ML20005E033

Addendum 1 to Crdr, Program Plan.

ML20005E033
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	12/01/1989
From:	HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20005E029	List: ML20005E028 ML20005E033 ML20005E036 ML20005E039
References
PROC-891201, NUDOCS 9001030146
Download: ML20005E033 (22)

Text

. - . --

J Addendum 1

=Co%ivoi Eto:om Ipesci,gn gevgem e Program Plan l l

l I

88R228ase8sa88!,e P PDC ggPR T STATION HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY

i i

.nousion CONTROL ROOM i 0 j*H

-u co.

G DESIGN REVIEW l J

PROGRAM F1AN 1 j REVISION IDG Revision Pages No. Date Description Affected j 0 10/11/82 Initial Issue N/A ]

1 03/31/83 General Revision 11,13, 14,17, 27,213, 2 15, 2 16, 2 41, 2 42, )

51,52, ,

A 1, B 24, l C 1 thru C 33 Addendum Describing Addendum 12/01/89 N/A No. 1 Plan for Continuing the CRDR Program During the Operational Phase ,

1 I

i

(

l I

I 110028-1 g STP69 12/01/89

Houston CONTROL ROOM I O

=r= oesian Rawnw  !

rowan co. j PROGRAM PIAN i

i ADDENDUM 1 .

t  !

l TABLE OF CONTENTS )

l Section Title f.agt REVISION LOG i TABLE OF CONTENTS 11  !

LIST OF FIGURES iii l ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS iv i

SUMMARY

v PREFACE vi

1.0 INTRODUCTION

11 -

1.1

GENERAL COMMENT

S 11 ,

i 1.2 OBJECTIVES 12 I l (~ 1.3 PIANT DESCRIPTION 13 l 1.4 DEFINITION OF CONTROL ROOM 13 1.5 CONTROL ROOM STATUS 14 ,.

I 2.0 CbNTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW PLAN 21 2.1

GENERAL COMMENT

S 21 2.2 CRDR ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES 21 2.3 A1 ARMS REVIEW 22 .

2.4 COMPUTER DI3PIAYS REVIEW 23 i

- 11002s 1 it STP69 12/01/89

i l J l

i l l U , Houston CONTROL ROOM l Q, L* 0 DESIGN REVIEW POWER CO.

PROGRAM PIAN ADDENDUM 1 L

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1111g, P1 STP CRDR MAJOR REPORTS 11 CONTROL ROOM IAYOUT 21 HEO ASSESSMENT FORM 22 HED ASSESSMENT FACTOR CRITERIA O I l

i e

I O

11002s 1 iii STP69 12/01/89 l

L__ _ _ . _ _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . - . _ _ _ . . - . . _ , _

0 CONTROL ROOM

(} DHousToN j*H Powan co.

• DESIGN REVIEW P,ROGRAM PIAN i ADDENDUM 1  !

i

&QRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .

CRDR Control Room Design Review  ;

CRS Control Room Survey E0P Emergency Operating Procedure (s)  :

HED Human Engineering Discrepancy HE0 Human Engineering Observation HIAP Houston Lighting & Power Company ,

MW(e) Megawatts (electric)

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission i OER Operating Experience Review l f PRT Project Review Team l RPM Revolutions per Minute STTA System Function and Task Analysis ,

SPDS Safety Parameter Display System STP South Texas Project TMI 2 Three Mile Island Unit 2 1

P O

t1002s 1 gy STP69 12/01/89

nousToN CONTROL ROOM

{}

• G co.

DESIGN REVIEW i PROGRAM PIAN ,

1 ADDENDUM 1 )

i

SUMMARY

lI The Program Plan describes the original South Texas Project (STP) Control Room Design Review (CRDR) program as it was planned in 1982 and early 1983. This l plan was develope 4 and used during the construction phase of the South Texas Proj ect. Because STP has attained commercial operation status, and is no longer in the construction phase, the Program Plan necessarily requires i revision.

l l This Program Plan Addendum describes the operational phase CRDR program I implemented by Houston highting & Power (H1AP). Use of this revised program plan will ensure that the STP control room design continues to be in conformance with the STP CRDR Criteria Report principles.  ;

I l

l 1

e t

4 O

110020 1 y STP69 12/01/89

HOUSTou CONTROL ROOM Q F fMG nm ea.

DESIGN REVIEW P,ROGRAM PIAN ADDENDUM 1 PREFACE The control room design review (CRDR) of the South Texas Project (STP)

Electric Generating Station was started in September 1982. This review was performed by Torrey Pines Technology for Houston Lighting in Power Company (HIAP) with Bechtel Energy Corporation (Bechtel) acting as agent.

