ML17254A385

Summary of 850514-17 Meetings W/Util,Lll & Ard Corp in Ontario,Ny Re Dcrdr in-progress Audit.List of Attendees & Viewgraphs Encl

ML17254A385
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	06/05/1985
From:	Chris Miller Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
LSO5-85-06-003, LSO5-85-6-3, NUDOCS 8506110391
Download: ML17254A385 (55)

Text

~S RICO

~4 ac~

O Cy 9~

C O

Ol0 4'O

">>*<<+

UNITEO STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 June 5, 1985 Docket No. 50-244 LS05-85-06-003 LICENSEE:

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation FACILITY:

R.

E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

SUBJECT:

MEETING

SUMMARY

OF THE DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW IN-PROGESS AUDIT FOR THE R.

E.

GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT From May 14 to May 17, 1985 an in-progress audit of the Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR) was conducted by NRC and LLNL at the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant owned and operated by Rochester Gas and Electric

'orporation (RG&E) located in Ontario, New York.

The meeting participants included representatives of NRC, LLNL, RG&E and ARD Corporation (consultant to RG&E) 'and are shown on Attachment I to this meeting summary.

The meeting started with a short entrance briefing, introductions and a quick tour of the control room.

Following the tour the detailed audit proceeded.

The following items were addressed in detail:

1.

DCRDR Team 2.

Function and Task Analyses 3.

Control Room Inventory 4.

Control Room Survey 5.

HED Assessment 6.

Selection of Design Improvements

- Areas discussed included the qualifications of the members of the licensee's review team, the role, responsibilities and level of effort of the human factors specialists and the task assignments and level of effort of other team members.

- Discussions included the use of the basic version or Revision 1 to the WOG Emergency

Response

Guideline (ERG), identification of operator tasks and information control requirements, identification of required display and control characteristics, and information and control needs of operators independent from the existing control room.

- The methodology for comparing existing control room instrumentation with the required display and control characteristics was discussed.

- The survey procedures, survey data collection forms and survey team were discussed.

- The methodology and assessment team for the assessment of HEDs were presented and examined.

- The methodology and team membership were discussed with regard to how the human factors specialist will be included in all phases of'he design improvement process.

P)R

<go 1 85060 8506'( 39-

~ 0>000pyy t'DRQj, 7.

HED Correction Verification - The methodology and procedures for verifying that the design improvements provide the necessary correction without introducing new HEDs into the control room was examined.

8.

Coordination of DCRDR with A discussion took place on the SPDS R.G.1.97 - Upgraded methodology by which the control room EOPs and Training upgrade activities will be integrated and coordinated with other emergency response capability initiatives.

9.

Control Room Audit

- The NRC audit team performed a detailed examination of the control room.

Slides presented by ARD Corporation are shown in attachment 2.

At the conclusion of the detailed discussions and evaluations the NRC audit team leader (Neil Thompson) presented a

su@nary of findings to RG&E at an exit briefing.

Details of these findings will be provided to the licensee in a forthcoming audit report.

These findings will be considered by the licensee in preparation of its DCRDR summary report which is due to NRC in December 1985.

Attachments:

1.

List of Attendees 2.

ARD Corp. Slides cc w/attachments:

See next page g(~ mJ0I~

Charles Miller, Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch ¹5 Division of Licensing

7.

HED Correction Verification

- The methodology and procedures for verifying that the design improvements provide the necessary correction without introducing new HEDs into the control room was examined.

8.

Coordination of DCRDR with A discussion took place on the SPDS R.G. 1.97 - Upgraded methodology by which the control room EOPs and Training upgrade activities will be integrated and coordinated with other emergency response capability initiatives.

9.

Control Room Audit

- The NRC audit team performed a detailed examination of the control room.

Slides presented by ARD Corporation are shown in attachment 2.

At the conclusion of the detailed discussions and evaluations the NRC audit team leader (Neil Thompson) presented a

summary of findings to RGSE at an exit briefing.

Details of these findings will be provided to the licensee in a forthcoming audit report.

