AECM-84-0537, Detailed Control Room Design Review Program Plan

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Detailed Control Room Design Review Program Plan
ML20101L622
Person / Time
Site: Grand Gulf Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 12/19/1984
From: Dale L
MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT CO.
To: Harold Denton
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737 AECM-84-0537, AECM-84-537, GL-82-33, PROC-841219, NUDOCS 8501020302
Download: ML20101L622 (2)


Text

_ _ _ _ _ _

E ,

E E

E E

GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION - UNIT 1 DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM PLAN E

E Prepared for U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission December 1984 E

E E .

E E

MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGliT COMPANY E

8501020302 841219 DR ADOCK 05000

- - a

~

l l

4 5 MISSISSIPPI FOWER & LIGHT COMPANY E

TABLE OF CONTENTS

,J E Page 1

E XEC ITT I VE S UMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1 l E l 1

1. INTRODUCTION.................................................. 1 1.1 General Comments............. 4 .............................. 1 1.1.1 Program Plan Purpose.................................. 1 8 1.1.2 1.1.3 The Need for a DCRDR..................................

Other MP&L Improvertent Ef forts in the Control Room. . . .

1 1

1.2 DCRDR Purpose a nd Requireme nts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1. 2.1 Program Purpose....................................... 1 1.2.2 Regulatory Requirements and Guidance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.3 Plant Description............................................ 2 1.3.1 Utility Information................................... 2 1.3.2 Plant Site and Description............................ 2 1.4 Plant Features Covered by the DCRDR.......................... 3 1.4.1 Main Control Room..................................... 3 i.4.2 nemote Shutdown Panels................................ 3 1.5 Previous Human Factors Work in the Control Room.............. 3 1.5.1 GGNS-1 Preliminary Design Assessment.................. 3 1.5.2 Control Room CRT Console Human Factors Review......... 3 1.5.3 Transition from Previous Work to the DCRDR............ 5 1.6 Glossary of Terms and Acronyms............................... 5 1.6.1 General Remarks....................................... 5 1.6.2 Terms................................................. 5 1.6.3 Acronyms.............................................. 7 l 2. PLANNING PHASE............................................... 9 l

l 2.1 Pla n ni n g Pha se Obj e ct ive s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.2 Management ar.d Staffing...................................... 9 2.2.1 DCRDR Team Structure.................................. 9

2.2.2 DCRDR Team Member Qualifications and Duties........... 9 2.2.3 DC R DR Te am Su p po r t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.2.4 DCRDR Team Orientation................................ 12 5 11 5

E MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY E

Page 2.3 Data Management.............................................. 13 2.3.1 Documentation Requirements............................ 13 5 2.3.2 2.3.3 Input Data............................................

Output Data...........................................

13 14 2.3.4 Database Management System............................ 14 t

= 2.4 Equipment and Workspace...................................... 15 l

2.5 Scheduling................................................... 15 2.6 Planning Phase Documentation................................. 15 2.6.1 N RC Pr ogr am Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.6.2 M P & L P r oj e c t Pl an . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5 2.6.3 2.6.4 Task Plans............................................

Human Factors Criteria................................

17 17

3. RE VI EW PH A S E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.1 Review Phase Processes....................................... 18 3.2 Ope rat ing Ex pe rie nce Revi ew. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.2.1 Purpose............................................... 18 3.2.2 Methodology........................................... 18 E 3.3 Con tro l Ro om Inv e nto ry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 i

3.3.1 Purpose............................................... 20 3.3.2 Methodology........................................... 20 i 3.4 Co n t r o l Ro om S u rv e y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.4.1 Purpose............................................... 20 3.4.2 Methodology........................................... 20 System Functions Review and Task Analysis.................... 21 3.5

( 21 3.5.1 Purpose............................... ...............

l 21 3.5.2 Methodology for System Functions Review...............

I 3.5.3 Methodology for Operating Scenario Selection. . . . . . . . . . 21 l

3.5.4 Identification of Residual Tasks...................... 23 3.5.5 Me thodol ogy r , r Ta sk An alys i s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.5.6 DBMS Use for Managing Task Analysis Data.............. 28 3.6 Ve rification of Task Pe r fo rmance Capabilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3.6.1 Purpose............................................... 29 3.6.2 Methodology........................................... 29 5

5 lii 5

E MISSISSIPPI FOWER & LIGHT COMPANY E

Page E 3.7 Validation of Control Room Functions......................... 30 3.7.1 Purpose............................................... 30 5 3.7.2 Methodology........................................... 30 3.8 Review Phase Documentation................................... 32

4. ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION PHA S E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4.1 Assessment and Implementation Activities..................... 33 5 4.2 4.3 Analyze and Categorize HEDs..................................

Recommend and Evaluate hED Resolutions.......................

33 35 4.4 Document a nd Schedule Resolution Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

5. REIORTING PHASE.............................................. 37 5.1 N RC Fin al Summa ry Repo rt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 5 5.2 5.3 MP &L Ex e c ut iv e Summ a ry Re po r t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Do c ume n tat io n S to r a ge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37 37

6. P ROG RAM INT E G RAT I ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 6.1 General Comments............................................. 38 6.2 DCRDR Integration with Other ERC Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 6.2.1 Sa fe ty Pa r ame te r Dis play Sys tem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 6.2.2 EOP Upgrade Program................................... 40 5 6.2.3 Program for Implementation of Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2...................................... 40 6.2.4 ERC Training.......................................... 41 5 6.2.5 6.2.6 Emergency Response Facilities.........................

HED Assessment Integration............................

41 41 6.3 DCRDR Integration with Future De sign Changes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 APPENDIX A B I B L I O G RA PH Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 APPENDIX B DC RDR T EAM M EMB E R RE S UM ES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1 APPENDIX C SAMPLE DCRDR FORMS.................................... C-1 5

E E iv 5

E MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY E

GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION - UNIT 1 E DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW EXECt7PIVE

SUMMARY

E.1 DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW (DCRDR) METHODOLOGY E.1.1 General Comments The background, purpose, requirements, and scope of the DCRDR are E discussed in the Program Plan. This Executive Summary outlines the methodology that Mississippi Power & Light Company (MP&L) will use to perform the DCRDR. An overview of DCRDR phases and activities is E shown in Figure E-1, page E-5.

E.1.2 DCRDR Phases MP&L will use a methodology that divides the DCRDR into component phases similar to those recommended in NUREG-0700 (Sections 2 through

4) and NUREG-0801. Each phase is described briefly below and is 5 detailed in Program Plan Sections 2 through 6.

E.2 PLANNING PHASE E E.2.1 Regulatory Requirements and Guidance This phase of the DCRDR will meet the planning requirements of NUPEG-B 0737 Supplenent 1 (Sections 5.1.b.i and 5. 2.a) and will follow the guidance of NUREG-0700 (Sections 2 and 5.1) and NUREG-0801.

E.2.2 Planning Phase Objectives The Planning Phase will define the organization and direction of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station - Unit 1 (GGNS-1) DCRDR. The Program Plan i

I is the principal record of this phase and will be used as the guiding document for all GGNS-1 DCRDR activities. Program Plan deviations I will be documented by MP&L management in periodic Program Plan j revisions if needed, and/or recorded in the Final Summary Report.

l

[

E.2.3 Summary of Planning Phase Components W The principal components of the Planning Phase are listed below and detailed in Program Plan Section 2:

e DCRDR Management and Staf fing e Data Management e Equipment and Workspace e

B e Scheduling Planning Phase Documentation E

E-1

5 MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPAtW E

E.3 REVIEW PHASE E.3.1 Regulatory Requirements and Guidance This phase of the DCRDR will meet the review requirements of NUREG-E 0737 Supplement 1 (Sections 5.1.b.11-iv), and will follow the guidance of NUREG-0700 (Section 3) and NUREG-0801.

E.3.2 Review Phase Objectives The Review Phase is the investigative portion of the DCRDR. There are two objectives for this phase:

a. Determine whether the Control Room provides the system status information, control capabilities, feedback, and performance aids E necessary for Control Room operators to accomplish their functions and tasks effectively.
b. Identify characteristics of the existing Control Room

~

instrumentation and controls (I&C), other equipment, and physical arrangements that may detract from operator performance.

E.3.3 Summary of Review Phase Processes The six processes of the Review Phase are listed below and are detailed in Program Plan Section 3:

e Operating Expe rience Review i

g e Control Roon Inventory W e Control Room Survey e System Functions Review and Task Analysis e Verification of Task Performance Capabilities I e Validation of Control Room Functions E.4 ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION PHASE E.4.1 Regulatory Requirements and Guidance This phase of the DCRDR will meet the assessment and implementation E requirements of NUREG-0737 Supplenent 1 (Sections 5.1.c and 5.1.d),

and will follow the guidance of NUFEG-0700 (Section 4 ) and NUREG-0801.

E.4.2 Assessment and Implementation Phase objectives The objectives for this DCRDR phase are listed below:

a. Analyze and evaluate the problems that could arise from identified human engineering discrepancies (HEDs).
b. Analyze means of correcting those discrepancies that could lead to substantial problems.

t E-2 l

E MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY

c. Interface the assessment process with those other Control Room related projects that are concerned with or may affect human I factors.
d. Integrate the implementation process with the goals and implementation processes of these related human factors projects E and other GGNS-1 activities.

Although the emphasis is on improvements af fecting operator E performance under emergency conditions, all improvements affecting operator performance will be considered.

E.4.3 Summary of Assessment Activities During Assessment, all HEDs will be analyzed and the importance of each to plant safety and operation will be determined. The HEDs will E be prioritized according to importance; significant discrepancies will be selected for resolution through modifications, additional training, etc. The proposed resolutions will be analyzed for impact and ef fect I on plant safety and operation, cost / benefit relationship, and possible alternatives. As a final assessment step, an evaluation of the extent of correction for each HED selected for resolution will be made in I order to document and justify all HEDs not fully corrected. The assessment process is detailed in Program Plan Section 4.

E.4.4 Summary of Implementation Activities During Implementation, approved rudifications will be integrated with other enhancement programs. These changes will be scheduled I consistent with MP&L's existing work scheduling program, with consideration given the possible HED safety consequence, plant operating status, procurement time, etc. The implementation process I is detailed in Program Plan Section 4.

E.5 REPO RTING PHASE E.5.1 Regulatory Requirements and Guidance This phase of the DCRDR will meet the reporting requirements of NUREG-E 0737 Supplement 1 (Section 5.2.b), and will follow the guidance of NUREG-0700 (Section 5. 2 ) and NUREG-0801.

E.5.2 Reporting Phase Objectives The Final Summary Report '.1 he submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (MRC) to doct t.he GGNS-1 DCRDR. The report will E accomplish the following objectives:

e Summarize the overall review process.

E e e

Document all identified HEDs.

Identify Control Room design improvements implemented before and during the DCRDR.

E-3 5

E MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGFIT COMPANY E

e Identify proposed and finalized design improvements and their proposed implementation schedule.

Althcugh the DCRDR is to be reported in summary form, the details of the entire review will be documented and maintained in readily I retrievable format for future MP&L 1se and possible NRC audit. The DCRDR Team will also prepare an Executive Summary Report for use by MP&L management.

E.5.3 Summary of Reporting Phase Activities The Reporting Phase will consist of Final Summary Report and Executive E Summary Report preparation, and the filing and storage of DCRDR documentation as the program concludes. The Reporting Phase is detailed in Program Plan Section 5.

E.6 PROGRAM INTEGRATION E.6.1 General Comments The importance of integrating DCRDR information and activities into GGNS-1 design procedures and other NUREG-0737 Supplement 1 programs, and vice versa, is such that MP&L considers Program Integration to be E one of the five main components of the GGNS-1 DCRDR (see Program Plan Sections 2 through 6). However, due to the nature of this component, there will be few activities accomplished specifically under Program I Integration. Each of the DCRDR phases, processes, and activities will incorporate the applicable requirements and objectives of Program Integ ratio n , as discussed below and detailed in Program Plan Section E 6.

E.6.2 Regulatory Requirements and Guidance I This component of the DCRDR will meet the coordination ari integration requirements of NUREG-0737 Supplement 1 (Section 3), and will follow the guidance of NUREG-0700 (Section 1. 3) and NUREG-0801.

E.6.3 Program Integration O_b_jective 1

The objective of Program Integration is the coordination of the DCRDR with the various NUREG-0737 Supplement 1 programs, the Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS ), post-accident monitoring (PAM) instrumentation, upgrade of Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs), and E Emergency Response Capability (ERC) training, so that all programs are properly accomplished and an integrated, operable Control Room is the result.

E.6.4 Hunan Factors Considerations af ter the DCRDR MP&L will conduct a human f actors review of all future design changes in the Control Room. This review will use the computerized database and the !!uman Factors Criteria developed during the DCRDR. This process will be documented in MP&L GGNS-1 design procedures and is 5 detailed in Program Plan Section 6.3 E-4

E MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPAt3Y f l Protect Stattmg l m -,, .

l m. 4 l Staff O,ienta l P,ogr P!ars l NRC l Peosect Plan l p __GWROG EPGs_ .__3 I g

.e E

p q MF T** Activate Criwria Pians DBMS I . _ _ _ _ L _ _ _ _ _l I. _ _ - _E OP PGP- , _ _ . . '

1I IE 18%

i I

Re euw l Phew '

f r- Ope'ator--- s 5**

r-- -

--- i l g g  :- M'itord--- 1, g Contros Rown PSTGWoymics EOP:

i x o.ws. g

, Doc _ _e. a, im.n., F or===

io ~4 w-

'_____ ____J t_ _ _ T _ _ . , -

, m. _ '} ,i } r.___

s Ope,ator Tremeng i oo E w. coni,a a- sm .o E .t.no.v'e.

N

  • 3e* vey DewsNopeneet

'f H 8 PDA HED T ad I io.af..E .w.on D  ; na, io i.+,w. Anem H: . s,mo .. n n.

' I - - - - '

h

. w.m Tn,%#,


.- ve+m. ,n l II U 4

HE D ._. _

y 9 ils e--_-....,

E Auessment &

imoi.-e.e,

.w 8

A4HED L__;__s__'

e

, ... . . . i

  • -~- l l

E  ?

1 Iawm.* {LGeirA T on I

T E i E..,..

[ e.or rnen e nri j l

h G"l__.

u..s.ce r I l a,.~..,

E  ?

i 1

, o , - , ,, 5 j

sr.,., _ %, -t a., ,, 8,um .. x ,

l l if 1 86 a~ -,

I P***

A

_______l

,,x.A..

