ML17254B011

Detailed Control Room Design Review Program Plan

ML17254B011
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	10/31/1984
From:	ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML17254B010	List: ML17254B009 ML17254B011
References
PROC-841031, NUDOCS 8411080290
Download: ML17254B011 (148)

Text

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM PLAN R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Submitted by:

ll Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649 8411080290 841031 PDR ADOCK 05000244 F

PDR October 1984

E L.

," 'rP)

V 0

Program Plan 1

I Rochester Gas and Electric F

PREFACE The following document was prepared by Rochester Gas and Electric (RGGE)

Corporation in conjunction

,with the Applied Systems Technology Division of the Advanced Resource Development (ARD) Corporation,

Columbia, Maryland.

This report contains the Program Plan for performing a

Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR) for the Ginna Station.

The plan 'was developed by specialists with experience in the fields of plant operations (licensed operators),

instrumentation and control engineering, nuclear engineering, training and human factors engineering.

f1

[~

Program Plan SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS Rochester Gas and Electric PAGE

1.0 BACKGROUND

AND OBJECTIVE 1.1 Reporting Requirements for DCRDR and Other Improvement Programs 1.2 Summary of Supplement 1

Human Factors Activities to be Performed 2.0 MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING 2.1 DCRDR Team 2.2 Program Manager

.2~3 DCRDR Project Manager 2.4 Human Factors Engineering

--=--2-.5 Ot'her Review Team Members 1-2 1-4 2-'1 2-1 2-3 2-3 2-4 2-6

3. 0 DOCUMENTATION AND DOCUMENT CONTROL

- 3.1 Input Documentation 3.2 Output Documentation

.3;3= Document Control

~ ;4= Data Base Management System 3-1 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-3

4. 0

. REVIEW PROCEDURES 4-1 4.1 4'. 2 4 '

4 '4.5 4.6 Review of Operating Experience

System, Function Review and Analysis of Control Room Operator Tasks Control Room Inventory Control Room Survey Verification of Task Performance Capabilities Validation of Control Room Functions 4-1 4-7 4-13 4-17 4-18 4-18

5.0 ASSESSMENT

P IMPLEMENTATION AND SCHEDULING 5.1 HED Assessment 5.2 Recommendation Selection 5.3 Implementation and Scheduling of Recommendation 6.0 FINAL

SUMMARY

REPORT 7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 5-1 5-1 5-5 5-6 6-1 7-1

[..

L<

7.1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulations 7.2 Supplementary References APPENDIX A DCRDR Data Collection Forms APPENDIX B Glossary of Terms APPENDIX C

Acronyms 7-1 7-2 A-1 B-1 C-1

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric

1.0 BACKGROUND

AND OBJECTIVE p.

L.',

C Rochester Gas 6 Electric Corp.

(RG&E) has initiated a control room review program for the R.E.

Ginna Power Plant in response to NUREG-0737 Supplement 1,

which requires that all licensees conduct a

detailed control room design review (DCRDR).to identify and correct design deficiencies.

The NUREG-0700, "Guidelines

. for Control Room Design Review",

issued in September of

1981, provides human engineering guidelines to assist each licensee and applicant in performing a

detailed control room review.

The RGGE program emphasizes determination of the adequacy of information available to the operator to effectively mitigate emergency conditions.

The review program is also designed to correct human factors problems and to improve controls and displays determined to be in discrepancy with good human factors practices.'he review scope will encompass known future control room design changes (e.g.,

new

plant process

computer, the Safety Assessment System (SAS)) as well as the existing design.

The DCRDR process, as suggested by NUREG-0700, is divided into four major activities:

~

Planning o

Review o

Assessment and Implementation o

Reporting This report reflects the RGGE approach to satisfy the planning

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric p

phase and details the human engineering. processes developed to address the DCRDR requirements.

The following pages describe the overall review, the management and review

staff, documentation and document

control, and process for assessing Human Engineering Discrepancies (HEDs).

1.1 Re ortin Re uirements for DCRDR and Other Im rovement Procrrams Supplement 1 to NUREG 0737 contains reporting requirements that must address:

~

the specifics of the Ginna DCRDR; and,

~

"Other Improvement Programs" which relate to and must be integrated with the Ginna DCRDR.

L;;

Paragraph 1.1.1 details the specific DCRDR reporting requirements.

Paragraphs 1.1.2 to l.la5 specify those "Other Improvement Programs"

that, in RG&E's opinion, are technically related to the DCRDR and provide appropriate document cross 4

references.

1.1.1 Control Room Design Review Supplement 1

requires the submittal of a

Program Plan containing the following elements:

L.,

A qualified multidisciplinary review team Use of function and task analysis Control room verification Control room survey HED assessment Verification of design improvements 1-2

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric o

Coordination with other prog'rams The purpose of this Program Plan is to describe how each of the requirements listed above has been or will be accomplished.

1.1.2 Safety Parameter Display Systems (SPDS)

Supplement 1, paragraph 4.2.a requires that the licensee submit a "written safety analysis describing the basis on which the selected parameters are sufficient to assess the safety status of each identified function for a wide range of events, which include symptoms of severe accidents."

RGSE submitted that basis in a report dated June 1981.

RG&E's SPDS is a subset of the SAS which is currently under design.

1.1.3 Regulatory Guide 1.97 Supplement 1, paragraph 6.2 requires the submittal of a report describing how the licensee meets the requirements of Regula-tory Guide 1.97.

RG&E submitted a report on its current status in January 1984.

1.1.4 Emergency Operating Pr'ocedures (EOPs)

Supplement 1,

paragraph 7.2.b requires the submittal of a

Procedures Generation Package including a

description of the development of the Plant Specific Technical Guidelines, the Mriter's

Guide, the program for validation of

EOPs, and the training program for EOPs.

That document will be submitted by 28 February 1985.

L 1.2 Summar of Su lement 1

Human Factors Activities to be Performed 1.2.1 DCRDR Activities 1-3

zJ p

1 Program Plan I

Rochester Gis and Electric The control room will be reviewed regarding the system status information, control capabilities,

feedback, and performance aids=. necessary for personnel to accomplish their functions and "tasks effectively.

In addition; any characteristics of the existing control room's instrumentation,

controls, other equipment and physical arrangements will be identified that may t

detract..from operator performance.

,Six review processes will be used;to i'dentify HEDs within the control zoom:

~.-

Operating experience review

. ~

.. System review, function review and task analysis

e,-=.

Control room inventory

~

Control room checklist supplement

.. ~..Verification of task performance capabilities

~

Validation of control room function p

The first three are foundation processes in which frames of reference-and benchmarks for discrepancy identification will be established.

The last three are investigative processes in which the benchmarks will be applied and HEDs identified.

1.2.l.l Foundation Processes Industry-wide reviews of Licensee Events Reports (LERs) for similarly designed power plants will be analyzed.

Since these reports have generic applicability, they will be used to identify conditions which affect the probability for operator error. anL the safe operation of the generating station.

In

addition, opez'ating personnel 'will be interviewed to obtain feedback...based on previous operating experience.

Concurrently, a

systems

review, function allocation review and task:.analysis, will be conducted.

These analyses will establish 1-4

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric

);

the information flow and control requirements between the VI operator and the control boards.

A summary of the approach is included in Section 4.

control room inventory will also be prepared on a system-by-system basis to identify all instrumentation, controls and equipment within the control room.

This information will be compared with the requirements identified through the analysis of operator tasks.

1.2.1.2 Investigative Processes p

Using the foundation processes as a basis, the investigative I

processes will provide the appropriate information necessary to determine the adequacy of the control room from a

human engineering perspective.

Discrepancies that may exist will be identified and documented during this part of the review.

A survey of the control room consisting of a

human factors engineering examination of the control boards using the guidance in NUREG-0700, Section 6

and other related guidelines and environmental considerations will be conducted.

This step will be followed by a

verification of task performance capabilities which includes:

~

the availability of the instrumentation and controls;

~

and, the efficient interface between the operator and the control board.

L:

Subsequent to the verification process, a

validation of the control room functions will be conducted.

This procedure will determine whether the functions allocated to the operating crew can be accomplished within the structure of the defined 1-5

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric emergency procedures and the design of the existing control room.

1.2.1.3 Assessment, Implementation and Scheduling Upon completion of the: Investigatve Processes, an examination E

of the HEDs will be conducted by the Human Factors Assessment Team (Section 5.0).

This review will serve to identify the significance of each of the

HEDs, as well as to determine the appropriate corrective actions.

It is expected that some HEDs may not require corrective action.

A schedule will be developed that will implement the human engineering resolutions that are identified as being necessary.

1.2.1.4 Final Report A report will be submitted at the conclusion of the Ginna DCRDR which will:

summarize the overall review process; describe the identified HEDs; describe human engineering improvements implemented during the course of the review;

and, identify the remaining proposed improvements and their schedules for implementation.

1.2.2 Safety Parameter Display System Operator interfaces with the SPDS will be evaluated using guidance provided in NUREG-0835 and NUREG-0700, Section 6.

1.2.3 Regulatory Guide 1.97 The examination of Regulatory Guide 1.97 instrument layout on 1-6

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric the control boards will be accomplished during the validation V

review.

1.2.4 Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs)

RG&E will perform a validation of the upgraded EOPs to ensure that the functions of control room operators in emergencies can be accomplished (i.e., that the individual items of NUREG-0737, Supplement 1

have been integrated sufficiently to meet the needs of control room operators and provide adequate emergency response capabilities).