The program plan was presented to the NRC at the STP main control panel mock-up in October 1982. The basic review work for operator experience review, system function and task analysis, and control room survey was completed in October 1982. In November 1982, the Management Team put a hold on CRDR activities, and authorized a design study to address mounting evolutionary engineering changes and correct discrepancies with the NUREG 0700 guidelines.

In November 1982, a decision was made by H1AP to completely relayout six main control panels and upgrade the remaining four based on the design study, This redesign effort was required to accommodate design changes resulting from plant design evolution and Regulatory Guide 1.97 requirements and to correct discrepancies with NUREG 0700. In December 1982 the Management Team selected one of five alternatives studied for design implementation.

The mock up was revised considering the 441 identified HEDs and evolutionary engineering changes. Aq the Bechtel layout engineers advanced the layouts of the ten panels Torrey Pines Technology engineers reviewed the rework fer correction of known discrepancies and compliance with good human 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 fire layout drawings.

110020 1 yg STP69 12/01/89

i CONTROL ROOM  !

" UGH G DESIGN REVIEW (d DHousTon a POWER CO.

PROGRAM PIAN ADDENDUM 1 ) l The NRC audit comments required the addition of several special studies to ]

those already in progress, e.g. , demarcation and hierarchical labeling. The l I

most significant addition, the evaluation of specified parameters, resulted in <

a net reduction of $1 panel meters. The extensive relayout required a repeat of the system fune, tion 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 upgrading of the mock 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 active windows from 1055 to 642.

Following the completion of these major efforts, H1AP has continued the CRDR program, including resolution of human engineering deficiencies identified, using Bechtel and Torrey Pines Technology as required. ,

I The documentation for this program was necessarily extensive in view of its design development nature. Documentation describing the work performed dur.ing j the CRDR is summarized below and in Figure P 1: i l

1. Program Plan Defines the initial plan for performing the CRDR during the plant's construction phase. )

i 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 procedures, plant I conventions, and human factors data developed during the CRDR that will facilitate future control room modifications.

11002s.1 ytt STP69 12/01/89

i i

nousioN CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW

(& j*H G l

POWER CO.

PROGRAM PIAN 1

• i ADDENDUM 1 I

4

3. Operating Experience Review (OER) Report Describes the i I

operations personnel review process, results, conclusions, and recommendations of this task defined in the Program Plan.

l

4. System Function and Task Analysis (SFTA) Report - Describes the methodology, results, conclusions, and recommendations for this SITA effort defined in the Program Plan, t

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 l

( -

dispositions for'the human factors observations obtained from the OER and the SFTA.

6. Annunciator Report - Describes the review process, results, conclusions, and recommendations 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 cormnents.

8. Implementation Plan Report Summarizes the control panel design changes resulting from the implementation of Regulatory Guide 1.97 requirements, engineering design requirements, and preliminary observations of the CRDR design review team. It describes the reasons for major changes to the control panel layouts.

11oots.1 ytti STP69 12/01/89 1_____________________. __ .-. _ - _ . - _ _ . _ _ . ..- . __ _

CONTROL ROOM

{} DnousToN f*

Powan co.

G DESIGN REVIEW tROGRAM FIAN

. ADDENDUM 1

9. SFTA 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 exercises performed in the mock up area.

10. OER Validation Report - Summarizes the review made by operators to i i determine if the redesigned panels corrected reported operator I

concerns and evaluate if any new problems wera created as a result of the corrective measures taken.

l l

l 11. CRS Validation Report Summarizes the review made to determine if  ;

the Catego'ry A and representative samples of the Category"B HEDs were satisfactorily corrected and if any new problems were i

created.

I

12. Executive Summary - Summarizes the CRDR results, conclusions, j recommendations, 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 Control Room Survey Report, the Special Studies Report, the Implementation Plan Report, and various validation reports.

l

13. Human Engineering Discrepancy Resolution Report - Summarizes all Category A, B, C, and D HED resolutions (as of January 1,1986).

I l

11002e 1 ix l STP69 12/01/89

l 1

i CONTROL ROOM Q OHouston j* G POWER CO.

DESIGN REVIEW l PROGRAM PLAN i

ADDENDUM 1 .

