ML20040A234

Midland Plant Control Room Design Review Program Plan.

ML20040A234
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	01/15/1982
From:	CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
To:
Shared Package
ML20040A233	List: ML20040A232 ML20040A234
References
NUDOCS 8201200582
Download: ML20040A234 (51)

Text

.

MIDLAND PLANT CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM PLAN JANUARY 15, 1982 8201200582 820115 PDR ADOCK 05000329 A PDR

TABLE OF CONTENTS j l

Section Title Page INTRODUCTION 1 1 Review Plan 3 2 Management and Staffing 11 3 Documentation and Document Control 17 4 Review Procedures 23 5 Assessment Procedure 41 4

e l

l

LIST OF TABLES 1

i Table Title Page 1 HED Distribution by NUREG 0700 Category 6 2 Appendix A-1. Considerations Which Ensure Compliance with HFE Identification (IDENT)

Criteria 27 3 Checklist 13 Flags 33 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Title Page 1 Systems Review Process 5 2 Full Scale Unit 2 Control Panel Mockup . 7 3 Detailed Control Room Design Review 9 4 Integration of Human Factors Studies 12

. 5 Review Team Structure 14

) 6 Human Engineering Discrepancy (HED) Form 19 7 Review Process Program 24 Operational Review Checklist 1 8 26 i -9 Control Room Inventory Form 30

! 10 Component Checklist 32 11 Set Design Checklist 35 12 Composite Functional Arrangement 36 j 13 Time Movement Diagram 39 1 14 HED Categories vs Improvement Techniques 42 15 Sequential Assessment Process 43 16 Assessment and Implementation Process 45 i

a 4

I i 1

l

! ii I,

1 INTRODUCTION l This report constitutes Consumers Power Company's (CPCo) Program Plan Report, for the Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR) of the

Midland Nuclear Power Plant. As. a basis for reviewing this report, j Midland's construction completion status is approximately 74 percent.

In the control room, all major control panels, with the exception of l

the post accident monitoring panels, are installed with approximately j 90 percent of the controls and 20 percent of the indicators in place.

. The control room will be approximately 90 percent complete by October 1982. Fuel load for Unit 2 is scheduled for July 1983 and Unit 1, December 1983. A preliminary control room review was conducted on the Unit 2 panels. This report documents the review thus far, relates the efforts to NUREG 0700 and presents a structured program plan for completion of the full scope of the DCRDR.

Approximately 18 months ago, CPCo began planning and designing a program for reviewing Midland's control panels. A schedule and milestone chart was developed such that the control room review and subsequent improvements would be accomplished before completion of construction. Since regulatory guidance at that time was of a general nature, it was believed that a broad systems based process should be implemented. The preliminary review referred to above was Phase 1 of a three phase approach which commenced in February 1981. This program plan discusses Phase 1 progress and provides a structured approach for completing phases 2 and 3.

Consistent with NUREG 0700, this document consists of five sections 1 and is compiled as indicated below.

The review plan section (Section 1) describes the approach of the preliminary review and its con.p.tibility with NUREG 0700. Additionally 1 this section discusses how this approach will be integrated in the second and third phases.

The management and staffing section (Section 2) discusses the management practices employed thus far, the project lines of responsibility, utility /concultant liaison, progress reporting, and review process support. In addition, a detailed schedule / process

integration diagram, indicating how present and future control room i design review efforts will be integrated with other NUREG 0660 efforts, j is presented.

] Documentation and document control section (Section 3) outlines and

presents the types of input documentation used to support Phase 1 of

, the review, additional documentation required for Phases 2 and 3, the documents prepared as a result of Phase 1 with an example of a human

! engineering discrepancy form (HED) and typical human factors checklists j used. Finally a description of the documentation system and management procedures is included, i

}

y,_ - _ _

. . - r._-.m.. ,, _ - _ . - , - . _ - _

procedures section (Section 4) describes the The review procedures / methodology used in Phase 1 of the Midland review, and how these procedures will be employed in subsequent Phases 2 and 3 to be compatible with NUREG 0700.

assessment section (Section 5) describes the preliminary The analysis already conducted, a summary of results of these analyses, preliminary plans for improvement, and planned analysis / assessment procedures for overall program consistency and continuity.

4 4

2

t t

3 i SECTION 1 j REVIEW Pl.AN l

As indicated in the Introduction, a human factors design review of Consumers Power Company, Midland Nuclear Power Plant commenced in February 1981. The objectives of this review were to:

i e Conduct a detailed human engineering review of Unit 2 control

] panels and common panel (OC10)

I e Establish a foundation for future efforts as the control room is j completed and regulatory guidelines are promulgated 1

3 e Develop a full scale control panel mockup for the overall review

, to evaluate future panel improvements, and to be used as a part task training device e Document findings of the review and provide recommendations for implementing improvements Specifically this review included:

e Human engineering design review of Unit 2 control panels and the common control panel which were approximately 70 percent 4

complete, but did not include post Three Mile Island (TMI)

. improvements e Structured interviews with Consumer's Midland operational and i

supervisory personnel e Walkthroughs using the mockup of normal and emergency operating l procedures e Analysis and documentation of the review methodology, results, and recommendations e Documentation of Human Engineering Discrepancies (HEDs)

As a result of this preliminary (Phase 1) design review, 1116 l . panel-by-panel human engineering discrepancies (HEDs) were identified.

l Panel-by-panel discrepancies refer to those human engineering discrepancies specific to a particular control or indicator which j occurs on a control panel. When a particular discrepancy is repeated within a panel (i.e., several similar indicators which do not conform to human engineering criteria on the same panel) it is refered to as a I

discrete discrepancy. The 1116 HEDs were categorized as indicated

below

o Integrated design e Workspace o Identification 3

4

e Terminology e Coding e Component design e Dedicated panel design e Procedures For the purpose of compilation and documentation, the 1116 detailed llEDs were organized into 194 IIED summaries. This compilation grouped several deficiencies of the same general category not complying toWe a specific human engineering criteria, on one HED summary sheet.

appropriate panels where these deficiencies existed, are also identified on the HED summary sheet.

Several general categories of techniques for improving the discrepancies were identified in Phase 1 and are listed below.

the percentage to which this Associated with each technique is censidered applicable for correcting identified technique is deficiencies.

e Panel enhancenents 59.0%

e Component swapping 1.5%

n. CRT displays 3.1%

e Organization / communication 2.6%

e Special Training 2.6%

e Procedures 3.1%

e Hardware (Panel modifications) 4.1%

Total 76.0%

Note: There are 46 HED summaries (or 24%) which are not categorized above. Thirty-one (31) of these do not conform to certain human engineering criteria, but as a function of their particular application, are considered acceptable. We remaining 15 HED summaries require further evaluation before inclusion into a specific category of improvement. Section 5 assessment procedures provide the process for this evaluation In terms of NUREG 0700, Section 6 categories, the HED breakdown would be as indicated in Table 1.

1.1 SCOPE NUREG 0700, ' Guidelines for Control Room Design Review,' identifies systems review as a core task of the design review. De process employed during the preliminary Midland Unit 2 design review paralleled the process as promulgated by NUREG 0700. As discussed previously, there were limitations of the review, primarily due to the construction status of Units 1 and 2. Therefore, to place this effort in perspective with the full scope systems review, Figure 1 is presented

l PHASE I PHASE 2 l PR E LIMIN ARY PHASE 3 DETAILED TASK ANALYSIS C.R. CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE j ANAL 5Nk'C'R NES'l' G hiEEIENj

! OBJECTIVES, RESOURCE

} [:RE QUIRE ME NTS, CONSTRAIN TS.b!

) c  ;[RELATED ACTION PLAN !["

2  :: CONCE RNS :: l z I

. Z j

D~ . . . . . .

i

- : DESIGN REVIEWD

[ WORK PLAN [

. AND SCHEDULE j I

'r i t t

! Pd R'FbdU'hY'hTEUj! PERFORM SYSTEM FINAll2ED C.R.

' {; RE VIE W { REVIEW REVIEW 5:

w 3w ir sr

E

, ,:; HUMAN :;,,, HUMAN ENGINEERING - ' HUMAN ENGINE E RING ENGINEERING

. ji DISCREPANCIESij . DISCREPANCIES l DISCREPANCIES ir ir

,j p rrrrrrrrrrrr/f; NALY2E SAFETY IMPLICATIONS ANALY2E SAFETY IMPLICATIONS ANALY2E SAFE TY IMPLICATIONS 2 AND WAYS OF CORRECTING AND WAYS OF CORRECTING AND WAYS OF CORRECTING i

O DISCREPANCIES p DISCREPANCIES I DISCREPANCIES

< /////////// /

F-2 w

2 ir WORK PLkN AN5

.{

E SCHEDULE / .

