1 © 2012 westinghouse electric company llc. all rights reserved.westinghouse proprietary class 3...

1

© 2012 Westinghouse Electric Company LLC. All Rights Reserved.Westinghouse Proprietary Class 3

The Incorporation of the Utilities Input into the Design of the AP1000® Main Control Room

James Flowers (Southern Nuclear Company)

Julia Forbes (Duke Energy)

Matt Gibson (Duke Energy)

Julie Reed (Westinghouse Electric Company)AP1000 is a trademark or registered trademark of Westinghouse Electric Company LLC, its affiliates and/or its subsidiaries in the United States of America and may be registered in other countries throughout the world. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use is strictly prohibited. Other names may be trademarks of their respective owners.

2

Westinghouse Proprietary Class 3 © 2012 Westinghouse Electric Company LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Introduction• The design of the AP1000 Main Control Room (MCR) is currently in

the final stages of completion.

• From the early stages of design, the AP1000 customer utilities have actively participated in the design process with Westinghouse Electric LLC.

• This paper describes the mechanisms that have been used to effectively incorporate utility input and provides examples of the resultant visible impact on the design of the MCR and the Human System Interface (HSI) resources.

• Objective of a ‘standard’ USA design - the advantages and challenges.

3


The USA Customer Base

● NuStart – a consortium of utilities and reactor vendors with

the objectives of demonstrating the NRC new process for

combined Construction and Operating License and

completing the design process for two reactor technologies.

● AP1000 customers are Southern Nuclear, SCE&G, the

former Progress Energy, TVA, Duke Energy, and NextEra

(FPL)

● NuStart utilities worked with Westinghouse to design the

AP1000 main control room

4


Mechanisms for Utility Input

The major mechanisms were as follows:

● Workshops

● Design Reviews

● Human Factors Engineering Tests

● Open and frequent communication

● Collaboration in dealing with Licensing aspects

5

Human Factors Workshops (1)2007 MCR Layout Technical Support Center and Emergency Operations Facility

2008 Workshop updates and closure of Actions

2009 Wall Panel Information System – monitors and their layout,

information layout ( dedicated alarm monitors, dedicated plant overview monitors, flexible displays for other monitors)

Alarm Presentation System – groundbreaking design layout and display method

Computerized Procedures – with real time data and logic indication Communication Protocols

6


Human Factors Workshops (2)2010

● Continued design development and reviews

● Use of AP1000 simulator control rooms

● Local workstations,

2011

● Continued design development and reviews

● Workstation configuration, surveillance monitoring, peer-checking, pre-configured reports

Agreements and Actions recorded and tracked

7


Alarm Presentation System

8


Computerized Procedures System

9


Graphics Display

10


Design Reviews

Formal Westinghouse Design Reviews

● Preliminary (2006)

● Intermediate (2010)

● Final (2010 – Hardware, 2011 – Software)

Actions formally tracked and closed.

11


Human Factors Engineering Tests (1)● Three formal human factors engineering tests, as follows:

PHASE I: Soft Controls (2005)

PHASE II: Control Room Integration Test (2006)

PHASE III: Integrated Engineering Test (2008)

Results collected via observations, questionnaires, de-briefings, digital data recordings

Resulting recommendations fed back into the design process.

12


Human Factors Engineering Tests (2)

MCR development facility comprising:• Operator consoles

• Supervisors console

• Safety system console

• Diverse actuation system panel

• Control system workstations

• Computerized procedures system

• Alarm presentation system

• Wall Panel Information System

• Communication facilities

13


Human Factors Engineering Tests (3)● Addressed human factors-related design issues, including:

– Room layout – Integrated use of HSI Resources– Visual access– Communication protocols and procedure use

● Use of real-time simulator

● Realistic operations scenarios

● Current reactor operators and supervisors as subjects

● Test observers from the utilities

14


MCR Development Facility

15


Licensing Activities

● Utilities and Westinghouse worked together to support the

licensing process on the following:– Documentation development and reviews– Participation in meetings– Collaboration and changes on responsibilities following

issuance of Combined Operating Licenses

16


Preparation for Integrated System Validation (ISV)

● ISV is key part of the final human factors verification and

validation activities.

● ISV undertaken by Westinghouse using a series of

simulated scenarios, including accident and normal

operations.

● Subjects provided by the utilities employees undergoing

AP1000 operator training

17


Main Control Room 3D Model

18


AP1000 Engineering Development System

19


Conclusions• Ultimately customer input has ensured and improved the human factors

adequacy of the AP1000 design. This will enhance safety, operability – and profitability.

• Frequent and open communication between the customers and vendors has resulted in a collaborative design product.

• Utilities spoke with ‘one voice’.

1 © 2012 westinghouse electric company llc. all rights reserved.westinghouse proprietary class 3...

Documents

westinghouse electric

westinghouse proprietary

design process

introductionthe design

continued design development

standard usa design

early stages of design

ap1000 customer utilities