ML20065N539
| ML20065N539 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 10/11/1982 |
| From: | HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20065N535 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0700, RTR-NUREG-700 NUDOCS 8210220241 | |
| Download: ML20065N539 (129) | |
Text
-
!i ll El C_o_n_ _t_r_tE_ _R_ tr_a_m_ _ _=D_e_s_ign_ =_R_ e_
g El I
Program Plan
.I I
.g I
lI l
I I
lI I
!I lEA R888: 4 8sg g, 1l i
The SouthTexas Project ll n
l HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
I av. o acroun u.au I
I ControlRoom Design Review I
I Program Plan g
I I
I
.I
,I I
I I
I I
The SouthTexas Project I
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY I
l
I I
TABLE OF CO NTENTS Section Title Page 5
1.0 INTRODUCTIO N 1-1 1.1 General Comments 1-1 1.2 Objectives 1-2 1.3 Plant Description 1-3 1.4 Definition of Control Room 1-3 I
1.5 Control Room Status and Milestones 1-3 2.0 CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIFW PLAN 2-1 2.1 General Comments 2-1 2.2 Planning 2-2 2.3 Review 2-4 2.3.1 Methodology 2-5 2.3.1.1 Criteria 2-5 2.3.1.2 Operating Experience Review 2-7 g
W 2.3.1.3 Systems Function and Task Analysis 2-12 2.3.1.4 Control Room Inventory 2-14 2.3.1.5 Control Room Survey 2-14 2.3.1.6 Verification of Control Room Function 2-15 2.3.1.7 Validation of Control Room Function 2-16 2.3.1.8 Annunciator Review 2-16 I
I I
I I
0433h/0044h i
I' I
Section Title
- Page, 3.0 MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING 3-1 3.1 Control Room Design Review Management Procedure 3-1 3.2 Integration of CRDR With Other Human Factors Projects 3-1 I
3.3 CRDR Team Structure and Pernnnel 3-1 4.0 CRDR ASSITSMENT & IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE 4-1 5.0 DOCUMENTATION AND DOCUMENT CONTROL 5-1 5.1 Documentation Used to Support the CRDR 5-1 5.2 Documentation Generated by the CRDR Process 5-1 5.3 Documenta* ion System and Control 5-6 6.0
SUMMARY
6-1 LIST OF TABLES j
Table wue h
2-1 QUESTIONN AIRE AND INTERVIEW SHEET REFERENCE TOPICS 2-IP I
l t
i I
0433h/0044h 11 3l
l I
LIST OF FIGURES i
Figure
'litle PR 1-1 Relationship of NUREG 0660 Task Action Items 1-4 1-2 Artist's Rendition of South Texas Project Flant 1-5 1-3 Control Room Layout 1-6 2-1 Overview of CRDR Processes 2-17 2-2 Overview of CRDR Organization 2-18 2-3 Program Task Organization 2-19 2-4 Control Panel Flow Diagram 2-20 2-5 Primary Coolant System Control Panel Flow Diagram 2-21 2-6 Reactor Coolant Pump System 2-22 l
2-7 System Breakdown Tabulations 2-23 2-8 Emergency Event Sequences 2-24 2-9 Background Systern Information 2-25-30 2-10 Basic Elements Involved in Review of a Selected Operational Event 2-31 B
2-11 Functional (Decision-Action) Flow Diagram 2-32 2-12 Functional Sequence Per Selected Operational Event 2-33-34 l
2-13 Operator Task identification and Analysis 2-35 2-14 Detailed Task (s) Decision-Action Diagram 2-36 2-15 Task Details 2-37-38 2-16 PanelInterface Equipment Required for Tasks 2-39 2-17 Operational Sequence Diagram 2-40
'I 2-18 Traffic Link Diagram 2-41 4-1 Assessment and Implementation Methodology 4-3 4-2 Selection of HEDs to be Analyzed for Correction 4-4 4-3 Selection of Design Improvements 4-5 5
f<
l 0433h/0044h iii i
I I
APPENDICES A
Qualification of Management Team Members B
Qualification of Project Review Team, and Design Review and Technical Task Team Members C
Typical Review Forms l
l I
I I:
8 3'
I e
I 3
i' 03?2.v0044h iv
I I
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AO Auxiliary Operator ASSOC Associated ASST Assistant ge AUX Auxiliary CAT Category CLO Checklist Observation CONT Control CR Control Room CRDR Control Room Design Review CRT Cathode Ray Tube I
CVCS Chemical Volume Control System EES Emergency Evt.it Sequences EOF Emergency Operating Facility EPRI Electric Power Research Institute ESF Engineered Safety Feature (s)
EST Estimate (d)
EXPER Experience
=
FW Feedwater HE Human Engineering HED Human Engineering Discrepancy HL&P Houston Lighting and Power Company HPSI High Pressure Safety Injection I&C Instruments and Controls IN PO Institute of Nuclear Power Operators INSTR Instrument l
LDR Leader LOCA Loss of Coolant Ace-
"t LPSI Low Pressure Safety Injection M/M Man / Machine MCP Main Control Panel MON Monitor I
0433h/0044h y
I ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Cont.)
MW(e)
Megawatts (electric)
NOS Numbers NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission OERT Operating Experience Review Task Group OSC Operational Support Center PORV Power Operated Relief Valve PRT Project Review Team PSAR Preliminary Safety Analysis Report RAS Recirculation Actuation Signal PZR Pressurizer RCB Reactor Containment Building RCP Reactor Coolant Pump RCS Reactor Coolant System RECIRC Recirculating REQ'D Required RO Reactor Operator RWST Refueling Water Storage Tank RX Reactor SBCS Standby Cooling System SG Steam Generator SIS Safety injection System SOE Selected Operational Event (s)
SPDS Safety Parameter Display System SRO Senior Reactor Operator g
SS Subsystem W
STAT Systems Task Analysis Team SUPVR Supervisor SW Switch SYS System TMI Three-Mile Island TSC Technical Support Center 0433h/0044h vi i
a 1.0 INTRODUCTIO N 1.1 GENERAL COMMEN'IS This report describes the Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P) plan to I
perform a control room design review (CRDR) of its South Texas Project Nuclear Power Generation Station.
The purpose of this CRDR is to identify and implement control room design improvements that offer high probability for meeting plant safety and availability objectives.
8 This is part of an integrated plan covering TMI-related actions referenced in the TMI-2 Action Plan, NUREG-0660 and will consider the relationship of the 5
CRDR with SECY 82-111 (Requirements for Emergency Response Capability),
including:
o v'erification of the SPDS parameter selection, data display and function.
Design control room modifications that correct conditions adverse o
I g B
to safety (reduce significant contributicrs to risk), and add instrumentation necessary to implement Regulatory Guide 1.97.
The use of Westinghouse Owners group produced symptom-based l
o emergency operating procedures.
Training to enhance coping with emergencies.
I o
Design considerations for the Technical Support Center, Emergency o
Operations Facilities and Operations Support Center.
Figure 1-1 is a block diagram showing the relationship of the NUREG-0660 Task Action items HL&P will address.
t 0433h/0044h 1-1
I E
The Houston Lighting and Power Company is committed to this program for
'g identifying and implementing changes to the plant man / machine (M/M)
W interfaces that can reduce the probability of operator error thus resulting in an overall improvement in plant safety and reliability. To this end, HL&P has commited the necessary resources, including knowledgeable HL&P management and technical personnel, and technical specialists from Bechtel and its human factors consultant, Torrey Pines Technology, and Westinghouse, to effect the program defined herein.
l.2 OBJECTIVES The Houston Lighting & Power Company intends to complete this review in a timely and cost-effective manner to:
o Determine whether the control room provides the system status information, control capabilities, feedback, and analytical aids necessary for control room operators to accomplish their functions g
effectively.
3 o
Identify characteristics of the existing control room i
instrumentation,
- controls, other equipment, and physical arrangements that may impact optimum opere. tor performance.
Analyze and evaluate potential problems that cuulo arise from this o
review.
o Define and put into effect a plan of action that applies additional human factors principles to enhance operator effectiveness.
Particular emphasis will be placed on improvements affecting control room design and operator performance under abnormal or emergency conditions.
o Integrate the CRDR review with other areas of human factors inquiries identified in the NRC Task Action Plan.
t 0433h/0044h 1.
E
a 1.3 PLANT DESCRIPTION The South Texas Project (STP) is currently under construction in south-central Matagorda County on a site 89 miles southwest of Houston (see Fig 1-2).
Bechtel is the architect / engineer and Ebasco is the constructor. The station I
will consist of two 1250 - MW(c) (nominal) units. Each unit is powered by a Westinghouse Electric Corporation nuclear steam supply system consisting of a four-loop, pressurized water reactor and supporting auxiliary systems. The basic power conversion unit is also furnished by Westinghouse. Each turbine generator is an 1800 rpm - tandem compound unit and is furnished with electrohydraulle controls. Commercial operation for Units 1 and 2 is scheduled for June,1987 and June,1989, respectively.
1.4 DEFINITION OF CONTROL ROOM The STP Control Room is defined as area panels CP-001 through CP-010 in the central control room including the SPDS displays and the remote shutdown I
facilities. The CRDR will extend to other M/M interfaces identified as a result of the analysis of selected events during the Systems Function and Task l
Analysis activity. Figure 1-3 illustrates the layout in the central control room. The Unit I and 2 control rooms are essentially identical.
1.5 CONTROL ROOM STATUS AND MILESTONES Control panel sections CP-001 through CP-005 are complete through metal fabrication only. Panel sections CP-006 through CP-010 have been completed l
and were ready to ship when the entire order was placed on hold for g
implementation of post-TMI modifications. The auxiliary shutdown panel design was complete with no fabrication activities prior to the order being
=
placed on hold.
All control panels are scheduled to recommence fabrication in March 1983 to support Unit 1 installation beginning the first quarter 1984.
5 0433h/0044h 1-3
RELAT10NSHIP OF NUREG 0660 TASK ACTION ITElIS WESTINGHOUSE SYMPTOM SASED GPERATING AMO CHANGESIN OWNERS GROUP EMERGENCY PROCEDURES REQUIREMENTS FOR TRAINING AND STAFFING GENERIC PROCEDURES NUREG0700 NUREG-0000 NUREG 0000,l.C.1 (3), LC.S. AND 1.C.8)
NUREG 0000, l.A.1 & l.A.2 I
I I
PROGRAM PLAN REPORT NUREG0700 ACTION CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW NUREG 0700 NUREG 0001 NUREG 0737
SUMMARY
g REPORT INSTRUMENTATION TO SYPASSEO ANDINOPERABLE EMERGENCY ASSESS PLANT STATUS PREPARE 0 NESS CONDITION (ACCIDENTS)
IN0lCATION REG. Gul0E 1.97 REG. Gul0E 1.47 REG. Gul0E 1.23 SAFETY PARAMETER EMERGENCY RESPGNSE IMPROVED CONTROL OlSPLAY SYSTEM FACILITY ROOM INSTRUMENTATION
~
NUREG OGM,OH, A.1.2 NUREG 0000 NUREG0035 NUREG 0014 NUREG 0000,1.0.5 Figure 1-1
I E
]
. a v r
h!
,, kk f
I '/ ~.
I!
S
- i f
fe
. a4 I
M,,
p
,AS g i l
L.'h..
. ;i:.,
3 r,.
e ja y l
^
k li, c
{]g 1
a h
I.
%jl a
1 a
fr I
n pt 2'
g v -: t ;
~
.e q*l
} _ ffl$ ~
g g
l
=
l p
4 1
E
)
' d. ,
s y
n l
Es_
. J i-fr j
' ~ ' '
I g
,.s
I CONTROL ROOM LAYOUT A
UNIT SUPERVISORS l CPS 11 l CPS 12 l CPOl3 l OFFICE l A l
A l A l
l A l Mds M:::g&gE::EM9:<sSS:* :M$$
ENGINEERED SAFETY ELECTRICAL
.v.
FEATURES AUXILIARY
- ^:.
^
TRAIN C POWER CPS 10 CP003
- g:':
CIRCULATING WATER O
ENGINEERED SAFETY FEEDWATER &
CP908 i' m.!!gjj FEATURES CONDENSATE TRAIN B CP902 TUR8INE GENERATOR CP007 c
ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURES TRAIN A CP001 STEAM CP908 GENERATOR
,3 g,
REACTOR CONTROL CP004 d
l CP015 CP018 CHEMICAL & VOLUME CONTROL SYSTEM l
CP014 l
I a
CP011 - N UCLE AR INSTR. P ANE L CP015 - LOOSE PARTS MONITORING CP012 - FLUX MAPPING CP015 - AUX. BOILER PANEL CP013 - MOTION SEISMll: MONITORING CP018 - RECORDER PANEL CP014 - VIBR ATION MONiiO RING CP019 - FIRE PROTECTION PANEL A - COMPUTER TY?ERS
.,] CROR EVALUATION AREA Figure 1 3 16
a s
I 2.0 CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW PLAN 2.1
GENERAL COMMENT
S t,
2.1.1 The CRDR will be conducted principally as recommended by NUREG-0700 and SECY-82-Ill and will consider the integration of related project requirements that may affect control room human factors discrepancies. The following related activities and documents will be coordinated with the CRDR:
Development of emergency operating procedures (reference o
Item LC.l(3), LC.8, and LC.9 of NUREG-0660).
Development of a safety parameter display system (SPDS),
o (reference item LD.2 of NUREG-0660; also N UREGH)696, Functional Criteria for Emergency Response Facilities).
8 Upgrading of emergency support facilities (reference Item o
IILA.I.2 of NUREG-0660 and N UREG-0696, Functional Criteria for Emergency Response Facilities).
o Development of improved control room instrumentation (reference Item LD.5 of NUREG-0660).
I Changes in requirements for training and staffing (reference o
Items LA.1 and LA.2 of NUREG-0660).
o Implementation of Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2.
o Evaluation criteria for CRDRs (NUREGH)801).
t i
E S308P/0044h 2-1
I I
o Methodology for evaluation of emergency response facilities g
(NUREG-0814).
T o
Human factors acceptance criteria for SPDS (NUREG-0835).
2.1.2 The overview of the CRDR processes is shown in Fig. 2-1 which is a copy of Exhibit 3-1 of NUREG-0700.
The program describes the following:
o Planning (Section 2.2) o Review (Section 2.3) o Management and Staffing (Section 3.0) o Assessment and Implementation (Section 4.0) o Documentation and Document Control (Section 5.0) 2.2 PLANNING The planning phase covers relevant actions completed to date or planned as noted herein.
Houston Lighting & Power organized a management team to guide, monitor and implement this program. Membership on this team is shown in Fig. 2-2 and qualification of the members is shown in Appendix A. The management team has made provisions for designated alternates to key positions. The functions of this team correspond to those recommended for Management in NUREG-0700. They are to:
o Assure proper relationships and awareness between this project and g
other NUREG-0660 efforts.
W l
6308P/0044h 2-2 E'
I Assignment of key management and Project Review Team personnel o
(see Fig. 2-2).
o Approve detail program plan.
I o
Provide resources required to carry out the program plan.
identify and assure that plant operational constraints and project o
requirements are properly cooniinated.
I o
Monitor CRDR progress.
o Review and approve control room improvement recommendations.
o Establish and initiate the control room improvement program.
The management team has analyzed NUREG-0700 in relation to this plant facility and resources and has defined the program described herein. The major activities are shown in Fig. 2-3. The planning activity includes, in addition to the above items, the following:
s I
o Definition of all man / machine interfaces and related activities to be reviewed.
I o
Definition of objectives.
E o
Definition of management team role.
o Formulation of the task structure for the program and corresponding personnel assignment (see Fig. 2-3).
Development of administrative procedures to govern this review.
o I
6308P/0044h 2-3
I I
The management team gave considerations to the advantages and disadvantages of performing the CRDR prior to completion of operating procedures, trainir.g, and construction of the control room complex. The decision to proceed with the review was based on the advantage of identifying major departures from HEDs, if any, of the control panel design prior to completion of manufacture.
This will minimize negative transfer and retraining problems. To facilitate this review, project management authorized the construction of a full scale, realistic mock-up and provided facilities for an extensive review by human factors and systems specialists at the Bechtel-Houston engineering offices with the reviewers performing all phases of their tasks in the vicinity of the mockup.
