ML20080N723

Rev 2 to Response to Suppl 1 to NUREG-0737

ML20080N723
Person / Time
Site:	Mcguire, McGuire
Issue date:	02/16/1984
From:	DUKE POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20080N712	List: ML20080N708 ML20080N723
References
RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737 NUDOCS 8402220328
Download: ML20080N723 (200)

Text

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

n 9,  : .

DUKE POWER COMPANY MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION .

% RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENT 1 TO NUREG-0737

. DOCUMENT REVISION TRANSMITTAL Revision 2 Instructions

- ' Remove Sections'4', 5, 6, and 7 (SPDS, Regulatory Guide 1.97, EP Upgrade Program, I and Emergency Response Facility) and insert in newly provided Volume 2 binder.

Place'new Volume 1 title inserts into present binders, discarding present title inserts.

Revise Volume 1 as described below:

Insert Volume 1 Title Page

~

Remove Title Page 1 Remove Table of Contents (Two Pages) Insert Page 1 Table of Contents, Rev. 2 Insert Page -ii, Table of Contents, Rev. 2

' Remove CRDR Tab Insert Control Room Review Tab O

s 1

Insert 3.1 Control Room Review Status l

Tab before Page 3-1 1

Insert 3.2 Control Room Review Plan i Tab following Page 3-7 Insert 3.3 Control noom Review Final Report and Tab following Appendix B of the Control Room Review Plan l.

i i Insert 3.4 control Room Review Supple-mental Report, Units 1 and 2 and Tab following the Control Room Review Final Report IL f

8402220328 840216 PDR ADOCK 05000369

% F PDR

- ~ . - . . _ _ - , - , - _ _.. _ _._ _ . -.._. _ ._.. - _-. _ _ ._._.. _ __._ _ _ _ _ . _ ____.__ _ _ __ _

i i

I i

1

! r 9 .

i l

l t

! DUKE POWER COMPANY

+

. RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENT 1 TO NUREG-0737, EMERGENCY RESPONSE CAPABILITY f

FOR l

MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION 1

VOLUME 1  ;

I h

1-s h

I L@

i-t MNS Revision 2 .

~ ye h-w4-,eww + -v y ' -e w -w w ..,e-, +w r< m ve-e w w _ _ _ www -

J.

s i o t .

s i: .

t i

i 4

r 1

4

-1 DUKE POWER COMPANY i

?

I' o L

RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENT 1-T0 NUREG-0737,  ;

EMERGENCY RESPONSE CAPADILITY t t

t I

~

FOR t

.MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION i

VOLUME 2 i

l 5

MNS

!: Revision 2 L i

TABLE OF CONTENTS O

VOLUME 1

'SECTION PAGE 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1 4 1.1 Purpose 1-1 1.2 Scope 1-1 l

1.3 Background 1-3

1. 4 Definitions 1-4 2 Ih'EGRATED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND SCHEDULE 2-1 2.1 Overview 2-1 2.2 Integrated Schedule 2 . 3 CONTROL ROOM REVIEW 3-1 3.1 Control Room Review Status (Through April 1, 1983) 3-1 3.2 Duke Power Nuclear Stations Control Room Review Plan Tab 3.2 0

3.3 Control Room Review Final Report Tab 3.3 3.4 Control Room Review Supplemental Report, Units 1 and 2 Tab 3.4 VOLUME 2 4 SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY SYSTEM (SPDS) 4-1 4.0 Introduction 4-1 4.1 SPDS Implementation Plan 4-1

.4.2 SPDS System Description 4-6 4.3 SPDS Safety Analysis 4-14

s. , ,< 4.4 SPDS Current Status 4-15 i MNS Revision 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS O

.tg SECTION PAGE 5 REGULATORY GUIDE 1.97 5-1 5.1 Introduction 5-1 5 ?. Review 5-1

'5.3 Assessment -

5-2 5.4 Implementation 5-3 5.5 Status 5-3 6 EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURE UPGRADE PROGRAM 6-1 6.1 Introduction 6-1 6.2 Plant Specific Technical Guidelines And 6-1 Emergency Procedure Development Process 6.3 Writer's Guide For Emergency And Abnormal 6-3 V Procedures 6.4 Emergency Procedure Verification Program 6-4 6.5 Emergency Procedure Validation Program 6-5 6.6 Emergency Procedure Training Program 6-6 l