C OR IMPROVING 2 CR HUMAN /

w ,E,NG.IN.E.E R.IN.G y

I U INITIATE CR IMPROVEMENT ,

PROGRAM '

H

$ REPORT ON DEStGN O REVIEW AND CR IMPROVEMENT w PLAN

• z LEGEND C COMPLETED i

PAR TIAL COMPLETION l l PLANNED WORK i

i

\

,

• Figure 1. Systems Review Process 5

TABLE 1. HED DISTRIBUTION BY NUREG 0700 CATEGORY

• Section 6 Guideline Area HED Summary Sheets Percent Completion Control Room Workspace 14 75 Communications 1 0 Annuniciator Warning System 12 50 Controls 43 75 Visual Displays 46 75 Labels and Location Aids 55 80 Process Computers 0 0 Panel Layout 13 80 Control Display Integration 10 75

• Adjacent to each Section 6 guideline area is a column indicating the number of appropriate HED summaries, and an approximation of the percent completion of that particular Section 6 evaluation area as a result of Phase 1 effort.

and borrows from NUREG 0700 to show the three phases of the design review process.

The Phase 1 review of Unit 2 was designed to gain a head start on defining and correcting human engineering deficiencies in a time frame to meet construction schedules. In order to initially identify major discrepancies as rapidly as possible, an abbreviated functional and task analysis was conducted. This abbreviated analysis identified specific tasks, associated controls and indicators required for performance of the tasks. This provided assurances that the validation process would cover the use of all panel controls and indicators.

Included in Phase 1 was the construction of a full scale Unit 2 control panel mockup. (See Figure 2). As part of the mockup development, a thorough control room inventory was performed. The mockup was used to perform the validation process by using walkthroughs and talkthroughs of normal operating and emergency procedures. In addition it provided a capability to perform near real-time simulations which were recorded in video and audio for further analysis.

A preliminary control room survey was also conducted on the Unit 2 control room in Phase 1. This survey coupled with the verification and validation discussed above comprised the Phase 1 system review as shown in Figure 1. As indicated in the Introduction, human engineering discrepancies were identified. A partial analysis of these HEDs and identification of improvements was also accomplished in Phase 1.

6

-, _ .,~ - , . .

I , . _- -

,e .t.

• 'i g l .

EXEI .,

'fg r

BD 58B'

.fW

g A 4 ka 23 7 EO 33 gar lsM:

4 h.A^p@gs 4}% ;J.

gl Ns

((- 7~ :E@ 33 g.. 7,, 4 ,

'm: 4) !*1 1

. s, A a

g-gc ;mme p

7 37,, + y; 3 g

f . :.s c .

n ,, , I

}

%g+

w ..

sg, r .# w-

.318883!%ggg.e#wo,

m.s#==

s.

4j

=

=

g. .gsw; p HB q e.n 3

c g. .. . .

j*y, haq ng .: .

w.,,, jEr as ~

e e

p*..W%;n ag.h w^t  : i6a .s u.

?Ap f 4m  % ggg w;y;ig,,, P

, mi-.

u y~lini 3 t o;4 4,gymgu t iiiiii a a ,

4 Iiii .] l'I h

, y:::::' g1:lllll,.lhkhi!

+ 1 ::::

E:: :: RiillIll?RaiiiiiiL^t.a. des $

- - - gl-lll((] . < . .

.t .

i go.wm f ~

I lilill L ".

M isi . llE -

7

Figure 1 illustrates the expansion of Phase 1 to complete a detailed task analysis. This analysis may identify other HEDs which will require additional analysis and integration into the improvement effort.

As the control room is completed those survey items which were deferred due to construction status will be accomplished. %is is As in the previous phases, termed the " Finalized control room review".

any additional HEDs identified will be documented and analyzed, with improvements in.tegrated into the control room as appropriate.

1.2 PHASES 2 AND 3 REVIEW An outline of the remaining work to be completea in the DCRDR is shown in Figure 3 and is discussed in more detail in Sections 4 and 5.

In this figure, the activities are time sequenced from top to bottom.

In order to ensure that all control room panel functions have been reviewed, a comprehensive task analysis will be completed in Phase 2.

The process to be used is described in Section 4. The results of the task analysis will be verified against the inventory to identify any other discrepancier. Then, based upon the completed analysis, any functions and tasks that were not adequately covered in Phase I will be subjected to a validation step in Phase 2 % is will be performed with the mockup in the same manner as the PSase 1 validation step.

Phase 3 will be devoted to the Control Room Survey of all remaining items that could not be accomplished in Phase 1. %ese include environmental aspects of the control room workspace and a review of communications, and process computers which were not possible at the time of the Phase 1 review due to construction status. All other survey items that were not available during Phase 1 will also be completed.

1.3 ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION The plan for conducting the assessment and implementation aspect is shown in Figure 3, time sequenced with the completion of the Phase 2 Because and 3 reviews. This is discussed in more detail in Section 5.

of the relative completeness of the Phase 1 review and the number of discrepancies noted, the control room enhancement effort will commence immediately. This effort will provide a consistent definition of terminology and provide parel surface improvements and some minor swapping of instruments. Enhancements will be implemented on the mockup and will be available in time to aid the validation of the Phase 2 review.

High priority will be given to identifying any discrepancies requiring control panel modifications. Rese changes are represented by - the dashed lines in Figure 3 for partial implementation in the control room.

An assessment of design solution effectiveness will be made using the mockup. This will consist of a walkthrough in real-time with all 8

i I

REVIEW ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION REPORTS i PROGRAM PLAN FUNCTIONAL AND TASK C.R.

ANALYSIS ENHANCEMENTS l

P H l A

S ENHANCED MOCKUP IMPLEMENT E VERIFICATION -

ON MOCKUP _ ,,,,P,A,R TI A,L_ ,]

2 i l l ,

t NEW H E D'S VALIDATION DESIGN PARTIAL '

IMPROVEMENT - - - - - - - - , j PROCEDURES ALTERNATIVES e l

• IMPROVEMENTS 8 I

@ 8 l

e l  !

IMPLEMENT ,PARJJ3 e l

ON MOCKUP ' s e

I e e e t i y g-i PLE ENT IN FINAL REPORT SURVEY h  :

IMPROV 1ENTS 7 p E .,

3

- FOL LOW-UP

_ ASSESSMENT OF  : VAL ION CORRECTIONS FUEL LOAD

. IMPLEMENT IN C.R.

Figure 3. Detailed Control Room Design Review

1

\

enhancements and improvements in place, using the improved procedures l developed from the Abnormal Transient Operating Guidelines (ATOG).

When the construction status of the control room allows, design improvements and enhancements will be implemented in the control room.

Design improvements requiring extensive modifications or those that do not af fecting safety, may not be implemented in the control room until after fuel load.

1.4 REPORTING The last column of Figure 3 shows the reports to be submitted documenting the control room design review effort. The first report is the Program Plan, contained herein, which presents a summary of the effort thus far and documents plans for completion of the overall effort. Upon completion of Phase 3, a final report will be submitted.

This report will be provided at least six months prior to fuel load and will document all control room design review efforts with the exception of the final validation.

Emergency operating procedures are being developed in parallel with the control room design review effort as part of the B&W Abnormal Transient Operating Guidelines Program (ATOG). Actual plant procedures developed from the guidelines will not be available until early 1983.

Following completion of the procedures, a final validation ofA these third procedures in the improved control room will be performed.

report documenting this validation will be provided prior to fuel load, i

10 t

SECTION 2 MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING Effective management of the control room design review process, coupled with the coordination of other studies and analyses involving human factors, requires company wide coordination and orchestration of I efforts. As a part of Phase 1 efforts, internal lines of specific project responsibility and communication have been established. In addition, as a function of other human factors efforts, areas of technical responsibility (ATOG, SPDS) have been established for the purposes of overall coordination. This section discusses the management and staffing of the CRDR process, and identifies how these other associated activities are integrated into that process.

