ML19340B657
| ML19340B657 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/31/1980 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8011110574 | |
| Download: ML19340B657 (58) | |
Text
.
?
1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION U'
l l
In the.%:cer ef:
MEETING WITH INDUSTRY GROUPS WORKING ON CONTROL ROOM DESIGN QUESTIONS October 31, 1980 CATE:
7Agzg 1 _ 44 g.
Washington, D.
C.
(
o m
8 mis k
]
= $,G E
.y c
v,o c;o A,~
cis
$x i
a a
O k
.U.DERSON REPORT 1XG f.
400 Virgir.ia Ave., 5.W. WashS.7:=n, C. C.
20024 Talachena: (202) 554-2345 8011110
- 1 57'l e
. l
i i
AR:cr i i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1,
I 2l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4i i
l 5
=
MEETING WITH INDUSTRY GROUPS WORKING ON 8
6 CONTROL ROOM DESIGN CUESTIONS e
R g
7 s
j 8
d
=
9 Room 1130 y
1717 E Street Northwest E
10 Washington, D.C.
E=
i 1980 E
11 I Friday, October 31,
<3
'd 12 3=
d 13 ;
The Commission met at 2:06 p.m.,
pursuant to notice.
E 14 '
PRESEFh
~c[
15 JOHN AHEARNE, Chairman.
N l
l J
16 '
JOSEPH HENDRIE, Commissioner.
-a p
17 PETER BRADFORD, Commissioner.
N 18 l PRESENT FOR THE INDUSTRY GROUPS :
1 I
19 STEPHEN HOWELL 4
WILLIAM COLEY l
20 ;
[
Accompanied by:
4 21 '
l Roaer Newton 22 !
Bill Armstrong Rich Hill 23 Jack Geets Jack Voyles i,
24,
Ron Duffy jl Dave Cain 25 Arthur Bivens
[
ll h
F
- l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY INC.
b 0
2
)
PRESENT FOR THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARvd i
I 2
Samuel Chilk.
3 PRESENT FOR THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL:
4 Leonard Bickwit.
g 5
8 i
j 6i R
7 8
8' i
d l
d 9i E
10 i=
l s'
E 11 i
<it g
J 12 l l
5 l
13 i
=
t 14 I
a S
(
~
r 15
.a 4
=
t i
16 '
t
.8 t
i.
.a l
17 '
l
'.g
.c~
18 l l
5 a
=
I H
E 19,
xb I
20 l I
l 21 !
i 22 i l
23 I
i 24 -
1 I
25 '
i I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i
l 3
I i
EaacEERIEES l
2 j CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
This afternoon the next item of lbusinessisapresentationfromindustrygroupsworkingon-ene-3j U
4 control room design question.
A e
5 Firat, let me apologize for Commissioner Gilinsky who 3n 8
6 was taken sick and was unable to be here, e
, and then secondly,
~
n{
7 Commissioner Bradford is in the process of becoming sick.
Neither!
l 3
8, of these, I assure you, are related to the control room design, n
d d
9 which we haven't seen yet.
i I
l E
10 (Laughter. )
E 5
11,
I wanted to make that point in advance.
l c&
12 l Some time ago, many months ago,d the Staff was working 4
3
=
i d
13 l through issues on control room design.
We had a number of am 14 meetings with the Staff.
They raised cuestio.ns, and there was
'f d
15 mutual agreement that industry ought to be consulted on what they ;
E_
i 16l were doing, and I think there is also a letter from industry
,I i
3 1
g A
3:,91 d
17 :
asking the opportunity to advise on what they are doing.
S o Jae,
w
=
18 l speaking on behalf of all cf us, are always very interested in i
E 19 improvements in control room and what's going on in control room A
20!
design.
I 21l I know Commissioner Hendrie recently has visited i
22 !
some European facilities, and Mr. Denton has visited some
{.
F 23 European facilities, and they have some interesting comments
[
i upon the ap'proaches being taken there.
24 j
25 So, with that, I guess I would ask you gentlemen to i:
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANYn INCo l
l 4
I come to the table and introduce yourselves.
This is not a game 2
show, but nonetheless,.tell us who' you are.
3l MR. HOWELL:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am happy to 4
here there is no correlation between our presentation 5
g and the bug that is cascading through the Commission ranks.
9 3
6 i
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
No advance correlation.
R
- 5 7
(Laughter.)
A9 8
n COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think there is more correla-d i
9I tion between the fact I brought a bug back from various foreign j
5 10 g
travels.
I'm not sure whether that's the one which is assaulting
=
II l my colleagues or not, but at least there is a clear possibility.
3 d
1 5
MR. HOWELL:
I am Stephen Howell.
I am Executive I
f Vice President of Consumers Power Company, and am here today I
3 14 !
representing the Atomic Industrial Forum's Policy Committee j
=0 15 h
i on Nuclear Regulation.
T 16 '
3 This presentation today is in response, as you men-
=
17 tioned, to a request from Harold Denton for a briefing to the
=
6 IO.
l Commissioners on progress being made by the nuclear industry l
w i
19 4/
1 in programs related to control room improvement.
3 n
.o 20 Our committee, which was formed after the accident 21 ;
at Three Mile Island, has been active in recommending improvements 22 '
I l
in such areas as control rooms, emergency facilities and emergency 23,
response organizations.
24 We believe our recommendations, which were issued in a s
1 25 series of reports to the industry prior to the Kemeny Commission l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANYo INC, 1
5 I
Report, were responsible and responsive to the need for safety j
2 improvements in a number of areas.
3 Since that time, our committee has been working i
4l through its various subcommittees with the NR taff, the 5
g Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, the Nuclear Safety Analysis n
3 6
Center; the Electric Power Research Instituta, Owners Groups, R
- S 7
the Edison Electric Institute, and professional societies, on s
j 8l generic plans for implementing improvements.
d I
9!
Our committee, with a membership which is representa-
~
z 10 tive of the nuclear industry, supports the need to apply human z
-5 Q
II factors improvements in nuclear power plants.
These improvements a
12 i E
encompass the man / machine interface, the operator cognitive 13 process, plant operating procedures, and operator selection and f
14 f
-training.
C i
I j
15 i
Mr. Bill Coley, on my left, manager of Engineering
=
i I
16 )
i Services of Duke Power Company, and chairman of the AIF g
A h
I7 Subcommittee on Control Room Considerations, will discuss
.f 18 l industry programs of improvement in each of these areas'and, I P
I9,
might add, will carry the bulk of the presentation this after-g n
20!
noon.
I 2I I would like to say a few words on intrccucing t
i 22 advanced technology into control rooms.
We do believe that there are a number of improvements that should be incorporated into existing and committed control l
24 l
25 We believe there are actions that can be taken to rooms.
f ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANYilNC 7
6 I
j present more clearly data and alarm conditions of those plant 2I parameters considered to be most critical for safety.
3 The presentation of these critical parameters and 4
attendant controls and alarms should be organized and arranged 5
g such that they are easily monitored and understood,by the 3
6i o
ccnier I;u Lvu vyou a uve-E 7
y It is important that the supervising senior reactor N2 8
s operator have the means to enable him to prioritize effectively d
}.
9l those actions which mu.st be taken during a casualty or transient o
e H
10 1 g
situation.
=!
II There are several ongoing R&D programs in the nuclear 3
12 l industry for upgrading control room designs and instrumentation.
E=
f 13 i The Electric Power Research Institute, which is supported by the 3
14 3
electric utilities, is conducting a number of projects which M
15 b
could potentially impact. future actions and policy decisions
=
f 16 i
regarding control rooms, and Bill Coley will discuss these z
n 17 i l
projects.
3:
i 5
IO l There were lessons learned from the accident at l
1 s
\\
2 Three Mile Island that can be used or 1morovino the r.
20 '
simplicity and the quality of the man / machine interf ace and 21 human engineering aspects in the desien and layout of most 22 I control rooms.
I I
23 There are generic difficulties that can be rectified 24 l by use of improved operational aides such as improved instrument l
25 displays, automatic safety system status. monitoring, and computer l'
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l'
l I
1. based disturbance analysis ind surveillance systems.
l i
1 2i We believe that such evolving technology improvements j
i 3
should be introduced to control rooms, but in a logical and l
l 4
properly phased basis.
5 g
Human factors consultants with nuclear power plant 2
ad 6
control room evaluating experience also support these recommenda-g ES 7
tions.
~
j 8
Modifications require very careful human f actor 4
?.
9f analysis with upgraded procedures and intensive retraining to E
10 assure that backfits improve and not degrade operations.
E 5
II How much advanced technology and how most effectively a
12 5
can it be incorporated?
First, we have to divide control rooms
=
13 into, first, future control room designs versus, second, r
n V
z f
5 I4 existing and committed control room designs.
New technology, t
j 15 after it.has completed all R&D phases and has been demonstrated
[
=.
I 16 i to be a sicnificant improvement, should be incorporated in new g
N I7 l design control rooms.
N I8 l E
l It does not necessarily follow, though, that the most j
=
8 I9 g
advanced technology, per se, should be installed in existing n
20 l or committed plant control rooms.
One must recognize that new 2I i technology, per se, does not make the old technology unsafe.
I i,
I should point out that the lonc lead time in licensinc!
22 '
i 23 '
and constructing a nuclear power plant, and the need to get i<
il 11 24 regulation approvals plus rather specific regulatory requirements j i i
i along the way, tend to " lock in" designs so that the most l
25 I
i i
i i
o I
up-to-date technology cannot be in place at the time a plant 2!
goes into operation.
I i
3i We believe there are changes that should be incorporated 4
into existing control rooms and industry is proceeding with these 5
j improvements, but there is no compelling reason to install j
6 advanced technology on a crash basis.
Better use of computers R
- 5 7
and existing technology is a reasonable objective,diat should A!
O be accomplished over the next few years.
d" 9
~.
However,- industry experience has shown that we should 3C 10 g
proceed carefully with all modifications, and advanced technology,
=
II as it is developed, should be introduced by evolution rather g.
12 l than revolution.
