ML20080D734
| ML20080D734 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 01/31/1984 |
| From: | GULF STATES UTILITIES CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20080D719 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737 PROC-840131, NUDOCS 8402090213 | |
| Download: ML20080D734 (91) | |
Text
RIVER BEND STATION DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM PLAN J ANUARY 1984
,/ l""l ,1 'l. . . ,*
. . - e i .
\ \ .,
/ A/ //I i1 \ \ h\ \ \
' ' x' f/ 4 m';gpech,_~___a r
x =e.-
i
- g. - - - .
.q.
3 viI ,,
1x /
~~~ % ;' -
l \ \ \Y~
/ / / l i \ \ \'\. '
i-l l l \\\\
$603 I
9%yo f C O 00158 f PDR ,
GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY POST OFF(CE Box 295I . BEAUMONT. TEXAS 77704 AREA CODE 409 838 6631 January 31, 1984 RBG- 16,879 File Code G9.5, G9.33.4 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Denton:
River Bend Station Unit 1 Docket No. 50-458 This response addresses the River Bend Station (RBS) Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR) Program Plan as committed in Gulf States Utilities Company's (GSU) April 15, 1983 letter and requested in Generic Letter 82-33, " Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 - Requirements for Emergency Response Capability". The Program Plan (attached) discusses how the RBS I
DCRDR will be conducted to identify human engineering descrepancies (HEDs).
I A DCRDn Summary Report of the completed review will outline RBS main control room design changes and their schedules for implementation. The l
DCRDR Summary Report is scheduled for submittal during October, 1984. At that time, the additional information requested by the Human Factors Engineering Branch (HFEB) in a NRC letter dated August 27, 1981 from Robert Perch, Project Manager, will have been provided.
GSU understands that a NRC three-day pre-implementation site audit by the HFEB may be scheduled approximately one month after receipt of the RBS DCRDR Summary Report (November, 1984). This decision will be based on the review of the RBS DCRDR Program Plan and Summary Report. If the NRC does not perform a pre-impicmentation onsite audit, then the NRC will conduct a review and issue its Safety Evaulation Report (SER) within two months after receipt of the RBS DCRDR Summary Report (December, 1984).
Please inform GSU of your schedule for reviewing the DCRDR Program Plan and Summary Report and issuance of the SER based on the above information.
Sincerely,
.b J.E. Booker Manager - Engineering Nuclear Fuels & Licensing River Bend Nuclear Group JEB/E /je Attachment /40 copies
t t
RIVER BEND STATION PROGRAM PLAN FOR DETAILED CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW J
hisim mei-
v s t
-,-Q.,
.. v < _
sg. -t +
'g . TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Sectica 1.0 ~ INTRODUCTION e s
- \" s'. 1 Sectionj2.0',0VERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . - - - - - - * * - -
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. I 2.1 Purpose 1
2.2, Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2; . 3 Description of DCRDR Activitiet . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.3.1 Planning Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 12.3.2 ' Review Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.3.3 Assessment Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3.4 Reporting Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
- 2.3.5 Implementation Phase . . . . . . . .. . . . 6 2'. 3 : 6 - Maintenance Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 s..,
IS:ctin,3.0-DEFINITI'dNS. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 t..-
7 S;cti:n 4'. 0 MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Review Team Structure 8 4.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.1 Review Team Leader . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 4.1.2 Human Factors Specialist (HFS) . . . . . . . 9 4.1.3 SeniorReactorOperatod-(SRO). . . . . . . . 9 4.1.4 Supporting Personne1~. . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1.4.1 General Physics Project Director . 9 4.1.4.2 Systems Design-Consultant . . . . 9 4.1.4.3 Instrumentation and Controls Engineer . . . . . . . . . .. . 9 4.1.4.4 Safety and Licensing Engineer . . 10 4.1.4.5 Architect / Engineer-Consultant . . 10 1
- __ _ U
L TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)
E
- P_agg 4.1.4.6 Quality Assurance Engineer . . . . 10 4.1.4.7 Training Specialist / Instructor . . 10 4.2 Review Team Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 10 4.3 Coordination and Integration with Related Efforts . . 10 4.4 Review Team Orientation
. . - . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 E
e y
Section 5.0 REVIEW PROCEDURES . .
- - . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , 11 5.1 Operator Interview & Historical Repcrt Review . . . 12 a 5.1.1 Operator Interview . - - - - - - . .. .. 12
- 5.1.2 Historical Report Review . . . . . .. . 12 w
5 m 5.2 Control Room Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 13 5.2.1 BWROG 1981 Survey . . - - - - . . .. . . 13 5.2.1.1 Panel Layout and Design . .. 14 s .
1
- 5.2.1.2 Instrumentation and Hardware . . . 15 5.2.1.3 Ar.nunciators . . . - - - . . . . . 15
[ 5.2.1.4 Emergency Procedure Instrumentation 16 5.2.2 BWROG 1983 Survey Checklist Supplement e .. . 16
$ 5.3 Systems Review and Task Analysis .
i .
. . . . .... 17 p 5.3.1 Purpose
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 17 5.3.2 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . ... . 17 y 5,3.2.1 Systems Function Description . . .
i r
L 17 g 5.3.2.2 Task Analysis
. . . . . . . . 17 E
5.3.2.3 Control Room Inventory . . . . 19 I 5.4 Verification of Task Performance Capabilities . . . 19 5.4.1 Purpose
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . 19 5.4.2 Methodclagy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 ii
l-t
( _ __ - - _ _ ____
1 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)
Page 5.4.2.1 I&C Availability . . . . . . . . . 19 5.4.2.2 I&C Suitability ......... 20
- p 20
. 5.5 Validation of Control Room Functions .........
20
%. 5.5.1 Purpose . .................
5.5.2 Methodology ................ 20
................. 22 k ction 6.0 ASSESSMER PHASE . .. .
6.1 Enhancements and Design Modifications ........ 23 23 6.2 Prioritization of HED's ...............
Prioritization Criteria 23 6.2.1 ..........
6.2.2 Priority Ranking . ............. 25 6.3 Corrective Actions and Schedule for Implementation . . 27 Schedule for Implementation 27 6.3.1 ........
Verification of Design Improvements 27 6.3. 2 ' . . . .
Section 7.0 ; DOCUMENTATION AND DOCUMENT CONTROL' ........... 28 28 7.1 Reference Documentation ...............
28 7.2 Feview Documentation . ................
7.3 _ Data Management System . ............... 29 7.4 Summary Report . 29 m' . .................. .
7.4.1 Review Procedures ............. 29 4
7 4.2 Review Findings .............. 30 7.4.3 Implementation . .............. 31 7.4~.4 Maintenance Phase' ............. 31
. . . . . . . 31
- Sution 8.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM . . . . . ....
- /
................. 32
- Section 9.0 SCHEDULE , . . . . . ..
iii
- . . _ _ _ _ _---- - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _i
Section
10.0 REFERENCES
. .. . . . . . . . ... . .. . . . . . . . . 32 APPENDIX A - Resumes of Original BWROG Main Control Room Survey . .
Team A-1 APPENDIX B - Resumes of Review Team for Remaining Activities
. . . . . . B-1 APPENDIX C - Documentation Forms
. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1 5
A iv
LIST OF FIGURES Figure Pm 1 General Arrangement - Control Building 2 2 Flow Chart of DCRDR Activities 4 3 HED Assessment Process 24 4 IIED Prioritization Hatrix 26 v
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Gulf States Jtilities Company (GSU) has recognized the need to improve the man-machine interface in the main control room and has focused an effort toward that goal. A BWROG Control Room Survey program was performed in a preliminary review of the River Bend Station (RBS) Main Control Room panels after they were assembled in the GE manufacturing facility in San Jose in August, 1981. The BWROG Generic Program Plan addressing the Planning and Review phases of a Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR) was submitted to the NRC by Reference A. The NRC approved the BWROG Plan with comments in Reference B, stating that the BWROG Control Room Survey program is an acceptable approsch to the Planning and Review phases of the Detailed Control Room Design Review. The requirements for conducting a detailed control room design review are included in NUREG-0737 Supplement 1, (Reference C). This program plan submittal describes the plan which GSU will follow to conduct a DCRDR in accordance with the requirements of References B and C.
2.0 OVERVIEW 2.1 Purpose The purpose of the DCRER is to:
- 1) Review and evaluate the control room workspace (Figure 1) and remote shutdown panel, instrumentation, controls and other equipment from a human factors engineering viewpoint, taking into account both systems' demands and operator capabilities.
- 2) To identify, assess and implement control room 1esign enhancements and modifications to correct items which are safety-related or otherwise substantially impact tbn potential for operator error, particularly in preventing or coping with emergency situations.
2.2 Objectives The objectives of the DCRDR are:
- 1) To identify improvements in the control room / operator interface which have the potential to reduce the probability of error, particularly with regard to preventing or coping with emergency situations.
- 2) To evaluate any identified problems, establish relative priorities and corrective action plans according to specific. evaluation criteria.
- 3) To verify that each selected design improvement will provide the necessary correction and can be introduced in the control room without creating unacceptable human engineering discrepar.cies (HED) because of significant contribution to increased risk, unreviewed safety 1
I ' \f, j I ;
\ l { k k h
I 'cz i e- u c- ,
i E
T i
h k "/EA h
N k_A h i
s 2_'_N
!i!!!,illl[i
!!!::!! i,;i j a fii t n!'I
!!!!@!n!!!ijy!!!!!ii!!4!,
i ilrii
! d II ra 4 g
=
, e.
v i c. i!!iinni! amu ama, nu.
...s_; 35N sp!>lj r =
5
- if fj sldi i
.t9 I
ii fk k i tt ;it:- t t 3 =
F-a-s
..g.g ,
R~%\\ y\\ % % % E % % % % % % %\} k
} _a
. N _
~
G "
ilL lI: his !!': I il I i-j
- m hl !!!!;:;:3 -:, !@!, ji :
u{
xitT 2 P i i
s t i m! p';;! ir!' . .siliiiii :!! i v lii
..b;;y=ils!.!,!!.!!iiii! s L-
.l 4 a '
u A
- 4. nal n
i s -r i Naa is ,a. u. ,
- s
.,. . .z a n..,a; m;isi:
,, . g..
- i!I::,,:,:ii:.n,caiist .
ii
. I E lia :
H.- yl, .
/- . .. . . 6
--g g3 II ll i,
\ .
la
{5 ki l i! h.' JI lis
! ! f ! !ff lillii innsilitise ties e f
sh\
__ t
-i= Il a s .
- Im l' ' "2 Ig~,].
{g 3 \lh
\ * * * ' N ']
. . . . 7-lI!h vv llUs\
g II [g\ "~*N!) l IlNldl ~.-'
ld
, e
-, :-u
- i. 3 , m l eg
' l d$$ $$ e i-t' sli: 1% i !$k lii)t '"
idJ5!!!,;i h, M 3 P M M, S S S
- M x D K s 9 A $ xS. I!y'
.! .!.d,,i!![!'i i n.
l h;i' 0$,0..:..!: !.'
,plls:!!ih!h u,
h
?
I !!!hnE !! 2hi 11!,1:1)
'- 5?55,5 1 - >>3pr I # .g!
!'!!!!!!!!!!!!en:ss: !
{!. ,
ni e sillitiliiiiiii(s t a tie n t e st!!! !!
llll '
J- a .
W
)n rv rY <C Li_1 O Q__
<C- ~.
C au* == ame s._ _,-4 m,. .-. -.------.-.m.--.,--
.,y_m.___..m_,-m., . . - - - . , , -- -,- - -~-e
l (Al_t f D g g g uo ru WiFMP!fWIR"!RNPm"LP
.e. ,. . . ...
' i. m F.9.:.-l7FP'Fg
_m. ,,u,
.<--.. , _ . . < - , . t _ .. _ 1 .. <... ....
/ ~
/,_
V E E : f
/
/
/
[
^
.l_
/ _
~~
...s a / _-> _
r.: ~' -
/
,/ r- :::1 -
e n -.
/ l
~.',
- , -i
- ' jy :
Lt .*Jl.
~'~.- //
/
= :: -- - /.N (3
s
/,/
/ -a /
/4
== A 0, ia .. =. . ; .:fr .m ur = == -:.e
. >Nc,
}p/'f Y / / / YA ,
- A7=
[
- 1"~ " *J"' **Ei*
"'T
/../ / ///f
~ Km w,.x/
/ /, ..
- N #'*
i.
_=
9- / '
no
==
- wao . . ., _/
og.e.
/~-
- e " J. ' . * ::r,
.Fr.,%e r /
- i. /
=
/.:.'.=.** / := = .:- W ~~
yi // /
=~ .t C' ,..[ fr. y: M' &
777W///6/; -
=
- I z a , , .,-
, / ".". O. ""
";". ; 17. '7,; ) . J,*. 'W".N
~ == / w y .. w /
/ - - __ __
% _~ _==., / v.s =,9 ////s-
/!
. ... . Tr. 7.1 .i.s.TT qTr. : . . . .iY TTTi.
":1*T.
T
- 0?
. ...i. /> -
. / T!T! ,! -. ~
!! ! v yl_ E c'.t. ..
VIT1 TIT!T' ac ~_
n! ! ! //
7: ,
,1 N ._
. I
%. * *=A %,
W a i3g.ig- L.
- LFWm
= = : =::= := :: ::.' :;r 2, EB '" '""" "~
= = : =::= = = == :::::
==:=::= = =::::: .;::::
= = : =: = .== =. .=r:r:.~
y* ~ ..~~
B'-""- Also Available Gn
=. =.. : =: =_:: =. =. ::.::=.:~::
Aperture Card . . . . . .
= = : = r.= ='.....
- : = = =: = .. .
=. : :: = =. --
pel-. - --j.__..
FIGURE 1 C . -
-- . , , . , . I GENERAL ARRANGEMENT -
CONTROL BUILDING RIVER BEND STATION 8402090213-o(
I c questions or situations in which a temporary reduction in f safety could occur.
- 4) To coordinate improvements with changes resulting from other human factors / emergency response improvements.
2.3 Description of DCRDR Activities To achieve the objectives of the DCRDR, a number of activities must be completed. A flowchart showing the interrelationships of the DCRDR activities is presented in Figure 2.
The DCRDR has been split into six phases:
o Planning o Review o Assessment o Reporting o Imp 1cmentation o Maintenance A brief synopsis of these activities follows:
2.3.1 Planning Phase b The planning phase commenced with the establishment of the BWROG Control Room Improvements Committee in January , 1980. The planning phase was described in detail in Reference A. The planning for outstanding activities is detailed in this plan.
2.3.2 Review Phase The review phase consists of a control room survey conducted by a multidisciplinary team to compare the characteristics of thu control room with appropriate human engineering design guidelines, an operating experience review (including documentation and operator interviews) and function / task analysis of emergency operating procedures. The review phase of the DCRDR fcr RBS will be performed in accordance with the BWROG methodology for che operator interview, control room survey, and survey supplement as described in Sections 5.1 and 5.2. The systems review and task analysis portions of the review phase will be conducted as described in Sections 5.3 through 5.5.
