ML18019A380

Crdr Final Summary Rept.

ML18019A380
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	09/30/1985
From:	CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML18019A379	List: ML18019A378 ML18019A380
References
NUDOCS 8509180074
Download: ML18019A380 (787)

Text

CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW FINAL

SUMMARY

REPORT FOR SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 1 SEPTBMBBRt 1985 8509180074 850913 PDR ADOCK 05000400 F .PDR

4 I

~l l v 11 t V J l J

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1~0 OVERVIEW 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Background 1-8 1.3 Integration of CRDR with other Activities 1-13 1.4 Glossary of Terms 1-16 1.5 Acronyms 1-19 2 ' MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING 2.1 Introduction 2-1 2.2 CPSL Management Support 2-1 2.3 Review Team for the Human Factors Design 2-2 Evaluation for SHNPP-1 2.4 Review Team for the Operational Review of 2-7 the Control Room Back Panels and the Human Factors Detailed Design Review of the Auxiliary Control Panel 2.5 Review Team for the CRDR Completion/ 2-11 Reassessment 3 0 HUMAN FACTORS DESIGN EVALUATION OF SHNPP-1 3.1 Introduction 3-1 3.2 Evaluation Process 3-2

TABLE OF CONTENTS PA E 4.0 OPERATIONAL REVIEW OF THE CONTROL ROOM BACK PANELS 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Review Procedures'.3 4-2 Evaluation Criteria 4-3 4.4 Results 4.5 Bibliography 4-29, 5.0 HUMAN FACTORS DETAILED REVIEW OF THE AUXILIARY CONTROL PANEL 5.1 Introduction 5-1 5.2 Evaluation Criteria 5-2 5.3 Review Procedures 5-3 5.4 Results 5-8 6.0 CRDR COMPLETION/REASSESSMENT 6.1 CRDR Completion/Reassessment Program 6-1 Structure 6.2 Operating Experience Review 6-9 6.3 Control Room Surveys 6-14 6.4 System Functions and Task Analysis 6-31 6.5 Control Room Inventory 6-36 6.6 Verification of Task Performance 6-38 Capabilities 6.7 Validation of Control Room Functions 6-41

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 7' ASSESSMENT PHASE 7.1 Introduction 7-1 7.2 Prioritization 7-2 7.3 Correction 7-4 8.0 DOCUMENTATION AND DOCUMENT CONTROL 8-1 9 0 IMPLEMENTATION PHASE 9-1 10 ' CONCLUSIONS

'i TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDICES APPENDIX A - HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCIES (HEDs)

APPENDIX A-1 GROUPING AND SEQUENCING HEDs APPENDIX A-2 HEDs BASED ON THE HARRIS SIMULATOR APPENDIX A-3 AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT PANEL HEDs APPENDIX A-4 INCORE MONITOR HEDs APPENDIX A-5 NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEM HEDs APPENDIX A-6 RECORDER PANEL HEDs APPENDIX A-7'- STARTUP TRANSFORMER PROTECTION RELAY PANEL HEDs APPENDIX A-8 GENERATOR PROTECTION RELAY PANEL HEDs APPENDIX A-9 GROSS FAILED FUEL DETECTOR PANEL HEDs APPENDIX A-10 LOOSE PARTS MONITOR HEDs APPENDIX A-ll RCP VIBRATION MONITOR HEDs APPENDIX A-12 SEISMIC MONITOR PANEL HEDs APPENDIX A-13 COOLING TOWER MAKEUP CONTROL PANEL HEDs APPENDIX A-14 RADIATION MONITORING SYSTEM HEDs APPENDIX A-15 AXIAL POWER DISTRIBUTION MONITORING SYSTEM HEDs APPENDIX-. A-16 AUXILIARY CONTROL PANEL HEDs APPENDIX A-17 - OPERATOR EXPERIENCE REVIEW HEDs APPENDIX A-18 ANTHROPOMETRIC HEDs APPENDIX A-19 EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT HEDs APPENDIX A-20 ANNUNCIATOR HEDs APPENDIX A-21 CONTROL HEDs APPENDIX A-22 DISPLAY HEDs APPENDIX A-23 LABELING HEDs

TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDICES APPENDIX A-24 ERFIS AND SPDS COMPUTER HEDs APPENDIX A-25 CONVENTION HEDs APPENDIX A-26 VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION HEDs APPENDIX B NRC AUDIT REPORT HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCIES APPENDIX C SAMPLE HUMAN ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS SPECIFICATIONS APPENDIX D MAIN CONTROL BOARD ARRANGEMENT DRAWINGS APPENDIX E SAMPLE TASK PLAN APPENDIX F RESUMES OF THE REVIEW TEAMS

TABLE OF CONTENTS FIGURES TITLE PAGE FIGURE 2-1 2-16 SHNPP-1 CRDR COMPLETION/REASSESSMENT TEAM FIGURE 2-2 2-17 CRDR (PROJECT MANAGEMENT) TASK RESPONSIBILITIES FIGURE 3-1 3-11 INITIAL ARRANGEMENT FOR SHNPP UNIT 1 CONTROL ROOM FIGURE 3-2 3-13 FINAL REARRANGEMENT RECOMMENDATION FOR SHNPP-1 CONTROL ROOM FIGURE 4-1 4-31 PRESENT CONTROL ROOM LAYOUT SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT FIGURE 6-1 6-47 TASK/SYSTEM SEQUENCE MATRICES FIGURE 6-2 6-48 ELEMENT TABLE SHNPP-1 SFTA FIGURE 6-3 6-49 ACTION-INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS DETAILS (AIRD)

FIGURE 6-4 6-50 ACTION-INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS

SUMMARY

(AIRS)

FIGURE 7-1 7-7 HED ASSESSMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES TITLE PAGE TABLE SERg l-l NUREG 1038) SUPPLEMENT-lg OPEN ITEMS 1-3 TABLE 3-1 3-12 EQUIPMENT NUMBER IDENTIFICATION USED IN FINAL ANALYSIS

'ABLE 4-1 4-32 EQUIPMENT NUMBER IDENTIFICATION FOR FIGURE 4-1

SECTION 1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1 INTRODUCTION

This final summary report describes the activities that were involved in the Control Room Design Review (CRDR) for Carolina Power & Light's Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 (SHNPP-1). It describes the methodology and result of each CRDR activity. This report has been prepared in response to NUREG-0737, Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements and of NUREG-0737, Supplement 1, Requirements for Emergency Response Capability (Generic Letter No. 82-33). It also addresses the comments in the Shearon Harris Safety Evaluation Report, NUREG-1038, Supplement 1.

This report follows the following format:

l. Overview

2. Management and Staffing

3. Human Factors Design Evaluation of SHNPP-1

4. Operational Review of the Control Room Back Panels

5. Human Factors Detailed Design Review of the Auxiliary Control Panel

6. CRDR Completion/Reassessment

7. Assessment and Design Solutions

8. Documentation and Document Control

This report also addresses each of the 12 items contained in of the NRC letter (Docket No. 50-400) to Mr. E. E. Utley from George W. Knighton titled "Comments on Shearon Harris Unit 1 Control Room Design Evaluation Report," dated July 25, 1983.

Table l-l identifies each of these items, and the specific section of this report that describes compliance with the item in the SHNPP-1 CRDR 1-2

TABLE l-l ANSWERS TO SHNPP-1 SER OPEN ITEMS SERg NUREG-1038'UPPLEMENT 1 Summary Report Section 0 en Item Comment De nst t'n Co liance 18.6(l) .Provide .a .detailed Section 6.4 description of the Shearon Harris system function and task analysis.

18.6(2) Describe the process used Section 6.5 to compare display and control 6.6 requirements as determined by the function and task analysis, with control room inventory.

18.6(3) Describe the process to be Section 7.3.4 used to verify that the corrective actions achieved the desired improve-ment without introducing new HEDs into the control room.

18.6(4) For each of the HEDs listed Appendix B in part A of the in-progress audit report, the applicant should give the staff the status and proposed resolutions, as well as a schedule for implementing corrective actions.

For the DCRDR to be complete, the appli-cant must provide the results of the evaluation of the following items so the staff can determine whether the requirements of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 have been satisfied:

a) Workspace Section 6.3.3.2 b) Communications Section 6.3.l.b c) Remote Shutdown Panel Section 5.0 (referred to as the Auxiliary Control Panel (ACP) at SHNPP-1) d) Recorder Panel Section 4.4.4 e) CRTs (contained within Section 6.3.3.10 the computer survey) f) Process Computer and Section 6.3.3.10 peripherals g) Annunciator Systems Section 6.3.3.6 1 - 3

TABLE l-l (continued)

ANSWERS TO SHNPP-1 SER OPEN ITEMS ANSWERS TO NRC COMMENTS ON DESIGN EVALUATION REPORT Summary Report Section Com ent De onst at'n Co ance CRDR Team Section 2.3 details of specific groups, 2.4 task assignments and ongoing 2.5 participation in the review process are not provided.

2. Management Responsibility Section 2.2 details on how management responsibility for the control and quality of the review was executed are not provided.

3 ~ Function and Task Analysis Section 6.4 description of the plan for doing function and task analysis is not provided.

4 ~ Control Room Inventory Section 6.4.3 description of how the Control 6.5 Room inventory was established and 6.6 how it was used to compare the actual Control Room equipment to the Control Room equipment requirements established by the function and task analysis is not provided.

5 Control Room Survey Section 3.2.4.2 comparison to determine consistency of Human Engineering Requirements Specification (HERS) with NUREG-0700 guidelines is needed.

6.

provided'ppendix Human Engineering Discrepancies (HEDs) description of individual HEDs or resolutions is not A

1-4

TABLE ANSWERS TO SHNPP-1 l-l SER (continued)

OPEN ITEMS ANSWERS TO NRC COMMENTS ON DESIGN EVALUATION REPORT Summary Report Section Comment Demonstratin Com liance

7. Assessment of HEDs- Section 7.3 description of the details of the assessment process used for individual HEDs or standards used to justify management decisions on uncorrected HEDs is not provided.

8. Design Improvements Section 7.3 description of the design improvement selection process to correct individual HEDs is not provided.

9. Verification of HED Section 7.3 Corrections statement supporting that design improvements will provide the necessary corrections is not provided.

10. Verification that improvements Section 7.3.4 will not introduce new HEDs-statement supporting the verification that HED corrections did not generate new HEDs is not provided.

ll. Coordination of CRDR with other programs Section 1.3 description of the coordina-tion between the CRDR and other programs is not provided.

12. Resolution of the NRC/ Appendix B Lawerence Livermore "Audit Report" HEDs.

1-5

1.1.1 CP L NRC Cor es ond nce Correspondence between the NRC and CP&L regarding the SHNPP-1 CRDR has taken place in the last few years. A reference list of this correspondence is provided below:

CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE NRC

1. NUREG-1038 Safety Evaluation Report related to the operation of Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. STN 50-400 and STN 50-401

2. NUREG-1038, Supplement No. 1 Safety Evaluation Report related to the operation of Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1 Docket No. STN 50-400

3. Letter to Mr. E. E. Utley, Docket No.: 50-400 Enclosure 1: Comments on Shearon Harris Unit 1 Control Room Design Evaluation Report Enclosure 2: Audit Report Human Factors Engineering Detailed Control Room Design Review In-Progress Audit 1-6

CORRESPONDENCE FROM CP&L

1. December 7, 1982 "Human Factors Design Evaluation Report for the Shearon Harris Unit 1 Control Room," dated January 23, 1981, revised September 16, 1981

2. LAP-83-426; September t

27, 1983 Letter to Mr. Harold R. Denton SHNPP-1 Unit No. 1 System Functional Analysis Performed on the Harris Control Board During Redesign - SHNPP-1 Unit Nos. 1 & 2 Task Analysis of the Upgraded Engineering Operating Procedures SHNPP-1 Unit Nos. 1 & 2 Development, Verification and Validation of Emergency Operating Procedures

3. LAP-83-156; June I, 1983 gHNPP-1 Supplemental Information to the DCRDR Summary Report Entitled "Human Factors Design Evaluation Report for the Shearon Harris Unit 1 Control Room"

4. April 15, 1983 CP&L's respond to NRC Generic Letter 82-33

5. NLS-85-096; April 9, 1985 Control Room Design Review Summary Report for Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 1-7

1.2 BACKGROUND

. l.2. l ~enera This final summary report describes the actions taken to complete the SHNPP-1 CRDR. The CRDR is part of a broad effort within the nuclear industry to evaluate the adequacy of Control Rooms to support safe and effective operations. Guidance for the CRDR was provided by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in the form of various NUREGs and regulatory guides. CP&L used the relevant guidance in performing the CRDR and in developing this final summary report. CPaL dedicated the necessary resources to this CRDR to ensure success of the project.

The CRDR project at CPaL began in 1980 and has been ongoing since that time.

1.2.2 e o Ha 's Nucle r Po P t The SHNPP-1 is a Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactor (950 MWe) located in New Hill, North Carolina. The plant is Near Term Operating License (NTOL) with fuel load scheduled for March, 1986.

1 2 3 um a Re o t Ob't v s This final summary report provides a source for documentation of the CRDR activities that have taken place for SHNPP-l.

It also provides a means to ensure that the CRDR is adequately complete. The activities described within this report consist of the following:

a. Human Factors Design Evaluation for SHNPP-1 1-8

~.

~ o

b. Operational Review of the Control Room Back Panels

c. Human Factors Detailed Design Review of the Auxiliary Control Panel

d. CRDR Completion/Reassessment 1.2.4 uman Facto s Des n Ev u t n The human factors engineering evaluation of the SHNPP-1 Control Room design was conducted from April 1980 to January 1981. The evaluation consisted of a survey of the original Harris Simulator located at the CP6L Energy and Environmental Center, and a review of available design documentation. The procedures and results of this evaluation are outlined in Section 3.0.

e at'al ev'ew ft e C n o porn An operational review was conducted from June 1983 to December 1983 on the following 13 back panels located in the SHNPP-1 Control Room:

1. RCP Vibration Monitor Cabinet

2. Gross Failed Fuel Detection Console

3. Loose Parts Monitor Cabinet

4. Seismic Monitor Cabinet

5. Auxiliary Equipment Panel No. 1

6. Cooling Tower and River Make-up and Control Panel 1-9

~.

7. Generator Relay Panels 1A and 1B

8. Startup Transformer Relay Panels lA and IB

9. Recorder Panel

10. Incore Instrumentation ll. Nuclear Instrumentation System

12. Radiation Monitoring System

13. Axial Power Distribution Monitoring System Back panel arrangement is shown in Figure 4-1.

The review consisted of an evaluation of the component layout and design based on criteria obtained from NUREG-0700. The procedures and results of this evaluation are outlined in Section 4.0.

1.2.6 u an Facto s Deta led Des n R iew e Aux a Cont ol P nel The Auxiliary Control Panel (ACP) at SHNPP-1 will serve as a remote hot shutdown facility. A human factors review of the ACP was conducted from June 1983 to December 1983. The review con-sisted of an evaluation of the component layout and design based on criteria obtained from NUREG-0700. The procedures and results of this evaluation are outlined in Section 5.0.

1-10

~.

~ o

1.2.7 CRDR C m let'on eassessment The CRDR completion and reassessment of the current control board design began in December 1984. This activity consisted of the following three phases:

a. Phase I Project Planning The project planning phase consisted of a NUREG/CR-1580 NUREG-0700 comparison that defined areas not reviewed in the original Human Factors Evaluation. It also consisted of the development of a plan for the completion of the CRDR that defined project milestones, schedules, review methods, personnel respon-sibility and project interfaces.

Submission of the March, 1985 Summary Report to the NRC completed the planning phase.

b. Phase II Review and Assessment The second'hase of the CRDR involved reduction and analysis of data collected during the HF Design Evaluation, reassessment of the MCB design, and assessment of any additional Human Engineering Discrepancies (HEDs) identified .during this process.

The assessment procedure included:

o A determination of the error potential and consequences of each HED o Identification of HED resolutions o Assurance that the selected design improvements provide the necessary correction and assurance that no additional HEDs were introduced as a result of these resolutions.

~.

~ o

This report describes the methods, results and implications of the CRDR. This report also describes CP&L's plans for correction of the HEDs at SHNPP-1.

c. Phase III Implementation The final phase of the CRDR is to implement the resolutions or backfits for the HEDs. Backfit specifications are reviewed prior to implementation to ensure that they fulfill the CRDR

~

recommendations. For more detailed descriptions of the objectives, approach, data collection methodology and specific evaluation methods, refer to Section 7.0.

1.3 Inte at'on of CRDR w't ot e Act v't es Although the CRDR was specifically directed toward evaluating the, Cont'rol Room (CR) (including auxiliary shut-down panel), CP&L recognizes the interface between the CRDR and other related activities, such as the design of a Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS), implementation of REG. GUIDE 1.97 requirements, development of Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs), operator training, and the implementation of Emergency Response Facilities (ERF). The organi-zation of the CRDR considers the coordination of the CRDR with these related efforts. This report reflects the balanced and orderly approach CP&L followed to implement the NUREG-0737 requirements.

It is not the intent of this report to describe all the detailed information related to SPDS, REG. GUIDE 1.97, and EOPs development and implementation. This report is limited to the man/machine interface requirements and the integration of these requirements as they affect plant operation.

The integration of REG. GUIDE 1.97, SPDS and the ERF took place in conjunction with the human fa'ctors review of the MCB and the subsequent redesign.

These items are discussed below:

a. QPDS SPDS has been and continues to be reviewed with its companion items (EOPs and Control Board modifications) for continuity.

(See Section 6.3.3.10 for discussions on the human factors review of the SPDS)

The SPDS consist of the six critical safety functions as defined by Westinghouse. Each of these critical safety functions are

~ associated with a fault tree, which was developed and coordinated with the EOPs.

1 13

The SPDS was developed as a set with the EOPs. It functions as a companion to the EOPs and as an aid to the operator.

The revised MCB layout includes 6 colorgraphic CRTs. One of these CRTs is designated as the primary SPDS display and a second CRT serves as the alternate SPDS display. The placement of these CRTs were considered in the redesign effort to ensure maximum readability of the displays.

The EOPs and the SPDS have been tested as a set for over 200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br /> on several simulators as well as over 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> in table top exercises.

b. REG. GUIDE 1.9 The REG. GUIDE, 1.97 items have been discussed by CPaL and the NRC< (See LAP-83-405).

The REG. GUIDE, 1.97 instrumentation was incorporated into the MCB layout using the same human factors guidelines used in MCB redesign effort. CPaL has insured that no HEDs have been introduced with these modifications. This was verified during the completion/reassessment phase within the verification and validation activities.

c EOPs The EOPs were written specifically to adhere to the Westinghouse (K) Emergency Response Guidelines (ERGs), REV.-1 and have been tested on the same simulator on which the g generic procedures were tested. The results .provided evidence that any deviation taken by CP&L in making the procedures plant specific resulted in expected responses and ensured that safe conditions were achieved.

1 14

d. 0 e ato T a'nin The training program for the operators on the EOPs were written for SHNPP-1 and were tailored to the recently completed EOPs.

The Element Tables in the task analysis (See Section 6.4 of this report) also provides a top level indication of the area of training for each EOP step. In addition, the Hot License training program reflects the recently updated EOPs. As the plant continues toward completion and as background/operating information becomes available, the training material is updated.

e. QRF The ERF has been coordinated with the CRDR in the areas of information and communication needs. The same integrated plant computer system (Emergency Response Facilities Information System or ERFIS) which drives the MCB CRTs also drives the CRTs in the Technical Support Center (TSC) and the Emergency Operating Facility (EOF). All displays available on the MCB can be called up in the TSC or EOF without effecting, the MCB displays. This informa'tion is available real time in the TSC and EOF which ensures maximum coordination of facilities.

The communication systems between the Control Room and the ERF conform to the requirements of 10CFR50, Appendix ED The communication devices to be provided include: dedicated telephones (Hot Lines), dial up telephones, the Emergency Notification System; company radios, sound powered telephones and ERFIS.

1 15

1 4 GLOSSARY OF TERMS Since there are differences in usages of terms (even among practitioners within the same field), the following definitions are provided to reduce ambiguity.

Control Roo : For the purpose of this plan, the Control Room is defined as including the primary operating area of the main Control Room and the auxiliary shutdown panel.

Cont o Room DE I E IE: The Control Room design review as required by NUREG-0660, Item I.D.1 and implemented in accordance with NUREG-0700.

f Mf i 'h d 1 physical changes, for example, demarcation, labeling changes 1 j and painting.

FI AL UMMARY REP RT: Final summary report of the results of the CRDR as required by NUREG-0660, Item I.D.1 and in accordance with Generic Letter 82-33.

~FU CTION: An action performed by one or more system constituents (people, mechanisms, structures) to achieve an objective.

F CTIONAL ALLOCATI: The distribution of functions among the human and machine constituents of a system.

UMAN EN I EERING DI CREPA CY HED : A departure from some benchmark of system design suitability for the roles and capabilities of the human operator.

1-16

~.

~ o

ED A SE ME T TEAM HEDAT: Those individuals of the CRDR Team who have the responsibility for review and assessment of all HED reports.

UMA FACTORS ENGINEERIN : The science of optimizing the performance of human beings, especially in industryg also, the science of designing equipment for efficient use by human beings.

OBJECTIVE MI SIO GOAL : The end-product as a result of a coordinated set of actions taken.

ICENSED PERAT R: Any individual currently licensed by the NRC who manipulates a control or directs another to manipulate a control that directly affects reactivity (SRO or RO).

e:

~UB for CRDR.

P~A K:

SHNPP-1 An action performed by toward completing a single task.

and a Submitted to Kpt d description of NRC, April, a

1985.

person 1

CP&L',s f

(or machine) directed K p f plans to complete the d

~YTEM: Components that function as a whole by virtue of the interdependence of its parts: an organization of interdependent constituents that work together in a patterned manner to accomplish some purpose.

. ~ASK: A specific action, performed by a single system constituent (person or equipment), that contributes to the accomplishment of a function. In NUREG-0700, only tasks allocated to people, in particular to Control Room operators, are addressed in detail.

Moreover, in accordance with Generic Letter 83-22, only tasks associated with emergency systems have been evaluated.

1 17

t \ i 9 if h phy 1 organizational design for operations is adequate to support effective integrated performance of the functions of the Control Room operating crew.

h p controls and other equipment meet the specif ic requirements of the tasks performed by operators.

1 18

O.

0

1.5 ACRONYMS A number of acronyms are used in this report. This list is presented to facilitate the reader's use and comprehension of the report.

ACP Auxiliary Control Panel A&E Architect & Engineer AEP Auxiliary Equipment Panel AIRD Action-Information Requirements Details AIRS Action-Information Requirements Summary ALB Annunciator Light Box APDMS Axial Power Distribution Monitor-System CP&L Carolina Power & Light CR Control Room CRER Control Room Evacuation Requirement CRDR Control Room Design Review CRT Cathode Ray Tube

~ CWD Control Wiring Diagram DMIMS Digital Metal Impact Monitoring System ERF Emergency Response Facilities ERFIS Emergency Response Facilities Information System ERG Emergency Response Guidelines (WOG)

EOP Emergency Operating Procedure FHB Fuel Handling Building FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report GFFD Gross Failed Fuel Detection GFFDS Gross Failed Fuel Detector System HED Human Engineering Discrepancy HEDAT Human Engineering Discrepancy Assessment Team HERS Human Engineering Requirements Specification HF Human Factors HFS Human Factors Specialist 1 19

O.

o.

0

HVAC Heating Ventilation and A'ir Conditioning I&C Instrument and Control INCORE Incore Instrumentation System LDE Lead Discipline Engineer LED Light Emitting Diode LHFS Lead Human Factors Specialist MCB Main Control Board Megawatts Electric NIS Nuclear Instrumentation System NOD Nuclear Operations Department NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NSSS i Nuclear Steam Supply System NTOL Near Term Operating License OER Operating Experience Review OPS Operations Personnel Survey OS Operations Support PAM Post-Accident Monitoring P&ID Piping and Instrumentation Diagram RAB Reactor Auxiliary Building RCP Reactor Coolant Pump RCPVM Reactor Coolant Pump Vibration Monitoring RCS Reactor Coolant System RO Reactor Operator SFTA System Function Task Analysis SHNPP-1 Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 SITL System Integration Team Leader SMS Seismic Monitoring System SPC Site Project Coordinator SPDS Safety Parameter Display System SRO Senior Reactor Operator SRTA System Review and Task Analysis WOG Westinghouse Owners Group 1 - 20

SECTION 2.0 MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING 0 2' INTRODUCTION

a. The quality of the review effort and the results of the CRDR depended upon the composition, balance, and management of the review teams. The CP6L CRDR teams were assembled to include representatives from the various human factors, operations and engineering disciplines necessary to insure optimum performance. The structure and functions of the teams were established to allow for maximum flexibility and interaction between team members and station personnel, yet retain a rational organizational structure.

b. Subsequent paragraphs of this section describe the review team for each phase of the CRDR. Also included is a description of the CP&L management support structure, the CRDR team composition and responsibilities, and the CRDR team task responsibilities for the CRDR Completion/Reas-sessment Phase.

2 2 CPSL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT The major factor in the success of the SHNPP-1 CRDR effort was the awareness and commitment of CP&L management to recognize the need for a human factors assessment of the MCB and Control Room. As a result< in-process fabrication of the MCB was halted and Control Room construction was put on hold. A major redesign effort was implemented and the MCB was completely rearranged (See Section 3.2.4.4). The magnitude of this effort, which was initiated prior to the issuance of NUREG-0737, Supplement 1 and NUREG-0700 is an indication of CPaL management's commitment to the CRDR process.

2-1

Establishment of the CRDR projects and the development of the project teams were initiated by CPaL upper management. They provided the mechanisms to complete the CRDR projects and establish a human factors program at SHNPP-l.

2.3 REVIEW TEAM FOR THE HUMAN FACTORS DESIGN EVALUATION FOR SHNPP-1 The review team for the HF Design Evaluation for SHNPP-1 was com-posed of three functionally different groups, which were: the HF Evaluation Group, the HF/Operations Support Group, and the Pxoject Management/Nuclear Operations/Plant Engineering and Design Group.

The first two groups consisted primarily of HF Specialists, and the third group consisted of CP&L personnel representing Nuclear Operations, Construction Engineering, various Design Engineering Disciplines, Trainj.ng and Industrial Engineering. Interaction on an individual and group basis was constant throughout the evaluation period.

2.3.1 uman Facto s Eva uat on ou This group was composed of senior-, intermediate- and junior-level human factors specialists. The responsibilities of the group were to conduct the data collection, data reduction and preliminary data analysis phases of the evaluation.

The senior member of this group, Mr. Walter T. Talley, was responsible for the administration, management, scheduling and coordination of the evaluation activities. He was responsible for reporting progress to the Project Manager and was the HF representative at the HED meetings.

2-2

~.

~ o

The HF Evaluation Group was composed of the following individuals:

o Walter T; Talley Group Supervisor, Research Scientists o John Farbry, Jr. Research Associate o Jessica Haher Research Associate o Danna Beith Research Associate o Thomas Amerson Research Associate o Trudy Justice Research Associate Resumes are contained in Appendix F.

2.3.2 Human Factors 0 erat's Su o t r u This group was composed of Essex Corporation home office personnel and varied in size and make-up based upon support requirements of the primary evaluation group. It had a total composition of four senior human factors specialists, one nuclear engineer, two reactor operators, one procedures specialist, and a data collection team of three junior human factors specialists, and one photographer. This support group's responsibilities were:

o Review, in-depth analysis, discrepancy definition and discrepancy resolution recommendations, as required o Data collection support o Operational and engineering analysis, if needed.

2-3

This group was composed of the following individuals:

o Thomas Malone Behavioral Science Division Director, Senior Research Scientist o Kenneth Mallory Director, Energy Systems Programs and Project Manager, Senior Research Scientist o Mark Kirkpatrick III Principal Investigator, Senior Research Scientist o Robert Kinkade Senior Research Scientist o Douglas Metcalf Nuclear Engineering Support o Tom Harding Operations Support o Albert Strong Operations Support o Elliot Steele - Research Assistant, Procedures Specialist o Carol Kain - Research Assistant o Candace Krick Research Assistant o Diane Jeorling Research Assistant o Timothy O'Donaghue Research Assistant o John Jacoby Photographer Resumes are contained in Appendix F.

2-4

~.

~ o

2.3.3 Pro 'ect Mana ement Nuclear 0 erations Plant En ineerin and Desi n Gr u This group was principally composed of CPsL personnel and varied in size and make-up based on support requirements as defined by the Project Manager. In addition to the CP&L personnel, this group was supported by the AGE (Ebasco) and the NSSS vendor (Westinghouse) to provide any required review and comments on design philosophies, discrepancy analysis, and change implemen-tation requirements, as directed by the- Project Manager.

Two CP&L personnel were assigned on a full-time basis to the CRDR review team. The Project Manager, Mr. W. T. Gainey, had multiple roles. In addition to serving as contract administrator/

he coordinated the Essex, CPaL, AGE, and NSSS activities to provide the required interaction between the various groups, and he represented the Nuclear Operations Department (NOD) as an operations specialist on the evaluation team. Assisting the, Project Manager as a full-time team member was Mr. D. L. Phippsf an Industrial Engineer from the System Planning and Coordination Department.

2-5

Other CP&L personnel from various disciplines participated with the evaluation team on a part-time basis to complement the multi-discipline team skill mix as required. The part-time CP6L evaluation team members were:

o D. Cothren Harris Plant Engineering Section o R. Prunty - Harris Plant Engineering Section o E. Evans Harris Plant Engineering Section o J. H. Smith Nuclear Operations Department Training (SRO) o William C. Cooper Nuclear Operations Department SHNPP-1 Startup Resumes are contained in Appendix F.

2-6

2.4 REVIEW TEAM FOR THE OPERATIONAL REVIEW OF THE CONTROL ROOM BACK PANELS AND THE HUMAN FACTORS DETAILED DESIGN REVIEW OF THE AUXILIARY CONTROL PANEL The evaluation team for the Control Room Back Panels and ACP review consisted of an HF Evaluation Group and the Operational/Plant Engineering and Design Group. Interaction on an individual and group basis was constant throughout the evaluation period, and two individuals of the'valuation team were members of both groups and part of the overall management structure.

2.4.1 Mr. W ll am T. Gaine Jr.,

Served as the Evaluation Project Director and as a technical member of both groups. In this multiple-role assignment he served as contract administrator, he coordinated the project activities to provide the required interactions between and within the groups, and he represented the Nuclear Operations Department as an operations specialist on the evaluation team.

2.4.2 Mr. Walter T. Talle Served as the Evaluation Project Manager and also as a technical member of both groups. Under direction of the Project Director, he scheduled and coordinated the evaluation activities, he reported project progress and problems to the director, and he represented the human factors position for both evaluation groups.

2-7

O.

o

2.4.3 Human Facto s Evaluat'on Grou This group was composed of one senior nuclear operations specialist, and one senior, two intermediate, and one junior human factors specialists. Additional assistance was furnished by one project assistant. The group s responsibilities were to plan'nd conduct the data collection, data reduction, and preliminary data analysis phases of the evaluation.

This group was composed of the following individuals:

o William T. Gainey, Jr. Project Director (CP&L NOD),

Senior Nuclear Operations Specialist (SRO) o Walter T. Talley Project Manager (Essex)i Senior Research Scientist o Eleanor M. Talley Research Scientist, (Essex) o Everett M. Boyd Research Associate (Essex) o Trudy Justice Research Assistant (CP&L) o Charlotte Pepper Project Assistant (CP&L)

Resumes are contained in Appendix F.

2-8

2 '.4 0 e ations Plant En ineerin nd Des' Grou This group was composed of two senior nuclear operations specialists, two nuclear operations specialists, three plant engineering and design representatives, and one human factors specialist. This group s responsibilities were to conduct the in-depth operational review activities and to perform the final data analysis and HED reviews. The senior nuclear operations specialist, assigned from the Nuclear Operations Department, was also the Project Director and the senior operations specialist for the Human Factors Evaluation Group.

This group was composed of the following individuals:

o William T. Gainey', Jr. Project Director (CP&L-NOD),

Senior Nuclear Operations Specialist (SRO) o Robert Prunty Principal I&C Engineer, (CP&L SHNPP-1 Eng) o Danny G. Batton Senior Nuclear Operations Specialist (CP&L-SHNPP-1 Opsy SRO) o Kenneth Kyser Nuclear Operations Specialist (CP&L-SHNPP-1 Ops RO) o James Abraham Nuclear Operations Specialist (CP&L-SHNPP-1 Ops, RO) o Elwood Evans Harris Plant Engineering Section (CP&L-SHNPP-1 Eng) 2-9

o Derik Boush - Harris Plant Engineering Section (CP&L-SHNPP-1 Eng) o Dale Parrish Harris Plant Engineering Section (CP&L-SHNPP-1 Eng) o Walter T. Talley Project Manager (Essex), Senior Research Scientist Resumes are contained in Appendix F.

2 10

2' REVIEW TEAM FOR THE CRDR COMPLETION/REASSESSMENT 2.5.1 gen~e ~a

a. The CRDR Completion/Reassessment team and structure of the dedicated core team is shown in Figure 2-1. This core group was supplemented on an as-required basis by other individuals. This support group was composed of representatives from required disciplines such as operations, nuclear, mechanical, electrical, industrial, and human factors engineering.

b. Within the core CRDR Completion/Reassessment team, individuals were designated as members of the Human Engineering Discrepancy Assessment Team (HEDAT). Principle responsibilities of the HEDAT were to review and assess the HED reports, to develop recommended resolutions, and to establish preliminary scheduling of the backfit activities.

2.5.2 re Tea 2.5.2.1 Structure and Function The core team was structured as illustrated in Figure 2-1. The primary management structure was comprised of the HEDAT members. This enhanced the review team's ability to respond rapidly at a competent technical level to the broad spectrum of review activities on a day-to-day basis. Core team resumes are provided in Appendix F to document the proven track record of this team as managers, adminis-trators, supervisors and technical experts.

2.5.2.2 The Lead Discipline Engineer (LDE) for the CRDR was Mr. Robert Prunty, Principal Z&C Engineer of Harris Plant Engineering. He had the overall responsibility for insuring that the review was conducted as planned and scheduled. As the team manager, he reviewed the project's progress, identified any problems concerning schedules and planning and, with the aid of the team coordinators, he resolved any coordin-ation problems. The LDE was responsible for day-to-day CRDR activities and for reporting project status and progress to CP&L/SHNPP-1 Management. He also served as the coordinator between the CRDR and the NUREG-0737 activities.

2.5.2.3 The Principal Operations Engineer for the CRDR was Mr. David Waters. He had the overall responsibility for System Function and Task Analysis that was conducted in the CRDR Completion/Reassessment phase of the project. Mr. Waters also served as the Operations representative on the HEDAT 'and aided coordination between the CRDR and the NUREG-0737 activities.

2.5.2.4 Site Project Coordinator The Site Project Coordinator (SPC) for the CRDR was Mr. Derik Boush a Senior Design

'Specialist in the Harris Plant Engineering Section.

He worked closely with the LDE to insure the review was conducted as planned and scheduled. As the review team's technical leader he insured that adequate technical resources were applied to all review activities. As a member of the HEDAT, he coordinated/processed the CRDR HEDs.

2-12

2.5.2.5 System Integration Team Leader The System Integration Team Leader (SITL), a consultant to SHNPP-l, was Mr. Robert Shepard. He had the overall responsibility for implementing the CRDR as planned and scheduled.

He worked directly for the LDE and SPC and directed the CRDR tasks.

2.5.2.6 Lead Human Factors Specialists The Lead Human Factors Specialist (LHFS) (a human factors consultant) for the CRDR was Ms. Danna Beith. She was primar'ily responsible for ensuring the technical quality of human factors work and the availability of appropriate

. human factors specialists as required throughout this project. She worked closely with the SPC and co-ordinated the HF activities with the SITL. She was directly responsible for the progress of the HF areas of the project and reported any deviations from planned .

activities, methods or procedures to the SPC in a timely manner. She also was responsible for technical justifications related to any proposed methodological or procedural changes. As a member of the HEDAT, she established accurate and realistic statements on the human performance aspects for all identified problems and suggested resolutions to HEDs that would not create other HF problems.

2.5.2.7 Operations Support The Operations Support personnel, as indicated in Figure 2-1, were committed to the CRDR for direct'upport in the System Function Task Analysis and the Verification and Validation tasks.

They were also available on an as-needed basis for engineering support throughout the project.

2-13

0 2.5.2.8 Human Factors Specialists Human Factors support personnel (human factors consultants), were committed to this project for direct support of the data collection, data reduction and analysis, and HED generation, analysis, and resolution. Also, in support of this project was a pool of human factors support personnel that represented diverse and current specialized experience backgrounds in human factors. The support group was directed by the HF Project Manager and was available on an as-needed basis throughout the review.

2.5.3 eview Team Su ort Members I

2.5.3.1 General Review Team Support members were assigned support roles from the various required disciplines to ensure an appropriate level of technical quality for the project. Although not assigned full-time, their availability was assured by CP&L management directive. Individual disciplines represented in this support group included but were not limited to:

1) Operations

2) Training

3) Engineering

4) Maintenance 2 14

2.5.3.2 Operations Experienced operators participated in various phases and activities of this project. Their participation included contributions to the Operating Experience Review (OER) (described in paragraph 6.3),

assistance during the verification of task performance activities, and validation of Control Room functions processes, and the clarification of HEDs as required.

Each operator had specific, unique experiential information that contributed significantly to appropriate HED resolutions.

2.5.3.3 Engineering The engineering representative was primarily involved in the Control Room inventory process and HED assessment/resolution tasks. Intimate knowledge of plant instrumentation from the ISC viewpoint was utilized during the verification of availability of Control Room functions.

2.5.3.4 Training Representatives - The training representatives contributed adjunct information on operational scen-arios and cognitive task elements.

2.5.3.5 Maintenance The maintenance engineer was primarily involved in the implementation of backfits.

2.5.4 CRDR Tea Tas Res onsibilit es

a. Figure 2-2 illustrates, in matrix format, the task responsibilities for each team member.

2-15

SHNPP-f CRDR CONPLETfOH/REASSESSNEHT Principal>>

D l sc l pl inc Engineer R. Prunty Engfncerfng Pr inc f pa I>>

Operations if. Edwards Engineer D. ifaters Site Project>>

Coordinator D. Boush ffafntenance Opcratlons Tra f ning System Human>>

1 integration Factors Team Leader ffsnager ll. Jackson C. Lapp J. Hudson R. Shepard N.Talley Lead Operat fons Huaan Factors Anal ys l s tLogic Speci ~ l lst Support D. Saith D. Caccaao Nuaan Operations Factors Support Specialist E Ta l l ey L Edaonds flcabcrs of HEDAT O Core Tean lfeabers Figure 2- l 2 16

CRDR (PROJECT MANAGEMENT) TASK RESPONSIBILITIES Figure 2-2 LDE SPC SITL LHFS HFS OS

1. Program Definition

• X

2. Master Schedule Preparation and

• X Revisions

3. Sub-.schedule Preparation and Revisions

4. Detail Schedule for Plant-Specific o X CRDR Preparation and Revisions

5. Periodic Update Reports

6. Define CRDR Human Factors Requirements

7. Conduct Plant-Specific Review (CRDR)

8. Review HEDs and Determine Corrective Actions

9. Present Recommended Corr. Actions 0 0 to Management and Assess Program

10. Final Summary Report Preparation

11. Final Summary Repo rt Review

12. Final Summary Report Approval o 0

13. Final Summary Report Delivery

14. Imwlementation of Corrective Actions (Phase III)

15. Review of Corrective Actions

• o (Phase III)

X Primary Responsibility LDE = Lead Discipline Engineer

• Support Responsibility SPC = Site Project Coordinator o Approval Authority SITL ~ System Integration Team Leader LHFS Lead Human Factors Specialist HFS Human Factors Specialist OS Operations Support 2 17

SECTION 3.0 HUMAN FACTORS DESIGN EVALUATION OF SHNPP-1 3 ' INTRODUCTION The SHNPP-1 design evaluation was conducted during the period from April 1980 to January 1981 to evaluate component layout and design according to criteria obtained from NUREG/CR-1580. The evaluation was based on data collected from the following:

a. The original Harris Simulator,

b. Equipment drawings,

c. Control Wiring Diagrams (CWDs),

d. Engraving books,

e. Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams (P6IDs),

f. Vendor drawings of equipment, g . Samples of vendor-supplied equipment,

h. Discussions with CPaL Operations, Engineering, SHNPP-1 Start-Up, and Energy and Environmental Center (simulator) personnel.

A summary of the procedures and results of this evaluation is described below.

3-1

3.2 EVALUATION PROCESS The evaluation process was conducted in three phases: the preparation phase, the data collection phase and the analysis phase.

3.2.1 Pre aration Phase The preparation phase consisted of the following steps:

a. Preparing checklists, interview forms, and data collection forms

b. Scheduling of all evaluation phases

c. Developing data collection procedures 3.2.2 Data Collect'on P se The data collection phase consisted of the following:

a. Conducting a photographic survey of the Harris Simulator

b. Conducting checklist procedures against equipment and engineering drawings, and against applicable areas of the simulator control board

c. Conducting an anthropometric review

d. Conducting a workspace review

e. Conducting a review of annunciator drawings.

3-2

3 2 3 The analysis phase consisted of the following:

a. Developing Human Engineering Requirements Specifications (HERS) for design features not yet constructed (or measurable)

I

b. Developing preliminary HED reports concerned with component level discrepancies and control board arrangements

c. Developing the rearrangement of the Control Room equipment.

3.2.4 Evaluation P ocedures and Results 3.2.4.1 Human Engineering Requirements Specifications (HERS)

HERS were written to provide human engineering guidelines for components and design features that could not be adequately evaluated because of the stage of'onstruction in the, Control Room in 1980-81.

Seventeen HERS were written to ensure good human factors engineering concepts were incorporated in the SHNPP-1 Control Room. Eight HERS addressed the control board and related equipment. Nine HERS addressed Control Room elements such as lighting, noise and protective equipment. The HERS titles consist of the following:

a. Equipment Design:

o Annunciator Systems o Color Codes for Strip Chart Recorder Pens and Pointers 3-3

o Computer Systems o Demarcation and Mimic Lines o Labeling o Rotary Selector Switches o Status/Monitor Light Boxes o Vertical Indicators

b. Control Room Features:

o Ambient Illumination o Control Room Furnishings o Control Room Temperature, Humidity and Ventilation o Emergency Procedures o Noise o Procedures o Protective Equipment o Temporary Labels o Voice Communications, Unaided and Telephone A sample HERS is provided in Appendix C.

3.2.4.2 Results The HERS guidelines were incorporated into the equipment design and Control Room elements that exist in the Control Room. An evaluation based on NUREG-0700 cri-teria was conducted to determine if the HERS guidelines had been implemented correctly. This evaluation was conducted during the CRDR Completion/Reassessment phase of the review. Any of the guidelines, found to be discrepant were documented as HEDs. The CRDR Completion/Reassessment HEDs are summarized in Appendix A-3 through A-26.

3-4

3.2.4.3 Simulator and Control Board Arrangement Review Individual components and Control Room features were evaluated using checklists in the Harris Simulator Control Room. Preliminary HED reports were generated on discrepant components/Control Room features. These HEDs were reviewed by the review team to determine their applicability to the SHNPP-1 Control Room.

The MCB drawings were also reviewed for component location discrepancies. An evaluation of human factors design concepts such as functional grouping, operational sequencing, demarcation and hierarchical labeling was the primary goal of this review. HED reports were written for all identified problems.

3.2.4.4 Results A total of 134 HED reports were generated based on the review of the MCB design drawings and on the review of the Harris Simulator. Forty-nine of the 134 HEDs identified potential grouping and sequencing problems on the MCB (See Appendix A-1). The remaining 85 HEDs were based on the Harris Simulator. These 85 reports (See Appendix A-2) addressed the physical character-istics of various types and styles of components on the simulator, and addressed general simulator Control Room features such as room communications, instrument glare, room illumination levels and the readability of labels.

3-5

To resolve the 49 grouping and sequencing HEDs, a total rearrangement of the MCB was carried out. This effort consisted of a system-by-system reconfiguration of components on the board using a scaled, two-dimen-sional mockup with movable components. Panel labeli'ng problems were also corrected/resolved during this activity. The primary results of the rearrangement were:

a. The arrangement of system-, function-, or logic-related components into coherent physical groups

b. The arrangement of these groups on the MCB in such a way as to optimally support operator use and movement during emergency, abnormal and normal plant operations

c. The arrangement of components within groups to support operator task requirements

d. The application of demarcation lines around groups

e. The application of hierarchical labeling to groups, sub-groups and special function components

f. Where required< the application of mimic lines and mimic symbology.

Reduced copies of the final arrangement drawings for the MCB are provided in Appendix D.

3-6

A summary description of the HEDs and the disposition of each HED identified in this phase of the CRDR is contained in Appendix A-3 through A-26.

3.2.4.5 Anthropometric Review The anthropometric design was originally evaluated to determine reach and vision envelopes on the MCB.

The reach and vision characteristics of the MCB were evaluated using control board dimensions from the Harris Simulator, adjusted to reflect anticipated SHNPP-1 MCB height dimensions, and current anthropo-metric data on the 5th percentile female through the 95th percentile male general population. Maximum recommended height locations for controls and displays were identified.

3.2.5.6 Results The results of the original anthropometric survey were as follows:

a. Reach envelopes indicate that controls requiring reach but not grasp (i.e., pushbuttons) located no higher than 64 inches can be easily reached by the 50th percentile female. Reach envelopes for controls requiring hand-grasping located no higher than 60 inches can be reached easily by the 50th percentile female. It was recommended that pushbutton controls be located no higher than 64 inches and hand-grasp controls be located no higher than 60 inches on the vertical portion of the MCB.

3-7

b. Vision envelopes for meters located at a height of 79.6 inches (meter center) or lower have no general problem of visual access. However, meters located more than 15 degrees above eye height will have increasing vertical parallax problems the higher they are located. This potential problem is important only if high numerical accuracy is required in reading the meters.

It was recommended that meters requiring a high degree of numerical accuracy when reading be located no higher than 63 inches (meter center) on the vertical portion of the MCB. To be in agreement with draft NUREG/CR-1580 criteria, meters should not be located above 74 inches.

A detailed description of the anthropometric review, Analysis of Operator Reach and Vision Envelopes, is contained in the project data files and was included in the "Human Factors Design Evaluation Report for Shearon Harris Unit 1 Control'oom," dated 23 January 1981, revised 16 September, 1981.

Due to the MCB rearrangement the location of controls and displays were reviewed in the CRDR Completion/Reas-sessment Phase. This was done to determine if controls and displays were located within the recommended reach and vision envelopes. The results of this review are included in Section 6.3.3.3 of this report.

3-8

~.

o

3.2.5.7 Workspace Review Control Room equipment arrangement drawings were reviewed for equipment locations that could potentially detract from or degrade Control Room personnel activ-ities. In addition, vendor-supplied radiation monitor-ing equipment front panels were compared to human factors labeling and component arrangement criteria.

Preliminary rearrangement recommendations were made and reviewed by CP&L and EBASCO. Final arrangement recommendations that incorporated all review concerns were documented.

3.2.5.8 Results The primary problems with Control Room equipment arrangement were:

a. Because of the small size of many of the indicator lights on the radiation monitoring equipment, these cabinets appeared to be located too far from the operator's primary workstation.

b. A long string of ll vertical cabinets located close to the east wall potentially would present the operator with a difficult visual monitoring task because of their distance and random order.

This initial arrangement is shown in Figure 3-1 (equipment numbers are defined in Table 3-1).

It was recommended that the Control Room equipment. be located as shown in Figure 3-2. This arrangement takes into consideration what is currently understood in terms of operator interfaces with the various vertical panels.

3-9

~.

~ o 0

A detailed description of the workspace review, Recom-mended Control Room Equipment Arrangement, is contained in the project data files and was included in the "Human Factors Design Evaluation Report for Shearon Harris Unit 1 Control Room," dated 23 January 1981, revised 16 September 1981.

Changes to the recommended Control Room arrangement were made because of the addition of new panels/equip-ment. A workspace survey was conducted in the CRDR Completion/Reassessment Phase to determine if the "as built" Control Room arrangements conform to the guidelines in NUREG-0700. The results of this survey are contained in Section 6.3.3.2 of this report.

3-10

182 O 181 188 HVAC X

1C DWG KOT TO SCALE NL15 1A1 19 13 TKNMIIARY COKSTRUCTIOK WALL te 1 7 t1 10 9 9 9 5 i 3 VlSITOR'S GALLERY (EAST WALQ Figure 3-1 INITIAL ARRANGEMENT (REF CAR-2166G-324'PEN REV 3 AS OF 25 JULY l980) FOR SHNPP-1 CONTROL ROOM. FOR EQUIPMENT IDENTIFICATION SEE TABLE 3-1

TABLE 3-1 EQUIPMENT NUMBER IDENTIFICATION USED IN FINAL ANALYSIS (See Figures 3-1 and 3-2)

E ui ment No. Nomenclature 1 RCP Vibration Monitor Cabinet 2 Gross Failed Fuel Detection Console 3 Loose Parts Monitor Cabinet 4 Seismic Monitor Cabinet 5 Axial Power Distr 6 Monitor Panel 6 Cooling Tower and River Make Up Control Cabinet 7 Cond Booster Hyd Coupling Cont Cab 8 generator Relay Panel lA I

9 Generator Relay panel 1B 10 Startup Transformer Relay Panel lA ll Startup Transformer Relay Panel 1B 12 Radiation Monitor Panel SA 13 Radiation Monitor Panel SB 14 Radiation Monitor Console 15 Radiation Monitor Printer 16 Incore Instrumentation 17 Nuclear Instrumentation System 18 Operator's Desk 19 Operator's Computer Console 20 Log and Alarm Typewriters and Console 21 Shift Foreman's Desk 22 Air Pack and Respirator Storage 3 12

~.

e.

1b1 182 188 HVAC 1C Z O

ALE CA81NETS l

1A2

~ 1e I I

t

'P 21 O

I Z 10 I

12'7 6 I 10 1A1 I 6

~

DWQ NOT SCALE 1AA 13 S i 3 2 l1 r e EAST WALL FIGURE 3-2 FINAL I FOR EQUIPMEÃZ IDENTIFICATION USE TABLE 3-1

~.

~ e

3.2.5.9 Annunciator Review A review of the annunciator drawings was conducted to determine to what extent related annunciator windows were grouped together and located over their related controls and displays. Using MCB drawings and copies of annunciator drawings, the location and grouping of all annunciator windows were reviewed. Preliminary location and grouping problems were identified and documented. During the MCB redesign effort the need for all annunciator windows was evaluated. Rec{uired annunciators were regrouped and relocated to correspond to the new MCB arrangement.

3.2.5.10 Results Results of the preliminary review identified 124 annunciator windows with potential location problems.

Of these, 70 were safety-systems related, ll could possibly lead to technical-specification violations if misread, and 43 had no direct relationship to safety systems or to technical- specification criteria.

Regrouping and relocating annunciators along with removal of all unnecessary windows during the MCB redesign effort resolved previously identified problems.

Xt was recommended that the applicable HERS be used to control the physical characteristics, such as labeling, when the annunciators were incorporated into the actual MCB. The annunciators were reviewed in the CRDR Com-pletion/Reassessment and the results are included in Section 6.3.3.6 of this report.

3 14

SECTION 4 0 OPERATIONAL REVIEW OF .

THE CONTROL ROOM BACK PANELS 4 ' INTRODUCTION An operational review was conducted from June 1983 to December 1983 on 13 back panels located in the control room, to evaluate their component layout and design according to criteria obtained from NUREG-0700. Back panel arrangement is shown in Figure 4-1.

The objectives of this review were to:

a. Assess the degree to which these back panels would support the requirements for plant operation.

b. Identify any missing instrumentation or controls that would be operationally required or of significant benefit to carrying out the above.

c. Identify any instrumentation or controls not required or of significant benefit in aiding the operator in achieving the first objective.

d. Assess the degree of compatibility between the back panels and MCB layout in terms of operator expectations and conventions established on the MCB and trained operator responses.

The scope of this review addressed the operational compatibility between the back panels and the MCB, and used the MCB design as the baseline standard for adequacy of instrumentation and controls, functional grouping< and component arrangements.

4-1

~.

o 0

4 ' REVIEW PROCEDURES The review was performed in four phases, which were information gath'ering, design familiarization, design review and evaluation, and documentation. The second and third phases were iterative processes performed over a period of several weeks. Additionally, two formal review and evaluation meetings were conducted in which detailed, step-by-step walkthroughs using the back panels were conducted. These walkthroughs were scheduled at the beginning and end of the review and evaluation phase, in order'o allow ample time to consider initial review findings.

Documentation collected and used for familiarization and review included front panel drawings of the back panels, front panel drawings of the MCB and associated control room equipment, the SHNPP-1 FSAR, and manufacturer's operating and maintenance instructions. A complete list of this material is contained in 4.5, Bibliography.

4-2

4 3 EVALUATION CRITERIA 4.3.1 Panel La out Cr'te 'a These criteria were the MCB and related control room panel layouts. As the MCB had been previously developed and designed to rigid operational and HF criteria, it was decided that the back panel layouts should reflect, as closely as possible, the MCB layout in order to optimize training and experience transfer.

4.3.2 eneral Hu an Factors C 'teria These criteria were taken from Section 6, Control Room Human Engineering Guidelines, of NUREG-0700, as applicable. The primary criteria were taken from Sections 6.8 and 6.9. Additional criteria were taken from other subsections of Section 6 that addressed operationally relevant issues. Completed copies of these guidelines, in checklist and questionnaire format, are filed in the review data file.

4.3.3 ac Panel Descrons

a. Of the 13 back panels that were evaluated, all but 2 (Nos.

1 and 4) serve specialized functions in the control room.

The 13 panels are:

l. Auxiliary Equipment Panel No. 1

2. Incore Monitor

3. Nuclear Instrumentation

4. Recorder Panel

5. Startup Transformer Protection Relays

6. Generator Protection Relays 4-3

7. Gross Failed Fuel Detection

8. Digital Metal Impact Monitoring System

9. Reactor Coolant Pump Vibration Monitor

10. Seismic Monitoring System ll. Cooling Tower Makeup and Control

12. Radiation Monitoring System

13. Axial Power Distribution Monitoring System

b. The Auxiliary Equipment Panel No. 1 (AEP-1) contains assorted instrumentation and controls that deal primarily with sampling isolation and HVAC. The Recorder Panel contains strip chart recorders that were removed from the MCB and replaced with computer-controlled CRT displays.

Subsequent paragraphs of this section contain brief functional descriptions of these 13 panels.

4 4

4 ' RESULTS Each of the following sections contain a brief description of the system or function reviewed, the operational concerns and the human factors concerns. ,Summary descriptions and resolutions of the HEDs are contained in Appendix A-3 through A-15. The HEDs have been assessed, prioritized and improvements verified per Section 7.0.

4.4.1 Aux'liar E ui ment Panel 1 AEP-1

4. 4. 1. 1 The AEP-1 contains miscellaneous instrumentation and controls that, while technically nuclear-safety-system-related, are of secondary importance to the operation of the plant. Predominant in this equipment are numerous sampling isolation valve controls and HVAC'instrumentation and controls for the Reactor Auxiliary Building (RAB) and the Fuel Handling Building (FHB)

4. 4. 1.

a. Component grouping on the AEP-1 is adequate.

Grouping arrangement generally has all sampling groups on the left, miscellaneous control groups near the center, and HVAC equipment located to the right. There was one exception to this, as the steam generator blowdown components were located in the middle of the sampling isolation valve control groups. However, this is the operationally preferred location.

4-5

b. Sequencing of components within groups follow the CP&L convention of bottom-to-top or left-to-right. Exceptions were found in both HVAC component groups, where exhaust damper and/or fan controls or indicators were located before (i.e., at the bottom or left) their related inlet fan and damper controls or indicators. These components have been rearranged to conform to conventions.

c. Labeling was found to be inaccurate or missing in a few instances. The feedwater chemical additive isolation valve controls, while subgrouped and labeled, did not have a group label. A control group labeled as the Fuel Pump should be the Fuel Pool Cooling Pump. Labels will be corrected and re-engraved prior to fuel load.

4.4.1.3 ~suits Summary descriptions and resolutions of the AEP-1 HEDs are contained in Appendix A-3.

4.4.2 nco Inst umentat'on st I RE 4.4.2.1 st Desc t'

a. The INCORE is designed to monitor, display, and record information on neutron flux distribution and fuel assembly outlet temperatures at selected locations within the reactor core. This information makes it possible to confirm reactor core design parameters and calculated hot channel factors.

When the system is used in conjunction with previously determined information, fission power 4-6

~.

distribution at any time during the life of the core can be determined. The INCORE also provides information that can be used to calculate the enthalpy distribution.

b. The INCORE instrumentation consists of 50 incore flux thimbles to permit measurement of the axial neutron distribution within the core. This is accomplished by inserting up to five movable, miniature neutron flux detectors into pre-selected thimbles and scanning the length of the fuel assem-blies adjacent to the thimbles. Fuel assembly outlet temperatures are monitored by 51 chromel-alumel thermocouples installed at the exit flow end of selected fuel assemblies.

c. The flux mapping readout and control equipment consists of four cabinets of equipment that allow for either semi-automatic or manual control of the flux mapping process. These cabinets contain separate controls, digital position display, and power supply for each detector. Common equipment, including a path display, a common control panel, low level readout, and three 2-pen strip chart recorders are also included. Primary readout of the thermocouples is by plant computer, with backup readout provided by a precision indicator with manual point selection (Wheatstone Bridge).

4-7

~.

4.4.2.2 22224244

a. The INCORE cabinet instrumentation and controls are generally well laid out and labeled. Hier-archical labeling was used throughout, and the indicator lights had individual press-to-test functions.

b. The Battery Supply and Picoampere Source panels are not used by Operations. These panels are used by Reactor Engineering and cannot be removed.

c. The path display came with a "generic" type of coordinate labeling that tended to make the correlation between the path selector switches (labeled as 1 through 10) and itself a somewhat complicated process. Once the system is completely installed and operational, this labeling will be changed or supplemented with more specific labeling, which will make path selection a much more straightforward process.

d. The upper controls and instrumentation on Detectors A, C, and E were difficult to reach and hard to read, particularly for the smaller stature operators. There is no room to relocate these components below the 5th percentile f'emale reach criteria.

4.4. 2 ~ 3 g~ su ~ts Summary descriptions and resolutions of the INCORE HEDs are contained in Appendix A-4.

4-8

4.4.3 uc a Inst u entat on ste I 4.4.3.1 stem Descri t'on

a. The NIS monitors the power level of the reactor at all times. It is used primarily for plant protection, and it provides appropriate alarm functions for various phases of plant operating and shutdown conditions. It also provides an indication of reactor status during startup and power operation.

b. Three overlapping ranges of instrumentation provide over-power trip protection at increasing levels of power during startup and power operation. Audible and visual indications of neutron count rate and an audible, level alarm are also provided to alert personnel to any potentially hazardous conditions.

c. The 3 overlapping ranges of instrumentation are the source range (which measures power in counts-per-minute), the intermediate range (which measures power in milliamperes), and the power range (which measures power in percent-full-power).

Redundancy is built into each of these instrumentation sources. The source and intermediate ranges each have 2 separate channels, while the power range has 4 separate channels.

d. The NIS functions only to monitor reactor output and does not directly control the reactor.

Instrumentation and controls contained on the front panels function to adjust and control the NIS only.

4-9

O.

~

e. The primary operator interface is to log various parameters displayed by the system at predetermined intervals and to perform periodic Operational Surveillance Tests to check and adjust various alarm set-points.

4.4.1.1

a. The front panel equipment is logically and reasonably arranged and fairly well labeled.

There were some missing component labels, and some of the abbreviations and acronyms found were not consistent with those used on the MCB. Labels will be provided or re-engraved prior to fuel load.

b. The top drawers, composed of the Source Range N-31< the Source Range N-32, the Flux Deviation, Miscellaneous Controls and Indications, and the Audio Count Rate Channel panels were difficult to see and reach for the smaller stature operators.

There is no room to relocate components below the 5th percentile female reach criteria.

4.4.3.3 gysu'its Summary descriptions and resolutions of the NIS HEDs are included in Appendix A-5.

4.4.4

a. This panel contains a number of strip chart recorders that were removed from the MCB. These recorders were replaced on the MCB with CRT-presented information.

4-10

b. Since alternate forms of the displayed informa-tion were available on the MCB, these recorders serve a primary function of producing historical records of the various parameters.

c. Systems represented in these groups of components include the Residual Heat Removal, Component Cooling Water, Reactor Coolant System, Pressuri-zer< Containment, Main Steam< Turbine, Refueling Water Storage Tank, and Boric Acid. The reactor is also represented with upper and lower flux recorders, and a pair of 200% full power recorde-rs.

d. At minimum, the operator will need to check each recorder, service all recorders as necessary, and initial the traces once per shift.

4.4.5.2 Rev'ew Summa

a. The labeling is inadequate and/or inaccurate.

Each recorder had two labels that identified the pen-parameter. On a number of these labels there was disagreement as to exactly what was displayed on each pen for any given recorder. Labels will be corrected and re-engraved prior to fuel load.

b. No demarcation or summary labels were used.

These would be of distinct benefit to anyone needing to locate a given recorder. Demarcation and hierarchical labeling will be provided prior to fuel load.

O.

~ o

c. The recorders were grouped somewhat by system.

However, the sequence of arrangement of the groups was partially mirror-imaged to the sequence of arrangement for these same groups on the MCB.

Grouping of recorders will be apparent with the demarcation and hierarchical labeling.

d. In addition to the labeling problems noted in a.,

above, the nuclear recorders for the reactor were inconsistent in the sequence of the instrumentation channels. The recorders for the upper and lower flux had the sequence of N-41, N-42, N-43, and N-44, while the 200% full power recorders had the sequence of N-41, N-43, N-42, and N-44. Channel relations will be apparent with the demarcation and hierarchical labeling.

4.4.4.3 Rsesu ts Summary descriptions and resolutions of Recorder Panel HEDs are included in Appendix.A-6.

4.4s5 tartu T ansfo me P otec n e a P ne

~ .4. ~ .1

a. This panel contains the majority of the relay protection for startup transformers A and B.

(

There are also controls for the bus-tie breakers that connect the primaries of the transformers to their 230KV sources. And, there are lockout relays and automatic reclosure overrides for each transformer on this panel. A drum-type megawatt-hour meter, is mounted in the "A" section of the 4-12

~.

~ o

panel, and a phone jack is located in the "B" section.. Both panel sections have a complement of covered blade switches near the bottom that are labeled as test devices.

b. The complement of protection relays includes 2 sets of differential relays, an auxiliary lockout relay, and a set of over-current relays for each transformer. There are 2 backlit projection displays mounted in the "A" section that are labeled as display units.

c. The operator interface with this panel is minimal during plant operation. There may develop some requirements for logging various accumulative readings, but at present no such requirements have been finalized.

~ 2

a. Layout of the components is typical of this type of panel and does not present any significant operator problems.

b. Breakers 52-13 and 52-14 for transformer B were mislabeled. Labels will be corrected prior to fuel load.

4.4.5.3 Jesuits Summary descriptions and resolutions of the Startup Transformer Protection Relay Panel HEDs are included in Appendix A-7.

4-13

4.4.6 ene

4. ~ .6.1 ~

a.

to P otect on Re P n This panel contains the relay protection for the output of the main generator. This output is tied to the main transformer that goes to the switchyard distribution system, and to the two unit auxiliary transformers.

b. The protection relays include sets of differential relays for the 3 transformers, generator relays that include differential< over-current@

over-excitation, anti-motoring, negative sequence, distance, ground supervisory, under-frequency, voltage balance, and synchronizing check relays, and lockout relays for the generator and trans-formers.

c. Metering is also included on this panel. Metering is composed of in and out var-hour meters and a watt-hour meter for the generator, and a watt-hour meter for the total watt-hours from both unit auxiliary transformers.

d. There are also projection displays and banks of covered blade switches installed on this panel that are similar to those on the start-up transformer protection relay panel.

4-14

~.

o

~,

e. The operator interface with this panel is minimal during plant operation. There may develop some requirements for logging various accumulative readings, but at present no such requirements have been finalized.

4.4.6.2 Rev'ew Summa

a. Layout of the components on this panel is par-tially grouped by major system element< i.e.<

by main generator, unit auxiliary, transformer 1A, and unit auxiliary transf ormer 1B. This grouping strategy is only partially followed in that there was more than one group of relays for each major system element.

b. The 2 sets of differential relays associated with each unit auxiliary transformer were not identified as to the engineering parameter involved, such as voltage or current.

c. A single, white-lensed simple indicator light was mounted directly above each lockout relay control and is unlabeled. Labels will be provided prior to fuel load.

4.4.6.3 ~ssu ts Summary descriptions and resolutions of the Generator Protection Relay Panel HEDs are included in Appendix A-S.

4 15

4.4.7 oss F ed Fu D t to ste FFD 4.4.7.1 ste Desc t'on

a. The purpose of the GFFDS is to provide an alarm in the event of possible gross fuel failure. The system continuously monitors the neutron activity in a continuous fluid sample drawn from the primary reactor coolant. The neutron activity provides a rapid indication of gross amounts of fission products contained in the reactor coolant resulting from possible fuel defects.

b. The in-service experience of the GFFDS has been limited to experimental rather than operational conditions. Therefore, the operational aspects of the system should be viewed as developmental.

c. The GFFDS is connected to a hot leg of a primary coolant loop where a sample passes through a sample cooler, then into a coil containing a neutron detector and moderator, after which it flows back to the volume control tank. During operation the flow through the sampler will be set and kept relatively constant (+5%) by an automatic flow control valve with an adjustable range of 0.2 to 2.0 gallons per minute. A flow meter provides local and remote indication of the flow rate, and thermocouples monitor the temperature of the neutron detector.

4- 16'

d. Other factors may cause the GFFDS count rate to change. The signal is proportional to the reactor power level; therefore, during increases in power the signal may overshoot its expected equilibrium value because of changes in migration time for existing fuel defects. Moreover, changes in the sample flow rate will change the sample delay time, thus affecting the system signal.

4.4.7.2 Review Sum ar

a. There are 2 alarm lights on the neutron monitoring panel; however, only one alarms on an increase in the cpm. This one was labeled the high alarm.

The low alarm light is, in fact, a system failure alarm that signifies either a loss of signal from the sampler or that the system has failed. A label indicating "system failure" will be provided prior to fuel load.

b. The alarm reset is integrated into a multi-position rotary selector switch called the operation selector. It was possible to leave this switch in the reset position. A warning label will be provided to ensure the switch is not left in the wrong position.

c. The numbered graduations on the 2-count scales were not labeled consistently. The upper (wide-range) scale had the numbers above the scale marks while the middle (narrow-range) scale had the numbers below the scale marks. This was somewhat confusing as it appeared that the top numbers applied to the top and middle scale, and that the lower scale had two sets of numbers.

4-17

=Operations has no problem reading this meter, no further action required.

4.4.7.3 Results Summary descriptions and resolutions of the GFFDS HEDs are included in Appendix A-9.

4.4.8 D'tal Metal Im act Mon'tor'n S ste DMIM 4.4.8.1 stem Desc i tion The DMIMS detects the presence of metallic objects in the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) when objects impact against the internal parts. Metallic impacts within the RCS generate pressure waves within the coolant.

These waves are detected as accelerations by strate-gically placed accelerometers that are part of the DMIMS. Other sources of pressure waves, such as pumps starting and control rods working, are also present within the RCS. The DMIMS differentiates between metallic impact pressure waves and other pressure

-waves by comparing the detected acceleration to a typical signature of a metallic impact,. Detected accelerations that are similar to this signature are recorded on the system's event recorder and initiate an alarm indication.

4 2

a. The f ront panel controls and instrumentation is well labeled and understandable.

4 - 18

b. Color-coding of some of the indicator lights and pushbuttons are not in agreement with the CP&L convention. Power on was indicated by an illuminated green pushbutton, while an alarm condition was indicated by an illuminated red LED. Each indication light is adequately labeled to clearly indicate the presence of the light.

Operators will also be trained on the color coding of each panel.

c. Many of the front panel controls are not used by operations. These components are used for calibration and maintenance and are grouped together below the chart controls. These components do not interfere with the operational components, no further action required.

d. No remote alarm capability was provided on the panel. A remote alarm has since been provided.

4.4.8.3 Jesuits Summary descriptions and resolutions of these HEDs are included in Appendix A-10.

4.4.9 eact C o ant Pu V'b at'on Mon't CP 4.4.9.1 stem Desc t'on

a. The RCPVM is comprised of probe and proximitor packages mounted at each RCP and connected to cabinet-mounted equipment that indicates the amplitudes and frequencies of the pump and pump motor shaft vibrations. The system is also equipped with a locked rotor indicator for each pump motor.

4 19

Set-points may be established to generate an alarm when a predetermined vibration level is exceeded.

These set-points consist of an alert (high) level and a danger (high-high) level vibration value for each RCP.

b. Each monitoring channel (2 for each pump) contains self-monitoring circuits that indicate an OK circuit condition. Additionally, there is a common lamp test switch on the power supply face that tests all front-panel indicator lights.

~ .4.9.2

a. Labeling was incomplete. The locked-rotor modules (2 each) had 2 channels per module. Labels will be provided prior to fuel load.

b. No alarm reset controls are provided on the front panels, except for a reset on the front of the power supply. Remote alarm capability is tied to MCB annunciators.

4.4.9.3 ~suits Summary descriptions and resolutions of these HEDs are included in Appendix A-ll.

4.4.10 eism c Mon t ste M 4 '.10.1 ste D scr t on

a. The SNS is a multi-channel strong motion accelerograph. It features central recording on magnetic tape cassettes with remote accelerometer and trigger packages. The system remains in standby until an earthquake causes the trigger to actuate the recording circuits and the tape transport.

4-20

b. For the SHNPP-1 system, 3 accelerometers furnish data for longitudinal, transverse and vertical accelerations above the trigger set-point. The seismic trigger circuitry senses an initial earthquake ground motion and actuates the SMS to full operation in less than 100 milliseconds.

The system will operate for as long as the trigger detects the earthquake plus an additional 10 seconds.

c. The system includes a calibration capability and a seismic trigger test function. Calibration features allow for recording at the beginning and end of each cassette, the natural frequency response for each accelerometer.

d. The SMS contains an event indicator and an event alarm. The indicator shows when an earthquake has been recorded. Before an event it is black, and after an event it is white. The event alarm is illuminated during the recording of an event and is automatically reset when the system stops recording. The event indicator is reset by turning a key selector switch momentarily to a test position.

4.4.14.2

a. No information was available to indicate remote alarm capability. This has been tied to the MCB annunciators.

4-21

O.

0

b. Color-coding of the various indicator lights was inconsistent with the color-coding used throughout the rest of the room.. Each indicator is adequately labeled to clearly indicate presence of the light.

Operators will be trained on the color coding of each panel.

c. The front panel labeling on the panel has a low contrast color (amber), and the labels were difficult to read. The labels will be filled with black pigment prior to fuel load.

4.4.10.3 results Summary descriptions and resolutions of these HEDs are included in Appendix A-12.

4.4.11 Coo n o e Ma u d C nt o P e ste D scron a ~ The cooling tower provides a means of cooling the circulating water from the condenser system of the plant through evaporative cooling. Discharge water is pumped to a point approximately 40 feet up the tower where it is allowed to cascade down the inner wall face. Cooling of the water occurs because of the natural convection airflow up through the center of the tower. Natural convection occurs as cool air entering at the bottom of the tower and absorbing heat from the water, rises, thereby drawing more cool air in at the base. The cooled water is collected- in the cooling tower basin, where it may be returned to the plant system or discharged to the reservoir. Makeup water can be added to the system between the basin discharge and the service water pump suctions.

4 22

b. The cooling tower makeup and control panel provide controls and instrumentation for monitoring the flow of water to and from the tower, for distributing the water to the tower between a tower bypass flow and the tower itself, and for makeup of the tower basin level to compensate for water loss in the system. Additional controls are provided for the operation of the tower de-icing system.

a. Five meters were located about the maximum height requirements. Three of the meters were relocated.

The two meters not relocated are larger and readable at the current location.

b. There was a significant number of unnecessary labels on the panel located above a series of blocked holes intended for the future addition of units 2, 3, and 4 cooling towers. These labels added to the undesirable visual clutter on this panel. All unused labels have been removed.

c. The silence function within the annunciator system was wired into the acknowledge function. A separate silence control has been added.

4.4.ll.3 ~esu ts Summary 'descriptions and resolutions of these HEDs are included in Appendix A-13.

4 23

4.4.12 ad'ation Monitor'n ste 4.4.12.1 stem Desc on The major function of the Radiation Monitoring System (RMS) is to provide plant operations personnel and health physics personnel with both current and historical measurements of radiological conditions in certain areas and plant systems during both normal and design basis conditions.

In addition, this system automatically produces alarms to warn plant personnel, and in certain cases exerts control action when unusual radiological conditions or equipment malfunctions occur.

b. The two major components of this system are: (1) the plant-wide radiation gathering and control system, comprised of the process and effluent monitors and the area and airborne monitors, and (2) the digital distributed microprocessor-based system in which full functional capability resides locally at the microprocessor controlling each monitor.

c. The RMS is divided into the following 2 portions:

(1) a non-safety portion that is composed of the local monitors and 4 operator's consoles, and (2) a safety-related portion that is composed of the local monitors and two safety-related panels.

4 24

~.

d. Each operator's console is associated with a dedicated minicomputer, CRT, and hard copy typer.

Each monitor is part of a loop connecting two operator's consoles. The operator's consoles that are so connected are: Control Room and Computer Room and the WPB Control Room and Health Physics Room.

4.4.12.2 Rev'ew Sum ar

a. The labeling for the RMS cabinet is less than desirable. Labels do not meet readability criteria:

letters are too small as are the spaces between words and lines. Labels will be re-engraved prior to fuel load.

b. Although several anthropometric problems were found, such as the locations of key-operated switches and strip chart recorders, no backfit was required. The key-operated switches are not used in the operation of the equipment. The recorders are not primary displays, are used infrequently, and precise readings are not required.

4.4.12.3 results Summary descriptions and the disposition of these HEDs are included in Appendix A-14.

4-25

~.

o

4.4.13 Ax'a Pow D st ibut' Mon tor s em APDM 4.4.13.1 stem Desc t'on a ~ The Axial Power Distribution Monitor System is a neutron surveillance system that calculates the core average axial power distribution on a continuous basis, provides a visual display of the calculated axial power distribution, and activates an alarm should the calculated axial power distribution exceed a predetermined set-point.

b. The APDMS consists of a multi-section excore power range neutron detector that is located within containment (inside a spare detector well) and an electronics cabinet that is located in the control room. The electronics cabinet, in turn, houses the following 4 major functional subsystems: (1)

Plant Interface Units - providing input and output signals for the APDMS and consisting of a distribution box, a detector interface chassis and an analog voltage meter, (2) Operator Interface Units providing the operator a means to interact with the APDMS and consists of a keyswitch, keyboard and alarm reset switch, a CRT screen, and a status/printer panel, (3) Microprocessor Unit consisting of multibus compatible printed circuit cards that are used for data processing, and (4)

Miscellaneous Units consisting of the blower assembly that assists the natural air convection process< and the AC power panel that receives incoming power and provides a means for the input power to be distributed to other units within the cabinet.

