ML20052D712
| ML20052D712 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/04/1982 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-1919, NUDOCS 8205070136 | |
| Download: ML20052D712 (26) | |
Text
< - - - - -
hA 6"N2$
i ISSUED: 1-04-R2
,,s '
<hY SN 4 582 MINUTES OF THE
'$hll ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON HUMAN FACTORS Y
Q, f
NOVEMBER 2, 1981 h{.[
.,.g p, )
r WASHINGTON, DC
~
l
,e..
be' b
The ACRS Subcommittee on Human Factors held a meeting on Nov in $
Room 1046, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
The purpose of the-meeting was to brief the newly formed ACRS Subcommittee on Human Factors on the development and programs that have been initiated within the Division of Human Factors Safety (DHFS), 0ffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulations, since The meeting was open to that division's inception over a year ago.
the public except for a 15 minute period used to discuss the proposed NRC x
Notice of this meeting was research budget in the area of human factors.
19, 1981.
A copy of this published in the Federal Register on Monday, October notice is included as Attachment A.
A list of attendees for this meeting is included as Attachment B, the schedule for the meeting is included as Attach-ment C, and a list of all reference material for this meeting is included as A complete set of handouts has been included in the ACRS files.
Attachment D.
Two oral statements were made by members of the public. The written comments The they provided to the Subcommittee are included as Attachments E and F.
Designated Federal Employee for this meeting was Mr. Richard K. Major.
l SUMBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN'S OPENING REMARKS Mr. Ward opened the meeting at 8:30 a.m. with a brief statement on the He informed the attendees that there had purpose and goal of the meeting.
He been two requests from members of the public to make oral statements.
said that these statement would best fit into the schedule after the presen-tation by the WRC Staff's Human Factors Engineering Branch.
p}q]
..}T{
i p
W Ii Yi DESIC::A;E3 onIGINAL 9 k R,'
g i:
L 'g ;
n 0205070136 820104 Ccititie3 ty kgf PDR ACRS 2
1919 PDR
MINUTES HUMAN FACTORS 11/2/81 STAFF INTRODUCTION Dr. Hanauer, Director of DHFS, provided an overview of the Division's role and responsibility.
He mentioned that the Division was organized as a result of the accident at TMI-2.
He summarized his understanding of the human operator's role in reactor safety.
He outlined the safety functions that operators must be capable of performing and categorized the behavioral principles associated with the satisfactory performance of these functions (skill-based, rule-based, and knowledge-based behavior).
The Division's human factors programs are aimed at ensuring correct operator action given the various sensory inputs to which plant operators are exposed.
The human factors programs may be categorized into four general areas:
Qualification and Training Programs Procedures Programs Control Room Programs and
- Organization and Management Programs Dr. Hanauer summarized the Division's efforts in each of these areas.
DHFS qualification and training programs deal with both operators and non-operators. The Division is evaluating the intellectual, educational, mechanical aptitude, and psychological fitness requirements that should be met by persons seeking an operator's license.
DHFS is also evaluating the education and training needs of license operators (e.g., classroom, simulator, practical experience, etc.).
Operator requalification and promotion paths were briefly discussed.
The Division is appraising the training and qualifi-cation needs of non-operators such as utility managers, Shift Technical Advisors, health physisists, and maintenance personnel.
MINUTES HUMAN FACTORS 11/2/81 DHFS's procedures programs involve the review of norr,a1 operating procedures, emerency operating procedures, maintenance procedures, and plans to ensure emergency preparedness.
Using critical safety functions, symptom-based procedures will be developed to restore to a safe condition, a plant which has experienced an accident.
DHFS control room programs are geared to improving plant control rooms.
Both minor (label, paint, and tape) and major plant improvements to control rooms are being evaluated.
Dr. Hanauer brifely discussed the Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS).
DHFS organization and management programs are evaluating the qualifications, structure, and style of utility management.
Utility staffing, working con-ditions, and administrative procedures were just a few of the areas mentioned at the meeting which will be reviewed by the Division.
Dr. Hanauer emphasized the need for the various human factors programs to be coordinated. The various NUREG documents associated with the program areas will be provided to the Commissioners for their approval in the December 1981 -
January 1982 time frame.
If approved, industry will be required to develop Program Plans for implementing the NUREGs.
After a detailed review of those plans (review scheduled to be completed in late 1982), the new procedures, l
control room improvements, and SPDS will be validated, simultaneously.
Dr. Hanauer requested a timely ACRS review of the NUREG documents related to the DHFS programs.
He asked that the Committee provide him with any comments on the technical content of those documents as well as any comments on the scope and phasing of the DHFS programs.
MINUTES HUMAN FACTORS 11/2/81 In response to questions posed to him by the Subcommittee and its consultants, Dr. Hanauer stated that half of the core melt probability is due to human errors.
He also told the Subcommittee that operator errors both inside and outside the control r.com are being looked at by DHFS.
(The Division's current efforts are primarily concerned with human factors inside the control room).
PRESENTATIONS BY HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING BRANCH Mr. R. Froelich (NRR/DHFS/HFEB) discussed NUREG-0700, " Guidelines for Control Room Design Review." This NUREG was published in its final form in September 1981.
The purpose of NUREG-0700 is to describe methods for conducting control roon design reviews.
The control room design modifications which result from this review should improve the operator's capability to prevent and cope with accidents. Mr. Froelich discussed the objectives of the design review process and its relationship to other human factors programs.
Then he detailed the recommended procedures for planning, reviewing, assessing, im-piementing, and reporting on the design review.