Aa ,-

r-----l-r f ,..,,,i Y

r----,

i HE 6 5 e jF< ,

I i., .,,g m i e, , i 4 w 7-i y

'~ r t_r-' -

Y

h. r. [ 'l l I w

_ 1 _

Y Figure E-1. DCRDR Phases and Activities E-5

MZSSISSIPPI FOWER & LIGHT COMPANY E

GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION - UNIT 1 DETAILED CONTROL kOOM DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM PLAN

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 General Comments 1.1.1 Program Plan Purpose This Program Plan describes the program which Mississippi Power &

Light Company (MP&L) will use to perform a Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR) of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station - Unit 1 E (GGNS-1) in accordance with the requirements of NUREG-0737 Supplement 1 (Section 5).

1.1.2 The Need for a DCRDR The need for DCRDRs has been well documented by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as a result c; the investigations of E the Three Mile Island accident (see Appendix A, Bibliography).

The significant areas of concern identified included noncompliance of Control Room facilities with human factors principles, deficiencies in information presented to the operator, and inadequate operating procedures.

1.1.3 Other MP&L Improvement Efforts in the Control Room The DCRDR is part of a larger ef fort within MP&L to improve the t overall Emergency Response Capability (ERC). The ccope of this Program Plan is directed toward a human factors review of the design adequacy and operability of the existing Control Room.

However, MP&L recognizes and intends that other areas of concern related to the Control Room and enc will be coordinated with the DCRDR to ensure that an integrated, operable Control Room will result. These other areas include upgrading the Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs), installing a Safety Parameter Display B System (SPDS), installing the appropriate post-accident monitoring (PAM) instrumentation per Regulatory Guide 1.97, and completing i

the ERC training program.

l l

l 1. 2 DCRDR Purpose and Requirements 1.2.1 Program Purpose The DCRDR will identify and initiate improvements in the Control Room that offer high probability for improving plant safety by E strengthening the man-machine interface. Although primary emphasis will be placed on improving ERC, problem areas in other operations will also be examined.

l E 1.2.2 Regulatory Requirements and Guidance To accomplish the above purpose, MP&L has designed the DCRDR to fulfill the requirements of NUREG-0737 Supplement 1 (Section 5) in 1

MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY E accordance with the guidance of the applicable portions of NUREG-0700 and NUREG-0801. These requirements for the GGNS-1 DCRDR are 5 listed below:

a. The establishment of a qualified multidisciplinary review team and a review program incorporating accepted human engineering I principles.
b. The use of system functions review and task analysis to I identify Control Room operator tasks and information and control requirements during emergency operations.
c. A comparison of the display and control requirements with a Control Room inventory to identify missing displays and Controls.
d. A Control Room survey to identify deviations from accepted human factors principles. This survey will include, among other things, an assessment of the Control Room layout, the I usefulness of audible and visual alarm systems, the information recording and recall capability, and the Control Room environment.
e. An assessment of human engineering discrepancie (HEDs) that are significant and should be corrected; the selection of design improvements that will correct these discrepancies.
f. A verification that each selected design improvement will I provide the necessary correction, and can be introduced in the Control Room without creating unacceptable HEDs because of significant contribution to increased risk, unreviewed safety questions, or situ 1ttions in which a temporary reduction in safety could occur. Improvements that are introduced will be I coordinated with changes resulting from other improvement programs such as SPDS, ERC training, new PAM instrumentation, and upgraded EOPs.
1. 3 Plant Description 1.3.1 Utility Information MP&L is a part of Middle South Utilities, Incorporated, _d se rves more than 310,000 customers in western Mississippi. The company I was founded in 1923, and now employs more than 2,000 personnel in all areas of power generation and distribution. MP&L headquarters is located in Jackson, Mississippi.

1.3.2 Plant Site and Description GGNS-1 is located in Claiborne County, Mississippi, approximately 25 miles south of Vicksburg near the town of Port Gibson, Mississippi. The GGNS-1 nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) is a General Electric Boiling Water Reactor /6 (BWR/6) with a Mark III E Containment, capable of a peak electric generating capacity of 2

MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPAMY E

1250 megawatts. The GGNS-1 Architect-Engineer and Constructor was Bechtel Power Corporation. Significant dates for GGNS-1 are listed below:

Milestone Date 5 Application for Construction Permit September 1972 Construction Permit lasued September 1974 Operating License granted (Low Power) June 1982 Operating License granted (Full Power) August 1984

1. 4 Plant Features Covered by the DCRDR 1.4.1 Main Control Room The central focus of the DCRDR will be the main control room (see B Section 1.6.2a), shown in Figure 1.

1.4.2 Remote Shutdown Panels Also included in the DCRDR will be the displays and controls required to bring the plant to cold shutdown should the main control room become uninhabitable. These items are listed below:

I e Panel 1H22-P150, Division 1 Remote Shutdown Panel e Panel lH22-P151, Division 2 Remote Shutdown Panel

1. 5 Previous Hunan Factors Work in the Control Room M

1.5.1 GGNS-1 Preilminary Design Assessment During a period extending from 1980 through 1982, MP&L performed a Preliminary Design Assessment (PDA) on GGNS-1 as allowed by NUREG-E 0737 Supplement 1 (Section 5.2.f). The initial results of the PDA were summarized in a document entitled " Human Factors Engineering Evalustion of the Grand Gulf Unit 1 Control Room," which was based 5 on the checklist established in the NUREG-1580 guidelines. Subse-quent environmental surveys were performed using the checklist guidance of NUREG-0700 (Section 6 ). Numerous HEDs were documented and resolutions agreed upon with the NRC prior to CGNS-1 full power licensing. The results of this effort, including HED resolution, are summarized in the GGNb-1 Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-0831) and its Supplements 1 through 6.

1.5.2 Control Room CRT Console Human Factors Review In 1982 MP&L commissioned the Quadrex Corporation to provide a human factors review of several GGNS-1 main control room information display systems, including Powerplex, Balance-of-Plant, and the process computer, with the operator guides. This review was summarized in a document entitled " Human Factors Review of the Control koom CRT Displays" (Report No. QUAD-1-82-242).

E 3

r-MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY P881 P903 P738 1 PE R3=mNL L I P739 b 1 P935 l l..I. L [ RAD MONITOR L

E h P700 P731 P720 P844 f P600 l P604 P845

" 8' P856 P900 WLOWG P934 a iI ii 7864 l l l P855 l l slLES E F862 P939 pggg I P634 l P914 l P612 l l l E'LI pm,gTgg T _ P933 (LOGi f* PS22 E TABLE g

T e

P843 88 P694 P672 H s g ,. ,m l P+a E .

1 j u -

= \ P,,,

a - I "T>

ll

,9,,

, 866 LB=<

A,E  % p _

r- P610 PS4 P607 P631 P614 g - P9,.

e P6 ,

T4 # l l l P6 2l P692 l

,m P670 ll 'N

~_2 ,8,0

)=>">c= Pm

] P.,5 P6,9 P6.,

Pm I P= H ~3oM l l l ll ""

g P653 P911 P 730 P701 P702 __

(BaE ATMING APPAR ATL S Hl3 F60 3 GENERATOR & TRANSFORMER PROTECTION V8 HIM631 AO'O OEPRE55 CHANNEL ' 8" RELAY b6 M13 P807 AUxlLIARY ELECTRICAL CONTROL 88 M13P634 RECIRC FLOW CONTROL M t 37822 TUR8sNE SUPERvaSORY RECORDER V8 M13#642 Div 2 LE AK DETECTION V8 M137842 HV AC CONTROL v8 M117664 M$1V DIV. 2 Y8 M t 3 P843 BOP PROCESS INSTRUMENT CABINET M11P655 M51V DIV I V8 MI 3 P844 ARE A R AOi ATION WONtTOR CA8l NET M137670 NEUTRON & RADIATION UON' TOR Div 2 M13 P845 08 F GAS $YSTIV ILon TEV8: CONTROL V8 M t 3 P672 NEUTRON & R ADI ATION WONITOR Div 4 M13 PB$1 ANNUNCIATOR LOGIC CA8l NET M117680 CPE R ATOR CONTROL CONSOLE M117692 LIV. 2 RPS LOGIC V8 H t 3#854 PL ANT CONTROL vE RTICAL 80ARO M11P694 OlV. 4 RPS LOGIC y8 M13 P855 CONTROL ROOM VENT VERTICAL BOARD M137651 ROD ACTION CONTROL CA8 Olv i M13 P856 SEISMIC INSTRuvf NT C A3iNET M138652 ROD ACTION CONTROL CA8 Div et M13 P862 FIRE PROTECTION V8 M137653 ROD ORivE CONTROL CA8 M13 P864 OlESEL GENE R ATOR 88 M13 P900 FIRE PROTECTION CA81 NET M13P866 MONITORING CONSOL E M11P901 FIRE PROTECTION CABINET M13 P873 AV AILIARY CONTROL BENCM80ARD M11P902 FIRE PROTECTION CA8l NET Mt3 P87* Div et ESF LOG'C V8 M13#403 FIRE PROTECTION CA81 NET M13 Pb. 80P LOG,C v8

, M13 7878 Osv 4 ESF LOGet vg M137910 FIRE PROTECTION CA8tNET I M t 37911 FIRE PROTECTION CAsiNET M13 P 7X N TE RViN ATION CA8iNE T$ M11P912 FIRE PROTECTION CA8INET M117600 M117914 FIRE PROTECTION CA8tNET PROCE55 m ADI AfiON R ECORDE R$ V 8 M t 3 P601 1E ACTOR CORE COOLING 88 M137920 FIRE PROTECTION CAsiNET j M13# M FIRE PROTECTION CA81 NET i

M13 P604 PROCESS R AQl ATION MONITORING INSTRuut NT PANEL M13 P6C7 TiP CONTROL & WONtTOR+NG INSTRUMENT PANEL M11PS32 FIRE PROTECT'ON CA81 NET M137610 CONTROL ROD TEST INSTRUMENT PANEL M11P933 FIRE PROTECTION CASINET M137612 FEEDA ATER & RECsRCUL ATION V8 M117934 FIRE PROTECTION CA86 NET M13 P613 NSSS PROCE551NSTRuuE NT CA8'NE T M t 3 P935 FIRE PROTECTION CABINET M13 7614 NSSS TEMPER ATURE RECORDER vg M11P938 FIRE PROTECTION CA8l NET M t 37939 FIRE PROTECTION CA8tNET M13 P618 Olv 2 RE$iDual HE AT REMOVAL IRMRI 8 & C RELAY VR Mt 37619 JET PUMP INSTRUWE NT ATION PANE L U',

kt17622 IN80ARD W A ,yE REL AY V8 M13 P625 MiGM PRESSURE COR E SPR Ay atLAY v8 C83P827 WS CONSOLE M t 3 7630 REVOTE ANN E LECTRONrC v8 P630M MISP858 ISOLATION V Alvt STATU$ PANEL Figure 1. Main Control Room Layout 4

l

MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 1.5.3 Transition from Previous Work to the DCRDR

a. MP&L will perform a complete Control Room Survey during the DCRDR using N'JREG-0700 (Section 6) guidellres as applicable to the GGNS-1 Control Room. MP&L will refer to the PDA results

> only to enhance and verify overall DCRDR results.

b. The Control Room Survey to be performed during the DCRDR (see Section 3.4) will confirm the adequacy of the resolution of the high-priority HEDs from the PDA and will verify that all low priority HEDs from the PDA not previously resolved were identified as new HEDs.
c. The information in the Quadrex Corporation report (see Section 1.5.2) will be used in the DCRDR Review Phase.
d. MP&L will take credit for all work done to improve Control Room operability before the DCRDR. Such credit will be detailed and supported in the Final Summary Report.

1.6 Glossary of Terms and Acronyms 1.6.1 General Remarks Within this Program Plan, a number of terms and acronyms are used that apply to the DCRDR. Since there are differences in the usage of these terms (even among practitioners in the nuclear industry),

the definitions shown below will apply to all GGNS-1 DCRDR

- activities. Applicable acronyms are also listed.

1.6.2 Terms

a. Control Room - The term " Control Room" refers to all plant features covered by the DCRDR as outlined in Section 1. 4. The term " main control room" is used to denote the control room as shown in Figure 1 and does not include the Remote Shutdown Panels.
b. Control Room Enhancements - Surface modifications that do not involve major physical changes, for example, demarcation, labeling changes, and painting.
c. Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR) - The Control Room Design Review described in this Program Plan, as required by NUREG-0737 (Item I.D.1) and NUREG-0737 Supplement 1 (Section 5),
d. Emergency Ope rating Procedures (EOPs) - Plant procedures directing operator actions necessary to mitigate the consequences of accidents. The EOPs will be developed using the Plant Specific Technical Guidelines (PSTGs) and the EOP Writers Guide, per NUREG-0899.

I 5

MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY

e. Emergency Procedure Guidelines (EPGs) - The technical guidelines developed by the BWR Owners Group (BWROG), which provide sound engineering bases for use in developing BWR PSTGs and EOPs.
f. Final Summary Report - Report of the results of the DCRDR as described by NUREG-0737 Supplement 1 (Section 5.2.b). The GGNS-1 Final Summary Report is described in Section 5.1 of this Program Plan.
g. Function (Subfunction) - A kind of activity (or a static role) performed by one or more system constituents (people, mechanisms, structures) to contribute to a larger activity or goal state.
h. Function Allocation - The distribution of functions among the I human and automated constituents of a system.
1. Function / Functional Analysis - The examination of system goals to determine the functions the system requires. Also, examination of the required functions with respect to available manpower, technology, and other resources, to determine how the functions may be allocated and executed. In E the DCRDR, primarily the identification of established functions and examination of how they are allocated and executed.
j. Guidance - A given condition that is subject to modification or change when adequata, documented jastification is provided.
k. Human Engineering - The science of optimizing the performance of human beings, especially in industry. Also, more narrowly, the science of the design of equipment for ef ficient use by human beings. In GGNS-1 DCRDR activities, the broader definition is used.
1. Human Engineering Discrepancy (HED) - A departure from some benchmark of system design suitability for the roles and capabilities of the human operator.
m. Operator - Any NRC-licensed individual in a nuclear power facility who manipulates a control or directs another to manipulate a control.
n. Plant Specific Technical Guidelines (PSTGs) - The plant specific technical requirements developed from the BWROG EPGs, along with any other plant specific requirements determined I necessary for mitigating the consequences of an accident. The PSTGs provide the technical basis for the EOPs.
o. Regulrement - A given condition that is not subject to modification or change.

