ML18092A284
| ML18092A284 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1984 |
| From: | GENERAL PHYSICS CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18092A282 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8409250146 | |
| Download: ML18092A284 (25) | |
Text
Task Analysis Methodology for the Detailed Control Room Design Review Prepared for Public Service Electric & Gas Company August 1984 (Revision 1 )
General Physics Corporation Columbia, Maryland 8409250146 840918 PDR ADOCK 05000272 F PDR
GENERAL PHYSICS CORPORATION Task Analysis Methodology for the Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR)
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION This paper outlines the steps involved in performing a task analysis to satisfy the intent of the "Guidelines for Control Room Design Review" (NUREG-0700). A discussion of the review phases leading up to the task analysis effort is not included in this document. It is assumed that the phases listed below have been initiated and larg~ly completed prior to beginning the task analysis.
- Operating Experience.Review
- Control Room Inventory
- Control Room Survey
- System Functions Review A description of each of the above phases is contained in the Program Plan for the DCRDR.
SECTION 2. OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH There are two (2) objectives of the task analysis performed for a IX:RDR. The first objective of the task analysis is to provide data for the verification of control room task performance capabilities on the basis of instrumentation, controls and equipment. The second objective is to determine whether the functions allocated to the control room operating crew can in fact be accomplish~d effectively within (1) the structure of defined operating and emergency procedures and (2) the design of the control room as it exists. To accomplish these objectives, seven steps are performed in the task analysis.
The steps are:
- 1. Collect docmnentation
- 2. Complete Pre-fill Task Analysis Forms for operating events selected
- 3. Walkthrough/talkthrough operating events with operators 1
L GENE~ PHYSICS CORPORATION
- 4. Videotape real-time walkthrough of operating events
- 5. Review videotapes with operators
- 6. Complete Task Analysis Forms for operating events
- 7. Analyze task data to meet objectives Each step is discussed in the following sections.
2.1 Collect Documentation The first step in task analysis was to insure that the necessary documentation was available. The following plant documents were used as resource materials.
e Panel layout drawings and engraving lists
- Instrumentation and control list
- Control room procedures (Normal Instructions and Emergency Instructions)
- Piping and instrumentati.on dia.grams
- Technical specifications e FSAR Section 15
- Systems Descriptions In addition, detailed descriptions of the operating events chosen for analysis were also used. These operating event descriptions were developed and include*d in *the earlier review of system functions and event selection (documented in Appendices A and B of the "Detailed Control Room Design Review Report for the Public Service Electric and Gas Salem Units 1 and 2, Volume 1: Review Plan and Summary" that was submitted to the NRC.) The Operating Event Selection document and the plant procedures used to develop it served as the primary guides for the operators when they walked through the events, as well as the basis for the completed task analysis.
2
GENE~ PHYSICS CORPORATION 2.2 Complete Pre-fill Task Analysis Forms The next step in the task analysis was to complete the Pre-fill Task Analysis Forms. The purpose of the Pre-filled Task Anlysis Form was to document the operator tasks and task resource requirements necessary to perform the operator functions required in each operating event analyzed.
Completion of this form took place prior to on-site visits to provide an independent assessment of operator tasks and associated information and control requirements for the selected operating events. Tasks explicit and implicit in procedures were identified and described. For each task, operator actions arid information requirements were identified. The information contained in the Pre-fill Task Analysis Form is presented in Figure 1. Each column heading, or data descriptor, will be discussed below. Some descriptors were not completed until after the on-site walkthrough *
.The Procedure # and Name descriptor identified the procedure with an alpha-numeric code and provided a descriptive title for the .
procedure. A sample entry in this column was "E-0 Reactor Trip or Safety Injection." Steps- within procedures were also noted.
Subsequent branching points in the procedure which reference additional procedures were also listed as they occlirred.
The Operator Tasks/Elements descriptor identified the operators, their actions and the equipment used in a .subject-verb-object format. The personnel performing the tasks were identifed with abbreviations, for example RO or SRO. Numbers were used to identify multiple operators, for example R0-1 and R0-2. The action taken by the operator was then described with a verb. System/component descriptors were used to identify components and/or parameters involved in the task. A typical entry might include: subject - R0-1, R0-2 or SRO; verb - reads or positions; and object - reactor pressure or steam dump valve. Operator tasks/elements were prepared by human factors analysts and GP pressurized water reactor (:EWR) subject matter experts.