Description

~

6.7 Emergency Procedure Upgrade Program Status 6-7 L

O ii MNS

! Revision 2 l

TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 SECTION PAGE 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Purpose 1-1 r 1.2 Scope 1-1

1. 3 Background 1-3

1. 4 Definitions 1-4 2 INTEGRATED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND SCHEDULE 2-1 2.1 Overview 2-1 2.2 Integrated Schedule 2-5 l

() 3 CONTROL ROOM REVIEW 3.1 Control Room Review Status (Through April 1, 1983) 3-1 3-1 l~

i l 3.2 Duke Power Nuclear Stations Control Room ,

Review Plan Tab 3.2 3.3 Control Room Review Final Report Tab 3.3 3.4 Control Room Review Supplemental Report, Units 1 and 2 Tab 3.4 VOLUME 2 4 SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY SYSTEM (SPDS) 4-1 l 4.0 Introduction 4-1

'4.1 SPDS Implementation Plan 4-1 i 4.2 SPDS System Description 4-6 l

l 4.3 SPDS Safety Analysis - 4-14 4.4 SPDS Current Status i 4-15

'i MNS

^~,-

Revision 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS  ;

O SECTION PAGE  ;

5 REGULATORY GUIDE 1.97 5-1 5.1 Introduction 5-1 5.2 Review 5-1 5.3 Assessment 5-2 5.4 Implementation 5-3 5.5 Status 5-3 6 EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURE UPGRADE PROGRAM 6-1 6.1 Introduction 6-1 6.2 Plant Specific Technical Guidelines And 6-1 Emergency Procedure Development Process 6.3 Writer's Guide For Emergency And Abnormal 6-3 Procedures 6.4 Emergency Procedure Verification Program 6-4 6.5 Emergency Procedure Validation Program 6-5 6.6 Emergency Procedure Training Program 6-6 Description 6.7 Emergency Procedure Upgrade Program Status 6-7 s '

ii MNS Revision 2

O .

DUKE POWER COMPANY CONTROL ROOM REVIEW FINAL REPORT O

l l

O -

,-w..w.,- .

, , ., ,_m,_-,--mg._,n-,,.n__.,---- , , - - , , .-,,-,v.w..,,.__w.,_--.w, _ , ,. , _, __,,,,. , - _ _ , _m.

i b

j Foreward  !

i i

This Final Report of the Duke Power Control Room Review together with the i companion Supplement for a specific nuclear unit constitutes the complete  !

" Summary Report" required by Supplement I to NUREG-0737, 7'

f

.I l  !

e e

s-, y- ,..-- , , , . . .m m,,e e,.mm.r---w-wy,r,,,ry,--,.-,m%,,.-w.,

is . -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

~

Section g 1.0 Overview 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Objective 1 1.3 Definition of Physical Review Area 2 1.4 General Description of the Control Room Review 8 2.0 Control Room Review Organization 13 2.1 Introduction 13 2.2 Steering Committee 15 2.3 Review Team 15 2.4 Orientation and Training 18 3.0 Documentation , 20 4.0 Review Phase 22 4.1 Overview 22 4.2 Categorization of Guidelines 22 4.3 Control Room Survey Activity 26 4.4 Operating Experience Review Activity 40 4.5 Task Analysis Activity 50 l 5.0 Assessment Phase 63 5.1 Overview 63

! 5.2 General Description of Criteria / Methods 64 6.0 Implementation Phase 68

7. 0 Future Control Room Modifications 69 Appendix: A Workplan for the Biotechnology Contract to Support Duke Power Company l

l l

EL40110C

Page 1 1.0 Overview 4

0 1.1 Introduction In light of the many post TMI modifications and considerations, Duke

. Power elected to begin a detailed integrated Control Room review for ,

'e~ach of its three nuclear stctions - Oconee, McGuire and Catawba. An inter-disciplinary management Steering Committee was established in October 1981, and a Review Team was selected in February 1982. A formal review plan was written and a human factors consultant selected.

After initial preparations, which included the development of a detailed work plar, the development of appropriate review methodologies, and construction of tull-scale photo-mosaic mock-ups of each nuclear unit control board, and after necessary training of personnel, the detailed review activities began in September 1982.