E 6

MISeISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY E

p. System (Subsystem) - A whole that fe.ctions as a whole by virtue of the interdependence of it J parts. Also, especially of human systems, an organization of interdependent constituents that work together in a patterned manner to accomplish some purpose. ,

R- q. System (s) Analysis - Examination of a complex organization and its constituents to define their relationships and the means by which their actions and interactions are regulated to E achieve goal states.

r. Task (Subtask) - A specific action, performed by a single system constituent, person or equipment, that contributes to the accomplishment of a function. In the DCRDR, only tasks allocated to people, in particular to Control Room operators, are addressed in detail.
s. Validation - The process of determining whether the physical and organizational design for operations is adequate to 5 support effective integrated performance of the functions of the Control Room operating crew.
t. Verification - The process of determining whether instrumentation, controls, and other equipment meet the specific requirements of the task performed by operators.

i 1.6.3 Acronyms

a. AMI - Accident Monitoring Instrumentation
b. ATWS - Anticipated Transient Without Scram
c. BWR - Boiling Water Reactor
d. BWROG - BWR Owners Group
e. 2 - Control Room I

l f. C RT - Cathode Ray Tube (Display) l l

l g. DBMS - Database Management System

h. DCRDR - Detailed Control Room Design Review
1. EOP - Emergency Operating Procedure l
j. EPGs - Emergency Procedure Guidelines
k. ERC - Ert.ergency Response Capability
1. ERP - Emergency Response Facility
m. ERPIS - Emergency Response Facility Information System E

MISSISSIPPI FOWER & LIGHT Cot 4PANY

n. FSAR - Final Safety Analysis Report
o. GGNS Grand Gulf Nuclear Station - Unit 1
p. GDGs - Graphic Display Guidelines
q. HED - Human Engineering Discrepancy
r. g - Human Factors
s. EC, - Human Factors Consultant
t. I&C - Instrumentation and Controls
u. LER - Licensee Event Report n
v. MP&L - Mississippi Power & Light Company
w. NPE - *4P&L Neclear Plant Engineering
x. tJRC

- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

y. PAM - Post-Accident Monitoring
z. PDA - Preliminary Design Assessment aa. PGP - Procedures Generation Package bb. PSTGs - Plant Specific Technical Guidelines cc. RG - Regulatory Guide dd. SME - Subject Matter Expert ee. SPDS - Safety Parameter Display System ff. S RO - Senior Reactor Operator 99 TAW - Task Analysis Worksheet 1 hh. V&V - Verification and Validation 1

l l

5 3

e E

MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY E

2. PLAN'4ING PHASE 2.1 Planning Phase Objectives The main objectives of the Planning Phase are to completely identify activities and schedule sequences of events by the responsible E' organization and to develop a Program Plan for submittal to the NRC. In addition, the Planning Phase will be used to develop the DCRDR Task Plans, plan and schedule activities in a DCRDR Project Plan, orient DCRDR B Team members, and document Human Factors Criteria for DCRDR use.

2.2 DCRDR Management and Staf fing 2.2.1 DCRDR Team Structure

a. Team Leader All levels of MP&L management recognize the importance of the DCRDR and the other NUREG-0737 Supplement 1 programs. MP&L is E dedicated to providing all ranagement involvement necessary to provide a complete, multidisciplined Control Room review.

However, the day-to-day conduct of the review (including the

' 5 use of additional support for the DCRDR Team as ne'ded) will be the responsibility of the DCRDR Team Leader. The DCRDR Team Leader will provide the program management oversight to ensure the accomplishment of the project objectives and to B meet the regulatory requirements of the review.

Team Leader is responsible for planning, scheduling, The DCRDR i coordinating, and integrating all DCRDR activities.

b. Team Members The DCRDR Team consists of a core group of specialists in l

human f actors engineering, plant operations, and nuclear and lI electrical / instrumentation & controls (I&C) engineering. This core group includes personnel who are also knowledgeable in licensing, training, program management, and other NUREG-0737 Supplement 1 programs such as SPDS and upgrade of EOPs. The relationships among team members are shown in Figure 2.

2.2.2 DCRDR Team Member Qualifications and Duties The qualifications of the DCRDR Team members meet the 14UREG-0801 criteria. The team members' resumes are provided in Appendix B.

Briefly, the team members include

a. Mr. H. E. Kook, Jr. - DCRDR Team Leade r Assigned to fluclear Plant Engineering (NPE)-Electrical, 5 Mr. Kook is an electrical engineer who is currently program manager for the GG!!S-1 EOP Upgrade Program in addition to his

,E 9

l E

MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT CDIPANY E

5 E

ERC Management Committee 3,

l NU R EG-0737 C upplement 1 B. Coordinator lf if 1f If DCRDR g EOP Upgrade Training SPDS Team Leader Program Manager RG 1.97 Kook lf if If II HFC MP&L Technical Project Team & Admin.

Support EOP Manager Members Upgrade Burgy Hendry Bryant Personnel Memon Hinman Bottemiller I lf HFC Specialists Liddle Schroeder E

5 Figure 2. Functional DCRDR Team Organization 5 10

MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGFIT COMPANY duties as DCRDR Team Leader. He is responsible for the scheduling, management, and integration of all DCRDR and EOP Upgrade Program activities.

b. Mr. C. A. Bottemiller - DCRDR Team Member for Operations and Training Assigned to GGNS-1 Plant Staff-Training, Mr. Bottemiller is currently a licensed Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) with 3 years' experience at GGNS-1 and 3-1/2 years' experience at 5 Brunswick Steam Electric Plant. He will provide operations and training input to the DCRDR Team, and is responsible for' DCRDR liaison with MP&L's training department.
c. Mr. W. J. Hendry - DCRDR Team Member for Operations, Engineering, and Licensing Assigned to MP&L Nuclear Safety and Licensing, Mr. Hendry is a nuclear engineer with previous experience as an SRO (cold license certification) and shift supervisor at GGNS-1, and as a shif t supervisor at River Bend Nuclear Station. lie will E provide operations, engineering, and licensing input to the DCRDR Team, and is responsible for DCRDR liaison with MP&L's licensing organization.
d. Mr. M. A. Memon - DCRDR Team Member for Engineering Assigned to NPE-Systems, Mr. Memon is an electrical engineer with 11 years' experience. He is currently head of the GGNS-1 Simulator Update Program. He will provide engineering input to the DCRDR Team, and is responsible for DCRDR liaison with I NPE-Systems.
e. Mr. D. C. Burgy - DCRDR Team Member for Human Engineering Assigned as Human Factors Consultant (HFC) Project Manager for the GGNS-1 DCRDR by General Physica Corporation, Mr. Burgy 8 holds a master's degree in applied-experimental psychology and has more than 8 years' experience in the human factors field. He will provide human factors engineering input to the DCRDR Team, and is responsible for DCRDR liason with the HFC.
f. Other IIFC Participation - DCRDR Team Member for Human Engineering One of the following HFC personnel will also participate as a DCRDR Team member when appropriate:

E 5

5 E

MISSISSIPPI FDWER & LTGFIT COMPAt3Y a 1) Dr. L. R. Schroeder - Human Factors Engineer Dr. Schroeder is a human factors engineer with over 11 years' experience in academics and industry. He will provide support to the DCRDR, under the direction of the HFC Project Manager.

2) Mr. R. J. Liddle - Human Factors Engineer Mr. Liddle is a human factors engineer with over 5 years' experience in nuclear power plant human factors applications. He holds a masters degree in Industrial Engineering / Operations Research.

I He will provide support to the DCRDR, under the direction of the HFC Project Manager.

2.2.3 DCRDR Team Support

a. General Physics Corporation - Human Factors Support General Physics Corporation will provide any additional human factors engineering support required for the DCRDR, as a directed by the DCRDR Team Leader.
b. Mr. T. M. Bryant - Administrative and Technical Background Support fir. Bryant is an electrical engineer who will provide adminis-trative and technical background support for the DCRDR, under l E the direction of the DCRDR Team Leader.
c. Mr. J. P. Hinman - Technical Support Mr. Hinman is a mechanical engineer (with an associate degree in electronics technology) who will pros Lde technical support and DCRDR 11alson with NPE-Mechanical-I&C, under the direction I of the DCRDR Team Leader. Additional technical support is available on site f rom the MP&L staf f, the Architect-Engineer, and/or the NSSS supplier.

2.2.4 DCRDR Team Orientation

a. GGNS-1 Orientation for HFC The IIFC will undergo a brief orientation period at GGMS-1.

During this orier.tation period, the HFC will establish a 5 working knowle:Ir,e of the GGNS-1 DCRDR by participating in an organizational meeting to establish project control guidelines l and policy. In addition, this period will be a time for the HFC to become familiar with the general plant and Control Room B layout and the !!P&L ERC ef forts.

I 12 E

MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 5 b. Human Factors Orientation for MP&L The HFC will present a short course at GGNS-1 detalling the applicable requirements of NUREG-0737 Supplement 1, the guidance of NUREG-0700 and NUREG-0801, and the basics of human engineering principles as applied to nuclear power stations.

2.3 Data Management A large number of documents will be referenced and produced during the DCRDR. Therefore, an efficient and systematic method for controlling these documents is necessary. The DCRDR Team Leader is responsible for 5 documentation control. All documents used as primary input to the DCRDR or generated during the DCRDR will be subject to document control procedures. All documentation received or generated during the DCRDR will be logged. The log will contain the document name, the revision E level, and the date received. Written procedures will be prepared for the control of DCRDR documentation.

A comprehensive documentation file will be maintained for use by the DCRDR Team. At the end of the project, any GGNS-1 documentation retained by the HFC will be turned over to MP&L to maintain for future use and 8 reference.

2. 3.1 Documentation Requirements The methodology described in this section will be used to meet the following documentation regairements:
a. Provide a record of all documents used by the DCRDR Team as references during the vs.rlous phases of the DCRDR.
b. Provide a record of all documents produced by the DCRDR Team E as project output.
c. Allow an audit path to be generated through the project E documentation.
d. Develop project files in a manner that allows future access to help determine the effects of Control Room changes proposed in the future.

2.3.2 Input Data The following documents have been identif ied as reference material to be used during the review process. As the review progresses, it is anticipated that additional material will be identified and 5 referenced. Therefore the following list of documents is pre 1iminary e Licensee Event Reports (LERs) e Final Safety Analysis Report [(PSAR), Chapter 15, " Accident Analysis" 13

MISSISSIPPI POWER E LIGHT COMPANY 5 e Training Department Systems Descriptions e Piping and Instrumentation Drawings 5 e e

I&C Index Control Room Floor Plan e Panel Layout Drawings e Panel Photographs B e Emergency Procedure Guidelines (EPGs) prepared by the Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group (BWROG) e GGNS-1 EOPs E e e

Of f-Nomal Event Procedures System Operating Instructions e PDA information 2.3.3 Output Data Throughout the DCRDR, documents will be processed to record data, E document analyses, and record findings. Whenever possible and appropriate, standard forms will be developed and used. The following 110t represents a preliminary estimate of the types of 5 documents that will result from the DCRDR o Program Plan 5 e e

e Project Plan (including schedule)

Task Plans Human Factors Criteria l

e Operator Questionnaire

. e LER Review Results forms e Control Room Inventory Worksheets e Panel Checklists (from the Control Room Survey) e E e Task Analysis Worksheets Videotapes of Validation e All HEDs e Executive Summary Report 5 e Final Summary Report 2.3.4 Database Management System The focus of the computerized database management system (DBMS) is an IB'1 XT computer. The DBMS software is based on the dBASE III system by Ashton-Tite, as modified by General Physics Corporation E for DCRDR projects. The DB5tS will allow for selective sorts and lists of data collected throughout the DCRDR. The following data will be input into the DiriS files:

e ifEDs and other findings from the review of GGNS-1 operating experience e A list of the tasks and subtasks from task anplysis, including related systems, controls, or displays required to accomplish the task or suhtask B 14 5

MISSISSIPPI FOWER & LIGHT COMPA W e A list of controls, displays, and other equipment from the Control Room Inventory, including identif1 cation number, location, name, and description of features e HEDs and other results of the Control Room Survey and the Verification and Validation activities a The results of the Assessment and Implementation activities, documented on all !!ED forms (similiar to Figure C-1 in Appendix C) e All forms and standard documents used in the DCRDR l

e All other HEDs or findings not specified above l

Each of the input data flies will allow for rapid, convenient B management and tracking of the review findings and results.

HED file will provide a look-alike output form (similar to Figure The f

C-1 in Appendix C) that will be used in the Final Summary Report and other documentation. The DBMS will be used in the future MP&L review of Control Room design changes.

2.4 Equipment and Workspace f MP&L has made arrangements for workspace to be provided for the DCRDR Team in the GGNS-1 Energy Services Center, the site of the GGNS-1 plant l

5 specific simulator. The HFC will provide all the equipment required to conduct the Control Room Survey and videotaping of Validation walk-throughs.

l 2.5 Scheduling l

MP&L has prepared a tentative schedule for all DCRDR activities. This 5 schedule is shown in Figure 3.

2.6 Planning Phase Doc'imentation

2.6.1 NPC Program Plan In accordance with NUREG-0737 Supplement 1 (Section 5.2.a), this Program Plan was prepared for submittal to the NRC and is the controlling document for the GGNS-1 DCRDR.

2.6.2 MP&L Project Plan The MP&L Project Plan will detail and schedule all DCRDR activities by MP&L and liFC organization. Reference to applicable DCRDR Task Plans will be used instead of detailing certain activities. The Project Plan will also specify all activities needed for the DCRDR to comply with the requirements of NUREG-0737 B Supplement 1 (Section 3, " Coordination and Integration of Initiatives").

