPS has implemented Revision 3 of the BWROG EPGs. The generic EPGs were used to write the plant specific EPGs. }]' The plant specific EPGs were used to write the CPS EOPs. The L EOP V&V Program is verifying that methods and assumptions

p in. developing the plant specific EOPs are correct..The tasks identified in the plant specific EOPs will be used to identify plant systems to be evaluated, accident scenarios to be selected l;

to validate the'EOPs, and to determine the specific control and lI instrumentation needed to carry out each task. The character- / istics of each instrument and control will'be determined by" L evaluating the action statement in.the EOP and will be verified by walk through/ talk throughs with the CPS operators. d; ~ t l l i I,, o li o l' l. ( Qv, b n 1 M i E,,'i' yp?*

T a

, h ".

b l

E .-. - _ Q.. I' R i.:,. - -.... ' ' -. l,;.:: :...': ".. _.- . 2, , -, K.' :.. '..., ' , :,,, L., L +,,, ' ; ;

l.?. '..,,.,

1 (... ) i 4 1 ~<[3 NRC Staff Review of the CPS DCRDR Program Plan ' j - Item No. 11 L g Topic: : System Function and Task Analysis

Reference:

SAIC Report, page'6 SAIC Concern: IPC proposes to conduct a operator task analysis following the methodology outlined in the "EOP and SOE Data Collection" activity (p. 3-18). Review of this ' task indicates that the licensee intends to define the operator tasks "indepen-dently of the control room panels." However, on page 3-18 of the program plan the licensee states that the " formulation of the step description. and identification of control room devices that the operator could use for each step of the EOP flowpath uses principally the photomosaic mock-up of the control room." This suggests a contradiction in that the information and control needs, and the associated characteristics of ? instrumentation and-controls to meet the requirements will not be determined independently of the control room panels. A_ task i . analysis should be performed independently of existing instrumen- . tacion and control capabilities presently available to the V-operator in order to provide an objective, unbiased analysis S,, to the fullest extent possible. This apparent contradiction '. (, 4 in the-intentions of the licensee should be resolved. CPS Response: The CPS DCRDR Program Plan will be revised to ensure that the instrumentation and control needs and character-istics will be evaluated independent of the control. See Iema 6. 4 ~f' ? 1 ./ l p s. bv

i 1 ! 3 (m NRC Staff Review of the CPS DCRDR Program Plan Item No. 12 !!I' l Topic: System Function and Task Analysis l

Reference:

-SAIC Report, page 6 l

I SAIC concern: The licensee should be aware that, as a result of the NRC review of the BWR Owner's Group EPGs (Reference 3), a licensee is required to provide information on "the process used to identify plant-specific parameters and other plant-specific information and control capabilities used," and "how the characteristics of the needed instruments and controls will be determined." Also, the specific revision number of the BWROG EPGs has not been cited. CPS

Reference:

See Item 6. + i i CD i f ~ \\ l e b u p 1 m.. 3w 5V3 pe==,- c' 9 - P 't I.' g 4 'T{ 3

.t > NRC Staff Review of the CPS DCRDR Program Plan ) Item No. 13 Topic:~ System Function and Task Analysis i;

Reference:

SAIC Report, page 7 SAIC Concern: It should be noted that none of the procedures for walk / talk-throughs for verification and validation include inter-view techniques which will cause the operators to fully consider the adequacy of the indications described in the EOP steps, or for that matter the necessary accuracy, range and location of 11 these indications and controls. The licensee is strongly urged i to develop such techniques not only in the front-end analysis z,l for EOP development, but also for the various V&V activities. 1 CPS Response: -The attached operator questions will be used during SFTA/ verification / validation process to ensure that i' operators fully consider the adequacy of the indications described i in the EOP steps. (1 v I I l: e 't O

(~) N.l ~ DCRDR & EOP INTEGRATED SFTA OPERATOR STEP QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Tc what accuracy must the information be read? 2. How quickly mast the information be obtained?

3. Must the information be accessible fran several places in the control roem?

4'. Is the information required by the ECP in the most direct foru? 5. Is post / historical information required? 6. Is the' rate of information change required (Analog, Digital, auto-trending, e direct rate)?

7. ilhat type of control function is required (Discrete, Continuous)?

s 8. Is the control function required in the control room? i e 6 s a% e N Figure 2 SFTA Operator Questionnaire <-O I' 3.1/092084 VAIC #116 k y O,E '5 e$ e F. \\ y M / g O M, yp b}* f

1 DCRDR & ECP INTEGRATED VAT.IDATION OPERATOR QUESTIONNAIRE A. Questions Concerning qm1tE21.QI R.12DlaI Location. Lwout. Iggg h p 1. Is this a good location for the device or would you recommend another location? 2. Does the indication'(instrument) provide the most direct reading?

3. 1Alat other instrianents provide redundant or confirmatory readings?

9

4. Is this the right type of control or display or would you' l

reconnend a different type? 5. Have you had any trouble or know of any problems using this control or display for plant operations? 6. Are you satisfied with the accuracy, mininnar increments, scale markings and range of*this device? . V) 7 Should any controls / displays be added or moved to another centrol ~ panel or should it be duplicated on another control panel? 8. Should any controls be moved fra outside the control rom or from a back panel to the control panels? B. Questions Concerning f,lang Resoonse 1. How does the operation of this control affect the plant system being controlled? 2. Idhat changes in plant parameter do you expect to see (identify instruments) when this control is changed?

3. Idhen monitoring rate of change (heatup/cooldown rate) are the devices used acceptable? How do you determine what is acceptable?

4. Do you have any problems in maintaining proper control of any l parameters? Or any system? l Figure 12 Validation Operator Questionnaire a ~ 4.6/012885 VAXC #113 we -eN --qupi=- W +- w r-y-,m-,y-w-- wwew,wo-w- +=w-mw- -w,wwrv y- -,-----,---e-4-w,--,og y ow,,,r%, ,r---r---,w- --p-w+,w1-g mm e' -w

d i 5. Does this controller provide good sensitivity and is the system design such that the device performs all the actions necessary? 6. Do any sequences cause a time, workload, or work f1w related problan? C. Questions concerning Procedure 1. Is the sequence or order of operations shan in the procedure adequate or can the steps be re1rranged for more efficiency with regard to operator movenent? 2. Do procedures have sufficient (or too much) detail or should steps, or other information be added (or removed)? Do you see the need for support information (graphs)? 3 Are any systems or systens steps not covered in the procedures? 4. Any probless understanding any parts of the procedures? l 1 I l l 1 l l Figure 12 (cont.) O 4.6/012885 VAXC #113 r-e4.she-a m e M.-e -,_%,,,e- .g.s,. .w% m,,- ,y m,,, _..m,,s gm .g,. --,y 9oy-- p,9%,- - - - + - -,., --y ,,.9.-., -,-- w w i-w_,,w w, ---r,-----i- -.a___.-,m

t . b Vi,/ NRC Staff Review of the CPS DCRDR Program Plan Item No. 14 Topic: System Function and Task Analysis References SAIC Report, page 12 SAIC Concern: It is not clear how the SFETA will be performed. to identify operator tasks independently of the control room. It is also unclear how information and control requirements and their associated characteristics will be determined. The program i plan suggests implementation of a process which relies on the i control room and/or mockup.- This severely biases conduct of the task analysis. -i

l CPS Response:

See Item 6. 8 O t i .i a l r l O) l l --,,,n _..,,.__,,__j.,

j O.

s NRC Staff Review of the CPS DCRDR Program Plan Item No. 15 L!

j Topic

System Function and Task Analysis ]

Reference:

SAIC Report, page 12 q SAIC Concern: It is unclear which revision of the BWROG i i generic EPGs the licensee intends to use as a basis for conduct- !i ing its system function and task analysis. CPS Response: Revision 3 of the BWROG Emergency Procedure G Guidelines has been.used to write the CPS plant specific emergency j procedure guideline and emergency operating procedures. Il ii 1 1 lO .i h ii t i i --.n. .r w mm-, r ,,x,

l' f '. (). =s y NRC Staff Review of the CPS DCRDR Procram Plan } Item No. 16 i l Topic: Control Room Survey

Reference:

NRC Staff Review, page 4 i NRC Concern: The control room survey methodology should be I completely and adequately documented and available for NRC audit. Since all. checklists and criteria to be used have not been submitted, it is not possible to fully evaluate the acceptability of the applicant's proposal. i t ' CPS Response: The Control Room Survey methodology will be i completely and adequately documented and will be available for NRC audit. Attached herein is the DCRDR Criteria Matrix. This matrix lists all the NUREG-0700 Section 6 guidelines. Criteria columns are completed to indicate the applicability of [ NUREG-0700. The data collection method columns are completed to note in what DCRDR tasks the data will be collected, i.e., the criteria will be examined as part of the OER, CRS, or SFTA and indicates which of the data collection methods is a primary or secondary source. ) Checklist hooklets have been developed directly from NUREG-0700 guidance. These will be available for NRC audit if required. t e -t l T U I u A iV h e-o -* e eew w.=-w A w e--**=r=-e ~ = ~we- -ee w e-g wem ee *. w =

e e.ee~6w-=-w=-w m=# w 4e..e4

4 s I 1,o .ii;; i 4 1. I

l. ;'.

4 ,b i! Attachment A f Criteria Matrix

I

. 4 k i! !i li .g e 9 / 9 I 4 6 . 1 M I! 6 .1 -i a f k, 2.1/110684 VAIC #179 A-1 =. m eW& Wh*e

,N 4,r P &

w .e m-y----,-- .,mmo, ,w, ,,,,.-,--,,n...

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

+w ,,w-4,-,,, ,n,-,.n-e-,, -mw-p-

l. e.

f i l

'i .;] I: ,:'.,. d i! ,I ' t, l! '1 4!': s Note: To reduce the number of redundant I

l. i observations, the term "relatet.' to" is i}

used to indicate that the ites survey may j be reported under either criteria. i

f l;

.' i, b i t ,1 li i 1 i f ..s) ( 2.1/110684 VAIC #179 A-2 i --+ -.-. ~ ~ ( 1 g a gj. .W e 46 ""'**e-

v-+,

ye*-- g w g

.....___....~.._.._..~.---.m.... h/ h k I. g ? e r {., L.9 l CLINTON POWER STATION c'* $,*. I' DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW r r s CRITERIA WATRIX E j i t, i 6.1 Control Room Workopece NUREG-s7ss GUIDELINE DATA CULLEq.IIUM COMMENT 5/NtrtNENCE /' CRITERIA METHOD s.I.1 General Loyout T SS INPT W'CRS M I., s.l.1.1 Acceselbility of s.l.l.lasb Related to s.5.1.le s. Instrumentation Equipment X See S Po W s.t.l. conoletency er s.l.l.zb: CR5 rrimary 30urce for thle [.3 Wenning with $quipment item. z)., Layout X S S P d'. 1 s.l.l.3 Furniture and Equipment Layout ~ s.l.1.3e Related to s.7.2.3f r S P l t s.l.1.4 Document M Grganisetton end i.i; Storese X S P s.t.l.5 5 pere rarte, s.l.l.5b5c Related to s.5.4.le Operating Espondables s and Toole X S P ? = 6.1.E.5 supervloor Access s.l.1.sb: Use s.2.1.1 to 6dentify dedicated t communicatione X S P is a b

.')a s

~'

k' eP refers to Primary Source for obtaining date

,i,, o+5 refore to Secondary Source for. obtaining date , c. i Nj w 't. r a3 '3

1 l /m s s w K ad an y Bw w i 'I w 0 E u g I ~~ x. = k. M b D

== 4 44J E O b WQ > B >= 4 i8 "3 I e ,.z E WO 4 0 ,.A >= E A sE M E QWU Q E W2 L.# W = Q > 0 ( gE M b 5 K j Q'- gg

j aW l u.

