ML20077H991

Detailed Control Room Design Review Program Plan Rept

ML20077H991
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	08/08/1983
From:	DUQUESNE LIGHT CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20077H957	List: ML20077H956 ML20077H991
References
RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737 GL-82-33, PROC-830808, NUDOCS 8308120149
Download: ML20077H991 (38)

Text

- .- _ - . . --- . - _ .. - . _ . - _ _ _ _- - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _

i l

l p <

8>- j !: i idl.

Duquesne Lidit i

- ~

1 ,

s 1

Detailed Contrb1 Room Design Review Program Plan Report Beaver Valley Power Station -

Unit No. 2 Duquesne Light Company August 8, 1983 C O!oOO 2 PDR ,

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

1. INTRODUCTION .... . . . . . ...............1-1

2. OVERVIEW . . .. .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 1 2.1 Purpose 2-1 2.2 Object ives 2-1 2.3 Description of DCRDR Activities 2-1 2.4 Definition of Terms 2-2

3. MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING . . . . . .. . . ... . . . . . . .. . 3-1 3.1 Purpose 3-1 3.2 DCRDR Team Interf ace 3- 1

. 3.3 Management organization 3-1 3.4 Project Team 3-1 3.5 DCRDR Team 3-2 3.5.1 DCRDR Team Structure '3-2 3.5.1.1 Review Team Leader 3-2 3.5.1.2 Human Factors Specialist }-3 3.5.1.3 Reactor Operator 3-3 3.5.1.4 Instrumentation and Control Engineer 3-3 3.6 DCRDR Team Activities 3-4 3.7 DCRDR Team Orient ation 3-4 3.8 Use of Consultants 3-5

4. REVIEW PRASE . ... . . . . . . ... ... . .. . .. . . . . 4-1 4.1 Operating Experience Review 4-1 4.1.1 Documentation Review 4-2 4.1.2 Survey of Control Room Operating Personnel 4-3 4.2 Control Room Inventory 4-3 4.3 Control Room Survey 4-4 4.4 System Function Review and Task Analysis 4-5 4.5 Verification of Task Performance Capabilities 4- 7 4.6 Validation of Control Room Functions

• 4-7 4.6.1 Talk Throughs 4-8 4.6.2 Walk Throughs ~ 4- 8 l

l I .

- . - . . _ _ , i

i Page l

5. ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 5.1 Objectives 5-1 5.2 Evaluation Criteria 5-1 5.3 Resolution of HED's 5-2 5.4 Laplementation Schedule 5-3

6. DOCUMENTATION PHASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 6.1 Documentation Requirements 6-1 l

6.2 References 6-1 6.3 Review Documentation 6-2 6.4 Controlled Access File 6-2 6.5 Summary Report 6-3

7. COORDINATION WITH OTHER ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

8. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8-1

9. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1 4

ii

, , --n --g- 3 ~ e

.. - _- .- . .. .- . - = . - - - . . . . . . .. - - - . - .-. . . - - , . ~ . . - . .

t J

l FIGURES 4

, N l Figure 2-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5 4

Flowchart of DCRDR Activities  !

t Figure 3-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3- 6 ,

. t e.

Overview of Control Room Design Review

' Organizat ion

Figure 6-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4 DCRDR Summary Report i

f 4

l e

1

.t .

4 i

I 1

e e

i '

y lii N

6 s

+ .w, w -- ed - '.+ y,,~ri -- + ., . , *-w, y -y,4.r- , -w -w.,---.,-,- ,..E,.

-- y ,, -~ w---- - , - - -. . - ,.- *,. . - + , - - - - - . - - ,-.r-,-g *

1. INTRODUCTION The Beaver Valley Power S t at io n has two Wes t inghou se Pres surized Water Reac t o r's (PWR's). Beaver Valley Power Station - Unit No. 2 (BVPS-2) is currently under construction. It is a three-loop, high-he ad de s ign wi th a net unit electrical output of 836.0 MWe.

The approach developed for conducting the BVPS-2 Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR) is desc ribed in this Program Plan Report . The Program Plan Report is flexible and subject to revision, if required , as the phases of the DCRDR progress.

The DCRDR is cart of an extensive ef fort within the nuclear industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to evaluate nuclear power plant control rooms, and the operability of emergency operating procedures (EOP's) within the control room. ne goals of the DCRDR ef fo rt are to ident ify Human Engineering Discrepancies (HED's) within the context of the existing control rooms, evaluate the HED's for their possible impact on the safe operation of the plant, assess whether or not the impact is significant and provide fo r adequa t e disposition of the HED's that are ident ified . In ach ieving these goals, care must be taken to avoid negating the safety characteristics of the existing control room design, and also practical considerations require that any act ion take n to upgr ade the control roan uses ac cep t ed human factorc principles.

Although the DCRDR is directed toward the existing control room, it is recog-nized that other areas of conce rn, such as the design of a Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS), the development of new Emergency Operating Procedures, and the results of the Regulatory Guide 1.97 (Rev. 2) survey, will be coordi-nated with the DCRDR. Engineering studies using Regulatory Guide 1.9 7 (Rev .

2) were pe rformed and comple t ed to suppo rt preparation of the BVPS-2 Final Safety Analysis Report , Sect ion 7.5. These studi es and the engineering and design information derived from them, will be used to assure ef fect ive int e-gration of the review of post-accident monitoring ins trument at io n wi th the DCRDR and E0P's.

An overall schedule fo r the DCRDR, SPDS ins t alla t ion , the Regulatory Guide 1.97 (Rev. 2) survey, and the new E0P's implementation has been submitted to the NRC in the BVPS-2 response (2NRC-3-017) to Generic Letter 82-33, "Emer-gency Res pons e Capabili t ies ." It is within the framework of . the ove ral l schedule that the DCRDR tasks will be pe rfo rmed . Upon com ple t ion of the review and as ses sment phases of the DCRDR, BVPS-2 will submi t a summary report. The scheduled submittal date for this report is June 1,1985.

I l-1

2. OVERVIEW 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of the DCRDR is to ensure that the BVPS-2 control roan and r emot e shutdown panels will support safe plant operation during eme r-gency conditions . The operator t asks required during eme rgencies will be based on the new Emergency Res ponse Guidelines (ERG's) developed by the Westinghouse Own e rs ' Group. The Program Plan Report outlines a program which will ensure that the DCRDR result s are unde rs tandable and usable , and that the benefits of human factore engineering are reflect ed in the control room design.

