ML20205B267
| ML20205B267 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1988 |
| From: | HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205B028 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8810260214 | |
| Download: ML20205B267 (40) | |
Text
i Addendum 4 GntTtrotRoomDesign-Reviem ;
l l
l Executive Summary l
l l
l l
l l
L L The SouthTexas Project .
c-z p!A2ggggggg;g;g j r- P PDC HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY !
r
V 8 HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM LIGHTING DESIGN REVIEW a
. . _ . . . . . POWER CO.
REVISION LOG Revision Pages No. Date Description Affected 0 1/30/84 Initial Issue Addendum 04/15/85 Provided Current 5-1,2,3 No. 1 Schedule Section 5.0 Addendum 12/22/86 Addendum Describing N/A No. 2 Results of Activities Between 04/15/85 and 12/22/86 Addendum 11/23/87 Addendum Describing N/A l
No. 3 Results of Activities l
I Between 12/22/86 and 11/23/87 l
l Addendum 09/30/88 Addendum Describing N/A No. 4 Results of Activities Between 11/23/87 and 09/30/88 i
l c:\cedr\ doc 42.txt 9/30/88
HOUSTON IVE
SUMMARY
lGHTING CONTROL ROOM googgnyg a oggggy ggypyy
. .. POWER CO.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title lage REVISION LOC i TABLE OF CONTENTS 11 TIST OF TABLES iii LIST OF FIGURES iv
SUMMARY
v PREFACE vi
1.0 INTRODUCTION
11 2.0 METHOD 014CY AND RESULTS 21 2.1 METHODOLOGY 2-1 2.2 RESULTS 22 5.0 SCHEDULE 51 11 c:\ccdr\ doc 42.txt 9/30/88
houston U ECUTIVE S N Y CON 1ROL ROOM LIGHTING ADDENDUM 4 O ISIO N NI VII W
_. POWER CO.
TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page 2-1
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS 2-4 22 NEW HEDs 25 23 DEFERRED CRITERIA ITEMS WORKSPACE 26 2-4 DEFERRED CRITERIA ITEMS - COMPUTERS 27 25 DEFERRED CRITERIA ITEMS VISUAL DISP'.AYS 2-8 2-6 DEFERRED CRITERIA ITEMS CONTROL-DISPLAY 29 INTEGRATION 2-7 PREVIOUSLY CATECORIZED DEFERRED ITEMS - 2 10 VISUAL DISPLAYS l
I 111 ~
c:\crdr\ doc 42.txt 9/30/88 "
n--
EXECVTIVE
SUMMARY
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM lGHTING a gggg y g g ypy y
,997ggyg g
. . . POWER CO.
TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES Figure Title P1 STP CRDR MAJOR REPORTS 2-1 REFERENCE / COMMENT FORM 22 HE0 ASSESSMENT FORM 2-3 HED ASSESSMENT FACTOR CRITERIA i
I L
r I
iv
(
i
- \crdr\ doc 42.txt 9/30/88
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM LIGHTING ADDENDUM 4 DESIGN REVIEW
. . . . POWER CO.
SUMMARY
This addendum summarizes the results of the South Texas Project (STP) Control Room Design Review (CRDR) activities since issuance of Addendum 3 (dated November 23,1987) to the Executive Summary.
The activities during this time period have been the following:
A. Completion of an evaluation against the Category E deferred criteria in the category of computers B. SPDS Man in the Loop Validation C. Miscellaneous CRDR human factors work, including review of HED resolutions and implementation, and categorization of new human engineering obssrvations This addendum suersarizes the methodology and results of these efforts and pro-vides an updated schedule for completion of the remaining STP CRDR activities.
As this report is an addendum to the Executive Summary, section numbers of this addendum correspond generally to the section numbers used in the Execu-tive Summary. This addendum also uses the same format as Addenda 1 through 3.
1 c:\crdr\ doc 42.txt 9/30/88
[
- Y HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM LIGHTING ADDENDUM 4 DESIGN REV/EW
_ _ . . . . POWER CO.
PREFACE The control room design review (CRDR) of the South Texas Project (STP) Elec-tric Generating Station was started in September 1982. This review was performed by Torrey Pines Technology for Houston Lighting 6 Power Company (H1hP) with Bechtel Energy Corporation (Bechtel) acting as agent.
The program plan was presented to the NRC at the STP main control panel cock up in October 1982. The basic review work for operator experience reviei, system function and task analysis , and control room survey was com-plated in October 1982. In November 1982 the Management Team put a hold on CRDR activities, and and authorized a design study to address inounting evolu-tionary engineering changes and correct discrepancies with the NUREC 0700 guidelines.
In November 1982, a decision was made by HL&P to completely relayout six main control panels and upgrade the remaining four based on the design study. This redesign effort was required to accotc=odate design changes resulting from I plant design evolution and Regulatory Guide 1.97 requirements and to corcect discrepancies with NUREG 0700. In December 1982 the Management Team selected one of five alternatives studied for design implementation.
