ML18139A558
| ML18139A558 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry, North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1980 |
| From: | VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18139A557 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-CR-1580 NUDOCS 8010010688 | |
| Download: ML18139A558 (102) | |
Text
- .e
- *s o i o o ] o "88"*
EVALUATION AND CRITIQUE OF NUREG/CR - 1580 SEPTEMBER 1980 REGULATORY DOCKET BlE COPY
- e TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION..................................................
1 PREF ACE.......................................................
3 SECTION 1.
LACK OF CRITERIA VALIDATION IN THE CONTROL ROOM... 1-1 SECTION 2.
ERRORS OF OMISSION................................ 2-1 SECTION 3.
ERRORS OF TECHNICAL CONTENT....................... 3-1 SECTION 4.
AMBIGUITY IN RATIONALE, GUIDELINES, PROCEDURES AND CONTENT....................................... 4-1 SECTION 5.
CONTRADICTIONS Ai~ONG CRITERIA..................... 5-1
- 19.
1
INTRODUCTION
- The following report represents a s':lmma~y __ of technical problem areas identified in NUREG/CR-1580, Human Engineering Guide to Control Room Evaluation.
These areas were identified following a detailed review of the technical content of the document.
five were The majority of the problem areas identified fell into distinct problem areas during the review process.
These problems related to:
- 1.
Lack of criteria validation of NUREG/CR-1580 Guidelines to the control room environment.
- 2.
Errors of Omission.
- 3.
Errors of Technical Content.
- 4.
Ambiguity in Rationale, Guidelines, Procedures and Intent.
- 5.
Contradictions Among Criteria.
The following comments have been presented as five sections corresponding to the five general problem areas.
Several methods were used to examine and critique NUREG/CR-1580.
The document was compared to a number of existing human factors engineering references and evaluated for corresponding accuracy.
Errors of omission and problems ~ith ambiguity were identified.
Finally, problem areas were identified where the relation of the NUREG/CR-1580 criteria to the circumstances of the nuclear power plant control room was in question, and additionally, where contradictions with other criterion were found.
1
The comments contained in this report have been presented in four sections per each issue of concern.
The general issue of concern is ~t~ted, followed by the loc~tion ~f the issue within NUREG/CR-1580.
A remark regarding the concern is then provided, followed by a recommended change.
2
PREFACE During the review of NUREG/CR-1580 two general problem areas seemed to evolve:
the lack of criteria validation of the guidelines to the control room environment and the lack of distinction between safety-related and non-safety-rela ted functions or operator tasks.
Several of the problems identified in NUREG/CR-1580 were classified into these areas.
However, due to the acute impact of these two problem areas on the validity of the guidelines a special remark is pertinent at this time.
It should be noted that within the field of Human Factors Engineering, the primary value of systems evaluation rests on the successful definition of criteria.
This criteria
- ~
problem is familiar with all human factors engineers who have used design guidelines or checklists as predictors of system performance or effectiveness.
Prior to a determination of system effectiveness, a pre-determined standard of proper design or performance must be established.
The lack of both a theoretical and empirical bases for establishing a standard threatens the validity tif the resultant measure of design or performance effectiveness.
NUREG/CR-1580 suffers from the symptoms of lack of performance criteria and, therefore, a lack of criteria validation.
Until these two major shortcomings are corrected, the value of the guidelines remains questionable.
3
SECTION 1 LACK OF CRITERIA VALIDATION IN THE CONTROL ROOM
CONCERN~ Validation that guidelines are applicable to Control Room.
LOCATION: Volume I, page xi, last paragraph COMMENT:
This paragraph implies that the guidelines and evaluation procedures were validated on nuclear power plants.
However, the techniques.employed to vali~ate the guidelines are not presented in the document.
Guidelines used by human factors engineers for making design decisions are usually vali-dated using human performance data acquired from prototype systems or, whenever possible, within an operational environ-ment.
This paragraph implies that the guidelines are founded on such data and contradicts the statement in Volume *I, page 2, paragraph 1 which implies that the guidelines are valid since they are used in military and aerospace applications.
RECOMMENDATION:
Remove validation statement or reference control room data showing validation of guidelines.
1-1 0
CONCERN:
Applicability of Human Factors Engineering guidelines to modification of the Control Room.
LOCATION: Volume I, page 2, paragraph* 1 COMMENT:
This paragraph states that the guidelines are estab-lished, however, the guidelines were established within military.
and aerospace engineering design constraints.
The establishment of these guidelines within the community does not indicate that they are valid within the operation and design constraints of the nuclear power plant control room.
In addition, the applica-tion of trese guidelines to existing control rooms requiring modifications appear inappropriate when the original design criteria were adequate but not optimum.
RECOMMENDATION:
Design issues within the power plant control room which have been linked to documented human errors should be cited and emphasized.as a guidance tool for human factors engin-eers working in the control room.
1-2
. CONCERN:
Applicability of Human Factors Engineering guidelines to the Control Room LOCATION-: Volume I, page 2, paragraph 2 COMMENT:
Previous statements regarding the guidelines suggests that they have been validated in the control roo~. This para-graph states that no human factors standard has been developed*
specifically for the nuclear power plant control room.
However,*
the paragraph states, further, that these guidelines "appeared" to be valid "in most cases." Where are these guidelines valid or not valid?
RECOMMENDATION: Delete any guideline that is not valid_for nuclear power plants.
tt CONCERN:
HED Priority Determination LOCATION: Volume I, Appendix IX-1 COM}1ENT:
The technique presented which establishes a priority of human error deficiency suggests that it has been used success-fully within the nuclear power plant control room environment.
However, human factors engineering empirical data supporting the validation, in the control room, of RED Priority Determina-tion has not been referenced or provided.
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide the results of previous applications of the RED determination technique to the nuclear power plant control room.
1-3
CONCERN:
Illumination Levels LOCATION: Volume T, CRE -
10 COMMENT:
An ambient illumination range between 30 and 50 foot candles is recommended.
This range corresponds to the proper ltghting level conducive to effective visual task performance.
However, within a nuclear power plant control room the use of 30 - 50 foot candles illumination threatens the effectiveness of a "Green Board" indication control board.
Valid criteria for light~ng levels under these circumstances must be developed
- prior to specifying lighting levels.
RECOMMENDATION:
Determine illumination levels needed for "Green Board" concept or modify c.riteria to allow trade offs of ambient illumination with contrast.
1-4
CONCERN:
Console Dimensions for the Standing Operator LOCATION: Volume II, WA - 24, 25 COMMENT:
- 1.
As presented, these guidelines will have a sig-nificant impact on the modification requirements of the majority of control room boards.
The human factors criteria employed to develop this guideline is based upon a particular frequency of control boqrd use and criticalness of operation.
Before this guideline is applied to the nuclear power plant control room, cross validation of criteria should first be established.
- 2.
The dimensions presented in the figure were es-tablished under conditions where the operator was required to perform certain functions, at a certain rate~
The applicability of this diagram to the control board and its operator can only be established once the similarity and frequency of operator functions is demonstrated.
RECOMMENDATION:
Review diagram and provide rationale supporting the dimensions or modify appropriately.
Validation of dimen-sioned criteria should first be established before this guideline is applied to the nuclear power plant control room.
1-5
CONCERN:
Console Dimensions for the Seated Operator LOCATION*: Volume II, WA - 26, 27 C0}~1ENT:
The task responsibilities of a control room operator, while sitting, should be well-defined prior to establishing' console design constraints.
(Refer to comments under "Console Dimensions for the Standing Operator").
RECOM1*1ENDATION: Define the type of seated operator's task relevant to the criteria.
CONCERN*:
Placement (of visual displays)
LOCATION: Volume II, VD -
18 CO}fr1ENT:
- 1.