2.1 INTEGRATION OF STUDIES The control room design review effort is being performed under the direction of personnel in the Plant Control and Operations section of the Midland Project. Th is section is responsible for coordinating all areas which impact on the control room design including instrumentation and control design, emergency operating procedure development, safety parameter display design, and development and operating experience review. One organization responsible for all areas which could impact the control room, aids in the overall integration and control of the design review effort.

Figure 4 is a task phasing chart which shows the relationship of the control room design review to other ongoing activities which interact with this review. The top level shows the tasks associated with the control room review and the approximate time frame during which these activities will be performed. Also included is a time line showing the time frame during which trie SPDS display will be finalized. Bis display will be finalized in time to allow a review to be performed by the CRDR evaluation team and to include this display in the final validation of the control room. Finally, a time line showing the schedule for development of upgraded emergency procedures is shown.

The event trees which serve as the basis for the emergency ' procedure guidelines will also serve as the basis for the task analysis described in Section 4. The procedures resulting from the guidelines will be validated as part of the final control room design review validation.

The Midland plant control room has been updated to include instrumentation necessary to meet the intent of Regulatory Guide 1.97 Revision 2. Since this instrumentation has been previously incorporated into the design, the CRDR evaluation team will account for this instrumentation as part of the normal course of the review process.

The Midland Primary Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) is a computer-generated display designed to support the symptom-based operating procedures developed via the B6W ATOC program. A hardwired panel provides safety-grade instrumentation necessary to provide 11

I NUREG 0700 ISSUE D FINAL REPORT y

' ANN'NG x ' REPORT S_____________c a FINAL PRELIMINARY TASK ANRYSIS a'

C "

ENHANCEMENT R McCx-uP CONSTRUCTION - PHASE 2 ASSESSMENT nPHASE 3a o C & ,- -

t o BASED ON PH ASE 1 Q v ,ssessry 8

R PHASE 1 CRDR  % g jl FOLLOWt)P VALIDATION PHASE 3 REVIEW i f s____g TASx/PuNCTiDNAL b C O f IO O AN ALYSIS 1 REPORT I I g

/

I

- I / g

- I

/ \

PJ g F NALIZE SPDS DISPLAYS l D l S g l g

- l l l

I I

_ i

, I I EVENT TREES d PREPARE TECHNfCAL ATOG PREPARE PROCEDURES C ou,D,L,N,5 7

9 O DEVELOP PROCEDURE I G C O WRtTING GUIDELINES i

i 2 3 i

4

, i s s i i 7 e i i s

e iO ii i i 32 i

2 i

3 i

4 i

s i

a i

7 i

s i

e i

iO u i2 i i 1

i 2

i 3

i 4 5 .s ' i 7

1 1 1 1st3 1982 1989 Figure 4. Integration of Human Factors Studies

l 1 l adequate post-accident monitoring instrumentation in the control room.

Use of both the computer-generated SPDS and the hardwired backup will be evaluated as part of the control room design review effort.

j 2.2 MANAGEMENT / STAFFING 2

For the purposes of this aspect of program planning, a discussion of 4

how Phase 1 was managed and staffed will be presented. This management

~

arrangement worked ef fectively during the Phase 1 process and will be employed in Phases 2 and 3.

, Throughout Phase 1 a multidisciplinary team approach was used. This team consisted of representatives from plant design, plant operations

and consultants in human factors. Figure 5 shows the organization of j the project team.

) The CRDR project director has overall responsibility for setting the j direction of the evaluation team and acts as chairman at meetings of j evaluation team members. The project director is also responsible for j maintaining liaison with groups performing activities related to human j factors to ensure that these related aspects are adequately addressed

by the project team. The individual filling this position has an j engineering degree and 10 years of experience in the nuclear industry including experience in thermal hydraulic analysis, safety analysis, startup testing, and instrument and control design and evaluation.

l Representatives from plant operations are utilized to provide

] feedback from their department and to draw upon necessary resources j

within their department to support the design review process. The

] operations department is represented by a senior operator, currently in j training to receive an SRO on the Midland Plant. nis individual has 1

thirteen years of previous operating experience both in the Navy and as l an RO at an operating PWR. Plant support will also be provided by an

] individual who is closely following the development of upgraded l emergency operating procedures. This individual has an engineering I

degree and over 10 years of nuclear experience including 3 years on the Midland project. He is currently assigned as a shift technical advisor.

Technical support for the project is provided by a systems engineer who will draw upon design engineers in the various disciplines as required in the course of the design review process. The support

~ engineer will also call upon the assistance of the a rch it ec t /enginee r (A/E) and NSS Supplier when required. The individual filling the i technical support position holds an engineering degree and has 4 years i

of experience including 1 year of experience on the Midland project.

l Human factors expertise will be provided by consultants. Broughout j the project, several disciplines in the area of human performance will j be drawn from. For continuity purposes, the individuals supporting the  ;

2 human factors / performance aspect have a combination of both behavioral I

and nuclear operational backgrounds. The human factors directot has an

advanced degree in engineering and is currently a candidate for an 4

advanced degree in psychology / human factors. In addition, he has over

)

13

_ _ _ . ~ . _ - _ - -- - _ . _-- - u -- _ _

lll l! Il i

S NG R AE S T OT MR R TN UU O CA HN F AT F

FL DS E U E R NS TO0 AN AT6 MO L C6 U C EA0 H R F e

- t r

- u c

u r

,iI I I. t

- . S R

R E

m io1 O - a T - E R e J

C L -

N I E- T E

AT - G I L- w R CR N P e RI - E P- i v

DD IN PO  ;, L /

T U- e R HP - C S- R CTC CU -

E -

E E

T S T S- 5 J -

I H S. e O - C N. r R - R - u g

P - A - i

- F tI ' I I I .

S DN NIO AT LA DR E

IMP O

t ll ll I I ll1l

l

]

j 10 years operational and training systems development experience. I

Other human factors team members have advanced degrees in the

] behavioral sciences coupled with extensive applied backgrounds in human

) factors and human performance.

l

-l B&W is the NSS ~ Supplier for the Midland Plant. They are currently I developing plant-specific procedure guidelines for Midland. Event

) trees, which are a part of these guidelines, will be used as input to j the task analysis described in Section 4. B&W input will be used, where appropriate, to integrate the procedure development task into the i

control room design review and to provide feedback in areas pertaining to design features provided by them.

I t

}

1 4

l 1

1

)

i 1

i i

l i

1 9

l 4

4 1

}

'I i

I 4

i l

J 13 i

SECTION 3 DOCUMENTATION AND DOCUMENT CONTROL As discussed in NUREG 0700, a significant number of reference documents will be required to conduct the detailed design review. To ensure that the maximum amount of knowledge and information is gained, these documents must be used in a structured systematic context. For the purpose of consistency with NUREG 0700, those reference documents will be referred to as Input Data. During the course of the total review process, documentation of findings, analysis, and results will be provided. This documentation will be referred to as Output Data.

To ensure structured systematic use of both input and output data, a data management procedure will be described. Input, output, and data management discussed in the following three subsections.

3.1 INPUT DATA Phase 1 of the Midland design review utilized the latest revision of the below listed materials as they existed in February / March 1981:

e Systems descriptions ~

e Piping and instrumentation drawings e Control room floor plans e Panel arrangement drawings e Panel mockup e Lists of acronymns and abbreviations used in the control room o Plant design guide providing limited descriptions of coding conventions e Emergency and operating procedures e Operator training materials Since then, additional documentation has become available or will be available during Phase 2, while some existing documentation will be revised as a function of the plant design evolution. During Phase 2 these additional materialt will be included to ensure complete consideration of all aspects of the design review process. It is planned that as a minimum the following reference materials will be used:

• Phase 1 design review

, o Event trees / revised emergency operating procedures 1

e Final Safety Analysis Report

e Software descriptions

e Samples of computer printouts (following computer installation) e Guidelines for developing procedures e NUREG 0700 Section 6 checklists e NUREG documents issued subsequent to the Phase 1 design review affecting overall human factors efforts i

17 l

3.2 OUTPUT DATA Output data is primarily comprised of the documentation generated as a result of the review process. NUREG 0700 provides guidance and sample forms. Since Phase 1 commenced prior to NUREG 0700, several forms have already been designed and used. Specifically, Phase 1 utilized the following as output data forms:

e Tailored human engineering checklist - see Figures 10 and 11, pages 32 and 35 o Human engineering discrepancy (HED) forms - see Figure 6, page 19 e Inventory form - see Figure 9, page 30 e Operator questionnaire / interview forms - see Exhibits 1 and 2, pages 20 and 21 O

em 18

HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCY REVIEWER DATE CODE NUMBER PLANT DISCREPANCY COMMENT LOCATION 0700 GUIDELINE N O.