~
,g 5
(It g
13 I CEAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Will you some time this afternoon
,i z
5 I4 '
address how you -- obviously that's a critical cuestion -- how C
I
.j 15 !
do you address the existing control rooms in the context of
=
t E
I0 having reached some conclusicns about how you would like to make i
h I7 the new control room?
=
i 6
3 IO ;
MR. HOWELL:
We would hope to -- and, as I say, the C
l i
r I9,
bulk of the presentation, the technical aspects, is going to be I
in e
20 l carried by Bill Coley, and we hope that your questions are 2Il answered.
If they are not, we would address them at that time.
l 22 f Bill?
23 '
MR. COLEY:
Okay.
Thank you, Steve.
24 l My name is Bill Coley.
I am manager of Engineering f
25 Services at Duke Power Company.
I am also Chairman of the AIF I
1 I
i l-
l 1
l 9
1!
Subcommittee on Control Room Considerations.
2 We are here today in response to a request to provide 3
you with some summary of what the industry is doing in control i
4!
rooms.
e 5
Commissioner Bradford, I hope chat our presentation N
i 6I
'doesn' t accelerate your impending illness.
a 8
7 There is a lot coine on today, and we appreciate--
~
'nV.0Lanc99l k
j' 8.
COMMISSIONER BRADF D: Zion ' t take it personally.
l d
i d
9j MR. COLEY:
There is a lot going on today, and we Y
10 appreciate the opportunity to put the story out.
Quite frankly, E
3 11l our subcommittee had a very strong feeling that there was a lot i
j 12 j going on.
In preparing for this briefing, we have confirmed E
i d
13 !
that fact.
E i
l 14 l Backing me up today, to answer questions u. detail, 2
15 in specific areas, if you would desire that information, we j
5 J
16 have several people who assisted in preparing this summary.
We e
z p
17 have R ger Newton from Wisconsin Electric, and chairman of N
LUla dg bhuLA.
G 18 i the Wiocs. 5in Owners Group: Bill Armstrong of Boston Edison, l
l
}
19 i chairman of the GE Owners Group; Jack Geets of Westinghouse; 5
20 l Jack Voyles of INPO, Dave Cain of NSAC; and Arthur Bivens, c2d 21l the AIF staff, has worked very closely w++h the secretary of I1 i 1 l
22 i our subcommittee i! !
i 23 '
In responding to the request for the summary, we i
1 l
24 didn't try to get a summary of everything going on in the l
i l
25,
industry.
It's just not possible, and there are too many things l
i
- j ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
!l
i l
l 10 i
i going on to really summarize, certainly in a limited period of 2
time like this. What we have attempted to do is develop for you 3,
a summary of the key things that are going on in the industry, 4
what are the key items being developed by industry.
5 g
We obtained input from several sources.
n j
6' (Slide.)
R 7
We got input from industry and institutions such j
8 as the Electric Power Research Institure, INPO, NSAC, and other d
d 9
z, organizations.
Oy 10 We solicited input from Nuclear Steam Supply System 3
11 owners group.
3 g
12 l In addition to that, our AIF subcommittee has s
i j
13 l representation from utilities, from NSSS vendors, frcm architect-
=
m 5
I4 !
engineers and the professional societie s.
l j
15 As I mentioned, their survey has confirmed what we E
i j
16 thought was going on in the industry in the human factors area.
A N
17 Many positive steps are being taken, nuch future action is I
}
18 l defined, and industry is getting on with the business of C
i i
19 g
improving the control rooms, both existing control rooms, and j
i 20 attemptinc to define how we will #asion new controls.
21 We have condensed much of our presentation to cover i
22 !
just the high spots of the written text you were given, so if i
23 there are areas in which you would like more information, feel 24 i free to stop us anywhere along the way, and we will be glad to i,
25,
try to address those items.
l t
I I
i A uDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I,
11 1
I'd like to key the presentation primarily in the area 1
2 first of what the institutions and professional societies are and._f4ntS$
4 3
doing; secondly, what utilities are doing; hirdly/ what 4
architect-engineers.and reactor manufacturers are doing.
e 5
could I have the next slide, please.
A i
a n
I 6,j (Slide.)
j o
E i
a 7
The Electric Power Research Institute has been pretty u
s 8
8l active in human factors in our industry since about 1976, about i
d d
9 three years before TMI happened.- This, I think, was an industry i
i ob 10 request to EPRI and a recognition that there were improvements i!
11 that were needed in the control rooms, and EPRI responded with
~
d 12 various research aid development projects.
Two projects that they 5=
d 13 have in effect currently, I think, have immediate and direct E
E 14 ;
impact on existing control rooms, and then on future control d
=
9 15 '
rooms.
INM 16 !
The first project outlined here, 5&t<4, is l
3 A
d 17
" Human Factors Review of Enhancement Approaches for Nuclear u=
l 5
18 l Control Rooms. "
The objective of this report is to study and
=
H I
E 19 ;
document the feasibility, the methodology and the potential
?
20 l benefits from human factors improvements in control rooms, and 21l to outline those in the form of a guide that can be used by I
i 22 f utilities to improve existing control rooms.
23 The approach being taken by EPRI is basically this:
24 They will survey,the research and development tem 3
[
i l
25 will survey five operating nuclear power plants, and perform a i
3
!l survey.of the control room and operator interface.
- )
i
)
i l
12 1
They will then outline the problems and develop 2
approaches or enhance approaches to resolving those human factor 3
problems.
Those approaches will be reviewed by the management 4
of the five utilities with regard to feasibility and practicabilits e
5 o f those fixes, and the net result of that work will be a "how-to" b
8 6
-guide that all of us in the utility industry can use in evaluating e
Rg 7
our control rooms.
A 3
8 The completion date for this particular study, 501-4, d
d 9
is for December 31, 1981.
It is in progress right now.
N I
E 10 '
In the area of new control rooms and new designs, EPRI E
5 11 'l has another current project, RP-163 7, which is " Human Engineering-l a
i d
12 ' Guidelines for Operations."
The objective of that particular z
1 5
l study is to develop a human engineering guide tailored to the d
13 !
3!
-8s[
I industry,that developed around the Department of Defense I 14 gv 5
I 5
15 i engineering guide to equipment design.
N
\\
J 16 l This guide could be used by the designers of new e
17 control rooms to determine the relative advantages and dis-W I
=
l M
18 ;
advantages of enhancement of approaches and is a source of t
C I
19 knowledge concerning human factors performance capabilities A
t 20 and the man / machine interface.
21l This project will be completed by EPRI around June f
I 22 i 30th, 1982.
23 So those are two current projects that EPRI has
[
24,;
responded to, to meet industry needs first for existing d
25 control rooms, and then for new control rooms.
l l
e t
N6 U
13
~1 One of the big concerns of our utility and, I think, 2
all of us in the industry have, is being able to get the information from EPRI into the hands of the utilities y' fM7hk 3
CM bu" ^g' _
4 In that regard, EPRI has conductea a worxshop n
I e
5 human factors principles and their application.
An 3
6 (Commissioner Bradford lef t the meeting room Rg 7
at 2:22 p.m.)
A 8
8 The first of these workshops was held in January of N
dd 9
1980, and had 72 utility representatives there.
The objective ioy 10 was to familiarize those of us in operating utilities with z=
l g
11 human f actors principles and how they could be applied.
3 y
12 This seminar was repeated, I believe, in late Septembes 5
j 13 of this year, and was a prerequisite for an INPO workshop on
=
14 '
conducting control room reviews which I will mention very briefly e
l 2
15 !
later.
j i
g 16 ;
In addition to the EPRI programs that are directed A
y 17 l toward overall man / machine interface, and toward educating a=
5 18 utility personnel, EPRI is also developing programs that are i
r i
C 19 :
tail.ored specifically toward equipment and enhanced data j
4 g
I 20 !
acquisition and display systems.
21 Can I have the next slide, please.
I.
22 I (Slide.)
l 23 '
one of these EPRI procrams is that of development 24 l of a disturbance analysis and surveillance system.
This 1
25 particular project has been in effect for Wbout four years.
l i
i 1
l l
L it.
{;
14 i,
The objective is to develop and evaluate concepts for validating, l
2 analyzing, integrating and prioritizing information that is i
3 displayed to the operator in real time in the control room, in 4l order to improve his performance in recognizing, detecting and i
e 5
mitigating events.
Mn s
6, There is a three-phase approach that is currently e
Rg 7
underway:
s 8
8 First, an attempt to model the operator's decision-9 making process; second, to evaluate tuo specific safety panel i
h 10 display concepts.
Two safety panels will be evaluated.
One is z=
2 11 a very simple panel which has little room for operator inter-l d
12 l action, which will be used solely for his ese in mitigation of z
5 l
E 13 i an, event.
E i
A 14 :
A more complex monitoring console, with a large a
i 2
i 2
15 <
degree of freedom and operator interaction, will be evaluated l
E J
16 and is projected to be of benefit to him in detecting, as well e
l-z p
17 j as mitigating, plant events, u
=
i 18 i The third phase of this program is to develop the
=
9 i
C 19 specification for a plantwide disturbance analysis system for s
n 20 l use in operating plants, which will support five critical 21 i functions:
!i 22 :
The monitoring of critical safety functions.
j' 23 Second, disturbance analysis detection.
24 Third, awareness and monitoring of system i
1 25 configuration, of plant systems.
l.
l-i 1
t
15 1;
observance of operating limits.
I 2;
And, finally, the verification that control and safety 3
actions have appropriately been taken.
i 4i All three phases will be completed by December 31 of 5
this year.
e 3a 3
6!
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Do you know if there is any inter-e t
R i
8 7i action.between: that and, I guess it's Halden. - is it the Haldens I
N i
8 8!
reactor?
d d
9l MR. COLEY:
The Halden project.
Yes.
Y E
10 CEAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Because I know they are also trying h
CN 11 to develop and put in place a system.
MR. COLEY:
Yes, there is.
There are several efforts /1.f d
12 !
z 5
6.J" 13 I ^ going on in that regard.
