. - . --

J

Addendum 1

=Co%ivoi Eto:om Ipesci,gn gevgeme

Program Plan|

|

l

I

_

88R228ase8sa88!,eP PDC ggPR T

STATION

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY

.. _ _. . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. . . .

i.

!:

i

.nousion CONTROL ROOM i,

0 j*H DESIGN REVIEW |G

-u co. !J

PROGRAM F1AN'|

1 jREVISION IDG

Revision PagesNo. 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 thruC 33

'

Addendum 12/01/89 Addendum Describing N/ANo. 1 Plan for Continuing

the CRDR ProgramDuring the OperationalPhase

,

1

I

.

.

i

(

|.

I

I

,

110028-1 g

STP69 12/01/89

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

-- _ - . . - . .

:!

Houston CONTROL ROOM I

O.

=r= oesian Rawnw !jrowan co.

PROGRAM PIAN

iADDENDUM 1 i.

t !

|

TABLE OF CONTENTS )l,

Section Title f.agt

REVISION LOG i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 11 !

LIST OF FIGURES iii |'

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS iv

SUMMARY vi

PREFACE vi

1.0 INTRODUCTION 11 -

!

1.1 GENERAL COMMENTS 11 ,

i 1.2 OBJECTIVES 12 I

| (~ 1.3 PIANT DESCRIPTION 13 |

1.4 DEFINITION OF CONTROL ROOM 131.5 CONTROL ROOM STATUS 14

,.

I*

2.0 CbNTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW PLAN 21

*2.1 GENERAL COMMENTS 212.2 CRDR ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES 212.3 A1 ARMS REVIEW 22 .

'

2.4 COMPUTER DI3PIAYS REVIEW 23

.

.

i

!

- 11002s 1 it

STP69 12/01/89- . - . .- . . _. . . _.

.

.

; i

| Jl'

i .)

| !

|U Houston CONTROL ROOM,

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__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - . _ _ . _ _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . - . _ _ _ . . - . . _ , _

:0

*

!

:.

DHousToNCONTROL ROOM

(} j*H DESIGN REVIEW*

Powan co.!

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 |

f PRT Project Review Team |RPM Revolutions per MinuteSTTA System Function and Task Analysis ,

SPDS Safety Parameter Display SystemSTP South Texas ProjectTMI 2 Three Mile Island Unit 2

1

,

.

P

O

t1002s 1 gySTP69 12/01/89,

. _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _

nousToN CONTROL ROOM

{} DESIGN REVIEW i* G

- co.

PROGRAM PIAN,

1

ADDENDUM 1 ) '

iSUMMARY ;

lI

The Program Plan describes the original South Texas Project (STP) Control RoomDesign Review (CRDR) program as it was planned in 1982 and early 1983. This

| plan was develope 4 and used during the construction phase of the South TexasProj ect. Because STP has attained commercial operation status, and is nolonger in the construction phase, the Program Plan necessarily requiresrevision.i

| |

This Program Plan Addendum describes the operational phase CRDR program I

implemented by Houston highting & Power (H1AP). Use of this revised programplan will ensure that the STP control room design continues to be inconformance with the STP CRDR Criteria Report principles.

;

;

I

|'

|

1

e

t

4

O

110020 1 y

STP69 12/01/89._ . _ . _ . ._ __ . _ _ _ _ .

.. ... . .

.. .-

.

.

HOUSTou CONTROL ROOMF fMG DESIGN REVIEWQ nm ea.

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 wasperformed 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 inOctober 1982. In November 1982, the Management Team put a hold on CRDR

activities, and authorized a design study to address mounting evolutionaryengineering 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 fromplant design evolution and Regulatory Guide 1.97 requirements and to correctdiscrepancies 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 evolutionaryengineering changes. Aq the Bechtel layout engineers advanced the layouts ofthe ten panels Torrey Pines Technology engineers reviewed the rework fercorrection of known discrepancies and compliance with good human factorsprinciples. The redesign effort on the main control panels was completed inApril 1983. The NRC performed an in progress audit in May 1983, after whichthe panel vendor was provided with fire layout drawings.