r 6 UQ <s W J G MZ m EM 4 W 6 Lea MEg Q "p x

i E

e I'. .u w = 8 4 3 3 d= D 0 C h 9e G G ee i E J GG i P* OU I S = 0 u e e C4 0 b O g 3-. C e i 3

t. i p.

s=a ee o se b pe o G O& O r I [ -~

s 's, k_ i s_. { s. t l Ct.INTON PowEP STATION DETAILED CONTHOL ROOM DESICN REVIEW i CRITERIA WATRIX i 8.1 Control Room Workspace NUuttu-5755 GUIDLLDE DATA COLLECTIENI CUtGENT5/NtrtRENCE CRITERIA ndETH00 5.1.2 Work 5tation posign T SS INPC W 'CRS N i 5.1.2.1 Anthropometric Basta for Equipment Dimensions f X P j l 5.1.2.2 5 tend-up Consolo 5.1.2.2d(2): Replace 25 Inches with 25 Inches Olmensions to accommodate for estended functional reach, e X P S 8.1.2.2c: Related to 8.1.2.2d(2) 8.1.2.2d(1 2)f Related to 8.1.2.3d(1,2)f 8.1.2.2f SETA primary source for this item s 5.1'.2.3 5lt-down Consolo 5.1.2.3 Related to 5.7.2.3e Dimensions 6.1.2.3d(1,2)& f: Related to X P 6.1.2.2d(1.2) & f 5.1.2.4 sit-5tand Work Stations X 5.1.2.5 Vertical Panels 5.1.2.5a (2), b (2): These functional requirements to be handled by SFTA and X DER. 5.1.2.5 Use of Procedures and other Reference Waterials et Consoles X t i )~

w g 1 's 's \\s t E C. u k e i "3 .i I n j i j 'I i 1 5 i g g 1 E5 t M 35t E l EE 5 8 1 5 _i$. = I5S E*5 vW 'd 5 i 35 5E3 ~u;% w ) da "i 4 5t G 5" E* x u W e e

I 4

t 1 E s, s l 8 1 1 s 3 a E. 3 i. E,i I i i , GU) a l

e 9 b ( )/ g g ~ 2 2 C C I M y i E 5 5 E F l l i 6 b E E v d d L L 3 b E E E W 3 1 55 t ~h E i C3 5 t O.E 5 i m g ogM -w. : se vW = 'al E2 E 3 0 (Tth gu N C O Eu u do 6 "i 4 Sk E 53 F 9 I l' I. :. C S 2 I g" L B F 2 B 2 A Y 23 2 si s l E 4t a a .:3 is i v w m a w / _3

A .b..-. e e. -K-.. L.. .n. A e 6 d y E 1 W B i w a e nn 4 15 t 8 35 e c; 5 i E 1 25 5 A k .) s e q$. a g I 5 g. 5 -s. E. :-. 3~ 1 1 8 5 -z ) 20 o av W b i WQ 5 5 = = w 53 M X X .[ [ ,S U C i 3 B u o .= = = 3 3 i el ~ o u a s 1 2-t o; .g 6 g E 3 1[ 4 1a 1 13 .= g e e -w- = w. - - * .m _u -+- - -, - - - _ _.., _

? \\ ~ wJ v v s r l CLINTON poser STATION DETAILED CONTROL ROOni DESIGN REVIEW i CRITERIA WATRIX 6.1 Control Room Workapace 75JNts-5795 GUIDELINE DATA COLLECIIUN COIAENT5/NEr tNENCE CRITERIA METHOD ) 5.1.5 Environment T OS INPT W 'CRS N 5.1.E.1 Temperature and Humidity X S P 5.1.5.2 Ventilation X S P 4 i 5.1.5.3 Illumination 5.1.E.3fs Glare and vleuel discomfort la addressed in OER X S P 4.1.E.3f Related to 6.7.2.1b 5.1.E.4 Emergency Lighting X S P ln 5.1.5.5 Auditory Environment 5.1.E.5e: Reverberatlon time will not be calculated unless reverberation la a X S P problem. 5.1.E. San Related to 6.2.2.1c (2) 5.1.5.5 Forsonal 5torage X S P 1 l? .) l 4 1, 5 d

e } g-v ). \\ E .I M e,*= W ~ W $2 a a., O o. .U $.3 2 O* =* b

t B

Ok N W 3

5 t.

E <w = >= Q >= B H n 1s 38 = az IE vWU E a = mg =. - 2 5.=- = e, O) 1v6*5 *P - a \\v. v WQ "i. 4 Sk O E9 ve 4I B E 2 -G = h C P= et M

E.

m. e re

O OV O

I ~/ e 4 g g eme -%ee. m e m h gem p,-.e e,me,

.~-.. - _... ._u. C _.. ~.,i._... -. ~ _.. _ -.. -....._ l ( l h / .,~1 1 t Cl.INTON POWER STATION j DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW i CRITERIA MATRIX i 6.2 Communications i NUNEU-5755 GUIDELINE DATA COLLECTION COMMENT 5/NtrentrKE CRITERIA METH00

i. '

5.2.1 Voice Communication Eyst T SG INPO~ W ' CRS N 5.2.1.1 General Nequirements 5.2.1.13 Examine handsets, cords - to assure for Voice Communication easy handling and good ear contact, suf-Systems X X P ficient cord length for operator mobility. Gela control on all units with the use of non-kinking or retractable cords. 5.2.1.2 Conventional-Powered 5.2.1.2e Inteillglble end clearly Tolophone.*ystems understood. Use INPO word list to X X checkout system. 5.2.1.3 sound-Powered 5.2.1.3e Use INPD word list to check l-Telephone Systems out intelligibility. X X S P 6.2.1.3d OER primary source for this item. 5.2.1.4 Walkie-Talkie Nedlo 5.2.1.4e Use INPD word ilst to check Transceivers out intelligibility. 5.2.1.5 Fized-Wese UHF 5.2.1.5a: Use INPD word list to check Transceivers out inteilleibility. 5.2.1.5 Announcing 5ystems 5.2.1.5a(2gdeadspots.*ysourceto DER primar determine X S P 6.2.1.8f Observe a test " priority announcement." b i 1

e N N'k C ce 6 ** * * ',l e U G re .as d es e

U CAde e

= *= * .C S O U me oe O we*= N O ad C CNde O

Ad

= G b.O M 9e d O co eem e es - =C T i 3OO M e s E MN m e= UM M

L md%

b 5O e43S W D UO 4 *= e O E O = dQ m C d n La O h H T Z== 3 bN eM= 6 ee I d

== e ed e G.a e v e= a

* e *

a 6= 93 e O = db e

== e s u E Ce =

- 6e

~eG eO A >* Fe d Edge =

C
MW 9

m ee*= n O Q ee w M N 04 d NN@N

3
Ce
W GGO OG3G S

55 MM M C 3 ( >W M O D i 4W E ** M 6 50 ke d A W 4 e J 3 U lM M

=

J W W 4 C JMS M SE M OWW O E W2 L.J W Q > 4 ZS M U M E SW W 4 M L rZ v Q 3 a 30 N s-MW g g 8 4Mk x a em EM 4 W W W M Q EG WS X X de i hW 6 4 W d u C O e = me U O C h Oe U R I f t. le n

d

.C S W Ce bO e o % O O eW d U b e G U O >= O B a*

U
C ne %

A p*

9 Nd N

N

C WM SQ b/

w ...~#... f" D D

-6 6

-M--g 9m w &Wm 3 am .mem a y,

(. s ~ ) 4 CLINTON poser STATION DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA MATRIX 8.2 Communications NUREG-5755 GUIDELINE DATA COLLECIIUN 00hEENT5/ptr tutPKE CRITERIA WETH00 5.2.2 Auditory 51gnal systems T SS INPF W 'CRS 5FTK~ 1 5.2.2.1 Use of Auditory 5.2.2.lbtes elli query operators as Signala well as, conducting a test. X X S P 4.2.2.1c(2): Related to 8.1.E.Ea; 8.2.2.1b Related to 6.3.2.1f. f 6.2.2.2 5ignal Meaning 5.2.2.2c Related to 5.3.2.2b. X S P I 5.2.2.3 Auditory Coding 5.2.2.3: Related to 5.3.1.4b(2 Techniquea 6.2.2.3a Related to 8.3.1.E(a and X P 8.3.2.la. i i 5.2.2.4 Fropagation of Signala 4 X S P i 5.2.2.5 Frequency 5.2.2.En&bs Detall Design - N/A Observe to determine if auditory signale X S P can be heard. j 6.2.2.5 5lgnal Intonalty 5.2.2.5bs Use OER as prleary source for l this item. X S P + i 1 I i i J ) I I

1 i I e b t 3 i a l I i l l g s ~ s W M 45 t w I g = l 55 c3 5 : Eh 28 5 3 "h e0. g" s .g s - 1 i vWe w. o = ~ 'd

8 N's 35 E "

0 5 EE v a a 3- -v v do I, "i St 2 5" I et u p i i h I i i,

x i.

t. 3 5 B 5 0 2 3 3 = B l I i 4 N 4 O S / e 4 m - - ~~ mar" ,s 'I

e O b. b d U O C 9 e C **

b O

b

= e N h
=

3 0U Cd G d m e d C e *= U G 4 3 ee== t. ea w T g eC 9 8= 3 W

A C

a b C ** E A O MG e .O Oeebe e b ee U e Eh 9 N se e W e====== 4 h 9 R A beeeU b O NW N U 9be e 4. h e-- O E 99 +8 e bee C N 4 AJ 3C b O OO 3 L h e0 & e8 es ee e g b U=& C TT O O E 9Se>e K

== == ee es ea 3 C 4. O g R $s= G m E. D w d et e 9 E. N ee T9 9 TOU b b =- e C== eO U O Oe 4 a=== d ee ER= EE -e 3 e 3 m S ee. e n. e

n. e b k

es e **

e%m E me W

D S-O E 49 e& ee C N so *

- O

$.C O

- 3 wn

=*

w =3 e et h

e es N AA - eeAe a ba N e= N O 99@ W ee W b ee en e

=

e e e B - 3 es.es we e se. 9 re se g pe N ee #.a e. e C

e C

W N n e= Rnt Rnne - e e.N O me

e
* * =

- e. 3 *= G. .d.- y 55 2 me me M E >= W ** S D 4W E C me >= Q >= *= W 4 C W 2 4. W 5 e a W W 4 3 =J >= 4 a me DWw E b W2 L8 kJ e = O >= e8 4 2 >e e >= K ^ > S = 4 W W W W 8 55

3

-W 3

== .== .J C wo C W 4 4& .J De Z >= m E >e W >= S ,= = W O Ew M M M M M e U e. W b b 1 2 5 3 .E. U 4 d e e B b. 3 a W b o d t e Se e. b a 4C b e8 b W e e N e= M= T we. g

ea eU pe..$
4
3 pe u pe C pe we we Me M==

RC M M e

e
C l

SQ GW G4 W G t G l i 6 -mo> e +w.* r ns-r ---aoe ms. .e-em H wen - * ~ = - W* -=e= +^- '=

a& --s ---a s-- .r d i 1 8 .e e N . M. e. e $b b .s 3T. 1 l l EE E s j n9 "9 a gy j e. { 55 C3 5 Ih sg 5 y :: k 1* ig h,. = .s ld E w gE 3 W u i, = l -g 5 - 18 L L). go 1 l "S 3 6 l-e d< 3 4 I 53 i M M t 1 ~ ~ l\\ a. t s g B 5

l A

\\ l *. r 5 Ip I w n n a 4 g (a% a 'l + ~' * ~ '77 _ g~~

L f " j -

+ + ,_1, _1, j J_. y fg Q r_, j g,

Ql 7 i CLINTON poser STATIGN DETAILED CONTROL R00W DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA WATRIX 4.3 Annuncleter Warning Systems 35 Jut 9-wrge W5ptLIFEL DATA CEILLELIEUN CEltAENT5/utrentNET. '4 CRITERIA METH00 s.3.3 Vlevel Alarm Eubsystems T OS INP F W 'CRS M s.3.3.5 Visual Annuncleter 5.3.3.lc Eluery engineers on shock Poaels heaerd; DER primary eeurce for this item. X P 4.3.3.1b: Related to 4.8.2.le & i 8.8.3.7b. 5.3.3.3 Visual Asere s.3.3.2b Ilmo flesh rates. Recognittee end Identificetlee 4.3.3.2c ilvery operators / engineers en M S P flasher failure identificetlen. s.3.3.3 Arrangement et Visual s.3.3.3e&ba Use UER es primary source Alarm Tiles for this item. X S P ,1 s.3.3.4 Vlevel Tlle Legende s.3.3.44: Neleted to s.5.3.4d a 4.7.1.2c(3). X S P s.3.3.5 VIsses IIIe s.3.3.5e thru da Related to a 1 Reedobility ~ X P 6.E.1.3e thru ds & S.S.4.2(e thru d). lI I' 1}!I d. 4 } w. a