Thirteen panels were reviewed during the original survey by operations and engineering personnel from three utilities, a human factors specialist froa the F.:ssachusetts Institute of Technology, and representatives from the NSSS vendor and the architect engineer. The scope of this preliminary review was defined so as to be comensurate with the current manufacturing status of the control panels, i
3
1 A
PHASEI RDR Manning PLANNING * I" * *
- 37 Preparation JL 1981 BWROG CR Survey Program
' Checklist & Results t t Contro' Room Operating Experience Survey Review I k PHASE 11 RBS FSAR REVIEW Systems Descriptions Task Analysis Based on EOPs W
Verification of l&C Requirements 1f Validation of Control Room Functions 1f 4L Assessment of HEDs PHASE Ill ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION if HED Correction /
Implementation Scheduling I f j k PHASEIV Preparation of a
DOCUMENTATION DCRDR Summary g Report Figore 2. Flowchart ot DCRDR Activities (shows BWROG CR Survey Program Plan incorporation) 4
concentrating.primarily upon panel design, instrumentation and hardware. Since the panels were.
. staged in the factory at the time of the survey, it was not possible to evaluate.some sections of the BWROG Control Room Survey checklists. These sections
- were listed _in a summary report that was submitted to GSU in December, 1981. The summary report provides a complete list of items for,which control room
. modifications or enhancemente should be assessed, and lists favorable aspects of the control roca design that were noted by the team. The items that now
. remain in the review phase, therefore, consist of completing the BWROG checklist and.its supplement, the operating experience review and performing function and task analysis for the emergency operating procedures. The results of the task analysis will be compared with the in-place inventory of controls and displays in the control room to assure that the control room supports the Emergency Operating Procedures (EOP's) or identifies missing displays or controls. With regard to the operating experience review which is a part of the review phase for an operating plant, because of the RBS construction status, it is planned to substitute operator experience on the simulator for operator experience'in the main control room.
2.3.3 Assessment Phase During the assessment phase, identified HEDs will be evaluated with regard to their probability for causing operator error and the potential impact of E the error on safe plant operat ion. A categorization according to priority category will be performed.
Corrective action plans will be established for all significant HEDs. Consideration will be given to correction by enhancement, design modifications,
. procedure and training improvements and the capabilities of other emergency response improvements, e.g. Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS)-.
The resulting corrective action plans will be integrated .and correlated with the other NUREG-0737 Supplement 1 emergency response improvement actions.
2.3.4 Reporting Phase After completing the assessment phase, a summary report of the DCRDR will be prepared and submitted to the NRC. The summary report will include a discussion of any changes made in the program execution,'if any, from the program plan, summarize the HEDs identified, outline proposed control room changes and present the schedule for implementation.
-The report-will.also provide a summary justification 5
f for HEDs with safety significance if left uncorrected or partially corrected.
2.3.5 Implementation Phase The implementation phase will be the actual accomplishment of the control room improvements according to the schedule submitted in the summary report.
2.3.6 Maintenance Phase s
The maintenance phase consists of the continuing attention given to human factors engineering in the control room with regard to procedures, modifications and review of unusual events.
A verification of design improvements will be '
conducted to ensure that the proposed corrective action plans can be accomplished without creating other problems and that the functions allocated to the control room operators can be effectively accomplished.
3.0 DEFINITIONS Emergency Operating Procedures (EOP's) - Plant procedures directing the operator actions necessary to mitigate the consequences of transients and accidents that cause plant parameters to exceed reactor protection setpoints, engineered safety feature setpoints, or other appropriate technical limits.
Em9rgency Procedures Guidelines (EPG's) - Guidelines developed from system analysis of transients and accidents that provide sound technical bases for plant-specific E0P's.
Function (Subfunction) - A kind of activity (or a static role) performed by one or more system coastituents (people, mechanisms, structures) to contribute to a larger activity or goal state.
Function / Functional Analysic - The exaaination of system goals to determine what functions they require. Also, examination of the required functions with respect to available manpower, technology and other resources, to determine how the functions may be allocated and execuced.
Function Allocation - The distribution of functions among the humar and automated constituents of a system.
Human Factors Engineering (HFE) - The science of optimizing the performance of human beings in man-machine systems. More narrowly, the science of design of equipment for efficient use by human beings
\ (also known as bioengineering, biotechnology, engineering psychology, ergonomics, and human engineering).
6
Human Engineering Discrepancy (HED) - A characteristic of the existing control room that does not comply with the human engineering criteria used in the control room survey.
Safety Related - Plant systems, portions of systems, structures and equipment whose f ailure or malfunction could cause a release of radioactivity in excess of those limits specified in 10CFR100. This class also includes equipment which is vital to a safe shutdown of the plant and the removal of decay and sensible heat or equipment which is necessary to mitigate consequences to the public of a postulated accident. This class includes ASHE Code Class 1, 2, & 3 items fabricated and installed under ASME Section III. Included in this class are any activities or services that affect the safety function in the design, operation and maintenance of safety-related structures, systems or components.
System (Subsystem) - An organization of interdependent human-equipment constituents that work together in a patterned manner to accon.plish some purpose.
System Function Analysis - The determination of system functions required to meet system goals.
Task (Subtask) - A specific action, performed by a single system const[tuent,personorequipment, that contributes to the accomplishment of a function.
Task Analysis - The systematic process of identifying and examining operator tasks in order to identify conditions, information, and instrumentation and control requirements associated with the performance of a task. In the DCRDR context, task analysis is used to determine the individual tasks that must be completed to allow successful emergency operation. In addition, this activity can verify and validate the match of information available in the main control room to the information requirements of the emergency operating tasks.
Validation - The process of determining whether the main control room operating crew can effectively perform their functions given the control room instrumentation and controls, procedures, and training. In the DCRDR context, validation implies a dynamic performance evaluation.
Verification - The process of determining whether instrumentation, controls, and other equipment are available to meet the specific requirements of the emergency tasks performed by operators. The contro? room survey and task analysis are verification activities, l checking the main control room match to the human operator.
4.0 MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING The ultimate responsibility for the RBS DCRDR will reside with' the RBS plant manager. The day-to-day conduct of the review will be the responsibility of the DCRDR review team. The original main control room survey was led by the BWROG Control Room Survey Team. Appendix i
A contains the resumes of the BWROG survey team. Remaining DCRDR 7
- - -- . - - . . - . . .. - .. . _ - .-n -- - - - _ -
! 1 61 activities will be' managed by the review team leader. The review team on leader will a monthly report progress on the DCRDR to the plant manager basis. ' Dais will provide the necessary management
' attention.to ensure that the DCRDR objectives are met and that the efforts ara integrated with overall emergency response improvements.
'The DCRDR team will require; interaction with other organizations within GSU. The review team leader will have the authority to assure freedom of.the DCRDR team operation. Areas which will be included are:
o Access to information (records, documents, plans, procedures, drawings, etc.).
o Access to all required facilities.
o Access to any personnel with useful or necessary information.
o Access-to support services.
o Freedom to document dissenting opinions.
.4.1 ' Review Team Structure 2
Jhereviewteamisa.multidisciplinedteamofindividualswith the wide: range 'of skills necessary to perform the design review. The' core review team, consiscing of members from GSU and General Physics Corporation (human factors consultant) will include the following personnel:
o Review Team ~ Leader
- o Human Factors _ Specialist o Senior Reactor Or rator(s) 4.1.I' Re' view Team Leader The review team has the review team leader as its key g
' person. This individual provides the administrative and technical direction for the project and'has responsibility for the project. Access to information',' facilities and individuals providing useful or necessary input to the team is coordinated by the review team leader. Because of the detailed knowledge of RBS systems Land methods, this individual
!provides a cohesive force for the various GSU department personnel'and vendor organizations employed at RBS.
It will be the responsibility of the review team leader to-resolve differences in human factors opinions on methodology, technique, review findings, assessment, and HED corrective actions that dissent with the majority opinion of the DCRDR Review Team.
The review team leader will be assisted in the performance of his function by the General Physics
, Project; Director.
2 8 V
4.1.2 Human Factors Specialist (HFS)
The human factors specialist from General Physics will work closely with the review team throughout each phase of the control room review and will provide the team with the human factors technical leadership. The human factors specialist will coordinate all activities from a human factors perspective and verify that task performance quality is maintained at a 1cvel necessary for a valid and comprehensive review.
4.1.3 Senior Reactor Operator (SRO)
At least one SRO from GSU will serve as a member of the core review team. The SRO will assist in identifying operator tasks and will serve as the review team expert on the operational constraints for manipulations of plant systems.
4.1.4 Supporting Personnel In addition to the personnel described in articles 4.1.1-4.1.3, the support of additional personnel shall be utilized as necessary. The support will include the following personnel:
4.1.4.1 General Physics Project Director The Project Director is responsible for ensuring the assignment of qualified people to the project, obtaining support from corporate resources, and providing overall direct.on to the project. He is also responsible for directing the GP project staff and for ensuring excellence of work performed. He will provide additional human factors support to the review team as needed.
4.1.4.2 Systems Design Consultant The systems design consultant, General Electric-Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) vendor, will be consulted, as appropriate, for review of DCRDR matters related to NSSS design.
4.1.4.3 Instrumentation and Controls Engineer An ISC engineer will provide advice to the
- team on I&C issues during the main control room survey, assessment of HED's and the development of design improvement plans.
9
7 l
4.1.4.4 Safety and Licensing Engineer The GSU safety and licensing engineer will provide advice to the team on safety / licensing issues throughout the process. This includes review and concurrence with the Program Plan and Summary Reports.
4.1.4.5 Architect / Engineer (A/E)-Consultant The A/E engineer from Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) will be consulted in matters related to A/E design.
4.1.4.6 Quality Assurance Engineer The quality assurance engineer will be responsible for reviewing project procedures and conducting audits during the course of the DCRDR.
4.1.4.7 Training Specialist / Instructor The training specialist will support the review team in identification of simulator / main control room differences, systems review and task analysis, and HED assessment and prioritization.
4.2 Review Team Activities The initial development of methodology for the review was performed under the BWROG as discussed in Reference A. The methodology for the assessment of HED's described in this plan was developed by the review team. The review team participated with GSU management in establishing the overall plan and schedule for the DCRDR. The review team will perform the outstanding activities and integrate all action items. The review team will be responsible for the preparation of all reports related to the DCRDR and ensure that appropriate reports are submitted to GSU management for review and approval.
4.3 Coordination and Integration with Supplement I to NUREG-0737 Activities Given the integrative nature of Generic Letter No. 82-33, the DCRDR process will be coordinated with other post-TMI activities that are addressed in the letter. The results of the DCRDR project can be utilized in specific applications as discussed below:
E0Ps - The Systems Function Description and Task Analysis portion.of the review will use the RBS specific E0Ps as 10
its basis. Thus, examination of the E0Ps will inherently integrate their upgrading with the DCRDR.
SPDS - One of the aspects of the DCRDR project is to identify and define operator requirements during conditions of emergency operation. These requirements may define s me of the necessary plant inputs to the SPDS and the display formats for the graphic displays. In addition, the SPDS may provide operator information requirements that could preclude scme control room modification (e.g. installation of additional displays or rearrangement of displays).
Regulatory Guide 1.97 - The Verification of the Task Performance Capabilities pcrtion of the DCRDR (Section 5.4) systematically veriffeu the presence or absence of information required by the operator during emergency operations. The results of this process will give insight into the monitoring instrumentation that is available to the operator and, conversely, if any type of indication is required but missing.
4.4 Review Team Orientation Jhe initial BWROG review team received their orientation by
' attending a BWROG Control Room Survey Workshop on October 8-15, 1980. Topics covered included control room design review objectives, human factors principles, BWROG checklist, operating experience review, task analysis and simulator survey performance exercises. A f amiliarization with the main control room panels was performed when the survey commenced.
A second BWROG Control Room Survey Workshop was held on October 18-20, 1983. Topics covered included human factors principles, NUREG-0737 Supplement 1, NRC Generic Letter 83-18, BWROG Control Room Survey development and methodology, checklist supplement, operating experience review update, task analysis on emergency operating procedures and simulator performance exercises on the checklist supplement and task analysis.
A brief orientation with the plant, previous survey results and plans for outstanding work in the main control room will be held when the performance of this checklist supplement commences. The close coordination between the plant and c.onsultant personnel on the team will allow any additional orientation needs which may arise to be met on an as-needed basis.
5.0 REVIEW PROCEDURES The DCRDR for RBS is being performed according to the review procedures described below.
The procedures which are being used for the operating experience review, historical report review and control room survey were transmitted to the NRC by Reference A and approved by the NRC in 11
7
('
Reference B. One of the comments in Reference B was that the plant-specific program plan should document the number and extent of plant
-personnel participation. Appendices A and B indicate the plant personnel participation in both the original survey and the remaining activities.
5.1 Operator Interviews and Historical Report Review 5.1.1 Operator Interviews The purpose of the Operator Interview is to obtain
. direct operator input to aid in identifying potential or actual deficiencies in t' ae control room layout or design or in operating procedutes that result in confusion (mental activities), difficulty (manual activities) or distraction (the environment).
Using the questionnaire in Appendix C, operators will be asked to' respond in writing based on their operational experience and knowledge of the RBS main control room or RBS simulator. Interviewees will retain'a copy of their completed questiennaire forms and review them with a survey team member during a later oral interview. If additional space is needed, tha attached Comment Form is to be used. With regard
. to the number of personnel to be interviewed, a representative group of the operators (six to eight) covering a range of experience, education, ability and physical size will be interviewed. In addition, several RBS simulator training instructors will be interviewed.
The interviews will be conducted by members of the DCRDR team with background or experience in operations and engineering or design with a position conducive.to a free flow of information. It is expected that each oral interview will take one to.
two hours.
Following the interviews, the survey team will consolidate the information obtained and analyze it to help identify specific areas of concern for detailed analysis during the DCRDR assessment phase.
5.1.2 Historical Report Review
' Review of LERs and scram reports of operating plants have resulted in identifying possible humsn factor design considerations that may have contributed to operator errors. 'The BWROG DCRDR survey program recommends review of LERs during the last two years of plant operations for use as a source in identifying the human engineering discrepancies.
Due to the construction nature of RBS and the unavailability of LERs, a procedure will be followed 12
to extract the necessary information from plants that are similar in design and in control room arrangement to RBS. This will be accomplished by reviewing the BWROG Control Room Design Summary Report, Reference F, which reported the results of sixteen control room reviews. The identified HED's for these plants will be checked against RBS control room inventory, and later analyzed in the DCRDR assessment phase.
5.2 Control Room Survey The purpose of the control room survey is to identify the character.stics of important controls and displays, the usefulness of audio and visual alarm systems, plant status information provided, the control room layout and environment, and other areas of human factors engineering that potentially impact operator effectiveness. This is accompliahed by conducting a systematic comparison of existing control room inventory against human engineering guidelines. The ultimate objective is to identify potential modifications of the operator - control room interface which will reduce the potential for human error.
5.2.1 BWROG 1981 Survey I- The procedures used in conductia.g the RBS DCRDR survey followed the BWROG control room guidelines of Reference A. The survey was conducted by the review team using checklists developed by the BWROG.
Supplemental information was provided in the EVROG workshop to give additional guidance to the review team members in completing the checklists. Each checklist item wts presented in the form of a question for consideration by a survey team member.
Following that question was a series of numbers in which tSe specific item being reviewed was evaluated.
The first set of numbers (4, 3, 2,1, 0) indicated the degree of compliance wherein (4) indicated no compliance, (3) indicated somewhat in compliance, (2) indicated mostly in compliance, (1) indicated full compliance, and (0) indicated the specific question being considered was not applicable or could not be considered at this time. As each specific question was evaluated, the team member (s) actually doing the evaluation of that question indicated the relative degree of compliance by circling the applicable number.