4 - 26

~.

o

c. The APDMS system uses the electric currents from the multi-section ionization chamber assembly, a delta-t based reactor power level signal from the process instrumentation, and a control rod bank D demand position signal from the process instrumen-tation (6 electrical signals) to calculate the core power levels at a number of discrete points along the height of the core. Each of the calculated power values is compared to a peak power (KW/FT Limit) set-point for that particular core elevation within the APDMS system. If any of the calculated power values equals or exceeds its set-point value, a peak power (KW/FT) alarm is actuated.

4. ~ .33.2

a. The labeling of the panels does not meet readability criteria. The indicator light for circuitry and the'eyboard control selector switch are not labeled. The function key labeling does not meet readability requirements. Additionally, unapproved abbreviations are used on the panel component labels. Operations has no problem with the current labeling and the abbreviations have been added to the abbreviations list.

b. Color Coding conventions are not met.

Inconsistencies in color coding are found on indicator lights and the panel alarm reset pushbutton control. Because each indicator and switch is adequately labeled to clearly indicate the presence of the light of function or the control, no further action's required.

4 27

~.

c. Rocker switches, such as CRT power switch< have direction of movement that is opposite from convention, in addition to being oriented horizontally. There is no consequence of error if this switch is operated incorrectly, no further action is required.

4.4.13.3 results Summary descriptions and the disposition of these HEDs are included in Appendix A-15.

4-28

~.

~ o

4 ' BIBLIOGRAPHY Gu'del 'nes f ont ol Ro m Rev'ews, NUREG-0700, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Sept. 1981 u an En and R. G.

'neerin uid to E Kinkade (Eds.), U.

u't S. Government Desi n, H. P. Van Cott Printing Office, Wash., D. C., 1972 Hu an Fact rs 'n En 'neerin and D s' 4th Ed't',

E. J. McCormick, McGraw-Hill, N. Y., N Y g 1976 0 at' and Ma'nt nance Ma ual P c a e (for the RCP Vibration Monitor), System Model 14127-01, West. Elect. Corp., P.O. Number 541-AJ-32102; Bently-Nevada Corp., Job Number 79494-00, Ref. 0 27645-2A, no date e t'n Inst uct'ons f s 'c M n' '

Kinemetricsf Inc. (CP&L SHNPP)i File 0 16 6075@ Rev 12/8lg P 0 '0 P265i Copy 0 2 earon Har s uclear P e P ant F'n af t na s's Vols. 1,4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13, and Amendments Nos. 1 through 10, 13 Sept. 1983 T c n'cal Manual f D't 1 M al I ac M n to st Vols. I and II, West. Elect. Corp. (CP&L, SHNPP No 1), File 4 16-1095, Rev. 8/82, P. O. 0 5919, Transmittal/Letter 4 EP/SA 37782< Copy 4 2 c ni Manu fo oss F '1 d Fu D t , Vols.

I and II, West. Elect. Corp. (CP&L< SHNPP Nos 1&2) < File 16-2105, P. O. 4 5310, Transmittal/Letter 4 CQL2354, Copy 02 4-29

T c n'ca Manual In-Co Elect. Corp. (CP&L, e Inst SHNPP umenta Nos 1&2),

File Vols. I and II< West.

41050, P. 0. OS360, Transmittal/Letter 4 CQL3350, Copy 02 Tec n'ca Manua Nu 1 ar Inst u nt t'on, Vols. I and II, West.

Elect. Corp. (CP&L, SHNPP Nos 1&2), File 0 16-1050, P. 0.

S360, Transmittal/Letter 0 CQL335), Copy 02 DRAW GI AEP-1 Annunciator Light Box Engraving g CAR 2166 B-401, Rev.

Auxiliary Equipment Panel 1, Class lE, AEP-1 (NS), Front View/

SK-E-350, STRFIG.7, Rev 1, 9-10-92 Recorder Panel - Seismic Category 1, CAR-SH-IN-39< STRFIG.6<

Rev. 0, 6-15-91 4 30

~.

FIGURE 4-1 8 9 PO 1P Z8 5Z 13 58 PASS'EAT CONTROL BOO~V l,A3 OUT SHEAAON HARRIS MJCLEAA POD'EA PI.ANT 4 31

~.

~ '

TABLE 4-1 EQUIPMENT NUMBER IDENTIFICATION FOR FIGURE 4-1 t oi om nc atu e 1 RCP Vibration Monitor Cabinet 2 Gross Failed Fuel Detection Console 3 Loose Parts Monitor Cabinet 4 Seismic Monitor Cabinet 5 Axial Power Distr & Monitor Panel 6 Cooling Tower Make-up Control 7 Cond Booster Hyd Coupling Cont Cabinet 8 Generator Relay Panel lA 9 Generator Relay Panel 1B 10 Startup Transformer Relay Panel lA ll 12 Startup Transformer Relay Panel 1B Radiation Monitor Panel SA 13 Radiation Monitor Panel SB 14 Radiation Monitor Console 15 Radiation Monitor Printer*

16 Incore Instrumentation 17 Nuclear Instrumentation System 18 Operator's Desks 19 Operator's Computer Console 20 Log and Alarm Typewriters 21 Shift Foreman's Desk 22 Air Pack and Respirator Storage 23 RVLIS Console 24 Shift Foreman's Computer Console 25 Recorder Panel 26 Auxiliary Equipment Panel-1 27 Bookcase 28 VISCS 29 Communications Console 30 SRO's Desk

• Removed from control room 4 32

~.

SECTION 5.0 HUMAN FACTORS DETAILED DESIGN REVIEW

5.1 INTRODUCTION

OF THE AUXILIARY CONTROL PANEL The Auxiliary Control Panel (ACP) is the facility installed at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 (SHNPP-1) to serve as a remote hot shutdown facility. In case of a Control Room Evacuation Requirement (CRER) the operator is able to achieve and maintain a hot standby condition from this panel.

A human factors evaluation of the ACP was conducted from June 1983 to December 1983 to evaluate the ACP design in terms of NUREG-0700 guidelines. The evaluation also assessed the operational compatibility between the ACP and the MCB.

The objectives of this evaluation were:

a. To determine to what extent the ACP design incorporated the applicable human factors engineering principles as defined in Section 6.0 of NUREG-0700.

b. To determine whether the ACP provided the necessary plant status information, control capabilities, feedback, and other necessary aids required by Control Room operators to achieve and maintain a hot shutdown of the plant remote from the Control Room.

c. To identify and document discrepancies from the above determinations and to suggest possible solutions for the discrepancies.

5-1

O.

0

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA The evaluation crxterxa were composed of human factors engineering criteria and operational criteria. The organization and application of the criteria to the ACP evaluation are discussed in detail in Section 5.3, Review Procedures.

5.2.1 Human Factors Criteria Section 6.0 of NUREG-0700 furnished the human factors criteria.

Applicable paragraphs of Section 6.0 were specifically and individually addressed either during component reviews or during operational reviews. Criteria that did not apply to the ACP (e.g., computer console design criteria) were marked as N/A (not applicable) in file copies of NUREG-0700, Section 6.0. Design features that could not be evaluated because of the stage of construction were evaluated in the CRDR Completion/Reassessment Phase.

5.2.1 0 erat'onal Cr'teria Operational criteria were of 2 major types: operational experience as represented by members of the operational review group, and design documentation that established the operational context and defined the plant system and engineering constraints.

Of particular value in the operational portion of the evaluation was the Control Room MCB design. The MCB design established the major grouping and component arrangement criteria, as the MCB had been previously designed to rigorous operational and human factors standards.

5-2

O.

5.3 REVIEW PROCEDURES

~ The review was performed in 3 phases, which were a planning phase, a design review phase and a reporting phase.

The planning phase included the development and preparation of the necessary review files, inventory records and review procedures.

The design review phase consisted of the following three major activities:

a. The assessment of the ACP instrumentation, controls, and other equipment for human factors acceptability as components or design features, without reference to their specific uses in task performance.

b. The assessment of the ACP design within the context of CPaL's operating experience for the adequacy of instrumentation and

~ other equipment to support execution of the required operator tasks.

c. The identification, documentation and review of any discrepancies from the above assessments to include the development of suggested solutions for the discrepancies.

The reporting phase consisted of preparing a final report that documented the review findings.

5-3

~.

~ e

~,

5.3.1 urve and Rev'ew Procedures During the design review phase, a total of 8 general ACP surveys and reviews were conducted, and 1 operational review was per-formed. These surveys and reviews, described in detail in sub-sequent paragraphs of this section, were the following:

a. Workspace Survey

b. Anthropometrics Survey

c. Maintainability Survey

d. Annunciator System Review

e. Controls Survey

f. Displays Survey

g. Labels and Location Aids Survey

h. Conventions Survey

i. Operational Review The following surveys and reviews were not conducted for the reasons stated:

a. Emergency Equipment Survey not applicable to ACP design 4

b. HVAC Survey too early in plant construction phase, design feature not available

c. Illumination Survey too early in plant construction phase, design feature not available

d. Ambient Noise Survey too early in plant construction phase, design feature not available 5-4

e. Communications Survey too early in plant construction phase, design feature not available

f. Computer System Review not applicable to the ACP design.

The 8 surveys were conducted using 8. task plans that had been adopted from a standard set of the 14 task plans described in Section 6.0, paragraph 6.3.2.

These 14 task plans would constitute a complete Control Room review portion of a NUREG-0700 CRDR at an operating plant.

The 8 selected plans were modified and adapted to the stage of construction at SHNPP-1 and the more limited functional design of the ACP. Each of these task plans (both the unadapted and the ACP-adapted) directed data collection, analysis, and HED report generation based on a mix of 4 basic data collection procedures, which were: 1) measurements, 2) observations, 3) interviews and questionnaires, and 4) document reviews. Each task plan used one or more of these procedures to collect the data needed to evaluate the task plan-designated area of design.

An operational review plan was developed during the prepared phase in order to evaluate the ACP design within an operational context that considered operator task requirements. This plan was developed to be compatible with the task plan organization and addressed various operational criteria and the applicable NUREG-0700 guidelines in Section 6.8, Panel Layout, and 6.9, Control Display Integration.

5-5

Additional NUREG-0700 guidelines were included from the task plan operator Interview/ Questionnaire. Because of the lack of an experienced operator population for SHNPP-1 at the time of the review, particularly the ACP, these guidelines were more appropriately addressed during the operational review.

The operational review procedures organized the review into 4 phases, which were, information gathering, design familiarization, design review and evaluation, and documentation. The second and third phases were iterative processes that were performed over a period of several weeks. Additionally, two formal review and evaluation meetings were conducted in which detailed, step-by-step walkthroughs were performed using the ACP design drawings. These walkthroughs were scheduled at the beginning and end of the review and evaluation phase in order to allow ample time to consider all initial review findings.

The major accomplishments of the design familiarization phase and the design review and evaluation phase were the following:

a. Establishment of scenarios and assumptions needed to define the ACP-related operating events.

b. Identification of the ACP instrumentation and control requirements for support of the operating events.

c. Verification that operator tasks could (or could not) be performed with the existing ACP instruments and controls.

d. Validation that the functions allocated to the Control Room operators at the. ACP could (or could not) be effectively accomplished within the planned procedures structure and the existing ACP design.

5-6

~.

e. Documentation of any potential shortcomings in the ACP design based upon a-d above.

Operational review documentation consisted of an Operational Review Report that documented the objectives, procedures, criteria and findings of the review. The identified operational concerns were correlated with specific criteria and documented in HED reports as potential design discrepancies. These HED reports were cross-referenced to the Operational Review Report and its criteria in a manner similar to that previously described for the general surveys and reviews.

A copy of the Operational Review Report was filed in the Review Data File.

5-7

5.4 RESULTS 5.4.1 Review Summar The ACP design was compared to the applicable guidelines from NUREG-0700, Section 6.0.

The results of each task plan survey are summarized below.

Summary descriptions of the ACP HEDs and the dispositions of each HED are included in Appendix A-16. The HEDs have been assessed and prioritized and improvement verified per Section 7.0.

5.4.2 orks ace Surve

a. The review of the workspace arrangement for the ACP area addressed such issues as clearances between equipment and walls, and general room arrangement features.

b. The benchboard-to-opposing wall distance was less than 50 inches. Clearance was determined to be acceptable for the required operator traffic, no furth'er action required.

5.4.3 Anth o ometr'cs u e

a. The review of the anthropometrics of the ACP design addressed the anthropometric characteristics for a standard stand-up console with benchboard.

5-8

O.

~ e

b. Controls on the vertical section and the top row of controls on the benchboard section of the board were beyond the female 5th percentile functional reach. Also the bottom row of controls on the vertical section and the top row of controls on the benchboard section were beyond the male 95th percentile functional reach. Controls are located within the functional reach criteria, no further action required.

c. Annunciator tiles to the left of the response station and 8 tiles to the right of the response station were beyond the maximum viewing distance for the planned character height of .25 inches. All replaced annunciator tiles will be re-engraved with just three lines of text and increased letter heights.

5.4.4 ainta'n b'l't ur e

a. The maintainability features of the ACP addressed such issue's as the availability, storage and inventory of spare parts and tools, replacement of fuses and other expendables, and general operator maintainability of equipment.

b. No HED reports resulted from this review.

5.4.5 nnunc'ator ste Rev'ew

a. The annunciator system design was compared to applicable NUREG-0700 guidelines during this review. (Additional operational/functional assessment of the annunciator system was also performed during the Operational Review see Section 5.4.10.) This review addressed such issues as the engraved characteristics of the messages, consistency of message contents (such as abbreviations and acronyms), and general arrangement features.

b. Annunciator response pushbuttons were determined to be slightly smaller in one dimension than recommended, button resistance was marginally high, button surface design was not slip-resistant, and there wexe no barriers between the 3 contiguous buttons. Also there was not a separate silence control pushbutton. The annunciator response module is being replaced and a silence pushbutton will be added.

c. Multiple input tiles were identified as being potentially suspect. The tiles with 3 or 4 messages will be re-engraved, dropping all messages and adding the word "trouble".

d. Problems with missing, ambiguous, or non-specific tile and/or ALB labeling were identified. The annunciator tiles will be corrected prior to fuel load.

e. The number of tiles in an ALB exceeded the recommended 50-tile maximum (the 3 ALBs each have 56 tiles) . Also<

no demarcation lines were used to set off groups of tiles within the ALBs. System labels and coordinate labels will be added to all ALBs to aid in locating individual components.

5 10

5.4.6 Cont ols Surve

a. No actual control modules (other than the annunciator response station) had been installed in the ACP at the time of this review. However, engineering information indicated that these modules would be identical to those used on the MCB. Therefore, the results and recommendations were based upon the MCB control modules.

b. The ACP control modules (as represented on the MCB) were evaluated for a number of characteristics such as knob configuration and dimensions, type of control, handle coding and labeling.

c. Pushbutton displacement on process controllers was identified as less than the recommended minimum of .125 inches. This was determined not to be a problem since the displacement is approximately 2/3 the criteria and no heavy glove activation is required.

d. Controls have been identified that move opposite from the preferred convention. The controls have been corrected with the exception of RHR Safety Injection switches.

These switches have been color coded to serve as a reminder that they do not follow convention.

e. Problems associated with the only knurled style of knob were identified. The knob was marginally too short and was extremely uncomfortable and very difficult to move.

The related control module shaft torque was very high.

The maximum recommended torque is 6 in-lbs. These controls had torque readings in the range of 9 to 10 in-lbs.

Additionally, operators had complained about the difficulty of operating these controls.. A replacement knob is not available. If one becomes available the switch will be replaced.

5.4.7 D s la Su ve

a. The ACP displays were evaluated for a number of physical characteristics such as configurations, scale number progressions, readability of vertical labels, and overall scale readability.

b. Labeling discrepancies primarily with the character proportions and spacing on the internal labeling on vertical meters were identified. Labeling will be corrected when meter faces are replaced.

c. The length of graduation marks, number of marks between numbers, and scale progressions that did not meet the guidelines on most meters were identified. Meter faces will be corrected prior to fuel load.

d. Function labels on meters when compared to their MCB counterparts were not consistent. Labels will be re-engraved prior to fuel load.

5-12

5.4.8 Labels nd Location A'ds Su v

a. The existing labels on the ACP were evaluated for readability, consistency of style and size, application of hierarchical sizing, and standardization of terms, abbreviations, and acronyms.

b. Labels different from their MCB counterparts and missing or incorrect labels were identified. Labels will be provided and corrected prior to fuel load.

c. Labels with character features, such as stroke width-to-character height ratios that did not meet the guidelines were identified. Labels will be re-engraved prior to fuel load.

d. No hierarchical labeling was used between control position labels and component labels (as found on the MCB).

Hierarchical labeling will be incorporated prior to fuel load.

5.4.9 Convent'ons Su ve

a. The application of conventions used on the ACP was evaluated for consistency and agreement with other conventions used in the main Control Room.

b. Inconsistent application of abbreviations and acronyms in labels were identified. Labels will be corrected prior to fuel load.

5 13

5.4.10 0 erational Review During the .operational review, various ACP design features that affect operator task performance were reviewed and evaluated.

The design features evaluated included:

a. The presence or absence of required controls and displays

b. The presence of controls and displays that were not required

c. Panel grouping, control-display integration, and component arrangements to various criteria, such as similar systems on the MCB and operator expectations.

d. Required ranges in displayed parameters.

For the 26 systems or functional groups of components on the ACP (including the annunciator system), the following discrepancies were identified:

a. Required indication was missing from 10 of the systems or functional groups. Indication for all but one of the systems (Source range and Intermediate range) was determined not to be required on the ACP.

b. Required control was missing from 8 of the systems or functional groups. Controls were added to two of the groups. The remaining 6 systems were determined not to be required on the ACP.

5-14

~.

c. Indications and/or controls that was not required was found in 3 of the systems or functional groups. Only one group (the RHR pump amp indications) was determined n'ot to be required. These indicators have been deleted.

d. Twelve systems or functional groups were not arranged in the same relative way that their counterparts were arranged on the MCB. Three groups were rearranged to be consistent with the MCB. The remaining groups were determined as acceptable in their current locations.

I

e. The annunciator system tiles were not arranged consistently between groups, and groups were not apparent other than by individual tile messages. System labels and coordinate labels will be added to the annunciator light boxes to aid in locating individual components.

5.4.ll Results Summary descriptions of the ACP HEDs and the disposition of each HED are contained in Appendix A-16.

5 15

SECTION 6.0 CRDR COMPLETION/REASSESSMENT

~ 6,1 CRDR COMPLETION/REASSESSMENT PROGRAM STRUCTURE 6.1.1 CRDR Com let' Phases The CRDR completion/reassessment was conducted in 3 phases, as follows:

a. Phase I - Project Planning (see 6.1.2)

b. Phase II Review and Assessment (see 6.1.3)

c. Phase III Implementation (see 9.0) 6.1.2 P o't P annin The March, 1985 Summary Report was the product of the Project Planning Phase.. Acceptance of that document concluded Project Planning. The guidelines provided in NUREG-0700 and draft NUREG-0801 formed the primary basis of that document.

6.1.3 v'ew and Assessment The Control Room review and assessment phase was subdivided into the following 7 tasks:

a. Operating Experience Review

b. Conduct Surveys

c. System Functions and Task Analysis

d. Control Room Inventory

e. Verification of Task Performance

f. Validation of Control Room Functions

g. SPDS Review 6-1

The 7 tasks are described below:

6.1.3.1 Operating Experience Review - This task consisted of interviewing 3 operators. Interviews consisted of general and detailed questions on plant operations.

See Section 6.2.

6.1.3.2 Control Room Surveys Much of the detailed assessment/reassessment of the Control Room was conducted via a total of 14 surveys. Ten of the surveys were conducted per the following:

a. Workspace The Control Room workspace was evalu-ated by a checklist survey and direct measurements that addressed the following:

o Workspace Arrangement o Document Organization, Use and Storage o CR Access

b. Conventions The CR was evaluated by survey for the conventions listed below, and data were subsequently compared to NUREG-0700 guidelines:

o Coding methods (color, shape< pattern, etc.)

o Standardization of abbreviations and acronyms o Consistency of control use o Consistency of display movement or indication

c. Controls Controls were evaluated by measure-ments, observations and other assessment methods.

6-2

d. Displays Displays were evaluated by measure-ments, observations or other assessment methods.

e..Computer System - The Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) and the Emergency Response Facility Information System (ERFIS) was assessed as far as possible by measurements, observations, or other assessment methods. Software development is still on-going.

f. Emergency Equipment Data were collected by inventory of the supply cabinets. Emergency garment use and speech intelligibility analysis are being deferred until the communications tests can be conducted.

g. Labels and Location Aids Labels and location aids were evaluated by measurements, observations, and other assessment methods.

h. Annunciator System The annunciator system was evaluated by measurements, observations and other assessment methods

i. Anthropometrics Reach and visual access to CR components were analyzed, given physical configuration of boards, panels, layout, etc.

The data were subsequently compared to checklist item requirements.

j. Maintainability - Checklist and questionnaire data concerning operator-maintained components (trend recorders, bulbs, etc.) were collected.

6-3

~.

o

Four surveys have not been conducted in the assess-ment/reassessment phase because CR construction is not complete. The remaining surveys will be conducted when the CR is complete. The 4 surveys will be conducted per the following:

a. Ambient Noise Direct measurements of noise levels are taken and compared to individual guideline items.

b. Illumination Measurements are taken under various ambient conditions (e.g., emergency lighting) and are compared to individual guideline items.

c. Control Room Environment (HVAC) Assessments are made by direct measurement of the parameters listed below and comparison of the data to the NUREG-0700 guidelines:

o Temperature o Humidity o Ventilation

d. Communications Communications systems are evaluated by guidelines, and speech intelligibility of communication modes is analyzed.

Survey data were collected from preconstructed task plans that contained checklists, interview forms and methods for direct measurements of CR parameters, such as noise levels, light levels, etc. The guidance for the conduct of the survey was found in NUREG-0700.

6-4

6.1.3.3 System Functions and Task Analysis (SFTA) The task analysis procedure is a descriptive process that extracts generic operator action and information requirements from systems function data, converts these requirements to a plant-specific level, and generates a data base for use as an input into the Verification of Task Performance Capabilities and the Validation of Control Room Functions.

These procedures consisted of 3 major activities, which were:

I. Converting the HP Basic Nestinghouse Owners Group (HOG) System Review and Task Analysis (SRTA) into a "SHNPP-1 System Function Task Analysis."

2. Generating a list of plant-specific actions and information requirements for each task, organized by task in the form of a mechanized data base.

3. Selecting and sorting the data base so that the action requirements of a given type and the infor-mation requirements 'of a given type were collected together. "Type" refers to a group of actions or information requirements that have the same system, subsystem, plant component, and parameter.

6-5

6.1.3.4 Control Room Inventory A comprehensive inventory data base of Control Room instrumentation, controls, and other equipment was updated to current CR configurations. The inventory included the necessary information (e.g., type of component, application/func-tion, range, divisions, location) required to verify the availability and suitability of the required displays and controls. The inventory process is described in detail in Section 6.5 of this report.

6.1.3.5 Verification of Task Performance Capabilities - This analysis was composed of 2 subtasks: verification of instrument/control availability, and verification of human engineering suitability. The first, verification of availability, determined whether the instrumentation and controls required by the Control Room operator were actually available to the operator for completion of the tasks identified in the task analysis. The Control Room inventory data base and the task action and information requirements data base from the SFTA were the 2 major inputs to this task. The SFTA documentation described the instruments and controls and their main characteristics which were necessary for the required tasks; whereas the Control Room inventory listed the components which were actually available. A comparison of these 2 data bases determined if a required instrument or control was available.

6-6

The second subtask, verification of human engineering suitability, examined the components for character-istics that could degrade operator task performance and that were not necessarily apparent in Control Room surveys. This analysis focused on practical suitability considerations such as task-required ranges, values, precisions, or response times.

The primary products of the verification phase were the documentation of missing task-related instrumen-tation and/or controls and the identification of problems regarding component suitability.

6.1.3.6 Validate Control Room Functions This involved analysis of workload and distribution of workload for operators for specific tasks and event sequences. The primary means of analysis were traffic analysis and walk- and talk-through simulation of task sequences.

6.1.3.7 SPDS Review CP&L coordinated the human interface requirements between the SPDS, EOPs, training, REG. GUIDE 1. 97 requirements, and the CRDR results.

The SPDS review addressed these interface requirements and addressed the SPDS design, HF considerations of the CRT displays and the anthropometric considerations of the SPDS console. The review addressed the functional criteria described in NUREG-0696 and followed the methodological guidelines in NUREG0814. The HF review addressed the acceptance criteria of NUREG-0835 and applicable guidelines from NUREG-0700-6-7

0' Results of the SPDS, review are described in more detail in the Computer system Survey Section, 6.3.3.10.

6.1.3.8 Products The product of the review process was a set of human engineering discrepancies identified in the Control Room. These HEDs specified the type and extent of the problem, the potential impact on operator perfor-mance in relation to plant operation, and a suggestion for corrective action. The HEDs have been assessed and prioritized and improvements verified per section 7.0.

A detailed description of the review process is presented in the following sections.

6-8

6 ' OPERATING EXPERIENCE REVIEW 6.2.1 Introduct'on The intent of the Operating Experience Review (OER) was to identify CR design attributes and procedural activities that could contribute to or alleviate operator performance problems.

6.2.2 0 er t'ons Personnel Sur 6.2.2.1 General The Operations Personnel Survey (OPS)'ocused on the analysis of experiential information to identify potential problems that could have contributed to degraded operator performance.

6.2.2.2 Structured Interviews Operators were selected for structured interviews based upon their experience in plant operations. All operators interviewed were currently in training for licensing at SHNPP-l. A total of 3 interviews were conducted. Two of the operators were senior reactor operators (SROs), and one was a reactor operator (RO). The format of the interview. addressed a representative sample of general concerns for the following areas from NUREG-0700:

1. Workspace

2. Anthropometrics

3. Emergency Equipment

4. Maintainability (Operator Performed)

5. Annunciator System

6. Controls 6-9

7. Displays

8. Labels and Location Aids

9. Computer System

10. Conventions Interview questions dealing with unfinished areas within the CR, e.g., illumination, will be addressed when the CR is complete and these surveys are performed.

In addition, operators were encouraged to provide any other comments or concerns they had regarding the design or operation of the CR.

6.2.2.3 Response Analysis The response data were reviewed and tabulated. Questionnaire/interview checklists constructed from specific guidelines contained in Section 6.0 of NUREG-0700 were used to aid in the analysis of all responses. A negative response that identified a deviation from guidelines or a potential human performance problem resulted in the generation of a HED report. The HED reports were assessed by the HEDAT during the assessment phase.

6-10

6.2.2.4 Results A summary of some of the major findings from the operator interviews are listed below. Summary descriptions of the operator interview HEDs and the disposition of each HED are contained in Appendix A-17.

a. Workspace - Operators reported the Cooling Tower Makeup Panel is inconveniently located. Because relocating the panel is cost prohibitive and an annunciator horn is available to alert the operators to the panel, no further action was required.

b. Anthropometrics Operators reported that the test pushbuttons on Light Boxes are located too high on the MCB. Because the pushbuttons are used for test purposes only the operators will be instructed to use the ladder if they cannot reach the test pushbuttons.

c. Emergency Equipment - Operators reported that protective clothing is not available in all sizes.

All sizes will be available in the Control Room prior to fuel load.

d. Maintainability Operators reported that the ladder used for changing bulbs in Annunciator Light Boxes is inadequate. A new ladder will be provided when construction in the Control Room is complete.

Operators reported that there is no designated storage area for expendables and spare parts. A storage cabinet has been ordered and will be placed in the Control Room when it is delivered.

e. Communications Operators reported that the communications link between the Control Room and the Radwaste Control Room is inadequate. A dedicated line between the Control Room and the Radwaste Control Room will be provided.

f. Annunciator System Operators reported that coordinated designators on the annunciator panels would aid the operators in locating annunciator tiles when going through procedures. Coordinate labels will be provided to all the annunciator light boxes prior to fuel load.

Operators reported that there is no coding method used for annunciators to indicate which tiles will be on (illuminated) for extended periods such as equipment repair or replacement. A procedure will be put in place to code annunciators that will be on for extended periods of time.

g. Controls Operators reported that a potential for accidental activation exists for breaker controls on the startup XFMR protection panel.

Guards will be provided around these controls.

6 12

~.

Operators reported that a potential for accidental activation exists for controls located 'at the lower edge of the benchboard. A guard rail will be added to the edge of the benchboard.

Operators reported that the containment spray pump test switches are seldom used and were not needed on the MCB. The controls are actually the sequencer loading pump test and should be located on the MCB. The label has been changed to "Sequencer Containment Spray Test".

Operators reported that the knurled knob switches used as selector switches are inadequate. No replacement handle is available for the current modules. The knob pointer will be painted to make the switch position readily apparent. If a.

replacement knob becomes available, the knob will be replaced.

6 - 13

6' CONTROL ROOM SURVEYS 6.3.1

a. The Control Room surveys were planned to follow the guidance of NUREG-0700. Human factors specialists, in concert with experienced operations and engineering personnel, measured and observed a number of Control Room design features.

Central to this survey effort were the HF guidelines contained in Section 6.0 of NUREG-0700. These guidelines were used as the criteria to which the survey data were compared.

b. The surveys were organized, and methodology developed to

.parallel the structure of Section 6.0 of NUREG-0700.

Fourteen specific surveys were planned; however, only 10 surveys were performed or partially performed because of the present stage of CR construction. The surveys that were performed consist of the followings

1. Workspace

2. Anthropometrics

3. Emergency Equipment

4. Maintainability

5. Annunciator System

6. Controls

7. Displays

8. Labels and Location Aids

9. Computer System 10.,Conventions 6 - 14

~.

~ I

~,

The 4 surveys that could not be conducted are those for:

l. Ambient Noise

2. Illumination 3 ~ HVAC

4. Communications

c. In order to facilitate data collection, reduction, and analysis, and to support the review documentation requirements, task plans were developed for each of the above 14 survey areas.

Each of these task plans directed the data collection, data analysis and HED report generation based upon a mix of 4 basic data collection procedures. These are:

1. Measurements

2. Observations

3. Questionnaires/Interviews

4. Document Reviews Each of these task plans used one or more of these procedures to collect the data needed to evaluate the applicable area of CR design. Task plan organization and these procedures are explained in more detail in paragraph 6.4.2. (A sample task plan is provided in Appendix E).

6-15

6.3.2 Tas P P ocedu es

a. Each task plan contained an identical format and outline.

Content was varied only where necessary for the particular design area discussed. A typical task plan outline is as follows:

1.0 Objectives 2.0 Review Team 3.0 Criteria Summary 4.0 Procedures 5.0 Equipment/Facility Requirements 6.0 Inputs and Data Forms Listing 7.0 Required Outputs/Expected Results 8.0 Figures and Tables (if required) 9.0 Procedure Exceptions (if any)

Appendix A Detailed Criteria (from NUREG-0700)

Appendix B Data Collection/Analysis Forms Appendix C Criteria-to-Procedure Matrix Appendix D Task Plan Critique A sample task plan is provided in Appendix E.

b. Sections 1.0 through 8.0 of the text were brief summaries intended primarily to familiarize the task conductor with the overall task requirements. Upon completion of the task, the task conductor completed Section 9.0, if necessaryg and submitted a completed Task Plan Critique from Appendix D to the Project Manager. The critique was to identify any difficulties or problems with the task plan and was not a central part of the review process. The important and detailed criteria and procedural information are contained in Appendix A and B of each task plan.

6 16

c. Appendix A contained a subset of the guidelines from NUREG-0700, Section 6.0. Each guideline was worded identically to the NUREG-0700 guideline, and the NUREG-0700 guideline paragraph number was preserved for ease of cross-referencing. When taken in total, all 14 of the Task Plan criteria sets represented subsections 6.1 through 6 ' of NUREG-0700.

The last two subsections, 6.8 and 6.9 of NUREG-0700 Section 6.0, were used as criteria for the SFTA and the verification and validation activities. The task plans themselves, occurred in the same order as the Section 6.0 subsections of NUREG-0700, and with one main exception, were titled similarly to the Section 6.0 subsection titles. For example, the Annunciator System Review Task Plan (TP-3.1) incorporated as criteria the guidelines contained in NUREG-0700 Section 6.2. The main exception to this approach was that Section 6.1 Workspace, of NUREG-0700, was further subdivided into seven task plans that, in general, followed the additional breakdown of Section 6.1.

\

6 17

~.

~ o

Thus, General Layout - 6.1.1 became the Workspace Task Plan, Workstation Design 6.1.2 became the Anthropometrics Task Plan, Emergency Equipment 6.1.4 became the Emergency Equipment Task Plan, and Environment - 6.1.5 became HVACg Illumination, Ambient Noise, and Maintainability Task Plans.

d. Appendix B in each task plan was subdivided into as many subappendices (e.g., Bl, B2, B3, etc.) as were necessary to describe the detailed data collection and analysis procedures used for that plan. Appendix Bl always contains measurements data forms and directions, B2 always contains an Operator Interview/Questionnaire, B3 always contains an Observations Checklist, and B4 was always a Document Review Checklist. B5 through B9 are additional analyses directions and supplement forms as required. To preserve consistency from task plan to task plan, Appendices Bl through B4 are always included. The Interview/Question-naire sections of each of the 14 task plans (with the addition of operationally related criteria from Sections 6.8 and 6.9 of NUREG-0700) constitute the prepared structured interview that is described in paragraph 6.2.

e. Appendix C of the task plans provide a criteria matrix for all the guidelines contained in Appendix A. 'The Criteria Matrix provides a cross-reference to the guide-lines and defines the data collection methods and the suggested data sources required for evaluation of each guideline.

6 18

~.

~ o 0

f. The various data types were determined by the NUREG-0700 criteria. Measurement data were those data that had to be numerically compared to the NUREG-0700 guidelines for evaluation. These pertain to such design features as display height, noise levels, or illumination levels.

Observation data were those data that a trained human factors specialist could evaluate adequately by observing the design feature. These data pertain to such features as procedure and document storage and office locations.

Questionnaire/Interview data were data that required a knowledge about the equipment from operators before such data could be adequately or realistically evaluated.

These data pertain to such features as the meaning attached to color-codes or controls that are difficult to operate.

Documentation Review data were data that had to be (or might have been) obtained by reviewing available documents that pertained to the design and/or operation of the plant.

These data pertain to such design features as the avail-ability and adequacy of a dictionary of standard terms, abbreviations and acronyms, or an, administrative procedure for the control of temporary labels.

g. The task plan procedures required that the collected data be compared to one or more referenced criteria, before an HED report could be generated. In comparing the data to the criteria, the task conductor would annotate the check-list column next to the criterion guideline as either yes, no, or N/A. For the "no" check marks< an HED report was then generated and the HED report number was entered in the criterion comments column. As a crossreference, the data collection appendix number and the guideline paragraph 6 - 19

number were entered on the HED report form. Once this process was complete for each task plan, the surveys and reviews of the human factors suitability of the evaluated design (independent of the task requirements) were completed and documente'd.

h. Copies of the completed task plans were filed in the CRDR Project File.

6.3.3 results 6.3.3.1 Summary The Control Room Design was compared to the applicable guidelines from NUREG-0700, Section 6.0. Some HED reports were generated against specific design features during the review that do not meet good human factors engineering design principles. The results of each task plan survey are summarized below.

The HEDs have been assessed and prioritized and improvements verified per Section 7.0 6.3.3.2 Workspace Survey

a. The review of the workspace arrangement for the main CR area addressed such issues as clearances between panels and opposing equipment, unobstructed pathways in the primary operating areas, accessibility and storage of expendable supplies and spare parts, and general room arrangement features (see Figure 4-1).

6 20

b. In general, design features for the room arrangement were good, particularly in the primary operating area. No tripping hazards, blocked aisles, or obstructions were found. A look at the human suitability characteristics of the desks, chairs, and consoles in the primary operating area showed that all met the NUREG-0700 guidelines.

Summary descriptions of the workspace HEDs and the disposition of each HED are included in the Operator Interview HEDs, Appendix A-17.

6.3.3.3 Anthropometrics Survey

a. The anthropometrics review of the control board design addressed the characteristics .for a standard stand-up console with benchboard. Instrumentation and equipment locations were also addressed.

b. The preliminary anthropometrics study of the MCB in Section 3.2.4.5 was based on the simulator dimensions. To determine the applicability of those data, measurements of the MCB were compared to the Simulator control board configuration.

Differences were found in the following areas:

1. Height from floor to top of console

2. Angle and slope of benchboard

3. Angle and slope of ALB portion of console

4. Location of the highest and lowest controls and displays on the vertical and benchboard sections.

Because of these differences further evaluations of the MCB were conducted.

6-21

c. The anthropometrics characteristics for sit-down computer consoles with functional keyboards and CRT displays were evaluated and compared to the applicable criteria. For the MCB, all viewing angles and viewing distances for computer CRTs and their related keyboard locations on the benchboard were addressed. The physical characteristics of the controls and displays on the computer consoles and the MCB CRT and keyboard controls were also evaluated. Tbe angle of the slope of the movable keyboards was determined to be less than criteria.

Because the angle deviates by only 6'egrees, no further, action is required. The knee room for the sit-down consoles was also determined to be less than criteria. Because there are no long term task which requires the operator to remain immobile at these consoles, no further action is required.

d. A design discrepancy was found with the height of controls on the vertical portion of panels in relation to the depth and slope of the bench-board. Controls above 54 inches on vertical portions of 'panels were beyond the functional reach envelope of 5t ,percentile females. Some of these controls, e.g. Safety Injection Controls, were intentionally located on the vertical section to lesson the'likelihood of accidental activation.

The others are test switches or controls that do not require frequent or precise actuation'. These others were placed on the vertical section to reserve space for more critical/frequently used controls.

6 22

~.

Summary descriptions of the anthropometric HEDs and the disposition of each HED are contained in Appendix A-18.

6.3.3.4 Emergency Equipment Survey

a. The equipment lockers were evaluated in terms of their location, storage capability, and labeling requirements. The protective clothing sets, the breathing apparatus, emergency equipment, and replacement supplies were counted and compared to the validated copy of the inventory list. All equipment was present, accessible, and neatly stored.

b. Emergency lighting and communications were not evaluated because of the present stage of the CR construction. Suitability of the protective clothing and the breathing apparatus for operators while performing CR functions will be verified when the communications survey is performed. All labeling of the equipment lockers will be replaced prior to fuel load.

Summary descriptions of the Emergency Equipment Survey HEDs and the disposition of each HED are contained in Appendix A-19.

6.3.3.5 Maintainability Survey

a. The maintainability survey addressed such issues as the availability, storage, and inventory of spare parts and tools, replacement of fuses 'and other expendables, and general operator maintain-ability of equipment.

6 - 23

b. Bookcases, cabinets and drawer storage areas were found to be adequate for the quantity of stock items required by the operators. Expendable supplies, spare parts, and tools are inventoried and restocked on a regular basis. Better storage facilities and additional expendables will be supplied as requirements expand.

Summary descriptions of the Maintainability Survey HEDs and the disposition of each HED are included in the operator interview HEDs, Appendix A-17.

6.3.3.6 Annunciator System Survey

a. The annunciator system survey design was compared to applicable guidelines, which addressed such items as readability of annunciator tiles, consistency of message content (such as abbrevi-ations and acronyms), and general arrangement features.

b. Viewing angles between 2 annunciator response stations and their associated tiles were found to be so acute that it was difficult to read the annunciator tiles. An additional response station will be installed. Other stations did not quite meet the 45 degree viewing angle requirement; however, tests conducted in the CR indicated that no difficultywas encountered in reading the extreme left and right tiles from these response stations.

6 24

c. Tile messages were evaluated for multiple inputs, ambiguity, and specificity. Some problems in these areas were identified. The physical characteristics of engravings on annunciator tiles were evaluated for readability. Character heights, as a function of viewing distance and angles, did not meet the requirements. Spacing was inadequate between lines of engraving, especially for tiles containing 4 lines per message. Newly engraved tiles had letter heights too tall and stroke widths too narrow in comparison with the majority of the ALB tile engraving. Some annunciator tiles will be re-engraved.

Summary descriptions of the annunciator HEDs and the disposition of each HED are contained in Appendix A-20 6.3.3.7 Controls Survey

a. The MCB control modules were evaluated for a number of characteristics such as knob configuration and dimensions, type of control, handle coding, and labeling.

b. The knurled style of knob used as selector switches is too short, uncomfortable and difficult to move.

The control module shaft torque is high (9 to 10 in-lbs) in relation to the maximum recommended torque of 6 in-lbs. Additionally, operators have complained about the difficulty of operating these controls. A marginally high torque reading associated with two t-handled controls was also 6-25

~.

I

found. Preferred torque should be 6 in-lbs but measured approximately 7 in-lbs. There is no replacement switch available for the knurled knob.

If a replacement becomes available, the'witches will be replaced.

c. Pushbuttons on Annunciator Response Switches did not meet some of the criteria. Resistance was marginally high, surface design was not slip-resistant or concave, and there were no barriers between the 4 contiguous buttons. Also, no coding techniques were applied to the silence control. Operations has no problem with the current annunciator response switches, no further action required.

Summary description of the Control HEDs and the disposition of each HED are contained in Appendix A-21.

6.3.3.8 Displays Surveys

a. Displays were evaluated for a number of physical characteristics such as number scale progressions and readability of internal scale labeling. The functional aspects of displays and display labels were also evaluated.

b. No problems were identified for vertical<

horizontal, or circular meters on the MCB because meter faces not in agreement with the HERs are to be replaced.

6-26

O.

c. Engraved indicator lights and bypass permissive status lights that contain more than 3 lines of text per light are difficult to read. The crowding of characters, words, and lines on these tiles cause the engraving to appear cluttered.

Investigation of the bypass permissive status lights determined that messages could not be reduced without reducing the meaning of the message.

Summary descriptions of the Display HEDs and the disposition of each HED are contained in Appendix A-22 ~

6.3.3.9 Labels and Location Aids Survey

a. The existing labels on the MCB were evaluated to determine if wording was appropriate, functionally correct and consistent. Criteria addressing the physical characteristics were not evaluated because of the scheduled repainting of the MCB, and subsequent re-engraving and replacement of all labels and demarcation of the board.

b. Numerous discrepancies concerning labeling completeness, accuracy, and consistencies were identified. These problems are documented as HED reports. These reports, along with other operational and functional information, were used to update and correct new engraving lists. These lists, along with readability criteria, will be used to control the quality of the new labels.

6 - 27

Summary descriptions of the labeling HEDs and the disposition for each HED are contained in Appendix A-23 SPDS

'.3.3.10 and ERFIS Computer System Survey

a. The Computer System Task Plan, along with the applicable portions of the Anthropometrics,'ontrols, Displays, Labels and Location Aids, Conventions, and Maintainability Task Plans, was used in the evaluation of the SPDS and ERFIS computers. The features of the SPDS/ERFIS operator-software interface that were evaluated with the computer task plan were the physical characteristics of some display formats on the CRT.

b. Computer operating procedures and cross-refer-enced indexes for different methods of addres-sing data displays were not available in the Control Room. A complete set of computer procedures will be available in the Control Room prior to fuel load.

c. Function labels were missing for pushbuttons on the computer console. The use of abbreviations on legend light engiavings were inconsistent with abbreviations used throughout the Control Room.

Labels will be provided or re-engraved prior to fuel load.

6 - 28

0

d. The majority of text and graphics character's are presented in a 5 X 7 dot-matrix, rather than the recommended 7 X 9 size. This presents a discrimination problem on all trends and on some tabular data formats, as smaller symbols are used on some tabular data. Because operators view CRT screens from a position directly in front of the CRT and an optional size selection of a 10 X 14 dot matrix for all characters is available, no further action is required.

e. As found in a number of procedures during validation, gpm units are used in places to indicate flow that is displayed on the MCB in pph units.

Units will be changed to reflect the same units as the MCB displays.

f. There is the ability for the operator to choose a function, such as "plot" from a menu of functions and plots. When the operator hits the return key the menu disappears, so the operator is expected to remember the acronym of the plot desired. The menu will be displayed until the function or plot has been selected.

g. Use of the color blue (as opposed to cyan) for trend displays was evaluated. The color blue for plotting is acceptable if another color is used for the legend or text. Blue should not be used for all items on a selected display or for text. The use of blue will be avoided.

6 - 29

Summary descriptions of the Computer Survey HEDs and the disposition of each HED are contained in Appendix A-24. The HEDs have been assessed, prioritized, and improvements verified per.Section 7.0.

6.3.3.11 Conventions Survey

a. All annunciator tile engraving, panel labeling, component labeling, function labeling, and position labeling was compared to the CPEL "Dictionary of Acronyms and Abbreviations" as a means of identi-fying inconsistencies and incorrect usages with abbreviations.

b. The Conventions Survey also addressed shape coding and size coding for control handles. The application of color coding in all areas of the Control Room and control directional movement with related display indicator movement was also addressed. Techniques used for the distinctive enhancement of emergency controls were verified.

c. Some inconsistencies were found in the use of abbreviations on annunciator tile and status light box engraving and component labels. Inconsistent abbreviations on component labels and status light boxes will be corrected prior to fuel load. Annun-ciator tile abbreviations were verified as being acceptable.

Summary descriptions of the Conventions Survey HEDs and the disposition of each HED are contained in Appendix A-25.

6-30

6 ' SYSTEM FUNCTIONS AND TASK ANALYSIS 6.4.1 Introduction The objective of this activity was to determine action and information requirements and the performance criteria for the tasks that operators were required to accomplish under emergency conditions. These requirements and criteria served as benchmarks for the examination of the adequacy of Control Room instrumen-tation, and other equipment during the verification and validation activities.

6.4.2 M~et od

a. The procedure employed by CPaL in conducting the SFTA involved the development of a plant-specific task analysis data'ase from generic task analytic background information and generic emergency response guidelines. Throughout this process, the emphasis was on identifying and analyzing operator action and information requirements from the plant-specific task analysis. It addressed those tasks performed under emergency conditions that provided emergency response capabilities with respect to maintaining critical plant safety functions (i.e., containment integrity, re-activity control, RCS inventory control, and heat transfer).

The SFTA data is currently being updated to include training requirements.

6 - 31

The task analysis methods and procedures documented herein were based on the Westinghouse Owner's Group (WOG) Emergency Response Guidelines (ERGs), Revision 1, and the WOG'P Basic System Review and Task Analysis (SRTA).

b. The Revision 1 WOG ERGs is considered a validated data base (NRC-WOG meeting of 29 March 1984) that defined the generic plant systems and functions, including the primary action/information requirements, and allocates the functions between the human and the machine. The Revision 1 ERGs were used as the basis for the CP&L emergency response procedures development and the basis for the task analysis methods described below. The SRTA also served as a data base for the plant-specific Shearon Harris System Function Task Analysis.

c. The WOG SRTA was a joint program to the ERG development program. It provided a systematic compilation of the operator tasks, instrumentation, and control requirements contained in the ERGs. The SRTA documents, which consisted of TASK/SYSTEM SEQUENCE MATRICES and ELEMENT TABLES (see Figures 6-1 and 6-2), identified the following:

o Individual operator task requirements o Sequential operator task requirements o Individual instrumentation requirements o Individual control requirements.

6-32

~.

0;

d. There is a Task/System Sequence Matrix (Figure 6-1) for each ERG guideline, and its function was to identify and inventory the tasks and subtasks associated with each ERG guideline. Essentially, the Task/System Sequence Matrices are tables of contents for each ERG guideline.

e. The Element Tables (Figure 6-2) constituted the central document in the ERG SRTA program. They identified the requirements that the user had to address in the determination of the action and information requirements.'.

The first step in the SHNPP-1 SFTA process was to convert the HP Basic SRTA into a plant-specific revision. This document, called "SHNPP-1 System Function Task Analysis,"

consisted of plant-specific Task/System Sequence Matrix Tables and Element Tables. The SHNPP-1 SFTA was based on the plant-specific emergency response guidelines, the EOP/ERG Transition Document, and related background information. Differences in tasks and task steps between the Rev. 1 ERGs to the SHNPP-1 SFTA are documented within the Transition Document.

The EOP/ERG Transition Document tracks the difference from the HOG ERGs to the plant-specific EOPs. The Transition Document consists of the following sections:

o List of differences between the ERG High Pressure reference plant and Shearon Harris o Step deviation forms that explain any variance between a SHNPP-1 step and a WOG step 6 33

o Deviation for the parameter values used in the SHNPP-1 EOPs.

1 The SHNPP-1 Task/System Sequence Matrices reflect task/step differences and sequence changes. The SHNPP-1 Element Tables contain a description of the plant-specific tasks.

Included in this description are the plant-specific know-ledge requirements, task decision and action requirements, and the plant-specific instrumentation and control require-ments. The instrumentation and control requirements were added to the tables based upon data from the verification activities.

g. The next step in the SFTA process was to generate a list of plant-specific action and information requirements for each task within the SHNPP-1 SFTA. This information was tabulated on the ACTION-INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS DETAILS (AIRD) form (see figure 6-3). The AIRD form breaks down each task into behavioral elements. A behavioral element is defined by the various behavioral or physical properties of an action requirement or information requirement. The names of these properties appear as column headers for columns 2 through 10 of the AIRD form. Some of these properties were. plant-specific and required input from plant operations/engineering personnel.

h. The information was input from the AIRD forms into a computerized data base. The data base allowed for increased flexibility in selecting, sorting, and outputting the data (as opposed to the more restrictive< manual process described in the March, 1985 Summary Report).

6 34

¹

i. When the AIRD input activities were complete the data were selected and sorted by task in order to summarize information and action requirements across tasks and elements. For example, a value would be specified within individual AIRD forms for SG levels. This sort for SG level will contain all EOPs, steps and actions that require SG level to be observed. The values specified would dictate a range requirement for SG level. The individual values determine the accuracy requirements.

6.4.3 Products The product of the SFTA process is a data base of operator action and information requirements. This data base, along with the Control Room inventory data base, was used as input into the verification of task performance capabilities to assess the availability and suitability of instruments and equipment used by the Control Room operators. In addition, the results of the SHNPP-1 SFTA were used to assist in the selection of event sequences to be analyzed during the validation of Control Room functions.

6 - 35

6 '

The

~

CONTROL ROOM INVENTORY 6..1 objective of the Control Room inventory was to develop comprehensive listing of the instrumentation, controls and equipment contained in the Control Room. This list was used in a

subsequent tasks to determine the adequacy of Control Room components for supporting operator information and control requirements identified during the task analysis.

The Control Room inventory also aided in integrating multiple HEDs that could be associated with a particular component or type of component. This ensured a complete, integrated data file that aided in the implementation of backfits.

6.5.2 M~6 od Project personnel conducted a systematic inspection and review of the Control Room and relevant Control Room documentation (e.g., instrument lists, engraving lists, etc.) to develop the Control Room inventory.

The inventory records contain the following information for each component:

1. Component identification number (used for sorting within the data base)

2. Component nomenclature or description

3. Component labels

4. Component characteristics (i.e., scale ranges)

5. Panel 6-36

The result of the Control Room inventory is a comprehensive record of the instrumentation, controls and equipment contained in the Control Room. The Control Room inventory was used in the verification of available and suitable Control Room instrumentation.

6-37

6 ' VERIFICATION OF TASK PERFORMANCE CAPABILITIES 6.6.1 Introduct'on The objective of this activity was to ensure the availability and suitability of required Control Room instrumentation and controls. As recommended in NUREG-0700, this activity was conducted in two parts: verification of availability and verification of suitability.

6.6.2 V 'fication of Ava'lab'1 Verification of availability was accomplished by comparing the operator action and information requirements identified during the task analysis to the Control Room inventory. The comparison was conducted on a component basis to verify the presence or absence of the required instruments and controls for each task sequence analyzed during the SFTA. For any action or information requirement where an appropriate display, control, or other device could not be found, an HED report was generated.

6.6.3 'f'cat'on of Su'tab'lit Verification of suitability involved examination of the human engineering characteristics of instrumentation and controls identified during the verification of availability. For this process, selected guidelines from NUREG-0700 and criteria derived from the task analysis were used to determine the suitability of Control Room components. Such aspects of component design as the adequacy of display range, usability of displayed valuesi adequacy of control type, completeness and ease of understanding of component labels, and other characteristics not easily 6-38

evaluated without reference to specific task sequences were considered. Any deviations from established criteria were documented as HEDs.

6.6.4 results 6.6.4.1 Verification of Availability

a. Using the SFTA data base that contains the action and information requirements and the Control Room inventory data base, a comparison was made to ensure the availability of all required instruments, controls, and other equipment in the Control Room.

b. RCS hot leg and cold leg Loop C temperature indicators were not on the MCB. It was determined that these indicators were required and will be installed on the MCB and functioning prior to fuel load.

c. Main feedwater flow indication was missing from the MCB. It was determined that these indicators were required and will be installed on the MCB and functioning prior to fuel load.

6.6.4.2 Verification of Suitability

a. Following the verification of availability, the inventory data base was compared to the range, accuracy, trend, nomenclature and control function requirements contained in the SFTA data base.

6 - 39

b. The MSIVs and bypass valves, the FW isolation and bypass valves, the blowdown isolation valves and the sample line isolation valves all have "closed" instead of "shut" on the position labels.

These will be corrected prior to fuel load.

c. The pressurizer pressure indicator, the SG Narrow Range level indicator, and the SG pressure indicators cannot be read to the degree of accuracy required. An engineering re-analysis of these values is currently in progress to determine whether the values will be changed or the meter scales re-configured. Whichever is required will be accomplished prior to fuel load, except for the case where obtaining the actual value is dependent upon actual system operations to obtain stable and final performance measures.

Summary descriptions of the Verification and Validation HEDs and the disposition for each HED are contained in Appendix A-26.

6-40

6 ' VALIDATION OF CONTROL ROOM FUNCTIONS 6.7.1 Introduct'on The objective of this activity was to determine if the functions allocated to the Control Room operating crew during emergencies could be accomplished effectively within: 1) the structure of defined emergency procedures, and 2) the design of the Control Room as it exists. As with Verification of Task Performance Capabilities, Validation of Control Room Functions is an extension of the SFTA. In this case, emphasis was placed on determining the adequacy of the Control Room design for supporting operator task sequences.

6.7.2 M~et od 6.7.2.1 General The principal activities during this task involved observing operators walking through selected event sequences. The following process was employed during this task:

a. A set of scenarios was prepared to define the emergency operating sequences to be included in the validation effort. The SFTA was used to ensure that the sequences chosen represented emergency interface requirements.

6-41

b. SHNPP-1 EOPs associated with the selected sequences were obtained.

c. The participants in the validation effort were briefed concerning the objectives and procedures of the walkthroughs, including assumptions concerning the status of the plant at the onset of the event sequence.

d. Control room personnel were observed as they performed the selected sequences. The operators were instructed to describe their actions as they performed the selected sequences, including:

o cues by which they initiate a task o sources of information (displays, procedures, knowledge, etc.)

o application of information, including any conversions or uncertainties o controls selected and expected system response o methods for verifying system response and selection of alternative actions if response is not obtained o indications that sequence is proceeding as expected 6 - 42

o indication that sequence is complete o other comments, as appropriate.

During this process, the observers occasionally halted the walkthrough to obtain clarification or additional information.

e. Observers recorded significant operator comments, as well as any observations that related to the performance of the EOPs.

f. The results of the observations were analyzed to identify any problems with the Control Room layout, location of related components, operator workload, or other human engineering concerns. Discrepancies observed during the validation process were noted and recorded.

Observers recorded: 1) any difficulties the operators had in responding to the event, 2) the impact on operator performance of any previously identified HEDs, and 3) any additional discrepancies identified during this task.

6.7.2.2 Selected Events

a. Events were selected to include the items suggested in NUREG-0700, paragraph 3.8.2, and to address events listed in Section 15 of REG. GUIDE 1.70 with regard to exercising all emergency-related Control Room workstations, and to include all unique sequences of tasks within the EOP structure.

6 43

~.

b. The events that were selected consist of the following:

1. Reactor Trip

2. Loss of AC Power with SI Required

3. Reactor Trip with Void in the Reactor Vessel

4. Reactor Trip with Faulted Steam Generator

5. Reactor Trip with Loss of Secondary Heat Sink

6. Anticipated Transient without Scram and Recovery

7. Response to Steam Generator High Level

8. Loss of Normal Steam Release Capability

9. Response to Steam Generator Low Level

10. Response to Inadequate Core Cooling ll. Loss of Core Shutdown

12. Steam Generator Overpressure

13. Response to Imminent Pressurized Thermal Shock Conditions

14. Response to Containment High Pressure.

6 44

6.7.3 results

a. In general, the Control Room equipment arrangement and the control panel layout were determined to be designed effectively to support the Control Room operating crew.

Discrepancies were identified concerning some missing indication and missing or inaccurate panel/component labels.

These items are discussed in more detail below. The majority of identified discrepancies (including most panel label-to- procedure(s) terminology discrepancies) were found to be procedure problems. Lack of required reference information, inconsistent terminology usage, and disagreement between panel labeling and procedure terms were the primary problems encountered. The procedures are currently being corrected.

b. The instrumentation that was identified as missing was also identified during verification: RCS hot and cold leg loop C temperature and the main feedwater flow indicators.

Also supporting the verification findings were the problems in reading the pressurizer pressure, steam generator narrow range level, and steam generator pressure indicators to the degree of accuracy stated in the procedures. As previously discussed, missing instruments will be installed prior to fuel load, and the required values for the above mentioned parameters will be resolved either by fuel load or, in the case of design necessity, as soon as operational system data are available.

c. Arrangement difficulties were noted with the EDG instruments, with the turbine bearing and seal lube oil pump controls, and with the containment spray and Phase B isolation and reset controls. These problems will be corrected prior to fuel load.

'6-45

d. A number of minor labeling problems were identified.

These problems will be corrected prior to fuel load.

Subsequent review of the new and revised engraving lists (see paragraph 6.3.3.9) indicated that these problems have been corrected on these lists.

e. During the walkthroughs it became apparent that the operators were not using the ERFIS system for trending and other indications. Post-walkthrough debriefings revealed a lack of emphasis for the ERFIS use in training. The local instrumentation, regardless of location, was considered to be primary and required to be used versus the ERFIS system; the procedures reflected this philosophy.

HED reports were generated and sent to the appropriate areas of responsibility for correction.

6 46

E IJ n h n F. A F. II 0 E 00 hh II f>> T A r. N I) N n F E N k N N I I X F. E C I>> T I T C E T N P V TT NN I h C IJ E T A E R h h T T D 0 I hA LNT N R 0 C h 0 T I 0 Y IJ C N C I I S F I R A Task/System Sequence Natr Ix R T R L I H A A E E HH T E n G I T II n N I f. f>> N NN F. F R C I T A I R N E C N T W E E AD Y AC R T N 0 H 0 J ll A A NN N W I>>

Pa>>fe of I I I) I T n F. F. N I) T N nn r0 7 T AF T n P 0 P

N p 1 r I A P E T 0 R S A E F. T0W A II N T N N I V I. P T n 0 r N >> fl T 0 k n T R N R

W R E R F.

T F. T IJ T N E I> H AO A R II N R N p N IJ G Y S T TT A T IJ E II n N P E f.

T A N H N V F. H R 0 I T E T F.' h r E C W Operator Tasks 0 I N h l. R 0 D 0TTT 0 E E N 0 N A I h N R D W T 0 T T C E N 1 N I R 0 N Naster Task Tf tie 0 0 0 N 8 Task N N T A R T 0 E TASK/SYSTEM SEQUENCE MATRICES FIGURE 6-1

FIGURE 6-2 6 - 48

~ ~

~.

0

ACTION- INFOROATIN REIf"'IREtfEtiiS W'TN"RT (AIRS!

PNX I 576 REPOR DATE: OB/20/B PLAihT'HEARN HARR iiii'i'T S NUCL'EAR POTTER PL"N

~

gJ ORu: S)N. tf KNIGtfT DATE: tm'20/K PiEVINERo INTO SORT BLOCK I SUtiART OF REQ. BLOCK i

VEI"FICATIN ~R" I" OCK t VALUE/RAY)E: DEVICE ID )JO. i PASS t FAIL CO'ii0lKVi: t NlTS:

i PRECIS Ji:

ItQIVIDJAL DETAILS EOP M). STEP t4). ACTti 'i'ERB STSTn PN4"TETER DIRECT IOti'TATE/VALUE UNIT/RATE TRBS EPP-4 C" Oi OBSERVE LEVEL GREATER TIAtf 10 PERCEh I OT Oo KTNEEti PERiBii EPP-4 C7 RCfCB OS%RYE LEVEL GREATER THAN 10 PERCEtii EPP-4 Rpf16 08KE 1 LEWc GRF"TER THAh fp PERCEtiT Ef7-4 fp RO113 OBXR"E LEVEL BETWEEN 10-A PERCENT PP. " '0-CAU IJJli OBXR"E LE'Pc KTNEEti IO.A PERiiNT EPP-4 13 OBSERVE K'IIEEN fp-A PERCEtiT JOAN EPP-B 19 01 OlKERVE LE'Vc Tii"'i GREATER 10 [403 PERCEtiT Ha', 06 R0109 O'ER"E OBSERVE OBSEIM ABEL LEVEL BETlKEN GRF"TER TLtl fp-~A [40-A3 10 [403 PERCEtiT EPP-"

,I; R02CI OBSER"E LEVEL GREATER TON PERCBiT EPP-B 22 R01 13 OKERVC LEVEl. KTNEEN fp-A[40'ERCBTT PERCEtif[i 22 . CAUTIN - 1 LE%'EL KiiEEti 10-A PERCENT N EPP-8 26 3Q OBSERVC LEEL KAKEt( A PERCEtiT EPP-9 01 OBSERVE LEVEL GREA ER THAli fp PERCBtT EPP-9 06 06 OKEM KTNEEti fp-A [40.A3 PERCE' N gP-9 06 R010) OBSERVE LBEL GREATER WNJ fp [403 PERCFifT EPP-9 12 - CAUTION - 2 03 OBSERVE KTNCBi fp-A EPP-) fB.CAUTIN-2 pii OKR'wc. LEVEL Bric Bi fp-A PERCENT FRP C. 1 09 01 OlKERVE LEVPc GREATER THAW 10 [403 PEIKEtfT Iit" OBSERVE OBSERVE LEVEL BETXEEtf f0[40'-rA[N3 PEfKEtiT

"-'RP-C.J RO103 OBXR"E GREATER TIE~4 10 [403 PERCEN FRP-C. 1 09-CAUTIN-2 Of OBSERVE LDEL BETttEEti fp;M PERCEtis h FRP.C.2 09 01 OKER/E GREATER TH"" fp [403 PERCEtfT 10 OJSERVE LEVEL BET'AEEN 10[4C3-A[A3 PERCB.i RpfpS OBKRVC LE'i'CL GREATER THAti 10 [403 PERCENT Fi .2 09-MTIN-2 01 LEVEL KTN:Bit 10-A PERCEtiT FIGURE 6-4 50

ECTION 7 0 ASSESSME T A D DESIGN OLUTIO S

~

7.1 INTRODUCTION

NUREG-0700 defines a Human Engineering Discrepancy or HED as "a departure from some benchmark of system suitability for the roles and capabilities of the human operator". Section 6 of NUREG-0700 contains these design benchmarks or guidelines. While it can be expected that the CRDR process will produce reports of Human Engineering Discrepancies, it does not follow that all discrepancies will necessarily degrade operator performance to the point that I

plant safety would be affected. The objective of the assessment process is for the HED Assessment Team (HEDAT) to evaluate the relative significance of the HEDs produced during each phase of the review. The HEDAT separated those HEDs that were unlikely to degrade performance from those that might degrade performance.

The basic procedure employed in HED assessment and in identifying and selecting enhancements and design solutions was based on NUREG-0700, exhibit 4-2, and the process discussed in NUREG-0801 (draft-Oct. 1981).

7-1

7.2 PRIORITIZATION

a. The approach to be employed by CP&L in assessing HEDs involved prioritization of each HED based on estimations of the potential for error and the consequence of errors resulting from the HED. Assessment of the potential for error was based on:

o component design factors (e.g., extent of deviation from guideline, conformance to plant design conventions),

o task factors (e.g., difficulty, frequency, time demands),

and o human factors (physical performance; sensory and perceptual performance).

b. Once the potential for error had been established, the consequences of the error was estimated for each HED by

~ \ ~

the HEDAT. Error consequence was defined in terms of the potential impact on plant safety by considering the system/functions affected by the error. HEDs related to systems and functions identified as safety-related during the SFTA or which increase the probability of an error t that could result in violation of technical specification or unsafe operation received the highest rating.

c. An HED was assigned a category number of I, II, III or IV (See Figure 7-1) based on the following criteria:

o Category I An HED was assigned a category I when the discrepancy might lead to an error that had safety consequences or might result in a violation of a technical specification.

7-2

0 o Category II An HED was assigned a category II when the discrepancy had been determined to be of valid concern by the HEDAT.

o Category III An HED was assigned a category III when the discrepancy had been determined to have a low probability of error.

o Category IV An HED was assigned a category IV when the discrepancy had no impact on operator performance and had no probability of error.

d. The HEDAT analyzed all Category I, II and III HEDs for disposition. Category IV HEDs, while considered optional for correction, were assessed for their cumulative and interactive effects on other HEDs. Those Category IV HEDs shown to possess the above effects were recategorized to the appropriate category.

The next step in this procedure was for the HEDAT to identify those HEDs which could be corrected by enhancements, training of operators, and/or procedural revisions. The remaining HEDs were analyzed to identify and provide design improvement alternatives. Since there was a limit to the number of changes that could be made as a result of this review, a cost-benefit analysis also helped determine which corrections were the most feasible and acceptable from a human engineering point of view.

7 ~ 3

7 ' CORRECTION

. Regardless of the HED priority ranking, potential corrective action were identified by the HEDAT for each HED. The basic procedure to be employed in identifying and selecting corrective actions involved:

a. Analysis for correction by enhancements

b. Analysis for correction by design alternatives

c. Assessment of the extent of correction.

7.3.1 A al s's fo Co ection b E ance ent Discrepancies selected for correction were first examined for possible correction by enhancement (labeling< demarcation, operator aids, etc.). Each HED was considered and where such correction was possible, the discrepancy was reassessed for its effect on operator performance. Where it was determined that correction by enhancement was not possible, the discrepancy was analyzed for correction by design alternatives.

7.3.2 A a s's fo Co rect on b Des' A ternat'v Discrepancies not correctable by surface enhancement could require a design effort. Corrective action would involve simple modifi-cation to the communication, lighting or alarm system, or alter-ations to the control boards. In either case, identification of design alternatives was achieved by examination of the HED, reference to task analysis data, and identification of potential constraints (e.g., availability of equipment, REG. GUIDE 1.97).

7 - 4

The backf it design development process, where used, also con-sidered the need to minimize cost of the change and its impact on the existing design. Multiple design alternatives were con-sidered, as appropriate. Cost and schedule estimates were also considered for each proposed change. The impact of each proposed design change on operator training, plant maintenance and docu-mentation was also considered, as was the reduction in proba-bility of operator error.

7.3.3 Assessment of t e Extent of Cor ect'on For the HEDs selected for correction, the extent to which each discrepancy was corrected (by enhancement or redesign) was evaluated by the HEDAT. The HED solution should ideally, have eliminated the discrepancies and brought the control room into full compliance with the intent of the guidelines. However, discrepancies which were not fully corrected were identified and documented by the review team and a justification was prepared for each one.

7.3.4 r f cat'on of Desi n I o e nts Verification that design improvements provide the necessary correction without creating new HEDs is inherent in CPaL's CRDR program. The HEDAT which consist of human factors specialist determined the backfit for each HED. In assessing the backfit the HEDAT verified the following:

No HEDs were created by the backfit.

Other corrections were not invalidated by the backfit.

- The correction is in compliance with NUREG-0700/human engineering guidelines.

7-5

Where possible the HEDAT used mockups, computer aided design systems, the Simulator and H.B. Robinson EOPs as a verification method.

7.3.5 chedul'n of Correct'ons HEDAT-approved solutions to HEDs were scheduled for implementation.

The category guidelines established in Paragraph 7.2 of this plan were used as a basis for the corrective action schedule. Additional considerations in the development of the implementation schedule was:

a. Safety consequences of operator errors that could be caused by the discrepancy.

b. Integration with other NUREG-0737 Supplement 1 programs.

c. Plant construction, turnover and operational constraints.

d. Operator training/retraining requirements.

7-6

REVIEW PROCESS OBSERVATIONS HED ASSESSMENTS CATEGORY ASSESSMENT IMPLEMENTATION SAFETY (*) EARLIEST CONSEQUENCES: OPPORTUNITY HEDs (I, II,III)

DOCUMENTED (MANDATORY)

INCREASED EARLIEST POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITY LOW CONVENIENT PROBABILITY OUTAGE NOT ASSOCIATED MAY OR MAY NOT IV WITH BE REQUIRED PROBABILITY (NOT CAT IV, ANALYSIS RECOMMENDED YES FOR CORRECTIONS CORRECTION NO DOCUMENT

(*) EXAMPLE: RESULTS IN UNSAFE OPERATION OR VIOLATION OF TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS HED ASSESSMENT FIGURE 7-1 7-7

~.

~ o

SECTION 8.0 DOCUMENTATION AND DOCUMENT CONTROL CPaL recognized the critical role of document control during the CRDR process. To this end, the SPC was responsible for controlling CRDR documentation (including letters and memos, progress reports, interim reports, HED reports, and summary reports) per established SHNPP-l procedures. All final versions of primary CRDR project documents were, assigned a unique designator prior to distribution, and a hard copy was maintained in a central CRDR project file.

8-1

ECTION 9.0 IMPLEME TATI PHASE

~ The following general procedure was followed to implement the recommendations:

1. The HEDs to be corrected were ordered according to the priorities described in paragraph 7.2 of this plan.

2. The station's work schedule was reviewed to arrange manpower and time, as necessary, to implement the corrective actions.

3. Upon completion of each HED's recommended correction, the responsible group notified the SPC, who arranged for the corrections to be reviewed by an HFS.

~ o ECTION 10.0 C CLU I CP&L has undertaken a major program of redesign, rearrangement and procedure coordination to improve the human factor design of the control room and control boards. Most of the physical redesign was not only initiated, but also completed prior to the issuance of the regulatory guidance contained in NUREG 0737, Supplement 1 and NUREG 0700. A replacement simulator reflecting the new MCB layout, is in the final stages of construction and is nearing delivery.

Although the CRDR was specifically directed toward evaluating the control room (including auxiliary shut-down panel), CPaL recognized the interface between the CRDR and other related activities, such as the design of a Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) <

implementation of Reg. Guide 1.97 requirements, development of Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs), operator training and the implementation of Emergency Response Facilities (ERF). This report demonstrates the coordination of the CRDR with these related efforts. These items highlight the effort by CP&L to ensure a high quality interface between the operator, the procedures and the equipment.

This Final Summary Report is submitted as evidence of CP&L's compliance to NUREG 0737i Supplement 1 and NUREG 0700. It also provides specific responses to SER open items in NUREG 1038i Supplement l.

10-1

APPENDIX A HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCIES

SUMMARY

DESCRIPTIONS

APPBNDIX A-I

. GROUPING AND SEQUENCING HEDs Al-I HED NO! 31AI-1204 HED TITLE! FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS ON PANEL Al ARE NOT GROUPED TOGETHER CATBGORY! II DISPOSITION! FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS WERE GROUPED TOGETHER WHEN THE CONTROL BOARD WAS REARRANGED'I-2~

HED NO! 31A2-1205 HED TITXsE! FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS ON PANEL A2 ARE NOT GROUPED TOGETHER.

CATEGORY II DISPOSITION! FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS WERE GROUPED TOGETHER WHEN THE CONTROL BOARD WAS REARRANGED.

Al-3e HBD NO! 31B1-1206 HED TITLE! FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS ON PANEL Bl ARE NOT GROUPED TOGETHER.

CATEGORY! II DISPOSITION! FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS WERE GROUPED TOGETHER WHEN THE CONTROL BOARD WAS REARRANGED'l-4

~ HBD NO! 31B2-1207 HBD TITLE! FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS ON PANEL B2 ARE NOT GROUPED TOGETHER.

CATEGORY II DISPOSITION! FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS WERE GROUPED TOGETHER WHEN THE CONTROL BOARD WAS REARRANGED

~.

~ i

~ o 0

0

A1-5e HBD NOt 31BB-1208 HBD TITLB! FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS ON PANEL A2 ARE NOT GROUPED TOGETHER CATBGORYt II DISPOSITION! FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS WERE GROUPED TOGETHER WHEN THE CONTROL BOARD WAS REARRANGED'l-6e HBD NO 31C1-1209 HBD TITLBt FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS ON PANEL C1 ARE NOT GROUPED TOGETHER.

CATEGORY! II DISPOSITION! FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS WERE GROUPED TOGETHER WHEN THE CONTROL BOARD WAS REARRANGED Al-7i HBD NO 31D2-1210 HED TITLBt FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS ON ~

PANEL D2 ARE NOT GROUPED TOGETHER CATBGORY! II-DISPOSITION! FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS WERE GROUPED TOGETHER WHEN THE CONTROL BOARD WAS REARRANGED'l-So HBD NO 31D2-1211 HBD TITLE! SEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENT OF CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS ON PANEL D2 IS NOT II CONSISTENT'ATEGORY DISPOSITION! CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS HAVE BEEN REARRANGED TO FOLLOW CPaL's BOTTOM-TO-TOP OR LEFT-TO-RIGHT ARRANGEMENTS Al 2

~ o Al-9 HED NO! 31Dl-1212 HBD TITLE! FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS ON PANEL Dl ARE NOT GROUPED TOGETHER 0

CATBGORYt II DISPOSITION! FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS WERE GROUPED TOGETHER WHEN THE CONTROL BOARD WAS REARRANGED'l-l0 HED NOt 31DO-1213 HED TITLBt SEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENT OF CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS ON PANELS Dl AND D2 IS NOT II CONSISTENT'ATEGORY!

DISPOSITION CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS HAVE BEEN REARRANGED TO FOLLOW CP&L's BOTTOM-TO-TOP OR LEFT-TO-RIGHT ARRANGEMENTS Al-lie HED NO 31Al-1214 HBD TITLBt SEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENT OF CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS ON PANEL Al IS NOT CONSISTENT CATEGORYt II DISPOSITION! CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS HAVE BEEN REARRANGED TO FOLLOW CP&L's BOTTOM-TO-TOP OR LEFT-TO-RIGHT ARRANGEMENT Al-12 HBD NOt 31CI-1215 HBD TITLB! SEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENT OF CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS ON PANEL Cl IS NOT CONSISTENT.

CATBGORY!

DISPOSITION II CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS HAVE BEEN REARRANGED TO FOLLOW CP&L's BOTTOM-TO-TOP OR LEFT-TO-RIGHT ARRANGEMENTS Al 3

A1-13 HBD Not 31A2-1216 HBD TITLE! SEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENT OF CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS ON PANEL A2 IS NOT CONSISTENT CATBGORY! II DISPOSITION! CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS HAVE BEEN REARRANGED TO FOLLOW CPGL's BOTTOM-TO-TOP OR LEFT-TO-RIGHT ARRANGEMENT Al-14 'ED NO! 31D1-1217 HED TITLE SEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENT OF CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS ON PANEL Dl IS NOT CONSISTENT CATEGORY! II DISPOSITIONS CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS HAVE BEEN REARRANGED TO FOLLOW CP&L's BOTTOM-TO-TOP OR LEFT-TO-RIGHT ARRANGEMENTS A1-15 'ED NO: 31DO-1218 HED TITLE! FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS ON PANELS Dl AND D2 ARE NOT GROUPED TOGETHER CATEGORY'I DISPOSITION! FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS WERE GROUPED TOGETHER WHEN THE CONTROL BOARD WAS REARRANGED'l-16 HED NO: 31Al-2002 HED TITLE FUNCTIONALLY RELATED DISPLAYS ON PANEL Al ARE NOT GROUPED TOGETHER.