DESCRIPTION RECOMMENDATION l

l RESOLUTION l i

APPROVAL SIGNATURE DATE

(

1 l

l E A01 -281 Figure 6. Hurnan Engineering Discrepancy (HED) Form 19

21. Are all controls and indications clearly labeled in conjunction with procedures and their functional narne? Indicate where deficiencies may exist.

22. Is the !cttering/ labeling on controls and indicators easy to locate and read?

23. You have received training from several sources that are related directly to your job tasks and functions. Briefly describe your training (in several sentences) and evaluate it as it applies to your specific job requirements.

24. Do you feel that the training you have received prepared you adequately for your position or did you require further on-the-job, onsite training to actually perform your job independently?

Exhibit 1 Typical Questions from Operator Questionnaire 20

E i 5. Do the procedures aid in guiding

! and actions effected on several different poperations7 when onitored anels for one operation / action?

l i

6. problems?

Do you think that training of o perators can overcome control panel gn desi

7. In your opinion do you feel that m training preparation nor plant desig ?ost human error in pla u t of l

l l

l 8.

to overall system confiWould n you be better able to understa d i Evplain your reasoning gurations if mimic e diagramsn were add to the panels?

i l

L

_J Exhibit 2 Typical Questions from SRO Questionnai re 21

Since Phase 3 will review ambient /envianmental conditions, no specific form as yet is developed. For planning purposes it is anticipated that forms similar to those provided in Appendix E to NUREG 0700 will be utilized.

At present, due to the extensive photographic effort conducted in Phase 1 for development of the mockup in conjunction with the control room inventory, it is not planned to repeat that aspect of the review.

Therefore, photographic logging of individual HEDs is not anticipated unless required to adequately describe the HED. Where photos are necessary, a specific component / instrument photographic will be l appropriately referenced to the applicable HED.

3.3 DATA MANAGEMENT Input data used for the control room design review will be the latest revisions of the documentation as obtained from the Midland Project document control system. Output data will be incorporated in this document control system as appropriate. Where resolution of HEDs result in design changes, these changes will be performed utilizing the A/E or plant modification design control procedures, as appropriate, to ensure that all applicable drawings and documentation are revised.

In addition to internal document management CPCo will require any consultants participating in the review process to implement their own document data management procedures. These procedures will be necessary to ensure the mnst appropriate revision of source input materials is used and to maintain accountability of generated documentation.

22

t SECTION 4

.i j REVIEW PROCEDURES i

! This section describes the actual prc,eedural process used in Phase 1

of the control room review and the process to be employed in subsequent

phases. For the purposes of consistency, the sections herein are divided per NUREG 0700's six processes as follows

1 e Opersting experience review 1 e System function review and task analysis o Control room inventory j e Control room survey i e Verification of task performance capabilities

e Validation of control room functions and integrated performance

capabilities 4

! Figure 7, provides an overall perspective of the progress under the

! ' review' of Phase 1 and the remaining items to be completed.

1 I 4.1 OPERATING EXPERIENCE REVIEW i

! 4.1.1 PilASE 1 REVIEW i

f Examine Available Documents. Th e Midland plant is currently under I construction and thus has no plant specific performance records which

! can be reviewed. Our analysis of information provided in LER's shows that these documents do not contain sufficient detailed information to j allow using these documents for determining the root cause of events.

! This is especially true of those events which may have been initiated j by deficiencies in the area of human factors design where the arrangement of the control panels on the reporting plant are unknown to

! the Midland evaluation teaa. INP0/NSAC, however, review LER's and j

provides information on those considered to be significant as Significant Event Reports (SER's). Those SER's of a more serious nature are further evaluated and reported as Significant Operating Experience Reports (SOER's). SER's and SOER's for the past two years will be reviewed to determine if any of these reports have relevance to the control room design review effort.

j Survey of Operational Personnel. As part of the preliminary analysis of the control room, interviews were considered with operational personnel familiar with the Midland plant. Since the Midland plant was incomplete at that time, personnel with Midland specific operational experience were not available for interviews.

!. Structured interviews were constructed so that the same format and j questions were used within each individual session. This approach l 1 allowed a consensus of opinion and fact to be generated for each issue I

examined. Validity and reliability of responses were increased under I l this averaging technique. Operators were asked to discuss their

impressions of panel design problems so that interviewing personnel could become familiar with problem areas. This preevaluation of panels i

23 i

1 ,

i 15 i it p-i !!

- r Il !! ,!

i a <

.N g.r6 1

i

.....gi: l Ig s '

!ggS

! 'Ejl:

5!I!

s  ! is:! r.s  !!!i E

~

l !!:;5

~ T ..._ q' Y  !!35) m.i s su I s

!! I

f;!

l El E:i{-}:

l li! g..! tis

l. lii ilii .

L.

'gx -

g3 j-- e

',li!'s a 'dj' ,1! c!

I Jins !9  : v'E -

l sil:s

.es L.l I. , l!E,!. U I .f

.. # ! b 8I

• g y

i- h + o

' 'l;

s.s 4 s.c i .s

9.

. --

I o

5[

gs... s!!1s

. . i -

3 e x as  ; g e.

ET

I Y  !

5

g. .  !! N d.

A '/ 55 S*8' i,s6 I', i

• w( ,g  % e b*

\ M 83 -

Tii?  !"

gi

!!!il Q[llN 8 s

3 ?..  !.1

!!5E

.: e . 1.

g ,{d; 3!. {3'-

s r. liik.r m.

h I... g . v c:gr?

TI . ; :-

-s- -

l .

f it =

.7 . . 3.y

,5 II lI !

IE! :1. i.dD T T l

<  :- 1 B 2

'.f

s :.

I k

!$ I '

• g u i di! -

24

i i

l greatly aided subsequent operational walkthroughs since observers were sensitized to potential problems. Additionally, walkthroughs were used l to verify operator comments giving greater validity to their ideas.  !

t As a means of standardizing remarks and comments from these personnel, structured interviews were prepared for both reactor operators (R0s) and senior reactor operators (SR0s). A 34 item questionnaire was prepared for reactor operators (see Exhibit 1). The i questionnaire focused on specific aspects of control panel i

configuration, utilization, and training as related to their specific responsibilities and jobs. It was administered in 1 to 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> sessions within which operators discussed each question with an interviewer. It was believed that face-to-face interviews would avoid confusion and maximize usable information. A 12 item questionnaire was prepared and i provided to senior operators for completion. (see Exhibit 2). This

questionnaire was directed toward overall design configuration and operational relationships. It was considered that these senior personnel would be able to provide insite into the higher level organizational design.

4.1.2 PHASE 2 REVIEW It is believed that the personnel survey / questionnaires administered ~

l in Phase 1 have yielded as much " operational knowledge" from Midland's j operating personnel as can be obtained since the plant is not yet operational. As part of Phase 2, the guidelines of NUREG 0700, Appendix C, will be reviewed and compared to questionnaries administered previously. If any areas not covered previously are identified, they will be included during this phase to complete the data base.

i 4.2 SYSTEM FUNCTION REVIEW AND TASK ANALYSIS

4.2.1 PHASE 1 TASK ANALYSIS Functional and task flow diagrams based on plant procedures were developed to organize the material for observations during the validation phase. Each task was reviewed for location of panels,

, controls, instrumentation, and reference data that supported the task.

Notes were added for each task, to describe the steps, that would not j be within the mockup capabilities. Finally, observation forms (Figure

8) were prepared which described each task to be completed -in the walkthrough. This form lists seven categories of analysis (Table 2 for IDENTIFICATION) used in the course of the human factors evaluation.

1 Human factors considerations deemed appropriate for operational l

walkthroughs were: identification, arrangement, visibilty, actuation, workspace, and safety. Although similar to the component and set i

review checklists (discussed in section 4.4), these data collection sheets were organized by procedural steps. This organization allowed a l dynamic operational evaluation of control panels during simulated operations.