• i

14. Executive Summary Addenda Summarize the results and remaining l work schedules of the CRDR program followind the submittal of the Executive Summary Report. Addendum i showed progress as of April i 15, 1985; Addendum 2 as of December 22, 1986; Addendum 3 as of November 23, 1987; and Addendum 4 as of September 30, 1988.

l Addendum 5 shows progress as of December 1, 1989, l l

l 15. Emergency Operating Procedures (EOP) Validation Report .

i Summarizes the validation process used for the Emergency Operating )

I i Procedures and the results as they involve the control panels.

l This validation was conducted at the STP simulator during May 1986 using the draft E0Ps.

l l* 16. Human Engineering Discrepancy Resolution Report Addenda .

Summarize resolutions for Catego p A, B, C, and D HEDs identified af ter January 1,1986. Addendum i summarized the HED resolutions l l

as of December 22, 1986; Addendum 2 as of November 23, 1987; and Addendum 3 as of September 30, 1988. Addendum 4 summarizes the

. HED resolutions as of December 1, 1989. For clarity, each j addendum shows resolutions for HEDs identified after January 1, 1986, thus superseding the previous addendum in its entirety. l l

17. Program Plan Addendum . Identifies the STP CRDR Program Plan effective for the plant's operational phase.

l i

11002st x l STP69 12/01/89

l MOUSTON g CONTROL ROOM -

5_L'*"'

oestan Review

"'"'"""- l 0 .

I

\

PLANNING j i l l1, / '

..=_

l$$

o , ,

iii ii i

- i l,ill LllJ-o

• • ii j! f llb ll 'lli

~/ / l 4 /

O STP CRDR MAJOR REPORTS

i

)

CONTROL ROOM

[') ' UGHT8NG DESIGN REVIEW v

Anousion a POWER CO.

l PROGRAM PLAN ADDENDUM 1 l

)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1

GENERAL COMMENT

S The initial Progr'am Plan report described the Houston Lighting & Power Company (HIAP) plan to perform a control room design review (CRDR) of its South Texas Proj ect (STP) Electrical Generating Station. The purpose of this CRDR was to identify and implement control room design improvements that offered high probability for meeting plant safety and availability objectives. I l

The CRDR was part of an integrated plan covering TMI-related actions referenced in NUREG 0660, TMI-2 Action Plan, and considered the relationship of the CRDR wi,th NUREG 0737 Supplement 1, Requirements for Emergency Response Capability (Generic Letter No. 82 33), including:

o Verification of the SPDS parameter selection, data display, and function 9

o Design of control room modifications to correct conditions adverse to safety (reduce significant contributions to risk), and addition of instrumentation necessary to implement Regulatory Guide 1.97 o The use of symptom based emergency operating procedures developed using the Westinghouse Owners Group Emergency Response Guidelines .

(

110028 1 11 STP69 12/01/89

i CONTROL ROOM Q y* G DESIGN REVIEW DnousToN POWER CO.

PROGRAM PLAN ADDENDUM 1 o Training to enhance coping with emargencies o Design considerations for the Technice.1 Support Center, Emergency Response Facilities, and Operations Support Center  ;

The CRDR program was put in place for identifying and implementing changes to the plant man / machine interfaces that could reduce the probability of operator error, thus resulting in an overall improvement in plant safety and reliability. To this end, H1AP committed the necessary resources to effect the CRDR program defined in the initial Program Plan. This included knowledgeable H1AP and Bechtel management and technical personnel, technical specialists from Bechtel and its human factors consultant (Torrey Pines Technology), and technical specialists from Westinghouse.

Now that STP has been completed, and Unit 1 and Unit 2 are both in full commercial operation, this Program Plan Addendum has been prepared to update l the initial Program Plan to reflect the HIAP plan for performing the required l CRDR activities during the plant's operational phase, i

1.2 OBJECTIVES ,.

HIAP intends to follow this Program Plan Addendum and perform the needed CPDR functions in a timely and cost effective manner by:

l o Resolving existing items identified as Human ,

Engineering Discrepancies (HEDs) l l

l l

1 110028 1 12 l STP69 12/01/89

1 HousioN CONTROL ROOM

(} j"H POWER CO.

G DESIGN REVIEW P,ROGRAM P1AN i ADDENDUM 1 l I

o continuing to analyze and evaluate potential HEDs, as j identified by individuals during the course of their work or as identified during the course of organized project reviews I

l o Continuing to utilize the CRDR criteria established in l the STP CRDR Criteria Report to evaluate changes affecting the areas under the purview of the CRDR  !

progran I l i o Integrating the resolution of HEDs and evaluation of .

changes to the STP control rooms into the normal course of the design modification program '

l 1.3 PLANT DESCRIPTION 1

i STP is located in south central Matagorda County on a site 89 miles southwest of Houston. Bechtel was the architect / engineer, and Ebasco the constructor.