Efforts for the EOP and CRDR valida-tion processes will be integrated.

Additional sequences than those selected for the CRDR validation will need to be analyzed for the EOP validation.

The EOP validation criteria will be applied to all sequences.

In addition to the EOP validation

criteria, the data collection efforts described in Section 4.6 will be performed for those

.sequences 'elected for CRDR validation.

1.2.5 Training There are no outstanding human factors activities relating to

'training that will require dispositioning.

However, the DCRDR review team (discussed in Chapter

2) will have Ginna Training Department representatives.

1-7

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric 2.0 MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING The Ginna DCRDR activities will be implemented by experienced Operating, Engineering and Human Factors Engineering personnel.

These individuals will perform the DCRDR with input from other studies; analyses and concerns involving human factors engineering.considerations discussed in Supplement l.

2.1 DCRDR Team The Ginna DCRDR team consists of a

select group of professionals with the wide range of skills necessary for the performance of the. design review and includes:

I,

~

Nuclear Engineering

~

The EOP Upgrade Project Liaison Engineer 1

~

A senior reactor operator or operations supervisor with operating experience

~

An Instrument and Control Supervisor o

Human factors specialists This core group will be supplemented, as

required, by other disciplines such as mechanical, electrical and I&C engineering, training and visual performance assessment.

During the course of the

review, any additional specialists (e.g.,

lighting, acoustics) required for specific tasks will be made available as needed.

2-1

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric I

Engineering Discipline Manager Responsible Engineer I-:

Electrical:

-'ngineerMg Mechanical Engineering Liaison Engineer Lead Human Factors Specialist Human Factors Specialists I

~ 0 IGC Operations Simulator Project Training j;

Figure 2.1 Structure and Management of the DCRDR Review Team 2-2

e 0

I~

Program Plan 1

, ~

Rochester G s and Electric The structure and management of the review team is illustrated in Figure 2.1.

)2 4r~

Prior. to conducting the review,:-,'.team members will be briefed on the methods and content of relevant NRC reports (i.e.,

NUREG-0700; NUREG-0801) and general human factors engineering prin-ciples and methodology.

Team members will also be provided the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the general design and operation of the plant.

\\

The review team members will be encouraged to document dissenting 'opinions and will be provided access to required

'lant facilities or personnel and necessary documents or information to perform their assigned tasks.

I:,

2.2 Pro ram Mana er The lead'or the DCRDR has been assigned to the Engineering Department.

The Engineering Discipline Manager has the overall responsibility for the planning~ and administration of the DCRDR project.

This responsibility 'ncludes scheduling for the

'project and coordinating review activities with

. corporate management.

2.3 DCRDR Pro 'ect Mana er The Responsible Engineer (RE),

who will serve as the DCRDR Project

Manager, is responsible for the execution of the DCRDR.

He will coordinate the DCRDR activities with the technical review leaders and will be responsible for scheduling and directing the evaluation and reporting process.

The RE for this project shall have a

degree in an engineering 2-3

Program Plan I

'I Rochester Gas and Electric discipline with at least 10 years utility expedience in the nuclear power industry.

2.4 Human Factors En ineerin ARD Corporation will support RG&E in the area of human factors engineering and will insure that human factors principles are not compromised during the DCRDR and provide assurance of the quality of results of each DCRDR conducted.

The following individuals will participate in the DCRDR.

Should it be necessary to substitute another individual for one of these, comparable experience will be maintained.

2.4.1 Lead Human Factors Specialist (LHFS)

Mr. Donald F.

Taylor of ARD Corporation, the LHFS, will work closely with the RE and other technical review leaders throughout each phase of the control room review and share with them the human factors technical leadership of the entire DCRDR project.

The LHFS will coordinate all activities of the HFS(s) and verify that task performapce quality is maintained at a

t-level necessary for a

valid and comprehensive review.

In addition, it will be the responsibility of the LHFS to record dissenting opinions on methodology, technique, review findings, assessment and HED corrective actions that he has from the majority opinion of the DCRDR Review Team and report those opinions, in writing, to the RE.

Mr. Taylor's qualification's for Lead Human Factors Specialist include:

~

B.S.

Industrial Engineering Operations Research (I.E.O.R.),

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 2-4

4

's".l 8')

i Program Plan I

et

'I Rochester Gas and Electric

~

M.S.

I.E.O.R.

(Human Factors),

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

~

Twelve years of experience in human factors engineering, five=--.of.'.=:Which have been in nuclear control room review 2.4.2 Human Factors Specialists The HFS will work with the review team and will be involved directly in the system function review, task analysis, control room

survey, verification, and validation process.

The HFS will provide support in the assessment and implementation phase and the writing of the final report.

Human Factors Specialists supporting the Ginna DCRDR are:

p Richard L. Horst Carnegie-Mellon Carnegie-Mellon Ph.D.

Experimental Psychology, University M.S.

Experimental Psychology, University B.S.

Biology-Psychology, Bucknell University Five years experience in human factors engineering, two of which have been in the nuclear power industry.

Robert C.

Munson i':

M.A.

Experimental Psychology, Towson State University B.S.

Psychology, University of Maryland Five years experience in human factors engineering, three of which have been in the nuclear power industry.

2-5

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric Cynthia F. Weiss

~

M.SE.

Industrial Engineering, University of Michigan

~

B.S.

Industrial Engineering, University of Michigan

~

Four years experience in human factors engineering, two of which have been in the nuclear power industry.

J.B. Winter

~

M.S.

Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University

~

-. B.S.

Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University

~

Five years experience in human factors engineering, three of which have been in the nuclear power industry.

2.5 Other Review Team Members The remainder of the technical review team will consist of experienced Operating and Technical personnel at Ginna and Engineering personnel who will be directly involved in various aspects of the review.

Personnel from Ginna will assist in the identification of the even't ~sequences, functions and tasks for zeview of the system functions and operator task requirements.

They will assist in the control room inventory and validation as well as the assessment and implementation of changes in response to the identified HEDs.

Experienced personnel from the Operations area of Ginna will assist in identifying operator

tasks, conducting the control room inventory, verifying task performance capabilities, validating control room functions and assessing and implementing changes in response to.the identified HEDs.

Experienced personnel from the Engineering Department will assist in identifying equipment design criteria, providing data 2-6

'I

Program Plan I

n' I'ochester Gks and Electric c.

concerning related near term modifications, and <assessing,and implementing changes in response to HED.

I c9 Vg IR3 2-7

~Z Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric 3.0 DOCUMENTATION AND DOCUMENT CONTROL

~ 5 Documentation and document control creates a

traceable and systematic translation of information from one phase of the DCRDR to the next.

It is important that the DCRDR team have ready access to a library of documents to:

a) provide a

support base to manage and execute the various 'steps and phases of the control room reviews; and b) provide a design data base

'from which future control room modifications may be made.

Therefore, a

data base library will be established to ensure the success of the DCRDR process.

This section describes the documentation system (input/output documents) and documentation management/control procedures which RGGE will use to support its DCRDR.

Ultimately, all documentation will be maintained in accordance with existing REGE procedures.

3.1 In ut Documentation Initially, the review team will have at its disposal the reference documents listed below:

h

-,P L~

System Lists System Descriptions Control Room Floor Plan Panel Layout Drawings Panel Photographs 3-1

(:

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric

~

List of Acronyms, Abbreviations' Description of Control Room Coding Conventions

~

.Samples of Computer Printouts

~

Emergency Operating Procedures

~

Guidelines for Procedural Development

~

Other Human Factors/Control Room Studies As additional documents are acquired or written, they will be added to the data base library.

Forms are referenced in their applicable

.program plan sections; reports too cumbersome for inclusion are described and referenced in each applicable section and will be physically maintained by RG&E.

3.2 Out ut Documentation

(=

• In order to facilitiate systematizing and recording control room design

reviews, a

series of standard forms have been developed.

These forms appear in their entirety in the

Appendix, except where indicated by an asterisk; Appendix page numbers appear in parentheses.

tel Historical Report-Review Problem Analysis Report (A-2)

Control Room Human Engineering Discrepancy Record (A-3) questionnaire Item Summary (A-4)

Personnel Survey Summary (A-5)

Control Room Review Task Development (A-6)

Task Analysis Form (A-7)

Validation Review Worksheet (A-8)

Air-Velocity Survey Record (A-9)

Humidity/Temperature Record (A-10)

Lighting Survey Luminance and Reflectance Record (A-ll)

Lighting Survey Illuminance Record (A-12)

Sound Survey Record (A-13) g-3-2

Program Plan I

Rochester Gas and Electric Photographic Log (A-14)

Inventory Form (A-15)

Index of Reviewed Reports'A-16)

Historical Report Problem Status Report (A-17)

Operations Personnel--Questionnaire*

Pre-Assessment Form*

Assessment Rating Form*

~

NUREG-0700 Section 6 Checklist*

3.3 Document Control

)

DCRDR document control is required for traceability, retriev-.

ability and assurance of quality.

RGGE intends to implement a

Data Base Management System (DBMS) for this project to collect,

update, analyze and provide the information necessary to

• fulfillthe requirements of DCRDRs.

An example of a method for using the DCRDR DBMS is illustrated in, Figure 3.1.

Implementation of the DBMS will minimize the number of manual transformation steps currently required in the data collection/analysis effort.

Furthermore, it will afford the Ginna DCRDR team the capabi~lity of rapid data analysis.