I

, 25 m e , - . - - - - - - . , - - , , , , _ , . --.u , --,i-_v- -- , . - , . - , , - - - - - - - - - -r- - . -- - - , , - , , ,w -,

TASK Hot S/D to Hot Stby HFE DESIGN CRIT ERI A FUNCTION Mode 4 to Mode 3 Plant Startuo SUBTASK ACTIVITY INVOLV ED p[I# 4 0

6. OBSERV T ONs DHR to low pressure i 'ection 2Cl4 N V v 7. - -

Rx Coolant System Temperature Pres- (Paragraph 6.9, page 14 , OPS 2110.I) sure Control Start a third Rx coolant pump 2C22 gyw y

• (Paragraph 6.6, page 23, OPS 2020.1) 2Cl2 3 ,g v v 9 y s y ,ous cecAconx Rcp STAe.t-or Estimate H 2 verPressurization in TWO STEPCOUETED MU tank (Paragraph 6.8.4, page 30, OPS w 2040.1) m i Maintain temperature / pressure re- )

- - u 3 v - " E CLTLEI W lationship . N Io R~.kT tm.

Close turbine bypass valves and 2Cll J

place in automatic Rx Coolant Chemis- Sample' Rx coolant for O,'

try Control Notify CHP when in modes Figure 8. Operational Review Checklist

TABLE 2

. APPENDIX A-1. CONSIDERATIONS WHICH ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH HFE IDENTIFICATION (IDENT) CRITERIA A checkmark (d in the "IDENT" column of the task description form indicates that aj of the identification considerations listed below apply for each " ACTIVITY" as it was demonstrated in the mockup walk-through. Considerations which do not apply ,

1 indicate a non-compliance with HFE design criteria. These are identified on the form by the consideration number instead of a checkmark.

CRITERIA SOURCE NUMBER NUREG Van Cott

' CONSIDERATION 0659 MIL-STD and (0700) 1472B Kinkade 1.

The functional group was obvious by 6.6.1 5.1.2 9.5.1 e set arrangement and separation, any e lines, shading, or texture.

Whichever, it was consistent through-out the panel.

2. Functional groups appeared identical 6.6.1 5.1.2 9.5.1 for -

e similar systems (e.g., evapora-ALL tor steam supply),

e alternate channels (e.g., 21 A,

21B).

3. The functional group was labeled if its 6.8.1 5.1.2 9.5.1 identification was not otherwise obvi-ous.

4. Labeling of functional groups was con- 6.8.1 5.5.2 9.5.1 sistent throughout the panelin e character font and size, e location above or below group, ALL e label medium (placard, silk-screen),

e level and type of description, durability

5. Functional group labels were suffi-6.8.1 5.5.4 3.8.1 ciently descriptive only to enable loca-tion of sets without reference to pro-cedures. They contained no coding and minimal abbreviations.

6. Functional group labels were distin- 6.8.1 5.5.4 3.8.1 guishable from set labels by a spatial separation or location, e at least 25% larger font size, ALL e terminology denoting a higher order than individual sets.

i 27 i

The abbreviated functional and task analysis was adequate to correlate those tasks selected for the validation step with all panels, so that each panel was completely evaluated. De task analysis did not, however, define tasks to the level required by NUREG 0700.

Although controls and indications were identified, the dynamic response and accuracies were not analyzed. Phase 2 will expand the functional and task analysis to include such considerations. We process to be used is discussed in Section 4.2.2.

4.2.2 PHASE 2 FUNCTIONAL AND TASK ANALYSIS Even though the functional and task analysis was thorough enough to support the Phase 1 preliminary review, not all events and functions were considered. The Phase 2 review will reevaluate the events and functions, take advantage of additional information (e.g., ATOG event trees) that have since become available, and will expand the information included in the task analysis. Following the guidance of NUREG 0700, this effort will be divided into three major steps: define events, define functions for selected events, and complete task analysis for each task that supports the functions.

Define Events. The preliminary event analysis used in Phase 1 will be expanded to include additional events. Both normal operations and -

abnormal transients will be organized into event hierarchies. Wese hierarchies will logically link events and establish a basis for selecting events to be further examined. This effort will draw heavily on the symptom based concepts for handling abnormal transients (ATOG) that are currently being developed for the Midland plant.

Analysis of failure event sequences with multiple failures presents an extremely complex problem in selecting events for further analysis.

The large number of possible events precludes using all of them. A concept of baselines and variations on baselines will be used. First, a few baseline operations will be defined as event sequences for further analysis. A baseline event is an operational sequence that is typical of a whole category of events, thereby allowing the clustering of many events into one baseline. All other events within a baseline cluster become variations on that baseline's operational sequence.

Variations will be examined to determine those that must be included in the functional analysis.

Although the baseline method is only one of many possible approaches to functional analysis, this method has the advantage of organizing a task analysis so that it not only serves the control room review, but also provides the basis for updating procedures, as well as serving as a task analysis for training. It inherently serves as a major simplification tool for analysis of complex operations.

Function Analysis. Functions will be identified for each of the baseline events and the variations selected. Event trees already in i

preparation as part of the ATOG program will serve as functional flow l diagrams and will be available to support the functional analysis. We j flow diagrams specify which functions are performed by operators and 28

t which are performed by systems.

indicate the actions required by control They will oper room be further annotated to 4

ators.

Using the functional flow diagrams, functional sequence tables will be prepared using a format similar to that recommended in NUREG 0700.

These tables will then be summarized in baseline flow diagrams that will serve for functions as the the task definitive identification of control room operator analysis.

outlined in the same manner. We selected variations will be Task Analysis.

Specific tasks that must be performed by operators to accomplish each function will be identified. An analysis of each task will then be performed to identify action, inputs, outputs, feedback, results, criteria, and consequences of errors or omissions.

J These will be listed in a table format for all tasks.

nroughout this analysis of tasks. process, the mockup will be available to aid in complex sequences. Supplementary diagrams will be used to analyze spacial relationships to mockup The will provide physical continuity and aid the analysis. Existing procedures will also be consulted, development. but they will not be the sole source for task 4.3 CONTROL ROOM INVENTORY 4.3.1 PHASE I INVENTORY A systematic and organized control room inventory is essential to successful review. Wecompletion of other job of the control tasks involved in the control room room with mockup development. inventory was logically combined prints of each panel. A complete list was compiled from the blue number, the label Theidentification list list included the review identification number, the blue print description of the component function, referenced location on the panel for the a symbol for the component, a component, and a column labeled ' status' for purposes of the review and mockup fabrication process.

used. Figure 9 illustrates the type and content of inventory format At the percent of time of the inventory the components the control panels had approximately 75 installed.

of the control panels was performed. A systematic photographic survey

! panels and portions of panels was photographed. Each group of panels, individual I photograph was In addition, a color or indicator taken of each i ntrol or indicator type.

type was If the control I

uncrated, and photographed. not yor installed, it was located in storage, I scale and reproduced as Wese photographs were enlarged to full used. many times as that control or indicator was De corresponding legends, labels, nameplates and scales were then typed, replicating the specified font, and were mounted on the photograph. appropriately Wese photographs were then mounted and placed the mockup. in the appropriate For location on the fiberglass panels used for documentation, each photograph ,

was given an identification number as well as a panel location number. Rese 1 29

__ . - - - - - - .. - - _ _ . . . _ _ _ . _~ . - - - . - . _-. . _ _ . - _ - - _ . _ - - - _ - .

l OC10L UNIT NUMBER Panel Mockup Location ID # Description Symbol 1.abel # Quantity Method Status A-c8 132 Annunciator Panel A -

2 Craphics Class A A-C6 154 Annunctator Horn M - 1 Graphtes Mtse.

• A-C5 133 Annunctator Panel A - - Craphtes Class A V-E8 28 ADJ Pumps RECIRC W. W 2P-05A 4 Photo 4-3 i 29 AW Purnps RECIRC W. W IP-05A -

Photo 4-3 30 AW Pumps RECIRC W. W 2P-055 -

Photo 4-3 ,

{ WW IP-055 Photo 4-3 f t 31 A W Pumps RECIRC -

32 SWS AUX W Supply Valves

, Channel OA SW&C&R 38834 29 Photo 4A2 33 SWS AUX W Supply Valves Channel OB SW&C&R 38834 -

Photo 4A2 34 SWS AUX W Supply Valves l 4

Channel OA SW&C&R 38834 -

Photo 4A2 35 SMS AUX W Supply Valves Channel OB SW&C&R 33834 -

Photo 4A2 5 Instrument and Service Air System Pressure L 4378 8 Photo 5-1 V-F7 43 Channel A ESFAS Status ,

W Display CRIS M - -

Graphics -

45 Channel A ESFAS Status Display FPVAS M - - Craphics -

V-F7 50 Channel A ESFAS Trip Pushbutton CRIS PBR R 7 Photo sal 50 Channel A ESFAS Block Pushbutton CRIS PBo A -

4 Photo 4-11 52 Channel A ESFAS Trip Pushbutton FPVAS PBR R Photo 5A1 52 Channel A ESFAS Block Pushbutton FPVAS PBn A - -

Photo 4-11 V-D7 46 Channel A Bypassed Status

' Display Manual Actuation CRIS F - 4 Graphics -

48 Channel A Bypassed Status Display Manual Actuation .

. FPVAS F - - Craphics -

l V-F6 53 Channel B ESFAS Status

! Display CRIS M - - Craphics -

r 1 55 Channel B ESFAS Status ,

. Display FPVAS M - - Craphics -

V-D6 60 Channel B ESFAS Trip

, Button CRIS PER R Photo 5Al '

l 60 Channel B ESFAS Block i Button CRIS PBo A - -

Photo 4-11 i

Figure 9. Control Room Inventory Form  !

l photographs are organized by panels but are easily cross-referenced by functions from both the initial inventory sheet and from the component design checklist.