Importance. *Degree of importance as it relates to a safety related criterion should be better defined.
Which
. displays are not important or critical?
- 2.
Consistency.
The impact of minor arrangement of controls and/or displays should be assessed prior to the estab-lishment of a consistency guideline.
RECOMMENDATION:
These guidelines were based on a criteria of display placement established for the control room.
Clarify where these guidelines (on the control board) are valid.
. 1-6
CONCERN:
Representational Displays LOCATION: Volume II, VD -
14, #1 COMMENT:
The use of bars or lines to depict trends in graphic displays is task specific.
There is no human factors engineer-ing data supporting the use of this guideline for all display information-processing requirements.
This guideline employs the term "read better."
Human factors engineering studies attempt to be more refined in describing human performance variables.
"Better" has no meaning within the field of human factors engineering.
RECOMMENDATION:
Clarify the guideline and provide a clearer
~efinition of expected increase in performance as a function of display design.
1-6 1
CONCERN:
Location and Arrangement LOCATION: Volume II, VD-22,23 COMMENT:
The following three areas regarding visual displays require greater clarification in.terms of control room appli-cability:
- 1.
Accuracy - normal opera.ting position must be better defined in terms of sitting, standing, distance and location.
, 2.
Reflection - a technique of assessing system performance degradation should be developed and specified.
- 3.
Maximum Viewing Distance - A realistic maximum/
minimum viewing distance is not specified.
RECOMMENDATION:
These guidelines were based on a criteria of display loca.tion and arrangement established for the control room Clarify where these guidelines (on the control board) are valid.
1-7
CONCERN:
Assessment of Mechanical Instruments e
LOCATION: Volume II, VD - 67, #3 COMMENT:
Placement of Pointers.
What is the rationale.suppor~
ting the plac~ment of pointers to the right of vertical scales?
Some control rooms have pointers to the right of the scale and other control rooms have pointers to.the left.
To date, read-ability experiments conducted in co.ntrol rooms with :either type of pointer have revealed no significant difference in operator readability.
RECOMt,IBNDATION:
Eliminate criteria from guideline.
CONCERN:
Dial Marking LOCATION: Volume II, VD -
75 COMMENT:
The advantages of multiple color coding for use in contiol room indicators is questionable.
No known human factors engineering empirical data exists which demonstrates the ad-vantages of multiple color band coding on indicators for check-reading.
The criteria cited were developed for aircraft cockpit applications, where accurate operational status must be as-certained under severe time constraints.
RECOMMENDATION:
Obtain data to support criteria or eliminate criteria from guideline.
1-8
CONCERN:
Dial Marking LOCATION: Volume II, VD-74,75 COMMENT:
The placement of zone markings on the indica~or window creates severe parallex problems when viewed at moderate angles of the 1 ine of sight.
.such markings are important aids to operator control board scanning and system status determination.
~
The probability of erroneous judgements due to indicator location errors are increased when zone markings are placed oh the indi-cator window.
However, the effectiveness of this approach must I
be ascertained within the control room prior to its establish-ment as a guideline.
RECOMMENDATION:.
Provide data or guidelines regarding where the use of dial markings are valid or delete from guidelines.
1-9
CONCERN:
Reflectance LOCATION: Volume II, CRE -
6 COMMENT:
- 1.
General reconnnendation for ceiling reflectance is between 60 and 95% (Vancott and Kinkade, 1972), rather than the 80 to 90% specified_.
- 2.
General recommendation for wall reflectance is between 40 and 60% (VanCott and Kinkade, 1972), rather than the 50 ro 15-20% specified.
- 3. "Appropriate ref lee tance values depends, to a great extend, on room size and task conditions.
Data supporting the validity of the values listed in. CRE-6 are not available from the open literature.
RECOMMENDATION:
Review the validity of this guideline in re-ference to control rooms and correct guideline..
1-10
CONCERN:
Shelf Dimensions LOCATION*: Volume II, WA-8 COMMENT:
The rationale and reference cited for Under no cir-cumstances" is not obvious from the original.technical source referenced (Woodson* and Conover, 1964).
RECOMMENDATION:
The validity of this restriction is under question.
Provide the reasoning for this guideline or modify appropriately.
CONCERN:
Standard Console Dimensions LOCATION: Volume II, WA~23 COMMENT:
The following footnote from the original reference has been omitted from this section:
. "Design values for each console established to accomodate 95 plus percent of USAF population."
RECOMMENDATION:
This footnote re.fleets, to a certain degree, the validity of *the data appearing in the table.
Review*the norm population used, compare to the norm of control room oper-ators and modify the guideline appropriately.
1-11
CONCERN:
Reactor Control Panel Colored Pink LOCATION:
Volume I, ?age 29, Section 3.3.3 COMMENT:
Given the size of control board system panels, there is absolutely no human factors engineering rationale for painting the reactor control board pink.
There is a point at which the human factors engineer must rely on training and its interaction with design. :
.RECOMMENDATION:
Remove the design convention of a pink reactor control board.
CONCERN:
LOCATION:
COMMENT:
RECOMMENDATION:
1-12
~, *.
'a SECTION 2 ERRORS OF OMISSION
CONCERN:
Taxonomy of Ruman Errors LOCATION*:
Volume I, page 5, paragraph 1 COMMENT:
The taxonomy of errors presented suggests that the errors are independent of each other.
Interactions play a significant role during the performance evaluation of systems.
Human factors engineering studies have shown that interactions of various performance variables are significant contributors to human errors (i.e., control/display errors).
RECOMMENDATION:
Include a list of interactions as contributory to human error.
CONCERN:
Safety Related Priorities not recognized.
LOCATION: Volume I, page 2, Phase I and Volume I, page 6, paragraph 2.1.l.
COMMENT:
The primary concern of safety-related priority is not obvious in Phase I or the planning process.
(
One of the maJor tasks of the ev*aluation team is to develop criteria regarding safety and non-safety related operator functions or plant systems.
RECO}frIENDATION: Phase I on page 2 should include a statement to define scope of evaluation.
Paragraph 2.1.1 - objectives should recognize scope, e.g., the objective is to improve the operator's capability of accessing abnormal conditions of safety related equipment and taking corrective action under no~mal and stress conditions.
2-1
-1
-1
CONCERN:
Task Analysis LOCATION:
Volume I, page 18, paragraph 2.5.6.2 COMMENT:
The recommended source of data to be used for task analyses considers only experienced control room operators.
One of the objectives o_f task analyses is* to improve the design
- -and operation of systems.
A number of human factors engineering studies have shown that data from inexperienced users can be an extremely I
.valuable source of information regarding design and operation problems.
RECOMMENDATION:
Add the requirement for interviewing inexper-ienced operators and define the meaning of experien~ed and in-experienced.
2-2
CONCERN:
Task Analysis LOCATION{ Volume I, page 18, paragraph 2.5.6.2 CO:t-1MENT:
Task Analyses should concentrate on emergency and abnormal operating procedures.
RECOMMENDATION: First sentence should read:
"Task analysis will be conducted on emergency and abnormal operating proced-ures."
CONCERN:
Generic Human Factors Engineering issues LOCATION: Volume I, page 22, paragraph 3.1 COMMENT:
It is implied that Appendix II contains generic pro-blems througho~t the industry at all plants: This is question-able.
The evaluation team should be checking the areas in the Appendix to verify that they do not cause human error problems.
RECO}frIENDATION:
Remove terms common and generic from para-graph 3.1 and remove generic from the title of Appendix II.
2-3
CONCERN:
Noise Survey 9
LOCATION*: Volume I, page 24, paragraph 3.3.l.3a COMMENT:
Noise measurements within the control room are depen-
- dent, to a great extent, upon plant operating status.
The recognition of plant status must be considered.
RECOMMENDATION: The objective of the survey is to measure the ambient noise level under normal control room conditions.