~

• Through the use of the DBMS parameters, any number

'or

'combination of data points will be accessed and analyzed on an as needed basis.

3.4 Data Base Mana ement S stem The DBMS will be available on a

DEC VAX'1-730 mini-computer with HENCO INFO/INFO Text software and will consist of a master program with memory storage to hold the data extracted from various source documents.

The program

performs, electronically, those functions which previously were performed manually.

Because manual handling of data is largely eliminated after data is entered into the

system, the DBMS 3-3

Program Plan

~ E

'I Rochester Gas and Electric USER(S)

S 0

F T

W A

R E

I N

T E

R F

A C

E OPERATOR SUB~

OPERMQR TASiK 1

2 3

4 SY~S

& GiB-SYSTEMS SYSZB4 PEKCBXJRES 1

SY~~

1 2

3 4

P P

P4 L1 L2 L3 L4 OPERAEOR FUNCTIONS F1 F2 F3 F4 t"n T

, n

~

~

~

~

o

~

Q F

S

~

n P

~

~

n En REPOZr 1

OVZPVZ REPORTS 8 SCEKBlS Figure 3.1 Sample Human Factors Evaluation Data Base Management System 3-4

[!

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric H

greatly reduces duplication of

efforts, document loss and errors resulting from unnecessary handling of data.

When the review is begun, the HFS will create a series of data files and records using information derived from various source documents.

Each source

. document contains specific

forms, charts, schedules, etc.,

required for the Ginna DCRDR and each will constitute a single data file.

Data files, in turn, will be comprised of individual records which represent the specific parameters contained in the file forms, etc.

The file then serves as a model of the document from which it was created, as well as an area to store data records.

Initially, the source documents

.will include those reports and forms listed previously in this chapter.

The RE and LHFS will be instructed in system structure, use and maintenance.

Upon completion of training, each will be able to perform all necessary functions.

These functions include:

addition/deletion and editing of data records; creation of new files; selective examination of particular

records, based on user-selected criteria; performance of

analysis, based on user-selected criteria; creation of specialized and standard reports; creation of hard copies of data and system alteration, adjustment or expansion.

To avoid file damage and/or unauthorized data manipulation, access to the DBMS will be restricted by limiting user training and by issuing passwords to a limited number of users.

i:,

Since there will be limited access to the system, it will be set up so that direct access will be permitted according to how much training an individual has in its use and how great the individual's need for access is.

In addition, a

hard-copy, written log will be kept for system use.

The log will.make system use auditing easier, allow for more sophisticated use of 3-5

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric the system and will make it possible to use the files inter-actively.

Three levels of system users will be established.

The highest level of user will be those who are fully trained in its use and are responsible for the system i.e.,

the RE and LHFS.

The next level of user will be those who are fully trained but are not responsible for the system.

The lowest level of user will be those with limited training.

The RE and LHFS will have the "master" passwords for all files, allowing them to perform all functions on the system.

The mid-level user will have access to "read/write" passwords, allowing for all functions except for those involved with system alteration.

The lowest level of user will have access to

."read only" passwords,'llowing only for calling up and reading information ori the system; they will be unable to alter data.

Also, "read only" users will be somewhat limited in handling data between files.

The RE will determine which team members will be mid and low-level users.

l.

The actual procedures for system use are concise and easy to understand.

A minimum set of the main functions includes:

Display, edit records Add records List records to the printer Create or load short forms of documents Print'records Maintain file Close and exit from files 3-6

p

~::

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric 4.0 REVIEW PROCEDURES The objective of a

the Ginna DCRDR is to satisfy the requirement for performing a

human factors engineering review of the control room to determine the extent to which the control room provides the operators with sufficient information to complete their required functions and task responsibilities

'afely.

The review will also determine the suitability of the designs of the instrumentation and equipment in th'e control room.

The procedures outlined in this section of the Program Plan describe the activities which have and will comprise the DCRDR.

I, 4.1 Review of 0 eratin Ex erience This review will be done to ensure that problems encountered in II either plant operation or in preparation for operation are addressed.

This section of the Program Plan discusses the two methods that will be used to review operating experience; these are:

1) an examination of both in-house and industry-wide

. historical documents, and 2) a survey of control room operating personnel.

0:

4.1.1 Examination of Available Historical Documents Human error in performing complicated tasks is a

well 4-1

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric documented fact and the potential for it is always present.

Instances of past human performance error and/or equipment/

design arrangement problems 're documented in plant and industry records and can be used as a data base.

This section presents the approach that will be used to tap that archival information to identify areas of potential human performance problems so

. that the potential for problem occurrence/recurrence can be reduced.

Specifically described herein are the approaches that will be used to:

l) identify, collect and select historical reports for review;

2) prioritize the reports to focus the review effort; 3) review and evaluate the reports; and 4) document and report the review's results (Figure 4.l).

Identif in

, Collectin and Selectin Historical Re orts

[:.

Industry-wide reviews of LERs for similarly designed Westinghouse plants having generic applicability will be investigated.

The reports obtained will be screened by an HFS with the assistance of a

Subject-Matter Expert (SME) to

.determine if the report describes and documents a control room problem that could relate to Ginna.

A control room problem is defined as one that meets the following criteria:

Equipment referenced (valve/pump

controls, displays, indicators, etc.)

must be in the physical confines of the control room; and/or 2 ~

Procedure steps referenced should be accomplished within the physical confines of the control room; and/or

[,

'"4-2

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric Collect Pertinent Historical Reports Screen Reports for Relevance to DCRDR Prioritize the Reports to Focus the Review Effort Perform Review and Analysis of Reports Complete

PAR, and CR HED, if Applicable Prepare Review Documentation For Final Summary Report Figure 4.1 Activity Flow Chart for Examining Available Historical Documents 4-3

'\\

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric 3.

Personnel error referenced must have occurred in the control room or equipment in the control

room, or entailed a deviation from. procedures that were to be accomplished in th'e=cont'rol room.

Reports that meet the above criteria will be retained for further analysis.

Re ort Review and Anal sis The review process will entail extracting and condensing the information so that an analysis of the problem can be made from a

human engineering perspective.

The review and analysis will be completed by an HFS, with SldE assistance as needed.

Using the information collected'n the review process, the HFS will analyze the problem to detemine if the corrective actions which were implemented address the problem adequately from a

human factors perspective, or, in the case of industry-wide

reports, whether the problem,t as documented, could exist at Ginna.

The HFS will complete a

Problem Analysis Report (PAR)

(Appendix p. A-2) for each problem type.

In addition, it will convey the decision of the HFS regarding the corrective status of the problem.

If the HFS determines that the problem has been adequately addressed, no further action will be taken on that problem.

If the HFS detemines that the problem has not been adequately addressed and that additional human engineering corrective action could be taken to minimize the probability of the problem recurring, an HED form will be completed on the problem.

4-4

Program Plan Result Documentation and Re ortin Rochester Gas and Electric The

PAR, discussed

above, constitutes the primary reporting document for this aspect of the DCRDR process.

When ap-

plicable, the HED will constitute the secondary reporting document and contain the information pertinent to an un-

• 'orrected problem report's resolution.

Copies of completed PARs and HEDs will be distributed to other review team members.

4.1.2 Control Room Operating Personnel Survey I-'

The objective of the Operating Personnel Survey is to obtain

~

special, pertinent knowledge that operating personnel possess regarding both routine and positive and negative control room system features which they have experienced and/or observed in the course of preparing for operations or in the operations

'hemselves.

This section of the Program Plan delineates the process that RG&E is adopting to conduct the survey.

The

process, outlined in Figure 4.2, contains three basic

.elements:

survey construction, survey distribution and data analysis.

Surve Construction An open-ended, self-administered questionnaire approach has been adopted.

Here, RGGE's approach deviates from the type of survey recommended in NUREG-0700 for the following reason:

we believe that by employing this

method, we can question a

greater percentage of the operating personnel and maximize use of their time and that of the HFS.

The survey contains nine content topics.

Specifically, and in the order of presentation, the areas covered are:

4-5

E

I'.

Program Plan 4

'1 Rochester Gas and Electric Develop (Yudify)

~ Survey Znplement Survey Conduct Follow-Up lntervie.m for Ambiguous Responses I

L Identify and Record CR HEDs Figure 4.2 Activity Flow Chart for Control Room Operating Personnel Survey 4-6

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric

'I

~

Workspace Layout and Environment

~

Panel Design Annunciator Warning System Communications Process Computers'=-.;-:..-=--

Procedures Staffing and Job Design Training Surve Distribution Questionnaires have been given to a

representative sample of non-licensed operations personnel, all licensed operations personnel, and a

sample of licensed non-operations personnel early in the Ginna DCRDR process.

Data Anal sis After the questionnaires have been completed, retrieved and logged in, the Human Factors Specialist will examine and review

.them on an item-by-item basis.~

After the questionnaires have C,

been

reviewed, the HFS will obtain clarification on ambiguous responses by means of an interview.

The results of the interviews will be recorded on the appropriate form and response frequency data will be generated

.for each questionnaire item.

It is anticipated that both positive and negative control room

.features will be identified by the respondents.

Therefore, further investigation by an HFS will be carried out for each item on the responses to determine whether they are in accordance with sound human engineering conventions and practices.

4-7

Program Plan I

'I Rochester Gas and Electric I

4.2 S stem, Function Review and Anal sis of Control Room 0 erator Tasks The objective of these analyses is.to determine, to the extent practical, whether system..;-pe<'fo'rmance requirements can be met by combinations of the instrumentation, equipment, software and personnel to insure that operator performance requirements do not exceed operator performance capabilities.