2.2 OBJECTIVES To ensure that the DCRDR fulfills its stated purpose, several objectives will be met. These objectives are as follows:

Review input documentation, including any applicable operating exper-ience data, plant des ign info rmat ion , and ap plicab le s t anda rd s and regulations.

Provide an inventory of the control room instrumentation.

Perform a human factors control room survey that can pa res the existing control room design with accept ed human engineering guide-lines.

Determine the input and output requirements of control room operator tasks during emergency conditions.

Verify that the ins trument at ion required fo r the ab ove t asks is available and suitable.

Validate that control room functions can be exercised.

Identify human engineering discrepancies (HED's).

Assess identified HED's. .

Develop a schedule for HED resolution.

These items are described in more detail in Section 4.

2.3 DESCRIPTION

OF DCRDR ACTIVITIES To achieve the stated object ives of the DCRDR, - several areas of act ivi-ties will be completed. A flow chart of these act ivities is present ed in Figure 2-1. This flow chart is not int ended to show the s t art . and '

2-1 l

I l

I l

stop times for each act ivity, but rather, the interrelationships of the information needed and generated during each activity.

The DCRDR has been divided into four nominal phases : planning , review, a s ses sment and implement ation, and documentation. The act ivities within each phase will be described in note detail later, but a brief synopsis of these act ivities is provided to help give a general picture of the DCRDR process.

Phase I - Planning. The Program Plan Report (this docume nt ) for the Beaver Valley Unit No. 2 DCRDR will prov ide the basis fo r the de s ign review.

Phase II - Review. The " review phase" represent s the pe riod in which data colle ct ion , red uct ion , and analysis is cond uc t ed to de t e nni ne whether the existing centrol room design provides the operators with the capabilities neces sary to pe rfo rm their requi red fun ct io n ard t asks under emergency operating conditions. Result s of the Review Phase will generate HED and draft summary reports.

Phase III - Assessment and Implementation. The Assessment Phase will evaluate and determine the significance and impact of the HED r epo rt s identified in Phase II. For those HED's assessed as significant , recom-mended design changes / enhancements will be developed. Af ter the asses s-ment process has been completed, a schedule will be developed to ensure the integration of the proposed control room changes with other pos t-TMI programs.

Phase IV - Documentation. A final summary report will be prepared which will document the overall review process, describe and ident ify all of the HED's and findings, and summarize all DCRDR act ivities , me t ho do l-ogies , and proposed control room improvement s and schedules. Do cume nt a-t ion is shown in Figure 2-1. Genera t ion of this docume nt at io n wil l occur thr oughout the DCRDR to provide suppo rt ing data and info rmat ion for the summary report and for auditability of DCRDR activities.

2.4 DEFINITION OF TERMS Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR) - A pos t-TMI t ask listed in NUREG-0 660, " Task Act ion Plan Developed as a Result of the TMI-2 Acci-

dent," and NUREG-0737, the staff se ppleme nt to NUR EG-0 660, as Task

.I.D.l.

Control Room Survey - The control room survey is a s tatic ve ri fie s t ion of the control room pe rfo rmed by comparing the existing control room ins trument at ion and layout with select ed human engineering de s ign criteria, i.e. , checking the control room match to the human operator.

9 6

s 2-2 l

} Emergency Operating Procedures (EOP's) - Plant procedures direct ing the operator actions . necessary to mitigate the cons eque nces of trans ient s and accident s that cau se plant parameters to exceed reactor protect ion setpoints, engineered safety fe ature setpoint s , or ot he r ap propri ate

-technical limits.

Emergency Response Guidelines (ERG's) - Guidelines , developed from sys-tem analysis of trans ient s and ac cident s , that provide sound technical 1- bases for plant-specific E0P's.

Human Engineering Discrepancy (NED) - A characteristic of the existing j control room that does not comply with human engineering criteria.

. Normal Complement - A sample of an actual crew which will be operating the plant.

Nuclear Utility Task Action Committee (NUTAC) for-DCRDR - Rep r es e nt a-t ives from various nuclear utilities and IPPO organized to ' define areas of DCRDR implementation for which an overall industry ef fort can provide assistance to individual utilities in completing Task I.D.1, NUREG-0737.

Operating Experience Review - The . operating expe rience review sc reens j~ plant operating document s and ope ra to r expe rience to disc ove r human engineering shortcomings that have or could have caused actual operating problems or near misses in the past.

Review Team - A group of individuals res pons ib le fo r direct ing the i DCRDR.

Safety Parameter Display Systems (SPDS) - An aid to the control rom operating crew for use in monitoring the status of cri t ic al safety funct ions (CSF's) - that cons titute the basis for plant-specific , symptom-based E0P's..

System Function Review - The determination of system functions req uired to meet system goals.

Task Analysis - A tool used to delineate system funct ions and the spe- ,

cific actions that must take place to accomplish those ftst et io ns . In.

the DCRDR context , t ask analysis is ' used to de te rmine the' individual t asks that must be comple ted to allow successful emergency operation.

This activity checks the control room match to the emergency operating

i. procedures.

I i Validation - The process for determining whether the control roas oper-ating crew- can pe rform their funct ions ef fectively given the control l room ins trume nt at ion , - pr ocedur es , and training. In the . DCRDR c ont ext , l validation implies a dynamic performance . evaluation.  !

l 1

1 l- 2-3 l

1 l

l 4

l

. Verification - The proces s for determining whether ins trument ation, con-t rols , and ot her equipment meet the speci fic requirement s of the eme r-gency t asks performed by operators. The cont r ol room survey is a ve rification act ivi ty , checking the control room match to the human operator. In the DCRDR context, verification implies a static check of the plant ins trument at ion and cont r ois agains t es t ab li shed human engineering criteria.

t t

9 2-4 i

Figure 2-1 FLOW CHART OF DCRDR ACTIVITIES DCROR WORK SUBMIT BVPS-2 PLAN AND  : DCRDR PROGRAM SCHEDULE! PLAN REPORT s,

CONTROL ROOM CPERATING INVENTORY 4 EXPERIENCE CONTROL ROOM REVIEW SURVEY SYSTEM FUNCTION REVIEW AND TASK ANALYSIS b

VERIFICATION OF TASK PERFORMANCE CAPA811JTIES v

CONTROL RCCM VAUDATION

%/

HED ASSESSMENT 4

HED CORRECTION /

RESCLUTICN WORK PLAN AND SCHEDULE FOR IMPROVING CR HUMAN ENGR b

SUBMIT BVPS-2 DCRDR

SUMMARY

REPORT -

1 2-5 1

3. MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING j 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to ident ify the DCRDR program teans and their as so ci at ed areas of res pons ibili ty. An ove rvi ew of the DCRDR organization is shown in Figure 3-1 3.2 DCRDR TEAM INTERFACE To ef fectively perform the DCRDR program and maintain the auditability, an interf ace between the various review teams is req ui red . The Review Team Leader will be the primary contact and liaison between the Manage-ment, Project, and DCRDR Teams.