_p ,,.1.- e, --a, A- -n-4a 1- --" 5 * - ~- ^

4-6'

= 0 6 s i: 4 m e 8 5 n. a E. l E.. B B.! a se m 43 N is g 42 L E5 3 t c: 5 E E i-

E 5 A 1

i -lE3 gg lg*<3 s wW* I .c s_ E : : 35 " 4 a" a t s

S

'4 <g 4 E 2 W E Eg "p u u u e l. e t-5 g g, V l t 8 l i a s. f-S N 30 g i 2 Sj 3 h !E . l 1 o s s s: I d' 9 9 93 e e

== g i l i' ( ,~ -%-== a-4m e., h ,,-um. ..-,,=.h we. -.M m -pe -wweg,-.-e.- ..* m e +

1 i 1 e ( N.J/ b n. O. Ce n= b O e 9 OS e Ue N b= ( C 33

4 OE

= &W e *= nqA e d wm 9.e kO a + e-g ed gg r 6 3 i ew = ,l M =ee be A mOS &e ji e l1 WA ed* N d e> 'I wb k .' e aON Ke e I hG da n e d 3A ee O mu-e Nbe eb W e33 30 _5 ). A. 6%n. N. a B M. e M. M. e w g

'}

M 9 ** T T= a L a

A

,-) g e &e ed 9 55 .i ~~ x E J WM M D = M A 4W E e w >Q h 198 4 O J e 2 b e E d M .a W 4 C >= E M BE w e E.W W O E V V2 4 za -, + m 'N QM M = 4 M M m}'l 95 * * *g WQ. J MZ M EM 4 W I v"I w s x x ll i lt l' e u = g g w b en r .J d = l W C U n= C Q G C 90 g h Cd 5 m. Oe O =. > I ep = C O Cd N O b GU 9 >4 e e C O 3 U e b= 9 0 be = d ,e e 9 90 9 e

U 4

e4

e

- ~. l J .. -.. -. _. ~.. -. - 1

f' V)

.0 Ce C

lee O

EBa= @

0 la Cd O > e =C** >AO9 WG

Od8*

O > le $= 6 UC * ,v B-06 W = 0m =U t J O O b ** O O E bud

b J eb W

dCCV da E CeO

C== T d

OEUT OBO = U d a. Ub ao OGe ee E G en= & O U== C C an e CCO = Odd =et EUO 48 e Og e a ** uebO as o m ObOd O m set 3 es e Cw I -ee- = O a0 J =C O =Um =0CE =

e

.I B O.O BSw = *.. bw @ et d ** pe A3N E e *

ke*

B ue=NN IJ e N W d3 *

e*

M O C &T te .O T g g e.*.* 4 O g i 55.e x >= M M D = 4W E e M b >= Q >= = >= n M 4 O V 3 2 s. W SQ d -s M wo 4 C .J W E e, e, st M o OWW G E W V3 Y,. = ~ = at W M M QW E \\' >Z W 9 Q Q ZQ e*W .4 i WQ D b4 4g d EA 4 W W M t t Q ES WG M x d Ci e g

== Z 1 O M S O 6 ,mi O 3 W = C Q b O ke O W C C b 0 0 = 8 b = b d S U C C O = e a b W W = = 0 e Q W O 1 N N N T T T O O O J 4

e e 'N ) W A e \\v. b 3ee en l m M S w A e e .M @k dN

AO CeM a

C oe e da b se d Ob =9 = W C9 =3e Z CL =F M =0 3 0 K = ed M = e8 9b a. B UON M N CdO E GG eed U> dbe n Cb ee= eG = sk e de eOE eA O

O E e4 **

e m Od

- N er
W E3 m G se m A

kB > M N f

bW WN
OOuU NON M. Ae M.M.

e s. e B M. e *= M. O. M. M. 3 b w T. e 9 T d T. T M g3 e 3 e i W e5F edee E 55 MM X E 4 kW M D W 4W E e M d. >Q >= = A to 4 O WC 2 b WC E d JZW W 4 C J >= E A BE M O QWu Q E v W2 ^\\ 4 t-ZE M E 4 W W W f Q> E M/. gg W D O WQW 44 J MZ M EM 4 W W M Q ES We X X X U O 06 W e Q = S C O C e C Z M O = O d i J se e a a W d 9 d 3 i O C Q 3 A M O A A 3 W C E e G O e 3 C d 3 L 3 O d b d 3 W >'m A 9 C D 3 K C O t A e 3 S 3 4 3e O 9 W e LG E J 3 = b se..d.k N. N. MU M M gul

C T *s*

e T T q* 90. O e e e J. --_ge>-"_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __. ~ wms 6

'I i V .1 T

em

'j S Se b9 9 U ab 3== a e b O eb e 3 de ee d e. O Oe e3 0O e Cb 8F Cd O e M h = sk 9e =b b =0 ab =9 N e = 0 = db 8 39 dd 3O C ee T >= = b Ge Cb S e6 aa b o U G U M CN = dk CN s O e eG =0 e9 I d a d> >= d> n e e. ae eb 9 K =9 4 -G 4 W ee 9e ee D OA 3 OA EO Fed EO e 1 = 0$ b s e eo ee d 0% ee d lj. W E 34 m3 &O m3

== RA WA w a. w i.I e 48 43 9

90 99
R. g "5

9. 3

e. G "U G

e ,t m. N. e= g g gg I W T Td T 3== TO 9 3 *= e e eeb e eeb 6 W l e=e T Tb Te$ Td Tee e.O e l o-ett 3

3 3

a y .A e E3 4 M emo M E >= W M D W 41d E G M >= Q 0- = 4 O J 2 e. W E d a w W 4 C J P= E BE M O QWu O E u W3 AJ W O >= 4 3E M T 5 E 4 W W W W GW E v> gg u o Mu .J l uQ R3 W 4& .J MZ M EM 4 W >= W M a 53 X X X X X 1iII 1' lt J i j i i C C i - ,a I 'f e W O Z U D e [; I M 3 b = m O l{ J 4 W n 9 9 d i. i; O b 9 et U H = O =O i O C l 5 b e e e 3 e a W e 6 0 n l, ' B C " W C-h 9 3S

== S O h >= W b C D =@ b i i e e e e, db e h Ce d d. E. t me l..- o 6 e o OC O e k@ 7 E W4 E r i d

== e u e W-O M..ew N. R. O T. g = .O g i f TU T Tb Tb Tb e ed o e ed T e C= 9

9. O T. d T. C C

T.*h [ O O gy-WE O eu eE eu I l e l l I .g g% l: lt I ..-.w.......- . +... ~. -. -. -.. ..,.. + - = = l w -c ' at 5.

'l1 Il - O e ecru e .os b

1. y t

e o e

2. r b

n b am s 4. i s s tr l r tr oo l o oo8r nt it nt p a wa ao E ir r l rte e ee l e s 0 l l p cp i pd 0t t eo no woeA u e tT t e& t& e&aF r c s c lS t nd id nde p ee se eeR& / tv ev tv 3 sr Nr sr s ear T ie e i ss4.E N ss

s eb O E

eb )b A N o 5. e m. No 4o B t at

t4se U

C )u u )u.Ut 2b 3b 2b8 i ( ( ( dd. cd. ed .d s ed ed ed4

3. r o

4. r o.i h

ui ui ui5 W

5. s r

5. s r. t E

ae ae ae4r

4. e u

4. e u. o I

V E smq smq smq8f R NN OG II X N A TS I O I S AE R s I r TD T l T 3 S A o CD W M r EO R0 t LHS E0 A n LTR P P P P WR I o OEC O R C CM PL E O T A O NR I 4 T R A E S S S OT R TN C 8 D D NO I. C ~D tCDE AP L IN I RI A E T T E I D RS CO X X X X T o f. e fI c s s L e s e e E p e h h D 3 h c c I s c t t U l l t i 4 w = G o e l r e w s 5 5 t h z e r 5 n u l e 7 o b e

g k

5 C m d u l g c U r h l o e E e T E T N R h E 1 2 3 4 J t P U 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 s 6 8 o \\ Il',t i s.'l,. i l

i!i-lij y

6 f t 1 e 9 J r a q,e (1 i!Ej r E li t

_7 .T... _....L.1. ..J. -- - - - - -~ - .../..'._..a. \\ / 4 r l j CLINTON POWER STATION DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA MATRIX i 6.5 Visual Ol'oplays PEJute-s7ss EJ1DELIFE DATA CDLLECIIUM CDIsENT5/NtrEKtFKE CRITERIA WETH00 s.5.1 FrIncipios of plopley T OS INPF W ' CRS M s.5.1.1 Information to be 5.5.1.le thru F): Use UER & 3rIA es primary l Displayed source for these items. X S P 8.5.1.1e Related to 4.1.1.le&b. s 5.5.1.2 Usability of 5.5.1.2e a ds 3rIA primary source. Displayed Values 6.5.1.2b & et CRS primary source. X S S P 4.5.1.2fs DER primary source. 4.5.1.2e&bs Include 2 meters, some parameter but different scales. 5.5.1.3 Needebillty s.5.1.3c Dark on Ilght background. 6.5.1.3e thru da Reletd to 6.3.3.5m thru d & X P 6.6.4.le thru d & 4.4.4.2e thru d. s.5.1.4 relating on the s.5.1.4e: Use ter review during Way program. Display Fece 8.5.1.4d Related to s.3.3.4d & 6.7.1.2c(3). X P S 8.5.1.4e: Related to 8.8.3.3a. 8.5.1.4d Related to 8.3.3.4d & 6.7.1.2c(3). 5.5.1.5 5cale parking 5.5.1.5e thru Ts Apply to recorders. S.5.1.5d: Use SFTA es primary source for X P S thle item. s.5.1.5 Color Coding e.5.1.5 Determine ir color coding conforms with CPS convention, as X S P S well es, consistency.

8. 5.1.6b (1) : Related to 4.3.1.4b(1) &

l 6.8.8.3. l-i l, l 8 l1 h r w

f\\ Q' u N. a h a Es i d 1 1 v .E e n N. W d. M>w e = 55 .M M .= E x .M <w = na,- s o = 1e va 50 Q ,,a Wa 5. g5 vW a = 'd W i z= M E /N QW E > t zs ". f = O Mo l a <a vew d MZ l M EM I W l- >= w M Q EG US X X X X X p a db 6 f C 1 a =~ t u dC o U - b. _C C. m O C.g C .s g y O a.= b

d. e n

E. -3> b a .e 43O O 3 d= P U 2 d CE -C e 49 C 9 e e bce = c =C b =4-O O bOo. E 3

,0 e

.C. N. 3 6. .g. Db 4. N N. N. N. N..as O N + W>ad. e. e.

e. h. a.

e.

n

.e-O2E2 O e e22 e -r ~. ewe 4 --e-w.* -pe.w.