Finally, Mr. Froelich described the control room human engineering guidelines contained in NUREG-0700. Most NT0Ls have committed to the use of the NUREG-0700 guidelines. Utility reports on the results of their NUREG-0700 design reviews are expected in about one year. To date, the NRC Staff has received no response from operating reactors as to how they will implement these guidelines.
In response to a question from Mr. Pearson, J. Kramer of the NRC Staff stated that the color coding of indicators on control panels and simulators is the same.
In response to a question from Mr. Keyserling, Mr. Kramer said that there were enough human factors specialists available for utilities to conduct the control room i
reviews required by NUREG-0700. Mr. Debons questioned the organization of i
' MINUTES HUMAN FACTORS 11/2/81 data on the control boards and wondered if the operators would be able to deal with the enormous quantities of data displayed on them. Dr. Hanauer stated that the typical control board had about 2000 gadgets,1000 indicators, and 1000 push buttons. He acknowledged operator data loading as a potential 1
problem.
The Staff estimated that the cost to licensees for implementing NUREG-0700 will be about 3-5 man-years of effort plus about $10-40 thousand per modifi-cation.
However, the cost couTd vqry considerably depending on the scope and quality of previous control room review (s) condacted at the utility.
Dr. Hanauer stated that NUREG-0700 will not require major modification to all plant control rooms.
He said that some control rooms might only require paint, label, and tape type fixes.
Mr. M. Greenberg (NRR/DHFS/HFEB) made a presentation on NUREG-0801, "Evalua-tion Criteria for Detailed Control Room Design Reviews." He related the NRC's actions required by NUREG-0801 to the actions required of the licensee /
applicant as described in NUREG-0700.
The evaluation of detailed control room design reviews (DCRDR) has been divided into four phases.
Prior to the utility conducting its review, the NRC will evaluate the program plan sub-mitted by the applicant / licensee.
As a result of this evaluation, the NRC Staff might conduct a site visit to evaluate the utility's progress on the review.
This second phase might result in additional guidance being provided to the utility. The third phase of the NRC evaluation consists of an analysis of the DCRDR report submitted by the applicant / licensee.
Human engineering discrepancies (HEDs) will be identified and assessed. Mr. Greenberg described in detail the Staff's methodology for determining the significance of HEDs.
MINUTES HUMAN FACTORS 11/2/81 The utility's proposed corrective action and implementation schedule will be reviewed by the Staff.
As a result of this NRC review, the Staff will provide an evaluation to the utility and the public. The final phase of the Staff's evaluation of the utility's DCRDR is a verification of the utility's imple-mentation of required control room modifications.
Mr. Beltracchi (NRR/DHFS/HFEB) provided the Subcommittee with a discussion of NUREG-0835, " Human Factors Acceptance Criteria for the Safety Parameter Displ ay System." He said that the' Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) should integrate a minimum set of plant parameters into a display.
Using this display, plant operators should be better able to assess the plant safety status during both normal and abnormal conditions. The SPDS must respond to the design criteria specified in NUREG-0696.
While NUREG-0835 discusses acceptance criteria for CRT type displays only, other types of displays may be used.
Mr. Beltracchi listed several general acceptance criteria for the SPDS.
His list included criteria related to the display patterns, scaling of displays, parameter identification, and the use of perceptual aids (e.g., color, symbols and mimics, overlays, setpoints, flashing lights).
He discussed specific acceptance criteria for the SPDS (criteria related to SPDS functions, data set, data validation, displays, location and size, staff, procedures, alarms, design, etc.). These specific acceptance criteria were extracted from NUREG-0696. Mr. Beltracchi briefly described the validation and verification process that the Staff will use to evaluate licensee / applicant's compliance with NUREG-0835.
During the discussion period following the formal presentation, the Staff indicated that
)
MINUTES HUMAN FACTORS 11/2/81 the SPDS should have approximately 30 minutes of retrogressive monitoring available for use in trend analysis. The Staff stated that this trend analysis function was predominately for use during an emergency by personnel in the technical control center. The potential for information hiding in the SPDS and the audio / visual alerts incorporated to prevent this were discussed.
Dr. R. Pearson voiced his concern over the Staff's use of the " military specification approach" to color coding on plant control panels and the SPDS.
He is specifically worried abo 0t operator errors resulting form the switching of color code schemes.
The Staff feels that consistency is necessary in color coding and that fewer errors will result from forcing the consistency issues.
PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. L. Lund of Lund Consulting, Inc. expressed her opinion that an earlier draft version of NUREG-0801, " Evaluation Criteria for Detailed Control Room Design Review," should be adopted.
She stated that a late August version of NUREG-0801 was reviewed by a task group at the Myrtle Beach Conference on Human Factors and provided "for a productive human factors ' review of nuclear power pl ants." She feels that the more recent drafts detract from the clear thinking, flexibility, and approach of the August version.
Specifically, l
Ms. Lund stated that the August draft stressed the need for parallel and integrated efforts between industry and the Staff to:
perform the control room reviews, upgrade emergency operating procedures, and perform emergency planning.
She stated that the present version no loanger provides guidance on how to integrate these efforts. Furthermore, Ms. Lund feels that the earlier
MINUTES HUMAN FACTORS 11/2/81 version provided for a well-thought out and justifiable control room review process.
She indicated that the present version is not well-thought out in that it doesn't recognize the inherent variability between plant designs, ages, and operators.
She stated that the present version also requires additional amounts of paperwork and checklists.
Dr. Hanauer agreed to take
~
another look at Ms. Lund's comments and asked that she provide him with additional supporting information. Ms. Lund agreed to Dr. Hanauer's request.
Mr. W. Coley, Chairman, Atomic Industrial Forum ( AIF) Subcommittee on Control Rooms and Emergency Response Facilities, provided the ACRS Subcommittee on Human Factors with a list of comments on Regulatory Guide 1.97, NUREG-0696, NUREG-0814, and NUREG-0801.