3.3 MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION The management funct ion for the DCRDR will be under previously es tab-lished DLC Nuclear Cons truct ion Division (NCD) Procedure 1.2, "Organiza-tion and Responsibilities ," and NCD Procedure 2.10, " Engineering Change Control."

The function of management is to:

approve the Program Plan provide the resources necessary for implementation of the DCRDR review and ap pr ove cont rol room recommend a t ions fo r correct ion of HED's provide the mechanism for the preparation and submittal of document s to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3.4 PROJECT TEAM The Proj ect Team will provide the ove rall coordination of the DCRDR program. The function of this team is to:

ensure that the DCRDR program is performed in accordance with the DLC Quality Assurance Program

-provide overall support to the DCRDR process monitor the DCRDR process ens ure that the DCRDR object ives . and t ask s , in rela tion to ot her NUREG 0737 ef forts, are properly coordinated .

3-1

establish and initiate a control room improvement program 3.5 DCRDR TEAM The day-to-day review act ivit ies will be the res pons ibili ty of the review team established specifically for the pe rfo rmance of the DCRDR.

The DCRDR team is res po ns ib le fo r the planning, sch ed uli ng ,

coordinating, and integration of DCRDR activities.

3.5.1 DCRDR TEAM STRUCTURE The DCRDR team is a multidisciplined tean of individuals with the wide range of skills neces sary to perform the design review. The core team will include, but not be limited to , the fo llowing personnel:

Review team leader Human factors specialist Reactor operator (licensed or certified)

! Instrumentation and control engineer The core team will be supplemented, as required, by other discip--

lines such as: mech anical engineering, electrical engineering ,

nuclear engineering, procedures, and licensing / nuclear safety.

3.5.1.1 Review Team Leader The DCRDR tean has the Review Team Le ade r as its Irey pe rso n. This individual provides the administrative and t echnical direct ion for the proj ect ard has ove rall r es pons ibili ty fo r the proj ect . Since the ult ima te res pons ibility fo r the DCRDR lies with the ap plica nt ,

this position will be held by a D14 employee. Acces s to information and individuals which/who provide useful or neces sary input to the team is coordinated by the Review Team Leader.

It will be the responsibility of the Review Temn Leader to resolve human factors concerns on methodology, tech-nique , review findings, as ses sme nt and H ED c orrect ive act ions that dissent with the majo rity opinion of the DCRDR Team. The minimum qualifications ,for the Review Team Leader will include:

< l . - bachelor's level degree in an engineering discipline.

or l

i l

l 3-2 I

l

2. SRO-certification and

3. five years' experience in nuc le ar pla nt ope ra t ions or engineering 3.5.1.2 Human Factors Specialist The human factors specialist will. work closely with the DCRDR team throughout each phase of the control roan design review and share with the team the human factors technical leadership of the entire DCRDR project.

The human factors specialis t on the BVPS-2 DCRDR tean will have the following qualifications as a minimum:

1. M .A . or M.S. in human engineering or related disci-pline and

2. five years' expe rience in human fac t o rs , one of which is in nuclear control room design review or a closely related systems area 3.5.1.3 Reactor Operator (RO)

The RO will assist in ident ifying ope rato r t asks and will se rve as the DCRDR team expert on the operational constraints for manipulations of plant systems.

The RO on the BVPS-2 DCRDR team will have the fo llowing qualifications as a minimum:

1. a reactor operator's license or .

2. SRO certification and

3. at le as t two years of operating expe rience in a control room similar to the BVPS-2 control room 3.5.1.4 Instrumentation and Control (I&C) Engineer The I&C engineer will assist in the ident ification of plant system de sign fe atures and will se rve as the review team expert on the capabilities and limitations of controls and ins trume nt s . The I&C speci ali s t will also provide input to ,the team during the as ses sme nt phase of the review, - especially dien _ the DCRDR team considers proposals for mitigating HED's.

The minimum qualifications fo r the I&C Specialist will j include the following. ,

1 1

1 3-3 1

1. B.S. degree (or eq uivale nt ) in engi neeri ng or applied science field and

2. five ye ars of I&C engineering ex pe ri ence , at le as t two of which are in the nuclear design area 3.6 DCRDR TEAM ACTIVITIES DCRDR team activities will include developing the methodologies fo r the review, pe rfo rmance of the review, as ses sment of ide nt ified di sc repan-cies, establishing the schedule for the DCRDR, and integration of all NUREG 0737 Supplement I act ivities. The DCRDR team will have access to any reccrds, facili t ies , or individuals critical to the DCRDR ef fo rt .

The DCRDR team will also develop all reports relating to the DCRDR and e ns ur e that ap propri at e report s are submit ted to DLC ca nageme nt fo r review and approval.

3.7 DCRDR TEAM ORIENTATION Each member of the DCRDR team will bring his or her own in-depth knowl-edge of specific topics to the team. It is impo rt ant , however, that the DCRDR team be able to cond uct the DCRDR from a common basis of under-s t and i ng . The entire DCRDR team will unde rgo an ori ent a t ion pr ogr am des igned to provide each team membe r with ce rt ain ba s ic knowled ge r eq ui rement s . The purpose of the orient ation is only to acquaint each team member with the other disciplines repr es ent ed on the team, not to make each team member an expert in all specialties.

The ori ent at ion program will consist of the following minimum ins truc-tional areas:

Human Factors - Orient ation provided for the DCRDR t eam will famil-iarize the team with principles of human factors and their ap plica-t ion to the control room design rev iew. Included in this area will be a brief synopsis of the history of the DCRDR requirement arri its ult imate goals. This orientation area will be sla nt ed towards those team members with little or no background in human engineering.

Plant Familiarizat ion - The DCRDR team members will evaluate their need for supplement al plant familiarization. The team will consider its familiarization with normal plant operation and the use of emer-gency procedures. It is assumed that po rt ions of this ori ent at ion ,

wil1 t ake place at the training facilities of BVPS-1 and BVPS-2 or the BVPS-1 simulator when it becomes available.