Following the number indicating the degree of compliance for each item being evaluated was a predetermined number ranging from one to three which indicated the relative importance of that item with respect to the potential for causing or contributing to operator error. A (3) indicated high potential for operator error, a (2) indicated moderate potential, and a (1) indicated low potential. In the 13
i final evaluation of each item considered, it was the product of the degree of compliance multiplied by the potential for operator error that determined if the
. consideration of corrective action is justified.
Following each checklist item was space for the person performing the evaluation to enter comments.
For each specific checklist item, these comments identified items or components of non-compliance, the scope of review,Jor.any qualifying statement judged to be appropriate'to the evaluation. If, for example, a large. number of components are reviewed and only a few were non-compliance, these were specifically noted in the comment space and the general. rating was "mostly compliance." To provide additional documentation, still photographs were taken of major items or components of non-compliance such as mimic layouts, control / display groupings, labelling systems or equipment locations. These photographs were cross referenced to the specific checklist item by a notation in the comment space Due to the importance of comments in the evaluation, additional comment forms were attached for more detail when necessary.
Since the RBS control panels w.ere staged in the factory at the time of the 1981 survey, it was not possible to evaluate some sections of the BWROG Control Room Survey Checklists. In addition, due to the manufacturing status of the control panels during the survey, several panel inserts and significant-instrumentation were not installed at the time of the
-survey. These have been listed in Appendix A of the 1981 RBS Control Room Summary Report and will be reviewed in the second phase'of the RBS DCRDR at the time of. performing the survey checklist supplement.
The 1981 survey concentrated primarily upon the following' areas: e o Panel Layout and Design o Instrumentation and Hardware o Annunciators o' Emergency. Procedure Instrumentation Each of these control room survey areas and the general recommendations for enhancements are listed below:
5.2.1.1 Panel Layout and Design
- 1. Many backpanels have controls and displays mounted above and below recommended heights.
- 2. The dimensions of panel 680 are not optimized for a seated operator.
14
- 3. In many instances, functional groupings of controls and displays could be enhanced with demarcation lines and summary labels.
- 4. Some aspects of mimic layout could be improved.
Flowpaths should be readily apparent, crowding avoided, symbology and color coding consistent.
- 5. The panel color code should be improved and consistently applied.
t
- 6. Labels should be more succinct.
- 7. A hierarchical labeling system should be instituted.
5.2.1.2 Instrumentation and Hardware
- 1. Control room indicators and recorders should be reviewed to determine which would benefit from the addition of marking or color coding to indicate normal and abnormal ranges.
- 2. Non-standard indicator scales should be avoided.
- 3. Larger indicators should be considered for some parameters on panel 680.
- 4. Some indicator labels should be corrected, indicating the correct units.
- 5. Labels for pen recorders should clearly specify the input point assigned to each pen.
- 6. Multi-point recorders should be used only where such a format is applicable. Where used, consideration should be given to more widespread application of point select and fast speed capabilities.
- 7. A lamp test feature should be considered.
- 8. Shape coding of switch handles should be considered.
- 9. Emergency switches should be clearly marked.
5.2.1.3 Annunciators
- 1. The usability of the annunciator system could be improved by prioritizing alarms, segregating informational and advisory displays, clarifying ambiguous legends and providing an alpha-numeric code for window indentification.
15
3'
- 2. Larger lettering should be used on panel 6TO annunciator windows.
- 3. A first out feature should be provided.
5.2.1.4 Emergency Procedure Instrumentation L
- 1. Annunciator legends should clearly specify the function of the alarm. Redundant annunciators should be avoided.
- 2. Indicators and recorders should be provided with range markings identifying' action levels addressed in emergency procedures.
- 3. Certain modifications of display methods and formats could enhance the effectiveness of the control room as an operator aid during transient conditions.
- 4. Some information potentially useful to the operator is not available in the main operating area of the control room.
, 5. Some modificat2on of instrumentation may be necessary to enable the operator to evaluate the state of the plant in accordance with certain considerations addressed in the guidelines.
5.2.2 BWROG 1983 Survey Checklist Supplement The supplement is intended to augment Revision 1 of the BVROG Control Room Survey Program dated 1/1/81.
It is to be included as part of the Control Room Review Checklists to further document proposed main control room improvements. The additional items listed in the supplement have been drawn from human engineering guidelines recommended in NUREG-0700 and verified through considerable experience of the BWROG survey teams.
Major sections of the supplement checklists are identified by letters corresponding to section derignations used in the original checklists. In order to differentiate between the two numbering systems, and "S" prefix has been assigned to each supplement item. The supplement checklist sections are:
. SA. Panel Layout and Design SB. Instrumentation and Hardware SC. Annunciators SD. Computers SE. Procedures SF. Control Room Environment SG. Maintenance and Surveillance 16
___ _ _ _ _ ____ _._ ___ _ __..___ _____ _ ___________m
This checklist supplement will be performed during the planned DCRDR activities. The results of BWROG 1981 Checklist Survey and the 1983 Supplement Survey will be compiled on HED forms described in Section 7, Documentation and Document Control. These forms will be included in the input documentation for the DCRDR Assessment Phase.
5.3 Systems Review and Task Analysis
' 5.3.1 Purpose The purpose of the Systems Function Description and Task Analysis portion of the DCRDR is to identify control room operator tasks and corresponding instrumentation and control requirements during emergency operations. This will be accomplished by performing an analysis of events encompassed in the RBS specific Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs).
5.3.2 . Methodology This portion of the DCRDR entails two major, sequentially oriented tasks. Each of the two tasks is discussed separately below.
5.3.2.1 Systems Function Description Plant systems and subsystems in the main control room have been identified and listed in the RBS FSAR. Major systems include the reactor control and instrumentation systems, safety systems, feedwater systems, power generation systems, and power distribution systems.
Subsystems are identified only if they are considered operationally separate.from the major system of which they are a part.
The functions associated with each system
- and subsystem are described in the RBS FSAR. This information will serve as a
>- reference base for the subsequent Task
'~
Analysis and Assessment phases. In addition, the systems list will be used in
.the selection of cperating scenarios for each walk-through during the Task Analysis.
l: 5.3.2.2 Task Analysis Using the RBS specific E0Ps as a basis, the
-Task Analysis will identify and document the discrete tasks that the operators must perform during emergency operations.
. Correspondingly, the specific
-17
l l
instrumentation, controls and equipment that are required to successfully perform the emergency operations will be identified and documented. Task analysis data collected as part of the E0P upgrade ef fort will be used as a basis for the DCRDR task analysis effort.
The INPO NUTAC DCRDR Task Analysis Guideline will be used as a reference for the task analysis t<> be conducted for the RBS DCRDR. The guideline provides a general description of the task analysis process to be followed. It provides sample forms for (1) control and display requirements, and (2) task analysis worksheet data to be collected.
A preliminary Task Analysis Form is included in Appendix C. Operator tasks will be analyzed using the symptom-oriented E0Ps and documented in the following manner:
- 1. The identification of discrete steps in the E0Ps in order of performance.
These steps will be recorded in the
" Procedural Step" column of the Task Analysis Form and branching points noted depending on the plant transient being analyzed.
- 2. A brief description of the operator's tasks per procedural step will be recorded in the " Operator Tasks" column of the Task Analysis Form.
- 3. The identif.4 cation of the instrumentation and/or controls that the operator requires per procedural step to either: (1) initiate, maintain or remove from service a system, (2) confirm that an appropriate system response has or has not occurred, i.e., feedback, or (3) make a decision regarding plant or system status The required instrumentation and controls will be recorded in the "l&C Requirements" column of the Tasks Analysis Form.
The remaining columns of the Task Analysis Form will be utilized during the Verification of Task Performance Capabilities, which is described in Section 5.4.
18
5.3.2.3 Control Room Inventory The function intended for a control room inventory in the DCRDR is to determine whether the instrumentation and controls needed to support operation under emergency
. conditions actually exist. (See INPO NUTAC Implementation Guideline-Reference I).
This function will be accomplished as part of the task-analysis effort and th6 related verification and validation efforts. The determination of I&C availability is described in Section 5.4.
In addition, a complete set of control board photographs will be taken to provide an as-built inventory of the RBS instrumentation and controls during the DCRDR.
5.4 Verification of Task Performance Capabilities 5.4.1 Purpose The purpose of the Verification of Task Performance Capabilities is to systematically verify that the instrumentation and controls that were identified in the task analysis as being required by the operator are:
o Present in the main control room o Effectively designed to support correct procedure performance 5.4.2 Methodology The Verification of Task Performance Capabilities will utilize a two-phase approach to achieve the purpose stated above. In the first phase, the presence or absence of the instrumentation and controls that were noted in the task analysis will be confirmed. This will be done by comparing the requirements in the "I&C Requirements" column of the Task Analysis Form to the actual main control room.
5.4.2.1 I&C Availability The presence or absence of required instrumentation and controls will be noted in the "yes" or "no" areas, respectively, in the " Availability" column of the Task.
Analysis Form. If it is discovered that required instrumentation and controls are not available to the operator, any such occurrence will be identified as an HED and documented.accordingly on an HED form.
19
The result of the verification of I&C availability will be a main control room inventory (in the Task Analysis Form column labelled "I&C Requirements") of instrumentation and controls needed to support operation under emergency conditions.
5.4.2.2 I&C Suitability The second phase will determine the human engineering suitability of the required instrumentation and controls. For pram,nla, if a meter utilized in a particular procedure step exists in the main control room, that particular meter will be examined to determine wnether or not it has the appropriate range and scaling to support the operator in the corresponding procedural step. If the range and scaling are appropriate, it will be noted by checking the "yes" area in the "I&C Suitability" column of the Task Analysis Form. Conversely, if the meter range or scaling is not appropriate for the parameter of interest to the operator, the "no" area in the "I&C Suitability" column of the Task Analysis Form will be checked.
This type of occurence will be defined as an HED and documented accordingly on an HED form.
5.5 Validation of Control Room Functions 5.5.1 Purpose The purpose of the Validation of Control Room Functions step in the DCRDR process is to determine whether the functions allocated to the control room operating crew can be accomplished effectively within (1) the structure of the RBS specific E0Ps and (2) the design of the. main control room as it exists.
Additionally, this step provides an opportunity to identify HEDs that may not have become evident in the static processes of the DCRDR. for example, in the control' room survey.
5.5.2 Methodology Utilizing the completed Task Analysis Forms from the Sytems Functions Description and Task Analysis DCRDR phase, walk-throughs will be performed in the RBS plant specific simulator based on the symptom-oriented E0Ps developed from the BWROG EPGs. A 20 l __ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - ..
normal complement of the operating crew will be performing the walk-throughs.
The purpose of the walk-through is to evaluate the operational aspects of control room design in terms of control / display relationships, display grouping, control feedback, visual and communication links, manning levels and traffic patterns.
The operating crew will be provided with c.opies of the latest revision of the E0Ps to follow as they are walking through the events. DCRDR team members will use the partially completed Task Analysis Worksheets to record observations and potential HEDs.
One event at a time will be walked-through.
Operators will be requested to perform the walk-through in slower than real time to provide a relatively slow paced rehearsal of the event.
During the walk-throughs, the operators will be instructed to speak one at a time and describe their actions. Since this will force serial action, the operations will not be performed simultaneously.
Specifically, the operators will verbalize:
o The component or parameter being controlled or monitored o The purpose of the action o The expected result of the action in terms of system response As the operators walk-through the event, they will point to each control or display that they utilize, and indicate which annunciators are involved.
As the walk-throughs proceed, the operators will note say errors, such as improper step sequencing or branching, that may occur on the Task Analysis Forms.
These errors will be traced back to the E0Ps for investigation to ascertain whether the error occurred because of a procedural problem.
If a procedural problem is discovered, it will be documented. This documentation will be used in responding to Item 7 of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737, which involves the Upgrade of Emergency Operating Procedures. Procedure validation problems will be addressed as part of the task analysis and walkthroughs of the upgraded E0Ps. This documentation will also be useful in any type of long-term training program which involves procedures upgrades.
The operators who performed the event will review the Task Analysis Worksheets along with a human factors 21
y; r +
- 'y .
D.WQ, f.'-Y-specialist. The operators will be asked to note any fijc, errors or problems that were encountered in the tuch -
walkthroughs and to expound upon the source of the <
errors or problems. These errors or problems will be I"#.
documented for investigation as possible HEDs.
=-
For each procedural step, the following types of information will be recorded:
o The identification of which member of the operating crew is performing the task.
This will be added to the " Operator Tasks" column on the Task Analysis Form. 2 o A description of the specific behavioral t action that is associated with each operator task. This will include communications between and among crew _
members. This will be added to the -
" Operator Tasks" column on the Task Analysis Form. '
.T o A description of the system response as a e function of the instrumentation and ~
controls required in the associated {
procedural step (i.e., an indicating ifght on a controller energizing to red, or a -
pointer on a meter deflecting upward). gg This will be added to the " Instrumentation and Controls Required" column of the Task -[
Analysis Form. -*-_
Once the events have been analyzed to extract the information noted above, Link Analysee, which trace the movement patterns of the operating crew in the main control room, will be prepared to assess whether --
the control room layout hinders operator movement j while performing the events.
The final step in the validation process will be to have a reactor operator who did not walk or talk through the events review the analysis in an attempt -
to uncover any operator task difficulties from an independent objective viewpodra. 0*( al Any dynamic performance problems that were uncovered -*
during this phase of the DCRDR process will be documented for review in the HED Assessment Phase of the DCRDR. __
6.0 ASSESSMENT PHASE During the assessment phase, all the identified HED's will be analyzed as to their effects on operator performance and safe plant ;
operation. HEDs will be prioritized according to the combined .-
criteria of the likelihood of operator error and the resulting -
22 g
i e
safety consequences. For all the HED's, corrections will be recommended, and schedules of implementation will be developed based ~
on the priorities and integration with other NUREG-0707 Supplement 1 emergency response improvement actions. Figure 3 shows an overview of the assessment process for the HED's.
6.1 Enhancements & Design Modifications Many identified HED's result from minor deviations of human engineering principles and require simple corrections. E Examples of such corrections include panel labelling and swapping of like components, and component improvements to the panel controls and indicators. More specifically, enhancements . ;
involve a number of techniques that involve surface improvements such as demarcation lines, shading and mimics.
Guidelines in selecting these HED's for correction by enhancement will be derived from the review team's own experience in addition to the background information listed in EPRI report NP-2411, " Human Engineering Guide for Enhancing = :
Nuclear Control Rooms", Deference D.
For some HED's, design modifications will be selected based on human engineering criteria and instrumentation and control specifications. These design modifications will undergo a subsequent review by the DCRDR team and GSU managment.
For selected HED's, alternative corrective actions such as the -
use of SPDS, training, or procedure modifications will be used '
in place of enhancements or design modifications.
6.2 Prioritization of HED's All the HED's identified will be analyzed and ranked as to the degree of impact on plant safety and the likelihood of .-
occurrence of such impact. The following factors constitute the basis for the prioritization of the HED's:
r
- Impact on safo plant operation resulting from the ;
degradation of operator performance due to the HED
- Function and classification according to safety of the HED-related component / system
- The potential for human error as influenced by the HED 6.2.1 Prioritization Criteria Considering the above factors, NUREG-0801 (Reference .