[h 6' ),_ Q,) \\k ) ~. 8,J e l l I ' CLINTON POWER STATION DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA WATRIX 5.5 Visual Displays j IRJREG-5795 GUIDELIPE DATA COLLECTION C0tAENT5/NEP ENtNCE l CRITERIA METHOD s.5.3 Light Indlcetors T se INPT W 'CRS W s.5.3.3 Cherectoristics and s.5.3.las query engineers to assure Problemarof Light Indicators avallebility. X P 8.3. 3.1a (1) : Related to 8.4.3.3c(1); 8.5.3.1c(2) Related to 8.4.3.3c(4). 1 t s.5.3.2 Design and Use of Now-Legend Light Indicatore X P 5.5.3.3 Design and U,se of 5.5.3.3a&b: Related to 8.4.3.3e&bs Legend Light Indicators X P i t f I i 6

l4 II l /"'%. r O U e b 2 O b I U eg b = b .O g W Gm W u E se 4 i M e ^ a Eg. u I N s e d a e 3 3 N*e e ed e ~Ee 3 og-bdO y J

ee K m

O. g wg H

eet no NOM N..d og e e

B T. d T. T*e W j M SbW W= 0 -

A a

3 W Gh6 Gd R 55

n eM x e r

D w wg me = = aC W E ' Gb M b WQ > e 4 15 38 = =o JzW JWE S. b WQ aC se M e OWW Q E 3 V2 4 E M E Pp) gg 5, a8 Q~/ Mu la voW

C 4.

J MZ e=e a me aC W W M 53 x x pI 1 f f l l I f. f ,e J e b W b O O e U M b S 3 b 9 E D O N U b U g 9 -eO E e.U U he e. e b-O = P 3 U Gda U e = Ce e 3 S e=* O 45 Ob= WD e OA b n d es N O

Ue Teb Te bO
9 T

WG W en W* OUO GM

Kh D

m I Y m vW- '.mW r _ ;h

e ,O \\ s Vs O WW ,e, ,n9 ne e W 3

m. m.

W 5 u .= i M d ie K W 4 T m. O a pt d H M M. e e G -W K

e 27, M

e* 8 "O

m. n.

N. N. 3 N

8. N.

O. F 6 g. $. e

e. le.

M y W W e6 We 5M l 5 e x x z .e D H >= WV M 4W E = w a >= Q > ik

pA W9 e

J 3 m.= w EQ Q J (n WO 4 L.# r= E b e6 OWu 55 M = O E e u2 A.J W 3 ( O >= ..a 2g M H [h CM E > 4 .f +' ES a i .1

U

_e a WO P3 U

ik E-4 W

>= > = = = = = W M Q En VM M h s I ,] + l i$ e b d b 9 2 e e d p e d c a e s ~ h 3 0 O V W h 9 e O = s e = ik h O e 6 = 8 d O E U0 e 3 = 6 O U D W e i 5 m. 3 e. e O W W ( >e ee m ,199 6@ g 'N eeq_ a, a -au--& pm-

we 6 a / w p O l. w W 9 le. M e N b. g ts In en >= T O en O =e W GE i N l i B M W M S ,a e W 4 9 t E

== l 4 C. MM x >=to M

== 3 = 44 4W E o M A >= Q >= e >= n W U V 2 2 O W EO .J J to WC 4 J h= E A A sE M N OWu O E C U2 a AJ W G "q-O >= 4 ZE M e >= E )' ' O >= E 4 W in = j. yh M j D D Mu e J .4 f v0 O W W 4 CL J MZ M S EM 4 W >= >= W M Q E9 ve X X ~ W Z G C M = = J = W 0 = Q U a M C e e 3 = J G D k = b b d W O u 5 3 b t. N C e S = 9 6 W G G =0 9 e = A E E e J M. N. M M. M e O-DE O* O O 44u e N l j l ---..-.-w -'-%.w

wm =.m me. g we m
.i m.he, e eg.=gamp-map e.

==, .em-y g e wep+e = w-gw .es .g e .y m .ee,mm

t 1 1 i I U -a 4 ? e U 6 3 4 0 e a O .i 6 Y [ 1 E =. M k b G t s a a e 9 W K { O O W .g a a O e e = = gg j 's e e ee i W E E 3d~ l = g e4 e we .f

m. e.

n. .A i. B N. de. N. N. d W M WW 9 G. L e O W N WG G W an. E

== 4 .? 55 C MM x. E Win M e-D e 4 144 E d M 50 > e 44 g u J 3 e W E .6 J W uf 4 .A > E 4 L sE M N DWu O E C W2 L.J W e O > ZR. M e K ~\\* CW E =9 O O W 4 W >Z W

l 3C 4

v e I J l WQ D W G. 4L J sm 2 M S EM 4 W W M "I a j M M M M F .f e t i C* i h e a d ,1 C i e C = 3 = d D d O b h Q = d C S 3 e C = = U = G = A pm O = B J U C d = e e 3 e e p = = 0 = e b 3 p a N. R. 9 e p g N N N N N l O. O. O. W f g G G W D S L l-i \\ l' J' [t l i l' ~... - - - ~. - -....., -. - -.. I l 3,....:.

J) Q iL ) v s/ 1 I i i l CLINTON POWER STATION DETAILED CONTROL Ro0M DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA MATRIX i 6.6 Labels and Location Alde i l NUREU-5755 UUIDELINE DATA COLLECIIUM CURRENT 5/RtrtutNCE CRITERIA METHOD s.s.3 Label content T SS INPT W 'CRS M 5.s.3.1 Kinde of Information s.s.a.Ib Use Utn se primary source for this item. X S P s.s.3.2 Word 5 election s.a.a.2e Use UER as primary source for this item. X S P i 1 ... 3.3 con.. ten., ... 3.3 3 e i. co. to. 1. i... l 8.8.3.3c EOP review during VAV program 1 X S S P related to 6.5.1.4e. 1 8.8.3.3e Use CRS as primary source for this item. 5.5.3.4 5ymbols I X P 5.5.3.5 Brevity X P 5.5.3.5 51milarity X S 'P 1 'i

~ )/ N.~ ro f ecru os e E. l. y 0 r 0 a 2 m rts 5 i r ur 5 p tR o e / t s 5T d R N e E E t U M a M e O l s e C R U sm s. bb be

9. i t

71 W 33

3. s E

5. h I

53 i V e E d 58 5t R l A NN OG n II X e N A O I P TS I t AE R t I P TD T e T 5 S A c CD M W o EO RO L LHS EO A LTR S P P WR I d OEC O R n CW PL E a O T A j NR I s T R OT R l A E S S S TN C e D D 4 [k~- NO b ~ IC a ~D L L CD E 6 AD L IN I 6 RI A E T T E I D RS CS X X X T y t E e e N p n f I u o a k L o l E r t n D G l Idg I e nnn U t l o oai G n a P p l S t o l U,e e n gb O n i o sna T o t r siL S C c t en n n crn G* l u o cao E e F C AWi N b g 7

5. i

9. r,t n

c U a N L u er 3

3. l

3. gt e

3 5

5. b

5. n s a

an 5 5 5L 5DI 5 1 f.

l i ' '

ii! I I i 1i 4l.

d d O u u r r h h e t t ta s e r E. 3 o 3 1 t 3 5 9 8 5 E 5 o o CN 5 .t t EN ted d t l ne e r bot t L it a a. N htl l / xeed e. R 3 enR T u d i N ob i r a E smdh du 5 Uo t r cu uh tU

re rt C

)rh3 h 1ot te (l I 4 bon. e. I. c I. 5 23 W 4.l 4 6 43 e E

5. b 6. d 58 I

V s a n E d 5l4a 5& R l A NN i N OG n II X o MU TS I i AE R t I TD T a I S A c CD M M o EO RO L LHS EO A LTR P P WR I d OEC O R n CM PL E a O T A NR I a T R OT R l A E S O TN C e D D NO b IC a F L L CDE 6 AP IN L I 6 RI A E T T E I D R8 C97 X X ~5 E ~. N I L E + D g I n y U i t G r t e i 5 t t 9 t b 7 e e e 5 L d l e y G e t l E e R 5 R b 5 3 3 J a 7 L 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 h Q t i!r ,jIj l i i i

9 f "s M k ~ l W W D W 6 D5> W D 55 l' 5. 2 E ~ <w >* Q >= S 4 1: 38 s.E "i ".C

w. <,

I' W2 O 4 z. = (s*O, M M 4 O P= = "g

== U EE

2 3

6 ~w 9 sk W >= >= W 53 a x x 1 ,s \\. 1 l 1 Oea l 4 \\ DmGau n i w s ~ I e 1 n e o

s. a 3

W d# e C.A n e O 3 Wh 9 E= l 1e m.

9 W

Ga O .+ E G D= ,Ml ,J W-F

- 9 ed

-th6Q em

e 4\\} \\ Ji 8 d. iE m. U ed u A C v 59 9 9 g d .a p. M. g se g d a eWW L = C.. M S OSS E U G.d O 0 =d d -.A C =1 94 EA9 d Lnd .e 9 0.e. s d W G ON Ga K QCEM w e.o A i .e N. M. @. n. w. B G. W W G. M. w S. S. W. G. N. M> e W N O SOWS E .= <C C M x. r 4 D = >= vp M aC W E d M L >Q >. e n e < u u 3 3 O d EO .4 -J W WO at .J >= E 4. BE M N OWu O E C W3

e..J W

e O >= 4 M QW E - W K ZE M e 4 g M f4 M M s / >Z v 9 Q 3 3 ZC A Mu e ed amI l UQ 10 W e. 4 m. a M2 M G EM aC W ) W Q EG ve X X X X C0 J d W e e Q u U N O C 3 9 J .O ,.E g l = L d 3 3 4 o e t-u

== Pm C k k O ? m. g e T O s. 3 O e e O W 3 9e es. N. M. T. J S. e S. S. 8 g.

5. 9 9

9 O. e W* G4 O O O ( \\ 1 \\/ O w w e -.- -....~.... N9%MM P%. m f j r.- 1 '_.-g

e A M v;1 = 4 e e4 = = e== e4 = A U N

O O *,

O 9

M b

b e er L. th.*N be e eb

ee e
ese eb B

BOM Bb AT 30 nj d d ed e dO 3M

O dd b e M.

he e d

G

= lee e he F 0 Ob Os n-M e Ob e e.9 eb e.*.O O e@ C. i. 00 O ,d d .O C 4A, 4 d A., 4 d 3 3d 3 3Od. 3 t ti: H t,* 2.." ti O o _. O. O.g. O. O o o o I Ce C d E C t wCE we me= wO r b b e-

b. =e b-m b-l 9

84a ..N= 0e l W 3

2 m

3 3 E ad a 3 Ed 64M. Gd W

een 64 e

.e w ...e e

== W -gg ee ee se A g g se emn N. e. v. R. =g W 4e. to. to. O. e N M-ee 3 re== see-se. M. es se. se. amo s=e e= sme== w eU eU . U. e .O M > =. >=. Pe te. P=.O. P= rm. r* P. P=.th 0 e gh .. gk. W Ge SeGG Ge Ogee ee E 35 MM x. = ( WW M d D

==

C W E 3
e d.

>Q >1I $8 n " = SQ u .J Z W WC =C .J >= E A A A A BE M e mWu Q E e W3 A.J W G C >= U ( ZE >e O >= K S k= E b ( M M M W W W W WZ U L O O \\ sv 20 v 1 J WQ W 10 W aC & .J MZ e=0 E Me 4 W >= W e=e Q EG v4

=

X X X X X X e W h b C Z d 9 O me = a Q b 3 = d u 3 tb 9 U = Q e U E C C O M e 9 O J 3 b 3 9 n W G d O O E t. C o O b C d b. O E 4 b o C W e 4 ab ma e >= b B e 3 b S 9 d b e 9 e d

== 0 m a Jc O 3 O sk bC e es W D

b. =

0,e W D 9 L e p* N3 43 9b W==

0. e W

S e ep e

.O O re re O re U se O

- t.

se U re e one e 3 eA ed ee-N. Pm..a. Pm b Pm. g P=.C Pm. D h >= e 43 O g O 90 GW OX OU OQ

e s

~)

8 5 N 9 G I 5 a M e.