Latest revision pai.a l blueprints were used throughout. Continual updates will be made to the mockup and the CR inventory listing with each revision of control panel drawings during the period of the CRDR effort.

4.3.2 PHASE 2 AND 3 INVENTORY In addition to tne Phase 1 inventory and consistent with the Phase 2 verification of task performance, the component inventory will be updated to include indication of component use and specific characteristics for comparison to the requirements identified in the task analysis. nis information will be provided in a format similar to that of NUREG 0700.

4.4 CONTROL ROOM SURVEY 4.4.1 PHASE 1 SURVEY The human factors engineering (HFE) design review (control room survey) of the Midland Unit 2 control room was a systematic evaluation using the latest standards as design criteria. These standards included NUREG/CR-1580, NUREG-0659 (0700), MIL-STD-1472B, and Van Cott and Kinkade (Human Engineering Guide of Equipment Design, 1972). This portion of the overall evaluation was to determine if the workspace and instrumentation was in compliance with HFE design criteria. We methodology categorized the equipment being evaluated by levels of complexity. Dese levels were identified as component, set and panel.

A sample page of a component HFE design checklist (Figure 10) and accompanying list of flags (Table 3) is an example of the depth and format in which the components were reviewed. A flag is a note or explanation to the review team describing either the status or the inconsistency of the review item.

The first and most fundamental level of the Control Room Survey was the component review. D irty-nine categories of similar type components were identified; i.e., two varieties of indicator lights, annunciator tiles, four varieties of J-handle selectors, three varieties of pushbuttons, etc. A single component was selected to be representative of each category, ne checklist addressed design characteristics of the components which remain consistent for all similar types, regardless of their application. This checklist was administered on the actual panels in the semi-completed Midland Unit 2 control room. Components represented on the panels were visually inspected and evaluated for manipulation and limited operation. The components which were not yet installed were evaluated using representative photographs on the mockup. Obviously operation of these components could not be evaluated and this was appropriately documented within the checklist.

31

1 l

i t

i i

MIL STD COYPLI ANCE

! NO. 14728 PAR AVETE R RESPONSE ,

REFERENCE RE QUIREVE NT FLAG q

I 32 5.5.4.3 Legews/Jackgrourt! contrast is aWte - at 900 yes/no

- at 450 yes/no 6

, 33 5.5.2.3 111teinstion is consistent:

i Across entire ca p t yes/no j eitnin coryxanent, across facility yes/no 34 There are no shadows on the cwponent, even from the pointer yes/no

\

35 there is no spectral glare or reflection j from the c& ponent - at 900 yes/no

- et 450 yes/no j

I 36 5.5.5 Legend is properly aligred and spaced for clarity yes/no 37 Character font is:

W Style standard '

N Point site or height iM pt/ inches {

38 Character height / steth ratio, stroke wi3th and specirq is 3

conventional for font yes/no 1

4 39 Scale nureers are in absolute values (i.e., not 1(10, X100, etc.) yes/no

, 40 5.5.2 All legerds - are LSright fes/no I - are read left to right yes/no 4 1

l 41 5.2.6 Counters at flags are mounted close to the corponent surface yes/no 11/4 4 42 5.2.3 Scale desi p is @ logarittric f

i Cther 43 Leits represented by -majorgraticule t + 30 $

[

j

- intermediate j

graticule ,.5 + 15

- minor graticule .I + 3

! i i

Figure 10. Component Checklist i

t 4

i i e

TABLE 3.

CHECKLIST 13 FLAGS

1. Informationon of the evaluation., normal operating range was

2. Pointer of the obscures portions not available at number. of the t the legend but

3. Pointer is is narrow

, ,' , red but does enough to vi ei, 4 4. Legend is "I

5. Scales are aligned vertically .e.,

(inot conflict or code. with col measures (i. not compatible. one letter units (i.e. , e. , amps Even above the and volts), thethough other).

6. There is 1-5-10-etc., not 3-15 scales they indicate

\ etc.). should read indifferent

7. Information no discriminationeenbetw major similar failure modes of component was not availablereliability, at and intermediate cules.

,, the timefail-safe of the operations, and evaluation.

\

\

\

33

The second level of the Control Room Survey was the set design. A set is defined as a unique arrangement of components which (1) serve a common function, (2) are repeated frequently throughout the control room, and (3) are identified by a single, common placard. Fifty-three categories of similar type sets were identifed in the Midland plant.

Again, one set was selected to be representative of each type of set.

It was evaluated using the " Set Design Checklist" (Figure 11). This checklist primarily addresses relative arrangement of components in the set, as well as movement relationships between the components and identification (component legends and placard labeling) within the

set. The administration of this checklist required descriptive data about the components available from the Component Design Checklist, and an accurate description of spatial relationships available from the mockup.

The panel review provided the third level of this survey. This was a top-down functional operational review, whereas the component and set review was a bottom-up approach. The functional evaluation consisted of a review of control / display relationships, the ability of system functional grouping to support system understanding and how the console grouping related to overall plant operations in normal and emergency conditions. Panels were reviewed individually to determine their function with respect to overall plant control. Next, an evaluation was made of functional arrangement of controls, displays (indicators) and annunciators with respect to groupings, and consistency with plant configuration. Figure 12 illustrates this type of evaluation conducted. Finally the relationship of panels to each other in an operational context was evaluated.

4.4.2 PHASE 2 AND 3 SURVEY For Phase 2 and 3 the NUREC 0700, Section 6 checklists will be compared with those checklists used in Phase 1 and described above. An item by item review will indicate compatibility, or items requiring additional checklist surveying. Rather than redoing the total survey I using 0700 checklists, a comparative matrix will be prepared for the final DCRDR report indicating the disposition of all NUREG 0700 checklist items.

4.5 VERIFICATION OF TASK PERFORMANCE CAPABILITIES 4.5.1 PHASE 1 VERIFICATION A partial verification of availability was performed, as defined by NUREG 0700. The mockup served as the physical inventory of the control room. As each task was performed during the talkthrough, the availability of the appropriate control or indication was verified (or absence noted). It was also noted when only an indirect measure was i

available. Dynamic characteristics and accuracy was not considered.

I These will be considered in Phase 2 by comparing the completed task analysis with the control room inventory.

l 34

---

y. - _ _ _ _ .

SET DESIGN CHECKLIST CONTENTS DESCRIPTION I

(list components) (style) (amount) l (sketch) l INDICATOR LIGHTS 2 l

KNOB SELECTOR 1 l G R l

l I

OO I

l I

i 1

I A checkmark ( / ) in the column indicates that all Considerations of each IFE design criteria were applicable to the set design. The con- __

siaerations are listed in Appendix 8. Considerations which do not apply indicate a non-compliance with FFE design criteria. These are identified in the column by the consideratico number instead of a check-mark.

HFE DESIGN CRITERIA A-3 PANEL SET OA & DESIGN LOCATION IDENTIFICATION 8/ * [ 8 k O S/ OBSERVATIONS OC10R OMO-6014A V / / / / / f"HP" ABBREV. ONLY DIF F.

B

/ / / / / /)

OMO-600SA y* / / / / / ]L "LP" ABBREV. ONLY DIFF.

B / / V / / / }

OMO-60s8A / / / / / /

8 / / / / /

/

OMO-6015A / / / / / /

B / V / / / /

c / V y / / /

O / / / / / / '

E / / / / / /

F

/ / / / / / '

Figure 11. Set Design Checklist 35

.v

_ ~' - -

'. s . g,,,

~- \,

p- y a

f ( ) -8

' ._9 _ ._H.-

l

~ .