E), and ths DCRDR evaluation methods developed by the BWROG (Reference F), two criteria have been -
formulated to envelop the HED's safety consequences and the likelihood of human error. The criteria are:
23
Identified HEDs 1f Assessment Prioritization if If Enhancements Modifications Y
Establish initial Corrective Actions
, 1f Integrate with Other improvement Programs 1f Finalize Corrective Actions Figure 3. HED Assessment Process
3 ,. . , ~ . o y s;; ~, .= . .. r:.s :x. .a . <
- y. . n. ;.w. 9 .;,w w.,- ; .m .
- .,, , a . y
,,,,,,,n.,..
'h.- [.
-2: .' 4 3
? I 5 ; 7'F$. ,,.
- ', 4 p.5 p
{ . '* $' (~
v .[ :2,; ,. A. HED Safety Importance :
NUREG 0801 states that an HED should be assessed
. /. . U . 'M.
..4 fy,;.
according to impact on plant safety based on the y.
.% .. following criteria: ~.)
O.' S y W , ." - Association with a function of high safety ;
..j. l (- importance Q.
ry .
} ,f.::; ..
- Association tith a function necessary to i 3 y.
'Sj mitigate the consequences of an accident.
'~% -.:. "
Unsafe operation or violation of a
+,.
+.
,e
. . ,j;.- -
4 4-s f' technical specification could result.
"W 7<
Q ...f 'e
,4} Any HED which affects safe plant operation will /
. ; .: .} be ranked according to safety importance as p'~
determined by the judgment of the review team.
The judgements of the review team members will A 7, ' 1 :q be collected using the Delphi technique to y 1 g .2
- assure independance of prioritization rating. I?
For those HED's where the impact on plant safety %
41 '. t i-[.[ :
- cannot be established, a secondary measure dealing with the examination of the HED-related
- -f-g%
system classification will be used. An HED
)j. ./;.[ associated with a component belonging to a BWR 1 :
^
safety-related system such as ECCS, etc. will be .u.
ranked as " Safety Related", independent of the %.
x.. M._. [o .
analysis for the HED effect on plant safe
. ,X. .
.: r.-
.'.4. , operatlon. .
g.g y
Y B. Error Potential s
.l .hl
..( W: L i '; , The likelihood for human error is classified as p^3 i{. documented or having potential for occurrence. .
..7. ...
.'; ij Operator interviews will be used for input on ?-
. ' . Sf< error potential as well as review team judgment. */
t ? 3y
, JS In addition, the survey results of sixteen BWR centrol room design reviews (Reference F) will N, L g be reviewed to determihe if documented HED's are
'[ . '. l applicable to RBS.
- w. M.R - ..
hl.
~
' ~,- 6.2.2 Priority Ranking .M Q;p J. ';
m :.
3.Q Based on the above criteria, each HED will undergo a @
p.N h.: t -
prioritization test according to the priority matrix shown in Figure 4. A summary of the HED's /.'
" i.5? prioritization is given below:
. -l% ..
., Priority I - Safety Related 's<
J. .? \, .
- Documented and/or High Potential Error k .: -
y 6 . .-
- ;?
.. . s.
.,g'
, E. ; f Priority II - Safety Related $4
- ~ h .
Low Potential Error " ,e f.'t
. Y . ,e a, : 9 v.
- ' .. * 'l -
25 C Q 1.-
.~
[ '* . .
.. . '* 8: * .
Error Poten:ial Documented & High Low Potential Potential Error Error b
, e-3 42 I 11 05 E
a A
53 4y 111 IV
. o CC z
Figure 4. HED Prioritization Matrix 26
Priority III -
Not Safety Related
- Documented and/or High Potential Error .
Priority IV -
Not Safety Related Low Potential Error The HED's will be further examined for their cumulative or interactive effects. If such effects are found, they will be upgraded accordingly.
6.3 Corrective Actions and Schedule for Implementation-Corrective actions will be developed to 'oring the HED's into egreement with acceptable human factors guidelines or to counteract their effects. The specific corrective actions chosen may be enhancements, design modifications, improved training, revised procedures, or any combination of the above.
The review team will deselop the corrective actions.
References to be used will include NUREG-3700, EPRI NP-2411, end other human engineering guidelines. The following factors will be used in the assignment of the corrective actions:
i Priority rating Cost effectiveness Extent of correction: Enhancement vs. modification Operator performance / retraining
- Potential for creating new errors
- -Integration with other control room improvement programs:
SPDS, R.G. 1.97, E0P's, etc.
Sufficient detail regarding the corrective action will be
! developed by the DCRDR team to provide adequate guidelines for its subsequent implementation action.
6.3.1 Schedule for Implementation A schedule for implementation of HEDs will be developed based on the category assigned, additional engineering study requirements, implementation complexity, and plant scheduling constrain,ts.
Following the submittal of the DCRDR summary report, any. change in schedule of implementation and the reasons for the change will be submitted to the NRC as a supplement to the summary report.
6.3.2 Verification of Design Improvements The modified main control room instrumentation and controls design will be evaluated to assure that the selected design'improvaments, bot h individually and collectively, adequately correct .0.eir respective discrepancies and do not create other safety problems. The verification will be accomplished by performing the following:
27
=
? .
llu l
.a 5
._b
- 1. Comparison of the modified main control room l design with the control room human factors
)
1; -
design conventions document. Q} .
- 2. Comparison of the modified control room design with the instrumentation and controls 5 requirements identified during the control room 4 survey and task analysis. y
- 3. Comparison of the modified main control room design with approved project design criteria g-(e.g., electrical separation criteria). y
+
An HED verification form in the maintenance 1 procedures will be used for this review. HED I I solutions that are found inadequate will be reassessed, and sclutions will be revised to meet the -
,7 criteria.
- .: ;. j h,;h 7.0 DOCUMENTATION AND DOCUMENT CONTROL I G
}:. ,1f 7.1 Refarence Documentation hj y
' q.}
The following documents have been identified as possible 7
j reference material. As the review progresses, additional j-
..:g~g g:p.
, ., . . o:
referen es may be identified.
4-
.; _ ? 6, 2 o RBS Final Safety Analysis Report M_y p y) o BWROG Control Room Survey Program i J.g o BWROG Emergency Procedure Guidelines j
$$ 45[ o 'RBS Emergency Operating Procedures "JP: ..
l }" o o
NRC Regulatory Guides (e.g. 1.97 and 1.47)
NRC guidance documents (e.g. NUREG 0700) 4[ ..
- 1. o RBS training documents y k[%
' .; T. '* g
.T o o
Main control room drawings Systems descriptions 1
. I.L M o Piping and instrumentation diagrams -
k .Ey. o Annunciator arrangement drawings i i
o
'~ ??' %g o BWROG Control Room Survey Summary Report Human Factors Design Information l 1
o BWROG Control Room Design Review Program Summary Report b
- y?.re~Q o Operstor training manuals _
.i. . ? - ^
o RBS Administrative Procedures s
- . .e y1
.. M -
7.2 Review Documentation l a
'): 2 '
A s- c'16g Throughout the review process, documents will be processed to ;
- d/, f ,
record data, analyses and findings. Whenever practical and
' ' - j appropriate, standard forms will be developed and used. The j bulk of the documentation generated by the review process will "
be necessary to do the following:
{
o Document the criteria used for each review activity 1 o Record the results of the survey, operating experience 1 review and systems review f n
i 28 i:
- .:' . 92rv t; 4 4; g: 9 .g c n . 4 -6 .,:': , .R ; g ,'
- 1. ,cQ,7.
k ;.V r@9.. .Me .
%.;^ '
. :' .- c/ . ,
c g .y v MQ +;$ T R , , b,.( ; A. ~. - G *m :s+ 9 ' e .,fv.Mad E *,4}* '"
C*4
? -? i<. Q^4 a ..g'I -.gp..y-q.
a m- ..,3 0 Q.:
r ,
~' ;57 n$.
. c. .n
& ^. l),ln
- g -
'.p. ,
[
g>e .. o Compile HED's and associated data for review and $,g ;.
A assessment f6 p.>
g, r.: . #y ,
M In order to facilitate systematizing and recording main control room "1 design review activities, several standard forms have been .
developed. These forms, which appear as samples in Appendix C, are: %
.d4 m 4
';Q o Operator Interview Form .9 j
...,ry,; o HED Record ;.- T Jqj o Task Analysis Form k.
..g '. , o Document Control Log {g, su nq
- gc4 Any or all of these forms may be revised based on the cQ experience gained during the DCRDR.
p$p#
yJs
"(:g
, tf Any photograph used to support an HED record will be assigned a :> .;Q
(,.? a .'. number traceable to that record. gg
,2 %
,; 7.3 Database Management System g.,
- 3. y .id g/ A computerized database management system (DBMS) will be used ,-g E,,;;n. for the RBS DCRDR. The system will be used to input, store, Q Q retrieve and analyze significant data from the DCRDR project. fcx
- f. The majority of data will be generated from the control room : ^*. 7
%;; survey, task analysis and operating personnel interviews. The ih
- s.
. major sources of data input will be the following: ;g. 6 (.
n .s un r.
- r .,
s ;
o Main Control Room HED Records %
f^ 2 o Task Analysis' Data ' %j"
- , o Operating Personnel Interview Data K.;
Q -
o Sv:, tem Nomenclature List Q%
,.u
<f a Each of the data files allows smooth management and tracking of
- 7 the DCRDR review findings and results. The HED file provides a (ip .
p/g
. look-alike output form (see Appendix C) that can be used in the yy final DCRDR report documentation. . J.
?:( ;
Q!
? 7.4 Summary Report %;,.
pd
.'"* After completion of the Assessment Phase, a summary report of d;p.
- - the results of the DCRDR will be prepared and submitted to the 7. Y' i.h: NRC. The report will summarize the review process, referenc#ng *Q
'M this program plan to provide :aaterial which updates or revises .i' W
?.[ 1s the plan.
iy 7.4.1 Review Procedures ;7 ; s Ja )'
%s [ff; "fH ,
With regard to the actual accomplishment of the plan, ,M the summary report will include the following topics: L gj e7.
.? k ..h
.3 3i s
aK.'y
- '" nh. .
Q. QQ
.-l f, [.N.
- n. ;r
- 2.) )%
.; b
&y 4 29 9..rJ y.*
q . .',
- .* , , , . , . .). . . . . ~ ' *^ '*
~
3 .. . . . . . .i 'i ., , D'..'*.',1[;L yi3 . . . _ .. !J # , , . .fr' , . . ' * @ .' '.
. .f .
, .-f .
g,.
I.
o Plant-Related Experience Review Tyres and time periods of records reviewed Operator survey procedures Sa' srize experience of operators interviewed Sample interview questionnaire o Control Room Survey Summarize survey procedures Provide sample survey forms o System Function Review and Task Analysis Reference the, approved Emergency ?rocedures Guidelines which are the basis fer the emergency procedures used in the task analysis Charts or list of major systems and subsystems and their major components Identification of Information and Control Requirements Identification of any instrumentation or controls needed to support operator functions in the emergency operating procedures which are not located in the main control room Summarize the verification and validation procedures used 7.4.2 Review Findings This section will be organized by the chapter heading in the BWROG checklist:
o Panel Layout and Design o Instrumentation and Hardware o Annunciators o Computers o Procedures o Control Room Environment o Maintenance and Surveillance o Training and Hanning Additionally, special attention will be given to the findings from function and task analysis, operating experience review, task performance verification and operating crew function validation.
Each report section will include a description of all
-identified HED's and the proposed (or implemented) corrective action. The assessment process used to identify and select design solutions will be summarized. Where necessary for interpretation of 30
i' the report, appropriate sketches or photographs will be provided. For HED's which are found to be safety related, solutions which only partially correct the problems,-or decisions not to correct the HED's will be justified including the assessments providing the
' basis for~such decisions.
7.4.3 Implementation This section will summarize the schedule for implementing the design solutians which were described in the " Review Findings" section of the summary report. Where corrective actions have
-already been completed, as noted in 7.4.2, they will be noted under " Findings" and those solutions will not be repeated in this section. If there are areas which are not fully documentad with regard to outstanding actions, it is possible that an addendum to the summary report may be issued. Such plans will
-be included in this section.
.7.4.4 Maintenance Phase This section will describe the follow-up program for verification that implemented improvements are effective cnt an operational basis. Additionally, the GSU plans for a continuing HFE program at RBS will be described.
8.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM The RBS DCRDR will be performed in accordance with a formal Quality Assurance (QA) plan by General Physics Corporation with GSU internal review.
General Physics Corporation maintains a corporate Quality Assurance program developed to comply with, where applicable, the most stringent standards of Title 10, Part 50, Appendix B of the Code of Federal Regulations. The QA Manual to be used prescribes controls for project organization, control of documents, inspection, corrective action, quality assurance records,' review of project work, and other applicable activities.
The Project Work Plan will be prepared by the GP Project Director in accordance with'the Quality Assurance manual and this Program Plan.
Project Procedures and Quality' Assurance Procedures will be prepared as necessary to control those tasks affecting project quality. The Project Work Plan is then submitted to the GSU Operations Quality
-Assurance Supervisor for review and approval. After the plan and associated Project Procedures are reviewed, approved, and implemented, the project is audited by the GP Quality Engineer, or designee, for compliance.
Project Personnel will receive orientation training on the content and use of project procedures during the initial phase of the project. Once approved, project procedures will be treated as 31
f controlled documents. Current copies will be maintained at GP and GSU offices involved in the project.
9.0 SCHEDULE It is planned to perform the checklist supplement, update the
-operating experience review and complete the function and task analysis by July, 1984. The summary report will be submitted to the NRC by October, 1984.
10.0 REFERENCES
A. BWR Owners' Group Letter BWROG 83-51 from W. J. Armstrong to V.
A. Moore, dated August 25, 1981.
B. NRC Generic Letter 83-18, NRC Staff Review of the BWR Owners' Group Control Room Survey Progrcm, dated April 19, 1983.
C. NRC Generic Letter 82-33, Supplement-1, to NUREG 0737, Requirements for Emergency Desponse Capability, December 17, 1982.
D. " Human Engineering Guide for Enhancing Nuclear Control Rooms",
~
EPRI Report No. NP-2411, May 1982.
.E. "Evaltiation Criteria for Detailed Control Room Design Review",
NUREG 0801, Draft Report, October, 1981.
F. "BWR Owners' Group Control Room Design Review Program, Summary Report",. General Electric Report No. NEDC-30285, October, 1983.
G. NUREG-0700, Guidelines for Control Paom Design Reviews,
' September, 1981.
H. BWR Owners' Group Control Room Survey Workshop, October, 1983.
.I. NUTAC, " Control Room Design Review Implementation Guideline,"
July, 1983.