CATEGORY II DISPOSITION FUNCTIONALLY RELATED DISPLAYS WERE GROUPED TOGETHER WHEN THE CONTROL BOARD WAS REARRANGED Al-4

A1-17 HED NO 3IA2-2003 HED TITLB FUNCTIONALLY RELATED DISPLAYS ON PANEL A2 ARE NOT GROUPED TOGETHER.

0 CATEGORY! II DISPOSITION FUNCTIONALLY RELATED DI SPLAYS WERE GROUPED TOGETHER WHEN THE CONTROL BOARD WAS REARRANGED'l-18

'BD NOt 31BI-2004 HBD TITLE FUNCTIONALLY RELATED DISPLAYS ON PANEL Bl ARE NOT GROUPED TOGETHER CATBGORYt II DISPOSITIONj FUNCTIONALLY RELATED DISPLAYS WERE GROUPED TOGETHER WHEN THE CONTROL BOARD WAS REARRANGED'l-19

'BD NOt 31B2-2005 HBD TITLBt FUNCTIONALLY RELATED DISPLAYS ON PANEL B2 ARE NOT GROUPED TOGETHER CATEGORY II DISPOSITIONt FUNCTIONALLY RELATED DISPLAYS WERE GROUPED TOGETHER WHEN THE CONTROL BOARD WAS REARRANGED'1-20

'ED Not 31CI-2006 HED TITLE! FUNCTIONALLY RELATED DISPLAYS ON PANEL Cl ARE NOT GROUPED TOGETHER+

CATEGORY! II DISPOSITIONt FUNCTIONALLY RELATED DISPLAYS WERE GROUPED TOGETHER WHEN THE CONTROL BOARD WAS REARRANGED'1-21 HED Not 31D2-2007 HBD TITLB FUNCTIONALLY RELATED DISPLAYS ON PANEL D2 ARE NOT GROUPED TOGETHER.

CATEGORYt II DISPOSITIONt FUNCTIONALLY RELATED DISPLAYS WERE GROUPED TOGETHER WHEN THE CONTROL BOARD WAS REARRANGED

~.

0

Al-22 HBD NO: 31D1-2008 HBD TITLEc FUNCTIONALLY RELATED DISPLAYS ON PANEL Dl ARE NOT GROUPED TOGETHER.

CATEGORY'I DISPOSITION FUNCTIONALLY RELATED DISPLAYS WERE GROUPED TOGETHER WHEN THE CONTROL BOARD WAS REARRANGED ~

Al-23 ~ HED NO: 31DO-2009 HED TITLBt SEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENT OF DISPLAYS ON PANELS Dl AND D2 ARE NOT II CONSISTENT'ATBGORY DISPOSITION: DISPLAYS HAVE BEEN REARRANGED TO FOLLOW CPaL's BOTTOM-TO-TOP OR LEFT-TO-RIGHT ARRANGEMENTS Al-24 HBD NO: 31Cl-2010 HED TITLE SEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENT OF DISPLAYS ON PANEL Cl IS NOT CONSISTENT'ATBGORY II DISPOSITION: DISPLAYS HAVE BEEN REARRANGED TO FOLLOW CPaL's BOTTOM-TO-TOP OR LEFT-TO-RIGHT ARRANGEMENT Al-25 HBD NO: 31B1-2011 HBD TITLB SEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENT OF DISPLAYS ON PANEL Bl IS NOT CONSISTENT.

CATBGORY II

. DISPOSITION: DISPLAYS HAVE BEEN REARRANGED TO FOLLOW CP&L's BOTTOM-TO-TOP OR LEFT-TO-RIGHT ARRANGEMENT.

Al-26 'BD NO 31A1-2012.

HED TITLE FUNCTIONALLY RELATED DISPLAYS ON PANEL Al ARE NOT GROUPED TOGETHER CATEGORY DISPOSITION II FUNCTIONALLY RELATED DISPLAYS WERE GROUPED TOGETHER WHEN THE CONTROL BOARD WAS REARRANGED'

~.

~ e

Al-27 HBD N0$ 31Al-2012 HED TITLBt SEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENT OF DISPLAYS ON PANEL Al IS NOT CONSISTENT.

CATBGORYt II DISPOSITIONt DISPLAYS HAVE BEEN REARRANGED TO FOLLOW CP&L's BOTTOM TO TOP OR LEFT TO RIGHT ARRANGEMENTe Al-28 HBD N0$ 31A2-2013 HBD TITLBt SEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENT OF DISPLAYS ON PANEL A2 IS NOT CONSISTENT.

CATBGORYt II DISPOSITIONt DISPLAYS HAVE .BEEN REARRANGED TO FOLLOW CP&L's BOTTOM-TO-TOP OR LEFT-TO-RIGHT ARRANGEMENTe Al-29 HBD N0$ 31D2-2014 HED TITLBt SEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENT OF DISPLAYS ON PANEL D2 CONSISTENT CATBGORYt II DISPOSITIONt DISPLAYS HAVE BEEN REARRANGED TO FOLLOW CP&L's BOTTOM-TO-TOP OR LEFT-TO-RIGHT ARRANGEMENT Al-30 'BD NO 31DO-2015 HBD TITLBt FUNCTIONALLY RELATED DISPLAYS ON PANELS Dl AND D2 ARE NOT GROUPED TOGETHER CATEGORY II DISPOSITION FUNCTIONALLY RELATED DISPLAYS WERE GROUPED TOGETHER WHEN THE CONTROL BOARD WAS REARRANGED ~

Al-31% HBD Not 31AA-3002 HBD TITLBt FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS ON PANEL AA ARE NOT GROUPED TOGETHER+

CATEGORY. II DISPOSITION FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS WERE GROUPED TOGETHER WHEN THE CONTROL BOARD WAS REARRANGED

~

'o

~,

~,

A1-32 'BD NO. 31A1-3003 HED TITLE! FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS ON PANEL Al ARE NOT GROUPED TOGETHER CATBGORYt DISPOSITION II FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS WERE GROUPED TOGETHER WHEN THE CONTROL BOARD WAS REARRANGED A1-33 HED NO 31A2-3004 HBD TITLBt FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS ON PANEL A2 ARE NOT GROUPED TOGETHER CATBGORYt II DISPOSITION FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS WERE GROUPED TOGETHER WHEN THE CONTROL BOARD WAS REARRANGED'1-34 HBD NO! 31B1-3005 HED TITLE FUNCTIONALLY.'RELATED CONTROLS ON PANEL Bl ARE NOT GROUPED TOGETHER%

CATBGORYt II DISPOSITION! FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS WERE GROUPED TOGETHER WHEN THE CONTROL BOARD WAS REARRANGED'1-35m HBD NO! 31B2-3006 HBD TITLBt FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS ON PANEL B2 ARE NOT GROUPED TOGETHER CATBGORYt II DISPOSITION! FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS WERE GROUPED TOGETHER WHEN THE CONTROL BOARD WAS REARRANGED'l-36

'BD NO 31BB-3007 HED TITLE! FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS ON PANEL BB ARE NOT GROUPED TOGETHER CATBGORY! II FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS WERE GROUPED

'ISPOSITIONt TOGETHER WHEN THE CONTROL BOARD WAS REARRANGED'

Al-37 HBD NO 31Cl-3008 HBD TITLB! FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS ON PANEL Cl ARE NOT GROUPED II TOGETHER'ATEGORY!

DISPOSITION! FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS WERE GROUPED TOGETHER WHEN THE CONTROL BOARD WAS REARRANGED Al-38 HBD NO! ~ 31D2-3009 HBD TITLB! FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS ON PANEL D2 ARE NOT GROUPED TOGETHER CATBGORY! II DISPOSITION! FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS WERE GROUPED TOGETHER WHEN THE CONTROL BOARD WAS REARRANGED ~

Al-39 HBD NO 31D1-3010 HED TITLB! FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS ON PANEL Dl ARE NOT GROUPED TOGETHER.

CATEGORY! II DISPOSITION! FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS WERE GROUPED TOGETHER WHEN THE CONTROL BOARD WAS REARRANGED ~

Al-40 'ED NO! 31D1-3011 HBD TITLB SEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENT OF CONTROLS ON PANEL Dl IS NOT CONSISTENT CATBGORY! II DISPOSITION! CONTROLS HAVE BEEN REARRANGED TO FOLLOW CP&L's BOTTOM-TO-TOP OR LEFT-TO-RIGHT ARRANGEMENT Al-41 HBD NO 31D2-3012 HBD TITLB! SEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENT OF CONTROLS ON PANEL D2 IS NOT II CONSISTENT'ATEGORY!

DISPOSITION CONTROLS HAVE BEEN REARRANGED TO FOLLOW CPaL's BOTTOM-TO-TOP OR LEFT-TO-RIGHT ARRANGEMENT.

~.

~ i

~ I 0

~ I

Al-42 HBD NOt 31C1-3013 HED TITLBt SEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENT OF CONTROLS ON PANEL Cl IS NOT CONSISTENT.

0 CATBGORY! II DISPOSITION! CONTROLS HAVE BEEN REARRANGED TO FOLLOW CP&L's BOTTOM-TO-TOP OR LEFT-TO-RIGHT ARRANGEMENT Al-43 'ED NO! 31BB-.3014 HED TITLBt SEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENT OF CONTROLS ON PANEL BB IS NOT CONSISTENT.

CATEGORY! II DISPOSITIONt CONTROLS HAVE BEEN REARRANGED TO FOLLOW CP&L's BOTTOM-TO-TOP OR LEFT-TO-RIGHT ARRANGEMENT.

Al-44 'BD NO! 31AA-3016 HED TITLBt SEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENT OF CONTROLS ON PANEL AA IS NOT CONSISTENT CATEGORY II DISPOSITION! CONTROLS HAVE BEEN REARRANGED TO FOLLOW CP&L's BOTTOM-TO-TOP OR LEFT-TO-RIGHT ARRANGEMENT Al-45 'BD NOt 31A1-3017 HBD TITLBt FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS ON PANEL Al ARE NOT GROUPED TOGETHER.

CATEGORY! II DISPOSITION! FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS WERE GROUPED TOGETHER WHEN THE CONTROL BOARD WAS REARRANGED'l-46+

HBD NO! 31A1-3017 HBD TITLE! SEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENT OF CONTROLS ON PANEL Al IS NOT CONSISTENT CATEGORY! II DISPOSITION CONTROLS HAVE BEEN REARRANGED TO FOLLOW CP&L's BOTTOM-TO-TOP OR LEFT-TO-RIGHT ARRANGEMENTS

~.

Al-47 HBD NOs 31A2-3018 HBD TITLEs SEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENT OF CONTROLS ON PANEL A2 IS NOT CONSISTENT+

CATBGORYs II DISPOSITIONs CONTROLS HAVE BEEN REARRANGED TO FOLLOW CP&L's BOTTOM-TO-TOP OR LEFT-TO-RIGHT ARRANGEMENTS Al-48m HED NO 31DO-3019 HBD TITLBs SEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENT OF CONTROLS ON PANELS Dl AND D2 IS NOT CONSISTENT+

CATEGORYs II DISPOSITIONs CONTROLS HAVE BEEN REARRANGED TO FOLLOW CPL's BOTTOM-TO-TOP OR LEFT-TO-RIGHT ARRANGEMENT Al-49m HBD NO! 31DO-3020 HBD TITLBs FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS ON PANELS Dl AND D2 ARE NOT GROUPED TOGETHER.

CATEGORY II DISPOSITION! FUNCTIONALLY RELATED CONTROLS WERE GROUPED TOGETHER WHEN THE CONTROL BOARD WAS REARRANGED Al-50m HBD NO$ 31B1-3021 HBD TITLE! SEQUENTIAL ARRANGEMENT OF, CONTROLS ON PANEL Bl IS NOT II CONSISTENT'ATEGORY!

DISPOSITION. CONTROLS HAVE BEEN REARRANGED TO FOLLOW CP&L's BOTTOM-TO-TOP OR LEFT-TO-RIGHT ARRANGEMENT

APPBNDIX A-2 HEDs BASBD ON THB SHEARON HARRIS SIMULATOR A2-le HBD NO! 3100-0001 HBD TITLB! GLARE ON INSTRUMENTATION CATBGORY! II DISPOSITION! PROVIDE DIFFUSER PANELS TO MINIMIZE GLARE.

COMPLETELY CONDUCT LIGHTING SURVEY PER NUREG-0700 CRITERIA WHEN CONTROL ROOM IS A2-2 ~ HED NO! 3100-0101 HBD TITLE! NO READING/WRITING SURFACE CATEGORY! III DISPOSITION! DESKS ARE PROVIDED FOR THE OPERATORS'O BACKFIT REQUIRED'2-3 HBD NO! 3100-1102 HBD TITLB! USE OF ABBREVIATIONS IS NOT CONSISTENTLY APPLIED ACROSS THE CONTROL ROOM ~

CATEGORY! III DISPOSITION! A CONTROLLED ABBREVIATIONS LIST IS IN PLACE AND CORRECT ABBREVIATIONS ARE BEING INCORPORATED INTO THE LABELS'TC A2-4 ~ HED NO! 31E2-1104 HED TITLE! NO GROUP LABELS ON NIS PANEL CATEGORY DISPOSITION III LABELS WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A2 1

A2-5e HED NO 31Cl-1301 HED TITLBc BREAKER TRIP DIRECTION REVERSED I

CATEGORY! II DISPOSITIONR REACTOR TR I P BREAKERS HAVE BEEN CHANGED TO FOLLOW LEFT-TRIP CONVENTION.

A2-6Q HBD NOR 31C1-2001 HBD TITLBt CRT OBSCURES COMPONENTS ON THE CONTROL BOARD WHEN IT IS PULLED OUT FOR II MAINTENANCE'ATBGORYe DISPOSITIONS THE CRTs SLIDE OUT THE BACK FOR EASIER MAINTENANCE'O BACKFIT REQUIRED'2-7 HED NO 31A2-2101 HBD TITLE! DUAL MESSAGE ANNUNCIATORS CATEGORY'II DISPOSITIONS DUAL MESSAGE ANNUNCIATORS HAVE BEEN SEPARATED INTO SEPARATE ANNUNCIATOR TITLES'2-8 HED NO! 31A2-2102 HBD TITLE DUAL MESSAGE ANNUNCIATOR CATEGORY! III DISPOSITIONS A POSITIVE INDICATION OF VCT LEVEL IS AVAILABLE ON METER BELOW THE ANNUNCIATORY NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'2-9 HED NO 31C1-2103 HED TITLB DUAL MESSAGE ANNUNCIATORS CATEGORY'II DISPOSITION DUAL ANNUNCIATOR MESSAGES HAVE BEEN SEPARATED A2 2

A2-10 HBD NO! 31A2-2104 HBD TITLE! DUAL MESSAGE ON ANNUNCIATOR CATBGORY! III DISPOSITION! SEPARATING THE PRE HIGH-LOW MESSAGE IS NOT NECESSARY' PRZ HI PRESSURE ALERT ALARM IS IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE TO DETERMINE IF THE PRESSURE IS HIGH OR LOW. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'2-11 HBD NO! 31A2-2105 HBD TITLBt DUAL MESSAGE ON ANNUNCIATORS CATBGORYt III DISPOSITION! DUAL ANNUNCIATOR MESSAGES HAVE BEEN SEPARATED'2-12 HBD NO! 31A2-2107 HBD TITLBt DUAL MESSAGE ANNUNCIATORS CATEGORY III DISPOSITIONt REFLASH CAPABILITY EXISTS FOR THESE ALARMS~

INDICATION FOR EACH CONDITION ANNUNCIATED IS PROVIDED'O BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A2-13 'BD NO! 3100-2201 HBD TITLBt VERTICAL LABELS WITHIN METERS ARE DIFFICULT TO READ.

CATEGORY!

DISPOSITION III READABILITY HAS BEEN IMPROVED BY INCREASING THE STROKE WIDTH AND LETTER HEIGHT ON METER FACES'ETER FACES WILL BE REPLACED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A2 3

A2-14 'ED Not 3100-2202 HED TITLB! NON-LINEAR SCALES ON VERTICAL METERS CATBGORYt III DISPOSITION! NON-L'INEAR SCALES ARE REQUIRED FOR LOG FUNCTIONS'2-15

'BD NO! 3100-2204 HED TITLB CIRCULAR METERS DO NOT FAIL OFF SCALE CATEGORY!

DISPOSITION II PROVIDING METERS THAT FAIL OFF SCALE REQUIRES MODIFYING THE INDICATOR CIRCUIT WITH THE ADDITION OF A BIAS CIRCUIT BOARD FOR EACH INDICATOR THESE MODIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN EVALUATED AND DETERMINED COST PROHIBITIVE MOST INDICATORS HAVE REDUNDANT INDICATION OR COMPUTER ALARMS'2-16 HED NO! 3100-2205 HBD TITLBt VERTICAL METERS DO NOT FAIL OFF SCALE CATBGORYt II DISPOSITIONt PROVIDING METERS THAT FAIL OFF SCALE REQUIRES MODIFYING THE INDICATOR CIRCUIT WITH THE ADDITION OF A BIAS CIRCUIT BOARD FOR EACH INDICATOR. THESE MODIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN EVALUATED AND DETERMINED COST PROHIBITIVE'OST INDICATORS HAVE REDUNDANT INDICATION OR COMPUTER ALARMS A2-17 HED NO! 31El-2206 HBD TITLBt PARALLAX PROBLEMS WHEN READING CIRCULAR METERS CATEGORY! III DISPOSITIONt OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEMS WITH READING THE METERS TO THE ACCURACY REQUIRED. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'2 4

A2-18 'ED NOs 3100-2207 HED TITLEs POINTER OBSCURES INDEX MARKS AND SCALE NUMBERS ON CIRCULAR METERS CATBGORYs III DISPOSITIONs OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEMS WITH READING THE METERS TO THE ACCURACY REQUIRED NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'2-19

'BD NOs 3100-2301 HED TITLBs INDICATOR LIGHTS ON ROTARY SWITCHES ARE DIFFICULT TO CHANGE CATBGORYs II DISPOSITIONs PROBLEM HAS BEEN CORRECTED WITH THE USE OF A DIFFERENT SWITCH DESIGN+

A2-20 HED NOs 3100-2302 HED TITLBs LAMP TEST CATEGORYs III DISPOSITIONs THE "PUSH TO TEST" FEATURE FOR ROTARY SWITCH INDICATOR LIGHTS HAS BEEN EVALUATED AND DETERMINED TO BE COST PROHIBITIVE'2-21 HBD NO 31A1-2305 HED TITLBs MONITOR LIGHTS DO NOT CONFORM TO CONVENTION EXTINGUISHED LIGHTS INDICATE A NORMAL CONDITION CATBGORY II DISPOSITIONs. LIGHTS WILL BE REARRANGED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A2-22% HED Nos 31C1-2401 HED TITLBs STRIP CHART VISIBILITYIS IMPAIRED BY GLASS DUST COVER CATEGORY III DISPOSITIONs A LARGER COVER IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR THIS RECORDERS THE DOOR WILL BE OPENED'HEN NECESSARY FOR READING SCALES A2 5

A2-23 'ED Not 31C1-2402 HED TITLE TEMPORARY LABELS HAVE BEEN ADDED ON RECORDER LABEL BETWEEN ANCHOR POINTS'II CATEGORY DISPOSITION PERMANENT NUMBERING AT SIGNIFICANT MIDPOINTS ON THE RECORDER WILL BE ADDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A2-24 'ED NO: 3100-2403 HED TITLE OBSCURING OF TRENDS BY PAPER GUIDES ON STRIP CHART RECORDERS CATEGORY! IV DISPOSITIONt PAPER GUIDES ARE ON THE SIMULATOR RECORDERS ONLY AND NOT ON THE CONTROL ROOM RECORDERS.

NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A2-25 HED NON 3100-2404 HED TITLES COLOR CODING OF SET-POINT MARKER ON STRIP CHARTS IS INCONSISTENT CATEGORY! III DISPOSITIONS PROBLEM IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CONTROL ROOM RECORDERS'ECORDERS WILL BE MAINTAINED ON A REGULAR BASIS A2-26 HED NOt 3100-2405 HED TITLE PENS DO NOT INK EVENLY CATEGORY DISPOSITION III PROBLEM IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CONTROL ROOM RECORDERS'ECORDERS WILL BE MAINTAINED ON A REGULAR BASIS A2 6

A2-27 HBD NOt 3100-2406 HBD TITLBt INK BLEEDS ON RECORDER PAPER CATBGORYt III DISPOSITIONt PROBLEM IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CONTROL ROOM RECORDERS. RECORDERS WILL BE MAINTAINED ON A REGULAR BASIS'2-28 HBD NOt 3100-2408 HBD TITLEs PAPER SPEED NOT APPARENT CATEGORY! IV DISPOSITION CONTROLLING THE PAPER SPEED IS NOT NECESSARY.

THE PAPER SPEED WILL BE INDICATED FOR EACH RECORDER.

A2-29 HBD NOt, 31B2-2409 HBD TITLBt STRIP CHART COLOR CODING INCONSISTENCIES CATBGORYt III DISPOSITIONt CONSISTENCY OF STRIP CHART PEN COLORS HAS BEEN EVALUATED BY SHNPPED AND DETERMINED TO BE COST PROHIBITIVE.

A2-30 HED NO 3100-2410 HBD TITLBt SYMBOLS ON IMPACT RECORDERS NOT LEGIBLE CATBGORYt DISPOSITION III ALL INFORMATION ON TREND RECORDERS IS AVAILABLE ON THE COMPUTER. ALSO A PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM WILL BE SET UP TO PROVIDE REGULAR MAINTENANCE ON THE RECORDERS WHICH WILL AID IN THE READING OF THE RECORDERS A2 7

A2-31. HBD NO! 3100-2413 HBD TITLE! NO LABELS ON SOFTWARE CONTROLLED RECORDERS CATBGORYt IV DISPOSITIONt PARAMETERS AND RANGES ARE DEMANDED FROM THE COMPUTER. OPERATORS WRITE THE PARAMETER AND RANGE ON THE FACE OF THE TREND RECORDERS WITH A GREASE PENCILS NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A2-32 HBD NO! 31A2-2501 HBD TITLE! POOR CONTRAST ON COUNTERS AND INADVERTENT ACTIVATION OF ADJACENT COUNTER WHEELS IS POSSIBLE BECAUSE COUNTER WHEELS ARE CLOSE TOGETHER+

CATEGORY! III DISPOSITION! COUNTERS ARE USED ONLY FOR MANUAL OPERATIONi AND ARE SET AND ACTUATED ONE AT A TIME CONSEQUENCE OF INADVERTENT ACTIVATION IS NEGLIGIBLE'2-33 HBD NO! 31E1-2701 HBD TITLBt OBSCURED NUMERAL IN INCORE FLUX DISPLAY CATEGORY! IV DISPOSITION! PROBLEM DOES NOT EXIST WITH CURRENT DISPLAYS (HED WAS WRITTEN BASED ON THE SIMULATOR EQUIPMENT) ~

A2-34+ HED NOt 31E1-2702 HBD TITLE! OBSCURED DECIMAL POINT IN INCORE FLUX DETECTOR PANEL CATEGORY III DISPOSITIONt PROBLEM DOES NOT EXIST WITH CURRENT DISPLAYS (HED WAS WRITTEN BASED ON THE SIMULATOR EQUIPMENT).

A2 8

A2-35 'ED NOt 31B2-3001 HBD TITLB! NO LAMP TEST ON THE DEH TURBINE CONTROL PANEL r CATBGORYt III DISPOSITION! INDICATOR LIGHTS HAVE TWO BULBS PER COMPONENTi PUSHBUTTONS HAVE FOUR BULBS TO SERVE AS BACKUP NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'2-36 HBD Not 31E1-3101 HBD TITLBt SET-POINT SCALES ARE LOCATED IN AN INACCESSIBLE POSITION CATBGORY! III DISPOSITIONt EQUIPMENT IS USED BY PLANT ENGINEERING IN STARTUP AND TESTING+ THERE IS NO ROOM WITHIN CABINETS TO RELOCATE COMPONENTS TO A LOWER LOCATION.

A2-37 HBD NO! 3100-3102 HBD TITLB! PROCESS CONTROLLERS DISPLAYS DEMAND STATUS NOT ACTUAL DISPOSITIONt III STATUS'ATEGORY ADD I T ZONAL FEEDBACK INDICATION OTHER THAN PROCESS CONTROLLERS OUTPUT IS AVAILABLE TO DETERMINE SYSTEM RESPONSE. ALL DEMAND METERS WILL BE LABELED AS DEMAND TO AVOID MISINTERPRETATION.

A2-38 HBD NOt 31E1-3202 HED TITLE INSUFFICIENT LABELING ON INCORE PATH SELECTOR SWITCH CATEGORYt DISPOSITION III ADDITIONAL LABELING TO DETECTOR A PANEL WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A2-9

~.

A2-39. HBD NO! 3100-3206 HBD TITLE! "OFF" POSITION ON KEY OPERATED SWITCHES DOES NOT FOLLOW CONVENTION CATBGORY! III NO DISPOSITION! HED LONGER APPLICABLEi KEY SWITCHES WITH OFF POSITION HAVE BEEN CHANGED TO A DIFFERENT TYPE ~

A2-40 'BD NO! 3100-3207 HED TITLB! ORIENTATXON OF KEY IN LOCK DOES NOT CONFORM TO CONVENTION CATBGORY! III DISPOSITION! PROBLEM HAS BEEN CORRECTED BY A DIFFERENT TYPE OF SWITCH DESIGN A2-41 HED NO 3100-3208 HBD TITLB KEYS NOT CLEARLY LABELED CATEGORY!

DISPOSITION!

III NEW SWITCH DESIGN HAS A TUBE-TYPE KEY WHICH IS USED FOR ALL KEY SWITCHES'2-42 HED NO 31EI-3301 HBD TITLB! CENTER-LOADED TOGGLE SWITCHES! INAPPROPRIATE TOGGLE LOCK CATBGORY!

DISPOSITION III THE LOCK ON "NO POSITION" FOR THESE TOGGLE SWITCHES IS APPROPRIATE SINCE IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN A SELECTED THERMOCOUPLE AT ALL TIMES. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'2-10

O.

A2-43 'BD NO! 3100>>3403 HBD TITIB! LEGEND PLATES ON LEGEND PUSHBUTTONS CAN BE INTERCHANGED WHEN BULBS ARE DISPOSITION!

III AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE REPLACED'ATEGORY!

THAT REQUIRES OPERATORS TO PERFORM MAINTENANCE ON ONLY ONE LEGEND LIGHT AT A TIME WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A2-44 HED NO! 3100-3405 HBD TITLB CHANGING A BURNED'UT BULB ON PUSHBUTTONS IS A PROBLEM CATEGORY! III DISPOSITION! PROBLEM HAS BEEN RESOLVED BY A DIFFERENT TYPE OF SWITCH DESIGN.

A2-45 'BD NO 3100-3406 HED TITLE SIZE OF LEGEND PUSHBUTTONS DOES NOT MEET CRITERIA CATEGORY! III DISPOSITION! PUSHBUTTONS ARE SUFFICIENT IN SIZE THAT THE FINGER DOES NOT OVERLAP WHEN UTILIZING THESE PUSHBUTTONS CONSEQUENCE OF FINGER SLIPPING OFF IS NEGLIGIBQE<<,-

A2-46 HBD NO! 3100-3407 HBD TITLB! PUSHBUTTONS NOT SHAPED TO FINGERTIP CATEGORY DISPOSITION III PUSHBUTTONS ARE "OFF-THE SHELF" EQUIPMENT AND CANNOT EASILY BE MODIFIED. CONSEQUENCES OF ERROR WITH INCORRECT OPERATION/OR ACCIDENTAL ACTIVATION OF THE PUSHBUTTONS IS NEGLIGIBLE'

A2-47 HBD NOt 31Bl-3408 HBD TITLBt LEGEND LIGHTS ARE NOT EASILY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM LEGEND PUSHBUTTONS CATBGORYt III DISPOSITION! OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEM DISTINGUISHING THE LEGEND LIGHTS FROM THE PUSHBUTTONS ONCE THE FUNCTIONS ARE LEARNED THE OPERATORS KNOW WHICH ARE PUSHBUTTONS A2-48 HBD Not 3100-3409 HBD TITLBt LEGEND PLATES ON LEGEND LIGHTS CAN BE INTERCHANGED WHEN'BULBS ARE DISPOSITION!

III AN ADM IN I STRATIVE REPLACED'ATEGORY!

PROCEDURE THAT RE{}VIRES OPERATORS TO PERFORM MAINTENANCE ON ONLY ONE LEGEND LIGHT AT A TIME WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

I A2-49 'BD NOt 31E1-3501 HBD TITLBt NO UNITS LABELS ON THE THUMBWHEEL COUNTERS CATBGORYt III DISPOSITIONt LABELS WILL BE PROVIDED FOR THE THUMBWHEEL COUNTERS PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A2-50 HBD NOR 31B2-3502 HBD TITLE! THUMBWHEEL COUNTER IS UNLABELED CATEGORY DISPOSITION III LABEL WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A2-51 HBD NO 31Bl-5001 HBD TITLBt LOSS OF FWP CATEGORY! II DISPOSITION! TURBINE RUNBACK FEATURE FOR LOSS OF FWP IS BEING IMPLEMENTED A2 12

APPENDIX A-3 AUXILIARYEQUIPNBNT PANEL HBDs A3-l HBD NO! 31D9-1107 HED TITLE! SYSTEM LABELS DO NOT MEET READABILITY CRITERIA CATBGORY!

DISPOSITION!

III SYSTEM LABELS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A3-2 HED NO! 31D9-1108 HBD TITLE! CHARACTER HEIGHTS NOT CONSISTENT ACROSS COMPONENT LABELS CATBGORY! IXX DISPOSITION! COMPONENT LABELS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A3-3 ~ HBD NO 31D9-1109 HBD TITLE! PROCESS CONTROLLER COMPONENT LABEL CHARACTERS DO NOT MEET CRITERIA CATEGORY!

DISPOSITION!

III COMPONENT LABELS WXLL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A3-4 ~ HBD NO! 31D9-1110 HED TITLE! LEGEND LIGHT MODULE ENGRAVING DOES NOT MEET CRITERIA CATBGORY! IV DISPOSITION OPERATXONS FOUND NO PROBLEM IN READXNG THE LEGENDS ON LIGHT MODULES'O BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A3 1

A3-5 ~ HBD NO 31D9-llll HED TITLBs ANNUNCIATOR SWITCH LEGEND PUSHBUTTON ENGRAVING DOES NOT MEET CRITERIA CATBGORYt DISPOSITIONt III OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEM READING ANNUNCIATOR SWITCH LEGENDS'NGINEERING CONCURS'O BACKFIT REQUIRED'3-6e HBD NOt 31D9-1112 HED TITLBt LEGEND LIGHT ENGRAVING DOES NOT MEET CRITERIA CATBGORYt III DISPOSITIONt ,OPERATIONS FOUND NO PROBLEMS IN READING LEGENDS ON THE LIGHT MODULES'NGINEERING CONCURS'O BACKFIT REQUIRED'3-7o HBD NOt 31D9-1113 HED TITLBt VERTICAL METER COMPONENT LABELS CHARACTERS DO NOT MEET CRITERIA CATEGORYt DISPOSITION III VERTICAL METER COMPONENT LABELS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A3-8 ~ HED NO 31D9-1114 HED TITLBt SUBSYSTEM LABELS DO NOT MEET CRITERIA CATEGORYt DISPOSITION!

III ALL SUBSYSTEM LABELS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A3-9 HED NO. 31D9-1115 HED TITLBt CONTROL MODULE LABELS DO NOT MEET CRITERIA CATEGORY DISPOSITION III CONTROL MODULE LABELS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A3 - 2

~ l e

A3-10 HED Not 31D9-1116 HED TITLB VERTICAL METER COMPONENT LABELS ARE INCORRECT CATBGORYe III DISPOSITIONS VERTICAL METER COMPONENT LABELS WILL BE RELABELED WITH INDICATOR NUMBERS PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A3-11 HBD NOi 31D9-1117 HBD TITLB2 SYSTEM NOT LABELED CATEGORY! III DISPOSITIONS A SYSTEM LABEL FOR THE AMMONIA/HYDRAZINESYSTEM WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A3-12 HED NO! 31D9-1118 HBD TITLBa INCONSISTENT ABBREVIATIONS ON COMPONENT MODULES CATBGORYi II DISPOSITIONS LABELS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SHNPP-1 ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYM LIST PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A3-13 HED NO: 31D9-1119 HBD TITLBc COMPONENT LABEL IS INCORRECT CATEGORY II DISPOSITIONR LABEL WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED/CORRECTED PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A3-14m HED NO! 31D9-1120 HED TITLB UNLABELED CENTER POSITIONS ON CONTROL MODULES CATEGORY. II DISPOSITION LABELS WILL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL CONTROLS THAT HAVE AN AUTO POSITION PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A3 - 3

A3-1'BD NO 31D9-1303 HED TITLE! VALVE HANDLES DO NOT FOLLOW CONVENTION 0 CATEGORY II DISPOSITIONt VALVE HANDLES WILL BE CHANGED FROM J-TYPE HANDLES TO T-TYPE HANDLES PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A3-16 HED NOt 31D9-1304 HBD TITLE! DICTXONARY OF TERMS NOT AVAILABLE AND ADMINISTRATIVELYCONTROLLED CATEGORY II DISPOSITION! A DXCTIONARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS HAS BEEN DEVELOPED FOR SHNPP-1 AND IS AVAILABLE AS A CONTROLLED DOCUMENT A3-17 HBD NOt '1D9-2016 HBD TITLB! ROD POSITION INDICATOR LOCATED ABOVE HEIGHT CRITERIA CATBGORYt III DISPOSITIONt INFORMATION DISPLAYED ON THIS DISPLAY CAN ALSO BE DXSPLAYED ON THE CRTs ON THE MCB. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED A3-18 HED Not 31D9-2017 HBD TITLE ANNUNCIATOR LIGHT BOX LOCATED ABOVE HEIGHT CRITERIA CATEGORY! III DISPOSITION! OPERATIONS AND ENGINEERING FOUND THE READABILITY OF THE ALB TO BE ACCEPTABLE AND FEEL THAT READING ACCURACY IS NOT IMPAXRED. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'3 4

~.

~ e e'

A3-19. HBD NO! 31D9-2018

. HBD TITLB!

CATBGORY!

STATUS LIGHT BOXES LOCATED ABOVE HEIGHT CRITERIA III DISPOSITION! SLBs HAVE BEEN MODIFIED. WHERE POSSIBLE, MESSAGES HAVE BEEN REDUCED TO THREE NOT POSSIBLES THE FOUR LINE TEXT TILES LINES'HERE WERE VERIFIED AS READABLE BY OPERATIONS'3-20

'BD NO! 31D9-2108 HBD TITLE! ANNUNCIATOR SWITCH SILENCE PUSHBUTTON IS NOT SHAPE CODED CATBGORY!

DISPOSITION!

III DUE TO THE CONSISTENT LOCATION OF THE SILENCE BUTTON (FIRST BUTTON IN THE ROW) A DIFFERENT SHAPE BUTTON IS NOT RE{}UIRED. NO BACKFIT RE{}UIRED~

A3-21 HBD NO! 31D9-2109 HBD TITLB! ANNUNCIATOR TILES ARE NOT CODED TO ENSURE CORRECT REPLACEMENT

~ CATBGORY! III DISPOSITION! A MAINTENANCE PROCEDURE ADDRESSING BULB REPLACEMENT AND THE REMOVAL OF MULTIPLE WINDOWS WILL BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A3-22 HBD NO! 31D9-2110 HBD TITLE! ALB HAS UNLABELED VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL AXIS CATEGORY! II DISPOSITIOR! COORDINATE DESIGNATORS LABELING THE VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL AXIS ON ALL ALBs WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A3 5

A3-23 HBD NOt 31D9-2111 HBD TITLE! ALB HAS MORE THAN 50 TILES CATEGORY! III DISPOSITIONt SUFFICIENT ROOM DOES NOT EXIST FOR AN ADDITIONAL ANNUNCIATOR LIGHT BOX ~ OPERATIONS AND ENGINEERING FEEL THAT ALL TILES ARE READABLE AND THE ADDITION OF COORDINATE LABELS WILL AID THE OPERATOR IN LOCATING COMPONENTS'O BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A3-24 ~ HBD NO! 31D9-2112 HED TITLE! ALB TILES CONTAIN DUAL MESSAGES CATEGORYt III DISPOSITION! OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEM WITH THE DUAL MESSAGE ANNUNCIATORY OUT OF THE ELEVEN LISTED TWO ARE OF SIGNIFICANCE (SPENT FP HI/LO & NEW FP HI/LO LEVEL) ~ BOTH PARAMETERS HAVE REDUNDANT INDICATION THAT CAN BE DISPLAYED ON THE COMPUTER CRTs. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A3-25m HBD NO 31D9-2113 HBD TITLB ALB TILE ABBREVIATION IS AMBIGUOUS CATBGORYt III DISPOSITION! ALB T I LE S HAVE BEEN RE-ENGRAVED USING ABBREVIATIONS FROM THE SHNPP-1 ABBREVIATIONS LIST+

A3-26 HBD NOt 3ID9-2114 HBD TITLBt ALB HAS NO IDENTIFICATION LABEL CATEGORY! III DISPOSITIOHt A LABEL WHICH WILL READ: ALB-23 CHILLER/RAB HVACg WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A3 - 6

A3-27 HBD NOx 31D9-2208 HBD TITLES VERTICAL METERS ABOVE HEIGHT CRITERIA CATBGORYs IIX M DISPOSITION I ENGI NEER NG AND OPERATIONS AGREE THAT METER LOCATION IS ACCEPTABLE AND READING ACCURACY IS NOT IMPAIRED.

A3-28 HBD NOc 31D9-2209 HED TITLEc VERTICAL METERS'NTERNAL LABELING DOES NOT MEET READABILITY CRITERIA CATEGORY'ISPOSITIONS III AS METER FACES ARE REPLACED'HE CHARACTER SIZES OP THE INTERNAL LABELING WILL BE INCREASED'ETER PACES WILL BE REPLACED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A3-29m HBD NOz 31D9-2210 HED TITLE! VERTICAL METERS HAVE MANUFACTURER'S TRADEMARK ON DISPLAY FACE CATEGORY! IV DISPOSITION! CURRENT TRADEMARK DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH READING METER FACES'O BACKFIT REQUIRED A3-30m HED NO! 31D9-2211 HED TITLBt VERTICAL METER SCALE MARKS DO NOT MEET CRITERIA CATBGORYa II DISPOSITIONS METER FACES WILL BE CORRECTED PER SUGGESTED BACKFIT PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A3-31 HED NO 31D9-2212 HED TITLES VERTICAL METER SCALE PROGRESSIONS DO NOT MEET CRITERIA CATEGORY II DISPOSITION METER PACES WILL BE CORRECTED PER SUGGESTED BACKFIT PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A3 7

A3-32 HED NOt 31D9-2306 HED TITLBt LEGEND LIGHTS DO NOT HAVE DUAL FILAMENTS@ DUAL BULBS'R BULB TEST FUNCTION CATEGORY!

DISPOSITION III LAMP TEST HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE COST PROHIBITIVE~ NO BACKFIT REQUIRED ~

A3-33 'ED NOt 31D9-3103 HBD TITLBt PROCESS CONTROLLERS' SCALE ABOVE CRITERIA CATEGORY IXI DISPOSITION OPERATIONS FEEL THE CONTROLLERS 'RESENT LOCATION IS ADEQUATE ~ READXNG ACCURACY REQUIRED FOR SAFE OPERATION IS NOT IMPAIRED ENGINEERING CONCURS'O BACKFIT REQUIRED'3-34.

HBD NOt 31D9-3104 HBD TITLBt PROCESS CONTROLLER SCALE NUMERICALS AND POINTER DO NOT MEET CRXTERIA CATBGORYt III DISPOSITIOHt OPERATIONS VERIFIED THAT THERE IS NO DIFFXCULTY IN READING THE SCALES TO THE ACCURACY REQUIRED FOR SAFE OPERATION A3-35 HBD NO 31D9-3107 HBD TITLE! SCALE TOO SMALL TO READ ON HAGAN PROCESS CONTROLLERS CATBGORYt DISPOSITIONt III METER IS USED TO INDICATE EQUIPMENT RESPONSE AND IS NOT READ TO A PRECISE LEVELS NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'3

- 8

A3-36 'BD Not 31D9-3410 HBD TITLBt ANNUNCIATOR SWITCH PUSHBUTTONS HAVE NO FIXED BARRIERS) NOT SLIP RESISTANT CATEGORY III DISPOSITION: THE CONSEQUENCE OF ACCIDENTAL ACTIVATION IS NOT SIGNIFICANT. OPERATIONS AND ENGINEERING FEEL FIXED BARRIERS ARE NOT NECESSARY. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A3-37 HED Not 31D9-3411 HBD TITLB ANNUNCIATOR SWITCH PUSHBUTTONS ARE TOO SMALL CATBGORYt IV DISPOSITIONt PUSHBUTTON IS ONLY . 125" TOO NARROW ON ONE SIDE AND NO HEAVY GLOVE OPERATION IS EXPECTED OPERATIONS AND ENGINEERING SEE NO POTENTIAL PROBLEMS NO BACKFFIT REQUIRED'3-38

'ED Not 31D9-3412 HBD TITLBt RESISTANCE ON ANNUNCIATOR SWITCH PUSHBUTTONS IS TOO HIGH CATEGORY IV DISPOSITION ENGINEERING FEELS TENSION WILL DECREASE WITH NORMAL USE. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'3-39 HBD Not 31D9-5003 HED TITLBt AEP-lg NO OPERATIONAL DOCUMENTATION AVAILABLE CATEGORYt IV DISPOSITION DESIGN BASIS DOCUMENT DBDO 165 "MAIN AND AUXILIARY CONTROL BOARDS AND PANELS" AND INSTRUCTION MANUAL 99IX-059-6A ARE AVAILABLE FOR AEP-1 ~

A3 9

p t

~.

ll, h I "L 5

A3-40 'ED NO: 31D9-5004 HED TITLE! AEP-1 SEQUENCE OF HVAC COMPONENTS DIFFERENT FROM CONVENTION CATBGORY DISPOSITION:

III COMPONENTS HAVE BEEN MOVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAYOUT CONVENTION.

A3-41 HED NO: 31D9-5005 HBD TITLB AEP-lg GROUP LABEL MISSING CATEGORY'II DISPOSITION LABEL WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A3-42 'ED NO 31D9-5006 HBD TITLB AEP-li GROUP LABEL INCORRECT CATBGORY II DISPOSITION. LABEL WILL BE CORRECTED PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A3-43 HED NO: 31D9-5007 HBD TITLBc AEP-1 g ANNUNCIATOR CONTROLS ORIENTATED DIFFERENTLY FROM MLB CATBGORY III DISPOSITION: THE SWITCH ORIENTATION FOLLOWS CONVENTION FOR ANNUNCIATOR SWITCHES ON VERTICAL PANELS NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'3 10

APPBNDIX A-4 INCORE MONITOR PANEL HBDs A4-1 HBD NO: 31E1-1122 HBD TITLB NOT ALL COMPONENTS LABELED CATBGORY DISPOSITION III FUSES WILL BE LABELED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A4-2 HED NO: 31E1-1134 HBD TITLE SPACE BETWEEN LINES IS TOO SMALL ON PANEL LABELS'ATBGORYt IV DISPOSITION: LABELS WILL BE CORRECTED WHEN PANEL IS PAINTED AND RELABELED 0 A4-3 HBD NO: 31E1-1401 HBD TITLB. COMPONENTS ARE LOCATED ABOVE MAXIMUM HEIGHT CRITERIA.

CATEGORY! III DISPOSITIONt THERE XS NO ROOM TO RELOCATE COMPONENTS BELOW THE 70" CRITERIA. PANEL IS MANUFACTURERcS STANDARD.

A4-4 ~ HED NO: 31El-2213 HED TITLB METERS AND STRIP CHART RECORDER SCALE PROGRESSIONS DO NOT MEET CRITERIA CATBGORYs DISPOSITION Iii OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEMS READING SCALES AND THE RECORDERS ARE INFREQUENTLY USED

A4-5 ~ HED NO: 31El-2218 HBD TITLB: STRIP CHART RECORDERS INFORMATION REQUIRED TO USE SCALE IS MISSING.

0 CATBGORY: IV DISPOSITION. SCALES AND PAPER FOR RECORDERS WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A4-6 HED NO : 31E1-2219 HED TITLE METER INTERNAL LABELING AND GRADUATION MARKS DO NOT MEET CRITERIA.

CATEGORY III DISPOSITION: OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEMS READING METERS.

METERS ARE INFREQUENTLY USED.

A4-7e HBD NO: 31E1-2220 HED TITLB STRIP CHART RECORDER NUMERALS STROKE WIDTH TOO WIDE CATBGORY: IV DISPOSITION NO BACKFIT REQUIREDg NUMERALS ARE EASY TO READ 0

A4-8 ~ HBD NO: 31E1-3022 HBD TITLE: CONTROLS DIRECTION OF MOVEMENT IS BACKWARD CATBGORY:

DISPOSITION III ENGINEERING FEELS SWITCH IS ADEQUATELY LABELED AND DUE TO ITS INFREQUENT OPERATION THERE IS NO NEED TO CHANGE SWITCH.

A4-9 ~ HED NO: 31E1-3023 HED TITLB: CONTINUOUS ROTARY CONTROL KNOBS HAVE TORQUE VALUES LESS THAN CRITERIA.

CATEGORY'II DISPOSITION KNOB DIAL AND OTHER INDICATIONS PROVIDE ADEQUATE FEEDBACK FOR ADJUSTMENTS'O BACKFIT REQUIRED A4 2

A4-10 'BD NO$ 31El-3211 HBD TITLE DISCRETE ROTARY CONTROLS HAVE FIXED POINTERS AND MOVING SCALES.

CATBGORY$ III DISPOSITION$ OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEMS USING THE CONTROLS CONTROL IS INFREQUENTLY USED.

A4-11 HBD N0$ 31E1-3413 HED TITLB PUSHBUTTON DIAMETER TOO SMALL CATBGORY IV DISPOSITION PUSHBUTTON IS MARGINALLY TOO SMALL IN DIAMETER AND IS OPTIMALLY LOCATED'ELL LABELED AND SEPARATED FROM SURROUNDING CONTROLS'O BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A4-12 HED N0$ 31E1-5008 HBD TITLE BATTERY SUPPLY AND PICOAMPERE SOURCE PANELS NOT REQUIRED.

CATBGORY DISPOSITION III COMPONENTS ARE USED BY REACTOR ENGINEERING AND CANNOT BE REMOVED A4-13 HED N0$ 31E1-5009 HED TITLE PATH DISPLAY AND PATH SELECTOR SWITCH LABELING RELATIONSHIPS COMPLEX CATBGORY$ II DISPOSITION LABELS WILL BE CHANGED WHEN THE INCORE PATH MECHANISM IS INSTALLED'4-14

~ HBD NO$ 31E1-5010 HBD TITLB$ INCORE COMPONENTS ABOVE 5TH PERCENTILE FEMALE REACH.

CATBGORY$

DISPOSITION III THERE IS NO ROOM TO RELOCATE COMPONENTS BELOW THE 5TH PERCENTILE FEMALE REACH CRITERIA A4 3

APPBNDIX A-5 NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEM HEDs A5-1 HBD NO: 31E2-1123 HED TITLE: LABELS MISSING ON SOME COMPONENTS CATBGORY: II DISPOSITION LABELS FOR UNLABELED COMPONENTS WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A5-2 HED NO: 31E2-1124 HBD TITLB ABBREVIATIONS ON LABELS ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH MAIN CONTROL BOARD CATBGORY.

DISPOSITION III LABELS WITH STANDARD ABBREVIATIONS WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

V A5-3 ~ HBD NO: 31E2-1402 HBD TITLE COMPONENTS ARE LOCATED ABOVE MAXIMUM HEIGHT CRITERIA CATBGORY DISPOSITION:

III COMPONENTS ARE USED TO TEST ALARMS AND ARE NON CRITICAL CONTROLS'ANEL IS MANUFACTURERCS STANDARD AND IS NOT EASY TO MODIFY'5-4

~ HBD NO 31E2-2214 HED TITLB METER SCALE PROGRESSIONS DO NOT MEET CRITERIA CATBGORY DISPOSITION:

III OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEMS READING SCALES AND METERS ARE NON CRITICAL CONTROLS PANEL IS MANUFACTURERsS STANDARD AND IS NOT EASY TO MODIFY.

A5-5 ~ HED HO 31E2-2215 HED TITLE METER SCALE GRADUATION MARKS DO NOT MEET CRITERIA CATEGORY DISPOSITION:

III OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEMS READING SCALES AND METERS ARE NON CRITICAL CONTROLS'ANEL IS MANUFACTURER'S STANDARD AND IS NOT EASY TO MODIFY.

A5-6 HED NO: 31E2-2307 HED TITLBt LEGEND LIGHT ENGRAVING DOES NOT USE STANDARD ABBREVIATIONS CATEGORY IV DISPOSITION: THERE IS NO ROOM TO ADD MORE LEGENDS. CONTEXT DEFINES ABBREVIATIONS ONLY'5 2

APPBNDIX A-6 RECORDER PANEL HEDs A6-lo HED NO 31E6-1125 HED TITLE. STRIP CHART RECORDER CHANNEL LABEL IS MISSING CATEGORY. II DISPOSITION: STRIP CHART RECORDER CHANNEL LABEL WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A6-2 HED NO: 31E6-1135 HED TITLE: POSITION LABELS DO NOT MEET READABILITYCRITERIA CATEGORY III DISPOSITION LABELS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED TO MEET READABILITY CRITERIA PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A6-3 ~ HED NO: 31E6-1136 HBD TITLE COMPONENT LABELS DO NOT MEET READABILITY CRITERIA CATEGORY'ISPOSITION III LABELS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED TO MEET READABILITY CRITERIA PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A6-4 HED NO: 31E6-1137 HED TITLE COMPONENT LABELS FOR RECORDERS DO NOT MEET READABILITY CRITERIA CATEGORY!

DISPOSITION!

III LABELS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED TO MEET READABILITY CRITERIA PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A6-5 ~ HED NO 31E6-1138 HED TITLB! PANEL LABEL LETTERS HAVE STROKE WIDTH TOO NARROW CATBGORY DISPOSITION III LABELS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD

O.

A6-6 ~ HED NO: 31E6-1152 HBD TITLE: HIERARCHICAL LABELING DOES NOT MEET CRITERIA CATBGORYt~

DISPOSITION:

III A HIERARCHICAL LABELING SCHEME FOR COMPONENTS ON THE RECORDER PANEL WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A6-7 ~ HED NO: 31E6-1403 HBD TITLE: COMPONENTS ARE LOCATED BELOW MINIMUM HEIGHT CRITERIA CATEGORY:

DISPOSITION:

III OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEMS READING DISPLAYS ON THE RECORDER PANEL. THERE IS NO SPACE AVAILABLE TO MOVE THE RECORDER OTHER THAN THE UPPER PORTION OF THE PANELS THIS LOCATION WOULD EXCEED THE MAXIMUM DISPLAY HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS A6-Se HBD NO: 31E6-2216 HED TITLE: STRIP CHART RECORDER SCALE GRADUATIONS DO NOT MEET CRITERIA CATEGORY:

DISPOSITION III THE RECORDERS ARE USED'RIMARILY FOR HISTORICAL DATA RETENTION AND DO NOT SERVE AS THE PRIMARY INDICATION OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEMS READING THE SCALE. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A6-9 HED NO: 31E6-2217 HED TITLE: SCALE VALUE PROGRESSIONS DO NOT MEET CRITERIA CATEGORY DISPOSITION III THE RECORDERS ARE USED PRIMARILY FOR HISTORICAL DATA RETENTION AND DO NOT SERVE AS THE PRIMARY INDICATION OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEMS READING THE SCALE. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A6 - 2

A6-10 HED NO. 31E6-2221 HBD TITLE STRIP CHART RECORDER NUMERALS ARE TOO NARROW CATBGORY III DISPOSITION: NUMERALS ARE OPEN-STYLE AND EASY TO READ ~

OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEM READING THE NUMERALS.

NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A6-11 HED NO 31E6-2222 HED TITLE STRIP CHART RECORDER POINTERS OVERLAP SCALE AND/OR ARE HIDDEN BEHIND SCALE CATBGORY. III DISPOSITION. THERE IS A REDUNDANT SCALE ON THE RECORDER PAPER. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'6-12 HED NO 31E6-3026 HBD TITLBt TOGGLE SWITCH FUNCTIONAL MOVEMENT IS NOT FROM LEFT TO RIGHT CATBGORY III DISPOSITION: SWITCH IS USED TO SELECT THE LOOP TO BE DISPLAYED. THE SWITCH IS A NON CRITICAL CONTROL AND THERE ARE NO PROBLEMS CAUSED IF INCORRECTLY SELECTED A6-13~ HBD NON 31E6-5011 HBD TITLBt NO

SUMMARY

LABELSiNO COMPONENT LABELS AND PEN/CHANNEL LABELS ARE INACCURATE ON RECORDER PANEL CATBGORY!

DISPOSITION III LABELS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A6 3

A6-14 'ED NO: 31E6-5012 HED TITLE: GROUPS OF RECORDERS ARRANGED DIFFERENTLY FROM SEQUENCE OF SIMILAR GROUPS ON MCB CATEGORY'ISPOSITION III THE RECORDERS WILL BE GROUPED USING HIERARCHICAL LABELING AND DEMARCATION AS THERE IS NO ROOM TO RELOCATE COMPONENTS.

A6-15 HED NO: 31E6-5013 HED TITLE. NUCLEAR RECORDER CHANNEL SEQUENCES NOT CONSISTENT CATEGORY. III DISPOSITION: APPROPRIATE DEMARCATION MADE CHANNEL RELATIONSHIPS CLEAR.

A6 4

APPBNDIX A-7 STARTUP TRANSFORMBR PROTECTION RELAY PANEL HBDs A7-1 HED NO: 31Fl-1126 HBD TITLB: NOT ALL COMPONENTS ARE LABELED CATBGORYt II DISPOSITION LABELS WILL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL UNLABELED COMPONENTS PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A7-2 HED NO: 31Fl-1127 HBD TITLBR ABBREVIATIONS WITH IN SOME LABELS ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH MAIN CONTROL BOARD CATBGORY DISPOSITION III LABELS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED USING ABBREVIATIONS FROM THE SHNPP-1 ABBREVIATIONS LIST PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A7-3 ~ HBD NOc 31Fl-1139 HBD TITLB COMPONENT LABELING DOES NOT MEET READABILITY CRITERIA CATBGORY DISPOSITIONR III LABELS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A7-4 ~ HED NO: 31F1-1140 HBD TITLB PANEL LABELS DO NOT MEET READABILITY CRITERIA CATEGORY DISPOSITION:

III LABELS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A7-1

A7-5 ~ HED NOt 31Fl-1141 HED TITLE CONTROL POSITION LABELS DO NOT MEET READABILITY CRITERIA CATEGORY.

DISPOSITION III LABELS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A7-6 ~ HED NOt 31FI-1142 HED TITLEt LETTER HEIGHT NOT IDENTICAL FOR ALL LABELS WITHIN SAME HIERARCHICAL LEVEL CATEGORY.

DISPOSITION:

III LABELS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A7-7 HED Not 31F1-1404 HED TITLEt COMPONENTS ARE LOCATED ABOVE MAXIMUM AND BELOW MINIMUM HEIGHT CRITERIA CATEGORYt DISPOSITION III OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEMS WITH THE PRESENT LOCATION. DUE TO THE LACK OF SPACES'ONTROLS CANNOT BE RELOCATED'O BACKFIT REQUIRED'7-8

~ HED NOt 31F1-1701 HED TITLE: ,INDICATOR LIGHTS DO NOT MEET CRITERIA CATBGORYt DISPOSITION III AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE WILL BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD TO ENSURE BULBS ARE REPLACED ONE AT A TIME TO PREVENT INTERCHANGING LENSES'7-9

~ HED NOt 31F1-2019 HED TITLBt DRUM COUNTER NUMERALS ARE TOO NARROW AND NOT SEPARATED BY COMMAS CATBGORYt DISPOSITION.

III NUMERALS ARE READABLE i COUNTER IS USED FOR LOGGING PURPOSES AND DOES NOT HAVE TO BE READ RAPIDLY. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED A7 2

A7-10 'BD N0$ 31F1-3209 HED TITLE$ CONTROL POSITION MOVEMENT OPPOSITE FROM CONVENTION CATBGORY$ II DISPOSITION! SWITCH HAS BEEN REWIRED TO CONFORM WITH CONVENTIONS OF "OFF'N LEFT AND "ON" ON RIGHT.

A7-11 'ED N0$ 31F1-3213 HBD TITLE$ DISCRETE ROTARY CONTROL KNOB NARROWER THAN CRITERIA CATBGORY$ IV DISPOSITION: OPERATIONS FEELS KNOBS ARE EASY TO GRASP AND ACTIVATE. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'7-12 HBD N0$ 31F1-5014 HBD TITLB INACCURATE AND MISSING LABELS ON SOME COMPONENTS CATBGORY II DISPOSITION: COMPONENT LABELS WILL BE CORRECTED AND MISSING COMPONENT LABELS WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A7-13 'BD NO$ 31F1-SOaS HED TITLB TIE-BREAKER CONTROL LABELING INCORRECT CATBGORY$ II I

DISPOSITION! LABELS FOR T E-BREAKER CONTROLS WILL BE CORRECTED PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A7-1i. HBD NO$ 31F1-5016 HBD TITLE . DIFFERENTIAL RELAY LABELING INCOMPLETE CATEGORY$

DISPOSITION II OPERATIONS FEELS THE LABELS ARE ADEQUATE ENGINEERING CONCURS'O BACKFIT REQUIRED'7 3

APPBNDIX A-8

. GENERATOR PROTBCTION RELAY PANBLHBDs AS-1 HBD N0$ 31F2-1128 HBD TITLE COMPONENT LABELING IS MISSING CATBGORY$

DISPOSITION II LABELS WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD AS-2 ~ HBD Not 31F2-1129 HBD TITLB$ LABELING ABBREVIA'TIONS NOT CONSISTENT WITH MCB CATBGORYt DISPOSITION:

III LABELS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD+

AS-3e HED NO$ 31F2-1133 HED TITLE! COMPONENT LABELS DO NOT IDENTIFY DISPLAY UNITS CATBGORYt IV

~ DISPOSITION DISPLAYS ARE BEING REMOVED FROM PANEL - NO LABELS REQUIRED.

AS-4 HBD NOt 31F2-1143 HBD TITLB CONTROL POSITIONS LABELS DO NOT MEET READABILITY CRITERIA CATBGORY!

DISPOSITION!

III LABELS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

AS-Sa HED NO 31F2-1144 HED TITLE COMPONENT LABELING DOES NOT MEET READABILITY CRITERIA CATEGORY!

DISPOSITIONt III LABELS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

AS-1

AS-6e HED NOt 31F2-1145 HED TITLE PANEL LABEL DOES NOT MEET READABILITY CRITERIA CATEGORY DISPOSITIONt III PANEL LABELS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED TO MEET READABILITY CRITERIA PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS AS-7 HED NOt 31F2-1153 HBD TITLE. LETTER HEIGHTS NOT IDENTICAL FOR ALL LABELS WITHIN SAME HIERARCHICAL LEVEL CATBGORY DISPOSITION III LABELS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED AND A HIERARCHICAL LABELING SCHEME WILL BE ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS AS-8 ~ HBD NO 31F2-1405 HBD TITLE! COMPONENTS ARE LOCATED ABOVE MAXIMUM AND BELOW MINIMUM HEIGHT CRITERIA CATBGORY.

DISPOSITION:

III COMPONENTS ARE USED BY I & C AND MAINTENANCE FOR CALIBRATION. THERE IS NO ROOM TO RELOCATE COMPONENTS. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

AS-9 HBD NO 31F2-2223 HED TITLE METER SCALES INCREASE IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION AND GRADUATION MARKS TOO SMALL CATEGORY DISPOSITIONt III OPERATIONS FEELS METERS ARE ADEQUATE ~

OPERATIONS WILL HAVE MINIMAL INTERFACE WITH THE PANEL. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED AS-10 'ED NOt 31F2-5017 HED TITLEt COMPONENT GROUPING NOT VISUALLY OBVIOUS CATBGORYt III DISPOSITIONt OPERATIONS AND ENGINEERING FEEL DEMARCATION IS NOT NECESSARY THERE IS NO PROBLEM LOCATING COMPONENTS'O BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A8 2

~.

~ s

A8-11 HBD N0$ 31F2-5018 HBD TITLB$ PANEL LABELS MISLEADING CATBGORY III DISPOSITION. OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEMS WITH PRESENT LABELING. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED AS-12 ~ HED N0$ 31F2-5019 HBD TITLB$ SIMPLE INDICATOR LIGHTS NOT LABELED CATBGORY II DISPOSITION. "PWR ON/ SUPERVISORY" LABEL WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A8 3

O.

~ o

APPBNDIX A-9 GROSS PAILBD FUEL DETSCTOR PANEL HBDs A9-1 HED NO: 31F3-1130 HED TITLE: NOT ALL COMPONENTS LABELED CATBGORY:

DISPOSITION III LABELS WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A9-2 ~ HSD NO: '1F3-1146 HBD TITLS GROUP LABEL DOES NOT MEET READABILITY CRITERIA CATEGORY'II DISPOSITION LABEL WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A9-3 HED NO: 31F3-1147 HBD TITLE HIERARCHICAL LABELS ARE NOT GRADUATED IN LETTER SIZE CATBGORY DISPOSITION III HIERARCHICAL LABELS WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A9-4 ~ HED NO: 31F3-1702 HBD TITLE INDICATOR LIGHTS DO NOT MEET CRITERIA CATBGORY:

DISPOSITION:

III OTHER MEANS ARE AVAILABLE IN DETERMINING IF THE LAMPS ARE NON-ILLUMINATED'OR EXAMPLE@

ANNUNCIATOR ON MCB (ALB-26 2-1) g COMPUTER INPUT@

INDICATING TYPE FUSES ON THE GFFD PANEL.

ASIDE FROM BEING COST PROHIBITIVE'NGINEERING FEELS THERE WOULD BE NO ADVANTAGE TO ADDING DUAL BULB OR PUSH TO TEST CAPABILITY'PERATIONS CONCURS'

t

~ o

't

A9-5 ~ HBD NO: 31F3-1703 HBD TITLE: LEGEND LIGHT BULBS CANNOT BE REPLACED FROM FRONT OF PANEL CATBGORY IV DISPOSITION LEGEND LIGHT BULBS CAN BE REPLACED FROM THE FRONT OF THE PANEL BY UTILIZING PROCEDURE IN WESTINGHOUSE GFFD MANUAL. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'9-6

~ HED NO: 31F3-5020 HBD TITLE: ALARM LIGHT MISSING CATBGORY DISPOSITION III A METER IS AVAILABLEAS A SECONDARY INDICATIONS NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'9-7e HBD NO: 31F3-5021 HBD TITLB! LOW ALARM LIGHT LABELED AS "LOW" SIGNIFIES A SYSTEM FAILURES CATBGORY DISPOSITION III A LABEL SAYING "SYSTEM FAILURE (LOW)" WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A9-8 ~ HBD NO 31F3-5022 HBD TITLB! ALARM RESET IS A MAINTAINED POSITION ON A MULTI-FUNCTION SELECTOR SWITCH'T IS POSSIBLE TO LEAVE CONTROL IN THE RESET POSITION WHICH LOCKS OUT ALL ALARMS.

CATBGORYc II DISPOSITION A WARNING LABEL WILL BE PROVIDED TO ENSURE THE CONTROL IS NOT LEFT IN WRONG POSITIONS THE SWITCH CANNOT EASILY BE MODIFIED'9 2

A9-9 ~ HBD NO 31F3-5023 HED TITLE NO AUDIBLE OR REMOTE ALARM CAPABILITY CATBGORY IV DISPOSITION: ANNUNCIATOR IS PROVIDED ON MCB (ALB-26 2-1) ~

NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A9-10 'ED NO 31F3-5024 HBD-TITLB MULTI-SCALE METER SCALES LABELED INCONSISTENTLY CATBGORY.

DISPOSITION III OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEM READING SCALES'O BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A9-ll HBD NO: 31F3-5025 HBD TITLBt NO RESPONSE PROCEDURES FOR HIGH TEMPERATURE AND HIGH FLOW ALARMS CATBGORY III DISPOSITION. OPERATIONS HAS INCORPORATED INTO PROCEDURE

- NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED'9-12 HBD NO- 31F3-5026 HBD TITLE! INDICATOR LIGHT COLOR CODING NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE CONTROL ROOM CATEGORY DISPOSITION.

III EACH INDICATOR IS ADEQUATELY LABELED TO CLEARLY INDICATE PRESENCE OF THE LIGHT. OPERATORS WILL BE TRAINED ON THE COLOR CODING OF EACH PANEL.

A9 3

~.

APPENDIX A-10 DIGITAL METAL IMPACT MONITORING SYSTEM HEDs A10-li HED NO: 31F4-1150 HBD TITLE COMPONENT LABELING IS MISSING CATEGORY DISPOSITION: CONTROL S ARE U S ED FOR MA I NTENANCE AND CALIBRATION ONLY AND THERE IS NO OPERATOR INTERFACE.

A10-2 HED NO: 31F4-1706 HBD TITLBI INDICATING PUSHBUTTONS AND LIGHTS HAVE NO BULB TESTi LENSES NOT KEYED TO PREVENT INTERCHANGING COVERS CATBGORY II I DISPOSITION. NO TIME CRITICAL OPERATOR RESPONSES ARE REQUIRED. THERE ARE

SUMMARY

LEVEL ANNUNCIATORS ON THE MCB TO ALERT OPERATOR TO THIS PANEL.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ENSURE THAT BULBS ARE NOT INTERCHANGED.

A10-3 HED NO: 31F4-3027 HED TITLB CONTINUOUS ROTARY CONTROLS HAVE MOVING SCALES WHICH INCREASE TO THE LEFT CATBGORYa IV DISPOSITIONS CONTROLS ARE USED FOR CALIBRATION SETTINGS ONLY NO CRITICAL OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES ARE REQUIRED.

A10 1

A10-4 HBD NOt 31F4-5027 HBD TITLE CALIBRATION AND MAINTENANCE COMPONENTS MOUNTED 0 ON FRONT PANEL CATEGORY: IV DISPOSITION: THE COMPONENTS THAT ARE USED FOR CALIBRATION AND MAINTENANCE ARE GROUPED TOGETHER BELOW THE CHART CONTROLS AND DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE OPERATIONAL COMPONENTS. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A10-5 HBD HO: 31F4-5028 HBD TITLE INDICATOR LIGHTS AND PUSHBUTTON COLOR CODES NOT CONSISTENT CATBGORY:

DISPOSITION III EACH INDICATOR IS ADEQUATELY LABELED TO CLEARLY INDICATE PRESENCE OF THE LIGHT. OPERATORS WILL BE TRAINED'N THE COLOR CODING OF EACH PANEL.

A10-6 ~ HED HO. 31F4-5029 HBD TITLB: REMOTE ALARM CAPABILITY NOT INSTALLED CATBGORY IV DISPOSITION ALARM CAPABILITY HAS BEEN PROVIDED ON MCB.

C A10 2

APPBNDIX A-ll RCP VIBRATION MONITOR HBDs All-1 HED NO! 31F6-1151 HBD TITLE: COMPONENT LABELS ARE MISSING ON TOGGLE SWITCHES CATEGORY:

DISPOSITION III NO ROOM TO ADD LABEL OPERATORS WILL BE TRAINED ON USES OF THE TOGGLE SWITCHES'11-2 HBD NO! 31F6-5030 HBD TITLE: NO OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE MANUALS AVAILABLE FOR THE RCP VIB MONITOR CATBGORY! IV DISPOSITION MANUALS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED' All-3 HBD NO! 31F6-5031 HBD TITLE! MODULES ARE NOT LABELED TO INDICATE WHICH MODULE APPLIES TO WHICH PUMPS ALSO THERE ARE UNUSED MODULES ON PANEL.

CATBGORY II DISPOSITION LABELS WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD UNUSED MODULES WILL BE REMOVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS All-4 HED NO! 31F6-5032 HBD TITLE! VIBRATION MONITOR MODULES NOT ARRANGED IN CONVENTIONAL SEQUENCE CATEGORY DISPOSITION III OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEM WITH THE ARRANGEMENT OF THESE MODULES. PANEL IS MANUFACTURER'S STANDARDS

All-5~ HBD NO! 31F6-5033 HBD TITLBa NO VIBRATION ALARM OVERRIDES CATBGORY! IV DISPOSITION: OPERATORS HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADJUST LEVELS TO OVERRIDE NUISANCE ALARMS. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

All-6~ HBD NO: 31F6-5034 HBD TITLE! REMOTE ALARM CAPABILITIES NOT INSTALLED CATBGORYc IV DISPOSITION REMOTE ALARM CAPABILITY IS TIED INTO MCB ANNUNCIATOR ALB-10 1-7: RCP-A TROUBLE; 2-7: RCP-B TROUBLE) AND 3-7: RCP-C TROUBLES'll 2

~.

APPBNDIX A-12 SEISMIC MONITOR PANEL A12-1 HED NOt 31F7-1131 HED TITLE COMPONENT LABELING IS MISSING CATEGORY DISPOSITION III MAINTENANCE/CALIBRATIONCONTROLg NO OPERATOR INTERFACE REQUIRED'12-2 HED Not 31F7-1148 HBD TITLBt LETTER HEIGHTS NOT IDENTICAL FOR ALL LABELS WITHIN SAME HIERARCHICAL LEVEL CATEGORYt IV STANDARDS DISPOSITION: OPERATORS HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH PRESENT PANEL LABEL1NG~ THIS PANEL IS "MANUFACTURER' A12-3 HED NOt 31F7-1149 HED TITLBt COMPONENT LABEL IS NOT. 25% LARGER THAN POSITION LABEL STANDARDS CATEGORY: IV DISPOSITION: OPERATORS HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH PRESENT PANEL LABELING'HIS PANEL IS "MANUFACTURER'S A12-4 ~ HED Not 31F7-1406 HED TITLBt COMPONENTS ARE LOCATED BELOW MINIMUM HEIGHT CRITERIA CATEGORY III DISPOSITIONt COMPONENTS ARE SELDOM USED BY OPERATORS ~

ONLY ACCESS REQUIRED IS TO REMOVE TAPE FROM RECORDER. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'12-1

~.

o

A3.2-5 HED NO 31F7-1704 HED TITLE! LEGEND PUSHBUTTONS AND INDICATOR LIGHTS HAVE NO BULB TEST; NO PROCEDURE TO PREVENT INTERCHANGING LENSES CATBGORY s DISPOSITION III LIGHTS USED TO INDXCATE AMPLITUDE, FREQUENCY'ND Xg Yg Z COORDINATES HAVE ONLY ONE LAMP OUT OF A LARGE ROW TO INDICATE ONLY ONE CENTRAL FREQUENCY. AS SEISMIC VIBRATIONS HAVE A NUMBER OF FREQUENCIES'MPLITUDES'ND COORDINATES'NE LAMP BURNT OUT DOES NOT RESULT IN THE LOSS OF A SIGNXFICANT AMOUNT OF INFORMATION.

ADDITIONALLY' TOTAL RECORDING OF THE EVENT IS MADE AS A REDUNDANT SOURCE OF INFORMATION'HE LOCAL ALARM LIGHT IS REDUNDANT TO THE MCB AUDIBLE ALARM AND MCB ALB TILE~ ALL OTHER LAMPS ARE STATUS LAMPS THAT IF THEY ARE ABSENCE WILL REQUIRE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION OFF'HEIR TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM A PROCEDURE TO ENSURE BULBS ARE REPLACED ONE AT A TIME TO PREVENT INTERCHANGING LENSES HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED'12 6 ~ HBD NOi 31F7-3024 HBD TITLB CONTINUOUS ROTARY CONTROL KNOBS HAVE TORQUE BELOW CRITERIA CATEGORY'ISPOSITION:

III KNOBS ARE NOT USED ON A REGULAR BASIS AND CAN BE ADJUSTED TO THE SETTINGS REQUIRED'O BACKFIT REQUXRED ~

A12-7 HED NO: 31F7-3025 HED TITLBt TOGGLE SWITCH KNOB TIP DXAMETER TOO SMALL CATEGORY: IV DISPOSITION. KNOBS ARE INFREQUENTLY USED AND CAN BE OPERATED WITHOUT DIFFICULTY. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED A12 2

A12-8 HBD NOt 31F7-3210 HBD TITLBc KEY OPERATED SWITCH IS ORIENTED INCORRECTLY CATBGORY.

DISPOSITION IIII TCH I I NFRE ENTLY AND USED BY SW S QU USED g MAINTENANCE ONLY. SWITCH POSITIONS ARE ADEQUATELY LABELED'O BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A12-9 ~ HBD NO: 31F7-3212 HBD TITLBt TOGGLE SWITCH IS ORIENTED INCORRECTLY CATBGORY: III DISPOSITION: SWITCH IS USED FOR A NON-CRITICAL FUNCTION.

KNOB IS CLOSE ENOUGH TO CRITERIA FOR INFREQUENT OPERATION. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'12-10 HED NO: 31F7-3214 HBD TITLB DISCRETE ROTARY CONTROL KNOBS HAVE DIAMETERS'ND RESISTANCES POINTERS'NOB WHICH DO NOT MEET CRITERIA.

CATBGORY:

DISPOSITION III KNOBS ARE ADEQUATE TO PERFORM THE NECESSARY FUNCTIONS'O BACKFIT REQUIRED'12-11 HBD NON 31F7-3414 HBD TITLBc ROUND PUSHBUTTONS HAVE DIAMETERS g DISPLACEMENTS g AND RESISTANCES WHICH DO NOT MEET CRITERIA CATBGORY DISPOSITION III PUSHBUTTONS ARE ADEQUATE TO PERFORM THE NECESSARY FUNCTIONS'O BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A12- 3

s A12-12 HBD NO! 31F7-5035 HBD TITLE REMOTE ALARM CAPABILITY NOT INSTALLED CATEGORY DISPOSITION:

II REMOTE ALARM HAS BEEN TIED INTO MCB ANNUNCIATOR EXCEEDED' SYSTEM ACB-10I 4-4 "SEISMIC MON SYS OBE A12-13 HED NO: 31F7-5036 HBD TITLE: INDICATOR LIGHTS'OLOR CODE NOT CONSISTENT CATEGORY II DISPOSITION: EACH INDICATOR IS ADEQUATELY LABELED TO CLEARLY INDICATE PRESENCE OF THE LIGHTS OPERATORS WILL BE TRAINED ON THE COLOR CODING OF EACH PANEL.