CONCERN:
References LOCATION: Volume II, page 6 & 7 COMMENT:
A number of references cited in Volume II have not been *included under "references." These include referenc.es to Lutz, Conrad, Conrad and Hill, Heglin, LAMPS, and MIL-STD-1471 Essex Revisi~n; MIL-STD-1472C (1980), Paul, et al.
RECO}fr1ENDATION:
Include appropriate references.
. e 2~
e CONCERN:
Noise Survey LOCATION: Volume I, page 24, paragraph 3.1.1 COMMENT:
The following areas should be clarified prior to acquiring or evaluating noise survey data:
- 1.
A clearer definition of indirect noise must be provided (bandwidth, time of day, average reading, 1/3 or 1/10 octave).
- 2.
Operator position needs to be defined.
- 3.
Methods of assessing the impact of noise on verbal communication and signal detection and classification needs to be determined.
RECO:rvIMENDATION:
Clarify this.paragraph.
2-5
.I
CONCERN:
Backfits LOCATION: Volume 1, page 42, Bottom paragraph COMMENT:
The use of graphic dispiays have proven to be a useful information display* tool.
Considerable attention has been devoted to this display_ technique within the human factors enginee.ring literature. Greater use of graphic devices must be considered as the backfit for augmenting and clarifying plant status information.
Furthermore, the integration of additi°.-r:ia;t _control r°.om mod~fication re~~ire:ments (i.e., _SPDS) will have a significant impact on the availability of plant status information.
This information will augment the informa-tion needs of the operator and rectify current information availability problems.
RECOMMENDATION:
Add new bullet:
Use of graphic displays to augment p!ant status information available to the operator.
2-6
CONCERN:
Glare LOCATION: Volume lI, CRE - 3 COMMENT:
Adequate lighting in the control room requires the use of a sufficient number of overhead lamps.
Due to the size of the environment, certain lamps will be unavoidably positioned at adverse angles.
The use of selected ceiling diffusers would be an appropriate.backfit if other human factors engineering illumination guidelines are not violated.
RECOMMENDATION: Add the use of ceiling diffusers as a backfit alternative.
CONCERN:
Luminance Ratio LOCATION: Volume II, CRE - 8 Backfit COMMENT:
Varying the surface (reflectance) is an effective backfit alternative under these circumstances.
Adjusting the light source would have a greater degree of impact on the criteria related to room illumination and gl~re.
RECOMMENDATION:
Add the backfit alternative of adjusting the 1 igh t source.
- 2-7
CONCERN:
Illumination Levels LOCATION*: Volume II, CRE-10 COMMENT:
Required emergency lighting levels are not provided.
The operability of the control during emergency conditions depends, to a great extent, on.proper room illumination.
A criteria of illumination under such conditions is not presented.
RECOMMENDATION: lnclude a criteria value for emergency room illumination.
CONCERN:
Placement LOCATION: Volume II, VD - 18 COMMENT:
The following area should be added to this section:
Frequency of Use.
Displays most frequently used within each system should be grouped together.
RECO:t-frIENDATION:
Correct guideline.
2-:-8
CONCERN:
Control Placement for Standing Operators LOCATION: Volume II, WA-3, #Sa-; #7, #8 and Documentation COMMENT:
- 1.
There multiple displays.
definition in terms
- 2.
- 7:
- 3.
- 8:
- 4.
- 8:
are a number of single controls which affect This guideline requires a gre~ter degree of of* _functional grouping.
"74" inch" should read ii70 inches".
"5 7 inch" should read 1:53 inchesn.
Centerline and lateral criteria should be
-added.
- 5.
MIL-STD-1472B (1976 Revision) should be referenced not 1974.
RECOMMENDATION:
Correct guideline.
2-9
CONCERN:
Cathode Ray Tubes LOCATION: Volume II, VD-48 COMMENT:
- 1.
Guideline relevant to color displays are lacking.
- 2.
There exists a number of effective human factors engi~eering display and o~tical image evaluation techniques for assessing CRT performance.
The use of these techniques to support a guideline will clarify otherwise ambiguous require-ments (i.e.; gray levels, resolution, geometric distortion, graphics,* etc.)
- J.
An acceptable range of v1ew1ng distances for displays in the control room of different designs needs to be established.
- 4.
There are a number of information enhancement coding techniques which may be presented alone or in combina-tion fo~ the display of alphanumeric arid ~eometrical inf~r~at_ion (i.e., brightness coding, reverse video, blinking and character styles.)
RECOMMENDATION:
Correct guideline.
2-10
. i
CONCERN:
Check - reading dial layout LOCATION: Volume II, VD-85, paragraph B_, Guideline COMMENT:
"Wherever* possiblen should be added to the first sentence in paragraph #1.
"Wherever possiblen should be added to the first sentence of the last paragraph.
This guideline conflicts with operator activity
~ssoci~ted with the location of controls and related displays on auxiliary electrical panels.
- RECOMMENDATION:
Clarify the guideline.
- e.
2-11
CONCERN:
Control Surfaces LOCATION: Volume II, CON-2, paragraph E-Typical Backfit COMMENT:
- 1.
Control surface coding can be an effe.ctive coding device under conditions of low room illumination.
- However, surface coding should not be used for all controls, but only for selected controls within a system or subsystem.
- 2.
Frictionalized control surfaces are more effective for minimizing control selection errors than for reducing chances of hand slippage.
- 3.
Frictionalized control surfaces on commonly used controls will irritate operator's fingers and hands.
RECOMMENDATION:
Eliminate guideline.
2-12
CONCERN:
Primary Control Location LOCATION: Volume II, CON-7, Guidelines COMMENT:
This guideline refers to frequently used and important controls:
- 1.
A clearer. definition of "frequently used" and Himportant" 1.S required.
- 2.
Relations to *safety related or non-safety related would be appropriate here.
That is,
' control location as well as frequericy of use and importance can be clarified by refering to a safety-related criteria.
- 3.
There is limited space on some areas of control boards.
Guidelines should be expanded to recogrnze the identification of controls as a means to improving control response.
RECOMMENDATION:
Include the backfit of color coding or de-marcation lines.
2-13
CONCERN:
Consistency of Control Location and Arrangement LOCATION*: Volume II, CON - 8, Backfit COMMENT:
Color coding techniques have been proven to be an effective backfit alternative, especially where separation criteria must be met.
RECOMMENDATION: B.
Guideline.
Functionally similar or identical primary controls should be consistently arranged, located or color coded from panel to panel or throughout control room.
E.
Typical Backfit:
Rearrange or color code controls.
CONCERN:
Control Functional Grouping LOCATION: Volume II, CON-9, Backfit COMNENT:
The use of color coding is an effective backfit alternative.
RECOMMENDATION:
code.
color code.
B.. Guideline:
Add* at the end..
- or color E.
Typical Backfit:
Add at the end...
2-14
~I
'.. /'
CONCERN:
Controls - Sequential Grouping LOCATION-:
Volume II, CON-10, Backfit CO:HMENT:
The use df mimics has proven to be an effective back-fit under conditions where separation criteria must be met or where console space is limited.
RECOM1'1ENDATION:
- E.
Typical Backfi t:
Add at the end..... or use mimics to show sequence or flow path.
CONCERN:
Multiple Controls Multiple Displays LOCATION: Volume II, CON-21; CON-22, Backfit CO:t1t-1ENT:
Other backfit alternatives are mimics and color coding.
RECOMMENDATION:
E. Typical Backfit (for Multiple Controls and Multiple Displays).
Add the use of mimics and color coding.
2-15
. CONCERN:
Operator/Computer Interface and Dialog LOCATION*:
Volume II, OCI-11, Backfit COMMENT:
Redesign of both hardware and software are not always necessary.
RECOMMENDATION:
Change "and Ii to "and/or".