The majority of his comments _ centered around the unclear relationship between the various NRC cocuments related to human factors.
He recommended that "NUREG-0801 should be revised and strengthened (and NUREG-0814 revised as required) to allow the control room review process to be a vehicle for integrating the related efforts of control room review, upgrading emergency procedures, establishing emergency response facilities, and identifying and specifying locations and requirements for accident monitoring instrumentation."
PRESENTATION BY PROCEDURES AND TEST REVIEW BRANCH Mr. D. Beckhan (NRR/DHFS/PTRB) discussed NUREG-0799, " Criteria for Preparation of Emergency Operating Procedures."
In his discussion of the technical and human factors guidelines for preparing emergency operating procedures, Mr. Beckham emphasized procedures to respond to multiple failures.
He said that if symptom-based procedures alone are used an incredible nunber of l
i
MINUTES HUMAN FACTORS 11/2/81 possible event sequences result. By identifying critical safety functions and developing procedures based on these, the number of event sequences becomes manageable.
NUREG-0799 provides safety function maintenance and optimum recovery guidelines for accident situations. The procedures will assist the operator when plant conditions are outside those allowed in the technical specifications. The procedures will assist the operator in cor-rectly responding to situations that he may or may not be familar with.
Mr. Beckham said that the guidance,given is not intended for use in writing procedures for an operator to follow.
The guidance provided by the NUREG is for writing procedures to be used by an operating crew which is being given a lot of help.
Dr. Moeller noted that the criteria for preparing these emergency procedures seemed preoccupied with events which have a low probability.
Mr. L. Crocker (NRR/DHFS/LQB) made a presentation on utility management or-ganizations and infrastructure. He identified the TMI-2 items which relate to management organization and technical resources that have already been implemented and summarized those TMI Action Plan items still under develop-ment.
' f s discussion was followed by a description of NRUEG-0731, " Utility Management Guidelines and Technical Resources." Mr. Crocker provided a history and status of NUREG-0731.
He discussed the Staff's ongoing efforts to revise l
NUREG-0731 so that less subjective evaluations of utility management result.
I As part of his presentation, Mr. Crock' r identified the need to have all of e
the nuclear operations responsibilities of a utility integrated under a l
single responsible head.
In discussing the corporate technical resources required of each utility, Mr. Crocker stated that a utility must have "an in-house capability to mainta#n an awareness of plant status and to provide
MINUTES HUMAN FACTORS 11/2/81 immediate technical assistance." The utility must also have the capability of obtaining additional technical assistance in specified areas from outside of the corporate organization if necessary. That is, if the required corporate techical expertise is not available in-house then firm arrangements must be made with outside resources to assure adequate depth of coverage. Mr. Crocker then discussed the general characteristics which LQB looks for in a plant organization and the technical resources required at a plant site.
He identified the three safety review committees which LQB considers necessary in a utility's organization (i.e., plant operations review committee, corporate review committee, and the independent safety engineering group).
Mr. Crocker said that these comnittees should have adequate access to de-tailed experts in various fields (e.g., human factors, information management) as required. The Subcommittee was given a brief description of how a utility management review is conducted by the Staff and the qualifications of the NRC reviewers.
Mr. Crocker addressed two ACRS letters provided to the Staff dealing with utility management organization and infrastructure ( ACRS letter to Mr. W. Dircks dated May 12, 1981 and Mr. M. Bender letter to Dr. Mark dated September 23, 1981).
He very briefly addressed each point in the letters.
Mr. Ward asked if there was a Staff position on utilities having in-house versus contractor-run training organizations. Mr. Crocker stated that the Staff required the utility be able to adequately monitor its training program.
I
4 e
MINUTES HUMAN FACTORS 11/2/81 Mr. J. Zwolinski (NRR/DHFS) provided the Subcommittee with an overview of the Safety Technology Program being conducted by DHFS.
This program will support the licensing decision-making process by providing a sound technical basis for the resolution of numerous TMI Action Plan items.
Mr. Zwolinski said that the program will provide licensees and applicants with definitive guidance in lieu of licensing requirements and should result in both short-and long-term improvements to the operator license examination DHFS has put each of the TMI Action Plan items into one of the five process.
Safety Techr. ology Program Elements listed below.
- Management and Organization
- Personnel and Staffing Human Factors Engineering Training and Examination Operations Each of these program elements was discussed in detail during the meeting.
Several of the Subcommittee's consultants encouraged DHFS to have a variety of technical experts contribute to the Safety Technology Program, thereby allowing for more creative solutions to technical problems.
PRESENTATION ON DHFS INTERACTION WITH OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RES Mr. J. Kramer (NR/DHFS) mada a brief presentation on DHFS's interaction with the NRC's Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES).
RES " user needs" were identified for FY 1981, FY 1982, and FY 1983-1987.
Mr. R. DiSalvo (NRC/RES/DF0/HFBR) presented the Office of Research's program for human factors research in FY 1983.
He informed the Subcom-l l
mittee t!;at a significant increase in human factors research is underway.
MINUTES HUMAN FACTORS 11/2/81 The issues being addressed by HFBR (e.g., Task Analysis, Validation of Control Room Modifications) and how HFBR plans to meet its user needs were discussed in detail. Mr. DiSalvo said that HFBR is trying to improve its basic understanding of the impact that humans have on nuclear The HFBR research safety and the factors which affect human performance.
program should provide the technical data necessary to develop defensible regulatory positions related to-human factors.
Ultimately, the goal of their research program is to reduce the human contribution to risk to an acceptably low level. Mr. DiSalvo identified the various sources of in-formation used' in developing the human factors research program.