A12-14 'ED HO: 31F7-5037 HBD TITLE INDICATOR FLAG TOO SMALL CATEGORY III DISPOSITION INDICATOR FLAG IS NOT USED AS A PRIMARY ALARMS NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'I2-15

'ED NO! 31F7-5038 HED TITLEt PERIODIC TESTING OF BATTERIES NOT STATED IN MANUFACTURER'S LITERATURE CATEGORY III DISPOSITIONs THE APPROPRIATE INFORMATION IS PROVIDED IN THE OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS FOR KENEMETRICS SMP-1 MAGNETIC TAPE PLAYBACK SYSTEMS SECTION 5g ER ICE A MAI E A CE A12- 4

~.

O.

A12-16 'ED NOs 31F7-5039 HED TITLBt PURPOSE AND FUNCTION OF ACCELEROGRAPH ANNUNICIATOR PANEL NOT DOCUMENTED CATBGORY DISPOSITION III INFORMATION MAY BE FOUND IN THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANNUNCIATORY DOCUMENT NUMBER 960901'AGES 1-6.

A12-17 HBD NO: 31F7-5040 HBD TITLE! LABELING HAS LOW CONTRAST CATEGORY! IV DISPOSITION. LABEL WILL BE FILLED WITH BLACK PIGMENT PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A12 5

APPENDIX A-13 COOLING TOWER MAKEUP CONTROL PANBL HEDs A13-lo HED NO: 31F8-0102 HED TITLE: COOLING TOWER & RIVER WATER MAKEUP CONTROL PANEL IS CLOSER THAN 50" TO OPPOSING EQUIPMENT CATBGORY DISPOSITION III OPERATIONS FINDS CLEARANCE ADEQUATE FOR TASKS PERFORMED. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A13-2 HED NO: 31F8-1132 HBD TITLE SOME COMPONENTS ARE NOT LABELED CATBGORY: II DISPOSITION: LABELS FOR UNLABELED COMPONENTS WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A13-3 HBD NO: 31F8-1305 HED TITLB ABBREVIATIONS USED ON ALB TILE LEGENDS NOT SAME AS MAIN CONTROL BOARD.

CATBGORY! II DISPOSITION: TILES WILL BE RELABELED AND RE-ENGRAVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ABBREVIATION LIST PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A13-4 HBD NO: 31F8-1306 HBD TITLB DICTIONARY OF TERMS NOT AVAILABLE AND ADMINISTRATIVELYCONTROLLED CATBGORY II DISPOSITION A DICTIONARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS HAS BEEN DEVELOPED FOR SHNPP-1 PROJECT AND IS AVAILABLE AS A CONTROLLED DOCUMENT A13 1

A13-5 HED NO: 31F8-1705 HED TITLE: INDICATOR LIGHTS DO NOT MEET CRITERIA CATEGORY!

DISPOSITION III ESTABLISH AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE TO ENSURE BULBS ARE REPLACED ONE AT A TIME TO PREVENT INTERCHANGING LENSES'13-6 HED NO: 31F8-2115 HED TITLE: ALB TILE LEGENDS CONTAIN DUAL MESSAGES CATBGORY III DISPOSITION! ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION IS IN PROGRESS A13-7e HED NO: 31F8-2116 HED TITLE ALB VERTICAL & HORIZONTAL AXIS NOT LABELED AND NO IDENTIFICATION LABEL ABOVE BOX CATBGORY III DISPOSITION: COORDINATE LABELS AND IDENTIFICATION LABELS WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A13-8 HED NO: 31F8-2117 HED TITLB ANNUNCIATOR CONTROL SW HAS NO SILENCE CONTROL CATEGORY:

DISPOSITION II A SEPARATE SILENCE CONTROL HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE COOLING TOWER PANEL A13-9 HED NO: 31F8-2118 HBD TITLE ALB TILE ENGRAVING DOES NOT MEET CRITERIA CATBGORY. III DISPOSITION. OPERATIONS AND ENGINEERING FOUND THE READABILITY OF THE ALBs TO BE ACCEPTABLE AND FEEL THAT READING ACCURACY IS NOT IMPAIRED'O BACKFIT REQUIRED.

O.

~ o

A13-10 HBD NO: 31F8-2224 HED TITLE STRIP CHART RECORDER NUMERALS TOO NARROW AND POINTER OVERLAPS SCALE CATEGORY III DISPOSITION. OPERATIONS FEELS STRIP CHART RECORDER IS READABLE. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A13-11 HBD NO: 31F 8-3215 HBD TITLE T-HANDLE ROTARY CONTROL TORQUES ARE TOO HIGH CATEGORY!

DISPOSITION III ENGINEERING FEELS CONTROL SWITCH TORQUE WILL DECREASE WITH NORMAL USE.

A13-12 HBD NO: 31F8-1407 HBD TITLB: METERS ARE ABOVE MAXIMUM HEIGHT CRITERIA CATBGORY II DISPOSITIONS THREE OUT OF THE FIVE METERS WERE RELOCATED'WO NOT RELOCATED ARE LARGER AND READABLE AT CURRENT LOCATION.

A13-13 'ED NO: 31F8-5042 HED TITLB LABELS NOT REQUIRED CATBGORY DISPOSITION III UNNECESSARY LABELS HAVE BEEN REMOVED A13-14 HBD NO: 31F8-5043 HBD TITLE LABELS INACCURATE OR AMBIGUOUS CATBGORY II DISPOSITION: LABELS HAVE BEEN RE-ENGRAVED TO CLARIFY PUMP CONFIGURATIONS AI3 - 3

A13-15 HBD NO: 31F8-5045 HED TITLEt NO DEMARCATION LINES OR

SUMMARY

LABELS CATBGORY DISPOSITION III WITH ELIMINATION OF UNNECESSARY CONTROLS DEMARCATION WAS DETERMINED TO BE NOT NECESSARY DUE TO LESS CLUTTER.

A13-16 HED NO: 31F8-5046 HBD TITLE NO OPERATING OR MAINTENANCE INSTRUCTIONS AVAILABLE CATBGORY II DISPOSITION: OPERATING PROCEDURE HAS BEEN WRITTEN'X3-17

'BD NO: 31F8-5047 HED TITLB PANEL LABEL INCORRECT CATBGORY DISPOSITION III LABEL HAS BEEN RE-ENGRAVED TO READ: "COOLING TOWER MAKE-UP CONTROL PANEL" ~

A13- 4

APPENDIX A-14 RADIATION MONITORING SYSTEM HEDs A14-1 HBD NO: 31E4-1183 HBD TITLE STROKE WIDTH ON SYSTEM LABELS IS TOO NARROW CATEGORY: III DISPOSITION: LABELS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A14-2 ~ HBD NO 31E4-1184 HED TITLBI COMPONENT LABELS ON CONSOLE DO NOT MEET CHARACTER WIDTHS STROKE WIDTHS AND MINIMUM SPACE CRITERIA CATBGORY III DISPOSITION: OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEMS WITH READING THE LABEL NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A14-3 HED NO: 31E4-1185 HBD TITLE. CHARACTER HEIGHTg WIDTH AND STROKE WIDTH ON PUSHBUTTON MODULES ARE TOO SMALL CATBGORY III DISPOSITION: OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEMS READING THE LABELS ON THE PUSHBUTTONS. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A14-4 ~ HBD NO! 31E4-1186 HBD TITLB SPACE BETWEEN LINES AND HEIGHT OF LETTERS IS TOO SMALL ON FUNCTION LABELS CATEGORY'II DISPOSITION LABELS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A14 1

A14-5 ~ HBD NO! 31E4-1187 HBD TITLB! F UNCT ION LABELS ON RECORDERS DO NOT MEET CHARACTER WIDTH AND HEIGHT CRITERIA CATBGORY.

DISPOSITION III LABELS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A14-6. HBD NO! 31E4-1188 HBD TITLE NO HIERARCHICAL LABELING SCHEME IS APPLIED TO PANEL WITHIN THE SAME LEVEL CATBGORY!

DISPOSITION III OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEMS LOCATING COMPONENTS WITH THE CURRENT LEVELS OF LABELING'O BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A14-7 ~ HBD NO! 31E4-2420 HBD TITLE LOCATION OF STRIP CHART RECORDERS IS TOO LOW CATBGORY!

DISPOSITION!

III RECORDERS ARE NOT PRIMARY INDICATIONS AND ARE USED INFREQUENTLY NO PRECISE READINGS REQUIRED'O BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A14-8 ~ HBD NO 31E4-3031 HBD TITLE. LOCATION OF KEY OPERATED SWITCHES IS TOO HIGH CATBGORY DISPOSITION III SWITCHES ARE NOT USED IN THE OPERATION OF THE EQUIPMENT NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'14-2

A-15

. APPBNDIX AXIAL POWER DISTRIBUTION MONITORING SYSTBM HEDs A15-1 ~ HBD Not 31E3-1175 HED TITLB INDICATOR LIGHT FOR CIRCUITRY HAS NO IDENTIFICATION LABELS CATBGORY.'II DISPOSITION THERE IS LOW PROBABILITY OF OPERATOR ERROR DUE TO MISS READING LABEL ON INDICATOR LIGHT NO BACKFIT REQUIRED A15-2 HBD Not 31E3-1176 HBD TITLB KEYBOARD CONTROLS SWITCH HAS NO FUNCTION LABEL CATEGORYt IV DISPOSITION: THE PRIMARY FUNCTION OF THIS SWITCH IS FOR SOFTWARE SECURITY AND THE POSITION LABELS ADEQUATELY IDENTIFY THE FUNCTION. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A15-3 ~ HBD NO. 31E3-1177 HBD TITLE: LABEL ON FUNCTION KEY DOES NOT MEET READABILITY CRITERIA.

CATEGORYt III DISPOSITION: REQUIREMENT FOR OPERATORS TO USE THESE FUNCTION KEYS IS INFREQUENT AND NON-CRITICAL'O BACKFIT REQUIRED'15-4 HBD Not 31E3-1318 HBD TITLBt UNAPPROVED ABBREVIATION USED ON PANEL COMPONENT LABEL CATEGORY DISPOSITION III I AB B REVI AT ON ( C P U ) HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE ABBREVIATIONS LISTS A15 1

A15-5 ~ HED NO: 31E3-1319 HBD TITLE: INCONSISTENT COLOR CODING USED FOR PANEL ALARM RESET PUSHBUTTON CATBGORY: III DISPOSITION: EACH CONTROL IS ADEQUATELY LABELED TO CLEARLY INDICATE PRESENCE OF THE LIGHTS OPERATORS WILL BE TRAINED ON THE COLOR CODING FOR THE PANEL.

A15-6 HBD NO: 31E3-1320 HBD TITLE: COLOR CODING USED FOR INDICATOR LIGHTS IS INCONSISTENT WITH CONTROL ROOM COLOR CODING CATEGORY.

DISPOSITION:

III EACH INDICATOR IS ADEQUATELY LABELED TO CLEARLY.

INDICATE PRESENCE OF THE LIGHT OPERATORS WILL BE TRAINED ON THE COLOR CODING FOR THE PANEL.

A15-7>> HBD NO 31E3-1713 HBD TITLE. PROCEDURE NOT AVAILABLETO PREVENT INTERCHANGING INDICATOR LENSES'ATBGORY IXI DISPOSITION AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE WILL BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD THAT STATES THAT BULBS ARE TO BE REPLACED ONE AT A TIME TO PREVENT INTERCHANGING LENSES A15-8 HBD NO: 31E3-2310 HBD TITLB! IMPROPER USE OF SINGLE INDICATOR LIGHTS AND MESSAGES ARE AMBIGUOUS CATBGORY. III DISPOSITION! OPERATIONS HAS INDICATOR NO PROBLEM WITH THE MESSAGES NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A15 - 2

A15-9 ~ HED HO: 31E3-3029 HED TITLE CRT POWER SWITCH HAS DIRECTION OF MOVEMENT OPPOSITE FROM CONVENTION CATEGORY DISPOSITION III THERE IS NO CONSEQUENCE OF ERROR IF THIS SWITCH IS OPERATED INCORRECTLY. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A15-10 'ED NO: 31E3-3030 HED TITLE ROCKER SWITCHES ARE NOT ORIENTED VERTICALLY CATEGORY IV DISPOSITION THERE IS NO CONSEQUENCE OF ERROR IF THIS SWITCH IS OPERATED INCORRECTLY. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED A15 3

APPENDIX A-16 AUXILIARYCONTROL PANBL HEDs A16-1 HED NO: 31AC-0101 HBD TIVE DISTANCE FROM WALL TO BENCHBOARD OF PANEL LESS THAN 50 INCHES CATBGORY.

DISPOSITION III CLEARANCE APPEARS ACCEPTABLE FOR THE REQUIRED OPERATOR TRAFFIC AT THIS TIME. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'16-2.

HED NO: 31AC-1101 HED TITLE. LABELS FOR SWITCH POSITION(S) MISSING CATBGORY: III DISPOSITION. CENTER POSITIONS ARE NOT BEING LABELED FOR A NORMAL POSITION. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED A16-3 ~ HBD NO: 31AC-1102 HBD TITLE CONTROL POINTER OBSCURES LABEL CATBGORY III DISPOSITION: P 0 S I T I ON LABELS ARE BE ING MOVED AWAY FROM CENTER HOLE (SO THEY WON'T BE OBSCURED BY SWITCH) WHEN MODULE PLATES ARE RE- ENGRAVED.

A16-4 HED NO: 31AC-1103 HED TITLB- SYSTEM LABEL INCONSISTENT ACROSS PANELS CATEGORY!

DISPOSITION III LABEL WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A16- 1

~.

0

A16-5 HED Not 31AC-1104 HED TITLE LABELS FOR METERS ON ACP NOT SAME AS EQUIVALENT LABELS ON THE MCB CATBGORYt III DISPOSITION: LABELS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A16-6. HED NO 31AC-1105 HBD TITLE! LABELS ON CONTROLS ON ACP NOT SAME AS EQUIVALENT LABELS ON MCB CATEGORY: IV DISPOSITION: LABELS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A16-7 HED NOt 31AC-1106 HBD TITLE! LABEL ENGRAVING NOT CONSISTENT ACROSS PANELS CATEGORYt II DISPOSITION LABELS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A16-8 HBD Not 31AC-1107

~ HED TITLEt LABEL CHARACTER HEIGHTS LESS THAN CRITERIA CATBGORY III DISPOSITION! LABELS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A16-9 HED NOt 31AC-1108 HED TITLEt STROKE WIDTH-TO-CHARACTER HEIGHT RATIOS DO NOT MEET CRITERIA CATBGORYt III DISPOSITION! LABELS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

AI6 2

A16-10 HED NO: 31AC-1109 HBD TITLBc LABEL SPACING BETWEEN CHARACTERS'ORDS'ND LINES IS INADEQUATE CATBGORY III DISPOSITION: LABELS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A16-11 HBD NO: 31AC-1110 HBD TITLE: LABELS ON PROCESS CONTROLLERS NOT SAME AS MCB CATEGORY.

DISPOSITION II RE-ENGRAVE LABELS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MCB ~

A16-12 HBD NO: 31AC-1111 HED TITLE LABELS UNDER VERTICAL METERS ENGRAVED WITH ROMAN NUMERALS CATEGORY II DISPOSITION LABELS WILL BE CORRECTED PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS 0 A16-13. HED NO: 31AC-1112 HBD TITLB. TURBINE DRIVEN PUMP SYMBOL WITHIN MIMIC IS NOT LABELED.

CATBGORY DISPOSITION III TURBINE DRIVEN PUMP SYMBOL IS THE INDUSTRY STANDARD SYMBOL AND ADEQUATELY DEFINES THE REPRESENTED COMPONENT FOR ALL OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS ADDING ADDITIONAL LABELING WOULD NOT BE OF ANY BENEFIT TO THE OPERATOR AND WOULD INCREASE CLUTTER. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A16 - 3

~.

A16-14 HBD Not 31AC-1113 HBD TITLBt UNLABELED SWITCH POSITIONS ON ROTARY CONTROLS CATBGORYt. III DISPOSITIONt OPERATIONS FEELS SWITCHES NEED NO OTHER POSITION LABEL OTHER THAN WHAT IS ALREADY ENGRAVED

~ ENGINEERING CONCURS'O BACKFIT REQUIRED'16-15 HBD Not 31AC-1114 HBD TITLE SYSTEM LABEL ON ACP NOT DESCRIPTIVE ENOUGH CATEGORY. II DISPOSITIONt LABEL WILL BE RE-'ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A16-16 'ED Not . 31AC-1115 HED TITLBt AUX FW SYSTEM HAS MISSING LABELS'IMIC SYMBOLS'ND MIMIC LINES CATEGORY DISPOSITION II L INES g LABELS AND SYMBOLS WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A16-17 HBD Not 31AC-1116 HBD TITLBt CONTROL MODULES DO NOT HAVE HIERARCHICAL LABELING CATBGORYt III DISPOSITION. HIERARCHICAL LABELING WILL BE INCORPORATED PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A16-18 HBD NOt 31AC-1117 HBD TITLB CCW

SUMMARY

LABELS INCORRECT AND MISSING CATBGORYt DISPOSITION

, III

SUMMARY

LABELS HAVE BEEN CORRECTED A16 4

A16-19 HBD NO: 31AC-1118 HBD TITLE. NO

SUMMARY

LABEL OVER BTRS CONTROLLER CATEGORY'II DISPOSITION: DEMARCATION AROUND THE CONTROLLER WILL PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD. BE'HANGED A16-20 HED NO: 31AC-1119 HBD TITLB: BORIC ACID BLEND GROUP LABEL INCORRECT CATBGORY II DISPOSITION LABEL WILL BE CORRECTED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A16-21 HBD NO: 31AC-1301 HBD TITLB DICTIONARY OF TERMS NOT AVAILABLE AND ADMINISTRATIVELYCONTROLLED CATBGORY DISPOSITION III A DICTIONARY OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS HAS BEEN DEVELOPED AND IS AVAILABLE AS A CONTROLLED DOCUMENT.

A16-22 HBD NO: 31AC-2101 HED TITLE ANNUNCIATOR LIGHT BOXES CONTAIN MORE THAN 50 TILES CATBGORY.

DISPOSITION III SYSTEM LABELS AND COORDINATE LABELS WILL BE ADDED TO ALL ALBs TO AID IN LOCATING INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS.

A16-23 'BD NO: 31AC-2102 HBD TITLE: ALBs HAVE NO IDENTIFICATION LABELS CATEGORY'II DISPOSITION. IDENTIFICATION LABELS WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A16 5

A16-24 HBD NO! 31AC-2103 HBD TITLE ALBs HAVE NO DEMARCATION LINES TO ENCLOSE FUNCTIONALLY RELATED TITLES CATBGORY! III DISPOSITION! DEMARCATION NOT PRACTICAL BECAUSE OF THE ALB DESIGN. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A16-25 HBD NO! 31AC-2104 HBD TITLE ALBs DO NOT SAVE ALPHANUMERIC LABELING FOR TILE DESIGNATION COORDINATES CATBGORY! III DISPOSITION. COORDINATE LABELS WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A16-26 HBD NO! 31AC-2105 HBD TITLB ABBREVIATIONS FOR SW AND WC ON ALB TILES ARE AMBIGUOUS CATBGORY II DISPOSITION! WC REPRESENTS WATER CHILLER'ACH CHILLER WILL BE LABELED WITH ITS OWN UNIQUE NUMBER OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEM WITH PRESENT ABBREVIATIONS. THE ABBREVIATIONS DICTIONARY HAS A DUAL MEANING FOR SW w SERVICE HATER/SWITCH. THE MEANINGOF SW IS AND WILL BE CONTROLLED SO THE MEANING OF THE ABBREVIATION IS CLEAR BASED ON ITS CONTEXT A16-27 ~ HBD NO! 31AC-2106 HBD TITLE! ALB TILE LEGEND MESSAGES ARE NON-SPECIFIC@

MULTIPLEg OR AMBIGUOUS CATEGORY. II DISPOSITION! ANNUNCIATOR WINDOWS WITH 3 OR 4 MESSAGES WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED'ROPPING ALL MESSAGES AND ADDING "TROUBLE" TILES WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A16 - 6

A16-28 HED Not 31AC-2107 HBD TITLE: ANNUNCIATOR CONTROLS HAVE NO SILENCE SWITCH CATBGORY II DISPOSITION A SILENCE CONTROL WILL BE ADDED TO THE ANNUNCIATOR SWITCHES PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A16-29 HBD Not 31AC-,2108 HBD TITLBt ALB TILE LEGENDS HAVE NON-APPROVED ABBREVIATIONS CATEGORY: II DISPOSITION: WORDING OF ANNUNCIATOR TILES WILL BE CORRECTED PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A16-30 HBD Not 31AC-2109 HBD TITLBt NO FIRST-OUT PANEL FOR REACTOR SYSTEM CATBGORY IV DISPOSITION: ACP SHOULD NOT HAVE FIRST-OUT ANNUNCIATORS A16-31 HBD Not 31AC-2110 HBD TITLBt TILE LEGEND INCONSISTENCIES CATBGORY III DISPOSITIONt ANNUNCIATOR TILES WILL BE CORRECTED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A16-32 HBD NOt 31AC-2111 HBD TITLBt TILES OUTSIDE MAXIMUM VIEWING DISTANCE CATBGORYt DISPOSITION I 0 P E R A T 0 N S H A S N 0 P R 0 B L E MS I I N R E AD N G ANNUNCIATOR MESSAGES ~ TILES THAT ARE RE-ENGRAVED WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED WITH THREE LINES OF TEXT AND LETTER HEIGHT INCREASED.

A16 7

~.

A16-33 HBD NO: 31AC-2201 HED TITLE MANUFACTURER'S LABEL ON METERS CATEGORY: IIX DISPOSITION OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEMS WITH THE LABELS ON METERS'NGINEERING CONCURS NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A16-34 HED NO: 31AC-2202 HBD TITLB: METER LOCATED TOO LOW FOR 95th PERCENTILE MALE VIEWING ANGLE CATBGORY:

DISPOSITION III METERS CAN BE READ TO THE DEGREE OF ACCURACY REQUIRED. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A16-35 HBD NO: 31AC-2203 HBD TITLB: VERTICAL METER GRADUATION MARK LENGTHS DO NOT MEET CRITERIA CATBGORY. II DISPOSITION. GRADU ATX ON MARKS WERE CORRECTED ON METERS THAT WERE REPLACED TO CORRECT LABELING AND SCALE PROGRESSION. ALL OTHERS WERE NOT REPLACED BECAUSE SCALES ARE READABLE'16-36

'BD NO: 31AC-2204 HBD TITLE VERTICAL METER POINTER CLEARANCE DOES NOT MEET CRXTERXA CATBGORY III DISPOSITIONS OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEMS READING METERS TO THE DEGREE OF ACCURACY REQUIRED. NO BACKFXT REQUIRED.

A16- 8

A16-37 HBD NO: 31AC-2205 HBD TITLB VERTICAL METER SCALE GRADUATIONS AND PROGRESSIONS DO NOT MEET CRITERIA CATBGORY: II DISPOSITION METER FACES WILL BE REPLACED WITH CORRECTED SCALES PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A16-38 HBD NO: 31AC-2206 HED TITLB VERTICAL METERS'NTERNAL LABELING DOES NOT MEET CRITERIA CATBGORY: III DISPOSITION: INTERNAL LABELING IS BEING CORRECTED WHEN METER FACES ARE REPLACED. THIS WILL BE DONE PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A16-39 HBD HO: 31AC-2207 HBD TITLE VERTICAL METER GRADUATION MARKS DO NOT MEET 0700 CRITERIA CATBGORY DISPOSITION III G RA DU AT ION MARKS WERE CORRECTED ON METERS THAT WERE REPLACED TO CORRECT LABELING AND SCALE PROGRESSION. ALL OTHERS WERE NOT REPLACED BECAUSE SCALES ARE READABLE.

A16-40 HBD HO: 31AC-3001 HBD TITLB CONTROLS BEYOND REACH CRITERIA CATEGORY!

DISPOSITION III CONTROLS ARE LOCATED WITHIN EXTENDED FUNCTIONAL REACH NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A16- 9

A16-41 ~ HBD NO:~ 31AC-3101 HBD TITLE: PROCESS CONTROLLER PUSHBUTTON DISPLACEMENT IS LESS THAN CRITERIA.

CATEGORY: III DISPOSITION: DISPLACEMENT IS APPROXIMATEIY 2/3 THE CRITERIA.

SINCE NO HEAVY GLOVE ACTIVATION IS RE DIREDL DISPLACEMENT AND DISPLAY FEEDBACK "APPEAR ADEQUATE'16-42

'ED NO: 31AC-3201 HBD TITLEt CONTROL MOVEMENT OPPOSITE FROM CONVENTION ON RHR SAFETY INJECTION SWITCHES CATBGORY. II DISPOSITION HANDLE HAS BEEN COLOR CODED TO REMIND OPERATORS THAT THE HANDLE DOES NOT FOLLOW THE CLOSE-LEFTY OPEN-RIGHT CONVENTION.

A16-43 HBD NO: 31AC-3202 HBD TITLE: CONTROL KNOB HEIGHT LESS THAN REQUIRED CATBGORY DISPOSITION IIIREPLACEMENT NO SWITCHES/HANDLES AVAILABLE.

IF A REPLACEMENT KNOB BECOMES AVAILABLE THE KNOB WILL BE REPLACED A16-44 'BD HO: 31AC-3203 HBD TITLBj CONTROL MOVEMENT OPPOSITE FROM CONVENTION ON FAN COOLER STOP SWITCHES CATEGORY DISPOSITION II CONTROLS HAVE BEEN CHANGED TO A STOP ON LEFT CONVENTION A16 10

~.

~ i o

~ .

A16-45 'ED NO: 31AC-3204 HED TITLEc CONTROL MOVEMENT OPPOSITE FROM CONVENTION FAN COOLER SPEED SWITCH CATEGORY: II DISPOSITION: CONTROL HAS BEEN CHANGED TO A LOW-SPEED ON LEFT AND HIGH-SPEED ON RIGHT CONVENTION.

A16-46 HED NO: 31AC-3205 HED TITLE ~ CONTROL MOVEMENT OPPOSITE FROM CONVENTION ON DIESEL GENERATOR STOP SWITCHES CATEGORY.

DISPOSITION II CONTROLS HAVE BEEN CHANGED TO A STOP ON LEFT CONVENTION.

A16-47 HED NO 31AC-3206 HED TITLES KNURLED KNOB DIFFICULT TO OPERATE CATEGORY.

DISPOSITION III NO REPLACEMENT KNOBS ARE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE'F AN APPROPRIATE REPLACEMENT KNOB BECOMES AVAILABLE ALL KNURLED KNOBS WILL BE WILL CONTINUE TO INVESTIGATE. REPLACED'NGINEERING A16-48 'ED NOc 31AC-3207 HED TITLE KNURLED KNOB CONTROL TORQUE ABOVE CRITERIA ABOVE MAXIMUM ALLOWED CATEGORY'II DISPOSITIONS NO REPLACEMENT KNOBS ARE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE'F AN APPROPRIATE REPLACEMENT KNOB BECOMES AVAILABLE ALL KNURLED KNOBS WILL BE REPLACED ENGINEERING WILL CONTINUE TO INVESTIGATE

A16-49 'BD NO: 31AC-3208 HBD'TITLE! T-HANDLE CONTROL, TORQUE ABOVE CRITERIA CATEGORY III USERS DISPOSITION: ENGINEERING FEELS TORQUE WILL DECREASE WITH NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'16-50 HBD NO: 31AC-3401 HED TITLBt PUSHBUTTONS ON ANNUNCIATOR CONTROL MODULE HAVE NO FIXED BARRIERS) NOT SLIP RESISTANT CATBGORY III DISPOSITION: OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEM WITH THE CURRENT MODULE DESIGN ~ ENGINEERING CONCURS ~ NO BACKFIT REQUIRED A16-51 HBD NO: 31AC-3402 HED TITLE: PUSHBUTTONS ON THE ANNUNCIATOR CONTROL MODULE ARE TOO SMALL CATBGORY!

DISPOSITION III THE PUSHBUTTONS ARE ~ 125" NARROW ON ONE SIDE ONLY. OPERATIONS FEELS PUSHBUTTONS ARE ADEQUATE TO PERFORM THE REQUIRED FUNCTIONS ENGINEERIUG CONCURS'O BACKFIT REQUIRED'16-52 HBD NO: 31AC-3403 HBD TITLB RESISTANCE IS TOO HIGH FOR LEGEND PUSHBUTTONS ON ANNUNCIATOR CONTROL MODULE CATBGORY. III DISPOSITION% MODULE IS BEING REPLACED TO ADD A SILENCE PUSHBUTTON RESISTANCE FOR THE NEW PUSHBUTTONS MAY BE WITHIN CRITERIA A16 12

A16-53 HED Not 31AC-4301 HED TITLBt ACP CRITERIA DOCUMENT CAR-1364 IS CONTRADICTORY CATBGORYt DISPOSITION III CRITERIA DOCUMENT HAS BEEN MODIFXED PER APPENDIX R.

A16-54 ~ HED Not 31AC-5001 HED TITLB ANNUNCXATOR SYSTEM HAS NO AUDITORY SIGNAL CATBGORY IV DISPOSITIONt AUDITORY SIGNAL IS NOW AVAILABLE'16-55

'BD NO 31AC-5002 HED TITLE REACTOR TRIP CONTROL AND TRIP/BYPASS INDICATION NOT ON ACP CATEGORY DISPOSITION III REACTOR IS TRIPPED AUTOMATICALLY ON TRANSFER

~

TO THE ACP AND REACTOR TRIP IS VERIFIABLE USING SOURCE RANGE INDICATOR NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'16-56

'BD NOt 31AC-5003 HED TITLE>> TURBINE TRIP CONTROL AND TURBINE GOVERNOR/

THROTTLE VALVE POSXTION INDICATION NOT ON ACP CATBGORY DISPOSITION III TURBINE TRIP CONTROL AND INDICATION ARE NOT REQUIRED ON ACP. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'16-57 HED Not 31AC-5004 HBD TITLE INTERMEDIATE RANGE AND SOURCE RANGE INDICATIONS AND SOURCE RANGE RESET NOT ON ACP CATEGORYt I DISPOSITION SOURCE AND INTERMEDIATE RANGE INDICATIONS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE ACP ~

A16 13

A16-58.~ HED NO: 31AC-5005 HED TITLE~ EXPANDED SCALE RHR HX OUTLET TEMPERATURE 0 INDICATION NOT ON ACP CATEGORY: IV DISPOSITION: ACP PROCEDURES REQUIRE AN OPERATOR TO READ LOCAL INDICATORS EVERY HALF HOUR ~ THIS INFORMATION ALONG WITH RCS TEMPERATURE INDICATION ON THE ACP IS ADEQUATE TO CONTROL COOLDOWN RATE ~

A16-59 HED NO: 31AC-5006 HED TITLE PHASE A ISOLATION RESET AND CONTROLS NOT ON ACP CATEGORY IV DISPOSITION: ADDING PHASE A CONTAINMENT ISOLATION RESET CONTROL WILL SERVE NO FUNCTION SINCE THERE IS NO CONTROL FOR THE CONTAINMENT ISOLATION VALVES ON THE ACP ~

A16-60 'ED NO 31AC-5007 HBD TITLB LETDOWN LINE ISOL VALVE CONTROL 8152 NOT ON ACP CATEGORY 0 DISPOSITION III PER APPENDIX R NORMAL LETDOWN SYSTEM WILL NOT BE USED'16-61.

HBD NO: 31AC-5008 HED TITLE VALVE CONTROL TO SWAP RWST WITH VCT NOT ON ACP CATBGORY I DISPOSITION SWITCHOVER FROM VCT TO RWST TAKE'S PLACE AUTOMATICALLY UPON VCT LOW LEVEL ALARM RWST TO CHARGING PUMP VALVE STATUS CAN BE VERIFIED AT THE MCC ~ NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A16-62 HED NO: 31AC-5009 HED TITLB PRZ LEVEL AND PRESS CONTROLLERS NOT ON ACP CATEGORY c I DISPOSITION: PRZ LEVEL AND PRESS CONTROLLERS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE ACP ~

A16 14

A16-63 HBD NO! 31AC-5010 HBD TITLE! BA FLOW INDICATION AND BA BLEND CONTROL NOT ON ACP CATBGORY III DISPOSITION. LOCAL FLOW INDICATION IS AVAILABLEIF CAPABILITY TO INITIATE AND SUSTAIN BA REQUIRED'HE BLEND IS AVAILABLE'16-64 HED NO! 31AC-5011 HED TITLB! RCP STATUS INDICATION NOT ON ACP CATEGORY:

DISPOSITION III PUMP STATUS CAN BE VERIFIED FROM SWITCHGEAR ROOM WHICH IS LOCATED NEXT TO THE ACP ROOM.

c A16-65 HBD N02 31AC-5012 HBD TITLE! STEAM DUMP VALVE POSITION INDICATION NOT ON ACP CATEGORY DISPOSITION III S I NCE THESE VALVES ARE PART OF TH E TURBINE LOAD REJECTION SYSTEM WHICH IS NOT USED DURING CONTROL ROOM EVACUATION SCENARIOS OR APPENDIX "R" ENGINEERING DOES NOT RECOMMEND THE ADDITION OF THIS INDICATION TO THE ACP. IN THE EVENT THE OPERATOR DOES USE THE DUMP VALVES'TEAM HEADER PRESSURE INDICATIONS LOCATED ON THE ACP CAN BE UTILIZED TO MONITOR THE SYSTEMS OPERATIONS CONCURS'O BACKFIT REQUIRED A16-66 'BD NO! 31AC-5013 HBD TITLB! STEAM GENERATOR NARROW RANGE LEVEL AND TREND NOT ON ACP CATBGORY DISPOSITION III OPERATING PROCEDURES WILL BE CHANGED TO INSTRUCT OPERATORS TO USE THE WIDE RANGE SG INDICATIONS PROCEDURES WILL BE MODIFIED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A16 15

0

~ o 0'

A16-67 HBD Not 31AC-5014 HED TITLEt FW PUMP AND RECIRC VALVE STATUS NOT ON ACP CATEGORY.

DISPOSITION III OPERATIONS AND ENGINEERING FEEL MAIN FEEDWATER, IS NOT REQUIRED FOR SAFE SHUTDOWN+ NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'16-68

'ED NOt 31AC-5015 HED TITLE! ROD POSITION INDICATION NOT ON ACP CATBGORY III DISPOSITIONt SOURCE RANGE AND INTERMEDIATE RANGE ARE AVAILABLETO VERIFY REACTOR SHUTDOWN. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A16-69 'BD NOt 31AC-5016 HED TITLE SI BLOCKS AND BLOCK RESETS NOT ON ACP CATBGORY II DISPOSITION SI BLOCK CONTROLS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE ACPo A16-70 'ED Not 31AC-5017 HED TITLE SW PUMP CHAMBER LEVEL INDICATION NOT REQUIRED ON ACP CATEGORY DISPOSITION III SW PUMP CHAMBER LEVEL INDICATION HAS BEEN DELETED'16-71m HBD NOt 31AC-5018 HBD TITLBt RHR PUMP AMP INDICATORS NOT REQUIRED ON ACP CATBGORY III DISPOSITIONt RHR PUMP AMP INDICATORS HAVE BEEN DELETED'16 16

A16-72 HED Nos 31AC-5019 HBD TITLE: CNMT HVAC CONTROLS NOT REQUIRED ON ACP CATBGORYs IV DISPOSITIONs CONTROLS ARE NEEDED IN CASE OF LOSS OF OFFSITE POWER.

A16-73 'ED Nos 31AC-5020 HBD TITLE RHR PUMPS TO CHARGING HEADER VALVE CONTROLS NOT REQUIRED ON ACP CATEGORY IV DISPOSITION: VALVES ARE NEEDED FOR COLD SHUTDOWNS A16-74 HBD Nos 31AC-5021 HBD TITLE! ESWS PUMP INDICATION ARRANGEMENT DIFFERENT FROM MCB CATBGORY III DISPOSITION: OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEM WITH THE CURRENT ARRANGEMENT NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'16-75 HBD Nos 31AC-5022 .

HBD TITLE. CCW PUMP CONTROL ARRANGEMENT MISLEADING CATEGORY.

DISPOSITION II COMPONENTS HAVE BEEN REARRANGED AND DEMARCATED PER THE SUGGESTED BACKFIT A16-76 'BD NOs 31AC-5023 HBD TITLBs CHARGING PUMP CONTROL ARRANGEMENT MISLEADING CllTBGORYs DISPOSITION.

II COMPONENTS HAVE BEEN REARRANGED AND DEMARCATED PER THE SUGGESTED BACKFIT A16 - 17

~.

~ o

A16-77 'ED NOt 31AC-5024 HBD TITLBt ANNUNCIATOR WINDOWS NOT ARRANGED CONSISTENTLY CATBGORYt DISPOSITION III OPERATIONS AND ENGINEERING FEEL ANNUNCIATORS ARE ARRANGED ADEQUATELY. COORDINATE LABELS WILL BE ADDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD AND ABBREVIATIONS WILL BE CORRECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABBREVIATIONS LIST.

A16-78 HED NOt 31AC-5025 HED TITLE: SG LOW-LOW LEVEL ANNUNCIATOR NOT ON ACP CATEGORY III DISPOSITIONt ENGINEERING FEELS ALARM SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE ACP ANNUNCIATORS BECAUSE UNDER AN APPENDIX "R" GENERICi NO CREDIT IS GIVEN FOR ALARMS DUE TO THEIR "UNPROTECTIVE" STATUS ~ WHILE OPERATING FROM THE ACP i THE OPERATOR WILL BE RELYING ON SG WIDE RANGE LEVEL FOR INITIATING AND MAINTAINING AUX FEEDWATER FLOW. OPERATIONS CONCURS.

A16-79. HBD Not 31AC-5026 HBD TITLBt ANNUNCIATOR SYSTEM DOES NOT FUNCTION AS STATED IN CRITERIA CATBGORY III DISPOSITION: EBASCO WILL REVISE CRITERIA DOCUMENT WHICH WILL SPECIFY THE NEED FOR AN AUDIBLE ALARM AND SILENCE FUNCTION THE DOCUMENT WILL BE REVISED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A16-80 ~ HED NOt 31AC-5027 HBD TITLBt MISSING INDICATION ON ACP CATBGORYt III DISPOSITIONt TH I S SUMMARI Z ES H ED THE FOLLOWING HEDs t 31AC-5002, 31AC-5003, 31AC-5004 i 31AC-5005 g 31AC-5010 i 31AC-501lg 31AC-5012i 31AC-5013'1AC-5014'1AC-5015 SEE INDIVIDUAL HEDs FOR DISPOSITIONS.

A16 18

~.

~ o

A16-81 'ED Not 31AC-5028 HED TITLB BREAKER CONTROLS 1A1A AND 1B1A NOT REQUIRED ON ACP 0

CATBGORY III DISPOSITION THE BREAKER CONTROLS lAIA AND 1BlA ARE REQUIRED IN CASE OF LOSS OF OFFSITE POWER. DURING LOSS OF POWER THESE BREAKERS WILL BE TRIPPED AUTOMATICALLY AND WILL REQUIRE MANUAL CLOSURE FOR THE ESF MANUAL LOADS'O BACKFIT REQUIRED'16-82

'ED Not 31AC-5029 HBD TITLB ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION AND EDG COMPONENT ARRANGEMENT IS OPERATIONALLY CONFUSING CATBGORY DISPOSITION III TO MINIMIZE EXTENSIVE REWORK AND SCHEDULE IMPACTS WITHOUT COMPROMISING THE HUMAN FACTOR I NTENT g ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS AGREED WITH THE ARRANGEMENT SHOWN ON HPES ATTACHMENT 1.

A16-83 'BD Not 31AC-5030 HBD TITLBt EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR STATUS INDICATION NOT ON ACP CATBGORYt DISPOSITION III INDICATION IS NOT REQUIRED'TATUS CAN BE VERIFIED ON THE DG CONTROL PANELS A16-84 'BD RO 31AC-5031 HBD TITLBt RCS LETDOWN GROUP CONTAINS BTRS COMPONENT CATBGORYt DISPOSITION III DEMARCATION AROUND TH E CONTROLLER W ILL BE CHANGED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A16 19

~.

~ o 0

A16-85 'BD NOt 31AC-5032 HBD TITLB RCS LETDOWN INDICATORS PARTIALLY MIRROR-IMAGED FROM MCB ARRANGEMENT CATBGORYt III DISPOSITION: OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEMS WITH THE CURRENT ARRANGEMENT. INDICATIONS ARE WELL DEMARCATED AND LABELED'16-86

'BD Not 31AC-5033 HBD TITLBt PRESSURIZER COMPONENTS ARRANGED DIFFERENTLY FROM MCB CATBGORYt DISPOSITIONt III I

D F F ERE NCE S ARE OBVIOUS i NOT SUBTLE ~ NO INCREASE IN THE PROBABILITY OF ERROR SYSTEM IS WELL DEMARCATED AND LABELED.

A16-87 'BD Not 31AC-5034 HBD TITLBt CHARGING COMPONENTS ARRANGED DIFFERENTLY FROM MCBi ISOLATION VALVES AND MIMIC MISSING CATBGORY DISPOSITION III I

D F F ERE NCE S ARE OBVIOUS g NOT SUBTLE ~ NO INCREASE IN THE PROBABILITY OF ERROR. SYSTEM IS WELL DEMARCATED AND LABELED A16-88 'BD NOt 31AC-5035 HED TITLBt RCP SEAL INJECTION COMPONENTS NOT IN SAME RELATIVE LOCATION AS ON MCB CATBGORYt III DISPOSITIONt DUE TO THE SMALL SIZE OF THE ACP FOR THIS GROUPS ANY DELAY SHOULD BE MINIMAL NO AVAILABLE SPACE EXISTS FOR MOVING THESE COMPONENTS TO THE PREFERRED LOCATIONS NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'16

- 20

A16-89 HED NO: 31AC-5036 TITLE. STEAM GENERATOR COMPONENTS GROUPED DIFFERENTLY

'ED FROM MCB CATBGORY DISPOSITION III DEMARCATION AND

SUMMARY

LABELS WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A16-90 'ED NO 31AC-5037 HBD TITLB: MSIV COMPONENTS NOT IN SAME RELATIVE LOCATION AS ON MCB CATBGORY III DISPOSITION THIS GROUP IS WELL PLACED AND IS WELL LABELED AND .DEMARCATED AS NONE OF THE INTERVENING GROUPS BETWEEN THE AUX FW AND MSIV GROUPS ON THE MCB ARE REPRESENTED ON THE ACPi AND THE MSIV GROUP IS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE ABBREVIATED AUX FW GROUP ON THE ACPg LITTLE OR NO DELAY SHOULD RESULT FROM THIS DISLOCATIONS NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'16-91 HED NON 31AC-5038 0 HBD TITLE CR HVAC INDICATION NOT IN SAME RELATIVE LOCATION AS ON MCB CATBGORYt DISPOSITION III INDICATORS ARE IN AN UNCLUTTERED AREA ON THE ACP AND ARE WELL LABELED. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED ~

A16-92 HBD Noc 31AC-5039 HBD TITLBc CR HVAC CONTROLS NOT IN SAME RELATIVE POSITION AS ON MCB AND MIMIC IS INCORRECT CATEGORY'II DISPOSITIONS OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEMS WITH THE CURRENT ARRANGEMENT THE MIMIC WILL BE CORRECTED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A16 21

~.

~ o

A16-93 ~ HED NO: 31AC-5040 HBD TITLE SELECTED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION AND EDG COMPONENTS NOT REQUIRED ON ACP.

CATEGORY'II DISPOSITION: COMPONENTS ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE STATUS OF POWER ON DIESEL OR ON OFFSITE SOURCE ~

ALL INDICATORS LISTED ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE STATUS OF BATTERIES AND DIESEL GENERATOR BATTERY AMPS AND VOLTS INDICATION REQUIRED PER FSAR 8.3 ~ 2 ~ 2 ~ 1 ~ 4 AND NRC DC MONITORING'PEN ITEM QUESTION 430.116. DIESEL GENERATOR INSTRUMEN-TATION REQUIRED FOR MONITORING THE VOLT AND PWR WHEN DIESEL IS IN OPERATION. VOLT SELECTOR SWITCH IS REQUIRED TO MONITOR ALL THREE PHASE VOLTAGE ON EMER BUS ~ FOR BREAKER 1A1A AND 1B1A REFER TO HED NO 31AC-5028.

A16-94 'ED HO 31AC-5041 HED TITLE EDG VOLTAGE AND FREQUENCY INDICATION MISSING FROM ACP CATEGORY'II DISPOSITION EDG VOLTAGE AND FREQUENCY INDICATION NOT REQUIRED ON ACP. EDG VOLTAGE AND FREQUENCY CAN BE VERIFIED ON THE DG CONTROL PANEL ~

ONCE THE DG BREAKER IS CLOSED g 6 ~ 9KV BUS VOLTAGE AND DG VOLTAGE WILL BE THE SAME ~ NO BACKFIT REQUIRED A16 22

APPBNDIX A-17 OPBRATOR EXPBRIBNCB RBVIBN HBDs A17-1 HED NO! 3100-0103 HBD TITLB! POTENTIAL FOR RAD MONITORING SYSTEM PANEL TO OBSTRUCT OPERATOR'S VIEW IN PRIMARY WORK AREA CATBGORY III DISPOSITION! PANEL DOES NOT OBSTRUCT ANY SAFETY RELATED EQUIPMENT OPERATIONS FEELS THAT EQUIPMENT LOCATED BEHIND THE RMS PANELS CAN BE HANDLED ADEQUATELY BY THE SECOND REACTOR OPERATORo A17 2e HBD NO! 3100 0104 HED TITLE! STORAGE LOCKERS FOR CR PERSONNEL FELT TO BE LOCATED IN A NON-SECURE AREA OUTSIDE THE CONTROL ROOM CATEGORY! IV DISPOSITION AREA WHERE LOCKERS ARE LOCATED WILL BE SECURED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A17-3 ~ HBD NO! 3100-0105 HBD TITLE! COOLING TOWER MAKE UP PANEL IS INCONVENIENTLY LOCATED IN THE CR CATEGORY! III DISPOSITION! PANEL PROVIDES NO SAFETY RELATED FUNCTION.

PANEL HAS ITS OWN ANNUNCIATOR HORN TO ALERT OPERATIONS TO THE PANEL.

A17-4 ~ HED NO! 3100-0106 HBD TITLE! ADMINISTRATIVE AND MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES ARE NOT AVAILABLE IN THE CONTROL ROOM CATBGORY!

DISPOSITION III PROCEDURES WILL BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A17- 1

~ o 0

Ai7 5 HED NO: 3100-0107 HED TITLE LACK OF MATS OR PADDING ON FLOOR IN FRONT OF CONTROL BOARD INCREASES OPERATOR FATIGUE WHEN STANDING FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME CATEGORY: IV DISPOSITION: CARPETING WILL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO COMMERCIAL OPERATION.

A17-6 ~ HED NO: 3100-0201 HED TITLE THE SOUND-POWERED TELEPHONE SYSTEM IS INADEQUATE CATEGORY III DISPOSITION MORE MAINTENANCE WILL BE PROVIDED ON THE SYSTEM.

A17-7. HED NO: 3100-0202 HED TITLE: WALKIE-TALKIE SYSTEM IS INADEQUATE FOR USE IN SOME PLANT AREAS CATEGORY: III DISPOSITION: OPERATIONS WILL DEFINE DEAD AREAS AND MAKE OPERATORS AWARE OF THE AREAS WHERE SOUNDPOWERED PHONES OR THE CONVENTIONAL PHONES/PAGE WILL BE REQUIRED.

A17-8. HED NO: 3100-0203 HED TITLE: EXCESS FEEDBACK AND VOLUME OF PA SYSTEM INTERFERES WITH ALARMS AND MESSAGES TO AND FROM CONTROL ROOM CATEGORY:

DISPOSITION III PA SYSTEM WILL BE ADJUSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FINDINGS FROM THE COMMUNICATIONS AND NOISE SURVEYS.

A17 2

A17-9>> HBD NOt 3100-0204 HBD TITLE! COMMUNICATION LINK BETWEEN MAIN CR AND RADWASTE CR IS INADEQUATE CATEGORY! II DISPOSITIONt A DEDICATED LINE BETWEEN THE MAIN CONTROL ROOM AND THE RADWASTE CONTROL ROOM WILL BE PROVIDED'17-10

'BD NO! 3100-0205 HBD TITLB! COMMUNICATION LINK BETWEEN CR AND IN-PLANT AREAS IS XNADEQUATE CATBGORYt III DISPOSITION! SOUND-POWERED PHONES WILL BE USED IN THESE AREAS'O BACKFIT REQUXRED ~

A17-ll HBD NOt 3100-0501 HBD TITLE! PROTECTIVE CLOTHING FOR CR OPERATORS IS NOT AVAILABLE IN ALL SIKES CATEGORY III DISPOSITION! ALL SIZES WILL BE AVAILABLE IN THE CR PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A17-12 HBD NO! 3100-0502 HBD TITLE! BREATHING EQUXPMENT IMPAIRS COMMUNICATION WITHIN AND OUTSIDE CR CATEGORY! III DISPOSITIONt COMMUNICATIONABILITIESWILL BE REVIEWED FURTHER XN COMMUNICATION SURVEY A17-13 HBD NO 3100-1168 HED TITLBj POSITION LABELS ARE OBSCURED DURING ACTIVATION OF KNURLED KNOB CONTROL SWITCHES CATEGORYt III DISPOSITION! POSITION LABELS WILL BE MOVED AWAY FROM KNOB WHEN MODULE LABELS ARE RE-ENGRAVED

o A17-14 HED NO: 3100-1408 HBD TITLB TEST PUSHBUTTONS ON LIGHT BOXES ARE LOCATED TOO HIGH ON MCB CATEGORY'II DISPOSITION OPERATORS WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO USE THE LADDER IF THEY CANNOT REACH THE TEST PUSHBUTTONS A17-15 HED NO: 3100-1707 HBD TITLB. NO PROCEDURE AVAILABLE FOR OBTAINING STOCK SUPPLIES ON BACKSHIFTS CATEGORY IV SUPPLIES WILL BE STORED IN THE OFFICE NEAR THE

'ISPOSITION CONTROL ROOM OPERATIONS TECH'S RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING THE SUPPLIES WELL STOCKED'17-16

'BD Not 3100-1708 HBD TITLE! LADDER USED FOR CHANGING BULBS IN ANNUNCIATOR PANELS IS INADEQUATE COMPLETELY CATBGORY t IV-DISPOSITION NEW LADDER WILL BE PUT IN THE CONTROL ROOM WHEN CONSTRUCTION IS A17-17>> HBD NO: 3100-1709 HBD TITLBs NO DESIGNATED STORAGE AREA FOR EXPENDABLES AND SPARE PARTS CATEGORY'V DISPOSITION! STORAGE CABINET IS ORDERED AND WILL BE PLACED IN THE CONTROL ROOM AREA WHEN IT IS DELIVERED>>

A17-18 HED NOc 31F8-2120 HBD TITLB COOLING TOWER MAKEUP PANEL ALARM IS TOO LOUD CATBGORYa II DISPOSITION: WILL BE FURTHER EVALUATED WHEN THE NOISE SURVEY IS CONDUCTED IN THE CONTROL ROOM>>

~.

o 0

A17-19 HBD NO 31BI-2121 HBD TITLE! SET-POINTS FOR DC POWER SYSTEM ALARMS ARE TOO LOW CATEGORY! III DISPOSITION! FCR HAS BEEN WRITTEN AND THE PROBLEM WILL BE RESOLVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A17-20 'ED NO! 3100-2124 HBD TITLE CODING IS MISSING FOR ANNUNCIATOR TILES DURING PERIODS OF EXTENDED ILLUMINATION CATBGORY! III DISPOSITION! A PROC E DU RE WILL BE PUT IN PLACE TO CODE ANNUNCIATOR TILES THAT WILL BE ON POR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OP TIME PROCEDURE WILL BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO PUEL LOAD A17-21 HBD NO! 3100-3028 HED TITLB! POTENTIAL EXISTS FOR ACCIDENTAL ACTIVATION OP CONTROLS LOCATED AT LOWER EDGE OF BENCHBOARD CATEGORY! II DISPOSITION! A GUARD RAIL WILL BE INSTALLED ALONG THE LOWER EDGE OF THE BENCHBOARD PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A17-22 HED NO! 3100-3217 HBD TITLB! KNURLED KNOB ROTARY CONTROL TORQUE VALVES ABOVE CRITERIA CATBGORY!

DISPOSITION IIIREPLACEMENT NO SWITCHES/HANDLES FEELS HANDLES WILL LOOSEN WITH AVAILABLE'NGINEERING WEAR IF A REPLACEMENT KNOB BECOMES AVAILABLE THE KNOB WILL BE REPLACED A17-5

A17-23 HBD NOt 31F1-3219 HBD TITLBt POTENTIAL FOR ACCIDENTAL ACTIVATION OF BREAKER CONTROLS ON STARTUP XFMR PROTECTION PANEL CATBGORYt I DISPOSITIONt GUARDS WILL BE PROVIDED AROUND SWITCHES PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A17-24+ HBD NOt 31D1-3220 HED TITLBt SELDOM USED PUMP TEST CONTROLS ARE LOCATED ON MCB CATEGORYt II DISPOSITIONt CONTROLS ARE ACTUALLY SEQUENCER LOADING PUMP TEST AND ARE CORRECTLY LOCATED'ABEL HAS BEEN CHANGED TO "SEQUENCER CONTAINMENT SPRAY

'EST A-SA (B-SB) "~

A17-25 'BD Not 3100-3221 HED TITLBt KNURLED KNOB SELECTOR SWITCH DESIGN IS INADEQUATE CATEGORY III DISPOSITION$ NO REPLACEMENT SWITCHES/HANDLES, AVAILABLE'KNOB POINTER WILL BE PAINTED TO MAKE SWITCH POSITION READILY APPARENT@ IF A REPLACEMENT KNOB BECOMES AVAILABLE THE KNOB WILL BE REPLACED'17-26 HBD NOt 31Cl-3222 HED TITLBt THE SAFETY INJECTION ACTUATION CONTROL SWITCH HAS NO MOVABLE COVER OR GUARDS CATEGORY DISPOSITION II SWITCH HAS BEEN LOCATED ON THE VERTICAL PANEL TO PREVENT ACCIDENTAL ACTIVATION NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A17' 6

, ~

A17-29 'BD Sos 3100-5048 HBD TITLBs .INSTRUMENTATION IS NOT PRESENT IN THE CONTROL ROOM 0

CATBGORYs III, DISPOSITIONs INFORMATION IS PROVIDED ON THE COMPUTER AND CAN BE DISPLAYED ON THE CRT.

A17-30 HBD Nos 3100-5049 HBD TITLB$ EMERGENCY TRIP SYSTEM TEST DISPLAYS ARE NOT PRESENT IN THE CONTROL ROOM CATEGORY!

DISPOSITION III OPERATIONS FEELS"THIS PANEL DOES NOT BELONG IN THE CONTROL ROOM0 PANEL IS USED FOR TESTING ONLY AND IS LOCATED IN THE PIC ROOM WHICH IS

. BEHIND THE CONTROL ROOM A17-31+ HBD NOs 3100-5050 HBD TITLBs FILTER INLET/OUTLET VALVE CONTROLS USED DURING BACKFLUSHING- PROCEDURES ARE NOT PRESENT IN THE CR CATBGORYs ,III DISPOSITIONs A COMMUNICATION LINK: BETWEEN THE CR AND THE RAD WASTE CR WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A17-32 HBD ROs" 31C1-5051 HBD TITLBs DISPLAYS INDICATE VALUES WHICH REQUIRE OPERATOR CONVERSION CATBGORYs III DISPOSITIONs OPERATIONS FEELS METERS SHOULD BE READ IN PERCENT POWER>> NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'I7"

- 7

~.

~

A17-33 ~ HED NO: 31A2-5052 HED TITLE:

~ NARROW RANGE INDICATION FOR RELIEF TANK PRESSURE IS NOT PROVIDED ON THE MAIN CONTROL BOARD.

CATEGORY: III DISPOSITION: INFORMATION IS PROVIDED ON THE COMPUTER AND CAN BE DISPLAYED ON THE CRT A17-34 ~ HED NO: 3100-5053 HED TITLE: CNDSER VAC PMP EFFLUENT TREAT FAN CONTROLS ARE MISSING FROM THE MAIN CONTROL BOARD.

CATEGORY:

DISPOSITION III STATUS OF THE PUMP EFFLUENT CAN BE MONITORED ON COMPUTER. CONTROLS ARE PROVIDED ON AEP-2 AND CAN BE MONITORED FROM R-11 ON THE RMS PANEL.

A17-35 HED NO: 3100-5054 HED TITIE: LOCATION OF PRESSURIZER RECORDERS IN CR IS NOT OPTIMAL CATEGORY: III DISPOSITION: PRIMARY INDICATION FOR PRESSURI ZERS IS ON THE COMPUTER WHICH CAN BE DISPLAYED ON THE CRT'HE RECORDERS ARE USED FOR HISTORICAL TRENDING A17-36 HED NO: 3100-5056 HED TITLE: NARROW RANGE INDICATION FOR CNMT PRESS IS NOT PROVIDED ON THE MAIN CONTROL BOARD CATEGORY: III DISPOSITION: NARROW RANGE INDICATION FOR CNMT PRESSURE IS PROVIDED ON THE MAIN CONTROL BOARD AND COMPUTER.

A17 8

~ s A17-37 HBD NOt 3100-5058 HBD TITLBt EQUIPMENT STATUS DISPLAYS ARE NOT LABELED DEMAND OR ACTUAL STATUS CATBGORYt II DISPOSITIOHt PROCESS CONTROLLERS WILL BE LABELED TO INDICATE DEMAND STATUS'17-38

'BD NOt 3100-5059 HBD TITLE ACTUAL STATUS DISPLAYS FOR SOME PROCESS CONTROLLERS ARE MISSING ON MCB CATBGORYt IV DISPOSITION t OPS RAT I ON S I HAS VERI F ED THAT THERE IS AN INDICATIONOF ACTUAL STATUS FOR ALL CONTROLLERS ~

NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'17 9

0 o

APPENDIX A-18 ANTHROPOMETRIC HEDs A18-1e HED NOj 3100-1409 HED TITLE! CONTROLS ON VERTICAL PANELS ARE OUT OF FUNCTIONAL REACH FOR 5TH PERCENTILE FEMALE OPERATORS CATEGORY'ISPOSITION III CONTAINMENT SPRAY ACTUATION CONTROLSi CONTAINMENT ISOLATION PHASE A ACTUATIONi SAFETY INJECTIONi REACTOR TRIPi BORIC ACID FLOWt AND PRESSURIZER AUX SPRAY ARE INTENTIONALLY PLACED ON THE VERTICAL SECTION OF THE BOARD TO LESSEN THE LIKELIHOOD OF ACCIDENTAL ACTIVATION THE OTHERS ARE TEST SWITCHES OR CONTROLS THAT DO NOT REQUIRE FREQUENT OR PRECISE ACTUATION SO THEY WERE PLACED ON THE VERTICAL SECTION TO RESERVE SPACE FOR MORE CRITICAL/FREQUENTLY USED CONTROLS'O BACKFIT REQUIRED'18-2 HED NO: 3100-1411 HED TITLE CONTROLS ON VERTICAL PANELS ARE OUT OF EXTENDED FUNCTIONAL REACH FOR 5TH PERCENTILE FEMALE OPERATORS CATEGORY'ISPOSITIONt III CONTAINMENT SPRAY ACTUATION CONTROLS'AFETY INJECTIONS CONTAINMENT ISOLATION PHASE A ACTUATION AND PRESSURIZER AUX SPRAY ARE INTENTIONALLY PLACED ON THE VERTICAL SECTION OF THE BOARD TO LESSEN THE LIKELIHOOD OF ACCIDENTAL ACTIVATION~ THE OTHERS ARE TEST SWITCHES OR CONTROLS THAT DO NOT REQUIRE FREQUENT OR PRECISE ACTUATION SO THEY WERE PLACED ON THE VERTICAL SECTION TO RESERVE SPACE FOR MORE CRITICAL/FREQUENTLY USED CONTROLS NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A18 1

~.

0

A18-3 HED NOt 31GO-1410 HED TITLEt KNEE ROOM ON SIT-DOWN CONSOLES IS LESS THAN CRITERIA CATEGORYt IV DISPOSITIONt NO LONG TERM MONITORING TASKS i WHICH REQUIRE THE OPERATOR TO REMAIN IMMOBILE,IS REQUIRED AT THESE CONSOLES'O BACKFIT REQUIRED'18 2

~.

APPBNDIX A-19 BMBRGBNCY EQUIPMENT HBDs A19-1 HED NO! 3100-0503 HED TITLEI SIZES OF PROTECTIVE CLOTHING SETS ARE NOT EASILY III IDENTIFIABLE'ATEGORY!

DISPOSITIONt S I E Z TAGS/LABELS WILL BE PROVIDED ON THE PROTECTIVE CLOTHING PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A19-2 HBD NOz 3100-0504 HED TITLEt. IMPERMANENT AND INADEQUATE LABELING ON EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT SUPPLY III CABINETS'ATEGORY!

DISPOSITION CABINET LABELS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A19 - 1

~.

APPBNDIX A-20 ANNUNCIATOR HBDs .

A20-1 ~ HED NO: 31Dl-2119 HED TITLB AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT ALARMS ARE LOCATED TOO FAR FROM BACK PANELS CATEGORY III DISPOSITION: SHIFT COMPLEMENT WILL BE ABLE TO ADEQUATELY HANDLE BACK PANEL ALARMS. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A20-2 HBD NO: 31A1-2122 HBD TITLE: INSTRUMENT AIR DRIER TROUBLE ALARM IS OUT, OF ADJUSTMENT - GOES OFF WHEN AIR DRIER SHIFTS SETTINGS CATBGORY: III DISPOSITION: F CR HAS BEEN WRITTEN TO TAKE CARE OF THE PROBLEM. NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED.

A20-3 HED NO 3100-2123 HBD TITLB SPACE BETWEEN LINES OF ENGRAVING ON ANNUNCIATOR TILES IS TOO SMALL.

CATBGORY III DISPOSITION! OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEM READING THE TEXT ON THE ANNUNCIATOR TILES. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED A20-4 HBD NO! 3100-2125 HBD TITLE ANNUNCIATOR LIGHT BOXES CONTAIN MORE THAN 50 TILES PER MATRIX CATBGORY III DISPOSITION! THERE IS NO ROOM TO SEPARATE ANNUNCIATOR TILES.

OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEM WITH THE CURRENT ARRANGEMENTS A20 1

O.

0

A20-5o HBD NOs 3100-2126 HBD TITLB! ANNUNCIATOR TILE LEGENDS ADDRESS MORE THAN ONE CONDITION CATBGORYt III DISPOSITIONs THREE LINES OF TEXT ALB-16 (l-l) WILL BE ON REPLACED USING THE WORD "TROUBLE" ~

A20-6 HBD Nos 3100-2128 HBD TITLBs ANNUNCIATOR SYSTEM HAS MULTI-INPUT ALARMS CATBGORY III DISPOSITION: OPERATIONS MULTI-INPUT HAS NO PROBLEM WITH THE ANNUNCIATORS. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A20-7e HBD NOs 31B1-2129

'BD TITLBs MULTIPLE EQUIPMENT ALARM IS IDENTICAL TO SINGLE EQUIPMENT ALARM LEADING TO AMBIGUOUS OR CONFUSING MESSAGES CATEGORY DISPOSITIONs II ANNUNCIATOR WILL BE CHANGED TO UNALERT" PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A20-8% HED NO 3100-2130 HED TITLB POTENTIAL EXISTS FOR OPERATORS TO FAIL TO RECOGNIZE FLASHER FAILURE OF ALARMED TILES CATBGORYs DISPOSITION II OPERATORS ARE ABLE TO DETERMINE FLASHER FAILURE WHEN PERFORMING ANNUNCIATOR LAMP TEST LAMP TEST IS CONDUCTED ONCE PER SHIFT. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'20 2

A20-9o HBD NO: 3100-2131 HBD TITLE: VIEWING ANGLES BETWEEN TILES AND RESPONSE STATIONS DO NOT MEET CRITERIA CATBGORY: II DISPOSITION: AN ADDITIONAL ANNUNCIATOR RESPONSE STATION WILL BE INSTALLED.

A20-10. HED NO: 3100-2132 HED TITLE ANNUNCIATOR TILE ENGRAVING LETTER HEIGHT DOES NOT MEET CRITERIA CATBGORY: II DISPOSITION: AN ADDITIONAL ANNUNCIATOR RESPONSE STATION WILL BE INSTALLED.

A20-11 HBD NO: 3100-2135 HED TITLE ENGRAVING ON NEW REPLACEMENT TILES ON ANNUNCIATOR PANELS DOES NOT MEET CRITERIA CATBGORY III DISPOSITION: ANNUNCIATOR TILES WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A20-12 HBD NO: 3100-2134 HBD TITLE NO COORDINATE DESIGNATORS ON ANNUNCIATOR PANELS CATEGORY:

DISPOSITION III COORDINATE DESIGNATORS WILL BE PROVIDED ON ALL LIGHT BOXES PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A20-13 'ED NO: 31C1-5057 HBD TITLBa ARRANGEMENT OF TEST STATUS LIGHTS WITHIN PANELS IS NOT STANDARDIZED CATBGORY DISPOSITION III OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEMS WITH THE CURRENT ARRANGEMENT. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A20 3

APPBNDIX A-21 CONTROLS HBDs A21-1 HED NO: 3100-3105 HBD TITLE: PROCESS CONTROLLER PUSHBUTTON DISPLACEMENT IS LESS THAN MINIMUM CRITERION OF .125 INCH CATEGORY'II DISPOSITION: DISPLACEMENT IS APPROXIMATELY 2/3 THE CRITERIA.

SINCE NO HEAVY GLOVE ACTIVATION IS AND DISPLAY FEEDBACK APPEAR REQUIRED'ISPLACEMENT ADEQUATE. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'21-2 HBD NO: 3100-3106 HBD TITLB SCALES TOO SMALL TO READ ON HAGAN PROCESS CONTROLLERS ON MCB CATEGORY'II DISPOSITION: METER IS USED TO INDICATE EQUIPMENT RESPONSE AND IS NOT READ TO A PRECISE LEVELS NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A21-3 HBD NO: 3100-3216 HBD TITLE KNURLED KNOB ROTARY CONTROL KNOB HEIGHTS ARE LESS THAN CRITERIA CATBGORY:

DISPOSITION:

IIIREPLACEMENT NO SWITCHES/HANDLES AVAILABLE'F A REPLACEMENT KNOB BECOMES AVAILABLE THE KNOB WILL BE REPLACED'21-4 HED Not 3100-3217 HBD TITLB THREE- AND FOUR-POSITION KNURLED KNOB ROTARY CONTROL TORQUE VALUES ABOVE CRITERIA CATEGORY DISPOSITION IIIREPLACEMENT NO SWITCHES/HANDLES AVAILABLE IF A REPLACEMENT KNOB BECOMES AVAILABLE THE KNOB WILL BE REPLACED.

A21-5 HBD Not 31AI-3218 HED TITLE! RHR SAFETY XNJECTION CONTROL SWXTCHES HAVE TORQUE VALUES ABOVE CRITERIA CATBGORYt III DISPOSITIONt TORQUE MAY BE HIGH BECAUSE CONTROLS ARE NEW.

THE TORQUE VALUES SHOULD DECREASE TO AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL WITH USE NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'21-6 HED NOt 31Bl-3224 HED TITLE! VALVE CONTROL HANDLE DOES NOT CONFORM TO OPERATOR EXPECTATIONS OR MATCH OTHER CONTROLS FOR THE SAME FUNCTION CATEGORYt III DISPOSITIONt HANDLE WILL BE CHANGED TO A T-HANDLE A21-7 HBD Not 3100-3415 HBD TITLBt ANNUNCIATOR SWITCH PUSHBUTTONS HAVE NO FIXED BARRIERS AND SURFACE IS NOT SLIP RESISTANT OR CONCAVE CATBGORY DISPOSITION III OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEM WITH THE CURRENT MODULE DESIGN. ENGINEERING CONCURS'O BACKFIT REQUIRED'21-8 HBD NOt 3100-3416 HED TITLBt ANNUNCIATOR SWITCH PUSHBUTTONS ARE SMALLER THAN MINIMUM SIZE CRITERIA OF ~ 75 INCHES CATEGORY! III DISPOSITIONt THE PUSHBUTTONS ARE ~ 125 INCH NARROW ON ONE SXDE ONLY. OPERATIONS FEELS PUSHBUTTONS ARE ADEQUATE TO PERFORM THE REQUIRED FUNCTION ENGINEERING CONCURS NO BACKFXT REQUIRED'21 2

~.

~-

A21-9. HBD NO! 3100-3417 HBD TITLE ANNUNCIATOR SWITCH PUSHBUTTON RESISTANCE IS TOO HIGH 0

CATEGORY DISPOSITION!

III RESISTANCE USERS MAY BE HIGH BECAUSE PUSHBUTTONS ARE NEW THE RESISTANCE VALUES SHOULD DECREASE WITH NO BACKFIT REQUIRED A21-10 HBD NO! 31AA-3419 HBD TITLB RESISTANCE FOR ESF LIGHT BOX TEST PUSHBUTTONS IS ABOVE CRITERION OF 40 OZ CATEGORY! IV DISPOSITION! RESISTANCE IS BETWEEN 13 TO 15 PERCENT HIGHER THAN MAXIMUM CRITERIONS SINCE PUSHBUTTONS ARE USED ONLY FOR TESTING BULBS'O BACKFIT REQUIRED'21-ll HED NO! 3100-3420 HED TITLB! TEST PUSHBUTTON SURFACES ON LIGHT BOXES ARE NOT SLIP RESISTANT OR CONCAVE CATBGORY! IV DISPOSITION! THE FUNCTION OF THESE PUSHBUTTONS IS FOR BULB TEST ONLY'ND SLIP RESISTANCE APPEARS ADEQUATE.

NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'21-12 HBD NO! 3100-3421 HED TITLE! ANNUNCIATOR CONTROLS HAVE NO CODING TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN FUNCTIONS CATBGORY! III DISPOSITION! BECAUSE OF THE CONSISTENT LOCATION OF THE SILENCE BUTTON (FIRST BUTTON IN THE ROW) i OPERATIONS FEELS A DIFFERENT SHAPE BUTTON IS NOT REQUIRED'21 3

~.

APPBNDIX A-22 DISPLAY HEDs A22-1 HBD Nos 3100-2225 HBD TITLBs MANUFACTURER'S TRADEMARK ON VERTICAL METER FACES CATBGORY III DISPOSITIONs OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEMS WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S TRADEMARK ON THE METER FACES AS IT DOES NOT OBSCURE SCALE MARKINGS'22-2 HBD NOs 3IAA-2226 HBD TITLBs INTERMEDIATE MARKS FOLLOW EACH MAJOR NUMBERED MARK ON VERTICAL METER SCALES CATEGORYs II DISPOSITIONs'METER FACES WILL BE REPLACED PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A22-3 HBD NOs 31Cl-2308 HBD TITLBs BYPASS PERMISSIVE LEGEND LIGHT ENGRAVING CONTAINS MORE THAN THREE LINES OF TEXT PER LIGHT CATBGORY III DISPOSITION AFTER STUDYING THE PROBLEM g OPERATIONS AND ENGINEERING CONCLUDE THAT MESSAGES COULD NOT BE REDUCED WITHOUT REDUCING THE MEANING OF THE MESSAGES A22-4 ~ HED NOs 3100-2309 HBD TITLBs MESSAGES ON LEGEND LIGHTS APPEAR CLUTTERED AND CONTAIN MORE THAN THREE LINES OF TEXT CATBGORY III DISPOSITIONs ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS ARE INVESTIGATING TO DETERMINE IF ANY LEGENDS ON ELECTRO SWITCHES CAN BE REDUCED TO LESS THAN THREE LINES OF TEXT WITHOUT AFFECTING THE MESSAGE CONTENTS A22 - 1

A22-5 ~ HBD NO! 3100-2414 HBD TITLE MORE THAN NINE GRADUATIONS BETWEEN NUMBERED MARKS ON STRIP CHART RECORDERS CATEGORY! III DISPOSITION! RECORDERS ARE USED FOR HISTORICAL TRENDING AND DO NOT SERVE AS THE PRIMARY INDICATION.

OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEM READING THE CURRENT SCALES'O BACKFIT REQUIRED'22-6

~ HBD NO! 3100-2415 HBD TITLB! STRIP CHART RECORDER INTERNAL LABELING DOES NOT MEET READABILITY CRITERIA (LABEL LETTER STROKE WIDTH IS TOO NARROW) ON DUAL SCALE RECORDERS CATBGORY DISPOSITION III RECORDERS ARE USED FOR HISTORICAL TRENDING AND DO NOT SERVE AS THE PRIMARY INDICATIONS OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEM READING THE CURRENT SCALES NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'22-7 HBD NO! 31B1-2416 HBD TITLE! STRIP CHART RECORDER INTERNAL LABELING DOES NOT MEET READABILITY CRITERIA ON SPEEDOMAX RECORDER.

CATBGORY III DISPOSITION! RECORDER IS USED FOR HISTORICAL TRENDING AND DOES NOT SERVE AS THE PRIMARY INDICATION.

OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEM READING THE CURRENT SCALES. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'22-2

~.

~ (

A22-8 HED NO: 3100-2417 HBD TITLB! STRIP CHART RECORDER INTERNAL LABELING DOES NOT MEET READABILITY CRITERIA ON SINGLE SCALE RECORDERS CATEGORY'II DISPOSITION: RECORDERS ARE USED FOR HISTORICAL TRENDING AND DO NOT SERVE AS THE PRIMARY INDICATION.

OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEM READING THE CURRENT SCALES. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A22-9 HBD NO: 31B1-2418 HBD TITLE STRIP CHART RECORDER 'INTERNAL LABELING DOES NOT MEET READABILITY CRITERIA ON MR-AF-2050 CATEGORY: III DISPOSITION: RECORDER IS USED FOR HISTORICAL TRENDING AND DOES NOT SERVE AS THE PRIMARY INDICATIONS OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEM READING THE CURRENT SCALES'O BACKFIT REQUIRED'22-10 HBD NO: 3100-2419 HBD TITLB. RECORDER POINTERS OVERLAP MINOR MARKS ON RECORDER SCALES CATEGORY:

DISPOSITION III RECORDERS ARE USED FOR HISTORICAL TRENDING AND DO NOT SERVE AS THE PRIMARY INDICATIONS OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEM READING THE CURRENT SCALES. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A22- 3

e.

APPBNDIX A-23 LABELING SURVEY HBDs A23-1 HED NO! 3100-1154 HED TITLBs LEGEND LIGHT ENGRAVING ON MODULES DOES NOT MEET READABILITY CRITERIA CATEGORY III DISPOSITION OPERATOR HAS NO PROBLEM READING LEGENDS'O BACKFIT REQUIRED A23-2e HBD NO 31C1-1155 HBD TITLB INCONSISTENT ENGRAVING ON BYPASS PERMISSIVE LIGHTS CATEGORY!