== N a O E P= 0 M 6 u o ME O w d e In I w e z .e* 8 8 E r o ) W E m w a P* 3 e e 1 W ua = M P= P= e e 4 W D 9 li e 55 M x. 4 $= 44 M 3 D >= 4W E M >= Q >= P= A M 4 J 2 4J W E J M W 4 8 J>E BE M e DWU C E O W2 A.J W U Q >= 0 4 i 2E M b W E I C> E & 4 W M M [T,. gg W Q Q Mo. I a i s l UQ g k3 l W M a. a Mz M EM 4 W >= >= t&# M Q E IS ve X X A W c. J O *= W &b Q G eO M e 93 e 3 9 E&. D D U = U L 6. 4 3 23 3 S O b 9 e d O u O 3 th U WO 4 O Pm e a J ed e re se Pm..g Pt. se e e 3 i l er e -o J 1 i i l I-N*"- A+=m .g.. -- -- + r e -m w w

O. O h N 'W' 1 i s I CLINTON POWER STATION i e DETAILED CDNTROL RDOW DESIGN REVIEW l CRITERIA WATRIX 6.7 Process Computers i i NUNEG-5795 GUIDELINE DATA CDLLEGIIUM CDWENT5/NEF ENtNCE CRITERIA METH00 l

5. f.2 Cathode Ney lobe (CNI)

T 68 INPF W' CRS 3FTC 5.7.2.1 Enl Display 5.7.2.lc thru f Use manuf. applicable Characteristics specs. X P 4.7.2.1b Related to 6.1.E.3f. 5.7.2.2 5ymbols and 5.7.2.2a thru gs Use manuf. applicable Characteristice specs. 4.7.2.2c Related to X P 6.5.5.2a(4) & 6.3.3.Ed(1). l 6.7.2.2g (1) : Related to 6.5.5.2a(2). P 5.7.2.3 Uperator-Display 5.7.2.3c thru da Use manuf. appilcable Relationahlps specs. 6.7.2.3e Related to 6.1.2.3. X P 6.7.2.3f Related to 6.1.1.3a. 5.7.2.4 Data Presentation 5.7.2.4a Nelated to 6.5.1.Ib. Formet 6.7.2.4n,os Related to 6.6.2.1s & X P 6.6.2.3a. 4.7.2.30: Related to 6.6.2.3a. 5.7.2.5 screen Layout and Structuring X P 5.7.2.5 Messages 5.7.2.5bs Related to 5.5.1.Ib. 6.7.2.6k Related to 6.7.1.7b. X P + I e i i i e l

1 a e . 4 ' 1. i 1j r, Y.- i h U W e. 4 po t 2 E W ' t g l 6 e d s e we I e . 3 D G w K i 1 I >= ' i B re. W M No } W e I g . i = 55 MM M d E ( WW M 3 D = 4W E 4 A >= Q M = A M M JO 3 2 U bQ I EC 3M WO ENE 8 E M = - f wWv a E e

4. J W U

Q >= 0 4 ZE M b H E CM E A 4 g (s% EE " N a t

}'

MV P= L \\ J \\ WQ G G W Ma J M2 M EM 4 W >= W M Q EG ve X X J 6 I = w W E C E J e We w ,J 9 e C e m = e 3 T e 2 H O L w W e h 9 3 4 U

== .1. B E = &S 8 ~ C. B e &W dO a w eC

=

3 0 b a= 3d @d ES 6 .C k i e Pm e 30 W

=
N N==

N= M

.C
e P* S

>=. C P. o WE GU

W r'%

e + - I' 4, 4 Yk ,,M ,p I Q g g r-.>..

I \\ *, 1 I! e ,I 1 II'l l ' 1, 1 1 hl 1* 1 ed R >l g 1 W l Er W M> W e e ? MM - X d E et >M M 3 D = 1 4W E w He > n os 5v a m E M A L 4 e E>EWu IE M e O E o W3 l-AJ W U P Q > e 4 o 25 >+ e. H E M M CM E & 4 g 95 * .v,. MU P. l_ J WO O (pEu W A J M3 M EM 4 W 4 e W M Q EG WG F 1'l ll ll ii W lj a e as e a ') D 43 e I, w-e >= m e q 5 e w e C be 3 e B-eU N O ap e= G S b Sd b &e e e = e e ed r 3 m)

4. =

bC = 8 8 bb 4 3 = e e. we N m L

U
b Re 4

N== ( 2

b o
3 N. 4 N. F 4

N e N ou o eE -e I f. + ?N I i ~... -. h g 8-m e I p J ,{ 4 p-e b

\\h O) 4* JS

e U

e. N.

3 9 ** 6 C ed. .e$ IdA e Nv M e

O O. O. d M

OON K W d =

O Oed a.

AJ G e E OO-O ddO IM d E H 99 Z 9 9 9 ** O en a U d ee e --3 996 V O EEA E d AUS M. se. M. sut 89 $5N M> W Ge Wee E 55 MM x d Z A L M t >= an M 3 0 = 4W E O M d. >= Q >= m H A M 4 e UQ 3 2 J Wo E0 J2M .J P= E M M WQ aC sa M QWW E C W2 Q

kJ W e

O >= b ( ZE M >= E C >= E 4 W W .'X >= 2 y O O ZD av e I b uOW (b .a MZ M EM 4 W >= >= W M Q ES We X X X 'A W M = = J. O O O W .4 C C Q e e b b M = B C C = =9 g b d UCC C. m U C4O P= = 9 e== E e = e 6 e h= dCd G e he COe W C 4 W W e.U e e d= Md N R== 9=

C
d
C==

( M@ M3 M.4 OC M

d
O EC 9m EUO I

( 3

O
e
GN 90 GJ WEM W

l l l l Iv - - * * * -==. .s-a% ...,m

/- c ur f\\ h t e l. 1 ng 5 l e 5 E 3 o C o d 3 N t E r N d 5 o t e t r t 5 a t a l o u i l p e t m 5 R l T d o N e E c t y f a r s u l e t u r e u C h R q t s s. e b bre l. 3

4. e W

2 2

2. in E

g 5 5

5. n I

V E 5 5 5E R w NN OG II X t N A TS I u U I P P. S S AE R o I r TD T y T 3 S A a CD M W L EO RO LHS LTR S S P P EO A l WR I e OEC O R n CM PL E e O T P A 'Y NR I T R f. OT R A E S TN C 8 D D NO IC 6 I T LCD E AP L IN I RI A E T T E I D RS CS X X X X T u f h r e t t n y E c e e c N a n m n I F o e e n L i g t o E t dt n l t a i D na a 'e ar r e a I U g e r n z G n ,,d A o i C d ~ a eei l t e 5 r css r 5 r nun a 7 A e o c u d 5 ufC i o n t qo g y e e u e l ot a t t o 5 ye Lu L 5 u y cn o

1. el

2. a 3

4 u a no y M L ut

2. L 2

2

2. q c.

2

5. r u

5. d 5

5 en n 5 5FF 5a 5 6 5 b I/j,

ei In i: >i l,.li*

1 i 9 1 3

3 \\ [ 4 i G A N M b =*

s O

l d Te de j W R. B R. W M S i I E5 MM x d E aC M en M 3 3 H to M 4W CC C 4 6 HQ > h A M

E e

W 3 2 -4 W No WO 4 - J E4 JHE A 3.4 E M G QWu e Q dr! C W2 l &J W e .== t C > b =( M H K 8.E-a e= O O l l Ns 4 W e >= Z v 3 l 20 e l MU = WOW 44 .J MZ M EM 4 W W MEg Q "g x x x ll l' i .e e ', 6 9 t. O Oe e e .J 3 3 13 W O t-

== a C D h O Ud -13 M e C "3 .J C b9 g G O OC a

== = 0 M E o d e O C e S b >= e b C O 9 L e au k e b t. 3 O eb = U 14 na 3 9 e M-N= R S n

e e

R I. R== R R

tQ 3C 3

3 3 =0

e=

SU 9O O W t m.ese~==e-e. ,n.. n -*--7 --.y.--r-

6 ~5 s d' U b 3 W O e U, e A M. ed b I w M . me =

m. V r

6 OA e E e d e OO en d d = R 5 WN L 94 n n an d ee e e ee EE 3 .t up.d a w W j e we ce = w Ue eee M. =2 N N N. =

e e

R me. d

m. ee. N.

W C B. 6. p 9. e. o o = Gw 996 W 4; d e e x 55 -- x r >= W me d D W IA / 4W E C A L >= Q t= M W W 4 JC a,O 3 2 h z en EQ e WQ 4 - . >= E sE me Ei W W Q R e W2 &J W

== C M Q et s~~k. - 2E ** % >= E ( d 44 to C D-E O O O I >= g u hy j .J C f WQ O 10 W W 4 Q. J me Z M 9 EM W 4 >= 6 >= W me O E9 US M M e a O d E e M C I O O = b e = 0 d t. C i i-, >e e O C U 3 D 9 e G l ' B. E W O O -e = S W W o. d e C== =e tp U =a 3h = 24 3e 9 N. e N. & h e e 3 me s= M e.

O m.

S..e

3. 6 m

= GO GO O i I ( l i 1 i e e gw.--. 9--

- peepemp-9w e,

~ w y y

I! . /' -

h, ',

m \\ w a m "w e eo N u n = V E N O g i T e M O b e d C O s a n d T e G = d O E e O W E m A e m. N. B N. N. w M C D 0 i' W = W G I e de 53

h. =<

X WM M d D b W = 4W m C 4 >= Q >= M A W9 4 J 2 2 h EQ e .. E#D M W L WO 4 =sk EWEWW sa M O E e W2 kJ W = C >= Q 4 Es M a K 4 M M E/B M Q> E

== >= 2 W G Q D t ze b \\ MW d i l .J C l WO O O l W W 44 I- .J. HZ l e sw i 4 W b M W M X X X F C e G 9 h e e C = + Q e ee Z = b dh e I' M Q b3 = J 40 Q W 4 b Q Uc = 9 W d C O C 3 C em C ee (. v e= a, ec 0 e e O S O& -e S h. =e G O= >= d= b& S eo me a e e oe Cd CO D O= =C Od 3 .4 O W We O b b b nd N Re W

C
e e sh NO NC NO I

N

W
e
WD B

Sb 9 e 3

en.
b
C OO G4 W=

9 l \\ V "N ' "- ' NM N h-v ee p ,g--e -nep-% ee, y. y. w,

I F [N U' A I 4 w 1 1 5 h. T 1 u o e O W d W l 2 3 9 i = W = a. R R. R. 1 w M C S S 0 5 4 EE ~~ x >M d D = M >= Q >= - 1 d@M = a W 4 =CL DWW JWE W BR - O E e v2 Q aC z= - s = CW m aC d W = >= Z W O O O ie 20 b MW d .J C "S a < 9! a =~ 4 W W F x x a. W O 3 3 I. I. 2 O E i M != c a e es a e @e u M6 N l i3

i..!