(

l 5 15 i

E

l.  ;' l l ! i

%$ yT%M 8h* Cv$d nOxgk

'4

_ L e

_ U J

N U

J h Y

A

._ M ME R

P A b R

_ A M

_. M

_ B

_ E 6 F 8 N

_. 9

_ 1 A J

. C

_. E D E M

_ V O

_ N T

C E

_ O M _

P S

E G

U A M

_ L U

J MM

_. N U

J M

_ Y A

_. M M

_ R P

E

_ A E R

A M

_ B E

__ 5 8

F M M 9 N 1 A J MM b _

_ C E

D $E M

_ 4 8

9 V

O N

T E' M -

C 1

O 3 b

n

_ N o. ,

b s e

O T

I t

t a

n bwe s e

e -

A i

s R

- u h.t T s s

v b N n im s la -y d a w o p n t e w

'a n p E t e o- a n o m t ta e. A a M u ro t

h w

e w C t c E L

lo s ni t

w P xC n t c H 4 e nu -t P e o. E p w u n F g o a R i

A e n.. f M s t S e i ta T u A R e.

mes -

&E D D !os I

E t n

m e

w

&mm E t

y v-te D S

A e, ts, E ie of o ro a T H H eR PH rop ram y , H s y m

, S A w . v G r S o R N -e tae e r

H 0 S e o P J. H u o. . - P N R m oo u t E

a '. n R G FC P E t

n lo M o edr I v -

e r T e K t e .. R kas r t

mo ra S S O l

t S N H o r i

a. s i W q
r. s c S S mvE e R O me A

I N & :a P

C Pt o  ;

p E

I ta WS  ; n T o C o E S

'a h<

P m - n nq y

s t

r n c R

S C & S T

N s P V o o ro t

nk s 2

nm E u t

u n N e E A m a m t o o. E +1 -

o o 1 tu, fo A 1, n n d & R S c t a C o w S L e ra c r a M H 0; R R a o u o a e t

a e ti. D M n t A P T g a P T F 'o - = n p e e nt s H o F es -

1 ta i e m +e V

c. E e s a me a e

- OR P- na DR RD mc t

o i-o r a P

1 a

a 1

1 S - ta t

t

. o mm I F L m t b

a 1

1 M

R N t, C & ip m v.

t

-e a t. E a E D E R C mH R t E

S G

< o s, e a S n c

e u S R P t

a k S C R a C C a A A R D A N U a D D m a

s R A D N H D D D A G C C vV I sT C H H H H D P P P P

eO

  • d

-r C C w* q$$[j b $ [aC~O y fii1l'

MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGIT CGMPA!M E 2.6.3 Task Plans Over the duration of the DCRDR, approximately seven DCRDR Task Plans will be prepared. These Task Plans will supply detailed, working level instructions for the completion of certain DCRDR activities.

I 2.6.4 Iluman Factors Criteria Human factors specialists will develop and document the human engineering criteria and conventions specifically applicable to the GGNS-1 Control Room. All applicable requirements, whether NRC I (NUREG-0700) or other, and the source criteria will be identified in a manner that permits easy reference for convenient project i use. Also, the human factors specialists will provide documentation indicating why specific NRC criteria are not B applicable in a particular case. These criteria and documentation will be submitted to the DCRDR Team for review and approval.

After the DCRDR, the !!uman Factors Criteria will be adapted for E ongoing reviews and documentation of future changes to the GGNS-1 Control Room.

5 l5 l

l5 l5 E

E E

E E

E 17 E

~

MISSISSIPPI FOWER & LIGHT COMPANY

3. REVIEW PHASE 3.1 Review Phase Processes Six major processes discussed in NUREG-0700 will be used to establish and apply benchmarks for identifying HEDs of both Control Room completeness and its human engineering suitability:

e Operating Experience Review ,

o Control Room Inventory e Control Room Survey e System Functions Review and Task Analysis B e e

Verification of Task Performance Capabilities Validation of Control Room Functions The activities involved in each of the six processes are discussed below.

l 3.2 Operating Experience Review 3.2.1 Purpose The Operating Experience Review will identify factors or 5 conditions that could cause and/or have previously caused human performance problems and could be alleviated by improved human engineering. This review will provide information on potential problem areas by studying documented occurrences of human 5

I engineering related problems that have occurred at GGNS-1 and at similar plants.

3.2.2 Methodology 1 There are two major steps in the Operating Experience Reviews a 5 Historical Documentation Review and Operator Interviews. The methodologies for both tasks are described below.

a. Historleal Documentation Review LERs for GGNS-1 and two other similar plants (LaSalle and l

Susquehanna) will be reviewed to identify deficiencies known to 5 have previously contributed to operator errors. This review will consist of the following steps:

1) Obtain documentation.

l 2) Examine LER documentat ion an ! summarize the circumstances and events that are associated with the Control Room problem noted in the documentation. An LER HED Review Summary form, i

almilar to Figure C-2 in Appendix C, will be used to summarize and document control Roon human f actors problems identified in historical reports. The form will provide Information concerning the event itself, an indication of 5

18 E

1

MISSESSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPAJY E what actions have been taken to resolve the problem, and additional human factors recommendations. A Control Room I problem is defined as one in which:

a) The equipment referenced in the LER is located in the main control room or remote shutdown panels.

b) The procedure referenced is used within the main control room or remote shutdown panels.

c) The personnel error occurred using main control room or remote shutdown panel components.

3) The DCRDR Team will Iwiew the completed LER Review Results forms to determine applicability to GGNS-1. All applicable Control Room problems from the flistorical I Documentation Review will be documented as llEDs.
b. Operator Interviews The purpose of the Operator Interviews is to obtain direct operator input to aid in identifying potential or actual 5 deficiencies in the Control Room layout or design or in operating procedures that result in confusion (mental activities), difficulty (manual activities), or distraction (the environment).

The steps for conducting operator interviews are:

1) Distribute confidential questionnaires to as many operations personnel, including training instructors, as is possible. The ifFC will distribute and evaluate the questionnaires to ensure uninhibited responsus.
2) Assimilate questionnaire responses and develop interview I format based on responses.
3) Conduct follow-up interviews with as many questionnaire respondents as possible. If possible, conduct interviews in the Control Room (or simulator) so that inte rviewees can refer to the control boards to explain in detail the l

types of concerns or problems they have encountered.

Again, the liPC will ttko the lead in this activity to (E

j prevent peer and/or management pressure from influencing responses.

4) Review data to ascertain whether the c.meerns encountered are IfEDs.

I

5) Document HEDs on an IfCD f o rm .

5 19 5

MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY E 3.3 Control Room Inventory 3.3.1 Purpose The purpose of a Control Room Inventory is to provide a basis to determine whether the I&C needed to support GGNS-1 emergency operations are availablo in the Control Room.

3.3.2 Methodology The DCRDR Team will review all GGNS-1 Control Room panel layout drawings to denote the current "as-built" configuration of the Control Room. An appropriate " freeze" date will be established by I the DCRDR Team. Equipment characteristics associated with all Copntrol Room I&C will be noted using a form similar to Figure C-3 5 in Appendix C. Then, a data summary of the Control Room Inventory will be entered into the DBMS.

3.4 Control Room Survey E 3.4.1 Purpose The purpose of the Control Room Survey is to identify charac-teristics of I&C, equipment, physical layout, and environmental conditions that do not conform to precepts of good human engineering practice, regardless of the particular system or B specific task requirements. This survey is accomplished by conducting a systematic comparison of existing Control Room design features with documented human engineering guidelines. The

~

ultimate objective la to identify potential enhancements and I B modifications of the operator-Control Room interfcce that will reduce the potential for human error.

3.4.2 Methodology The Control Room Survey will be performed using checklists based E on NUREG-0700 (Section 6). Any difference from NUREG-0700 (3ection 6) will be documented and justified in the Final Summary Report. The checklists will be completed for each panel in the 5 main control room and the remote shutdown panels during the planned DCRDR activities. Any deviations from the checklist criteria will be documented as HEDs. The najor steps in the checklist offort are:

a. Obtain one copy of the checklist per panel for the main control room and remote shutdawn areas.
b. Conduct the survey using one checklist per panel and document pertinent readings and measurementn, or compliance with the checklist criteria.

5 20 5

I i

E MISSISSIPPI POWER E LIGHT COMPAm E c. After all the checklist data have been collected, review the data to extract all HEDs.

d. Document HEDs on an HED form and input into the DBMS. These forms will be the input documentation for the DCRDR Assessment and Implementation Phase.
e. Verify that HEDs from the PDA not previously resolved were identified as new HEDs.

3.5 System Functions Review and Task Analysis 3.5.1 Purpose The purpose of the System Functions Review and Task Analysis process of the DCRDR is to determine the input and output 5 requirements of the Control Room crew for emergency operation and to ensure that required systems can be efficiently and reliably operated during emergency operations by available personnel. This 5 will be accomplished by performing an analysis of tasks contained in the GGNS-1 draft EOPs or Plant Specific Technical Guidelines i

(PSTGs). This approach will address the concerns identified in the NRC Memorandum dated May 14, 1984, regarding the BWROG task B analysis requirements.

The activities that make up the System Functions Review and Task 5 Analysis are shoun in Figure 4 and described below.

3.5.2 Methodology for System Functinns Review 5 Plant systems and subsystems in the Control Room that the operator must access during emergency operations will be identified.

g Existing plant documentation (e.g., FSAR, systems descriptions, etc.) relating to safety-related systems will serve as a prime information source. Descriptions of the functions of each of these systems will be prepared. These functions descriptions will E include:

e The function (s) of the system e The condition (s) under which the system is used I e A brief explanation of how the system operates The description of system functions in this manner will serve as a E reference base for the subsequent task analysis. In addition, the systems list will be used to essist in the selection of operating scenarios for the Validation activities.

E 3.5.3 Methodology for Operating Scenario Selection GGNS-1 PSTGs or draft EOPs and the list of GGNS-1 safety-related 3 systems will be used to define a set of scenarios that adequately 5 21 5

MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY E IN

\/

Inputs 1f Products 5 FSAR System Descriptions Systern Functicns Review e System Functions Descriptions System Functions Form e Identify Systems 5 e Classify Systems (Safety vs. Nc-safety )

e Describe System Functions I

  • Scenario Descriptions (6)

CR /Sim. Diff e' ence. Study Scenario scriptions

  • Matrix Simulator Malfunctions List Scenario Description Form
  • Identify Scenarios e Describe Scenarios e Review Scenarios against Simulator e Develop initial Systems by Scenario Matrix E

4 if E BWROG EPCs Task Analysis e Residual Tasks for Walk throughs Only GGNS 1 PSTGs ( e EOP Steps Covered or GGNS 1 FOPS e Ident.fy Rewdul M e TA Worksheets (% rinnr.)

Tech Specs Ir dependently Completed e bucument EOP/EPG Steps Covered 5 TA Worksheets e Develop Scenarlo-Based Tasks e o Identify Decision Req 4 5 e Develop information & Control Req $

G r

E lf i E

E GGNS-1 Experience Review of Task Analysis Worksheets by GGNS 1 OPS'TRNG e Comments on TA Worksheets m

TA Worksheets (~% completed) e Revised TA Worksheets Conduct Si olator Runs Observation Forms e Observation Forms Videotape Equipment e Rea: Time (Sequence Valid l> sues)

E e Walk-throughs (Content /Ver issues)

If OUT

< 5 N/

5 Figure 4. System Functions Review and Task Analysis Steps 22

i E MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPA:1Y E

sample various emergency conditions (including NUREG-1000 concerns), the plant systems, and system functions used under 5 those conditions.

A brief narrative description of each scenario will be prepared 5 that establishes the limits and conditions of the events to be analyzed. Each scenario description will include:

e Initial plant conditions E e Sequence initiator o Progression of action e Final plant conditions I e Major systems involved 3.5.4 Identification of Residual Tasks E Residual operator tasks (unique tasks) from the PSTGs or draft EOPs not covered in the scenarios will also be identified and analyzed for associated information and control requirements. The I analysis of residual tasks will be done to ensure that all opera-tor interfaces have been, examined, even if those interfaces are not exercised in the emergency scenarios selected for task analysis and validation. Task Analysis Worksheets will also be I E completed for these tasks. Verification of equipment availability and suitability will be performed for these residual tasks as well as for tasks embedded in the emergency scenarios.

3.5.5 Methodology for Task Analysis Task Analysis Worksheets (see Figure 5) will be completed to indicate the operational steps required in each scenario along with the appropriate information and control requirements, means of operation, and I&C present on the control boards. The selected scenarios will provide the driving force for the Task Analysis.

The scenario number will be recorded for each Task Analysis Worksheet under " Scenario" (Column 1 in Figure 5). The Task E Analysis Worksheet fields are detailed in Figure 6. The operator tasks will be analyzed using the GGNS-1 PSTGs or draft EOPS as a starting point. The Task Analysis Worksheets will be prepared E according to the steps described below:

a. Part I - Identification of Procedure Steps, Tasks, Decision / Contingent Actions, and Information and Control 5 Requirements (Independent of the Control Room).
1) Discrete steps in the GGNS-1 P3TGs or draft EOPs and I corresponding EPGs will be identifled in order of performance within each scenario. These steps will be recorded under " Procedure Number" (Column 2), and branching points noted depending on the plant transient being analyzed under " Scenario Response" (Column 4). Note that there may be more tasks subsequently identified in 5 23 5

MISSISSIPPI POWER E LIGHT COMPAtW

't 5 2 l if 3=

1 E i = m I

E 3 1

> 1 s

)

g @ '

x =

1 , >3 n  ; .  :

t l

E E d

p e a .3.

g E 2 E

c } > -3

$  ! if e 3 13 51 f

I i @ l t

a Tei e >

E 3

\ E 1 1

s

~

h3 E

E 4 =

i )

l lt s ' o E Task Analysis Worksheet (see Figure 6 for numbered column def-Figure 5.

initions; Part numerals represent groups of columns filled out together)

E 24

MESSISSIPPC POWER & LYGHT COMPANY

~

1. SCEMARIO - operating scenario name and identifier (completed during '.'ask Analysis'.
2. PROCEDUr' TEP procedure step number for GGNS-1 PSTGs or draft EOPs and for the 7 'AOG generic EPGs (completed during Task Analysis).
3. 'L"kSK/ SUBTASK - a description of the crew member task /sul task in the operating aequence (completed during Task Analysis).
4. SCEN. RESP. - a notation designating decision points or branching information needed for correct task execution for the operating scenario as defined in the operating scenario description (completed during Task Analysis).
5. CREW MFMBER - the crew member who performs the task (completed during Validatio n) .
6. IDC - the location where the task is performed (completed during Validation).
7. DECISION AND/OR CONTINGEfff ACTION REQUIREMErffS - any contingent decision and/or action requirements that are linked to task performance (completed during Task Analysis).
8. INFORMATION AND CCNTROL REQ. - the information and control requirements for successful task performance (derived independently of the actual I&C in the Control Room). Noted in this column are (1) the system involved, (2) the 5 parameter, component in procedure needed, and (3) the relevant characteristics of the parameter or component referenced for the operator to execute th( task (completed during Task Analysis).
9. MEANS - the actual means (e.g., switch or meter) used by operators to perform the task in the Control Room (completed during Verification and supplemented during Validation).

f 10. I&C IDEffr. (PANEL /NO. ) - the actual IEC identified from walk-throughs that the operators used to perform the task. The I&C is uniquely identified using a Panel number and Equipment number (completed during Verification and supplemented during Validation).