Bechtel is charged with the responsibility of implementing the technical scope. With HL&P concurrence, they awarded the human factors consulting services contract to Torrey Pines l'echnology following its established competitive bidding procedures. They are currently performing their work scope, primarily at the Bechtel-Houston offices.
2.3 REVIEW i
The review phase is basically the investigative phase. This effort is organized into specialty task groups per Fig. 2-3. Specialized personnel are selected as required for each task group from HL&P, Bechtel, Westinghouse, and Torrey f
Pines Technology. Approximately 25 engineers and key operations personnel will participate in the detailed reviews and evaluations of the task groups.
The following types of personnel are included:
o System designers and analysts o
Human factors consultants g
o controi doard designers I
6308P/0044h 2-4
o Instrumentation and control engineers Computer and data management engineer o
o Plant operators o
Ideensing engineer 2.3.1 Methodology B
2.3.1.1 Criteria o
The iesign Review and Technical Task Team will prepare control rsom design and review criteria which will be included B
in the Critaria Report. This effort will stress the human factors consiaerations and requirements for the control room design. This document will describe the function of the cor. trol room and plant systems related to external communications. It will also address one of the major post-TMI concerns: the systems and human factors features for Annunciator / Computer / safety Equipment interfaces I
relative to prioritization, consistency, and overall integration.
The following topics will be included in this document.
A.
Introduction B.
General C.
Control Room Layout and Features I
D.
Main Control Panels Layouts and Features 6308P/0044h 2-5 1
L
El 8:
E.
Human Engineering Guidelines (plant specific adaptations of NUREG-0700, Section 6, guidelines not covered in other major topics)
F.
Communications G.
General Control Room Annunciation Features H.
Post-Accident Monitoring Features L
Bypass and Inoperable Status Features J.
Safety Parameter Display K.
Auxiliary Shutdown Panel L.
References 2.3.1.1.1 Criteria will be developed considering:
o Those human factors engineering practices that have general industry acceptance and have resulted in proven performance.
i o
Pertinent NUREG documents and Regulatory Guides, g
l l
i o
Established criteria from general industry, EPRI, IN PO, l
government sources, HL&P, Westinghouse, and Bechtel standards and practices.
I o
Current plant systems and operations requirements, o
Firm human factors-related criteria stated by suppliers of j
major equipment and systems.
l 4
3308P/0044h 2-6 E
I I
- 2. 3.1. 2 Operating Experience Review 2.3.1.2.1 The operating experience review task group (OERT) will review pertinent operating experience docu;nents and conduct a survey of control room operations personnel. In addition to typical human I
8 factors operator concerns, the OERT will emphas ze systems -
operability using critical incident techniques. It is anticipated that valuable input will be developed for use by the other task group, particularly the Systems Task Analysis Team (STAT. Specific attention will be placed on those of normal plant procedures that expelenced operators identify as having the greatest potential for human factors engineering enhincements. This information will be used in the selection process for those events to be analyzed by the STAT.
Consideration will be given to include in the operator experience review one or two operators from related Westinghouse PWRs.
These operators will be used in the mock-up area for one to two weeks.
2.3.1.2.2 The OERT will perform the following.
I A special meeting will be held to review the methodology used in the preparation of operating procedures. Sample procedures will be I
reviewed and comments submitted to the operations department.
I i
A.
Meet with key operations and training personnel to determine l
pertinent information on training, assigned duties, anticipated work scheduling, and the availability of the various classes of operations personnel.
B.
Prepare questionnaires and interview forms. See Table 2-1.
8 1
8 1
6308P/0044h 2-7
t I
C.
Review by Project Review Team.
D.
Completion of questionnaires by operations personnel.
I E.
Evaluate the data obtained.
F.
Interview plant personnel.
G.
Evaluate and summ rize observations.
2.3.1.2.3 Interview sheets and questionnaires will be prepared considering the special knowledge the control room operating personnel have concerning potential control room problems and positive features as determined by their experience.
A.
Interviews will identify those aspects of the control room equipment layout and general design which are considered by the operators to provide opportunities for improvement relative to their decision making processes.
E B.
Questions will be focused on those details of the control room environment which are projected to indicate notable success, failure, and near-miss situations based on past experiences.
C.
Respondents will be advised that the information obtained will not be used for performance evaluation purposes.
I D.
'Ihe following NUREG-0700 will be included in this operator review:
1.
Workspace layout and environment 2.
Panel design I
I 6308P/0044h 2-8 E
ll l
8 3.
Annunciator warning system l
4.
Communications 5.
Process computers 6.
Corrective and preventive maintenance 7.
Procedures 8
8.
Staffing and job design 9.
Training E.
'Ihe respondents will be encouraged to speak openly about problems from their past experience or perceived potential problems and suggested solutions.
F.
Other kinds of human factors concerns such as those related to employee programs.
gg G.
Other questionnaires developed by industry and research groups in previous projects.
H.
The interviews will be structured to allow for additions of material developed during the interview.
L Table 2-1 covers the general topics that will be considered in development of operating personnel questionneires.
2.3.1.2.4 Data evaluation will be done immediately following completion of the interview period to assure maximum benefit from the interview. The data evaluation results will be forwarded to the project review team for review. The results of this work will be 8
evaluated and summarized.
- 2. 3.1. 2.5 A re-review of areas of significant changes may be required.
8 8
6308P/0044h 2-9
I I;
TABLE 2-1 QUESTION N AIRE AND INTERVIEW SHEET REFERENCE TOPICS The following will be covered in the interview sheets and questionnaires to determine positive and negative features and suggestions for improvements:
o The role of the operations personnelin emergency situations.
I o
The use of an SPDS and other facilities in emergency situations.
o Those normal functions and tasks that the respondents consider should be included in the systems function and task analysis.
o Major concerns and strengths of related plant operations.
Techniques for maintenance of high vigilance. How boredom will be o
prevented. How proficiency will be maintained.
Views of engineering and engineered product necessary for plant o
operation.
o Overall management policies - how perceived by interviewees.
Views of projected job assignments (work loading - too much, too o
little?).
I o
Views of job satisfaction or dissatisfaction (long-range job objectives).
9-I I
6308P/0044h 2-10 8.
TABLE 2-1 (Cont.)
Views of personal training received to date - adequate? Suggestions I
o for improvements, o
Views of the control center complex -strengths and weaknesses.
I Views of the control room complex in the general areas noted in i
o NUREG-4700 Appendix C and Section 3.3.2.2 for normal and abnormal situations.
l o
Discussion of emergencies, Discussion to determine special techniques useful in plant control.
o L
o Views of the engineering of the products required for plant operations.
o Views of external elements - NRC and press.
I o
Views of projected shift staffing.
o Relationship with fellow workers, maintenance, and other associates.
Discussion of main concerns, major strengths or weaknesses, and o
improvements that are most sought for.
o View of projected workload and difficulties in performing I
assignments.
o Views of projected relationship with other groups that effect overall plant operations.
o Views of training.
o Views of administrative procedures.
6308P/0044h 2-11
E 5
5 2.3.1.3 Systems Function and Task Analysis 2.3.1.3.1 The Systems Task Analysis Team (STAT) will perform a structural review and analysis of the control room complex to determine the adequacy of its design, and documentation to facilitate safe plant operations. This work will be done considering the following:
A.
Attend a series of plant design and plant systems lectures conducted by Bechtel.
B.
Review pertinent plant documents such as: configurations,
- PSAR, systems descriptions, operating procedures (Westinghouse Owners Group Emergency Response Guidelines)*.
C.
Prepare system and subsystem diagrams, Figs. 2-4, 2-5 and 2 6 and Tabulation Fig.
2-7.
Key systems identified in N UREG-0700 Section 3.4.2.1 wi!? be included.
D.
Prepare tabulation of all emergency event sequences, Fig.
2-8, and background system information, Fig. 2-9.
E.
Review results of operating experience. Review task group to help identify those functions and tasks that are judged to be candidates for review.
F.
Prepare selection criteria. Select events to be analyzed in a series of STAT meetings. Such events are defined as selected operational events (SOE).
8
- These generic procedures are considered to be an excellent source material g
to meet the objectives of the NUREG-0700 defined system function and task W
analysis.
I I'
6308P/0044h 2-12 E
G.
Perform system function and task analysis for each SOE considering the following:
l I
1.
Prepare basic elements diagram, Fig. 2-10.
i 2.
Modify Westinghouse Owners Group-produced ERG i
functional (decision-action) flow diagrams as necessary, Fig. 2-11.
3.
Complete functional sequences tabulation, Fig. 2-12, in i
STAT meetings.
4.
Continue the heirarchial review process of identifying tasks associated with each function, Fig. 2-13, including equipment required.
5.
List details about input, action / decisions (throughputs and outputs). Task oriented decision-setion diagrams that may be required for some tasks are shown in Fig.
q 1
2.4.
The NUREG-0700 recommendation for paying I
particular attention to the decision making tasks is covered in Fig. 2-14 and 2-15. Figure 2-15 also covers recommendations for other needed task and subtask data such as: type of attention needed for control actions (discrete or continuous), expected results, performance criteria, consideration for errors, and the consequences t
thereof.
H.
Prepare panel interface equipment tabulation with the full complement of data requirements suitable for use in the verification process, Fig. 2-16.
1 I
6308P/0044h 2-13
El L
Prepare operational sequence diagrams, Fig. 2-17, and traffic
)
link diagrams, Fig. 2-18.
J.
Evaluate data and summarize observations.
2.3.1.4 Conten1 Room Inventory An inventory of controls, instrumentation, displays, and other equipment on the control room man / machine interfaces will be performed. This inventory will establish a reference data base for comparison with the requirements established by operator task analysis. The inventory will include component use and characteristics, and will serve as a support base for assessment of review observations. A plant specific computerized format similar to NUREG 0700, Exhibit 3-6, will be used.
2.3.1.5 Control Room Survey 2.3.1.5.1 A survey of the full scale mock-up located in the Bechtel-Houston engineering offices will be performed to document compliance with the human factors criteria document. The use of a realistic mock-up including sample control panel hardware will permit completion of the bulk of the checklist items developed. Those g,
items that cannot be
- checked, such as voice-assisting W
communication devices, control room noise, illumination, use of protective clothing and other environmental considerations, will be deferred and completed using the simulator or control room in actual service conditions.
2.3.1.5.2 The Control Room Survey Task Group will perform the following g
tasks.
W I
3 I
6308P/0044h 2-14 8
A.
Prepare plant specific checklists for the following:
1.
Control room workspace 2.
Communications 3.
Annunciator warning system 4.
Controls 5.
Visual displays 6.
Labels and location aids 7.
Process computers 8.
Panellayouts 9.
Control-display integration.
B.
Submit checklists for Project Review Team review.
C.
Finalize checklists.
D.
Perform control room survey.
E.
Evaluate data, summarize observations.
F.
Recheck any significant modifications resulting from above ~
work, if necessary.
t G.
Prepare a special report on the results of this review which may be beneficial in operator training.
2.3.1.6 Verification of Control Room Function The verification task group will verify the availability of instruments and equipment needed to implement each task. This verification will be made by comparing the requiraments identified by the STAT to the Control Room Inventory list. An adequacy determination of operator-equipment interfaces for task accomplishment will be made and the observations will be recorded.
Formatted information developed during the inventory' and system function task analysis activities will be used.
6308P/0044h 2-15
I B
2.3.1.7 Validation of Control Room Functions 8
The validation task group will determine whether the control room operating crew can perform allocated functions within defined procedures. The bulk of this effort will be performed on the mock-up using walk-through/.Mk-through techniques. In this effort, identification will be made of the time-dependent SOE and plans will be made for their real time reviews on the plant simulator when this facility can be made available.
2.3.1.8 Annunciator Review o
The annunciator review task group will perform a design review of all alarms of the main plant annunciator, plant computer, and ESF bypass and inoperable status system.
3 The task group will perform a functional integration of the identified annunciators.
8 o
The task group will review the results of NRC and EPRI annunciator studies as available, o
The task group will develop review criteria, and recommend rearrangement of displays accordingly. They will also develop prioritization criteria and categorize annunciator displays accordingly.
o A review of window engravings, computer printouts, displays, and documents showing planned or actual signal inputs for each window, CRT display or printout will be performed, as will a review of abbreviations, colors, arrangements, and locations based on human factors principles. Finally, the task force will evaluate and summarize the observations of the review.
I I
6308P/0044h 2-16 8
I 2.
.Ecm e9 o
s ~"s s 2
sE E - a
==
==
I:a : :-
SE a 4
==
$s SE En
=
5.*
I "s.
.a a
a
.u.
g
,83 3
- 8. = 5 5.8
- E 2
3];
- E ".I
=.,
"=
-I
- 2..
2:]=
E=lE
==
- 3.g==E 33 Se g
et*
33 3:
wea w
6 m.
_t ce
- 5..
=e E.i SESEg s..-
3..
E si
.g=E=
a
==
=
=a : E
- 2. E c sII E
m w=
=
.E.s g
t*
- 2
.==
- E:n
- s!.
I I
- 0 5
an!
E5 E
- 3:
=E.E:
n men s=
-s.
==.
3 M
e st!
. =s =.
- e. 3 ;.
=
w
- c.. =.
=--
ss=E tEs s.a
=
W h
$.EE
..e g
a.
k g
N.
O
~
I I
N E Ej E 82 2
=
T 0
5 3
.E E S:
E EE s e E
=;
a gea
=
g s
sa R3 Nu 2*3 m
O 8" m q:
- 3G a.
o.
.=
..= 1.-
..=
m -
WH.5 3
i
~%
st wa=
="
y Et a
c.
32
=
l M
l C
a (E/
W!
~2E=
lE
<a=
E
=g w
Ia 3*538 3 =5 ; 5 52
=
=
~
Er 2
o SsI*
232*
I A.
k 3
<E N.
I58 2
mE=
3=l iss er saa l
I Ea
-We e-no N sel
.3 802 4 eu a
15 AIar t
i M.Y f
D g
=
3 E4 3
C" g=N
5 8 ej g
2-17
I OVERVIEW OF CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW ORGANIZATION 8,
MAN AGEMENT TEAM REVIEW AND APPROVE MANAGER, ENGINEERING e PROGRAM PLAN VICE PRES., OPERATIONS e CRITERIA e FINAL REPORTS BECHTEL e DESIGN IMPLEMENTATIONS PROJECT EN GINEER-SYSTEMS PROJECT REVIEW TEAM HL&P REVIEW PRELIMINARY AND FIN As LEAD ENGINEER INSTRUMENTATION & CONTROLS
- PROGRAM PLAN OPERATING GENERAL SUPERVISOR e CRITERIA e DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS BECHTEL e REPORTS CONTROL SYSTEM DEPUTY GROUP SUPVR.
o OESIGN REVIEW AAID TECHNICAL TASK TEAM HL&P ENGINEERING, OPERATIONS AND LICENSING PERSONNEL AS REQUIRED DEVELOP AND EVALUATE BECHTEL e PROGRAM PLAN e CPITERIA PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
- CHECK LISTS ENGINEERING AS REQUIRED e SYSTEM FUNCTION AND TASK ANALYSIS WESTINGHOUSE e SURVEYS e INVENTORY ENGINEERING AND TRAINihG e WALKTHROUGH/
AS REQUIREG TALK THROUGH e PROCEDURES CONSULTANTS
- OBSERVATIONS PROJECT ENGINEER PREPARE ASST. PROJECT ENGINEER e DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION TASK ANALYSIS LEADER RECOMMENDATIONS OPERATING EXPERIENCE REV!EW LOR SYSTEMS SPECIALIST ANNUNCIATOR REVIEW LEADER INVENTORY l
HUMAN FACTORS SPECIALIST 3
I Figure 2 - 2 2-18
I W
M M
T N
_~
E D
i M
Ln N
E A
A 0
G N
m S A I P E
T F
N R
R A
R T NS A
OE t
D N
I I S
m I
DT T
I O
TD N
S E
AU O
T I
Z R
A N S A
O T
EL D
H N
MA MN TS E
MN AE UE M
OO EM A
I G
m
(
0H I
)
WE C T TM N
TA EI TO RD NC N H S
D EE C
E 1
A M A I
M8t I
M A
D E
T P
A TN GA A N E
M rA A N N N 5~
(
VO MS MP NI F A A S
)
N E S S
I N A
L 1
E S
N EI E
Y S
O RT V
N A
I TE R
I T
C O
T L
O I
t A
C R P
I E
T T
R P
T N
OO A
U J
A E
RC M
P Z
I l
l E
L P
N M
M A
M A
DA MI NE A
E E
T AT 3
G R
W WK T
T E
ES 2
V I A O
N I
VT e
r E
1 E
l E
i K
M L
R R
u E
A g
S G
T NC i
m A
A C
GI E
I N R
F N
SH O)
T J
A O
E C T (1 M
R DE I
E A
M P
T W
M C
A O Y NI R
l l
OR U V t
)
R O N
E M
1 R
G
(
LT N
O K
ON A
S SI RE R
AS TV TY NN P
L O I M A C
E N
TS A Y
S ESAH P
D M
)
NN W
N)
E A (1 IV E
OO
(
TTI R
1 I
M AA O
CD t
W O Y I I B
B l
EI R E F L i
V R
l I A V
L R E
V 5
I E O U V
G R RS N
I E T
T C
N A N O
R C
E EIPR OE P
X E
M gao t
i
I u=
5 3:2 Sag
=
W k
5 2
t a
gm a"
w I
- 5 E
E o
q 3G E
C33 "g
g 3
It E
Ea 3
T en
=
a
-J m:
2 E
a MJ I4 1
X 4
- *1 8
sk.