The approach will yield a

comprehensive body of data regarding the task requirements imposed on the Control Room operators.

The Westinghouse Owner's Group has performed system function reviews and task analysis in the process of developing technical guidelines for emergency operating procedures.

The Owner's Group efforts provide a good generic basis which can be used by RG&E in plant-specific evaluations.

Since plant subsystems, operating practices and training philosophies may differ from plant to plant, the Westinghouse Owner's Group data cannot fulfill all the requirements of the requisite plant-specific evaluations.

The efforts outlined below are undesigned to utilize the Westinghouse Owner's Group efforts to the fullest extent possible to eliminate duplication of effort, while yielding a

comprehensive analysis within the realm of emergency event scenarios.

4.2.1 Task Identification L'

Figure 4.3 illustrates the event based procedural approach that will be used to conduct the System

Review, Function Review and Task Analysis (SRTA).

This approach is intended to yield a

comprehensive body of data regarding the requirements imposed on the operators.

A top-down

approach, utilizing the.

Westinghouse Owner's Group High Pressure ERG SRTA and Ginna Plant-Specific EOPs, will be used as the basis for identifying 4-8

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric EVENT SYSTEHS/

SUBSYSTEHS ih FUNCTIONAL ALLOCATION ANALYSIS PROCEDURES OPERA'IOR FONCTICN HACHINE OPERATOR

, TASKI P2 P3 F~

OPERATOR SUBTASEI T2 T3 T~

St2 St~ St~

Figure 4.3 Task Analysis Fault Tree

• Operator subtasks must satisfy requirements for controlling the event under analysis.

4-9

p I

lq l

I 1'ochester Gas and Electric plant functions and operator tasks.

The event sequences to be analyzed will reflect plant operations with emphasis on emergency conditions.

The selection of events for-.=.4he:-:DCRDR will include events for which EOPs are being developed.

The Westinghouse System Function and Task Analysis generic documentation was reviewed by the NRC and considered acceptable as a

basis for the identification of "high level" operator tasks for the DCRDR.

All'teps and contingencies represented in the Westinghouse Emergency

Response

Guidelines (ERGs) will be analyzed during this review resulting in a list of plant specific tasks in the accomplishment of all branches of the guidelines.

4.2.2 Task Analysis Once the system criteria are identified from the appropriate documentation and the system and operator functions associated with each plant event are determined, the operator task needs will be defined.

For each

]task, the display information

,C necessary for an operator decision to activate a control

'or monitor a system state will be determined.

Next, the operator control functions will be analyzed to document needed control characteristics.

Environmental effects and constraints will also be noted.

The objective of the task analysis is to identify the information and control needs for task performance and will provide a template of operator activities in the task for use in verification and validation efforts.

The intent of the task analysis is to identify the behavioral requirements imposed on the operator where the task is defined 4-10

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric as a group of discriminations, decisions and activities related by temporal proximity, immediate purpose and common output.

The elements of the task considered. for this review include:

~

The stimulus to the

operator, which triggers performance of the task

~

The required response to that stimulus (i.e.,

the performance criterion)

~

A procedure for performing this response (which includes the equipment to be used for performing the task)

~

A goal or purpose that organized the whole task The information to be collected to determine the operator I

control needs for each task includes:

~

Paiameter The system parameter directly affected by the control operation Equipment The name of the plant equipment involved in the control action noting the required type of control equipment (e.g.,

pump, isolation

valve, governor valve, etc.)

~

Position The control position name which corresponds to the escutcheon label (e.g.,

ON,

RUN, CLOSED, AUTO)

~

Status The actual status of the equipment as a

result of the control action (e.g.,

ON,

OFF, OPEN, CLOSED, etc.)

Program Plan 1

'I Rochester Gas and Electric Type The required or desired type of control to suit the nature of the control action.

(A key at the bottom of the form will.provide the most common types.)

Node

The required mode (i.e.,

continuous or discrete) of control operation for the task Other Other descriptive features or characteristics necessary or desirable for the control action Type of Feedback The desired or needed

. type of feedback indication to assure the operator that the desired control action was initiated or established (e.g., control status lights)

I='

3

~

Feedback State The desired or needed state of the indication for display of control feedback (e.g.,

color of control status lights)

I

'The information needs for the Ioperator task.will be described in terms of the following categories of characteristics:

~

Parameter The system parameter which the display is monitoring

~

State The state of the parameter which is pertinent to the task accomplishment (e.g.,

less than 500 psig, At Low Level Limit, Lit, etc.)

~

Type The required or desired type of display to suit the nature of the information need (e.g.,

recorder, annunciator, graphic plot, etc.)

4-12

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric Units -.The units needed for the parameter display in order to accomplish the task without the need for conversion Range The range of parameter values required for the

'ccomplishment investigation of the particular task under I

~

Divisions The required precision of the parameter value display in terms of the smallest scale division ll Other

. Other descriptive features or characterisitics desirable or necessary for display of the information required p

Task Analysis form will be designed to support the DCRDR verification.and validation efforts.

The Task Analysis data will constitute a specification of operator needs to accomplish th'e operator functions.

This specification will be used as a

'foundation reference point tP verify the availability and suitability of control room instrumentation, to provide a

context within which to survey the control room, and to provide a base of understanding on which 'to assess HEDs.

4.3 Control Room Inventor L.

A complete list of the control room instrumentation and controls will be compiled to assist the DCRDR.

The inventory will be done by a

HFS using the direct observation approach in.

the control room.

Schematic drawings and equipment lists and specifications may be used as well, if and when their use would facilitate the inventory data collection process.

The inventory will be accomplished on a system-by-system basis.

4-13

Program Plan It II'l Rochester Gas and Electric In performing the inventory, each item will be identified by its system.

Equipment use and characteristic information will be recorded for each inventory item.

In addition, the location and proximity to related items=wi:ll be noted for use during the verification process.

Information will be recorded on a

Control Room Inventory Form.

This form is designed to simplify the data-recording process and provide an equipment coding scheme to ensure that each item has a unique identifier.

After pertinent information is recorded for a

system, it will be transferred to a computer-based data management system.

The inventory form will comprise three major sections:

System Instrumentation System Hanual Controls System Automatic Controls Items/data to be inventoried are described

below, by system.

Where applicable, explanatory information is parenthesized after each item.

This

lists, may be modified during the I

performance of the review, if appropriate.

S stem Instrumentation Nameplate data Parameter measured What measured (flow, pressure)

Units (kiloamperes, volts)

Type of instruments D Digital readout C Drum counter RM Rotary meter 4-14

Program Plan 1

C Rochester Gas and Electric EM Edgewise meter SP Single-point recorder MP Multi-point recorder

=

5P Number of points recorded J ~ WWi

~ *c

'nstrument data Range (0 to 300, 20 to 100)

Div. (increment value between marks)

Instrument panel location Panel number H Horizontal section V Vertical section S stem Manual Controls Nameplate data Type of control switch JS Joy stick switch PS

. Pushbutton switch K

Keylock switch t

RS Rotary selector switch TS Thumbwheel selector switch Number 2

3 5

of-switch positions Two positions Three positions Five positions Enter appropriate number of positions if none of the above apply Type of action SR Spring return to neutral As-is Stays where positioned 4-15

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric Type of control SO, SC Seal in Open, Seal in Close 3

SO, TC Seal in Open Throttle Close TO@

SC Throttle-Open," Seal in Close TO, TC Throttle Open, Throttle Close S stem Automatic Controls Nameplate data Type of contol M

Manual controller M/A Manual auto transfer station AT Master auto controller with setpoint adjustment A

Auto controller without setpoint adjustment Control data Range (0

500)

Div. (5lbs.,

15 rpm)

Component controlled V Valve T Turbine M Motor 0 Other Parameter controlled F Flow P

Pressure S

Speed Instrument data Range (0

100, 20 50)

Div. (51bs.,

10 degrees) 4-16

Program Plan Instrument panel location Panel number

'1 Rochester Gas and'lectric H Horizontal section V Vertical section V

The equipment data collected in the inventory will be compared to the requirements as identified in the task analysis.

Dis-crepancies will be recorded as HEDs.

4.4 Control Room Surve

= The human factors engineering survey will follow the guidelines illustrated in Section 6

of NUREG-0700.

This survey will consider the extent to which human performance characteristics are considered within the control room.

L A comparison of instrument and control features to the human engineering guidelines will be conducted using the data yielded from the task analysis and visual examination.

Human Factors Specialists, in Concert with experienced utility personnel knowledgeable of plant systems and control room instruments and

.equipment, and operations personnel, will observe and measure control room features.

In

addition, individuals skilled in lighting systems, HVAC and communication systems will be used for special measurements.

The Human Factors Engineering guidelines will be addressed for the nine topic areas below:

2.

3 ~

4 ~

5.

Control Room Workspace Communications Annunciator Warning Systems Controls Visual Display 4-17

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric 6.

7 ~

8.

9.

Labels and Location Aids.

P Process Computers Panel Layout Control-Display Integration Discrepancies will be noted for each non-compliant item and a

photographic log will be developed for reference.

4.5 Verification of Task Performance Ca abilities The objective of the task verification process is to assure that operator tasks can be performed in the existing control room with minimum potential for human error.

This process will be completed in two steps.

The first step will verify the presence (or absence) of instruments and equipment that provide the information and control capabilities necessary to implement each task.