The mock up v6 s revised considering the 441 identified HEDs and evolutionary engineering changes. As the Bechtel layout engineers advanced the layouts of the ten panels, Torrey Pines Technology engineers reviewed the rework for correction of known discrepancies and compliance with good hum.sn factors principles. The redesign effort on the main control panels was completed in April 1983. The NRC performed an in progress audit in May 1983, after which
{ the panel vendor was provided with fira layout drawings.
vi c:\crdr\ doc 42.txt 9/ W/88
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM LIGHTING ADDenoun 4 DESIGN REVIEW
_ . . . . . POWER CO.
The NRC audit comments required the addition of several special studies to those already in progress, e.g., demarcation and hierarchical labeling. The most significant addition, the evaluation of cpecified parameters, which resulted in a net reduction of 51 panel meters. The extensive relayout required a repeat of the system function and task analysis with verification and walk through/ talk through validation. Likewise, a specially structured control room review and human factors review of the corrective measures for all Category A and representative Category B discrepancies were performed.
The demarcation and hierarchical labeling studies resulted in continued l upgradin8 of the moc.k up. The completion of the panel relayout allowed the design of the annunciator system consistent with the relocations of many systems and subsystems, and a reduction of activo windows from 1055 to 642.
l l
Following the completion of these major efforts, H14P has continued the CRDR program, including resolution of human engineering deficiencies identified, using Bechtel and Torrey Pines Technologf as required.
l The docuaentation for this program was necessarily ext 9nsive in view of its design development nature. Documentation describing the work performed during the CRDR is summarized below and in Figure P 1:
- 1. Progran Plan Defines the plan for performing the CRDR.
- 2. Criteria Report Provides the detailed guidelines and basis for the CRDR and describes the interface between the control room and plant systems. This report also includes review procedurec, plant conventions, and human factors data developed during the CRDR that will facilitate future control room modifications. '
vii _
- \erdr\ doc 42.txt 9/30/88
[
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM LIGHTING ADDENDUM 4 DESIGN REV/EW
_ _ . . . POWER CO.
- 3. Operating Experience Review (OER) Report - Describes the opera-tions personnel review process, results, conclusions, and recocaendations of this task defined in the Program Plan.
4 System Function and Task Analysis (SITA) Report Describes the methodology, results, conclusions, and recommendations for this S}TA effort defined in the Program Plan.
- 5. Control Room Survey (CRS) Report - Describes the review process, results, conclusions, and recommendations of this task defined in the Program Plan. This report also includes the final results and dispositions for the human factors observations obtained from the OER and the SITA.
- 6. Annunciator Report Describes the review process, results, conclusions, and rococaendations of the annunciator review task defined in the Program Plan and the annunciator study guide.
- 7. Special Studies Report - Describes details of miscellaneous studies performed as part of the CRDR. This includes the anthropometric study, the hierarchical labeling study, the demarcation study, evaluation of specified parameters, and many minor studies to resolve NRC audit cocnents.
- 8. Implementation Plan Report - Sunnarizes the control panel design chan5es resulting from the implementation of Regulatory Guide 1.97 requirements, enginearing det.ign requirements, and preli-minary observat. ions of the CRDR design review team. It desc.
ribes the reasons for major changes to the control panel lay-outs.
L viii c:\crdr\ doc 42,txt 9/30/88
HOUSTON LIGHTING CONTROL ROOM
& ADDENDUM 4 DES /GN REV/EW
.. POWER CO.
- 9. SFIA Validation Report Summarizes the second review required because of the extensive revisions made to the control panel layouts and also includes walk-through/ talk through exercisen performed in the mock up area.
10.
OER Validation Report - Sumnarizes the review made by operators to determine if the redesigned panels corrected reported operator concerns and evaluata if any new problems were created as a result of the corrective measures taken.
- 11. CRS Validation Report Summarizes the review made to determine if the Category A and representative samples of the Category B HEDs were satisfactorily corrected and if any new problear were created.
- 12. Executive Summary Summarizes the CRDR results, conclusions, recoeaendations and schedules for remaining work. Technical details are in the Operating Experience Review Report, the System Function and Task Analysis Report, the Annunciator Report, the Centrol Room Survey Report, the Special Studies :leport, the Implementation Plan Report, and various validation reports.
- 13. Human Engineering Discrepancy Resolution Re pre Summarizes all Category A, P.; C, and D HED resolutions (as of January 1,1986) .
14 Executive Summary Addenda J Summarize the results and remaining work schedt.les of the CRDR program following the submittal of the Executive Susemary Report. Addendum 1 showed progress as of April ]
~
15, 1985; Addendum 2 as of December 22,1986; and Addendum 3 as of November 23, 1987. Addendum 4 shows progress as of September 30, 1 1988.
ix l
c :\crdr\ doc 42.txt 9/30/88
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM LIGHTING ADDENDUM 4 DESIGM REVIEW
_ _ . . . POWER CO.