The review was completed in approximately one year. A separate

. review was performed for each unit; however, generic reviews were

, perforn.ed whenever applicable, such as'-a study of the environment in a two unit Control Room. Full advantage was also taken of previous work in such areas.

This report discusses the objective and organization of the review.

It also describes the review and assessment activities, the method-ologies used in the review activities, documentation methods, and the

, means for implementation of necessary corrections. A companion

! supplement for each station describes the plant-specific review I processes and results, including a station implementation schedule plan.

1.2 Objective The primary objective of the Control Room Review was to identify cost effective improvements which will strengthen the man-machine inter-face. Although primary emphasis was placed on improving emergency response capability, problem areas in normal operation were also examined.

The objective was accomplished by identifying HEDs (human engineering discrepancies) in the man-machine interfaces in the Control Room, determining the extent and importance of the HEDs, developing modification and training solutions as necessary to resolve signifi-cant discrepancies, developing an implementation plan for these solutions, and establishing a working interface with the SPDS, Emergency Procedure Upgrade and Post Accident Monitoring Assessment efforts (See Figure 1-1).

The term human engineering discrepancy (HED) has been " defined" in NUREG-0700 as "a departure from some benchmark in system design l suitability for the roles and capabilities of the human operator."

The benchmarks used in the Duke Control Room Review to identify discrepancies consisted of human engineering principles, guidelines, and checklists developed specifically for each review activity after EL40110C

- --, - ,..- .,~ ,.,,-,,,-,- ,--,, .-,-,,. - ,-n , ~. . . , , - _ . . . _ _ - - .

,,,,-,..n___---.. . - - , , , , , , - , , .

2

t Page 2 O a careful and systematic review of NUREG-0700 and other human engi-neering criteria.

1.3 Definition of the Physical Review Area

.The physical area for Control Room Review activities is shown in Tigures 1-2, 1-3, 1-4 and 1-5, and will include all of the identified control panels. The Auxiliary Shutdown Danels at all three stations were also included in the review.

4 O

l l

l-r l

O 1 l \

l EL401100 t l

t i _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _

6 .

Page 3 l Figure 1-1 l DUKE POWER COMPANY CONTROL ROOM REVIEW PROCESS

~

p - CONTROL

- ROOM REVIEW q ,

TECHNICAL i

, INTERCHANG E REVIEW SPDS PHASE EMERGENCY

+ PROCEDURE  :

HEDS UPGRADE u

POST ASSESSMENT + ACCIDENT _

PHASE

~

MONITORING A,SSESSMENT SIGNIFICANT HED'S v UPDATE RESULTING FROM MODIFICATIONS IMPLEMENTATION PHASE L _._ _ _ _J v

IMPROVEMENTS TO CONTROL ROOM 4

.n - -- ,. , . ., , . - - - . - - - . . - , - , , , . - - ---, , , - . , - . - . - . , , . . . - , , - - , . . . . - . - - . . - , -.

Page 4 Figure 1-2 0 .

)

.W.: .. . A.:

aves avs aves 24si $

/ .

/

E A -

t.

o 5 -

E 2 en ed 5

E ~

ez

-o sn O E  !* E

.......... ..... g.

,e

.* z .,J var 3o ., , , ,. p d wm . . . . -

w*

ZZ e O0 2 E

t

- 2

> O

.o j $

=

invi b

=

o LOAL ESAL CSAL 7..:.:;

iNC . :7'

,- ,,....-,,..,n. ,,-,--,,,--..-,,.---,n. --,-w-. . , . - , - . , , - - . . , . . - . . - > - , - - - . . . , - , , - . - - - - - - - , - -

Pege 5 n Figure 1-3 0 .

VE RTICAL BOARDS 3VB1 3/82 3VB3

.Y'. '

3AB1

/ /

E2h 835

...I.k.

0' nE

!* b8 a

8.

>d g =d -

E 3 <m WO wg

> 0 m m<

wH Z 2

0 2

m O> z g  ;

O O w u Q l >-

, 5 l

g a h

3 t

'f*,...*.

l l

l i

t l

l v

u . .

Page 6 Figure 1-4 o

f ir!  ! r; 4

r I-I!I

- l >

g.!

= ip- 1 2

G. iiD I -

.: .. . :  ; I :: I ..+. 3g u".