The method and content of NUREG 0700 and NUREG 0801 - NUREG 0700 wil1 familiarize the DCRDR team with the control room des ign rev i ew pr o-cess, personnel skills required during the review, resource materials that will be needed, and control room human factors conce rns . NUREG 3-4

0801 will provide the DCRDR team with additional guidance and evalua-tion criteria that can be used in assessing the significance of human engineering discrepancies identified during the DCRDR.

3.8 USE OF CONSULTKdTS Cert ain skills required during DCRDR act ivit ies are not repr es ent ed within DLC and will be cont ract ed . For example, DIE will contract an appropriate firm to obt sin a human factors specialist who will serve on the review team.

4 r

9 4

'/ 3-5

FIGURE 3-1 OVERVIEW OF CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT TEAM REVIEW AND APPROVE DLC

• Program plan

• Criteria document Vice President , Nuclear Con-

• Design implement at ion struction Division (NCD)

• Final reports

• Design review concerns /

BVPS-2, Project Manager recommendations I l PROJECT TEAM REVIEW (PRELIMINARY AND FINAL)

DLC

• Program plan

• Criteria document Manager, Regulatory Af fairs

• Report s

• Design review concerns /

Manager, NCD Engineering rec omme nda t io ns

• Design implementation Supe ri nt endent , BVPS-2 Operations STONE & WEBSTER Project Engineer or Designee WESTINGHOUSE Project Manager or Designee I I DCRDR TEAM

• DEVELOP AND/OR EVALUATE DLC

• Criteria document

• Check lists Review Team Leader

• Sys t em f un ct ion and t ask Operat ions analysis I&C Engineer

• Surveys Nuclear Safety

• Inventory

• Walk / talk-throughs STONE & WEBSTER

• Design review concerns

• HED Identification & Assessment BOP Systems Engineer

• Design review recommendations /

implement at ion SPECIALISTS / CONSULTANTS Human Factors Specialist NSSS Engineer

• Core team members will part ici-Ope rations pate on a full time basis; all.

16C Engineer others or, an as-needed basis.

3-6

4. REVIEW PHASE The procedure utilized during the review phase of . the DCRDR will result in data which will be used to- as sess the adequacy of the int erf aces between operator and plant proces ses as found in the control room, including the emergency and alternate shutdown panels.

The review addresses the following specific objectives:

to determine nether the control room provides the sy s ten s tatu s info rmation , control capabilities, feedback, and pe rfo rmance aid s necessary fo r control room operators to accomplish their ftm et ions and tasks ef fectively to identify characteristics of the existing control room instrumenta-t ion , controls, and other equipment , and physical arrangement s that nay detract from operator performanc'e The first obj ect ive is concerned with the completeness of the control room, given control roam operator funct ions and t ask res pons ibili t ies . The second obj ect ive is conccrned with the suitability of the design in light of human and equipment performance capabilities , individual task responsibilities , and operational dynamics.

Six major processes will be used to establish and apply benchmarks for iden-tifying HED's of both completeness and human engineering suitability:

Operating Experience Review Control Room Inventory Control Room Human Factors Survey System Function Review and Task Analysis Verification of Task Performance Capabilities Validation of Control Room Functions and Integrated Pe rfo rma nce Capabilities The procedures involved in each of the six proces ses are discussed below.

However, at this stage, the procedures are preliminary and may- be revised as the review progresses.

4.1 OPERATING EXPERIENCE REVIEW BVFS-1 and BVPS-2 are similar plants. Since EVPS-1 has been operatirg commercially since September, 1976, _ the . BVPS-2 DCRDR will_ utilize the expe rience of - BVPS-1 operational pe rsonnel and . da t a from BVPS-1 plant 4-1 N

I

4 operation document s as an ap propriat e sour ce of informat ion fo r the BVPS-2 DCRDR.

The purpose of the Operating Experience Review is to identify factors or conditions that could cause and/or have previously caused human perfor-mance problems and could be alleviated by improved human engineering.

This review will provide information on pot ent ial problem areas by studying documented occur rences of human engineering rela t ed pr ob lems that have occurred in operating plants that are similar to BVPS-2. Two major steps are utilized in the Operating Experience Review, the Docu-me nt at ion Review and the S urvey of Control Room Ope ra t ing Pe rso nnel .

The methodologies for both are described below.

4.1.1 Documentation Review BVPS-2 is not an operating pla nt , therefo re , pla nt spe ci fic Licensee Event Report s (LER's) cannot be reviewed. Cons eq ue nt ly, indus tr y-wide LER' s on plant s most similar to BVPS-2 will be obt ained and reviewed in an ef fort to ident ify incident s which h ave occur red in the past which could impinge on cont rol room ope rat ions or reflect control room de sign de f ici enci es . A specific candidate plant is BVPS-1.

The Institute of Nuc le ar Power Ope ra t ions (INPO) will be requested to provide DLC with a printout of LER's sorted by the following characteristics:

LER's from: Westinghouse PWR's Errors by: Licensed Operators Involving: Human error or procedural deficiency The Review Team will review the docume nt s and summarize the circumstances and events leading to the problem noted in the LER.

Then, the resulting summarizations will be reviewed to determine

-i f the LER does indeed de sc ribe a control roam pr ob lem. A control room problem is defined as one in which:

the equipment . referenced in the LER is loca t ed in the control room or the remote shutdown panels; the pr oced ur e (or step s therein) referenced is ut ilized within the control room or remote shutdown panels; or the pe rsonnel error occur red utilizing control room or l remote shutdown panel components. ,

A list of the sources reviewed along with summaries of instances that were deemed to be control room problems will be retained fo r further analysis.

1 4-2 l

- - . ~ , - . . . - - . . -- . . - - - .

4.1.2 Survey of Control Room Operating Personnel A sel f-adminis t ered que s t ionnaire fo rma t will be used as the medium for so licit ing and recording ope ra to r input. The que s-tionnaire will be administered to a representative sample of the BVPS-1 operations staff. This sample will depict a cros s-sect ion of the typical ope rat ing crews. Areas that will be ad dres sed include:

Workspace Layout and Environment

, Panel Design Controls Displays Annunciator Warning System Communication Systems Computer Systems Procedures Training When all ques t ionnaires have been comple t ed , they will be reviewed and the responses will be summarized and documented fo r examinat ion la t er in the review pr oces s . Follow-up interviews with respondent s will be cond uc t ed , as necessary, to clarify or elaborate on questionnaire results.