110020 1 ygSTP69 12/01/89

;

i

!

!

!

DHousTonCONTROL ROOM !

" UGH G DESIGN REVIEW(d a ,

POWER CO. '

<

PROGRAM PIAN;<

ADDENDUM 1 ) |

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 repeatof 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 andrepresentative Category B discrepancies were performed. The demarcation andhierarchical labeling studies resulted in continued upgrading of the mock up.The completion of the panel relayout allowed the design of the annunciatorsystem consistent with the relocations of many systems and subsystems, and areduction of active windows from 1055 to 642.

Following the completion of these major efforts, H1AP has continued the CRDRprogram, 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 itsdesign development nature. Documentation describing the work performed dur.ing jthe CRDR is summarized below and in Figure P 1: i

l

1. Program Plan Defines the initial plan for performing the CRDRduring 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 andplant systems. This report also includes review procedures, plant I

conventions, and human factors data developed during the CRDR thatwill facilitate future control room modifications.

11002s.1 ytt

STP69 12/01/89

-- -- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - - _ _ _ _

.-

- ;

ii

'

nousioN CONTROL ROOM

(& j*H DESIGN REVIEW |G

POWER CO.

PROGRAM PIAN1 *,

i ADDENDUM 1,

I 4

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

,

Ioperations personnel review process, results, conclusions, and'

recommendations of this task defined in the Program Plan.|

4. System Function and Task Analysis (SFTA) Report - Describes themethodology, results, conclusions, and recommendations for thisSITA 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 inthe Program Plan. This report also includes the final results and l

( - dispositions for'the human factors observations obtained from theOER and the SFTA.

6. Annunciator Report - Describes the review process, results,conclusions, and recommendations of the annunciator review taskdefined in the Program Plan and the annunciator study guide..

7. Special Studies Report Describes details of miscellaneousstudies performed as part of the CRDR. This includes theanthropometric study, the hierarchical labeling study, thedemarcation 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 1.97requirements, engineering design requirements, and preliminaryobservations of the CRDR design review team. It describes thereasons for major changes to the control panel layouts.

11oots.1 ytti

STP69 12/01/89

1_____________________. __ _ .-. _ __ _ - _ . - _ _ . _ _ . ..- . __ _

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

DnousToNCONTROL ROOM

{} f*G DESIGN REVIEW

Powan co.

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 exercisesperformed 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 operatorI concerns and evaluate if any new problems wera created as a result

of the corrective measures taken.||

| 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 werei 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 SystemFunction and Task Analysis Report, the Annunciator Report the

Control Room Survey Report, the Special Studies Report, theImplementation Plan Report, and various validation reports.

|

13. Human Engineering Discrepancy Resolution Report - Summarizes all

Category A, B, C, and D HED resolutions (as of January 1,1986).

'

I

|11002e 1

ix

| STP69 12/01/89

_ _ __ _

!

|*

,

1

i

OHoustonCONTROL ROOM !

Q j* DESIGN REVIEW |G

POWER CO.

PROGRAM PLAN,

,i

ADDENDUM 1 .

* i

14. Executive Summary Addenda Summarize the results and remaining |

work schedules of the CRDR program followind the submittal of theExecutive 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.

| Addendum 5 shows progress as of December 1, 1989,ll

| 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. '

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

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

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

l

as of December 22, 1986; Addendum 2 as of November 23, 1987; and

Addendum 3 as of September 30, 1988. Addendum 4 summarizes theHED 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. |

|

17. Program Plan Addendum . Identifies the STP CRDR Program Plan

effective for the plant's operational phase.

l

i

11002st lxSTP69 12/01/89

_ . - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - . - ._ -

.. .. . ..__ .

| MOUSTON CONTROL ROOM -

g

5_L'*"'.,

oestan Review|" ' " ' " ' ' " " ' ' -0 '.'