5 J
CD E
M Es uU
\\
,,,,,,,Q')
I f
I h
"a~
3 a
I
=
sign iga g
2 g
s Ea!
$bh 25g 2-20
I i
B 1
E PRIMARY COOLANT SYSTEM CONTROL PANEL FLOW DIAGRAM
\\n
/
s V
STEAM STEAM GENERATOR GENERATOR PR M M CONTROL j g j
f REACTO P.
\\
f REAdTOR COOLANT COOLANT PUMP PUMP I
1RPI I
POWER LEVEL I
COMPARISON I
n REACTOR REACTOR COOLANT I
I COOLANT REACTIVITY l I CONTROL 1 f STEAM STEAM GENERATOR GENERATOR I
P, u
g
~'
I
I, I
Il I
REACTOR COOLANT PUMP SYSTEM I'
I' I L.O. RES. I LIFT
~
AND COOLER) UM RCP M0 TOR l
I L.O. R ES.
AND COOLERj SEAL NO.3 RMW
(
)
SEAL NO.2 RCOT l
)
(
h CVCS SEAL NO.1 U if k
l g
COMPONENT f
5 THERMAL m.
COOLING BARRIER WATER
(
j PUMP
(
)
I RX COOLANT LOOP I
Figure 2-6 I
2-22
P 7
M I N N O O
R O
M O E
T m
T A S
u Y N m
SG i
BI S U E S D R
E O
R TA U T
U A
L E E mE I
D P R A N T G F V G A AE S
I U
W E
IV E
7 R
N 2
s NW E
m GO R
u I
O U
S K E A G
DE N O F
I s
R O
MB I N im TL mu O
AE M
O CN E
W L Y OS R
R T
O N
MT O
EA TN C
S G
YI SS E
D W
I E
L T
T N G D
M O N C
E T
wO I
R S
T T S
E Y
U H W
S G
O I
H L &P m*
,.o i
i Gu m
N
1 ED MEV I
T. L O
T V SENI e
F O
m R
E O
R TA U D
T U
E A
V L
E E A N L
i G F O #
V G A AE V
I E S DP R N
I R
O m
TA N
G I
S E
D M
E TSY S
K W
C g
E E
H S
I C
VEC E
N RE 2
g U
N Q
G E I
S SET DN a
E M
MV E
O OYC R N LE M
OGR R
E T M NF O
M C
w W
W E
L T
I M
T N G O
N C
O I
R T T M
S E
U H W
O G I
O H L &P
,,E M
O N
M s
!!!l(i
C llI l
l W
W F
O W
E R
E O
R TA U T
U A
E E L
E N T G F A
V G A AE E IS D P R m
E E
WN S
W I
D E O E
1 9
I T
V A
M 2
E M
E E
R R T
m R
M' S
e NO Y
U F
G S
G N
I I
SI F
EM DET MSY O S O
D R N LU OOR R
T G
K S
NC CB I
N OA O
T 4
C e,.
N U
F G
N IW O
L L
O F
E H
T M
R O
F R
E P
N G O
O O N C
T R
D I
T T E
S E
S H
U W
U G
O I
&P IS O
H L E
M o9 L
E T
T oE T m
I SYS M
S
- E I
i.
T H
i S
T Y
0 S
1 i
lll 1
ll l
E R
O C
R O
F SP I
R T
TS O
F P
O R
O F
D N
A SP I
R R
E T
O R
T TA U N
T A
U A
L L
E E P
A N T G F T
V G A AE N
I E S D P R E
V E
R P
O T
D E
D E
E N
SL O
R T
N WN S
O EO E
C D
L I
I T
V A M
A E
U M
E N
R R T
A S
NO Y
M F
G S
E I N D
SI U
EM L
C DET N
MS I.
Y Y
O T
S O
E e.
D F
R N A
S LU m
T m.
OO N
e R
w R
A w
G L
T
=
K P
e NC c
=
O OA T
e CB M
w m
e
+
E TSY S
F e
O E
C NA w
T R
O P
M I
D NA EL O
R
=
N G D
F O N C
O I
R T T N
S E
U H O
W I
O G T
O P
I H L &P I
E R
_C T
L C
S.
E T
EG IT D N F I m
M L
E E
I O T
RO 1
S BC 2
Y 0
S 2
l M
M M
F O
M M
R E
O R
TA U T
U A
E E LA N T G F M
V G A AE I
E S D P R M
M n
WN S
M I
T 9
EO E
I D
3 V
M A
E M
E 2
R T
E R
S M
NO Y
R GF S
U N
G ISI I
EM F
DE M
T MS O Y S
O D
R N
M LU OO R R G
E T
R K
N U
C L
OA I
M CB A
F M
E TSY M
S E
S U
A C
Y M
A M
H C
I HW M
U S
E R
N G D
L O N C
IA M
R F
I T T S
E E
H U
W L
H I
O GIL &P D
B O
E E
L R
M T
C IT F
O M
T E
S 1
T I
3 L
S M
Y 0
t S
3 i
i J
(
i l
D E
N I
F E
D N
O F
D E
O SAB Y
T IL I
BA L
R I
E O
A R
T V
A U A
T N
U A
U E E LA N T G F M
G VI A AE E
E S D P R TSYS F
O N
O I
TA R
U D
D NA A
Wf S.
T d
A E0 E
D D
I IV T E
A M
D E M E
U L
R T
R C
S O
Y N
F S
I G
I N D
SI E
EM V
L DE O
T V
MS N
O I
YS S
O T
O N
R N E
LU N
OO O
P R R M
G T
O K
C N C OA D
N CB A
S E
C N
E D
IC N
I E
R U
L I
A F
M E
T S
Y S
T N
N G D
A C
L O NI R
P T T T
S E
H N
U W
E O G O
N I
H L &P I
E T
R
., E T I
L E
I PA.
, - T F R oM OE TT E
S I 1
T I R S
LC 4
Y 0
N S
4 li
l I
1 S
D T
NA M
E D
V_
I E
H T"
E S
A F
R O
PP M
A O
T S
I I
S H
R T.
E O
D R
T E
A U V
T L
U A
O E E LA N T G F V
G N
2 V
I A AE I
E S D P R L
E N
N O
S R
E P
G NI TA R
E P
O H
WN S
C O
E A
5 EI T R
E D
I 9
V A M
O 2
E M E
F E
R R T
N S
R O
NO Y
I U
F S
T GI N C
G SI N
I EM U
F F
DET E
T MS E
Y OS L
P O D M
R N O
C LU O
OO T
R R
T G
N T K E
NC M
OA E
CB V
L OV N
I F
O N
OI TA".
Rd UA DO
T. E S P VO NG D
NN O N C
OO I
R TE I
T T S
E CC H
NA U
W O G UL 1
D F P 1
H LI &P S
N E
M M OI L
E E
T T
I ST T
S C
T Y Y N
S S
U M
T E F
E S
T I H 1
S LT 5
Y 0
S 5
F O
R E
O R
T U
A T
U A
L E E A N T G F G
V I
A A E E S D P R WN S
EO E
D I
I T
V A M
E M E
R T
R S
NO Y
F G
T M
MS E
Y T
O S
S Y
O D S
R N E
l LU S
OO S
R A
R G L
T C
K N C N
OA O
N CB O
T M
E TSY S
H C
A E
F O
N O
T I
C E
N N
m O
r C
N G O
R e
w N
C E
e O
I T
n.
T T R
NI S
E H
U W
F G
O O
O I
H L &P E
E E
-9 L
R T
G ET I
E D
M E
E T
T O
S N
Y 0
S 6
a I
I
,I lI BASIC ELERIENTS INVOLVED IN REVIEW OF
'I A SELECTED OPERATIONAL EVENT liI
~uc:::c"
.I So,,0.T 0oir.
^"
I HEALTH PHYSICS A0 R0 I
Yf i
T g
^"'
..Oi.esa I
csc
~
I
.j EOF
'C' 5
I m,. 2.,0 I
2m
I I
FUNCTIONAL IDECISION-ACTIONl l!
FLOW DIAGRANI Ii SHEET 2 l
I' ir STEAM NO MANUALLY LOAD MO,T0R 0REN GENE RATOR LEVELS pg p ADEQUATE E
'y YES
' f RETURN MOTOR ORIVEN AFW PUMPSTO STANOBY 1r HAS PRESSU E TAYED L
FAN 00L S RU NING BELOW Hi-3 SETPolN YES 1r VERIFY CONTAINMENT g
ISOLATION PHASE B
'I VERIFY AND RESET CONTAINMENT SPRAY SIGNAL it 15 CONTAINMENT NO PRES $URE GREATER TH AN Hi 3 SETPOINT AND
'r INCREASING RETURN CONTAINMENT YES SPRAY PUMPS MANUALLY LOA 0 CONTAINMENT i
SPRAY PUMPS ir C
SHEET Figure 211 2G2
C ll l
l E
E F
O MA R
E O
R T
U T
U A
L E E A N T G F V G A AE W
I E S D P R S
U TA T
E S
T N
E V
E E
L A
N O
WI E T M
A IVR 1
E E 2
P 1
R O
-2 ND E
M GET R
I SC U
EE G
DL I
E F
W MS OR E
O P
R E
L C O N E
RU TQ NE OS CLA N
O IT C
N U
F E
L T
I T
TN EV E
F O
T N G D.
ES O N C
N R
O I
T T S
E T
U H O G W
A O
S I
H L &P U
T E
A L
T S
T I
S.
T M O E N T
T N
S E
Y V
S E
8 lll ll
\\
g L.
g_
AN PU ICM NM I O R C P
e m
L F
A L
C O
O O R
L N
L a
T O
A C
U m
L N
A A
m R
I M
m P
E C
O R
N O
T I
T A U R
T P
U U
A A
L E E A N T G F a
w V GI A AE E
E S D P R MD
/MO C
e D
E R
T O Y T
N I B E
N m
V O
E M
L A
D E
N M
O WI RY h
T OB E
A F
I R
VR E
E E P
~"
P RO M
ND GE I T SC S
EE M
E DLE T
U S
MS Y
O R S
E B
OP US RE
/S L C M
M N
O E
E T
RU S
TQ YS NES O
M C L A
N O
I T
C M
N U
E F
C N
E UQ W
ES N
I S
N O
I W
TC N
N G D.
U F
O N C
T T
R S
I M
T I
S E
L H
UO G W
O I
H L &P
,E T E
L E
,0-CR I
" T NE T
E B UM N
QU E
EN V
S E
1l i
lllll 1
I R
M O
T D
E R
M I K
-+
w US s
m
-a QA d
m F
R ET E
w w
O
=
TT s
y uo NE E L M
MP u
PM e
m, e.
w O
e a
I Q
m U C n
E R
T mg M
E S
u m
I a
O R
L m
e T
e.
U E E A
e T
U A
w LA N T G F e
m U G A AE r
E S D P R m
I 9
E MD
/MO C
e D
E re R
um S
OY n
I T B u
S IN Y
O L
M WA E
N A
VD M
M m
e I
3 EN D
E 1
RA M"
2 M
s NN R Y e'
E m
GIO OB R
F M
u T
R I
U S A E
G E
P C
m I
DI m.
F e-F e
e I
e n
MT n
ON a
u m
OED N#
mu O.
=
R I G
=.
EN R
D O T
T KIT R
N S C em O
A A OT
=
T e
CA m
m w
R ms w
us E
w m
w e
+u h
w P
e O
m m
w w
a, N
w O
og w
w IT d.
e.
e P) w 4
I E w
=
R C
C
=
N w
e w
+
e w
SE E D U w
m Q
m
=-m m
E E
=-
=
N I S s
~
msa v
e V
e e
M
. C BI a
w a
m TN
+
s
- =
w CI e
T s
e m
u JS y
m N G O N O (L s.
m a
e.
e
+
m
=
w w
a e
C U K
w O NI R F S
T T A
M e
S E R m,
e U H T
O G WO e
w w
O F I
g e
e w
H L &P S
K u, "
S m
u m
mW F T
R m
w
=
u.
p A
u m
e r
e u
s i
=
=
KE
=
SB T
TU O
AM S
N I
L l
l!
ill
II
,I DETAILED TASKIS) l DECISION-ACTION DIAGRAIYI g
START L
1 (1) MONITOR RWST LEVEL I
2 (2) RWST LEVELS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 3 FT.
\\
I YES YES 3
(3) RASINITIATED AND REQUIRED AUTO ACTIONS HAVE
\\
OCCURRED NO 4
(4) MANUALLY ACTUATE RAS 5
(5) LPSI PUMPS TRIP
\\
NO 6
(6) STOP LPSI PUMPS
-l 7
(7) VERIFY MINIFLOW RECIRC VALVES CLOSED NO 8
(8) CLOSE MINIFLOW VALVES 1 r I
Figure 2-14 2 36
M S
M U
TATS M
L F
E O
P M
SE C
I MO V
R E
ER R
E TA U L SM T
U U
A E E L
N T GF M
^ E L
INA h
A M
R E
U I
C 1
V C
E A
5 R
4 M
2 N
E GSL R
I S
SI E A E
U G
T G
D N
E I
A F
MD R
OK S
O A RT M
L S
O O
R N
T L
E N
N O
A C
P D
E V
S L
O N:
O N
V E
N I
C OI S
I T
V P
M E
M I
E D
R T
C S
S Y
E S
D B
D E
U E
V S
R S
I D
I R
M J
S R
M T
U E
C N
Q T
E A
E E
B M
N G O
O S
A N
C E
T R
O I
R S
S P
P K
T U
A M
T T S
E A
Y N
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
0 1
2 H
T S
I 1
1 1
U W
G 1
O I
O H L &P
_E D
HOUSTON CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW EVALUATOR LIGHTING TASK DETAILS SIGNATURE DATE 49 POWER CO.
PAGE OF
- 0 REF TASK ACT V'TY TASK OBJECTIVE DESCRIPTION:
,U BER SYSTEMS AND SUBSYSTEMS INVOLVED:
LIST ACTION REQUIRED, EQUlPMENT10 BE MONITORED AND/0R CONTROLLED.NEED FOR CONTINUOUS OR DISCRETE SETTINGS, DEGREE OF PRECISION REQUIRED, DECISIONS TO BE MADE, INPUTS REQUIRED FOR DECISIONS, RESULTS EXPECTED, AND PERFORMANCE CRITERIA IF APPLICABLE TO ACTIVITY.
COMPLETE CR EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENT SHEETS, LIST POTENTIAL ERROR OR OMISSION, CONSEQUENCE THEREOF AND CORRECTIVE ACTION:
STEP NO.