J. NUTAC, "DCRDR Task Analysis Guideline," September, 1983.
32
APPENDIX A Resumes of original BWROG Control Room Survey Team Wallace J. Colvin, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company William G. Alcusky, Yankee Atomic Electric Company Byron K. Thibodeaux, Gulf States Utilities Dr. Paul J. Nicholson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Human Factors Consultant)
Kenneth C. Ross, General Electric Company i
A-1
2 RESUME Wallace J. Colvin EDUCATION:AND TRAINING
~
(AttendedOhioStateUniversity,CollegeofEngineering, 1964-1967 LAttended Kent State University, College of Education,1967 Twenty-Week Academic Program for Nuclear Power Plant Personnel (General Physics Corporation), 1979.
iTw'o-Week Research Reactor Training Program, University of Wisconsin, (General 1 Physics Corporation),>1979 Five-Week Dresden Nuclear Plant Technology Course (GE), 1979 Ten-Week Operator Training' Course, Dresden Simulator (GE), 1979
- Four-Week BWR Observation Training, Millstone Nuclear Power- Plant 1E
'(GE), 1979-One-Week BWR Control Room Survey Workshop (GE), 1980 Degree Candidate, Cleveland State University, College of Engineering, 1980-1983
. WORK EXPERIENCE:
,1973 - Present: Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company
-Joined CEI as Plant Operator A at Ashtabula Coal Power Plant.
'Promotedito Roving Operator in 1977. Transferred to Perry
.flant in-1978 as Perry Plant Trainee. In-1979, qualified as
. Senior Reactor Operator at Dresden Simulator. Qualified as a member of the BWR Owners Group Survey. team in 1980. Promoted-to Unit Supervisor in 1981. Activities include systems operating instruction review and evaluation of Control Room
- human factors. Reports directly to General Supervisor, 10perations Section.
1969-1972: Union Carbide Corpo_ation, Ferro Alloys Division Roving Operator at Ashtabula Coal Power Plant Steam Department.
m b
A-2 ,
____ ___j
RESUME William G. Alcusky EDUCATION AND TRAINING BSEE, 1971, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachus Graduate Courses in Management Sciences, Worcester Poly.
Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts Course, " Human Factors in Process Control", University of Maine, Orono, Maine, May-June, 1982 Recent Training Courses and Seminars Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., " Fundamental Management Skills" January-February, 1982 American Management Association, " Improving Managerial Skills for the New or Prospective Manager", October, 1981 EPRI Seminar, " Human Factors Enhancement Approaches for Nuclear Control Room", August, 1981 NUS Corp. Seminar, " Emergency Response F_cilities", May 13, 1981 EPRI Seminar, " Computerized Operator Support Systems", December, 1980
" Nuclear Electronics Technology Update", at General Atomic, January, 1980 WORK EXPERIENCE Yankee Atomic Electric Co. - October, 1979 - Present Instrument and Control Engineer: Work included environmental qualification of instrumentation and electrical equipment, design of new instrumentation loops, and procurement of instrumentation.
Performed studies of Control Room Accident Monitoring Instrumentation for adequacy. Purchased isolation system for prototype SPDS. Responsible for human factors reviews of on going design changes and participated in Control Room Design Reviews for 2 BWRs and 1 PWR.
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation - June, 1971 - October, 1979.
Work included layout and equipment selection for control and relay panels, and arrangement and procurement of plant annunciator systems. Developed electrical control circuits for pumps, valves, etc. Worked at construction site supervising installation and checkout of electrical equipment and installation.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION Member IEEE SC7, " Human Factors and Control Facilities" A-3
If er -
l-'
t RESUME Byron K. Thibodeaux
' EDUCATION S/73 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY, Baton Reuge, LA LB.S. Electrical Engineering GPA: 3.4 of 4.0 Graduated with Honors fLICENCES AND CERTIFICATIONS Registered Professional Engineer - State of Louisiana WORK EXPERIENTE 6/78 to SULF STATES UTILITIES
. -present. Sytems Engineer, River Bend Nuclear Group - Plant Staff (1/81 to present)
Major Responsibilities:
- 1. Direct the testing cf the Power Generation Control Complex at the NSS vendor's manufacturing facility.
- 2. Witness _and approve the f abrication of the Power Generation Control Complex as a 'epresentative of the utility.
- 3. Provide technical support to the Plant Staff Operations Department.
~ 4. . Provide technical support to the Plant Staff
~
4' Maintenance Department.
S. Participate in BWROG control room surveys persuant-to.satisfacticn of NRC requirements.
- 6. Coordinate A/E, NSS . vendor, and utility activity so as to support Power Generation Control Complex fabrication, testing, and installation.
Engineer, River Bend Nuclecr Group - Project Engineering (10/79 to 12/80)
Major Responsibilities:
- l. Review of work performed by the A/E on electrical, control, and instrumentation aspects of the Nuclear Island.
- 2. Review of work performed by the NSS vendor on electrical, control, and instrumentation aspects
~
of.the Nuclear Stean Supply System.
- 3. Review of work performed by the A/E on electrical, control, and. instrumentation aspects of the Balance of Plant.
- 4. Provide engineering support for River Bend site activities.
- 5. Coordinate and expedite the activities of the
.A/E and NSS vendor in all aspects concerning the Power Generation' Control Complex.
A-4
Engineer, Systems Engineering - Relay Design and Coordination (6/78 to 9/79)
Major Responsibilities:
- 1. Direct and supervise the activities of the Relay Standards section. This section is responsible for optimization of relay designs and th.ough economics and engineering, arriving at the best designs which are consistent with good engineering practices.
- 2. Supervise the preparation of relay construction data for use by operating personnel in the construction of substations for routine projects.
- 3. Perform the necessary engineering functions and supervise the preparation of relay construction data for use by operating personnel in the construction of EHV and generating plant substations.
- 4. Ensure that all portions of projects under my responsibility adhere to the schedule for completion.
1/77 to ETHYL CORPORATION 6/78 ,
Electrical Engineer - Design Engineering (2/78 to 6/78)
Major Responsibilities:
- 1. Dusign motor control systems for new plants or expansions.
- 2. Design lighting systems for new plants or expansions.
- 3. Design grounding systems for new plants or expansions.
- 4. Design power distribution systems for new plants or expansions.
- 5. Furnish estimators with material take off for electrical materials used in each project.
- 6. Write electrical scope for contractors bid packages.
- 7. Writt electrical scope for vendors bid packages.
Assistant Maintenance Supervisor - PVC Plant (1/77 to 2/78)
Major Responsibilities:
- 1. Supervision of electrical and instrument maintenance forces.
- 2. Supervision of painting and sand 1 blasting forces.
- 3. Supervision and/or coordination of construction in area.
- 4. Supervise all maintenance forces in the absence of maintenance supervisor.
A-5
A = r
- 5. Authorization of spare _ equipment and parts to be stored on plant site for use in area.
- 6. Study breakdown frequencies and establish preventive. maintenance program to reduce downtime and frequency.
- 7. Approval of replacement parts and equipment to be purchased in area.
6/73 to ' ALABAMA POWER COMPANY
. 12/76 Engineer - System Protection (6/73 to 12/76)
Major Responsibilities:
- 1. Checking and correcting application of protection and control schemes by design personnel.
- 2. Supervision and/or coordination of the construction of transmission and generating.
> plant substations; also generating plant facilities.
- 3. Testing and evaluation of the following:
a) instrument transformers b) protective relaying c) communication equipment associated with protective relaying and control d) power' transformers and associated equipment e); circuit breaking devices: OCB, ATB, PCB,
-MOD, Metal clad switchgear, Vacuum switches, etc.
f) regulating transformers (LTC and integral unit) g) complete system control functions and coordination h) capacitor banks
- 1) customer distribution system compatibility
-j) meters and instruments
- 4. Furnish operating procedures for all transmission and generating plant substations.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Senior member: Instrument Society of America Louisiana Engineering Society Tau Beta Pi Phi Kappa Phi Eta Kappa Nu A-6
m SHORT RESUME
= Paul J. Nicholson P.'J. Nicholson'is currently an independsnt consultant serving the
- nuclear power industry in the areas of instrumentation and control and ~
~related topics. Twenty'three years of professional' experience include
'12 years in the aerospace electronic industry and the remainder'in nuclear research and advanced reactor' instrumentation and~ dynamics. For the past four years, while= principal scientist at the C.S. Draper Lab,
-he has been guest lecturer in'the MIT Nuclear Engineering Department, associate' lead investigator for the MIT Advanced Reactor Control
~
' Project, and ' supervisor for a number of nuclear engineering graduate thesis projects. He has been nominated for the position of Visiting Scientist at MIT for the 1980-81 academic year.-
From 1958-65'he held positions of increasing responsibility at Raytheon Company, managing advanced aerospace electric projects in air defense, radar and signal processing. Granted academic leave during 1965-69 he joined an experimental high energy physics research group at the Rutherford Laboratory at Harwell,.U.K., accepting responsibility for all electric' instrumentation for the_117 experiment, one of the first successful-large scale computer controlled experiments. He was also responsible for control room design displays, data stora~ge and retrieval aspects. -While in the U.K. he completed studies for a Ph.D. degree at the Imperial College in London and 'was appointed undergraduate physics tutor.
Returning to Raytheon he was named manager for Advanced Development, Aerospace Systems with responsibility for the USAF fault tolerant computer program and airborne multiplexing systems. He was a member of the SAE-2K multiplexing committee. Later at GTE Sylvania he was responsible for Air Force Satellite communications, the joint services computer controlled small switch board and DCA worldwide digital voice modem' development.
From 1974-1980 at C.S. Draper Lab, he was senior project scientist and principal investigator for advanced reactor instrumentation and control and reactor modeling studies for the DOE fusion program and the EPRI Fusion-Fission Hybrid Kinetics Study. He also collaborated with g _-Combustion Engineering in the Disturbance Analysis System (DAS) Study and interacted with the nuclear utilities, and industry,and the NRC in areas of LWR power plant I&C. Recently he was invited to lecture in the
-MIT Summer Course on Man-Machine Interfacing in Nuclear Power.
He is a member of the AIAA Terrestrial Energy Technical Committee,-
served on the IEEE/NRC Smart Instrumentation panel, and is a consultant to the Stone and Webster; Engineering Corporation. He is author of several publications in the reactor I&C field.
Prior to his post graduate studies in the U.K., Mr. Nicholson obtained a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from MIT and an M.A. in physics from Boston University.
A-7
RESUME
. Name: Kenneth C. Ross
- Position: - Program Manager Company: General Electric Experience includes nine years in'the nuclear industry--four years as an
- instructor in the U.S._ Navy. nuclear power program, two years as an
- instructor for General Electric Company, and three years as a program manager-for General Electric Company. SRO License. Certified by NRC to
- teach all~ phases of BWR operation.
~
General' Electric program manager for BWROG Control Room Survey Program.
Provided program management support for eighteen BWR couttul ive.e design reviews. Principle author of nine control room design review summary reports, co-authot of additional seven. Developed, organized, and presented BWROG Control Room Survey Program Workshop. Attended MIT summer seminar on human factors engineering and INP0 workshop on control
= room evaluations. - Co-author of training appendices to BWROG EPG's.
't.-
SF 4
m A-8 J. ,, . . . . . , , ,..- ... .. ., ,. .., ,, .. . _ . .
~
APPENDIX B Resumes of heview Team for remaining activities A. Review Team D. A. Chase, GSU Review Team Leader D. C. Burgy, General Physics Project Director R. J. Liddle, General Physics Senior Human Factors Specialist A. O. Fredieu, GSU Operations Specialist M. O. Bishop, GSU Operations Specialist E. P. Shankle, Jr., GSU Operations Specialist B. Supporting Individuals J. M. Christensen, General Physics Chief Scientist L. R. Schroeder, General Physics Sanior Human Factors Specialist R. E. Price, General Physics Director of BWR Training Services L. R. Byrd, Jr., General Physics Training Specialist D. C. Byrd, General Physics Training Specialist J. C. Praskievicz, General Physics Operations Specialist R. S. Groseclose, General Physics Quality Assurance Engineer N. L. Borreggine, Stone and Webster Electrical Design Engineer C. C.,Matson, Georgia Power Co. I&C Engineer B-1
- i+,.
RESUME Donald A. Chase EDUCATION B'.S. in' Civil'and Environmental Engineering, 1978 - Clarkson College of Technology
- LICENSE
. Engineer-In-Training, Tennessee, 1980
-WORK EXPERIENCE
' System Engineer - Gulf States Utilities Company, River Bend Station:
September,- 1983 to present.
Participate in and support startup modi:fication and acceptance testing of control room systems.
Completed BWR-6 Technology course - General Physics
- Corporation, 1983 Participated in BWROG control room survey _ workshop - General Electric, Co., 1983.
(Area Coor'inator d - Contro1' Building - Gulf States Utilities Company, River Bend Station; November,-1980 to September, 1983.
Chairman of control room construction management group. Held weekly' meetings, expedited required material _and problem resolutions, and assisted in scheduling to coordinate the installation of.the PGCC and Control Room support systems.
Closely monitored and coordinated with upper management and contractors all civil, mechanical,_and electrical activities for remainder of Control Building.
. Identified problems associated with. inefficient construction methods, over-restrictive requirements, low productivity, safety, and equipment maintenance. Then formulated timely
. corrective action.
Reviewed and made recommendations on field material requisitions, bid _ packages, and memoranda of cost changes.
Prepared: frequent reports and gave oral. presentations to advise n upper management of- job progress.
Civil Engineer - Tennessee Valley Authority, Hartsville Nuclear Plant; June,- 1978 to November, ,1980.
-: Approved all rebar and civil embeds installation, and the structural integrity of formwork prior to concrete-placement.
.. Designed shoring systems over large openings and equipment for
< Turbine Building slabs.
-; ' Assisted. craft in interpretation of drawings, specifications, and procedurev'related.to civil activities.
B-2
Coordinated the resolution of structural design problems as an interface between the construction forces and design organization.
Solved field-related problems and advised engineering managers of job progress. c Coordinated activities of a survey party to provide the work force with lines and grades and timely checkout of concrete formwork, s
4 B-3
RESUME Donald C. Burgy Director, Human Factors Engineering EDUCATION Ph.D. Candidate, Applied-Experimental Psychology, The Catholic University of America M.A., Applied-Experimental Psychology, The Catholic University of America B.A., Psychology, Swarthmore College EXPERIENCE General Physics Corporation 1979-Present 'Mr. Burgy directs all human factors engineering and man-machine systems design and evaluation work in the Company.
His human factors expertise includes system analysis, information processing, man-computer interactions, performance evaluation, training systems, and speech /non-speech communications. Representative projects include:
o Control Room Design Reviews Directed or participated in nuclear power plant control room design reviews at ten nuclear power plants: ' Virginia Electric and Power Company's North
. Anna and burry Stations, Commonwealth Edison Company's Zion, LaSalle, and Dresden plants, Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company's Zimmer plant, Pennsylvania Power and Light Company's Susquehanna
' Steam Electric Station, Illinois Power Company's Clinton plant, Public Service Electric and Gas Company's Salem Nuclear. Generating Station, and Portland General Electric Company's Trojan Plant. ,
o Task Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Crews Managed a major 18-month NRC research program on nuclear power plant-control room crew task analysis.
A data collection approach and methodology used to conduct a task analysis of nuclear power plant control room crews was developed in this program.
The task analysis methodology used in this project was discussed and compared to traditional task analysis and job analysis methods in a Program Plan report. The data collection was conducted at eight power plant sites by teams comprised of human factors and operations personnel. Plants were sampled according to NSSS vendor, vintage, simulator availability, architect-engineer, and control room configuration. The results of the data collection effort were complied in a computerized task data base.
B-4
o Communications Problems in Nuclear Power Plants, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
Managed project on Caidelines for Internal Plant Communications for EPRI. These guidelines were developed based on problems previously documented in EPRI research projects. Participated in an EPRI Technical Planning Study on Communications Problems in Nucl(Sr Power Plants prior to managing the guidelines study above. Developed methodology for collection and analysis of real-time communications data in operating power plants.
o Prototype Large 3reeder Reactor (PLBR) Operability Study Participated in an EPRI operability study of the two major PLBR designs - pool and loop types.