.

, ,

I\

!, ,

PLANNING

| |1, /j i

'

|$$iio . . = _ ,

|,i, .

i ii.

i ||

L||J--i-

o

! f ||b ll 'lli** ii j

l 4 /~/ /OSTP CRDR MAJOR REPORTS

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . - .

_ _

i'

)

AnousionCONTROL ROOM

'

[') ' UGHT8NG DESIGN REVIEWavPOWER CO.

|

PROGRAM PLAN.

ADDENDUM 1 |

)

1.0 INTRODUCTION.

1.1 GENERAL COMMENTS

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 TexasProj ect (STP) Electrical Generating Station. The purpose of this CRDR was toidentify and implement control room design improvements that offered highprobability for meeting plant safety and availability objectives. I

|

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 ResponseCapability (Generic Letter No. 82 33), including:

.

o Verification of the SPDS parameter selection, data display,and function9

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 11STP69 12/01/89

. .- --. - .. - _ . . - . - _ - .

i

!

DnousToNCONTROL ROOM

Q y* G DESIGN REVIEWPOWER 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 tothe plant man / machine interfaces that could reduce the probability of operatorerror, thus resulting in an overall improvement in plant safety and

reliability. To this end, H1AP committed the necessary resources to effectthe CRDR program defined in the initial Program Plan. This includedknowledgeable H1AP and Bechtel management and technical personnel, technical

specialists from Bechtel and its human factors consultant (Torrey PinesTechnology), and technical specialists from Westinghouse.

Now that STP has been completed, and Unit 1 and Unit 2 are both in fullcommercial operation, this Program Plan Addendum has been prepared to update

|

the initial Program Plan to reflect the HIAP plan for performing the required |

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:

|'

o Resolving existing items identified as Human,

Engineering Discrepancies (HEDs) ||

||

1110028 1 12 |

STP69 12/01/89. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _

<

.. ,

1HousioN CONTROL ROOM

(} j"H DESIGN REVIEWG

POWER CO. -

P,ROGRAM P1AN i

|ADDENDUM 1

!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 organizedproject reviews

I

| o Continuing to utilize the CRDR criteria established in

| the STP CRDR Criteria Report to evaluate changes! affecting the areas under the purview of the CRDR !

progranlI

i o Integrating the resolution of HEDs and evaluation of .

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

l 1.3 PLANT DESCRIPTION

1

STP is located in south central Matagorda County on a site 89 miles southwesti

'of Houston. Bechtel was the architect / engineer, and Ebasco the constructor.STP consists of two 1250 MW(e) (nominal) units, each powered by a WestinghouseElectric Corporation nuclear steam supply system consisting of a four-looppressurized water reactor and supporting auxiliary systems. The turbine-generator was also furnished by Westinghouse. Each turbine-generator is an1800 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) includespanels CP 001 through CP 010, panels CP 018 and CP-022 (located behind panels

t100204 13 )STP69 12/01/89

"_ . _ _

_ . _ _ .

.... .. .. .

.. .

-

noueTon ' CONTROL ROOMLanmo 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 areessentially identical.

1.5 CONTROL ROOM' STATUS

At the present time, both unit control rooms are complete and fullyfunctional. Certain control room design modifications have been identified orare on going.

The schedule for completion of the remaining CRDR evaluations and activitiesis presented in Section 5 of the Executive Summary Current Addendum.Resolutions of identified HEDs are discussed in the HED Resolution Reportcurrent Addendum, with schedules presented in the Executive Summary CurrentAddendum, Section 5.

Other major on going activities are:

,

o Annunciator Task Force9

o Computer Displays Review

t

a

O11002s-1 14STP69 12/01/89

|

.

?

D yOHMOnouston CONTROL ROOM

Q DESIGN REVIEWPowen co.

1 n

(. 8. -,0,,

5,',T" .I-| || 1=>

_

80. .