These findings will be considered by the licensee in preparation of its DCRDR summary report which is due to NRC in December 1985.

siSuoaopg DISTRIBUTION NRC PDR Local PDR ORB¹5 Reading CMiller CJamerson JZwolinski OELD EJordan BGrimes ACRS (10)

NRC Participants DL:ORB¹5 0 CJamerson 05gb/85 CMi t'.

m oglfIss Charles Miller, Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch ¹5 Division of Licensing DL:ORB¹5 JZwolinski OS) +i85

W 7

t

~

~

~ ~

I 0

7 tI II 7

~

W II 7) "I

~ rent-lt W

I fw 1

'I It

'I ti I

'l

~

tl WI "

'1

~ 7 W

I

~

CC Harry H. Voigt, Esquire

LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and HacRae 1333 New Hampshire

Avenue, N.W.

Suite 1100 Washington, D.C.

20036 Ezra Bialik Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau New York State Department of Law 2 World Trade Center New York, New York 10047 Resident Inspector R.E.

Ginna Plant c/o Lj.S.

NRC 1503 Lake Road

Ontario, New York 14519 Stanley B. Klimberg, Esquire General Counsel New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza

Albany, New York 12223 Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regioq I Office 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Supervisor of the Town of Ontario 1850 Ridge Road

Ontario, New York 14519 Jay Dunkleberger Division of Policy Analysis 5 Planning New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza

Albany, New York 12223 Roger M.

Kobe'ice President Electric and Steam Production Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649

ATTACMHENT I W. Neil Thompson L. Beltracchi C. Hiller R.

C. Hecredy C. Hambretti C. Edgar G. Heier M. Van Moute T. White K. Hasker D. Harchionda L. F. Smith G.

W. Daniels Bruce Snow Roger W. Kober Don Taylor Gary Johnson Jim Moore R.

E. Smith R. Kirchner List of Attendees In-Progress Audit 05/14-17/85 Team Leader NRC NRC NRC RG&E RG&E RG&E RG&E RG&E RG&E RG&E RGSE RG&E RG&E RG&E RG&E Lead Muman Factors, ARD LLNL LLNL Chief Engineering, RG&E ARD

0 Attachment 2

DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW (DCRDR)

PROCESS DIVIDED INTO FOUR MAJOR ACTIVITIES

~

PLANNING

~

P,EV IE'I

~

ASSESSMENT AtlD IMPLE!>EHTATION

~

REPORTING ARD CORPORATION IS FINISHING THE REVIEW PHASE AND IS MOVING INTO THE IMPLEMENTATION PHASE,

REVIEW PHASE

~

HISTORICAL REVIEW

~

OPERATOR PERSONNEL SURVEY

~

INVENTORY

~

TASK ANALYSIS

~

VERIFICATION OF SUITABILITY AND AVAILABILITY

~

VALIDATION

~

CHECKLIST SURVEY

HISTORICAL REVIEW NUCLEAR INDUSTRY IS FORTUNATE THAT PAST HUMAN PERFORMANCE ERRORS OR EQUIPMENT/DESIGN PROBLEMS ARE DOCUMENTED IN PLANT AND INDUSTRY RECORDS, IN HOUSE SOURCES LICENSEE cVENT PEPOPTS (LERs) 2, PEVIATION REPORTS (DVRs) 3, PROFESSI')NAL COMMITTEE REPOPTS (PROs)

INDUSTRY-HIDE SOURCES I.

SIGNIFICANT EVENT REPORTS (SERs) 2.

SIGNIFICANT OPERATING EVENT REPORTS (SOERs)

Collect Pertinent Historical Reports Screen Reports for Relevance to DCRDR Start Project Notebook Prioritize. the Reports to Focus the Review Effort Perform Review and Analysis of Reports Complete PAR, and CR HED, if Applicable Deliver Review Documentation to DCRDP. Project Manager Figure 4.1 Activity Flow. Chart for Examining Available Historical Documents

Historical Document Review PROBLEM ANALYSES REPORT (PAR)

Name of Investigator(s):

Report Type and Number:

Station:

Event Date:

Unit:

Operating Status:

Circumstances and Events Leading to the Problem:

Nature of the Problem:

Steps Taken to Correct or Alleviate the Problem Outcome:

Corrective Measures Undertaken:

Human Performance Problems Associated With Event:

Historical Document Review PROBLEM ANALYSES REPORT (PAR)

(Continued)

Applicable to Plant Under Review?

Yes (Zf no, end form here.)

Zn Which Areas:

No Corrective Actions Taken:

Unresolved Discrepancies:

(Zf none, end form here.)

HEO Number:

Summary:

Historical Document Review PROBLEM ANALYSIS REPORT (PAR) (Continued)

Applicable to Plant Under Review?

Yes (If no, end form here.')