The second step will. determine whether the man-machine interfaces provided in the control room are effectively designed to support task accomplishment.

In addition to verifying the availability of control room equipment',

a verification of human engineering suitability will be conducted to identify interface problems that may affect task performance but may not be evident when the control room equipment is examined.

Personnel knowledgeable in plant

systems, instrumentation and controls engineering, human factors engineering and operations will participate in the verification process.

Also, system designers will be available for consultation.

The HEDs will be recorded on the same HED form used during the control room survey.

A photographic log of discrepancy items will be maintained.

4-18

0

/

Program Plan P

Rochester Gas and Electric 4.6 Validation of Control Room Functions The objective of the validation review is to determine if the functions allocated to the control.room operation crew can be accomplished effectively

-wi'the.n both the structure of the established emergency procedures and the design of the control roomas it exists.

RGaE recognizes the need to examine these interface dynamics.

However, practical limitations will impact the nature of the validation process.

The RG&E simulator will not be available until after completion of the CRDR.

Therefore, RG&E will have three options by which to perform the validation.

These methods are:

[kf A)

A walk-through talk-through, using the appropriate procedures, in the control room.

It should be noted that, if the walkthrough is performed in the control room, that safe operation of the facility will be the first priority;

~,g B)

A walk-through talk-through, using the appropriate procedures, on the plant specific simulator which could be available but not on-line at the vendor's facility;

, c)

A talk-through on a control room mockup using uniform-

scale, architectural drawings of the control room and the control room panels.

The availability of method A is dependent upon unit status.

The availability of method B is dependent upon the availability of the simulator equipment and the availability of operating personnel to travel and participate in the validation.

It is 4-l9

[lg

~

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric estimated at this point that three to four six-hour shifts or three eight-hour shifts will be necessary.

Method C will be available but is the least desirable of the three because the geometry of the control

boards, peripherals and desk stations will be abstract and not actual.

It is conceivable that a

combination of approaches will be used.

In these instances, the LHFS and RE will decide jointly which events to evaluate by which approach, taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of each approach compared against the number of work stations and tasks encompassed by each event.

Use of option A will also be subject to approval of Ginna management.

4.6.l Control Room Walk-Through Talk-Through Approach

('

If the walk-through is conducted in the control room, it will be accomplished according to the procedure steps listed below.

1.

The RE will select an event for validation and obtain the appropriate procedure(s).'.

A HFS, with the assistance of the RE, will develop a floor diagram of the unit work space and identify work stations.

3.

A trained operating crew will review the procedure(s).

p 4.

The RE, or another qualified individual, will brief the participating control room operating crew.

At this

time, assumptions about the operating situation will be specified to the operator(s).

4-20

Program Plan H

'l Rochester Gas and Electric 5.

The control room crew will then talk through what they would do while following the appropriate procedure(s).

(The crew and HFSs may go to.the actual control room to walk through and talk;=-: through a

confusing or complicated procedure step or step sequence.)

During the talk-through, the operator(s) will describe what they are doing.

6.

The operator(s) will be accompanied and observed by an HFS

'during the talk-through of each event.

The HFS will take observational notes on a

procedural step-by-step

basis, attending to the relation between operator performance and control board/control room design.

Xn particular, the HFS will evaluate and critique the talk-through on the following criteria:

The indications and annunciators referenced in the procedure(s).

The'nits of measurements displayed should be appropriate and consistent with the procedure(s).

The labels associated with the various

controls, displays and annunciators referenced/used should be identifiable.

The controls and displays necessary should be available.

The operator actions expressed or implied by the procedure(s) should be within the capability of the operator(s).

Any special job performance aids used by and described by the operator(s) should be specified in the procedure(s).

All

controls, displays, annunciators and/or job performance aids used but not referenced in the procedure(s) will be identified and recorded.

4-2l

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric 7.

An additional HFS will observe the talk-through to record work station work flow information using the unit floor diagram developed in step 2

above, as a

guide.

The information recorded will include:

~

Direction of movement

~

Sequence of movement

~

Frequency of the movement

~

Estimated time importance of the movement 4.6.2 Simulator Walk-Through Talk-Through Approach If simulator walk-throughs are performed, they will be accomplished according to the following procedural steps:

1.

The RE will select an event for validation and obtain the appropriate procedure(s).

2.

A HFS, with the assistan'ce of the RE, will develop a floor diagram of the unit work space and identify unit work stations numerically.

Copies of. the diagram developed for previous walk-throughs may be used.

3.,'

trained operating crew will review the procedure(s) for the event selected.

4.

Video tape equipment may, if practical, be set up and tested to verify that the video and audio components function properly.

5.

The RE, or another qualified individual, will assemble and brief the participating control room personnel on the 4-22

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric purpose and specific objectives of the event simulation for video tape walk-throughs and on the walk-through procedure.

Any assumptions about the operating situation will be specified to the operator(s) during the briefing.

6.

To facilitate the simulation

fidelity, a

HFS will not accompany the operator to take observational notes.

Procedures will be available to the operating crew for reference but procedural steps will not be called out.

A remote microphone will be attached to the operators and they will be asked during the event simulation to call out:

Actions they are taking Direction of action movement Display/indicator to which they

refer, so as

.to identify system response to actions taken Hhat the response indication is and/or what it must be before the operator can take the next action step 7;

The video tape, if used, will be started to ensure that the following guidelines are Imet:

The camera(s) should be positioned at a distance from the workstations to ensure that an unobstructed view of each station is obtained.

~

The lighting levels should be sufficient to record the details of the event being taped.

"Non-Performing" personnel will be instructed to be as quiet as possible during the taping of the event and not to distract the operating crew on camera in any way.

4-23

Program Plan Rochester G/s and Electric A HFS should operate the video recording ~equipment and should have freedom of movement to follow the operator on camera.

o Ideally a minimum"-of.-two cameras and recorders should be used to document the event simulation walk-through.

One camera would be stationary with an angle of view encompassing the entire control panel work space.

The second camera could then focus on an operator and follow him/her around the control panel during the simulation event.

This would allow for the

,monitoring of head

movement, verbal response and action response.

A camera and recorder could be available for each reactor operator (RO) on the operating crew.

If more than one RO is anticipated in the composition of the minimum control room staff, then the ideal minimum number of cameras and recorders should be increased accordingly.

It is important to follow the operators as they perform their tasks.

However, should the desired number of cameras not be available or practical to use, those that are should focus on the operator(s) and NOT the entire control panel work space.

8.

The event simulation walk-through will begin.

l 9.

During the event simulation, a

voice-over narration by a

SHE may be performed on the video.tape.

The narration would convey what was,transpiring and what the operator(s) should be performing and why.

10. During the event simulation, the HFS will observe the event to record workstation work flow information, using the floor diagram of the unit work space prepared earlier.

The information recorded should include:

4-24

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric Direction of movement Sequence of movement Frequency of movement Estimated time importance of the movement ll. At a

cue from the operating crew performing the event simulation, the event will be terminated.

12.

The video.tape

operator, at that point, will remove the tape from the recorder and log in:

,The event tape The date of taping The time of taping Any unusual circumstances surrounding the tape The names of the operating personnel taped The name of the event narrator (if applicable)

The counter reading from the video tape recorder 4.6.3 Control Room Mockup Talk-Through Approach The talk-through on the scale model control room mockup, if this option is

chosen, will be accomplished according to the proc'edure steps listed below.

1.

The RE will select an event for validation and obtain the appropriate procedure(s).

2.

An HPS, with the assistance of the RE, will develop=a floor diagram of the unit work space and identify work stations.

3.

A trained operating crew will review the procedure(s).

4-25

0

Program Plan Rochester as and Electric L

t 4.

The RE, or another qualified individual, will brief the participating control room operating crew.

At this

time, assumptions about the operating situation will be specified.

5.

The control room crew-:-;wi.ll'= then talk through what they

'would do while 'following the appropriate procedure(s).

The crew and HFSs may go to the actual control room to walk-through and talk-through a

confusing or complicated procedure step or step sequence.

During the talk-through, the operator(s) will describe what they are doing.

t~

6.

The operator(s) will be accompanied and observed by an HFS during the talk-through of each event.

The HFS will take observational notes on a

procedural step-by-step

basis, attending to the relation between operator performance and control board/control room design.

In particular, the HFS will evaluate and critique the talk-th'rough on the following criteria:

~

The indications and annunciators referenced in the procedure(s).

f 0

The units of measurement displayed should be appropriate and consistent with the procedure(s).

~

The labels associated with the various controls; displays and annunciators referenced/used should be identifiable.

~

The controls and displays necessary should be available.

L,

~

The operator actions expressed or implied by the

'rocedure(s) should be within the capability of the operator(s).

4-26

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric

~

Any special job performance aids used by and described by the operator(s) should be specified in the procedure(s).

~

All

controls, displays, annunciators and/or job performance aids used

.but not referenced in the procedure(s) will be identified and recorded.

1 7.

An additional HFS will observe the talk-through to record work station-work flow information using the unit floor diagrams developed in step B

above, as a

guide.

The information recorded will include:

Direction of movement Sequence of movement Frequency of movement Estimated time criticality of the movement Real-time estimate of the time that the operator(s) spends at each work station.

4.6.4 Data Recording

'E The

HFS, accompanying the operating crew during both evaluation processes, will be evaluating the operator performance versus the control board/control room design

criteria, specified

earlier, for each step of the procedure(s) being used for the event under consideration.