An int erv iew team will be used to cond uct the fo llow-up int er -

views. These int erviewers will not be DLC employees to ens ur e frank and accurate responses from the ope rato rs . The int erview team will consist of personnel with human factors ex pe rt ise and also experience / training in conduct ing int e rvi ews . This tean will be supplemented by personnel with knowledge of control room ins trument at ion and controls, ope ra t ions , pr oced ur es , and training.

4.2 CONTROL ROOM INVENTORY An- inventory of ap pr opri ate ins trument at ion , controls and eq uipme nt req ui red for emergency operations in the control room will be pr ep a red .

This inventory will be used for comparison with the requirements identi-fied thr ough the analysis of operator tasks. Addit ionally, the inve n-tory wi11 include - data pe rt aining to part icula r _ component ch aract eri s-tics such as units of measure and parameter ranges.

i

, 4-3 I

Prior to pe rforming the invento ry, the following do cume nt s may be reviewed for determination of existing instrumentation:

Control Room Layout Control Panel Layout Instrumentation and controls listing Annunciator and label engraving lists Plant operating procedures, as available/ required Photographs of the control room and shutdown panels will be provided fo r u se in the review. These photographs wil1 provide an "as-built" docu-ment ation of the control board at the beginning of the review and to provide an overall reference fo r the control room fo r later identified HED's. In addition, the photographs document correct ive measures t ake n in an effort to resolve the HED's.

Once the control room inventory is em ple t e , all ap propri ate items loca t ed on the main control board, pe ripheral conso le s , and shutd own panels will have be en ide nt ified . The da t a colle ct ed in the Control Room Inventory phase of the DCRDR will be document ed and used in the Verifica t ion of Task Performance Capabilities phase to as ses s the availability and suit ability of ope rato r-r eq ui red ins trume nt at io n and controls used during emergency operations.

4.3 CONTROL ROOM SURVEY A survey of the tot al existing BVPS-2 control room will be conduct ed during the DCRDR in accordance with NUREG 0700 and 0801. The purpose of the Control Room Survey is to identify charact eristics of ins trume nt s ,

equipment, layout, ani ambi ent condit ions that do not conform to pr e-c ep t s of good human engineering practice, regardless of the part icular system or specific task req uirement s. This is accompli shed by con-ducting a systematic comparison of existing control room design features with established human engineering guidelines.

Checklists will be used to provide a thorough and ef ficient method by which direct observation and measurement of control room features may be unde rt ake n. The checklists will organize guideline items unde r ca t e-

! gories such as, ins trument s, equipment , layout, and ambient condi t ions .

In the control room survey, checklists will be used to evaluate each system with the purpose of identifying control room characteristics that do not conform to ac cept ed human engineering pract i:es.

• Along with a checklis t a photo-log book will be developed to moni to r each of the identified HED's.

l

!, 4-4

___1_ _ _ _ _ . .. _ _ --

While most of the checklist items are applicable at the caponent level ,

some guidelines apply to specific use of instruments and equipment , t ask s eque nce requireme nt s , communicat ions requirements, or other aspect s of dynamic ope rat ion. These dynamically ori ent ed guidelines are nos t appropriately addressed from the task or funct ion pers pect ive desc ribed in Section 4.4.

Some guidelines will be ad dr es sed primarily on a cont rol rom -wide basis, such as those that fall in the ca t egories of canrun ica t ions ,

process com put e r , control rcom layout, and enviromne nt al fac t o rs .

Others will be approached on a control room-wide basis firs t , and then panel-by panel, such as the annunciator system and layou t . Still other guidelines will be evaluated eleme nt-b y-e leme nt , and then fo r ge ne ral c ont rol room cons is tency, such as controls, displays, labels, ard location aids.

The Control Room Survey will be conducted in the BVPS-2 Control Roan and Remote Shutdown areas by using the checklists. Checklist items will be organized for easy reference and will provide space for an indication of compliance or noncompliance to each guideline. When lack of canpliance is found, the specific reason or reasons will be clearly described in an adjacent s pac e . Items which require further document ation of a human engineering disc repancy will be described in gr e at er de t ail as a separate record cross-referenced to the checklist.

The members of the review team will be res pons ib le for developing the checklists for the survey and ensuring that the checklists are adequate and soundly based. The actual survey with it s ext ens ive docume nt at ion requirements will be conduct ed by the DCRDR team with assistance fr om personnel trained in the use of the specific survey checklists.

When the da t a fr om the Control Room Survey is colle ct ed , recorded and examined , HED 's will be document ed for those ch aract eris tic s that fall out s ide the human engineering guide lines . These HED's will be inp ut into the DCRDR database system for storage. The HED's will be retrieved from the database for examination during the Assessment and Implement a-tion Phase of the DCRDR project.

4.4 SYSTEM FUNCTION REVIEW AND TASK ANALYSIS The purpose of the Systems Function Review and Task Analysis port ion of the DCRDR is to identify control room operator t asks and corres ponding l

information and control requirements during emergency operations. Using the draft BVPS-2 EOP 's , emergency operating events will be chosen fo r review and analysis. The criteria for selecting events are as follows :

Select seque nce of failure event s (including mult iple f ailures) for transients and accidents analyzed to develop E u pgr aded emergency procedures as - described in Act ion Plan items I.C.1 and I.C.9 of NUREG-0660 and NUREG-0737.

4-5

Select any event s which ut ilize or corres pond to pr oce-dures (or s tep s therein) that were deemed to desc ribe a control room problem in the Operating Experience Review.

The following is a list of possible events that may be considered for analysis:

Small Break Loss of Reactor Coolant i

SIS Actuation Steam Generator Tube Rupture Reactor Trip a

Loss of Secondary Heat Sink Loss of all Feedwater

' Loss of all A/C Power (Station Blackout) i Anticipated Transient Without Scram The list of event s to be analyzed will be approved by Dlf prior to the initiation of task analyses. When the event s have been s elect ed , the E0P's associated with the event s wil I be ide nt i-f ied . Then, the plant system and subsystems that are utilized in the associated E0P's will be identified and listed.

The task analysis will use as its technical basis the Emergency Response Guidelines (ERG's) developed by the Westinghouse Owners Group (WOG). These ERG's have been designed to generate plant-specific Emergency Operating Procedures (EOP's) for Wes tinghouse supplied nucle ar steam supply sy s t ems . The firs t draft of the new BVPS-2 E0P's is currently being developed. DIE int end s to use the latest draf t of the E0P's, as they become available, when performing the task analysis.