- 15. Emergency Operating Procedures (EOP) Validation Report - Sum:na-rires the validation process used for the Emergency Operating Procedures and the results as they involve the control panals.
,, This valioation was conducted at the STP simulator during Hay 1986 using the draft E0Ps.
- 16. Human Engineering Discrepancy Resolution Report Addenda Sum:na.
rize resolutions for Category A, B, C, and D HEbs identified after l January 1, 1986. Addendum 1 summarized tha HED resolutions as of December 22, 1986, and Addendum 2 as of November 23, 1987.
Addendum 3 summarizes the HED resolutions as of September 30, 1988. For clarity, each addendum shows resolutions for HEDs identified af ter January 1,1986, thus superseding the previous a dde ndu.- in its entirety.
I r
) c:sctdrsdocc2.txt 9/30/88
__ - -- - ^-
l g ,oOi t:
D=
= x D
)
G ,5ME 5
NS'$
- OR%g s
\
N A
L P
O~ $z Zo M f
A R
G O
R P
\\
-s h s
N' [ s w' h ' : ' I 1
xm 3 e Om* O mc 3 m A
I v
= P O
R E
T E'E =v I
E T
AY ID D I
M"EE V R CU N U R T C !R US S i
=
N
_ E N A
_ [ ((
I t g ,
tI q ' -
- n. ' .
' s' -s x '
s
[s
@x3 '
s "n4-
\cO (x .y'
< 1
- \'N -
_ N y GO
=
n INI T N T R a S TA N a O S M O
>$ "5a E m l O d AD RI P O Y uA I
l
- E
=
V IR n A OO EL T.
K?m mz 5 e 0 TA odO 8 T" R I PA OV DN R
U.O L
UM N^ L m" m E zm C M
EE VO E' O D YS EO O E
XS E
U ID T
UA E
M' t
R T
R A k
N A C
E X
w t
=V r O V C
GD RE EC L
O S
E D
E H
E N m MO ERP R
( (
mO- 8 gp oT i M
- . gC3 ,3
Y "^
l HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM LlfiHTING DESIGN RIVIIW ADDENDUM 4
. PO#ER CO.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This addendum reports the results of activities performed towards the comple-tion of the CRDR of the South Texas Project since Executive Summary Addendum 3, dated November 23, 1987. s Since November 1987, activity related to CRDR has been completed in Unit 1 on the following:
o Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) Man in the-Loop Validation (findings applicable to both units) o Meter zone coding o Miscellaneous control room modifications to support resolution of HEDs identified and to support design changes o completion of an evaluation against the Category E deferred criteria in the category of computers Unit 1 was declared in commercial operation during August 1988.
Activities in Unit 2 have been proceeding to support fuel load in December 1988. Activities related to CRDR in Unit 2 have included miscellaneous control room modifications to support resolution of HEDs identified and to support design changes.
Certain differences exist by design between the control rooms of Unit 1 and Unit 2. Where systems or equipment era shared by both units, the associated control room equipment may be provided in Unit 1 only (e.g. , seismic moni-L toring panel CP013, main cooling reservoir level indication, reservoir makeup pump control).
11
- \crdr\ doc 42.txt 9/30/88 J
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM LIGHTING ADDENDUM 4 DES /GN REV/EW
_ _. POWER CO.
Electrical feeds to shared equipment are controlled from the appropriate unit control room only. Control switches in both unit control rooms are properly labeled. In addition, minor equipment differences exist between the two unit control rooms. For example, different manufacturers' recorders are provided, but the resulting differences are transparent to the operators.
A study was conducted to identify the differences between the Unit 1 and Unit 2 control rooms. It was determined that the differences did not result in any human factors concerns.
l The SPDS Man in the-Loop Validation was performed during the last quarter of 1987 and the results evaluated in the first quarter of 1988. This validation was performed at the STP simulator, using licensed unit supervisors, shift technical advisors, and reactor operators and using the issued STP Emergency Operating Procedures. The purpose of the validation testing is to determine the effectiveness of the SPDS to its user in assessing and responding to challenges to the safety status of the plant. Additionally, the validation testing assessed the SPDS based on the design requirement for the displays to be human factored, function oriented, and to permit the SPDS to perform its principal functions. The CRDR categorization process was used to evaluate the findings from the validation testing. The HEDs identified in the SPLS Man-in the Loop Validation are shown in Table 22 and in HED Resolution Report Addendum 3.
In addition to these activities, various human engineering observations have been evaluated and categorized, as indicated in Table 2 2 and the HED Resolu-tion Report Addendum 3. The methodology used for the evaluation against the Category E criteria for computers, for the SPDS Man in the Loop Validation, and for the various human engineering observations is described in Section 2.