Our utility was one part of a dual E
14 team working on disturbance analysis systems.
Duke Power was i
=
i 2
15 part of the Department of Energy team.
There was a parallel team i 5
j 16 that EPRI sponsored.
i i
d 17 EPRI and our utility specifically have been to Halden.
w 5
18 We are sharing information with them, and we are also sharing
=
r E
19 information with people in the Federal Republic of Germany E
20 '
in similar concepts.
21 i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Fine.
i 22 '
MR. COLEY:
Next slide, please.
l 23 '
(Slide.)
I 24q CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And you said that was going to enc i
1 your report would be out this December?
25 l
- 1 l i i l si ALDERSON REPORTING COMPofMY. WC-tl
16 j
MR. COLEY:
That's correct.
2 The specification for a plantwide DASS system will be 3
out by December 31 of this year.
4 The Nuclear Safety Analysis Center has also been g
5 fairly active in an allied area.
They are now in the process of aj 6!
developing a concept for a safety parameter display panel.
R R
7 Their objective is to develop the panel, to implement it, and
- j 8
evaluate it as a safety parameter display system, similar to that d
9 alluded to by NUREG 696, evaluate it in an operating plant.
Y 10 This work is underway, and one of the key benefits E
m 11 1 that we have already realized as an industry from that work is i
b y
12 the development by NSAC of a structured parameter selection 5
y 13 '
process which designers and engineers can use in determining
=
t j
14 !
what variables are key and need to be monitored for safety 15 functions.
x l
j 16 !
The process is basically centered raround the functions I
i 17 l you are trying to-accomplish, the functional requirements of w=
1 18 !
certain selection criteria, and decision logic.
=
i H
i
}
19 -
I mention mention that in the AIF we have used this
=
r 20l in a safety parameter integration subcommittee, and have i
21 recently defined the variables that need to be monitored in all 1
22 emergency facilities, and are in the process of transmitting 23 '
that effort to the NRC, specifically the people working on 696.
24 ;
CHAIRMAN AEEARNE:
Now do I gather from these comments I
25,
that there has been industry acceptance of a specific set of l
l
17 I
parameters that are, at least in industry's view, the critical 2
parameters to be monitored?
3 MR. COLEY:
Let me say this, as far as the review is 1
4 concerned:
We did this primarily in working on two areas; first, g
5 I in determining how Reg Guide 1.97 interf aces with all the 6jl 3
emergency facilities; and.second, in our work.with the technical.
R 7I Staff of the NRC, we realized that the key element that was n]
8l really missing in the work thus f ar, was what parameters are 4
z.
9l monitored where.
O 10 In the latter part of September, we formed a working E
i
=
og 4
II ! group which I chaired with AIF, and got as much diverse input as 3
A f
12 l possible, and utilized contractors who had previously done work i
j 13 i in this area.
=
z I4 We did develop parameter lists for the tech support G
+
j 15 ;
center, for the control room, for the SPDS.
Those parameter
=
l I6 d
lists are currently being reviewed by industry, and I guess N
17 from our working group's perspective, does represent our
?
{
18 l consensus at this point.
4 5
i Cbt t
I9 !
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
How dcas that list c ompare ' with
+
20 i the ones that I thought you said NSAC had similarly developed, l
l 21 l a parameter list?
f
]
22 MR. COLEY:
NSAC was instrumental in our effort.
We k
23 used the same methodology that NSAC did, the SPDS list that NSAC 24j has developed is the same as the SPDS list in th e AIF work.
We 25
, expanded on their methodology and used their methodology for i
i t
/ var m
- ---- -- 9
1 18 I
determining the list for the other emergency facilities.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
As far as the SPDS list is concerned, F
3 your list is the same as NSAC's list?
4, MR. COLEY:
Yes.
5 MR. HOWELL:
Well, it was a cooperative effort based 9
6l on some of the methodology.
R d
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And that will, you expect, end E
i j
8i up being, to the extent there is an industry position on that, d
[
9 !
will be an accepted industry position, that this is the appro-E i
10 ' p riate list?
E
$ IIl MR. COLEY:
I would hope that with the broad review i
N I2 !
we are attempting to get, there could be some sort of consensus.
5 i
13 !
For years I have wondered what it took to get a single industry b
g 14 l consensus.
{
15 '
MR. HOWELL:
Well, I think you realize the l
I y
16 i dif ficulty of representing that we speak for all utilities, but w
t Q
17 as Bill has said, there have been so many involved in this, t
h 18 l that I would venture to say this is as close to a consensus as o
19 we can get.
=
20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And then I gather, given the 21 representation that the organizationte have, that the steam j
i i
22 ) suppliers also had an input into that?
6 Weareintheprccessofhavingthatl 23 MR. COLEY:
Yes.
)
1 i
24 h reviewed by as large a spectrum as possible, which does include i
25 suppliers and utilities, and we have also sent that to the ANS i
I l
- ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I
l l
l 19 l
1 and IEEE, and requested their reviewg h demm"
2l MR. HOWELL:
Well, representatives of-the NSS suppliers j 3,
were on the committee that developed this.
l 4
MR. COLEY :
That's correct.
5 g
The particular safety parameter display panel that NSAC n
{
6!
is implementing will be implemented some.. time during 1981 for R
7 evaluation in an operating station.
- j 8
Could I have the next slide, please.
d l
n; 9l (Slide.)
zo 10 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
What station are you going to
_E 11 use?
a N
I2 MR. CAIN:
I'm David Cain, NSAC, and we' re talking 5
i j
13 I with several utilities at this time.
Florida Power & Light, in d
A 5
14,
particular, -Es expressing interest, but there need to be 5
15 certain details between ourselves and the utility before this j
16,
can be concluded.
s t
5, 17 i MR. COLEY:
Could I have the next slide, please.
w 5
}
18 l (glide, )
b I9 i
2 Even though the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations M
i 20 l has been in existence a very brief period of time, I think they 21 have been fairly active in the human factors area, in helping us 22 '
as utilities to find ways to improve our control rooms.
i !
\\
23 First of all, I think they have helped us as industry il 24 {
recognize and pinpoint some of the human f actors problems.
They I
25 have provided some traininc for utility control room design
}
ll
-[!
l l
20 i
m 1
teams at the INPO headquarters.
The first of these was held l
2l October 2nd and 3rd of this year, and the objective of that 3j training session was to take those members of utilities who i
4l will be reviewing their control rooms and training them in 5l various techniques of control room review, such as task analysis, g
0 1
- p 6.,
walk-throughs and talk-throughs, and the procedures for finding R
r oE 7
out how good your control room is, identifying deficiencies, j
s 8;
INPO is also trying out some control room reviews d
i d
9l using some of their guidelines and a current draf t of the NRC z.
Oy 10 l Human Factors Guidelines, CR-1580, in order to develop their E
l t
5 II l own expertise in reviewing control rooms and spotting human 3
j 12 l factors deficiencies.
Ej 13 They have several other programs that are active l
~
x I4 right now, such as those dealing with advanced displays.
They E
{
15,
report for sharing havedevelopedap[reliminaryenhancement
[
i y
16 '
with utilities the attempts to pull togethe r and summarine z
N I7 all of the enhancement approaches that we in the industry have ac 18 g
taken in improving our control rooms, with the thought that
?
I9 g
sharing those approaches and those methods industrywide will put
.n 20 '
us all in a better position to do the best thing in the control l
2I room.
i 22 l They are arently studying the control room review 23 '
methodology to determine what is missing, what are we ; not pin-l 24 pointing in our review of control rocms that we should be pin-25 pointing.
Where is the methodology deficient.
o ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY, INC
21 5
=
1 They are also working with EPRI in control room areas l
2 and disturbance analysis systems and are developing guidelines 3;
for written procedures for use by the industry.
l I
I 4
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
What does your first slide under j
g 5
active programs mean?
O 3
6 MR. COLEY:
Operator acceptance of advanced control 1
l 7l rooms.
One of the practical problems that you have in introducing, N
j 8,
a fairly sophisticated diagnostic system into the operation of a d
i
=
9l plant is the operator acceptance of that.
In his, first of all, i
z 0
10 l recognizing the benefits, and how to use, and how he can
=
i I
z=
i j
11 '
apply it in doing his job better.
S g
12 ;
In our opinion, that is a significant consideration E
13 l to introducing fairly sophisticated technology into the control i
E y
14 i room.
The operator must be sold on it, he must know how to use l
2 15 ;
it, and the objective is to determine how we can help him accept w
=
j 16 ;
that technology.
w L
{
17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Are you saying INPO actually has a
=
i G
18 i program to try to develop some mechanism to get acceptance?
r i
E 19 MR. C05EY:
Jack Voyles, would you like to field A
h 20 '
that?
21 MR. VOYLES:
I'm Jack Voyles from INPO.
This is a h
22 j program that we started with NRC to help determine what needs l
23 to be done to make sure that the operator does accept the new l
l 24 ;
controls that are in.
If you give him some controls and they l
i.
25 don' t work, he's certainly not going to accept them.
Give him i
l ALDERSON REPORTING dOMPANY. INC.
l
22 1,
something he's not familiar with, he's not going to accept it.
l So it involves those kinds of things.
2 3
MR. COLEY:
Could I have the next slide, please.
4 (Slide. )
=
5 Prior to the events at Three Mile Island, there really f
f 3
6 was only one -industry standard was directed principally Rg 7
toward human factors or the control room, and that was a,/ IEEE R
j 8
standard.
d I
o 9
We in the industry realize that mom work is needed i
h 10 '
in standards directed specifically toward the control room and i
E 5
11 the man / machine interface.
This is being pursued now jointly
<m I
4 12 through an effort of IEEE and ANS.
They have formed human E
S 13 factors technical working groups to work jointly on a program E
I j
14 ;
plan for applying human engineering to the nuclear power plants.
15 It's basically a nuclear version of an existing military
)
16 i specification.
f 2
l l
p 17 '
They are evaluating ways in which you can determine f
I l
y 18 l human performance, evaluate human performance of the operator.