Using the event-as so ci ated E0P's as a basis, the Task Analysis will identify and document the discrete tasks that the operators must perform during emergency operations . Corres po nd i ng ly, the s pecific ins trume nt at ion , controls and eq uipme nt that are required to successfully perform the emergency operations will be identified and documented.

Using a task analysis fo rm , the EOP's will be anal *yzed ani docu-mented in the following manner:

1. The identification of discrete steps in the EOP's in order

of performance

, 4-6 I

l l .-. . . -- .. .- - .- -

2. A brief description of the operators' tasks per procedure step

3. The ident ificat ion of ins trume nt at ion ard/or cont rols that the operator requires per procedural step to either (a) initiate, maintain, or remove from service a system; (b) confirm that an appropriate system res po ns e has or h as not occurred; or (c) make a decision regarding plant or system status.

4.5 VERIFICATION OF TASK PERFORMANCE CAPABILITIES The purpose of the Verification of Task Capabilities is to sys t ema t ic-ally verify that the Ins trumentation and Controls that were identified in the Task Analysis as being required by the operator are: (1) present in the control room and (2) ef fect ively designed to suppo rt correct procedure performance.

The Verification of Task Performance Capabilities will be conduct ed in two phases by the DCRDR team in order to achieve the purpos e s t ated above. In the first phase, the presence or absence of the Ins trumenta-

' t ion and Controls that were not ed in the Task Analys is will be confirmed.

If it is discovered that required Ins trumentation and Controls are not available to the operator, any such occurrence will be identified as an HED and documented accordingly.

The second phase will determine the human engineering suitability of the required Instrumentation and Controls. For example, if a meter utilized in a particular procedure step exists in the control room, that part icu-lar meter's inventory data vill be examined to determine whether or not the meter has the appropriate range and scaling to support the operator in the corresponding procedural step. If the meter range or scaling is not appropriate for the parameter of interest to the operator, this will be noted accordingly on the Task Analysis Form. This type of occurrence will be defined as en HED and documented accordingly.

4.6 VALIDATION OF CONTROL ROOM FUNCTIONS The purpose of the Validation of Control Room Funct ions step in the l DCRDR process is to determine whethe r the f tn et ion alloca t ed to the I control room operating crew can be ac complished ef fect ively within (1) the structure of the event-associ ated E0P's and (2) the design of the control room as it exists. Addi t ionally, this step provides an op po r-tunity to ident ify HED's that may not have become evident

• in the static processes of the DCRDR.

I l

i I

4-7

i i

l l

be sele ct ed . A normal com plement of the ope rat ing crew will t alk through/ walk through the act ions that are required by the E0P's for this set of transients, providing a dynamic simulation of the eve nt s , wh e re pos sib le . The objective of the dynamic simulation is to provide a high level of assurance that the procedures will work, i.e., the procedures guide the operator in mitigating transients and accidents.

4.6.1 Talk Throughs The operating crew will be provided with copies of the Task Analysis Forms to follow as they are talking through the events.

One eve nt at a time will be t alked thr ou gh . Ope ra to rs wil l be requested to perform the talk through in slower-than-real time to provide a relatively slow paced rehearsal of the event.

During the t alk thr ou gh s , the ope ra to rs will be ins truc t ed to s pe ak one at a time and describe their act ions . Since this will force se ri al act ion, the operations will be pe rfo rmed simult ane-ously. Specifically, the operators will verbalize:

The component or parameter being controlled or monitored The purpose of the action The expect ed result of the ac t ion in t erms of sys t em response As the operators talk through the event , they will point to each control or display that they utilize, and indicate which annunci-ators are involved.

As the talk throughs proceed , the operators will not e any errors ,

such as improper step sequencing or branching, that may occur on the Task Analysis Forms. These errors will be traced back to the 1

E0P's for irwes t igation to ascertain whether the error occurred because of a procedural probicm.

If a procedural problem is di sc ove red , it wil l be do cume nt ed .

This docume nt at ion will be useful in res ponding to Item 7 of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737, wh ich involves the Upgrade of Emer-gency Operating Procedures.

4.6.2 Walk Throughs When the t alk thr ough s of the eve nt s are com ple t e , the wa lk throughs will be performed. In the walk throughs, t ue ope ra to rs will perform the event s in real time , where pos sib le , as opposed to the slower time sequences that were utilized in the talk l

4-8 1

i throughs. The ope ra to rs will still point to the cont rols ,

displays and appropriate annunciators, but wil1 otherwise perform the event in a realistic manner.

Various data will be recorded during the walk-throughs. During the real time run, the noveme nt s of each crew member will be traced on a control room outline drawing by an observer. This information will be anslyzed to determine the main paths between panels and panel sect ions and also to ident ify any significant need to access back panel indica tions or controls. In ad di tion to crew movement s, obse rve rs will trace the path of the crew through the appropriate E0P's and plant sy s t em s . Not ations will be made of significant communication links used during each t rans ient and any ins t ances of crew membe r conflict (either physical acess probleir.6 or communication problems) will be not ed.

If necessary, the walk-throughs will be videot aped to provide a record for analysis later in the review process.

The DCRDR team will use the output from the walk-t hr ough to determine if HED's were manifes ted due to the layout of the control roca and the dynamic interaction of the ope rat ing crew during emergency operation.

Y 4-9

-- -i----- - ~ - . _ , , , .

5. ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION 5.1 OBJECTIVES The objectives of this phase of the DCRDR are as follows:

Evaluate the significance of the HED's de fined in the pr eviou s phases of the DCRDR.

Where HED's are found to be of minor significance, desc ribe the technical and ope ra t ional basis fo r such a finding . Where no act ion is recommended to eliminate the HED, justification will be provided.

Where HED 's are found to be of potentially major significance ,

fo rmula te ch anges to the control room, pr oced ur es , operator training, or any combination thereof to mitigate those HED's, 5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA HED's will be evaluated according to their potential to af fect eme rge ncy operation adversely. A categorization scheme will be used that requires each HED to be assessed by the review team and prioritized for resolu-t ion . The following four categories are designed to be uniq ue so a consensus can be obtained from the review team as to which category each HED should be assigned.

Category I - HED's that are judged likely to af fect adve rsely the ma nageme nt of emergency conditions by control room operators. Mos t of the HED 's placed in this ca tego ry will probably be found during the systems review and may be suppo rt ed by the result s of the survey and Operating Experience Review.

Category II - HED's that are associated with potential or int eract ive errors. HED's placed in Category II may come from tw., sources:

1. If it is judged that the HED degrades pe rfo rmance and if the e f fect s of the H E are judged to be serious enough to cause or contribute to increasing the pot ent ial fo r ope ra to r error, the HED will be assigned to Category II.

