ML20209H546

Crdr Supplemental Rept III Hope Creek Generating Station

ML20209H546
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	04/15/1987
From:	Public Service Enterprise Group
To:
Shared Package
ML20209H537	List: ML20209H531 ML20209H546
References
NUDOCS 8705040041
Download: ML20209H546 (10)

Text

. '

CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT III .

HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION Prepared for:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Prepared by:

Public Service Electric and Gas Company April 15, 1987 4

P i

i l

l i

8705040043 DR p ADOCK O M j54 PDR i

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

'Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Scope of Supplemental Report III 1 1.3 Management and Staffing 2 1.4 Methodology 2 2.0 METHODOLOGY OF ZONE MARKING REVIEW 3 3.0 FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS TO COMPLETE PREVIOUSLY REPORTED TASKS 5 i

i i

i i

e i

i ww-g- -- ,m , e,,,,-- ,-,v qw- - - -- y y , _ . , _ _ , - _ , _ _ ,_ -

,,___,.,y,_.__ ,, ,,- .+.- ,,,4my , n , ,n -,..

, -,,7p. gg,

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

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Supplemental Report III presents the results of tasks performed for the Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) detailed Control Room Design Review (CRDR) since the submission of Supplemental Report II to the NRC on November 6,1986.

1.1 Background

Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) submitted a Summary Report for the Hope Creek Generating Station detailed Control Room Design Review (CRDR) on August 6,1984. The HCGS CRDR Summary Report presented the results of the CRDR for all activities which had been completed. 'Certain analyses could not be completed by that time because of plant construction status. Those analyses and activities were clearly identified and a commitment was made to submit supplemental reports describing the results of those activities.

The NRC conducted a pre-implementation audit of the CRDR at HCGS, November 13 to November 15, 1984. During the pre-implementation ~ audit, Public Service Electric and Gas made several commitments to the NRC regarding completion of the HCGS CRDR. These commitments are described in a' letter to the NRC from PSE&G dated December 6,1984.

A summary of tasks completed and the status of HCGS with respect to each commitment were submitted in the CRDR Supplemental Report I on December 27,1985.

Results of tasks remaining to be completed after submission of Supplemental Report I were incorporated into Supplemental Report II. With the submission of Supplemental Report II, one CRDR analysis commitment remained to be performed. As stated in SSER 1, Appendix I, page 13, that commitment is to resolve "...HED A69 by doing a study of zone markings and reporting the results to the NRC one year after fuel load." The Zone Marking Study has been completed; the results are presented in this Supplemental Report

! III. Additional changes to previous Supplemental Reports are given below.

4 1.2 Scope of Supplemental Report III This report describes the methodology used to establish zone marking for HCGS on l control room instrumentation, and provides a summary of the results of that effort in j Section 2.0. In addition, this report documents follow up tasks performed to complete

commitments addressed in Supplemental Reports I and II and to close out the CRDR.

These tasks appear in Section 3.0.

i 1 , ,

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

1.3 Management and Staffing No changes have been made to management and staffing since the submission of the

~

Supplemental Report II.

1.4 Methodology The methodology for the Zone Marking Study is described in Section 2.0. For follow up actions related to previously reported tasks, the methodology has already been defined in preceding reports; method summaries are provided in the applicable sections of this report.

2

d

l 2.0 METHODOLOGY OF ZONE MARKING STUDY 2.1 Objective The objective of the Zone Marking Study was to establish appropriate zone marking i

that would facilitate operators' recognition of unusual plant conditions, and for diagnosis -

and management of transients and emergencies. Following is the method used by PSE&G to identify applicable instrumentation, establish conventions and standards, determine appropriate ranges for zone marking, conduct trial implementation and operator evalua-

~

'tlor.. and verify that the final zone marking solution complied with established human factors practices.

s 2.2 Method In order to meet the NRC commitment for establishing temporary zone marking prior to exceeding five percent plant power, PSE&G executed five tasks which are detailed below.

2.2.1 In Task 1,.PSE&G's Nuclear Systems ' Engineering Department identified applicable <

instrumentation for zone marking. They were committed to include all main control room indication classified as Class IE safety related. PSE&G also decided to include all applicable components cited in Hope Creek FSAR 7.5-1, Displayed Parameters Important '

to Safety. Nuclear Systems Engineering determined applicability by including only analog components from FSAR 7.5-1. Of these components, zone marking was deemed inappropriate for analog indicators in which:

i 1. Normal operating range was equal to or less than 3 percent of the i scale i

i

2. Zone marking was not applicable because there was no stable normal operating range (e.g., steam and feed flow)

3. Zone marking would not enhance identification of the normal operating range because normal operating range comprised most of the scale.