3
GENERAL PHYSICS CORPORATION -*
Page ~~~~~~- of PRE-FILL TASK ANALYSIS FORM f-'*
(EXPECTED EVENT SEQUENCE)
~Ii
(!)
Procedure # & Name Operator Tasks/Elements Observed Orde*1 I-'
(Include Procedure (Procedtire step description System Responses I&C Needs of Performance
'"d Ii
(!)
Step # for each Task/ & additional actions by (system or Comp/ (Specific (by Operating I
f-': Element if possible) operator) Parameter) CR equipment). Crew)
I-'
I-'
.i:.
t-3 Ill Ul S'
Ill I-'
Ul f-'*
Ul 0
Ii
.s
GE~E~ PHYSICS CORPORATION The System Responses descriptors noted either system responses or specific component/parameter responses with respect to the operators' actions. System/component descriptors were noted as well as parameter descriptors (level, pressure, etc.) when needed. Trends, setpoints and similar information was recorded only when critical to define branching points or decision inputs/outputs. A typical entry might be: annunciator alarms, flow increases or reactor coolant pump in auto. GP PWR subject matter experts determined the expected system response.
Descriptors entered in the I&C Needs col urnn were developed based on plant drawings and related references that were used to determine information and control requirements. To avoid bias, the subject matter experts did not use the Control Room Inventory or any other docum~ntation of the actual contrpl room I&C. Instead, they relied on their generic knowledge of !WR operation to provide an objective assessment of I&C requirements.
The last descriptor, Observed Order of Performance, identified the sequencing of actions. This designation of sequence was assigned after the walkthroughs for each event.
Once the Pie-fill Task Analysis Forms were completed, they were sent to the utility for review and comment. This review allowed utility DCRDR team members to become aware of the procedures (or sections of procedures) that were to be used to perform the operating events. It also allowed for input from the utility prior to_ the on-site walkthroughs and videotaping.
In summary, most of the descriptor fields on the Pre-fill Task Analysis Forms were completed during a "table-top" analysis of the operating event.
While many of the column entries could be anticipated, some data items at the "behavioral element level" were more fully completed at a later stage. The.
"element level" was defined as the smallest behavioral unit to be analyzed, for example turning a*knob. During the walkthrough, the operators occasionally inserted actions, omitted actions, or altered the expected 5
- ~
GENE- PHYSICS CORPORATION sequence of actions. Thus, the completed pre-fill forms were flexible to allow for variation and potential changes during the walkthroughs/talkthroughs.
2.3 Walkthroughs/Talkthroughs Once the Pre-fill Task Analysis Forms were complete and reviewed, the .2!l:..
site portion of the task analysis was conducted. The Pre-fill Task Analysis Forms and the complementary Operating Event Selection document were reviewed by plant personnel with human factors analysts present. This talkthrough was done "table-top" outside the control room.
Next, the talkthrough in the control room was conducted involving the plant personnel who were designated to walkthrough the event. One event at a time was talked through and then walked through. The purpose of the talkthrough in the control room was to provide a relatively slow-paced rehearsal of the operating sequence for the plant personnel and task analysts. The operators were provided with a copy of the Operating Event Selection document and the completed Pre-fill Task Analysis Forms for the event.
During the talkthrough, the operators were instructed to speak one at a time and describe their actions. Since this forced serial action, the operators were also asked to verbalize actions performe~ simultaneously.
Specifically, the operators verbalized:
- the component or parameter being controlled or monitored
- the purpose of the action
- the expected result of the action in terms of system response As the operators talked through the sequence, they touched each control or display used in sequence, or pointed directly to each annunciator involved.
Selected parts of the talkthrough were videotaped.
6
GEN~* PHYSICS CORPORATION 2.4 Videotape of Walkthroughs When the talkthrough"of an eventwas complete, the walkthrough.was then done. During the wa1kthrough, operators were instructed to walk through the event in a relatively realistic time frame. The operators still touched controls and displays and pointed to annunciators they used, but otherwise simulated the sequence realistically.
The operating event walkthrough was videotaped to provide a means for later analyses of the tasks. The walkthrough was videotaped in the control room.