No In Which Areas:

Corrective Actions Taken:

Unresolved Discrepancies:

(If none, end form here.)

HEO Number:

Summary:

HISTORICAL DOCUYENT REVIEt',

THE FOLLOWING PROBLEMS t'fERE RESPONSIBLE FOR l'!ANY OF THE EVENTS FOUND IN THE REPORTS REVIEWED:

EQU IPf";El'T FAILURE WIRES CROSSED IMPROPER CONNECTIONS EQUIPMENT NOT POSITIONED CORRECTLY ALARM ftlALFUNCTION INCORRECT BREAKER ALIGNMiENT INACCURATE OR INCORRECT CALIBRATION USE OF NON-QUALIFIED EAUIPYENT

~

INSTALLATION OF IMPROPER SPARE PARTS

~

FAILURE TO PROPERLY FOLLOW A PROCEDURE

~

INADEQUATE (DEFICIENT OR INCONSISTENCY)

PROCEDURE

~

MISINTERPRETATION OF PROCEDURE, INSTRUCTIONS INADEQUATE TRAINING (ESPECIALLY WITH NEH EMPLOYEES)

LACK OF ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS INADEQUATE MONITORING FAILURE TO COMPLETE SURVEILLANCE TESTS ON TIf~E MISSED SAYiPLES ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA OF PROCEDURE NOT MET CREATION OF EVENT CONTPARY TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS EXCEEDING TECHNICAL SPECI ICATIOl'l LIMITS IMPROPERLY COMiPLETED RECOFSS FIRE PROTECTION DEFICIENCIES (REMOVAL OF FIRE BARRIERS'IRE DOOR BLOCKED OPEN, FIRE PENETRATIONS NOT SEALED, FIRE PUMPS OUT OF SERVICE)

ACTIONS/ERRORS BY CONTRACTORS OR MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL INADEQUATE f'IAINTENANCE

OPERATING PERSONNEL SURVEY TOPICS

~

WORKSPACE LAYOUT AND ENVIRONNENT

~

PANEL DESIGN

~

"")a(U<C IATO~ HORNING SYSTEM

~

CONIUN I CATI ONS

~

PROCFSS COMPUTERS e

CORRECTIVE AND PREVENTATIVE NAINTENANCE

~

PROCEDURES

~

STAFFING AND JOB DESIGN e

TRAINING

"0 no.

PEASONKt. SU1YEY QNNRY FONI PopulaUon Dasoyraphfcs and Statistics

%AN STATISTICS Height Aye HLclear Control herd dYrs fYrs Opar Exp.

Ope'xp l0 SRO coactor Ope ator Senfar %actor Operator n.i5'lo2$'2.N 7.l5 3.11

$.23 0

a0.75 15.00 2+00 i.$0 10.33 Ore'all 70.$0'7.13 5A7

~ 2.N 5.03 2.21

%DIAN STATISTICS Hafyht Aya Neloar Control Ioard PYrs dYrs Oper Exp.

Oper Exp.

NO SRO Iaactar Ore ate Son)or 1aactar Operator n.oo'0.$

0 30.00 7.00 51.00 17.00 2.00 2.50 I.OO 2AO i.OO 0

Or+all 70.00'2.00 l.00 2.00 i.OO Scotch

<<s

~

~

I P

~

PL+

+

+

A'

CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW OPERATOR SURVEY

~ A, 'ORK PA AYOUT AND NV RONM NT A,l HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE THE CAPABILITY FOR DIRECT VOICE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN PERSONNEL IN THE MAIN CONTROL ROOM'P CONDITIONS THAT MIGHT IMPEDE DIRECT VOICE COMMUNICATIONS COUlD INCLUDE HIGH BACKGROUND NOISE.

PHYSICAL BARRIERS.

OR DISTANCE BETWEEN WORK-

STATIONS, REMEt'ABER TO CONSIDER ALL MODES OF OPERATIONS INCLUDING POTENTIAL ABNORMAL OR EMERCENCY CONDITIONS,

.A, EXCELLENT B,

ADEQUATE C.

SOilE PROBL""i". AREAS D,

MANY PROBLEi'1 AREAS PLEASE IDENTIFY ANY PROBLEM AREAS, A.2 AIR QUALITY (TEMPERATURES HUMIDITY'ENTILATION)IN THE CONTROL ROOM IS:

A, EXCELLENT.

B, ADEQUATE C,

SOYE PROBLEM AREAS D,

MANY PROELE": AREAS PLEASE IDENTIFY ANY PROBLEM AREAS.