N l
l l
l i
l l
M M
M M
M M
NNbW W
W W
W W
W W
M
- b. 7l2b<n.
i'M:$ 2 a :.
2 m.k E
. M SD TN.
N A )S M
E SN S
M NO E
EOI C
RIT V
ITC I
EI E
R N R C
U O R
P A
MP E
F F
MU H
O R
TOS ET O (C M
IN L
E O AN N
Q' CO A
EOI P. RLT M
R C
E O
O R
T S
A U S
T A
E U
A T
CE L
E E S
I P A N T G F VY M
I G
L E T V
I A AE D
E S D P R M
-AN C0 O1 LT M
E S
W M
R E
I V
D E
D E
Y 6
R E
R C
1 L
I A
M I L R
C R
N T
U R
2 Q
U I
GS T
E C
E SI A
EA U
DT G
E
. M I
MD F
OK E
G OSA N
R T A
O R
L N
M O
N R
O T
I S
T N
C T
O N
N I
C U
U F
F O
S S
L K
H O S
O T N A
R IG T
W
^
T A
N T
R O
O C
/
F R
M D
O T
E I
M R R
N AE I
O RT U
M AE Q
P M
. P E
R N G D
I U
O N C
Q D
M I
R E N
T T S
E H
E AN U
WC O
G R I O
I
&P O A ET H L F
BP R
MI
,,9-R E
U C
,f T
NS
^
I S
E N
K D L
A E
T N
M A
P
~
I I
I OPERATIONAL SEQUENCE DIAGRAM I;
I 1 CHEMISTRY & ECC CHECKS REACTOR CONTROL 2
I 6
s s
s s
g
-O dis OlS Of OlS 01 M~
\\
I q @ @ o (10 SEC.)
SW DIS O OfS DIS DIS DIS DIS DIS DIS OtS DtS D DIS DtS dis DfS N
\\\\
I K 'T
?
?
?'x?
K l
N N
\\
\\
.. mur W
?
?
i
?'
N I
D%'
i O
OOO O
Co~ri~uE ON SHEET R O
OOO O
l:
I 3
- m. 2.u 2-40
I TRAFFIC LINK DIAGRAM A
I J
UNIT SUPERVISORS l
l l
0FFICE I
I I
I I
I I
I
'O,-- w _
ENGINEERED ELECTRICAL 1
1'<!
t I
AUXILIARY bf'
^
I TRAIN C l
POWER CPO10 ll CP003 gg
- I
\\\\
CIRCULATING
\\
CP009 1
c i I WATER 1\\
g ENGINEERED I
i\\
M N
SAFETY
[M FEEDWATER &
CP008 I
[-[
FEATURES
\\
CONDENSATE 1
TRAIN 8 g
k1 ll CP002 TUR8INE AI
{}
GENERATOR ll ENGINEERED CP007 ii 1( c#+f I 8 SAFETY
- (
l b2 FEATURES 1 N\\p
\\
TRAIN A s
CP001 i
N 1
l STEAM CP006 i
\\ s l
'~~~-h GENERATOR CP905 REACTOR CONTROL CP004 CHEMICAL & VO LUME CONTRO L SYSTEM I
I a
g Fior.2.is 2-41
I I
3.0 MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING 3.1 CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE The management planning activity is described in Section 2.2.
o I
The basic organization and functions are shown in Fig. 2.2.
o I
o The management team will meet throughout the program as required to perform its basic functions. Meetings will be called by the Principal Investigator, and directed by the HL&P Project Engineering Manager. In addition, it may be necessary to hold special meetings to meet scheduled requirements.
o The CRDR consultant will be available for these meetings as needed I
to facilitate completion of meeting agenda items, o
Minutes of all meetings will be taken and recorded.
3.2 INTEGRATION OF CRDR WITH OTHER HUMAN FACTORS PROJECTS The.overall relationship of NUREG 0660 task action items are shown in Fig.
1.1. The human factors aspect of the basic activities shown in Fig.1.1 will be reviewed by the Project Review Team working with the HL&P and Bechtel I
licensing groups.
3.3 CRDR TEAM STRUCTURE AND PERSONNEL The basic CRDR team structure and personnel are defined in Fig. 2-2 and 2-3.
Resumes of assigned personnel are included in Appendices A and B and are consistent with the review criteria of NUREG-0801.
l l
l l I 6311P/0044h 3-1
- I l
I I
4.0 CRDR ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION All observations identified during the review phase will be processed according to the assessinent and implementation methodology presented in Figures 4.1 through 4.3. The Design Review and Technical Task Team will document these observations and recommendations on Checklist Observation forms (CLOS) which are then submitted to the Project Review Team for assessment.
I The initial step by the Project Review Team will be to accept or reject the formatted information where, in the latter case, they returned the CLO to the Design Review and Technical Task Team for further evaluation and resubmittal. Accepted CLOS will be categorized according to the Assessment Factor Criteria (Figure 4.2). The criteria chosen provides for a simple, but effective, relationship between assessment factor and implementation I
requirements commensurate with the significance of the observation. This approach greatly reduces the need to consider various levels of safety while still accomplishing the assessment objectives of NUREGs 0700 and 0801. To aid the Project Review Team in selecting the appropriate assessment factor for each finding, a set of statements or questions will be developed to the extent l
that the affected guideline (s)is inadequate in this respect.
f All observations assigned Categories A, B or C will be identified as Human Engineering Discrepancies (HEDs) and will be analyzed for correction (Fig.
4-3). Correction of Category D results are optional The first step in this process will be to identify those HEDs which can be corrected by l
enhancement. The remaining HEDs will be analyzed to identify design improvement alternatives and to select solutions. In addition, some HEDs may be corrected through training. An integral part of this step will be a re-application of the contM>l room review process as appropriate to ensure that:
I I
' y l
631lh/0044h 4-1 c-w w
I I
o Other guidelines are not violated.
o Other corrections are not invalidated.
I Any resulting increase in significance of other findirgs is identified o
and accommodated.
Solutions which do not bring the discrepancies into full compliance with the guidelines will be identified and justified accordingly.
The Project Review Team will subir.it the processed CLO and their recommended solutions to the management team for approval. Rejected CLOS and/or solutions will be returned to the Project Review Team for additional assessment. Approved solutions will be returned to the Design Review and Technical Task Team for implementation planning.
E y
I I
I I
I I
E 6311h/0044h 4-2 s-
I I
I ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION METHODOLOGY I
I DESIGN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL TASK TEAM I
I
- PERFORMS REVIEW IMPLEMENTATION l
- PREPARES CLO FORMS l
l I
I l
OBSERVATIONS I
I I
o PROJECT REVIEW TEAM l
- ASSESS l
g,-'-~'~~~-
OBSERVATIONS l
CLO
- CATEGORIZE ASSESSMENT REJECTE0 OBSERVATIONS
+--
t PROCESS
- OIRECTS ANALYSIS g
FOR CORRECTIONS l
I
- RECOMMENDS l
l DISPOSITION g
i HE0'S l
l I
I I
I MANAGEMENT TEAM i
l l--------
- REVIEW HED'S
3 I
ASSESSMENT
- RdVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS ASSESSMENT REJECTED APPROVED LEGEN0; CLO - CHECKLIST OBSERVATIONS HED - HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCY
- I l
Figure 4 - 1 I
I I
SELECTION OF HED'S TO BE ANALYZED FOR CORRECTION REVIEW PROCESS OBSERVATIONS ASSESSMENT FACTOR CRITERIA AMEMENT WLEMENTATION CATEGORY FACTOR (RATING)
A SAFETY (1)
PRIOR CONSEQUENCET TO FUEL LOADING (MANDATORY)
B AVAILABILITY AT EARLIEST ENHANCEMENT OPPORTUNITY (HIGH PRIORITY)
C RELIABILITY.
CONVENIENT ENHANCEMENT GUTAGE g
(ACCEPTED) 5 0
MINOR MAY OR MAY NOT BE REQUIRED (NON-MANDATORY)
ASSESS OBSERVATIONS CAT 0 (1) EXAMPLE: RESULTSIN UNSAFE OPERATION, VIOLATION OF ANALYSIS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR CORRECTION RECOMMENO YES g.
CORRECTIONS W
NO I:
I
,,, _ A.2 I'
~
I
I I
I SELECTION OF DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS I
HUMAN ENGINEERING OISCREPANCIES TO BL ANALYZED FOR CORRECTION 4
)
(FROM THE HED SELECTION PROCES$)
- 3 AN ALYSI1 FOR CORRECTION BY ENHANCEMENT I
CORRECT WITH YES ENHANC
, NO ANALYSIS TO IDENTIFY DESIGN I
IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES AND SELEl;T RECOMMENDED SOLUTION ESGN DOCUMENT e FULICTION ANALYSIS p___._______.,
e ALLOCATION l
MAN i
MACHINE l
l e VE IFY ALLOCATION ------
i w e SELECT PREFERRED l
OESIGN ALTERNATIVE l
6 i
,o VALID ATE DESIGN -- -- - - - W FULLY SCHEDULE NOT CORRECTED IMPLEMENTATION l
JUSTIF AND CORRECTED l
DOCUMENT PARTlALLY CORRECTED I
JUSTIFY AND SCH EDULE DOCUMENT 00CUMENT IMPLEMENTATION Figure 4 3 4-5 5
I I
5.0 DOCUMENTATION AND DOCUMENT CONTROL 5.1 DOCUMENTATION USED TO SUPPORT THE CRDR I
o Bechtel has established a library in the mock-up facilities at the Houston engineering offices to assist the Design Review and Technical Task Team. The documents contained therein are the latest plant construction documents consistent with Section 2.4.1 of NUREG 0700. Houston Lighting & Power is participating in the Westinghouse owners grc,up meetings that are producing generic I
reference material that will be used in this review.
o The consultant has also established a reference library of pertinent human factors documents including many of those listed in NUREG 0700, as well as relevant documents generated in other CRDRs and relevant EPRI and IN PO documents.
I 5.2 DOCUMENTATION GENERATED BY THE CRDR PROCESS l
5.2.1 The following basic documents will be produced in this review:
Program Plan Report (this document).
o o
Control Room Design and Review Criteria Report.
o Final Executive Summary Report, which will address methodology, I
review findings, and implementation.
l o
Detailed CRDR Report, which will provide the support material for the Executive Summary Report.
I i I I
I l am 6312P/0044h 5-1 g
1
I I
o Basic checklists, forms, sketches, and photographs used in the g
review and assessment phases; typical forms are includd in 5
Section 2.0 and Appendix C of this report.
I 5.2.2 The following materialis currently under consideration for the Final Report.
5.2.2.1 The CRDR Report will contain two volumes: Executive Summ
(Volume 1) and Discussion and Data (Volume 2).
5.2.2.1.1 The following format is proposed for Executive Summary (Volume 1):
Section 1. Introduction 1.1 Objectives 1.2 Program Overview 1.3 Plant Description I
Section 2. Methodology I
2.1 Management and Staffing 2.2 Use of Support Materials 2.3 Use of Guidelines and Checklists 2.4 Documentation (These sections will reference the original program plan report, and will provide only material which updates and revises the original g
planning materialsubmitted to the NRC.)
I I
I I
6312P/0044h 5-2 I
I
\\
I Section 3. CRDR Procedures This section will summarize the actual procedures used in the review process. Topics shall be as follows:
3.1 Operating Experience Review o
Identify types and time period of records reviewed.
o Review operator survey procedures (e.g.,
interview) and summarize experience levels of surveyed operators.
I o
Provide samples of the interview questions.
3.2 System Function Review and Task Analysis I
The following processes will be summarized. Where this material may be covered in otherlicensee-applicant I
documents (e.g.,
Task I.C.1 emergency procedure guidelines and reporting analyses), reference to these documents will be made.
o Charts or lists of major systems and subsystems and their components.
I o
Basis for selecting operating events and failure sequences for ar.alysis.
I o
Scenario / assumptions necessary to define the operating events.
I I
G312P/0044h 5-3 I
I I
o Functional flow block diagrams showing systems, g
subsystems, and major components involved in the a
selected operating events, coded to identify where control of the function resides (e.g.,
- manual, automatic, local).
o Hierarchial diagrams developed in the program.
o Functional sequence charts for control room operators (for each selected event).
I Task descriptors, organized by functional objective o
and system.
o Work station instrumentation and control requirements as drawn from the task analyses.
3.3 Control Room Inventory o
Summary of the actual control room inventory process.
o Sample inventory forms.
j Il 3.4 Control Room Survey i
o Summary of control room survey process.
l Samples of survey forms (e.g., checklists, HED o
forms, and measurement forms) used in the survey 1
process.
3.5 Annunciator Review I
Il 6312P/0044h 5-4 I'
I I
3.6 Verification of Task Performance Capabilities l
l l
o Summary of the verification procedures used.
l 3.7 Validation of Control Room Functions Summary of the validation procedures used.
o Section 4. CRDR Findings I
This section shall reviU' the findings by listing the summaries of discrepancies and highligh2.g results of the reviews.
I Section 5. Implementation I
This section will summarize (1) recommended design changes, (2) proposed solutions, (3) methodology for implementation, (4) schedule for implementaton.
I 5.2.2.1. 2 Discussion and Data (Volume 2) will contain the design criteria documentation and the detailed evaluation results to support the Executive Summary. It will expand the following topics.
1 1.
Operating Experience Review 2.
System Function Review and Task Analysis 3.
Control Room Inventory 4.
Control Room Survey 5.
Annunciator Review I
6.
Verification of Task Performance Capabilities 7.
Validation of Control Room Functions 8.
Completed and Proposed Control Room improvements I
I 6312P/0044h 5-5
I I;
5.3 DOCUMENTATION SYSTEM AND CONTROL The Design Review and Technical Task Team will develop a data base which will be reviewed by the Project Review Team. This data base will consist of computerized printouts and hard copy files of cross referenced information including:
o Listings of reference plant documents used.
o Listing of human factors referenced documents used.
Il o
The Program Plan Report (this document).
I,:
o Pertinent Bechtel documents defining requirements for the CRDR.
o The control room criteria report, The outputs of the individual task groups (see Fig. 2-4).
o o
Minutes of meetings.
o All findings, HEDs, and dispositions as processed.
o Executive Summary Report.
o Detailed CRDR Report.
o Pertinent correspondence.
I I
I I
6312P/0044h 5-3 I
I I
6.0
SUMMARY
The Houston Lighting & Power Company considers that the program planned for the review of the South Texas Project is extensive, complete and consistent with the pertinent document noted herein.
I The program is in progress and it is our intention to comply with the content of this Program Plan Report. Houston Lighting & Power reserves the right to make changes in its best interest and will notify the NRC of all planned..-
executed deviations.
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
6312P/0044h 6-1
(
I I
I
~
APPENDIX A Qualifications of Management Team Members I
lI I
I I
I I
6313P/00044h I
3 STEPHEN M. DEW 3
Engineering Manager, STP Houston Lighting & Power i
Education:
BSCE, University of Missouri at Columbia Summary:
1 Year :
Assistant Engineering Project Manager, I
Brown & Root 6 Years:
Assistant Project Engineer, Stone & Webster 6 Years:
Startup Engineer, Babcock & Wilcox Experience:
Mr. Dew joined Houston Lighting & Power (HL&P) in 1981 and is I
presently the Engineering Manager for the South Texas Nuclear Project.
His responsibilities include providing direction, coordination and administration of the project engineering effort to ensure that it is accomplished in an effective, timely, 6 onomical I
and technically competent manner. He is specifically responsible for: directing the project engineering team in their daily coordination with the architect-engineer; directing the development I
of specific HL&P procedures necessary to accomplish the work; directing HL&P's review of engineering and pertinent licensing documents; assuring the preparation of technical specifications and provisions of engineering input to bidder's lists for the procurement I
of equipment, systems, materials and engineering services. Other responsibilities include resolution of critical problems; interfacing with various project management members and A-E Project I
Engineering Manager for the pumose of administering the project; and interfacing with representatives from vendors.