19 '
They are attempting to develop standards for procedures, written 6
i 20 '
procedures for use in nuclear power plants, and they have a i
21 :
group that is looking at strictly symbols and colors.
That is 22}
even with conventional displays and CRTs, what are the standards l
6 23 and guidelines to the application of symbols and colors in 24 i conveying.information.
ji 1
!\\
25 This basically summarines the work that's been underwa i
i l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPA96Y. MC, W
q 23 1
by the institutions and by the professional societies in the 2
control room area.
3 The utilities have been ecually active in attempting 4
to improve the control rooms and the man / machine interface.
~
5l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Before you leave that section of g
8 3
6l it, I. found your discussion of EPRI's efforts interesting,. in R
7 that it seems to me back in 1976,
'75, they similarly wrote a A
e report, reviewed four or five utilities' operating control rooms, d
y 9!
wrote a very clear, crisp description of, "Look at all these 2
10 bad practices.
Here are some weak areas.
Here are things that z
I 5
F y
11 shouldn't be done."
3 y
12 It wasn' t clear to me there was any sweeping change, 5
l 13 !
groundswell of reaction in the industry, that receipt of that
=
n I4 '
report, and I was a little unclear as to why in your description E
l
{
15 of the EPRI reports that now sound like a,four or five year later
=
y 16 '
update of that, why you would be any more optimistic, or we should.
i h
17 be any more optimistic there would be a now receptivity.
4 The initial report by EPRI was basically a l
{
18 i MR. COLEY:
i, I9 !
review of different control rooms, and outlined the deficiencies g
n i
20 in those control rooms.
In this particular area, I think it's 21 !
)
fairly easy to spot the deficiencies.
The real problem, I think,
is involved in once you recognize those deficiencies, hcw are 22 I 23 '
they effectively resolved.
This work that is being performed 24,
by EPRI now is a :ollow-on to that initial ef fort.
25,
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yeah, but sore of those things ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I
24 I
h the problems where people had to stand on control room instruh I
were 2
ments just to reach the --
3 MR. COLEY:
That's right.
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Now I don't think it takes too i
g 5
diSicultanengineeringtasktorealizeswitchesnexttoeachothed 9
6l that indicate off/on in a different way -- it didn' t take five R
7 years to get out a handbook on how to fix that.
Aj 8l MR. COLEY:
I agree.
And I think that report by EPRI d
o; 9l illustrated a problem symptomatic of our industry, and for those zoy 10 of us who work in the industry, and particularly involved in the z
i
=
i 11 design and commissioning of the plants, it is very easy to under-3 I
12 l stand how those things occur, with a plant lead time now of 12 5
I l
13 years, and the numb 2rs of revisions and modifications, eventually z
5 I4 d ue to separation requirements, separation criteria, you 15 eventually wind up putting devices not where they should l
optimally go, but where you've got real estate to do it.
l j
16 A
N I7 With the issuance of CR-1580, all o f us in the 3
1 f
18 l industry are going to be taking one generic step, and that is i
c b
19
3 all of us will be reviewing our control rocms versus that guide.
i 20 f There's a lot of other industry action that's going on in 1
21l individual utilities at this point, and it is very diverse, and 1
22 !
I think with good cause.
The reason for the diversity tor our actions, and l
23 '
I l-24 :
the reason we all don' t have the same fix to put in to our t
25 control rooms is quite simply the fact that we all have l
i I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l
~
7 25 I
different problems in our control rooms, and I think basically i
2 utilities are attempting to address their own specific problems, 3
and for that reason, a generic approach does not fit at this 4
. time.
g 5
I might mention just a few of the efforts that are 8
3 6
underway by the utilities..
e R
- S 7
Can I have the next slide, please.
A R
8 M
(Slide.)
}.
This is Just a very brief summary of many utility E
i j
10l actions that are going on at this point in time.
The BWR owners '
=
i II group has been most active in trying to improve their control m
12 E
rooms and identify where deficiencies might lie.
3 13 g
They have an effort directed toward two principle t
3 14 l areas:
first, in de.veloping a generic review of all boiling e
i 15 '
I g
water reactors; secondly,, in devetoping a generic design
=
16 I
(
specifination for safety parameter display system, i
'A A
a 37 >
d In their review of all boiling water reactors, they
=
f 18 are taking the approach of having design review teams review P
]
all of the operating or near-term boiling water reactors.
They I'
20li have already trained four utility review teams in the methods l
21 li I
i for conducting these reviews.
The ultimate review teams will l.
t i
22 l
consist of four utility individuals, a human factors consultant, i
23 '
and hopefully an NRC representative, and reviews will be
!1 24 ;
conducted of all of the operating and near-term SWRs, 25 to 30 l'
i l 1
25l i
- plants, l
j I
i i
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
26 1
It is hoped that these reviews can begin in November, 2
around November 10th, as I recall, and the group hoped to issue 3
a generic report in March of 1981.
However, due to the shortage 4
of human factors and experienced utility personnel to do that e
5 work, the report will most likely be issued in May of
'81.
R l
N 8
6 In another area, the BWR owners' group is developing e
R R
7 a generic specification for safety parameter display system for sj 8
a boiling water reactor.
The functional spec is complete and d
o 9
the design spec should be issued in the third quarter of 1981.
Y 10 These are generic BWR actions, in addition to specific 3
I i
5 11-l actions those boiling water reactor operators are taking.
~
i I
d 12 In another somewhat of a generic approach in the E=j 13 i industry, a group of pressurized water utilities is working on
=
A 14 the development and verification of a safety assessment system.
OM 2
15 This system is envisioned to provide five major functions:
-l B
g 16 l A high level key parameter display.
[
A i
p 17 An accident identification and display system.
[
5 G
18 i A safety system rating monitor.
l l
=
H
[
19 '
A safety system cerformance monitor.
A i
f 20 ';
And a post-accident parameter display.
l l
21 !
A consulting firm is assisting those utilities in l
22 f developing the specification in conjunction with the utility f
23 review committee, design committee, and the human factors review l
i 24 i and simulator demonstration will be part of evaluating that l
l i'
25 design concept.
I l
I t
a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I,
27 1
In regard to items that specific utilities are doing, 2
all of us, Duke and all other utilities who have near-term 3
plants, of course, have been performing control room reviews of 4
those near-term operating plants as part of our action toward e
5 gaining licenses for those facilities.
w 8
6 Many utilities on their own have initiated reviews l
F R
{
7' of operating plant control rooms..One particular utility has f
n already completed, with the assistance of a human f actors consul i
j 8,
I d
9l tant, the review of the control room.
They have identified d
i O
10 their modifications and scheduled those for plant outages.
z=
1 j
11 This same utility is also developing an analog a
y 12 safety parameter display system that they can put in service 5
j 13 I near term until they have a changeout, a major changeout of a i
j 14 l large digital computer system, to provide that function for the b
i
=
c 15 ;
plant.
i g
16 l They have also planned their long-term computer A
d 17 l system changeout.
E i
18 In doing this work, I think all of us have recognized i
=
w i
(
19 a couple of problems:
i 5
20 l Number one is there are no nuclear experienced i
21 !
human fTctors experts in the industry.
This is one problem that t
i 22 I we have.
Most of the human factors --
23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Quite a sobering thought, isn' tit?h I
24 l MR. COLEY:
Yes.
Most of the human f actors experts L
25 come to us from the military or air / space fields, and one of the I
i!
U ll U
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, IN_C.
28 1. things that we utilities realize must be done is to develop a i
2 rapport such that the human factors experts, the operators and 3
the engineers can work together as a team to perform these reviews 4i and designs.
I e
5 Secondly, this particular utility has realized that N
3 6
as well as getting the control. room in good shape.today, one of R
7 your basic problems is maintaining that control room in good A
I j
8' shape for its operating life, with all of the changes that will d
i 9
occur, both changes necessary for equipment changes and operation, i=
10 l and the result of new regulatory requirements.
j z
i
=
j 11.!
So the utility has recognized that they must perhaps 3
(
12 I make some changes in organization and in ju isdiction responsibil-5, i
j 13 i ities within their company to assure that the control room is not
=
mg 14,
compromised once it is put in good shape.
j 15 ;
Another utility has had a similar experience in the E
i J
16 course of their control room reviews, and they are attempting 2
I d
17 to bridge the gap between their human factors consultants and E
E 18 their operators.
r 1
}
19 f This particular utility has formed a task rorce to a
20l define the human factors approach to their control room review
[
21 !
SPDS and the nuclear data link, and they are developing a
[
I b
22 utility-specific design guide which that utility will use for 23 its control rooms.
[
24 {
They have also bought new computer hardware that they t 4
5 25 feel at this time is flexible enough to accommodate new i
i d
a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
29 1 l developments as they occur, such as the disturbance analysis l
2l systems, the safety parameter display systems, and other enhance-l 3,
ments.
l 4
Another utility with a plant under construction has g
5 taken some very positive steps to make sure that the control rooms 9
6;. of that plant are in the best shape possible before the plant 3
l E
I a
7 is placed into operation.
They have retained a human factors j
8 consultant to assist them in the review of the design that they d
9l have.
They have placed the board fabrication on hold and stopped
=
g 10 all fabrication on the boards until such time as they have z
=
3 11 j defined the-deficiencies.
These deficiencies have been defined, S
i d
12 l the enhancement approaches have been selected, they are refining 5
i 5
13 i the design for the boards, and will begin f abrication shortly.
E A
14 i This same utility has also taken some steps to au 2
15 improve the control rooms in their operating stations, with the w=
j 16 i assistance of some human factors consultants.
They have reviewed w
d 17 one operating control room, and the rest of their plants are 5
G 18 i to follow very shortly.
=
i 9
I t
}
19 They are also in the process or rewriting the 5
20l
' emergency procedures so that they are easy to understand and
[
l 1
21 i the operator can use them very readily in responding to an i
22 i emergency or an event.
i 23 The same utility, in recognition of enhanced data 24l transmission and acquisition capabilities needed, have purchased
!i 25 ;'I a new computer system to meet what they feel will be the 1
Ir.