EXAMPLE A.l.

How would you characterize the capability for direct voice comaunication between personnel in the main control room?

20 Number of Responses 15 Number of Respondents

~ 19 Excellent Adequate Some Problem Areas Many Problem Areas A.2.

Air quality (temperature, humidity, ventilation) in the control room is:

20 15 Number of Responses 1

Number of Respondents

~

19 Excellent Adequate Some Many Problem Problem Areas Areas A.3.

Lighting in the control room (illumination, glare, reflections) is:

20 15 Number 10 Responses Number of Respondents

~ 19 Excellent Adequate Some Problem Areas Nany Problem Areas

IDENTIFY OPERATOR TASKS

~

WOG EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDELINES

~

DRAFT EOPS PROVIDED BY GINNA EOP WRITERS

~

ANALYZED EACH STATEMENT FOR ACTIONS AND DECISIONS REQUIRED BY THE OPERATOR

~

PHRASED "ACTION STATEMENTS INTO OPERATOR TASK STATEMENTS

IDENTIFY OPERATOR ACTIONS

~

TASK ANALYSIS TEAM 0

0 0

0 HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEER GINNA SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS EOP COORDINATOR GINNA SYSTEMS EXPERT

~

ESTABLISHED STEP BY STEP OPERATOR ACTION NEEDED TO PERFORM TASKS

~

RECORDED STEP INFORMATION ONTO A TASK ANALYSIS SHEET

SPECIFY NEEDED CHARACTERISTICS FOR It<FORi1ATION AND CONTROL REQUIREHEWTS INFORMATION CHARACTERISTICS i.

LEVEI OF INFORMATION

~

STATE

~

VALUE

~

TREND 2.

PRESENTATION CHARACTERISTICS

~

STATUS LIGHT

~

LEGEND

~

CONTINUOUS PARAMETER INFORMATION

- UNITS RANGE DIVISIONS

SPECIFY NEEDED CHARACTERISTICS FOR INFORMATION AND CONTROL REQUIREMENTS CONTROL CHARACTERIS ICS i.

MODE OF OPERATION

~

DISCRETE CONTINUOUS 2.

DISCRETE LEVELS OF OPERATION

~

POSITIONS 3.

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS

~

SPRING RETURN

~

PULL-TO-LOCK

~

KEY LOCK

~

COVER CONTROL FEEDBACK

~

STATUS LIGHTS

~

FLAG OR TARGET e

8ACKLIT

~

SUPPORTING INDICATIONS

IDENTIFY CONTROL ROOM INSTRUMENTATION CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO PERFORM TASK ACTION

~

USE OF INVENTORY PANEL DRAWINGS

~

LIST ALL INSTRUMENTS WHICH COULD CONCEIVABLY PROVIDE FUNCTION

~

RECORD I.D.

~

LIST UNAVAILABLEINSTRUMENTATION AND TASK PERFORMANCE OUTSIDE OF CONTROL ROOM

EQUIPMENT NAME CONTROL INDICATOR ID POSITION

~o., ~ ~~+

~+

~

~

~

STATE cV UNITS RANGE

~~

N E

a~

DIV i ~

NUIIBE LEGEND/OTHER PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT CODE 0-NO I-YES NODE CSL/FLAG 08-RED/GREEN LEVEL ID TYPE 0-DISCRETE OI-ANGER 04-GREEN 09-NNITE 12-GRAY S-STATE I-INDICATOR 0-OTHER PERFORNAHCE 1-CONTINUOUS 02-BLACK 05-ORANGE 10-YELLON 13-BEIGE V-VALUE C-CONTROL REOUIREHEHTS 03-BLUE 07-RED 11-CLEAR 14-BRONH T-TREND A-ANNUNCIATOR N-HOT AVAILABLE

M SSrr Aa SS Ax ma Ra AX C

~

~

~ll//EE/l/4/s~~/23K/~I/M 55MPlSIMSS RHASSAS~IIASSS SSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSIKK~EAEEAAAAAEAAAEEAAI SESSS

~lllaaA SRXXRXRXXX R XXRRX KKlIlXRAaaRARARXAARrrRRI SSSSS

~llssis s

s r As sSsssssssssssrsssl ASAAISAASAAEAAEAE~IAAAEASAASEARAAEEEAAAAAEKIM rREEAAAAAEAEAEEESI ASSES