2. If it is judged that the HED has any cumulative or interactive e f fect s with other HED's, it will be as signed to Category II.

Cumulative HED's would be those that are placed in this category by their nunber of occurrences, such as improper labeling charac-t eris t ic s throughout the entire control room. Interact ive HE's would be those HED's that exacerbate each other such as impr ope r scaling on a meter ccabined with the absence of a pa rame t er designation.

5-1 t

e

Category III - HED's that are associated with low probability errors of serious consequences. HED's with a low probability for error, but which could result in adverse conditions if such an error did occur , will be determined to be significant and assigned to Category III.

Category IV - HED's that are non-s ign ificant . Any HED which has be en analyzed and determined neither to increase the potential for causing or contributing to an ope rat ing crew error, nor to have ad ve rs e safety consequences, ner to have any cumulative or interactive ef fect s will be assigned to Category IV.

Categories will be broken down into levels and each HED will be further analyzed for level determination. Levels will be determined by:

System importance to safety Severity of consequences 5.3 RESOLUTION OF HED'S Recommendat ions for HED resolution will be proposed fo r all HED 's .

There are, in ge ne ral , many ways to correct di sc repanci es . In some cases, a simple ch ange in training or procedures may suf fice . Some HED 's may be corrected ; by enh ancement technique s , wh ile ot he rs may require correction by design et ange. These de s ign ch anges will be re-evalua t ed in accordance with the cri teria set fo rt h in this plan and reviewed by operations pe'csonnel prior to implen;entation.

Seve ral criteria will be used when evaluating candida te pr opos al s- fo r HED correction. At least the following characteristics of each proposal will be considered:

impact on operating effectiveness _

system safety acceptability of design consistency with existing control room characteristics cost compliance with regulatory design requirements impact on control room staffing ,

impact on operator training programs consistency with implementation and integration of other emergency response activities-5-2

y *

---[_a,. . --

.-sh -

i .:

creation of new HED's j l

l 5.4 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE The _ actions required to resolve significant HED's will vary, as will the time required to complete proposed ch ange s . Upon comple tion of the As ses sme nt Phase , an implement at ion schedule will be developed to address the resolut ion of all ident ified HED's. DIC will u.ake all r easonab le ef fo rt s to correct disc repancies pr omptly, with emphasis on the correction of those with significant safety consequences.

'I 4

4

.m e"

?

, 5 c-P

- r v

y',

5 --

s-w l<

I

. , _ - w. .- - - - , , . -

3 -

- 1,

!\

s N - 6. DOCUMENTATION PHASE 3 ,

5 A large number of documents will be referenced and produced during. the DCRDR.

t Therefore, an ef ficient and systematic method for controlling these docurent s is necessary. It is mandatory that the DCRDR team have- immediate acces s to a

. complete, up-to-date library of documents to provide a suppo rt base to manage and execute the various steps ard phases of the DCRDR provide a design data base from which future control room modifica-tions may draw Therefore, a data base library will be es t ab lished to ensure the succes s of the DCRDR process.

6.1 DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS The documentation methodology described in this section will be utilized to meet the following requirements:

provide a record of all document s used by the DCRDR t ean as references during the various phases of the DCRDR

.o

-provide a record of all correspondence ge nerat ed or received by the DCRDR team during the review i

. ~

• provide a record of al l docume nt s pr oduced by the DCRDR team as proje'ct output allow an audit path to be genera ted through the proj ect do cume rr-tati'on retain project files in a manner that allows future access to help determine the ef fect s of control room ch ange s proposed in the future u.

6.2 REFERENCES

8 The following documents have been ident ified as pos sib le reference material to be used during the review proces s. s As the review progresses, it is ant icipated that additional ma t eri al : and references will be identified. ,

4 Beaver Valley Unit No. 2 Final Safety Analysis Repoit

1 , ,

Westinghouse Emergency Response Guidelines (ERG's)

NRC guidance documents (e.g., NUREG 0700)

-C 6-1  ;

-3

\

_ 41 . g

- g. =

Ik', d , s

Regulatory Guides Piping and instrumen'tation drawings Panel layout drawings Panel photographs Licensee Event Report s fr om plants with NSSS designs similar to BVPS-2 Operator training materials Instrumentation and controls list Annunciator and label engraving lists Emergency and Alternate Shutdown Panel Layout Drawings and Floor Plans DCRDR NUTAC Documents 6.3 REVIEW DOCUMENTATION Throughout the review proces s documents will be proces sed to record data, analyses, and findings. Whenever practical and appropriate, stan-dard fo rms will be developed and used. The bulk of the document ation generated by the review process will be necessary to do the following:

document the criteria used for each review activity record the result s of the survey, operating experience review, and task analysis compile HED's and associated data for review and assessment

_ document disposition of HED's In orde r to facilitate systematizing and recording control' room design review activities, a series of standard forms will be developed.

6.4 CONTROLLED ACCESS FILE A controlled access file will be es tablished fo r all hardcopy DCRDR output documents. In . ad di t ion , these document s will~ be

• entered into ~ a computer-based ' data sys tem. Access to these files will be controlled by the Review Team Leader.

6-2

i

'6.5

SUMMARY

REPORT Upon completion of the DCRDR, a detailed summary of the result s will be prepared and submit ted to the NRC for review. This report will summa-rize the review pr oce s s , provide descriptions _ of the ident ified human engineering disc repancies (H ED ' s ) , proposed correct ive act ions and proposed implement ation sched ules , and upda t e the Program Plan Report with any changes made during the DCRDR. De t ail s of the DCRDR, along with complete document at ion , will be available for NRC evaluation and r eview. The Summary Repo rt will be pr epared using the recomme nded fortaat shown in Figure 6-1.

6-3

(

Figure 6-1 DCRDR

SUMMARY

REPORT 1.0 METHODOLOGY 1.1 Detailed Control Room Design Review Program Plan Objectives 1.1.1 Detailed Control Room Design Review methodology 1.1.2 Detailed Control Room Design Review program management 1.1.3 Proposed schedule of the four phases of activity (chart) 1.1.4 Integration of other emergency res ponse activities of NUREG '

0737, Supplement 1 1.1.5 Quality assurance program 1.2 Management and Staffing 1.2.1 Qualification of Det ailed Control Room Design Review personnel L.2.2 Organizational structure of DCRDR Program Teams 1.3 Documentation and Document Control 1.4 Review Phase 1.4.1 Operating Experience Review 1.4.2 System Functions Review and Task Analysis 1.4.3 Control Room Inventory 1.4.4 Control Room Human Factors Survey 1.4.5 Verification of Task Performance 1.4.6 Validation of Control Room Functions 2.0 REVIEW CONCERNS 2.1 Control Room Human Factors Survey Concerns 2.2 Panel / Work Station Concerns 2.3 -System Concerns 6-4 l l

I l' Figure 6-1 (cont'd)

, l

! I si 2.4 Other Review Concerns .

i  !