I
!^
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
s p
30 1
! requirements of the TSC, EOF and NDL.
Those requirements are 2
undefined at this point, but the utility has tried to buy as much !
3 as they could in order to be able to backfit those requirements 4
when they are firm.
g 5
Another approach has been taken by another utility E
6 for an existing control room evaluation.
They have " formed a R
{
7 review tean-with a human factors consultant.
They have built a sj 8
full-scale mock-up of the operating control room, complete with dd 9l photographs or paste-ups of all the control board components.
I l
10 They have performed walk-throughs and talk-throughs on that z;
I g
11 board.
They pasted up proposed enhancements on the board, 3
d 12 ;
evaluate those with the operating personnel, the engineering Z
=
y 13 personnel, and human factors consultants, so that they can de fine
=
i j
14 '
the optimum fixes to that operating plant.
+=
2 15 Those basically summarize the kinds of actions that J
16 !
are going on in the utilities today.
All o f us are doing 2
8 17 '
different things.
I tried to pick out the different things M
.=
1 5
18 ;
that are being done, and each utility is taking the approach 5
l 19 of trying to tind out where their problems are, and finding an j
5 20 approach to resolve.
21 i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
What are the obj ectives, if you i-22 could summarize them, principal objective the utilities have l;
i 23 '
in doing these reviews and making modifications?
Wh at would j
1 24 you say they are?
25 I MR. COLEY:
The objectives?
Well, certainly the i
i I
a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
31 I ! underlying objective is to be able to improve the operator 2
interface, to improve ths. operator's ability to understand what I
3l has happened to him, and to respond to what has happened to him.
i 4l I think a lot of us in the industry are concerned I
5!
that the control rooms will not, in my opinion, be significantly s
8 3
6 improved by simply adding to what is already there, a sophisticatee R
7!
data analysis system.
We do need to find a way to enhance the j
8 information and controls already on the board, so that the d
3, operator can respond to them, so he can readily understand what 9
E 10 I problem he has, and respond to them.
z I
i j
11 I think, from our perspective, just the addition of 3
y 12 j. the larger computer system to the control room will degrade the 5
t 9
g 13,
control room.
=
&+-
l 14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Nowhasthisincrease,d[,his h
/ '
j 15 ability to understand, would you say -- what do you think che e-i.
j 16 t utilities hope to accomplish from that?
A d
17 MR. COLEY:
To improve the operator's performance.
Ec i
M 18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
In all modes?
S l
5 19 l MR. CCLEY:
Certainly.
5 20 :
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
So that you would see part of i
)
21l this as being an improvement in the ef ficiency of the normal 22 operation of the --
23 '
MR. COLEY:
Certainly.
I think that'3 the whole 24f objective, and I believe 'all utilities are taking that t
i 25 perspective, too.
We are reviewing what he has to do in the i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
32 1 i normal course of operations, as well as what he might have to do 2
in unusual events or abnormal occurrences.
I think it 's a
3 essential certainly to address normal operation of the plant, i
4 if you are to avoid scMe of the contingency modes.
5 a
g CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Then you would have to, I guess, s
6l 1
l also have to conclude that there can be improvement in the E
7 ny normal operation of the plant.
n 8
8>
i i
MR. COLEY:
Yes.
I think so.
d i
d 9:
g I have no quantitative figures to back that up, but
- b 10 5
I think most of us in the industry do feel we can improve it.
=
5 11 g
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Does that -- as you point out, it d
g 12l-doesn't do any good to just put in a bigger computer, put in more 13 i o
instruments, so that you have to improve the operator's ability 14 )
d to understand.
i i
3 9
15 i
j MR. COLEY:
That 's right.
l
.?
16 !
t j
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Is there any equivalent focus i
Y 17 j
upon improving the capability of the operator independent of G
18 the instrument he's looking at?
l E
19 i
j MR. COLEY:
Exactly.
That's one of the major points 20 I that we have later in the form of a summary.
One o f the big 21 I concerns that all of us have is in improving the man / machine i
22 1
interface, most people are thinking of it in the context of 23 '
I only changing the machine.
It is the machine and the man in j
t 24 i i
combination that need to be addressed, and one reason we see that !
t 25 l
ve should move very carefully and methodically and deliberately i
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
33 1
in making hardware changes in the plant is that we must, at the l
2 s,pme time, make those changes in the man through training and I
3 retraining and additional qualification, so that he, in concert l
4 with the machine, can do the job.
e 5
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You're using man in the generic j
6, sense?
R l
7 MR. COLEY:
That's correct.
Most certainly.
A 8.
That basically summarizes a lot of the: key utility l
I d
i l
9:
actions.
10 l Could I have the next slide, please.
L 3
j 11 (Slide.)
S g
12 l The Nuclear Steam Supply vendors and architect-E' I
[-
13 l engineers are taking similar measures in their areas of
=
l 14 l responsibility.
i 2
15 I have taken excerts here from the action that one j
w
=
j g
16 NSSS vendor has taken, and I think is fairly representative of W
i d
17 all the vendors.
They are performing research and development w
=
5 18 l activities in order to define new interf ace techniques, in finding!
=
i 6
19 ways to display to the operator informaticn in a more meaningful a
i I
20 '
manner.
21 This one particular vendor is evaluating an iconic 22 '
or a polargraphic display, so with a geometric pattern they can 23 indicate through distortion of that pattern that there is a plant 1
24 j abnormality.
That will be evaluated, of course, by that vendor.
l 25 They are also performing research and development to f
1 I
I i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l 34 1,
develop a model for operator decision-making, and assessment of i
2 safety parameter display concepts.
This is being done in 3
cooperation with EPRI.
4!
Now the model for operator decision-making, they are I
g 5
attempting to evaluate events that have happened in operating 0
3 6j plants to determine how the operator responded to determine what R
7 he uses in charting his response to a particular event.
sl B
They are also evaluating operator performance on e
i
=
9 simulators and I think most vendors are developing some form of z
Oy 10 advanced control room or advanced displays for the control rooms. l z
=
i r
j 11l This one particular vendor has also put together j
3 j
12 l within-house.a support group --
5 j
13 i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I'm a little puzzled by "your last f
m 14 l' statement.
You said you think they are.
The universe isn't so w
g 9=
i 2
15 large that you think that they are developing.
5 j
16 MR. COLEY:
Yes.
I really don't know of an NSSS E
d 17 vendor that doesn't have some form o f advanced control room.
l 5
5 18 j The name varies according to the vendor, and the extent of the 19 advancement varies according to the vendor.
5 j
20 j MR. HOWELL:
Of course, just for clarification, you arej 21 '
talking about new items.
4 22 t CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I understand that.
23 '
MR. COLEY:
That's correct.
i 24j CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But in the context of the comment, j
i i
25 ] the universe isn't so large.
i i
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
35 1
MR. COLEY:
Okay.
Of course, this one particular 2
vendor has formed a support team for control room reviews, that's 3
requested by utilities, and I believe several of our architect-4 engineer firms in the industry have that capability also, i
g 5j In summary, there is a lot of activity that is going I
E I
j 6l on in the industry today in improving the control rooms.
This R
l 7
action is proceeding basically in this way:
I s
j 8l First, the ins titutions such as EPRI, NSAC and INPO d
+
c 9i and the professional societies such as IEEE and ANS are developing i
cy 10 the standards and procedures by which this work can be accomplishe(
E I
j 11 '
The utility personnel are becoming educated in human f actors b
a y
12 ;
areas and in the principles and methods and procedures in 3
g 13 conducting control room reviews and evaluating control room
=
1 14 i designs.
j 2
15 The utilities are apolying this knowledge in control j
s l
rooms to identify deficiencies, prioritize them, outline l
g 16 ;
w I
d 17 alternatives that they might have, and they are performing x=
18,
revisions to control rooms in operating rooms and near-term l
?
i 19 ;
plants to improve those control rooms.
5 I
20 Next slide, please.
[
i l
21 (S lide. )
i.
1 22 '
In the course of the work industry has done so f ar, i
23 we have learned and, I think, in some cases reconfirmed some
{
24 pretty important f acts that I'd like to summarize.
3 I
25j First, a team or engineering operations and human
'i I
i l
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I
f I
36 I
1l factors people is really needed to do this job.
As an industry, l
2 we cannot rely solely on the human f actors people and turn the 3
job over to them to do.
The utilities must provide the l
4 l experience and must be integral to the work.
I 5
Second, there is a shortage of human factors expertise e
An 3
6 in the industry that has a lot of nuclear power experience.
We 7ll need to train more utility people in the principles of human s
i j
8l engineering,
d 2
9 z,
Long-term control of quality must be maintained.
Some
+
10 l of us in the industry will have to possibly reorganize areas z
i O
l a
j 11 j of our companies or fully de~ fin'e responsibilities to assure that a[
8 l
y 12 l control room is not compromised throughout its operating life l
5 F
g 13 by changes and modifications.
]
=
i
- n g
14 i This is one area that is not addressed in CR-1580 and
{
i 2
15 I feel is a key concern of the industry, i
5 l
j 16 Finally, I think changes to the control room A
l i
b.
17 absolutely must be accompanied by a similar training of the j
i I
5 18,
control room operators.
We must be careful in making the changes ;
5 l
i 19 to the control room, to be sure that we train the operator i
20 !
when the changes are made, so that he fully unders tands and 21lI responds to the new control room and the modified control room, l
f 22 f not to what used to be or what was in the control room.
f 23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You used retraining.
I gather i
l 24,
then you have concluded that as you change control rooms, this
\\
l 25 does not lead you to also conclude that you might have to actually I
r l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I
c, 37 1, change operators, but you have reached the conclusion you can re-2l train them?
3 MR. COLEY:
I would think so, yes.
This is not too 4
different, I guess, a concept from some of the actions all of us e
5 took right after TMI.
There wasn't a utility, operating utility Ae j
6 in the country, that didn't analyze that very carefully and R
7 train the. operators to respond to it.