~IxsssAEAAxxmxasssxs AAAAx mam raxxssaaxxxxxrxxxa SEERS

~IIAAEAE s

s

~

EA ssssssAASEAEErssll MHE!AENRAAEHNAAA~INAEA AAEAAAAAEEAAAEAAAallBH EAarAAAAAEAEArraAS RRRRA

~sxeARA xaaRxsaaaaaeaAARR Ma AAarAAAAaarrarraAI Assrj

~liAAEA A

r A AA EAaaAIAAarlrarraAI tr RX hi5 51 Ar xx ra

~A EAR ARREAR ERA ARE~INAAAAEAArxrxRAREArAAAAAAHQtl AEAAA

~INArxrrwAraxeAEAEAEAAAAAAaas ASSES

~llAAEAr A

r A Ar Hll5IMllAAAMAAAAE~INAAEAAAAERARRAARRX RRRRRllKH RRXrm

~IN%AREA RaRAE RXRRR RARER El~38 EAAEI

~IIAAEAA a

r

~ Aa AAEAE klakARNEAA ~IIARRAEARRRAAAAAAEAAAAAEHKK RRXXR

~IIARAA5lEREAEIAAAASAAAAA K@5 SSSSA

~IISSSSS S

~ SS rarralAArraaaarall rarrarArarAaaaraam xxrrrilmxrAsxrrAA) aaxaxRRRSRRRxraxA) aAErAAARRERAANERRI aAAaaANEAAAAOERA) asaraRRNXRAxrraRRk AAEEEHmrrsxrrrAAN

~5SSSHSSSHSW>IH I i I

I I

I '

I 1

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I

QQ SI ES aSrr

~r PilH SE IS SS SSIS ES gk SS 5%

~I

~IIIII/E//IXIX~~/ARAN~/IM MGHHDRISmRKJIIIIS~IWIRQIQIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHCKMSESSIISISSSSISSEkm RIES%

~lm'kESESE%5%%5%%%5%WSARSm5

%%%JEWESEREESERESR%%%%1

~SSII

~IRlSSIS I

I

~ IS QISSIIIIISSRISSIII NSSISmSSISSSISES~liEESISEISSISIRSSSRISEIESL'L'a OESEEESiSSESSSSESI IIIXI

~IWIIAIAIISSIRIISRSIISIINKH SISSSIIIRSISWSSRQ ISNI

~IIISSIS

~

I

~ SS SISSIIIIRSISISSSI)

EESEEEISEESSSSESPERHIIESSISEESEWSNSSE ESSNSHM SESSEEEISSASESEEll EEEEM

~IWEEE1E ESEAEEEEEE EEEERE llatH SSSSRNISSISSSSSWI SSSSI

~ISIISIS

~

~

ES SRSSSNISSSSSSSERI ESESEESMNSSSESERRSl

~NSRSRIQSNNSSESNISEERK'5 SESSE%%%SSESSSSSSI RISER

~IIIISRSEISSESEESSRSISRIES mRIR SSSSRHISSESSSENl

~IIII

~IIIRSIS I

~

~ IS SRSSSSIIRSISSSSRRI EEES15NEESEESESE~IIEEEWEMSEWEEEEEEE ESSENCE%%

SMSSASWSSSEESEEIW EEESI

~IIEEEAOESSEIEEESEQE ESIEE ESE SNSENIS ~WESSEmSR

~IIS%

~IIRESSE E

E

~ lR SISSSIRSSSIESSSRIS SESSASQSSESSWSSES~INENSSMSERENESSAEEEESESE RISSSEEIREEEArraar

~EEEI

~85SNWSlQSR WNRSEIENRS SSS SWSSSNNSWSSSSIH IISSI

~mmlIIIW S

I

~ II EIIEIIIHHIIS>Ill

VERIFICATION OBJECTIVE TO ENSURE THAT THE INFORMATION AND CONTROL CAPABILITIES CALLED FOR BY THE TASK ANALYSIS IS PRESENT IN THE CONTROL ROOM AND IN A SUITABLE FORM FOR OPERATOR USE PROCESS

~

PREPARE VERIFICATION COMPUTER PROGRAM TO COMPARE DATA ENTRY FIELDS FROM TASK ANALYSIS AND INVENTORY DATA BASES AND PRINTOUT 'POTENTIAL MISMATCHES

~

INVESTIGATE MISMATCHES FOR APPROPRIATE AVAILABILITY AND SUITABILITY CRITERIA

~

PREPARE HEOs

SURVEY ANALYSIS H!)~AN FAC~~RS SPECIALIST REVIE<!ED EACH QUESTIONNAIRE, ITEV.-BY-

ITEth, AND FOLLOWED UP ANBIGUOUS ANSWERS.