11. VERIFICATION (AVAIL./ SUIT.) - columns that indicate the availability and l

suitability of the I&C needed for task performance. These columns would contain a "yes" or "no" answer that is arrived at through the Verification process. "No" entries are detailed further on an Equipment Suitability HED l

form (similar to Figure C-4 in Appendix C) (completed during Verification).

l

12. SPDS - the presence or absence of the I&C and associated characteristics on the 5 SPDS is noted in the "Y " or "N" columns (completed during Verification).

i 13. COMMEffrS/EIEDs - any comments relating to the above files and/or reference to related HEDs.

""'" '""" ^"" '" " " """"' ' " ' " ' '"'"' """ "' ""

E

, 25 l

MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGIT COMPANY 5 Step 2 below than there are procedural steps. In this case, a unique identifier will be entered in the column 5 when no explicit procedure step is present in the draft EOPs , PSTGs , o r EPGs .

2) A brief description of the operator's tasks (in order of I procedural steps) will be recorded under " Task / Subtask" (Column 3). Note that there may be many more tasks described than are explicitly called out in the procedural I step. All tasks, both explicit and implicit, will be documented by operations-experienced subject matter experts (SMEs) and the HFC using the EPGs, GGNS-1 PSTGs or E draft EOPs, and the FSAR.
3) The operator decisions and/or actions linked to task perfomance are then noted under " Decision and/or 5 Contingent Action Req;-trements" (Column 7 ). System functional response is described when appropriate in this column. This set of data also includes branching points I in the PSTGs or draft EOPS that determine the outcome of the scenario.
4) Information and control requirements for successful task perfomance are noted under Information and Control Requirements" (Column 8 ) . These would typically be param-eters, components, or procedural infomation necessary for E operators to cdequately assess plant conditions or system status (e.g. ,17 actor vessel water level or containment I temperature).

The relevant characteristics for parameter readings or i control selection will also be noted by the SME and HFC l

under "Infomation and Control Requirements" (Column 8 ).

lW The primary sources of information and control l

requirements for each task will be noted on an Information l and Control Requirement Sources form (similar to Figure C-5 l in Appec.9iv C). The interrelationships between Figure 5, Task Analysis Worksheet, and the Information and Control l

Requirement Sources form is shown in Figure 7.

I NOTE: It is important to note that Part I is completed on the Task Analysis Wor': sheet using independent sources of data other than the actual I&C present in the Control Room. Part E II essentially completes the first step in the verification process to identify whether or not the necessary I&C for task performance is available in the Control Room.

b. Part II - Determination of I&C Available in the Control Room. Af ter the Tasks, Decision Requirements, and Information l

l and Control Requirements have been identified, the specific l

= I&C that the operator has available for each procedural step E 26 l5

i I

l L 1

,. y 1

u_

e.--~ vasa amatvsis womasanar

. m. -% - . .ca _._ _._

I"

  • C

~

i wi ,,.

'-5---

flee i ,-i f ca f - l c Oss.nem Me~. l .easmeas.e.

t

-. i s, % , i ..r. -m i

j i

I  :

i iI;!!! .

. I i

i  !

l I ! Il l '

i l i j e t

I

!l

i i , -

i

'l1l l  !  !! l

! i I

l ,

! l  ! ;

l .

i l!

l I i L l I i l, l -

I i

l l i i vn - ~ - ~

Sources of Relevant Characteristics l&C ldentifu includes 'M^

MORMATION AND CONTROL REQUIREMENT SOURCES Comp!cted by

__,- f f AW REF. SOURCE OF INFORMATiON & CONTROL RE001RE MEN T FSAR! Luution Task i D SME EPG E ops EOP Basis SPDS AMI Design Bases Ta h Specs E PRI GDG Othes of Source Scenano e

l l

l1

Aho Avanable On Amegera Card

.4 g

. .' g o'*

  1. c' c,@,

%O s,s e s' c

/ / ,

~,.

( (. -

f v ,

/ s* .,. o

\

i

, {3

&::,'"$;s'd'% ; /f /5 ,

_. e spo,,

  1. ,/ '

l ' -

r n'p k x

\. ' '

y

~

,- x x x z

\ \

s

\

\x x \

\

.o j \ 's -

__ _ _. j@ e

\ .'N -

x x\ -

O,

~ -

9 3

7

MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIQlT COMPAM E and task will be determined from the control Room Inventory discussed in Section 3.3. All I&C needed to (1) initiate, 5 maintain, or remove a system from service, (2) confirm that an appropriate system response has or has not occurred, i.e.,

feedback, or (3) make a decision regarding plant or system status will be listed from the inventory.

E The "Means" (Column 9) refers to how the information and control requirements are presented on the control boards I (e.g., switch or meter). "I&C Identification" (Column 10) provides the specific panel number and identification number of the control or instrument.

For each I&C equipment item identified in this column, the equipment characteristics (parameter, range, units, scale, and/or control states) will already be noted on a separate I&C E Equipment Characteristics form that was completed as part of the inventory process discussed in Section 3 3.

E The remaining columns of the Task Analysis Worksheet (Parts III and IV) will be used during the Verification of Task Performance Capabilities, which is described in Section 3.6. The Task 5 Analysis Worksheet thus serves as the complete record of operstor tasks, decisions, information and control requirements, and I&C availability and suitability verification.

E 3.5.6 DBMS Use for Managing Task Analysis Data All Task Analysis data will be entered into the GGNS-1 DCRDR The forms used in collecting the data are:

E DBMS.

o Task Analysis Worksheet (Figure 5)

Information and Control Requirement Sources form (similar to E e Figure C-5) e I&C Equipment Characteristics form ( similar to Figure C-3 )

These forms collectively make up the complete database fields that are defined for the Task Analysis, Verification, and Validation activities / phases of the DCRDR. The interrelationships among the 5 discrete columns in the forms (database fields) are shown in Figure 7. The Task Analysis Worksheet is the master record of task data and the verification process decisions made about the task data and associated I&C equipment characteristics.

I In the DBMS, each data field (column) is represented only once, with all data being keyed to one or more fields of the Task I Analysis Worksheet. The other two forms are linked either by the Task Analysis Worksheet " Scenario" and " Task ID" (see Figure C-5 )

The or by the "I&C Identification" columns (see Figure C-3).

DCRDR Team member can enter the database by referencing either the E " Scenario" and " Task ID" or the "I&C Identification" keys. In this way, the database allows flexibility to search both operator task data and equipment data.

E

~

V vasa amatvs.s meanswen

- ~+ n osa _ -_.

ls le l'" lica-a-- i  ! * ' - .  !*  !=

'y~j =,,a ""

==--=t o-l =. c.- a "~' '.; .

Is : I c.-' o l '

I l I i l' 1 . '

i,  ; l i i :

i

,l i

l i >

4 .

1 .

i .  !

l ' l l .  ; .

a l i  ! !i i .

, ,I l  !

I l . . I l  : . ' ! t I

i l  ! l

i

!. { l . , !i I

! I I

, i i!

I  ! i

' 1

i. I I i i

I i

I l

I

  • l l

t ww - ~ - ~

Sources of Relevant Characteristics

  • l&C ldentifu includes 'M; INFORMATION AND CON 1ROL REQUIREMENT SOURCES Completnt t y Jv Date f A mw~m TAW REF SOURCE OF INFORMATION & CON TROL REQUIREMENT FSARf LOCJr.Un Scenar o Ta410 SME EPG E ops EOP en.s SPOS AMI Design Baws Ta h Stecs EPRO GDG Other of Sourre e

I 1

i i Alto Avaihble On A nertnre Card

i i

4a EQUIPMENT SUITABILITY HEDs"

^ ,

~wnw ~- ,

O rect Sys.

TAW REF f&C Not Eau oment '"fo not S "' Funy Comments ident Appropr. ate Not Useable Scea Task i O Prov.ded otion ns' column ** Discussion of this form is included in verification section of program pfan.

EQUIPMENT CHARACTERISTICS NW

%* ~ c" * '--'a u"*

i s c .r *-,,

  • "## y ,g g,,,,o 0,,mee,, n,,, t ,, [wrw l

l l

l i

TI l

APERTURE CARD i

l l

l

' Figure 7. Interrelationships among ,

Task Analysis Data Forms I+

27 85010 2 0 s o s -o l _

E MISSISSIPPE POWER & LIGHT COMPANY E Verification of Task Performance Capabilities 3.6 3.6.1 Purpose The purpose of the Verification is to systematically verify that the I&C identified in the Task Analysis as being required by the E operator are:

e Present in the Control Room I o Ef fectively designed to support correct task performance 3.6.2 Methodology The Verification will use a two-step approach to achieve the purpose stated above. A sumary of the verification process will be noted in Part III of the Task Analysis Worksheets and will be I supplemented by additional data described below. In the first step, the presence or absence of the I&C postulated in the Task Analysis Worksheet- will be confirmed by comparing the postulated E requirements unde "Information and Control Requirements" (Column 8 of the Task Analysis Worksheet) to the actual Control Room I&C listed under "Means" (Column 9) and "Isc Identification" (Column 10).

E In the second step, the suitability of the available I&C to meet task performance capabilities will be evaluated.

a. I&C Availability The presence or absence of required I&C will be noted by a "yes" or "no" under " Availability" (Column 11). If it is E discovered that required I&C is not available to the operator, any such occurrence will be identified as an HED and documented accordingly on an HED fora. The I&C identified above will be reviewed again to ensure direct versus indirect indications of parameters.

In addition to a verification of the required I&C on the E control boards, an additional step will be conducted to verify the parameters present on the SPDS. The presence or absence of these indications on the SPDS will be noted under "SPDS" E (Column 12).

b. I&C Suitability The second step of Verification will determine the human engineering suitability of the required I&C. For example, if a meter used in a particular procedure step exists in the Control 5 Room, that particular meter will be examined to determine whether or not it has the appropriate range and scaling (i.e., the appropriate characteristics) to support task perfor.aance under the corresponding procedural step. If the range and scaling are appropriate, it will be noted by checking the "yes" area under

" Suitability" (Column 11) on the Task Analysis Worksheet.

I 29 5

l

" MISSISSTPPI POWER & LIGHT cot 41 MW 5 Conversely, if the meter range or scaling is not appropriate for the parameter of interest to the operator, the "no" area 5 under " Suitability" on the Task Analysis Worksheet will be checked and the appropriate column checked on the Equipment Sultability HED form (similar to Figure C-4 in Apppendix C) .

This will be defined as an HED and documented accordingly on I an HED form.

3. 7 Validation of Control Room Functions 3.7.1 Purpose The purpose of the validation is to determine whether the 5 functions allocated to the Control Room operating crew can be accomplished effectively within (1) the structure of the GGNS-1 EOPs and (2) the design of the Control Room as it exists.

5,j Additionally, this step provides an opportunity to identify HEDs that may not have become evident in the static processes of the DCRDR, for example, in the Control Room Survey.

3.7.2 Methodology j

W If possible, the Validation will be performed in conjunction with the validation of GGNS-1 EOPs required by NUREG-0737 Supplement

1. Using the Task Analysis Worksheets, walk-throughs and simulator exercises will be performed using the PSTGs or draf t 5 EOPs. A normal crew complement will be performing these exercises.
a. Real-Tine Sirtulator Runs The scenarios will be run in real time on the GGNS-1 plant specific simulator. These real-time simulator runs will be I videotaped for later reference. For each task, the following types of informatior will be recorded in Part IV of the Task Analysis Worksheets:
1) An indication that the scenario response was accomplished will be noted under " Scenario Response" (Column 4 of the Task Analysis Worksheet).
2) Identification of which member of the operating crew performed the task will be noted under " Crew FLmber" I (Column 5).
3) The location of the crew member when performing the task will be noted under " Location" (Column 6).
4) A verification of the specific decisions and contingent actions that are associated with each operator task will 5 be noted under " Comments" (Column 13). This will include communications between and among crew members.

E 30 5

l l

MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY l

8 5) A verification of the I&C required in the associated i

procedural step or trek, for example, an indicating light I 5

on a controller energizing to red, or a pointer on a meter deflecting upward, will be added under "I&C Identifi-cation" (Column 10).

6) Comments related to Verification or Validation and any HEDs will be noted under " Comments" (Column 13).

The operators who performed the scenario will review the Task Analysis Worksheets and videotapes along with the DCRDR Team.

The operators will be asked to note any errors or problems that were encountered in the real-time simulator runs and to expound on the source of the errors or problems. These errors or problems will be documented for investigation as HEDs.

b. Walk-Throughs without Simulation The purpose of the walk-throughs is to evaluate the operational aspects of Control Room design in terms of E control / display relationships, display grouping, control feedback, visual and communication links, manning levels, and traffic patterns.

The operating crew will be given copies of the PSTGs or draft EOPs to follow as they are walking through the events. DCRDR B Team members will use the partially completed Task Analysis Worksheets to record observations and HEDs.

One scenario at a time will be walked through. Operators will be requested to perform the walk-through in slower than real time to provide a relatively slow paced rehearsal of the event. During these walk-throughs, the operators will be E instructed to speak one at a time and describe their actions. Since this will force serial action, the tasks will not be performed simultaneously. Specifically, the operators

, I will identify the:

l l e Component or parameter bning controlled or monitored e Purpose of the actlon e Expected result of the action in terms of system response l

As the operators walk through the event, they will point to

'I each control or display they utilize and indicate which annunciators are involved. As the walk-throughs proceed, the operators will also note any errors, such as improper step sequencing or branching, that may occur on the Task Analysis Worksheets. These errors will be traced back to the PSTGs or draft EOPs for investigation to ascertain whether the error occurred because of a procedural problem.

'E 31 5

E MISSISSIPPI POWER E LIGHT COMPANY E If a procedural problem is discovered, it will be documented. This documentation will be useful in responding 5 to Item 7 of NUREG-0737 Supplement 1, which involves the upgrade of EOPs. Procedure validation problems will be addressed as part of the task analysis and walk-throughs of the upgraded EOPs. This documentation will also be useful in I any type of long-term training program that involves procedures upgrades.

c. Link Analysis Once the events have been analyzed to extract the information noted above, link analyses, which trace the movement patterns E of the operating crew in the Control Room, will be prepared to assess whether the Conti'l Room layout hinders operator movement while performing the events.
d. Independent Review The final step in the validation process will be to have a s reactor operator who did not walk or talk through the events review the analyses in an attempt to uncover any operator task E difficulties from an independent, objective viewpoint.