Coauthored a PLBR Design Familiarization course text.
Conducted task analysis for initial design evaluations of PLBR control console layout, instrumentation and control needs.
o Submarine Design Human Factors, U.S. Navy Developed task analysis format and collection methodology to promote team performance improvement and training enhancement in the Navy Submarine Advanced Combat Systems (SUBACS) program.
1976-1978 Tha Catholic University of American Human Performance Laboratory Mr. Burgy conducted applied and basic research experiments on auditory signal classification of complex underwater sounds in research sponsored by the Human Factors Engineering branch of the Office of Naval Research.
PROFESSIONAL Member, Acoustical Society of America AFFILIATIONS Member, American Psychological Association Member, Human Factors Society SELECTED Applied Human Factors in Power Plant Design and Operations, PUBLICATIONS General Physics Corporation, 1980, Coauthor with P. A.
Doyle, H. F. Barsam, R. J. Liddle.
" Survey and Analysis of Communications Problems in Nuclear Power Plants," EPRI Report NP-2035, September, 1981, Coauthor with D. A. Topmiller, D. R. Roth, P. A. Doyle, J.
~
Espey.
" Task Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant Control Reom Crews,"
Final Report, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., May, 1983. Coauthor with C. Lempges, A.
Miller, L. Schroeder, H. Van Cott, B. Paramore.
B-5 1
~ . .
RESUME Robert J. Liddle Manager, Human Factors Power Services EDUCATION M.S., Industrial Engineering and Operations Research, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University B.S., Psychology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University EXPERIENCE General Physics Corporation 1980-Present Mr. Liddle is a human factors engineer responsible for managing power plant control room design review methodology, staffing, and training programs. He provides in-house staff instruction in technical and administrative aspects of control room reviews. Mr. Liddle serves as project manager for several human factors projects and has had experience with utility / Nuclear Regulatory Commission negotiations involving human factors issues, o Program Plan Development Developed program plans for various utilities which present detailed methodologies utilized in the performance of control room design reviews. Thc program plans encompass management, staffing and data collection and interpretation issues.
o Control Room Design Review Managed detailed control room design review projects at the Pennsylvania Power and Light Company Susquehanna Steam Electric Station and Washington Public Power Supply Syrtem No. 2; acted as lead human factors engineer in control room design review for Georgia Power Company's Plant Vogle, Unit 1, and managed human factors review at Long Island Lighting Company's Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
o Selection Testing Administers General Physics Basic Mathematics and Science Test (BMST) for operator training and selection; assists in human reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear plant applications and the accompanying task analytic procedures.
o Development of Human Engineering Standards Compiled and developed standards, in control coding, legend plate design, mimic and demarcation lines, and color coding practices.
B-6 i .i ,. .
. , I
p,,... .
o Human Factors Training Instructs utility and industrial personnel in topics of performance evaluation techniques, experimental methodology and control room review procedures.
1977-1978 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University In his research project, Mr. Liddle investigated the use of videotape recording apparatus in an assessment center process. He assisted in scheduling and debriefing participants, data collection and interpretation, and report writing.
PROFESSIONAL Member,' Human Factors Society AFFILIATIONS PUBLICATIONS Applied Human Factors in Power Plant Design and Operation, General Physics Corporation, 1980, Coauthor with D. C.
Burgy, P. A. Doyle. H. F. Harsam.
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Detailed Control Room Design Review Program Plan, General Physics Corporation, 1982.
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Detailed Control Room Design Review Program Plan, General Physics Corporation, 1983, Coauthor with D. C. Burgy.
B-7
RESUME Anthony O. Fredieu QUALIFICATION
SUMMARY
Twleve (12) years experience in the power industry with over eight (8) years in commercial nuclear power. This e perience includes:
Shift Supervisor - Nuclear Assistant Operator - Nuclear Shift Foreman - Nuclear Assistant Operator - Fossil Plant Operator - Nuclear EDUCATION University of South Alabama', Mobile, Alabama i
Memphis State University, Memphis, Tennessee McGill Institute, Mobile, Alabama General Physics Corporation - Physics, Thermo-Dynamics - 1972 Westinghouse On-Site Nuclear Training - 1974-1976 Ge'neral E,lectric Mechanical and Nuclear Training Services, BWR-6 Technology Course - 1980 General Electric Mechanical and Nuclear Training Services, BWR-6 SRO Certification - 1982
. LICENSE / CERTIFICATION Senior Reactor Operator Licenses Nos. SOP-3138-and SOP-3138-2 BWR/6 SR0' Certification - G.E.
Nuclear Certification Level III O ANSI 45.2.6 EXPER,'ENCE Presen6 Shift Supervisor - GULF STATES UTILITIES, RIVER BEND NUCLEAR PLANT Currently pursuing STA Qualifications via Memphis State University's Advanced Technical Principles Training. Previous duties and responsibilities included:
- 1. 10btaining a BWR/6 SRO certification at General
. Electric Training Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
- 2. Coordinating development of Operations Group, as well as,' total plant administrative program while acting Administrative Supervisor.
B-8
.l_
- 3. Serving as GSU representative in the Dynamic Screening for the Safety Parameters Display System.
'1
- 4. Supervising activities of Shift Foremen and Operators during Start-up and Preoperational testing of River Bend Plant.
- 5. Developing the Plant Wide System and Component Identification Program.
1980 - Shift Foreman - ALABAMA POWER COMPANY, JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Licensed Senior Reactor Operator on Unit I and II at this PWR sita. Responsibilities included ,
supervision of plant opertors during both normal and off-normal operations in conjunction with Start-up participation as a Cold Licensed SRO on Unit II.
1975 - Piant Operator - NUCLEAR - ALABAMA POWER COMPANY, 1980 -
JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Participated in procedure development, start-up testing and initial criticality on through commercial operation on Unit I. Other duties included direction and training of now licenssd operator on shift.
1974 - Assistant Plant Operatcr - NUCLEAR - ALABAMA POWER COMPANY, 1975 - JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT Participated in system level testing during the Start-up phase. Duties included procedure verification and actually performance in conjunction with surveillance over operating plant equipment.
1971 - Assistant Plant Operator - ALABAMA POWER COMPANY, 1974 BARRY STEAM PLANT Y
B-9
s _ _ , _
i
>. g.9 9 o V 9/
4),,,kA%
IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) [Tj y
[ dig,#
4 4
>W '
/
!.0 Eim De 8 Hal i.i
!!l6Na
[ 1.8 1.25 lA l.6 4 150mm >
< 6" - *
- ?
I%.
.sW .+ 1
- n-
gy g 4, s IMAGE EVALUATION 1.s1 1A.e.1 ,.1.s>
4 ,k; bs ,4 ,.
%~#'{p,,,9? <<,
I.0 d BM IL's tim m HE-l,l EU bb
'8 I.25 1.4 1.6 4 150mm >
< 6" >
s#+ %ers 4+fd //4*sNq
- g$
4%
/xV
+# <>['*#>'h'h
+
Nf o /l/// sp&p4e
~
9 59&
k *j IMAGE EVALUATION ((p y
d'4, d4 k//77 f /
% TEST TARGET (MT-3) .
~g
~
Y N$/ llQs
< f 'g ,
sy,,
+ %
110 PM E 5
EIfr.
M ll} "2.2 l,l {'8 EE l 1.8 1.25 1.4 I i.6 l_
< 150mm >
< 6" >
4 %,, /+4% 4
- ?!;f>#f op +)p+;h
,e
e Y
N RESUME
.Merton O. Bishop EDUCATION
(
Memphis 1 State" University. ,32 semester hours of Nuclear Reactor
- Fundamentals 1981 4
SUMMARY
-OF-EXPERIENCE s
- 1. ' Fourteer. years experience in the operction, maihtenance, personnel training, and equipment installation associated with a 62.5 MWt (20 i MWe). liquid metal cooled fast breeder reactor.
- 2. Five years experience in the operation and maintenance of the -
propulsion equipment associated with a nuclear power submarine.
- 3. Eight months experience as forest fire fighterfin northern Idaho.
- 4. One year experience as shipfitters helper. Included construction and repair of barges, tug boats, ferry boats, off shore drilling
- . platforms and river-pushers.
- 5. -Presently serving as shift supervisor on an operating crew at River
, Bend Fuclear Station, a 940 MWe BWR under construction at St.
- Francisv111e, Louisiana. In this-_ position'since August, 1980.
PROJECT TYPES
- 1. Naval Propulsion-Plant
- 2. Pressurized Water Reactor
- 3. _ Liquid Metal Cooled Fast Breeder Reactor
- 4. . Construction and Shipbuilding
- 5. -Forest' Fire Protection'
- 6. JBoiling Water Reactor DETAILED WORK EXPERIENCE
~ Gulf States Utilities - August, 1980 - present Employed in August, 1980 as a sh'ift supervisor at River Bend Station,'a 940 MWe BWR under construction. In this-position I have been in charge
'of the procedure. development' effort for the Operation Department for
.four (4)' months, in charge of operations personnel while attending the Nuclear' Reactor Fundamentals Class, Research Reactor Training, and BWR Training at-Grand Gulf Nuclear Plant in Port Gibson, Mississippi for six p months. :I also' represent Gulf States utilities on the BWR Owner Group Emergency Procedures Subcommittee.
o
, 3.iDuring the six (6) month training period at Grand Gulf Station, I attended a six-week BWR-Technology course and one (1) week Mitigating Core Damage-course. The remainder of the six months, I was acting in the capacity of Assistant Operations Supervisor.
B-10 I
W - q , %y
- r w , c -, w . m. -
,-,m--v., ,+ e% , , , , . - . w rn, w
Argonne National Laboratory - 1966 - August, 1980 Employed in December of 1966 as operator trainee. Completed training program in December of 1969. The training program consisted of qualifying in the following five areas: Coolant, Reactor Operator, Fuel Handling, Electrical, and Power Plant. This training program is carried on in addition to performing work duties and standing watches on a rotating shift basis. Qualified operators are responsible for knowing and implementing all actions necessary for operating and maintaining the reactor and associated systems. This includes 25,600 KVA generator which is operated in parallel with the power grid.
Upon completion of qualification I was transferred to the Procedures Group for fourteen months. In this capacity I was responsible for the generation of new operating procedures, review and updating of existing operating procedures, and providing an interface between the Operations and Engineering Departments in regard to procedural matters.
Transferred back to an operating crew at the end of the assignment.
Promoted to Foreman of an operating crew in August, 1974. In this position I was responsible to the Shift Supervisor for the direct supervision of the crew of fourteen men and the proper operation of the plant.
Promoted to Shift Supervisor in August, 1976. In this position I was directly responsible to the Operations Manager for the safe and proper operation and maintenance of the plant on a rotating shift basis. In addition I was responsible for the safety and proper maintenance of the entire Argonne West Site during my assigned shift. This included the Power Plant, Fuel Cycle Facility, Plant Services Facility, ZPPR, and other support facilities. Also responsibic for training of all perosnnel assigned to my crew.
United States Navy - 1959 - 1966 (Honorable Discharge)
Progressed from rank E-3 to E-6 while assigned to the USS Snook. During the last 2 years on board was the Leading Petty Officer in charge of "M" division. In this capacity I was responsible for the operation and maintenance of the engine room and auxilliary machinery space, maintenance of all qualifications, maintenance of a divisional and ships-training program for division personnel, and submitting required reports.
U.S. Naval Prototype (SIW) Naval Reactor Training Station, Idaho (9 mo.)
Served as trainee on the S1W (Submarine) Propulsion plant for 5 months.
Upon completion of the training program was assigned as an operator / instructor for 4 months. During the four months as operator.
Instructor, my duties included standing watches at various stations and instructing personnel in the proper operation of the main propulsion equipment, turbine generators, air compressors, radiation detection equipment, water chemistry control equipment, steam generator level control equipment, and emergency D/G.
B-11
U.S. Navy Basic Nuclear Power School, Vallego, California (6 months)-
Received instruction in reactor theory, reactor kinetics, algebra, trigonometry, calculus, water chemistry, and general operating practices of power plants. .Also received courses in thermodynamics, electrical theory, turbine theory, nuclear instrumentation and tadiation safety.
Graduated in the top fifty percent of the class.
U.S. Navy Training Schools - Various Locations Boot Camp - San Diego, California MM"A" School - Great Lakes, Illinois Submarine School - New London, Connecticut Clearwater Timber Protective Assn. Orofino. Idaho (8 months)
Received instruction and practical experience in map and compass utilization, fire fighting procedures, and first aid. Participated in combatting several large fires and various small ones. Last 4 months was in. charge of a fire crew of eight men. Also participated in aerial reconnaissance of several fires.
Burton Construction and Shipbuilding Port Arthur, Texas (1 year)
Employed as shipfitters helper. Assisted in the repair and the construction of barges, tug boats,'off-shore drilling rigs, river pushers'and ferry boats. Also assisted in the installation of large diesel engines for propulsion purposes as well as smaller equipment for auxiliary pu.rposes. This included installation, foundation mounting, l
aligning, and checking out the above-listed equipment. On several i occasions worked for the outside machine shop in the repair and realignment of drive shaft and seals.
F L
I i
I-i B-12
V E
i RESUME Ellis P. Shankle,'Jr.
I WORK EXPERIENCE l
Gulf States Utilities.- October, 1977 to Present Control Room Foreman - January, 1981 to present Presently working at a BWR-6 plant being built by GSU. Duties have included writing and reviewing plant operating procedures and system descriptions. Since July of 1983,'have been assigned to a shift as
- supervisor in charge to support the start-up testing program.
. Spent six months on temporary assignment at Grand Gulf Nuclear Station.
Successfully completed an eight-week BWR-6 Technology program. For the
! remainder of the time was assigned to a shift as an assistant to the l Shift Supervisor. Duties were to provide administrative and operational assistance during the plant start-up testing program which included Hot-Ops testing.
Attended G.E.'s BWR-6 Simulator Training program on the Perry Plant E
Simulator. Completed BWR-6, SRO and R0 certification.
Have comp,leted Memphis State Reactor Fundamentals Program and the Advanced Operator Training Program.
- Personnel Representative - May, 1980 to January, 1981 Primarily functioned as a recruiter'for River Bend. Directly involved
. in the recruiting, screening, and hiring of a majority of the RO and SRO licensing candidates.
- Production Tra'ning i Representative - October, 1977 to May, 1980 Responsible for training fossil fuel power plant operations and maintenance personnel in the area ~of power principles. Have extensive experience in planning and conducting formal classroom training using a video tape / lecture format. Since January of 1978, have conducted over twenty thousand manhours of training.for power plant personnel. This has required the direct supervision of a number of personnel for several weeks at a time.
Have also been involved in the development of training programs, training aids,' reviewing training programs of other companies and
. updating training material.
Since October of 1977, have functioned without direct supervision. Have performed duties within guidelines established by the-Training
- . Coordinator.
j-t United States Navy - September, 1969 to September 1977 B-13 s
r-f-
h b m
1 Engineering Watch Supervisor Senior watch station for enlisted personnel aboard a nuclear powered submarine. Directly in charge of enlisted engineering watch personnel.