As an Assistant Engineering Project Manager with Brown & Root, I
Mr. Dew was assigned to the South Texas Project. He was in charge of the Systems Engineering Group and his responsibilities included:
managing a group of mechanical, civil, electrical, instrument and I
controls, licensing, materials engineering, heavy civil, architectural and nuclear analysis personnel. Within his group, he was responsible for establishing the basic design criteria for his area of responsibility; controlled a budget in excess of three million I
manhours; provided design information for other portions of the project and construction; had technical responsibility, through the desciplines, for subcontracts totaling several million dollars; I
monitored cost and schedules for the group; and coordinated with other personnel on the project.
I Mr. Dew was an Assistant Project Engineer for Stone & Webster and was assigned to the Beaver Valley Power Station, two 888 MW PWR units, in charge of the site engineering office.
His responsibilities included: managing a staff of professional and I
semi-professional personnel; coordinating detailed engineering activities; I
I l
6313P/0044h A-1 e-
I STEPHEN M. DEW establishing and controlling the site budget of over one million manhours; resolved items of nonconformance; supervised the maintenance of the model; and was responsible for coordinating the engineering efforts of all site agencies to ensure a quality product.
Mr. Dew performed various startup activitics while with Babcock &
Wilcox (B&W) as both a fossil and nuclear startup engineer. He was instrumental in the development of B&W's PWR test program, supervised the shipment and receipt of B&W's first nuclear fuel shipment to the Oconee Nuclear Station. Also, Mr. Dew had considerable involvement with the testing program on fossil and 3
nuclear plants totaling 4300 MWe.
5 Professional Affil!ations:
Professional Engineer, Texas Member, American Nuclear Society, South TexasSection I
I I
I I
I I
I l
l 8
I 6313P/0044h A-2 I
I JERROLD G. DEWEASE I
Vice President, Nuclear Plant Operations Houston Lighting & Power Education:
BSEE, Christian Brothers College Summary:
13 Years:
Various positions with Tennessee Valley Authority 8 Years:
Electrical Engineer, Memphis Light, Gas and Water Experience:
Mr. Dewease joined Houston Lighting & Power in 1981 as Vice President, Nuclear Plant Operations and has direct responsibility for operation of the South Texas Project, Allens Creek and other I
nuclear operations support activities.
Mr. Dewease joined the Tennessee Valley Authority in 1968 as an Instrument Engineer at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant.
He initially worked on establishing the instrument program and technical specifications.
In 1971 he became the Assistant Engineering Supervisor at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant and had supervisory responsibility over the reactor engineering, radio-chemistry, testing and I
instrumentation and control groups. In this position, Mr. Dewease supervised the establishment of the initial surveillance program which implemented the technical specifications and participated in the initial startup of units 1 and 2.
Mr. Dewease became the Quality Assurance (QA) Supervisor in 1974 at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. He was responsible for plant I
QA during the recovery from the March 1975 fire, the restart of units 1 and 2 after the fire and the initial startup of unit 3. During 1976, Mr. Dewease became the Assistant Plant Superintendent. In I
1977, he became the Plant Superintendent at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant.
In 1979, Mr. Dewease was promoted to Assistant Director of I
Nuclear Operations, with responsibility for the plant operations staffs of four TVA nuclear plants: Browns Ferry, Sequoyah, Watts Bar, and Bellefonte.
For Memphis Light, Gas and Water as an Electrical Engineer and later as Assistant Electrical Maintenance Supervisor at the T.H.
Allen Electric Generating Station, Mr. Dewease was involved in I
providing engineering support and technical guidance to the electrical maintenance section.
I I
a 6313P/0044h A-3 I
I JAMES L. HURLEY Systems Project Engineer, STP E
Bechtel Power Corporation 5
Education:
BA, Physics, St. Mary's College, Minnesota U.S. Navy Nuclear Power School, Mare Island, California U.S. Navy Nuclear Power Training Unit, S3G Prototype, West Milton, New York MS, Nuclear Engineering, Oregon State University Summary:
1/2 Year:
Project Manager g
3-1/2 Years:
Project Engineer 3
4-1/2 Years:
Assistant Project Engineer 1 Year:
Mechanical Design Group Supervisor g
1-1/2 Years:
Reactor Plant Group Leader 5
1 Year:
Nuclear Engineer 2-1/2 Years:
Naval Nuclear Power Officer Experience:
Mr. Hurley has fifteen years experience in nuclear power plant engineering and management and is currently Bechtel Power Corporation's Systems Project Engineer on the South Texas Project.
g In this position, he is responsible for mechanical, electrical, g
controls, and nuclear design; procurement, licensing, and engineering quality. Prior to this, Mr. Hurley was Project Manager for the Duane Arnold Energy Center, a 544 MWe nuclear power l
plant operated by Iowa Electric Light and Power Company. His a
responsibilities included generation of IELP's responses to NUREG's 0578, 0612, and 0737, and to NRC Bulletins 79-OlB, 79-02, 79-14, g
80-06, and 80-11. He also collaborated with the utility in the g
generation of their emergency response plan.
He was the initial Project Engineer for Bechtel's onsite support work at Three Mile Island (TMD, and served as the Ann Arbor Power Division coordinator of all TMI related work. He was also the Project Engineer for the Midland Nuclear Plant Studies Group g
which, together with Consumers Power Company and Babcock &
3 Wilcox personnel, reviewed 30 safety-related issues for their potentialimpact on Midland Units 1 and 2, a nuclear project with a total output of 1,375 MWe and 4 million pounds per hour of process steam, being built for Consumers Power Company. He also worked with EDS Nuclear preparing safety and operational sequence diagrams for Midland Units 1 and 2.
As the assistant project engineer on Midland Units 1 and 2 he was responsible, at various 5
times, for mechanical design and procurement, engineering cost and scheduling, plant layout, electrical and control systems design and e,
procurement, engineering
- quality, project administration, g
engineering aspects of plant startup, and plant licensing, including responsibility for initial submittal of the Midland FSAR. He was the resident project engineer at the jobsite for the last four months of l
this assignment.
E I!
I 6313P/0044h A-4 Ii
I JAMES L. HURLEY He acted as a consultant for the Detroit Edison Company on the Greenwood 2 and 3 nuclear project and for Consumers Power I
Company on the Palisades nuclear project. He was the project engineer for the American Electric Power nuclear plant studies project. This was a year long, effort to assist the utility in selecting a nuclear power plant to duplicate at a site within its system.
Prior assignments with Bechtel include mechanical design group supervisor on the Midland project; reactor plant group leader on I
Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2, a 950 MWe plant for Arkansas Power and Light Company; and evaluator of the Westinghouse and KWU-6iemens bids (including balance-of-plant designs) for the I
Jervis Bay 600 MWe unit for the Australian Atomic Energy Commission.
Prior to joining Bechtel, and while obtaining his advanced tegree at I
Oregon State University, he collaborated in the design of a deep ocean nuclear moisture meter for the U.S. Navy Civil Engineering Corps. This work is described in U.S.
Naval Civil Engineering I
Laboratory Report CR 70.016, which he co-authored.
He was the reactor control division officer on the USS Long Beach (CG N-9). In this capacity, he was in charge of the operation, I
maintenance, and testing of all reactor control and radiation monitoring equipment for two shipboard reactor plants. He also supervised the training of all reactor operators and technicians.
i Proffesional Affiliations:
Registered Professional Engineer, Michigan Member, American Nuclear Society I
I i
1 1 I I
I I
6313P/0044h A-5 l I l
I' W ARREN HUGH KINSEY, JR.
Assistant Plant Superintendent g
Houston Lighting & Power g
Education:
BSME, University of Missouri U.S. Navy Nuclear Power Training Program Summary:
7 years:
Mechanical Engineer / Engineering Supervisor, Tennessee Valley Authority l
4 years:
Senior Reactor Operator, University of Missouri 5
6 years:
Senior Reactor Operator, U.S. Navy Experience:
Mr. Kinsey joined Houston Lighting & Power Company in 1982 as Assistant Plant Superintendent, Acting Plant Superintendent and is responsible for plant staffing and preparation for startup for operational phase.
Mr. Kinsey joined the Tennessee Valley Authority in 1975 as a mechanical Engineer (Equipment Performance Group). He was g
responsible for re-start of numerous BWR systems following a major 3
fire at the Brown Ferry Nuclear plant. He was responsible for initial startup of BWR systems on a new unit and was instrumental in developing the first TVA ASME Section XI program. He also prepared procedures for startup and performance tests of mechanical equipment.
As an engineering Section Supervisor on the Sequoyah Nuclear project, he was responsible for the nuclear startup test program for the two unit PWR
- reactor, including water chemistry, radio-chemistry and environmental regulations (NPDES). He also had responsibility fcr the ASME Section XI and Appendix J testing and equipment testing, (e.g. HEPA and charcoal filter tests, heat exchanger and pump performance tests, water treatment plant l
performance and condensate full flow demineralizer performance).
3 Prior to joining TVA, Mr. Kinsey was a Senior Reactor Operator at a
the University of Missouri. He was a licensed Senior Reactor E
Operator on a 10MW research reactor which was operated for experimental and industrial uses. He performed maintenance and modifications on the equipment and participated in upgrade work on a 5 to 10 MW conversion.
From 1965 to 1971, Mr. Kinsey was a Senior Reactor Operator 3
(Technician and Instructor) in the U.S. Navy. He operated the 5
reactor and performed maintenance on reactor control instrumentation. He also instructed other Navy personnel in reactor operations maintenance.
As an instructor, he was responsible for shift crew of reactor operators and technicians and participated in inplant and classroom training of Navy and civilian employees. He also participated in refueling activities.
Professional Affiliations:
Member, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Member, American Nuclear Society 6313P/0044h A-6 I
M. G. (JIMM Y) ZAALOUK gg Principal Engineer - Nuclear, Houston Lighting & Power I
Education:
BSEE, Cairo University, Egypt MSNE, North Carolina State University PHD NE, North Carolina State University Summary:
9 Years:
Principal Engineer, Carolina Power & Light j
3 Years:
Assistant Professor, North Carolina State I
1 Year:
Visiting Engineer, Norwegian Iristitute for Atomic Energy 2 Years:
Engineering Unit Supervisor, Egyptian Atomic Energy I
3 Years:
Reactor Engineer, Egyptian Atomic Energy Experience:
Mr. Zaalouk joined Houston Lighting & Power in 1981 as a Principal Engineer-Nuclear, responsible for providing the nuclear engineering discipline technical support for the South Texas Project and Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station.
Prior to joining HL&P, Mr. Zaalouk was with Carolina Power and Light Company as a Senior nuclear engineer. He was promoted in 1974 to Project Engineer-Nuclear and in 1977 to Principal Engineer I
Mechanical / Nuclear. He was involved in Nuclear Systems design review and construction support of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power plant,4 PWR units,900 MWe each. This included the review I
and timely implementation of regulatory and code requirements and assured design compliance including safety analyses and ALARA requirements. He gave startup and operations support for the Brunswick Steam Electric plant, a 2 unit BWR, 820 MWe each. He I
later became responsible for the engineering management of all mechanical and nuclear plant design modifications for the H.B.
Robinson Nuclear Power plant, 700 MWe PWR and the Brunswick I
plant. He headed the company TMI-2 Corporate Investigative Team PWR following the Three Mile Island incident. Mr. Zaalouk served on the task force to develop the corporate emergency plan for the company's three nuclear power plants.
He also directed development of the in-house ALARA design review program.
While an Assistant Professor for power systems at North Carolina i
State University, Mr. Zaalouk taught undergraduate courses in i
power systems engineering ahl analysis. He co-directed an NSF and NRC (AEC) funded research program to develop a temperature g
control system to prevent burn-out of heating elements when 3
exceeding critical heat flux values under severe conditions such as IDCA. Rasults were published in 22 technical papers.
As a nuclear engineering unit supervisor for the Egyptian Atomic Energy Establishment, he directed R&D in the areas of reactor systems, core design and safety analysis.
Developed and I
implemented a reactor training program and directed the reactor power uprating engineering effort.
I 6313P/0044h A-7 I
I M.G. (JIMMY) ZA ALOUK I
Mr Zaalouk spent a year at the Norwegian Institute for Atomic Energy where he developed an advanced computer code now in use by the industry in light water reactors core design and analysis.
As a Reactor Engineer for the Egyptian Atomic Energy Commission he was responsible for nuclear systems design review and construction and startup support of a 2 MWt research reactor.
Professional American Nuclear Society: Member (Since 1972); Co-chairman Affiliations:
of Reactor Operations Division Technical Program Committee B
(1979-1981); and appointed to the ANS National Program E
Committee in 1982.
North Carolina State University, School of Engineering:
Adjunct Associate Professor (1972-1981).
ANS Standards Committee: Member of ANS Standards Committee ANS-19, " Reactor Core Design"(1973-1981).
IEEE: Technical Reviewer - Journal of Instrumentation and Control (1972-present)
I I
I I
I I
I I
6313P/0044h A-8 I
1
,I 1I
'I I
I l
I APPENDIX B Qualifications of Project Review Team and
- * " " " ' " " " " " " " " ' " " ' " * " " " " ~ " "
I I
I I
I I
I k
5768P/0044h
I I
WILLIAM R. ARNOLD I
Task Analysis IArader, Torrey Pines Technology Education:
BSEE, University of Texas Graduate Courses, Electrical and Nuclear Engineering Experience:
Review of qualification data for safety-related equipment for PWR projects. Responsible for assuring that the data packages met the general requirements of NUREG-0588 and the specific requirements referenced and that the equipment represented is satisfactory for I
use in a harsh environment.
Review of safety-related plant control and protection system logic I
and operation to confirm that components important to safety are properly classified for PWR projects at Bechtel.
I Field investigation and solution of reactor protection system trips and transients during startup of Fort St. Vrain station. Liaison on operational and licensing aspects with utility operations and with NRC.
Field engineer in successful construction and startup of all internal and adjacent external reactor instruments, pressure test and hot I
flow test support, and control rod drive checkout for Fort St. Vrain station.
Completed design and documentation for licensing of reactor plant I
protection systems.
Accomplishments included logic design, cabling, customer liaison and review of specifications and layout for compliance with applicable NRC design criteria.
.I Electrical design of aerospace launch control hardware and systems.
I Professional Affiliations:
Registered Control Systems Engineer, California 1
I I
I I
5768P/0044h B-1
^ - - - - - - - - ______
I DANN A M. BEITH Human Factors Specialist, Canyon Research Group Education:
B.A., Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara, California Summary:
2 Years: Research Scientist Project Manager 2 Years: Associate Human Factors Designer 1 Year: Assistant Researcher 2 Years: Field Investigator 1 Year: General Assistant 1 Year: Counselor Experience:
Mrs. Beith is presently a Human Factors Specialist with Canyon a
Research Group, Inc. and is participating in the NUREG-0700 g
evaluation of the South Texas Project.
As a Research Scientist / Project Manager for Essex Corporation, she was a project manager for the development and production of approximately 300 nuclear power plant surveillance test procedures for South Carolina Electric and Gas Company.
Work involved g
technical review and editing of developed procedures, technical 3
direction of all project staff, and coordination of the production of the procedures from initial writing through final word processing.
Responsible for the technical work and personnel affairs of a staff composed of technien1 writers, editors, nuclear plant operations specialists, and word processors.
During this time, Mrs. Beith organized and planned the Electric Power Research Institute Seminar which introduced the EPRI guidebook, " Humans Factors Design of Nuclear Power Plants" to the nuclear industry. Duties included speech preparation for major
- speakers, workbook preparation, and mock-up design and implementation.
She was the on-site supervisor for the rewriting and formatting of nuclear power plant emergency, general and system operating procedures at South Carolina Electric and Gas Company's Virgil C.
g Summer Nuclear Station. Procedure formats were reviewed using 5
criteria concerned with readability, legibility, and consistency.
She directed the Human Factors evaluation of the on-site data collection for the Comanche Peak 1 Nuclear Power Plant control 5
room.
This evaluation included criteria specified in N UREG/CR-1580 and N UREG-0700.
Duties also included g
documenting and identifying Human Engineering discrepancies and g
I I
I 5768P/0044h B-2 I
I D AN N A M. BEITH I
As a Research Associate, Mrs. Beith participated in the Human Factors evaluation of three nuclear power plants for Carolina I
Power & Light.