A Validation Review Worksheet will be used to record the HFSs evaluation of each procedure step.

4.6.5 Data Analysis I;

A number of methods will be used to analyze and process the information obtained in the Validation review.

The HFS will 4-27

Program Plan l

Rochester Gas and Electric cross-check the comments recorded on 'he Validation Review Worksheet with HEDs documented in previous review processes of the DCRDR.

If a comment has not been previously addressed by existing HEDs, it represents a. new discrepancy and will be reported as such.

Diagramati'cal and/or mathmatical link analyses techniques will be employed on the observational data collected by the HFS on work station work flow.

4.6.6 Reporting of Analytical and Observational Results Discrepancies identified in the evaluation of the data obtained will be recorded on an HED form.

Work flow enhancements, training and/or procedural recommendations generated via the work station-work flow observational analyses will also be recorded and reported using the HED form.

4-28

4 Program Plan I

'I Rochester Gas and Electric

5.0 ASSESSMENT

S IMPLEMENTATION AND SCHEDULlNG

'S Y,

['-

The DCRDR review process described in this Program Plan will

-result in the identification of a

number of HEDs.

RG&E recognizes that each HED identified represents a

potential source of operator error.,

However, the potential for error will vary across HEDs.

Therefore, the HEDs will be evaluated to determine the extent to which they may affect plant safety.

This section of the DCRDR Program Plan outlines a

systematic method for evaluating both the significance of HEDs and the feasibility/viability of the recommended improvements or corrections for the HEDs.

The results of these evaluations will provide a

. deliberated, consensual and expert knowledge base for the Operations and Engineering Departments to employ in formulating their decisions to implement recommended improvements.

The final portion of this section provides an approach for recommendation, scheduling and implementation (Figure 5.1).

5.1 HED Assessment i

I i

The Assessment Team.will review and assess each HED generated based on its impact on plant safety and plant operability.

This review will include a

formal assessment of each HED and evaluation of

. any proposed

design, training or procedure changes to determine the overall cost-benefit of the change

0

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric FOR~~ ASSESS'~

HEDs to Be Corrected Without ormal Asses+rent w

~ Uw Review and Evaluate HEDs Yes Evaluate Interactive or Cumulative Effects of HEDs

[~

)

Classify HEDs to a Category axxl Level Llithin the Category Evaluate Recamandations for Each HED and Select the One to Be Implemented Determine and Assign Priorities to HEDs" Corrective Action for Implementation Figure 5.1 ActivityFlow Chart for HED Assessment and Co~ve Action Implarantation Figure 5.1 Activity Flow Chart for HED Assessment and Corrective Action Implementation

l

C, Program Plan II and impact on plant operations.

The follow the procedure below:

Rochester Gas and Electric F.

I'ormal assessment will 1.

The LHFS will.seperate,the

.HEDs-into nine major categories of NUREG-0700 and compile " them with an HED Assessment Rating Form attached to each HED.

2.

Each Assessment Team member will be given the HEDs to review and will evaluate each HED independently, based on the attached HED Assessment Rating Form which addresses the following factors:

fr1I i,

~

Impact on physical performance (fatigue, discomfort, injury, control suitability, etc.)

~

Impact on sensory/perceptual performance (distraction, visibility, readability, audibility,

noise, display

adequacy, inconsistency with stereotypes and conventions, etc.)

Impact on cognitive performance (mental

overload, confusion

stress, sequential/compound/cumulative/

interactive errors, etc.)

Interaction with task variables (communication

needs, delay or absence of necessary feedback.

concurrent task requirements, etc.)

~

Impact or potential impact on operating crew error

~

Impact or potential impact on plant safety (safety of plant equipment, operability of plant equipment, personnel

safety, and health and safety of the public)

Upon completing the review of the six factors,'he Assessment Team, member will evaluate the significance'f the HED based on three categories of significance as follows:

),;

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric Highest Significance

-", could

. substantially affect a

P safety system or operator" response during and emergency situation.

II Significant

could substantially affect or has substantially affected a non-safety system or operator response during routine non-emergency operation.

III. Least Significant could or has affected operator response in a non-substantial way.

Also, an evaluation of the cumulative impact of category III HEDs. will be addressed in the assessment form to assure that 'the level of significance is fully considered.

All ratings will be recorded on the HED Assessment Rating Form.

Each Assessment Team member should fill in the HED

number, their name and checkmark their evaluation of the HED on the form.

When an Assessment Te'am member has finished the evaluation, he will submit the evaluations to the LHFS for compilation of the results.

Upon completion of the compilation, the-LHFS will provide the results of the compilation to each Assessment Team member.

3.

The Assessment Team will then meet to discuss the ratings they assigned individually to the HEDs.

The objective of the discussions is to reach a

team consensus on the HED ratings.

It will be the RE's responsibility to facilitate and monitor the team discussions.

The following approach is currently envisioned:,

j e:

~ -" Begi'n the discussion with a summary of the compilation effort results and comments from the LHFS regarding

~.-

the results.

Program Plan l

Rochester Gas and Electric Scores which are in agreement by all team members do not require further discussion at this.point.

Scores that differ should be discussed by the team to establish a consensus among the team members.

If a consensus cannot be readily obtained, cease the discussion in order to keep the meeting agenda flowing.

In these instances, let it be known that the team will not return to the item until all others have been assessed.

Re-evaluate those items by having each team member follow step 2 again.

4.

As a

consensus is reached, the LHFS will record the rating and maintain

'a list indicating the HED numbers and the final rating for each HED.

5.

The Assessment Team will continue to meet until every HED has been addressed.

5.2 Recommendation Selection f

C A

review of the HED recommendations will be performed by representatives from organizations identified in Section 2

under the direction'f the RE.

The procedure outlined below will be followed to assess HED recommendations:

1.

The committee will meet to review the

HEDs, one at a

time, and discuss each HED's recommendations briefly to clarify any points of concern.

2.

Each committee member will evaluate each recommenda-tion on a

number of factors.

Among the factors will be viability, soundness and fe'asibility.

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric 3.

The committee may generate its own acceptable recommendations for those HEDs for which none'f 'the proposed recommendations were acceptable.

It will be the LHFS's responsibility to ensure that the recommendations

,developed and accepted by the committee are in accordance with applicable precepts of sound human factors engineering practice.

4.

'The recommendation with the best evaluation will'e the committee's preferred recommendation and will be submitted to Management of the Operations and Engineering Departments.

5.

If a decision is made by Operations or Engineering not to accept a

recommendation, a justification for the alternate which is selected will be prepared.

5.3 Im lementation and Schedulin of Recommendation The HEDs that have been identified as requiring correction and their corrective action',

as determined by the procedures outlined herein, will be delivered to. the Ginna Operations and "Engineering Departments for their review.

A'chedule "for

'orrective actions will be established based on importance, the availability of equipment, outage time availability, engineering design lead

time, and integration with other activities.

5-6

j, Program Plan

'l Rochester Gas and Electric 6.0 FINAL

SUMMARY

REPORT Upon completion of the Ginna

DCRDR, a detailed summary of the results will be prepared and submitted to the NRC.

The final report will describe the results of the DCRDR and will be submitted by December 31, 1985.

This report will summarize the human factors activities to date, state the review process as described in this Program

Plan, provide descriptions of the identified HEDs, detail proposed corrective actions and present implementation schedules for each action.

Details of the DCRDR, along with complete documentation, will be available for NRC evaluation and review.

The final report will, indicate any modifications or revisions made to the Program Plan submitted to the NRC.

A summary of the Operating Experience

'Review processes and

. results will be contained in the Final Report.

The types of I

Historical Reports reviewed and the period of time they covered will be provided.

The experience levels of the surveyed operators as well as the procedures used to conduct the survey will be summarized.

The final report for DCRDR will provide a

summary of processes involved in the system function review and task analysis and will contain:

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric e

Charts or lists for major systems and subsystems, and their major components

~

Task descriptors, organized by system

~

System instrumentation and control requirements as identified in the task analysis Data management procedures used to record review data and to provide a data base for the system review will be described.

I.;

Samples of control room inventory forms and forms used in the control room survey will be 'provided.

Procedures used for verification of task performance capabilities and validation of control room functions will be summarized.

'I Findings of the DCRDR will be organized according to chapter headings suggested in NUREG-0700.

Each chapter heading will describe identified

, discrepancies, potential safety consequences and identify '.the proposed corrective action.

Details of the assessment procedure used in this process will be summarized and supporting documentation provided.

Changes which do not provide a full and complete correction of an identified HED, or decisions to allow a discrepancy (which was

- assessed to be corrected) to

remain, will be,justified and information pertinent to such decisions will be provided.

The summary report will address review findings at the indivi-dual control room system level based on the control room survey or task analyses.

Further discussion will be directed to review findings and solutions identified during the operating experience

review, task peformance capability verification and operating crew function validation.

A copy of the Operations 6-2

Program Plan

'I Rochester Gas and Electric Personnel Questionnaire used to collect 'the personnel

data, as well as copies of other pertinent forms, will be contained in the appendices.

Proposed control board desigrr;- -'training or procedure

changes, and implementation schedules will be described.

6-3

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric 7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY The following is a list of regulations, reports and studies which have, in part, provided guidance in the preparation of this document.

Other documents.

included in the list may be used during the conduct of the Control Room Review; these are valuable reference sources for the successful completion of the tasks described in this document.

7.1 U.S. Nuclear Re ulator Commission Documents TMI-2 Lessons Learned Task Force.. Status Report and Short-term Recommendations (NUREG-0578).