3.8 Review Phase Documentation All findings from the Review Phase will be documented on HED forms. The forms will contain a description of the findings as well as the source, panel, and instruments found discrepant from Human Factors Criteria. The HED forms will be maintained in the computerized DBMS for retrieval and I update during the Assessment and Implementation Phase.

E E

E E

E E

E 32 i

I

MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPMW E

4. ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION PHASE 4.1 Assessment and Implementation Activities The DCRDR Team will assess identified HEDs and recommend corrective 5 actions for their resolution in an iterative process. The three major activities in this Assessment and Implementation process are:

e Analyze and Categorize HEDs E e e

Recommend and Evaluate HED Resolutions Document and Schedule Resolution Implementation These activities are discussed below.

4.2 Analyze and Categorize HEDs The importance of an HED is assessed on the basis of the potential for operating crew error and its potential impact on safety. This assessment is accomplished by analyzing and evaluating the problems that could arise from the identified HEDs. Before Assessment, a human factors specialist will make an initial recommendation of resolutions for each HED.

5 The DCRDR Team will assess the HEDs identified during the previous phases of the DCRDR in a manner similar to the guidance given in NUREG-0801.

The two primary criteria presented in NUREG-0801 are s (1) whether or not the HED has resulted in a documented error or provides the potential for I operator error, and (2) what impact the HED has on plant safety. Each of the criteria is discussed separately below.

Information from the Operating Experience Review will be used to help assess whether an HED resulted in an operator error or provides the potential for operator error. If an HED is a result of a documented error, e.g., in an LER or in an opera':>r interview, then the HED is automatically assessed as having an effect on operator performance. HEDs not associated with documented errors must be systematically assessed to determine their impact on operating crew performance. Information gathered during the survey of operating personnel will be considered regarding problems that resulted in, or provide the potential for, operator error.

HEDs that may affect operating crew performance are subjected to a series of criteria similar to that in NUREG-0801 (Section 4.2.1). Other performance shaping factors such as training, operator experience, procedure adequacy, and situational requirements will be considered. The responses to this line of questioning should aid the reviewe rs in identifying those HEDs that degrade operating crew performance enough to l cause, or contribute to the potential fo r, ope rator error.

I B

E 33 l5 l

l l

MISSISSIPPI FOWER & LIGHT COMPANY E HEDs considered to have resulted in documented errors or contribute to the potential for error will be assessed according to impact on plant I safety based on the following criteria:

e An unsafe condition may result.

o Violation of a Technical Specification may result.

HEDs will be assessed as to their impact on safety by subjecting each to a series of criteria similar to that in NUPEG-0801 (Section 4.2.2). The I responses to these criteria will aid the reviewers in identifying those HEDs that impact plant safety. Also, task element tables from the plant specific System Functions Review and Task Analysis will be consulted as an aid in establishing consequences of error for HEDs found during Verification and Validation.

Categories in which HEDs are to be grouped are defined below. This categorization will be an aid to the reviewer in f urther assessing the importance of HEDs and will provide a means of prioritizing HEDs for corrective action. This method will allow for distinguishing between those discrepancies that are known to have contributed to operator error I and those that have been evaluated to have potential for contributing to operator error.

The categories are:

e Category I - HEDs associated with documented errors that resulted in E unsafe conditions or Technical Specification violations.

e Category II - HEDs associated with high pctential errors that may result in unsafe conditions or Technical Specification violations.

E o Category III - HEDS associated with low potential errors that may result in unsafe conditions or Technical Specification violations.

e Category IV - HEDs not important to safety.

Table 1 provides a sunnary of the HED categories to assist in the categorization process, as presented in NUREG-0801.

The primary purpose in categorizing the HEDs is to assist in prioritizing I HEDs for resolution. HEDs having the most significant impact on plant operations, i.e., Categories I and II, will need resolution first. The DCRDR Team will assess and categorize HEDs in preparation for their B resolution.

To reach a consensus concerning category assignment among DCRDR Team nembers, the following approach will be used. All HEDs will be I categorized independently by the DC RE R Te am membe rs . The first round of categorization results will be sunnarized by the DCRDR Team Leader to I' determine the distribution of category assignments for each HED.

predominant category will be i nd ica ted for each HED and the results The lil 34

MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY E Table 1. Summary of HED Categories E Unsafe Conditior or Tech Spec Violation Not Important to Safety Documented Error I NA High Potential Errors II IV Low Potential Errors III IV E redistributed to the evaluators. Each evaluator will have the opportunity to defend his category choice if it deviates from the predominant category. If no comments are forthcaning, then the predominant category becomes the consensus. For HEDs on which comments are received, a meeting will be held with all evaluators to determine which categcry should be assigned. The evaluator who had provided I comments earlier will be allowed to defend his choice. A final choice will be made at that meeting by a vote of the attendees.

4.3 Recommend and Evaluate HED Resolutions The DCRDR Team will provide recommendations to resolve each HED documented during the DCRDR. Questions addressed in determining the E proposed resolutions will be similar to those in NUREG-0801 (Section l 4). Consideration will be given to the ef fectiveness of the improvement and to assurance that no new deviations from the Human Factors Criteria I will result from the improvement.

will be optional, and will depend on the nature and complexity of the The resolution of Category IV HEDs l

discrepancy.

l l

Developing a final list of resolutions will require several iterations of review. The review will begin with the distribution of HEDs and initial Team members will l

W proposed resolutions to the members of the DCRDR Team.

then obtain input from their respective departments. Meetings will be he '.d to obtain consensus on the selection of the optional resolution for each HED. Attendees will have the opportunity to suggest alternative E resolutions and to present the basis for their choice.

A list of HEDs and proposed resolutions will then be evaluated by MP&L engineering and operations personnel to decide how each HED may best be resolved. Implementation of all the recommendations provided by the DCRDR Team is not likely; alternate solutions are possible. Feasibility studies and scope reviews will be performed as necessary to evaluate the I recommendations. The results of the engineering and operations review will then be forwarded to all DCRDR Team members for consideration.

After further meetings, a revised list of proposed resolutions will be tabulated and distributed to the DCRDR Team members. If disagreements 35

MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPM1Y over a particular item still exist, the DCRDR Team Leader will make the final determinaton. A review of HED resolutions will be performed to I ensure that the recommended resolutions can be properly integrated with other functions and systems in the Control Room. The resolutions will be compared against the Human Factors Criteria, examined for ef fects on task performance, and/or reviewed by operations personnel.

When final consensus is reached, the proposed resolutions wil] be tabulated and forwarded to MP&L management for review and approval.

Management approval will be obtained before the Final Summary Report is submitted to the NRC. For all HEDs with a decision not to resolve, or to partially resolve, justification will be provided. Management personnel, as well as the DCRDR Team, will assure that adequate justification exists for disallowing (complete) resolution. The justification for each ,

Category I, II, or IiI HED not resolved, or partially resolved, will be included in the Final Summary Report.

4.4 Document and Schedule Resolution Implementation Approved HED resolutions will be documented by the DCFDR Team and implemented by the existing MP&L design change process. MP&L will prepare an inplementation schedule for HED resolution considering:

E e Safety consequences of operator errors that could be caused by the HED e Degree oi deviation from the Hunan Factors Criteria e Operator training / retaining requirements e Integre. tion with other ERC programs and activities e Potential for partial or temporary correction (e.g. , through B e enhancement)

Outage schedules e Procurement schedules a

E 36

l MISSISSIPPI FOWER & LYGHT COMPANY 7

I .

5. REPORTING PHASE 5.1 NRC Final Summary Report At the completion of the DCRDR, a Final Summary Report will be prepared for submittal to the NRC in accordance with NUREG-0737 Supplement 1 (Section 5.2.b). This report will document in summary form the processes and activities utilized in the DCRDR. Any departures from the methodologies described in this Program Plan will be noted and justified.

The Final Summary Report will also describe the results of the DCRDR Review Phase. All HEDs identified during the DCRDR will be included, along with the determinations for correction and/or resolution for each HED. A proposed implementation schedule will be provided.

5.2 MP&L Executive Summary Report An Executive Summary Report will be prepared for submittal to MP&L management. The report will summarize the overall review process, HEDs, and HED resolutions. These resolutions will be incorporated into the existing MP&L design change process upon NRC approval.

5.3 Documentation Storage The DCRDR Team Leader will be responsible for storing and/or distributing all DCRDR documentation so that it is:

E e Readily auditable by the NRC e Readily accessible for f uture reference and use by MP&L E

E E 37

MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPAMY

6. PROGRAM INTEGRATION 6.1 General Comments The DCRDR process is one part of an overall program to provide Control Room improvement and Control Room operator ERC. Effective Control Room emergency operations are dependent on a complete analysis of all Control B Room functions and operator needs during an accident.

6.2 DCRDR Integration with Other ERC Programs MP&L has developed an ERC Project Plan that addresses the integration of NUREG-0737 Supplement 1 activities. The ERC Project Plan specifically addresses the task activities, integration requirements, MP&L division of responsibility, document control, and integrated scheduling. The integration process includes the SPDS, DC RDR, upgrade of EOPs, Regulatory Guide 1.97 implementation, and ERC training. The interrelationships of B the DCRDR with other NUREG-0737 Supplement 1 activities are discussed below and are shown in Figure 8.

6.2.1 Safety Parameter Display System The GGNS-1 SPDS is a part of the overall Emergency Response E Facility Information System that is being developed to provide plant status and radiological information to tha Control Room operators during an emergency.

The GGNS-1 SPDS displays are being developed to specifically aid the Control Room staff in obtaining plant status information for use in following the EOPs. The integration of the SPDS and EOPs I is discussed below.

The BWROG Display / Procedures Integration Committee, of which MP&L E is an active nember, is developing a set of human factored SPDS displays to support the EPG operator tasks. SPDS parameter sets and supporting computer sof tware will be developed for tailoring to plant specific applications. An EPG f unctional (cognitive)

E task analysis has been prepared for developing the SPDS displays. This analysis, which will be made plant specific to GGNS-1, will be usef ul during the DCRDR Task Analysis and the determination of information and control needs.

As noted on the Tank Analysis Worksheet ( Figure 5 ), the 5 availability of the SPDS parameters as compared to the required Control Room I&C will be determined during the DCRDR. This will be important to determine whether the Control Room operators have sufficient information on the SPDS to provide consistent monitoring for the EOPs. In addition, a man-machine validation process will be conducted, in a manner similar to the DCRDR and EOP validation, which will include procedure usage, Control Room R compatibility, and effective emergency recognition.

E 38 II 1

s I

1984 1985 I

h Daetop I"'*'"

ha E. SPDS SPDS

' ** r i g g,,y

, Parameter H

. Analyses Set Re Nh Q6 ogt

' an Q. 3* o5 024

@ 8,a Prepar e ,,

!e m3$

Eo*

  • Functional Develop

= Requirement  : Static "hi y} Document l Displays I hE Develop 3 I FM vav i Plan * .

c

+ I -

l l I I f Perform " -

$ Develop BWR/GGNS 1 e

{

Task Pians Oper at.n9 E aper ence Perform CR inventory Per form CR Sue vev f

3 gg Review j

i

(

of C a:

ik k e

O! J i

ot d Rever* Sutim,, Dev a60p

-i Team Pr ogr am - Hf e

-y -%

Staffeng Pian Ca steria O

b I O

'""* m Detelop EOP verify  ; Ve' -

, V&V PSTGs E ops 3 Program -

g 8- Y' h

{' "

p 5

( , BWROG Develoss  : Diaf t .

Prepare g ~[

EPG(Rev 3) -+ PSTG -+

  • EOPC  ;

FS1Gs Submit 4 Guidelines Gu.de riowcharts EOP $

{ _

a W o& l 1

PGP g

\

+ Cc  :

Develop Oc,elop

{

[ Tr ain.nq Writer s {

w Pr ogr am Guuse {

L c

5 E =isting D*'" mene Submit identif y

. - GGNS PAM W RG 197 instr 4""

f PAM  ; Reg Positions for CR 0i E.

e Ci 2i

- u 2i Also Available On g j Aperture Card ni w i

(

\,

FIRST SECOND 1986 REFUEL REFUEL OUTAGE OUTAGE ,

instati l SPOS '

Develop H.,3,,,, Validate

Dynamic ERFIS -

M"*

Displays  % Sy stem SPDS at in SPOS Procedures Develop install Validation SPDS in --* 8',",,

Test Simulator Procedure Preform - f Assess Subm.: Des ge. Impiement implement DCROR Verif ecition o

{  ; .O I

Resolve  : Summary Report

CR Modifications
CR Modifications
CR I '

Modifications E

8 p G

f PDA g Results

?o S

T 5 ,. .uf[.l$g  ;

implement

! l EOPs E@5 4

_ t l Trasn Operators APERTURE CARD Devetop implement Implement

Design RG 197  :

Mod.f cations RG 197 Modifscations Modif* cations identif y Develop Perform Systematic integrated Systemat.c Trairung Trarning Training Req Program (F utus ei EMERGENCY RESPONSE CAPABILITY INTEGRATION Figure 8. Integration of NUREG-0737 Supplement 1 Activities .

8501020302 39

-61

MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPAN f 3 The SPDS displays will be designed to incorporate accepted human factors principles so that the displayed information can be readily perceived and comprehended by the SPDS operator. The human factors review should include readability, parameter responsiveness, glare, labeling, alarm anthropometrics, and SPDS location. This review will be based on a GGNS-1 Control Room E computer convention to be used on all Control Room computer sys tems. SPDS procedures for use with the EOPs will be developed to describe the timely and correct safety status assessment of E the plant.

6.2.2 EOP Upgrade Program GGNS-1 PSTGs will be developed from the BWROG generic EPGs (Revision 3). The PSTG Preparation Guide, EOP Writers Guide, Verification and Validation Program, and the EOP Training Plan B will be prepared and submitted to the NRC in the GGNS-1 Procedures Generation Package. The GGNS-1 PSTGs or draft EOPs will be the basis for the DCRDR Task Analysis.