One plant evaluation included a control board assessment of engineering drawings for a
plant under construction. Duties consisted of procedures development for control room evaluation and identifying, reporting and suggesting I
suitable backfits for Human Engineering Discrepancies found in the control room. Duties also include the establishment of permanent records for all data and report writing.
She has prepared checklists and surveys to meet evaluation requirements specified in NUREG/CR-1580.
Also conducted an I
analysis of NUREG-0700 to assess new human factors criteria.
Validated checklist items from first sources references.
During Mrs. Beith's two years with Xerox as an Associate Human I
Factors Designer, she gave support to the Human Factors Department in the Business Machine and Copies / Duplication Division. Duties included control system design, behavioral testing I
and new product assessmente. She also wrote machine operating procedures and developed dialogues used for operator assistance.
At Canyon Research Group, Inc., Mrs. Beith was an Assistant I
Researcher as a contract research assistant to Xerox Corporation, Industrial Design / Human Factors Department.
Support to tne Human Factors Department in the Business Machines Division.
Duties consisted of control system design and behavioral testing.
As a Field Investigator for Bio Technology, Inc. she conducted a "Large Truck Accident Study" for the Federal Highway I
Administration of the Department of Transportation.
Supervised Field Investigators conducting interview with truck owners, drivers and California Highway Patrol officers and analyzed accident sites I
and accident reports.
Conducted highway surveys involving road characteristics, traffic density and speed data using remote control cameras and radar equipment.
Other experience included General Assistant - Office of the Dean, Graduate School of Education, University of California where she conducted a study of Professor-Student contact hours and performed general office duties. She was a Counselor for the Arnold Homes for Children, Inc. and a behaviorist for emotionally disturbed childern. Acted as an Assistant to the Administrative E
Counselor as a Project Research to refine and update Behavior
,' E Modificaton Programs.
Professional I
Affiliations:
Member, National Human Factors Society I
I 5768P/0044h B-3 I
I FRANK C. BURSIC Educatiom B. S., Electrical Engineering, University of Pittsburgh Graduate Courses: Electrical-Industrial Engineering Specialty Courses: Human Factors - University of Pittsburgh and Westinghouse Electric Corporation.
Expcrience:
Mr. Bursic is with Westinghouse Electric Corporation in the Instrumentation and Control Department, Electrical Power Systems 3
and Control Board Group. His work experience has been in the area g
of main control board / panel layout and design. He is also the cognizant engineer for annunciator systems.
He participated in the Westinghouse support to Georgia Power, Caroline Power and Light, and Commonwealth Edison Control Room Design Reviews. These design review efforts required the g
involvement of Westinghouse design engineers to evaluate the 3
control panel layout and annuciator system for system information/arrangment (flow & functional) and human factor concerns.
In addition, recommendations were provided for resolution of identified HEDs.
He also participated in the design of a modular operation console l
which can act as an information gathering / diagnostic center and 5
integrate requirements of Reg. Guide 1.97 and NUREG-0696 into existing control rooms.
Mr. Bursic assisted in the design of the advanced control room layout and control consoles which included integration of the modular consoles, human factors engineering, and a full scale simulator.
Directed the development of a computerized procedures retrieval 3
system.
g Assisted in the development of an internal training program which addresses human factors involvement in control room design reviews.
Professional Affiliations:
Member, IEEE I
I I
5768P/0044h B-4 I
I JERRY M. CHILDS I
Human Factors Specialist I
Education:
Ph.D., Engineering Psychology, Texas Tech University B.A., Psychology, Texas Tech University Summary:
Present:
Project Director, Seville Research Corporation I
2 Years:
Staff Scientist, Canyon Research Group, Inc.
3 Years:
Asst. Professor, Wayland College 2 Years:
Instructor, Texas Tech University Experience:
Mr. Childs is presently a Project Director for Seville Research Comoration and is responsible for management and conduct of human factors research and development in the areas of I
control-display evaluation,
- training, operator and system performance measurement, and simulation. Activities include the conduct of mission, function, and task analyses, development of I
performance evaluation techniques, development of techniques for evaluating the use of advanced displays and controls, and development of training programs.
As a Staff Scientist, Principal Investigator for Canyon Research Group, Inc. he was responsible for the identification, analysis, and evaluation of critical training elements, and the design and I
development of objective performance measurement procedures.
Specific activities included the conduct of task, function and mission analyses, the development of concepts and procedures for I
assessing operator performance, and the generation and evaluation of system performance criteria and procedures for sampling system performance.
While at Wayland College, Mr. Childs was an Assistant Professor to Associate Professor and Head, Behavioral Science Department and was responsible for the general administration of undergraduate I
psychology programs, including the development, scheduling, and instruction of courses, assignment of personnel, and budgeting.
Activities included organization of behavioral science symposia, development and management of internship programs and I
supervision of strudent research projects. Major teaching emphases were experimental / quantitative (experimental psychology, statistics, learning, perception, motivation); also taught courses in psychological systems and theories, and in psychopathology.
Mr. Childs was an Instructor at Texas Tech University cnd was responsible for instructing experimental psychology laboratories.
I Activities included instrumentation, writing and administering exams, and instructing concepts of experimental design, statistical and experimental control, and descriptive and basic inferential I
statistics, correlational methods, graphing, and scientific writing and referencing.
I I
5768P/0044h B-5 I
I JERRY M. CHILDS Professional Affiliations:
Member, Human Factors Society Member, Amerien Psychological Association Member, Southwestern Psychological Association Recipient of Southwestern Psychological Association's Publishers Award,1975, Houston, TX; 1976, Albuquerque, NM Licensed Psychologist Publications:
Childs, J. M. & Halcomb, C. G. Effects of noise and response complexity upon vigilance performance, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1972,35,735-741. (Also presented at the Southwestern Psychological Association Conference, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, April 1972.)
Childs, J. M. Signal complexity, response complexity, and signal specification in vigilance, Human Factors,1976, 18,149-159. ( Also presented at the Southwestern Eychological Association Conference, Houston, Texas, April 1975; received SWPA's 1975 Publisher's Award from Brooks-Cole Publishing Co.)
Childs, J. M. Caffeine consumption and target scanning perfctmance, Human Factors, 1978,'20(1), 91-96. (Also presented at the Southwestern PsychoTogical Association Conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico, April 1976; received SWPA's 1976 Publisher's Award from Brooks-Cole Publishing Co.)
Childs, J. M. The identificati^n and measurement of criticalIERW performance vanables (Contract No.
DAHC19-77-C-0008, Research Memo). Westlake Village, CA:
Canyon Research Group, Inc., March 1979.
Childs, J. M. Development of procedures and techniques for inflight performance assessment (Research Memorandum FTR-07-79). Westlake Village, CA: Canyoun Research Group, Inc., April 1979.
Childs, J. M. An analytic technique for identifying inflight performance criteria (Contract No.
DAHC19-77-C-0008). Westlake Village, CA: Canyon Research 3
Group, Inc., April 1979.
g Childs, J. M., Hennessy, R. T., Hockenberger, R. I.,
Barneby, S. F., Vreuls, D., Siering, G. D., & Van Loo, J.
A. Human factors research in aircrew training performance enhancement: Summary Report No.1 (Technical Report).
Westlake Village, CA: Canyon Research Group, Inc., April 1979.
I.
5768P/0044h B-6 I
JERRY M. CHILDS Childs, J. M. Development of an objective grading system along with procedures and aids for its effective I
implementation in flight (ARI Research Note 79-18).
Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, May 1979.
Childs, J. M., Siering, G. D., Smith, B. A., &
Hockenberger, R. L. Human factors research in aircrew training performance enhancement: Summary Report No. 2 I
(Contract No. DAHC19-77-C-0008). Westlake Village, CA:
Canyon Research Group, Inc., Jun01979.
Childs, J. M. The development of objective inflight I
performance asseument procedures. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society-23rd Annual Meeting, 1979, 329-333.
Childs, J. M. Time and error measures of human performance-A note on Bradley's optimal-pessimal paradox, Human Factors, 1980, 22(1), 113-117.
Siering, G. D., Ruffner, J. W., & Childs, J. M.
Identification of key elements and peccedures for inflight performance assessment (W P FR/F U-80-4). Westlake Village, I
CA: Canyon Research Group, Inc., March 1980.
Roscoe, S. N., & Childs, J. M. Reliable, objective flight I
checks. In S. N. Roscoe, Aviation Psychology. Ames, IA:
lowa University Press,1980.
Hockenberger, R. L., & Childs, J. M. An integrated I
approach to pilot performance assessment. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society-24th Annual Meeting,1980, 462-465.
Sheinutt, J. B., Childs, J. M., Prophet, W. W., & Spears, W. D. Human factors problems in general aviation (Technical Report FAA-CT-80-194). Washington, DC:
I Federal Aviation Administation, April 1980.
Childs, J. M., Prophet, W. W., & Spears, W. D., The I
effects of pilot experience on acquiring instrument flight skills - Phase 1(Technical Report FAA-CT-81-38). -
Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration, March 1981.
Holmes, C. W., & Chilq.~J. M. The effects of pibS experience of acqui.*jeg instrument flight spis l>5 ate I
II(Technical Report f AA-CT-82/35.> Washdgton, DC:
Tederal Aviation Administration, January 1982.m I
5768P/0044h B-7 l
I.
JERRY M. CHILDS Shelnutt, J. B., Childs, J. M., Prophet, W. W., Smith, J.
P., & Strauch B. Development of guidance for evaluating the use of electronic flight instrument systems in general g
aviation aircraf t (Draf t Final Report). Pensacola, FL:
3 Seville Research Corporolon, February 1982.
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I 1
I I
I T
5768P/0044h B-8 I
.[\\
I JOEL L. COLSTON I
Training General Supervisor, Houston Lighting & Power I
Education:
Naval Enlisted Scientific Education Program (NESEP),
80 quarter hours toward a Mechanical Engineering Degree Summary:
1 Year:
Operating General Supervisor, Houston Lighting & Power 2 Years:
Operations and Training, Houston Lighting & Power 20 Years:
U. S. Navy, Reactor Controls and Operations Experience:
Mr. Colston joined Houston Lighting & Power in 1978 as a Training Instructor on the South Texas Project staff responsible for I
developing training programs for reactor operators. During this time he completed a five week systems training course and a two week simulator training course at the Westinghouse Nuclear I
Training center in Zion, Illinois. In July 1978, he was assigned the additional duties of Operating Coordinator and was responsible for both the Operating Section and the Training Group.
In this capacity Mr. Colston also coordinated the Three Mile Island (TMD I
Operations Task Force responsible for reviewing and studying the impact of the TMl incident on STP operations in the areas of staffing, training, and procedures. In October 1979 he assumed I
responsibility for procurement of the STP training simulator. He was promoted to Training General Supervisor in 1981.
Mr. Colston joined the Navy in 1958 and during his 20 year's service I
he was assigned many duties. He served as a Training Instructor teaching Reactor Control and Instrumentation theory. He was the Reactor Controls Division, Leading Petty Officer on the USS I
Bainbridge and USS Enterprise responsible for maintenance of reactor control and instrumentation systems. In this capacity he qualified as Reactor Technician and Reactor Operator aboard both
- g sFrjs. He also qualified as Propulsion Plant Watch Supervisor and l 3 Propulsion Plant Officer aboard the USS Enterprise. In January 1969 he was assigned to Glynco Naval Air Station in Brunswich, Georgia as the Ground Electronics Maintenance Supervisor. There a
g he supervised Navy electronic technicians and civilian electronic mechanics in the repair of various electronic gear.
He was reassigned to the USS Bainbridge in as Reactor Controls Division Chief Petty Officer. In that capacity he supervised reactor I
operators and technicians involved in the operation, maintenance, and repair of reactor controls and instrumentation systems.
I I
I 5768P/0044h B-9 I
JOEL L. COLSTON During his assignment on the Bainbridge, Mr. Colston also held the Reactor Controls Division Officer and the Engineering Controls Division Officer positions. In February 1978 Mr. Colston was g
assigned to the Staff, Commander Naval Surface Force, Pacific g
Fleet. In this capacity he was responsible for the support of operation of the Naval Nuclear Surface Ships in the Pacific Fleet.
I I
Ii I!
I:
I.
iI I
I I
I I
I l
l l
5768P/0044h B-10 l
I
E. L. (RETT) CO NSIDINE g
Principal Investigator g
I Education:
U.S. Naval Schools Electronic Technician "A", Treasure Island, California Enlisted Submarine School, New Iondon, Connecticut Basic Nuclear Power School, Mare Island, California I
Nuclear Power Training Unit, Idaho Falls, Idaho Undergraduate Engineering Courses, El Camino College Summary:
Present:
Engineering Group Supervisor, Control Systems, Bechtel 4 Years:
Engineering Group Supervisor on a major coal fired power project 1 Year:
Engineering Group Leader on a major international power project in Spain 1/2 Year:
Control Systems Supervisor on a seawater I
injection pipeline 5 Years:
Engineering Group Leader on several major power plant projects with responsibility for control room and control systems design 1/2 Year:
Field liaison during computer modifications at I
Southern California Edison's Alamitos and Huntington Beach Generating Stations 8 Years:
Power plant operation and maintenance, pressurized water reactors Experience:
Mr. Considine has over 19 years experience in the design, operation, I
and maintenance of power plants and is presently an Engineering Staff Specialist responsible to the South Texas Project for development and implementation of the Control Room Design I
Review per NUREG 0700. He was a supervising engineer on the Gulf States Utilities' Roy S. Nelson Station where, for three years, he was responsible for Control Systems. Prior to this, he was I
assigned to the Sayago project in Spain with supervisory responsibilities for Bechtel and the client organization. He was directly responsible for the analog controls, computer, annunciator, and control room designs.
As a Staff Engineer he was instrumental in the Control Systems design concept for a three-boiler, two-turbine cogeneration unit.
I 5768P/0044h B-11 I
E. L. (RETT) CO NSIDINE Previously, he was Control Systems Supervisor on the Seawater pmject, responsible for the design of 16 interacting control systems. Other Bechtel experience includes Control Systems Staff g
responsibilities in the areas of chemical laboratories, nuclear 3
controls, and control rooms for fossil and nuclear projects; proposal and Preliminary Safety Analysis Report Technical support for domestic and international efforts; and conceptual design of several nuclear unit control rooms.
Prior to joining Bechtel, Mr. Considine qualified as Senior Reactor l
Operator on Naval reactors, and supervised reactor operators and a
technicians. He also served as Senior Reactor Control Instructor and was a member of a reactor operator qualification board.
Affiliations:
Member, American Nuclear Society, South Texas Station I
I I
I I
l I
I I
I I
I I
I 5768P/0044h B-12 I
ERROL P. GAGNON I
Systems and Licensing Specialist Educatiom B.S., San Diego State University Summary:
Present:
Assistant Project Engineer, Torrey Pines Technology 13 Years:
Gene-al Atomic Company I
4 Years:
Dynamic analyses of missile control systems, General Dynamics Corp.
Experience:
Assistant Project Engineer, Torrey Pines Technology Experience at General Atomic Company includes: 7hairman of the Results Review Committee of the Human Factors Evaluation I
program for the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Generating Station control room and responsible for coordination of the program tasks.
Developed safety / licensing positions and criteria for various I
applications of nuclear power plants; evaluated nuclear power plant systems and components to identify and prioritize technical, safety and licensing issues; developed nuclear power plant transient I
performance specifications.
Mr. Gagnon was a senior Technical Representative at Fort St. Vrain I
responsible for technical coordination and guidance on the conduct and evaluation of the startup test program.
He was Manager of the French Licensee Program responsible for I
the administrative and techincal-transfer aspects of the nuclear power plant licensing agreements and contracts.
Mr. Gagnon performed simulation studies and evaluations of nuclear power plant transient performance / safety-analyses, control systems, control room configurations and plant startup procedures and performed dynamic analyses of missile control systems.