DISPOSITION III ONE IS ENGRAVED AUTO ROD AND THE OTHER IS ENGRAVED MANUAL RODi ENGRAVING IS CORRECTS NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'23-3 HBD NO 3100-1156 HBD TITLE! ALB PANEL LABELS FAIL HIERARCHICAL LETTER HEIGHT CRITERIA OF 25 PERCENT LARGER THAN ENGRAVED LETTER HEIGHTS ON TILES CATBGORY!

DISPOSITION III ALB PANEL LABELS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A23-4 HED NO! 31B2-1157 HBD TITLB COMPONENT LABEL CONTAINS LOWER CASE LETTERS CATBGORY! IV DISPOSITION! LABELS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD+

A23 - 1

A23-5 HBD NOt 31B2-1159 HED TITLE CONTROL SWITCH POSITION LABELS ARE INCONSISTENT WITH SIMILAR SWITCHES CATEGORY III DISPOSITION. OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEMS WITH THE SWITCH POSITIONS BECAUSE THE POSITIONS REFLECT THE CORRECT OPERATION OF THE TURNING GEAR>> NO BACKFIT REQUIRED A23-6 ~ HED NO: 3100-1169 HED TITLBt LABELLING DOES NOT DESCRIBE THE FUNCTION OF THE VERTICAL METERS CATEGORY'II DISPOSITION METER FACE LABELS HAVE BEEN CHANGED TO DESCRIBE THE FUNCTION OF THE METER A23-7>> HBD NO: 3100-1170 HBD TITLB LABELLING DOES NOT DESCRIBE THE FUNCTION OF THE PROCESS CONTROLLERS CATEGORY! III DISPOSITIONs LABEL WILL BE CORRECTED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A23-8>> HED NO 3100-1171 HBD TITLBc LETTER HEIGHTS ON UNITS LABELS FOR VERTICAL METERS DO NOT MEET READABILITY CRITERIA CATEGORY'II DISPOSITION LETTER HEIGHTS WILL BE CORRECTED AS METER FACES WERE REPLACED A23-9>> HBD NOx 3100-1172 HED TITLB ANNUNCIATOR SWITCH LEGEND PUSHBUTTON ENGRAVING IS NOT ORIENTED HORIZONTALLY CATEGORY'II DISPOSITION LEGEND ENGRAVING HAS BEEN CORRECTED'23

- 2

A23-10 HBD NO! 31Dl-1173 HBD TITLBR INCOMPLETE LABELLING ON FUNCTION LABEL FOR VERTICAL METER SIMILAR METERS HAVE INCONSISTENT LABELLING CATBGORYa II DISPOSITION~ METER LABELLING WILL BE CORRECTED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD0 A23-11 HBD Noc 31B1-1174 HBD TITLB j FUNCTION LABELS ARE TOO SIMILAR ON PROCESS CONTROLLERS LOCATED IN CLOSE PHYSICAL PROXIMITY CATEGORY'I DISPOSITION! COMPONENT NUMBERS AND MORE DESCRIPTIVE FUNCTIONAL LABELS WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A23 3

APPENDIX A-24 ERFIS AND SPDS COMPUTER HEDs A24-1 HED NO! 31G1-0301 HED TITLES ANGLE OF SLOPE FOR MOVABLE KEYBOARDS IS LESS THAN CRITERIA CATEGORY DISPOSITION III ANGLE DEVIATES FROM CRITERIA BY ONLY SIX DEGREES. KEYBOARDS ARE NOT USUALLY USED FOR EXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME AND ARE USED MOST FREQUENTLY FROM A STANDING POSITION WHERE THE ANGLE WOULD NOT BE REALIZED'O BACKFIT REQUIRED A24-2 HED NO: 31G1-0302 HED TITLBt A COMPLETE SET OF THE COMPUTER SYSTEM OPERATING PROCEDURES ARE NOT AVAILABLEIN THE CONTROL ROOM CATEGORY III DISPOSITION A COMPLETE SET OF THE COMPUTER SYSTEM OPERATING PROCEDURES WILL BE AVAILABLE IN THE CONTROL ROOM PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A24-3 HED Nox 31G1-0303 HED TITLE A CROSS-INDEX FOR DATA DISPLAY CODES OR ADDRESSES IS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE CONTROL ROOM CATEGORY:

DISPOSITION III A CROSS-INDEX FOR DATA DISPLAY CODES AND ADDRESSES WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A24 1

A24-4+ HBD NOt 31G1-0304 HBD TITLBt NO CORRECTIVE ACTION INSTRUCTIONS FOLLOW ERROR MESSAGES ON CRT DISPLAYS.

CATBGORYt DISPOSITION III INSTRUCTIONS FOR RE-ENTERING DATA FOLLOWING AN ERROR MESSAGE WILL BE PROVIDED IN THE COMPUTER PROCEDURES MANUAL PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A24-5e HBD NOt 31G1-0305 HBD TITLBt NO LINE SPACES BETWEEN GROUPS OF 5 COLUMNAR DATA ENTRIES ON CRT DISPLAYS CATBGORYt DISPOSITION III OPERATORS HAVE THE OPTION OF CALLING UP DISPLAYS IN ANOTHER FORMAT WHICH IS EASIER TO READ ~ NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'24-6

~ HBD NOt 31G1-0306 HBD TITLBt DOT-MATRIX CHARACTERS USED FOR CRT DISPLAY ARE TOO SMALL CATBGORYt IV DISPOSITION: OPERATORS VIEW CRT SCREENS FROM A POSITION DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE CRT AND THERE IS AN OPTIONAL SIZE SELECTION OF A 10X14 DOT MATRIX FOR ALL CHARACTERS'O BACKFIT REQUIRED'24-7 FILETS HBD NOt 31G1-0307 HBD TITLBt ONLY TWELVE PAGES OF ALARMS CAN BE STORED FOR PRINTING.

CllTBGORYt DISPOSITIONt III IN ADDITION TO FILETS THE TWELVE PAGES OF ACTIVE ALARMS THE SYSTEM HAS A TRANSACTION THIS FILE .IS A CIRCULAR FILE AND WILL CARRY APPROXI-MATELY TWO WEEKS OF ALARM DATA DURING NORMAL ACTIVITY LEVELS'HE OPERATOR IS GIVEN AN ADVISORY MESSAGE WHEN THE TRANSACTION FILE IS 50 PERCENT FULLY THIS GIVES THE OPERATOR TIME TO PRINT OUT THE A24 2

A24-8 HED NO! 31GO-1160 HED TITLE FUNCTION LABEL FOR COLOR MODE SELECTOR SWITCH ON CRT BEZEL IS MISSING ON ALL CONSOLES CATEGORY IV DISPOSITION NO BACKFIT POSITION LABELS INDICATE FUNCTION A24-9 ~ HED NO! 31G2-1162 HED TITLE! LEGEND LIGHT ENGRAVING DOES NOT MEET READABILITY CRITERIA SPACES BETWEEN LINES ARE TOO SMALL AND LETTERS APPEAR CROWDED TOGETHER CATEGORY: III DISPOSITION! OPERATORS HAVE NO PROBLEM READING LEGEND LIGHTS'O BACKFIT REQUIRED'24-10

'ED NO 31G2-1163 HED TITLE SYSTEM NAME ON LEGEND LIGHT ENGRAVING IS MISSPELLED CATEGORY III DISPOSITION! LEGEND LIGHTS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A24-11 HED NO! 31GO-1164 HED TITLE! LEGEND PUSHBUTTON FUNCTION LABELS FOR CRT SELECTION ARE MISSING FROM CONSOLES CATEGORY! III DISPOSITION! LABELS WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A24-12. HED NO! 31GO-1165 HED TITLE CONTROLS ON CRT BEZELS HAVE NO POSITION LABELS CATEGORY: . III DISPOSITION: F U NCT ION LABELS ARE CLEAR I ND I CATION OF POSITION. FOR BRIGHTNESS CONTROL THERE IS NO CONSEQUENCE OF ERROR FOR INCORRECT OPERATION.

A24- 3

A24-13 HBD NO 31GO-1167 HED TITLE! KEY OPERATED CONTROL SWITCH HAS NO FUNCTXON OR POSITION LABELS'ATEGORY IV DISPOSITION! THE SWITCH IS INTENTIONALLY NOT LABELLED'HE SWITCH IS A SOFTWARE SECURITY SWITCH AND OPERATORS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO USE IT.

A24-14 HED NOt 31G2-1313 HBD TITLBt UNAPPROVED ABBREVIATIONS USED ON LEGEND LXGHT ENGRAVING ON COMPUTER CONSOLE CATEGORY! IIX DISPOSITION! ABBREVIATIONS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE ABBREVIATIONS LIST A24-15 'ED NO 31GO-1314 HBD TITLE KEY SEQUENCE REVERSED AND INCONSISTENT STYLES USED ON KEYPAD AT LEFT SIDE OF KEYBOARD CATBGORY IXI DISPOSITIONt OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEM WITH OPERATING THESE KEYBOARDS'O BACKFIT REQUIRED'24-16 HED NO. 31G2-1711 HBD TITLE SPLIT LEGEND LIGHTS HAVE SINGLE BULBS AND NO BULB-TEST CAPABILITY CATBGORY IV DISPOSITION: INDICATOR LIGHTS ARE USED AS STATUS LIGHTS FOR THE COMPUTER AND NOT AS WARNING LIGHTS ~

THERE IS NO CONSEQUENCE IF A BURNT OUT BULB GOES UNDETECTED A24 4

A24-17 HED NO 31G2-1712 HED TITLE LEGEND LIGHTS LENSES ARE NOT KEYED TO PREVENT XNTERCHANGXNG DURXNG BULB REPLACEMENT CATEGORY III DISPOSITION. A MA'INTENANCE PROCEDURE ADDRESSING BULB REPLACEMENT AND THE REMOVAL OF MULTIPLE WINDOWS WILL BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A24-18 HED NO: 31GO-3422 HBD TITLE! LEGEND PUSHBUTTONS ARE NOT EASILY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM LEGEND LIGHTS CATEGORY!

DISPOSITION III OPERATIONS HAS NO PROBLEMS WITH DISTINGUISHING THE PUSHBUTTONS FROM THE LEGEND LIGHTS ~ BECAUSE THERE ARE JUST A FEW LEGEND LIGHTS THE OPERATORS KNOW WHICH ARE LEGEND LIGHTS AND WHICH ARE PUSHBUTTONS BY THEIR" FUNCTION.

A24-19% HED NO! 31GO-3423 HED TITLE PUSHBUTTON SURFACES ARE NOT SLXP RESISTANT OR CONCAVE CATEGORY! IV DISPOSITION PUSHBUTTONS ARE USED FOR CRT SELECTION FOR DATA DISPLAYS ON DUAL CONSOLE AND ARE NOT CONTIGUOUS OR SAFETY RELATED. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A24-20 HBD NO: 31G1-5068 HBD TITLE. CHARACTER SIZE ON TREND X-Y COORDINATES HARD TO DISCRIMINATE CATEGORY:

DISPOSITION III THE READABILITY OF THE CHARACTERS IS NOT A PROBLEM BECAUSE OF THE SHORT VIEWXNG DISTANCES/ANGLES OF THE CRTs. CHARACTERS ARE A 5X7 DOT MATRIX. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED.

A24 5

~.

0

A24-21 HED NO: 31G1-5069 HED TITLE INCREASING'ECREASING AND STABLE ARROW SYMBOL HARD TO DISCRIMINATE CATEGORY III DISPOSITION. INVESTXGATION ONGOING A24-22 HED NOc 31Gl-5070 HED TITLE. UNITS ON FLOW RATES ON SOME DISPLAYS ARE IN GPM UNXTS CATEGORY II DISPOSITIONS DISPLAY UNITS WILL BE CORRECTED PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A24-23 'ED NO: 31G1-5071 HED TITLE MENU NOT DISPLAYED AFTER A FUNCTION HAS BEEN SELECTED OPERATOR HAS TO REMEMBER ACRONYM FOR THE DISPLAYED DESIRED CATEGORY'II DISPOSITION INVESTIGATION ONGOING A24-24. HED NO: 31G1-5072 HED TITLE! THE COLOR BLUE USED FOR TEXT OR AS A SINGLE PLOT IS NOT READABLE CATEGORY'II DISPOSITION THE COLOR BLUE WXLL NOT BE USED FOR CRT DISPLAYS.

A24-6

APPENDIX A-25 CONVENTION HBDs A25-1 HBD NO 3100-1307 HBD TITLB INCONSISTENT AND UNAPPROVED USE OF ABBREVIATIONS ON MLBg TSLBg AND SLB TILE ENGRAVING CATEGORY!

DISPOSITION III INCONSISTENT ABBREVIATIONS WILL BE CORRECTED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A25-2~ HBD NO 3100-1308 HED TITLE! INCONSISTENT USE OF ABBREVIATIONS ON ALB TILE ENGRAVING CATEGORY! III DISPOSITIONS ABBREVIATIONS ARE APPROVED ABBREVIATIONS'HE PHILOSOPHY FOR USES OF ABBREVIATIONS IS TO USE THE ABBREVIATION FOR INDIVIDUAL WORDS INSTEAD OF PHRASE/SYSTEM ABBREVIATIONS WHEN THERE IS ROOM NO BACKFIT REQUIRED

~

A25-3 ~ HBD NOc 31AA-1310 HBD TITLEt INCONSISTENT USE OF ABBREVIATIONS ON ESF BYPASS PANEL A/B ENGRAVING CATEGORY'II I

DISPOSITIONS T I L E S W LL BE RE-E NGRAVED TO CORRECT THE ABBREVIATION FOR VDC ABBREVIATION FOR WATER IS AN APPROVED ABBREVIATION.

A25-4~ HED NO 3100-1311 HED TITLBt INCONSISTENT USE OF ABBREVIATIONS ON COMPONENT LABELS CATEGORY!

DISPOSITION III ABBREVIATIONS WILL BE CORRECTED WHEN LABELS ARE RE-ENGRAVED.

A25 1

~.

A25-5 HED NO. 3100-1312 HED TITLE INCONSISTENT USE OF ABBREVIATIONS ON LEGEND LIGHT ENGRAVING CATBGORY III DISPOSITIONt LEGEND LIGHTS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A25-6e HED NO 31D2-1315 HED TITLEt INCORRECT ABBREVIATIONS (MU FOR MAKEUP)g USED IN FUNCTION LABEL ON VERTICAL METER FACE ~

CATBGORYt IV DISPOSITIONt MU HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE ABBREVIATIONS LIST.

A25-7 HED NOt 3100-1316 HBD TITLE INCONSISTENT TEMPERATURE ABBREVIATIONS ON UNITS LABELS ON VERTICAL METER FACES CATEGORY III DISPOSITION! "DEG F" HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED AS THE ABBREVIATION FOR DEGREES FAHRENHEIT METER FACE LABELS WILL BE CORRECTED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A25-8% HBD Not 31A1-1317 HBD TITLBt CONTROL SWITCHES HAVE DIRECTIONAL MOVEMENT AND COLOR CODING WHICH ARE OPPOSITE OF CONVENTION CATBGORY II DISPOSITIONt SWITCH HANDLES HAVE BEEN COLOR CODED TO REMIND OPERATORS THAT THE SWITCH DEVIATES FROM CONVENTION A25 2

~.

APPENDIX A-26 VBRIFICATION AND VALIDATIONHBDs A26-1 HED NOt 3100-0601 HBD TITLBt OPERATOR TRAINING DOES NOT SPECIFY ERFIS AS THE SOURCE OF REQUIRED INFORMATION CATEGORYs II DISPOSITIONs THE USE OF ERFIS AS A SOURCE OF INFORMATION WILL BE ADDED TO THE OPERATOR TRAINING.

A26-2Q HBD Not 3100-0602 HED TITLBs OPERATOR TRAINING DOES NOT SPECIFY ERFIS AS THE SOURCE. FOR REQUIRED TREND INFORMATION CATEGORY! II DISPOSITIONt THE USE OF ERFIS AS A SOURCE FOR TREND I

INFORMATION WILL BE ADDED TO THE OPERATOR TRAINING.

A26-3 HBD Nos 3100-1178 HED TITLBt

SUMMARY

LABELS MISSING ON STATUS LIGHT BOX ON AEP AND ON SG PRESSURE INDICATOR LIGHTS ON MCB CATBGORYt III DISPOSZTIONt LABELS WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A26-4 ~ HED Nos 31B1-1179 HBD TITLE FEEDWATER ISOLATION RESET CONTROLS MISLABELED CATBGORYs III DISPOSITIONt CONTROLS WILL BE CORRECTED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A26- 1

~.

O.

A26-5% HBD N0$ 31cl-1180

. HSD TITLS CATBGORY$

DISPOSITION FEEDWATER ISOLATION BYPASS PERMISSIVE LIGHT MISENGRAVED III LIGHTS WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A26-6 HBD N0$ 31C1-1181 HBD TITLB$ POWERS INTERMEDIATE RANGEi AND SOURCE RANGE CONTROLS HAVE CONFUSING LABELS CATEGORY! III DISPOSITION! LABEL S W I LL BE CORRECTED WITH METER FACE REPLACEMENTS'26-7Q HBD N0$ 3100-1182 HSD TITLB$ PANEL LABELING IS INCORRECT CATBGORY III DISPOSITION$ LABELING WILL BE RE-ENGRAVED PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A26-Se HBD N0$ 31AA-1321 HBD TITLB CONTAINMENT SPRAY AND PHASE B ISOLATION RESET CONTROLS NOT LOCATED OR DEMARCATED BY MCB CONVENTION CATBGORY$ III DISPOSITION! SWITCHES WILL BE RELOCATED AND DEMARCATED PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A26-9 HSD N0$ 31A2-2227 HBD TITLB$ MCB PRZ PRESSURE INDICATOR CANNOT BE READ TO THE REQUIRED ACCURACY CATBGORY$

DISPOSITION III THE PRZ PRESSURE VALUES STATED IN THE PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN CHANGED AND THESE VALUES CAN BE READ TO THE REQUIRED ACCURACY ON THE MCB METERS'26

- 2

A26-10 'ED NOs 31B1-2228 HSD TITLSs MCB S/G NR LEVEL INDICATORS CANNOT BE READ TO THE REQUIRED ACCURACY CATEGORYs III DISPOSITIONs THE 'S/G NR LEVEL VALUES STATED IN THE PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN CHANGED AND THESE VALUES CAN BE READ TO THE REQUIRED ACCURACY ON THE MCB METERS'26-11

'BD Nos 31B1-2229 HBD TITLBs MCB S/G PRESSURE INDICATORS CANNOT BE READ TO THE REQUIRED ACCURACY CATBGORYs IXI DISPOSITIONs THE S/G PRESSURE VALUES STATED IN THE PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN CHANGED AND THESE VALUES CAN BE READ TO THE REQUXRED ACCURACY ON THE MCB METERS'26-12 HSD Nos 3100-4401 HED TITLBs PROCEDURES DO NOT REFERENCE REQUIRED VALVE ALIGNMENT LISTS CATEGORY! III DISPOSITIONs VALVE ALIGNMENT LISTS WILL BE PROVIDED IN THE PROCEDURES PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A26-13 HSD Nos 3100-4402 HED TITLE PROCEDURES TERMXNOLOGY AND PANEL LABELING DO NOT AGREE CATEGORY!

DISPOSITION III PROCEDURE TERMINOLOGY WILL BE UPDATED TO REFLECT THE NEW MCB LABELING.

A26-14 HED NO. 31BO-4403 HED TITLE PROCEDURES STATE TWO DIFFERENT UNXTS FOR THE SAME PARAMETERS CATBGORY III DISPOSITIOHs UNIT LABELS WILL BE CORRECTED IN THE PROCEDURES.

A26 3

A26-15 HED NO 31A2-4404

. HBD TITLE!

CATBGORY PROCEDURES INFORMATION III DISPOSITION! NE ED ED IN CAUTION/NOTE LACKING NEEDED I

FORMAT ON IS BEING ADDED TO THE PROCEDURES CAUTION/NOTE A26-16 'BD NO 3100-4405 HED TITLE PROCEDURE FOLDOUTS AND FIGURES LACKING INFORMATION CATBGORY! III I DISPOSITION NE E DE D I N FORMAT ON IS BEING ADDED TO THE PROCEDURE FOLDOUTS AND FIGURES.

A26-17 HBD NO 3100-4406 HBD TITLE! PROCEDURE IS MISSING A REQUIRED STEP CATEGORY III DISPOSITION! MISSING STEP IS BEING ADDED TO THE PROCEDURES A26-18 HBD NO! 3100-4407 HED TITLEs PROCEDURES DO NOT REFERENCE ERFIS AS THE SOURCE OF REQUIRED INFORMATION CATBGORY III DISPOSITION! PROCEDURES ARE BEING MODIFIED TO REFERENCE ERFIS AS A SOURCE OF REQUIRED INFORMATION.

A26-19 'BD NO! 3100-4408 HED TITLB! PROCEDURE STEPS LACKING NEEDED INFORMATION CATEGORY! III DISPOSITION! NEEDED INFORMATION IS BEING ADDED TO THE PROCEDURE.

A26 4

A26-20 HED NOt 3100-4409

. HED TITLE!

CATEGORY!

DISPOSITION PROCEDURE VERB USAGE IXI IS INCONSISTENT PROCEDURES ARE BEING MODIFXED TO ENSURE THE USAGE OF VERBS IS CONSISTENT+

A26-21~ HED NO! 3100-4410 HED TITLE! PROCEDURE TERMINOLOGY IS INCONSISTENT CATEGORY! XII DISPOSITION! PROCEDURES ARE BEING MODIFIED TO ENSURE THE TERMINOLOGY IS CONSXSTENT.

A26-22 HED NOt 31E4-4411 HED TITLE! PROCEDURE DOES NOT REFERENCE LOCATION OF REQUIRED INFORMATION CATEGORYt III DISPOSXTXOHj PROCEDURES ARE BEING MODIFIED TO REFERENCE THE LOCATION OF REQUIRED 1NFORMATION.

A26-23 HED NOt 31BO-5060 HED TXTLEt EDG INDICATOR ARRANGEMENT CONFUSING AND LABELING INADEQUATE CATEGORY! III DISPOSITION! INVESTIGATION ONGOING A26-24 HED NOt 31Cl-5061 HED TITLE! RCS HOT LEG AND COLD LEG LOOP C TEMPERATURE INDICATORS NOT ON MCB CATEGORY III DXSPOSXTIONt INDICATORS WILL BE ADDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD.

A26 - 5

A26-25m HBD NO! 31C1-5062 HBD TITLBc RCS TEMPERATURE INDICATORS AND POWER RANGE INDICATORS NOT CORRECTLY GROUPED CATEGORY'II DISPOSITIONS GROUPING OF THE INDICATORS WILL BE CORRECTED PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A26-26 HBD NO: 3100>>5063 HBD TITLB! SI VALVE CONTROLS DIFFICULT TO LOCATE CATEGORY! III DISPOSITIONI ALL SI VALVES WILL CONTAIN SPECIAL LABELING AS A JOB AID FOR EASIER LOCATION OF VALVES TO VERIFY SI ACTUATION AND RESETS LABELING WILL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD A26-27 'BD Noc 3100-5064 HBD TITLB0 TURBINE BEARING AND SEAL LUBE OIL PUMP CONTROLS NOT WELL GROUPED AND LABELS INADEQUATE CATBGORY. III DISPOSITIONS INVESTIGATION ONGOING.

A26-28% HED NOC 3100-5065 HBD TITLE! STATUS LIGHT INDICATION FOR CONTAINMENT VENTILATION FAN COOLERS NOT ON MCB CATEGORY III DISPOSITIONS INDICATION IS LOCATED, ON WITHIN THE MLBs ON THE MCB. NO BACKFIT REQUIRED'26-29 HED NO 31Bl-5066 HED TITLE MAIN FEEDWATER FLOW INDICATORS NOT ON MCB CATEGORY DISPOSITION III INDICATORS WILL BE ADDED PRIOR TO FUEL LOADS A26 - 6

APPENDIX B NRC AUDIT REPORT HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCIES

DCRDR DESIGN hREh IRC HEDs NRC NRC NRC PROBLEN DESCRIPTION PHOTO FINDING HED No. CPSL RESPONSE 1.0 CONTROL ROON WORKSPACE G6 1.2 B202 "On all panels, the pushbuttons for the lamp testa of the status lights are mounted above the optimum height; i.e.,not within reach of 5th percentile female."

CPGL res onae: HED NO. 3100-1408 (Appendix A17-14).

DCRDR DESIGN AREA NRC HEDs NRC .NRC NRC PROBLEM DESCRIPTION PHOTO FINDING HED No. CPSL RESPONSE 3.0 ANNUNCIATOR QARNING SYSTENS 3.1 8453 "On the reactor and turbine first-out panels, there is no prioritization scheme for alarms other than red/white."

CPGL res onse: Para. 6.3.1.4a(l) of 0700 states that a relatively small number of levels (from 2 to 4) are recommended.

Two levels appear adequate and also meets the . CPSL operating philosophy of minim-izing differences between alarms in order to discourage lax responses to any implied

'low priority alarms. Additionally, the first-out alarms are physically separated from all others which essentially affords three levels of priority: two-level color coding within the first-outs, and one-level of position coding between the first-

-outs and all others.

3.2 8458 "On all panels, 'large matrixes of annunc-iator lights and status lights have no coordinate axis labels."

CPSL res onse: HED NO. 3100-2134 (Appendix A20-12).

3.3 8471 "On the annunciator visual alarm sub-system,cues for out-of-service alarms are not planned for."

CP&L res onse: HED NO. 3100-0106(Appendix A17-20).

3.4 8463 "On the annunciator response subsystem, there is no coding of controls for easy recognition."

CPSL res onse: HED NO. 3100-3421 (Appendix A22-12).

8 2

DCRDR DESIGN AREA NRC HEDs NRC NRC NRC PROBLEM DESCRIPTION PHOTO FINDING HED No. CP&L RESPONSE

.4.0 CONTROL G16 4. 2 B212 "On panel lAl, valves (Lo Head SI Train B to Cold Leg 8888) open to the left and close to the right, which is inconsistent with other panels."

CP&L res onse: HED NO. 31Al-1317 (Appendix A25-8).

G29 4.3 B225 "On panel 1B1, a valve switch (AUX FW Turbine Stm Line Drain: ISO MS-B17 SAB) has a J-handle instead of a T-handle like other valve switches."

CP&L res onse: HED NO. 31B1-3224 (Appendix A22-6).

G38 4.4 B234 "On panel 1Dl several key switches for the generator breakers are 'of f 'o lef t, instead of the standard vertical the position."

CP&L res onse: Key switches were replaced and problem was resolved at that time.

B 3

e

DCRDR DESIGN AREA NRC HEDs NRC NRC NRC PROBLEM DESCRIPTION PHOTO FINDING HED No. CPSL RESPONSE 5.0 VISUAL DISPLAYS ~

\

G9 5.1 B204 "On all MCB panels and on the auxiliary equipment panel Cl, 'Hagan'rand process controllers have scales too small to read."

CPGL res onse: HED HO. 3100-3106 (Appendix A17-20) and 31D9-3107 (Appendix A3-35).

G24 5.2 B220 "On all MCB panels and on the recorder panel, top scale of recorders is hidden by the cover and unreadable from the normal position."

CPGL res onse: Out of thirty-three record-ers on MCB and Recorder Panel, only four at the bottom right of the Recorder Panel have scales obscured from the normal operating position. As all of the panel chart recorders are only used to accumulate historical data, bending posture required to read the, four lower right recorders does not present undue stress to the operator nor introduce any significant potential human error.

G19 5.3 B215 "On many panels, scales on meters had more than the recommended maximum gradua-tions between numerals."

CPSL res onse: HED NO. 3100-2414 and 31E6-2216 (Appendix A23-5) and (Appendix A6-8).

G37 5.4 B203 For all lamp's for displays, the testing procedure is to remove the lamp and replace it with a new one."

CPSL res onse: HED NO. 3100-2302,(Appendix A2-20).

~.

Q, ~

DCRDR DESIGN AREA NRC HEDs NRC NRC NRC PROBLEM DESCRIPTION PHOTO FINDING HED No. CPSL RESPONSE 6.0 LABELS AND LOCATION AIDS G8 6.1 B209 "On the MCB, there are no labels on status lights."

CPSL res onse: No HED has been generated.

Summary labels have been provided below status light boxes. (CPSL convention is to place labels below displays and above controls.)

G26 6.2 B222 "On panel 1Bl, there is an unlabeled push button unit."

CPSL res onse: Lamp Test on TSLBs is now labeled.

G28 6.3 B224 "On panel 1Bl, recorders with pointers have unlabeled scales; e.g. water flow recorder MR-AF-2050."

CPSL res onse: HED NO. 3100-2413 (Appendix A2-31).

G33 6.4 B229 "On panel 1B2, there is no label on a pushbutton in a turbine control unit."

CPSL res onse. 'Label will be provided prior to fuel load.

B 5

~.

+y

DCRDR DESIGN AREA NRC HEDs NRC NRC NRC PROBLEM DESCRIPTION PHOTO FINDING HED No. CPSL RESPONSE G43-G48 6.6 B245 "All MCB panel switches outlined in red, signifying that they are safety related, have no labels for easy identification."

CPSL res onse.' combination of line style and color have been used on the MCB to accomplish more than Just signifying safety-related switches.

Two different sets of two controls each have been set off with a red line top and bottom and the controls are located between two (black) demarcated groups with the vertical demarcation line interrupted at their location. This signifies that the two controls are not only safety-related (i.e., FM ISOL RESET and CNMT VENT ISOL RESET) but may be used with either the lef t or right demarcated and related groups of controls and displays. To avoid confusion this type of should not have a summary red-line'pplication label. The appropriate summary labels exist in the two related groups.

Of the remaining three red-line demarcated groups, two contain a single control in

~

which the component label is adequate for the speci f ic f unction'dentif ication (i.e., REAC TRIP and TURB TRIP). An additional label would be totally redundant with the component label and would serve no purpose in guiding the operator's performance.

On Panel 1Cl the group that contains a reactor trip control, a SI actuate control, and a containment isolation control would also repeat the same words contained on the individual components; that is, the only appropriate summary label would be REAC TRIP, SI ACTUATE, and CNMT ISOL. As this would be totally redundant with the component labels, no enhancement of operator performance can be envisioned.

B 6

DCRDR DESIGN AREA NRC HEDs NRC NRC NRC PROBLEM DESCRIPTION PHOTO FINDING HED No. CPSL RESPONSE All other groups of red-line demarcated components contain appropriate summary labels.

L8 6.7 B252 "On the recorder panel, there are no summary labels."

CPSL res onse: Summary labels have been added to the Recorder Panel.

R23 6.8 B470 "On Panel lAA, accumulators are identified as 1,2, and 3 on instrumentation (e.g.,

P1921, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31) and as A, B, and C on controls on sloping panel."

CPSL res onse: Instrumentation for accumulators has been relabeled with A, B, and C to correspond with controls on benchboard.

A27 6.9 B254 "On Panel 1A1, on pump meters, instrument numbers are missing."

CPSL res onse'Label's will be provided following repainting of the board.

R25 R26 6.10 B253 "On Panel lAl, labels read Pump 1 and 2 on meters and Pump A and B on switches on sloping panel."

CPSL res onse: Meters have been relabeled Pump A and Pump B to correspond with controls on the benchboard.

L2 6.11 B247 "On the auxiliary equipment Panel 01, the labels are smaller than those on MCB."

CPEL res onse: All AEP-1 labeling will be replaced with labeling that is identical in font size and characteristics with the MCB labels.

B 7

~.

DCRDR DESIGN AREA NRC HEDs NRC NRC NRC PROBLEM DESCRIPTION PHOTO FINDING HED No. CPSL RESPONSE L2 6.12 B251 "On the recorder panel, the labels are smaller than those on the MCB; they are also below the recorders and therefore in shadows."

CPSL res onse: All recorder panel labeling will be replaced with labeling that is identical in font size and characteristics with the MCB labels.

G10 6.13 B205 "On several MCB panels, '10'nd other scale multipliers are written

'1000'nd vertically."

CPSL res onse: Multipliers are written vertically on vertical meters because of limited space requirements. Inclusion of these multipliers on the scale face, rather than on external, horizontal labels, reduces operator search time.

G7 6.14 B201 "On Panels lA1, 1A2, and C, the annunciator switches have labels written vertically on buttons."

CPSL res onse: HED NO. 3100-1172 (Appendix A23-9).

R28 6.15 B255 "On Panel lA2 and 1B1 there are labels crossed out; e.g., TK-381A, TK-381Bl, TK-286, FK-275."

CPSL r es onse: Correct instrument identification will be incorporated into the new labels.

B 8

DCRDR DESIGN AREA NRC HEDs NRC NRC NRC PROBLEM DESCRIPTION PHOTO FINDING HED No. CPSL RESPONSE R22 6.16 B469 "On Panel 1Al, there are pencil markings on high-low indicators. The markings cover bezels for four sets of two indi-cators."

CP&L res onse: All inform'ation that is required f or instrumentation will be included on new labels.

R32 6.17 B257 "On panels 1Dl and 1D2, there are four Lo's that should be Hi, and vice versa, for the speed on the fan cooler."

CPSL res onse: Problem was corrected on the MCB at the time the ACP discrepancy was resolved (ref: HED NO. 31AC-3204, Appendix A16-45).

G12 6.18 B207 "On Panel lAA, CNMT spray chemical block CT-V88 SB, the label "block" is outlined in pencil. The meaning of this is not clear."

CPSL Train res pris'his A equivalent has control been and its removed from the MCB. No further action required.

G13 6.19 B465 "On Panel lAA, there is a labeling problem:

reads 'Accumulator A (8875A) and B (8875B)

N2 Supply and Vent'nd 'ACC 1C N2 Supply and Vent ISO VA'SI-V534SN)."

CPSL res onse'abeling has been corrected and now reads "Accumulator C N2 Supply and Vent."

B 9

~.

~ o

DCRDR DESIGN AREA NRC HEDs NRC NRC NRC PROBLEM DESCRIPTION PHOTO FINDING HED No. CPSL RESPONSE G40 6.20 8236 "On Panel 1D1, on fan cooler switches AH-2, A-SA and others, 'STOP's to the right."

CPBL res onse: Problem was corrected on the MCB at same time as ACP discrepancy was resolved (ref: HED NO. 31'AC-3203).

(Appendix A16-44)

L1 6 '1 8246 "On the auxiliary equipment Panel Ol, the abbreviation CNTMT; e.g., on SP-V314SASP3155A, i s incons i s tent wi th summary label and MCB labels."

CPSL res onse: HED NO. 31D9-1118 (Appendix A3-12).

R33 6.22 8258 "On Panel 1Dl, for the diesel generator switch, standard labeling is not followed for STOP location."

CPSrL res onse: Problem was resolved at the same time as the ACP discrepancy was resolved (ref: HED NO. 31AC-3205, Appendix A16-46).

G25 6.23 8221 "On Panel 1C and other panels, used on some scales and 'X'n others."

'percent's CPSL es onse: HED NO. 3100-1316 (Appendix A25-7)

G31 6.24 8227 "On Panel 182, on the main turbine meters (EH Oil and Turbine Oil) some scales are in powers of 10 (e.g., '40 x 103') and adjacent scales are written out (e.g.,

'1500')."

CPSL res onse: Meter face will be changed on EH oil meters prior to fuel load.

DCRDR DESIGN AREA NRC HEDs NRC NRC NRC PROBLEM DESCRIPTION PHOTO FINDING HED No. CPSL RESPONSE G11 6.25 B206 On Panel lAA, labels now read: CNMT SUMP (first label), CNMT SUMP TEMP (second label). Consistent labels would read CNMT SUMP LVL (first label), CNMT SUMP TEMP (second label).

CPSL res onse: HED NO. 3100-1169 (Appendix A23-6)

G22 6.26 B218 "On Panel 1C, intermediate range meter IR N35 AMPS has no minus sign for negative scale readings."

CPRL res onse: Problem was corrected when meter faces were changed.

G22 6.27 B240 "Safety system panels are not identified by summary label."

CPSL res onse.

with group

'Alllabels.

summary panels are provided G30 6.28 B226 "On Panel 1B2 and the auxiliary .panels, light indicator labels are not visible; also too crowded."

CPSL res onse: HED NO. 3100-1154 (Appendix A23-1)

G32 6.29 B228 "On Panel 1B2, labels on pushbuttons for turbine control alarms have four lines of text, not easily readable."

CPSL res onse: Operations investigation determined words cannot be reduced without losing the meaning of the message.

G39 6.30 B235 "On Panel 1Dl, the label on light indicator is not visible on several switches."

CPSL res onse: HED NO. 3100-2309 (Appendix A23-4).

DCRDR DESIGN AREA NRC HEDs NRC NRC NRC PROBLEM DESCRIPTION PHOTO FINDING HED No. CPSL RESPONSE G41 6.31 B243 "On the MCB, on the annunciator panels, up to four lines of text are not easily readable."

CPSL res onse: HED NOS. 3100-2123, 3100-2132, and 3100-2135 (Appendix A20-3),

(Appendix A20-10) and (Appendix A20-11).

G15 6.32 B211 "On the MCB, all panels, process controller labels are obstructed by projecting plastic buttons."

CPSL res onse: Labels are obscured when reading them while standing directly in front of the controller. If the operator steps to the side of the controller, labels are easily read. No further action required.

G17 6.33 B213 "On Panel lA2, rotary wheel controls (e.g., BTRS fan selector) obstruct labels."

CPSL res onse: HED NOS. 3100-1168 and 31AC-1102 (Appendix A17-13) and (Appendix A16-3).

G34 6.34 B230 "On Panel 1BB, pointers on rotary wheels (e.g., 31Cl 3205) are not easily distinguished; color coding would help."

CPSL res onse: HED NO. 3100-3221 (Appendix A17-25).

G14 6.35 B210 "On Panel lAl and others, flow lines are needed in some parts."

CPSL res onse: Permanent flow lines will be added.

DCRDR DESIGN AREA NRC HEDs NRC NRC NRC PROBLEM DESCRIPTION PHOTO FINDING HED No. CPE(L RESPONSE 8.0 PANEL LAYOUT 8.0 B242 The simulator is significantly different from the actual CR.

CPSL res onse: New simulator is on order.

R19 8.2 B466 "On Panel lAl, for the containment spray actuators, pairs are not labeled "Train B'. (Operator must actuate

'Train.A'nd two controls for Train A and two for Train B)."

CPSL res onse .'Actuation pairs do not correspond to Train A and Train B. All controls are Train A/B. Modules have been appropriately labeled.

G42 8.3 B244 "On the MCB, on all panels, coordinate axes on large matrixes of pushbuttons are not labeled."

CPGL res onse: All ALBs have been labeled.

B 13

DCRDR DESIGN AREA NRC HEDs NRC NRC NRC PROBLEM DESCRIPTION PHOTO FINDING HED No. CPSL RESPONSE 9.0 CONTROL-DISPLAY INTEGRATION R30 9.1 B256 "The CNMT spray test is in Panel 1Dl while the CNMT spray system is in Panel lAA."

CPGL res onse: HED NO. 31Dl-3220 (Appendix A17-24).

APPENDIX C SAMPLE HUMAN ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS SPECIFICATION

o HUMAN ENGINEERING REQUIREMENT SPECIFICATION

~ 1.0 PLANT: Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant 3.0 SPEC. NO SPEC. DATE REV. NO.

REV. DATE

2.0 TITLE

VERTICALINDICATORS

0.0 CONTACTS

Name Phone UTILITY:

~ ARE:

~ ESSEX:

~ OTHER:

~

5.0 SPECIFICATIONS The requirements contained in the present document apply to single and dual

~ vertical indicators on the Control Boards in Nuclear Power Plants. The aim is to provide specific guidance and criteria for the labeling of vertical indicator scale faces.

Adherence to these criteria will provide a uniform, standardized scheme for labeling vertical indicators which will enhance visual search while reducing control and display errors.

5.1 INFORMATION A. Content The information displayed to an operator should be limited to that which is necessary to perform specific actions or to make decisions.

B. Format Information should be presented to the operator in a directly usable form (requirements for transposing, computing, interpolating, or mental translation into other units should be avoided whenever possible).

C. Precision Infor~ation should be displayed only to the degree of specificity and precision required for a specific operator action or decision.

~.

~C o

d should be avoided unless d i ePI i<'"'"+~

avoided on scales, but when necessary should be about 25 percent smaller than other numerals (see Attachments A and B for normal size recommendations).

F. Color Vertical indicator scale faces should be white with black characters.

G. ~Codin Both single and dual indicators may be color coded for normal operating range and set points (see Attachments C and D).

H. Pointers

i. ~Len th - The display should be designed so that the control or display pointer will extend to, but not obscure, the shortest scale graduations.

2. Width - The width of the pointer, where it intercepts the graduation marks, should not exceed the width of the intermediate marks.

3. ~Mountie - The pointer should be mounted as close as possible to the face of the dial to minimize parallax.

6.0 CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLATION Incorrect display reading and interpretation.

~.

0

ATTACHMENT A Single Meter Scales Scale Marking &. Alphanumeric Size A. DISPLAY AREA Height - 4.375"

2. Width (Total) - 1.375" (a) Band With Markings 8 Numerals - .S37" (b) Band With Units Description -.437" G

P B. RECOMMENDED CHARACTER SIZE M

1. Height - .20"

2. Width - .12"

3. Stroke Width - .03"

4. Spacing Between Characters - .03",

5. Spacing Between Words - .12"

6. Spacing Between Lines - .10"

.437" r2" ~

Scale Marking Number ta .l~

.937" Space let arlnodl a la C. RECOMMENDED SCALE MARKING SIZE Ma&tng r

Length Stroke Width Major - .22" .0125" Intermediate - .16" .0125" Minor - .09" .0125" jQ f-Mtnt~m S pareil~ AN-Wtaraon lllnor Maratnga

~.

0

ATTACHMENT D Recommendations:

Set Points on Dual Scale Indicators GREEN ED Normal Range

$ 00 130 YELLOW El Hi Lo Alarms 120 RED B HIHI.LoLo Alarms

$ 00 FO 60 80 To indicate normal range and set points suggest color coding normal range with J green transparent tape. Hi! Lo Alarms (caution) with a yellow transparent tape.

60 and HIHI 4 LoLo Alarms (for dangerous 40 situations) wllh a red transparent tape.

Recommend applying the tape In a manner similar to that displayed on 40 this sheet.

20 20 10

)

~.

o

APPENDIX D SHNPP-1 MAIN CONTROL BOARD ARRANGEMENT DRAWINGS

I I~

I~

~ .I TM4 44 I I~

I I

~ 0 I~ I I I

>>' ~ I I I I 4 I 4 I I/

Ia I I~

I aa I aria V II IT ~

~ I I

I

$ ~

~ \ 44 ~ 4' 4 I II r

>>. II I MI I ~ ~ II laI al

~

aa Ia I

I IWI 14 l4 I

~ 4 IM a(I al R

>> lt ll ll T>>4I44 14 ~ ltt I 1 I

I II ~

al I~ Ei-I I~

44 'I all I rO )

\ \I ~~

I W W

lg III I

~ ~

I

>>4 r ~ I I

1 WM I ~ ~

Ml IMI 44 ~ \ I >>I ~ ~ \

4444 0 ~ I Yl,'il aK BjH U U-1 al 141 I Rli Rl I

I CGD~K1~ EH ~4 I~ 444 Illa 444 I MI HR 41 Itt OS 44'SI ISI ISI j4

~.

10 EO ID I~ 12 1 ~

P II CBOOK) I I

I t

I~

~ ~

K20 N - KE I =

~ IO 1

~ I ~

N

~ I

~ OI<< AAPAIIO<< A I II AE I

I I

I I tl n n l I O ID DC<<AACC IIOA IICE',

Cn<< ~

~ ~

II E2 t << ~

1 Il

<<\

I n

~I ll l;

~

nt ' II

<< I ~ tl n II

~<<

~c Il CC ll II II I

I~

~ ln lt<<

~ ~

~ 1 El n n RH HH ~ \

VP tVA HEI I 8 Vl CN I

CN IIl 9

~

Mt HH V

15

~

l

~ t'I 4

DC UUEl ~

U 2 Nt g CC HHK <<N ICC

~

~4 ~

I c

~ I

~ NC VN N~ ~ <<4 CE

'2

~ P IO X ~

CC AN HE AN ~\ I 4 V I'c >> \

HH I

~

~II LSX~EI LKLfKL5

<<4 <<4 Nll nl ~

Ij J ~ ~ ~ <<IA CEA I 8 ~ <<I tg 181 I 82 88 el 02

3 4 5 6 CCMP LABEL SIZE COMP LABEL SIZE COMP LABEL SIZE NFLOI ALB 03 eh'<<sk Hp 55 pr-9IoIBI so lsk N /4 (itL7 cIS CL IIIC<<r-NP.Sts L 93oO. I O<<C HL ttmIS-NP 02 ALB 02 ghi k 'NP. 57 I Z 93o2 I Is xsk" Ssx I NP O3 1

~l OC,,

mt ss<<I as 863 74 NP. 59 tsZ. 93o2.

t?I 98SI

'I 4P I ORR CL OSR SX RCCJRC Ill. RECIRC op.5 (pc cL. Rsrscc R<<I7 l CCW NP-(do PZ 975l I lsk

• IC cII NL tstssa NP ALS 04 8h'x%' HP'dl TZ (o7l IsfCx ff oa S c<<c CL ssCNIL R<<sr / RNR NP (PZ LZ- (O7OAI SA I Cx IC OPC NL RIC<<i HP-oS KALB 24 SA xt" I.z- (d7(oAI sB lsk v fC SILT

<<C C<<S CI RECIsr NP.CX<<

NP- 07 Np- 08 txt/3 HIS 28

85. s8 SB 3'x 2xt

<<I I

NP fd(<<

TZ (o7Z pvmsse pumps I IC<<sfC 3ls << 'Is 2 x NP-97 saN(

NSII C

~OR<<NL RtrIIr RcL AIL 214 r I 2'/Crt

~ 2'x

'hV>>

NP-03 I4LB 4A SA I NP b7 pump A 'h 'Ssxof LcvEL 2'A'rf'P IO txLB 48-SB 3 xI 5NRIse .ANK I' NP I I CoudsNilcur 8'II s lh << ls'x lP I2. Sx/4 NP 'lo tsII<<IP A 'Is P- 98 27<<st Np- I3 CRNP<<rur cceww ex Yd PIt<<IP 2'lC4

~ ~

NP-I4 PZ 71Iio A SA I'k x /s, NP 12 PZ ~ (OC0A I fx'<<sir I" I'7C<<

Nlx IS tsX- 7ILOS SB I k'x 7 NP 73 CZ- ASSAI le <<

NP- Ilo PZ 950 Isk'x 7/s. 74 EZ- fstoA I SA Isk'<< 'IC <I" I'sd NP I7 PZ 952 Iskx 7 ~ NP.15 Pf. I<<OOB 1*k <<sIC QESET Sls'*

NP I PZ 95 I SB I Cx /i NP 7I<< CZ- 4XISBI I s NP- I9 PZ 953 SB I'll's 7>> up t7 EZ- c IOBI se I*k x IC RHR HEAl xcH4 A ltP- 20 LZ- 990 Sa IQx /RI NP 75 r Fs Our FI(ILtat<</I-(4IF NP 2l LZ 99I 'SS I'its /x: k%419 LIX B 2 4 Zs / Ct(- COSA t LZ-992 NP Bo SPARE RHR HE2r xcH8 A NR 23

.uP-24 LX-993 FX (<<88 A I Ikr /r Isil x NP el NP. 82.

SPARE SPARE'PARE 8'/P /02 IYR Bvp aw HC-40381

(<<dr-trIL4(sl NP- 25 CZ. (OB9AI I k'x IC !4 -83 RHR HEAT xcH6 B

<<5 ~

Np 84 'TO I.Toll IsICL advs<<I fS<<Isness<<IC ~

Rx 0M trA<<x((<<I(I RN.

NP 27 CNIR drwe. <<N7sr ex HILee SPA RE NFLIO3 F CO58 Q4 x/>

NP- 28 NP-29 HP. Bo Hx B FI ~PS

/d 2 x x /d'

'Ir s

s NP-97 HP BB RrscT S

<<ls'HR 2 xls" I '/s x d/d NR IOA I4C tte'Al XCH& ff S4Xal (OUI"JZ<<

/92 ~ I HP. 3I BssssSs 4 x NP 32 FZ ~ 9IIt A SA Is/4 <<*/4 RRIlsos .i> sNcool 5 x I'h up.33 cz-9<<2A sa I IC<< PueaPA Aw'e 3xh HP-24 HP.35 PZ. 9HZIB SB FZ 9H2B SB Nlx3(<<CZ- 927k I't4 x

'ir I f4'x f4 sk's NP.ql HP-92 CN IILSttS CRT I 5 ix

'is<<

/4 I

up 37 CZ 93ot.l HP. 33 FZ- 9344 I k'r Rrssr 4P k <<N Cl.

PZ- (<<49 SA I4'sf4'<

NP 39 CX<<NL RCCalC.

HP-4o TZ 4'<<74.I x ~z

%'sk dr ~

Isrf (stlg. ON CL Rro>IS NP-4l FZ. 4ISZ. I I'k'x sk ON NL RrCIRC NP 2 PZ (<<So Iskx f( 4<<4 ou cL Rr(s<<C ts "s f NP.43 Tz (<<15 I se I iCx f4k OIS NL It(CIIS NP 44 FZ (o53 I <<st" SP ts ON CI Rt(s&

ttP'5 HI(NI NCAD SX S x O<<C IIL RSORC NP. 4t ANNar I dva2 5<<t 3 x '//' ar<<

CNLS C<<I CI RSCIRC R

HP- 47 Ac7lsos I KS/d l<<S NL R(XSRC 5 xt Rem'P 6 2 x'/s 4P-I Om CL RrcIIr-Np.49 371 x Is o(R ul. RrciRC sk'P NP 54 IslC x s/4' S OCR CL Rrcixo 2/4r I NIL St NP 52 IIP-53 FZ- 943 PZ 9IOIAI FZ 9lol AI Sa I

lt s s/C fCr 44'sk'x 4<<3 ou HL RCCIRC CI. PrCIRC Of<<HL $ ICCIRC I'l" IsfCs stC Np 47 (sxI( OI vrxs'ubi.v

I

~

14 I~ I~

I I I(U)

Ii T.

II

~ IUiil TI

~ II .a Ul lel pj

'Kl

'('L g T

(I 1% ~

IRIN E EE 8

~4 ~

S\ I:=I /

I El EFH /

/

a<<eU<<U (I&4<<) Il Bk< I II I

I Nl ggEa ltU AI t~

COMP LABEL SIZE COMP LABEL SiZE COMP LABEL SIZE RL 8lj o j<r NP 055 LZ 89o<A SA <5<< co<4' l 2

< O 455JURE <5<s 4 <>>

CVCS /LRT<rs4N LZ- 89o<6 se 87J'>> <<P- 051 PZ- 44o << ~ JM" <S<<<13 459 F Is'1J NP 058 PZ 4o3.< 'SS PK- 444A r olo NP- 059 <JZ- 4oZ.I SA <j<<'s

<44 NP Il'5 3>><<o/

<P ooo PZ 4oZA sd<S <J4'<<9 A- ALB- C<9 eh oz- 44< ISN s Jlr ~ l<L llr 2'4'4 /'

NaOS <<CS L~

P<<ESSVR<2ER Id NP-ab3 NP.Ob4 PZ 412 I 1z- <44.<

Pz- i4s.i I'<<'4

<JA o<4 84" NR'l 8 NP <<9 T<<<<oooo Tj>>K csea v<T

<2/j'4 P/de IIJ<rs I

'Vo br did'o uP 007 PREsooaaEa /d Lt C<as PZ <SO I I << JO<r NP 12<

HP. O08 El<CESS <lg'4 / LZ <<S I NP <JZ PR< I'/J 4 NP-009 NCRKAL lrs j up obr t<c '38'7 NP <23 NX j /5h NP 0<a< VCT 1% oh NP. woe TZ- <4O. < <Wo j<r NP <24 'h".

/s'<trr HP. 0<< PR E55 Vl<E 4 <<7j <5<. <15 VCT <5<rr ddt

<5<-0<2 2 r7i NP <2c>> To cs<P l&c /d'P oL< 3 <<$ NP 0'll CRT 2 4 /4 u<< <Zr Cx. < 3 s /d NP- o<4 CHRRC<

>l I J<<'o '7r ua.<58 Npu< d<SJV< 2 4 7g NP C<<$ up. 0<r Bone AOO 84<<O eras'<<s<. 8<<S/d <<'/'P'013o14 Ih'r Zl' NP MP-075 TZ vz EZ 451 I 452 I I J<4ls <&ok I <<'J 'Ir j4'P MP.<so <59 .<scd <<P-<8<<E<<<<<V <<OR ~ A>>J<<AKLA7<st so< d<RE <oj <<Ra <SOL l3 ]g>>4 </o 4 's" r 7se HP. 0<8 DE<4<<< Ih'4 'h up 07b LZ- 4<o.l << rod<' u<L <32 I DR<<<Q l lrs 4 h HP. 019 CHILLERS 3 r'h NP 011 47$ NP 010 isZ (3B <J<< 4 ~ <P-O'<8 RCS PREEOoRE 44 'h NP 02< TZ <4< I JIC'4 o19 <2 <Aw L< <7J 4 7J 7Z <llo I 4Iro <4' MP-080 TK- 381 Al <'Ircjg PZ- 444 jlC<< ua-081 TK- 381 BI < J<4'c jlo's+5 NP 024 PZ 445 I 4/4l44 NP 082 TK 38/o Io HP 025 <oZ 457 ll 083 F<C 315 A'5 ol4' HP-02<o PZ- 4sb <'ks. 4 up 08< <<c 137 J4'r jk'5N'jog MP-OZT PX. 465.< I jlA%'54<< up 085 TK <4< HP 028 LZ 4oo se I4' NP. 08<o PK 1464 < <ro <4' NP. o29 LZ 4bl. I SA <4'4 jl<" NP- 087 LK 112 jc's JN' <5'Ao LZ- 459AI SA <J<< rd<<<t'o NP- 08B FK 122. I J<<'J NP OSI LZ- 4< 2- F<C 1 <3 Jg'W'<<j4'JIC'c NP 032 TZ 38b <J4's 4' MP- 090 FK 114 NP 053 TZ 389 JIA JISM<< j<4'54 NP 091 HC I eb, I d<4 k'd<4's. NP CIE4 TZ 37b o oIc' SEAL ZJL7<CT<ol< c< <<S/4' E- NP-Cas TZ, 3'l9 tr<<JIC NP Oos l SEAL HP CACo PX- <2< I ll 4+4 NP 094 luo.i s<RL RP 3 r NP.OST FX- <ZZA. I NP- cs<S I Poav <his 'h NP.038 TZ - 123 I lrjjl' NP 09b I RE<JEW 'VJ<<ssES > rri' NP 039 LZ. <Ob SR ud 007 FZ- <3oA lrs N' LZ I bi 'SO << s JIC NP. 098 i FZ. <27A <<'o Np- 04< Pz- 89<0 15IC r o<E" - <54A 4'4' JQ's<<'s NP- 042 TZ 471. I NP aZ- iSbA.i <5<4'J 'P NP. 0<3 TZ 139 I j4 uP- io< < PX- 155A I <4'r t4 NP. 044 TZ 148 IJIA lc <02 PX 154 A I I JI4'5 i/4 up. 045 pz Ilr. I <%4 NP. 103 TZ. 4o3 Is<r 4 5/4'Q NP'04b FZ 385 s/4'J<<rd<c' NP- lo4 7Z- 4os s IC' TZ 38< jy Np- ios TX - 4b7 RZ 315 I 4 4 HP. <ob TZ- 4b9 <wr. <r NP. O49 LZ. Ssa jlr J4'o<CJ NP lo'1 TZ- 454.< loge o<C' NP OSo EZ 221 SA Id<A i<4' MP- 108 TT. 453 I ~ 4's G- up osi EZ-222 se HP- l P<<- 444C. < s&'J<4'j k' lj 4 uP- uo PK ~ 4440.1 J<ro 4<4 ul.os3 Ez- 224 se 13IC siIC NP.< ll LEVEL Isk 110 <JIC s 74 C o<<7<coL ~. ~ I ff ~ \ ~I ~f ~I ~ I I ~ ~ ~ 1 IRkjgl I I <I I~ I VC I ~ 1 W ljj I ~ 1 IWI I I ~V J~P ~ El Fj 0 I H i UPIKIF8 I~ < CI I / I 1 1 1 V< %4 ~ ha I '4 I K]E3 <=IIIS1 L~ I '1 l Vf NI ZX~ U Aa I 1 KlR 1 Q I I 1 V VI I I <Ill IVII ISA AE< I <S I ISZ l68 <SI <01 O. 0 COMP LABEL SIZE CCMP LABEL SIZE COMP LABEL SIZE 00 AB lo 8/a'a % OSb RX-43t Isk'a RaRlbN cooaI>>>>l'>>acol HP. 057 - 3I 8 alp oo2, BV>> NP-058 uZ 3ID II'x+ 'P AL II I aaaloa Tx& Fisc>> o>>f sk'I;c Nla059 NZ- 328 I SIC>>3k HP oo3 ALB I2 NP Oba . I- 31D le'as/C k'%">> HP.obl CIZT - 3 3 A HP oo4 ALB 13 + HP-obZ CRT 4 Sr /C HI5' coal>>aOL. HP cb3 Locp A RcP 2>>7sa Loop A TTIap LOOP 0 Loo P C TEMP ~ 2'N'>> S 2'JCr/a 2ak'a NP- 0b4 NP ob6 oaab LecP 8 IICP Laa>>aC Rap ICS TXIaaRRaTVRS 2 a 72 2'x '/1'Za a8L oog TRIP SIaae'a>>Ia 8>>>>.3 3>>V HP- Ca>>7 Q - IIoO Is/C>> fC HP 009 ip saanaa LraIa Roc~ 3 a IC NP OSB EX lbl Hc as/C a- RP- OIO 8>>84$ C>>aaaaaa4 aaaaaR 9'l'aW' 38'b9 EZ- IMZ I38'c IC HP Oll 4II B k'as/C HP-0'lo LIX bCIAI I /Cc l4 NP OI2 TZ-4IZA NP OTl NX bOBI IsIC>> C NP OI3 TX- 41IB NP-072 NZ- 4>>IA Hp-oI4 TZ 422 Isk>>0/C NP-073 IZZ bIB HP OI5 TX-43I B lsk>>sk P-0% TZ- 4ol I 'a /4 HP OIb 'TX. 432 A Im>> C b'>> 'h NP 01b TZ 4oBA IP- OIB Pood I7a>>>>LE b a '/s I TR 4o8 S C- ISL >>so TZ 4IZC Isl>>'a 'IC I&020 TX-4IZB Isk'>>%' T RRFRt~ IZ 'osl TX 411C Ideas/C HP 018 Hocaaa>>a Ilfcoaooa 3>>oK HP-072 TX 4128 I+II>> fC I LIIa 45 IP oz3 TX 32C IslC>> HP.019 TX- 4Io. I SS IsIC>>> TX 4328 I IC>>s/C Hp-080 TX 41o.l 58 lslAsk NX- 4IC IW>> <<71'P-077 k NP- ogl TX- 43o I l4'c NZ 42C Isle'>> s C NP'82 TZ- 4I3. I sA 0- HP OZ7 HZ-43C I'ICao/4'ak NP-083 TX- 423.l SA I IC>> s/4 NP 018 HZ- 44C a'IC NP.O85 T R>>a CaaIa DEC>>AT 5>>'/C IZ'29 HZ.4I B Is/C>> NZ ~ 41 8 HP 087 4>>' ~ k'sga HP- 03l HZ 438 II NP-088 sz oaocac vwkcoa 4'>>' Ia/C>> s/4 NP-089 Ln>>I Raaaaa Zu72 IaIaaOVOC Raaaa5 4a 5 c'la HP-034 TZ- 4RA Isla'c a/4 <<sk'P-094 CI>>. 2 3'r ~ HP-035 TX 4I2.D Is HP-095 SC- SBCI 3>> l4 TX-4ZIA 'NP.09b SC- SSDI 3 a+ HP. 037 TZ 41ZD I'k ask. HP. 097 SC CBOI 4' a4s. 038 TX 43>> A IslC>> al>> HP.039 TZ-431+ Isk'>> SC -SBBI 3 c fl 3'r s/C sk's IP. 04o NZ 358 a+IC HP- IOQ SC 5882. HP. 04l NZ 35 D III>> NP Iol SC CIBCI 3 rs/C F-Isle ask'a/C>>~ la'aP-099HP'loZ SC-CBC2 HP.043 NZ- 5 NP- l03 SC Sg Leoo A pLn>>I Zak'a h SC-SBA2 LCOP B RIO>>I 2 Jda'h NP.lo5 SC-CBBI 3'a sIC NP O>>b L>>OP C Anwf Zsk'a 'h NP-IOb - SC CS82 Sr sk' NP 047 Raau>C Co>>'h HP. I07 SC CBAI ca/4 up- o46 PZ. 4a4 I>>N">> f4' LP. IO SC CBA2 3>> IA s/4'P FX 4I5 08o FX 4lb le aV I I0 IIaaegR omaIr s>>aasaa IS c G- NP-Osl RZ-424 I' HP nl IIS Avoca~ aRZsa >>'C slc'I FX 25 I sIC>>a FZ. 42b I'lC>> 'k' - 434 3 I 'a I- c I'I r K5R ~fTCCz c Pg g fca.x ~TI- ,.) C1 P~fc I f-] Cx f c I!Ic a c g>4 off'fc )m f Cab "xx I I ~l~ cfire. J 'f$ f I I I I cflf c f2 ix xc c fbfc j fKBB cf3 c P~ c Iyc ~i~s' l I I I fg cff I Q~ I ~ c, 1 ,'/II ~QI >Ic I 2 fi' I ~c rc'I .il r ~ , I Q cz~IZ ~zfi I c ~ r Nj:m) I c Zf ~tfri$~ f ~~as ) ~>TXxj ci )b ~ KT,;tz I fQ'ax I I -;f5 2 c2j ,ggg 2 CZI c2 I ,'c $EHBVBt I

.<:EI~1WMfz -.

I I I '..fctC ,l~! x f p x ~i ~ I I EKK-f~n> ~lk 'I~~!i

• I I

I I I [ffC~g ~>>r Ca ~g-f rS I ,'~c"~;it. r ~l:P> ~c c r 7 i l KKBKHHE'*: ~I~ra ggIrrr, Cr =I I m, I K ~~ I I ~ I~X' I ~canc ~c.gg ft'r I c. I $ , c~7 . C aI a ~ rix, x r x I I I ~CX gQgc j~- J I I I il aaaa aaar arac i@A kra ara CI t ~. COMP LABEL sizE COMP LABEL SIZE COMP LABEL SIZE, COMP LABEL SIZE A LB 14 8ia HP. 062 FZ 487 I a k MP. I (ZIsccc svl sicw actAI) 4 C -498 5crCS4 CcaiiaraIOAS P oss I'/Ci 7 5SC STc4 OIOW(aiSRI Fid. 2o51 A I NP oo2 AI.B 15 8sr MP 054 FZ 4d5 I3/Cask ~ sc,c wIR w.-ua(Q HP lbZ FK 2ogl 8 I ~ IS/f'r7f') SVSTds5 MP.OS5 FI up-105 sc, wiod RA~ 5 s'1 NP. y rK-gosi C I ~ AaB Ib STI' Mp osa FZ 497 13/s'ask'sk NP IOb LX 411.1 SA I3 ss ~ up- Ibf FK 2o11 Al 4(J A- ST20wrrtR HP 057 FX 494 13Ã MP-I07 LI-487.l 58 I 4's"/8 NP. Ib5 FK-2071 BI I 3/4'a up. oo4 ALS 17 8TI's f' MP.058 FZ 96 NP.lo8 1.'I- 491.1 SA IS/ s- P. I FK 10?ICI 'N ~ 059 TX- c8 I 3CTJ 109 o so A ls ~ MP Ib7 POK 2180 I ~ cove lwcl oss 2 NP obo STRIA OIP4P 2'k's I T/" MP Ilo TD SCI 8 Is/4'rs 'S cob Tro 'aaocio Lcco coi I rsk'7s QgKAVO NP. III TO SG C 'sS/d' Nl'oT I ~ VR 418 ~ ~ Ob PusAPC I%'a Is'112. TD SG A /f aYd 8 Sb AII Ioac LIII. (I'5 I'/4r HP ObZ 40.5 aira Bp 377 r /'7 NP NS To Sc. 8 Is Sk'. esca Bu ATA cvLesd HP Cbs FfidowATdR Fiovl N P. I 14 To 517 c Ia(f's '/5 B- so C u- Raaa SIA. (1% up obd pvccp A I' MP. I15 F'caowacrra 707 I ~ STRIGA aICICT Bpa I qs ~ ~ oo5 PVVP 8 a l NP.11b ls up. UR ~ ~ MP Obb CaIDST 5 2/s s/s MP 117 TO 508 ss's Np. OIO VIZ. 448 3 r77 NP obT TVR8 PV 14P 2'k s /s NP.118 'Tb 5G C s '/s" up 011 STCAac CIoiccrrtor IS/a'a 3 C N ~ Ob8 PZ 21 oo (3k sS l4o'119 ISOIATras BVAASt 5 NP'12 Ca i Cs Al" NP. 11O ocracy'5 r'h'l/ k'P rarOWcrSR NP Ocv9 POX RID I NAci 5 up ois I r 6/s" NP OTO rX- 2cosA sTBAIA TAAAP ts 4p. OK 8 r. /8' MP. 071 FZ.2oo38 I NP. 122 rul BITaca3 sloW 7 ~ C. IIP. oi s ~ O 1 rg 2oOSC Was/<'sk MP 113 CV 1 1 NO Oib Sca S 1/s'r 'a'd MP. 013 px-2iso Al 5A MP.124 FcV 419 I 7a's MP 017 sb C ~ ~ NP-014 pr.gi5o Bl 58 NP. 125 FcV 488 l71'r 38 moid ~ O1S I-I 0 IOA SA a~k'S/CrOd NP lib FCV 8 I Ts'r ld/d'a /s Np. OTb LI- c9DIO el 58 NP. I 27 CCV 498 I /a'1 3/d MP olo 5(s 8 I d 7 Np 077 PZ-2110.l 58 lsk's NP 128 FCV 499 I Ta'a 3/ MP- 021 Sb C I 9' 71 MP 018 SC'7 A uaraoW Rocar 5'r 1 Ilp.Q9 FK 2cosA Np 02'2 86ASg Fio W der I ~ HP.DT 5(3 8 MAosocf ffcwsd 5'7s" MP-ISO FtC 2IO28 Mp ol Avr rscowsroa Fiwl SCI C NAARos Rcar4 5 a' up isl CK 2colC MP-014 Am rsaowsisR Tlscaa~ 8' /1' MP '081 LZ- 4 Is MP 132 Tta CST IJ s NP-016 Pr. Af.l so K s 3/f MP.081 LI- 475 58 I ask" Np Iss TO CsT a Jd'sIf up-olb PI 415 SA 17 s3 MP 083 LI 41b 5A IS NP. Asc rv/ TVASsa Raap 5 r'7' Mp. 017 PZ 41b se I Mfa osf LI 413 'SS 17ICT PK-SceAI SA ok"7 34' up. ols Pr ddf so I aslC Np oss LX 4 SA up lsb PK-So681 SB Ka Is/Cr3 ' IS/Cs Sk' sk's NP 029 PI. 486. I 5A LZ 48$ SS HP lsT PK soBCI SIP OSo Pr ddb ss LI No.css PK 4 ICc NP- OM pr 494 58 04's NP 088 M4IT9 FK-419 I I '/f's E sk's HP. 032 PZ 95 SA sl/'os's LI. 494 MP lfo Vk-4 MP oSS pr 49b.l 58 I r I NP.O LZ 4 5 58 'r 3 uo 141 FK IS PZ- dfrf AI Np 09I LI 49b 5A NP Ifs HP- 035 PZ 2ooIA 5A Isk r yd NP. 092 LI 493 sS Isk'r tds NP. lf5 MP 03b PI 2ool8 58 Isis'a NP 093 LR. 477 Qp. Iff Tvs I piacp NP 037 PZ. 2ooIC SA I'k'*3/f NP pr- 22oo I NP.H5 Dail TB cIIDs NP o38 Fr'oOLA I /Cask' MP. C1I5 SPARE /1'"r MP.I4 SCa BcowccNIN 6 <</s" F- NP 039 FX 2oo1 8 SS/f N ~ SPARE. NP ld FPC. 84OSA Is cs 3 c HP odo FX 2oo2C I aid'a & HP O97 N- 77(o FI4 84068 Is up- Odl 2osoAI SA sskf PZ- 2260 AI SA Sk>> FIc- 8406 c s'3ICr FX I 3/f cINP 098 MP 149 la/Cs Sk'7y Np. 041 Fr 2ogo Bl SB ass pr-125o Bl SB ls sy r NP 16O AIIOJOCIATCSL SW Np-ods rr go6OC1 5A I FR Ar gogp 3' '/s' ISI 16I d Tcz 2180 I ss 1 3/ 227ool 58 /{Ic Np.152 To csccoocssa 27$ e ld'~s P DSS PI ~ sS 3 a ~ u .Io2 VR cfl alp 153 To I Ti I MP 04b POZ- 2 iso. I 58 Isk's 3k' MP. Ios I- VR-4 ~ II I NP.164 T saacca w 7 r 7a G. NP 041 FZ Tb '7Cr 8SG 8 fW riovl( up 166 FR014 Ctl'P la ra MFI 0 FZ 17 3 gl Sb 8 sTI4 16b To RImP 8 IaKs Fr- 414 e crIR w:Na 3/5'P. Of9 ~ sb up.151 To TNaosca pcsap 2'a Np.oso FZ. 75 l3k'as uP-lod I-ua-498 ds/5 s I HP 158 FK 418 s's/I'r MP 05I FZ- 48b I /fs /4 ecch oc N scT oai74 NP 169 CK 488 lsKs 3/f IO II IS IS IO I~ 17 I~ IS SQE I I I 4 I I I ee 4 I I I ~ sew le evve I I 44 II I I ~ A 44 << '4 ~ 4 ls ~ I as Vv 444<< 4 ~ 4 Aev H \ ~ L I ~ t I~ )I <<Ll '5' IiI Sm ~5 4W ~ lessee 4 44 et ~ ~ ~ t eve ~ 44 I el I< I ee F 44 ee la ~ I A <<I ~ et 4 LA ee VI Mat v<<ssvI<<veva 4 44VST m <<el WT 4 ~ Iwel ~ <<AS ~ 4't Ae V4 ~ II se Ta<< le' <<I <<el Tt lace '5sea IlIIS 4 sa Qig QKI I << ~ I &5 V ~I <<4 ~~ I 'I r I'I ~ eel ~ hl ~ IC OA evlevA <>}OA A os ~ V ~ I " Sf ~ ~ Iw ~ t Sf t ~ ~ ~ I ot Ct ~ I ~ t I~ ~ ~ ~ w I' ~ v II II tt I IC ~ II CI II ~>> IC ~ I I ~ 4 ~ v~ I ~ I ~ 't I I. I>> I~ I I 'W ~t V SI ~ Ct I I~ lt A II At I I ~ Cl CI II SII So ~ \ ~ >>I h 4 I OSS N~ II I ~ ~~ I I ~tlt l 14' \ ElEI ~ ~ ~ w >>>> fi rw SS rE ~ P SS W w I} ~ II 'W mo m< 0 SV 95 4 ~~ I ~ ~ Io ~ 0S TZ ao>> ~ IACA ISI IASA ISI ~ SS ~ ASIA tot IIS IOI MSU >>lt t lt I IO N ~ St II ~ ~ w I m IO IS I& IS I~ IT I~ I~ CONP LABEL LABEL SIIE AO IS AS ~ I ~ A 00 ~ AC 44 g.\4 CISA I~ SC & I ~ 004 ~ ~ I ~ I 00 ~ 4 At IIt 'I ~ IA ~ aat ~ IA Ve ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ 4 &4 ~ I IO 4& 00 ~ ~ 4 I ~ II tI ~ 'I l sa II ~ A.ll I I 444 tt 04 I h(e Sa GRAD st II 4I 4IAA ~ tt' Vl 44 at ~ Mte ~ I4 V I ~ 4 I I I 00 ~ I ll I ~ II~ I OV& '8R IIA ~ Ie II II )I I I I ~ A SS ~4 ~ vvaa VAAAI WV la '40VO IA I AMIS 00 ~ ~' are ~ II 5~ ' 0 AZBIS II A lt eh 4 ~ V -'N 4 ~ ~ I ~ I I I'0 t> ~ ~ Ie lll lta A eal A ll I5 I Ct I, q 9 a 4I IV' At I I ~ Ia I vor 0004 SI IIA I ~ 00 aSI I ~ Ill I I tal HHl5H $jH Iae Cia V CI ~ 0 IVI 0 VA ~ 400 0 4 4 ~ L-';RIRPIR ta I( 4 IVI It 40 4 I IIIA ~ tt viva v Ve ta H8 nil 4& l;.=-'ll--;Jjlijl95 E l:lfdlh &A P 04 ~ 0 04 OI ~ I& Aa ~ II I 00 SA leal ~ ~ LlJ: k (I (I E(H SH ~ Nt CV I ~ ea ~ ~ Pw ar 544 Sa Seel&a& at te orv ssAO sat I 04 @I 44 I ~ I k IA )l1ldl3/t: j ~ Ale 0 4 ~ ~ Ar I Ial et All Iil tea I I ~I I I ve aa ar IJI 40 ov Vtl I Ia I II AA I':=J l-llD'LlLl 4868 kl='1 4 ~ Ol etl N& CSS A AA t Ae '\1 ~ N TN ~ << ~ I AN I I I I I I I I t <<1 N T>>tn I CA<<t AA to TA Ar I lKiD I V 1 I I >> 1 I I I ~ ATN I It N At I I ~ A>> SS I>>S Tr 'Nt IIII ~1 A 11 '1l ~ TH 1 Atrrtal >>I~ ~ trt <<1 <<t LKEQ~ NA ~~ ~Ll S Jlf .E II. SI?. Ig INN+~A I LIS ~ <<tel F 11 ~ ~~ T ~ ~ I I t~ t I I EBN St LNI XL>> 1>> 1 I 1 11 ~ N LID[]k H ~ ~ TA I <<r A<< ~<<<<A~NAAr I gg UIH I I I I 1 l rtl A AA g 1 1 N ll N ~ 8 Nt I34 gl IE>>1 ~ H LIE ~ ANA tact te r t>>1 1111 a 5 fi LI LILI RlR 8 AAIA Atr 1 ~ Ot IAI ATIA ATIA TAA 1A1 ~ 11 AAA 11 IH LFI' APPENDIX E SAMPLE TASK PLAN TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 HUMAN FACTORS TASK PZAN FOR THE ANNUNCIATOR SYSTEM REVIW TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 TP-3.1 May 1, 1983

l. 0 CMZCZIVES 2.0 REVIM TEAM S1KZC1'ION AND RF~PONSIBILITIES

3. 0 CRITERIA

4. 0 PROCEDURES 4.1 General Instructions 4.2 Data Collection

4. 3 Analysis 5.0 EQUIPS+/iACIrZXV REQUIRImmS 6.0 INPUTS AND DATA FORMS 7.0 OUTPUTS AND RESULTS

8. 0 FIGURES AND TABLES

9. 0 PROCEDURE EXCEPTIONS 5 82PEHDZGS A. (2UTKUA B MTA FORMS C CRIKHUA MATRIX D. TASK PLAN CRITIQUE

TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 1.0 a.. To assess to what degree the annunciator system conforms to the criteria in NUMG-0700.

b. To identify and document any features in the annunciator system design that do not conform to the criteria in NUREG-0700.