STP consists of two 1250 MW(e) (nominal) units, each powered by a Westinghouse Electric Corporation nuclear steam supply system consisting of a four-loop pressurized water reactor and supporting auxiliary systems. The turbine-generator was also furnished by Westinghouse. Each turbine-generator is an 1800 RPM tandem compound unit and is furnished with electrohydraulic controls.

Unit I was declared in commercial 9peration in August 1988, and Unit 2 in June 1989.

1.4 DEFINITION OF CONTROL ROOM The $TP Control Room (for the purposes of Control Room Design Review) includes panels CP 001 through CP 010, panels CP 018 and CP-022 (located behind panels t100204 13 )

STP69 12/01/89

noueTon ' CONTROL ROOM Lanmo ogsgay pgyggw

.O ,o - .

PROGRAM PIAN ADDENDUN 1

)

• CP 001, CP 002, and CP 003), all located in the control room, and the Auxiliary Shutdown Panel and Transfer Switch Panels. Figure 1 1 illustrates the layout of the control room. The Unit 1 and Unit 2 control rooms are essentially identical.

1.5 CONTROL ROOM' STATUS At the present time, both unit control rooms are complete and fully functional. Certain control room design modifications have been identified or are on going.

The schedule for completion of the remaining CRDR evaluations and activities is presented in Section 5 of the Executive Summary Current Addendum.

Resolutions of identified HEDs are discussed in the HED Resolution Report current Addendum, with schedules presented in the Executive Summary Current Addendum, Section 5.

Other major on going activities are:

o Annunciator Task Force 9

o Computer Displays Review t

a O

11002s-1 14 STP69 12/01/89 l

?

nouston CONTROL ROOM Q D yOHMO Powen co.

DESIGN REVIEW 1 n

,0,, (. 8. -

5,',T" .I-l => ll 1

80. .

'm , 3 1 I I lal l II I lal I (998>

086249010 nastry

• 'MMMt:$AW:MW$$$$MMM>' MMM:$$^ MMM:::::l M18 9015 '

U:5!!!

, s ILIttell At (Mit 'A " < s , WI ovaluany e s s

M*i k

rg .

. s Y;.isi

' .jik'iiS i ,s <

AustL 6Anv  :.

CIACUt allts gg k ,, CDetttt s

5

1. AII A ,' $fE tt$tt <

i,

.ij 88043  :'

tit teatt a 4 '3 ...c< s si "' M8 (Dheitlett I l:iyy 3 !!! ' , ,.. . "i:0:

S. ,,

^

..g f] s s s .

ATOh DPIhdkNE i:: i s (046014 :R f:i:::!: 1

- ttti9 i: gret J "' . g s  :: (M23 s <p, , ,> s s N -

sisAs y. <.(?idii M. ...:$. s s ~~

s y

d i:li. !!.!:...

WW&C 3pges $9932 blAtT048601896 .

tuleit At & Wetput 8091 A9L BY81tu l 88914 l

1 J

88011. SWttletitItn tatta Q;3. ghet tV Alpattes &#14 '

CP9tt. f LWR WA8'Its 29016. LO0lifattleotl10hite CP913. GI0h004titust uptlietite ' tt016. Finirapittlept Pahlt

$9914. Vipheft04 W0tif thl44 A. (DuPU11R TYPI AS  ;

CPet) haelAflet DDel10 Rett  !

e en i etty es.rettiiO4tavacan0 CONTROL ROOM LAYOUT Figure 1 1 Q l 110028 1 .

i CONTROL ROOM i Q nHTwo DESIGN REWEW DnousTon powen co. -

i i

PROGRAN PLAN

\

ADDENDUM 1 i

2.0 CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIIV PIAN

, r f

2.1 CENERAL COMMENTS j During the construction phase, the CRDR was conducted principally as  ;

recommended by NUREG 0700 and NUREG 0737 Supplement 1, and considered the  ;

integration of related project requirements that could affect control room I

human factors discrepancies. A detailed description of the construction phase  :

U CRDR was provided in the original Program Plan.  ;

'With the plant in full commercial operation, the plant modification process, under which all design modiffcations are controlled, must be closely coordinated with the CRDR program. Remaining CRDR evaluations must also be effectively scheduled and completed, e

2.2 CRDR ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES l

i The project group responsible for the Control Room Design Review program during the operational phase is the Project Review Team (PRT), comprised of representatives from the Engineering and Operations departments.