He gave examples of the research work which the branch is doing in the areas of Human Factors Engineering, Licensee Qualification, Plant Procedures, Human Reliability, and Quality Assurance.
The Human Factors Engineering work will evaluate information, data, methods, and standards relevant to the design of the operator-machine interface.
The products related to this effort include:
analysis of operator information needs, documentation of control room design problems, methods and data to evaluate CRT displays, operating crew task analysis (e.g., workload vs.
time), data and criteria for allocation of functions, and concepts and evaluations of computerized aids. The details of several of these products were discussed.
The Licensee Qualifications work will evaluate information, data, methods, and standards relevant to both the training and i censing of plant personnel The and the management of plant design, construction, and operations.
I MINUTES HUMAN FACTORS 11/2/81 products related to this effort include: a survey of foreign practices, an assessment of training simulators, task analysis data as a basis for training and certification, a study of data to validate education and training require-ments, and the development of criteria to evaluate management competence.
Conclusions and recommendations from several of these products were shown to the Subcommittee.
The Plant Procedures work will research the standards relevant to developing and implementing sound procedure systems. This work will:
provide checklists for evaluating. procedure format and content, provide cost / benefit analysis of more rigorous procedures systems, analyze data to determine the effectiveness of symptom-oriented emergency procedures, evaluate computerized access systems, and evaluate computerized operations manuals.
The Human Reliability work will involve modeling and quantifying of human performance data to determine the human contribution to risk. The principal model used in this effort has been Swain's handbook *. The products related to this effort include:
human performance models for probabilistic risk analysis, analyses of the relative significance of performance shaping factors, analyses of data from simulator experiments to validate models, the development of empirical estimates of human error rates, the definition of human performance measures, estimating the relative sign'ificance of human errors, and compiling a human performance data bank.
In discussing these products, Mr. DiSalvo discussed the sensitivity of core melt probability to changes in human error rates.
- " Handbook of Human Reliability Analysis With Emphasis on Nuclear Power Plant Applications," NUREG/CR-1278.
1 1
MINUTES HUMAN FACTORS 11/2/81 The proposed funding for FY 1983 in each of the aforementioned areas was discussed in closed session.
Mr. DiSalvo said that the research plan is generally responsive to the Staff's expressed needs.
He also believes that the program is consistent with Commission and ACRS guidance.
HFBR has coordinated its research efforts with INP0 and EPRI.
Dr. Hanauer stated that if he had to reduce the amount of human factors research being done, the three arehs that he would continue at the expense of all others would be the research related to (a) improving emergency procedures, (b) the SPDS,.and (c) plant maintenance.
In response to a question from Mr. Pearson, Mr. DiSalvo said that the HFBR research results are selectively provided to the scientific community via NUREG reports.
SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION The Subcommittee Chairman asked the Subcommittee consultants to provide him with written comments on the overall DHFS program within one week. The Subcommittee will report the results of this meeting during the November full Committee meeting. The Subcommittee Chairman will brief the Committee on human factors considerations in the design and operation of nuclear power plants including the qualifications and organizations of management, operators, and supporting infrastructure.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:30 p.m.
l NOTE:
For additional details, a complete transcript of the meeting is available in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555 or from Alderren Referter: 300 7'k Strec* FW Nishington, DC (202) 554-2345.
- 4 Federal Re:tister / Vol. 46. No. 201 / Monday. October'19.1981 / Notices S1329 l
(3) a list of the alternatives Act of1965, as amended including Wednesday. November 4 JMJ-12p.m.
considered; discussion ofinformation given in untilthe conclusion ofbusiness (4) A list of the mitigation measures confidence to the agency by grant Thursday November 5. JM1-430a.m.
and/or revisions made to the proposed 8pplicante. Because the proposed meeting untilthe conclusion ofbusiness Action so as to minirhize harm to or c nyderin nnation that la likely to During the initial portion of the meeting, within the Floodplain, and to minimize (11 Traberets and commercial or financial the Subcommittee, stong with any ofits the destruction. loss, or degradation of inforrnation obtained from a person and consultants who may be present, will Wetlands; and privileged or confidential; exchange preliminary views regarding (5) a map of the general area clearly (2)Information of a personal nature the matters to be considered duririg the balance delineating the proposal's locale and its d'sclosure of which would constitute a of the meeting.
toIationship to its environs.
CI'IY """*"*"d I"**8 ion i Personal The Subcomrnittee will then hear privacy; and presentations by and hold discussions with Sita and Building Plans Requirements:
91Information the disclosure of which would representatives of the Union Electric Preposed amendment significant 'sustrate implementation of Company, NRC Staff, their consultants, and proposed egency action: pursuant to other interested persona regarding this Subrection C of section 3 of the authority granted me by the Chairman's review.
Commission's Site and f3uilding Plans Delegat on of Authority to Close Advisory Requirements. 37 FR 3011-3013 Committee Meetings, dated January 15.
Further information about topics to be (February 10.1972). as amended. 37 FR 1978. I have determmed that this meeting discussed. whether the meeting has 10330-10331 (March 19.1974), is further will be closed to the public pursuant to been cancelled or rescheduled, the g
amended by adding at the cad thereof
$'[g$g"t!)
)dSf Chairman s ruling on requests for the i
j the following:
opportunity to present oral statements
- (7) Floodplain Management and' Furtherinformation about this meeting can be and the time allotted therefor can be 1
Wetlands Protection. The initial obtamed frogi Mr. Stephen J. McCleary, obtcined by a prepaid telephone call to.
submission by a Federal agency for a h,f,'n "8
the cognizant Designsted Federal Ed e fr e a
es, project to be located in a Floodplain or Washington. DC 20500, or call (202) 724-Employee. 'lichard Major (telephone Wetland, as defined in the 0367.