.= d. 9 =9 e 9E OE O ~ m

==em. ee.+ .w -=..,.n-. ='O emp ew m = - w-- m% wg m.pa= c -w ar*e see. -e w.em-m m - e.amage. a.-% wem

--'e+-+

' + w e a

..~.. 1 i t NRC Staff Review of the CPS DCRDR Program Plan Item No. 17 Topics Control Room Survey

Reference:

SAIC Report, page 12 I SAIC Concern: It is unclear at this time whether the checklists y and criteria to'be used by the licensee in the conduct of its control room survey will completely satisfy the requirements of NUREG-0737, Supplement 1. CPS Response: The checklist and criteria to conduct the Control Room Survey will be out of NUREG-0700. t >{- } See attached 2/27/85 presentation material. i 1 .1 ~ 1' t i I t t 4 l O u li I ? w . ~.. -<e 9 9e 4-q-. w y ,--r,e es.- ,7 w -ye-

1 t

i 1 i 1 1 r f' 1 f I ~i ~i I -i ILLINills Clinton Power Station ! i IP i DCRDR - Program Plan - Review pawsa CONTR01. ROOM SURVEY i

i i!

GUIDELINE / CHECKLIST ROOKLETS 4 S/C-16 i l o CONTROL ROOM WORKSPACE j! 'e COMMUNICATIONS e ANNUNCIATOR WARNING SYSTEMS CONTROLS e VISUAL. DISPLAYS { e LABELS & LOCATION AIDS o PROCESS COMPUTERS 1 e PANEL LAYOUT e CONTROL / DISPLAY INTEGRATION

y COMMUNICATIONS 6.2 6 2 VOICE COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS 6.2.1 GUIDEl.INE COMPl.!ANCE CHECKLIST F N/A lYes No Referenen/ Comment ' ' ~ 'p+ [ i.. 6.2.1.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR r VOICE COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS [h I Generally there are six varietiec of voice com-g = municadon systems found in control rooms: 1.M:5 [tQ Q" Conventional $owered telephones, sound $owered l AN~ j telephones, walkie talkie radio transceivers, fixed- .""y 9 ~ [ band UHF transceivers, announcing systems, and l f i 3 l point-to-point intercom systems. Human factors J i alb q j requirements specific to each type of voice com- '7-iM i u bg L., munication system will be considered Individually l a O ._;= I f[@ W@ ) in Guidelines 6.2.1.2 through 8.2.1.7 while 8.2.1.8 p will address voice communication by the operator .] wearing an emergency mask. The following re-j i quirements are relevant to communication systems e @ fLm.N t. i l o s..M(M 3: r in general. a. INSTRUCTIONS-Instructions should be pro-vided for use of each communication system, including suggested sitematives if a system becomes inoperable.. b. PERIODIC MAINTENANCE TESTS-These j should be performed on all communicadon i L. systems to ensure that the system !s normally operative and effective under changes in I ambient noise levels that may have occurred L since the last check. .c. EMERGENCY MESSAGES (1) OUTGOING-Priority procedures should ~- be established for the transmission of emergency messages from the control room by any of the communication systems. (2) INCOMING-Procedures should be estab-lished for handling communications during an emergency and these procedures must 7 be known by all operators. w ~ de ..ma 9 w e .,-e-ew---,.... -i.-----

[ DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW CONTROL ROOM SURVEY ~ REFERENCE / COMMENT FORM OBSERVER: DATE: PAGEJF LOCATION: I GulOELINE CRITERIA ITEM NO.: HE0 REFERENCE NO.: CRITERIA PANEL / SU8 PANEL REFERENCE /COAMAENT ELDRENT NO. CONSOLE NO. i ? i g I L. 1 l ~ 0 i u 3 v e-t DIAGRAM / PHOTO NO.: .m.__.

NRC Staff Review of the CPS DCRDR Program Plan Item No. 18 i Topic: Control Room Survey

Reference:

SAIC Report, page 8 SAIC Concern: IPC has not stated whether it intends to comply with the requirements o*f Generic Letter 83-13 (for BWROG Control Room Survey Plan). Furthermore, rather~than using'NUREG-0700 survey criteria directly, IPC has stated that it intends to develop its own survey using NUREG-0700 and other criteria as appropriate for this survey. As Illinois Power has not provided i all checklists and criteria to be used during'this activity and has not documented differences between its versions and those guidelines of NUREG-0700, it is not possible to evaluate fully the survey portion of the program plan at this time. CPS Response: Generic Letter 83-18 does not specifically apply to Clinton Power Station because IPC did not participate in any of the BWROG CRDR surveys. In September 1981, a control room survey was performed by General Physics Corporation. The NRC Staff used results of the General Physica survey and the draft NUREG-0700 to audit the Preliminary Design Assessment. The results of the corrections due to the PDA and the Staff's Audit Report were submitted to the NRC Staff along with the DCRDR Program Plan on September 28, 1984. A complete survey of the control room using the NUREG-0700 guide-lines will be performed as part of the CPS DCRDR. i 'I s a O _A______.________m_____

1 t I NRC Staff Review of the CPS DCRDR Program Plan Item No. 19 4, Tooic: Control Room Inventory i

Reference:

SAIC Report, page 12

tj SAIC Concern:

The program plan does provide information to a indicate that a control room inventory will be compiled.

However, use erf the inventory cannot be assessed fully without assurance that the task analysis will result in the independent deter-mination of display and control requirements and their charac-r i

teristics for comparison to inventory data. ] CPS Response: The Control Room Inventory is discussed in Section 3.3 (pages 3-11 and 3-12) of the CPS Program Plan. q 'I ' The SFTA will independently determine CSI needs as discussed in Item 6. I i ] 4 j h' d ii 13

1

s l

J g 3 k$ k g 4 g, 4

1 t i NRC Staff Review of the CPS DCRDR Program Plan i Item No. 20

i ij Topic

Control Room Inventory ' t (

Reference:

SAIC Report, page ll SAIC Concern: The licensee intends to use the inventory as a lj reference data base for comparison with the requirements estab-lished during the task analysis. The licensee, however, has not 1 adequately described a method for identifying these requirements i and other associated characteristics independent of the control room. Thus it is unclear whether the inventory activity vill-actually result in the identification of missing and/or ij inappropriate controls and displays as required by NUREG-0737, Supplement 1. l ,i CPS Response: The description of Task Analysis is in Item 6.

f

{, The SFTA will independently determine C&I needs as discussed in Item 6. R V' 0 u i ii i l l' l l l' 1 i m ,~

I~ Os \\j/ NRC Staff Review of the CPS DCRDR Program Plan Item No. 21 Topic: Assessment of Human Engineering Discrepancies

Reference:

NRC Staff Report, page 4 NRC Concerns In the method for assessing human engineering discrepancies (HED's) it is not clear whether all " human engincering observations" will be assessed. Also, many of the evaluation criteria presented in Table 4-2 of the DCRDR Program Plan should be able to be definitively answered based on the results of the task analysis rather than answered "probably, possibly, and not likely." CPS Response: All Human Engineering Observations identified in the DCRDR will be assessed. The following paragraph is from page 4-1 of the Program Plan. "The assessment for the disposition of all HEDs identified in the DCRDR will be conducted in a manner consistent with the objectives of NUREG-0700 and NUREG-0801 and will be f 3, performed by the Assessment and Implementa-tion Team (AIT) identified in Table 2-1." The Program Plan Tables 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3 have been revised to provide five possible responses to each question as follows: Yes No Probably Possibly Not Likely 1. Question See attached 2/27/85 DCRDR presentation material. \\ g C) =

i ..i 1 i f ~i i i i i i I=~.1.I 7.F 1-l,' f. '. i ,l \\ Clinton Power Station / /- ILLIN018 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ij DCRDR - Program Plan - Review' PDWER ASSESSMENT & IMPLEMENTATION i t, DISAGREE l: REVIEW i COMPILE I Wily? EACH [ .HEOs DBSERVATION AGREE j ~ CATEGORIES REVIEW ^ A/D/C/D SUGGESTED ./ \\ACCEP! ACTION ASSIGN CORRECTIVE '\\ / PLAN ilED NO. ACTION N/ I NOT ACCEPT '{ f l PROVIDE NEW DIRECTION k

i )' ). G O r i

r.. t-b.j i 1.i.

i ;- i..; i i gi i. i , ti

~)

1 i ilullas E5435EEa'r1 Sta85Vaflou 488E8886Euf oostavaises IEcusgcat aggggu custamaa savE '/ II ****"'* Clinton Power Sta Sabeh/ Welch ng,, l FLasi II ****"' '8"" **""***#'**** t fast Control Rm Survey mEo, 6.5.004 / 83"'" l ! cLs 6.5 ct syEns 6.5.3.1 saTg 1/29/85 .t l a**veluste & asseh86 For Felloutes seesee,/, / I-I _ VISUAL DISP (2D caseset/sete/Reseee c cL TITLE sto cavEcosi FANEL TITLE All PANEL # Oll 4 l uto DEscatrTIon 6 a' GUIDELINE - CHARACTERISTICS AND PROBLEMS OF LIGIT 1 INDICATORS (Precautions to Avoid Hisinterpretation) i t j There is no provision to prevent interchanging of Indicator lenses. Green and Amber lenses were u i reversed on P801 #032 and 053. I: ti aurroni NaTEslaL ATTacMED I L j tofsuflaL etEsafoe Eason(s) I utmanEmmer navigu sate i II **" "

Increased probability of error 18: uetermining plant status if lenses are inadvertently El caseur vath caes,et/sete.

interchanged. Il aseveleste & Resuhett For Felleuses asesses aEce6esiEmots REvisiou ceaseet/Sete/Reeseos i Provide keyed lenses or strict administrative controls to prevent interchanging of lenses. I ] !

t t

aEcollNENDED INFLEMENTAT10hs l i l' i l Sample Human Engineering observation Assessment Form I; l

~ ILLINQl3 9 HED PROCESSING f POWER ~- .~ a CEFE 8N PACTIM tartBENT l MMW PIMERE M l A 16 SANTY lartRm,a.tt_- WEAfE Pu u rfLT asun== = T=:m s : ,n E SANTY Cm nas TM C alASERT/agesAEUTT CONV. 05fAS ~ 8p , r I UM" "T N n m ~' TES M G y. n Lour SAFETY N CINEENMATION IIe gggapg Common 315mpICANT m* PRAINIAL uses W OR CURIEAmt Amatysic se FUE CORRECT =II N. A__ _ G ^ ,,,_N. e g (ggy murnaamsnm M CORIETIGII5 M WTBACmt ~ V i i l e esm ate 4BD *Wea.* GID

8E8'*

^

M ew segg.M e*

.gg.ge-in-*

ew.mo .is.,, . y up -W e -.es, y

N. ~ s .i h, w. TRE.g 6 1 g. t=rTverra 703 gyarmamrs HIDs QEDIFIED FMat N55I5-0801) N Consider the following. t i T-Yes _o Possibly P'=obably Not Likely N

1. Is the EID really a deficiency?

a

2. Is the EID part of a larger or 1

t' genmeio BID? 4

3. Could this HID result in significant plant downtime or personnel in$1 ries?

..a.'.

4. Could resolutica of this BID

) V provide increased operator ~ productivity and morale? Will this HID t i

5. cause undue operator fatigue?

6. canae operato' conftasion?

r f e i 'T. cause' operator disecafort? .O ..e e b g g g g O O 9- .N Ni ,,,,u __e. ...e-e -4 -+w- __q yP_ Y* w-I n L._-______

- - - = - i \\ s.., + i i, (~~ TAR.E 6-1 (cont.)-- " <~ 6 Tee Ito Possib17 P-obably Not Likely n ' 'N, p 8". present a risk of injury to O control room personnel? n.

9. Amorense the operator's mental (Nr 41e, Y e

i requiring interpolation of iV values, remembering inconsistent f. or unconventional control positions, etc.).

10. distract control room personnel from their duties?

! O: \\

11. affect the operator's ability to see or read accurately?

12. affect the operator's ability I

to hear correctly?

13. degrade control. room personnel i

performance?

14. degrade the operator's ability t

to W ulate omttrols ~ correctly? b w* g g 4 O m O. ^ ,s D M .. f* e 4S

'*N

,,w-w-, --e- --,-..,.-,-a-

i ~~~ ~~~~'~~ ~ "* v N. (- s. N ... ~ TAE.E 6-1 (coat.) = Yes No Possibly Probably Not 1.1kely u N,

15. cause a delay of necessary n'

feedbook to the operator? e.