2.5 Review of Videotapes After the real-time walkthrough, the videotapes* were reviewed with plant operations staff to verify the tasks performed and their order (in the "Observed Order* of i;>erformance" descriptor). The operators who participated in the walkthroughs reviewed the tapes to answer analysts' questions about unobservable behavior, for example decision-making, or observable behavior that was unclear, such as exact control manipulations.
2.6 Complete Task Analysis Forms The next step in the task analysis process was to complete the Task Analysis Forms. Some information for these forms was obtained from the operators after videotaping walkthroughs of the event. For the most part, however, these forms were completed during analysis of the videotapes at the.
GP office. Analysts also used the Operating Event Selection docmnent and the Pre-fill Task Analysis Forms as references for this process. An example of a completed.Task Analysis Form is presented in Figure 3 (p. 21) of the "Detailed Control *Room Design Review Report for the Public Service Electric and Gas Salem Station Units 1 and 2, Volmne 1: Review Plan and Summary" that was submitted to the NRC.
7
GEN~ PHYSICS CORPORATION 2.7 Analyze Task Data to Meet Objectives The first objective of performing the task analysis was to determine if the instrumentation and controls that the operators need to perform their tasks were available in the control room and, if they were, to determine if the design allowed for an effective human-machine interface. In NUREG-0700, this is referred to as a "Verification of Task Performance Capabilities." In*
- order to ensure that this objective was adequately addressed, the procedure described below was performed.
Briefly, the procedure for determining if the necessary instrumentation and controls were available, and if there were any interface problems connected with the simulated operating event, was as follows:
- Information on input requirements from the Task Analysis Forms was compared with the Control Room Inventory list.
- Any instrumentation or controls that were needed_but not present in the control room were noted as possible human engineering discrepancies (HEDs).
- If the instrumentation parameters did not agree with the system/parameter information requirements, they were noted as possible HEDs.
- If instrumentation or control features did not allow successful task completion, they were noted as possible HEDs.
- The HEDs identified prior to the walkthroughs were evaluted to ascertain if they consituted a discrepancy in the dynamic context of the control room.
- A~ter the operating event walkthroughs had been analyzed, additional
- HEDs were identified (see Appendix A for NUREG-0700 dynamicall"y-oriented guidelines that were considered).
The second objective of the task analysis was to identify difficulties based on the control room design, in accomplishing the necessary tasks involved in the operating event,* to ascertain the validity of* selected previously identified discrepancies, and to identify any discrepancies not 8
- - - - -- - - - - - - - --- - - * ------- -- - -- ---------- - ____ :;..~-*-*-*---- .. ::-~-~-.~--~*
previously recorded.
- GENE~
NUREG-0700 refers to this as the "Validation of Control PHYSICS CORPORATION Room Operator Functions." Task analysis documentation was used to determine whether functions allocated to the control room crew were effectively accomplished given the design of the control room as it exists. Dynamic performance of the operators was used as the context for examining relevant HEDs generated during the DCRDR. Although no explicit performance criteria were available in the industry, general criteria for performance of tasks within each operating event were used to confirm existing'HEDs or to identify additional HEDs.
SECTION 3.
SUMMARY
In summary, this paper presented a methodology for conducting a task analysis for the detailed control room design review.. The method proposed is now summarized.
The first step was to collect the appropriate documentation. Using this documentation, a Pre-fill Task Analysis Form was completed to document operator tasks and task resource requirements. This effort was conducted at the GP office. Next a walkthrough/talkthrough of the selected event was conducted on-site with the appropriate plant personnel. The Operating*Event Selection document and the completed Pre-fill Task Analysis Forms were the primary references used. A walkthrough of the event by station operators was then videotaped, to serve as an information source for later analysis. The videotapes were then reviewed with the operators to ensure their completeness and validity. The next step was the task analysis proper. The Task Analysis Forms were completed during a second (off-site) review of the videotapes.
Finally the task analysis data was analyzed to verify task performance capabilites and to validate control room operator functions.
The end product of the task analysis was a verification that control room design allowed effective human-machine interface and a validation that control room operator functions could be met for the selected events. Any problems encountered which disrupted the attainment of these objectives were documented as human engineering discrepancies.