CONCERN:
Command Language LOCATION: Volume II, OCI-21 Backfit COM.ME NT:
Redesign of both hardware and software are not always necessary.
RECO:Ml'1ENDATION:
Change "and" to "and/or".
2-16
CONCERN:
Desks LOCATION*= Volume II, WA-16 CO}fMENT:
Work Surface.
The term "wherever practical'; should be added to the end of the last paragraph in this section (MIL-STD-1472B (1976))..
RECOMMENDATION:
Correct guideline.
CONCERN:
Standard Console Dimensions LOCATION: Volume II, WA-23 COMMENT:
The following -footnote from the original reference has been omitted from this section=
"Design values for each console established to accomodate 95 plus percent of USAF population."
RECO}ll1ENDATION:
Review the source of norm data and modify or
- qualify values presented in the table.
2-17
CONCERN:
Location and Arrangement LOCATION-: Volume II, VD-24 CO}fr1ENT:
The following phrase has been omitted from the transi-tion between VD-23 to VD-24:
"... limitations, which shall be compensated for by... 11 RECOMl*1ENDATION:
Correct text.
CONCERN:
Test Circuits LOCATION: Volume II, AD-10 C0}1}1ENT:
The original reference (MIL-STD-1472B) indicates that "other means of operability tests" would be appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION:
Correct guideline.
.e 2-18
':I
CONCERN:
Rocker Switch Dimensions LOCATION*: Volume II, CON-69 COMMENT:
The refe~ence cited, "MIL-STD-14 72B (1974) should be
';MIL-STD-1472C (1980).
RECOMMENDATION:
Correct reference.
~
CONCERN:
Keyboard Slope LOCATION: Volume II, CON-76 COill1ENT:
For the case ot portab-le keyboards, the slope can be varied according to the preference of the operator.
(MIL-STD-1472B, 1974.)
RECOMMENDATION:
Correct guideline~
- e.
2-19.
I
CONCERN:
Microphone/Telephone Handsets
- e.
LOCATION: Volume II, COM-17 COMMENT:
The figure presented at the bottom of the page is without two legends:
right:
"Mike parallel and close" left:
"close contact" RECOMMENDATION:
Correct figure CONCERN:
Headsets - Hands Free Operation LOCATION: Volume II, COM-20 COMHENT:
"under normal working conditionsn should be added to the end on the sentence under Guideline.
RECO~il1ENDATION: Correct guideline.
. 2-20
CONCERN:
Flashing Rate for Warning Indicators LOCATION*: Volume II, VD-16 COMMENT:
A flashing rate or range should be provided in the table under "warning or caution".
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend a flashing range between 1 and 10 cycles per second.
The flash frequency should be at least ~
cycle greater or lesser than other flash rates in use.
CONCERN:
LOCATION:
COMMENT:
RECOMMENDATION:
2-21
CONCERN:
Lights for Warning Signals-LOCATION: Volume II, VD-97 COMMENT:
Confusion could result where warning lights are located in the vicinity of red status-indicator lights.
RECOMMENDATION:
Specify. a convention to follow where warning lights are located in t~e.vicinity of red status indicator
- lights.
CONCERN:
LOCATION:
COMMENT:
RECOMMENDATION:
2-22
CONCERN:
Maintenance LOCATION*: N/ A C0}~1ENT:
There is no maintenance guideline section. Little reference is made to maintenance. criteria throughout the docu-ment.
RECOMHENDATION:
Incorporate all maintenance information into one guideline section.
Especially important would be recommend-ations for documenting maintenance information on control board tags.
CONCERN:
Human Error LOCATION: Volume I, page 1 I
COMHENT:
The introduction stresses human error as a fundamental cause of accidents and/or reduced system reliability.
Operator actions do not occur in a vacuum.
Errors are due to a poor interface between man and machine.. It is this interface which is of primary conc.ern to the field of human factors engineering.
RECO}ll1ENDATION:
Clarify the introduction and stress the im-portance of examining and improving the interface between the operator and the control board.
2-23
- e CONCERN:
Operating Procedures LOCATION: N/A COMMENT:
The gui~elines provide little or no information re-garding style, layout or content conventions for operating procedures.
RECOMMENDATION:
A~d the follow~ng categories, wit~ the proper descriptive information, to a guideline for procedures:
L-
- 1.
Style a) reading level b) distinction between required actions and operating actions.
- 2.
Layout a) location of instructions, *graphics, etc.
b)
Coding of cautionary statements.
- 3.
Content a)
Automatic system actions b)
Estimates of system response time. 24
- e CONCERN:
Accidental Activation of controls located near the floor.
LOCATION*: Volume II, CON-14 C0}~1ENT:
Controls located near the floor increase the probab-ility of accidental activation.
RECOM1'1ENDATION:
Add to "Guidelines", #8. Controls located close to the floor (less than 3 feet)'* unless recessed,.should be minimized or eliminated..
CONCERN:
Location as a Form of Control Coding LOCATION: Volume II, CON-16 C0~1ENT:
- The table presented on page CON-16 indicates that control location is not considered* as a technique of identifying control position.
However, the location of indicators above OT2 switches, for instance, is a method of identifying the control setting.
RECOM11ENDATION:
Include location as an advantage for identifying control setting.
2-25
CONCERN:
Developing and Conducting Control Room Survey LOCATION: Volume I, page 11, Section 2.5.2 COMMENT:
The development and implementation of a control room
~
survey should be conducted under normal operating conditions.
However, in the case of units under constru.ction or in multiple unit stations, special considerations should be noted.
These considerations include but are not limited to:
time of day, system line-ups* and multi-unit activity interactions*.
RECOMMENDATION:
Include a statement in this section addressing the variables cited above.
2-26
.. CONCERN:
The Benefit of Using Inexperienced Operators During Walk-throughs LOCATION*: Volume I, page 16, second paragraph COMMENT:
Walk-throughs should include *newly trained operators so that flaws in procedures will become more apparenr.
Lack of experience can help reveal.subtleties of plant design problems.
RECOMMENDATION:
Include the reconrrnendation of using 1nexper-ienced plant operators.
~
_CONCERN:
Evaluation Teams Understanding of Plant Systems LOCATION: Volume I, page 22 COMMENT:
E~ch member of the e~al~at.ion te~m should h~~e an understanding of each system and component before the initiation of the data collection procedure.
If a member of the team lacks this ~nderst~nding, then~ pro~ision*sho~ld be m~de to re~iew the inexperienced team member's conrrnents and recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Include a statement in the introduction of Section 3 regarding the requirement for an experienced team of evaluators.
2-27
CONCERN:
Operating Procedures LOCATION*: N/A CO}fr1ENT:
NUREG/CR-1580 provides little information regarding the review of plant normal, eme~gency and abnormal operating pro-cedures.
The coordination of NRC personnel responsible. for procedure reviews ~nd those responsible for h~man factors engineering safety should be stated in the document.
RECOMi*1ENDATION:
Include a statement regarding the criteria applicable to plant operating procedures.
'CONCERN:
Control Placement and Frequency of Use LOCATION: Volume II, WA-3, #2 COMMENT:
The placement of controls are also determined by their frequency of use.
Due to limitations of space, infrequently used non-safety related controls must be located in non-primary or secondary areas.
RECOMMENDATION:
Modify guideline to include the parameter of frequency of control use.
2-28.
- 1
'9
- e CONCERN:
Control Room Design Conventions LOCATION: Volume I, page 29, Section 3.3.3 COMMENT:
The "green board" concept is becoming more prevelant as a indicator design convention.
Consequently, a "red" open valve indicator will become unconventional in many plants.