The validation process of the DCRDR addresses the same generic concerns that must be addressed in the EOP Upgrade validation process described in NUREG-0899. Specifically, item 3.3.5.1d of I NUREG-0899 states "that there is a correspondence between the procedures and the control room / plant hardware,' and it is noted g

in NUREG-0899 that this item can only be adequately addressed g using control room / plant walk-throughs. The refo re , the l

validation process of the DCRDR will be done in conjunction with that for the EOP Upgrade ef fort if possible. Also, the necessary B instrumentation, controls, and displays referenced in the upgraded EOPs will be compared to the parameters displayed on the SPDS.

l i 5

' W 6.2.3 Program for Implementation of Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2 l

l The GGNS-1 Regulatory Guide 1.97 Compliance / Position Report wi? 1 l consist of: (1) a compliance summary on how GGNS-1 presently meets the PAM requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.97, including l

l instrument ranges, qualification, power supply, and redundance; l (2) the MP&L position to further meet the requirements of l Regulatory Guide 1.97 and justification for deviation from the requirements; and (3) its application to Emurgency Response Facilities (ERFs ) .

l The ins trume nta t io n requirements identified in this report will be determined before the DCRDR Review Phase. However, the GGNS-1 Type A variables for Regulatory Guide 1.97 will be determined based on the EPGs and the existing symptom-based emergency procedures and C.>ntrol Room requirements. The total 5 instrumentation identified in the Regulatory Guide 1.97 Compliance / Position Report will be compared against the results of the instrumentation availability and suitability requirements lB t

40

5- MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY E of the DCRDR Verification to help assure that the identified instrumentation requirements have been met.

6.2.4 ERC Training An ERC Training Plan will be developed that will provide the

'B; systematic requirements for training operators to comprehend plant conditions and cope with emergencies effectively. The scope of the training plan will involve overall ERC training including the use of the SPDS, EOPs, Control Room features, and I PAM instrumentation.

6.2 5 Emergency Response Facilities f

The ERFs (including the Emergency Operations Fa7111ty, Technical Support Center, and the Operations Support Center) are virtually E complete, except for the addition of the ERF Information System /SPDS and the inclusion of he appropriate Regulatory Guide 1.97 instrumentation. The ERFs are therefore not specifically addressed further in the ERC integration process; however, the E ERF requirements for determining plant and radiological status will be provided through the ERP Information System /SPDS.

6.2.6 HED Assessment Integration f

The HED resolution phase of the DCRDR will involve the q'

5 integration of the EOPs, SPDS, ERC training, Regulatory Guide 1.97, previous work, and other planned future Control Rocn changes. The resolution of IIEDs might necessitate additions to the EOPs or to the SPDS parameters displayed. For example, flEDs that cannot be easily corrected due to conflicting requirements can be explicitly flagged in the upgraded EOPs. Missing or

/

g inappropriately located information luentified during the DCRDR W can be displayed on the SPDS. Missing instrumentation or q

inappropriate instrument ranges will be compared to Regulatory Guide 1.97. The total integration process will involve a GGNS-1 Training Program based on the guidance of tLa Institute _ of E Nuclear Power Operations.

6.3 DCRDR Integration with Future Design Changes The DCRDR Team will develop a documented process for the review of future Control Room design changes, and will modify the Human Factors Criteria E for this use if required. This review will also utilize the Control Room Inventory and Task Analysis information on the Dm1S. The process will ensure that the GGNS-1 Control Room continues to incorporate good human engineering practices after the DCRDR is completed.

5 E

41

__________a

O E E

E B

B B

B APPENDIX A BIBLIOGRAPHY I

5 5

E B

B B

E 5

E E

B BIBLIOGRAPHY E Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group Emergency Procedures Committee, " Emergency Procedure Guidelines," Revision 3, November 1982.

Ei Generic Letter 82-33, " Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 - Requirements for Emergency Response Capability," December 17, C' 2 .

GGNS-1 Final Safety Analysis Report, Chapter 15. s

" Human Factors Englaeering Evaluation of the Grand Gulf Unit 1 Control Room,"

September 30, 1980.

Xemeny Commission Special Transcript of the Draft Report, Nucleonics Week, McGraw-Hill, Inc., October 1979.

NUREG-0700, " Guidelines for Control Room Design Review," September 1981.

NUREG-0 801 (Draft), " Evaluation Criteria for Detailed Control Room Design Review," October 1981.

NUREG-0831 and Supplements 1-6, " Safety Evaluation Report Related to the I Operation of Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2," September 1981 -

August 1984.

NUREG-0 899, "Guidellne:s for the Preparation of Emergency Operating

' Procedures," Aup.st 1982.

NUREG-10c0, " Generic Implications of ATWS Events at the Salem NucleTr Power Plant," April 19 3.

a NUREG/CR-1250, "Three !! .l t i.,l a n d. : 1. Perart to the Commission and to the E Public, " Jan-ry 1980.

Quadrex Corporation, "Hur an Fi.ctors Review of the Control Room CRT Displays,"

R Re po rt No. QUAD 32 -24 2. 1982.

Regulatory Guide 1. 97, Rev icion 2, "Instrumentatio. for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Planta td lasess Plar' anc Env ir 1 Conditions during and B following an Accident " December 1W O.

r E

E 5

E A-1 E

5 E

B B-APPENDIX B DCRDR TEAM MEMBERS RESUMES E e Page B-1 Herbert E. Kook, Jr.

e Page B-2 Charles Andrew Botteniller E e l' age B-3 William Joseph Hendry e T age D-5 Manzoor A. Memon e Page B-7 Donald C. Burgy e Page B-9 Lothar R. Schroeder e Page B-11 Robert J. Liddle 5

E E

E E

E E

B 5

5 B

HERBERT E. KDOK, JR.

Electrical Engineer 5 Mississippi Power & Light Company EDUCATION B.S. Electrical Engineering, Memphis State University EXPERIENCE 1984 - Present Mississippi Power & Light Company Mr. Kook currently serves as program manager for the Grand a Gulf Nuclear Station - Unit 1 Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR) and the Emergency Operating Procedure (EOP)

Upgrade. He is responsible for all aspects of these programs, including: budgeting and scheduling, cc, ordination of MP&L support, selection and procurement of non-MP&L support, and program technical direction.

1981 - 1984 Tennessee Valley Authority Mr. Kook worked in the Electrical Engineering Support Branch, Instrumentation and Controls (I&C) Group. He was involved primarily in procurement and regulatory compliance activities, incluiir.g:

5 e Preparing cost estimates ani procurement recommendations for planning purposes e 1-reparing I&C technical specifications fu procurement requisitions B e Reviewing vendor bids for technical adequacy e Technical administration of awarded contracts e Reviewing electrical equipment type-testing reports B against TVA contract specifications, NUREG-0588, and IE 79-01B e Issuing TVA " Nonconforming Condition Reports" e Preparing 10 CFR 50.55(e) reports for submittal to NRC 1980 - 1981 United States Air Force Mr. Yook assisted project lead engineers in providing cost t estimates, technical assistance, system configuration, and installation packges to requesting Communications Command field unito. He was also involved in the technical supervision of the contractor on a $50 million high I frequency radio project for the Strategic Air Command, including coordinating Air Force support and layout of the system components at various air bases.

PROFESSIONAL Member, The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers AFFILIATIONS Member, The Instrument Society of America 5 B-1

l 5

B CHARLES ANDREW BOTTEMILLER Senior Reactor Operator R Mississippi Power & Light Company EDUCATION Prescntly enrolled in a Bachelor of Professional Studies in Nuclear Plant Technology degree program Completed 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br /> of college credits at various 8 universities Craduate Sequoia High School, Redwood City, California R

TRAINING Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Senior Reactor Operator License Brtinswick Steam Electric Plant Reactor Operator License Program U.S. Navy Interior Communications Electrician A School EXPERIENCE 1982 - Present Mississippi Power & Light Company At Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, stood watch as Shif t B Supervisor, Simulator Instructor, and Operator Instructor, with SRO License.

1978 - 1981 Carolina Power & Light Company Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Power Plant Operator, with Reactor Operator License for 1.3 years.

W 1974 - 1978 rJ. S . Navy USS PRANCIS SCOTT KEY SSBN657G Power Plant Operator - Senior watch EWS.

8 5

8 5

4 E

5 B WILLIAM JOSEP11 IIENDRY Nuclear Engineer 5 Enercon Services, Incorporated EDUCATION B.S. Nuclear Engineering, Mississippi State Ur.iversity BWR-SRO Certification Station Nuclear Engineers Course (GE)

Grand Gulf Technology (GE )

5 EXPERIEEE 1983 - Present Enercon Services, Incorporated - Grand Gulf huclear Station Providing consultant services for Nuclear Safety and Compliance. Main duty involves processing Technical 5 Specification changes to ensure that the Technical Specifications are in compliance with the FSAR, as-built plant and regulato y requirements. Supervised up to 15 consultants during a five-month period to provide I descriptions of technical specification problems; problem resolutions by interfacing with engineering, plant staff, NSSS supplies and AE; and Technical Specification change 5 packages to the NRC for an operating license amendment.

Over 500 changes have been processed since job assignment began.

1980 - 1983 Gulf States Utilities - River Bend Nuclear Station As shif t supervisor, main duties included writing and supervising consultant and operations personnel in the preparation of administrative system operating, alarm response, and surveillance test procedures. Responsible for supervising future Reactor Operators and Foremen to 5 accomplish cold license training, reviewing plant design changes, and preparing PSAR responses to NRC. Developed initial program to provide Emergency Operating Procedures in compliance with NUREG-07 37, Supplement 1. Served as co-chaiman of the BWR Owners Group for development of the Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS).

1980 Energy Incorporated - Three Mile Island Unit 1 Worked as a consultant for Plant Staff. Responsible for revising procedures to reflect plant modifications and updates in regulatory positions as a result of the 'ntI-2 ac c ide n t . Worked to support resta rt of 'ntI-1.

5 1976 - 1980 Mississippi Power t. Light Company - Grand Guif Nuclear Station Worked as a shift supervisor (engineer) in plant ope rat ions . This pos i t ion requir ed an " n yineering degree 5 for the time frame indicated. Duties sluded providing B-3

5 5 engineering support for the Technical Grou.

operator license training material (System E obtaining cold license SRO certification, reactor operators in the cold license program, da r

operations in the preoperational testing program 5 writing administrative, system operating, alarn integrated operating, and surveillance testing procedures. Completed Station Nuclear Engineers course and Grand Gulf Technology, both taught by GE.

Worked as the Lead Design Change Engineer in the plant Technical Support Group. Wrote procedures to implement the 5 Grand Gulf design change program and accomplished 50 plant design changes. Interfaced with the A-E, vendors, and project engineering. Performed cost-benefit analyses, changed prints and specifications, and updated plant procedures to reflect changes made to the plant.

1974 - 1976 Georgia Power Company - E. I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Unit 1 5 Worked as a combination Startup and Reactor Engineer from initial vessel heatup through 100% power testing. Directed startup testing on shift. Predicted criticals and directed rod pulls during plant startups to stay within f uel I preconditioning limitations (PCIOMR). Directed rod pattern swaps, ran TIP's to update process computer, responsible for process computer programs, logs, and fuel warranty 5 data. Directed f uel movement on the ref ueling flc,or during LPRM vibration outage and replacement of 126 fuel bundle channels. Perfomed control rod drive friction and scram time testing. Monitored and performed core thermal limit calculations. Wrote first annual operating report.

1972 - 1974 Ingalls Shipbuilding - Nuclear Power Division Worked as Nuclear Engineer in new submarine construction and as a Shif t Ref ueling Engineer in Nuclear Submarine refueling and overhaul. Duties in new submarine 5 construction included reactor component and pressure boundary piping and valve installation. Duties in s ubmarine ref ueling included ref ueling procedure writinn 5 and classroom instruction for all submarine refueling operations being performed on my assigned shitt.

5 5

.5 5  ;

B -4

5 5

MANZOOR A. MEMON 5 Electrical Engineer Mississippi Power & Light Company 5 EDUCATION B.S. Electrical Engineering Candidate, MBA TRAINING e Six months' certificate course in Electrical Systems used in airport development e Certificate course in National Electric Code, 1981 and 1984 e Certificate course in Field Leadership for Supervisory Development e Special Training in Rychem termination kits 5 e Seminar for Nuclear Equipment Qualification to perform various analysis for equipment qualification per NUREG Guide 1.89 and 10CFR50.49 Seminar for Nuclear Equipment Qualification (spare parts E e only) e Seminar for Plant Reliability and Availability included reliability, maintainability, and availability analysis E for nuclear power plants e Two-week course for Modicon Programnable Controllers (584 Basic and Advance Applications) 5 e University Computing Co. Training (BASIC, CYBER, and FORTRAN languages)

EXPERIENCE 1983 - Present Mississirpi Power & Light Company, Grand Gulf Nuclear i

l W

Station Leading a group of seven engineers to review all the design changes since 1980 to update GGNS Training Simulator System. Responsibilites include developing procedures to 5 verify and approve Simulator Design Change Packages and provide technical guidance to the group to modify the Training Simulator according to NRC's proposed rule 10 CFR

( 50 and 55, " Training and Qualifications of Civilian Nuclear l

- Power Plant Personnel and Operators' Licenses"; to maintain and control a Computer Database giving all the Plant Design Documents to which the Simulator has been updated; and to 5 control and verify Simulator System vendor supplied documents including incorporation of "As Built" information after implementation of hardware and sof tware changes.

Member Detailed Control Rocm Design Review (DCRDR) Team.

Responsible for installation of Safety Parameters Display System (SPDS) in GGNS Training Simulator. Also worked as Group Leader Design Group; responsibilities included design 5 and engineering work involved in development of design change packages, safety evaluations per 10 CFR 50. 59, and fire protection analyses per 10 CRF 50.48 and 10 CFR 50 5 Appendix R, ALARA applicability per Reg. Guide 8.9, and environmental reviews per 10 CPR 51.5(b) (2) & (3) and B-5

5 5

NUREG-0777. Reviewed and chucked contractor- (Bechtel &

GE) and vendor-prepared design. Responsible for 5 maintaining design control of BOP computer system.

1981 - 1983 Daniel International Corporation, Wolf Creek Nuclear Power I Plant Responsible for scoping of systems to identify all electrical components included in assigned systems; to monitor construction activities ensuring that all system completion activities were timely completed; to identify material and design deficiencies from wa~.kdowns and generate a construction punchlist; to prepare turnover 5 packages to start up and QC; and to issue and coordinate FC Rs , NCRs, DRs, DCPs, SFRs , e tc. Fully familiar with EE580 Computerized Tracking and Control System.

1981 Pechtel Power Corporation, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Responsible for cable pulling and termination in Contain-E ment and Radwaste Buildings and Yard Areas; processing FCRs, DCR/DCNs , NRCs and subsequently coordination with Engineering and Design office. Developed bulk cable pull packages and provided cable pull tension calculations.