12 -
e:\crdr\ doc 42.txt 9/30/88
8 Y HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM LIG H Tl*.t G ADDtuDtm 4 DESIGN REVIEW
_ ._.. POWER CO.
An additional task has been undertaken, as shown in Section 5, Item 26, regarding alams presentation to the operator. This effort (called the Annunciator Study Task Force) hs.s been initiated to identify problems, study alternatives, and resolve issties reisted to alarms and messages presented to the operator by the f,11ovina, systems-o Annunciator, includir4 ooth annunciators and status /pe missive windows o ES/ ' r s '.i-r. . ' t v r ir y, o Sis':db St s .*us .We>nitoring o Pla it computer o ERFDADS compW tr This effort is a long 1.enn project, initially identifying problems associated with existing alarue/mestsges, and later identifying alares/ messages that could be added to enlance operator effectiveness.
The schedule for remaining; CRDR activities is provided in Section 5.
t s
=
1-3
- \crdr\ doc 42.txt 9/30/88
8 HOUSTON XFOUTIVE SUM".ARY ggg7ggggggy LIGHTING ADDENDUM 4 DESIGN REVIEW 90NER CO.
2.0 METHOD 01ACY AND RESULTS 2.1 METHOD 01DGY The methodology for the Category E evaluations and other planned CRDR activi-ties varies from that used prior to January 1,1986, since the tasks involve evaluations deferred from earlier phases in the CRDR and verification of appropriate resolution of previous HEDs.
To proceed with the "Planned Activities" remaining from January 1986 (ident-ified in Section 5, Items 1 through 16) in an orderly fashion, each activity e
or HED was tabulated separately and a reference / comment form provided for it.
T1.is form is shown as Figure 2 1. During the review process, each activity or HED reference / comment form was annotated regarding compliance using one of the following:
. o N/A Not applicable o Yes In compliance o No - Not in compliance If the item is identified as not in compliance, a human engineering observa-tion (HEO) form is filled out for disposition of the observatien. (The HE0 form is shown as Figure 2 2.)
In some instances, the item is again deferred, since it can not be evaluated
{ due to the current control room status. In this case, no compliance status is indicated; the item ident!.fication and the reference / comment form are retained r for later evaluation. 21 c:\crdr\ doc 42.txt 9/30/88
.J
l HOUSTON
' CONTROL ROOM LIGHT lNG ADDuDun 4 DESIGN REVIEW
._ POWER CO.
1 1
Additional comments and observations are made by operators or by engineering personnel. These observations are also documented on HEO forms. Observations generated during the E0P Validation (Section 5 Item 17) and the SPDS Man in-the-Loop Validation were also documented on HE0 forms.
The HEOs generated are then submitted for proj ect assessment in the same manner as during the previous CRDR phases.
2.2 RESULTS l
l The status of the remaining evaluations of the "Planned Activities" (Section 5, Items 1 through 16), is summarized in Table 2 1. Only one Category E HED was evaluated since November 1987: the ERFDADS speed and accuracy were ident-ified as meeting criteria.
1 A total of 20 HEDs have been identified as a result of the SPDS Man in the-Loop Validation. In addition, a total of 26 HEDs have been identified since November 1987 through operator or engineering observations or :sther 'means .
l Table 2 2shows the categorization of these HEDs, which are shown in more detail in the HED Resolution Report Addendum 3 (beginning with HED 1097).
l The remaining Unit 1 deferred Category 0 items are shown in Table 2 3 (Vork-space). Table 24 (Computers). Table 25 (Visual Displays), and Table 26 (Control / Display Integration). In addition, there are 9 deferred items in the l Visual Displays critsria that were previously categorized and therefore not
) included as Category E items (refer to Table 2 7),
ne Category E and deferred items evaluations for Unit 2 are scheduled to be complete prior to fuel load in Unit 2, with ex;eptions generally expected to be the same as those for Unit 1 (refer to Tables 2 3 through 2 7).
22 c:\crdr\ doc 42.txt 9/30/88
EXECUTIVE SLEMARY HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM tlGHTING '
ADDENDUM 4 DESIGN MEVIEW
. . POWER CO.
For clarity in the HED as se s smer.t factors, Figure 2 3 presents the revi ed assesstent factor criteria and implementation conunitments.
The schedule for the remaining work is addressed in Section 5.