3.0' ASSESSMENT, RECOMMENDATION, AND IMPLEMENTATION PHASE i 3.1 HED Assessment i

3.2 Proposed Improvements 3.3 Scheduled Implementation i

4.0 CONCLUSION

S L

l.

i i

3, I

'e' 4-t I

l 2

f i-4 e

6-5

i l

?

l l

7. COORDINATION WITH OTHER ACTIVITIES DLC will coordinate the DCRDR with other po s t-TMI act ivities as they are accomplished and become available for integration with ongoing DCRDR activi-t ies . Reference DLC's res pons e to NRC Generic Letter 82-33 for BVPS-2 for the schedule of these post-TMI activities. The activities to be coordinated

-with the DCRDR include:

1. Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS)

2. Post Accident Monitoring - R.G. 1.97

3. Upgraded Emergency Operating Procedures (EOP's)

C N

7-1

8. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM The DCRDR will be conduct ed in ac cordance with the DLC Quality As sur ance Program.

8-1

l l

l r

i i- 9. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

\-

This pr ogram plan was developed to desc ribe . the ' proces s whereby DIE will c onduct the BVPS-2 DCRDR. A sincere ef fort has been made by DIE to ensure that all major aspects of _ an ef fective DCRDR have been considered during the development of this program plan. Since DIE is committed to pe rfo rm its DCRDR as described in this document , the acceptability of the DCRDR should be judged agains t this document and the Summary Report . DIE cannot gua rant ee that the BVPS-2 DCRDR will meet the letter of the numerous criteria and docu-ment s generated in this regard. DIE does believe , however, that the int ent of the NRC guidance , "to provide an acceptable DCRDR," will be satisfied by this program plan.

1 i

1 4-

.d i

9-1.

w g , w+--v+y -v---ye y ,-, y y w- - a ...o3 - . -

. - - - - - - - - ~ - . - - , - -

,,,-.,---,,-w,,, ,-. --,,-_7 - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

a' .. f

• W ew, wdAPO man n' gr n ,$ 9a exp.

Wn a: newAnem w'f< ewnm%f~ w e % %.,ug@e w. Quw ,W % 49 sw%a hWAhW$WW hhYkkW

• 0.kTi$$n$$$N:.n. %my wlm w@ e7.huypMggt ym mp p ohw/g; a p pay

+ .,m"tn W M u -q136a yW;;3MSM v . p eQ g 4 nw mypm Mf . .y*

737 *%gw4@s ggfb ,@pMp5;hu,@e,x:m"NM, l

, ~

.3-6

% :+; % @ m@gy.x%kfh ?Q 2 fyMMW$t$.%ng/

. a

.d Q Q ,g N nog m

M@gn;

$ $;, & _g* Q S &s).? g g l M 8 y Q$$qu( o . .

Y

+i,k ~m:a an Y Y E 5h n hh 2y

.wy hym4Le?ew a w m y4puwa  % y avy m rs m guqpw qvweQW pupy&nc[ h 3w%.:p .e r n M;:mwerW%nw;pg.A.aA}pw3.r:

I v 4,

.m% v, s L%-,.

- 7y

~ ;.

eg.A*f

.vQy ? . m;+, "tgg,.6,7 gQ $.

+. 3 p g *.,r+/Mrt, Msqa*. ; p 4gr 3 Q:ym 4.e;. -e 4-w-

.cc, e,:L = ' '42-

+ g#q, ,

>J  %  %. e %jy.-: %..i*yN0!44-q:L.% 4(. W MNM Qj.+v g g-.;,

s Ci @-

a l'

r, g .: w w. sag. ww%p " ,%hQynf,4 g' i j W.p ?'

X$..,!dMnW$-x

.2!]t f W 6;#m% y g ; @p @Ul- H 1 g.

• dr .

4 g4 4* yn,.dy; s

' g .- 2m,,

Ju -- c; -m.g .m .

-e

%' ..g,. 4 j.

'W, y

f. m  :

I

JM,

^

M,MpfpA , p, c. .

1.

.. : r* v WM5

. n,

'l.c.,p,u7  :;~- v < ,,r : . , . .

A

^l ~

Q'-

. .y 7 q;

h  ;'%_k $ $ .. Q,Q A Qf s w q:; ~- y.  ;, +

w _ ." e , Q. 3 . - . . .-t.

1s-et r.yM. s . c rg.y.

B' l 134,f %d,cg. $ ' ,j h-A P'f.' ". , o f'\ h %r?O.D 9 *k k P~.~~

"' Q A A  ;

g ,T

's . , = 4,ay,.,'g ( p

.; e 4 v' N S

?

D - s O_ 'MR'-N qwg: g, .Vff) 3g/y;} 4 g gym in. fd; ,,i.

-yr Q,QO' p; .. ~.,.

N v,

w-

n yg ' -:A . .y z .

_.,[kQQg., pv &n% j 4:@ Qge.-N M_,M6;ng%} f*q .i ,.

.a.

<. L p

g' Hnv :

R . -*

.. ' - zc.f r :- . f'. &.

a' & [ '

%~

w' f ,

.q

.k[ v.,:. R

<49 c

' *?*: y;l.sY *

-Q ,htf, .7 3,9;.,w: :

Q yd

%%- f.

4 - *

$- , w ~

f

+ y> p[L.

+

g

• y.. " gr h. g.,

• d'M e - n Qp .

xo;M w

'ag;Q"Xg.t m D.

" .%sf-%4,j;b'

- t_

9

~

'4,.

- - gs e

~ 8 sg arm. - pq' . -.

s $. h

,'.:p.  %' (. '

D .?

$, ' ' 4Q

.; u

, , _ . .- s. _ z . .m: . .. . w , - , ,. e ~ , . -

3 7 h2f6fti% V%%Of*2?:NMbkf%h < 0*C:f $ h A Q M M yQ>'i4lv"*fQ QQ g & & RQg Q(gf.Qhy,9fl p g .y " QQ if f:Q$gpgp{