. COMPOSITE FUNCT'ONAL ARRANGEMENT

. m J '- - ( ) Il

~

J f

-.eM3

-- m (l\ ~] ". :'.

...:~--*

"~p.

,,,, ._ .'*--* *-/

~*'*

. \, , -

\,\ \ A --

3

-6M y1

. .. P

)

,s

.. i On

!g

n :,, .'s:?.p;L :r l .-

p 2 l ,.l.

- - 1 +:.b.A .' I

.h E - 4.--M. m

. n - s- r -;p %s,. ...==  ;..* .i" ...,." f-c. ss,+.T. j '<;.*-.y-g-m ...

W [

__- _-w--

U _ yl '___- - l

- j c.= ... ....s..= - l_. - . .I i. _ .

, , .... 2. .. e_

M- F ,L n .l. F s. .. .. . .... . .-,.n; .,

m o- I:.. .

-,o [ ..

i ;r .: :. . .  :-

.: a-

=,,, 3; 7 l, .;.g

- = 0 0  ;

V :: 77 L -.

hi.f.*, COLOR CODING

'- ~

oo -.- . c ,,

c,,  ;-  ! ,

oo E .3.00 # NO 000 ,_ .. .

O- E DARK BLUE (STEAM GENERATORS)

O_ OJ Of .O.. ' _W I .' h , ^;,,[', .J ' f,

'WQ  ;

LIGHT BLUE (MAIN FEED PUMPS)

RED (TURBINE STEAM)

• , :, 5- . ~ ,o o' - J . . . , , , .,

PINK (BOOSTER PUMPS)

~'

Ooo 'o o 0O-0,"M

. ' T ,-!p p[r q.o[I o 0. _.

4.0 dic D g'/ ,

970. T s)*PURPLE (TANKS AND HEATING)

BROWN (CONDENSATE)

.O _O, li T

- - m .';.. n'g,,'0;; G.r eco + q O.> O e U

,qc[o00 1 LIGHT GREEN (DEMINERAllZER) ooo b b~ Qoo - b ..--. A* . .% ip c7 e^

Pa! DARK GREEN (STARTUP)

. D . C2r .O b o-. l ..l I.I I~f"Il 6

1. ~

.o.f. ORANGE (AUXILIARY FW)

.'O. m$ $. Y..

'b o ' 6.6hooo O..'

b $@".wd ...

.. oo

,oo Ioco u ];; p..jf g

=

o o p. (c gl

.o O ,. 't03 c ,. 'o.. O

[ -

. ... t _- .O . i oe oo .g e. - s . --

e

3. , ..Ir.~R,o.

e o .- . v <

l 'O. O- 3. *. '7 LGJ

-m ' 9 O. . .. O .

'. C+ .1

. + ,.-. , .

'*'?***** .:: .:: --

p ., ~1 . ..

....-- ) ... ., Q .O. .

l' .... . .

Figure 12. Composite Functional Arrangement b

1 l

A thorough verification of human engineering suitability of the l control room panels was performed in Phase 1. Panels were analyzed for functional and spacial arrangements both within each panel and between panels. The analysis used panel arrangement drawings, technical and training material, and piping and instrumentation drawings. Emphasis was placed on requirements for the operator to identify and diagnose the causes of abnormal transients. The need to correlate information from several panels was studied for transient conditions.

4.5.2 PHASE 2 VERIFICATION Availability of controls and indications required in the completed task analysis will be checked against the control room inventory to ensure that input, output, and feedback requirements are met. The comparison will check for direct indications and will verify that controls and indications meet all task specifications.

4.6 VALIDATION OF CONTROL ROOM FUNCTIONS 4.6.1 PHASE 1 VALIDATION Phase 1 talk and walkthroughs were conducted on the mockup. Two weeks of operations were conducted using various operators from the plant operating department.

Each exercise was initially talked through with operators discussing the procedure and finding the appropriate indicators and controls on the panels. Since the control room is still under construction, operators were not completely familiar with all indication and control

! locations. This lack of complete familiarity was beneficial to the thoroughnesa of the discussions and tended to make the operators more critical in their asse :sment of the adequacy of controls and layout.

Following the talk through, the operators walked through the exercise in near real time.

(

At least two experienced observers collected data during i

walkthroughs by filling out the structured forms prepared during task analysis. Additionally, video taping of the walkthroughs provided a data recovery system both visually and audibly for omissions to observations or incomplete recordings of data.

Notes were also made by operational personnel and were used as an adjunct to observations. While observers focused primarily on panel design and how it interacted with operators, notes made by operators were directed primarily toward inconsistencies in procedural sequences, improper label terminology on panels compared to task descriptions, additional information required within sequences of steps, and format problems.

The verification of human engineering suitability conducted in step 5 was carried forward to the validation step. A separate observer who participated in the verification of suitability analysis also monitored the talk and walkthroughs. Emphasis was placed upon the operator's 37

ability to evaluate plant status and diagnose problems during abnormal transients and emergency operations. Th e analysis also considered operator organization and consnunications , use of assets to cover dispersed displays, and operator physical and cognitive workloads.

Where appropriate, time movement diagrams were used to analyze operator movements. Figure 13 is an example of an operator's movements while performing immediate actions in one emergency procedure.

4.6.2 PHASE 2 VALIDATION Phase 2 will supplement the Phase 1 validation by performing additional talk and walkthroughs, if required, for any operations not adequately covered in Phase 1. Where the task analysis reveals that any operation performed in Phase 1 was incomplete, that operation will be repeated in Phase 2. 'th e same techniques used in Phase I will be used in Phase 2 validation.

l t  !

i i

l t

38

, --n,-rr-nv, -- - , - , , - , , - -

- + , ~ , , - -

,Il1i tii:! !  ! i . {

0 0 1

2 3 C C C O

. I 3

1 3

C O

. 4 m

. I a r

g i

a D

t

- 2

' n 2 1 e C 1 m

2 C 2 e v

o

~

M

- T 5 e R 1 l l A C 2

m T i 3 3 1

S T 2

C C .

2 2 3 1

l l 2

1 e

r j

2 C I u g

2 2 C i 2

l F

ok 7 8

5

_ 3 C

2 6 I 5

I j1 i

u , f. ,: ,

SECTION 5 ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE i

As indicated in NUREC 0700, discrepancies identified as a result of i the review process must be analyzed to determine potential safety implications. In addition, methods and approaches for correcting or i l

minimizing the. ef fects of those discrepancies must be identified and j assessed, with appropriate solutions determined and verified. This  !

section describes the preliminary analysis of discrepancies, initial determination of how to select and implement design improvements, and 4 specific plans for accomplishing the assessme.nt and implementation process.

As illustrated in Figure 1, a preliminary analysis of discrepancies identified during the Phase 1 review was performed. This was a first assessment of the HED summaries for the purposes of determining an initial scope of the areas and corresponding degree to which changes must occur. This analysis indicated that a large percentage of discrepancies could be corrected by panel enhancements (59%).

For purposes of relating Phase 1 HED summaries (in NUREG 0700 Section 6 categories) to improvement techniques identified in Section 1, Figure 14 is presented. This matrix further illustrates to which Section 6 review category the appropriate improvement will be applied.

i Figure 15 is excerpted from Figure 2 to illustrate the sequencial assessment process. The enhancement effort will commence coincidently with the Phase 2 functional analysis. The enhancements will be implemented on the mockup and verified as indicated.

! Additional HEDs identified plus those HEDs not corrected by enhancements will be analyzed to determine the most appropriate design alternative. Th roughou t this process and subsequent to design verification and validation on the mockup, the actual control panel improvements will be completed.