2-1
- \crdr\ doc 42.txt 9/30/88
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM LIGHT lNG DESIGN REVIEW
. POWER CO. TABLE 2-1
SUMMARY
OF STATUS PIANNED ACTIVITY EVALUATIONS (Items 1 through 16 Section 5)
REMAINING NUMBER OF NUMBER NUMBER ACTIVITY NUMBER CRITERIA 0F HEDs 0F ITEMS OF ITEMS MET REPORTED DEFERRED (Sheets) (Evaluation (Tables 23 (As of between thru 2 7) 11/87) 11/87 & 9/88)
Criteria to Evaluated (Category E)
Vorkspace 4 0 0 4 Computers 2 1 0 1 Visual Displays 8 0 0 8 Control / Display Integration 13 0 0 13 HEDs to be Resolved 9 0 0 9 TOTAL 36 1 0 35 24 c:\crdr\ doc 42.txt 9/30/88
Hot!STON CONTROL ROOM LIGHT lNG DESIGN REVIEW
_ POWER CO. TABLE 2 2 NEV HEDs CATECORY ACTIVITY A B C D TOTAL HEDs Identified through SPDS Man in the 1:.op 1 0 14 5 20 Validation HEDs Identified by Operators /Enbi neering/Others 1 9 10 6 26 TOTAL 2 9 24 11 46 25
- :\crdr\ doc 42.txt 9/30/88 1
l HOU5 TON CONTROL ROOM LIGHTING DESIGN REVIEW POWER CO, TABl.E 2 3 l DEFERRED CRITERIA ITEMS HF AREA: WORKSPACE STP SHEET CRITERIA TITLE CRITERIA N' UMBER REMARKS Emergency Equipment Appendix 0165 Deferred until storage area C.1.H is reviewed Environment / Appendix 0166 Deferred for review during Vcntilation D.1.1 the first operating cycle Expendables 6.1.1.5 0105 Deferred until storage area is reviewed Emergency Equipment Appendix 0158 Deferred until storage area C.1.B is reviewed 2-6 c:\crdr\do:42.txt 9/30/88
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM LIGHTING DESIGN REVIEW POWER CD, TABLE 2 4 DEFERRED CRITERIA ITEMS HF AREA: COMPUTERS STP SHEET CRITERIA TITLE CRITERIA NUMBER REMARKS Plcnt Cwmputer - Appendix P, 0824 Deferred pending further Access r..ds P,4 review of documents required versus those provided in control room 1
l l
l 27 c:\crdr\ doc 42.txt 9/30/88
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM LIGHT lNG DESIGN REVIEW S ,
POWER CD. TABLE 2 5 DEFERRED CRITERIA ITEMS HF AREA: VISUAL DISPLAYS ;
STP SHEET CRITERIA TITLE CRITERIA NUMBER REMARKS Visual Displays I.3 0296 Deferred until storage area 0307 for expendables is reviewed 0318 0375 0488 0685 0770 0793 1
28
- \crdr\ doc 42.txt 9/30/88
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM IGHTING CESIGN REVIEW
. POWER CO. TABLE 2 6 DEFERRED CRITERIA ITEMS HF AREA: CONTROL / DISPLAY INTEGRATION STP SHEET ,
CRITERIA TITLE CRITERIA NUMBER REMARKS J
Control / Display 6.6.3.2.A 0425 Deferred for review during Ratio 0326 the first operating cycle 0502 0072 0049 0509 0087 0403 0387 0397
$l. Control / Display 6.6.3.2.B 0050 Deferred for review j Ratio 00/3 during the first 0327 operating cycl.
9 29
- \crdr\ doc 42.txt 9/30/86
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM LIGHT lNG gggggy ggyjgW
. POWER CO. TABLE 2 7 l
l
_PREVIOUSLY CATECORIZED DEFERRED ITEMS HF AREA: VISUAL DISP 1AYS STP SHEET CRITERIA TITLE CRITERIA NUMBER REMARKS Visual Displays -
Appendix F 0331 Deferred for review during Scale Marking 0362 the first operating cycle 0477 0652 0721 0745 0761 I 0784 0673 i
2-10 l
i l
c:\crdr\ doc 42.txt 9/30/88
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM LIGHT lNG DES!GN REVIEW
.. POWER CO.
FIGURE 2-1 DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW CONTROL ROOM SURVEY REFERENCE / COMMENT FORM 08BERYtR: DATI! PACI d f LOCATION:
EU10titut CRITE R14 fftM NO. H10RtFIRINttNO.:
COMPLIA18Ct 5/A Ytl leo SUW4ttL RIFIRIN OWN Ett N O. CD SOLEh0.
04AGRAEtn0f 0 h0.2
{
[ DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW CONTROL ROOM SURVEY I.
s REFERENCE / COMMENT FORM I
L _--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ .
i
HOUSTON OONTROL ROOM LIGHT lNG gggggy ggyjgy
.. .. POWER CO.