2.2.2 In Task 2, PSE&G's Nuclear Systems Engineering Department established conventions and standards for the zone marking. Transparent smoke gray film overlay was selected to avoid conflict with existing control room conventions, to eliminate #

confusion to the operator in interpreting,the zone marking, and to avoid hiding the instrumentation graduation marks under the film oveblay.

Y 1 5

e \

3 n y,- - , - - - - - .g .r----a---- . , - - - m.-e e , , - - , - - . ~ - - - - -- -- rp

Normal operating range was indicated by the zone marking, rather than abnormal operating range, in order to minimize the number of colors presented on each scale. ,

l Operators are trained to be aware of abnormal operating limits resulting in technical specification violations.

4 2.2.3 In Task 3, PSE&G's Nuclear Systems Engineering Department determined the recommended zone marking for normal operating range. Nuclear Systems Engineering referred to vendor manuals and the Design Installation and Testing Specifications (DITS) to identify suggested normal operating ranges. The I&C Group within Nuclear Systems Engineering reviewed the zone ranges resulting from this review and made modifications where appropriate.

2.2.4 In Task 4, the recommended zone markings were implemented for applicable instrumentation. Because HCGS was committed to provide zone marking before exceeding five percent power, PSE&G applied the temporary normal operating range, which was later adjusted, if necessary, after the plant became fully operational at 100

, percent power. ,

Operators evaluated the temporary zone marking under operational conditions at

, 100 percent power and provided additional suggestions for zone marking modifications.

Nuclear Systems Engineering adjusted the zone marking, as required.

2.2.5 Task 5 involved a human factors review of the implemented zone marking using NUREG-0700 criteria. Zone marking was evaluated for clarity of operational implica-tions, conspicuous marking, readability of qualitative markings, and narrowly defined color. Nuclear Systems Engineering identified instrumentation, on which zone marking was applied in a walk-through of the main control room. All instrumentation was evaluated through observation and documented by a human factors specialist.

2.3 Result l

Zone marking was applied to 257 instruments. The human factors review found no new HEDs and determined that implemented zone markings were appropriate. No problems were identified by operators in using the zone marking. As a result, PSE&G decided to allow the zone marking to remain permanently.

h 4

4

- . . . , , - - , - -. ,,e- . .- , . , _ _ - _ . - , , . ,_ - . , , -r,r.. n-,---., , ,-_.,.**+r v

3.0 FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS TO COMPLETE PREVIOUSLY REPORTED TASKS This section describes additional requirements to complete tasks previously reported l in Supplemental Reports I and II and to close out the HCGS CRDR.

~'

(3 -

..(

l: '

i ' 3.1 Two illumination HEDs were inadvertently omitted from the Supplemental Report II

, Review Findings. These HEDs were assessed and dispositioned according to the method documented in the Program Plan and Summary Reports. The two HEDs follow.

p- 2 J

Q7: Areas at which reading and writing are done do not have sufficient illumina-

, tion. ,

?U

' _ /}

Disposition: No correction is planned for this HED. Areas where operators > .n '

read and write are only slightly below the recommended illamination level and I do not pose a problem to operators. (Category 4). 6, l

Q8: The Operator's Monitor Console, where seated administrative tasks occur, does l' not meet minimum illumination levels. j

~

l Disposition: No correction is planned for this HED. Paris 110C641 does not j house any control circuits, so there is no safety significance as a result of l normal illumination levels being less than recommended. (Category 4). ,

! 3.2 Of the 23 Design Change Packages (DCPs) generated to correct HEDs from the Summary Report, 85 HED corrections have been implemented.and reviewed for human factors concerns. The installed DCPs were reviewed and documented by human factors specialists using the method described in Supplemental Report II. Results were submitted J

to PSE&G who has taken action to follow up on the corrections. Two HEDs require follow up. All but.two HEDs are scheduled for implementation. These remaining HEDs g a 1 were reassessed as a Category 4 and the justifications for not correcting the HEDs appear . i  ;

j below, All DCPs resulting from HEDs outlined in the Supplemental Seports will foHaw " '

f i human factors conventions and criteria estdblished during the HED review process > '

i h, l 1, 't e

0

\

l 5 )

i ,

r Y

l >. -

1

1

- DCP 220 HED A25: Function of Indicator lights and pushbuttons is difficult to discriminate on the ~

turbine panel (D Console).

Original Disposition: This HED will be corrected. The legend indicator lights will be provided with a black background for light letters similar to the other

. Indicator light displays in the RZ modules.