Consistent with NUREG 0700 Assessment Process, two major improvement categories are identified as Enhancements and Design Improvement Alternatives. These two categories are further subdivided as indicated below and discussed in subsequent sections:

ENHANCEMENTS Terminology Enhancement Design Component Swapping DESIGN IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES ,

i Initial Assignment to Categories Component Improvement Organization and Communication 41

2 IMPROVEMENT [ 8 T

o TECHNIOUES T & 8 5 5 2 88

• 8 g ~

as f 3 ~ t c 4

8 4:

~ #

- w o

e J

J 5 u

A REVIEW CATEGORIES 4

[ 8 oO 8 E v CONTHOL ROOM 14 1 1 12 WORKSPACE COMMUNICATION j j ANNUNCIATOR WARNING 11 1 12 SYSTEM l

CON TROLS 17 1 1 10 14 43 VISUAL 33 1 2 2 3 1 3 1 46 DISPLAYS LABELS AND 48 55 1 1 5 LOCATION AIDS PROCESS 0

COMPUTERS PANEL LAYOUT 1 2 3 1 5 1 13 CONTROL DISPLAY 4 2 3 1 10 INTEGRATION TOTAL 115 3 e 5 5 6 8 30 16 194 Figure 14. HED Categories vs Improvement Techniques

• 42

4 u

I I

FUNCTIONAL AND TASK C.R.

ANALYSIS ENHANCEMENTS P

H A

S E VERIFICATION - ENHANCED MOCKUP IMPLEMENT PARTIAL .

ON MOCKUP ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 e

2  ;

I I

NEW H E D'S e VAllDATION _

e DESIGN PARTIAL '

IMPROVEMENT - - - - - - - - , j

_ PROCEDURES ALTE RNATIVES e e IMPROVEMENTS  !  !

- l l

' I l 1 i .

I e i e i IMPLEMENT PARTI AL , 8 ON MOCKUP ~~~~~~], I i

l I  !

3 P i

H" t 0 9

^ SURVEY DESIGN IMPLEMENT IN

'g g

IMPROVEMENTS 7 C.R.

3 i

_ ASSESSME NT OF CORRECTIONS ,_

FUEL LOAD

, IMPLEME NT IN C.R.

t 4 Figure 13. Sequential Assessment Process e.

I t

! 43 t

Display Alternatives Procedures Training Alternatives Panel Alterations Component Replacement Component Relocation 5.1 ASSESSMENT PRIORITIES Since the control room of the Midland plant is about 70 percent' complete, with all major control panels in place, with fuel load (Unit

2) scheduled for July, 1983; the priority for correction of HEDs has no immediate operational consequences at this time. The initial approach will be to find satisf actory corrections to all HEDs that are assessed to be discrepancies.

Two priorities, however, do exist. The first is the need to determine control panel modifications at the earliest possible date so engineering of design changes can commence as quickly as possible. We second priority is to obtain the most effective solution to all HEDs.

These priorities will be used in considering those HEDs that remain after the completion of the enhancements. Because of the detailed assessments that will be made during the enhancement process, it nay become apparent that certain panel modifications will definitely be required. At that time, design changes will be initiated and implemented as appropriate in the control room in accordance with established Midland Project design change control procedures.

5.2 ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN IMPROVEMENT PROCESS Wis sequence is illustrated in Figure 16, and will be discussed in the following paragraphs.

5.2.1 ENHANCEMENTS The Phase 1 review revealed 1116 panel-by panel human engineering J descrepancies. These HEDs, along with the analysis that accompanied them, made it clear that enhancements are needed on most panels.

Eventhough many HEDs are clearly correctable by surface enhancements, the general need for enhancements may have masked both the relationship and importance of other HEDs, and the existance of additional HEDs.

For this reason, the first step in assessment will be to design enhancements for all panels.

In general, enhancements will include functional demarcations, mimic diagrams, improved labeling / legends / coding, and component swapping.

The enhancement effort will also include the review of terminology to be used throughout the plant and control room to eliminate unnecessary and redundant terms, and to establish consistent abbreviations.

5.2.2 DESIGN IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES In order to meet the priority of control room construction, an initial assessment of all remaining HEDs will be made to assign them 44 L

f ENHANCEMENTS

1. Plant Schematics II. Conventions and terminology III. Enhancement Implementation (including swapping) ,

DESIGN IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES I. Initial assignment of categories

• II. Component improvement III. Organization and Communication IV. Display alternatives V. Procedures and Administration VI. Training alternatives VII. Panel Alterations

• Component replacement Component relocation

• In order to meet construction time constraints, HEDs will be initially reviewed to assign them to the most probable category of correction alternatives (II - VII). Those that appear to belong in category VII, Panel Alterations, will be further reviewed for "early .

decision" on alterations.

Figure 16. Assessment and Implementation Process 1

45

most probable category of corrections. The results of this analysis may reveal that some modifications will clearly be required.

The remaining HEDs, including those potential design changes not given an early decision, will be analyzed for the most appropriate correction. We following design improvement alternatives will be discussed as illustrated in Figure 16.

Component Improvement. %is alternative refers to those controls or indicators already installed which could be improved to meet human engineering criteria or operational requirements. Identified components vill be analyzed to determine whether they can be improved by minor engineering changes. For example, J-handle s that are too short may be replaced with longer handles, improper lenses on indicators may be replaced with lenses that are satisfactory. %is effort will also analyze several items in the survey that need further investigation to determine if they are deficiencies.

Organization and Communications. Organization of operators and supervisory personnel along with communications channels used in an operational context, will be analyzed and defined before evaluating whether particular improvements to HEDs will be satisfactory. Rese organizational definitions and relationships will be defined and specified as part of the design improvement process. In addition, relationships between the Unit I and 2 control room teams will be defined.

Display Alternatives. A powerful computer, with extensive CRT display capabilities, has been provided for each unit. These displays can be a flexible powerful tool in resolving many of the identified discrepancies. Particularly, those discrepancies involving functional relationships within panels and between panels will be amenable to resolution through CRT displays. Functional displays must be fully integrated with the Safety Parameter Display System.

%e displays will also allow the opportunity to correct specific instrumentation deficiencies by providing additional information, or by reformating information already available. Where information is displayed on the panels, but requires conversion or other translation in order to support some tasks, the computer display will often provide the ability to present the information directly.

Procedures. Of those deficiencies still remaining, some may be corrected by a careful application of the written word. His applies mainly to the plant operating procedures.

Completely satisfactory solutions in terms of human engineering and functional requirements can be applied to some HEDs through specific guidelines for procedure writing. These solutions would result in procedure writing guidelines, and perhaps, specific written procedure insertions. This type of alternative will be considered in relation to the correction of specific HEDs and is not intended to constitute the general revision and improvement of procedures being conducted under 46 I

. - - _ _ - ._ = - - - - - . - .

i

)

other efforts. Any such requirements will, however, be coordinated with the procedures improvement program under NUREG 0660.

Training Alternatives. Seldom can specific training compensate for unsatisfactory human engineering in the design of controls and instrumentation. Nevertheless, training in conjunction with other solutions is integral to overall improved human performance. Many of the enhancements will require coordination with the training curriculum in order to realize their full potential in aiding the operator and in resolving human factors deficiencies. Many solutions to HEDs that are discussed above will be only partial solutions that can be made complete by proper formulation of training.

Panel Alterations. Panel alterations are defined as component relocation and/or replacement within or between panels. Many related engineering problems must be considered in designing the relocation of components. Backup documentation is also required, usually involving a series of drawing changes as well as technical, procedural, and training material changes.

The progression of steps of the assesement and implementation process have been designed to exploit all other reasonable and effective methods of resolving HEDs before resorting to component relocation and/or replacement. The first step of this process was described as a review of all HEDs not corrected by enhancements (including simple swapping) in order to identify possible panel alterations. nese HEDs will be further analyzed to determine those which can be resolved by some other means. His process will result in identifying those which require panel alterations.

5.2.3 MOCKUP IMPLEMENTATION Throughout the assessment process, changes will be implemented on the mockup to aid in assessment of alternatives and evaluation of proposed changes. Computer displays will be formatted and displayed to judge effectiveness and to evaluate the appropriateness of the display arrangement. Other solutions will be tested for suitability as the project team deliberations continue. This forum will allow realistic assessment of alternatives and serve as the medium for collating and coordinating all changes into a unified solution to human factors problems.

5.2.4 ASSESSMENT OF CORRECTIONS l

Implementation on the mockup will provide a convenient method for assessing the extent of correction of all HEDs. Wis assessment will be performed as solutions are agreed upon, and again when all solutions are implemented on the mockup.

1 The final assessment will bring together the shift teams, the improved procedures, and the fully enhanced mockup, to walkthrough selected procedures in real-time. This final validation will tie together all aspects and determine the adequacy of the new control room 47

design and the improved procedures. To the extent possible, any new HEDs, or any old HEDs not adequately resolved, will be analyzed by the project team and resolved. Necessary reruns of procedures or portions of procedures will be conducted to verify the new resolution.

l l

t I

48 l

l