Affiliations:
Member, American Nuclear Society I
I I
I 5768P/0044h B-13 I
I M. R. GROSS Engineering Supervisor, Control Systems Bechtel Power Corporation Education:
BSME, University of Illinois MBA, University of San Francisco Summary:
1 Year:
Control Systems Lead Resident Engineer 2 Years:
Control Systems Deputy Group Supervisor and Licensing Coordinator 6 Years:
Control Systems Group Supervisor 1 Year:
FSAR Administrator 10 Years:
Mechanical Design Engineer and Lead Instrument Engineer 20 years:
Controls Systems, Nuclear Projects Expe:.ence:
Mr. Gross is presently the Control Systems Deputy Group Supervisor for Bechtel Power Corporation and is assigned to the South Texas Project, where he is responsible for supervising the NSSS and Control Room /TMI Groups including main control boards and control room design review.
As the Control Systems Lead Resident Engineer assigned to the Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2, he was responsible for organizing and directing C.S. construction support activities at the Midland jobsite including approval of instrument isometric drawings and support designs. Acted as deputy to resident Project Engineer. As the 3
Control Systems Deputy Group Supervisor and Licensing 3
Coordinator he was responsible for C.S. group management and licensing review and FSAR update.
I As Control Systems Group Supervisor while assigned to the Greenwood Units 2 and 3 Project he was responsible for the C.S.
portion of project planning, scheduling, design criteria, PSAR l
preparation, and process system development.
He directed a
engineering design of an advanced control room and supporting computer system.
As Control Systems Group Supervisor for the Monroe Fuels and Emissions Modification Project, he was responsible for new
'nstrumentation, development of test instruments, and addition of the Stack Gas Analysis System.
I I
5768P/0044h B-14 I
I M. R. GROSS Mr. Gmss'second assignment on the Midland project was as FSAR Administrator responsible for organizing and directing a
I multi-discipline engineering team for writing the Midland FSAR.
During a short assignment on Vandalia Project as Control Systems Group Supervisor, he was responsible for project planning, C.S.
I design criteria, and preparation of the PSAR.
As Control Systems Group Supervisor, on Mr. Gross' first Midland I
Plant assignment he was responsible for defining control systems design criteria, control room design, plant computer, and equipment specifications.
For a period of ten years, Mr. Gross was a Mechanical Design Engineer and Lead Instrument Engineer on various power projects and was responsible for C.S. design and procurement for the I
Monticello and Trojan Nuclear Plants, including control room design.
I I
I I
I I
I I
I 5768P/0044h B-15 I
GARY R. HELGESON Operating General Supervisor, Project Review Team Houston Lighting & Power Education:
Completed 110 credit hours toward a degree in Industrial Nuclear Operations at Glendale Community College and Memphis State University Completed t,. S. Navy technical training Courses Summary:
11 Years:
Reactor Operator / Training Supervisor, Wisconsin Electric Power 2 Years:
Shift Supervisor, Arizona Public Service 3 Years:
Reactor Operator, U.S. Navy Experience:
Mr. Helgeson joined Houston Lighting and Power in 1982 and is l
presently the Operating General Supervisor at the South Texas W
Nuclear Project.
For two years, Mr. Helgeson was a shift supervisor, assigned to the Palo Verde Nuclear Generation Station. Responsibilities included construction follow-up, startup testing, procedure writing, shift administrative duties, and system qualification.
For Wisconsin Electric Power he was a Reactor Operator and Operating Supervisor assigned to the Point Beach Nuclear Plant.
g He participated in construction surveillance, startup testing, 3
procedure writing and power escalation.
Acquired Reactor Operator License for Point Beach Units 1 and 2 in 1970 and Senior Reactor Operator License for both units in 1972. He later became the training supervisor assigned to Point Beach Nuclear Plant. He established and conducted formal training programs for the operation, maintenance, instrumentation and controls, and health 3
physics departments. Also he was assigned responsibilities of g
refueling core loading supervisor, security supervisor, health physics supervisor and fire brigade chief at various times during this period.
I Attended the Naval Nuclear Power Training Program and qualified as a reactor operator. He was assigned to the U.S.S. James Monroe and was qualified on all engineering space watch stations. He j
supervised all reactor startups, shutdowns, tests and special E
operations; ensured safe and proper operation of the reacter at all times; and was responsible for the maintenance and preventive g
maintenance of all reactor control, protection and radiation g
monitoring equipment.
I I
5768P/0044h B-16 I
I SAL F. LUN A I
Project Engineer Education:
B.S., Chemistry, Magna Cum Laude, Niagara University Specialty courses: Seismic - Wyle Labs, Human Factors -
University of Tennessee and Electric Power Research Institute.
Summary:
Present:
Manager, Human Factors Evaluation, Torrey Pines Technology Experience:
Mr. Luna has been involved in a variety of projects such as:
Technical director, human factors engineering, management of Human Factors review of Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station.
Performed Annunciator Prioritization Study for same.
Design of a wide variety of systems for advanced HTGR plants.
I Special studies for application of all technology for modernizing existing nuclear power plants featuring a " Diagnostic Console."
I Directed development of in-core and ex-core instrumentation to study Fort St. Vrain core fluctuation phenomena. Directed site engineering and craft effort to provide fire protection of critical Fort St. Vrain cabling.
Prepared specifications, designed special testing equipment conducted qualification tests, evaluated results and prepared
- I reports for cabling and instrumentation for Fort St.
Vrain equipment qualification program.
Directed design of advanced control room control consoles and I
unitized cabinets including: human factors engineering, full scale mockups, modular construction and seismic qualification.
Managed a wide variety of instrumentational control and development groups at Westinghouse Electric Corp. for the nuclear navy and commercial nuclear programs.
Cognizant engineer for Annunciator Systems for same.
Directed the design and development of a wide variety of
)
processing plant instrumentation systems for Catalytic 1
I Construction Co.
Publications:
Editor of Cassette Control Valve Training Program I
Author of chapter on Maintenance -ISA control Valve Handbook Author of chapter on Liquid Level Measurement - EA publication I
5768P/0044h B-17
I SAL F. LUNA Professional Affiliations:
Registered Profesaictri, Jngineer, California Fellow Grade Member, $A g
Vice President Long Ruge Planning Department, ISA E
Nuclear Power Plant Standards Committee, EA Member, Human Factors Society I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
5768P/0044h B-18 I
I
T~
GEORGE J. MALEK Systems Specialist, Torrey Pines Technology i
Education:
B.S., Mechanical Engineering, Case Institute of Technology M.S., Engineering Science, UCLA Experience:
Mr. Malek was responsible for the auxiliary feedwater system on assignment to Bechtel Power Corporation, SONGS 2 and 3 Project. This involved coordination with the client, construction, i
startup testing, and engineering disciplines; resolved startup problems from the field on various plant systems; reviewed test procedures for safety class equipment.
He coordinated in-plant activities of technical support team during startup tests st Fort St. Vrain site. The areas of involvement were primary system performance, steam system performance and I
overall plant control system. Mr. Malek performed preliminary "on the spot" evaluation of plant performance during startup tests.
Prepared test procedures for portions of the plant startup tests and for special tests to investigate unexpected plant performance I
phenomena.
Performed optimization studies on the major design parameters for I-nuclear reactor power plants.
Formulated analytical models for design and cost of systems, developed a major computer program and prepared c.
comprehensive report.
Coordinated with the I
architect-engineer on the interfaces between NSS systems and the balance of the plant. The interfaces included schedules, system specifications, overall plant performance, safeguards and licensing.
Mr. Malek directed the design activities on various reactor heat transfer and fluid flow systems. 'Ihese activities included reactor safety analyses, turbulent mixing and diffusion analyses, flow stability in once-through boilers, flow distribution studies in the reactor core, and design analyses of the core auxiliary cooling system (CACS).
Made numerous presentations to the customers, the NRC and the ACRS on the performance of the CACS.
Also, Mr. Malek has performed design analysis on nuclear reactor heat transfer and fluid flow systems. Major accomplishments were I
lead engineer on the development of fuel element concepts for a BeO moderated reactor, development of computer codes to analyze core performance characteristics, and principal investigator of an analytical and experimental investigation to study flow induced vibrations in a reactor core.
I I
li e 1, u
GEORGE J. M ALEK Professional Affiliations:
Registered Mechanical Engineer, California Associate Fellow, AIAA g
Member, American Nuclear Society 3
Member, American Society Mechanical Engineers i
(
I I
I 5768P/0044h B-20
M ARY B. MORETON Chairman, Project Review Team Er x
=-
Education:
BS, Systems Engineering, University of Arizona Summary:
Present:
Control Systems Group Leader 3 Years:
Control Systems Group Leader i
5-1/2 Years:
Bechtel Control Systems Engineer engaged in design of nuclear steam power stations Experience:
Ms. Moreton is currently a Control Systems Group Leader on the South Texas Project responsible for all Control Systems post-TMI i
design activities and main control panel. Previously, she was a Control Systems Group Leader on the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Project, a three unit 3900-MW generating station.
She was responsible for the System 80 (2 loop) Nuclear Steam Supply System controls and instrumentation, control systems licensing, specifications, and development of post-TMI control systems design changes. Earlier Ms. Moreton was responsible for reviewing and approving vendor documents for the Traning Simulator to ensure
~_
correct simulation of the power plant process. SHe also reviewed D
various control systems to provide comprehensive training for power I
station operators.
Earlier design responsibilities for a nuclear power station included i
developing Preliminary Safety Analysis Reports, Design Criteria, g
Piping and Instrument Diagrams, Logic Diagrams, Loop Diagrams, p
Specifications and Bid Evaluations for the Control Systems discipline. She has a thorough knowledge of NRC Regulatory I
Guides, IEEE Standards, and requirments for their implementation.
Ms. Moreton has also worked on the integration of the NSSS safety and control systems into the plant design, as well as design of the plant annunciator, computer and safety features actuation systems.
She has also been involved with the instrumentation and control of safety-related and radwaste process systems.
Professional Affiliations:
Member, Instrument Society of America Member, Society of Women Engineers a
.[
Registered Professional Engineer, California
,1 l
=
5768P/0044h B-21 A-
I ROBERT D. NEIL Unit Supervisor, Houston Lighting & Power Education:
Associate of Science, Mohegan College, Norwich, CN Summary:
1 Year: Unit Supervisor, Houston Lighting & Power 20 Years: U.S. Navy Experience:
Mr. Neil joined HL&P in 1978 as a control room operator. During 1979 and 1980 he participated in various workshops conducted by EPRI, G.E. and Sandia Laboratories on Human Factors Engineering in the Control Room and participated in evaluating South Texas 3
Project and Allens Creek main control boards. In 1981 Mr. Neil was g
promoted to Unit Sepervisor.
Completed U.S. Navy Nuclear Power School in 1963 and served as l
Operator / Instructor and engineroom supervisor at A1W Prototype 45 until 1966. Served on USS Bainbridge as Engineroom Leading Petty Officer and inport Engineering Duty Officer from 1966 to 1968. He g
completed the EOOW Water Chemistry School in 1969. At DIG E
Prototype from 1968 to 1971, he qualified as an Engineering Officer of the Watch.
He assisted the plant Material Manager in a
scheduling maintenance activities during core depletion tests. While g
in Bainbridge as Leading 'M' Division Petty Officer in 1972, he qualified as Engineroom Supervisor.
Mr. Neil was assigned to USS Enterprise as an Assistant Reactor Division Officer from 1972 to 1976. As such he coordinated and directed the efforts of mechanics, electricians and electronics a
technicians in the operation and maintenance of two reactor g
plants. He qualified as a propulsion Plant Watch Officer and at various times acted as Division Officer in the absence of a commissioned officer. Prior to his transfer to the U.S. Navy Fleet l
Reserve in 1978, he was the Repair Department Imading Petty 5
Officer and Senior Enlisted Advisor for the Trident Refit Facility at Submarine Base, Bangor, Washington. In 1978, he concluded the Wertinghouse Reactor Operator Training, Phase II, Option IIL I
I I
I 5768P/0044h B-22 I
I I
RICHARD C. POTTER Systems Specialist, Torrey Pines Technology I
Education:
B.S., Mechanical Engineering, University of Minnesota M.S., Mechanical Engineering, University of Southern California Experience:
Mr. Potter was recently responsible for a fire vulnerability study of three Northeast Utilities nuclear power plants. Study involved the use of probabilistic risk assessment techniques.
He participated in a probabilistic risk assessment of the Fort St.
Vrain plant to determine clean up costs versus probability for I
on-site contamination due to an interruption of cooling event.
Mr. Potter was assigned to the Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating I
Station project responsible for:
modifying and maintaining computer models for the simulation of steady-state and transient plant performance; overall performance review which included data monitoring and analysis as required to ensure proper plant I
operations; and performing steady-state and dynamic analysis to support the plant startup testing program.
I Another project involved a conceptual analysis of a natural convection, drum-type and condenser-type shutdown cooling system.
On the HTGR nuclear project he was responsible for the following:
I modifying and maintaining the steady-state plant performance prog-am, the pipe rupture analysis program and the core afterheat analysis program; predicting power plant nominal, shutdown and I
refueling performance for use by design and analysis grcups within the company and for use by the customers; and performing parametric and application studies relating to the overall plant design and performance.
Prior to joining Torry Pines Technology, he was a design engineer responsible for design and detailing of ground support equipment for I
rockets. Performed propulsion analyses, application studies and computer simulation work on large liquid rocket engines.
I Professional Affiliations:
Professional Mechanical Engineer, California Member, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Member, Pi Tau Sigma I
I I
I 5768P/0044h B-23
I ROBERT H. STURTEVANT Inventory Educatiom San Diego State University, Physics Experience:
Mr. Sturtevant is with Torrey Pines Technology and his area of specialty is process plant system layout and design, specializing in structural / piping and electrical system layouts, pressure vessel design and layout, and massive concrete / steel design.
He is currently identifying safety-related components that appear on P&I diagrams and one-line electrical diagrams, and providing technical g
support for seismic analysis of nuclear core and core support g
elements, including design studies, and reports.
He has participated in design of pilot plant for nuclear fuel recycling from mechanical and structural considerations to solvent extraction processes.
He has designed an environmentally compatible tertiary waste treatment facility including equipment and material specifications and applications.
Earlier, he conducted design studies of core support systems including thermal growth and gap analysis of both metallic and graphite materials, with dimensional and tolerance analysis.
He has performed sizing and stress calculations and layout drawings of prestressed concrete reactor vessels.
Determined optimum g
routing and space requirements of steam and feedwater piping, and 5
designed power distribution layouts and operator consolcs for stage lighting systems.
I I
I I
I I
I 5768P/0044h B-24 I
FREDERICK W. TODT Annunciator Review IAader, Torrey Pines Technology Educatiom B.S., Physics, Wayne State University Experience:
Mr. Todt has coordinated proposal efforts to supply computer hardware and software for emergency response facilities for nuclear plants and implemented computer demonstration of plant disturbance detection concept.
He has developed real time appHeation programs to support startup testing and reactor operation; nonitored system behavior during startup, located deficiencies and made modifications as needed; and trained plant personnel to use computer facilities.
Mr. Todt was a section leader for a large plant computer system application software development and has written specifications for plant computer hardware and software and participated in the vendor evaluation process.
l He has performed nuclear design and analysis calculations associated with reactor power shaping, fuel cycles, control poison worth, and safety evaluations of HTGR and PWR reactors.
In the past, Mr. Todt has developed methods and computer programs for nuclear fuel cycle studies, fuel cost analysis, and automation of I
reactor design parametric studies; performed nuclear design studies on small power, research, and space reactor concepts using a variety of fuels, moderators, and coolants; evaluated nuclear design calculation programs (computer codes) by comparison with critical experiments; and performed laboratory work with radioactive isotopes including sample
- counting, dosage preparation, standardization.
Calibrated x-ray machines and radiation I
measurement equipment. Performed radiation shielding surveys.
Professional Affiliations:
Member, American Nuclear Society i
I B
=
I 5768P/0044h B-25
PETER VANDEVISSE Imad Engineer, I&C, Project Review Team Houston Lighting & Power Educatiom BSME, San Jose State University Sum mary:
1 Year: Consultant, Brown & Root 1
8 Years: Various Positions, Quadrex Corporation 6 Years: Reactor Operator, U.S. Navy 4 Years: Control Systems Engineer, General Motors Experience:
Mr. VandeVisse joined Houston Lighting & Power in 1982 as the South Texas Project Lead Engineer for intruments and controls. He is responsible for review of instrumentation and control systems and component analysis, design, procurement, fabrication, installation and construction, testing, start-up and operational support. His duties also include development and maintenance of the I&C engineering budget, review of A/E activities, supervision of the I&C engineering group, support of STP project management, quality assurance, licensing, and other engineering and technical activities.