FIGURE 2-2 50VTM tttAt PROJtCT MUMAR (NGint( AlhG Oltttv Afl04 A55tS54'.nt M10 ho Stv l TECNNIC AL ttvitW Ht0 CATEGott tlTLt ,
C04CW 8tf 11tm
, , C0% Cut WITW C0* [4T5 OtlGlhAfte Rt!V ALVATE ASD tisulmIT FOR Tut F0tleutnG 9tA5c%
DAtt gg ,gg9 j gggggg ht0 Ct5CalPflom Cualautg cAtt mam&Linth! Alvits (CMCVt PQilnilAL CP(8A1CR genoa Com=thT / t[ A509:
elC0="thCt0 plvillon C>Attu14 CAft alCO*thMD IMP (tMthT ATION
( ) WDAT0tf IM01 Aft C0ttICTitt ACT!04
( ) AT (Attit%T OPPORTumITY (nIGN Pa!0t!TV)
( ) comitulthf REFutL!ht DUTAGE (NOT T0 (ICit0 2 YEARS)(ROUT!nt)
) OPTION AL 1 OTMit HUMAN ENGINEERING OBSERVATION ASSESSMENT FORM
[
r
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM lGHTING DESIGN REVIEW POWER CO.
FIGURE 2-3 HED ASSESSMENT FACTOR CRITERIA ASSESSMENT IMPLEMENTATION CATEGORY FACTOR (RATING)
A SAFETY MANDATORY IMMEDIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION CONSEQUENCES 3 PLANT AT EARLIEST AVAILABILITY OPPORTUNITY ENHANCEMENT (HIGH PRIORiiY)
CONVENIENT C EQUIPMENT /
PLANT REFUELING OUTAGE (NOT TO RELIABILITY EXCEED 2 YRS)
ENHANCEMENT (ROUTINE)
] MINOR OPTIONAL l
l
l I
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM LIGHTING ADDENDUM 4 DESIGN REV/EW POWER CD.
5.) SCHEDULE This section lists the activities planned for completion as part of this CRDR.
HLAP will submit an executive summary report addendum approximately December 1989.
That addend.'a vill identify status and schedule after approximately 1 1/2 years of Unit 1 conumercial operation and an anticipated 6 months of Unit 2 commercial cperation.
Items 1 through 17 are those initially listed in Section 5 of Addendum 1 and updated in Addondum 2. For clarity, no items have been deleted from the list.
As items become resolved, the resolution vill be shown rather than the schedule fer completion. Items have been added as required to reflect additional planned cetivities.
Planned Activity Resolution /Coerletion Timeframe
- 1. Check visibility of green COMPLETED 12 86, rototellite indicating lights Meets criteria. Evaluation is (Category A HEDs S-367, 484, applicable to Unit 1 and Unit 2.
679, 725, and 748) Refer to HED Resolution Repcrt Current Addendum.
- 2. Correct poor readability cf COMPLETED 04 85.
bypass inoperable status Meets criteria. Evaluation is lights (Category A HEDs S 726, applicable to Unit 1 and Unit 2.
732, 749, and 767) Refer to'HED Resolution Report, k Page A 5.
- 3. Completion of meter zone coding Unit 1:
(Category B HEDs S 006, 288, COMPLETED 12 86. METHOD 01DCY 676, 299, 310, 764, 787, 480, meets criteria. Evaluation is 364, 050, 912, 961, and 998) applicable to Unit 2.
Implementation COMPLETED for
( 5-1 (cont.)
- \crdr\ doc 42.txt 9/30/88
[ l r
y.
HOUSTON IVE S N Y LIGHT lNG CONTROL MOOM gongypyg g ggglgy ggyjgg i POWER CO. )
PLANNED ACTIVITY RESOLUTION / COMPLETION TIME 71 TAME Unit 1, 11 87.
Refer to HED Resolution Report Current Addendum.
Unit 2:
Implementation prior to comme-rical operation.
- 4. Random sample label checkout to COMPLETED 12 86, verify readability Meets criteria. Evaluation is applicable to Unit 1 and Unit 2.
- 5. Review of QDPS plasma displays COMPLETED 12 86, as replacement for panel meters Meets criteria. Evaluation is applicable to Unit 1 and Unit 2.
- 6. Check effectiveness of annunciator COMPLETED 12 86.
horns (Category A HED S 510) Meets criteria. Evaluation is '
applicable to Unit 1 and Unit 2.
Refer to HED Resolution Report Current Addendum.
1 i
- 7. Random sample annunciator tile COMPLETED 12 86, checkout to verify readabiltiy Meets criteria. Evaluation is
]
applicable to Unit 1 and Unit 2.
1 C. Random sample review of COMPLETED 12-86. J demarcation painting Evaluation is applicable to Unit 1 and Unit 2. )
Resulted in new HED.
52 c :\crdr\ doc 42.txt 9/30/88 -
l
i Hous70N CONTROL ROOM LIGHilNG GECIGN REVIEW
. ._. .. POW E R C O.
PIANNED ACTIVITY RESOLUTION /r'OMPLETION TIMEFRAME Refer to HED Resolution Report Current Addendum, HED 1043,
- 9. Implementation of use of lever COMPLETED 12-86.
handles for "select" functions Meets inter.t of criteria, and review to confirm correction Evaluation is applicable to Unit 1 of switch position readability and Unit 2.