202/634-1414) between 8:15 a.m. and Commission's Floodp!ain Management Stephen I. McCleary, 5:00 p.m.. EST.
and Wetlcnds Protection Procedures (46 FR p.
. Oct.19,1981), shall include Advsory Committee Management Oficer.
Dated: October 14.1981.
p um rw m e%
Mo C. Hoyle, aus"o ot es86*
fin ngs. e al io f a ts a d Advisory Committ=e Mancgement Wficer.
proposed mitigation measures prepared P D" '8-8m88 N 8* " L'*8'*3 pursuant to Executive Order 11988 or NUCLEAR REGULATORY Executive Order 11990."
COMMISSION Duniel H. Shear.
Secretary to the Commission.
Advisory Committee on Reactor Advisory Committee on Reactor October o. tost.
Safeguards. Subcommittee on a guar s. Subcommittee on Human gra ra ei-am e ri!.d isi6ei. a ss..
Callaway Plant; Meeting ors; Mg astmio coot ria.ei-=
Ihe ACRS Subcommittee on The ACRS Subcommittee on Human Callaway Plent will hold a meeting on Factors will hold a meeting on WATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE November 4 and 5.1981. at the Hilton November 2.1981. Room 1046.1717 H ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES Inn. 2000 I-70 Drive Southwest.
Street. NW. Washington. DC. The Columbia, MO.The Subcommittee will Subcommittee will be briefed by the Humanities Panel Meeting review the application by the Union Division of Human Factors Safety.
Electric Company for an Operating Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation on AoENcY: National Endowment for the L: cense. Notice of this meeting was the developments and programs that Humanities.
published September 23.
have been initiated within the Division Action: Notice of meetin::.
In accordance with the procedures over the pcst year. !tems for discussion outlined in the Federal Register on willinclude the final version of the suhtMARY: Pursitant to the provision of September 30,1981 (46 FR 47903), oral control room design evaluatica the Federal Adsory Committee Act or wntten statements may be presented guidelines, operator qualificatione.
(Public Law 0.'-4G3 as emended). notice by members of the public, recordings emergency procedures guidelines, and is hereby given thct tk followinR will be permitted only during those utility management structure and meeting of the liumanities Panel will be j
held at 60G 15th Street. N.W-portions of the meetmg when a technical resources.
transcript is being kept, and quest!ons In accordance with the procedures l
Washington, DC 0506:
may be asked only my members of the outlined in the Federal Register on Date; Noveraber 9-10,1961 Subcommittee,it3 consultants, and Staff. September 30.1981 (46 FR 47903). oral or Time:9 tio a nt to M0 p m.
Persons desiring to ntake oral wntlen statements may ' e presented by 9
o Room 1134 statements should notify the Designated members of the public, recordings will Program: This meeting will review Federal Employee as far in advance as be permitted only during those portions oppilcations submitted for Researth practicable so that appropriate of the meeting when a transcript is being YDi n of Re eartYP arrangements c n be made to a!!aw the kept. and questions may be asked only ms, for a
projects bepnnmg efter Arn!1.1982.
necessary time durtr.g the meeting for by members of the Subcommittee. its The propostd meetin6 s for the rurpose of such statements.
consultants, and Staff. Persons destring i
Panel review. +scusen. evaluation and The entire meetm, g will be open to to make oral statements should notify recom nendation en appheations for public altendance.
the Designated Federal Employee as far Guncial essistance under the National The agenda for subject meeting shall in cdvance as practicable so that
{
Foundaison on the Arts and the ilumanities be as follows:
appropriate arrangemente can be made l
I 4
AmtetNT A A-\\
l
$1'330 -
Federal Register / Vol. 4n. No. 201 / hiond.iy. October 19, 1981 / Notices ta ellow the necessary time during the The notice of availability of the Draft CFR Chapter 1. which are set forth in the meeting for such s.tatements.
Environmental Statement for the Grand liccr.se amendment. Prior public notice The entire meeting will be open to Gulf Nuc! car Station which requested of this action was not required since the comments from interested persons was amendment does not involve a pubhc attendance.
Th agenda for subject meeting shall pubbshed in the Federal Register on significant hazards consideration.
June 12.1301 (40 FR 31031).
The Commission has determined that be as follows:
The comments received from Federal, the issuance of this amenrimeat will not Monday. November 2. N81. # x a m. unts/
it:e conclusion of business.
State, and local egencies, and interested result in any significant environmental During the mital portion of the meeting members of the public have been impact and that pursuant to 10 CFR the Subcomm;tice. a!ong with any ofits included as appendices in the Fmal 51.51dj(4) an environmentalimpact consultants who may be present, will Em ironmental Statement.
statement or negative declaration and sachinge prelimm.ny views trprding This rtport is available for inspection environmental impact appraisal need m.itt1rs to t,e conddered dunng the balance or copying for a fee at the NRC Public not be prepared in connection with Document Room.1717 H Street. N.W.,
issuance of this amendment.
co mittee will then hear Washington. D.C. Copies may be For further details w:th respect to this pr:sentations by and hold discussions with repreerntatines of the NRC Staff. their purchased for $6.50 directly from NRC action see (1) the appli,ation for consultants, and other interested persons by sendmg check or money order, amendment dated December 19.1930 regirding thn review.
payab!e to Superintendent of and supplement thereto dated May 7.