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington/

DC:

July 1979.

TMI-2 Lessons Learned Task Force.

Final Report (NUREG-0585).

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC:

October 1979.

U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, Division of Emergency Preparedness.

Functional Criteria for Emergency

Response

Facilities, Final Report (NUREG-0696).

Washington, DC:

February 1981.

[:

U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Licensing.

Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements (NUREG-0737).

Washington, DC:

November 1980.

Supplement 1 dated December 1982.

U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Safety, Division of Human Factors Safety.

Draft Criteria for Preparation of Emergency Operator Procedures (NUREG-0799).

Washington, DC:

June 1981.

7-1

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commisssion,'ffice of Standards Development.

Regulatory Guide.1.97, Instrumentation for Li ht-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess Plant and Environmental Conditions Durin and Followin an Accident, (Revision 2).

Washington, DC:

December 1980.

0 U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Standards Development.

Human Factors Evaluation of Control Room Design and Operator Performance at TMI-2, (NUREG/CR-1970).

Washington, DC:

January 1980.

U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office Development.

Handbook of Human Reliabilit Em hasis on Nuclear Power Plant (NUREG/CR-1278).

Washington, DC:

1981.

of

,Standards Anal sis with A lications U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

NRC Action Plan Developed as a

Result of the TMI-2

Accident, (NUREG-0660).'ashington, DC:

May 1980; 7.2 Su lementar References

Bear, D. E.

"Plant Operator's Computer Interface."

Instrumen-tation Technolo

, October 1975,, 29-34.

Bozeman, W.

C.

"Human Factors Considerations in the Design of Systems for Computer Managed Instruction."

Association for Educational Data S stems Journal, Summer

1978, 89-96.

Bourchard, T. J.,

Jr.

",Field Research Methods:

InterviewsI Questionnaires, Participant Observation,

, Systematic Observation, Unobtrusive'easures."

In M.D.

Dunnetteg editor.

Handbook of Industrial and Or anizational 1976.

Camm, W.,

and R.

E.

Granda, editors.

S m osium Proceedin s:

Human Factors and Com uter Science.,

Santa

Coneca, CA:

The Human Factors Society, 1.June 1978.

Chapanis, A.

Research Techni ues in Human En ineerin Baltimore:

Johns Hopkins Press, 1959

DeGreene, K.

B.

S stems Ps cholo New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1970.

Dunnette, M.

D.,

and W.

K.

Kirchner.

Ps cholo A

lied to

~fndustr Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall inc.,'965.

7-2

h

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Elect I

V

Egeth, H.

E.

Conditions for Im rovin Visual Information Hopkins University, 31 August 1976.

Flanagan, J.

C.

,",Critical" Requirements:

A New Approach to Employee Evaluation.

-..-'="Peis'onnel Ps cholo 2,

(1949),

419-425.

Flanagan, J.

C.

"The Critical Incident Technique."

Ps cholo ical Bulletin, 51, (1954),

327-358.

Fleishman, E.

A.,

and A.

R.

Bass, Studies in Personnel and

,Industrial Ps cholo (3rd ed.).

Homewood, IL:

Dorsey

Press, 1974.

Foley,..J.

P ~, Jr'ask Anal sis for Job Performance Aids and Related Trainin (NTIS AD-771001).

Brooks Air Force

Base, TX:

. Air Force Human Resources Laboratory, November 1973.

Goodstein, L. P.,

et al.

The 0 erator'.s Dia nosis Task Under Abnormal 0 eratin Condo.tz.ons in Industrial Process Plants.

Denmark:

Danish Atomic Energy Commission, June 1974.

ll

Greene, B.

F.

"A Primer of Testing."

American Ps cholo ist, 36, (1981),

1001-1010.

Greene, D.

M.,

and J.

A.

Swets.

Si nal Detection Theor and Guilford, J.

P.

Ps chometric Methods.

New York:

McGraw-Hill Book Co.,

1954.

Katz, G.

H.

Control Panel Desi n

An Additional Im act on Plant 0 eration.

Paper presented at Conference on Reactor Operating Experience, Albuquerque, NM:

3-5 August 1975.

Kemeny, J.

G.

(Chairman).

Report of the President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island.

The President's Commission on the Accident at TMI, Washington, DC, October 1979.

Meister, D.,

and G.

F.

Rabideau.

.S stem Develo ment.

New York:

Human Factors Evaluation in John Wiley

& Sons, 1965.

Nuclear Utility Task Committee for Control Room Design

Review,

Control Room Desi n

Review Im lementation Guideline, At anta:

Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, INPO 83-026 (NUTAC), 1983.

7-3

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric Nuclear Utility Task Action Committee for Control Room Design

Review, Control Room Desi n

Review Surve Develo ment Guideline, Atlanta:

Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, INPO 83-042 (NUTAC)i 1983.

Nuclear Utility Task Action;.=Committee for Control Room Design

Review, Control'Room Desi n Review Task Anal sis Guideline, Atlanta:

Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, INPO 83-046 (NUTAC), 1983.

Nuclear Utility Task Action Committee for Control Room Design

Review, Human En ineerin Princi les for Control Room Desi n

Review, Atlanta:

Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, INPO 83-036 (NUTAC)g 1983.

Nunnally, J.

C.

Ps chometric Theor New York:

McGraw-Hill Book Co.g 1967.

I

Pack, R.

W.

Conference Proceedin s:

Worksho on Power Plant 0 erator Selection Methods (Special Report EPRI SR28).

Palo Alto, CA:

Electric Power Reseach Institute, January 1965.

Packs RE W

g editor.

'uman Factors Research for the Electric Utilit Industr (Draft Report EPRI NP-DI-79).

Palo Alto, CA:

Electric Power Research Institute, February 1979.

Pedersen, O.

M.

An Anal sis of 0 erator's Information and Dis la Re uirements Durin Power Plant Boiler

Start, (RISO-M-1738).

Denmark:

Danish Atomic Energy Commissioz, December 1974.

Pope, R.

H.

"Power Station Control Room and Desk

Design, Alarm

.System and Experience in the Use of Cathode-Ray-Tube Displays" (IAEA-SM-226/5).

In, S

m osium on Nuclear Power Plant Control and Instrumentation 1978 (Vol. I).

Vienna, Austria:

International Atomic Energy Agency, 1978.

Rasmussen, J.

Man-Machine Communication in the Li ht of Accident Records.

Denmark:

Danish Atomic Energy Comma.ssion, June 974.

Reactor Safet Stud An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S.

Commercial Nuclear Power Plants (WASH-1400; NUREG-75/014).

Washington, DC:

U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1975.

Seminara, J. L.,

and R.

W.

Pack.

Communication Needs of the Nuclear Power Plant 0 erator (F78700-7).

Presented at the IEEE PES Summer

Meeting, Los Angeles, CA:

16-21 July 1978.

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric V

Shimberg, B.

"Testing for Licensure Certification."

American

Sinaiko, H.

W., editor.

Selected Pa ers on Human Factors in the Desi n

and Use of Control S stems.

New York:

Dover Publications, 1961.

7-5

[1 I:,

Program Plan 1

Rochester Gas and Electric

',.APPENDIX A DCRDR DATA COLLECTION FORMS FORM/RECORD TITLE PAGE

)

I Historical Report Review Problem Analysis Report Control Room Human Engineering Discrepancy Record guestionnaire Item Summary Personnel Survey Summary Control Room Review Task Development Task Analysis Form Validation Review Worksheet Air Velocity Survey Record Humidity/Temperature Record Lighting Survey Luminance and Reflectance Record Lighting Survey Illuminance Record Sound Survey Record Photographic Log Inventory Form Index of Reviewed Reports Historical Report Problems Status Report A-2a-b A-3a-b A-4 A-6 A-7 A-8 A-9 A-10 A-ll A-12 A-13 A-14 A-15 A-16 A-17

c

/ ~

HISTORICAL REPORT REVIEW ERROR ANALYSIS PROBLEM ANALYSIS REPORT r

Name(s) of Investigator(s):

Station:

Unit:

• ="-=..--"

Index Number:

Report Type and Number:

Date of Incident:

Description of Incident:

Effect on Unit:

Unit Derated Hrs.

Unit Shutdown Unit Trip (Scram)

Hrs.

Documented Probl em:

Corrective Action Taken or Proposed:

[~1 Probable Fundamental Cause:

Problem Identified and Corrected:

Yes A-2a

HISTORICAL REPORT REYIEM ERROR ANALYSIS PROBLEM ANALYSIS REPORT Apparent Cause(s) of Problem:

Recommendations for Corrective Action:

Control Room Human Engineering Discrepancy Log/Index Number:

A-2b

S

CONTROL ROOM HUMAN ENGIHEERIHG DISCREPANCY RECORD MFS:

Date:

Ho:

Pl'ant:

System:

Panel IDg Equipment IDg Equipment Name Descri tion of Discre anc Photo Log Ho.

Photography Instructions Photo Ca tion:

C 1.

Workspace 0

2.

Conmunications D

3.

Annunciators E

4.

Controls S

5.

Displays

6. Labels h Aids

7. Computer/CRT

8. Panel layouts

9. C/D Integration Other:

Guideline No. 8 Caption:

Comments:

Assessment Category/Level:

I II III A-3a

Recommendation(s)

Record Reviewers:

Recommendation(s):

Accept Recomendation No.:

Reject Recommendation Nos.:

Rejection Signature Rejection Justification:

Implementation and Scheduling Tentative Scheduled Comp 1eti on Date Approved Implementation Date EWR No.