2.0 REVIEW TEAM SPECI'ION AND RFBPONSIBILXTIES

a. A human factors specialist to conduct the data collection and analysis and to prepare the task report.

b. A client nuclear operations specialist to supply plant systems information concerning alarm parameters and alarm response procedures.

c. A client plant engineer/opertor to assist in identifying relevant plant systems information.

3.0 The criteria are from NUR1M-0700; paragraphs 6.3.1.1; 6.3.1.2a through d(2); 6.3.1.3a through d; 6.3.1.4a and b; 6.3.1.5a through b(3); 6.3.2.la through f; 6.3.3.la through b(2); 6.3.2.2a and b; 6.3.3.1a through c(3); 6.3.3.2a through f (2); 6.3.3.3a through f; 6.3.3.4a through d; 6.3.3.5a through d(6); 6.3.4.la through d(2); 6.3.4.2a through c; 6.3.4.3a and b; 6.5.1.6a through c(2) and e(l) through 3(3); and 6.6.6.2a, b, and c (see Appendix A). 4.0 PROCEDURES 4.1 4.1.1 Preparation and Conduct of Procedures

a. Prior to conduct of this task, ensure that all required data forms, plant documentation, engineering drawings, equignent, and materials are available. Ensure that permission has been obtained for all required access to the control room or other plant'reas.

b. Record all exceptions, deviations, or changes to these procedures in Section 9.0 of this Task Plan. Nmber each entry sequentially, starting with l. Include an explanation (technical justification) as to why the exception, deviation, or change was made.

4.1.2 Task Plan Critique Vpon in completion of this task, fillout the Appendix D. Submit the completed Task Plan Critique contained critique to your supervisor or project manager. ~. 0' TP-3.1 May lg 1983 4.2 ao Data are collected using various methods and procedures consisting of measurements, observations, interviews and questionnaires, and document reviews. Appendix C illustrates the distribution of the criteria for the various methods.

b. Measurements and observations should be made for all items contained on the Measurement data forms and Observations checklists contained in Appendix B.

ce The operator interviews (Appendix B) should be administered to a significant number of the licensed reactor operators for the plant. Administration may be conducted singly or in a group, but should be proctored or monitored.

d. The results of the System Function and Task Analysis tasks should be reviewed for annunciator-relevant data in reference to NUREG-0700 guidelines 6.3.3.1; 6.3.1.4a; 6.3.3b and d(2); 6.3.3.4a and c; 6.3.4.3a; and 6.6.6.2a(l), (2), and (3) .

e. In addition to the review results from d, above, plant documentation should be reviewed to verify the items listed in the Document Review Checklist in Appendix B. The required plant documents include:

l. Annunciator Response Procedures

2. Administrative Procedures relevant to annunciators.

4.3 ao All deviations from the criteria shall be recorded on Human Engineering Discrepancy (HED) reports (Appendix B) . Recorded information shall include the instrument or instruments involved (e.g., auditory alarm horns, specific light tiles, etc.), a description of the problem including the 0700 paragraph nunher of criteria, and a recommended solution. 'he

b. Data collection method(s) shall also be recorded on the HED form (see Appendix B). Where data from two or more sources are contradictory, resolution of the conflict through data review and client interview shall be made.

co Use the analysis aids from Appendix B for all data reduction and analysis. Upon completion of all analyses, ensure that the criteria in Appendix A are properly annotated (as specified in the analysis aids) . Suhnit the completed task plan to your immediate supervisor for review. Vpon project management approval, initiate Task Report 3.1. TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 5.0 EQUIPMENT AND FACILITY REQUIREMÃZS

a. Access to the control room.

b. Sound level meter.

c. Protractor and tape measure.

d. Flash comparator.

6.0 INPUTS AND DATA FORMS

a. Annunciator Response Procedures

b. Annunciator Administrative Procedures

c. Completed Task Reports for:

1. System Function and Task Analysis

2. Labels and Location Aids

3. Maintainability

d. Criteria List (Appendix A)

e. The following from Appendix B:

1. Measurements Data Forms

2. Interview Forms

3. Observations Checklist

4. Documentation Review Checklist

5. Analysis Aids

6. HED Report Forms

f. Criteria Matrix (Appe&ix C)

g. Task Plan Critique Form (Appendix D) 7.0 OUTPUTS AND REKJLTS

a. Completed HEDs

b. Completed Task Report.

o TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 8.0 FIGVRES AND TABLES None l I O. TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 9.0 PBOCEDURE EKCEPTIONS The following exceptions, deviations, and changes were made to these procedures during conduct of the task (include a statement of justification on each item): TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX A CRITERIA TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX A CRITERIA N/A OCHM1M'S 6.3.1.1 GENERAL SYSTEM DESIGN Annunciator warning systems are the primary control room interface to immediately alert the operator to out-of-tolerance changes in plant condition. Annunciator warning systems consist of three major subsystems: (a) an auditory alert subsystem, (b) a visual alarm subsystem, and (c) an operator response subsystem (see Exhibit 6.3-1). Together, these three subsystems should be designed to provide a preferred operational sequence for annunciator warnings as indicated in Exhibit 6.3.2. 6.3.1 2 ALARM PARAMETER SEU!CHION

a. SETPOINTS The limits or setpoints for initiating the annunciator warning system should be established to meet the following goals:

(1) Ala rms should not occur so frequently as to be considered a nuisance by the operators. (2) However, setpoints should be established to give operators adequate time to respond to the warning condition before a serious problem develops. b GENERAL ALARMS (1) Alarms that require the control room operator to direct an auxiliary operator to a given plant location for specific, information should be avoided. (2) If general alarms most be used, they should only be used for conditions that allow adequate time for auxiliary operator action and subsequent control room operator actions. A-1 TP-3.1 SYSTEM May 1, 1983 APPENDIX A CRITERIA N/A 6.3.1.2 (Cont'd)

c. MULTIGQNNEL OR SHARED ALARMS Annunciators with inputs from more than one plant .parameter setpoint should be avoided.

Rilti-input alarms that summarize single-input annunciators elsewhere in the control room are an exception. (2) Where multi-input annunciators aust be used, an alarm printout capability should be provided. The specif ics of the alarm should be printed on an alarm typer with sufficient speed and buffer storage to capture all alarm data. (3) A reflash capability should be provided to allow subsequent alarms to activate the auditory alert mechanism and reflash the visual tile even though the first alarm may not have been cleared.

d. MULTI-UNITALARMS Alarms for any shared plant systems should be duplicated in all control rooms.

(2) When an item of shared equipnent is being operated from one control room a status display or signal should be provided in all other control rooms which could potentially control this equipDBjlt e A-2 TP-3. 1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX A CRITERIA 6.3.1.3 FIRST OUT ANNUNCIMORS N/A

a. REACTOR SYSTH4 (1) A separate first out panel should be provided for the reactor system.

(2) The i f rst out panel should consist of separate annunciator tiles for each of the automatic reactor trip functions. (3) In the event of a reactor trip, the tile associated with the event should illuaunate, and no other.

b. TURBINE-GENERATOR SYSTEM A separate first out panel, similar in function to the reactor system panel, is recommended.

c. POSITION First out panels should be located directly above the main control work station for the system.

d. APPLICATION First our annunciators should conform to the general auditory, visual, and operator response guidelines of this section.

6.3.1.4 PRIORITIZATION

a. LZVZLS OF PRIORITY r

(1) Prioritization should be accom-plished using a relatively small (2-4) number of priority levels. A-3 0' TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX A CRITERIA N/A 6.3.1.4a (Cont'd) (2) Prioritization should be based on a continuum of importance, severity, or need for operator action in one or more dimensions, e.g., likelihood of reactor trip, release of radiation. Exhibit 6. 3-3 provides an example of prioritization based on three levels of prioritization.

b. PRIORITY CGDING (1) Some method for coding the visual signals for the various priority levels should be employed. Acceptable methods for priority coding include color, position, shape, or

~lie coding o (2) Auditory signal coding for priority level is also appropriate. See Guideline 6.2.2.3 for recmanended coding techniques. 6.3elo5 CLEARED ALARMS

a. AUDITORY SIGNAL Cleared alarms should have a dedicated, distinctive audible signal which should be of finite duration.

b. VISUAL SIGNAL The individual tile should have one of the following:

(1) ,A special flash rate (twice or one-half the normal -flash rate is preferred, to allow discrimi-nation), or (2) Reduced brightness, or A-4 ~. TP-3. 1 May lg 1983 APPENDIX A CRITERIA N/A YES 6.3.1.5b (Cont'd) (3) A special color, consistent with the overall control room color coding scheme, produced by a differently colored bulb behind the tile. 6.3.2.1 SIGNAL DEFECTION

a. INTENSITY The signal should be such that operators can reliably discren the signal above the ambient control room noise. A nominal value of 10 dB(A) above average ambient noise is generally adequate.

b. CONTROL Signal intensity, adjustable, should be controlled by if administrative procedure.

c. LIMITS The signal should capture the operator's attention but should not cause irritation or a startled reaction.

d. DETECTION Each auditory signal should be adjusted to result in approximately equal detection levels at normal operator work stations in the primary operating area.

e. RESET The annunciator auditory alert mechanism should automatically reset when it has been silenced.

f. IDENZIFICATION The operator should be able to identify the work station or the system where the auditory alert signal originated. Separate auditory signals at each work station within the primary operating area are recceaended.

A-.5 ~. 0, TP-3.1 May 1< 1983 APPENDIX A CRITZRIA 6.3.2. 2 AUDITORY CODING

a. IDCALIZATION (1) Auditory coding techniques should be used when the operator work station associated with the alarm is not in the primary operating area.

(2) Coded signals from a single audio source should not be used to identify individual work stations within the primary operating area.

b. PRIORITIZATION Coding may be used to indicate alarm priority. (See

.Guideline 6.3.1.4.) ~ 6.3.3. 1 VISUAL ANNUIKIATORPANELS

a. IDCATION Visual alarm panels should be located above the related controls and displays which are required for corrective or diagnostic action in response to the alarm. (See Exhibit 6.3-4.)

b. ZABELING (1) Each panel should be identified by a label above the panel.

(2) Panel identif ication label height should be consistent with a subtended visual angle of at least 15 minutes when viewed from a central position within the primary operating area. ~. Ol 0 o TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX A CRITERIA N/A YES COMMENZS 6.3.3.2 VISUAL ALARM RKGG AND IDENZ ao FLASHING The specific tile(s) on an annunciator panel should use flashing illumination to indicate an alarm condition.

b. FLASHRATE Flash rates should be from three to five flashes per second with approximately equal on and off times.

co FLASHER FAILURE In case of flasher failure of an alarmed tile, the tile should illuminate and burn steadily.

d. CONGEST DETECTABILITYThere should be high enough contrast between alarming and between steady'iles, and illuminated and nonilluminated tiles, so that operators in a normally illuminated control room have no problem discriminating alarming, steady-on, and steady-off visual tiles.

e. "DARK" ANNUNCIATOR PANELS A "dark" annunciator panel concept should be used. This means that under normal operating conditions no annunciators would be illuminated; all of the visual tiles of the annunciator panels would be "dark."

KZZENDED DURATION ILLQ4INKTION If an annunciator tile rmst be "ON" for an extended period during normal operations (e.g., during equipment repair or replacement), it should be: (1) Distinctively coded for positive recognition during this period, and (2) Controlled by administrative procedures. A-7 TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX A CRITERIA N/A YES KHMIM'S 6.3.3.3 OF VISUALALARMTILES

a. MKPRIX ORGANIZATION Visual alarms should be organized as a matrix of visual alarm tiles within each annunciator panel.

b. FUKTIONAL GROUPING Visual alarm tiles should be grouped by function or system within each annunciator panel. For example area radiation alarms should be grouped in one panel, not spread throughout the control room.

c. LABELING OR AXES (1) The vertical and horizontal axes of annunciator panels should be labeled with alphanumerics for ready coordinate designation of a particular visual tile.

(2) Coordinate designation is preferred on the left and top sides of the annunciator panel. (3) Letter height for coordinate designation should be consistent with a subtended visual angle of at least 15 minutes as viewed from a central position within the primary operating area.

d. PM'ZERN RECOGNITION-I (1) The nunher of alarm tiles and the matrix density should be kept low (a maxim'f 50 tiles per matrix is suggested).

(2) Tiles within an annunciator panel matrix should be grouped by subsystem, function, or other logical organization. A-8 O. TP-3.1 SYSTEM May 1< 1983 APPENDIX A (BACTERIA N/A YES NO 6.3.3.3 (Cont'd)

e. OUT-OF-SERVICE ALARMS Cues for provost recognition of an out-of-service annunciator should be designed into the system.

f. BLANK TILES Blank or unused annun-ciator tiles should not be illumi-nated (except during annunciator testing) .

6.3 3.4 VISUAL TILE LEG12IDS

a. UNAMBIGUOUS - Annunciator visual tile legends should be specific and unanbiguous. Wording should be in concise, short messages.

b. SINGULARITY Alarms which refer the operator to another, mere detailed annunciator panel located outside the primary operating area should be minimized o

c. SPECIFICITY Tile legends should address specific conditions; for example, do not use one alarm for HIGH-IlMg TZÃPKQTURE-PRESSURE.

6 3 3.5 VISUAL TILE READt&ILITY

a. DISTANCE The operator should be able to read all the annunciator, tiles from the position at the work station where the annunciator acknowledge control is located.

(1) Letter height should subtend a minimum visual angle of 15 minutes, or .004 x viewing distance. The preferred visual angle is 20 minutes, or .006 x viewing distance. A-9 TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 (HYSTERIAA APPENDIX N/A YES NO 6.3.3.5a (Cont'd) (2) Letter height should be identical for all tiles, based on the maximum viewing distance. Separate calculations should be made for stand-up and sit-down work stations.

b. TYPE SHEE The size and style of lettering should meet the following:

(1) Type styles should be simple'. (2) Type styles should be consistent on all visual tiles. (3) Only upper-case type should be used on visual tiles.

c. LEGEND CONTRAST Legends should provide high contrast with the tile background.

(1) Legends should be engraved. (2) Legends should be dark lettering on a light background.

d. LOITER DIMENSIONS AND SPACING-(1) Stroke-width-to-characterbeight ratio should be between 1:6 and 1:8.

(2) Letter width-to-height ratio should be between 1:1 and 3:5. (3) Numeral width-to-height ratio should be 3:5. (4) Mining space between characters should be one stroke width. A-lo 0 0 TP-3. 1 May 1~ 1983 APPENDIX A QGTERIA N/A YES 6.3.3.5d (Cont'd) (5) Minimum space between words should be the width of one character. (6) Minimum space between lines should one one-half the character height. 6.3.4.1 00ÃHKKS (See Exhibit 6.3-5).

a. SILENCZ (1) Each set of operator response controls should include a silence control.

(2) It should be possible to silence an auditory alert signal from any set of annunciator response controls intheprimaryoperating area. b. (1) A control should be provided to terminate the flashing of a visual tile and have it at steady illumination until continue the alarm is cleared. (2) Acknowledgement should be possible only at the work station where the alarm originated.

c. RES EZ (1) If an automatic cleared alarm feature is not provided, a control should be provided to reset the system after an alarm has cleared.

TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX A CRITERIA N/A 6.3.4.lc (Cont'd) (2) The reset control should silence any audible signal indicating clearance and should extinguish tile illumination. (3) The reset control should be effective only at the work station for the annunciator panel where the alarm initiated.

d. TEST (1) A control to test the auditory signal and flashing illumination of all tiles in a panel should be provided.

(2) Periodic testing of annunciators should be required and controlled by administrative procedure. 6.3.4 ~ 2 COWGIRL SET DESIGN

a. POSITIONING CP REPEZITIVE GROUPS Repetitive groups of annunciator controls should have the same arrangement and relative location at different work stations. This is to facilitate "blind" reaching.

b. CMHQL COOING Annunciator response controls should be coded for easy recognition using techniques such as:

(1) Color coding: (2) Color shading the group of annunciator controls; (3) Demarcating the group of annunciator controls; or (4) Shape coding, particularly the silence control. (See Exhibit 6.3-5, Example 2.) TP-3.1 May 1< 1983 APPENDIX A CRITERIA N/A YES NO 6.3.4.2 (Cont'd)

c. NONDEFEATABLE CONTROLS Annunciator control designs should not allow the operator to defeat the control. For example, some pushbuttons used for annunciator silencing and acknowledgement can be held down by inserting a coin in the ring around the pushbutton. This undesirable design feature should be eliminated.

6.3.4. 3 ANNUNCIATORRESPONSE PROCEDURES

a. AVAILABILITY - Annunciator response procedures should be available in the control room.

b. INDEXING Annunciator response procedures should be indexed by panel identification and annunciator tile coordinates.

6.5.1.6 COIDR CODING

a. REDUNDANCY In all applications of color coding, color should provide redundant information. That is, the pertinent information should be available from some other cue in addition to color.

b. NLYBER OF COLORS-(1) The number of colors used for coding should be kept to the minimum needed for providing sufficient information.

(2) The number of colors used for coding should not exceed 11. A-13 ~. TP-3. 1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX A CRITERIA N/A 6.5.1.6 (C'ont'd)

c. MEANING OF COLORS (1) The meaning at tached to a particular color should be narrowly def ined.

(2) Red, green, and amber (yellow) should be reserved for the following uses: Red: unsafe, danger, immediate operator action required or an indication that a critical parameter is out of tolerance. Green: safe, no operator action required, or an indication that a parameter is within tolerance. Ambe r (yellow): ha z a r d (potentially unsafe), caution, attention required, or an indication that a marginal value or parameter exists.

d. PRINCIPLES OF COIDR SIKBCZION (1) The primary principle which should be applied in selecting colors for coding purposes which do not have the immediate safety implications of red, green, and amber is to ensure that each color is recognized as different from any other.

A-14 ~. 4e TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX A CRITERIA N/A YES 6.5.1.6d (Cont'd) Exhibit 6.5-7 lists 22 colors of maximum contrast. Each successive color has been selected so that it willcontrast maximally with the color just preceding it and satisfactorily with earlier colors in the list. The first 9 colors have been selected so as to yield satisfactory contract for red~reen-deficient as well as color-normal observers. The remaining 13 colors are useful only for color-normal observers. (2) Colors selected for coding should contrast well with the background on which they appear. (3) Ambient lighting in the area in which color coding is used will influence the apparent color of the coded element (especially for surface colors) . Each color selected for coding should be evaluated under all illumination conditions under which it is used. 6.6.6.2 DEMARCATION

a. USE - Lines of demarcation can be used to.

Enclose functionally related displays. (2) Enclose functionally related controls. (3) Group related controls and displays. l h 3' ~. e 0) TP 301 SISAL Hay 1, 1983 APPENDIX A GUTTA N/A YES 6.6.6.2 (0 nt~d)

b. CONTRAST Lines of demarcation should be visually destinctive from the panel background.

c. PERMANENCE Lines of demarcation should be permanently attached.

A-16 O. TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX A CRITERIA AUDITORY ALERT SUBSYSTEM I VISUAL ALARM SUBSYSTEM OPERATOR RESPONSE SUBSYSTEM Exhibit 6.3-1 Annunciator Warning System A-17 ~. <)

0

TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX A CRITERIA L<<nip No E seceded yss Alert 'udnory Vrsuss Annuhcietor j <<~~l Metr>>nr<<n Initietion L Tris Actrrstron Eedly detect<<f end ducdms>>oss Epscffk ylsuel storm toe in ennuhs>>tOr Oer>>l ~ rdltory tier>>l or+is>>ting INulrllnstod shd ftesriihp st ~ rett from e perticuter MCS loess ron sssrkn fscprts>>s dr>>stion "SILENCE" "ACKNOWLEDGE" Control Rsorohss Control Re<<ron sr IAhy MCS Locetron) )Only et MCS Locetssh Neer Ahhvhcle\ot pshsll Aueitety siehor Coesos. Ohd fIsdsrhf Ce~. but Tus Mech ohlsm Recco Remsrns Illumsnstsd D>>phosrs end Rsmed>>sion of Problem pter>> per<<nnsr Is) Returned to Nonnsl Auditory Assis Mscnshren Ihlt>>sion E j:-:--':::-3 Epecisl ftssnlne Re>> ol vouel TNO to Irspcets "Cseered" Alsnn IIESET-Cohtrtj Roorohss I Only ot MCP Locetion Neer Ahhui>>>>ter Pencil No More Audible ~ r Vokrss Alsrm TEST IAt Eecn eckrc Ahhuncotoi LEGEND Control Set Locetron) QJ Inidetss Auditory Alen ~ f end Nehss AN Vs<<ref TNes ln Rsl eesd Annuncsetor Psnsf (t) ~ } ~ EOONlptsnt Action Opsistoi Action <<,Apple>>MO Exhibit 6.3-2 Annunciator System Preferred Operational Sequence A-18 ~. e. TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX A CRITERIA FIRST PRIORITY ALARMS ~ Plant shut down treactor trip, turbine trip) ~ Radiation release ~ Plant conditions which, if not corrected Immediately. will result in automatic plant shutdown or radiation relent, or will require manual plant shutdown. SECOND PRIORITY ALARMS ~ Technical specification violations which if not corrected will require plant shutdown ~ Plant conditions which, If not corrected, may lead to plant shut down or radiation releats THIRD PRIORITY ALARMS ~ Plant conditions representing problems ( ~ .g.. system degradation) which affect plant operability but which should not lead to plant shutdown, radiation release, or violation of technical specifications; Exhibit 6.3-3 Three-Level Annunciator Prioritization Example A-19 i p i TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX A CRITERIA VISUAL fEEDWATER CONTNOL PANEL ALARMS I I I' I (~ I I ~' % ~ 51~ G5HtlATOT I 51~ GTNtlATOlC I 5TtJW GTH5IA I t9 RELATED DISPLAYS L3 G3 II ti EJ Ll II II UJ AUXILIAt( fTHWA TER WMf5 U II tI tD Ll RII f mm AAAIH EgWATEE flWP5 11 gi II@ tJ Q I ll RELATED CONTROLS 18 8 IiB 8 Cl Gl cf cl tf lJ t5 ED 8 3  :"II fi Exhibit 6.3-4 Visual Alarms Located Above The Related Gontrols And Displays (From SeIIIinars et al., 1979) A-20 I ~. TP 301 Nay 1, 1983 APPENDIX A CRITERIA Example 1 Sll ENCE ACKNOWLEDGE RESET TEST Example 2 ANNUNCIATORCONTROLS t ~ I

SILENT:.::; ACK RESET Exhibit 6.3-5 Annunciator Response Contro1s A-21

TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX A CRITERIA Color Serial General ISCC+IBS Munsell renotation of color-or selection color centroid name fSCCkfBS Centroid number name number (abbreviation) Color 1 white 263 white 2.5P8 9.5/0.2 2 black 267 black N 0.8/ 3 yellow 82 v.Y 3.3Y 8.0/14.3 4 purple 21& a.P 6.5P 4.3/9.2 5 orange 48 v.o 4.1YR 6.5/15,0 6 light blue 180 v.l.B 2.7P 8 7.9/6.0 7 red 11 v.R 5.OR 3.9/15.4 8 buff 90 gy Y 4 AY 7.2/3.8 9 grey 265 med. Gy 3.3GY 5.4/0.1 10 green 139 v.G 3.2G 4.9/11.1 'l1 purplish pink 247 a~k 5.6RP 6,8/9,0 12 blue 178 a.B 2.9P 8 4.1/10.4 13 yellowish pink 26 a.yPk BAR 7.0/9.5 14 violet 207 a.V 0.2P 3.7/10.1 15 orange yellow 66 v.oY 8.6Y R 7.3/15.2 16 purpffsh red 255 a.pR 7.3RP 4.4/1 'l.4 17 greenish yellow 97 v.gY 9.1Y 8.2/12.0 18 reddish brown 40 LrBf 0.3YR 3.1/9.9 19 yellow green . 115 v.YG 6AGY 6.8/11.2 20 yellowish brown 75 deep yBr BAÃR 3.1/5.0 21 reddish orange 34 v.ro 98R 5A/14.5 22 dive green 126 d.OIG 8.0GY 2.2/3.6 Exhibit 6.5-7 Twenty~ Colors Of Maximum Contrast (From Kelly, 1965) A-22 TP 301 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX B DATA FORMS Bl Bl.l-l Bl. 1 Linear Measurements Bl.l-l Bl.2 Sound Measurements Bl.2-1 Bl.3 Light Measurements B1.3-1 B2 OPERATOR INZERVIBF B2-1 B3 CBSERVATION CHECKLIST B3-1 B4 DOCUMENZATION REVIIK CHECKLIST B4-1 B5 ANALYSIS AIDS B5.1-1 0 B5.1 Linear Measurements Analysis B5.1-1 B5.2 Sound Measurements Analysis B5.2-1 B5.3 Light Measurement Analysis B5.3-1 B6 OPERMQR INTEIRlM ANhLYSIS B6-1 B7 G3SERVATION CIIECKLIST ANALYSIS B7-1 B8- ION REVIM CIIECKLIST ANhLYSIS B8-1 B9 - SAMPLE HED REPORT FORM B9-1 TP-3. 1 Nay lg 1983 APPENDIX B INTA FORMS TP-3. 1 Nay 1, 1983 APPENDIX Bl.l

1. LINEAR MEASUREKENZ (LABELING) 1.1 Annunciator Light Box (ALB) Summary Labels 6.3.3.1b(2) .

I

a. If there are no sumnary labels, check here:

b. If there are summary labels, measure and record in Table l.lb the following information:

1) Character height

2) Character width and/or numeral width

3) Character stroke width

4) (character spacing

5) Word spacing

6) Line spacing 20 3.

4, 6. TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX Bl. 1 1.2 Tile Labeling 6.3.3.5a(l) and a(2), and 6.3.5.5d(l) through d(6) .

a. Measure and record in Table 1.2a the character height(s) used in the tiles. If narc than one size character is used, record the height for all of the represented heights. Also measure and record the farthest left and farthest right tile from its associated acknowledge station for each of the represented character heights (start at the left nost acknowledge station and number the stations going clockwise around the MCB).

b. For each acknowledge station in the table above, measure and record in Table 1.2b the height from the floor for the farthest left and farthest right tile from this same table.

Bl.1-2 Q-s TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX Bl. 1 1.2 (Cont'd)

c. Measure and record the following for each of the different character heights from a, above:

Char/Num Stroke Char Word Zine 3M~ bifid Qgaaing Qpaaing Qgaaing 20 30 4 5. 6. 1.3 Data Reduction and Analysis. For data reduction and analysis, obtain the appropriate analysis aids from Appendix B5 (ref. B5.1). Bl. 1-3 TP 3 ~ 1 May 1, 1983 APPEH)IX Bl. 2 MEASUREHENZS KATA

2. aXma MEASURmrmrS (AUDZBLE SXGNALS) 2.1 Annunciator Audible Alarms - 6.3.2.1a.

Measure the sound level in dB(A) for each annunciator audible alarm at each of the following operator positions: Alarm b EI Jam PmW Rm2 Gun& Gun Dim& Gonaala Desk 20 3. 5. ~ 2.2 Data Reduction and Analysis For data reduction and analysis, obtain the appropriate analysis aids from Appendix B5 (ref. B5.2). Bl. 2-1 ~. 4s TP-3. 1 Hay 1, 1983 APPENDZX Bl.3

3. LIGHT MEASUBEHENIS (TILE FLASH C2iARACZERISTICS) 6.3.5b(1) and 6.3.3.2b 3.1 Using the Flash Comparator, measure the flash rate of tiles in alarm and in clear. Record the rates.

Alarm Flash Rate: Cleared Flash Rate: 3.2 Using the Flash Conparator, measure the on-off ratio for the alarm flash rate and cleared flash rate. On-Off Ratio (Alarm): On~f Ratio (Cleared): Bl.2-1 TP-3.1 SMERlk May 1, 1983 APPENDIX B2 OPER%OR INZKVGEN INSTRUCTIONS

1. Read the following to the operators before starting interview:

a. The following are questions concerning the general layout, functional organization, and operational considerations in your control room.

Most of the questions will require a YES or M) answer, with sane additional information.

b. Please mention any issues you feel relevant to this review when you think about them, you do not have to wait for a question on the subject.

c. If you do not understand a question, please ask for clarification.

d. All of your answers and your biographical information will be kept in the strictest confidence and will be used to aid in the performance of the detailed control roan design review.

PLEASE BEGIN B2-1 k

• S II TP3el May 1, 1983 APPENDIX B2 OPERATOR INZKWIEN BIOGRAPHICAL DATA:

Name: Age: Sex: Height: Weight: Current Position/Title:

l. Do you have a current reactor operator's license'p YES M)

2. Amount of licensed experience at this plant:

3. Total amount licensed experience:

4. Related experience and amount (exanple: operatorWrainee, Hodge NPP Unit 1, 1 year):

5. Education:

a. Highest level attained:

b. Specialized Schools or courses (list):

6. Military experience:

B2-2 TP-3. 1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX B2 OPERATOR INZ1"RVIEW/QUESTIONKQRE

1. Do you have a first out annunciator panel where only the tile YES NO associated with the reactor trip event illuminates and all subsequent alarms on that panel are "locked out"?

2. Do you know of any automatic reactor trip functions that do not YES M have a separate annunciator tile on the first out panel (either missing or shared with other functions)?

3. Are the annunciator panels in the control roan identified by a YES NO label above each panel?

4. From your primary operating area, can you read all annunciator YES M) panel labels with a minimum of effort?

5. Is the annunciator system priority coded by color, position, YES M) shape, or symbolic coding of the tiles?

6. If color coding is used, are there more than eleven colors used YES M for coding the panels?

7. If color coding is used, is the meaning redundant, as an exanple, YES NO if priority coding uses color, does it also use tile position?

B2-3 TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX B2 GPKQXOR INTERVIEW/QUESTIONNAIRE

8. Is there only one meaning attached to each color used for coding YES NO the tiles?

9. Are all meanings attached to any color coded tiles standard to 'ES .

M) those color meanings throughout your control room?

10. For color coded tiles is:

a. 'ed always used for unsafe, danger, immediate operator a critical action required, or as an indication that parameter is out of tolerance?

b. green always used for safe, no operator action required, YES M3 or as an indication that a parameter is within tolerance?

c. anber (yellow always used for hazard (potentially unsafe), YES M) caution, attention required, or as an indication that a marginal value or parameter exists?

ll. Do you know of any unnecessary color coding on the annunciator YES M) tiles or panels?

12. For colors used in tile coding, are any difficult to tell apart? YES NO B2-4

~, TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX B2 . 13. Are auditory signals OPERMQR INTERVIEW/QUESTION%ERE priority coded by pulse, frequency change (warbling), intensity, or different frequencies for different YES NO signals?

14. If you have separate alarm horns, can you easily identify the YES NO work station or system where the auditory signal originated?

15. Do you have different alarm horns for work areas not at the YES NO main control board?

16. If the auditory alarm signal has only one source, is the sound YES NO coded to direct you to different work areas?

17. Do any of the alarm horns startle or irritate you?

18. If you have different alarm horns, do any of them sound too YES NO loud or too soft in comparison to the others at your normal work station?

19. Do you have a silence control with each set of response controls YES NO in your primary operating area? I B2-5

TP-3. 1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX B2 OPERATOR INTERVIEW/QUESTIONNAIRE

20. Is a control provided which terminates a flashing visual tile, YES M) but allows a steady illumination until the alarm is cleared?

21. Can you acknowledge an alarm from more than one response control YES NO area?

22. If cleared alarms do not reset autanatically, do you have a YES NO control to reset them yourself?

23. Does the reset control silence the auditory signal as well as YES NO extinguish the illumination?

24. Does the reset control operate from more than one response YES NO control area?

25. Can you defeat any of the annunciator controls, such as locking YES NO out the audible alarm or locking down the acknowledge control?

26. Can you test the auditory and flashing illumination signals of YES NO all tiles for each panel?

B2-6 TP-3.1 Nay 1, 1983 APPENDIX B2 . 27. OPERATOR INZERVIEN/QUESTIONNAIRE Is there an administrative procedure that controls the periodic testing of all annunciators? YES NO

28. Are all tiles dark on annunciator panels when no alarm is YES NO indicated?

29. Can you easily duration during tell if a tile isconditions?

normally on for an extended YES NO normal operating

30. Are you immediately aware service'?

if an annunciator tile is out of YES NO

31. Can you iaaediately determine when the flasher of an alarm tile YES NO fails?

32. Do you know of any alarms that occur so frequently that you YES NO consider them a nuisance'

33. Do you know of any alarms that do not give you ample time to YES NO respond to a warning condition?

B2-7 TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX B2 OPERMQR INZERVIEN/QUESTIONNAIRE

34. When responding to an alarm tile, can you readily locate the YES M) controls and displays required for corrective or diagnostic action?

35. Do you have access to annunciator response procedures in the YES M control room?

36. Do you know of any alarms which require you to obtain additional YES M information from a source outside the control room area?

37. Are there too many alarms which require additional information YES M from panels outside your operating area?

38. If alarms are used that require information outside the control YES M room, do they allow you ample time to respond?

39. Are alarms provided for shared equipment in all'control roans? YES M

40. If there a status display or signal provided for shared equipment YES M) in all control rooms which indicates that the equipment is currently being operated2 B2-8

TP-3. 1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX B2 . 41. Do you have any OPERATOR INTERVIEW/QUESTIONNAIRE tiles with dual messages such as HIGH-IlNP

42. Does the multi-input alarm have a ref lash capability that YES 'M ref lashes the visual tile after an auditory alert event if the first alarm has not been cleared'3.

Do multi-input annunciators provide you will an alarm printoutV YES NO

44. Does the multi-input alarm typer have sufficient speed to print YES NO the alarm data fast enough for your needs'P

45. Does the alarm typer ever skip or loose information, or garble YES M)

(mix up) the printing? B2-9 I TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX B3 OBSERVATIONS (2iHCKLIST

• IN8HQCPIONS

l. Using the attached checklist, make all the noted observations.

2. Record all necessary information in the carments column to justify an N/A check and to detail a NO check.

3. Ensure that all comments for M checks include cmponent, instrument, panel, equipnent, etc., identification and location information.

4. Initiate HED reports on all NO checks per the directions contained in the checklist analysis aids.

B3-1 TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX B3 OBSERVATIONS CHECKLIST N/A YES NO CQ9l1WZS

l. A separate first out panel should be provided for the reactor system 6.3.1.3a (1) .

2. A separate first out panel is recamended for the turbin~enerator system that is functionally similar to the reactor system panel 6.3.1. 3b.

3. First out panels should be located above their main work stations 6.3.1.3c.

4. All first our panels should conform to the general auditory and visual items in the rest of this check-list 6.3.1.3d.

5. A small nuaher (2-4) of levels of priority coding are used 6.3.1.4a(l).

6. Priority coding of color, position, shape, or symbol is used for visual signals 6.3.1.4b(1).

B3-2 ~. ~ e 4 -3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX B3 GBSERVRHONS CRKCKLIST N/A

7. Any color used on tiles are on ALB panels should contrast with the control board color 6.5.1.6e(1) .

8. Any color used for tile coding should be recognizable from all other tile code colors for all illum-ination conditions 6.S.1.6e(3) .

9. Auditory signal priority coding may be used 6.3.1.4b(2) .

10. If more than one, each auditory signal should sound at approximately equal loudness at normal work

-stations in the primary operating area 6.3.2.ld. ll. An auditory signal should capture the operator's attention but should not irritate or cause a startled reaction 6.3.2.lc.

12. Separate auditory signals at each work station within the primary operating area are reconaended 6.3.2.1f.

B3-3 TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX B3 OBSERVATIONS GiHCKLIST N/A YES

13. The operator should be able to identify the work station or area where the auditory alert originated 6.3.2.lf.

14. The auditory signal should automatically reset when silenced

'.3.2.1e.

15. When an alarm clears (or is cleared) there should be a dedicated, distinct audible signal with a finite duration 6.3.1. 5a.

16. Auditory alert signal's, adjustable, should be controlled by if administrative procedure - 6.3.2.3b.

17. The specific title(s) in an ALB should visually flash to indicate an alarm condition 6.3.3.2a.

18. In case of flasher failure, an alarming tile should illuminate and burn steadily 6.3.3.2c.

B3-4 TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX B3 OBSERVATIONS C2KCKLIST N/A

19. Contrast between tiles should present no problem discriminating between alarming, steady', and steady-off conditions 6.3.3.2d.

20. Under normal (nonalarmed) conditions no annunciator tiles should be illuminated 6.3.3. 2e.

21. If a tile aust be on for an extended it period during normal operations should be distinctively coded for positive recognition during this period (see also 6.3.3.2f(2), item

~ 2c on the Document Review Checklist) 6.3.3.2f(1).

22. Cleared tiles should have either a special flash rate, a reduced brightness, or a special color 6.3.1.5b(l) through b(3) .

23. All tiles associated with a given acknowledge control should be readable when operating that control 6.3.3. 5a.

B3-5 TP-3. 1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX B3 OBSEKTATEONS CHECKLIST N/A YES

24. Character style on all tiles should be simple 6.3.3.5b(l).

25. Character style should be consistent on all tiles 6.3.3.5b(2) .

26. Character style should be uppercase on all tiles - 6.3.3.5b(3) .

27. Tile legends should have high contrast with the tile background 6.3.3.5c.

28. Tile legends should be engraved-6.3.3.5c(l) ~

29. Tile legends should be dark and opacpe on a light and translucent background 6.3.3.5c(2) .

30. Tile legends should be specific, unambiguous, concise, and short 6.3.3. 4a.

B3-6 TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX B3 OBSERVATIONS GKCKLIST N/A YES NO

31. Tile legends should address specific conditions, HIGH TBG?, or IlMPRESS f not HIGH-QN T1M'-PRESS 6.3.3. 4c.

32. Tiles should be organized as a matrix within each AIB - 6.3.3.3a.

33. The vertical and horizontal axes of the ALBs should be alpha-numerically labeled for tile designation coordinates 6.3.3. 3c (1) .

0 34.~ Coordinate designators are preferred ~ ~ at the left and top sides of the ~ ALBs.

35. Character height for the coordinate labels should be the same height as those used in tile legends 6.3.3.3c(3) .

36. %he number of tiles in an ALB should be kept low, with a maximum of 50 tiles per ALB suggested 6.3.3.3d(l) .

B3-7 TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX B3 OBSERVATIONS CHEXXLIST N/A YES NO

37. Cues for prompt recognition of an out-of-service annunciator should be designed into the system 6.3.3. 3e.

38. Blank or unused tiles should not be illuninated except during annunciator testing 6.3.3.3f.

39. Demarcation lines may be used to enclose functionally related tiles 6.6.6.2a(l).

40. Demarcation lines may be used to group tiles with their related controls and/or displays 6.6.6.2a(1) through a(3) .

41. If used, demarcation lines should be visually distinctive from the panel background 6.6.6. 2b.

42. If used, demarcation lines should be permanently attached 6.6.6. 2c.

B3-8 ' i * ~ TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX B3 OBSZKVKIONS CEXZLIST N/A

43. ALBs should be located above the controls and displays required for corrective or diagnostic action when they alarm 6.3.3. la.

44. Each ALB should be identified by label directly above 6.3.3. 1b (1) ~

it a

45. Each set of annunciator controls should include a silence control 6.3.4. la (1) .

46. An acknowledge control should be provided that terminates the flashing and causes the tile to continuously illuminate until it has cleared 6.3.4.3b(1) .

47. Ifan automatic cleared alarm feature is not provided, a control should be provided to reset the system after an alarm has cleared 6.3.4.lc (1) .

B3-9 Tp-3.1 Hay 1, 1983 APPENDIX B3 OBSEETATIONS CHECKLIST N/A YES NO

48. A control to test the auditory alarm and the flashing illumination of all tiles in a panel (i.e.,

in one or more ALBs) should be provided 6.3.4. ld (1) .

49. Repetitive groups of annunciator controls should have the same arrangement and relative location at different work stations - 6.3.4.2a.

50. Annunciator controls should be coded differently than other panel controls either by color, demarcation, or shape 6.3.4.2b(1) through b(4) .

51. Shape coding is preferred for the silence control 6.3.4.2b (4) .

52. Annunciator control designs should not allow the operator to defeat the control operations such as inserting a coin into a control guard ring 6.3.4.2c.

5 3. Annunciator response procedures should be available in the control room 6.3.4. 3a. B3-10 TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX B4 DOCOMEMZATION REVIM CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS Collect the following documents and review them for the information contained in the attached checklist:

1. Mministrative Procedures concerning annunciators

2. Annunciator Response Procedures

3. Results from the following task reports:

a. Convention Survey

b. System Function Task Analysis

c. Labeling Survey

4. Ensure that all coments for M) checks include component@ instrument/

panel, equignent, etc., ~ ~ identification and location information. ~ ~

5. Initiate

~ ~ HED reports on all M checks per the directions contained in the checklist analysis aids. B4-1, TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX B4 DOCUMENZATION REVIM GiHCKLIST N/A YES 1 ANNUNCIATOR RESPONSE PROCZXXJREB

a. Response procedures should be indexed by panel I.D. and tile coordinates 6.3.4.3b.

b. Annunciators with inputs from mare than one plant paraneter set point should be avoided (multi-input alarms that summarize single-input alarms elsewhere in the control room are an exception 6.3.1.2c (1) .

~ 2, PLANT ADMINISTRATIVEPROCEDURES

a. Periodic testing of annunciators should be required and controlled by administrative procedures&.3.4. ld (2) .

b. If audible alarm intensity is operator- adjustable, it should be controlled by administrative procedures 6.3.2.lb.

c. When annunciator tiles rmst be on for an extended period during normal operations, it should be controlled by administrative procedures (see also 6.3.3.2f (1),

item 19 on the Observations Checklist) 6.3.3.2f (2) . B4-2 TP-3.1 'May l~ 1983 APPENDIX B4 DOCUNENZATION REVIVE CfHXZLIST N/A

3. SFTA REVIM REPORP

a. The annunciator warning system should be designed as the primary alerting interface with the operator for out~f-tolerance conditions. It should consist of three major subsystems:

auditory alerts, visual alarm, and operator response. These three subsystems should function to provide a preferred operational sequence for annunciator warnings 6.3.1.1.

b. Visual alarm tiles should be grouped by function, system, subsystem, or other logical organization within ALBs 6.3.3.3b and d(2) ~

c. Prioritization of annunciators should be based on a continuum of importance, severity, or need for operator action in one or more dimensions such as, the likelihood of a reactor trip or the likelihood of a release of radiation 6.3.1.4a(2).

B4-3 4 ~. e TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX B4 DOCUMENTATION REVIM CHECKLIST N/A YES NO

d. Tile legends should address specific conditions rather than a range of conditions and/or parameters. As an example, separate tiles should be used to indicate temperature-low, temperature-high, pressure-low, and pressur~igh, rather than a single tile with the legend HIGH-UNTEMP-PRESS - 6.3+3.4c.

e. f I used, demarcation lines enclose functionally relate groups of tiles either separately or with their related controls and displays 6.6.6.2a(l),

a(2), and a(3). B4-4 TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APrateIX B5.1 MEASUREHEÃZS ANALYSIS

1. LINEAR MEASKUZENZ (LABELING) 1.1 ALB Summary Labels 6.3.3.lb(2) .

a. If there are no summary 6.3.3.lb(2) in Appendix A.

labels, check N/A for criterion

b. If there are surrrnary labels, calculate the visual angels for each label for the operator positions listed in Table l,lb.

Reac Turb 'lec Rad Mon Op's Qu& Gun Qiana Grnaala Dehw 2~ 3~ 4, 5. 6. 70 Calculations (use extra sheets, as needed): TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX B5. 1 MEASVREÃENZS ANALYSIS

c. If all visual angles in Table l.lb are 15 minutes of arc or greater, check YES for criterion 6.3.lb(2) in Appendix A.

d. If there are visualHEDangles in Table 1;lb less than 15 minutes of the position(s) and label(s) arc, record on an report form where this is so. Include the code nurrber TP-3.1B5.1.1 in data collection description. For criterion 6.3.3.lb(2) in Appendix A, check the M column and record the HED report number and the code number, TP-3.1B5.1.1 in the CCNMENZS column.

1.2 Tile Labels 6.3.3.51(l) and d(1) through d(6) .

a. Calculate the visual angles for each character height at its farthest left and farthest right location for each work station in Table 1.2a, below.

ALB m/ Chr Ht Calculations (use extra sheets, as required): B5.1-2 TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPEM)IX B5. 1

b. If all visual angles in Table 1.2a are 15 minutes of arc or greater, check YES for criterion 6.3.3.5a(1) in Appendix A.

c. If any visual angles in Table 1.2a are less than 15 minutes of arc, record on an HED report form the position(s) and tile legend(s) where this is so. Include the code number TP-3.1B5.1.2 in the data collection description. For criterion 6.3.3.5a(1) in Appendix Ag check the M colurm and record the HED report number and the code number, TP-3.1B5.1.2, in the CCMMENZS column.

d. Compare the character dimensions and legend measurements for each character height recorded with criteria 6.3.3.5d(1) through d(6) .

e. If all character heights and legends meet the criteria, check the YES column for these criteria in +pendix A.

f. If all character dimensions or legend measurements fail to meet the criteria, record on an HED report from the tile coordinates, character height implicated, and' description of the failure.

, Include the code nunber TP-3.1B5.1.2 in the data collection description. For criteria 6.3.3.5d(1) through d(6) in Appendix A, check the M) column and record the HED report number and the code number TP-3.1B5.1.2, in the CXNMENZS colunn. B5,1-3 TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPZmZX B5. 2 MEASUR1RENZS ANALYSIS

2. SOUND MEASUREHEMIS (AUDIBLE SIGNALS) 2.1 Annunciator Audible Alarms - 6.3.2.1a.

a. Obtain the average anbient noise level in db(A) from the Ambient Noise Survey Task Report (TR-1.6) and record below:

Average noise level: db(A)

b. Based upon the belaw adjustment factors, reduce each measured annunciator alarm level and record in Table 2.lb.

Absolute Difference Between Subtract This Amunt From Measured Level (Im) And Measured Level (Zm) And 4 2.2 5 1.7 6 1.3 7 1.0 8 .8 9'0 .6 4 ll 12 ~ ~ ~3 3 13 ~ 2 14 .2 15 .1 b El Rd R~ RmM Can& Gun Dim& Gunaala Daak 2. 30 4, 5. B5. 2-1 ~. TP-3. 1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX B5. 2

c. Compare all adjusted dB(A) levels in Table 2.lb to the average noise level.

d. If all adjusted audible alarm levels are at least 10 dB(A) above the average noise level check the YES column for criterion 6.3.2.1a in Appendix A.

e. If any adjusted alarm levels are less than 10 dB(A) above the average noise level, record each occurrence on an HED report form. Include the code nuaher TP3.1B5.2.1 in the data collection description. For criterion 6.3.2.1a in Appendix A, check the NO column and record the HED report number and the code nurrber, TP3.1B5.2.1 in the CQRENTS colurm.

B5.2-2 TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDZX B5.3 3~ LIGHT MEASURBKÃIS (TILE FLASH (2RRACTERISZICS) 3.1 Alarmed Flash Characteristics -'.3.3.2b.

a. From the recorded data, determine if the alarmed flash rate is is between 3 to 5 flashes per second and that the on-off ratio approximately 1: l.

b. If both parameters meet the criteria, check the YES column for criterion 6.3.3.2b in Appendix A.

c. If either parameter fails to meet report form.

the criteria, record the Include the code number discrepancy on an HED TP-3.3B5.3.1 in the data collection description. For criterion 6.3.3.2b in Appendix A check the NO column and record the HED number and the code number, TP-3.1B5.3.1, in the QNMEÃZS colunn. 3.2 Cleared Flash Rate 6.3.1.5b (1) . a..From the recorded data, determine if the cleared flash rate flash rate. is approximately double or 1/2 the alarmed

b. If the cleared flash rate passes the criterion, check the YES column for criteria 6.3.1.5b(l) in Appendix A.

c. If the cleared flash HED rate fails to meet the criterion, record the discrepancy on a report form. Include the code number TP-3.1B5.3.2 in the data collection description. For criterion 6.3.1.5b(1) in Appendix A, check the M column and record the HED number and the code nunber, TP-3.1B5.3.2, in the CRIMENZS column.

B5.3-1 V TP-3.1 Nay 1, 1983 APPENDIX B.6 OPKQXOR INZEElIM ANALYSIS ao Review all questionnaires for completeness of biographical information and question responses.

b. Delete incomplete and unusable questionnaires from the data base. If required by contract reschedule these interviews for correction/completeness.

Co When the data base asserrbly is cxxplete perform the analysis, below. 2, BIOGRAPHICAL DATA aO Asserrble biographical data and determine ranges and distributions for all relevant dimensions.

b. Using appropriate statistics, determine the distribution (or its approximation) for this data.

3. RESPONSE DATA ae Summarize all responses and determine percent frequency response for each negative answer.

~

b. Obtain the control copy of Appendix A Criteria from the Conventions Task Plan (TP-8.1) for use in the next steps.

co For each positive answer, check the YES column for that criteria in Appendix A of this task plan. Do the same in the Conventions Task Plan Appendix A for criteria 6.5.1.6b(2) and c(2) . Also add the data collection code number, TP-3.1B6n (with n the question number), in the REMARKS column of the Conventions Task Plan Appendix A.

e. For each negative answer, initiate Preliminary HEDs (PHEDs) for discrepancy review. Record response frequency data, 0700 criteria number, and data collection code nurrher on each PHED.

The 0700 criteria numbers are contained in List 3b. go For each negative answer, check the M) colum and record the data collection code nurrber and PHED nurrber in the REMARKS column for the appropriate criteria in Appendix A of this task plan. Do the same for the Conventions Task Plan Appendix A for the criteria listed in c, above.

h. Submit all PHEDs to your immediate supervisor.

Subsequent verification, validation, and disposition of all PHEDs will be conducted per TP-10.1 (HED Review Procedure) . Tp-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX B6 CPERMOR INZERVIM ANAL'YSIS

1. 6.3.1.3a(3) 15. 6.3.2.2a (1) 30. 6.3.3.3e

2. 6.3.1.3a(2) 16. 6.3.2.2a(2) 31. 6.3.3.2c 3 6.3.3.lb(l) 17. 6.3.2.lc 32 6.3.1.2a(l)

4. 6.3.3.3b(2) 18. 6.3.2.1d 33. 6.3.1.2a(2)

5. 6.3.1.4b(l) 19. 6.3.4.la(l) & (2) 34. 6.3.3.la

6. 6.5.1.6b(2) & e(l) 20. 6.3.4.1b(1) 35. 6.3.4.3a

7. 6.5.1.6a 21. 6.3.4.1b(2) 36. 6.3.1.2b(1)

8. 6.5.1.6c(l) 22. 6.3.4.1c(1) 37. 6.3.3.4b

9. 6.5.1.6c(2) 23. 6.3.4.lc(2) 38. 6.3.1.2b(2)

10. 6.5.1.6c(2) 24. 6.3.4.lc(3) 39. 6.3.1.28(1) ll. 6.5.1. 6b (1) 25. 6.3.4.2c 40. 6.3.1.28(2) 6.3.3.4c

12. 6.5.1.6e(l) 26. 6.3.4.18(1) 41.

13. 6.3.1.4b(2) & 27. 6.3.4.18(2) 42. 6.3.1.2G(3) 6.3.2.2b 28. 6.3.3.2e 43. 6.3.1.2G(2)

14. 6.3.2.lf 29. 6.3.3.2f 44. 6.3.1.2G(2)

45. 6.3.1.2G(2)

~ B6-2 ~. o 'TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX B7 OBSKSATIONS ANALYSIS For each checklist item checked YES, also check the YES column for that criteria in Appendix A and enter the date collection code nunber, TP-4.1B3.n (where n is the checklist item nuaher) in the CCIMMENZS column.

2. For each checklist item checked M, initiate an HED report. Enter the HED report number in the CCMMENZS column of the checklist for that item.

Include all necessary information on the HED report concerning identification of the discrepancy and the criteria (checklist item) not mt.

3. Find the appropriate criterion or criteria in Appendix A from the reference number in the checklist item. Check the M) column and enter the HED neer and the data collection code number in the GNMEZZS column for that criterion or criteria.

B7-.1 TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX B8 DOCUMENZATION REVISf ANALYSIS I

1. For each checklist item checked YES also check the YES colum for the appropriate criteria in ~~dix A. Enter the data collection code number TP4.1B4.n (n is the checklist item number) in the OOMMEZZS column.

2. For each checklist item checked M), initiate an HED report. Enter the HED report number in the CCNMEÃZS column of the checklist for that item.

Include all necessary information on the HED report concerning identification of the discrepancy and the criteria (checklist item) not'met.

3. Find the appropriate criterion or criteria in Appendix A from the reference number in the checklist item. Check the M colum and enter the HED number and the data collection code nuaher in the QNKM'S colum for that criterion or criteria.

4. When reviewing task report data, do not initiate duplicate HED reports.

an HED report has already been initiated for a specific discrepancy 'hen during the conduct of another task, update that HED report with the relevant information from this task data. Also update and cross-reference the criteria lists in Appendix A of both sets of task documentation. B8-1 TP-3.1 May li 1983 APPZmZX B9 HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCY (HED) REPORT ORIGINATOR: HED NO.: VALIDATE) BY: DATE: a) HEO TITLE: b) ITB4S INVOLVED: c) PKBLB4 DESCRIPTION AND 0700 PARA. %ABER: d) DATA COLU!CHION DESCRIPTION AND CODE %ABER: e) SPECIFIC HUMAN ERROR(s): B9-1 P TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX B9 HED aEPOZV (OOmZNUED) HED NO.: f) SUGGESTED BANDIT: REVIEW AM) DISPOSITION: B9-2 TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX C (IBERIA MATRIX TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX C CRITERIA MATRIX Criteria Distributed Across Data Collection Methods Notes:

1. The following codes apply to the matrix columns:

M Measurement (instruments and or measuring devices required) 0 Observations (observation notes taken) I Interview D Document Review (documentation review to include engineering drawings, CNDs, etc.) A Auditory Criteria V - Visual Criteria C Controls Criteria (physical characteristics) L Location/Arrangement P General Physical P - Functional Criteria (usually requires some operational data for verification) Data sources listed are suggested. Alternatives should be used when those listed are not available or are not adequate. C-2 TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX C CRITERIA MATEGX DATA COLLECTION NUR~700 Crit K 0. L D. 6.3.1.1 X SPFA Rpt also in HP-9.0 (SF') 6.3.1.2a(1) Ops a(2) Ops b (1) Ops b(2) Ops c(1) X Ann Resp Procs c (2) X Ops c (3) X Ops d(1) X Ops 6.3.1. 3a (1) PF X Pnl a(2) PF Ops a(3) PF Ops b PF Pnl c PF Pnl d PF All see text para. 4.2a 6.3.1.4a(l) PF X. a(2) PF X also in RP-9.0 (SF') ~ b(1) P X X b(2) P X X X X X b(3) X 6.3.2.1a CR b X CR, Admin Procs c X X CR, Ops d X X CRq Ops e X CR f X X CRi Ops 6.3.2. 2a (1) PF Ops a(2) F Ops b F Ops 6.3.3.la b(l) b (2) c(l) +A in TP-1.8 (Maint) c(2) N/A in TP-1.8 (Maint) c (3) N/A in TP-1.8 (Maint)

• C-3

~. TP 3 ~ 1 May li 1983 APPENDIX C CRITERIA MMHGX DATA COLLECTION NEM700 Crit 6.3.3.2a F Pnl b F PnlgComp Spc c F X Pnl d P X. Pnl e PF X Pnli Ops f(1) PF X X Pnlg Ops f(2) PF Admin Proces 6.3.3.3a 'P Pnl b PF SFPA Rpt also in RP-9.0 (SFTA) c(l) P Pnl c(2) P Pnl c(3) P Pnl also in TP-6.1 (IAxks) d(1) P Pnl d (2) PF SFTA Rpt also in TP-9.1 (SFTA) e F Ops f F Pnl 6.3.3.4a ~ ~ ~ P X X Pnlg SFTA also in RP-9.0 (SFZA) b PF X Ops c PF X X X Pnli Opsy also in HP-9.0 (SFTA) SFTA Rpt 6.3.3.5a P a (1) P a(2) P b (1) P b(2) P b (3) P c P c(1) P c(2) P d(1) P d(2) P d (3) P d(4) P d(5) P d(6) P C-4 TP-3.1 May lt 1983 APPENDIX C CRITERIA MMRIX DATA COLUXTION %HAG-0700 Crit ' SUGGEBTH) K Q. L Q. 6.3.4.la(l) P X Pnlg Ops a(2) PF X X Ops b(1) F X X Pnlg Ops b(2) F X Ops c(l) F X X Pnlg Ops c(2) F X Ops c (3) F X Ops d (1) F X X Pnlg Ops d (2) F X X Ops, Adtnin Procs 6.3.4.2a X Pnl b (1) Pnl b(2) X Pnl b(3) X Pnl b(4) X Pnl c X X Pnlg Ops 6.3.4.3a X X X CR, Ops~ also in RP-9.0 (SETA) SETA Rpt 6.5.1.6a X Ops (see Note 1) b(l) X Ops (see Note 1) b(2) X Ops (see Notes 1 and 2) c(1) X Ops (see Note 1) c (2) X Ops (see Notes 1 and 2) 6.5.1.6d(l) +A in TP-8.1 (Conv) d (2) +A in TP-8.1 (Conv) d(3) +A in TP-8.1 (Conv) e(l) X (see Note 1) e(2) (see Note 1) e(3) (see Note 1) 6.6.6.2a(l) F X PnlgSETA Rpt also in RP-9.0 (SETA) a (2) F X Pnl, SETA Rpt also in RP-9.0 (SETA) a(3) F X PnlgSETA Rpt also in RP-9.0 (SETA) b X Pnl also in TP&.1 (Label. ) c VC P X Pnl also in ~.1 (Labels) TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX C CRITERIA MATRIX MZES:

l. These criteria also in the following task plans:

TP-4.1 Controls Survey TP-5.1 Displays Survey ~.1 TP-7.1 Labels Survey Computers System Review HP-9. 0 SPZA (in TP-9.9, CR Function Validation) .

2. These criteria also in TP-8.1, Conventions.

TP-3.1 May 1, 1983 APPENDIX D TASK PLAN CRITIQUE TP-3.1 May I, 1983, APPENDIX D TASK PLAN CRITI{}UE INSTR CZIONS

l. Attach a copy of Section 4.0.

2. Pill in the required information and answer all questions.

3. Explain all M) answers in detail.

4. Nhen complete, turn in to your iarnediate supervisor.

1. Name of Respondent:

2. Name of Plant:

3. Date of Survey:

4. Were all of the criteria correct and appropriate for this task YES K) 0 (do not explain criteria that were N/A because System/CR did not have that design feature)?

5. Did the task plan instructions present the easiest and best YES M) methodology for performing the assessment?

6. Were the data collection forms adequate?

APPENDIX F RESUMES OF THE EVALUATION TEAMS RESUMES OF THE REVIEW TEAM FOR THE HUMAN FACTORS DESIGN EVALUATION OF SHNPP-1 William T. Gainey, Jr. Project Specialist Special Projects Birth3a&: January 24, 1943 FdumQm-1961 Brookland Cayce High School, West Columbia, South Carolina 1962 University of South Carolina (approximately one year) Richland Tech., Columbia, South Carolina 1965 Carolinas Virginia Nuclear Power Assoc., Inc. (QlNPA) Reactor Operator Training successfully completed and obtained RO License. 1968 DeKalb Tech., Clarkston, Georgia (1 quarter) 1967-1969 Georgia 1nstitute of Technology Reactor Operator Training successfully completed and RO License obtained. 1969 Present Carolina Power 8 Light Company 1970 Cold RD License Training and licensed on HBR-2. 1972 Senior RO License Training and licensed on HBR-2 Trained and requalified until 1976. Khearienm: 1963-1967 CVNPA, Inc. 0 Janua ry 1963 August 1965 Reactor Technician Trainee August 1964 April 1967 Reactor Operator (NO. OP-1946) Approximately 4000 hours0.0463 days <br />1.111 hours <br />0.00661 weeks <br />0.00152 months <br /> console time, 150 start-ups, and 20 shutdowns - Participated in initial core loading and criticality, three refuelings or fuel shuffles, and various physics tests. Also qualified as a Health Physics Technician and a Chemistry Technician+ 1967-1969 Georgia Institute of Technology Reactor Operator (NO. OP-2356) Approximately 2000 hours0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> console time, 116 start-ups, and 50 shutdowns. 1969-1976 Carolina Power a Light Company 1969-1972 Control Operator H. B. Robinson Unit 2 1970 Cold RO Licensed (NO. OP-2792) - Approximately 2000 hours0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> console time, performed initial criticality, participated in hot functional and low power physics testing. 1972-1976 Shift Foreman H. B. Robinson Unit 2 1972 Senior Reactor Operator's License (SOP-1611) Approximately 7000 hours0.081 days <br />1.944 hours <br />0.0116 weeks <br />0.00266 months <br /> supervising operation of HBR-1 (coal-fired) and Unit 2 (nuclear). 1976-1978 Senior QA Specialist Operat'ions QA. Performed numerous surveillances at nuclear plants to determine compliance with regulations. 1978-1980 Project Administration Specialist Responsible for administrative duties for Generation Department such ass plant statistics and reporting, recruiting, contracts, various departmental reports to Group Executives, and testimony preparation for Executives to Utility Caomissions. 1980-Present Project Specialist Special Projects Nuclear Operations Department Primary Project Managing and providing operations input to the detailed human factors control roan design review for three nuclear plants. Corporate TNI Coordinator; Responsibility for coordination of all TNI projects at CP&L nuclear plants (including budgeting, reporting, and licensing interfaces) . DAVID LESTER PHIPPSg JR. PKOECZ ENGINEER hoagy.: May 26, 1953 N. C. S. U. 1975 B.S. Industrial Engineering N. C. S. U. 1977 M.S. Industrial Engineering (w. Duke University) (minor Health Systems Delivery) Registered Professional Engineer North Carolina Alpha Phi Mu (Scholastic) Honor Fraternity American Institute of Industrial Engineers Senior Member 1975: Graduate Assistant N. C. S. U. Raleigh 1975-1977: Asst. Management Engineer Watts Hospital Durham 0 1977-1978: Managerent Engineer Durham County General Hospital Durham 1978-1979: Management Engineer Rowan Menerial Hospital Salisbury 11/01/79: Industrial Engineer Work Force Performance Develognent Section System Planning 6 Goordination Department - Raleigh 05/02/81: Senior Industrial Engineer Work Force Performance Develognent Section System Planning a Goordination Department Raleigh 06/81: Senior Industrial Engineer Work Force Performance Developnent Section Planning 6 Coordination Departaent - Raleigh 05/82: Project Engineer Work Force Performance Develognent Section Planning 8 Goordination Department Raleigh William C. Cooper, ~ ~ ~ ~ III Engineer ~ July 14, 1945 A, Diploma in Electrical Engineering Electronics option, International Correspondence Schools, 1979 B. Associate of General Studies Degree, Jackson Junior College, 1969 C. Avionics repair course, U. S. Arap, Southeastern Signal Corps School, (7 aonths) 1964 A. January, 1964 January, 1967 - U. S. Army Aviation Electronics and Electrical Specialist (E-5). Repair of aviation communication gear, navigation equipment, autopilot systems, aircraft engine starters, generators, instruments, batteries. February, 1967 August, 1967 Electronics Test Technician, IBM, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Test and repair of data processing terminals, card and paper tape reader/printers, keyboards. September, 1967 December, 1967 Electronics Test Technician, Sparton Electronics, Jackson, Michigan. Environmental and vibration test operations on military aircraft navigation equignent. February, 1968 April, 1969 Electronics Repairman, McUmbers T.V., Jackson, Michigan. Repair radios, televisions, audio equipnent. June, 1969 April, 1971 Electronics Test Technician, Sparton Electronics, Jackson, Michigan. Construct and test prototype circuits for sonobuoys, design printed circuit boards, designed and built special-purpose test equipnent. B April, 1971, employed I as Engineering Aide in the Fossil Generation Section of the Generation and Systems Operations Department, located in the General Office, Raleigh, NC. Maintained plant maintenance records in General Office, processed contracts, plant monthly operating reports, EEI unit availability data (Fossil and Nuclear) . July,, 1972, employed as Engineering Tech. II in the Fossil and Hydro Generation Section of the Bulk Power Supply Department, located in the General Office, Raleigh, NC. Same as above at higher pay. ~. I ( ~ July, 1975, employed as Engineering Tech. I in the Fossil and Hydro Generation Section of the Bulk Power Supply Department, located in the General Office, Raleigh, NC. Same as general work except in September, 1976 started working for System Turbine Generator Engineer. Duties included manpower/cost tracking accumulating during turbine outages, critical path network developing/tracking, spare parts ordering/expediting, limited supervision of contract employees on various turbine jobs, designed and directed installation of turbine lube oil system modifications, wrote turbine inspection/repair procedures, designed 480 to 240/120 VAC portable substations for turbine outage work, prepared plant and packages at BSEP for the turbine-generator units. December, 1979, employed as Engineer in the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Section of the Nuclear Operations Department, located in the General Office, Raleigh, NC. Write system descriptions, generic check-out procedures, determine boundaries and prepare RFT turnover packages, became familiar with assigned systems, assist in Main Control Board re-design, prepare critical path network for assigned system's turnover, review and write proposed Tech. Specs., become familiar with industry standards and regulatory guides, assisted BSEP with SI/loss of offsite power PT, planned and directed turbine lube oil system flushes at BSEP. RICHARD RED OOXKKN 91RQ~g: July 9, 1939 . EDQGhZZQH A. B.S. Degree in Nuclear Engineering from North Carolina State University 1967 B. M.S. Degree in Nuclear Engineering from North Carolina State University 1969 1I JKEEBIEKZ A. 1958 1964

l. U. S. Navy

a. Served as Radar Repair Technician for eighteen months aboard USS Saratoga

~ b. Thirty months at U. S. Naval Nuclear Power Training Unit (six aenths as Reactor Operator, Reactor Technician Trainee; two f years as Staf Instructor for Reactor Operator, Reactor Technician Trainees). One year aboard USS Enterprise as Reactor Operator. B. October 1964 August 1967

1. North Carolina State University

a. Worked as partWime reactor operator at Burlington Nuclear Laboratory on NCSU carpus. Holder of AEC Operator's License on the NCSU research reactor.

C. July 1969 - February 1974

1. Babcock & Wilcox Company

a. Served as Test Working Group Representative for Babcock &

Wilcox on Arkansas Nuclear Che.

b. Served as Senior Shift Engineer during Zero Pawer Physics and Power Escalation testing at Oconee Unit One.

c. Site Operations Engineer for Bacock & Wilcox at Arkansas Nuclear One. Primary Duties: Provide advice and consultation to Arkansas Power & Light on equipnent and systems supplied by Babcock & Wilcox. Responsible for direct supervision of 305 Babcock & Wilcox service engineers assigned to Arkansas Nuclear One.

Richard Kent Cothren Page2 D. March 1974 to Present

1. Carolina Power & Light Company

a. Employed as Project Engineer Nuclear in the Nuclear Plant Engineering Section of the Power Plant Engineering Department.

Assigned to the Brunswick Project.

b. January 1977 Promoted to Principal Engineer Project in the Project Engineering Section of the Power Plant Engineering Department. Responsible for the planning, scheduling, estimating, cost control, and overall coordination of the engineering-related activities assigned to the Power Plant Engineering Departnent for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (KKPP) construction project by interacting with all project entities; by management of the fresco, and other applicable engineering contracts, and by managing, supervising, developing, training, and notivating an organization of Corn@my employees to carry out such activities.

c. December 1, 1979 Transferred as Principal Engineer Electrical to the Harris Plant Engineering Section of the Nuclear Power Plant Engineering Department.

III,

~ A.~ American Nuclear Society ELROCG L. EVANS SSO 246%0-9704 1607 Sycamore Drive Garner, N.C. 27529 919-779-2546 Born Novenber 16, 1930 Harried Two Children Nether Instrument Society of America Tar Heel Capital Area 1977 Electrical Engineering International Correspondence Schools 1966 Electronics Technician International Correspondence Schools 1963 General Electronics International Correspondence Schools 1959 Electronics 1 Wayne Technical Institute Goldsboro, N.C. 1948 High School Princeton, N.C. KHKGXHEHZ 1957 Present Carolina Power S Light Co. 1979 Present Senior Engineer Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, New Hillg N.C. Responsibility same as 1977-1979, SHNPP only, and including:

1. Co-ordinated redesign of the Main Control Board with the Human Factors Consultant, Design Oonsultant and MCB supplier. This also included additional Support Control Boards.

2. Plant Fire Detection System

KHEQYHEHZ (continued)

3. Plant instrument cabinets and racks.

4. Interface equignent for plant safeguards and control.

1977 1979 Engineer, Corporate Headquarters Raleigh< N.C. Responsibility divided between Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Mayo Electric Generator Plant (fossil), Roxboro Electric Generator Plant (fossil), and included:

1. Review and approval of Instrumentation Specifica-tions.

2. Review and approval of Instnmentation and Control drawings.

3. Purchase authorization

4. Equipment (electrical) qualification for nuclear plants.

1970 1977 Technician H. F. Zee Electric Generating Station-e Goldsboro, N.C. Duties same as 1957-1969. Primary responsibility was maintenance of Electronic Control Systems and Control Boards. 1969 1970 Technician H. B. Robinson Electric Generating Plant Hartsville, S. C. Instament calibration and Control System Tests during construction stage of a PWR unit. Was on temporary assignment to Rochester Gas S Electric, Rochester, N.Y. for system tests during hot functional test and fuel loading at a PWR station. 1967 1969 Electrician H. F. Zee Electric Generating Plant/ Morehead City Duties extended to installation supervision of electrical and control systems at an internal conbustion turbine generator at Morehead City, N.C. Responsibility included startup and operation at this facility. KHEQXHggg (continued) 1957 1967 Carolina Power 6 Light Co. Raleigh, N.C. Electrician H. F. Lee Electric Generating plant, Goldsboro, N.C. Duties were maintenance of electrical, electronic, pneumatic, and hydraulic control systems, electric motors, switchgear, control boards, and teleaetering dGvices o 1953 1957 Employed by contractor Electrical/HVAC. Residenti.al, cannericial, light industrial. Duties Installation and maintenance of electrical and HVAC systems. ~. RESUME James Howard Bnith Director, Nuclear & Simulator 19, 1940 Training'ovember A. Graduation from high school Maxton, North Carolina 1959 B. Completion of one year at the University of North Carolina C. Special'raining

1. Westinghouse Reactor Operator Training Program July 1968 to August 1969

2. Certification for AEC Reactor Operator's License on Saxton Plant August 1969

3. AEC Cold Senior Reactor Operator License on H. B. Robinson Plant June 1970 None

.Ezgeriarm A. Carolina Power a Tight Co.

1. January 1961 to July 1961 Trainee Weatherspoon Plant, Luakerton, NC

2. July 1961 to June 1963 Helper Weatherspoon Plant, Lumberton, NC

3. June 1963 to April 1964 Auxiliary Operator Sutton Plant, Wilmington, NC

4. April 1964 to July 1964 Control Operator In Training H. B. Robinson Plant, Hartsville, SC

5. July 1964 to March 1970 Control Operator H. B. Robinson Plant, Hartsville, SC

6. March 1970 to February 1976 Shift Foranan Nuclear Generation Section of the Generation 5 System Operations Department at the H. B. Robinson Plant, Hartsville, SC

RESUME James Howard Smith

7. February 1976 to May 1977 Nuclear Generation Specialists III (Training Coordinator) Nuclear Generation Section of the Bulk Power Supply Department at the H. B. Robinson Plant, Hartsville, SC

8. May 1977 to October 1977 Senior Nuclear Generation Specialist, Generation Department, Generation Services Section, Raleigh, NC

9. October 1977 to April 1980 Senior Generation Specialist Generation Department, Generation Services Section, Raleigh, NC

10. April 1980 employed as Senior Specialist Operator Training, Nuclear Operations Department, Nuclear Training Section, New Hilly NC

11. February 1981 Promoted to Project Specialist Simulator, Technical Services Department, Nuclear Training Section, HE6cECg New Hill~ NC

12. October 1981 employed as Director Nuclear 6 Simulator Training, Technical Services Department, Nuclear Training Section, HEaEC, New Hill, NC

HUMAN FACTORS EVALUATIONGROUP ~. THOMAS L. AMERSON, 3R. EDUCATION: 1973 B.S., Mathematics, North Carolina State University Present M.S., Psychology (Ergonomics Program), North Carolina State University. Degree award expected during 1981. EXPERIENCE: December 1979 - PEARSON AND ASSOCIATES Present Raleigh, North Carolina Consultant. Assisted on a project to study safety attitudes and practices at General Electric Company. May 1978- NAVALAIR DEVELOPMENT CENTER August 1978 Warminster, Pennsylvania Research Assistant - Assisted with data collection, data analysis, and report writing on an MPA project concerning usability factors for night vision goggles. August 1976 - Teachin Assistant De rtment of Ps cholo - Instructed Present undergraduates in psychological perception and sensation. MEMBERSHIPS: American Psychological Association, Student Affiliate American Association for the Advancement of Science Human Factors Society, Student Affiliate PUBLICATIONS/TECHNICALREPORTS Amerson, T. L., 3r. Habitability/Accommodation and Endurance Baseline: 20P1TM 79-M PA-002 MFA Phase Report. Prepared at NADC, Warminster, Pennsylvania, 1978. Mershon, D. H., dc Amerson, T. L., 3r. Stability of measures of the dark focus of accommodation. Investi ative 0 thalmolo R Visual Science, 1980, 19, 217-221.

Mershon, D. H., Desaulniers, D. H., Mills, 3. T., Amerson, T. L., 3r., R Kiefer, S. A.