PR~RLE~S I~E>>TIFIFD ON THE SURVFY GENERATED HEDs,

CONTROL ROOM CHECKLIST SURVEY

~

EVALUATFS HU!1AN PERFOP..".ANCE CHARACTERISTICS kllTHIfl THE CONTROL POOM

~

FOLL01!S HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERI,"lG GUIDELINES OF NUREG-0700 I

CONTROL ROOi1 1'JORKSPACE 2,

COMMUNICATIONS 3,

ANNNUNCIATOR tlARNING SYSTEMS 4,

CONTROLS 5.

VISUAL DISPLAYS 5,

LABELS AND LOCATION AIDS 7.

PROCESS COMPUTERS 8,

PANEL LAYOUT 9,

CONTROL-DISPLAY INTEGRATION

PROCEDURE FOR CHECKLIST SURVEY

. 1, ITEHS NEEDING OPERATOR ASSISTANCE IN ACTIVATING INSTRUf"lENTS, 2,

ITEHS HUi'IAN FACTORS SPECIALIST CAN PERFORN INDEPENDENTLY, ITEi'3S DERIVED FROf'1 OTHER CRDR ACTIVITIES, 4,

ENVIRONMENTAL,

ENVIRONi~iENTAL SURVEY I,

LIGHTING j.

ILLUNINATION A,

HAIN CONTROL BOARDS B,

REI'10TE SHUTDOHN PANEL C,

OPERATOR

DESKS, CONSOLES D,

ENERGENCY (STANDBY) 2; LUNINANCE -.

CONTRAST RATIOS 3,

REFLECTANCE II,. SOUND 1,

ANBIENT 2,

Af)BIENT NITH PRiNTERS AND COfRNUNICATION EQUIPflENT 3

ANNUNCIATOR HORNS ANBIENT AT RENOTE SHUTDOWN PANEL I I I,.

VENTILATION 1,

TEYiPERATURE 2,

HUt'lI D ITY 3,

AIR VELOCITY AIR QUANTITY

bUUJVUl, na.

TASK ANALYSIS PROCESS

~

IDENTIFY OPERATOR TASKS

~

IDENTIFY OPERATOR ACTIONS TO ACCOtVLISH TASKS

~

IDENTIFY INFORtMTION AtlO CONTROL NEEDS TO PfRFORH OPERATOR ACTIONS

~

SPECIFY NEEOEO CHARACTERISTICS FOR INFORtQTIOH ANO CONTROL REQUIREMENTS C'.ommorr illTaro Aiilicn

/Qhh,

CHARACTERISTICS CHECK SPRING RETURN PULL TO LOCK KEY2 COVER2 UNSUITABLE UNSUITABLE UNSUITABLE UNSUITABLE

COl1PARISON OF FATA NEEDS TO CONTROL RQOt1 INVENTORY AVAILABILITY CHECK COi 1PONEf'lT ID IN INVENTORY?