Task Assignment No.

0

qUESTIOHHAIRE ITEM

SUMMARY

FORM 1.

HFS Analyst:

2.

Content Area:

3.

question 8

4.

question:

Fre uenc

/'X T

e of Res onse/S ecific E ui. Ref.

Investi ation Omission - Ho Response Given A-4

)

PERSONNEL SURVEY

SUMMARY

FORM l.

HFS Analyst:

2.

Station:

f' Population Demographics and Statistics MEAN STATISTICS Group Sex MF Height--,-

Age Nuclear Oper Exp.

Control Board Oper Exp.

8Yrs RO fYrs SRO Hon-Licensed Operator Licensed Operators Licensed Non-Operations Simulator Instructor Overall MEDIAH STATISTICS Group Height Age Nuclear Oper Exp.

Control Board Oper Exp.

PYrs RO fYrs SRO Hon-Licensed Operator Licensed Operators Licensed Hon-Operations Simulator Instructor Overall A-5

I

Procedure Section

1 1

Page III Date Analyst STEP OPERATOR FUHCTIOH OPERATOR TASK A-6

TASK ANALTSIS INSTRIIIENTATIONREQUIRDIENT FOIOI rote urc ec on tep u er unc on Yposc Sane as:

as er Alt. to:

PA9e OI Date k lyiL as n er as c

ODJECT as a er ACTIOII STEP OP TERS PARAHEIER E

IPIIEII1 CONTROL POSITION STATUS ID TYPE MODE OTIIER PARAMETER STATE TYPE ID UNITS IIIOICATOR/FEEODACK RANCE OIY OTNER OTUER PERFOIYUUICE RE IREIIENTS EXIT OR Ct(CIENTS Y(RR Kl'I

l. FOT Sf RY(S 1.1 (QIRAR($

I.t CAL(ULAI($

1,1 tusu 1.1 YVRN S.S LOCKET I.a

'IOUCN S.S AOJUSIS i.s 'lit($

),I tu(L (ONIRCL litt K(T l.l ILYORN$ ~ DAUO(l a,l R(OU(SIS JS JOYSI I(K

(,1 R(((ll($

I K(Y Ot(RA(OK Lt L(C(uo YUSIAUIYON Nt NON L(C(NO tUQOUIION I

ROCK(K S'Vl'I(II IU YIRROIgN(L IS IOIARY SVIICN 1$ YOICNSCRL(N RIOt sull(u Ka KfYROARO I

1 INNIL(

C COIIIRIAL(1 LO 'IOCCLC 5'NIICII I AUIO CONIROL Moot CON(ROC OIINI KfY M

MAN

=

IF DISCI(T('a StillÃC IEIURII I/M AUIO II/MAN C

CONIINUOUS I llnolllC OY(RIIO(

I RA(II.II M/A MANUAL u/AU(0 O'IIRNIO(

OISRLAY Yttt Ktr I

ÃOAICCIAYO O

OICIYAL OISRLAY C

CRAtNIC C

ORUI COUNIIR CSL CONIRCL SIAIUS LICNI fC (L(CIRONIC COUNT(I LL L(C(I4 LICNI M n(1(1 NON I(C(lo LICNY I

R(CORO(I CRY cAIIoot RAY lva(

A 4

VALIDATION REVIEM MORKSHEET Event:

Procedure(s):

Operator!

Human Factors Specialist:

Procedure Step Yes Ho Coament HED Index Hunker.

A-8

AIR VELOCITY SURVEY RECORD Pl ant:

Date:

Time:

Measurements made by:

Sheet 8 of Equipment/Instrument used:

Serial 8:

Calibration date:

Location 6 ft.'

ft.

A-9

I~

HUMIDITY/TEMPERATURE RECORD Plant:

Date:

Time:

Measurements made by:

Sheet 8 of Equipment/Instrument used:

Serial 8:

Calibration date:

Time Height Temperature Humidity Remarks Floor 6 ft.

loor 6 ft.

1 oar loor loor loor loor loor loor 6 ft.

loor 6 ft.

A-10

LIGHTING SURVEY-LUMINANCE AND REFLECTANCE RECORD Plant:

Date:

Time:

Sheet f of Measurements made by:

Serial f:

Equipment/Instrument used:

Calibration date:

Record Calculations Location Ref.

Panel f and Surfaces Panel Reflect Pad Panel Back-ground Reflect Pad Surface w/Glare Surface w/o Glare Meter Dis la Luminance Ratio of Dis la

Panel w/Glare w/o Glare Panel:

Pad Reflectance Ratio w/o Glare w/Glare Meter/Dis la:

Pad

LIGHTING SURVEY ILLUHINANCE RECORD Plant:

Heasurements made by:

Date:

Time:-

Sheet 8

of Equipmentl Instrument used:

Serial 8:

Calibration date:

Location Ref.

No.

Panel I.D. Ho.

F011 AC Arbient Full Emergency Other Conditions (Specify)

I ~

A-12

SOUND SURVEY RECORD Pl ant:

Date:

Time:

Sheet 8 of Heasurements made by:

Equipment/Instrument used:

Serial 8:

.Calibration date:

Octave Band Center Fre uenc Operator Work Station db(A) 250 500 1K 4K Remarks A-1 3

PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Station: 'hotographer::

Unit:

Date:

Sl ide Sequence Humber F

Stop Shutter Speed HED

" Index Number Location Code Photo Caption Code Descrip tion

Caption,

rL,Mwi:i f

~

I~j~

<P l~rf

~ ~

~

I

~.<<;At SISTEll IiVNDER:

INVENTORY PAGE OF EQUIPHENT ID NINBER LABEL NA4E CCLOC IltI VINT f$5$OIIO OIStLLT OVIIS lLXA IIIIIIOVS DISPLAT REQUIRENENTS

'III5 Of 5VIICII IALrc COVIIOL

$VIICH tCIICr Cn ITROL RE'OUIREPENTS OttlI5 Of IVIICN t05111Or SUB NIOIBER SUB RANE EPN SUB NUBBER SUB NILRE EPN

.t

~

~

":I j SUB NUBBER SUB NINE EPN SUB NUBBER SUB NttIE EPN A-15

INDEX OF REVIEMED REPORTS Index'roblem Title Priority*

Report T

e Report Number Disposition*~

• Pri ority:

• • Disposition:

H ~

high, L ~

low C

Problem deemed CORRECTED, (no additional investigation war ranted)

UC Problem deemed UNCORRECTED, (additional investigation warranted)

0

Plant:

Status Report f

~

Date:

Page:

HISTORICAL REPORT PROBLEM STATUS REPORT Problem Anal sls Status Index 8 Problem Title Re ort T e

M ort 8 Started Coml eted Djstrjbuted A-17

r'rogram Plan I

Rochester Gas and Electric APPENDIX B Since there are differences in usage of terms (even among practitioners within the same field),

the following definitions are provided to reduce ambiguity.

DCRDR REPORT:

Final report.of the results of the DCRDR as required by NUREG-0737,'Supplement l.

DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW:

The control room design review as required by NUREG-0737, Supplement l.

p EVENT:

Perturbation of failure of plant equipment and the subsequent actions that follow.

ENHANCEMENTS:

Surface modifications that do not involve major physical changes; for example, demarcation, labeling changes and f

painting.

FUNCTION:

An activity performed by one or more system constituents (people, mechanisms, structures) to contribute to a

goal.

FUNCTIONAL ALLOCATION:

The distribution of functions among the human and automated constituents of a system.

i, FUNCTIONAL ALLOCATION REVIEW:

The examination of system goals: to determine what functions they require.

Also, examination of the required functions to determine how the functions may be allocated and executed.

Primarily the identification of established functions and examination of how they are allocated and executed.

Program Plan Rochester Gas and Electric HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCY (HED):

A benchmark of system design suitability capabilities of the human operator.

circumstances, HEDs may reflect.acceptable thus may not require design improvements.

C I'eparture from some for the roles and Depending upon the design practices and HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING:

The science of optimizing the performance of human

beings, especially in industry.

Also, the science of equipment design for efficient use by human beings.

OBJECTIVE (MISSION, 60AL):

The end-product as a

result of a

coordinated group of activities.

OPERATOR (LICENSED):

Any NRC certified individual in a plant who manipulates a control or directs another to manipulate a control within the plant.

'I PLANT SYSTEM:

Group of people and/or equipment constituents linked together (e.g.,

CVCS, Feedwater).

SIGNIFICANT HEDs:

Those HEDs Qhich, alone or in combination with other

HEDs, may increase the potential for operator error and/or may have serious impact on system performance.

SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT (SME):

Technically competent individuals trained and experienced who support the investigative activities (i.e., senior reactor operators in a nuclear power plant).

SUBTASK:

An activity (action, step) performed by a

person (or machine) directed toward achieving a single task.

SYSTEM:

An organization of interdependent constituents (people and/or equipment) that work together in a

patterned manner to accomplish some objective (goal).

)g, Program Plan

'I Rochester Gas and Electric r

f TASK:

A group of actions performed by a

system constituent(s) that contribute to the accomplishment of a function(s).

[!

k VALIDATION:

The process of determining whether the physical and organizational design for operat'ions is adequate to support effective integrated performance of the functions of the control room operating crew.

VERIFICATION:

The process of determining whether instrumentaton, controls and other equipment meet the specific requirements of the tasks perfo'rmed by operators.

4