'm 3,-

1 I I lal | II I lal I(998>

086249010nastry

*'MMMt:$AW:MW$$$$MMM>' MMM:$$^ MMM:::::| M189015 '

'U:5!!!

' ''

, s "

ILIttell At (Mit 'A " < WIs ,

ovaluany e ss . . . , .

M*i k;rg .:. Y;.isis

' .jik'iiSi ,s <' '

AustL 6Anv :.CIACUt allts gg k ,, CDetttt :5s#AII A ,' $fE tt$tt i,:.ij-

<

88043 :'tit teatt a 4 '3 si M8

:S. !!! ' , ,.. . "i:0: ,,

...c< sI(Dheitlett |:iyy 3 ^

"'

- ,...g

f] s s s .

DPIhdkNE i::'

ATOh 'i

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

ttti9 i: gret J "' .-g

*s :: (M23

' < p , , ,> s ss

N -

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

- s

d i:li. !!.!:..._y

WW&C3pges $9932

blAtT048601896 .

,

tuleit At & Wetput

8091 A9L BY81tu

| 88914 |

-1 ,

J -

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

CP9tt. f LWR WA8'Its 29016. LO0lifattleot|10hiteCP913. 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

:,

!-

DnousTonCONTROL ROOM i

Q nHTwo DESIGN REWEWpowen 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 roomI

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

CRDR was provided in the original Program Plan.U ;

'

,'With the plant in full commercial operation, the plant modification process,

,under which all design modiffcations are controlled, must be closelycoordinated with the CRDR program. Remaining CRDR evaluations must also be

effectively scheduled and completed,e

2.2 CRDR ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIESl

iThe project group responsible for the Control Room Design Review program

' during the operational phase is the Project Review Team (PRT), comprised ofrepresentatives 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, andthus Human Engineering Discrepancies.

|| b. Identify appropriate resolutions for HEDs.

OL

, .., 21STP69 12/01/89

- - __ ___. .

e :

!|

Houston CONTROL ROOM :

I,) * * DESIGN REVIEW !t a i

POWER CO.

PROGRAM PIAN. <

|, s

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, asidt.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 andevaluation. 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 |

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. Thisreview 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 22STP69 12/01/89

. _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ ._

__ _

.

|

|

nousioN CONTROL ROOM |

Dm j*HT* DESIGN REVIEW |Powan co. :

PROGRAM PLAN

ADDENDUM 1 I.

|'4

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

l,

2.4 COMPUTER DISPLAYS REVIEW

The computer displays are currently undergoing a thorough review to verifyconsistency with established CRDR criteria. This review encompasses variouscomputer and display aspects, including technical correctness, effectiveness ,

of display layout, use of symbols, abbreviations and acronyms, and the use ofcolor. 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 23STP69 12/01/89

.. _ .__ ____ - _ __ _ -_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ -. . -

i

!

1: )

HousioN CONTROL ROOM |

O t'o"ic"3 pny y oestan neview-

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! !

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

COMMENTS: -

,

| |r

|

1

DATE: 1CHAIRMAN:.4

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

| HousioN CONTROL ROOM

(} j* DESIGN REVIEW'

,

"""FIGURE 2-2

'

;.-

ED ASSESSMENT FACTOR CRITERIA !-

,

ASSESSMENT IMPLEMENTATION'

CATEGORY FACTOR (RATING)

A SAFETY MANDATORY IMMEDIATECORRECTIVE ACTIONCONSEQUENCES

.

| 3 PLANT AT EARLIEST

| AVAILABILITY OPPORTUNITY

O ENHANCEMENT (HIGH PRIORITY) ]i

| !

CONVENIENTC 7QUIPMENT /

5LANT REFUELINGOUTAGE (NOT TORELIABILITY EXCEED 2 YRS)

ENHANCEMENT (ROUTINE) jl1

] MINOR OPTIONAL

- .

|

|

|tiooss t '

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