.y. v. y

f. ..cr., . .-  :

I r

1.1.L....'...'.......

yIj

,Ig I- - .

, e,e . e. , i , n p . ......

j; i j o e I  !

r -

i  ;;!

~

p)

\-

(^LC)

, =

z.=., e lt, i'l , ;- l y=

y 20

.=-

g . , :; ,

.i, ff:.-

r 2 l*f 30 }I x ou = -

V r g" -I 4 .. - .. m

.E r

5

.a x

g lIi - -

, . , .. . . . . . . , . . . . . . . , . . . . . .. . . . . . I-g s s

g:

.: i r,,I!!! I -

ig 4 '

M.t.l l l$

.. l l

.mu Sm 5

a "Ilf On 5

a 7

IIM a w "

v

I- - - . . "

3

_... _ , ___. . _ ..e,.

. ;g e e

• _.

e

.- e  ; . . .. . e e

e

.9

e

- , .- ,. e -

1 e e s e e e e e

. , e 8

. e e j e

• 4 1R8C3 e fMC7 ee e

IRACI e 2n4Cf e 74807 e

e e 748C3 e e e e e e e e *

, e e e e

e e e e

e e .o e e

th

. . .'C4 ....... 7MC4 fleC10 /crenatom s II8C5 v a.t e crema.so\n s va te 7MC90 7UC5

'.- 'o. ...

ne ,g; .....

..; i- E

.....V...v,.:. g .<

1MC7 2MC7

............ h8C 15 tuC11 #

2wCtt 1

CATAWBA UNITS 1 & 2 insCe CONT rot. FiOOM puce j

4 4

e e e

e asCs4  !

. m.

.a - .. ,

insC 7 e imC13 e

, . ?.

. .. , 4...... 7mC 3 e e

7mC s2 -

ees e

..  :'%r.'-

6.

, .S.% g

.J.

• . .e -* 5

, esose cas , 26 4 i

I &

i 5 m

t

, a j -

ave avtav eaeve esuctes.n anea emot ame n a

naca se tones.evene eens nucteam toosepaars aus antav ease nao escu nao esase nas esau asse i eso=nion maca ee avo svav. MN '

evt. vna a

- w,o erav 6

• 8e a

\ - east use e a 00 00 g: (D i - *1 FRONT -

(D M

-! FRONT p 4

I e j ave netav aus meta, ace esom Un ave neaa, uvo stav. nata es naca sa necome asse panst ace eaueaso.n mecome east nace es avs asia,

, e=t en=. e -

nac= ss

~ " ' - ,,, nr.,

i -

1 egg enn e

>4 FRONT 7RONT 44 7. ,s f.. -

M. ;e FRONT 7.,7 t

.,*6 FRONi

.... . ,e.-....,

4* .e.

\

1

b, .. ,

Page 8 1.4 General Description of the Control Room Review '

.The Control Room Review was conducted in three distinct phases as shown in Figure 1-1. These phases, in chronological order of accor-plishment are: ,

• Review Phase e

• Assessment Phase

• Implementation Phase Review Phase The Review Phase constituted the investigative portion of the Control Room Review. It was during this phase that HEDs were discovered and documented. Investigative activities included (1) a task analysis of emergency and selected normal operating sequences; (2) an examination of operating experience, including a review of plant operating history, and a survey of operating personnel through interviews and questionnaires; and (3) a survey of Control Room components and the environment to measure conformance with applicable human factors guidelines (See Figure 1-6).

Assessment Phase ,

! During the Assessment Phase, all discrepancies identified in the

, investigative activities of the Review Phase were analyzed to deter-I mine the importance of each discrepancy to plant operation. A significance evaluation for each HED was performed which considered a combination of factors, including the potential for operator error, the potential for error detection and recovery, and the consequence of the error to plant operation and safety. Significant HEDs were I

then selected for resolution through Control Room modifications, l~ surface enhancements to control boards, additional training, etc.

l The modifications and other actions proposed to resolve significant  !

HEDs were then analyzed for impact and effect upon operation; and an integrated set of Control Room improvements was developed.

Implementation Phase '

l The Implementation Phase is the correction phase of the Control Room

( Review. During this phase the HED corrections developed and approved during the Assessment Phase will be installed.