Perceived loudness and visually-determined auditory distance. In preparation. Amerson, T. L., Jr., Little, A. D., R Justice, T. D. The convex mirror traffic control aid: A preliminary report on human factors considerations. Unpublished report submitted to the Traffic Division of the City of Raleigh. Amerson, T. L., Jr. The dark focus of accommodation and dark convergence: Time-of-day variations. Master's thesis, in preparation. Amerson, T. L., Jr., R Mershon, D. H. Stability of measures of the dark focus of accommodation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 1979. ~. DANNA L. BEITH EDUCATION: 1976 B.A. - Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara, California EXPERIENCE: 1978- XEROX CORPORATION Present El Segundo, California and Rochester, New York Associate Human Factors Desi ner Support to the Human Factors Department in the Business Machine and Copier/Duplicator Divisions. Duties included control systems design, behavioral testing, data analysis and new product assessments. 1978 CANYON RESEARCH GROUP, INC. Westlake, California Assistant Researcher Contract research assistant to Xerox orp., In ustri Design/Human Factors Department. Support to the Human Factors Department in the Business Machines Division. Duties consisted of control system design and behavioral testing. 1976-1978 BIO TECHNOLOGY, INC. Falls Chruch, Virginia Field Investi ator Northern California and Northern Nevada. Conducte a "Large Truck Accident Study" for the Federal Highway Administration of the Department of Transportation. Supervised Field Investigators conducting interviews with truck owners, drivers and California Highway Patrol officers and analyzed accident sites and accident reports. Conducted high-way surveys involving road characteristics, traffic density and speed data using remote control cameras and radar equipment. 1976 GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION University of California General Assistant Office of the Dean. Conducted a study of Professor-Student contact hours and general office duties. 1975 ARNOLD HOMES FOR CHILDREN, INC. Sacramento, California Counselor Behaviorist for emotionally disturbed children. Acted as an Assistant to the Administrative Counselor as a Project Researcher to refine and update Behavior Modification Programs. MEMBERSHIPS: Member of the National Human Factors Society and a member of the Western New York State Chapter of the Human Factors Society. 3OHN E. FARBRY, JR. EDUCATION: 1978 Ph.D. - Philosophy, major area of concentration in Experi-mental Psychology, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 1973 M.A. - University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 1965 Bachelor of Architecture - Washington University, Saint Louis, Missouri EXPERIENCE: 1978 - Present HELLMUTH,OBATA, AND KASSABAUM, INC. Saint Louis, Missouri Architectural Draf tsman/Research - Commerical structures: preparation of construction documents, statistical research on firms distribution of manpower across different building types. Client contact, coordination with structural and mechanical engineers, code analysis. Il 1977 - 1978 CHINN AND ASSOCIATES Columbia, Missouri Architectural Draf tsman - Commercial and residential structures: preparation of construction documents, coordination with structural and mechanical engineers. 1976 - 1977 STEPHENS COLLEGE Columbia, Missouri Instructor - Department of Psychology. Full responsibility for six courses in Basic Psychology and courses in Psychobiology and the Psychology of Language. Also, student advising and staff seminar participation. 1970 - 1976 MID-MISSOURI MENTAL HEALTH CENTER Columbia, Missouri Research Assistant- Coordinated medical, research, and tech-nical staff for psychological research on stress in hospital patients receiving a difficult examination (endoscopy). Also recording of polygraph data before and during examination, pre-and post-patient interviews, data reduction/preliminary analysis, library research, and assistance with the preparation of a variety of journal articles. 1973 - 1970 CHINN, DARROUGH, AND COMPANY Columbia, Missouri Architectural Draf tsman - Commercial and residential structures: preparation o construction documents, coordination with structural and mechanical engineers. 1973 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI Columbia, Missouri Teachin Assistant - Architectural Design II and Delineation. 1969 - 1973 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI Columbia, Missouri Teachin Assistant - Department of Psychology. General Experimental Psychology (Laboratory Instructor); General Psychology (Course Coordinator, Discussion Leader); and Research Methods, The Senses, Applied Psychology (Assistant). 1969 - 1971 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI Columbia, Missouri Research Assistant - Department of Psychology. Design of ~r>> ) d ph. collection, and assistance with the writing of journal articles. 1966 - 1968 HELLMUTH,OBATA, AND KASSABAUM,INC. Saint Louis, Missouri Architectural Draftsman - Commercial structures: preparation of construction documents. 1965 . A.L. AYDELOTT AND ASSOCIATES Memphis, Tennessee Architectural Draf tsman - Commercial structures: preparation of construction documents. AFFILIATIONS: American Psychological Association PUBLICATIONS: Farbry, 3.E., 3r. Evaluative persistence: Salt from the evaporative forgetting process. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1979, 39 (No. 8), 0068 B. Marx', M.H., Witter, D.W., and Farbry, 3. Greater repetition of errors under performance compared to observation in multiple-choice human learning. Perce tual and Motor Skills, 1973, 37, 909-950. Shipley, R. H., Butt, 3.H., Farbry, 3. and Horwitz, B. Psychological preparation for endoscopy. Gastrointestinal Endosco, 1977, 20, 9-13. Shipley, R. H., Butt, 3.H., Horwitz, B. and Farbry, 3. Preparation for a stressful medical procedure: Effect of amount of stimulus preexposure and coping style. 3ournal of Consultin and Clinical Ps cholo, 1978, 06, 099-507. Witter, D.W., Marx, M.H., and Farbry, 3. Long-term persistence of response-repetition tendencies based on performance or observation. Bulletin of the Ps chonomic Societ, 1978, 8, 65-67. Farbry, 3.E., 3r., Geen, R.G., and Hays, D.G. Trait Anxiety and induced muscle tension in verbal problem solving. Unpublished manuscript. PRESENTATIONS: Shipley, R.H., Butt, 3.H., Horwitz, and Farbry, 3.E. Videotape preparation for a stressful medical procedure: Effects of number of exposures. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, New York City, December 1976. 3ESSICA G. HAHER EDUCATION 1979 M.S. - Candidate, Experimental Psychology, George Mason University 1978 B.A. - Biology and Psychology, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia EXPERIENCE: 1978 ESSEX CORPORATION Present Alexandria, Virginia Research Assistant- Diablo Canyon Short Term Evaluation, Contract to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Collected data in the form of videotapes, operator interviews, surveys, and checklists. Generated HED's. Participated in oral presentation of results. Contributed to writing of final report. Indian Point 2 and 3 CR Evaluation, joint contract to Consoli-dated Edison and PASNY Performed on-site data collection in the form of operator interviews, surveys, and checklists. Observed videotaping of procedures in the simulator. Reduced data into HED and individual component forms. Verified all data against photo mockup. Interfaced with customer in HED review meetings. Human Engineering Guidelines for Nuclear Power Plants, con-tract to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reviewed human engineering resource documents extracting excerpts relevant to nuclear power plant control rooms. Revised data collection documents. TIMI-2 CR Evaluation contract to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Peformed data collection onsite, at a full-scale mockup of the control room in Alexandria, and at the main office in Alexandria from drawings and pictures. Reviewed reference documents extracting relevant data. Organized and reduced data into charts and tables published in the Text and Appendices of the Final Report. Reviewed literature and collected data to compare TMI with Oconee (Duke Power) and Calvert Cliffs (BGRE) Nuclear Power Plant Control Rooms. Subcontract to NASA contract awarded Kenneth Mallory and Associates, Inc., (KMA) "Performance of Specialized Tasks in Life Sciences Payload Planning" (NASA's Space Shuttle/Spacelab Mission, 1981-1983) Proposal processing support included receipt, logging and distribution of proposals received for inclusion in the Flight Experiments Program. ~. 4o e' Subcontract to National Public Service Research Institute to establish a model Driver Improvment Program for Department of Transportation Participated in monitoring, evaluation and revision of program presentation. Disseminated coursework material for classes. Contributed to research preparation, data collection, interpretation and statistical analysis. Contract "Motorcyles Operations Skill Test," Department of Transportation Administered test procedures and assisted in data collection. Assisted in the establishment of an expanded Technical Library, including ordering of documents and categorization into Dewey Decimal Card Catalog System. Assisted the Cybernetics Technology Office of the Defense Advanced Reserch Projects Agency to locate information on new products, companies, organizations, and documents; purchased various equipments and publications. Responsible for meeting the DARPA/CTO office's daily requirements. TRUDY D. 3USTICE EDUCATION: (Current) B.A., Psychology, North Carolina State University (degree award expected 1981) EXPERIENCE: August 1979- NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY Present Raleigh, North Carolina Summer Conference Assistant De artment of Residence Life. Assisted in the coordination and scheduling of housing and dormitory assignments. Logged complaints on facilities and scheduled maintenance repairs. Resident Advisor De rtment of Residence Life. Performed the duties of processing applications for campus housing. Advised applicants on available housing options. Research Assistant De artment of Ps cholo (Student). Assisted in the data collection and analysis for a study con-cerning the use of convex mirror traffic. September 1977- UNEMPLOYED (Undergraduate at North Carolina State Univer-3uly 1979 sity). 3une 1977- SILER CITY, NORTH CAROLINA August 1977 Assistant Probation Worker - Assisted the Staff Psychologist at the North Carolina Correctional Center for Women on a project to determine personality and demographic factors in female prisoner escape behavior. September 1976- ROBBINS-GHANT CORPORATION May 1977 Siler City, North Carolina Textile Worker. Trainee in the retail fabrics manufacturing department. %ALTER T. TALLEY EDUCATION: 1977 M.S. - Applied Psychology, Stevens Institute of Technology 1970 B.A. - General Experimental Psychology, New Mexico State University 1972 A.A. - Arts and Sciences, New Mexico State University Militar Trainin in Electronics: 1962 Refresher Course in Electronic Fundamentals 1960 Radar Fire Control and Bombing Computer Systems, Republic Aviation Corporation 1955 Radar Fire Control and Bombing Systems EXPERIENCE: December 1978- ESSEX CORPORATION Present Alexandria Virginia Research Scientist - Responsible for the conduct of assigned prospects in t e Be avioral Sciences Division. At White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, responsible for the conduct of the human factors engineering evaluation of the U.S. Army Patriot Air Defense System. Directed the work of one Research Associate in the development of a detailed test plan, various interim reports and new field evaluation techniques and procedures applied to the Patriot System testing. Performed the first non-supplier safety study on the Patriot System and produced the Interim Safety Release Study Report which was essential for the continued evaluation of the system. At Fort Hauchuca, Arizona, as a member of the Essex quick-response team, assisted in the initial contract phases of U.S. Army Communications System Test and Evaluation projects. Duties consisted of the performance of human factors engi-neering evaluations of current and prototype communications equipment and satellite telecommunications systems. Collected and evaluated human performance, environmental, and hardware data. Wrote final reports concerning the compliance of various equipment to existing military human factors specifications and requirements. As a member of the Essex human factors staff, analyzed work performance data and developed a summary report for the ATRT Company's Human Performance Laboratory concerning cor-rective maintenance task times for telephone company central office switchworkers. Assisted in writing the technical areas of contract proposals for the evaluation of Army weapons systems. July 1978- ALLEN CORPORATION OF AMERICA November 1978 Alexandria, Virginia (White Sands, New Mexico) Senior Human Factors En ineer - As the project manager of the Corporation's White Sands Office, directed the work of two Senior and one Junior Human Factors Engineers, and one Secretary/Clerk. Work consisted of Human Factors evaluation of current and prototype U.S. Army Weapons systems. Test plans were developed which established the methodology and scheduling of complete human factors evaluations of operation, maintenance and transportability for tactical and strategic weapons. . September 1970 - BELL TELEPHONE LABORATORIES June 1978 Piscataway, New Jersey Member of Technical Staff - As a member of computer software development groups, developed specifications for the human interface requirements of large computer-based data manage-ment systems used throughout the Bell Telephone System. Designed and implemented the specific human interface func-tions from the aforementioned requirements. Developed the performance standards and operational (human performance) definitions of the functional allocations for both the human and the machine in these software systems. May 1971- DYNALECTRON CORPORATION August 1970 Land-Air Division, White Sands Test Facility - NASA Las Cruces, New Mexico Electro/Mechanical Desi ner - Developed various new designs and modifications to existing designs for facilities, structures, and equipment used for destructive and nondestructive materials testing. Produced structural, mechanical, and electrical designs on the modifications to cyrogenic storage and pumping systems. Also produced drafted drawings and technical illustrations to NASA standards for use iri documenting the facility's config-uration and for use in test reports. February 1970- DYNALECTRON CORPORATION April 1971 Land-Air Division Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico Medical Illustrator - Produced illustrations for publications and technical reports. Illustrations were in the following categories: Line Graphs, Charts, Cumulative Records, Equipment Layouts and Anatomy Drawings. Using autopsy procedures, produced preliminary drawings of thoracic musculature of the baboon. Developed comparative Sacrolumbar, and lower trunk compara-tive anatomical drawings of the human, baboon, and chimpanzee. September 1968 - A. G. SCHOONMAKER COMPANY, INC. 3anuary 1970 Sausalito, California E i -D lp 1 h fd i dd ig requirements for diesel and gas turbine powered generator sets. Set capabilities were usually in the range of 5000 volt, 2000 kilowatt outputs. Also coordinated total design packages including all mechanical aspects of the units and developed ~ electrical requirements and cost analysis for contract bids. Electrical design details involved the evaluation of customer contract requirements, translation of them into specific com-ponents, ordering the components and'materials and designing the circuits, bus connections, enclosures, front panels and controls. Some technical writing was required in the area of maintenance and operating instructions. September 1967 - ELECTRONICS CONSULTING FIRMS August 1968 San Francisco, California Electronics Technician Research and Develo ment - Performed a roa range o tec nic>an esigner uties as a job-shop employee. Most work was involved in the build-up, modification and checkout of production test equipment for testing missile guidance systems. Additional work performed in the construction and testing of U.S. Army field telecommunications equipment. August 1962- DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC. August 1967 Santa Monica and Huntington Beach, California Electronics Technician Research and Develo ment - Worked in vehicle checkout areas at Santa Monica and Huntington Beach on the initial installation of the Ground Support Equipment for the Saturn SIV and SIV-B Space Vehicles. Performed scheduled periodic maintenance and assisted engineering in trouble-shooting, modification, calibration and functional checkout of this equipment. SIV Ground Support Equipment was manually operated, SIV-B equipment was computer controlled. May 1955- UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 3une 1962 Su rvisor of Fire Control Section RAD - At the Fighter Weapons Squadron, Nellis AFB, Las Vegas, Nevada, had charge of five technicians in the Research and Development section. Work involved the design and packaging of RRD projects relating to the testing, modification and extension of Radar Fire Control and Bombing Computer Systems'apabilities on the then current fighter aircraft; the F-100D and F-105D fighter/bombers. Rocket and missile systems which were modified and tested consisted of conventional 2.5, 2.75 and 3.25 air-to-air rockets, sidewinder (infrared guided) rockets and the GAM-83 air-to-ground BULLPUP missile. (1961-1962) Fire Control Technician RRD - Worked in the Research and Development section of the Fighter Weapons Squadron, Nellis Air Force Base, Las Vegas, Nevada. Technical work responsi-bilities were the same as those listed above. (1959-1961) Fire Control Technician - Maintained Radar Fire Control ystems in fighter aircraft at Turner Air Force Base, Albany, Georgia. (1958-1959) Test E i ment Technician - At the USAF Standards Laboratory in Chateauroux, France, worked on all phases of repair and calibration of general and special purpose electronics test equipment. Designed and built test and calibration benches for new types of equipment as needed. Maintained bench stock supply of all necessary spare parts. (1955-1958) PERSONAL DATA: Member of Psi Chi, Psychology National Honor Society Member of the Human Factors Society Military Status - Veteran Enlisted USAF, 3une 8, 1950. Honorably discharged, 3une 7, 1962. TECHNICAL REPORTS: Talley, W. T. and Wenger, W. Interim Safet Release Stud Patriot Missile ~Sstem, Tecom Project DAAD07-79-C-0063, Essex Corporation, October 1979. Talley, W. T. and Eike, D. R. Human Factors Evaluation of the Communication Satellite Ground Control Terminal AN TSC-85, Final Technical Report un er ontract ssex orporation, March 1979. Talley, W. T. and Aikens, R. C. Human En ineerin Re rt Develo ment Test II (P T/G) for the Enhanced Cobra Armament Pro ram Interim. Tecom Project DAAD07-78-C-127, Allen Corporation, November 1978. Talley, W. T. and Aikens, R. C. Human En ineerin Re rt Develo ment Test II (P T/G) for the Li htwei ht Launcher LWL . Tecom Project DAAD07-78-C-0127, Allen Corporation, October 1978. Talley, W. T. and Aikens, R. C. Human En ineerin Re rt Develo ment Test II (P T/G) for the XM1 Tank S stem. Tecom Project DAAD07-78-C-127, Allen Corporation, October 1978. 4. e. MANAGEMENTAND TECHNICAL SUPPORT PERSONNEL ~. THOMAS A. HARDING EDUCATION: 1980 Senior Reactor Operator Permit - USNRC North Anna Nuclear Power Station Unit=I and Unit 2 1978 Reactor Operator License - USNRC North Anna Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 1975 Retraining Qualification - Westinghouse Zion Power Station-Simulator, Zion, Illinois 1973 Reactor Operator License - USAEC Surry Power Station - Unit 1 and Unit 2 EXPERIENCE: May 1980 ESSEX CORPORATION Present Alexandria, Virginia Staff Nuclear 0 rations S cialist - Primary function is to provide operations support for the application of human factors engineering principles in NPP control room reviews. This includes developing format and text of various Emergency and Operation Procedures for Indian Point Unit 2 and Unit 3 and assisting in reviews of Human Engineering Deficiencies for Grand Gulf and Calvert Cliffs nuclear power stations. Partici-pated in control room design and layout reviews for Grand Gulf, Virgil C. Summer, Calvert Cliffs, and Indian Point. September 1970- VIRGINIAELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY May 1980 ~Si<< i -S i R p,N

• Station - Directed shift operation during routine, emergency, and start-up duties of the 900Mw Pressurized Water Reactor Units.

Coordinated the revisions of Emergency Procedures for imple-menting two unit operation. Senior Reactor permit issued with the first post-TMI tested group; included specific training in thermodynamics and natural convection problems of large PWRs. Served as Site Coordinator of the Control Room Review Task Force to find out and correct deficiencies in human engineering in the control room of North Anna Power Station. This involved serving as liaison between Virginia Electric and Power Company, as operators, Essex Corporation, as reviewers, and the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as monitors. Later the position was concerned with implementing backfits to solve the designated problems. Control Room 0 rator - Reactor Operator, North Anna Power Station - Performe start-up, emergency and routine duties of two 900 Mw Pressurized Water Reactor Units including pre-operation checkouts and design modification drafting of safety and nonsafety related systems. Control Room 0 rator-Reactor 0 rator Surr Power Station-Performed start-up, emergency and routine duties of two 822 Mw Pressurized Water Reactor Units including preoperational checkouts of safety and nonsafety related systems. Twelfth Street Power Station - Performed start-up and routine operations on two unit coal fired station. I ~. o ROBERT G. KINKADE EDUCATION: 1960 Ph.D., Engineering Psychology, Ohio State University 1957 M.A., Experimental Psychology, University of Missouri 1955 B.A., Psychology, University of Missouri EXPERIENCE: 1976- Essex Corporation: Duties are to: represent the Corporation in Present Instructional Technology matters, direct the San Diego Facility, manage programs, and contribute instructional psychology to projects. As a Vice President, is responsible for all financial, contractual, and administrative matters pertaining to the San Diego Facility. As Director of the San Diego Facility, is responsible for assigning the resources needed to achieve project objectives in an effective and efficient manner. As a Program Manager, is responsible for directing the development of a prototype Automatic Propulsion System On-Board Maintenance Training Program, consulting with the Navy regarding conven-tional steam propulsion system training for an On-Board Operator Training Program, directing the development of EOSS for the AO-180 and the AO-186 ships, directing the shipboard training of propulsion engineering crews aboard 1052-Class ships on the West Coast, and directing a research program aimed at applying recent developments in instructional technology to propulsion engineering technician training. As an Instructional Psychologist, is responsible for identifying user characteristics and tailoring intstructional material in accordance with these characteristics, developing a methodology for performing a training objective commonality analysis on the Woodward Electric Governor curriculum, specif ying fleet evaluation procedures for the On-Board Maintenance Training Program, and developing experimental designs for assessing the impact of instructional technology developments on propulsion engineering technician training effectiveness and efficiency. Recent experiences include the application of, direction of, and participation in, the self-paced, individualized, mixed-media approaches to the Hagan Automatic Boiler Control Advanced Maintenance Course and the Woodward Electric Governor Curriculum developments. Also directed the development of the LHA-Consolidated Control System Maintenance Course, using a lecture-supported-by-visual aid approach. In addition, was an author of 12 research and technical reports related to instructional technology during the past three years. 1970 - 1976 Nebo, Incorporated: Duties were to serve as Chief Executive Officer. In this capacity, was responsible for performing research and directing the development of instructional systems design, including analysis of training requirements, selection and design of training devices and media, specification of perform-ance-oriented training program, curriculum development instructor handbook preparation and training effectiveness evaluation. Completed a feasibility study for a generalized Navy electronics warfare trainer, participated in the design of a multi-station trainer with the computer serving as an instructor surrogate, and a Boiler Technician Maintenance training course. 1969 - 1970 American Psychological Association: Executive Editor of PSYCHOLOGICAL ABSTRACTS, and Manager of Psychological Abstracts Information Services (PAIS). Responsible for the production of a monthly abstracting and indexing publication containing about 25,000 records annually. Also responsible for conceiving, designing and implementing innovations, including: automated search and retrieval services, cummulative indexes, and a Thesaurus of Psychological Index Terms. Also modified production procedures, including directing the design of an in-house encoding capability that can be used to produce a variety of publications. Was responsible for defining a five-year development plan designed to enhance scientific communications in psychology. In this capacity, directed research ef forts . designed to assess existing products and services, and evaluate the feasibility of several innovations. Research methods used included pilot system operations, questionnaire surveys, inter-views, and cost/trade analyses. 1966 - 1969 American Institutes for Research: Responsible for directing research involving human performance. Directly participated in studies of training systems evaluation, decision making research, and human information processing capabilities. Was co-editor of the Human Engineering Guide to Equipment Design, and co-author of a chapter on Training Device Design and on Design of Controls. Participated in the development of a task taxonomy which would provide structure to basic research results and permit the prediction of human performance on a variety of tasks. 1963 - 1966 Aircraft Armaments, Inc.: Head of the Man-Machine Systems Group. Directed research programs related to human perform-ance on complex systems and support programs in the area of human engineering, human reliability, and maintainability. 1960 - 1963 Autonetics, A Division of North American Aviation, Inc.: Pro-vided human engineering support on a number of complex systems such as Minute-Man, Apollo, and RS-70. Directed research in the areas of employee attitudes, fire-control dis-plays, vision, and decision making. I957 - 1960 Ohio State University, Laboratory of Aviation Psychology: Assistant Supervisor - Ohio State University Air Traffic Control research program. Investigated the effectiveness of air traffic control procedures. For two years was engaged in research. in the perceptual-motor skills area and directed the activities of a group of undergraduate personnel. MARK KIRKPATRICKIII EDUCATION: 1971 Ph.D. - Experimental Psychology, The Ohio State University 197 M.A. - Engineering Psychology, IThe Ohio State University 1965 B.A. - Psychology, The Ohio State University EXPERIENCE: 3anuary 1977 ESSEX CORPORATION Present Alexandria, Virginia Vice President and Technical Director - Responsible for project management of efforts performed under contracts to NRC, NASA, and DOT. Responsible for technical support and periodic review of all human factors engineering projects concerned with nuclear power generation. 3uly 1972 ESSEX CORPORATION 3anuary 1977 Huntsville, Alabama, Facility Director of Huntsville 0 rations - Responsible for directing and coordinating research and development performed by the Huntsville staff. Conducted laboratory and simulation studies of o perator performance in earth orbital teleoperator mission tasks. These studies have encompassed all elements of the teleoperator system including visual, mobility, and manipulator subsystems. Study approaches have included analysis, laboratory test, and complete man-in-the-loop simulation. Responsibilities included experimental design, test conduct, data analysis, and report writing. Conducted a study of monitor sizing requirements for the Shuttle aft-cabin CRT displays based on operator perceptual capa-bilities, video system parameters, and viewing requirements. Conducted a study to develop methodology for trade-offs and analysis in the area of crew time, loading, and skills in Spacelab experiments. This effort included development of a data form for Spacelab experiment functional requirements and use of a monte-carlo simulation program to exercise experiment task networks. Performed an empirical study of human acceleration thresholds during complex vehicle simulation. These data were collected to provide parametric information on acceleration sensitivity so that motion washout techniques could be used to enhance simu-lator validity. Participated in a study of Shuttle EVA requirements and hazards. Developed EVA approaches based on past EVA operations during manned space missions. Participated in a study of man-machine integration requirements for TUG/SEPS/IUS. Responsibilities included development of control/display requirements and development of test plans and procedures for TUG/IUS simulations. Participated as statistician in a variety of studies conducted by Essex Corporation. Responsible for statistical analysis of variance and multiple regression. Has generally advised Essex personnel in matters of data recording, analysis approach, and analysis procedures as applied to a wide range of projects. Responsible for general direction of research performed by the Huntsville office including project planning, technical approach, data collection, data analysis, report writing, marketing, and proposal writing. December 1967 THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMAIN HUNTSVILLE September 1972 Huntsville, Alabama S Instructor - Teaching responsibilities have included courses in sensation and perception, statistical analysis and organizational behavior at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. December 1967 ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL 3uly 1972 Columbus, Ohio Member of the Technical Staf f - Participated in simulation programs involving air-to-ground E/0 guided missile systems. Also involved in studies of driver behavior and effects of innovative route guidance systems using an automobile simu-lation technique. Responsibilities on these projects included planning, experimental design, development of mathematical models of human performance, statistical analysis of data, and report writing. Other activities included development of a stochastic model of visual search behavior and acting as a consultant in statistics and experimental design for various engineering groups at the Missiles Division of Rockwell International. September 1966 HUMAN PERFORMANCE CENTER OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY December 1967 Columbus, Ohio Research Assistant - Conducted research on human factors in reconnaissance imagery interpretation. o PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES R ACTIVITIES Human Factors Society Technical Program Chairman for the 1970 Annual Meeting President of Huntsville Chapter, 1975 Certified SCUBA Diver NAVI basic certif ication NASDS advanced open water certification PUBLICATIONS: Malone, T.B., Kirkpatrick, M., Mallory, K.M., Eike, D.R., 3ohnson, 3.H., and Walker, R.W. Human Factors Evaluation of Control Room Desi n and 0 erator Performance at ree Mi e Islan . dna Report un er Contract NRC-00-79-209, December 1979. ~Si

• iii, C N00020-76-C-6129, October, 1976.

i, Malone, T.B., Kirkpatrick, M., McQuinness, 3., and Kohl, 3.S. HFE Technolo I di, igloo for Pruett, E.C., Dodson, D.W., and Kirkpatrick, M. Extravehicular Activit Desi n Guidelines and Criteria. Report Number 0-76-6, Essex Corporation, exan na, irgmia, un er Contract NAS8-31050. Malone, T.B., Pruett, E.C., Dodson, D.W., and Kirkpatrick, M. External 0 erations Maintenance and Re air (OMR) Mode Selection Criteria~eport Number 0-76-59 Essex Corporation, Alexandria, Virginia, under Contract NAS8-31050, May, 1976. Pruett, E.C., Kirkpatrick, M., Malone, T.B., and Shields, N.L., 3r. Develo ment and Verification of Shuttle Pa load Extravehicular Activit (EVA Re ire-ments. Report Number 0-76-0, Essex Corporation, Alexandria, Virginia, under Contract NAS8-31050, March 1976. Pruett, E.C., and Kirkpatrick, M. Tu /SEPS/Free-Fl in Pa loads Simulation Demonstrations. Phase I Report, Essex Corporation, Alexandria, Virginia, under Contract NAS8-31051, 3anuary 1976. Kirkpatrick, M., Shields, N.L., 3r., Malone, T.B., and Guerin, E.G. "A Method and Data for Video Monitor Sizing." Proceedin s of the Sixth Con ress of the International Er onomics Association, 3uly, 1976. Shields, N.L., Kirkpatrick, M., Malone, T.B., and Huggins, C. "Design Parameters for a Stereoptic Television System Based on Direct Vision Depth Perception Cues." Proceedin s of the Nineteenth Annual Meetin of the Human Factors ~Societ Huma.n Factors Society, Octo r, 1975. Kirkpatrick, M., Shields, N.L., Brye, R.G., and Vinz, F. "A Study of Moving Base Simulation Motion Cues Utilizing Washout Technique." Proceedin s of the Nineteenth Annual Meetin of the Human Factors Societ . Human Factors Society, October, 1975. e. Malone, T.B., Kirkpatrick, M., and Frederick, P.N. Role of Man in Fli ht Ex riment Pa loads - Phase II. Essex Corporation, Alexandria, Virginia un er Contract NAS8-30953, July, 1975. Kirkpatrick, M., Shields, N.L., Malone, T.B., Frederick, P.N., and Brye, R.G. "Manipulator System Performance Measurement." Paper presented to the Second Conference on Remotely Manned Systems, July, 1975. Kirkpatrick, M., Shields, N.L., Malone, T.B. A Stud of Pa load S cialist Station Monitor Size Constraints. Report o. - . ssex orporatson, Alexandria, Virginia, under Contract NAS8-30505, February, 1975. Shields, N.L., Kirkpatrick, M., Frederick, P.N., and Malone, T.B. Earth Orbital Teleo rator Visual S stem Evaluation Pro ram. Report No. 3. Essex Corporation, Alexandria, Virginia, under Contract NAS8-30505, February, 1975. Shields, N.L., Kirkpatrick, M., Malone, T.B. and Huggins, C.T. "Optical Range and Range Rate Estimation for Teleoperator Systems." 'roceedin s of the Ei hteenth Annual Meetin of the Human Factors Societ . Human Factors Society, October, 1970. Malone, T.B. and Kirkpatrick, M. Role of Man in Fli ht Ex riment Pa loads-Phase I. Essex Corporation, Alexandria, Virginia, under Contract NAS8-29917, July, 1970. Kirkpatrick, M., and Brye, R.G. Man-S stems'Evaluation of Movin Base Vehicle Simulation Motion Cue. Essex Corporation, Alexandria, Virginia, under Contract NAS8-29910, April, 1970. Malone, T.B., Kirkpatrick, M., Shields, N.L., and Brye, R.G. Earth Orbital Teleo rator S stem Man-Machine Interface Evaluation. Report No. H-0-1. Essex Corporation, Alexandria, Virginia, under Contract NAS8-28298, January, 1970. Malone, T. B., Kirkpatrick, M., and Shields, N.L. Mani ulator S stem Man-Machine Interface Evaluation Pro ram. Report No. H-0-3. Essex Corporation, Alexandria, Virginia, under Contract NAS8-28298, January, 1970. Kirkpatrick, M., Shields, N.L., and Malone, T.B. Earth Orbital Teleo rator Visual S stem Evaluation Pro ram. Report No. H-0-2. Essex Corporation, Alexandria, Virginia, under Contract NAS8-28298, January, 1970. Kirkpatrick, M., and Brye, R.G. Teleo rator Dockin Simulation. Report No. H-0-0. Essex Corporation, Alexandria, Virginia, under Contract NAS8-28298, January, 1970. Kirkpatrick, M., Shields, N.L., and Huggins, C. "Some Effects of Transmission of the Seventeenth Annual Meetin of the Human Factors Societ . Human Factors Society, October, 1973. O. Kirkpatrick, M., Malone, T.B., and Shields, N.L. Earth Orbital Teleo rator Visual S stem Evaluation Pro ram. Report I. Essex Corporation, Alexandria, Virginia, under Contract NAS8-28298, March, 1973. Breda, W.M., Kirkpatrick, M., and Shaffer, C.L. A Stud of Route Guidance '~Techni uee. NR72H-229, Rockwell international Corporation, September, 1972. Kirkpatrick, M. "Measures of Automobile Simulator Validity." Paper presented at the Workshop on Human Factors in the Design and Operation of the Highway Transportation. Washington, D.C., 3anuary, 1972. I Kirkpatrick, M. Some Multi-State Models for Visual Search Performance. Doctoral Dissertation. The Ohio State University, 3une, 1971. Kirkpatrtick, M., Kopala, E.W., and Smith, R.H. Aided Tar et Ac uisition Performance Measurement Pro ram. NR71H-19, Rockwell International Corporation, March, 1971. (Confidential report, title unclassified). Levy, G.W., Kirkpatrick, M., Shaffer, C.L., and Breda, W.M. "Simulation Determination of Driver Information Lead Distance Requirements." Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Annual Convention, Miami, Florida, September, 1970. Kopala, E.W., Shaffer, C.L., and Kirkpatrick, M. A Stud of 0 erator/S stem Performance Usin a Helmet Ima in and Pointin stem to Direct a Television Seeker. NR70H-279, Rockwell International Corporation, August, 1970. Shaffer, C.L., Kirkpatrick, M., and Breda, W.M. A Drivin Simulation to Determine Information Lead Distance Re uirements for an Electronic Route 1970. Levine, 3.M., Kirkpatrick, M., and Shaffer, C.L. Information Seekin with Conf lictin and Irrelevant In uts. NR69H-52, Roc e Internationa Corporation, October, 1969. Kirkpatrick, M. Develo ment and Evaluation of a Random Walk Model of Visual Search Behavior. NR69H-760, Rockwell International Corporation, Breda, W.M., Shaffer, C.L. and Kirkpatrick, M. Tar et Ac uisition Stud for an Indirect Fire Point 0 tical Contrast Guidance S stem. NR68H-706, Rockwell International Corporation September, 1968 Confidential report, title unclassified). Kirkpatrick, M. Reconnaisance 1967. ma er... uantif ication of Sub'ective esis, e 0 ualit io tate and Com lex of niversity, Decem r, SECURITY CLEARANCE: SECRET (DISCO) 0- . KENNETH M. MALLORY,3R. EDUCATION: M.S. - Experimental Psychology, Tufts University B.S. - Experimental Psychology and Mathematics, Lynchburg College Intensive course in computer programming and analysis (Assembly language and FORTRAN) EXPERIENCE: September 1978- ESSEX CORPORATION Present Alexandria, Virginia Director Essex Ener Pro rams - Plan and manage Essex pro>ects a<me at t e es>gn eve opment, test and evaluation of control rooms for nuclear power plants, and projects to develop standards and criteria for control room man/system interfaces. Directed an assessment of management factors involved in the design and operation of TMI-2. Staf f Scientist - Human Factors Engineering planning and management. Responsible for the design and development of procedures and documentation; for evaluation and specification of spacecraft habitability; and for operator integration into complex man/computer systems. 3uly 1970- KENNETH MALLORYAND ASSOCIATES, INC. September 1978 President - Worked on documentation and program planning/ implementation activities Procedures and Prepared user documentation to support NASA's Life Sciences Documentation program. Included were TECHNICAL AND PLANNING GUIDES used by several thousand life scientists; experiment procurement documents; 3OB PERFORMANCE AIDS (3PAs) used to operate Life Sciences data retrieval systems; QUESTIONNAIRES sent to scientists and used by NASA to plan its Life Sciences Program; QUESTIONNAIRES used to collect data on Fiight Experiment hardware and vehicle requirements, NEWSLETTER reports published periodically to inform the Life Sciences community on the status of NASA's Life Sciences Program. Also developed a two volume, fully human engineered QUESTIONNAIRE for General Dynamics/Convair. This question-naire collected information on engineering requirements for the Space Shuttle and Spacelab. Developed a set of HUMAN ENGINEERING GUIDELINES for documentation design, based on a thorough search of relevant literature. Developed and automated a 2000-citation Life Sciences BIBLIOGRAPHY cross-referenced and printed in 88 discipline categories. Report format was human engineered. Program Designed, specified, tested and used procedures and SOFTWARE Planning to evaluate the suggestions made by several thousand scientists concerning the objectives and implementation of NASA's Life Science Program. Developed a Monte Carlo MODEL for optimizing the assignment of experiments to several Shuttle/Spacelab missions. Designed, specified, tested and used SOFTWARE to synthesize free-form text descriptions of 2500 suggested experiment objectives into 27 scientific objectives. Developed MANAGEMENT PLANS for the Life Sciences Flight Experiment Program. Plans covered all phases (planning to post-flight) and all three Life Sciences centers and headquarters; responsibilities were allocated to activities; preliminary schedules were outlined; documentation requirements were iden-tified. Hardware Assisted NASA/Headquarters personnel in a critical evaluation of HUMAN ENGINEERING STANDARDS to be applied to manned spacecraft and ground equipment design. Designed, developed and fabricated a voice recorder CONTROL PANEL for use by a QUADRAPLEGIC. Project involved a complete static/dynamic anthropometric work-up, selection of control surfaces and selection of off-the-shelf hardware that could be operated by chin or shoulder. May 1967- URS/MATRIX CO. 3uly 1970 President (1971-1970) Director Huntsville Division (1967-1968, 1969-1971) Staf f Scientist (1968-1969) Procedures and Directed the development of CREW PROCEDURES and 3OB Documentation PERFORMANCE AIDS for operation of Skylab's solar observ-atory. Directed the development of PROCEDURES and 3OB PERFORMANCE AIDS for Skylab EVA operations. Participated in the development of NASA HUMAN ENGI-NEERING STANDARDS. Developed a USER-ORIENTED PROCEDURE for selecting optimum extravehicular systems for spacecraft. Systems Applied modified DELPHI TECHNIQUE in the selection of the Development final configuration of Skylab's Apollo telescope Mount Control Console. Participated in design of SIMULATOR for training of MOTOR-CYCLE OPERATIONS. Managed design of CREW STATION for manned remote manipu-lator system. Participated in the design and managed the development of a 6 dd. HANDCONTROLLER suitable for a variety of manual con-trol applications. 'Participated in design of general purpose EVA WORKSTATION for the Shuttle space vehicle. Managed the man/systems design and CREW FAMILIARIZATION of Skylab's Apollo Telescope Mount Control Panel. Designed and managed design activities on several Skylab EVA WORKSITES. Developed MODELS for semi-automatic reduction of video tape data on human performance and reliability. System Testing Developed and managed implementation of technique for IDEN-and Evaluation TIFYING CONTROL PANEL DESIGN DEFICIENCIES through analysis of operational telemetry data. Participated in and directed development of DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE to locate man/equipment interface deficiencies. Planned and directed FUNCTIONAL AND TASK ANALYSES on spacecraft man-in-the-loop control system. Verification of design through computer-based visual/kinematic and zero-gravity simulation. Performed data reduction and STATISTICAL ANALYSES on man-in-the-loop simulation results. Developed flight experiments, using noninterference testing techniques, to QUANTIFY CREW WORK PERFORMANCE in zero and partial gravity environments. Developed TAXONOMY for relating human performance to tasks and task environments. Participated as EXPERIMENTER and TEST MONITOR in human performance tests in the hardware development phase of the Skylab Program. Designed and managed development of an automatic in-vehicle system to COLLECT VIDEO DATA ON DRIVER PERFORM-ANCE and the causes of traffic accidents. Participated in design and managed developmental testing of a complete video system for the collection of IN-SITU HUMAN PERFORMANCE data (SPACELAB). Managed the design of a full-scale simulation of Skylab extrave-hicular solar environment. Later used simulator to EVALUATE EQUIPMENT DESIGN and verify procedures. Design neutral buoyancy simulation of intravehicular cargo transfer on Skylab. Results closely approximated transit times and rates on board the spacecraft. Safety Developed and implemented program to provide OCCU-PATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH SURVEYS to small business enterprises. Provided Occupational Safety and Health CONSULTING SERVICES to architectural and engineering activities. Developed a comprehensive SAFETY AND HEALTH LIBRARY with associated information retrieval system. Managed program to MINIMIZE HAZARDS in Skylab extrave-hicular activities. Implemented program for TRAINING ENGINEERS in occu-pational safety and health. Performed an analysis of the EFFECTIVENESS of the Occu-pational Safety and Health Administration through April 1970. Program Planning Participated in the application of a LATTICE TECHNIQUE to the development of research objectives for NASA's Office of Life Sciences. Participated with ARE firms in the application of human and system engineering techniques to HEALTH CARE facility master planning. Participated in the development of a MODEL to assess the costs of including EVA on Space Shuttle missions. Managed effort to DEFINE THE SKILLS which must be provided by crews of future space vehicles. Participated with ARE firms to INTEGRATE HUMAN ENGI-NEERING into planning and design. 3une 1965- GENERAL DYNAMICS/ELECTRIC BOAT DIVISION May 1967 ~Ei pd I i I and DISPLAY INTEGRATION TECHNIQUES to be used - p S in submarine control systems having ten years'ead time.'roposed and developed prototype of a REAL-TIME MAN/ COMPUTER INDUCTIVE REASONING SYSTEM for use in submarine attack control systems. Designed and monitored development of 3-D TV SYSTEM for use with underwater remote manipulators. Provided. MATHEMATICS SUPPORT to submarine training simu-lator development (analog computer). Participated in series of experiments on DECISION MAKING STRATEGIES in anti-submarine warfare. March 1963- AVCO/RAD 3une 1965 Human En ineer - Designed and verified an automated (fault tree method for ASSIGNING RELIABILITYREQUIREMENTS TO HUMAN OPERATORS in re-entry vehicle systems. Participated in the implementation of a HUMAN ERROR REDUCTION PROGRAM for re-entry vehicle assembly, mainte-nance and test operations. Designed a series of experiments aimed at QUANTIFYING HUMAN RELIABILITY,including: readying the connector pins; mating of connectors in close quarters; digital to binary trans-lation; localization of a low-light-level beacon. Participated in evaluation and re-design of GROUND TEST EQUIPMENT Qarge scale and multi-man). Evaluated use of switch setting checks as a means to IMPROVE HUMAN RELIABILITY. August 1962- PHILCO CO. March 1963 Com uter Pro rammer/Anal st - Developed computer programs Assembly language for the STATISTICAL REDUCTION of SAGE radar data. ~. Designed and programmed a DIGITAL SIMULATION of a biological organism responding to the hunger drive. PUBLICATIONS R PRESENTATIONS "Human Factors Evaluation of Control Room Design and Operator Performance at Three Mile Island." NRC-00-79-209, December 1979. Co-authored by Malone, T.B., Kirkpatrick, M., Eike, D.R., 3ohnson, 3.H., and Walker, R.W. "Life Sciences Status Report - No. 8." To NASA/Headquarters, Washington, D.C., 3uly 1979. "Program Requirements Document - Organization and Management of the (NASA) Life Sciences Flight Experiments Program." (Draft). To NASA/ Headquarters, Washington, D.C., October 1978. "Specialized Life Sciences Bibliographies." Fifteen reports prepared for NASA/ Headquarters, Washington, D.C., July 1978. "Life Sciences in the Shuttle Era." 78-ENAs-30 Co-authored with Dr. Stanley Deutsch/NASA, 1978. "Space Shuttle Payload Requirements Questionnaire." (Draft) Vol. 1 R 2. To General Dynamics/Convair, San Diego, CA, February 1978. "Life Sciences Guide to Space Shuttle and Spacelab." (Draft). To NASA/ Headquarters, Washington, D.C., March 1977. "Fact Sheet for Proposed Life Sciences Flight Experiments." (Draft). To NASA/Headquarters, Washington, D.C., March 1978. "Guide to the Preparation of Life Sciences Flight Experiment Proposals." (Draft). To NASA/Headquarters, Washington, D.C., March 1978. "Planning for Life Sciences Research in Space." 76-ENAs-52 Co-authored with Dr. Stanley Deutsch/NASA. "An Operations Research Approach to Assigning Flight Experiments to Life Sciences Missions." To NASA/Headquarters, Washington, D.C., 3uly 1976. "Achievements and Forecasts for Human Factors in Manned Spacef light." 1975 Human Factors Annual Meeting. Co-authored with Dr. Stanley Deutsch/ NASA. "OSHA - Will it Work?", presentation to New York Academy of Sciences, New York, April 10, 1970. "The Role of the Human Factors Company in Consumer Product Safety" workshop at the 17th annual meeting of the Human Factors Society, October 16-18, 1973. "An Artificial Gravity Performance Assessment Experiment," presentation to AIAA Weightlessness and Artificial Gravity Meeting, Williamsburg, VA, August 9-11, 1971. Selection of Systems to Perform Extravehicular Activity, Final Report on Contract NAS8-20830, April 27, 1970. Application of Teleoperators to EVA Tasks, Honorarium at the University of Michigan, October 1970. "Man vs. Manipulator," presentation given to NASA Committee on EVA, Washington, D.C., April 1970. Serpentine Actuator Man/System Feasibility Analysis Report, Technical Report to Brown Engineering Co., November 1967. Man/Systems Feasibility of Using the Serpentine Actuator in AAP-O, Final Report, task under NAS8-20073, December 1967. "Concept Identification - A Critical Comparison of Rote Learning and Inductive Reasoning," presented at the Eastern Psychological Association, March 1967. Apollo Telescope Mount Dynamic Crew Procedures Demonstration, NASA MSFC Report 10M33202, September 1968. Controller Comparison for the ATM Experiment Pointing Control System, NASA MSFC Report 10M33209, July 1968. Automated Link Analysis Model, Technical Report to Brown Engineering (under NAS8-20073), January 1968. A Submarine Tactics Evaluation System, Technical Report, General Dynamics Corporation, March 1967. Description of a Real-Time Statistical Technique to Determine Level of Training, Technical Report to Brown Engineering (under NAS8-20073), October 1967. The Integration of Two Non-Metric Scaling Techniques, Technical Report, Tufts University, February 1967. A Fault Tree Technique for Assigning Reliability Requirements to Operator Tasks, Technical Report, AVCO Corporation, August 1965. An Experimental Assessment of Illumination Requirements for Human Operator Detection of a Blinking Light in a Low Light Level Environment, Technical Report, AVCO Corporation, February 1965.. "Experimental Comparison of Connector Coding Techniques", paper presented to Air Force Conference on Electrical Connectors, Los Angeles, California, May 1960. "Human Operator Connector Torqueing Capabilities", paper presented to Air Force Conference on Electrical Connectors, Los Angeles, California, May 1960. THOMAS B. MALONE EDUCATION: 1960 Ph.D. - Experimental Psychology, Fordham University 1962 M.A. - Experimental Psychology, Fordham University 1958 B.S. - Experimental Psychology, St. Joseph's College EXPERIENCE: February 1971 ESSEX CORPORATION Present Alexandria, Virginia Senior Vice President and Technical Director - Behavioral Sciences Division - Responsible for the direction of programs in the Behavioral Sciences Division, including the areas of Human Factors Engineering; Human Resources Development; Human Performance Research, Test and Evaluation; Crew Systems Development; Space Systems; Training RRD; and Human Factors for Energy Systems. Responsible Officer for a study to develop human factors engineering guidelines for the nuclear power industry, for the NRC, 1980.'esponsible Officer for a program to provide human factors test and evaluation support to the Army Aviation Test Center, Ft. Rucker, Alabama, 1979-1980. Program Manager for a study of the role of human factors engineering in the accident at Three Mile Island, for the NRC under Contract No. 00-79-209, 1979. Program Manager for an effort to apply human factors engi-neering to the LSD-01 ship and land based test site, for Lockheed Shipbuilding and Construction Company, 1979-1980. Program Manager for a continuing program to assess and apply human factors engineering technology to the design of surface ships and ship systems for the Naval Sea Systems Command, Contract N00020-76-C-6129, April 1976-1980. Principle Investigator for an effort to assess and apply Human Factors Engineering Technology to Major V/capon Systems, for the Naval Air Development Center and Naval Sea Systems Command, Contract N00020-76-C-6129, July 1979. Principal Investigator for Development of Human Engineering Criteria for Modern Control/Display Components and Standard 4. ~ o Parts, Human Engineering Laboratory, U.S. Army Missile RRD Command Detachment, Contract DAAK00-79-C-0100, May 1979. Responsible Officer for a program to provide human factors test and evaluation support to missile systems, at the Army White Sands Missile Range, Contract DAAD07-79-C-0063, April 1979. Responsible Officer for a human factors test and evaluation program for Army Command, Control and Communications Systems, U.S. Army Electronic Proving Ground, Ft. Huachuca, Arizona, Contract DAEA18-79-C-0029, February 1979. Principal Investigator for an effort to apply human engineering concepts and criteria to the design of Naval air systems, Naval Air Development Center, N62269-79-C-0029, February 1979. Program Manager for Development of Methods for Measuring and assessing human performance reliability of Army Systems during DTRE. U.S. Army, TECOM DAAKN-78-C-0079, October 1978. Program Manager of a study to apply HFE technology to the Mark-10 Arresting Gear System for Naval Sea Systems Command, Contract N00020-76-C-6129, October 1978. Program Manager for the Application of HFE Technology to the Mark-13 Catapult System, Navy Air Systems Command, Contract N00020-C-6129, October 1978. Principal Investigator for an effort for NASA Life Sciences to establish procedures and criteria for selecting shuttle payloads and experiments, March 1978. Program Manager of a study to apply human factors engineering technology to the Beartrap Helicopter Recovery Assist, Secure and Traverse System for Naval Sea Systems Command, Contract N00020-76-C-6129, 3anuary 1978. Principal Investigator for a study of innovative methods for improving passenger car driver performance for DOT NHTSA, November 1977. 'I Principal Investigator for a research and development program for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Cybernetics Technology Office, Contract MDA903-77-C-0355, October 1977. Program Manager for Planning and Conduct of a Human Factors Evaluation of the Improved Hawk Missile System, Contract DAAD07-77-0059 for White Sands Missile Range, May 1977. ~. Principal Investigator, Development of a Training Film fo'r the Navy Human Factors Test and Evaluation Manual (HFTEMAN), Contract N00123-77-C-1000, April 1977. Program Manager for Development of Test and Evaluation Procedures for Materiel Operated in Cold Regions, U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command, Contract DAAD05-77-C-0720, January 1977. Program Manager for Development of a Course Curriculum for a Selected Maintenance Training Course, N61339-76-C-0128, Naval Training Equipment Center, 1976. Program Manager for Conduct of a Survey of Power Mower Warning Labels, Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC76210900, 1976. Program Manager for an Effort to Develop Consolidated Human Factors Test and Evaluation Procedures for the Arm Test and Evaluation Command, DAAD05-76-C-0787, October 1976. Manager for the Analysis of Human Factors Require- 'rogram ments and Development of Design Criteria for Remotely Con-trolled Vehicles, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, NAS8-31808, 1976. Principal Investigator for a Program to Support the Cybernetics Technology Office, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Contract MDA903-75-C-0227, 1976-77. Program Manager, Advance Concepts of Naval Marine Engi-neering Maintenance, Contract N 61339-76-C-0015, for the Naval Training Equipment Center, 1976-1977. Principal Investigator, Field Test Evaluations of Rear Lighting and Signaling Systems, Contract DOT-HS-5-01228, conducted for Department of Transportation, 1975-1977. Principal Investigator, Identify, Evaluate and Improve On the Job Training Program for Navy Food Programs, Contract N00123-76-C-0186, for the Navy Personnel Research and Development Center, 1976. Program Manager, Development of the Navy Human Factors Test and Evaluation Manual (HFTEM AN), Contract N00123-75-C-1360, 1976. Program Manager, Assessment of the Degree of Generalizability in Selected Advanced Maintenance Training Concepts, Contract N61339-75-C-0097, for the Naval Training Equipment Center, 1975. ~. o Program Manager, Development of Shuttle Payload EVA Requirements, Contract NAS8-31454, conducted for NASA MSFC, 1975. Program Manager, Research and Development of an Engineering Training Management System, Contract N00244-75-M-AK25, for the Navy Personnel Research and Development Center, 1975. Program Manager, Tug/SEPS/Free Flying Payloads Simulation Demonstration, Contract NAS8-31451, conducted for NASA MSFC, 1975. Program Manager of a study to develop advanced techniques of shuttle and spacelab man-machine interface evaluation, for NASA HQ, Contract NASW-2747, 1975. Principal Investigator for a research study of the role of alcohol in non-fatal motor vehicle accidents involving injury, for DOT NHTSA, Contract No. DOT-HS-4-00954, 1975. Principal Investigator for an effort to develop and evaluate advanced instructional technology concepts for marine engi-neering maintenance training, for the Navy Training Equipment Center, Contract No. N61339-74-C-0151, 1975. Program Manager of a study to develop techniques for defining experimenter requirements for Spacelab payloads using network modeling approaches, for NASA MSFC, 1975. Program Manager for a study to identify roles of EVA and remote manipulator systems for space shuttle and shuttle pay-load support missions, for NASA 3SC, 1974. Program Manager for development of a human engineering data guide for evaluation (HEDGE), for the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command, 1974. Program Manager for a man-machine evaluation of the M60A2 tank system, Modern Army Special Systems Test Evaluation and Review (MASSTER) and Army Research Institute (ARI), 1974. Program Manager for an effort at NASA MSFC concerned with planning and conducting man-systems simulation studies to support earth orbital teleoperator systems technology develop-ment; supervision of a team of scientists performing man-system simulation evaluations programs, 1972-74. Program Manager for a contract with DOT NHTSA to develop standardized control/display location, operation, and coding criteria for cars, buses and trucks, 1973. Responsible for specifying system requirements and development planning for the National Information System to Psychology, for the American Psychological Association, 1971. Developed shuttle and sortie lab mission support requirements to support the definition of a Free Flying Teleoperator Flight Experiment Definition, for Bell Aerospace, 1973. guidelines and decision criteria for determining the 'eveloped role of man in shuttle and sortie lab missions, for NASA HQ, 1972-1973. Identified specific applications of space teleoperator technology to problems in the medical areas of prosthetics, orthotics, and sensory aids, for NASHA HQ, 1973. Served on a special NASA task team to investigate technology requirements for shuttle teleoperator retrieval of payloads-responsible for the man-machine interface requirements, 1972. Served as a special consultant to the NASA Sortie Lab Life Sciences Payload Planning Panel, for human performance evaluation, teleoperators and EVA, 1973. Presentation of technical papers on teleoperator and EVA . systems for the First National Teleoperator Conference (1972), the AAAS Symposium on Shuttle Payloads (1972), the IEEE Conference on Cybernetics and Manual Control (1973), Robot and Manipulator Symposium, Udine, Italy (1973), Naval Mainte-nance Conference (1975), Maintenance Training Conference (1975), Annual Meetings of the Human Factors Society (1973-1975), Congress of the IEA (1976), and to various technical meetings at NASA HQ, NASA MSFC, DOT NHTSA, NTEC, and Army TECOM. Served as the Technical Program Chairman for the 1973 Human Factors Annual Meeting, and Chairman of the Technical Sessions Subcommittee for the 1976 International Ergonomics Association Congress. November 1965 URS SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Matrix Research Division February 1971 (Formerly MATRIX CORPORATION) Falls Church, Virginia Vice President and Director Human Factors Branch - Developed t e NA Human Factors Researc an A vance Development Program for teleoperator systems. Development of requirements for head-up displays for Civil Aircraft Applications. Developed an Integrated Pedestrian System in Denville, New 3ersey. Managed an operating division engaged in man/systems analysis and integration and Human Performance Research. Leader of a team of scientists for defining requirements for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory Mission Control Center. Supervised the design and testing of control consoles for high performance aircraft radar homing and warning systems. Participated in the analysis and design of advanced shipboard electronic warfare systems (SHORTSTOP). Evaluated human factors design techniques for Naval weapons system design. Managed the Matrix effort concerned with developing design requirements for the Apollo Telescope Mount. Determined human performance problems for oil operations on the North Slope of Alaska. Analysis of astronaut capability on the lunar surface. Developed design requirements for lunar shelter habitability. Determined effects of noise and vibration on helicopter pilots. Determined pedestrian safety requirements and design criteria. Developed design requirements for remote manipulator systems for aerospace applications. Analyzed astronaut capability to perform extravehicular activity. Managed a team of human factors specialists concerned with analysis and design of a command/control center for a classified remotely controlled intelligence surveillance system. ~uiy,l963 GRUMMAN AEROSPACE November 1965 Long Island, New York Head Crew S stems Simulation Grou - Managed and conducted computer se ssmulat>on stu ies o lunar module rendezvous, docking, landing, powered descent and abort. o PUBLICATIONS: Books: Malone, T.B. (Editor). Proceedin s of the 6th Con ress of the International Er onomics Association, University of Maryland, College Park, MD. 1976. Malone, T.B. and Rane, M. (Editors). Proceedin s of the 17th Annual Meetin of the Human Factors Societ, Washington, D.C. 1973. Perkins, 3.C., Maxey, G.C., (TECOM); Malone, T.B., Shenk, S.W., and Kirkpatrick, M. (Essex Corporation). Human Factors En ineerin: Part I - Test Procedures Part II HEDGE. TECOM TOP 1-2-610, 20 December 1977. Malone, T.B., and Shenk, S.W. Cold Re ions Human Factors En ineerin: Part I - Test Procedures Part 11 - HEDGE. TECOM TOP 1-2-611. Prepared under contract DAAD07-77-C0720, 20 3anuary 1978. Malone, T.B. and, Shenk, S.W. Human Factors Test and Evaluation Manual (HFTEMAN): Volume 1 Data Guide Volume 2 Su rt Data Volume 3 Methods and Procedures. Prepare under contract N00123-75-C-1360, for the Navy's Pacific Missile Test Center, 1976. Published Articles: Malone, T.B. and Mallory, K.M., 3r. "Deficiencies in Human Engineering Contri-buted to the TMI Experience." Proceedings of the NRC/IEEE Conference on Advanced Electrotechnology Applications to Nuclear Plants, Washington, D.C., 3anuary 1980. Malone, T.B., Kirkpatrick, M., Mallory, K.M., 3r., Eike, D., 3ohnson, 3., and Walker, R. "Human Factors Evaluation of Control Room Design and Operator Performance at TMI." NUREG CR-1270, The Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion, 3anuary 1980. Baker, C.C., 3ohnson, 3.H., Malone, M.T., and Malone, T.B., "Identification of HFE Technology Gaps in Addressing HFE Requirements of the Navy Systems Acquisition Process," Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, Boston, Massachusetts, 1979. Malone, T.B. "Research and Development Program Plan, Human Factors Engi-neering Technology for Surface Ships," Naval Sea Systems Command, 3uly 1979. Malone, T.B., Eike, D.R., Baker, C., and Andrews, P.3. "Human Factors Engineering Technology Integration into the Naval Ship Acquisition Process: Designing for Operability," Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, Detroit, Michigan, 1978. Kirkpatrick, M., Shields, N.L., Malone, T.B., Brye, R., and Fi edrick, P.N. "Manipulator System Performance Measurements." Mechanism and Machine Theory, 1977 Vol. 12, pp. 039-050. Malone, T.B., Andrews, P.3., Lewis, W., and McGuinness, 3. "Human Factors Engineering Technology Integration into the Naval Ship Acquisition Process." Proceedings of the 21st AnnuaI Me ting of the Human Factors Society, San Francisco, CA, 1977. Kohl, 3.S., Malone, T.B., and Chernikoff, R. "Field Testing of Alternate Vehicle Rear Lighting Configurations." Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, San Francisco, CA, 1977. Malone, T.B., Delong, 3., and Farris, R. "Survey, Evaluation and Design of On-the-3ob Training for the Mess Management Specialist Afloat." Naval Personnel Research and Development Center NPRDC SR 77-3, 3anuary 1977. Shields, N.L., Kirkpatrick, M. and Malone, T.B. "Manipulator Evaluation Criteria." Proceedin s of the 6th Con ress of the International Er onomics Association, University of Maryland, College Park, MD. 1976. Malone, T.B., Delong, 3., Farris, R., and Krumm, R.L. "Advanced concepts of Naval engineering maintenance training." NAVTRAEQUIPCEN 70-C-0151, 1976. Malone, T.B., and Shenk, S.W. "The Navy's Human Factors Test and Evaluation Manual, HFTEMAN." Proceedin s of the 6th Con ress of the International Er onomics Association, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 1976. Kirkpatrick, M., Shields, N.L., and Malone, T.B. "A Method and Data for Video Monitor Sizing." Proceedin s of the International Er onomics Association, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 1976. Shields, N.L., Malone, T.B., and Kirkpatrick, M. "Manipulator System Performance Evaluation: Some Problems and Approaches." Paper presented to the National Bureau of Standards workshop on performance evaluation of programmable robots and manipulators, Annapolis, MD, October 1975. Shields, N.L., Kirkpatrick, M., and Malone, T.B., and Huggins, C.T. "Design Parameters for a Stereoptic Teleoperator System Based on Direct Vision Depth Perception Cues." Paper presented to the 19th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, Dallas, TX, October 1975. Kirkpatrick, M., Shields, N.L., Malone, T.B., Fredrick, P.N., and Brye, R.G. "Manipulator System Performance Measurement." Paper presented to the Second Conference on Remotely Manned Systems, 3uly 1975. Malone, T.B. "Technological Mixes vs. Other Means of Fully Generalized Mainte-nance Training. Presented at the Naval Maintenance Conference, Orlando, FL, 3une 1975. e Malone, T.B. "Requirements and Concepts for Fully Generalized Maintenance Training Systems. Paper presented at the Naval Personnel and Development Center, August 1975. Malone, T.B., Shields, N.L., Kirkpatrick, M., and Huggins, C.T. "Optical Range and Range Rate Estimation for Teleoperator Systems." Paper presented at the 18th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, Huntsville, AL, October 1970. r Malone, T.B. and Janow, C. "Human Factor Roles in Design of Teleoperator Systems." Paper presented at the 17th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, Washington, D.C., October 1973. Malone, T.B. and Deutsch, S. "The Applications of the Remote Control of the Manipulator in Manned Space Exploration." Paper presented at the Robot and Manipulator Symposium (ROMANSY, '73), Udine, Italy, September 1973. Malone, T.B. "Teleoperators and EVA for Shuttle Missions." Paper presented to the AAAS and ASA Conference on Shuttle Payloads, Washington,'.C., December 1972. Malone, T.B. "Man-machine Interface for Controllers and End Effectors. Paper presented at the First Nptional Conference on Teleoperators, Pasadena, CA, September 1972. Malone, T.B. "Evaluation of Human Operator Visual Performance Capability for Teleoperator Missions." Paper presented at the First National Conference on Teleoperators, Pasadena, CA, September 1972. Technical Re rts: Malone, T.B. Human Factors En ineerin 1980. v "i 'r "i Pro ram Plan and S ecification for the n Malone, T.B., Kirkpatrick, M., Mallory, K.M., Eike, D.R., Johnson, 3.H., and Walker, R.W. Human Factors Evaluation of Control Room Desi n and 0 erator Performance at Three Mile Island. Final report under Contract NRC-00-79-209, December 1979. Baker, C., 3ohnson, 3., Malone, M., and Malone, T.B. Human Factors En ineerin for Nav Ma or Wea n S stem Ac uisition. Naval Air Development Center and Naval Sea Systems Command, 3uly 1979. Baker, C., Kosmela, T., and Malone, T.B. Mannin Re uirements Estimation for Mark 86/SEAFIRE Gunfire Control S stem Inte ration. Naval Sea Systems Command, May 1979. Baker, C., and Malone, T.B. Human Factors En ineerin Evaluation of Cata ult ~Sstems. Naval Sea Systems omman eport un er ontract C-6129, November 1978. gn Malone, T.B. and Eike, D.R. Human Factors En ineerin Technolo A lied to the Beartra Recover Assist Secure and Traverse RAST S stem LSO Console ~Desi n. Final Report under Contract N00028-76-C-6129, 2une 1978. Bayol, M.E. and Malone, T.B. Naval Electronic S stems Command De artment Control Point 3oint Electronics T Desi nation S stem Nomenclature Action Re uest Processin Course. Final Report under Contract N00600-76-D-1687, April 1978. Malone, T.B. and Baker, C.C. 'uman Factors En ineerin Technolo for the Mark-10 Arrestin Gear. Final Report under Contract N00020-76-C-6129, March 1978. Malone, T.B., Kirkpatrick, M., Kohl, 3.S., and Baker, C.C. Field Test Evaluation of Rear Li htin S stems. Final Report under Contract DOT-HS-5-01228, February 1978. Malone, T.B., Kohl, 3.S., Eike, D.R., and Shields, N.L. Human Factors En ineerin Evaluation of the Im roved HAWK with Product Im rovements. Final Report under Contract DAAD07-C-0092, August 1977. Farris, R., Malone, T.B., and Kirkpatrick, M. Com arison of Alcohol Involvement in Ex osed and In ured Drivers. Final report under Contract DOT-HS-0-00950, May 1977. Malone, T.B., and Kohl, 3.S. Field Test of Tail Li ht Confi urations. Midterm report under Contract DOT-HS-5-01228, February 1977. Malone, T.B., Kirkpatrick, M., McGuinness, 3., and Kohl, 3.S. Human Factors En ineerin Technolo for Shi Ac uisition. Final report under Contract N00020-76-C-61299 Naval Sea Systems Command, October 1976, McGuinness, 3., and Malone, T.B. Consumer Surve for Power Mower Hazard Warnin Labels and Power Mower Noise. Under Contract CPSC 76210900 for the Consumer Product Safety Commission, October 1976. Malone, T.B. Nav Sea S stems Command Pro ram Mana ement Course Curriculum. Under Contract N00000-76-M-62039 October 1976. Malone, T.B., Delong, 3., and Farris, R. Advanced Conce ts of Naval En ineerin Maintenance Trainin . Final report prepared for the Naval Training Equipment Center, under Contract N61339-70-C-0151, August 15, 1975. Kirkpatrick, M., and Malone, T.B. Role of Man in Fli ht Ex riment Pa loads-Phase Il. Final report on Contract con ucte or 3uly 1975. Malone, T.B., Kirkpatrick, M., and Miccocci, A. Develo ment and Validation of Methods for Man-Machine Interface Evaluation. Final report on Contract NASW-2707, March 10, 1975. Malone, T.B., arid Micocci, A. Stud of Roles of Remote Mani ulator S stems and EVA for Shuttle Mission Su rt. Final report on Contract NAS9-13710 for NASA Johnson Space Center, October 1970. Malone, T.B., and Kirkpatrick, M. Role of Man in Fli ht Ex riment Pa loads-Phase I. Final report prepared for NASA MSFC on Contract NAS8-29917, ~Duly 970. Kirkpatrick, M., Brye, R., and Malone, T.B. Man-S stems Evaluation of Movin Base Vehicle Simulation Motion Cues. Final report prepared for NASA MSFC on Contract NAS8-29910, April 1970. Malone, T.B., Shenk, S.W., Weiss, E.C. Human Factors En ineerin Data Guide for Evaluation (HEDGE) and Guidebook Su lement. Prepared under Contract DAAD05-73-0388 for the U.S. Army Test an Evaluation Command, March 1970. Kirkpatrick, M., Shields, N.L., and Malone, T.B. Earth Orbital Teleo rator S stem Man-Machine Interface Evaluation. Final report prepared for NASA MSFC on Contract NAS8-28298, January 1970. Malone, T.B., and Kirkpatrick, M. The Role of Man in Fli ht Ex riment Pa load Missions. Final report prepare for NASA MSFC on Contract NASW-2389, August 1973. Malone, T.B., Shields, N.L., and Kirkpatrick, M. Re rt on Earth Orbital Teleo erator Visual S stem Evaluation Pro ram. NASA MSFC, December 1972. Malone, T.B. Free Fl in Teleo rator Mission kAnal sis. Report for NASA MSFC, December 1972. Malone, T.B., Krumm, R., Kao, H., and Shenk, S. Human Factors Criteria for Vehicle Controls and Dis la s. Final report for the Department of Transpor-tation un er Contract DOT-HS-120-1-170, August 1972. Malone, T.B. Teleo rator Man-Machine Interface Re uirements and Conce ts for Satellite etrieva an ervicin . dna report on ontract NA -2220, July 1972. Malone, T.B. Teleo rator S stems Human Factors Pro ram. Prepared for NASA, OART HQ, January 1971. Malone, T.B., Schowalter, D. and Schweikert, G. Develo ment of an Inte rated Pedestrian S stem for New Jerse Route 06. Prepared for Madigan-Hyland, Long Island City, NY, April 1970. Malone, T.B., Mallory, K., and Sanger, E. Selection of S stems to Perform Extravehicular Activit - Man and Manipulator. Report prepared for NASA, un er ontract - 0380, March 1970. Schowalter, D., Malone, T.B., and Shenk, S.W. Lunar Habitabilit S stem Desi n. Report prepared for NASA, Contract NASW-1901, March 1970. Malone, T.B., Bender, H., and Kahn, M. Anal sis of Astronaut Performance in the Lunar Environment. Report prepared for NASA, Contract NASW-1751, May 1969. Malone, T.B., Eberhardt, P., and Gloss, D. Human Factors Techni es Em lo ed in Derivin Personnel Re uirements in Wea n S stem Develo ment. Bureau of Naval Personnel, report PRR-68-3, Octo r 1967. Malone, T.B., and Tostan, D. Effects of Noise and Vibration on Commercial 1970. p p>> N S*, N* 1 9, peal Malone, T.B. A llo 1 Telesco Mount Pro ram Simulation Plan. Submitted to Brown Engineering Company, Huntsville, AL, May 1967. Malone, T.B., Tostan, D., and Witas, C. Re rt on Radar Homin and Warnin E ui ment Desi n Criteria. Prepared for ATI, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, May 1966. Malone, T.B. Manned Orbitin Laborator Mission Control Center Desi n Guide-p>> lines. Prepare for Douglas Aircraft Company, May 1966. Malone, T.B. Lunar Module Simulation Re uirements -A Series of Simulation P "

• 3.