Revised Disposition: No correction is planned for this HED. Indicator lights and pushbuttons are telearly labeled to show the intended function. Red and )

green color conventions of turbine panel status lights are followed throughout the control room for "OPEN/ CLOSED" status. Because procedures direct the operator in use of this panel, there -is' low probability for operator error.

(Category 4)

DCP 220/221 H'ED A4: Legend pushbuttons and indicator lights exceed three lines of lettering.

Original Disposition: This HED will be corrected. Message legends with no more than three lines will be provided.

,^ g Revised Disposition: No correction is planned for this HED. Cutler Hammer status lights are squotenhaped and have a larger surface area than most Hope Creek indicator lights. Consequently, Cutler Hammer lights have sufficient l area to include more than three lines of lettering and larger lettering which is -

clearly readable to the operators. If the information appearing on the Cutler Hammers were to be condensed, the message would no longer be meaningful.

(Category 4)

4 3.3 HCGS decided to remove the Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) from the i' Control Itoom Integrated Display System (CRIDS) in order to meet the minimum requirements necessary for SPDS.

SPDd is being revised. As part of the new SPDS design, human factors consider-I ations from computer related NUREG-0700 criteria, NSAC-39, and NUREG-0737, Suppie-ment 1, will be integrated into the design process, where applicable. Furthermore, HEDs that were generated from the CRDR evaluation of the original SPDS, and documented in Supplemental Report 1, will be reviewed for incorporation into the new system. Portions of the CRDR pertaining to SPDS and related regulatory compliance will be addressed through the SPDS design basis documents. Final review results of SPDS will be provided

, to the NRC upon completion of the SPDS.

NUREG-0700 guidelines relating to SPDS will be used in the evaluation process to ensure compliance with good human factors practices. The process will be covered by the Computer Department in system modifications and outlined in documents submitted regarding the SPDS system.

l 6

, . , - - . - - , + - - _ + , - - , - _,.c,. -

-.-+-c.. ,-3

l

< \

Removing SPDS from CRIDs had no effect on the human factors review results of CRIDs as documented in Supplemental Report I. CRIDs HEDs were reviewed for possible changes to the dispositions resulting from SPDS removal from CRIDS. Reassessment was conducted for four CRIDs HEDs using the method documented in the Program Plan and

. Summary Report. Revised dispositions appear below.

M5: Alphanumeric data is not always left justified when presented in tabular form, and numeric data is not always justified on the decimal points.

Original Dispositions This HED will be corrected on P&ID displays and SPDS displays by following guidelines on justification and alignment of data. No correction is planned for displays which are a manufacturer standard. There is a low

, probability of error on the latter displays. (Category 4)

Revised Disposition: This HED will be partially corrected. The human factors

! concern will be addressed in the new SPDS design and incorporated wherever the

{ decimal point alignment will not detract from the display's readability. P&ID displays have been corrected except where implementation of the disposition would cause overlapping of the fixed portion of a display. No further correction is planned. (Category 4)

M22: Some screens are not labeled and/or have missing or inconsistent page numbers.

(i.e., screens which should be 060-01 (DRYWELL UNIT CLR) and 069-01 (RHR LOOP A LPCI MODE) are labeled 60-01 and 069-1, respectively).

Original Disposition: This HED will be corrected by supplying the appropriate page numbers.

Revised Disposition: No correction is planned for this HED. In dispositioning the HED, it was determined that several manufacturers' screens are menus and page numbers are not appropriate. (Category 4)

M41: The function key used to call up a pre assigned display is labeled " QUIESCENT DISPLAY", which does not accurately reflect the function.

Original Disposition: This HED will be corrected by applying a more appropriate term, such as ASSIGNED.

Revised Disposition: No correction is planned for this HED. " QUIESCENT DISPLAY" is an appropriate term for this pushbutton. After three minutes, this display replaces any screen not frozen. The pushbutton allows the immediate and j direct display of this " QUIESCENT DISPLAY". (Category 4) )

MSO: Function key labels and the corresponding screen titles are not always consistent.

Original Disposition: This HED will be corrected by providing appropriate labels on the keys and/or the screens to ensure obvious correspondence between keys and screens.

i 7

-_ . _ . . - - - . - _ - -. -I

Revised Disposition: This HED will be partially corrected. All screen titles will be made consistent, with the following exception. In dispositioning the HED, it was determined that the screen entitled " PANEL" provides the operator with the ,

associated CRT and keyboard number (e.g., Panel 11), along with the system menu.

Therefore, the " MENU" function pushbutton is an appropriate label and will not be changed. (Category 4) e

)

8 1