Responsible for supervising plant watchstanders duri6g all phases of plant operations, ensuring that all evolutions were conducted in accordance with prescribed operational procedure. Have experience in supervising and conducting an extensive systems testing program as a result of a core refueling operation. Additional watch stations included Shutdown Reactor Operator, Shutdown Electrical Operator, Electric Plant Control Panel, Steam Plant Control Panel, Auxiliary Electrician and Auxiliary Machinery Space Upper Level.
Have a total of six years of plant operating experience on board a nuclear submarine. During that time, have acquired extensive experience operating, troubleshooting, and testing equipment and piping systems.
Utilizing schematic and piping diagrams, technical manuals, and procedural manuals.
B-14
RESUME Julien M. Christensen Chief Scientist EDUCATION Ph.D., Experimental Psychology, Ohio State University M.A., Experimental Psychology, Ohio State University B.S., Accounting, University of Illinois LICENSES AND Registered. Professional Psychologist: Ohio CERTIFICATIONS Private Pilot's License r
Rated Navigator and Radar Observer (Air Force)
- EXPERIENCE General Physics Corporation 1980-Present Dr. Christensen provides direction and guidance to all corporate research programs ;nd services that have human factors requirements. Areas of responsibility have included product liability and safety, man-machine integration for aerospace systems, and nuclear / fossil power plant operation. Representative projects include:
o Human Reliability Data Bank, Sandia National Laboratories Directed program that identified sources of human reliability data and structured and data base management system for probabilistic risk assessment in nucler power plant operations, o- Human Factors Engineering Control Room Reviews _
General Public Utilities, Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Analyzed panel design ar.,1 layout, control and display configuration, communication, environmental conditions, operating procedures, and maintenance procedures within the control room.
1978-1980 Stevens, Scheidler, Stevens, Vossler, Inc.
Dr. Christensen directed the human factors research and development program.
1974-1978' Wayne State University
> Dr. Christensen was Professor.and Chairman, Department of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research.
1946-1974 U.S. Air Force Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory 2 Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio
-L B-15
PROFFESSIONAL Member, American Association for the Advancement of AFFILIATIONS Science Diplomate, American Board of Forensic Psychology ,
Fellow, American Psychological Association Member, American Society of Safety Engineers Member, Human Factors Association of Canada Fellow, Human Factors Society Member, International Ergonomics Research Society Member, Systems Safety Society PUBLICATIONS " Human Factors Considerations In Lawsuits," in D. B. Esau (Ed.), Legal Reference for the Safety Professional, Park Ridge, Illinois, American Society of Safety Engineers (in press).
"The Human Element in Safety Man-Machine Systems,"
Professional Safety, March, 1981.
The Dictionary of Terms Used in the Safety Profession, Park Ridge, Illinois, American Society of Safety Engineers, 1981 (one of several contributors).
" Human Factors in Hazard / Risk Evaluation" Proceedings of the Symposium on Human Factors and Industrial Design in Consumer Products, Medford, Massachusetts, Tufts University, May, 1981.
"A Review of the Three Mile Island Unit 1 Control Room from a Human Factors Viewpoint." Report by MPR Associates, Washington, D.C. , for General Public Utilities, Parsippany, New Jersey, December, 1980 (one of several contributors).
B-16 m ..
l --
RESUME Lothar R. Schroeder Senior Scientist EDUCATION Ph.D., Experimental / Applied Psychology, Lehigh University M.S., Engineering Psychology, Lehigh University B.S., General Engineering, University of Illinois B.A., Psychology, University of Illinois EXPERIENCE General Physics Corporation 1982-Present Dr. Schroeder's areas of expertise include task and error analysis, equipment design studies, operations research, 2 and organizational design and management. Ne is currently managing the control room design review at the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant and has assisted in the Salem control room design review. Other representative projects include: supporting NRC research in the application of control room crew task analysis data for human engineering desita and staffing areas, evaluating SPDS placement, reviewing tagging procedures, and assessing the human factors aspects of Emergency Instruction Flowcharts.
1981-1982 U.N.C. Nuclear Industries Dr. Schroeder worked as a human factors specialist, interfacing with engineers and othar staff in identifying and solving problems relating to equipment design, the use of procedures, and training efforts at Hanford's N-Reactor. He also performed a human factors review of the 105-N control room in support of-an ongoing control room upgrade program.
1974-1980 Department of Psychology, Moravian College Dr. Schroeder's responsibilities as Assistant Professor and Departrent Chairperson included planning and coordinating a day and evening program in psychology involving over 100 majors, serving on several college committees, supervising individual field study, independent study, and honors projects, and serving as academic advisor to day and evening session students hav4.ng an interest in applied psychology.
1973 Wigdahl Electric Company Dr. Schroeder worked as a consultant, identifying potential organization problems and conducting problem solving sessions.
s B-17
'1972-
. Jewish Employment and Vocational Services 1As an industrial psychologist, Dr. Schroeder consulted with several industries and governmental agencies in order to develop, validate and administer " job-related"
~
personnel selection tests under a Department of Labor
-contract.
PROFESSIONAL Member, Human Factors Society
~
' AFFILIATIONS ~
.Hember, American Nuclar Society .
PUBLICATIONS " Human Factors Review of N-Reactor Control Room," U.N.C.
Nuclear Industries Report UN1-2097, June, 1982.
"A Human' Factors Guided Survey for Systems Development,"
American Nuclear Society Winter Meeting, December,1981, coauthor with D. R. Fowler.
" Control Room Human Factors in Context," American Nuclear Society Winter Meeting, November,1982, coauthor with D.
R. Fowler & D. E. Friar.
" Learning Style Data Applied to Nuclear Power Plant Training Programs." Paper accepted for presentation at the ANS Annual Meeting, June, 1983.
B-18
-w RESUME Robert E. Price' Director, St. Francisville BWR Training Services EDUCATION B.S. Candidate - Electrical Engineering, The University of the State of New York U.S. Navy Nuclear Power Training Program / Certified SRO-Simulator-Instructor EXPERIENCE General Physics Corporation
- 1982-Present Mr. Price is responsible for operation of General Physics' St. Francisville office and directs activities at the River Bend Nuclear Training Center. He directs all phases of departmental activities including technical performance, budgetary and cost controls, personnel selection and training, and product development and marketing. Representative projects include:
o Simulator Procurement Mr. Price managed the final procurement stages of the River Bend Simulator. Directed the River Bend Factory acceptance test as lead Test' Director, o Training Center Procurement Managed the complete startup of the River Bend Training Center including staff recruiting, training, material development, and validation. Laboratory equipment selection, procurement and acceptance for both I and C and Chemistry Training Labs.
o Research and Development Directed several advanced projects in the development of evaluation tools.for personnel training; assisted in an extensive study for the Electric Power Research Institute to develop a computer-based performance measurement system adaptable to power plant simulators.
o Computer-based Education Development Produced, from its-inception, the General Physics computer-based interactive educational system, EASY; developed hardware and software for the system and w cte much of the educational courseware to support it.
B-19
o On-site Training Coordinator Acted as Training Coordinator for the Power Authority State of New York's James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant and Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company's William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station; responsible for all site training programs; coordinated Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing activities; was involved with Final Safety Analysis Report preparation.
o On-Site Instruction Conducts training programs for licensed and non-licensed operators, technicians, and station engineering and management personnel.
1972-1975 Stone and Webster Engineering Mr. Price was an Associate Engineer at Stone and Webster.
He was project Licensing Assistant on the Long Island Lighting Company's Shoreham Project. Mr. Price was directly involved in the preparation, review and submittal of the Shoreham FSAR.
1965-1972 United States Navy Mr. Price's Navy nuclear experience included positions as Lead Reactor Operator Instructor at a Navy prototype where his responsibilities were preparation and administration of an 18 week formal presentation on pressurized water recctor theory .snd reactor control systems. Mr. Price qualified as Engineering Watch Supervisor, Reactor Operator, Reactor Technician, Reactor Shutdown Watch, Radiation Repair and Calibration Specialist and Navy Instructor.
f B-20 L -- -- -
RESUME Lawrence R. Byrd, Jr.
Manager-Boiling Water Reactor Training Programs ,
EDUCATION Graduate Candidate, Law, Jackson School of Law B.S. Candidate, Public Adminstration, University of Mississippi LICENSES AND Licensed Senior Reactor Operator: Grand Gulf Nuclear CERP'"ICATIONS Station Senior Reactor Operator Certification: River Bend Simulator EXPERIENC.E General Physics Corporation July, 1983-Present Mr. Byrd is Manager of St. Francisv111e Boiling Water Reactor Training Programs for General Physics at the Gulf States Utilities River Bend Training Center.
1983-June, 1983 Participated in many phases of training activities including development and presentation of the Licensed and Non Licensed Operators Training, Simulator and Classroom Training, and On-site Training.
1971-1983 Mississippi Power and Light Company As an Operations Instructor, Mr. Byrd' developed requalification program, performed NRC walk through exams, and developed program for operator pipe line to staff plant with required number or licenses.
As an Operations Shift Supervisor, Mr. Byrd supervised shift operations in support of plant operating, testing, and surveillance procedures. He was responsible for safe operation of all equipment and directed the activities of operating personnel on shift.
As Nuclear Operator "A", Mr. Byrd supervised personnel on shift in support of plant startup and testing program.
As Assistant and Auxiliary Operator, Mr. Byrd operated auxiliary equipment in support of plant oparation.
B-21
RESUME David C. Byrd Senior Engineer EDUCATION M.S., Electrical Engineering, Purdue University B.S., Electrical Engineering, Purdue University LICENSES AND Certified Nuclear Power Plant Senior Reactor Operator l
CERTIFICATIONS Instructor, Boiling Water Reactor EXPERIENCE General Physics Corporation 1980-Present Mr. Byrd is responsible for simulator management, training center management and procurement of training equipment ct the Gulf States Utilities Company River Bend Training Center. Representative projects include:
o Training Material Development Managed the production of training texts, lessor plans and aids for use in systems training and simulator training for the Gulf States Utilities Company River Bend simulator; participated in the development of the simulator training materials for the Georgia Power Company Plant Hatch simulator.
o On-Site Training Programs, Tennessee Valley Authority Conducted simulator training programs, basic nuclear training, and on-site observation training at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant simulator.
o Training Center and Simulator Procurement, Gulf States Utilities Company Assisted in the database document processing, design review, and simulator acceptance testing for the River Bend Simulator; consulted with the River Bend Emergency Coordinator in presenting the emergency Operating Facility proposal to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
o Simulator Management Responsible for the operation, maintenance, and modifications of the River Bend Simulator, o Training Center Management Responsible for management of entire training facility including classrooms, laboratories, building grounds, and building service plant.
B-22
o Training Facility Procurement, Chemistry and Health Physics Laboratory Manages the procurement and installation of chemistry laboratcry analysis equipment, including a spectroscopy system and supporting digital analyzer.
1960-1980 United States Navy As a Tactics Instructor at the Naval Submarine School, Mr. Byrd taught formal clarstoom subjects and conducted team training in Submarine Combat Systems Trainers. As Director of Tactical Training Devices Division at Naval Submarine School, he managed all phases of training device operation, maintenance and modification. He served on three nuclear submarines as Main Propulsion Assistant, Supply Officer, Communicator, Operations Officer and Navigator. Mr.
Byrd achieved qualifications as Engineering Officer of the Watch, Of ficer of the Deck, Engineering Officer, and Executive Officer. He scrved as a Missile Technician on a Polaris nuclear submarine.
B-23
RESUME Joseph C. Praskievicz Executive Director, Power Services Development EDUCATION U.S. Navy Nuclear Power Training Program LICENSES AND Licensed Senior Reactor Operator, Dresden (Bk'R)
CERTIFICATIONS Licensed Senior Reactor Operator, SEFOR (LMFBR)
EXPERIENCE General Physics Corporation 1974-Present As Executive Director, Power Services Development, Mr.
Praskievicz performs special assignments related to program development, simulator procurement and training facility design. In his previous assignment as Executive Director of General Physics' Chattanooga Division, Mr. Praskievicz had overall responsibility for over one hundred personnel involved in training, procedure writing, simulator based research, simulator procurement, training material development and ee.ergency
' planning. His responsibilities included marketing and sales, technical performance, budgetary and cost controls, and personnel utilization. Representative projacts include:
o Simulator Procurement Project Director for the Procurement of the Vogtle, Hatch, Palisades, Midland and River Bend Simulators. Consultant to the procurement of the San Onofre, Fermi, Shoreham and Limerick Simulators. Conducted feasibility studies and prepared detailed technical specifications for ten other simulators.
o Training Center Design Leads General Physics efforts in the area of training center design and construction.
Participated in the design and/or construction of eight simulator training centers, o Training Center Operation Managed all activities associated with General Physics use of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Power Operations Training Center including program development, delivery and certification.
Participated in NRC certification of Browns Ferry and Sequcyah Simulators.
o Training System Development Project Director for development of Systems Approach to Training (SAT) program for simulator training. Responsible for conception and overall direction of the development of EASY, a B-24
videotape / computer based educational learning system.
o Plant Operations Was Project Supervisor for the revision and standardization of BWR plant operating and emergency procedures and revision and reorganization of the Dresden Nuclear Power Station's administrative and departmental procedures; researched system design and detailed analyses of station operating techniques to develop a uniform approach to the operation of BWR stations.
1969-1974 General Electric Company Mr. Praskievcz developed and delivered courses in all phases of BWR theory and operation, including class-room instruction and simulator training. He rece.ved Atomic Energy Commission Reactor Operator and Senior Reactor Operator licenses for Dresden Nuclear Power Station.
J Previously, Mr. Praskievicz was licensed as Senior Operator on the liquid metal fast breeder reactor (SEFOR). He gained experience in sodium and sodium-potassium (NaK) handling, remote operation of fuel transfer equipment, fuel assembly and disassembly equipment, fuel inspection, and manipulator operation.
He was a participant in all phases of the SEFOR project during construction, startup, operation (including transient and excursion tests), and decommissioning. He developed original procedures and techniques for NaK equipment replacement and plant decommissioning. He also worked within inert gas atmospheres.
1960-1968 United States Navy Mr. Praskievicz served as Electronics Technician onboard Fleet submarines USS RAZORBACK anu USS CLAMAGORE. He served as Reactor Operator and Engineering Watch Supervisor onboard nuclear submarines USS THOMAS JEFFERSON and USS WILL ROGERS.
B-25
l I
RESUME Richard S. Groseclose Supervisor, Engineering Projects EDUCATION B.S., Liberal Studies (Concentration in Industrial Engineering), The University of the State of New York EXPERIENCE General Physics Corporation 1977-Present Mr. Groseclose provides technical assistance to power utilities and government clients in the areas of quality assurance, training, maintenance programs, inservice inspection programs, and engineering services.
Representative projects include:
o Quality Assurance Manager, Inservice Inspection programs Developed and implemented Quality Assurance Prograns during the Inservice Inspection projects for Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant, .Tersey Central Power and Light Company, and Midland Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Consumers Power Company.
o Quality Assurance Records Validation, Mississippi -
Power and Light Company Managed Quality Assurance Program for records validation at Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Unit 1.
o Pressure Vessel and System Recertification, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Assisted in the conducting of an integrated recertification program of all pressure vessels and piping systems at the Goodard Space Flight Center and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
o Nondestructive Examination, Inservice Inspection Seminars Teaches inservice inspection-related nondestructive examination methods at seminars conducted by General Physics.
o Nondestructive Examination Qualification Program Development and Hevision, Tennessee Valley Authority Revised personnel qualification program and prepared general, specific, and practical examinations for inspection Levels I, II, and III for all methods.