9
- GENE~ PHYSICS CORPORATION APPENDIX A DYNAMICALLY-ORIENTED GUIDELINES FROM NUREG-0700 10
::-=:-::---~----:;-:;-:-- ------ -
GEN~ PHYSICS CORPORATION Dynamically-Oriented Guidelines from NUREG-0700 6o1o1o1 Accessibility of Instrmnentation/Equipment ao Present in the Control Room 6o1o1o2 Consistency of Manning with Equipment Layout bo Utilization of Additional Personnel 6o1o1o3 Furniture. and* Equipment 'Layout b.o Communications Co Operator Access do Circulation Patterns 60 1 o 2o 2 Stand-Up Console Dimensions fo Lateral Spread of Controls*and Displays 60 1o2o5 Vertical Panels ao Control Height
. (2) Controls requiring precise or frequent operation and emergency controls o bo Display Height (2) Displays that must be read frequently or precisely 6o1o5o5 Auditory Environment ao Background Noise Co Further Reductions
.. 60 2o 2o 1 us*e of Auditory Signals Co Selection 6o3o1o2 Alarm Parameter Selection ao Set Points 6o3o1o3 First Out Annunciators do Application 6o3o1o4 Prioritization ao Levels of Priority 6o4o1o1 General Principles ao Adequacy 6o4o1o2 Prevention of Accidental Activation ao Proper Location -
A-1
=;;;;;;;;;;;;....-==================~-----..,;;;;::=========---**~*-~----~-===----~----------~-=-=,_-~---~*-~- -,;~*----~----=--- -----*
GENEtla. PHYSICS CORPORATION 6o5o1o1 Information to be Displayed ao Task Analysis bo Completeness of Information Demand Information Versus Status Information 6o5o1o2 Usability of Displayed Values ao Scale Selection do Scale Range 6o5o1o4 Printing on the Display Face eo Consistency with Procedures 6060101 Need for Labeling 6060309 Access Opening, Danger, Warning, and Safety Instrµction Labeling bo Danger, Warning, and Safety Instruction Labels 6o7o 1o7 Computer Response Time to Operator Queries ao Maximum Response Time bo Response Delay Messages 6080101 Assigning Panel Contents ao Grouping by Task Sequence bo Grouping by System Function Co Grouping by Importance and Frequency of Use 6080201 Sequence, Frequency of Use, and Functional Considerations ao Sequence bo Frequency of Use Co Functional Considerations 6080202 Logical Arrangement and Layout bo Other Expectations 6080301 Separation of Controls
- b. Inadvertent Actuation 6o9o 1o 1 Single Control and Display Pairs Co Association 609. 2o 1 Location and Arrangement of Control-Display Groups
- a. Functional Integrity bo Sequence of Use 6o9o3o1 General Movement Relationships Co Display Response Time Lag A-2
GENE~L PHYSICS CORPORATION G-.9.3.2 Control-Display Ratio
- a. Controls
- b. Displays Co Excess Precision A-3
Enclosure 3 Environmental Survey Data Forms
ILLUMINATION SURVEY DATA SHEET PLANT DATE POSITION NORMAL FULL EMERGENCY LIGHTING LIGHTING LIGHTING
NOISE SURVEY DATA~ET t'
LOCATION:
HERTZ overall 20 25 31.5 40 50 63 80 100 I 125 160 200 250 315 ;
400 500 630 800 1000 1250 1600 2000 2500 3150 .
4000 5000 6300 8000 10000 12500 16000 20000 25000
LUMINANCE SURVEY DATA SHEET PLANT DATE LEGEND PUSHBUTTONS COLOR ILLUMINATED UNILLUMINATED BACKGROUND GREEN RED YELLOW BLUE WHITE INDICATOR LIGHTS PANEL COLOR ILLUMINATED UNILLUMINATED .BACKGROUND
~
1*
~
Enclosure 4 Administrative*Procedure No. 8 Design Change, Test and Experiment Program *.
Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box E Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038
- Salem Generating Station February 13, 1984 To all AP Holders MINOR CHANGE TO AP-8, DESIGN CHANGE, TEST AND EXPERIMENT PROGRAM Form AP-8-2, Field Questionnaire Revision 6 to the procedure changes titles from PSE&G Site Engineer to Sponsor Engineer and added a place. to note "Other Documents Affected". This change is administrative in nature and does not in any way change responsibilities, etc. You are requested to continue to use the Revision 5 form until your supply has been exhausted.