A j'
8, We feel, too, that as you make changes in the control d
9 room, as displays become different, as they are modified, as
?,
10 you change the legends on enunciators, you need to be darn sure z=
j 11l the operator knows what you have done and knows what that new 3
i j
12 l change means.
=
l i
g 13 ;
That basically summarizes the kinds of things that are j i
w i
5 14 I going on in the industry today.
If you have questions or would b
=
t I
15 like details on any of the areas we have covered, we'd be mos*
5 I
1 J
16 happy to address those.
G d
17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I have, I guess, one question, l
5 I
E 18 ;
and then I will ask Dr. Hendrie.
19 I noticed that you talked about a BWR owners ' group.
n 20 3 MR. COLEY:
Yes.
9 21 !
CHAIRMAN AHEARNF:
Mm II the conclusion, therefore, b
22] that PWRs are in such good shape they don't need it, or they I
23 haven ' t recognized they need it, or you didn't mention it, l
l i
24 although it's there?
25 MR. COLEY : No, not really.
There are various efforts t
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l
38 1
underway by the pressurized water reactors -- those operating 2,
pressurized water reactors.
One of the activities that I 3
mentioned was specific PWR group --
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
A PWR group?
e 5
MR. COLEY:
Yes.
Ae i
j 6l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Similar to the BWR group?
R 7
MR. COLEY:
Ohe I think it's different from the BWR sl 8
group, to the extent that it doesn't represent all of the d
- [
9 utilities with that particular reactor.
It represents a group of z
Oy 10 '
utilities with that reactor who share some common problems in z
=
j 11 the control room area and want to address those on a generic 3
j 12 l basis.
l 5
i l
y 13 I MR. HOWELL:
Well, one of the problems is that the
=
~
A 5
14 I control rooms are not one-to-one correlation with the reactor
{
15,
vendor, and there is probably more correlation amongst the BWRs --j!
r J
16 !
MR. COLEY:
That's correct.
I I
i N
17 MR. HOWELL:
-- than the PWRs.
x i
=
i G
18.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Joe?
I 19 i COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
One of the things that's R
l i
20 $ concerned me, both with regard to procedure changes and certainly f 21l any change in the configuration of the control room, has the i
l 22 I same character.
How of ten is it practical to make some significad i
23 '
changes in procedures and on the boards from the standpoint of l'
l I
24 l keeping the operators up and current on everything?
k r
25,l You know, there's an inclination, I expect, from our n
i J
1 J
a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
!j
O es 39 I
standpoint, it's a "do what you can do today, and tomorrow 2'
you'll be able to do something else; if you couldn't do it 3-tomorrow or next week, do something else," and as I contemplate l
4 the opet y. tor's problem, why, I'm progressively less convinced e
5 that that is very helpful.
An c-j 6
How many times a do you figure you can cycle R
7 your operating crews against new procedures and new changes?
It sj 8
kind of sounds to me as though for stability and training and d
i 9l everybody understanding what's going on, and how the board is 3
i 5
10 set up, and what the procedures are, and.so on, that there is Ej 11l considerable merit to trying to take the inevitable changes
~
3 y
12 that come along and group them at a time like a refueling, when 4
I g
13 !
there is a substantial piece of downtime and you have a chance 14 l to -- it amounts to a discontinuity in the steady operation, s
E 15 ;
the operator is broken out of his sort of routine shif t mold of 5
g' 16 !
thinking and you've got a chance then to introduce new procedures ;
A i
b.
17 and drill on them, and if the board changes are made at the l
w t
=
.i t
5 18 l same time, again they can drill on those.
But I don't know --
r 19,
has anybody reflected any experience or have any thoughts on how i
20 l often you can stand to recycle your operating people against I
i 21 '
changes?
i 22 '
MR. HOWELL:
I don' t know of anybody that has done 23 a study of that general nature, but I certainly agree with your l
i I
24 r common sense aspect, at the extreme of waking up every new day i
I i
I 25 with some new variation in the procedure or piece of hardware.
i 3
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
40 1,
I think that there is a logic to groupinc these things, especially 1
2 when you get physical changes.
Just logic says that you do it 3
at an appropriate time, and when you have an outage.
4 Bill, do you know of any specifics?
5 MR. COLEY:
No, I'm not aware of any.
I guess the o
h 6l only basis I can speak from is the experience in our own utility.
R 7
We are most apprehensive about continuously tweaking the control
- j 8
room, even though 'the operators and the operating shift is in d
9!
school every fif th week in training.
A constant state of flux
=
5 i
10 !
in the control rocm configuration is not good.
We realize that, z
l
=
i j
11 and have been most careful _ about attempting to make those changes' E
y 12 l One of the things we try to f actor into control room f
5 I
I 13 '
review -- into the review of control room changes is the f act l
I m
14 !
that one thing you lose when fou make that change, is you lose 3
f 15 the experience that the operators had with that device, and you 5
j 16 i have to be sure that what you are replacing it with, you have to s
d 17 l have, I guess, a gut feeling that it outweighs the experience l
5 I
18 l you have lost by making that change.
E 19 [
I think even the implerentation of something that n
a 20 i you would think is as simple as a safety parameter display system f i
21 +
needs to be done very, very carefully.
i I
22 '
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Oh, I would never think the j
23 implementation of that display system is going to be simple.
l It would be very difficult.
l 24 i l
i 20]
MR. HOWELL:
Well, on this point, I think really we i
l b
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I
.w 41 I
have analogous -- just changes in the regulatory requirements, 2l where I think we have generally taken the position in the industry 3
is, one, don't be precipitous; and two, let's try to get some 4
stability, so that things are not always changing, because e
5 that sort of continual change does lead to confusion.
h i
j 6l MR. VOYLES:
Jack Voyles from INPO.
Could I add a R
7 little bit to that?
E 8l In our trial applications of doing control room d
I
?,
9j reviews, the control room reviews are based on looking and using c
10 the procedures, and we have seen this happen in some of the j
11 procedures where they are updated several times, and the updates t
j 12 l aren't fully integrated back into the original procedure.
So 5
g 13 i taking care of the procedures is a very important point, along m
5 14,
with taking care of the training ois a very important point.
b.
15 g
And along with control room reviews, it's very, very important to j
16 ;
consider the training aspects, the retraining aspects, and the
{
3 t
..g 17 -
procedures, and some programs could be considered -- should be 5
}
18 l considered really to tie them all together.
19,
One thought that we have thought, and are thinking 5
h I
20l abo ut, is have a control room mock-up that you can use for I
21 !
many, many things.
You can do control room reviews on it, f
L 22 f you could even set up on a stage and say this is the way it's i
23 going to look at our next change, get ready to do some training 24 on it if you had a mock-up.
We think it has a lot of uses and 25 f could be helpful in developing procedures and make sure of the 0
1 t
I 3
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I
.o.
42 l
1 training; several aspects.
l I
2l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I appreciate the briefing.
i f
3 I think there is lots to do out th ere, and because you are l
r 4
in this area, at just the crucial interf ace between the control
}
g 5-of human beings and machinery, why, it's a very delicate thing a
I j
6 to change.
You know, if you're going to put arnew model 2-A
[
R 7
seal on the pump and replace the 1-A mode:., why, get an s
j 8,
appropriate outage on the machine, his chief goes down and d
=
9l whams it on there and the pump is too dumb to knew anything, to i
O I
b 10 be confused by it.
Hopefully it works, and so on.
But operators z
l
=
j 11 are -.that's pretty sophisticated and delicate mechanism, and a
f 12 l it has to be done carefully.
,=
E 13 !
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Mr. Howell, did you have any other E
14 !
remarks?
[
l E
15 MR. HOWELL:
Nc, I had no concluding remarks, other l
E i
i o
j 16 !
than to -- if you are finished with your questions, is to thank l
z i
d 17 you for the opportunity of coming in and talking with you, and I s
t 18 l think as evidenced by some of Bill's comments, there are quite a 5
l 19 [
few efforts going on, and I think by and large, the industry is 5
20 l certainly sensitized to the importance of this area, and will 21 keep working on it.
i 22 !
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I am glad to see the movement l
23 industry is making.
It's certainly no surprise to you, just as v
i 24 {
the rest of the industry, the NRC was not exactly overly i
25 populated with human factors people, much less human factors I
f t
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I
l 43
)
people with nuclear experience.
It's really a ve ry hard-to-find 2
indiviacal, and we are also, as you know, trying to develop 3,
a good understanding of what ought to be in our requirements 4
in this area, and no it really does have to be a mutual working e
5 together, and I am glad we are doing that.
Just as you, we are b
N 6l also trying to learn from a number of these organizations.
l e
r
- g 7
I used to worry about DOD type equipment, and it's a 8
8 very dif ficult thing to make any kind of m. jor changes in the a
n dd 9
technology, handling and putting in of human factors engineering.
5 i
E 10 Many places, at least in the DOD world, we finally concluded that E=
l 2
11 we had to, in addition to changing the equipment, change the
<a d
12 people-i z
i E
i j
13 !
Sc I'd just like to plant the idea that there are 1
14 some stages where retraining is just not enough, you have to
(
b t
15 worry about a different caliber of individual to be able to utiliz{
s f
16 that.
And as you pointed out, that kind of equipment is not i
g 17 only just for emergency action response, you have to get a j
W l
=
i 5
18l' better operation on the machine itself.
So there is a payoff i
i
}
19 cn that side.
But I thank you very much.
5 b
20 f COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
By the way, before you go t
I i
21 I away, since you do have some parameter lists developed for
)
l 22 i safety parameter a play of boards and th;ags, I trust these
}
I 23,
are not dark secrets within the dungeons of the AIF and so on?
j i
24 I just say -- you know, we continu; to have discussions around
{
l 25 here about parameters that ought to be on those boards and what i
I i
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l
l
.o 1
44 f
l 1
ought to be back in the emergency operations f acility, and what, l
2 if anything, ought to come into Bethesda to amaze and delight 3
people who may be watching there.
So if the Staff knows what 4
your lists are like, as we discuss those things, why, I'll feel P
=
5 free to ask the Staff what some of your lists look like.