Since the completion of all selected corrections will require close coordination with other enhancement programs (SPDS, upgraded emer-gency operating procedures, post accident monitoring instrumentation, etc.) operator training, and plant operating status, this phase will l

EL4011DC i

! . . - - _ ~ -_ . . . . -. -,. - ..~. ,..-, .. ...-. .-,....-. , -- - n.- . n- - . . , _ . - . --n-,-.

Page 9 i

(N be completed in accordance with implementation schedule guidelines ,

h developed by the Review Team. A follow-up procedure will also be instituted to ensure the successful completion of rodifications.

j j

During the investigative and assessment activities of the Control Room Review, a close technical coordination was maintained with other on go# g programs for the enhancement of emergency response cap-ability. These programs include the installation of an SPDS, the l upgrading of emergency operating procedures, end the evaluation and i upgrading of post accident monitoring instrumentation. While the scope and magnitude of these programs require separate development efforts and additional personnel, the Control Room Review has served as a forum for the discussion of concepts, human factors review, and schedule integration.

Figure 1-7 illustrates the integration plan for phased implementation of each of the emergency response elements of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737. This figure shows the interfaces of the individual activities throughout the overall plan on a time scale basis and was used for planning and coordinating the efforts of the individual organiza-tional units. The complex interrelation of the activities associated with the total provisions of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 are also illustrated.

It is beyond the scope of this document to address the results of each of these elements, however, it is noteworthy to define the p)

( existing interfaces:

• The NSSS Vendor Emergency Procedure Guidelines (EPGs) serve as the starting point for Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs), SPDS, and Control Room Review Taskn A'alysis; a pro-gram plan was developed to keep all organizations appraised of progress in each activity and to inform each organization of revisions to the EPGs.

• Control Room discrepancies discovered in the Reg. Guide 1.97 Review process were coordinated with the assessment of all Control Room Review HEDs in the assessment and solution phases of the Control Room Review.

• The SPDS design, development and implementation was scheduled to take advantage of knowledge gained from the various elements of Control Room Design Review and the development of the sympton-oriented emergency procedures. The Control Room Review Team conducted a human factors review of the SPDS and its supporting displays during the development phases of the SPDS.

O EL40110C

j ,

' .Page 10

• Each of the emergency response elements will provide input to the training requirements thereby integrating the final phases of each element and its contribution to the overall emergency response preparedness, 1

i i

,I O

I O -

EL40110C

O CONTROL ROGjVIEW REVIEW PHASE ACTIVITIES CONTROL ROOM SURVEY OPERATING EXPERIENCE REVIEW TASK ANALYSIS REVIEW AIDS 3

I OPERATOR SURVEY SELECT SELECT CONSTRUCT CONTROL OTHER ROOM NSSS VENDOR PLANY .

--* OPERATING EMERGENCY SPECIFIC l OPERATING HISTORY REVIEW GU FLINES FOR ANALYSIS 1r l i r DEVELOP TASK DESCRIPTIVE DATA

, TASK WALK THROUGHS '

.. I n 1 SIMULATOR f

STUDIES OF SELECTED OPEHATING SCENARIOS i

t

) ' t i '

j Y5 GENERATE 7%

N HEOS U

. t a CATEGORIZE

[ HED*S t

TO ASSESSMENT PHASE

U .

Page 12 Figure 1-7 a

(--- - - - - - - - - - - - - _ ,

I I I I I I

l

+

r1, >=.

l l zh-l < <

t>W 1 .J 1 2 =w '

I _ _ _ _ _ _ _y g i = gag i o w

• a I omto I l z . >n- e-- Q< E=oss l Q w

=$ l wo l ka$

o l

=

- .m=I 13 gz w=8, I= l o85-I ,,

'I I

+

e . , , ,.

L } _J w i 8= -

I 85  : I 8e e J

s gg 3 ---- .

>W = G Iz

~

@k= _

5 o

, 85 cm ofo w =6 uw w E J

• C s >3 o >

ZY w<

e z s-'4"u em o mw n

=w we Q

oz u 3zo e 5

-2e = < -

m m

==

ww ok -

. w em D

a Ch_

=

l e t Ig

~

i m S- I z ei i n SE l

._ z zo I oE g

ce ud a <g "E mw B-e 2

v

Page 13 n 2.0 Control Room Review Organization 2.1 Introduction The Control Room Review was functionally organized as shown in Figure 2-1. Major elements included a Steering Committee, a Review Team, Duke line organizations, and consultants.