Documents. to Director. Division of 1981. (2) Amerdment No. G7 to Iqense Further information about topics to be TechnicalInformation and Documen1 No. DPR-20. and (3) the Commissi:n's d
d' a Control. U.S. NRC, Washington. D.C.
related Safety Evaluation. Allof these b en cancelled or sch dul d the 20355. CPO Deposit Acco.mt holders items are available for public inspection Ch:irman's ruhng on requests for the may charge their orders by calling (301) at the Commission's Public Document d pportunity to present oral statements 492-9530. Copies are also available for Room.171711 Street. NW Washington, cnd the tune allotted therefor can be purchase through the National Techmcal D.C. 20555. and at the Kalamazoo Public obtIined by a prepaid telephone call to Inf rmation Service. Spnngfield. \\ A Library. 315 South Rose Street.
thr cognizant Designated Federal 22101.
Kalamazoo. Michigan 49000. A copy of Employee. Richard Major (telephone items (2) and (3) may be obtained upon 202/034-1414) between 8.15 a.m. and Dated et Bethesda Md. this 9th day of October 1981.
request addressed to the U.S. Nuclear 5 00 p.m EST*
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Regula tory Commis sion. Wa shington, D; tid. October 14.1981.
D.C. 20555. Attention: Director. Division A. Schecer.
- "* '" 8 Chief. Ucensing Bmnch No. t. Division of g,,,g,, g,' y,,g,, yS, gy;, g,y g,y eq Advisory Committer Management 05cer.
y,,,,,,,_
in tu n ese ra.4 ins,ei. a s..,
October 1981.
mae s ru dins.et.sesW
'""socoot m m For the Nucicar Regulatory Commisarion.'
aumo coot neo-os.as Thomas V. Wambach.
I D'"
(Docket Nos 50-4 t6 and 50-4t71 l Docket No. 50-255]
5, Dmsson of' Licensing.
Av:llabihty of the Final Environmental Consumers Power Co.; issuance of Im h "-* *d 5M* *' * ** **l aua.ccoot w w Stat; ment for the Graind Gulf Nuclear Amendment to Provisional Operating St:tton. Units 1 and 2 Ucense Notice is hereby given that the Final The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
[ Docket Nos. 50-443 and 50-444]
Environmental Statement (NUREL-(the Commission) has issued 0 77) related to the operation of the Amendment No. 67 to Provisional PubHe Service Co. of New Hampshire.
Cr:nd Gulf Nuclear Station. Units 1 and Operating Ucense No. DPR-20. issued to et at, Seabrook Station. Units 1 and 2;
- 2. by the Mississippi Power & Light Consumers Power Company (the Receipt of Application for Facility Company, has been prepared by' the bcensee), which revised the Technical Operstmg Ucenses: Availability of Commission's Office of Nuclear Reactor Specifications for operation of the Apphcants' Environmental Report; Rigul: tion.The Grand Gulf Nuclear Palisades Plant (the facility) located in Consideration of issuance tsf Facility St: tion is located on the Mississippi Cos ett "l ownship. Van Buren County.
Operating Ucenses; and Notice of Riv:r in Claiborne County, Mississippi.
Michigan. 'Ibe amendment is effective Opportunity for Hearing The Fmal Environmental Statement is as of its date of issuance.
Notice is hereby given that the cscil;ble for inspection by the public in The amendment approves changes to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the th2 C:mmission's Public Document the Appendix A Technical Commission) has received an Room at 171711 Street. N.W.
Specifications which incorporate certain application. Including the Final Safety Wcshington. D C. 20555. and at the of the Lessons Learned Category "A" Analysis Report, from Public Service flinds Jr. College. George M. McLendon requirements related to the Three Mde Company of New Hampshire, et. al.* for Libr:ry. Ra ymond. Mississippi 39154.
Island Accident in response to our Th2 Final Environmental Statement is request dated July 2.1980.
s ne oppt. cants for the opeestins hcenses for clso being made available at the State The apphcation for the arrendment se. brook biation ere: Barpor Hydef3ectric Clannghouse. Coordmator Federal.
complies with the standards and
@*P*",FM"[**c rPun pan, e rol St:t2 Programs. Office of the Governor, requirements of the Atomic Energy Act commonwe.ith ree sy system.. connecucui tJsht 1503 Sillers Building. Jackson.
of 1%4. as amended (the Act), and the
& Power Company. Montaup Dectric Company.
l Mississippi 39201, and the Southwest Commission's rules and regulations. The nichtmrs cae a acctne u si company. itudion s
M tsissippi Planning and Development Commission has made appropriate
[,[,%,',$,",*,,7, gy,$,Q,$,],"
District. Post Ofhce Box 636. Mam findmgs as required by the Act and the cecine camp.ny. hew Enst.nd Power company.
Street. Meadville. Mississippi 39653.
Commu sion's rules and regulations in 10 c-na d l
i 1
A4
ME'ETING'DATE:
NOVEMBER 2, 1981 5UBCOMITTEE MEETING:
HlfiAN FACTORS l
' LOCATION: WASHINGTON, DC - RM.1046 l
i ATTENDANCE LIST l
L"=
ArrAcureer s TM NT AFFT t I ATION i.
D WARD A ce S 2.
10 M,47-M/S 3.
J
[4eysole
)
- 3. B u ck Aers co nsut r wr a.
A. D e l v.) s f ce s consus rw r s.
I N NPy SOY l' HD i ^^6.
v 1.
P
[b ar so rJ 8.
0 $ A) 0 R 14CAS S 7~4 f f D f/S c-lJSte.
o_
,I' W31'
/ / rs'/'/ ll-
/tkl
- 10.
33, jf. W, f g r> n a e D 4
V ll lO
' (' i.
I, E c 4 :'il P f 17.
U 1'
__13.
7~1 Nmgr2 l
$. N H m AJ A.u e=yR 14_
J A & ou ~ s < s u
is.
16.