(Category B HEDs S 711, 734, 695 Refer to HED Resolution Report 705, 699, and 459) Current Addendum.
- 10. Review corrective action to COMPLETED 04 85, address live zero indication Evaluation is applicable to Unit 1 (Category B HEDs S 715, 665, 7.*8, and Unit 2.
646, 754, 777, 469, 356, 332, 328, Refer to HED Resciution Report 891., 941, and 977) Report, page B 14.
- 11. Complete corrective action to Partial completion 12 86. All replace meter scales and random items have been evaluated.
skaple checkout to verify read. Evaluation is applicable to Unit 1 ability (Category B HEDs S 878, and Unit 2.
879, 881, 870, 874, 883, 799, 803, Refer to Table 2 7 for remaining 807, 892, 716, 666, 739, 776, 470, open items, which have been 877, 880, 882, 872, 873, 884, 800, deferred for resolution during the 804, 808, 718, 668, 741, 757, 778, first operating cycle.
471, 404, 406, 719, 670, 742, 649, Refer to HED Resolution Report 759, 781, 475, 359, 334, 329, 671, Current Addendum.
743, 650, 782, 360, 392, 720, 672, f
744, 651, 760, 783, 476, 361, 721, L 673, 745, 652, 761, 784, 477, 362, 331, 871, and 885) 53
- \crdr\ doc 42.txt 9/33/88
(
f
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM LIGHTING ADDENDUM 4 DESIGN REV/EW POWER CO.
PIANNED ACTIVITY RESOLUTION / COMPLETION TIMERAME
- 12. Random sample legend light COMPLETED 12 86.
l engraving checkout to verify deets criteria. Evaluation is j readability applicable to Unit 1 and Unit 2.
l 13. Complete corrective action After :ompletion of recorder chart I on recorder chart paper paper r6placemen':, in conjunction (Category B HEDs S 376 and 771) with Table 2 5 items, prior to end and random sample checkout to of first refueling outage on each verify readability and unit.
accessibility of supplies. Refer to HED Resolution Report Page B-21.
l 14 Implementation of corrective Painting pointers 1sads to action to paint all meter instrument inaccuracies. Meters pointers red snd random sample without red pointers are to be checkout (Category B HEDs S-724, replaced by the end of the first i 675, 747, 655, 763, 786, 479, refueling outage on each unit. l 408, 911, 960, and 997) Refer to HED Resolution Report Current .\ddendum.
- 15. Operator review of status light COMPLETED 12 86.
interpretation on SGTP Turbine Heats criteria. Evaluation is Control Panel applicable to Unit 1 and Unit 2,
- 16. Completion of Category E Criteria Complete prior to end of first reviews: refueling outage on each unit.
A. Workspace criteria Unit 1: l including: Partial completior 12 86, 01 87 l
and 06 87. Some evaluations -
54 -
c:\crdr\ doc 47.txt 9/30/88 ,
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM LIGHTtNG a
ADDENDUn 4 DESIGN REVIEW POWER CO.
PLANNED ACTIVITY RESOLUTION / COMPLETION TIMEFRAME applicable to Unit 2. See Table 2 3 for remaining open items.
Preliminary lighting studies were o Furniture and equipment performed during January,1987.
layout Resulted in new HEDs.
o Document organization Refer to HED Resolution Report and storage Current Addendum, HED 1029, 1030, o Spare parts, operating 1060, 1061, 1061, 1063, 1086, and expendables and tools 1087, o Nonessential personnel access Unit 2:
o Reference caterial Review prior to fuel load for placement criteria that could not be o Desk dimensions evaluated with Unit I reviews o Chair dimensions (e.g., ventilation, illumination, o Emergency equipment auditory). Note that modifica-o Ventilation tioas made to Unit 1 in response o Illumination to HEDs have been incorporated o Emergency lighting into Unit 2 design.
o Auditory o Ambisace and comfort Workspace criteria reviews for the sit down consoles and work stations and for the vertical panels Random sample check of accessibility to controls
{
and potential for inadvertent actuation r c:\crdr\ doc 42.txt 9/30/88 L
I
HOUSTON *
- 1.lGhisNG CONTROL ROOM
& ADDwDUn 4 DESIGN REVIEW POWER CO.
PIMDIED ACTIVITY RESOLUTION / COMPLETION TIMMRAME B. Comunications criteria COMPLETED 06 87.
including: Evaluation is applicable to Unit 1 and Unit 2.
Resulted in ntw HEDs.
o Information exchange Refer to HED Resolution Repore o Convenience of use Current Addendu:n, HED 1083, o Reliability 1084, and 1085, o Interference o Allocation of fonctions o Voice comunication links o Conventional powered telephone system o Sound powered telephone syrtem o Radio transceivers o Valkie talkie radio transceivers o Fixed base UHF transceivers i
o Announcing system '
o Background noise o Energency face masks C. Annunciation criteria for: COMP!2TED 12 86.