All AP holders are requested. to post th.is +etter in the .. front of. thei::i: copy of AP-8 arid sign the attached. AP-1-3 form and .
return it to the Technical Manager - Salem Operat~ons *
- 1--~1 General Manager -
Salem Operations BWL:kll
0 PS~G e e Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box E Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038
- Salem Generating Station January 27, 1984 To All AP Holders MINOR CHANGE TO AP-8, DESIGN CHANGE, TEST AND EXPERIMENT In order to improve the final review process the requirement to present a closed DCP to SORC prior to return to Engineering for final document update is cancelled. All holders of AP-8 shall disregard section 5.13 and Item III-9 on page 3 of 3 of the Design Change Request Form. These sections will be removed from AP-8 at the next printing.
.*~~fL-General Manager - *.
Salem Operations GCH:rer
' The Energy People 95-2189i20MI11-81
0 PS~G e Public Service Electric and Gas Company P 0. Box E Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Salem Generating Station January 12, 1984 To All AP Holders MINOR CHANGE TO AP-8 The Operations Staff DCR Coordinator requires this form to allow time to implement changes to procedures and to distribute information to Operations personnel that are affected by the design changes.
All AP holders are requested to remove page 1 of 3, attachment 5 from their p;r_esent copy and insert the attached. page in its place.
Upon c,ompletion, complete the attached revision notice form. *.
and return it to the Technical Staff Department - Salem Operations.
yl~jl General Manager -
Salem Operations WW:kll attachment The Energy People
ATTACHMENT 5 DESI. CHANGE PACKAGE NOTIFICAT.
(PART A)
- TO: Distribution DISTRIBUTION:
Manager - Nuclear Constr.uction Support Manager - Nuclear Engineering Control DATE:
FROM:
Assistant General Manager - Salem Operations Maintenance Manager Technical Manager Operations Manager Operations Staff OCR Coordinator - Salem Operations Operational Test Engineer Originator File work Order No * : Design Change Package No.:
The modification is: to be implemented.
--- Complete - DCR ciose out in progress.
Incompiete:.. Details* of the portion(~)"
of the modifications performed are as follows: *.
I Originator Date This notice must accompany the Work Order w~en presented to the Shift Supervisor for signature and tag release.
General Manager change of 1/12/84 AP-8 Page i of 3 Rev. 6
~
PS~G*
Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box E Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Salem Generating Station February 18, 1983 To All AP Holders TEMPORARY CHANGE TO AP-8 Due to the necessity for the Technical Document Room (TDR) to perform a timely issuance of Operational Design Change Notices (ODCNs) after the installation or modification of a plant system, a temporary change to AP-8 is effective immediately. The current revision of*AP-8 requires the Operational Test Group to obtain the completed, station-buil t, Design Change Packages (DCPs). However, due to intricacies of document ro:_ ci.ng, this wi*11 riot be possible.*
Therefore, the following measure.* is deemed* necessary.
Upon completion of a plant system installation or modi-
- fication, the work supervisor/responsible department shall sign-off the Design Chang.e Document Status List (DCDSL) and.
attach a copy to the document update notification, AP-8-3 Revision 6 (amended), and send it to the distribution listed, which includes the TDR. This instruction is effective for all Design Change Packages for Salem Units 1 and 2. *Each AP-8 holder shall post this letter in the front of Revision 6 of AP-8. This temporary change will be effective until the next revision of AP-8, expected by.July 1, 1983. At that time it will be incorporated into the new AP-8 revision.
General Manager -
SaleJ:'!l Operations FD:kls
£!~ :139 1 20'~L11 *81
DOCUMENT UPDATE NOTIFICATION To Distribution The following ODCNs have been completed and should be issued by the Technical Document Room. The drawing should be updated for inclusion into applicable station documentation.
These documents were affected by work performed under:
DCR No.: Work Order No.:
- A copy of each signed-off DCDSL must be attached.
- Work Supervisor/
Responsible Department Date Transmitted Distribution:
General Manager - Salem Operations Assistant General Manager - Engineering Manager - Quality Assurance Nuclear Opertions Station Planning Technical Document Room - Salem ft AP-8 Form AP-8-3 Rev. 6