Malone, T.B. Stimulus and Observer Variables in the Perce tion of the Ames id Training Device Center, 1960. Malone, T.B. Effect of Stimulus Wavelen th on the Area-Intensit Visual Absolute Threshold Function. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Fordham University, 1962. DOUGLAS C- METCALF EDUCATION: Yale University - B.E., Chemical Engineering Navy Nuclear Power School - Nuclear Engineering Army Logistics Management Center - Test and Evaluation Management PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: 1977 - Present ESSEX CORPORATION Alexandria, Virginia Division Director Directed and coordinated the contract performance of a number of Essex Corporation operating divisions. These include the Special Engineering Division, Infor-mation Sciences Division and overall management cognizance of Essex'ehavioral Sciences activities, including support to nuclear utility customers. Director of S cial En ineerin Division Responsible for esca an tec nic per ormance o a programs and projects assigned to the division. Programs spanned a variety of technical areas including: system performance monitoring and material condition assessment, submarine maintenance and life cycle support strategies, shipboard life support system design and upgrade support, electrical power harmonic reduction, training materials development. Senior Pro ram Mana er Responsible for coordination of multi-faceted technical and management support services to the TRIDENT Submarine Acquisition Project Integrated Logistic Support Program. Areas of technical cognizance include: the shipsystem performance monitoring program which is a life cycle performance testing program designed to measure performance degradation to determine material condition margins by utilizing automated data analysis techniques. Program features involved include personnel and training requirements and calibration, ADP systems and hardware requirements and the total engineering development of the test procedures and analysis algorithms. Senior Consulting Nuclear Engineer to support the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in a task to review the accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear station from a Human Factors Engi-neering standpoint. Reviewed all relevant Federal and Industry Standards, Regulatory Guides, Safety Guides, 10CFR50, and the NRC's PSAR, FSAR and SRP requirements to determine the extent of influence upon the plant design and operation of HFE aspects vis-a-vis published design criteria and design bases. Evaluated the sequence of events in the early hours of the accident to determine and define the primary, secondary and auxiliary systems'ehavior and interactions; assessed the adequacy and availability of plant stations indications and operator/management response thereto. 1972 - 1977 NAVALSHIP ENGINEERING CENTER Site Coordinator for the lead site of the SSBN Shipsystem Maintenance Monitoring and Support Office (SMMSO). Coordi-nated all aspects of a 20-man remote site team engaged in performance monitoring and tracking system material condition for over 60 critical shipsystems. Responsible for review, implementation and operational interface aspects of all test and inspection procedures. Handled all features of site team operations including communications, personnel, administration, procurement and support of test equipment, scheduling of all testing and associated maintenance recommendations. Program manager for the SMMSO Ferrographic Oil Analysis program. Evaluated, developed and implemented this technique of wear particle examination which offers substantial failure prediction for oil lubricated machinery. 1966 - 1972 UNITED STATES NAVY As the Supervisor of Shipbuilding's representative, participated in and witnessed the Board of Inspection and Survey ONSURV) trials for three new construction SSNs and two Deep Submer-gence Vehicles (DSV). Witnessed and directed numerous shipbuilder's trials for new construction SSNs. Maintained status and reported progress of the shipyard test progrm from criticality through dock trials and fast cruise for the new construction submarine USS FLYING FISH, SSN673. Developed and enforced an on-site inspection program for the major upkeep and trials of the DSVs SEA CLIFF and TURTLE at a location remote from the contractor's facility. Performed as the Government's senior on-site representative during this 3-month period. While attached to the Squadron staff, revised the Squadron's procedures for implementing the Type Commander's Alteration and Improvement (A&I) program to improve completion status accountability, logistic support and timely accomplishment. As a nuclear submariner, made three (3) POLARIS deterrent patrols, four upkeep periods including two drydockings; qualified in submarines, qualified Engineering Officer of the Watch, Damage Control Assistant, Ship's Diving Of ficer, Auxiliary Division Officer and 3M Officer. ALBERT E. STRONG EDUCATION: 1967 Course A Basic Instructor Training 1967 Basic Leadership Principles 1961 U.S. Naval School Instructors, Class C-1 A Course 1957 Nuclear Power Training - Certified as Qualified Operator of SIW Nuclear Propulsion Plant 1956 Basic Nuclear Power Course 1955 Electronics Technician, Class A Service Training - U.S. Navy EXPERIENCE: Sept. 1980- ESSEX CORPORATION Present Alexandria, Virginia 0 erations S cialist - Operations advisor to Human Factors Engineering reviews in NPP control rooms. Aug. 1970- VIRGINIAELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY Sept. 1980 ~i<>d p shift supervisor of preoperational construction and testing of Surry Power Plant Units 1 and 2. Received training at Surry Plant and now hold NRC Senior Operator License //SOP-1900 for Surry Units 1 and 2. Transferred to North Anna Power Station as Shift Supervisor in August 1972. Supervised Prestartup and Startup check of Units 1 and 2. Hold Senior Operator License 7/SOP-2999-2 amended March 2, 1980 to include North Anna Unit 2. Aug. 1956- UNITED STATES NAVY Aug. 1970 Chief Electronic Technicain 8/67 to 8/70 - Electronic Instructor and Assistant to Phase Supervisor, with duty as instructor in electronics. 1/66 to 8/67- Chief of the Reactor Division aboard the USS Haddock for the precommissioning detail checking out equipment and supervisor of the engineering watch. 10/63 to 1/66- Assigned as Leading Petty Officer - Reactor Control Division aboard the USS Von Steuben during precritical testing period and during three patrols. 9/61 to 10/63- Assistant to the Atomic Energy Commission Representative at G.E. nuclear electronic plant at Vest Milton, New York, which served as training plant for the US Navy. Reviewed all tests prior to Company performance for purpose of damage prevention. Conducted plant inspections to insure proper operation. 8/57 to 7/61 - Performed first sourceless critical core reloading aboard ship. DATA COLLECTION PERSONNEL 3OHN M. 3ACOBY EDUCATION Commercial Photography, Northern Virginia Community College EXPERIENCE: 1979- ESSEX CORPORATION Present Alexandria, Virginia Staff Photo ra her - Provided photographic documentation of twelve nuclear power plant control rooms. Produced and assembled photographic full-scale mockup of TMI-2 control room. Provided technical assistance on video tape of TMI-2 incident timeline. 1979 UNITED WAY OF AMERICA ~-F Alexandria, Virginia \ Publication, Community Focus. i i k PUBLICATION: Communit Focus, May, 3une and 3uly 1979; Cover and article photographs. O. DIANE 3EORLING EDUCATION 1980 B.A. - Mathematics, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, Missouri EXPERIENCE: 3une 1980- ESSEX CORPORATION Present Alexandria, Virginia Research Assistant - Presently assigned to the Energy Program within the Behavioral Sciences Division. Responsible for identifying and evaluating discrepancies from human engineeering standards and practices in nuclear power plant control room panel design, workspace layout and control/display integration. Suggest potential backfits to eliminate design deficiencies and to enhance the interface between the human operator and power plant instrumentation. Performed separate analyses of panel labeling and alarm annunciator nomenclature to identify and correct readability problems. Identified inconsistencies and devised dictionary to standardize use of acronyms and abbreviations in panel labeling. In reviewing alarm annunciator test, determined priority alarms ~ and developed configuration plan to ensure that high priortiy alarms are most discriminable. Standardized annunciator vocabulary and legend format. Developed human engineering specification for alarm annunciator design based on human engineering criteria. Assisted in developing human engineering checklists, the instruments used to identify human/system def iciencies in nuclear power plant control rooms. Validated and r'evised checklists following their application in seven operating and design-phase nuclear power plant control rooms. Reported discrepancies identified by checklists and recommended potential backfits. Interviewed operators concerning operability of the control panel and workspace design. Conducted surveys to evaluate sufficiency and efficiency of lighting communications and anthropometry of instrument placement. CANDACE K. KRICK EDUCATION: May 1980 B.A. - Political Science, Minor in Psychology, The George Washington University EXPERIENCE: 3une 1980- ESSEX CORPORATION Present Alexandria, Virginia Research Assistant - Data collection in the control rooms of nuclear power plants using checklists which conform to human factors engineering guidelines. Other duties include analyzing human engineering discrepancies and the potential operator error that could result from the discrepancy. 3an. 1980- COMMUNITYMENTAL HEALTH CENTER May 1980 Washington, D.C. Active in the condominium conversion issue and its effects on the community, especially on the elderly. Duties included articles written for local newspapers, community 1980'ntern meetings, strategies. interpersonal communication and interviewing 3une 1979 OAO CORPORATION 3an. Washington, D.C. Research Assistant/Su rvisor - Responsible for the preparation and indexing of chronological summaries of internal and public memoranda; letters, requests, and documents for the Depart-ment of Energy program; Building Energy Performance Standards (BEPS). The purpose of this summary was to provide information to the Office of General Counsel for the Department of Energy and to provide updated materials for Freedom of Information Act requests. Other duties included responding to public requests, the organization of mass mailings, and other adminis-trative duties as directed. 3an. 1979- COMMUNITYLAW OFFICES May 1979 Washington, D.C. p hei i d of legal research, client interviews, and the preparation of various legal documents. Other duties centered on the preparation of materials related to divorce, landlord and tenant, immigration law, and child support matters. TIMOTHY K. O'DONOGHUE EDUCATION: Expected 1983 M.A. - Candidate, Industrial Psychology, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia 1979 B.A. - Psychology, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia EXPERIENCE: ESSEX CORPORATION Alexandria, Virginia November 1980 - Research Assistant - Contributed to the development of nuclear Present power plant human engineering design guidelines in a contract with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Authored the section on control room operator tasks and visual system proces-sing. As part of a specialized team, conducted checklist evaluation of several operating and design phase nuclear power plant control rooms. Contributed to the development of guidelines for con-ducting human engineering evaluation of operating nuclear power plant control rooms on contract to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Developed and validated checklists and other evaluation instruments. On contract to NASA's Life Sciences Program, reviewed past Life Sciences'xperiments (from Biospex, Cosmos 936, etc.). Reviewed proposals for Space Platform experiments to deter-mine if the variables to be measured in each proposed experi-ment progress as a function of mission duration to avoid redundancy in experiments conducted. Assisted in developing an automated mailing list for application to NASA's Life Science Program. Conducted research and review of literature in support of contract to update MIL-STD-1072B, human engineering design guide for military systems, equipment, and facilities. Abstracted literature concerned with modern control/display criteria. Performed literature review on research to develop a methodology for evaluating the human factors characteristics of the human-computer interface and dialogue for the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command (TECOMg). Review literature concerned with modern human computer interface and dialogue criteria. Acted as liaison on a contract to the Cybernetics Technology Office of the Defense Advanced Research Projects -Agency (DARPA). Research support to that office and their suppliers included identification of new technologies, acquisition of equip-ment and publications, and editing and packaging of technical papers. Securit Clearance Level: Secret (DISCO). ~. o 0 ELLIOTT H. STEELE EDUCATION: Various classes towards BSME, Northern Virginia Community College and San Diego Evening College Satisfactorily completed North American Master Conservationist Course NAVY: Damage Control Assistant Allison 501-K17 GTG Operation and Maintenance EN "C" Power Train Maintenance Leadership and Management DD-963 Engineering Control R Surveillance Systems General Electric LM2500 Maintenance Basic Electricity and Electronics Patrol Gunboat Engineering Systems EN "C" Gas Turbine Riverine Assault Craft Maintenance Engineman "A" Basic Propulsion and Engineering EXPERIENCE: 1979- ESSEX CORPORATION Present San Diego, CA Technical S ecialist - Presently reviewing and rewriting Emergency Procedures for PWR and BWR Nuclear Power Plants. Performed Quality Assurance of Engineering Operational Sequencing System (EOSS) documentation developed for AO-177 Class Ships. Conducted a study to determine the feasibility of establishing Intermediate Maintenance Assist Teams (IMATs) to support gas turbine maintenance on DD 963 and FFG 7 Class ships. Developed the requirements to implement IMATs. 1976- GEORGE C. SHARP, INC. 1979 Arlington, Virginia Marine En ineerin Technician - Responsible for technical review o all EOSS or 1200 psi, and 600 psi, and gas turbine Navy ships. Reviewed and rewrote the EOSS Development Manual and Naval ships'echnical Manual Chapter 079, Volume

3. Developed Chapter 7 of the EOSS Development Manual for DD 963 Class ships. Reviewed, corrected, and revised various naval technical manuals, allowance parts lists, and planned

maintenance documentation for auxiliary equipment. Performed approved SHIPALTS to Navy low-pressure air compressors; analyzed fleet-wide fire pump casualty report and developed a medium-pressure air compressor military specification. 1973- USS SPRUANCE (DD-963) 1976 Assigned as Main Engineroom Supervisor and as Leading Petty Officer of auxiliary group. Responsible for the operation, maintenance, and repair of all . propulsion and auxiliary machinery and systems. Contributed direct technical inputs to Personnel Qualification Standards and EOSS development and validated prototype packages. Qualified at all engineering watch stations, including Engineer Officer of the Watch and Repair V Scene Leader. Selected for Limited Duty Officer. 1972- USS WELCH (PG-93) 1973 Operated, maintained, and repaired all main propulsion and auxiliary machinery and their support systems. Qualif ied Engineer Officer of the Watch. 1970- NAVALADVISORY GROUP 1971 DaNang, Det Cua Viet, RVN Assigned as Engineering Advisor. Responsible for operation, maintenance, and repair training for base electrical generation systems and patrol junks. River patrol advisor and communi-cations liaison. 1969- NAVALSUPPORT ACTIVITY 1970 Det Nha Be/Dong Ha, RVN Assigned to maintenance group. Operated, maintained, and repaired LCM8/6 systems. Participated in RVN personnel training and acted as deployed LCM-8 troubleshooter and relief boat engineer. 1968- INACTSHIPFAC 1969 Portsmouth, VA Assigned to outside maintenance. Operated and maintained diving boat and activity emergency generator. RESUMES OF THE REVIEW TEAM FOR OPERATIONAL REVIEW OF THE CONTROL ROOM BACK PANELS AND THE HUMAN FACTORS DETAILED DESIGN REVIEW OF THE AUXILIARY CONTROL PANEL James D. Abraham Control Operator August 23, 19S2 ..A St. Mary's High School, Natchitoches, LA 1970 Northwestern State University, Natchitoches, LA (one year) Mechanical Drawing 1971 Lamar University, Orange/Beaumount, TX (one year night school) Air Condition and Refrigeration 1980 Florence-Darlington Tech., Florence, SC (two quarters) Electronics 1981 Coker College, Hartsville, SC (three hours) March 1981 Hot RO License Training and Licensed at HBR-2 1982 Machinist Mate "A" School, Great Lakes, IL (four tenths) 1971 Navy Nuclear Power School, Bainbridge, MD (six months) 1972 Navy Nuclear Power Training (DIG Prototype), West Milton, NY (six months) 1972 Instructor Training, Groton, CV (four weeks) 1978 A August 1971 August 1980 August 1971 June 1973 July 1973 June 1978 Qualified on all aechanical watch stations. Qualified Engine Room Supervisor (ERS). Most senior mechanical watchstation while operating. Directly supervised three watchstations to ensure correct operation and safety of equipment. Division 3M Coordinator '- In charge of planning, tracking, and ensuring completion of all divisional maintenance. August 1978 August 1980 Instructor Conducted classes for the training of reserve personnel. In charge of tracking attendance and ensuring reserve personnel were paid on time. B. September 1980 . Present September 1980 Qualified Auxiliary Operator on HBR-1 180 MHe Coal Fired January 1981 Plant. January 1981 Qualified Auxiliary Operator on HBR-2 (735 MNe Westing-February 1982 house PWR Nuclear Plant) . February 1982 Hot license class for C.O. July 1982 August 1982 Harris Nuclear Plant, Startup Phase. October 1982 October 1982 Received NRC License for Control Operator temporarily March 1983 transferred to HBR Unit 2 to stand control operator ~ watches. March 1983 In charge of writing General Procedures for SHM?P. Present DANNY G; BATTEN Shift Foreman - Nuclear BIRTHDATE: October 29, 1946 EDUCATION: 1965 - Bladenboro High School, Bladenboro, North Carolina 1966 - Electronics Mate "A" School, USN, Great Lakes, Illinois 1967 - Basic Nuclear Power School, USN, Bainbridge, Maryland 1968 - DIG Nuclear Prototype Training, USN, West Milton, N.Y. EXPERIENCE: 1968-1970 US NAVY Stationed on USS Truxton DLGN-35. gualified on all electrical stations. gualified Shutdown Reactor Operator. 'atch 1971 to CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY Present 1971- Hired as Auxiliary Operator A. 1972- Training in Hot License Class for H.B. Robinson Unit 2 and received Reactor Operators License. 1972-1977 Participated in annual refuelings. Monitored Control Board and operated Manipulator on a rotating work schedule. 1977- Received SRO License on H.B. Robinson Unit 2. 1978-1981 Senior Reactor Operator - assisted Shift Foreman in routine shift evolutions. Operated Manipulator during refuelings. SRO in charge during refueling in Containment Vessel. 1982- Transferred to SHNPP as Shift Foreman. Responsible for get-ting procedures written, and Supporting Startup testing of systems. Central Piedmont Gxamnity College, Charlotte, N. C. A.S. Electrical Engineering 1975 University of North Carolina at Charlotte B.S., Course Work, Business Rhain. Instrument Society of America 9/82 Present Carolina Power and Light Co. Shearon Barris Nuclear Plant Site Project Coordinator for the Control Roan Design Review.- Primary responsibilities are to insure the review is conducted as planned and scheduled and to coordinate the HED assessment/resolution process. Project Coordinator for the IRC Special Projects Group Lead Engineer Responsible for modifications, contracts/specifications, and all phases of I&C design changes to the plant's 7300 Process Cabinets, Main Control Board, Control Roam Back Panels, Aux. Control Panel, Fire Detection Sys., and Transfer Panels. Designed and procured a system to monitor all site fire doors in accordance with NFPA and FSAR recuireaents. 12/81 to 9/82 Catalytic, Inc. Charlotte, N.C. Instrumentation Designer Responsible for the design of Instrumentation Systems for Fiber, Chemical, and Metal Industries. Designed loop, logic, and eleaentary diagrams along with interconnection drawings and control panels. Assisted in plant start ups. ll/79 to 12/81 Powertron Corp., Charlotte, N.C. Electrical Designer Responsible for the design and layout of Electrical Control Systems. Designed systems using D.C. aotor controls, programmable controllers and various instrumentation. Datapoint Coxp., Charlotte, N,C. Field Service Engineer Serviced various microprocessors, line, matrix, and servo printers, 5 a 20 mega~e hard disk drives, floppy disk drives and controllers. Was responsible for all 20 mega-byte drive retrofits in the Charlotte district. Duke Power Co., Charlotte, H.C. McGuire Mclear Station Instrumentation and Control Tech. Responsible for system start-up and turnover. Calibrated 'a wide variety of instrumentation. Maintained three Honeywell 4400 operator aid coaputers and Westinghouse P-2000 turbine control cceputer. Wrote many procedures and reports on instruments and systans. Attended schools on Honeywell caaputers, Westinghouse 7300 process instrumentation,Poxboro, Barton, Rosemount, and Robe rtshaw. ELWOOD L. EVANS SS 246-50-9704 ~ HOME ADDRESS 1607 Sycamore Drive Garner, N.C. 27529 919-779-2546 PERSONAL Born November 16, 1930 Married Two Children Member Instrument Society of America Tar Heel Capital Area EDUCATION \ 1977 Electrical Engineering International Correspondence Schools 1966 Electronics Technician International Correspondence Schools 1963 General Electronics International Correspondence Schools ~ 1959 Electronics 1 Wayne Technical Institute Goldsboro, N.C. 1948 High School Princeton, N.C. EMPLOYMENT 1957 Present. Carolina Power 6 Light Co. 1979 Present Senior Engineer Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, New Hill, N.C. Responsibility same as 1977-1979, SHNPP only, and including: I. Co-ordinated redesign of the Main Control Board with the Human Factors Consultant, Design Consultant, and MCB supplier. This also included additional Support Control Boards.

2. Plant Fire Detection System

3. Plant instrument cabinets and racks.

4. Interface equipment for plant safeguards and control.

1977 1979 Engineer, Corporate Headquarters Raleigh, N.C. Responsibility divided between Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Mayo Electric Generating Plant (fossil), Roxboro Electric Generating Plant (fossil), and included:

1. Review and approval of Instrumentation Specifications.

2. Review and approval of Instrumentation and Control drawings.

3. Purchase authorization

4. Equipment (electrical) qualification for nuclear plants.

~ 1970 1977 Technician El. F. Lee Electric Generating Station-Goldsboro, N.C. Duties same as 1957-1969. Primary responsibility was maintenance of Electronic Control Systems and Control Boards. 1969 - 1970 Technician H. B. Robinson Electric Generating Plant Hartsville, S. C. Instrument calibration and Control System Tests during construction stage of a PWR unit. Vas on temporary assignment to Rochester Gas & Electric, Rochester, N.Y. for system tests during hot functional test and fuel loading at a PMR station. 1967 1969 Electrician H. F. Lee Electric Generating Plant/ Morehead City Duties extended to installation supervision of electrical and control systems at an internal combustion turbine generator at Morehead City, N.C. Responsibility included startup and operation at this facility. EMPLOY.'1E.'lT (cont inued) 1957 - 1967 Carolina Power 6 Light Co. Raleigh, N. C. Electrican H. F. Lee Electric Generating Plant, Goldsboro, N.C. Duties were maintenance of electrical, electronic, . pneumatic, and hydraulic control systems, electric motors, switchgear, control boards, and 'telemetering devices. 1953 - 1957 Employed by contractor Electrical/HVAC. Residential, commercial, light industrial. Duties Installation and maintenance of electrical and HVAC systems. William T. Gainey, Jr. Project Specialist - Special Projects Birthdate: January 24, 1943 Education: 1961- Brookland Cayce High School, West Columbia, South Carolina 1962 " University of South Carolina (approximately one year) Richland Tech., Columbia, South Carolina 1965- Carolinas Virginia Nuclear Power Assoc., Inc. (CVNPA) Reactor Operator Training successfully completed and obtained RO License. 1968- DeKalb Tech., Clarkston, Georgia (1 quarter) 19'67-1969- Georgia Institute of Technology - Reactor Operator Training successfully completed and RO Iicense obtained. 1969- Present - Carolina Power 8 Light Company 1970- Cold RO License Training and licensed on HBR-2. 1972 " Senior RO License Training and licensed on HBR-2 Trained and requalified until 1976. 1963-1967 - CVNPA, Inc. January 1963 " August 1965 - Reactor Technician Trainee August 1964 April 1967 - Reactor Operator - (NO. OP-1946) Approximately 4000 hours0.0463 days <br />1.111 hours <br />0.00661 weeks <br />0.00152 months <br /> console time, 150 start-ups, and 20 shutdowns - Participated in initial core loading and criticality, three refuelings or fuel shuffles, and various physics tests. Also qualified as a Health Physics Technician and a Chemistry Technician. 1967-1969 - Georgia Institute of Technology Reactor Operator (NO. OP-2356) - Approximately t 2000 hours0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> console time, 116 start-ups, and 50 shutdowns. 1969-'1976 - Carolin a Power 6 Light Company 1969-1972 " Control Operator - H. B. Robinson Unit 2 1970 " Cold RO Licensed (NO. OP-2792) - Approximately 2000 hours0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> console time, performed initial criticality, participated in hot functional and low power physics testing. 1972-1976- Shift Foreman - H. B. Robinson Unit 2 1972- Senior Reactor Operator's License (SOP-1611) Approximately 7000 hours0.081 days <br />1.944 hours <br />0.0116 weeks <br />0.00266 months <br /> supervising operation of HBR-1 (coal-fired) and Unit 2 (nuclear). 1976-1978- Senior QA Specialist - Operations QA. Performed numerous surveillances at nuclear plants to determine compliance with regulations. N032-2"1 -2<< 1978-1980 - Project Administration Specialist- -Responsible for administrative duties for Generation Department such as: plant statistics reporting, recruiting, contracts, various 'nd departmental reports to Group Executives, and testimony preparation for Executives to Utility Commissions. 1980-Present - Project Specialist - Special Projects Nuclear Operations Department -Primary Project - Managing and providing operations input to the detailed human factors control room design review for three nuclear plants. -Corporate THI Coordinator - Responsibility for coordination of all TMI projects at CPSL nuclear plants (including budgeting, reporting, and licensing interfaces). N032-Z-2 TR Y JUSTICE orth Person Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 919/834-2617 (Work) 919/737-3521 (School) EDUCATION M.S., Industrial Engineering, Expected degree date: May 1985, North Carolina State University Ma)or Study Area: Ergonomics (human factors engineering). B.A., Psychology, May 1981, North Carolina State University Ma)or Study Areas: Experimental design, statistics, perception. PROFESSIONAL Graduate Student: North Carolina State University EXPERIENCE Raleigh, North Carolina January 1983 to present Presently pursuing an M.S. in Industrial Engineering, majoring in Ergonomics. Human Factors S ecialist: Carolina Power 6 Light Company Raleigh, North Carolina August 1982 to August 1983 ~ Developed a system for labeling all equipment and instrumentation ht Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. Developed an administrative pro-cedure to evaluate human errors occurring in all phases of nuclear power plant operation. Tracked the resolution of all discrepancies identified in the Control Room Design Review (CRDR) at Harris. Part-icipated in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) audit of the Harris CRDR. Maintained an awareness of NRC regulations pertaining to human factors engineering in nuclear power plants. Research Associate: Essex Corporation Alexandria, Virginia Part Time June 1980 to June 1981 Full Time June 1981 to June 1982 Team member involved in a human factors assessment of nuclear power plant control rooms. Evaluated alarm systems for Japanese nuclear power plant control rooms. Conducted a lighting survey for a fossil fuel plant control room to determine compliance with federal regu-lations. Photographed and designed a mock-up of the control boards. Established a data base for the evaluation of Human Engineering Dis-crepancies found in control rooms. PROFESSIONAL Human Factors Society LIATIONS American Psychological Association RENCES Will be provided upon request. Kenneth K. Kyser Control Operator Birthdate: July 25, 1948 Education: 1966 - Norwin High School Irwin, Pennsylvania 1981 - Coker College, Math Hartsville, South Carolina 8~i: 1968 - 978 E.ll. 8 7 Basic Nuclear Program Bainbridge, Maryland Prototype Saratoga Springs, New York Submarines U.S.S. Tecumseh; U.S.S. 'Woodrow Wilson Shore Duty - SurFlant Support froup I was qualified to Shutdown Reactor Operator and was an E-6 Electrician selected for E-7. 1978 1979 Inaals Shipyard Pascagoula, Mississippi Reactor Plant Test Engineer. I wrote test procedures and helped to supervise testina of the reactor plant and reactor control systems. 1979 Present in as Auxiliary Operator 'A'. Worked approxi-CPS'ired mately 6 months on coal unit at H.B. Robinson, qualifying as Auxiliary.'perator, I then ql}aliiied on Unit g2 as an Auxiliary Operant;nr 1q about '5 months time. Went to Hot Iicense class in 1902 snh received my license. Transferred to Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant in August of 1982 'ent back to H.B.Robinson for approximately 6 months of board time; then returned to SHNPP. I am in charge of writing procedures for all oi Operations Annunciator Alarms. I am also evaluating the Auxiliary Control Board with Human factors Personnel. EKBERP WKQZ PRlMYg JR August 3, 1948 KKBZIQH A. B.S. Degree in Electrical Engineering from University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 1971 II. RREBEEKE A. August 1971 to June 1979

1. U.S. Nayy

a. Student in Nuclear Power School August 1971 to Septeaher 1972

b. Nuclear Submarine Officer October 1972 to September 1974

c. Student in Suhnarine Officer's Advanced Course Octcher 1974 to April 1975 F

d. Nuclear Submarine Officer May 1975 to May 1977

e. Staff Instructor,. Naval Nuclear Power School June 1977 to

'June 1979 B. July 1979 to Present

1. Carolina Power & Light Ceapany

a. Eaployed as Senior Engineer in the Engineering Pool Section of the Power Plant Engineering Department

b. December 1, 1979 Transferred as Senior Engineer to the

, Harris Plant Engineering Section of the Nuclear Power Plant Engineering Department

c. April 5, 1980 Promoted to Project Engineer Harris Plant Engineering Section, Nuclear Power Plant. Engineering Department located at New Hill, NC

d. August 8, 1981 Promoted to Principal Engineer-Electrical in the Harris Plant Engineering Section, Nuclear Plant Engineering Department, New Hill, NC P.E. Florida July 13, 1979 Reg. No. 27682 IEEE Berber Tau Beta P. Professional Engineering Society Be@her

o Dale T. Parrish Kduaahian Fayetteville Technical Institution, Fayetteville, N.C. A.S. Electrical Engineering 1983 North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C. B.S. Business Management Expected degree completion - 1988 6/83 to Present Carolina Power and Light Harris Nuclear PlantCompany'hearon Engineer responsible for the purchasing and design/field support of AE instrumentation purchase contracts. Engineering responsibility for the plant Fire Detection System. Designed and coordinated field modifications to rreet NFPA, FSAR.and NRC requirements. Worked extensively with design and field changes of instrumentation on the SHNPP Main Control Board and Control Roam Back Panels. Assisted in resolving Human Engineering Discrepancies initiated by the Control Room Design Review. Completed design changes to meet NUR13G-0700 and 1580 requirements. Member of Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) Member Instrumentation Society of America (ISA) %ALTER T. TALLEY EDUCATION: 1977 M.S. - Applied Psychology, Stevens Institute of Technology 1970 B.A. - General Experimental Psychology, New Mexico State University 1972 A.A. - Arts and Sciences, New Mexico State University Militar Trainin in Electronics: 1962 Refresher Course in Electronic Fundamentals 1960 Radar Fire Control and Bombing Computer Systems, Republic Aviation Corporation 1955 Radar Fire Control and Bombing Systems EX PERIENCE: December 1978 - ESSEX CORPORATION Present Alexandria Virginia September 1981- Mana er S stems Anal sis Branch Process Control S stems-Present conduct of all systems analysis projects for the PCS Department. Have primary technical responsibility for the adaption and development of applied methodology. Serve as technical resource for the development of human factors criteria for specific assessment applications. Responsible for the technical review of client deliverables. Provide management review in concert with other branch managers of project plans, technical scope, and resource esti-mates for the PCS Department projects. As branch manager, supervise human factors specialists assigned to the Systems Analysis Branch. Assign appropriate personnel to client projects, as needed. Develop solicited and unsolicited proposals for new and existing clients. Project Director for major procedures development and pro-duction project for South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCERG) Company's V. C. Summer Nuclear Station (NTOL). Initial project involved rewriting and reformatting all emergency, abnormal, general, and standard operating procedures. As a result of the project team's performance, an additional project was awarded for the development and production of approximately 300 surveillance/test procedures. Developed the project plan and technical work scope for the coordinated rewrite, reformat, technical review, editing, and production of these procedures. Work involved the development of an integrated project team and its functions. Team members included Essex and SCERG operations specialists, procedures writers, editors, and word processors. Project Director for SCERG's Y. C. Summer Nuclear Station control room backfit project. Work involved technical and managerial support to the assigned project staff for a year-long effort to incorporate human factors requirements into the control room such as component relocation, display scale redesigns, labeling content and locations, demarcation and mimic requirements, and environmental concerns. Project Director for Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGRE) Company's Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant control room human factors evaluation. Provided technical support and managerial direction to the Project Manager and project staff. At Raleigh, North Carolina, Project Manager for a human factors engineering evaluation contract with Carolina Power and Light Company. Directed the work of one Research Scientist, three Research Associates, one Research Assistant and one contract consultant in the human factors engineering evaluation of four nuclear power plant control rooms (three existing and one under construction). Duties consisted of the planning and coordination of all contract activities which included scheduling, between two Essex offices and three customer field locations; the development of evaluation plans which incorporated modified existing procedures and newly developed procedures tailored to this particular customer's requirements; and general customer interface activities such as conduct of monthly project review meetings, submittal of monthly progress reports, and the development and planning of special studies. Also responsible for the development of all final reports for the evaluation and the development and delivery to the customer of comprehensive evaluation files which serve as a detailed record of the total contract performance. At White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, responsible for the conduct of the human factors engineering evaluation of the U.S. Army Patriot Air Defense System. Directed the work of one Research Associate in the development of a detailed test plan, various interim reports and new field evaluation techniques and procedures applied to the Patriot System testing. Performed the first non-supplier safety study on the Patriot System and produced the Interim Safety Release Study Report which was essential for the continued evaluation of the system. At Fort Hauchuca, Arizona, as a member of the Essex quick-response team, assisted in the initial contract phases of U.S. Army Communications System Test and Evaluation projects. Duties consisted of the performance of human factors engi-neering evaluations of current and prototype communications equipment and satellite telecommunications systems. Collected and evaluated human performance, environmental, and hardware data. Wrote final reports concerning the compliance of various equipment to existing military human factors specifications and requirements. As a member of the Essex human factors staff, analyzed work pe'rformance data and developed a summary report for the ATILT Company's Human Performance Laboratory concerning cor-rective maintenance task times for telephone company central office switchworkers. Assisted in writing the technical areas of contract proposals for the evaluation of Army weapons systems. July 1978- ALLEN CORPORATION OF AMERICA November 1978 Alexandria, Virginia (White Sands, New Mexico) Senior Human Factors En ineer - As the project manager of the Corporation's White Sands Office, directed the work of two Senior and one Junior Human Factors Engineers, and one Secretary/Clerk. Work consisted of Human Factors evaluation of current and prototype U.S. Army Weapons systems. Test plans were developed which established the methodology and scheduling of complete human factors evaluations of operation, maintenance and transportability for tactical and strategic weapons. September 1970 - BELL TELEPHONE LABORATORIES June 1978 Piscataway, New Jersey Member of Technical Staff - As a member of computer software development groups, developed specifications for the human interface requirements of large computer-based data manage-ment systems used throughout the Bell 'elephone System. Designed and implemented the specific human interface func-tions from the aforementioned requirements. Developed the performance standards and operational (human performance) definitions of the functional allocations for both the human and the machine in these software systems. May 1971- DYNALECTRON CORPORATION August 1970 Land-Air Division White Sands Test Facility - NASA Las Cruces, New Mexico Electro/Mechanical Desi ner - Developed various new designs and modifications to existing designs for facilities, structures, and equipment used for destructive and nondestructive materials testing. Produced structural, mechanical, and electrical designs on the modifications to cyrogenic storage and pumping systems. Also produced drafted drawings and technical illustrations to NASA standards for use in documenting the facility's config-uration and for use in test reports. February 1970- DYNALECTRON CORPORATION April 1971 Land-Air Division Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico Medical Illustrator - Produced illustrations for publications'and technical reports. Illustrations were in the following categories: Line Graphs, Charts, Cumulative Records, Equipment Layouts and Anatomy Drawings. Using autopsy procedures, produced preliminary drawings of thoracic musculature of the baboon. Developed comparative Sacrolumbar, and lower trunk compara-tive anatomical drawings of the human, baboon, and chimpanzee. September 1968 - A. G. SCHOONMAKER COMPANY, INC. 3anuary 1970 Sausalito, California Pro'ect En ineer - Developed all phases of detailed design requirements for diesel and gas turbine powered generator sets. Set capabilities were usually in the range of 5000 volt, 2000 kilowatt outputs. Also coordinated total design packages including all mechanical aspects of the units and developed electrical requirements and cost analysis for contract bids.. Electrical design details involved the evaluation of customer contract requirements, translation of them into specific com-ponents, ordering the components and materials and designing the circuits, bus connections, enclosures, front panels and controls. Some technical writing was required in the area of maintenance and operating instructions. September 1967 - ELECTRONICS CONSULTING FIRMS August 1968 San Francisco, California Electronics Technician Research and Develo ment - Performed a broad range of technician designer duties as a job-shop employee. Most work was involved in the build-up, modification and checkout of production test equipment for testing missile guidance systems. Additional work performed in the construction and testing of U.S. Army field telecommunications equipment. August 1962- DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC. August 1967 Santa Monica and Huntington Beach, California Electronics Technician Research and Develo ment - Worked in vehicle checkout areas at Santa Monica and Huntington Beach on the initial installation of the Ground Support Equipment for the Saturn SIV and SIV-B Space Vehicles. Performed scheduled periodic maintenance and assisted engineering in trouble-shooting, modification, calibration and functional checkout of this equipment. SIV Ground Support Equipment was manually operated, SIV-B equipment was computer controlled. May 1955- UNITED STATES AIR FORCE June 1962 Su ervisor of Fire Control Section RRD - At the Fighter Weapons Squadron, Nellis AFB, Las Vegas, Nevada, had charge of five technicians in the Research and Development section. Work involved the design and packaging of RRD projects relating to the testing, modification and extension of Radar Fire Control and Bombing Computer Systems'apabilities on the then current fighter aircraft; the F-100D and F-105D fighter/bombers.. Rocket and missile systems which were modified and tested consisted of conventional 2.5, 2.75 and 3.25 air-to-air rockets, sidewinder (infrared guided) rockets and the GAM-83 air-to-ground BULLPUP missile. (1961-1962) Fire Control Technician RRD - Worked in the Research and Development section of the Fighter Weapons Squadron, Nellis Air Force Base, Las Vegas, Nevada. Technical work responsi-bilities were the same as those listed above. (1959-1961) Fire Control Technician - Maintained Radar Fire Control Systems in fighter aircraft at Turner Air Force Base, Albany, Georgia. (1958-1959) Test E ui ment Technician - At the USAF Standards Laboratory in Chateauroux, France, worked on all phases of repair and calibration of general and special purpose electronics test equipment. Designed and built test and calibration benches for new types of equipment as needed. Maintained bench stock supply of all necessary spare parts. (1955-1958) PERSONAL DATA: Member of Psi Chi, Psychology National Honor Society Member of the Human Factors Society Military Status - Veteran Enlisted USAF, June 8, 1950. Honorably discharged, June 7, 1962. TECHNICAL REPORTS: Talley, W. T., Haher, J., Farbry, J., Amerson, T. A., Beith, D. and Justice, T. Human Factors Desi n Evaluation Re ort for the Shearon Harris Unit 1 Control Room. Essex Corporation, September 1981. Talley, W. T., Haher, 3., Amerson, T. A., Beith, D. and 3ustice, T. Human Factors Evaluation Re ort for the H. B. Robinson Unit 2 Control Room. Essex Corporation, September 1981. Talley, W. T., Beith, D., Farbry, 3., Talley, E. M. and 3ustice, T. Human Factors Evaluation Re ort for the Brunswick Unit I and Unit 2 Control Room. Essex Corporation, September 1981. Talley, W. T. A Final Re ort on the Human Factors En ineerin Anal sis of the SHNPP Unit 1 Control Room E ui ment Arran ement. Essex Corporation, February 1981. Talley, W. T. A Human Factors Review of the Pro osed Harris 1 CR Radiation Monitorin E ui ment. Essex Corporation, November 1980. Talley, W. T. and Wenger, W. Interim Safet Release Stud Patriot Missile ~Sstem, Tecom Project DAAD07-79-C-0063, Essex Corporation, October 1979. Talley, W. T. and Eike, D. R. Human Factors Evaluation of the Communication Satellite Ground Control Terminal AN TSC-85, Final Technical Report under Contract DAE18-79-C-0029, Essex Corporation, March 1979. Talley, W. T. and Aikens, R. C. Human En ineerin Re ort Develo ment Test II (P T/G) for the Enhanced Cobra Armament Pro ram Interim. Tecom Project DAAD07-78-C-127, Allen Corporation, November 1978. Talley, We T. and Aikens, R. C. Human En ineerin Re ort Develo ment Test Il. (P T/G) for the Li htwei ht Launcher LWL. Tecom Project DAAD07-78-C-0127, Alien Corporation, October 1978. Taliey, W. T. and Aikens, R. C. Human En ineerin Re ort Develo ment Test II (P T/G) for the XMl Tank S stem. Tecom Project DAAD07-78-C-127, Allen Corporation, October 1978. ELEANOR M- TALLEY E DUCATION: 1977 B.A. - Experimental Psychology Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New 3ersey 1973 A.A. - Liberal Arts (Psychology Preparatory) New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, N. Mex. EXPERIENCE: ESSEX CORPORATION Alexandria, Virginia April 1982-Present ~hp Research Scientist - Assistant project manager/chief editor for dp d i i pp i ly3 power plant surveillance/test procedures for South Carolina Electric and Gas Company. Work involves technical review and editing to ensure. that technical content and human factors criteria are correct and appropriately incorporated in all developed procedures. Directly responsible to the Project Manager for the technical work of 6 to 8 technical writers, one editor, one coordinator and 8 word processors. This required the technical direction of all project staff and the coordination of all project activities on a daily basis. Feb. 1982- As a member of the writing staff for the rewriting/formatting of April 1982 nuclear power plant emergency, general and standard operating procedures at South Carolina Electric and Gas Company's Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station. Procedure formats were reviewed using criteria concerned with readability, legibility, and consistancy. Nov. 1981- Performed data collection and reduction activities in the Human 3anuary 1982 Engineering evaluation of Texas Utilities Generating Company's Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant control room. Responsible for the generation of Human Engineering Discrepancy (HED) reports on identified discrepancies. Familiarity with Industry and NRC guidelines for design and evaluation of NPP control rooms was required. Sept. 1981- KINTON, INC. Nov. 1981 Alexandria, Virginia 4 Research Associate - As a member of the writing staff, wrote chapters one and four o'f a five-chapter training and reference guide (the Indian Housing Desk Reference Handbook - HUD). This guide is a set of procedural steps used daily by HUD Indian Housing Office managers in performance of their nationwide liaison activities with the Indian Housing Authorities. Was also responsible for the development of all self-test questions and answers for these chapters, plus all financial questions and answers for the complete guide. Duties included the conduct of literature searches of existing government documents for relevant attendance at HUD-scheduled review meetings to determine the accura'cy, reliability, and timeliness of ail included material. 3une 1980- ESSEX CORPORATION Aug. 1981 Raleigh, North Carolina and Alexandria, Virginia Research Associate - Performed data collection and reduction activities and assisted in report preparation during the Human Factors Engineering evaluation of Carolina Power and Light Company's Shearon Harris, H.B. Robinson, and Burnswick NPP control rooms. Familiarity with current Industry and NRC evaluation and design guidelines was required. 3an. 1979- MANUSCRIPT TYPING SERVICES 3une 1980 New Brunswick, New 3ersey and Alamogordo, New Mexico Manuscri t T ist - Furnished manuscript typing services to students attending Rutgers University (New Brunswick, New 3ersey) and New Mexico State University (Alamogordo, New Mexico). ' Oct. 1977- BIO/DYNAMICSINC. 3an. 1978 . East Millstone, New 3ersey Laborator Technician (Carcino enic Research) - Supervised technician's dissection accuracy in the Department of Necropsy. Weighed and recorded tissue samples using manual and computerized equipment. Introduced new technicians to department policies and use of equipment. 3uly 1971- ADMINISTRATIVEAND EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 3une 1976 New Brunswick, New 3ersey and Las Cruces, New Mexico ~Secretar - Performed general office administrative work and executive secretarial duties for various employers while completing undergraduate requirements. All employment was full-time. Details furnished on request. Mar. 1970- AEROMED RESEARCH LABORATORY Aug. 1970 Hoiloman Air Force Base, New Mexico Laborator Assistant (De artment of Neuro s cholo -'s cho-h sio o ic esearc - Assiste in conducting earning an behavioral studies using hypocampal-leisioned animals. Shaped naive animals using hand-operated and computerized equipment. RESUMES OF THE REVIEW TEAM FOR THE CRDR COMPLETION/REASSESSMENT ROBERT WtQQK PRUNlYg JR August 3< 1948 KDUQKIQH A. B.S. Degree in Electrical Engineering from University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 1971 II. KKHRIEHGR A., August 1971 to June 1979 I. U.S. Navy

a. Student in Nuclear Power School August 1971 to September 1972 k

b. Nuclear Submarine Officer Octcber 1972 to September 1974

c. Student in Submarine Officer's Advanced Course Octcher 1974 to April 1975

d. Nuclear Submarine Officer May 1975 to May 1977

e. Staff Xnstructor, Naval Nuclear Power School June 1977 to June 1979 B. July 1979 to Present

1. Carolina Power 6 Light Company

a. Employed as Senior Engineer in the Engineering Pool Section of the Power Plant Engineering Department

b. December 1, 1979 Transferred as Senior Engineer to the Harris Plant Engineering Section of the Nuclear Power Plant Engineering Department

c. April 5, 1980 Promoted to Project Engineer Harris Plant Engineering Section, Nuclear Power Plant Engineering Department located at New Hill, NC

d. August 8, 1981 Promoted to Principal Engineer-Electrical in the Harris Plant Engineering Section, Nuclear Plant Engineering Department, New Hill, NC P.E. Florida July 13, 1979 Reg. No. 27682 IEEE Member Tau Beta P. Professional Engineering Society Merber

David Waters Principal Engineer Operations Eduad;ion A. B.S. Degree in Engineering Physics Ohio State University 1963. B. M.S. Degree in Nuclear Engineering - Carnegie Institute of Technology 1967. A. American Nuclear Society B. Professional Engineer North Carolina 1975 C. Society of Pire Protection Engineers Ezgarimm April, 1963, to April, 1972, Senior Engineer, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA'ay, 1972, employed as a Senior Engineer in the Nuclear Generation Section of the Bulk Power Supply Department. Located in the General Office. June, 1973, employed as a Project Engineer in the Nuclear Generation Section of the Bulk Power Supply Department. Located in the General Office. July, 1974, employed as a Principal Engineer in the Nuclear Generation Section of the Bulk Power Supply Department. Located in the General Office. January, 1977, employed as a Director Start-up and Technical in the Generation Services Section of the Generation Department. Located in the General Office. September, 1978, employed as a Prinicpal Engineer Nuclear Generation in the Nuclear Generation Section of the Generation Department. Located in the General Office. May, '1979, employed as a Principal Specialist Regulatory Compliance in the Generation Services Section of the Generation Department. Located in the General Office. November, 1979, employed as a Principal Specialist Special Projects in Nuclear Operations Administration Section of the Nuclear Operations Department. Located in the General Office. ~ I . David Waters Principal Engineer Operations February, 1981, employed as a Principal Specialist Special Projects in the Nuclear Operations Administration Section of the Technical Services Department. Located in the General Office. June, 1981 to June, 1982, acted as Principal Engineer Operations at H. B. Robinson Unit No. 2. February, 1982, employed as Principal Engineer Operations, at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, located in New Hill, North Carolina. DERIK BOUSH ,. Central Piedmont Community College, Charlotte, N. C. A.S. Electrical Engineering 1975 University of North Carolina at Charlotte B.S., Course Work, Business A2min. Instrument Society of America . 9/82 Present . Carolina Power and Light Co. Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant Site Project Coordinator for the Control Room Design Review Primary responsibilities are to insure the review is conducted as planned and scheduled and to coordinate the HED assessment/resolution process. Project Coordinator for the IRC Special Projects Group Lead Engineer Responsible for modifications, contracts/specifications, and all phases of IGC design changes to the plant's 7300 Process Cabinets, Main Control Board, Control Room Back Panels, Aux. Control Panel, Fire Detection Sys., and Transfer Panels. Designed and procured a system to monitor all site fire doors in accordance with NFPA and FSAR requirements. 12/81 to 9/82 Catalytic, Inc. Charlotte, N.C. Instrumentation Designer Responsible for the design of Instrumentation Systems for Fiber, Chemical, and Metal Industries. Designed loop, logic, and elementary diagrams along with interconnection drawings and control panels. Assisted in plant start ups. ll/79 to 12/81 Powertron Corp., Charlotte, N.C. Electrical Designer Responsible for the design and layout of Electrical Control Systems. Designed systems using D.C. aator controls, programmable controllers and various instrumentation. 2/79 ll/79 Datapoint Corp., Charlotte, N.C. Field Service Engineer Serviced various microprocessors, line, matrix, and servo printers, 5 6 20 mega-byte hard disk drives, floppy disk drives and controllers. Was responsible for all 20 mega~e drive retrof its in the Charlotte district. ~ ~6 2/79 Duke Power Co., Charlotte, N.C. McGuire Nuclear Station Instrumentation and Control Tech. Responsible for system start-up and turnover. Calibrated a wide variety of instrumentation. Maintained three Honeywell 4400 operator aid computers and Westinghouse P-2000 turbine control computer. Wrote many procedures and reports on instruments and systems. Attended schools on Honeywell cceputers, Westinghouse 7300 process instrumentation Foxboro, Barton, Rosemount, and Robe rtshaw. . WAIZER I. EWABDSg P.E. 173 PRESlWICK PZACE Telephone: Home 919/481-1590 Office 919/362-2196 CARY, Nc 27511

SUMMARY

OF Twenty-six years experience in the Instrumentation and EXPERIENCE: Controls field including design, development, construction, checkout, operation, and maintenance of nuclear and non-nuclear research and develognent projects as well as nuclear power plant design and construction.

9/84-Present Supervisor, IRC Engineering CP&L Shearon Harris Plant Consultant (3/84~resent) .

ISC Engineering during construction and checkout of unit 1, SHNPP.

3/73 8/84 Advisory Engineer, Electrical a Control Systems (1/83-2/83)

Offshore Power Systems (A IaC Engineering Services for eight months in Richland, WA Westinghouse for NPPSS-WNP-2 Design Reverification and Construction Quality enterprise) Assessment Programs. Watts Bar Nuclear Station Annunciator Jacksonville, System Trouble Shooting for TVA.

0 Florida Manager, Control Systems Engineering (1/80-12/82)

ISC Engineering Services for Steam Generator Testing in Sweden and Waltz Mills, PA. Annunciator prioritization study for SNUPPS plants. FSAR updates for Salem, Indian Point 3, Sequoia and Trojan Nuclear Power Plants. Engineering review of South Texas Power Plant for Brown and Root.

Manager, Control Systems Engineering (3/73-12/79)

Engineering for the Instrumentation and Control Systems during the design and licensing of the Floating Nuclear Power Generating Plant. Responsible for the design of analog and digital instrumentation and control systems for the total plant including B.O.P. and NSSS integration, control room, radiation monitoring, computer systems, technical support center, security and fire detection.

10/64 2/73 Served as Senior Engineer and Manager of Instrumentation, Westinghouse Controls and Data Systems for numerous projects at the Nuclear Astronuclear Rocket Development Station. Responsible for design, Laboratory, develognent, construction, checkout, operation and maintenance Jackass Flats, of instrumentation and control systems, including data Nevada collection and reduction for nuclear reactor and hydrogen pump testing.

1/59 Served as Electronics Engineer for several projects including of testing, basic reactor testing 10/64'niv.

weapons and the nuclear ramjet California engine. Responsible for design and implementation of instru-Lawrence mentation and controls for the Air Flaw and Temperature Rad. Laboratory Control Systems for the PLUZO Project.

Mercury, Nev.

EDUCATION: Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering Tri-State College, Angola, Ind.

PROFESSIONAL Registered Professional Engineer in California (CS 1379)

REGISTRATION:

o 1hbert lL Stupid Jr.

iKQHIsIQKES N

o Over eighteen years experience in nuclear engineering Nine years in ccmercial power plants o Design, licensing, safety analysis, and operating plant support o Increasing level of management support University of Florida B. S., Nuclear Engineering Sciences University of Pittsburgh M. S., Course Work, Engineering Manageaant Various Managerent Gourses Westinghouse Present

~ RMS Associates, Jackson, Mississippi Currently Managing the entire CPA EQP effort for H. B. Robinson and Shearon Barris. In addition to the EOP effort, assisting the CPSL corporate personnel in Operations, Engineering and Licensing in the Corporate SKY-82-111 (NUEKG-0737 Supplement I) response. Also currently managing the preparation of system descriptions, lesson plans and training aids for two utilities at three separate plant sites. Total number of personnel under supervision ecpml fifteen (15).

1981 1983 Quadrex Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma Field assignment at the corporate office of Mississippi Power and Light, assisting the Supervisor of Nuclear Safety in the area of PRA Program Develognent, Systems Review and Interaction, Emergency Planning, Gammitment Tracking, and Hydrogen Control, specifically in the Containment Design and Analysis, Program Management, Equignent Survivability, ACRS Presentation(s),

and Doctmentation.

S035

rt . Shepa Jr.

Page 2 of 2 1980 1981 Stafco, Inc. < Washington, D.C.

Responsible Manager for contract work in the areas of licensing, SAR review and rewrite, ACRS and NRC interface, and SHP compliance. Also responsible for general nuclear review and for developnent, training and inpletn.ntation of client emergency plans.

1973 1980 Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pa.

Progressed from licensing and evaluation engineer to Manager, Nuclear Installation and Service Department.

Established Westinghouse service function in Sweden, including five-year strategic plan and organizational structure.

Manager, Manufacturing, Planning and Control. Managed inventory control and manufacturing schedule. Forecasted long-range production plans, manpower requirements, and production levels.

Program Manager of Nuclear Steam Generator Design Programs. Managed program planning, funding scheduling and RSD.

Lead Project Licensing Engineer for South Texas Project. Responsible for all licensing aspects of RESMM14 and 41. Coordinator for FSAR and operating plant seninar. Lead En.gineer for all licensing aspects on 15 PNRs, with.

five personnel under technical supervision.

LIcensing and Evaluation Engineer responsible for aspects of loss-of-coolant accident including SAR write-up and analytical model defense, including contains.nt design calculation.

1962 1970 U. S. Navy Responsible Leading Petty Officer for an operating Prototype (SIC) Crew; primary responsibility to train officer students in Systems Design and Operation and enlisted personnel in Primary and Secondary Chemistry as well as radiological aspects of nuclear power plant.

Responsible petty officer for all chemical and radiological activities on board a Nuclear Suhnarine (USS Casimir Pulaski) as well as balance of plant maintenance labor.

Danna N. Beith Pour years experience in the nuclear power industry Managed or participated in eleven Control Room Design Reviews Involved in human factors research design and evaluation for eight years University of California Santa Barbara B.A., Psychology Human Factors Society, Member

,Present Consultant to RMS Associates Currently directing the Control Room Design Review updates.

for Carolina Power and Light's Shearon Harris, H.B. Robinson and Brunswick Nuclear Power Plants.

Responsibilites include planning. and coordination of all contract activities, general customer interface and the developement evaluation procedures.

1980-1985 Essex Corporation Participated in the Control Room Design Review for Virginia Electric Power Company at the North Anna, Units 1 and 2 Nucleai Power Plant and the Surry, Units 1 and 2 Nuclear Power Plants. Duties included the conducting an operating experience review which consisted of the writing of operator questionnaires, interviewing operators, data reduction and a document review of plant documentation; such as License Event Reports. Also assisted in the writing of the VEPCO program plan and the photographing for control panel photo mosaics.

B031

Page 2 Danna M. Beith Directed the on-site data collection for Toledo Edison's control room design review for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. Duties included on operating experience review, the conduct of control room surveys, an SPDS review, and a human factors review of upgraded EOPs. Also assisted in photographing and construction of a control panel photo mosaic, data reduction and preparation of final reports.

Performed the human factors evaluation of the South Texas Project main control panel and control room for Bechtel/Houston Lighting and Power (subcontract through Torrey Pines Technology). Activities include evaluating a full-scale, three dimensional mockup prior to fabrication of the operational system and the setup a computer program for sorting and reporting data.

Project manager for the development and production of appy~ximately 300 nuclear power plant surveillance/test pro pres for South Carolina Electric and Gas Company. Work~('Lved technical review and editing of developed procedures, technical'irection of all project staff, and coordination of the production of the procedures for initial writing through final word processing. Responsible for the technical work and personnel affairs of a staff composed of 6 to 8 technical writers, two editors, two nuclear-plant operations specialists, and 8 word processors.

On-site supervisor for the rewriting/formatting of nuclear power plant emergency, normal and standard operating procedures at South Carolina Electric and Gas Compa'ny's Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station. Procedure formats were reviewed using criteria concerned with readability, legibility, and consistency.

Directed the Human Pactors evaluation of the on-site data collection for the Commanche Peak 1 Nuclear Power Plant control room. This evaluation included criteria specified in NUREG/CR-1580 and NUREG-0700. Duties also included documenting and identifying Human Engineering discrepancies and backfits.

Page 3 Danna M. Beith Participated in the Human Factors evaluation of three Nuclear Power Plants for Carolina Power Light. One plant evaluation included a control board assessment of engineering drawings for a plant under construction. Duties consisted of procedures developed for control room evaluation and identifying, reporting and suggesting suitable backfits for Human Engineering Discrepancies found in the control room. Duties also included the establishment of permanent records for all data and report writing.

Prepared checklist and surveys to meet evaluation requirements specified in NUREG/CR-1580. Also conducted an analysis .of NUREG-0700 to assess new human factors criteria. Validated checklist items from first sources references.

1978 1980 XEROX CORPORATION Support to the Human Factors Department in the Business Machine and Copier/Duplication Divisions. 'uties included control system design, behavioral testing and new product assessments. Also, wrote machine operating procedures and developed dialogues used for operator assistance.

~ 1978 CANYON RESEARCH GROUPS INC.

Contract research assistant to Xerox Corp., Industrial Design/Human Factors Department. Support to the Human Factors Department in the Business Machines Division. Duties consisted of control system design and behavioral testing.

1976 1978 BIO TECHNOLOGY'NCo Northern California and Northern Nevada.

Conducted a "Large Truck Accident Study" for the Federal Highway Administration of the Department of Transportation.

Supervised Field Investigators conducting interviews with truck owners, drivers and California Highway Patrol officers and analyzed accident sites and accident reports. Conducted highway surveys involving road characteristics, traffic density and speed data using remote control cameras and radar equipment.

WALTER T. TALLEY EDUCATION:

1977 M.S. - Applied Psychology, Stevens Institute of Technology 1970 B.A. - General Experimental Psychology, New Mexico State University .

1972 A.A. - Arts and Sciences, New Mexico State University Militar Trainin in Electronics:

1962 Refresher Course in Electronic Fundamentals 1960 Radar Fire Control and Bombing Computer Systems, Republic Aviation Corporation 1955 Radar Fire Control and Bombing Systems EXPERIENCE:

December 1978 - ESSEX CORPORATION Present Alexandria Virginia September 1981- Mana er 5 stems Anal sis Branch Process Control S stems-Present E conduct of all systems analysis projects for the PCS Department.

Have primary technical responsibility for the adaption and development of applied methodology. Serve as technical resource for the development of human factors criteria for specific assessment applications. Responsible for the technical review of client deliverables.

Provide management review in concert with other branch managers of project plans, technical scope, and resource esti-mates for the PCS Department projects.

As branch manager, supervise human factors specialists assigned to the Systems Analysis Branch. Assign appropriate personnel to client projects, as needed. Develop solicited and unsolicited proposals for new and existing clients..

Project Director for major procedures development and pro-duction project for South Carolina Electric and. Gas (SCERG)

Company's V. C. Summer Nuclear Station (NTOL). Initial project involved rewriting and reformatting all emergency, abnormal, general, and standard operating procedures. As a result of the project team's performance, an additional project was awarded for the development and production of approximately 300

surveillance/test procedures. Developed the project plan and technical work scope for the coordinated rewrite, reformat, technical review, editing, and production of these procedures.

Work involved the development of an integrated project team and its functions. Team members included Essex and SCERG operations specialists, procedures writers, editors, and word processors.

Project Director for SCERG's V. C. Summer Nuclear Station control room backfit project. Work involved technical and managerial support to the assigned project staff for a year-long effort to incorporate human factors requirements into the control room such as component relocation, display scale redesigns, labeling content and locations, demarcation and mimic requirements, and environmental concerns.

Project Director for Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGRE)

Company's Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant control room human factors evaluation. Provided technical support and managerial direction to the Project Manager and project staff.

At Raleigh, North Carolina, Project Manager for a human factors engineering evaluation contract with Carolina Power and Light Company. Directed the work of one Research Scientist, three Research Associates, one Research Assistant and one contract consultant in the human factors engineering evaluation of four nuclear power plant control rooms (three existing and one under construction). Duties consisted of the planning and-coordination of all contract activities which included scheduling between two Essex offices and three customer field locations; the development of evaluation plans which incorporated modifie'd existing procedures and newly developed procedures tailored to this particular customer's requirements; and general customer interface activities such as conduct of monthly project review meetings, submittal of monthly progress reports, and the development and planning of special studies. Also responsible for the development of all final reports for the evaluation and the development and delivery to the customer of comprehensive evaluation files which serve as a detailed record of the total contract performance.

At White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, responsible for the conduct of the human factors engineering evaluation of the U.S.

Army Patriot Air Defense System. Directed the work of one Research Associate in the development of a detailed test plan, various interim reports and new field evaluation techniques and procedures applied to the Patriot System testing. Performed the first non-supplier safety study on the Patriot System and produced the Interim Safety Release Study Report which was essential for the continued evaluation of the system.

At Fort Hauchuca, Arizona, as a member of the Essex quick-response team, assisted in the initial contract phases of U.S.

Army Communications System Test and Evaluation projects.

Duties consisted of the performance of human factors engi-neering evaluations of current and prototype communications equipment and satellite telecommunications systems. Collected and evaluated human performance, environmental, and hardware data. Wrote final reports concerning the compliance of various equipment to existing military human factors specifications and requirements.

As a member of the Essex human factors staff, analyzed work performance data and developed a summary report for the ATILT Company's Human Performance Laboratory concerning cor-rective maintenance task times for telephone company central office switchworkers. Assisted in writing the technical areas of contract proposals for the evaluation of Army weapons systems.

July 1978- ALLEN CORPORATION OF AMERICA November 1978 Alexandria, Virginia (White Sands, New Mexico)

Senior Human Factors En ineer - As the project manager of the Corporation's White Sands Office, directed the work of two Senior and one Junior Human Factors Engineers, and one Secretary/Clerk. Work consisted of Human Factors evaluation of current and prototype U.S. Army Weapons systems. Test

~ plans were developed which established the methodology and scheduling of complete human factors evaluations of operation, maintenance and transportability for tactical and strategic weapons.

September 1970 - BELL TELEPHONE LABORATORIES June 1978 Piscataway, New Jersey Member of Technical Staff - As a member of computer software development groups, developed specifications for the human interface requirements of large computer-based data manage-ment systems used throughout the Bell Telephone System.

Designed and implemented the specific human interface func-tions from the aforementioned requirements. Developed the performance standards and operational (human performance) definitions of the functional allocations for both the human and the machine in these software systems.

May 1971- DYNALECTRON CORPORATION August 1970 Land-Air Division White Sands Test Facility - NASA Las Cruces, New Mexico Electro!Mechanical Desi ner - Developed various new designs and modifications to existing designs for facilities, structures,

and equipment used for destructive and nondestructive materials testing. Produced structural, mechanical, and electrical designs on the modifications to cyrogenic storage and pumping systems.

Also produced drafted drawings and technical illustrations to NASA standards for use in documenting the facility's config-uration and for use in test reports.

February 1970- DYNALECTRON CORPORATION April 1971 Land-Air Division Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico Medical. Illustrator - Produced illustrations for publications and technical reports. Illustrations were in the following categories:

Line Graphs, Charts, Cumulative Records, Equipment Layouts and Anatomy Drawings. Using autopsy procedures, produced preliminary drawings of thoracic musculature of the baboon.

Developed comparative Sacrolumbar, and lower trunk compara-tive anatomical drawings of the human, baboon, and chimpanzee.

September 1968- A. G. SCHOONMAKER COMPANY, INC.

3anuary 1970 Sausalito, California

~P'E i - Ip llph ildd ia requirements for diesel and gas turbine powered generator sets.

Set capabilities were usually in the range of 5000 volt, 2000 kilowatt outputs. Also coordinated total design packages including all mechanical aspects of the units and developed electrical requirements and cost analysis for contract bids..

Electrical design details involved the evaluation of customer contract requirements, translation of them into specific com-ponents, ordering the components and materials and designing the circuits, bus connections, enclosures, front panels and controls. Some technical writing was required in the area of maintenance and operating instructions.

September 1967 - ELECTRONICS CONSULTING FIRMS August 1968 San Francisco, California Electronics Technician Research and Develo ment - Performed a broad range of technician designer duties as a job-shop employee. Most work was involved in the build-up, modification and checkout of production test equipment for testing missile guidance systems. Additional work performed in the construction and testing of U.S. Army field telecommunications equipment.

August 1962- DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC.

August 1967 Santa Monica and Huntington Beach, California Electronics Technician Research and Develo ment - Worked in vehicle checkout areas at Santa Monica and Huntington Beach on the initial installation of the Ground Support Equipment for the Saturn SIV and SIV-B Space Vehicles. Performed scheduled

periodic maintenance and assisted engineering in trouble-shooting, modification, calibration and functional checkout of this equipment. SIV Ground Support Equipment was manually operated, SIV-B equipment was computer controlled.

May 1955- UNITED STATES AIR FORCE June 1962 Su ervisor'f Fire Control Section RRD - At the Fighter Weapons Squadron, Nellis AFB, Las Vegas, Nevada, had charge of five technicians in the Research and Development section. Work involved the design and packaging of RdrD projects relating to the testing, modification and extension of Radar Fire Control and Bombing Computer Systems'apabilities on the then current fighter aircraft; the F-100D and F-105D fighter/bombers.

Rocket and missile systems which were modified and tested consisted of conventional 2.5, 2.75 and 3.25 air-to-air rockets, sidewinder (infrared guided) rockets and the GAM-83 air-to-ground BULLPUP missile. (1961-1962)

Fire Control Technician Rh:D - Worked in the Research and Development section of the Fighter Weapons Squadron, Nellis Air Force Base, Las Vegas, Nevada. Technical work responsi-bilities were the same as those listed above. (1959-1961)

Fire Control Technician - Maintained Radar Fire Control Systems in fighter aircraft at Turner Air Force Base, Albany, Georgia. (1958-1959)

Test E ui ment Technician - At the USAF Standards Laboratory in Chateauroux, France, worked on all phases of repair and calibration of general and special purpose electronics test equipment. Designed and built test and calibration benches for new types of equipment as needed. Maintained bench stock supply of all necessary spare parts. (1955-1958)

PERSONAL DATA:

Member of Psi Chi, Psychology National Honor Society Member of the Human Factors Society Military Status - Veteran Enlisted USAF, June 8, 1950.,

Honorably discharged, June 7, 1962.

TECHNICAL REPORTS:

Talley, W. T., Haher, J., Farbry, J., Amerson, T. A., Beith, D. and Justice, T.

Human Factors Desi n Evaluation Re ort for the Shearon Harris Unit 1 Control Room. Essex Corporation, September 1981.

Talley, W. T., Haher, J., Amerson, T. A., Beith, D. and Justice, T. Human Factors Evaluation Re ort for the H. B. Robinson Unit 2 Control Room. Essex Corporation, September 1981.

Talley, W. T., Beith, D., Farbry, J., Talley, E. M. and Justice, T. Human Factors Evaluation Re ort for the Brunswick Unit I and Unit 2 Control Room. Essex Corporation, September 1981.

Talley, W. T. A Final Re ort on the Human Factors En ineerin Anal sis of the SHNPP Unit 1 Control Room E ui ment Arran ement. Essex Corporation, February 1981.

Talley, W. T. A Human Factors Review of the Pro osed Harris 1 CR Radiation Monitorin E ui ment. Essex Corporation, November 1980.

Talley, W. T. and Wenger, W. Interim Safet Release Stud Patriot Missile

~Sstem, Tecom Project DAAD07-79-C-0063, Essex Corporation, October 1979.

Talley, W. T. and Eike, D. R. Human Factors Evaluation of the Communication Satellite Ground Control Terminal AN TSC-85, Final Technical Report under Contract DAE18-79-C-0029, Essex Corporation, March 1979.

Talley, W. T. and Aikens, R. C. Human En ineerin Re ort Develo ment Test II (P T/G) for the Enhanced Cobra Armament Pro ram Interim . Tecom Project DAAD07-78-C-127, Allen Corporation, November 1978.

s Talley, We T. and Aikens, R. C. Human En ineerin Re ort Develo ment Test II.

(P T/G) for the Li htwei ht Launcher LWL . Tecom Project DAAD07-78-C-0127, Allen Corporation, October 1978.

Talley, W. T. and Aikens, R. C. Human En ineerin Re ort Develo ment Test II (P T/G) for the XM1 Tank S stem. Tecom Project DAAD07-78-C-127, Allen Corporation, October 1978.

Ten (10) years experience in the nuclear power industry Senior Engineer in the Project Engineering Organization with specialization in the equipment qualification area (environmental and seismic)

Senior Engineer in the Licensing Organization with lead responsibilities in equipment qualification and instrumentation Member of EPRI Equignent Qualification Advisory Group Member of HNR Owner's Equipnent Qualification Group Member of BNR Owner's Group Reg. Guide 1.97 Cceauttee Meaber of BNR Owner's Inadequate Core Cooling Comnittee Current member of IEEE Standards Subcommittee 2.0 (SC-2) Equignent Qualification Current member of IEEE 323-1974 Standards Working Group 2.0 revising IEEE 323-1974 Design f supervision, start-up, testing, program management, procedure develognent, licensing and consulting for nuclear power plant projects.

B. S. Electrical Engineering, 1972 B. S. Nuclear Engineering, 1973 Goapleted 30 seaester hours on M.S. nuclear Engineering, 1973 o Meaber of Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) o Berber of American Nuclear Society (ANS) 10/82 to Present

/

Lead engineer responsible for the developnent of plant specific eaergency operating procedures for CP&L's Shearon Harris and H. B. Robinson Mclear Power Plants.

Rufus Andrew Brown Page 2 of 3 05/80 to 10/82 Senior Engineer assigned to the following groups: Project A)

Engineering, B) Licensing A)

Lead project engineer/program manager for MP&L's Grand Gulf Nuclear Station equipment qualification (seismic and environmental) program. Developed and iapleaented equipnent qualification review procedures for use by MPSLg A Eg and NSSS vendor to perform equipment evaluation in accordance with NUREG-0588 an Seismic Qualification Review Team (SQRT) criteria. Coordinated and performed technical review of environmental and seismic evaluations performed by A-E and NSSS vendor. Additional responsibilities included contract administration and procurement evaluation. Member EPRI Equipment Qualification Advisory Group. Member BWR Owner's Equipnent Qualification Group.

B) Im~m Lead engineer responsible for the coordination of equipment qualification (environmental and seismic) and instrumentation licensing issues. Her@>er of 1%R Amer's Group Reg. Guide 1.97 Committee. Member of HWR Owner's Group Inadequate Core Cooling Conmittee.

0 03/78 to 05/80 Instrument engineer assigned to the plant staff instrument maintenance section. Served as system engineer for upper head injection, energencygas treatment, fuel oil, steam generator blow-down, security and nuclear instrumentation system. Prepared calibration and loop test requests, with necessary scaling, for initial testing of permanent plant instruments in assigned systems. Provided technical assistance to instrument mechanics in trouble shooting and resolving equignent problems. Reviewed calibration and loop test data to verify accuracy and test requirenents. Identified design problems and drawing discrepancies on TVA installed equipnent.

Prepared field change requests/engineering change notices to resolve these problems and discrepancies. Prepared work plans, purchased parts, and provided technical assistance to implement modifications to assigned systems. Prepared surveillance and maintenance instructions for assigned systems.

Rufus Andrew Brown Page 3 of 3 06/73 to 03/78 0 System design engineer assigned to the following groups:

A) Control and Performance Analysis, B) Plant startup Service, C) Nuclear Operation Analysis A)

'Prepared design specifications for the Babcock & Wilcox NSSS reactor coolant and secondary steam systems.

Developed specifications for the reactor coolant flaw rate, pressure, and teaperature for steady state and transient operation. Developed design specifications based on analog/digital simulation of the reactor coolant and secondary steam systems. Performed transient analysis to assist site personnel in the resolution of problems during plant startup. Performed special studies to predict transient reactor coolant puap performance.

B)

Ch site assignment to the Florida Power Crystal River Wit 3 Nuclear Power Plant. Provided technical assistance on the design, operation, and testing of the Babcock

& Wilcox NSSS. Prepared test procedures for use during hot functional and startup testing. Directed tests during hot functional testing. Prepared test procedures for the following systems and areas: 1) makeup and purification, 2) chemical addition, 3) cooling fans for the reactor vessel head, 4) leakage integrity of the reactor coolant system, 5) transient performance of the reactor coolant system and secondary side steam system to survive a reactor or turbine trip from 100%

full power.

C) e control rod insertion safety limits for the

'repared Babcock a Wilcox PWR nuclear core. Safety limits derived by performing an analysis on the fuel cycle for various positions of the control rods to determine the relationship between control rod position, core power distribution, and fission product distribution. Analysis performed using specialized digital corrputer codes.

David P. Caccamo Increasing level of project management support.

Nine years experience in nuclear engineering.

Emergency Plan and Emergency Action Level service support.

Lieutenant Commander, United States Naval Reserve, project manager for deep ocean search NWP rewrite.

B.S., United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland; June 1973, Oceanography major.

Navy Nuclear Power School, September 1973 to October 1974.

Masters of Economics program, North Carolina State University, minor in Nuclear Engineering.

~

1983 to Present RMS Associates, Cary, N.C.

Des i gned symp toma t i c Emergency Pr esent Act ion Level (EAL) classification system for integration with PWR Emergency Operating Procedures. Provided operator training and support services in emergency planning, plant systems, and Emergency Operating Procedures. Currently providing management support for mechanical and fluid maintenance systems development.

1981 to 1983 Reactor Engineer, North Carolina State University Supervised licensing and administrative support services for University's research reactor. Wrote facility's Emergency Plan and coordinated its implementation with local, state, and federal agencies. Qualified as Reactor Operator on Pulstar research reactor.

COOZ

Page 2 0 David P. Caccamo 19Z8 to 1981 Tracor, Inc., Rockville, Maryland Assistant System Manager Acted as liaison between the DOD and system prime contractor for acquisition management program in the areas oi contract support, logistic management and technical alterations.

System Planner- Coordinated acquisition management support services for project office. Performed statistical usage studies for long range planning.

19Z3 to 19Z8 Officer, United States Navy Main Propulsion Assistant Supervised major upkeep repairs to the Air Conditioning Auxiliary Seawater System, the Main Feedwater System, and to the Reactor Compartment. Received Commanding Officer,-USS NATHAN HALE SSBN623 (B) Commendation.

Reactor Controls Division Officer Qualified in Submarines.

Completed Post Conversion Availibity, Charleston Naval Shipyard, Charleston, South Carolina. Served as Operational Reactor Safeguards Examination Engineering Officer of the Watch. Received Commander, Submarine Squadron EIGHTEEN Commendation.

Communications Officer Qualified Engineering Officer of the Watch, S3G Core 3/S5W propulsion plant. Completed Refueling Overhaul acceptance testing and sea Naval Shipyard, Bremmerton, Washington.

trials, Puget Sound

M. L. Edmonds HIGHLIGHTS o Ten years experience in the nuclear power industry o Reactor operations experience in broad range of plant modes Participated in startup, remodification, and refueling outages at E.

I. Hatch as a Licensed Operator.

Performed review of surveillance test procedures, substituting as Operations Superintendent, in the review process for all surveillance procedures being written and revised at Grand Gulf Nuclear Station.

Prepared surveillance procedures for compliance with Technical Specifications and Section XI of the ASME Pump and Valve program for Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Operations Surveillance Coordinator at Grand Gulf Nuclear Station.

o Participated in development of Plant Specific EOPs and Flowchart for a .

3-loop Westinghouse PWR Nuclear Plants.

0 EDUCATION North Carolina State University B. S. Electrical Engineering Program Degree completion expected 1987 Nuclear Operator Training Program Basic Nuclear Theory, BWR Technology, Balance of Plant Systems GE Reactor Startup Qualification Course General Physics Requalification Training Course LICENSE Licensed Reactor Operator at E. I. Hatch Nuclear Plant WORK HISTORY 11/82 Present Horace Cofer Associates Carolina Power & Light Company Shearon Harris and H. B. Robinson Nuclear Power Plants Engineer coordinating the development of Flowcharts for Plant Specific EOPs for CP&L's Shearon Harris and H. B. Robinson Nuclear Power Plants.

FIL01-100

M. L. Edmonds Page 2 1983 11/82 Quadrex Corporation Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Senior Service Engineer located at the'rand Gulf Nuclear Station.

Expedited surveillance procedures through the review and approval process. Prepared new surveillance procedures to comply with the latest revision in the Technical Specifications. Also incorporated the ASME Code Section XI pump and valve program into these procedures. Reviewed the Fire Protection System and wrote procedures to cover the American Nuclear Insurer's Requirements in conjunction with Tech. Spec.

Requirements. Also acted as Operations Superintendent in the review cycle for all surveillance procedures. Served as Surveillance Coordinator to ensure surveillance procedures where issued and approved.

1981 Quadrex Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma Senior Service Engineer assigned to Tulsa Operations. Performed review of operating surveillance program for Grand Gulf Nuclear Station. This included identification of applicable ASME Boiler/Pressure Vessel codes and ensuring compliance with the present Technical Specifications.

1 974 1982 Georgia Power Company E. I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Licensed Reactor Operator Involved in plant operations during all operating modes including initial criticalities, heatup, and pressurization. Prepared and reviewed procedures and lesson plans for training and operations. Assisted General Electric and Bechtel engineers in implementing design changes.

Prepared and altered preoperational test procedures to conform to these changes.

1973 Georgia Power Company Yates Fossil Plant Auxiliary Equipment Operator Operated and maintained auxiliary equipment not operable from the control room (five unit plant).

1973 Georgia Power Company McManus Oil Burning Plant Auxiliary Equipment Operator Maintained and operated large equipment from outside the control room.

FIL01-100

HLEAMR H TAILS Five years experience in the nuclear power industry. Supervised or par ticiated in eleven Cbntrol Roan Design Reviews.

Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey B.A., Experimental Psychology Human Factors Society, Manber International Society for Information Displays Present HNS Associates, Inc.

, for Carolina Power h Light Canpany's Control Design Review update for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Unit I h II, and the H. B. Robinson Stean Electric Plant using MXUH-OVOO Guide)ines. Responsible for the on-site interview of licensed reactor operators, the analysis'f all interview data, and the generation of Human Engineering Discrepancies Reports (HEDs). Responsible for the data collection, data analysis, and HED report generation for all envirormental, work space, control, displays, annunciator system, conventions, and anthropanetrics surveys and assistance in implementation of control roan modifications.

1981 - 1984 ESSEK CGRKHATICN f"

Plant and Surrey Nuclear Power Plant Control Roan Design Review.

Responsible for conducting on-site interviews of licensed reactor operators, the analysis of all interview data, and the generation of Human Engineering Discrepancy Reports (HEDs).

f i i C Station, Control Design Review. Responsible for the on-site interviews of licenses reactors, operators, the analysis of all interview data, and the generation of Human Engineering Discrepancy Reports (HEDs).

Eleanor M. Talley Page 2 of 3 f i ig ue y i 1 Design Review and the RAD Waste Control Rocm Design Review at Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit I. Responsible for the data collection, data analysis, and HED report generation for all envirormental, work space, controls, displays, annunciator system, conventions, and anthropcmetrics surveys. Assisted in the operability analysis of the control roan back panels, Remote Hot Shutdown Facility, and the RAD Waste Control Roan.

- Assistant project manager/chief editor for the development and production of approximately 300 nuclear power plant surveillance/test procedures for South Carolina Electric and Gas Canpany. Work involved technical review and editing to ensure that technical content and human factors criteria are correct and appropriately incorporated in all developed procedures. Directly responsible to the Project Manager for the technical work of 6 to 8 technical writers, one editor, one coordinator and 8 word processors.

'Ihis required the technical direction of all project staff and the coordination of all project activities on a daily basis.

As a manber of the writing staff for the rewriting/

formatting of nuclear power plant anergency, general and standard operating procedures at South Carolina Electric and Gas Canpany's Virgil C. Suraner Nuclear Station. Procedure formats were reviewed using criteria concerned with readability, legibility, and consistency.

- Performed data collection and reduction activities in the Human Engineering evaluation of Texas Utilities Generating Canpany's Cananche Peak Nuclear Power Plant..control roan. Responsible for the generation of Human Engineering Discrepancy (HED) reports on identified discrepancies. Familiarity with Industry and NRC guidelines for design and evaluation of NPP control roans was required.

1981 KILN, INC.

As a member of the writing staff, wrote chapters one and four of a five-chapter training and reference guide (the Indian Housing Desk Reference Handbook - HUD). This guide is a set of procedural steps used daily by HUD Indian Housing Office managers in performance of their nationwide liaison activities with the Indian Housing Authorities. Was also responsible for the development of all self-test questions and answers for these chapters, plus all financial questions and answers for the canplete guide. Duties included the conduct of literature searches of existing goveranent documents, and attendance at HUD-scheduled review meetings to determine the accuracy, reliability, and timeliness of all included material.

0

~ e 0

Eleanor M. Talley Page 3 of 3 1989 1981 ESSEK CKXPCKKTICN

- Performed data collection and reduction activities and assisted in report preparation during the Human Factors Engineering evaluation of Carolina Power and Light Company's Shearon Harris, H. B. Robinson, and Brunswick NPP control roans. Familiarity with current Industry and NRC evaluation and design guidelines was required.

1979 - 1980 MANUSCRIPT TiTING SERVICES

'P  %'W attending Rutgers University (New Brunswick, New Jersey) and New Mexico State University (Alamogordo, New Mexico).

1977 - 1978 BIO/I'M ICS INC.

- Supervised technician's dissection accuracy in the Department of Necropsy. Weighed and recorded tissue samples using manual and canputerized equipment. Introduced new technicians to department policies and use of equipment.

1971 1976 AZMINISIRATIVEAND EXEICUI'IVE SIKRETAHY Gaging~ Performed general office adninistrative work and executive secretarial duties for various enployers while canpleting undergraduate requirements. All enployment was full-time. Details furnished on request.

1970 AIBKMED RESEAIKH LABCRAXRY

- Assisted in conducting learning and behavioral studies using hypocampal-leisioned animals. Shaped naive animals using hand-operated and cmputerized equipment.

I t

0 0

I

\ lt 7