E-Performed pre-installation, in-process, and final inspection; provided technical guidance; and interpreted schematics, PIDs, etc., to draf t and coordinate work with 5 QC and QA groups. Fully familiar with EE580 Computerized Tracking System.

1975 - 1981 Pakistan International Airlines, Karachi International Airport Supervised and maintained electrical facilities all over airport. This included design, evaluation, planning, scheduling, execution, and inspection of new power facilities like establishment of power substations, HV, MV & LV Load Centers, Switchgear, MCCs, and Power Factor Improvement E Equipment; installation of transformers; laying of HT/LT power cables; and lighting schemes for hangers and workshops.

Performed regular and preventive maintenance of 15 power 5 substations including replacement of centrifuging transformer oil, setting and calibration of relays, and overhauling of OCBs and ACBs, etc. Performed periodical surveys to study power requirements for the airport to establish new power 5 f acilities and maintain two standby power plants.

1974 - 1975 Karachi Shipyard end Engineering Works, Karachi, Pakistan

  • 5 Duties included design, planning, testing, and inspection of electrical systems; material indentifying; installation of generators, load centers, switchgear, MCCs, and distribution panels and all types of heavy duty nachinery along with laying 5 of lighting and LV power cables required for ocean-going ships of 13,500 tons and higher capacity. Also prepared load analysis to ensure proper sizing of generators, cables, and B switchgear equipment.

B-6

5 E

DONALD C. BURGY E Director, Human Factors Engineering General Physics Corporation E EDUCATION Ph.D. Candidate, Applied-Experimental Psychology, The Catholic University of America M.A. Applied-Experimental Psychology, The Catholic University of America B.A. Psychology, Swarthmore College EXPERIENCE General Physics Corporation 1979 - Present Mr. Burgy directs all human factors engineering and man-machine systems design and evaluation work in the Company. His human factors expertise includes system E analpis, information processing, man-computer interactions, performance evaluation, training systems, and speech /non-speech communications.

I Representative projects include:

o Control Room Design Reviews Directed or participated in nuclear power plant 5 control room design reviews at twelve nuclear power plants: River Bend Station; Plant Hatch; North Anna and Surry Power Stations; Zion, La Salle , and Dresden 5 Stations; William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station; Susquehanna Steam Electric Station; Clinton Nuclear Power Plant; Salem Nuclear Generating Station; and 5 Trojan Nuclear Plant. Managed DCRDR program plan development for thirteen plants, both BWR and PWR, to meet U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing requirements.

e Tast. Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Crews, NRC I

l E Managed a major 18-month NRC research program in which a crew task analysis data collection methodology and approach were developed and used to l collect data at eight power plants by teams of human l

' -~ factors and operations personnel. Directed the compilation of the results of the data collection effort in a computerized task data base.

I e Guidelines for Internal Plant Communications, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

Participated in a study of communications problems in nuclear power plants and then managed project to 1

u-2 ll 1

8 5

develop Guidelines for Internal Plant Communications based on these problems. Developed methodolcgy for collection and analysis of real-time communications I data in operating power plants.

e Prototype I*trge Breeder Reactor (PLBR) Operability 8 Study, EPRI Participated in an operability study of the two major PLBR designs- pool and loop types; coauthored a PLBR design familiarization course text; and 5 conducted task analysis for E ltial design evaluations of PLBR control console layout and instrumentation and control needs.

E e Submarine Design Human Factors, U.S. Navy Developed task analysis format and collection

[7q methodology to promote team perfomance improvement U and training enhancement in the Navy Submarine Advanced Combat Systems (SUBACS) program.

1976 - 1978 The Catholic University of America Human Performance Laboratory Mr. Burgy conducted applied and basic research experiments on audito1y signal classification of I complex underwater sounds in research sponsored by the Human Factors Engineering branch of the Of fice of Naval Research.

B PROFESSIONAL Member, Acoustical Society of America AFFILIATIONS Member, American Psychological Association Member, Hilman Factors Society I

r W PUBLICATIONS Applied Human Factors in Power Plant Design and Operation, General Physics Corporation, 1980. Coauthor with P. A. Doyle, H. F. Barsam, and R. J. Liddle.

" Survey and Analysis of Communications Problems in Nuclear Power Plants," EPRI Report NP-2035, September i

1981. Coauthor with D. A. Topmiller, D. R. Ro th , P. A.

l Doyle, and J. J. Espey.

! " Task Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Crews," NUREG/CR-3371, 1983. Coauthor with C. Lempges,

(

A. Miller, L. Schroeder, H. Vancott, and B.

Paramore.

t E " Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Crew Task Analysis l Database: SEEK System Users Manual," NUREG/CR-3606, 1984. Coauthor with L. Schroeder.

b-8

8 E LOTHAR R. SCHROEDER Senior Scientist General Physics Corporation EDUCATION Ph.D. Experimental / Applied Psychology, Lehigh University M.S. Engineering Psychology, Lehigh University B.S. General Engineering, University of Illinois B.A. Psychology, University of Illinois EXPERIENCE General Physics Corporation 1982 - Present Dr. Schroeder's areas of expertise include task and error analysis, procedures validation equipment design studies, operations research, and organizational 5 design and management. He is currently managing the control room design review at the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant and NUREG-0737 integration services for Plant E Hatch. He has also assisted in developing a task analysis methodology for River Bend. Other representative projects include: supporting NRC I research in the application of control room crew task analysis data for human engineering design and staffing areas, evaluating SPDS placement, reviewing emergency operating procedares, assessing the human B factors aspects of EOP Flowcharts, and reviewing equipment tagging procedures in nuclear plants. Dr.

Schroeder has also developed and given numerous 5 supervisocy skills workshops for ROs and STAS.

He is currently providing human factors integration services to Georgia Power Company to meet Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 requirements.

1981 - 1982 U.N.C. Nuclear Industries 8 Dr. Schroeder worked as a human factors specialist, interfacing with engineers and other staff in identifying and solving problems relating to equipment 8 design, the use of procedures, and training ef forts at Hanford's N-Reactor. He also performed a human i

factors review of the 105-N control room in support of an ongoing control room upgrade program.

5 5 B-9 5

5 5

1974 - 1980 Department of Psychology, Moraviar J'ollege Dr. Schroeder's responsibilities as Assistant Professor and Department Chairpersen included planning and coordinating a day and evening program in psychology involving over 100 majors; serving on several college committees; supervising individual field study, independent study, and honors projects; 5 and serving as academic advisor to day and evening session students having an interest in applied psychology.

1973 wigdahl Electric Crwy Dr. Schroeder worked as a consultant, identifying potential organization problems and conducting problem 5 solving sessions.

1972 Jewish Employment and Vocational Services I As an industrial psychologist, Dr. Schroeder consulted with several industries and governmental agencies in order to develop, validate, and administer " job-

! related" personnel selection tests ender a Department of Labor contract.

5 PROFESSIONAL AFPILIATIONS Member, Human Factors Society Member, American Nuclear Society B PUBLICATIONS " Human Factors Review of N-Reactor Control Room,"

U.N.C. Nuclear Industries Report UN1-2097, June 1982.

"A Human Factors Guided Survey for Systems Development," American Nuclear Society Winter Meeting, December 1981, coauthor with D.R. Fowler.

l l

" Control Room Human Factors in Context,"

American Nuclear Society Winter Meeting, E November, 1982, coauthor with D. R. Fowler and D. E. Friar.

E i W

"'earataa styte oata ^ vetted to "uctear Power vtaat Training Programs." American Nuclear Society Annual Meeting, June 1983.

I " Task Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Crews, Vol. I& II", NUREG/CR-3371, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 1983. Coauthor with D.

i5 Burgy, C. Lempges, A. Miller, H. Van Cott, and B.

Paramore.

l5 l

B-10

5 5

5 ROBERT J. LIDDLE Manager, Human Factors Power Services General Physics Corporation E

EDUCATION M.S. Industrial Engineering and Operations Research, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University B.S. Psychology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University EXPERIENCE General Phynly Corporation 1980 - Present Mr. Liddle 10 4 human factors engineer responsible for managing power plant control room design reviews with 5 regard to methodology, staffing, and training programs. He provides in-house staff instruction in technical and administrative aspects of control room 5 reviews. Mr. Liddle serves as project manager for several human factors projects and has had experience with utility / Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5 negotiations liivolving human f actors issues.

Representative projects include:

e Procedur % Generation Package E Developed plant-specific Procedures Generation Packages for utilities in response to Item 7.2.b of t

Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737. These PGPs contain l descriptions of procedure verification and validation methodologies and technical writing l guidelines.

l e Program Plan Development Developed program plans for various utilities which

( present detailed methodologies utilized in the performance of control roem design reviews. The program plans encompass management, staffing and data collection, and interpretation issues, e Control Roon Des Review Managed detailed cantrol room design review projects at the Gulf States Utilities Company River 5 Bend Station, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, and Pennsylvania Power and Light Ccmpany Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, and Washington 5 Public Power Supply System No. 2; acted as lead human factors engineer in control room design ravi=w for Georgia Power Company's Plants Vogtle and Hatch; managed human factors preliminary design 5 review at Long Island Lighting Company's Shoreham Nuclear Power Station; and was project manager fo r B-11

5 5

5 the Surry Interim Control Room Upgrade project for Virginia Electric & Power Company.

e Selection Testing Administers General Physics Basic Mathematics and Science Test (BMST) for operator training and E selections assists in human reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear plant applications and the accompanying task analytic procedures.

e Development of Human Engineer 1ng Standards Compiled and developed standards for control 5 coding, legend plate design, mimic and demarcation lines, and color coding practices.

o Human Factors Training E Instructs utility and industrial personnel in performance evaluation techniques, experimental methodology, and control room design review 5 procedures.

1977 - 1978 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 5 In his research project, Mr. Liddle investigated the use of videotape recording apparatus in an assessment center process. He assisted in scheduling and debriefing participants, in data collection and i

I interpretation, and in report writing.

PROFESSIONAL Member, Hunan Factors Society AFFILIATIONS 5 PUBLICATIONS Applied Human Factors in Power Plant Design and Operation, General Physics Corporation, 1980, Coauthor with D. C. Burgy, P. A. Doyle, H. F. Barsam. 1 Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Detailed Control Room Design Review Program Plan, General Physics Corporation, 1982.

Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Detailed Control Room Design Review Program Plan, General Physics 5 Corporation, 1983, Coautho with D. C. Burgy.  ;

E ,

1 E

B-12 '

5

E MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY E

E E

E  :

E 5

APPENDIX C E SAMPLE DCRCR FORMS E

e Figure C-1 H"D Form 5 e Figure C-2 LER HED Review Summary Form E e Figure C 3 I&C Equiptient Characteristics Form E e Figure C-4 Equipment Suitability HED Form e Figure C-5 Information and Control Requirement Sources Form 1

5 5

f 5

E E 1

E MESSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPAtW E

E fg HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCY RECORD GRAND G UL Fr NUCLEAR STATION UNIT-1 HED NO.: 1 PRIORITY RATING 3 E DATE 32/23/84 PREPARER LIDDLE /MATSON/ BISHOP ST&4TUS 3 DATA SOURCE:8 5 CHECMLIST NO B2.3

$ CHECKLIST AREA:

E LOCATION OF DISCREPANCY 5 PANEL P870 I4C NO IGMC-PIEPR-15:

INSERT 54C SYSTEM MS ISC DESC:MS FLOW METER DESCRIPTION OF DISCREPANCY SCALE IS IN PERCENT AND SHOULD BE IN PSI 5

RECOMENDATIONS INVESTIGATE CHANGING SCALE TO READ IN PSI E

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE:

8 E

E E

E C-1 E

MISSISSZPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY E

HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION REVIEW LER HED Review Summary LER Other (Specify)

Report Number Report Date: Occurrence Dates Error Categorization: Work Station:

E Instruments Involved: Procedures Involved:

5 Major Systems Involved:

E Identification of Occurrence:

5 Summarize Events Preceding Occurrence:

5 Summat1.c Events During Occurrence:

Identification of Probable Causes Corrective Action Taken/ Proposed:

E Additional Recommendations:

5 &

5 E C -2 5

MISSISSIPPI POWER 6 LIGHT COMPAtU

'E E

E EQUIPMENT CHARACTERISTICS 1 Dsplay Characteristics Contml I & C (Equipment)

Identification parameter Range Units uiIsNype N8I'I E

E E

E E

B

E E

lE

'B B

,B C-3 5

E MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY E

E E EQUIPMENT SUtTABILITY HEDs Completed by:

Plant:

Date:

Scena e:

Dir'

TAW REFE RENCE I information 5t h'y hu Task 1.D. Ident.f ed A ppropriate Prow.ded U'**D

Scenano E

E E

E E

E E

E E

E E

g 5 C-4 s l

MISSISSIPPI POWER 0 LIGHT Col 4P/ iY E

E E

INFORMATION AND CONTROL REQUIREMENT SOURCES E - ee:

TAW REF, SOURC1 OF INFORMAT'ON & CONTROL REQUIREMENT ISAR/ Locatmei Scenario Task 1.D. SME EPG EOP: EOP Basis SPDS/AMI Des gn Bass Tech. Specs. EPRI GOG Other of Source E

E

E E

E E

E E

E E

E C-5 5

MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Helping Build Mississippi P. O . BOX 1640. J ACKSON. MISSISSIPPI 39205 December 19, 1984 NUCLEAR LICENSING & $AFETY DEPARTMENT U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director

Dear Mr. Denton:

SUBJECT:

Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Unit 1 Docket No. 50-416 License No. NPF-29 File: 0272/L-814.5/15743 Submittal of GCNS Detailed Control Room Design Review Program Plan AECM-84/0537 In accordance with the requirements of Generic Letter 82-33 (NUREG-0737 Supplement 1) and the GCNS Operating License Condition 2.C(36), MP&L is hereby submitting the GGNS Detailed Centrol Room Design Review (DCRDR) Program Plan for your review.

Yours truly,

\ Y l L. F. Dale Director

/

SAB/SHH:rw Attachment cc: Mr. J. B. Richard (w/a)

Mr. R. B. McGehee (w/a)

Mr. N. S. Reynolds (w/a)

Mr. G. B. Taylor (w/o)

Mr. Richard C. DeYoung, Director (w/a)

Office of Inspection & Enforcement

/g U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comaission g ,

Washington, D. C. 20555 g C ")

Mr. J. P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator (w/a) '

  • U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta St., N.W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Member Middle South Utilities System

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