The primary responsibility of the Steering Committee was to provide management oversight to assure integration of the project objectives and to ensure meaningful Control Room improvement.

The Review Team, which reported to the Steering Committee through the Steering Committee Chairman, was responsible for planning, scheduling, coordination and implementation of the total integrated Control Room Review.

The Review Team was also responsible for assigning certain selected activities to Duke Power line crganizations, and for the selection and direction of consultants who participated in the review and assessment activities.

O

'EL40110C

't .

Page 14 Figure 2-1 O .

DUKE POWER COMPANY CONTROL ROOM REVIEW MANAGEMENT APPROACH S

STEERING COMMITTEE l

REVIEW TEAM CONSULTANTS I

LINE ORGANIZATIONS O

1 .

Page 15 2.2 Steerino Ccamittee

.The Steering Committee was composed of eleven members representing the following areas within the company:

NUCLEAR PRODUCTION DEPARTMENT

• Nuclear Maintenance

• Nuclear Engineering (Licensing)

• Oconee Nuclear Station

• McGuire Nuclear Station

• Catawba Nuclear Station

• Nuclear Operation PRODUCTION SUPPORT DEPARTMENT

• Production Technical Services DESIGN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

• Electrical Division - Control Systems Engineering

• Safety Review, Analysis and Licensing Division

• Mechanical / Nuclear Division - Systems Engineering A summary of the qualifications of the Steering Committee members is provided in the Cor. trol Room Review Plan.

The Steering Committee provided an experienced management team f) composed of individuals representing the departments of the company V involved in the licensing, design, and operation of Duke Nuclear Units. The Committee met on a regular basis throughout the review and assessment activities of the Control Room Review to discuss

! current status of the review and the relation to other enhancement l programs. The Committee also selected the Review Team personnel, approved the Control Room Review Plan developed by the Review Team, approved the review activity methodologies, and helped formulate and approved the method used by the Review Team for assessment of HEDs.

The Committee was also responsible for the approval of the final Review Team recommendations and this report.

2.3 Review Team I The Review Team was composed of a core team of six full-time members.

Additional members from the line organization were added during certain planned activities, such as Task Analysis and the Assessment Phase. The core team members included three Senior Reactor Operators i

.(from Oconee, McGuire, and Catawba) and three Instrumentation and Control Engineers (from Design Engineering). The qualifications for personnel who served on the Core Review Team are shown in the l Control Room Review Plan.

1.

Under the direction of the Steering Committee, the Core Review Team developed the Control Room Review Plan. During the development stage, it was recognized that the Core Team possessed eminent qualifi-cations through the diversity and amount of experience in both design l

j and operation of nuclear power plants to plan and conduct the review.

However, the Team also recognized the following items:

EL40110C.

Page 16

• Training was needed to familiarize personnel with human O ,

factors principles and their application to a Control Room Review.

• Specialized Human Factors expertise would be required in  ;

certain aspects of the review and assessment activities.

• Additional personnel would be required for certain labor  !

intensive, review activities to maintain an efficient review schedule.

• Experienced personnel were available within the Duke line organizations who could aid in the review. This utiliza-tion of personnel could also prove beneficial in developing a more acute awareness of human factors concerns that could be applied to future designs.

• A full-scale mock-up of each control board to be reviewed would be needed for use during the Task Analysis activity, and to aid in the assessment of HEDs and the development of solutions.

In early April 1982, the Review Team discussed the general plans for the review and the approach to specific activities, such as task analysis and operator surveys, with a trio of human factors consul-tants, including Dr. Harry Snyder of VPI, Dr. Thomas B. Sheridan of O MIT, and Dr. H. L. Parris of EPRI. These discussions led to a definition of the three major review activities, i.e., Control Room Survey, Task Analysis, and Operating Experience Review.

The Review Team finalized the Review Plan in May 1982, and presented it for Steering Committee approval. After approval, the Review Team engaged Biotechnology, Inc. as the human factors consultant for the review, assigned specific responsibilities to the Review Team, the consultant, and to appropriate line organizations, and began the detailed development of review activity methods and procedures, as well as the construction of photo-mosaic, full-scale mock-ups. Lead responsibility assignments are shown in Figure 2-2.

O -

EL4011DC

• t .