M9 3
6 MR. HOWELL:
Yes, please do.
The subject here today L
e i
J Rg 7
was on control rooms, but we have a rather active effort in s
j 8
which both myself and Bill are also involved in, the so-called d
=
9' safety parameter integration that gets into the whole idea of i
)
oy 10 what these different entities or operations are supposed to be, l
z=
i g
11 j and the. appropriate safety parameters to be displayed, so on and
.l E
i d
12 so forth.
We have not made a secret of our lists or our ideas z
5 I
i 13 l and have worked somewhat extensively with the Staff, and we have E
A 14l had some refinements in our thinking, in our justification of e
i C
4 15 i some of these lists, which were the ones Bill was referring to, i
s l
J 16,
But the information and the thoughts and the comments along the l
e j
1 17 way, we have not been bashful about sharing that with the Staff.
=
18 l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Thank you.
l
=
H i
C 19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Thank you.
A l
20 l (Whereupon, at 3:09 p.m.,
the meeting was 21 I adjourned.)
I 22 !
^
h b
23,
I 24 '
i' I
25
[
O I
b ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
L
n m.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.W4ISSION This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the Commission Meeting in the matter of:
Meeting with Industry Groups Working on Control; Room Design Questions
- Date of Proceeding:
October 31, 1980 Docket flumber:
Place of Proceeding: Washington, D.
C.
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Commission.,
Ann Riley Official Reporter (Typed)
Lf?t/
}
v-Official Reporter (5'gr.ature)
)
J
l-Presentation by Stephen Howell Before the Nuclear Regulatory. Commission October. 31,.1980 I am Executive Vice President of
~
My name is Stephen Howell.
Consumers Power Company, and I am here today. representing the Atomic Industrial Forum's Policy Committee on Nuclear This presentation today is in-resaonse to a Regulation.
from Harold Denton for a briefing to tie Commissioners request on progress being made by the nuclear industry in programs related to control room improvements.
Our committee, which was formed after the accident at Three Mile Island, has been active, in recommending improvements in such areas as control rooms, We t.
emergency facilities, and emergency response crganizations.
believe our recommendations, which were issued in a series of reports to the industry prior to the Kemeny Commission Report, were responsible and responsive to the need for safety improvements in a number of areas.
Since that, time our committee through its various subcommittees has been working with the NRC staff, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, the Nuclear Safety Analysis Center, Electric Power Research Institute, Owners Groups, The Edison Electric Institute, and professional societies, on generic plans for implementing improvements.
Our committee, with a membership which is representative of the nuclear industry, supports the need to apply human factors improvements in nuclear power plants.
These improvements encompass the man / machine interface, the operator cognitive operating procedures, and operator selection and process, plant training.
Mr. Bill Coley, Manager of Engineering Services of Duke Power Company, and Chairman of the AIF Subcommittee on Control Room Considerations will discuss industry programs of improvement in each of these areas.
But first I would like to say a few words on introducing advanced technology into control rooms.
We believe that there are a number of improvements that should be backfitted into existing and committed control rooms <
We believe there are actions that can be taken to present more clearly data and alarm conditions of those plant parameters considered to be most critical for safety.
The presentation of these critical parameters and attendant controls and alarms should be organized and arranged such that they are easily monitored and understood by the supervising senior reactor operator (SRO).
It is important that the SRO have the means'to caable him to prioritize effectively those actions which must be taken during a casualty or transient situation.
,....s...
. ~.. -.
+
There are several ongoing RSD programs in the nuclear industry for upgrading control room designs and instrumentation.
The i
Electric Power Research Institute, which is supported by the electric utilities, is conducting a number of projects which could potentially impact future actions and policy decisions regarding control rooms.
Bill Coley will discuss these projects.
There were lessons learned from the accident at Three Mile Island that can be used for improving the simplicity and quality of the man-machine interface and human engineering aspects in the design and layout of most control rooms.
There are generic difficulties that can be rectified by use of improved operational aides such as improved instrument displays, automatic safety system status monitoring, and comauter based-disturbance analysis and surveillance systems.
We believe that such evolving technology improvements rhould be introduced to control rooms, but in a logical and properly phased basis.
How much advanced technology and how most effectively can it be incorporated?
First we have to divide control rooms into (1) future control room designs versus (2) existing and committed control room designs.
New technology, after it has completed all RGD phases and has been demonstrated to be a significant improvement, should be incorporated in new design control rooms.
It does not necessarily follow though that the most advanced technology, per se, should be installed in existing or committed plant control rooms.
One must recognize that new technology does not make old technology unsafe.
Also, it is pointed out that the long lead time in licensing and constructing a nuclear power plant and the need to get regulation approvals plus rather specific regulatory requirements tend to " lock in" designs so that the most up-to-date technology cannot be in place at the time a plant goes into operation.
We believe that there are changes that should be backfitted into existing control rooms, but there is no compelling reason to install advanced technology on a crash basis.
Better use of computers and existing technology is a reasonable objective that should be accomplished over the next few years.
Advanced technology, as it is developed should be introduced by evolution rather.than revolution.
I will now turn the briefing over to Bill Coley.
l,
i 4 -
- r m
a W.
mE e
My'nameisBill'Coley,IamManagerofEngineeringServicesa[
- : Duke Power Company and I am here today as Chairman of the AIF Subcommittee _on Control Room-Considerations.
In attempting to respond to Mr. Denton's request for a briefing on the progress being made by the nuclear industry in programs related to control room improvements we did not attempt to survey every h'e did invite input from EPRI, INPO, NSAC, owners groups one.
and members of our subcommittee which represents a good cross section of utilities, manufacturers and A/Es.
Backing me up are members of our committee who represent some of those organizations.
I have organized this briefing along the lines of first, what4 the institutions such as EPRI, INPO, IEEE, ANS and NSAC are doing; Second, what the utilities are doing on their own initiative; and thirdly, what the manufacturers and A/Es a~re doing.
EPRI Activities EPRI has begun a study, " Human Factors Review of Enhanceme[t Approaches for Nuclear Control Rooms" (RP-501-4), scheduled for completion by December 31, 1981.
The objective of this project is to study and document the means and problems, based upon human factors principles and criteria, for enhancing power plant control rooms.
The research team will gather data at five selected nuclear plants utilizing the methodological tools described in NP-309, " Human Factors Review of Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Design."
This data will be analyzed by the R S D Team and enhancement recommendations will be generated for the consideration of the five plant managements.
Reactions to the proposed recommendations will be received from the plant managements as to technical feasibility and practicability.
Based upon these technical interfaces, a practical "How-to Guide" will be prepared for the industry for potential implementation and use.
This guide will not constitute a standard or a specification but will document the feasibility, methodology and potential benefits of alternative enhancement approaches.
Another EPRI project, " Human Engineering Guide-lines for Operations" (RP-1637) has commenced with a scheduled completion date of June 30, 1982.
The objective of this project is to develop a human engineering guide comparable to D0D's " Human Engineering Guide to Equipment Design" but tailored to the needs of the power industry.
The Guide will contain human engineering criteria and principles which can be used as a reference document for design engineers to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of alternative design approaches and apply specific knowledge concerning human performance capabilities in
]
i I
A L
the man-machine interface.
The Guide will apply to the entiri
, plant but will have the control room as a major focus.
The contractors will be a human eng-ineering consultant firm with support from two NSSS suppliers and two major A/Es so as to constitute a truly multi disciplinary team.
A design model will serve as the basis for topical coverage and extensive use will be made of tables, charts and graphs.
Again, the Guide is neither a specification nor a standard and is obviously non-regulatory in nature.
The emphasis is upon new design rather than back-fitting.
In January 1980, EPRI sponsored a three-day human engineering seminar which was attended by approximately seventy-two people from utilities operating nuclear plants or had nuclear plants' under development, selected AE; and NSSS vendors.
The purpose of the seminar was to familiarize the attendees with human factors engineering considerations in power plant design, operation and maintenance and to establish an increased awareness of human characteristics as they relate to performance requirements.
The seminar was repeated by industry request in late September of this year.
While not devoted to control room design per se, the seminar has already served as the impetus for self-initiated studies by some companies due to the arousal of interest and a better understanding as the role of human factors engineering and enhanced plant performance.
For the past four years EPRI has also been supporting the development and evaluation of concepts for validating, analyzing, integrating and prioritizing information for use by operators as part of a " Disturbance Analysis and Surveillance System (DASS)", RP-891.
At present this project has three parts to be completed by the end of 1980.
Decision Modeling - A quantitative model of the critical factors influencing the operator decision making process has been devloped in order to help identify and prioritize potential improvements.
Four recent plant incidents have been analyzed in detail by operators and other experts using the model to rank potential benefits from a variety of candidate fixes.
Safety Function Monitoring Concents Evaluation - The o'ojective is to evaluate the impact of two candidate concepts on operator performance relative to performance with existing contr:1 boards for simulated severe upset situations.
Both approaches are similar in that they are function-oriented; that is, the operator is made aware of plant status through the display of information related to fundamental safety requirements (for example; reactivity control, coolant s
inventory, heat removal, containment integrity) at one location in the control room.
. c
!i W
The approaches' differ though, along a simple versus complex The simple concept which has been developed.with dimension.
technical inputs'from NSAC will:
1) display only the minimum number of key parameters
~
necessary to monitor fundamental ~ safety requirements, 2) not allow operator interaction with the information display system and 3) befused by all members of the operating crew.
The more complex approachAv 0f 5
~
c 1) display detailed diagnostic information-(upon demand) in addition to the key parameters, 2) provide for operator interaction with the information display system via a keyboard and 3) be implemented as a console where a given member of the operating crew may be stationed for a period of time during a casualty.
The simple concept-is targeted mainly'for improved operator mitigation of events while the more complex approach will enhance operator detection, prevention and mitigation of transients.
As part of the evaluation, both concepts, the panel and the console,-will be implemented at a training simulator.
Separate simulations will be run using both approaches to safety' status monitoring.
Operator performance measures obtained during these. runs will be analyzed to determine benefits to safety status monitoring offered by
~
either approach over and above what trained operators can achieve with just conventional control board displays.