Meets criterir,. Evaluation is '
o Computer display / applicable to Unit 1 and Unit 2. s annunciation / printer J
features s
56 '
c:\crdr\ doc 42.txt 9/30/88 -
D
l HOUSTON EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
CONTROL MOOM LtGHTlNG gggggggg g gggggy ggyjgg POWER CO.
PLANNED ACTIVITY RESOLUTION / COMPLETION TIMEFRAME D. Controls criteria for COMPLETED 12 86, compatibility with Meets criteria. Evaluation is energency gear applicable to Unit 1 and Unit 2.
E. Visual display criteria Unit 1:
for: Partial completion 12 86. Some evaluatiens applicable to Unit 2.
o Heters See Table 2 5 for remaining o A2bient light sources / open items.
light intensity o Interchanging of Unit 2:
indicator lenses Review prior to fuel load for o Expendable materials criteria that could not be evaluated with Unit i reviews (e.g., ambient light sources /
light intensity).
F. Labols criteria COMPLETED 12 86.
Meets criteria. Evaluation is applicable to Unit 1 and Uni: 2.
G. Computer criteria for: Unit 1: ,
Partial completion 12 86. Some o Plant computer evalitations applicable to Unit 2.
o ERTDADS, including See Table 2 4 for remaining open SPDS items, o QDPS Resulted in new HEDs.
Refer to HED Resolution Report Current Addendus, HED 1033, 1034,
( 1037, 103i, 3039, 1040, 1041. and 104:.
57
(
c:\crdr\ doc 42.txt 9/30/88 r
HOUSTON M IVE
SUMMARY
CONTROL ROOM f*H"U ADDENDun 4 DESIGN REVIEW POWER CO.
PLANNED ACTIVITY RESOLUTION / COMPLETION TIMEntAME Unit 2:
Review prior to fuel load for criteria that could not be evalu-ated with Unit i reviews (e.g.,
glare on CRT).
H. Control / display integration Partial completion 12 86, criteria Evaluation is applicable to Unit 1 and Unit 2.
See Table 2 6 for remaining open items.
l 17. EOP 7alidation COMPLETED 05 86.
l (including confirmation of 1
Evaluation is applicable to Unit 1
\
instrumentation and control and Unit 2.
- functions) Refer to EOP Validation Report.
1
- 10. Label reviews for accuracy, Ongoing. Reviews and implement-adequacy, and conformance ation prior to end of first re-to standard abbreviations fueling outage on each anit.
- 19. Computer display reviews Reviews prior to end of first refueling outage of Unit 1. l Revisions prior to end of second refueling outage on each unit, !
with exception of QDPS (revisions prior to end of thir'd refueling g
outage on each unit). I J
58 c:\cidr\ dot 42.t t 9/30/88 A _ -. __ _
" "^
HOUSTON CONTMOL MOOM LIGHTING ADDENDUM 4 DISIGN MIVifW l POWE R CO.
PIANNED ACTIVITY RESOIETION/ COMPLETION TIMEf1 TAME l
1 30. Taplementation of Unit 1:
Category A HED resolutions COMP!2TED prior to commercial l (excluding QDPS) operation (August 1988).
l l Unit 2:
l Implementation prior to fuel load (December 1988).
- 31. Implementation of Unit 1:
Category B HED resolutions COMPLETED prior to commercial (excluding QDPS) operation (August 1988), for HEDs up to and including HED 1096.
For HEDs after HED 1096, implemen-tation is in accordance with Figure 2-3, with implementation prior to end of first refueling I
outage.
Unit 2:
Impleuentation prior to commercial operation, t
l
- 22. QDPS HED resolutions Implementation prior to end of iRefer to HED Resolution first refueling outage on each Report Current Addendum, unit. Exceptions are resolutions Disposition Note CPT 1.) for HED-1022, 1041, and 1126 for which implementation is prior to end of third refueling outage on each unit, 59 c:\crdr\ doc 42.txt 9/30/88
(
HOUSTON ****
CONTROL ROOM LIGHTING ADDENDUM 4 DESIGN REV/EW
. . POWER CO.
PLANNED ACTIVITY RESOIITTION/COMPI,ET JN TIMEFRAME
- 23. Implementacion of Category C Implementation integrated into HED resolutions plant modification schedule, with implementation targeted for prior to end of second refueling outage -
on each unit, if 24 Implementation of Category D Implementation integrated into HED resolutions plant modification schedule based on priority.
l 25. Category E evaluations Review prior to the end of for Auxiliary Shutdown Panel 1988 for Unit 1 and Unit 2.
- 26. Annunciator Study Ongoing.
l Task Force l
l 1
5 10 c:\crdr\ doe 42.txt 9/30/88 '
-