] I'
. ) /' ///[ ^ /. v. i i,
17.
47.
. N76 FNeS M
//
4
'l l\\
J. /-l i-Wp (,:5 18.
.19.
fI2MMN R
}{
~
20.
Ocm u l' L. M,....
o i
k
, k<h
=
.s 21.
1
. /', <
??,
i 'x,
l h.>. ?.2A,kAQ i:
);
.23, L
- 14. N bN1h@n Gee,p ih, lUl &
- t il
NOVEMBER 2, 1981
. MEETING'-DATE:
HlNAN FACTORS
$UBCO W.1TTEE MEETING:
WASHINGTON, DC - RM.1046 LOCAT]DN:
ATTENDANCE LIST TLEASE TRI NT NAME AFFILIATION
- 1..al.A.CotEV
'Duir Powe, Q S backN Dake ?~ e c Co,
1.
L i,,, t <. ('
l cn a fm a (i.s.,,, Im,
&c 3.
\\nl 81 kl 9/Joasn
~
/ noikisin OrJff
//Ck7('D.
n LDC A L. %.c lic n ia c ktra E. L. Nae %
s.
6.
ff f%
$0S AfDmes % h as,, A la ssa,;&
!/ini, n. s,
,.i / R. /?;-
G /. A n s n e. / /
1.
7 Vi!-c,.is E w m,,, n,ve /,,.
e.
B li D,,.,.c y a
[A f.
, u==~
V,i,s,u.x Z'u < ri:.c I Pn,,,- A G.
o.
O - [>.
kol h 10.
- 11. 5 F/4ffg k 4.ss/CS#/ WEOt.uMF /UPE
)?. %l Duerkl*
Wousvwe 1.c., I nc,
.l 6
No /9 44 KNC
.Lrc l
j3.
b tw <dIt lbpec/ eh/
& OGrn(o b.)rtiieoS l
1a S N o..., (lce 4 4l,,J L /s e.4.-e e r
o
/.,;
v y 4
fame e
- 16. //1 U<'.s w n
=r4~
b i yIh)d&
&& knwu 04 17.
' G4 ht
.38.
GARR1 G, %on &
UEsc/kPCo
.19. hlhet k knnl6 o uler 0 n10791 I
o 9 s1> 4
/{ }
I!
to. //// I.' / Acst;/tiin YC.
FLOR GA %nce T L.i, trU,c. e,=.,, v y
0l,1V $he/
Gyx Co,o-rch,,
t).
_t, hat 190cf7.-
tvus Ess P.
p
- 23. kh) 6.PrurE Nonw kccdm Soci
_ )
- ^
m
~
. MEETING DATE:
NOVEMBER 2. 1981 HlNAN ' ACTORS SUBCOW.lTTEE MEETING: _
LOCATION: _ WASHINGTON, DC - RM.1046 ATTENDANCE LIST PLEASE
'PRI N T
_ NAME AF?ILIATION i.
^7 V
N ~A'VA*E'
/}$,4 p 6 : /,%.;s.: e.a wtg W L d4WA6 7(qps ynum95 gggvgeps y_
kC dl 6itS TexAc; U Tiu r165 TG(ce) 3.
i D.J r/1r 7f a G / des i +Mu l 'J C.
_ s, C ko Ie.s A.
Se A < oek cu.,e.., s i,,
1. s i, c sen,ce 6.
d,,.3 klb-
~/$s- > J/z':/.do-s dm. Cc.
7.
hk.fwfr*&
[7?ps? y
/L)gpfyggyg 64/2
() L Nkal u
e u
a
_e.
5l$IT.>r,sh/
Pe,,,,s. r.~, A t : o 4Ha o_
R, Yi b 5 pas fbr bd b 10.
b4/4b C2 TM4-Y 0CN*A I/ </UC I ( DEA 11.
jp, /M2/ /
'2
.. [
- 13. W clh4Rh 7 S & t))R E.S C,6nsmox) w yatt r H 2Dann W.
btE4 ~
0N 14, y Itll,ert L, l<echter A RD detP.
_16._ il )/L'7r e C. '"/ csi s/i
/ Acmes' u n uries l
/l pn p4
_kle fh*h&
O O
18.
d&t:g f.KPNisky JZ6/NfEA J9. [
/bd A
i J.W7 rndy ucc / Npee 20.
ri. Juua &came&
Nc/ HM A
??,
M i h oc(
E HadAdx IM PO y.
Shnce Feb,..c ARC.
l GilbA/cmoo~e2Hh
_13.
to. nim Ke cchnc c-i 10-15.
16.
17.
JB.
l
.19.
_20.
11.
9 I.
m
l TENTATIVE SCHEDULE FOR THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON HUMAN FACTORS NOVEMBER 2, 1981 WASHINGTON, DC l
APPROXIMATE TIME I
8:30 a.m.
Introduction by Subcommittee Chairman 8:35 a.m.
Staff Introduction - S. Hanauer Role and Responsibility of the Division.
of Human Factors Safety (40 mins.)
9:15 a.m.
Presentation by Human Factors Engineering Branch (2 hrs.)
1.
NUREG-0700, " Guidelines for Control Room Design Review" - R.' Froelich 2.
NUREG-0801, " Evaluation Criteria for Detailed Control Room Design Reviews" --S. Wiss MukG"* 1 3.
NUREG-0835, " Human Factors Acceptance Criteria
-, u.u.,gr,,ge Sa,feg,, Parameter Display System" - L. Beltracchi I
.i....~c.....c.....,,,.......,.........,.ae~,,
am,.i. r..w e m,
= co.e m,onoi 11:15 a.m.
Presentation by Procedures and Test Review Branch (1 hr.)