Results provided should aid utilities in satisfying safety status monitoring requirements.
i-DASS Specification - The scope and feasibility =of a plant-wide DASS which would build upon the near-term emergency facility systems (NUREG-0696) has been assessed in parallel EPRI/ DOE projects.
~The results of these studies have identified the concept of critical safety and availability functions as a means.to structure the information analysis for five high
^
priority _ functions:
- 1) status of critical safety and availability functions,
. l i
5 i
r
- 2) disturbance detection by' parameter analysis,
- 3) surveillance of system configuration,
- 4) surveillance of operating limits and Si verification of control and safety actions.
In the next year, the emphasis of this project will be to develop and evaluate _the DASS both in simulators and at plants.
NSAC NSAC has been active in selecting parameters for the Safety Parameter Display Systems, the total control room and more recently the Tech Support Center and Emergency Off-site facilities.
NSAC has developed a structured parameter selection process based on:
-Functional Requirements
-Selection Criteria
-Decision logic Our AIF committee has been working with NSAC and the ANS 4.5 standards committee to develop these parameter lists.
INPO INP0 sponsored a workshop in early October to train nuclear 1
utility personnel to be members of control room design review The workshop was designed to train personnel in the use teams.
of control room evaluation techniques used by the NRC, consultants, EPRI, and utilities.
These techniques include the use of interviews, check lists, surveys, task analysis, walk-throughs, talk throughs and prioritization and selection of back fit modifications.
INPO now has human factors engineering expertise on the staff to assist utilities and to determine the role of INPO in control room design.
Professional Societies (ANS/IEEE)
IEEE and ANS have both formed human factors technical groups.
They have held-a joint meeting and outlined work on proposed l
standards in the four following areas:
(1)
Program plan for applying human factors 1
engineering in nuclear power plants (modified 1
a t
2 iu u
0_
1 Y
,,,em,a m.--
y
-,N.,-
y
,,4 w>..
MILSPEC 46855)
(2)
Human performance evaluations (provide basis for systematic, reproducible, and tractable evaluation of human performance)
(3)
Procedures (Develop standards on written procedures and communication systems for testing, training, operations and maintenance)
(4)
Symbols and colors (Both CRT and non-CRT indications)
Utilities The NRC's " Human Engineering Guide to Control Room Evaluation" (NUREG/CR-1580) was published for comment in August.
Much of the industry including our AIF committee has commented on this document.
When it is finalized, many utilities will use it for conducting their control room evaluations.
Many other utilities have proceeded to conduct evaluations prior to receiving this document, using expert consultants, EPRI reports, and any other base of human factors information available to them.
I will describe some of these utility efforts:
The BKR Owners Group has been quite active for the last 8 months in two areas:
(1)
Generic BWR Control Room review program, and (2)
Development of generic 3WR design for a Safety Panel Display System.
A BNR Control Room review workshop was held October 8-15, in Morris, Illinois to train teams on the program.
There are 6 teams of 6 people cach who will conduct the audits.of 25-30 control rooms at operating plants and near term operating license plants.
In addition to use of check lists, casualty procedure walk throughs will be video taped.
The reviews will be conducted in November and December and a generic report issued in March 1981.
The BWR Owners Group has developed functional specifications for the SPDS and will complete design specifications in the third quarter of 1981.
Other utilities, presently, are working individually using consultants., A/Es, and NSSS suppliers to aid them.
I will give some examples of individual utility efforts:.
O -' 9 e
One utility with a near term op'erating license (NTOL) plant had a control room review of this plant and then on their own initiative used similar teams to accomplish control room reviews of their other plants using consultants and inhouse experience.
Short term modifications have been identified and acheduled into the planned outages.
This utility is designing an SPDS using ant.og inputs.
They see the need to improve high soeed data collection and have embarked on a long term computer changeout program.
A big problem they see in upgrading the control rooms is the interface with existing safety-grade (IE) systems and the need for proper isolation.
They found it essential that there be good rapport between operators and engineers in order to use the best judgement in making changes.
For example additional instruments for post accident monitoring may get stuck in any available space if these modifications aren't closely controlled by a " control room architect".
Another utility has conducted some control room evaluations and also has found it essential to bridge the gap between the operators and human factors engineering consultants.
This company has a task force to (1) define human factors approach for control room review, safety parameter display, and nuclear da~ta link; and (2) develop a design guide for human engineering the control rooms.
They are also buying a new computer system that will be flexible enough to accomodate whatever new developments are introduced in the next few years such as DASS and automatic safety system status monitoring.
Another utility, using a consultant firm, has undertaken control room reviews.
A plant under construction was chosen to be reviewed first because of the construction status of this plant and because the control board has not yet been fabricated.
A " hold" was put on the control board fabrication, until human factors review was complete and discrepancies identified in the review could be incorporated in the design.
These changes presently are being implemented in 'he design and t
fabrication.
This summer, the same utility began a review of their operating control rooms.
The data on one plant has been taken and discrepancies have been identified and prioritized.
Along with this they are re-writing emergency procedures to make them easier to understand.
This company also has bought a new computer system form transmitting plant data to the Tech Support Center, Emergency Off-site facilities, and the nuclear data link..
m
~
I.will mention the efforts of o'ne more utility.
They have initia'ted control' room reviews using consultants.
Their technique was to build a full-scale mock up of the control room and walk-through emergency procedures.
Tliey would then paste potential modifications on'the mock up boards to see if there was an improvement.
Displays and controls on the principal panels and consoles also have been reviewed separately from the walk-throughs.
The' objective of~this review is to ensure that items such as scale divisions, selection of units, legend readibility, all of which might not be picked up in the walk-throughs, are evaluated.
They are reviewing the alarm t
~
systems to evaluate-the usefulness of the information presented
-to the operator.
Also, they are surveying environmental conditions in the control room to evaluate whether they adequately support.the operator.
Reactor Suppliers and A/Es
~
The major reactor plant suppliers and A/Es have instituted new programs and organizations for improving control room designs 4
for future plants and for supporting their clients in upgrading existing control. rooms (both operating plants and plants under construction).
I will describe some of the human engineering programs of one reactor manufacturer.
The other NSSS suppliers have similar programs.
This comp'any is involved in research efforts to define new man-machine interface techniques and to improve existing techniques.
For example, a new advanced display concept, the polar graphic or iconic display was. developed.
This display provides a succinct, integrated summary of overall plant conditions and it helps operators to quickly recognize abnormal events.
Normal plant status is represented by a regular geometric pattern; different abnormal conditions are signaled through distortions of that pattern.
This company is.invelved with the Electrical Power Research Institute in research projects designed to develop a model of operator decision-making and in an experimental assessment of i
the effectiveness of safety parameter display concepts.
Results of'these studies ~will aid in the design of.a Disturbance Analysis and Surveillance System.
Under their Operator' Action Program data is collected at.their simulator on operators' performance during loss of coolant accidents, steam i
line breaks and steam generator tube-ruptures.
This data is analyzed in order to define how long it takes operators to diagnose these events and how long it takes to implement corrective actions.
.g.
\\
\\
- -~
This company has developed an A'dvanced Control Room utilizing human-engineering and task analysis techniques to accomplish an effective man-machine interface.
Color CRT's and interactive keyboards are the primary means of plant information presentation.
Human-engineered Operator Interface Modules provide the control and dedicated display functions on the operating stations.
Task analysis of plant operating procedures provide the basis of control roem layout and device location.
The Advanced Control Room is making use of digital computers to present the plant data to the operator in the most efficient manner.
For instance, during emergency conditions, the computer will assign priorities to the alarms and therefore the operator will not be burdened by a very large number of alarms.
This company also has formed a competent team which when used in conjunction with qualified plant operators is available to support the utilities to review their control rooms.
The review includes:
1.
The adequacy of information presented to the operator to reflect plant status for normal operation, anticipated operational occurrences, and accident conditions; 2.
The grouping and consistency of displays and iayouts of panels; 3.
Improvements in the safety monitoring and human factors enhancement of controls and displays; 4.
The communication from the control room to points outside the control room, such as auxiliary operations areas; 5.
The communications between operators during " full dress" emergency situations; 6.
The adequacy of operating procedures and operator training with respect to the limitations of instrumentation displays in the control room; 7.
The prioritization of alarms, with unique definition of safety alarms; 8.
Consistency and adequacy of labeling of controls and displays; 9.
Color coding;
- 10. Plant computer function and display; and
- 11. Control room environment..
'I
CONCLUSION Progress is being'made by the nuclear industry in. programs for improving control rooms.
We believe substantial progress can be made.in the next two years in enhancing. existing control rooms.. The NSSS Vendors and EPRI have major programs in research, development,'and design of advanced control rooms using advanced technology.-
These programs are bearing fruit and will continue to do so over the next 3-5 years as RSD is completed.
We do urge that the NRC permit advanced technology
++ be adequately demonstrated -ee such that it offers improvements in safety before it becomes required.
I will be happy to answer any questions.
If I don't know the answer perhaps one of our committee members that are here today can.back me up.
w 4
O D
e
. ~
- ~
s AGENDA d
MEETING WITH INDL'STRY GROUPS UORKING ON CONTROL ROOM DESIGN QUESTIONS e
i
' Friday, October 31, 1980 2:00~p.m.
1 PRESENTATION BY:
Stephen Howell (Approx. 2 hrs)
-Exec. Vice Pres., Consumers Power Co.
-AIF, Policy Committee on ~ Nuclear Regulation
-Chairman, AIF Committee on Power Plant Design, Construction, and Operations and William Coley
-Manager of Engineering Services, Duke Power Co.
-Chairman, AIF Subcommittee on Control Room Considerations Accompanied.by:. Roger Newton (Wisc. Elec.), Bill Armstrong (Boston Edison),
Rich Hill (GE),-Jack Geets (Westinghouse), Jack Voyles-(INP0), Ron Duffy (EPRI), Dave Cain (NSAC), Arthur Bivens (AIF) 4 a
.m.....
..