16. degrade positive feedback about ocatrol task (s)?

1

17. violate control room conventions e-g or practices?

I l,. ~~

18. violate nuclear industry conventions?

7 1,. v 1a. societ.1 s.reotype.? v.-

20. involve highly stressfu1 situations (i.e., highly ties constrained, of serious consequences, etc.)?

21. land to inadvertent activation

' or deactivation of ocatrols? +

22. cause a specific error? Is it probable that another error of t.

quences wil1 be committed? t e em 4 l l

M l

w a%- u- "**f* e wpngMNN"'OrO'N'* V -~w. - -. - - -.,, ~, _ _ .mv,-__c- ,,-,,,-r

i I TABLE 6-2 -c M M MM ETMN f*WTTRuva 7es No Possibly Pn bably Not Likely 'i s.~ ~ r Does the '- involve controls or d2aplays that are used by operators while executing emergency procedures? i It is likely that the error caused by this BID would result int s A violation of a *=ha4a=1 speci. fication, safety limit, or a ~~ limiting ecodition fbr operation? The unavailability of a safety-related systes needed to mitigate I transients or systes needed to safely shut down the plant? Does this EED involve ocatrols or displays that are part of an engineered safety function or are assoaisted with a remotor trip l functica? i : Does this HID involve control or 4 display problems that would not i be readily identified or corrected by alaras, interlocks or other instruments? ~ f f ] - -.-~ ~. _, _ _ _.... _ _ _ - _ _ _ _

1 \\ t s ~ W 63 n:D nasammu exman 1 In evaluating how to resolve a given IED, the AIT will ocasider the following~ q ~" questions Yes No Possibly Probably Not Likely

1. Due to its unique nature, does the 150 require further study or

~ assessment?

2. Can the a"

be resolved with . paint / tape / label enhancements?

3. Should the 1"

he resolved to amintain consistency with s ^ ocatrol room ocaventions or standards?

4. Is the 150 so minor thi*, no physical change is needed and the only action required is to

~ establish operator awareness in routine training?

5. Does the recommended fix really address th's issue of ocacern?

sO g 6 4to e e 6 g em $ .e e e ,6 > a www. = .-m--~~... -e u

a i 4, ~j t [O - s TAE.E 6-3 (cont.) p i Yes No Possibly Pmbably Not I.1kely s. I'l

6. Is the operator's ability to -

4 respond to any plant transient i or accident degraded by imple-menting the recommended change? u f i 8

7. Are there other, more ocet.

effective methods to resolve T-~ i i the 1507' .I i 1

8. Is the BID in the process of resolution with an existing design o N 7 t._

h)

9. Is the recosmondation consistent g

l with present control roca chamotoristics 'and practices? l'

10. Does the proposed change create r..

OEY M 7 i. 'f Mg ~i i 1 } l w / O 0 g[ og e ( a . ' __ e 4 9 e s om e - an - -m -r- -, - -.,a-, -. - - - -,+,, ,----n- ,...n,--,-,,.n., , - - - - ~, - -,,.., -. - - -, - -,,, - _..,..,. - - - - - -.. - - _,. _ ' *,, -. - - - - - - .*

s eeg g e mme T

FY

~. r~ .t u me s [ NUIIA81 E1888118E88800 OISCREPANGB TO EE AIIALYZIO FOR CORREC71086 I m J..,., ( (79000TIIE NED SELECfl0N PROCIED } 9r AllALYEIS FOR CORRECTI0II EY ElINAllCERENT m ip I LJ CORRECf1OITN YEE c-- EMPA N I' : ~ 80 0 e AIIALYSIB7010SITIFY GESIGII ~ IIWROVERIENT ALT 2RNSTIVER ANO T SELECT RECDIIIIENOED SuLUTION DEim e IIIPLEJeff 00Cual!!If e FUNC. TION ANALY5lg 4.. q

ALLOCAfl0N I

v. ';

MAN MACHiht

VENFY ALLOCATION-

~ +

MLECTPREFERRED 051811 ALTERNATIVE i 3 4

~

VAUSATE0858081

.-e6 PULLY SCHE 00'.E i NOT CORRECTED latptsateITATION jigygpY AlIO CORRECTED M N OP CORRMON 4 DOCUMEIIT p4NytaLLy 00CURIEIIT '~ CORRECTED ir JisflPY ANO SCHEDULE 00CUIIElIT ' IIIPLERIENTATION 00GM ~ \\ /

_~ l- ~; ) NRC Staff Review of the CPS DCRDR Program Plan Item No. 22 1 a Topic: Assessment of Human Engineering Discrepancies 1

Reference:

SAIC Report, page 9 i SAIC Concern: Illinois Power has stated that the Assessment and Implementation Team (AIT) will systematically asses's and categorize human engineering observations (HEOs) identified during previous DCRDR activities using criteria similar to those suggested in NUREG-0800, Appendix A. From a review of Figure 4-3, it is not clear whether all HEOs that have been identified q will be subjected to the assessment process. lll CPS Response: All Human Engineering Observations will be l assessed. See Item 21. ll i. l I (J O' ,.P-- TW[h 9

- M' 9v=es

.._J',- .-_...___.m. . ~, _. _ _ _, _ _ _.... __

4 (,,) NRC Staff Review of the CPS DCRDR Program Plan Item No. 23 Topic: Assessment of Human Engineering Discrepancies p

Reference:

SAIC Report, page 9 SAIC Concern: The licensee states that the human factors specialist will be available to answer questions during this phase of the assessment process. Because the human factors personnel can make a potentially significant contribution to the HED assessment process, it is recommended that they play an integral rather than an advisory role to the AIT in the conduct of the assessment of human engineering discrepancies (Reference 1, pp. 4-2 and 4-8). Information on specific tasks to be completed by the human factors personnel should be documented'in the Summary Report. CPS Response: Human factor specialists are full members of the Assessment and Implementation Team (AIT). Table 2-1 and 2-2 have been revised to reflect this involvement. The assess-ment and implementation procedure provides for any member of the AIT to note in the HEO ' assessment form their statement of non-agreement with the consensus review results. Information i on specific tasks completed by the human factors personnel will be documented in the Summary Report where appropriate. a e D I i e j 'K, O' N89 **-"4O**pneeeSPM y A gm9hv am w e,e-een w_ e, a .h= 4 g 9 ___m. _ _

v-t NRC Staff Review of the CPS DCRDR Program Plan j Item No. 24 i i Topic: Selection of Design Improvements i

Reference:

NRC Staff Report, page 4 NRC Concern: Selection of Design Improvements. Although the selection process. generally appears adequate, the staff questions the distinction between the proposed HEO evaluation criteria and the HEO resolution criteria. CPS Response: See Item 21. Also, see the attached slides addressing HE0 corrective method 3 selection criteria from the 2/27/85 IP presentation to Staff. o e i } i- 'i m O) im. .e

3 3 __) ILLIN018a ~ ~ Clinton Power Station

F DCRDR - Program Plan - Review D

POWER l ,i l SELECTION OF CORRECTIVE METHOD i, e DESIGN ENHANCEMENT l1 DESIGN CHANGE i e DESIGN IMPROVEMENT STUDY l e OPERATING PROCEDURE CHANGE i l. l, s ADMINISTRATIVE PRDCEDURE CHANGE 1 ii f !I i; 1 ; i

. =.:-. =_..

-. : = -- - : ---- : : :. = - _ ;. .. = - -.. = = - - .= ( t.. I i.I i l l '$ $

g

) 'I ~l !~ } (,,' ! ( l (~~j f,^ ( '} l *4 { l DCRDH - Program Plan - Review JLLIN018 ~~~ ~ Clinton Power Station l!P PDWER

t i

DESIGN ENHANCEMENT l 1 PROVIDES SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT I QUICKLY LOW COST a J i i

l .i, t. a h / ENHANCBGBT: t.. Dr.:muCE - CONTROL BOOM IMPROUl MENT HI SURFACE'TRElm l t] N UES.

~

I :. ACTION WHD3 - ADD, REMOVE, REPLACE, RE-LOCATE, MODIFI, ADJUST OEGANIZE. l. IIAMPLES: LABELS: L .i CONTROLS PUNCTIONS L DISPLAIS ANNUNCIATOR TITLES SISTIMS q { DDfARCATION & MIMICS: U LINES ZONES SIMBOLS CODING (Cof,DR, SHAPE, ETC.) ENVIRO 10GMT 1 FgnirT m M VENTILATION ROOM COLOR (3) LIGHTING CABINET COLOR (3) NOISE LEVEL l TEMPERAIURE FURNITURE LOCATION DISPLAIS: I RECORDER PAPER & 3CALE C0!4R CODING , f.1 Rrf T1E' F HARDWARE t l: li' HANDLES MEIER FACES 15085 s o ENEANCDENT SUITABILITI Cwsr rf.?g ~ CLINTON POWER SIATION DEIAILED CONTROL ROCM DESIGN REVIEW f M 4 I. w I ?g I _ p WM-W N W _ 4p9 ..---..-_'-],'_ h96

- 6O#"

^ N,- ^ - * ~ ^ g--.

...... ~ - - ..t I '. ' l' 1 l~ ' ' ( ~ '. i~ ' if~ l '"I f~) ('. '] [ 'l (A i f.' I '.- l L ) 1. ? MilN018 ~ Clinton Power ~ Station ll2 l DCRDR - Program Plan - Review l PDWER } 1 DESIGN CORRECTIONS j !1 ASSESSMENT & IMPROVEMENT TEAM (AIT) WILL: k STATE PROBLEM l1 i, STATE DESIGN OBJECTIVE i SCOPE CORRECTIVE WORK l 'j PROVIDE ANALYSES IF NECESSARY i } 1 j

!i .Q .>::.,.;-Q i i 4 .h J.. i l I

2 ilLINDIR '

Clinton Power Stat, ion l' IP DCRDR - Program Plan - Review i PDWER I

j;I l

{ i DESIGN CORRECTION ANALYSIS i a 4 e INCLUDE ALTERNATE SOLUTION

.l F

e COMPARISDN OF ALTERNATIVES

i f

e RATIONALE FOR SELECTION ' ~1 l I e CONCEPTUAL DESIGN F '.Ij: ii l L1. ~ ( 1

. Q. i., e i < Q. ~ i c.- : n c tO, c.i v 'e 7 1 ILLINDIR i Clinton Power Station ll2 w s l DCRDR - Program Plan - Review ^ POWER l i' i i DESIGN IMPROVEMENT STUDIES INVOLVES: l^ t PLANT SAFETY SYSTEMS ~ MANY PANEL DEVICES l e INTEGRATION WITH OTHER SYSTEMS OR EQUIPMENT i Llj l-l.;. I i4 Y:3 i .1 \\

l, Q i 1 i i ,. Q. i c c.Qi..! 3 i

n :,

l JLLIN018 i ~ Clinton Power Station IP l l DCRDR - Program Plan - Review ~ .f POWER ii I! il TYPICAL DESIGN SMPROVEMENT STUDIES 1i'

1 iii

1' ANNUNCIATOR SYSTEM l

!i e LABELING AND DEMARCATION j!'

iil,

~ HABITABILITY e PANEL LAYOUTS COMMUNICATIONS o DESIGN MANUALS i 1 1 i 4

i i 1 't i t I ~"'! 't

~}

( -) I,,.. ! i l, \\ JLLINDIS Clinton Power Station !4 : '~ ll2 DCRDR - Program Plan - Review rir w en - 1 : PROCEDURE CORRECTION PROBLEM SOLVED RY: 1 .i ll REALLOCATION OF DUTY / (\\ l e CHANGE IN TASK STEP SEQUENCE l Ii IMPROVEMENT IN PROCEDURE WORDING (CLARIFICATION OR e

i EMPilASES ON ACTION)