RECGMMENDATION:
Include the color and shape coding conventions for a green board:
VALVE ABNORMAL POSITION = RED VALVE NORMAL POSITION VALVE POSITION CLOSED VALVE POSITION OPEN 2-29
= GREEN
. i::=l
= t=j
= [@]
- 'i CONCERN:
Human Engineering Discrepancies and their priority LOCATION*: Volume I, page 43,* Section 4.2
_CO:MMENT:
The, compliance or non-compliance of a* design feature can be effectively evaluated by considering its impact on the plant at the following levels:
a)
Control l~vel b)
Protection level c)
Safety analysis level RECOMMENDATION:
Include these levels as evaluating parameters during the human engineering discrepancy priority determination procedure.
CONCERN:
LOCATION:
COMMENT:
RECOMMENDATION:
2-30
SECTION 3 ERRORS OF TECHNICAL CONTENT
CONCERN:
Evaluation Team Management Structure LOCATION: *Volume I, page 7, Figure 2-1 COMMENT:
- 1. Little emphasis on coordination with licensing personnel is identified.
- 2.
Emphas.is on training (a critical element of human factors engineering review*processes) is lacking.
- 3.
I & C personnel should split time between Data Collection and RED processing sections.
- 4.
The size of the evaluation team places severe limitation on the availability of utility human resources.
The degree of indi~idual p~rticipation sho~ld be clarified.
RECOMMENDATION:
Review guideline and modify to address points 1 thr:ough 4.
3:-1
CONCERN:
Operator Questionnaire LOCATION*:
Volume I, page 23, paragraph 3. 2, 3. 2. 2 COMMENT:
A pre~io~s EPRI report ~s well ~s previous human.
factors engineering studies have found inexperienced operator comments a valuable, objective source of design and operations deficiency data.
RECOMMENDATION: Correct guidelines 9
GONCE.RN:
Display Placement for Standing *Operators LOCATION: Volume I, WA-1, Documentation COMMENT:
MIL-STD.:...1472 (1976 Revision) sh-ould be referenced, not 1974.
RECOMMENDATION:
Change 1974 Revision to 1976 Revision.
3-2
CONCERN:
General Information (Combined Information)
LOCATION: Volume lI, VD-1, 2, 3, (VD-6)
COMMENT:
The integration of troubleshoot~ng information (open/.
closed).with operation~l inform~tion (~bnorm~i/norm~l).. has proven to be effective for ope.rating a "Green Board".
Further-more, integrating (combined} operational information within a single display has proven to be effective *(reduced reaction time, greater control accuracy)*for certain applications.
RECOMMENDATION:
Clarify the use of troubleshooting information necessary for operation rather than maintenance.
CONCERN:
Cathode Ray Tubes LOCATION: Volume II, VD.-56, Documentation COMMENT:
MIL-STD-1472, Essex Revision (1980) is not available and has not been identified by the Naval Publicarions and Forms Center as a government document.
RECOMMENDATION:
Remove from guideline.
3-3.
I I
. CONCERN:
Assessment of Mechanical Instruments LOCATION*= Volume II, VD-68, Documentation COMMENT:
MIL-STD-1472 (Essex Revision, 1980) is not available and has not been identified by the Naval Publication and* Forms Center as a government document.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delete reference.
CONCERN:
Display Illumination LOCATION: Volume II, VD-93,. Guideline, 2nd Paragraph COMMENT:
- 1.
"Lumination level" should read ';illumination level".
- 2. * '*'Required viewing distance" should be clarified.
RECO}Il1ENDATION: Correct and clarify the guideline.
Add to end of guideline "... to take corrective action."
3.-4
CONCERN:
Dial Marking LOCATION:
Volume II, VD-75 COMMENT:
The replacement of zone markings should not be applied on the indicator window.
Parallex problems would result when viewed at moderate angles from line of sight.
Green markings are important aids to operator control board scanning and system status determi-nation.
The probability* of erroneous judgements due to indicator location errors are increased when zone markings are placed on the indicator window.
The use of yellow and red markings should be optional.
Operators are trained to respond to meter indications close to the edge of a set point.
The o~erators should be coriditioned not to respond to the pointer when in the green zone range, but take action when the pointer is outside of the green range.
RECOMMENDATION:
After item E:
the use of yellow and red zone markings may not be applicable to every meter.
3-5
CONCERN:
Display Illumination
- e.
LOCATION~ Volume II, VD-93, Guideline 2nd paragraph
.J COMMENT:
- 1.
"lumination level" should* read '!illumination level.
- L..
"Required v1ew1ng distance" should be clarified.
RECOMHENDATION:
Correct and clarify the guideline.
Add to end of guideline *;... to take corrective action."
CONCERN:
Indicator and Warning Lights ~ Specifics LOCATION.: Volume II, VD-98 COMMENT:
There exists no clear evidence supporting the enhanced detectability of warning lights. within foveal vision.
Some evidence exists supporting the increased detectability of flashing warning lights presented to the peripheral visual field.
Consequently, *a requirement* for warning lights to be located within the central* vi.ew of the operator is impractical and unrealistic.
RECOMMENDATION:
Remove requirement for locating warning lights in the "central portion of the panel.
3-6
. CONCERN:
Coding of Controls LOCATION*: Volume II, CON-20, Documentation COMMENT:
MIL-STD-1472, Essex Revision (1980) is not available and has not been identified by the Naval Publications and Forms Center as a government document.
- RECOMI-fENDATION: Delete reference from guideline.
CONCERN:
Limb Support for Joystick Controls LOCATION: Volume II, CON-83, Documentation CO:MJfENT:
MIL-STD-1472, Essex Revision (1980) is not available and has not been identified by the Naval Publications and Forms Center as a government document.*
RECO}frIENDATION:
Delete reference from guideline.
3-7
CONCERN:
Continuous Thumbwheel Control Dimensions/Off position.
LOCATION*: Volume II, CON-97' CON-99 COM11ENT:
MIL-STD-1472, Essex Revision (1980) is not available and has not been identified.by the Naval Publications and Forms Center as a government document.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delete reference from guideline~
~
CONCERN:* Screen Layout and Structuring LOCATION: Volume II, OCI-6, Backfit CO:Ml-1ENT:
Modifying the software would be an effective backfit alternative.
RECOMMENDATION:
Add software backfit.
3-8
CONCERN:
Representational Displays LOCATION*:
Volume II, VD-14 COMMENT:
The use of bars or lines to depict trends in graphic
- displays is task specific.
There is no known human factors engineering data supporting the use of this guideline for all
- display information processing requirements~
RECO}~fENDATION:
Obtain supporting data or eliminate guideline.
CONCERN:
Control Placement for Standing Operators LOCATION: Volume II, WA-3, #5a, #7, #8 and.Documentation COMMENT:
1.
- 7:
74 inch should read "70 inches".
- 2.
- 8:
57 inch should read "53 inches".
3.. #8:
Centerline and lateral criteria should be
-added.
RECOMMENDATION:
Correct guideline.
... 3:-9
CONCERN:
References 9
LOCATION*: Documentation COMMENT:
Over 25 errors in reference citations have been.found.
The ability to properly substantiate or seek further guide-line clarification is dependent upon accurate citation of re-ference material.
NUREGiCR-1580 severely lacks the caliber of reference citations that is req:uired of a document of such significance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Proof read document and cite references appropriately~
CONCERN:
Shelf Dimensions LOCATION: Volume II, WA-8 COMMENT-:
The rationale and reference cited for "Under no circumstances" is not obvious from the original technical source referenced (Woodson and Conover, 1964).
RECOMMENDATION:
Clarify the reasoning behind "under no c1rcum-
-stances11.
3-10
-1
-I
CONCERN:
References LOCATION: Volume II, page 5 COMMENT:
- 1.
"ANSI/ANS N2.3, Illinois:
American Nuclear Society, 1967" should read:
ANSI/ANS-N 2.3, Innnediate evacuation for use in industrial installation.