During Mr. VandeVisse's tenure with Brown & Root, he was the consultant to the I&C department for the implementation of TMI requirements. He also assisted in project transition when Bechtel Power Corporation was named as Architect-Engineer for the South Texas Nuclear project.
During the eight years that Mr. VandeVisse was employed by E
Quadrex he had various assignments and responsibilities. He was 5
the site manager for Quadrex personnel at the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, where he provided technical assistance to the utility during construction and plant startup. He was also responsible for the surveillance programs used to comply with the plant technical specifications. During his assignment at Commanche Peak Steam Electric Station he assisted in FSAR review, utility response to TMI, preparation of engineering QA procedures and other technical programs. As a project leader, Mr. VandeVisse designed and supervised the fabrication and implementation of the process sensor time response test equipment and response time test surveillance programs or several nuclear power plants. He also supervised the development of I&C maintenance and surveillance programs for several utilities. As project leader at the Farley Nuclear Plant in Alabama, he assisted the I&C department in startup and operation.
This included responsibility for startup and operational test, maintenance, calibration and surveillance procedure programs, the g
development of instrument scaling and the response time test g
program.
I l
l I
I 5768P/0044h B-26 I
B PETER VANDEVISSE Prior to joining Quadrex, he was a reactor operator and electronics technician in the U.S. Navy where he scheduled and supervised I
reactor control division plant maintenance, qualification programs and operational activities. During a major overhaul he coordinated naval and civilian personnel in repair and maintenance of nuclear and electronic systems.
While attending college, he was a control system engineer and co-op student at General Motors Institute.
I I
I I
I I
I I
. I I
I 5768P/0044h B-27 I
I Y. M. YUFIK Process Computers Leader, g
Torrey Pines Technology g
Education:
M.S., Electronics, Odessa Polytechnic Institute, Odessa, USSR Ph.D., Experimental Physics, Kalinin University, Kalinin, USSR Postdoctoral Training, Experimental Psychology, Leningrad University, Leningrad, USSR Postdoctoral Training, Cognitive Psychology, University of California, San Diego Man-machine Interaction in Nuclear Industry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology I
Experience:
Mr. Yufik is a Process Computers Imader for Torrey Pines Technology and is responsible for analysis of decision support for 3
power plant operators.
5 Other experience includes: research in mathematical modeling and analysis of decision making processes; researched and supervised development of computer based systems for pyschological testing and evaluation; supervising and/or performing analysis of human reliability and decision making strategies,and developing programs for training in problem solving and rational decision making.
Mr. Yufik supervised and/or performed systems analysis and development in computer assisted design, developed mathematical models for a variety of engineering and scientific problems, and reduced engineering problems to computer processible form.
Publications:
Authored 13 papers in Experimental Physics, Computer Assisted Instruction and Evaluation, Simulation of Cognitive Strategies Affiliations:
Member, Human Factors Society Member, Cognitive Science Society Member, National Society for Performance and Instruction I
I 5768P/0044h B-28 I
L l
]
I l
.,ess oix c
,~ a.m..,_
I l
l l
l l
l l
l
S E
T O
N M
E T
I Y
F I
T N
E D
E I
TA H7 D
TN E
- E 0
IRS l AE Es DWCiC N
.N E ASA D TET SCSNMG E
I TTEC UI S C
EA E
MRIR D PC T
L l
OGGA a
NNNN E
I I I ir SRTG e
EEAI t
OEU R a
O DN N m
I MGEE t
EN TH s
XT i
E TE I
E N.
l N
DI k
E E
H A EA ce RS L TMEUP h
UHAX c
F HTCE l
I a
E c
ip 5l 2l 2l 5l 15 y
.E !55$c w3je8 AE AE AE BE B8 T
E o
A
/
M N
OHUEb*$Eoa"29E i
oEE*
Oz,.O2 E
s e
bMU25" o=ELys5 a
M E3* g$=th ut zs
=
)s s )G a
h.
ek C
M r
5?
0?
- h c0(
f at i 0 eoe G.
- a 5l 1l r
k1d v i h N
t e a
a 8
nrR nt nt eo
( n o mt R
N eo
)
en en pt a
.a l
d s
u E
eh cG eo eo o
annn)
E 0
w iV wz wi een) i eaG 4N 1
t er(
ti tt H
esriG nsi e C
E M
G eht er er hoe A
ioiwe(
R E
ed bo bo tl h4(
mtl AG N i t T
l I
n n h
h ct E
N t
eo?
HI $
R d moa d
d e
t?
aabss COR C
eop ee ee rd ss) r nt e AI t
pro) ph ph enian ee) oc t NO N
of rG ot) ot) h a em pra ce W
s s
I C O
l hR G
G wt el oe u j
SS A l
l g
s0 tA smV smV sc 0
l h yb E I I
T f.
0n(
o(
o(
s at0 t0no RH K
A 80A C r Dr uO N C L
l n
l n
l n
leof a1 o
0a g E U
AA e
f d 1
d t r
(
rs5 e
f o
uf ti(fl A
MS S
A ed?i e0 a e0 a ssso i
n E
U N V
nnll n5 s5 na n
o..ob F 08 a
3 9 O E
aaae a6) a1) oht ei cnnt v t
F no t 5 E
g p
td p
G p
G c
nc 0 ni dR dR roa4 r
om AE6 OI e
ii 3O H
s0 ou snA snA norp o60rn E
E N I 9 zG E
I a(
I a(
Otf sx f
32f u R
t 6 D
E 8 F e
t S M A
7 8.
I NA E
Om 9
0 1
F L
g 1
1 1
2 2
0 CE P
?e g
i' l
HUMAN ENGINEERING GUIDELINE CONSIDERATIONS FOR CLi l, WORKSPACE CalECKLIST ITEM GUIDELINES GUIDELINE FUNCTION NUMBERS POIENTIAL llUMAN EHR0R A) Visibility I.
llave unrestricted views of all displays 3, 24, 25 Oper4tional errors resulting from his normal working positions.
from misreading the displays, delay in reading the dis-2.
Utilize the displays without inducing 4, 18, 19, 26 plays, and/or misinterpreta-eye fatigue by placing the display in tion of displays. Opera t ing the optimum visual zone.
the wrong control, operating a control in the wrong direc-3.
Utilize " Normal Line of Sight" to sint-5 tion and/6r a lack of timely
]
mize muscular neck fat!gue, control response.
4.
Utilize "Ef fective Viewing" distances.
14 1
5.
Minimize reflection.
16, 17, 34, 39 6.
Utilize " Visual Recognition Cues".
29, 28 B). Clearance /
1.
Allow enough space to allow access to and 21, 22 Operational errors resulting n
e Comfort from workplaces.
from fatigue or the inability to read displays. Inadver-2.
Allow enough space to eliminate feelings 8
tent activation of controls.
of confinement.
3.
Eliminate physical discomfort.
10, 33, 37 4.
Allow for proper adjustment of the body.
II, 13 5.
Allow enough space to prevent anthropo-20, 9. 12, 21, 22 metric man / machine conflicts and man / man 23, 48 conflicts.
CLd_I _, Page 1 of 3 Typical guideline M
M M
M M
M E
M O
E O
E E
E E
E E
E E
I
. nam:
I B.
Workspace Design
- 1. Can the status of your plant be 91.
yes no monitored from one central position?
I I
OP
- 2. Are specific stations assigned 82.
yes no to operators and watch fore-man?
I I
OP
- 3. During normal or off-normal B3.
yes no I
operations, do the actions or tasks of another operator ever interfere with performance of your tasks?
I
- 4. Have you ever experienced 84.
yes no any difficulty in reaching a re-I quired control or seeing/ read-ing a required display?
I I
- 5. Have you ever experienced B5.
yes no any problems locating the cor-I rect control or display (for ex-ample, operating the wrong switch or inaccurately oper-ating the correct switch)?
I I
c-3 5
a PU$
- 6. Are panels arranged within B6.
yes no your CR in a manner which is logical for normal and emer-g gency operations?
e I
- 7. Are controls and displays per-B7.
yes no taining to systems or subsys-tems grouped logically and dis-tinctively within each panel?
I
- 8. Doesyourpanellackimportant B8.
yes no g
information, controls of dis-3 plays, which would help you perform your job more effec-g tively or safely?
g I
- 9. Are important data, controls or B9.
yes no displays, inaccessible or diffi-cult to access because of placement (for example, locat-ed in back panels out of opera-tor's view)?
- 10. Does your CR contain controls, B10.
yes no displays or other equipment which is inoperative, not used, l
or unnecessary for you to do an effective job?
I I
I I
C-4
~ MlE'd I
- 11. Do you fir.d mimics or graphic / B11.
yes no N/A pictorial panel arrangements,if used, helpful in performing your job?
I I
- a. If "no,"
please describe B11a.
why you feel they are not helpful and any recom-I mendations you may have on improvements.
I l
- 12. Have you ever inadvertently 812.
yes no disturbed control settings (for
~
example, accidentally bumping a switch)?
I
- 13. Have groups of controls or dis-813.
yes no I
plays which look identical or very similar beer marked or coded to permit easy discrim-I ination between them?
lI
- a. If "no," please describe B13a.
I areas where you feel mark-ing or coding would en-hance your ability to dis-criminate between com-I ponents.
E
,I I
l c-5
%,TJJ l
- 14. Please describe the adminis-B14 tration procedure for adding operator-recommended modifi-cations to labeling, demarca-tion lines, mimics, or for adding
~ guarding for certain controls, or otherwise modifying the panel.
I
- 15. Do you find operator-added B15.
yes no modifications helpful?
- a. If "no," please describe B15a.
those modificatr" which you find to be ice.
I
- 16. Are major panels, sub-panels B16.
yes no and panel segments clearly and consistently labeled?
~
I OP 17. Is the CR arranged to be ef-B17.
fectively operated by the mini-W mum shift required?
During normal operations?
yes no During transients /emer-yes no l
gency operations?
4I!
I!
l C w s
s
. g
I
. n;n I
1.
Integration I
- 1. How and how well are displays, 11.
annunciators and controls grouped, integrated and related?
I I
B I
I l
- 2. Are the same versions of the
- 12.,
same procedures used in train-ing and in the control room?
E I
I
- 3. Are the same terms and abbre-13.
viations used on the control panel, in all documents, dia-I grams and procedures, and ir; all training courses and written materials?
E l
l
~
E l
I C-7 l
na;>
l I
F.
Control Room Equipment, Displays and Instrumentation I
- 1. What do you think about the F1.
size, shape and arrangement of the control room?
I I
I I
I I
I
- 2. What do you think about the F2.
systems arrangement of the g
control boards?
w I
I I
I 5'
l c.e
i"2" I
- 3. Oces any thing stick in your F3.
mind as being in a poor loca-I tion? Do you have any trouble reaching any controlor reading any display?
I I
I I
I I
- 4. What is your opinion of the dis-F4.
plays? What's bad - what's I
good?
I I
- I I
lI l
l I I
'~'
I
a 9sTo A
- 5. Do any of the switches give F5.
you trouble?
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
- 6. Do you see any problem with F6.
acc.idental switch operation?
I I
I I
t I
I C-10 I
. NIES I
- 7. Any problems with control sta-F7.
tions?
I I
I I
I I
I I
- 8. What do you think about the F8.
l panel labeling?
I I
I I
I I
I c-u
% f"15E
- 9. How about the labeling of indi-F9.
vidual devices?
I I
I' I
- 10. Are there any color schemes F10.
that you think may be confus-ing?
I I
I
- 11. Do you have any likes or dis-F11.
likes for the graphics used on
~
the boards?
I I
I I
l I
C-12 I
% f"sAE I
OP 12. Are you satisfied with the facili-F12.
ties for preparing your shift I
paperwork?
I
- 13. Is there any thing about the F13.
board that is confusing?
I I
I I
I I
I
- 14. Have you ever made or are you F14.
thinking of making any recom-l mendations for modifying the control boards or control room?
i I i I I
1I C-13 1I
. 79 %
l
- 15. What is your opinion of the an-F15.
nunciators?
I I
I I
- 16. Do you have any suggestions F16.
for improvements?
I I
I I
- 17. Same questions as 15,16 rela-F17.
tive to CRT displays.
I I
I I
l I
I I
l C-14 I
1
(
%. NEL I
18 What is your opinion of the F18.
control board color?
I I
- 19. What do you think about the F19.
overall illumination?
I I
l OP 20. How do you get information on F20.
plant / maintenance status?
I 9~
I I
l OP 21. Are all aspects of status avail-F21.
able from more than one source?
I I
I c-15 I
. ?l?G I
OP
- 22. Which sources do you prefer? F22.
Why?
I I
I OP
- 23. Give some examples of infor-F23.
mation sources that are easy g
to use.
5 I
I I
OP 24. Give some examples of infor-F24.
mation sources that are hard to use.
I I
I I
I C-16
NisA ae I
OP 25. Do you have any other com-F25.
ments on:
I What you like?
I I
I I
What you dislike?
I I
I
- I What needs improvement?
I I
I I
C-17 I
1
NUlE
=e
- 26. What is your confidence level F26.
of operating the plant safely from the control board?
I I
I I
I
- 27. How important do you judge F27.
yourself to be relative to plant safety and plant operations?
I I
I I
I I
I C-18 I
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M 69 M
M M
SYSTEM FACTOR CHECKLIST (General Questions) ct. no. is o. n
.o owawuoi Plant Mode identifier Date of interview System 1 - N nnal Person (s) Interviewed 11 - Loss of Coolant Accident Data Collector (s) lli - Loss of Electrical Power Affiliation IV -Safe Shutdown from Outside CR Title
~
QUESTION ANSWER COMMENTS 7.
In considering plant mode operations, For Mode il are there any devices that should be relocated or duplicated in another section of the board or off the n
4 board?: (Note reasoning in answer) e I
l g
m
SYSTEM FACTOR CHECKLIST (General Questions) ct e... ia e. n. o noiso/ von Plant Mode identifier Date of interview System 1 - Normal Person (s) in:erviewed 11 - Loss of Coolant Accident Data Collector (s) lli - Loss of Electrical Power Affiliation IV -Safe Shutdown from Outside CR Title
~
QUESTION ANSWER COM.MENTS
- 6. Are there any board functions which are For Mode 11 lietter handled in a dif ferent board or ofI board location?: (Note reasoning in answer) n b
um uma uma ime ummm uma uma ea umm gium muss uma met uma mum um uma uma e
m m
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M e
m W
W SYSTEM FACTOR CHECKLIST (General Questions) ct no. is a. n...o nwawson Date of interview Systein Plant Mode identifier I - "
"""I Person (s) Interviewed 11 - Loss of Coolant Accident Data Collector (s) lli - Loss of Electrical Power Affiliation IV -Safe Shutdown from Outside CR v-Title QUESTION ANSWER COMMENTS S. What additional function and For Mode 111 corresponding board devices do you think should be added for each plant mode?: (Note reasoning in
?
answer)
SYSTEM FACTOR CHECKLIST (General Questions) ctNo.n u.n.ononomo Plant Mode identifier Date of interview Systern 1 - Normal Person (s) Interviewed 11 - Loss of Coolant Accident Data Collector (s) lli - Loss of Electrical Power Affiliation IV -Safe Shutdown from Outside CR Title QUESTION ANSWER COMMENTS
?
M G
J
M M
M M
M M
M M
~M
-W M
SYSTEM FACTOR CHECKLIST (General "luestions) ce no, i3 e. no. o nonomo, Date of interview System Plant Mode identifier
' ~ " ' * * '
Person (s) Interviewed 11 - Loss of Coolant Accident Data Collector (s) lli - Loss of Electrical Power Affiliation IV -Safe Shutdown from Outside CR V-Title QUESTION ANSWER COMMENTS 7.
In considering plant mode operations, For Mode V inre there any devices that should be relocated or duplicated in another n
section of the board or off the h
board?: (Note reasoning in answer)
I I
l l
f i
l
_