Ii e ADDITION OF CAUTIONS I i j l i 1

=.-.-. - - =.---. ,Q) i Q) i c:i a. O i. .,n. is, i i 1 i r, i, H0N018 i' ~~ Clinten Power Station 112 , DCRDR - Program Plan - Review.

l' rowen I

i i )1 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES I ~e SIMPLIFICATION OF REPORTING TASKS & FORMS I PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO T4 EDUCE OPERATOR LDAd 3 ? e -i l

/' 'Q ) . i-Q - C),"r.. ..i i i .i

.irn ei1 i

l nun 018 Clinton Power Station i / ~ ~~~ V DCRDH - Program Plan - Review 1 powen DESIGN CORRECTIVE VERIFICATION l e CORRECTIVE DESIGN REALISTICALLY PICTURED-N/C-11 MOCKUP S/C-19 l / -20 [ DRAWING j. i. e HUMAN FACTORS SPECIALIST CHECK USING APPLICABLE l CHECKLIST GUIDELINES l 'l! e TASK ANALYSIS' SPECIALIST REVIEW USING TASK ANALYSIS i PROCEDURE AS APPLICABLE !i i TRAFFIC LINK DIAGRAMS OPERATIONAL SEQUENCE DIAGRAMS 94

r, r, c:Q i. t.,i Q ,,iiiiira; Qy. :. i i eJ : i c, t.i ILLIN018 Clinton Power Station iP l DCHDR - Program Plan - Radiaw PDWER t i i' DESIGN CORRECTIVE VERIFICATION !1 e OPERAT10NS PERSONNEL REVIEW AND PERFORM MINI WALK-TilHU AS NECESSARY (EOP STEPS THAT INVOLVE AFFECTED MAN / ,l MACHINE INTfRFACES) i e COMPLETE VERIFICATION SIGNOFF FORM l. e \\ i i i ~ l i I 5 e e l*

- ~ - - - - e-5 0 8% I SAMPLE Pfl08 LIM REPORTID s.r/ e g[a (( s L. PAMLLAYOUT/ INTEGRATION i 5 LMM Ham M M j i samma s T .t 6 1 4 I ,I m w. L MWTTEROmaAEWOWaatNTTESLatSag i j amnem i e.e - & 884 mL me ase er ans seamaLLv peestr Lass est l T / ammae .g =, D* & thavSP m paamsTua?aA8Og m OEOFTHEPREbaSF WEAa3 TBS asen am13 es sagtsegg as sense rama taveur i 4 i 1 amanum .g a s L maeruusatseernetsansmusuTsepaspoemTeemus i

}

8MNELE

t t...

l!. -,. .e e j

.---,7

l-J f. l A L NRC Staff Review of the CPS DCRDR Program Plan J L Item No. 25 T_opic: Selection of Design Improvements

Reference:

SAIC Report, page 10, paragraph 1 SAIC Concerns Reconumendations for HED resolutions will be made by the Assessment and Implementation Team for each identified r HED. Illinois Power states that the human factors specialist b will be available for clarifications, if necessary. Because !i the human factors personnel can play a significant role in the selection of design improvements, it is recommended that they participate actively, rather than merely in an advisory capacity during this process (Reference 1, pp. 4-5 and 4-8). (' CPS Response: Human Factors Specialists will be full members of the Assessment and Implementation Team. See Item 23. O:: ) ? i / - ~ ~ -

____--___._m__.____._m

() NRC Staff Review of the CPS DCRDR Program Plan Item No. 26 Topic: Verification of Design Improvements

Reference:

NRC Report, page 5 NRC Concern: Design Improvem"7ts will not introduce new HEDs. Although reference is made to verifying that the fixes correct the problems and introduce no new HEDs, the lack of detail makes it impossible to assess this position of the applicant's Program Plan. CPS Response: Appropriate corrections will be made on the photomosaic control room mock-up. A verification and valida-tion procedure will be written to evaluate the change on the mock-up to ensure that the recommended correction does indeed i correct the human engineering discrepancy and that it does not create a new human factors problem. A human factors specialist and an operator will perform a walk through/ talk through of pertinent sections of the emergency operating procedures. During this process, operators will be questioned as appropriate when directed by a step in the O procedure to read an instrument or operate a control that has been modified to correct a HED. The following are typical checklist questions which will be used by the human factors specialist to evaluate the correction to a HED: 1. Is the location of the modified control or instrument o a problem. 2. Is information feedback a problem. 3. Does the correction provide full capability to perform the EOP task or sub task. l' 6

~ h

\\_j NRC Staff Review of the CPS DCRDR Program Plan

~ Item No. 27 q Topic: Verification of Design Improvemc u.s

References:

SAIC Report, page 11 a W SAIC Concern: Illinois Power has indicated an intent to verify that the fixes correct the problems and that the fixes introduce no new HEDs in several places in its program plan (e.g.,

p. 2-3; pp. 2-10, 2-11; p. 3-3; Figures 3-16, 4-4; and Table 4-3).

t However, these references are frequently only one or two word headings in a flow-chart box and do not describe a specific mechanism for accomplishing these two tasks. The use of mock-up and/or simulator techniques in conjunction with walkthroughs are recommended processes for completing these two tasks. Due to the lack of detail, it is not possible to assess this portion of the licensee's program plan. CPS Response: See Item 26. l! i i l L v/ l r-4 .c,gg-,, -. w .....,m. ,,,9., p, m9, .my_ .__,,,g-n9y y c< 9, .g

_m____.. -{ )* NRC Staff Review of the CPS DCRDR Program Plan 1 1 Item No. 28 ) j Topics Coordination of DCRDR

Reference:

NRC Report, page 2 NRC Concerns Post-TMI Actions Addressed by DCRDR. To the ~ ~ extent practicabla, without delaying completion of che DCRDR, the NRC staff recommends that the DCRDR address any control room modifications and additions (such as controls and displays for inadequate core cooling and reactor system vents) made or planned as a result of other post-TMI actions, as well as the lessons learned from operating reactor events such as Salem ATWS events. CPS Response: The following control room modifications have been made as a result of post-TMI actions: ]

1.,

R.G. 1.97 instruments !!j 2. EPG instruments i 1 3. Alternate Rod Insertion 4. Continuous Containment Vent and Purge Panel These changes, and any others, will be reviewed as available during the DCRDR. 9 k. E' a ~ 6 s O w. g s l l' s 8 o i .m ^~ --,2,,.,. T ' ' ' ~ ' 'r * :. "' - ^,c- ~ ~ m w 2 '~.i,;~m,,9 _-- 2-;;h

1_..__ _. .... ~._. ^ ~ ~ ~ A /,I NRC Staff Review of the CPS DCRDR Program Plan s Item No. 29 Topic: Coordination of DCRDR

Reference:

NRC Report, paga 5 NRC Concern: Coordination of the DCRDR with Other Programs. A detailed description of how the DCRDR will be coordinated with the SPDS, Reg. Guide 1.97 instrumentation and training was not provided so a complete evaluation was not performed. CPS Respo'nse: The description of the integration of the DCRDR with the SPDS, Regulatory Guide 1.97 instrumentation was in the CPS response to NRC Generic Letter 82-33, D. P. Hall to a i A. Schwencer letter 0970-L, " CPS, Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 Requirements for Emergency Response Capability," dated April 13, 1983. The DCRDR overlaps the SPDS, EOP and R.G. 1.97 activities in the following areas: 1. Functions and Task Analysis. The CPS plant specific l EOPs have been written using Revision 3 of the BWROG generic Emergency Procedure Guidelines. The EOP verification and validation is being conducted in parallel with the DCRDR. As part of the EOP verification each operator task in the EOP is being analyzed to ensure that the instrument and control needs are adequate for the operator to complete the tasks. The analysis of each EOP task forms the basis of the DCRDR task analysis. In addition the systems identified in the EOPs provide the basis for the DCRDR system function descriptions. Due to time contraints the DCRDR Function and Task Analysis was not completed in time to have a direct design input to SPDS, it will be used to. verify the SPDS parameter selection and display formats. The identification of operator instrument and control needs will also be used to independently verify the additional EPG instrumentation that was added to the control room to implement the plant specific EOPs. The new EPG instrumentation will be operational in 1985. 2. Control Room Survey. The control room survey will be used to insure that R.G. 1.97 instruments are clearly marked. The EOPs will also be checked to ensure that R.G. 1.97 post accident instrumentation ('i and controls are clearly identified and panel loca- \\* tions are identified. ._____L _....__.m..

J !i 3. DCRDR Validation. The validation of the control room will be performed by walk through/ talk throughs of selected accident scenarios. In addition, validation using the simulator will also be performed. The accident scenarios are selected to exercise all EOPs. li ,i See the attached 2/27/85 material from IP's presentation to the Staff. i l

'l 1

t A I e G 3 p k 4 A ..3 O w. --e =* -W -e pa peweeg gm.

i i it i i,.r ' o c-i o i .) i ioi..io.g-(o'...;.: ~ mwars Clinton Power [ Station Iff]I i' DCRDR - Program Plan - Review POWER CPS RESPONSE COORDINATION OF ACTIVITIES N/C ! S/C-21 o ERCIP SUBMITTAL - 4/15/83 e BlWEEKLY ERCIP MEETINGS e MONTHLY ERCIP STATUS REPORTS T0' EXECUTIVE VP & NRC (RESIDENT) e DETAILED INTEGRATED SCHEDULE 'l l e USE OF COMMON PERSONNEL SPECIFIC PROCEDURES FOR COORDINATION NOT N$EDED .i l e APPLICATION OF HUMAN FACTOR PRINCIPLES TO FURTHER i CONTROL ROOM CHANGES i

V[ i NRC Staff Review of the CPS DCRDR Program Plan Item No. 30 Topic: Coordination of DCRDR i:

Reference:

SAIC Report, page 11 SAIC Concern: Illinois Power has not provided a_ formal, detailed description of the integration of DCRDR activities with other post-TMI programs other than the EOP Program. The licensee has shown intention of coordinating the DCRDR and EOP activities h througout several--sections of the program plan (such as EOP l and DCRDR Integrated System Function and Task Analysis, Section 3.5, EOP and DCRDR Integrated Verification, Section 3.7). CPS Response: See Item 29. ~ ~ O 1. ~ I 1 O - - - - --- - - --- - +- --< -m"% rv %*-ee p-eme=,ge "h@ memesum-

he-*

tew--* w eu a N W *' 8*#- -pM-+ "h*"*' ^ ' "** "d'Ne

NRC Staff Review of the CPS DCRDR Program Plan Item No. 31 1 Topic: Coordination of DCRDR Reference SAIC Report, page 11 l SAIC Concern: The availability of the ERCIP and Program Managers assigned to specific programs reporting to the ERCIP Manager suggests that coordination of activities and integration of products will occur. However, coordination of DCRDR activities with other activities such as SPDS, Reg. Guide 1.97, and training have not been described formally in the program plan. Without information on the coordination of the DCRDR with these remaining programs, a complete evaluation of the degree to which the licensee's program plan will satisfy the requirement of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 cannot be accomplished. 4 CPS Response: See Item 29. Q-O t I ] f c - s

h p, NRC Staff Review of the CPS DCRDR Program Plan Item No. 32 i /~ Topic: Coordination of DCRDR i

Reference:

SAIC Report, page 13 SAIC Concerns: The licensee has not described formally the coordination of the DCRDA with other post-TMI programs other than the EOP program. - CPS Response: See Item 29. i 4 J O I I D s. s 0 -e=e = m .e w we,. +

e-e.+=.e

..ww... ._ a ~ ^^ --N}}

ML20205A827

Contents

Text

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

* e *

9 W

=

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

References:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Navigation menu

ML20205A827

Text

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

* e *

9 W

=

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

References:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Navigation menu

Search