1975-1977 Nuclear Instc11ation Services Company Mr. Groseclose was a Field Quality Assurance / Quality control (QA/QC) Manager. He developed construction plans and quality assurance procedures for Cleveland electric Illuminating Company and managed the QA/QC programs at Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, Public Service B-26
1 Electric and Gas Company, and during steam generator modification work at Donald C. Cook. Plant, Indiana and Michigan Electric Company.
1974-1975 Control Flow Systems, Incorporated
~ Mr. Groseclose was the Manager of Manufacturing. He
- supervised fabrication, material planning and control,
- purchasing, scheduling, and quality assurance for this
- engineering / manufacturing company.
1973-1974 Florida Power and Light Company Mr. Groseclose was a Quality Supervisor in the Plant Construction Department. He implemented on-site quality-control for fossil plant construction and provided quality control liaison on all. nuclear projects.
'1970-1973 Burns and Roe, Incorporated Mr. Groseclose was Lead Quality Assurance Engineer. He managed the Burns and Roe Quality Assurance Program at the LThree Mile Island Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2, General Public Utilities, during construction.
1968-1970 United Nuclear Corporation Mr. Groseclose was a Senior Industrial Engineer. He developed methods, standards, and procedures for nuclear fuel fabrication and nondestructive testing.
1966-1968 ' Maryland Shipbuilding and Drydock Company Mr. Groseclose was the Quality Control Superintendent responsible for directing nondestructive testing, mechanical and optical inspections, and certification of
. welders, welding procedures, and lifting equipment.
1962-1966 T.D. Associates, Incorporate _d
., Mr. Groseclose was responsible for product design and engineering, and management of quality assurance, including the training and supervision of inspection personnel and performance of nondestructive testing.
B-27
l l
RESUME Nicholas L. Borreggine EDUCATION Widener College - Courses in Electrical Engineering Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation - Various Continuing Education Courses in Electrical Desigt and Inst umentation Instrument Society of America - Courses in Pressure and Level Measurement EXPERIENCE
SUMMARY
Mr. Borreggine has 16 years of experience in the engineering, design, and construction industries. Currently, as Electrical Design Group Leader, he is responsible for coordinating the efforts of Gulf States Utilities compcny, General Electric Company, and various Stene & Webster Engineering Corporation disciplines with regard to the design and installation of the power generation control complex for the River Bend Station.
Since joining Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation in 1974, he has been assigned to two boiling water reactor plant projects as a Senior Electrical Designer, Group Leader, and Control Systems Engineer.
Prior to joining Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Mr. Borreggine was a Lead Elect.ical Designer for E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc., DE, where he was responsible for the conversion of textile process systems from existing hard-wired relay control of conveyer networks to the use of programmable controllers.
WORK EXPERIENCE STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION, CHERRY HILL, NJ (July 1980 -
Present)
Appointments:
Electrical Engineer - Sept. 1981 Designer - July, 1980 River Bend Station, Gulf States Utilities Company (July, 1980 - Present)
As ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, directly responsible for coordinating the power generation control complex (PGCC) activities of SWEC, the Client, and General Electric Company. Responsibilities include providing technical direction and delegating work to assigned personnel. Reviews all electrical and control correspondence and engineering relating to PGCC.
Develops a detailed network for PGCC installation interfacing among SWEC, Construction, and GE activities.
B-28
==,
i.
=
E. I. DUPONT DEMOURS AND COMPANY, INC. , WIUlINGTON, DE (March 1980 -
July, 1980)
As LEAD ELECTRICAL DESIGNER in the Control Mechanization Group, ""*'udE responsible for plant modifications necessary for implementing updated '?p-(,.j g control systema using modular raceway design in conjunction with fpiy programmable controllers. Duties included maintenance and development 9-of drawing schedules, coordination of Design and Construction activities ; 4g7 *j with the site, and interface with vendor's supplied raceways and s .;({gy
- - programmable contro11ers. ,g w fa *?
f STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION, CHERRY HILL, NJ (March, 1974 - !"? +
{ March, 1980) {
River Bend Station, Gulf States Utilities Company (Teb, 1978 - March, ,
f
- - 1980) C .v v': sg ,
E . . ;n g As CONTROL SYSTEMS ENGINEER, responsible for the preparation of logics, pp. (;:,
s
- loops, and elementary diagrams for balance-of plant (BOP) systems. ryffqj Ad11tional duties included review of P& ids for PSAR updates, vendor gp,4 4 g drawings, and engineering-generated documents of other disciplines. 7sj?*g' 3 g Prepared analog wiring diagrams for B0P instrumentation, including S.
, instrument panel arrangement drawings and bills of material.
b Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station - Unit 2, Niagara Mohawk Power
- Corporation (March, 1974 - Feb., 1978)
P As ELECTRICAL DESIGNER, responsible for preparation of interconnection wiring diagrams of relay panels, motor control centers, switchgear, g instrument racks, and locally mounted auxiliary panels. Also prepared v wiring block diagrams from elementary, logic, and flow diagrams.
6 Responsible for supervising and checking work performed by subordinate drafting personnel.
[ GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, WILMINGTON, DE (April, 1971 - March, 1974) i As ELECTRICAL TECHNICIAN, assigned to the Manufacturing Engineering E Division of General Motors' Wilmington assembly plant. Duties included installation of automated equipment; specifically, this included design, y fabrication, and installation of conveyor control systems for assembly
line operation. Additional duties included diagnosis and repair of
{ equipment malfunctions 9fter design and installations were completed.
E NUCLEAR SERVICE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INCORPORATED, CAMDEN, NJ E (April, 1970 - April, 1971)
L As ELECTRICAL DESIGNER, duties included the development of electrical
(( wiring composite installation plans. Developed elementary, isometric, g,
- and connection diagrams for interior communications and weapons control
(( systems. Performed design work on electrical arrangements in the areas y of lighting, power, communications, fire control, and centralized T control systems.
=_
B-29 P
P E ._
SUN SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY, CHESTER, PA (June, 1956 - April, 1970)
As JOURNEYMAN ELECTRICIAN assigned to electrical Department, responsible for layout and design of cableways and ships' wiring and operation of electrical system.; in accordance with maritime standards and Coast Guard specifications. Attained Certified Journeyman Ele.ctrician status in the State of Pennsylvania.
B-30
RESUME Charles C. Matson EDUCATION: Bachelor of Electrical Engineering (Co-op) 1965-1970 Georgia Institute of Technology Partial Work on MBA Georgia College at Milledgeville - 1970 - 1971 Georgia State University - 1972 TRAINING: Control Room Design Review Workshop; BWROG/GE; 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, October 1983.
Power Plant Electrician Skills Strike Duty Training; GPC; 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br />, 1981.
Noise Control Workshop for Power Plants; EEI/ Bolt, Beranck & Newman; 26 hours3.009259e-4 days <br />0.00722 hours <br />4.298942e-5 weeks <br />9.893e-6 months <br />, 1978.
Nuclear Engineering Basics; GPC/NUS; 150 hours0.00174 days <br />0.0417 hours <br />2.480159e-4 weeks <br />5.7075e-5 months <br />, 1975.
Microprocessor Basic Design & Maintenance Training; SCS/GE; 160 hours0.00185 days <br />0.0444 hours <br />2.645503e-4 weeks <br />6.088e-5 months <br />, 1972.
Middle Management Training; GPC; four different 40-hour courses, 1977 - 1982.
Signal Corps Officers Training; Communications Equipment & Combat Leadership; U.S. Army; 11 Weeks, 1971.
EXPERIENCE:
7 Present Project Coordinating Engineer (GPC, Atlanta) for Emergency Response Capability Projects for Plant Hatch (BWR). Responsible for the prompt and complete integration of the following TMI projects:
- 1. New Emergency Operating Procedures
- 2. Control Room Design Review
- 4. Emergency Response Facilities
- 5. Reg. Guide 1.97 items
- 6. Training for above 3 7-83 Assistant Project Manager (GPC site) - Cable Tray Restoration Project at Plant Hatch. $4 million crash program responding to NRC findings.
5 3-83 Project Coordinating Engineer - (GPC - Atlanta)
Simulator and Skills Training Facilities at Plant Hatch. Responsible for all activities, especially B-31
contract administration, schedule and budget for $25 million addition and overhaul to site facilities.
6 6-82 Project Engineer (GPC - Atlanta) - Hatch Control Room Remodaling Project. Assisted in scheduling and budget work for architectural improvements and panel overlay additions to Control Room. $1.5 million project.
9 6-81 Project Coordinating Engineer - (GPC-Atlanta)
Mitchell Balanced Draft Conversion. Responsible for all activities of $7.2 million retrofit of 160 MW coal-fired unit for balanced draft operation including the addition of solid state control system and control panel mcdifications.
10 9-79 Various staff engineering assignments (GPC -
Atlanta). Including hoists, cranes, elevators, acoustics, precipitators, cooling towers, plant conceptual design, engineering economy and environmental reports.
8 3-73 Various plant engineering assignments. Including Results Engineer at six-unit fossil station.
Instrumentation and controls maintenance engineer for approximately eighteen raonths. Start-up engineer for retrofitted digital load control for five fossil units.
1965 - 69 Co-op Experience IBM - Research Triangle Park; New system circuit testing.
IBM - Cape Kennedy Space Center; Ground electrical system launch team member.
DuPont - Wilmington Experiment Station; Instrumentation & control system drafting and fabrication.
PROFESSIONAL AFFII,I ATIONS : 1977 - Present, ASME Member - National 1981 - Present, ANS Member - Local B-32 1
Appendix C Documentation forms:
o Operator Interview Form o lied Record o Task Analysis Form o Document Control log C-1
- l. OPERATOR INTERVIEW INTRODUCTION TO QUESTIONAIRE Job Position Years Experience Commercial Nuclear Fossil Navy Nuclear Date of First License R0 SRO Education / Degree Age Sex Height Weight __
In response to a post-TMI NRC requirement, your utility, along with other BWR owners, is conducting an updated control room review to identify and correct design dificiencies in the operator-control room interface to minimize the potential for human error. This review is performed by a survey team, composed of utility representatives and human factor specialists from General Physics Corporation, using checklists prepared by the Control Room Improvements Subgroup of the BWR Owners Group.
You are asked to complete the attached questionaire basing your responses on your operational experience and knowledge of your control room and interfacing systems. You may complete this questionaire in the control room if you desire, but please do so without discussing your detailed responses with other operators completing this survey. If additional space is needed, the attached Comment Form is to be used.
Following completion, a survey team representative will review your responses with you. Upon completion of all interviews, the survey team will consolidate the information obtained and apply it in their evaluation of your control room for compliance with human factor engineering principles.
The biographical information requested above will be used in compiling statistics on operating personnel physical characteristics. Current recommendations for panel design are Essed largely on data obtained f run measurements of military personnel; tbere are few statistics presently available as, for example, the average 1.aight and weight of operators.
This survey provides you with a valuabie' opportunity for applying your knowledge and experience toward improving operating condi+4a..s in both your control room and future control room, designs. Your honest and forthright opinions are not only welcomed', but needed.
- Because of the construction status of the River Bend Station, you may substitute your experience on the River Bend Simulator for the plant control room experiences.
C-2
1 I. OPERATOR INTERVIEW QUESTIONAIRE' 5
- A. Would you recommend any changes in the following areas:
Al . training A2. color' coding
.A3 control room access A4 . control panel layout or' access A5 communciation systems A6 heating or ventilation A7 lighting or noise levels A8 data recording and log entries A9 information flow A10 . furniture, equipment or workspace a
All computers 1
A12 other?
+
C-3
l I
I. OPERATOR INTERVIEW QUESTIONAIRE B. Are any controls difficult to operate?
C. Are any controls designed, positioned or labeled in'a manner that cause risk of inadvertent operation?
D. Are any recorders or indicators difficult or confusing to read?
E. Are any important indicators located such that they are difficult to see during normal or emergency operations?
F. Do you feel any control room displays are unnecessary, provide unimportant information or needlessly clutter the control panels?
G. Based on your operationsl experiences, does your control room' lack any controls or displays needed in your responses to normal or emergency situations?
H. Do you consider the annunciator system to be effective in conveying important information to you?
4 i
I. OPERATOR INTERVIEW QUESTIONAIRE I.
Do you have any problems locating or using procedures or operational instructions?
J.
Have you experienced any problems using or understanding your procedures?
K. Is there a particular panel Ehich you consider more difficult or confusing to operate than the others?
L. General Comments:
P C-5
I. OPERATOR INTERVIEW COMMENT FORM This form is for use by the operator or interviewer for expanded rbsponses to the Operator Interview questions. When used, each response will be identified by item number on this form and also so noted in the spaco following the applicable question to assure proper cross-referencing.
Item Response h
.O O
6 m
\
C-6
,. HUMAN EMIEERING DISCREPANCY RECORD HD. NO. 0039 PLANT:
DATE: 02/09/82 TRACKINC STATUS: ASSESSMENT REVIEWER: PRELIMINARY STUDY - P25 DATA SCJtCE; CONTROL ROOM SURVEY - OP DOCUMENT NO.* 1.1.3.14e 0700 OUIDELINE NO.* 6. 5.1. S
. GUIDELINE AREA: PROBLEM CATEGORY:
- VISUAL DISPLAYS SCALE MARMING PANEL / WORKSTATION ID.. COMPONENT NO.. COMPONENT DESCRIPTION:
C-12 FR-154 RCP 3 AND 4 SEAL LMOFF LOW REC C-12 FR-154 RCP 1 AND 2 SEAL LMOFF FLOW REC C-12 FI RCP SEAL WATER FLOW METER DECCRIPTION OF DISCREPANCY:
RECORDERS FR 154 (RCP 3 & 4 SEAL LEAKOFF FLOW) AND FR 156 (RCP 1 & 2 SEAL LEAMOFF FLOW). ALONG WITH THE RCP SEAL WATER FLOW METER (FI-142A) HAVE SCALES WHICH ARE DIFFICULT TO READ TO THE .2 PRECISION LEVEL AS REGUIRED IN PROCEDURES.
RECOMMENDATION:
CHANGE CORRECT SCALE DESIGN TO REFLECT REGUIRED ACCURACY. PERHAPS THE LOW RANCE COULD SE FROM ZERO TO ONE OR CHANGE SEAL LEAMOFF FLOW RECORDERS SO THAT EACH SHOWS HIGH AND LOW RANGES FOR ONE LOOP.
ACTION:
RDC#
CRITICALITY RATING- IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE:
!!S-POTENTIAL ERROR HED Form
{
C-7
TA5K ANALYS13 FORM Pr*
Orwt P.es .e Ten moeuwemsais tresvnentsoen and Canoese A**dP** laatataldv Preseense Coeretor Acteae/Tasas Stee IC,, mammer o.se newel tes. osawnwn senere, w-el meeweed vm he vm see i
3 Task Analysis Worksheet
-8
I DOCUMENT RECMT/DBmIBUTION IAG Deeuswet Category:
hoW:
m hg Distribuuon *acs!! - Dates Basehed Menuncadon Revision Descripuce/Reswks To: Date Notke a Rectived 1
1 Document Receipt / Distribution Log C-9
.