American Nuclear Society, 1979.
signal Illinois: *
- 2.
"Chapanis, A. Man-Machine engineering.
- Monterey,
'Cal.:
BrooksiCole, 1965," should read:
- Chapanis, A.
Man-Machine Engineering.
Monterey, CA:
Belmont and Wadsworth, 1965..
RECOMMENDATION:
Correct Reference 3-11
CONCERN:
Reflectance LOCATION: Volume II, CRE-6 COMMENT:
- 1.
General recommendation for ceiling reflectance is between 60 and 95% (Van*cott _and Kinkade, 1972), rather than the 80 and 90% specifie_d *.
- 2.
General recommendation for wall reflectance 1s between 40 and 50% (Vancott and Kinkade, 1972), rather than the 50 or 15-20% specified.
'3.
Appropriate reflectance values depends, to a great extent on room size and task conditions.
Data supporting the validity of the values listed on CRE-6 are not available from the open literature.
RECOMMENDATION:
Correct guideline.
3-12 j
CONCERN:
Ventilation LOCATION: Volume II, CRE-15 COMMENT:
The guidelines requ-ire. that ventilation systems shall be so located as to* preclude/prevent the introduction of con-taminated air.
As stated in MIL-STD-1472B, "Ventilation.or ot-her protective measures shall be provided to keep gases, vapors, dust, and fumes within the limits specified in the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists Threshold Val-ues.
Intakes for ventilation systems shall be so located as I
to minimize the introduction of contaminated air... "
RECOMMENDATION:
Modify _the guideline to read "minimize."
3-13
CONCERN:
Cathode Ray Tubes (CRT)
LOCATION*:
Volume II, VD-45
. COMMENT:
The requirements of a "character or symbol of complex shape~ being repre~ente~ by no_ less than 10 lines (scan) or resolution elements is ambiguous.
VD-14 #3, specifies that CRT displ~ys ~re "most *effecti~e" when th.ere ~re se~en or more scan lines per nnn.
The resolution required for complex shapes should be well within the optical performance characteristic of tlie CRT.
RECOMMENDATION:
Correct guideline.
CONCERN:
Mimic Boards and Graphic Panels LOCATION: Volume II, VD-59 COMMENT:
The diagram presented is incorrect.
The circle of valve number 2 is distinguished from valves 1, 3 and 4 by its illuminated conditions.
However all bars are dark, presenting contradictory information to the observer.
Either the bar for Valve #2 should be illuminated or bars for Valves 1, 3 and
. 4 illuminated.
The go* condition is where all illumination conditions across the row of symbols is true.
RECOMMENDATION:
Correct di~gr~m.
- J-14
CONCERN:
Critical Audible Signals LOCATION*: Volume II, AD-25.
COMMENT:
The original reference (MIL-STD-1472) indicates that, regardless of the duration of the signal, "all essential infor-mation shall be transmitted in the first 0.5 sec."
RECOMHENDATION:
Correct guideline.
CONCERN:
Rotary Control Pointer Contrast LOCATION: Volume II, CON-25 COMMENT:
The word "cover" under Guideline should read *:co lorn.
RECO:MHENDATION:
Correct text.
3-15
.*I
CONCERN:
Discrete Rotary Control Range Stops LOCATION*: Volume II, CON-34 COMMENT:
The guideline presented is appropriate where the operation~! r~nge limits are discrete*~
However, partic~l~r controls which are requ~red ~o be o~erated beyond the end p~-
sition for testing or calibration purposes should b~ rioted as such in the guideline.
RECOMMENDATION:
Correct guideline.
CONCERN:
Lever Dimensions LOCATION: Volume II, CON-85 COMMENT:
The maximum lateral displacement of a lever should be 38 rather than 33 as noted (MIL-STD~l472B, 1974).
RECOMMENDATION:
Correct guideline.
3-16
-. _1
-*~1
CONCERN:
Speech Reception Equipment LOCATION*:
Volume II, COM-5 CO.MME NT:
The value of "4000 HZ" should read "4800 HZ 11
- RECOMMENDATION:
Correct guideline.
CONCERN:
LOCATION:
COMMENT:
RECOMMENDATION:
3-17
CONCERN:
Control Compatibility with Emergency Gear e
LOCATION*: Volume II, CON-4 le CO}fr1ENT:
The possibility of inadvertent activiation stated under "human Error" is not compatible with the guideline.
RECOM1'1ENDATION:
Either include a statement regarding inadvertent activation of controls due to bulky emergency clothing or drop "inadvertent activation"**from Section C.
CONCERN:
Prevention of Accidental Activation of Controls LOCATION: Volume II, CON-13, paragraph 1.
COMHENT:
The statement regarding the location of controls to prevent accidental activation is not specific.
A specific guideline stating a minimum distance between controls should be. provided.
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide a minimum distance between controls as a criteria.
3-18
CONCERN:
Contrast Enhancement LOCATION*: Volume II; OCI-7 CO:MMENT:
Number I, under Guidelines, should read "Contrast enhancement", not contract enhancement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Correct guideline.
CONCERN:
Human Engineering Discrepancies and Their Priority LOCATION: Volume I, page 43, Section 4.2 COM1'1ENT:
The compliance or non-compliance of a design feature can be effectively evaluated by considering its impact on plant boundaries:
a) fuel clad b) primary coolant system (PWR) c)
containment-zone d) exclusion zone RECOMMENDATION:
Include these boundaries as evaluating para-meters during the human engineering discrepancy priority deter-mination procedure.
3-19
- ,,. ~:
SECTION 4 AMBIGUITY IN RATIONALE, GUIDELINES, PROCEDURES, AND INTENT
-I
CONCERN:
Handle Dimensions LOCATION*:
Volume II, WA-11 COMMENT:
The guidelines provided apply to _errors of equipment handling.
Some clarification is required for criteria related to control board switch handles.
RECOMMENDATION:
-Review guideline and modify to correspond to application to control rooms..
CONCERN:
Storage Space LOCATION: Volume II, WA-33 COMMENT:
Clearer d~finition of the time required to access operational or maintenance procedures is needed.
The variable of access time _impacts storage location alternatives.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delete the term "maintenance" from the guide-:-
line.
. 4-1.
CONCERN:
Definition of Saf~ty-related Task LOCATION*:
Volume I, page xi, paragraph 3 COJ:.fMENT:
The applicability of a human factors engineering guide-line to a safety-related task can only be made if' a criteria is est~blished for what constitutes ~ safety-related t~sk.
RECO:MHENDATION: *Apply the guideline to tasks using safety-related equipment.
CONCERN:
Selection of Power Plants for Initial Government Review LOCATION: Volume I, page 4, section 1.2, paragraph 1 COMMENT:
- 1.
Combustion Engineering (C.E.) units are not represented.
- 2.
Only two (2) older BWR plants were evaluated.
3.. Questionable use of Dreseden #1 (unique design).
RECOM1'1ENDATION:
Qualify the extent to which the data gathered at these sites are applicable to other control rooms of.different design.
4-2
CONCERN:
Reviewing the Cause of Operator Error LOCATION: Volume I, 1.
Introduction, page 1, paragraph* 1.
COMMENT:
Human factors engineers and the criteria they use can not remove the cause of operator error.
It has been accepted throughout the human factors connnunity that engineering errors are due, for the most part, to machine design, human performance variables and the interaction between the two.
The field of human factors engineering is far from understanding the con-tribution of each of these factors to error.
Causes for error I
can be reduced, not eliminated.
RECOMMENDATION:
Change the word "remove" to "reduce".
4-3
CONCERN:
Satisfactory Backfit Alternatives LOCATION: Volume I, page 4, paragraph l, COMMENT:
Little discussion or guidance is provided regarding the evaluation or validation of backfit selections.