The PRT has been assigned the following responsibilities:

a. Review, evaluate and categorize new Human Engineering Observations (HEOs) to identify which are actual human factors concerns, and thus Human Engineering Discrepancies.

l l

b. Identify appropriate resolutions for HEDs.

L O

21 STP69 12/01/89

e  :

l Houston CONTROL ROOM  :

I,)

t a

• DESIGN REVIEW  !

i POWER CO.

. PROGRAM PIAN <

, s l

, ADDENDUM 1 ,

o. Track the on going evaluation and resolution of HEDs to verify i appropriate corrective action.

d. Ensure timely completion of the remaining CRDR evaluations, as idt.ntified in the Executive Summary Current Addendum, Section 5.0, 6  ;

e. Provide for the review of all plant modifications affecting the j control room, to ensure compliance with the established STP CRDR ]

criteria.

When human factors concerns are identified, they are written up on a HE0 1 assessment form (See F* gure 21) and forwarded to the PRT for tracking and evaluation. The PRT evaluation and categorization of HEDs uses the guidelines of Figure 2 2.

The Modificat!$n Review Committee is the management group responsible for the prioritiration and approval of all plant design changes, including those l involving the control room. ,

2.? A1 ARMS REVIEW The Annunciator Task Force has been established to review alarms provided to the operator to verify that they are valid, appropriate, and consistent. This review includes the annunciator system, the computer alarms, and the bypass / inoperative status windows.

The initial phase of this task force, to identify and resolve nonconformances to the "blac,k board" philosophy, has been completed. This design concept

( indicates that when no abnormal condition exists during full power operation, the annunciator windows should be extinguished, thus exhibiting a " black 1100281 22 STP69 12/01/89

l l

nousioN CONTROL ROOM l Dm j*HT* DESIGN REVIEW l Powan co.  :

PROGRAM PLAN I

ADDENDUM 1 .

' l 4

board" to the operators. Implementation of the resoluttent fr nearly complete l on Unit 1; complete implementation on Unit 2 is targeted for the first refueling outage, j l

2.4 COMPUTER DISPLAYS REVIEW The computer displays are currently undergoing a thorough review to verify consistency with established CRDR criteria. This review encompasses various computer and display aspects, including technical correctness, effectiveness ,

of display layout, use of symbols, abbreviations and acronyms, and the use of color. Previously identified HEDs are also reviewed for applicability to each i display and appropriate resolutions identified.

. Review of the Safety Paraneter Display System displays has been completed; the recommendations are currently being avaluated for implementation.

(

tiocan 1 23 STP69 12/01/89

i 1

)

HousioN CONTROL ROOM l O pny y oestan neview t'o"ic"3 POWER CO. ]

TYPICAL HE0 ASSESSMENT FORM ]

i STP HUMAN ENGINEERING OBSERVATION ASSESSMENT i HE0 NO. REV.

HED NO. CAT.

TITLE: REF: j ORIGINATOR: DATE:

UNIT APPLICABILITY: UNIT 1 UNIT 2 BOTH UNITS HE0 DESCRIPTION:

1 POTENTIAL OPERATOR ERROR:

RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION:.

i )

l l PRT REVIEW: [ ] CONCUR ( ) CONCUR WITH COMMENTS l [ ] NOT A HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCY COMMENTS:

l r l

l 1

CHAIRMAN: .4 DATE: 1 RECOMMENDED IMPLEMENTATION:

[ ] MANDATORY IMMEDIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION

[ } AT EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY (HICH PRIORITY)

[ ] CONVENIENT REFUELING OUTAGE (NOT TO EXCEED 2 YEARS) (ROUTINE)

[ ] OPTIONAL

[ ] OTHER I

1100281

P l HousioN CONTROL ROOM

(} j*

DESIGN REVIEW ,

FIGURE 2-2 ED ASSESSMENT FACTOR CRITERIA  !

ASSESSMENT IMPLEMENTATION CATEGORY FACTOR (RATING)

SAFETY MANDATORY IMMEDIATE A CORRECTIVE ACTION CONSEQUENCES PLANT AT EARLIEST l

3 OPPORTUNITY l

AVAILABILITY O ENHANCEMENT (HIGH PRIORITY) i

]

l  !

CONVENIENT C 7QUIPMENT / REFUELING 5LANT OUTAGE (NOT TO RELIABILITY EXCEED 2 YRS)

ENHANCEMENT (ROUTINE) j l

1 MINOR OPTIONAL

]

l l

l tiooss t '

- _ - _ - , .