UNAVAILABLE CONTROL INDICATOR ANNUNCIATOR

~~~, ~ e%

pyv( >

vl

~

PRINT LEGEN

COMPARISON OF FATA NEEDS TO CONTROL ROON INVENTORY

-INDICATORS- '

VEL OF INFER'lATION CHECK DOES INVENTORY TYPE NATCH LEVEL NEEDY UNSUITABLE IS A SCALE SPECIF IED?

'NITS CHECK DOc.S UNITS OF INDICATOR HATCH NEEDY UNSUITABLE RANGE CHECK IS LOWER RANGE NEED INDICATOR LOWER RANGE'P UNSUITABLE IS UPPER RANGE NEED INDICATOR UPPER RANGE'7 UNSUITABLE DIVISIONS CHECK IS tlEEDED DIVISIONS IilDICATOR DIVISIONSP UilvJITABLc.

COHPARISON OF FATA NEEDS TO COflTROL ROOfl INVENTORY

-CONTROLS-DISCRETE CONTROL CAPABILITY CHECK DESCRETE LEVEL NEED IN INVENTORY?

-POSITION CHECK-UNSUITABLE CONTROL NODE CHECK SWITCH TYPE CONSISTENT WITH NODE?

Ui)SJITA&iE VALVE ACTION COl'lSISTENT WITH NODE?

UNSUITABLE

CO'1PARISONS OF FATA NEEDS TO CONTROL ROON INVENTORY

-INDICATORS-STATUS LIGHT CHECK IS A

STATUS LIGHT SPECIFIED'P DOES STATUS LIGHT COLOR NEED thATCH INVENTORY'i>SUITABLE PRINT LEGEND

I '~'

I'll I

~

~

1

~

I I'

~ ~

I I'

~

I ~

~

~

I

~

~

~

I I

0 I

VALIDATION OBJECTIVE TO DETERNINE IF THE FUNCTION ALLOCATED TO THE CONTROL ROON OPERATING CREW CAN BE ACCONPLISHED EFFECTIVELY WITHIN BOTH THE STRUCTURE OF THE ESTABLISHED ENERGENCY PROCEDURES AND THE DESIGN OF THE CONTROL ROOÃ

VALIDATION WALK-THROUGH TALK-THROUGH APPROACH

~

SEVERAL OPERATING CREWS WALK-THROUGH WHAT THEY WOULD DO I!i ONE OF THE SELECTED PLANT EVENTS

~

OPERATORS DESCRIBE LJHAT THEY ARE DOING

~

H<!NA"l FACTOPS SP..CIALIST OBSERVES RELATION BET<!EEN OPEPATOR PEPFORNA."JCE AND CONTROL BOARD/CONTROL ROOFS DF SIGN

DETERMINE VALIDATIONMETHODOLOGY SECURE OPERATING PERSONNEL TO ASSIST WITH THE VALIDATION 6

SCHEDULE THE TIME TO DO IT IMPLEMENT THE SELECTED METHODOLOGY ACCORDING TO THE APPROPRIATE GUIDELINES ANALYZE THE DATA COLLECTED RECORD AND REPORT OBSERVATIONAL ANALYTICALRESULTS Figure 4.4 Activity Flow Chart for Validation Review

VALIDATION WALK-THROUGH CRITERIA

~

INDICATORS AND ANNUNCIATORS

~

UtlITS OF t1EAUSUREt1ENT DISPLAYED SHOULD BE CONSISTENT 1lITH THE PROCEDURE

~

LA"ELS SHOUL~

RE READILY IDEt!TIFIABLE

~

COtlTROLS AND DISPLAYS SHOULD BE AVAILABLE

~

REQUIRED OPERATOR ACTIOtlS SHOULD BE WITHIN CAPABILI-TIES OF THE OPERATOR

~

SPECIAL JOB PERFORMANCE AIDS SHOULD BE SPECIFIED IN THE PROCEDURES

~

RECORD ALL CONTROLS,

DISPLAYS, ANNUNCIATORS AND AIDS THAT WERE NOT REFERENCD IN THE PROCEDURE

~

HF NOTES DIRECTION OF MOVEMENT SEQUENCE OF MOVEMENT FREQUENCY OF MOVEMENT ESTIMATED T'IME CR'ITICALITY OF* MOVEMENT REAL TIME ESTIMATE OF TIME SPENT AT EACH WORK STATION

ASSESSMENT PHASE o

THE REVIEW PROCESS RESULTED IN A NUMBER OF HUMAtl ENGINEER I tlG DISCREPANCIES (HEDs) o EACH IS A POTENTIAL SOURCE OF OPERATOR ERROR WITH CONSEQUEttCES ON PLANT SAFETY AND OPERATION AND WILL BE EVALUATED TO DETERMINE EFFECT ON:

PLANT SAFETY PLANT OPERA>ILITY PERSONNEL SAFETY HEALTH AtlD SAFETY C'F TllE COMMUNITY o

RECOMMENDATIOttS FOR IMPROVEMENT OR CORRECTION WILL BE EVALUATED (FEAS I BI I ITY/VIABILITY)

INFORMAL ASSESSMENT FORMAL ASSESSMENT SEPARATE HEDs TO BE CORRECTED WITHOUT FORMAL ASSESSMENT SEPARATE INVALID HEDs REVIEW AND EVALUATE HEDs EVALUATE INTERACTIVE OR CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF HEDs CLASSIFY HEDs TO A CATEGORY AND LEVEL WITHIN THE CATEGORY EVALUATE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EACH HED AND SELECT THE ONE TO BE IMPLEMENTED DETERMINE AND ASSIGN PRIORITIES TO HEDs CORRECTIVE ACTION FOR IMPLEMENTATION Figure l.

Activity Flow Chart for HED Assessment and Corrective Action Implementation.