What data or rationale is require.d of the utility industry to support a backfit alternative?
In addition, this paragraph recognizes backfits for human engineering discrepancies do not necessarily involve hardware µiodifications.
This fact has not been applied to the backfit guidelines in Volume II.
RECOMMENDATION:
Review each guideline in Volume II and indicate the satisfactory alternatives in place of modifying hardware.
4-4
CONCERN:
Rationale Supporting Expected Errors LOCATION*: Volume I, page 5, paragraph 1 COMMENT:
Human factors engineering rationale in support of expected errors should be provided.
RECOMMENDATION:
Clarify the relationship between the design discrepancies identified and the method of determining the type of human error.
CONCERN:
Selection of Evaluation Team LOCATION: Volume I, page 6, 2.1 CO:MMENT:
The meaning or determination of an acceptable backfit is unclear.
The term operational benefit should be added.
RECO:MMENDATION:
Include in this paragraph the operational benefit expected for each backfit alternative recommended.
4-5
CONCERN:
Qualifications of Personnel LOCATION: Volume I, page 7, paragraph 1 CONMENT:
The responsibility for identifying qualifications for team members is not identified.
RECOMMENDATION:
Specify who is responsible for qualify~ng a team member.
CONCERN:
Planning Process Flow LOCATION: Volume I, page 9, Figure 2-2.
COMMENT:
The integration of training and maintainability task-ing is not obvious from this figure.
RECOMMENDATION:
Clarify or modify figure.
4-6
CONCERN:
Refinement of Operator Interview LOCATION*:
Volume I, II,*Paragr~ph 2.5.1.2 COMMENT:
- The term "generic problems 11 is used instead of "po-tential problems".
RECOMMENDATION:
Change the term "generic problems". to *ipo-tential problems".
CONCERN:
Checklist Content LOCATION: Volume I, 15, paragraph 1 Cm1MENT:
To what extent will the contents of the checklist in Appendix V be modified?
RECOMI1ENDATION~ Clarify guideline.
4-7
CONCERN:
Same Vintage Plants LOCATION*: Volume I, page 22, paragraph 3.1.1 COMMENT:
All operating plants regardless of age per NUREG guide should be specified.
Construction,. A-E and NSSS vendor should be considered as v~riables.
RECOMMENDATION: *The paragraph should refer to all operating plants and *!generic" should be changed to "potential problems".
CONCERN:
Noise Survey LOCATION: Volume 1, page 25, paragraph 3.3.l.3b, 3.3.1.4 COMMENT:
Provide.the utility and applicability of using noise weighting networks for dB(B) and dB(C)~ since criteria is in dB and dB(A) scales.
RECO~fl1ENDATION: Clarify paragraph or guideline.
4-8
- -~* '
CONCERN:
Light Survey e
LOCATION*:
Volume I, page 15, paragraph 3.3.2, 3.3.2.3 CO:M:MENT:
A c.lear definition of ambient illumination and normal lighting is not provided.
RECOMMENDATION:
Define "ambient illumination" and "normal lighting" in such a manner that it can be clearly understood by the user.
CONCERN:
Plant Safety LOCATION: Volume I, page 41, paragraph 1 COill1ENT:
Criteria for "importance in plant safety" 1s required.
RECOMMENDATION:
Clarify the meaning of '!importance 1n plant safety.
11 4-9 j
CONCERN:
Safety-related Devices
.e LOCATION*~ Volume I' page 50' c J
CO:MMENT:
No clear distinction has been made between.safety and non~safety (see Preface).
RECOMMENDATION:
Clarify the distinction between safety and non-safety related devices.
CONCERN:
Personnel Qualifications LOCATION: Volume I, Sections I-1 through I-6 COMMENT:
The qualifications stated are ambiguous and ill-defined.
Training or experience-related qualifications should be documented only.
RECOMlvIBNDATION:
Clarify guideline.
4-10
CONCERN:
Acoustical Noise
-')
LOCATION: Volume lI, CRE-11 CO}~fENT:
Normal operating conditions should be clearly de-fined in terms of time of day, frequency range, and method of measurement.
RECOMt*fENDATION:
Clarify guideline.
CONCERN:
Ventilation LOCATION: Volume lI, CRE-15 CO~fENT:_ Control room ventilation criteria_ar~ specified by heating ventilation and air conditioning standards.
Another criteria in the guideline appears inappropriate.
RECOMJ.vIENDATION:
Delete this guideline or modify *
.4-11
CONCERN:
General. Workspace Hazards LOCATION*: Volume 11, CRE-17, #4, #5
~
.COMMENT:
- 1.
Work areas and access a~eas should be better specified.
- 2.
Radius *of 0.40 inch should read.04 inch.
REC0}~1ENDATION:
Clarify and correct guideline.
CONCERN:
Malfunction LOCATION: Volume II, CRE-21 COMMENT:
The frequency of monitoring a piece of equipment is not properly defined as "regularly.monitored".
A guideline
~egard~ng type of equipment and frequency of monitoring should be documented.
RECOMMENDATION:
Clarify guideline.
4-12
CONCERN:
Control Placement for Standing Operators LOCATION~ Volume II, WA-3, Sa; 7, 8, Documentation COMMENT:
There are a number of single controls which affect multiple displays. _This guideline requires a greater degree of definition in terms of functional grouping.
RECOM:HENDATION:
Clarify the guideline.
CONCERN:
Console Dimensions for the Seated Operator LOCATION: Volume II, WA-26, 27 COMMENT:
The task responsibilities of a control room operator, while sitting should be well-defined prior to establishing console design constraints.
RECOMMENDATION:
Clarify the task responsibilities of the seated operator in a control room.
4-13
CONCERN:
Location and Arrangement LOCATION: Volume II, VD-22,23 COMMENT:
- 1.
Accuracy - normal operating position must be better defined in terms of sitting, standing, distance and.location.
- 2.
Reflection -
a technique of assessing system per-formance degradation should be developed and specified.
A significant reduction in information transfer should 1be avoided.
- 3.
Maximum Viewing Distance -
A realistic maximum/
minimum viewing distance is not specified.
The 28 inch maximum viewing distance* criterion appears to have been specified for the average military height~
There are control room operators and shift foremen that do not meet this average height.
RECO:MMENDATION: Replace words "shall not exceed" to "should be".
4-14 J
CONCERN: Visual Display Layout LOCATION:volume II, VD-20
. COMMENT: 1.
Warning Lights and Primary Displays - the size of a control room increases the probability of excessive operator head movement.
Frequency of head*movement; line of sight and operator/control board distances
- should be specified;
- 2.
Secondary Displays - frequently used operational displays should be defined in great detail.
RECOMMENDATION: Provide greater clarity for the meaning of pri-mary and secondary dispiays.
4-15
CONCERN:
Cathode Ray Tubes
.LOCATION: Volume II; VD-48 COMMENT:
- 1.
There exists a number of effective human factors engineering display and optical image evaluation techniques for assessing.CRT performance.
The use of these techniques as a guideline evaluation tool will clarify otherwise ambiguous requirements (i.e., gray levels, resolution, geometric distortion, graphics, etc.)
, 2.
Response Time - response time depends upon display density.
Well designed, effective graphic displays of high den-sity will exceed the three second response time requirement given current image processing hardware/software technology.
- 3.
Symboiogy - the distinction between the require-ment of 16 minutes of visual angle for geometric and pictorial symbols and 20 minutes of arc for "size symbols" is not clear.
RECOMMENDATION: Clarify guideline.
4-16
CONCERN:
Pointers LOCATION*: Volume II, VD-70 COMMENT:
The human factors engineering rationale for matching pointer color with meter values is not clear.
RECOMMENDATION:
Remove this criteria from the guideline.
CONCERN:
Primary Control Location LOCATION: Volume II, CON-7, Guidelines COMMENT:
A clearer definition of "frequently used" and "important" is required.