Technical and Human Factors Guidelines for Emergency Operating Procedures; Discussion of NltREG-0799,
" Criteria for Preparation of Emergency Operating Procedures" - S. Shcrea/D. Beckham 12:15 p.m.
LUNCH 1:15 p.m.
Licensee Qualifications Branch (1 hr.)
Management Organization and Infrastructure - L. Crocker M. Bender's Comments on Utility Organizations NUREG-0731, " Utility Management Guidelines and Technical Resources" 2:15 p.m.
DHFS Safety Technology Program - J. Zwolinski (30 mins.)
2:45 p.m.
DHFS Interaction with Office of Research - J. Kramer (15 mins.)
BREAK 3:10 p.m.
Presentation by Office of Research in Preparation for the ACRS Annual Report to Congress on the NRC Safety Research l
Program for FY 1983 in the Area of Human Factors. Discus-sfon of Program Elements and Tasks. -
J. Norberg/R. DiSalvo/J. Jcakins!(2 hrs.)
5:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT ATTRt AMid' C.
r I
REFERENCE DOClMENTS I
i b
ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON HLMAN FACTORS i
WASHINGTON, DC i
NOVEMBER 2, 1981 1.
Meeting Status Report.
I 2.
Viewgraphs used during the meeting (approximately 106 slides).
l t
i j
i a
l I
i 8
i l
,i i
i s
[
I i
1 4
i i.
s I
i
't ATTACWENT D I
i
,n,-
.-w,
,n.-r,,r--- - -, - -,, -,,
,-v,-
LUND Cons ulting, Inc.
MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS 1903 E AST MAIN STREET POST OFFICE BOX 315 MOHEGAN LAKE. NEW YORK 10547 (914) 528 8709 STATEMENT TO ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON NOVEMBER 2, 1981 I would like to offer the following comments to the members of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
I would like to commend the members of NRC's Human Factor Safety Division.
Durin'g tpe last few months members of the Human Factor Engineering Branch and the Procedures and Test Review Branch have made substantial efforts to meet with industry to discuss drafts of upcoming NUREGs.
This has allowed for communication and understanding between all parties.
Late August the NRC submitted a draft copy of NUREG 0801
" Evaluation Criteria for Detailed Control Room Design Review" to Task Group 3 at the Myrtle Beach Conference on Human Factors.
I served as secretary to this group.
We spent the entire week working closely with the NRC representatives on the document to provide input.
I was encouraged by the professional and mutual participation between the Task Group members and the NRC representatives and agreed heartily that:
"The consensus of the Task Group is that NUREG-0801 provides for a productive human factors review of nuclear power plant control rooms" The document however has changed substantially from that reviewed at Myrtle Beach and the changes have detracted from the clear thinking, flexibility and approach found l
in the earlier draft.
In particular, I was encouraged by the presentations made by staff of the NRC's Human Factors Engineering Branch all stressing the need for parallel and integrated efforts to perform the control room reviews, upgrade emergency operating procedures and perform emergency planning.
This present draft of NUREG-0801 still contains the flow-charts outlining such integration, but the text no longer l
provides guidance on how to integrate these efforts.
l l
ATT8\\O W CMT E_
E-t
Page 2 Comments to ACRS i
The earlier draft of NUREG-0801 as reviewed in Myrtle Beach, provided for a well-thought out and justifiable control room review process.
It recognized the inherent variability between design, age and operation of US nuclear power plants.
It required "up-front" thinking and commitment on the part of an expert interdisciplinary team of human factor specialists and utility personnel.
This allowed for a human factor review to be conducted from the knowledge-base of how nuclear plants are operated.
The present version of NUREG-0801 reflects a narrower focus and requires additional amounts-6f paperwork and checklists.
This draft even advises the use of computer s3 data processing to collect and compare the information.
Thi. approach requires unnecessary and i'nappropriate comparison of every instrument and control against human factor guidelines without the "up-front" thinking as to whether these guidelines apply to the function or use of any instrument or control.
In general, I feel that a return to the text in the earlier draft of 0801 is what is needed.
Nilak 0&]
Linda O.
Lund President i
E.1
/
OUTLINE OF COMMENTS BY William A. Coley Chairman, AIF Subcommittee on Control Rooms and Emergency Response Facilities before ACRS Subcommittee on Human Factors November 2, 1981 REG GUIDE 1.97 o
Control room information for use by the operator in accidents (emergencies) o Specifies parameters, their use, location, indicator require-ments and human factors considerations o
Parameter lists based on concensus rather than the operators needs and the tasks he must perform o
Unclear relationship to the SPDS (NUREG-0696, NUREG-0814) and other emergency response facilities o
Unclear relationship to symptom-oriented procedures being developed (NUREG-0799)
Control room information for use by the operator as well as information, facilities, equipment for TSC, EOF, and OSC o
Specifies the Reg Guide 1.97 parameter list as the common data set, but with no guidance on how the data will be used and conflicting guidance on data display / human factors NURE G- 0814 W' W' A /
o Specifies human factors considerations for the SPDS and other facilities without reference to the human factors guidelines of NUREG-0700 or NUREG-0835.
N I ' gI (
83
~W ppS AmcHmtar F g
F-l
,n.
V-NUREG-0801 o
Recognizes the need for an integrated effort in resolving these related issues but the current draft lacks the clear guidance of earlier drafts on how to achieve this integration RECOMMENDATION o
NUREG-0801 should be revised and strengthened (and NUREG-0814 revised as required) to allow the control room review process to be a vehicle for integrating the related efforts of control room review, upgrading emergency procedures, establishing emergency response facilities, and identifying and specifying locations and requirements for accident monitoring instrumenta-tion.
F-1L