ASSESSNENT PROCEDURE I,

HEDs EVALUATED fOR INPACT ON;

~

PHYSICAL PERFORt1ANCE

~

SENSORY/PERCEPTUAL PERFORt1ANCE

~

COGNITIVE PERFORNANCE

~

INTERACTION WITH TASK VARIABLES "PERATING CRE!!

ERROR

~

PLANT SAFETY

IV, CATEGORIZE HEDs BASED ~N PRECEEDING THREE STEPS TO DETERMINE I) llHETHER THE HED SHOULD BE CORRECTED OR

NOT, AND 2) TENTATIVE PRIORITY FOR CORRECTING

HEDs, CATEGORY I SAFETY-RELATED SYSTEM CATEGORY II NON-SAFETY-RELATED SYSTEM CATEGORY III OTHER DISCREPANCIES

VERIFICATION OF IMPROVEMENTS PROCESS Assemble cosmetic and functional fix HEOs.

~

Sort and analyze solutions by component, subsystem, system and panel.

Coordinate fix objectives,

~

Develop/revise HF Manual to establish CR conventions and standard fix practices,

~

Perform techniques to verify improvements will accomplish objectives, Develop cosmetic and functional fix packages to ensure consistency, adequacy and desired overall affect of all cosmetic and functional fixes,

~

Perform techniques to verify improvements will not introduce new problems.

HUMAN FACTORS GUIDELINE FOR DEVELOPMENT CONTROL ROOM ENHANCEMENTS TOPICS

~

Control Room organization and layout.

~

Work Station design Labeling Acceptable abbreviations and parameter names

~

Control Room Conventions-Color Switch type and handle Layout Switch movement and position Nameplate location

~

Mimics and demarcation

~

Meter scale design

~

Indicator zone banding

~

Checklists for users to ensure consideration of appropriate guidance.

VERIFICATION OF DESIGN IMPROVEMENT OBJECTIVES TECHNIQUES Engineering Design Reviews

~

HF Design Reviews -

HF Manual

~

Mock-up

~

Simulator Studies

~

Operations Feedback

VERIFICATION THAT DESIGN INPROVENENT MILL TECHNIQUES

~

HF Checklists (NUREG-0700)

~

Task Analysis

~

Walk Throughs Simulator Studies

~

Nock-up of a combination of cosmetic/functional fixes.

Operations Feedback

SELECTION OF DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS PROCESS

~

Team identify potential solutions to valid HEOs

~

Develop a manual to aid in the application of general solutions

~

Team discussions of alternative solutions

~

Select most appropriate solution by Team consensus

~

Document details of solution and rationale for selecting or rejecting alternative solutions if appropriate

~

Document dissenting opinions Develop cosmetic and functional fix packages

- I I I, TEAtl CONSENSUS DCRDR.P".OJECT VA'JAGER MILL FACILITATE TEAf1 DISCUSSIONS OF RATINGS.

LHFS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR TABULATING AND RECORDING TINE DECISIONS,

RECOMMENDATION SELECTION HED RECOMMENDATION REVIEW COMMITTEE

~

FIRST DECIDES WHETHER OR NOT TO RECOMMEND CORRECTING C

AND D LEVEL HEDs

~

THEN EVALUATE OTHERS BASED ON SIGNIFICANCE AND PRIORITY

RECOMMENDATION PROCEDURE I,

COMMITTEE DISCUSSES EACH HED 2,

.ATING SYSTEM TO EVALUATE EACH RECOMMENDATION ON VIABILITY, SOUNDNESS AND FEASIBILITY USED BY EACH COMMITTEE MEMBER

'5.

LHFS RECORDS RESULTS OF COMMITTEE DELIBERATIOt!S COMMITTEE'S PREFERRED RECOMMENDATION WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE SEATION OPERATIONS AND NUCLEAR EtlGINEER ING DEPARTMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION 5,

IF NONE OF THE PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS ARE ACCEPTABLE, THE COMMITTEE MAY SUBMIT ITS OHN ACCEPTABLE RECOMMENDATION 6.

IF OPERATIONS OR ENGINEERING DO NOT ACCEPT ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS, A JUSTIFICATION 1!ILL BE PREPARED A!D SIGNED