RECOMMENDATION:
Clarify guideline.
4-17
CONCERN:
Placement LOCATION:
Volume II, VD-18 COMMENT:
- 1.
Grouping.
Clearer definition of necessary dis-pl~ys should be provided.
- 2.
Importance., Degree of importance as it relates to a safety related criterion should be better defined.
- 3.
Consistency.
The impact of minor arrangements of controls and/or displays should be assessed prior to the establishment of a consistency guideline.
RECOJ:.fMENDATION:
Clarify guideline.
4-18
CONCERN:
Coding (frequency)
LOCATION: Volume II, AD-15 COMMENT:
l *.
"Frequency levels" (#2) should be chap.ged to "frequency."
- 2.
Guidelines should be provided for minimum fre-quency separation at designated absolute frequencies.
- 3.
Tolerance limits should be established for the auditory alarm to ambient signal-to-noise ratio.
RECOMMENDATION:
Correct guideline. 19
CONCERN:
Display Illumination e
- LOCATION*: Volume II, VD-93, Guideline COMMENT:
A realistic criteria for a required viewing distance has not been documented.
RECOMMENDATION:
"Required viewing distance" should be clarified.
CONCERN:
Auditory Displays as Warning Signals LOCATION: Volume II, AD-23, #2 CO:MMENT:
20dB above threshold contradicts AD-4 guideline B, item 8 and AD-15, gui~_e 1 ine B i tern 3.
General ambient level requires clarification li.e.,
time of day, bandwidth, type of measurement).
RECOM11ENDATI:0N:
Clarify guideline.
4-20
~1
. CONCERN:
Mimic Boards and Graphic Panels LOCATION-: Volume II, VD-5 7 cmf.MENT:
"The extent to which the elements of the display are static or dynamic" depends not only on system complexity but on the operational conditions.
There is a tradeoff to be made between system complexity and available time to *initiate an operator action.
The application of a safety-related criteria would clarify the intent of this guideline.
RECOMMENDATION:
Relate system complexity to a safety-related criteria.
. e CONCERN:
Counters LOCATION: Volume II, VD-83 COMMENT:
The diagram presented on the upper right hand corner is ambiguous.
As presented, both proportions demonstrate effect-tive heighth-to width ratios.
The characters for the '_'poor" display should be elongated to demonstrate the proper 3:2 ratio and resultant distortion on curved drum-surfaces.
RECOMMENDATION:
Correct diagram.
4-21
CONCERN:
Counters LOCATION*: Volume II, VD-83 COHMENT:.
The diagram present~d opposite "~igit window" is not clear.
The 118 11 with the large window should display a portion of a seven (7) above it and a portion of a nine (9) below it.
RECOMMENDATION:
Correct diagram.
.e CONCERN:
LOCATION:
. COi:1MENT:
RECOMMENDATION:
4-22
CONCERN:
Evaluating the Impact of Human Factors Engineering Design Deficiencies on System Safety and Reliability.
LOCATION: Volume I, page 2, #3 COMMENT:
The impact of huma~ factors_ engineering de~ign de~
ficiencies on system safety and reliability is typically measured by acquiring empirical data.
NUREG/CR-1580 provides no reference to techniques or tools *that can be used by the utilities to evaluate these deficiencies'.
- RECOMMENDATION:
Create a section within NUREG/CR-1580 which pre-sents var1ous techniques that can be used by a uti_lity to empirically evaluate the impact of a particular design on human performance reliability and/or system safety.
. 4-23
CONCERN:
P1ant Reliability LOCATION*: Volume I; page 41, first paragraph CO:MMENT: _ "Reliabi~ity" should be addressed only to the extent
.that it affects plant safety.
RECOMHENDATION:
Clarify guideline.
CONCERN:
Handle Dimensions for the Gloved Operator LOCATION: Volume II, WA-11 COMMENT:
The dimensions of a control should be specified for a given type of glove.
RECO}ll1ENDATION:
Define the type of glove (i.e., surgical, work, etc).
4-24
SECTION 5 CONTRADICTIONS AMONG CRITERIA
.1
~~~~~~~~~.~
.. ~-=--**~-,P*~~~.A~~-~
.... ~,
.. d
CONCERN:
Glare LOCATION: Volume II, CRE-3 COMMENT:
Adequate lighting in the control room requires the use of a sufficient number of overhead lamps.
Due to the size of the environment, certain lamps will be unavoidably positioned at adverse angles.
The use of selected ceiling diffusers would be an appropriate backfit if other human *factors engineering illumination*guidelines are not violated.
This guideline conflicts with the lighting req~irements for ~ control room.
I RECOMMENDATION:
Add the backfit alternative of ceiling diffusers to minimize direct lighting.
5-1
. *I
]
CONCERN:
Displays for System Status LOCATION*: Volume II, VD-8, 9. (Backfi t #2)
COMMENT:
Greater clarity is required for the meaning of "annun-ciators in the c~ntral p~sition". _Locations in central positions violates annunciator./contr:ol/display annunciation requirements.
REC01'1HENDATION:
Clarify guideline.
CONCERN:
Auditory Displays as Warning Signals LOCATION: Volume II, AD-23, #2 CO}fr:IENT:
20dB above threshold contradicts AD-4 and AD-15.
RECO}llvfENDATION:
Clarify guideline or standardize criteria.
5-2
CONCERN:
Illumination Levels LOCATION: Volume II, CRE-10 COMMENT:
An ambient illumination range between 30 and 50 foot candles is reconnnended.
This range corresponds to the proper lighting level conducive to effective visQal task performance.
However, within a nuclear power plant control room, the use of 30-50 foot c~ndles ill~mination threatens the uti'iity of ~
"Green Board" indication control board.
Valid criteria for lighting levels under these circumstances must be developed I
prior to specifying lighting levels.
RECOMMENDATION:
See ILLUMINATION LEVELS, Section 1 of this document.
5-3
CONCERN:
Console Dimensions for the Standing Operator
,9 LOCATION*: Volume II, WA-24, 25 COHMENT:
Adherence to this guideline would impact the size and manning requirements and therefore challenge human factors engineering limitations established with other related criteria.
RECOMMENDATION:
Review console dimensions and modify to corres-pond to the constraints of the control room.
CONCERN:
Coding of Controls LOCATION: Volume II, CON-19 COMMENT:
The use of the noted primary col.ors violates guide-lines referring to stereotypical use of colors.
RECO}frlliNDATION:
Revise to allow the use of more than five (5) colors.
5-4
-I I
I i
CONCERN:
Visual Presentation of Information e
LOCATION*: Volume II, VD-10, 11, 12, 13 CO:t-fMENT:
Presence of Other Displays - the requirement for displays not looking "too much alike" contradicts the grouping of similar system displays.
Look-alike displays need labelling for proper identification.
- RECOMMENDATION:
Clarify guideline.
CONCERN:
Cathode Ray Tubes (CRT)
LOCATION: Volume II, VD-45 COMMENT:
The requiremell:ts of a "character or symbol of complex shape" being represented by no less than 10 Tines (scan) _or re-sol~tion elements is ambig~ous. VD-14 #3, specifies that CRT displays are "most effective" when there are seven or more scan lines per rrnn.
The resolution required for complex shapes should be well within the optical performance characteristic of the CRT.
REC011MENDATION:
Clarify guideline.
CONCERN:
Priority of Print/background color combinations LOCATION*: Volume II, PA-58, PA:-59 COMMENT:
PA-58 ranks blue printing on a white background as the highest priority of print/background color combinations.
PA-59 ranks black letters on a white background as the highest.
RECO.tvJ:HENDATION:
Correct guidelines.
CONCERN:
LOCATION:
COMNENT:
RECOMMENDATION:
5-6