Page 17 Figure 2-2 Control Room Review

. Lead Responsibility Assignments ,

Item Lead Responsibility

1. Manegement Oversite and General Steering Committee.

Project Coordination

2. Contral Room Review Planning, Review Team Scheduling, and Integration

3. Review Phase A. Task Analysis Review Team (assisted by Biotechnology,

. Inc. for methods development)

8. Operator Experience Review Biotechnology, Inc.

(assisted by Duke Line Organization for research in plant history review) l C. Control Room Survey Duke Line Organization (assisted by Biotechnology, O'- Inc. for methods development)

4. Assessment Phase Review Team (assisted by Biotechnology, Inc.

and by Duke Line Organ'zation)

! 5. Implementation Phase Duke Line Organization i (under guidelines and procedures established by Review Team and approved by Steering Committee) l l

l 6. Final Report Review Team (approved by Steering Committee)

O -

EL40110C

.5 .

Page 18 2.4 Orientation and Training

.The importance of training and orientation of Review Team members, participating line organization personnel, and consultants was recognized from the beginning of the Control Room Review. A thorough

, familiarization of review personnel with human factors principles and guidelines is important to a knowledgeable and proper review. <

Equally important, however, is the training of specialized teams in the procedures and methodology of particular activities, and the cross-training between disciplines, such as the familiarization of consultants with power plant design and operations.

The following training activities were arranged by the Review Team for review personnel:

• Dr. T. B. Sheridan of MIT presented a two-day Human Factors Seminar to the Review Team. The seminar outlined the use .

of human factors principles in the areas of panel design, training, ergonomics, and anthropometrics.

• Simulator / Procedure familiarization. In order to more <

fully understand the day-to-day activities associated with  ;

Control Room operation, the Review Team participated in a two-day simulator training session at the McGuire Training

, Center. Training in basic plant operation fundamentals, l and the use of. operating and emergency procedures was

, s provfded. The training included both classroom and hands-on experience using the procedures on the McGuire Simulator.

• An orientation was provided by the Review Team to familiarize l

Biotechnology personnel assigned to the Control Room Review effort with nuclear plant design and operation fundamentals.

The topics discussed were: (1) plant systems, (2) instruments

! and controls, (3) plant layout and (4) Control Room layout.

• H. E. (Smoke) Price and Dr. Harold VanCott of Biotechnology, Inc., presented a two-day Human Factors Seminar to the individuals associated with the Control Room Review effort.

The topics for discussion were centered around Human Factors Principles and their application to power plant Control Rooms.

l

• A two-day training course for personnel involved in the Control Room Review Task Analysis Activity was conducted by Harold VanCott,, Joseph Debor, and John Hill, from Bio-Technology. Following a formal lecture presentation, the attendees participated in a Task Analysis workshop where actual operator tasks were analyzed and task data was generated. The workshop concluded with walk-throughs of the task data on the plant control board mock-ups.

l

• A two-day training course for the Control Room Survey Team was presented by G. R. Hatterick and D. Taylor of Bio-Technology, Inc. The training session was conducted in two EL40110C

Page 19 p

y phases: (1) a description /discu'ssion phase and (2) a survey practice phase. The first phase included a descrip-tion and discussion of the materials included in the Physical Survey Kit, and an explanation of the procedures for conducting the Physical Survey. The second phase consisted of a survey workshop, using a plant control board mock-up.

During the workshop, participants completed survey check-lists, identified HEDs, documented findings, and practiced photographing HEDs where applicable.

I e

O I

i i

l

O l EL40110C

{

's .

Page 20 m

3.0 ' Documentation Early in the planning stages for the Control Room Review, it was recognized that efficient and thorough documentation methods would be necessary. The documentation systems developed for the review provided a method for performing the following functions:

• Procurement and retrieval of reference information for the Review, i.e., plant FSARs, NSSS Vendor, Emergency Procedure Guidelines, Human Factors Reference Works (MIL-STD-1472-C, VanCott - Kinkade, etc.), applicable NUREGs, etc.

• Filing and retrieval of correspondence, reports, and workplace procedures concerning the Review

• Documentation of the bases, methods, and criteria used for each review activity and for the assessment of discrepancies

• Compilation and retrieval of HEDs Briefly, to accomplish the first two functions, reference material was obtained as necessary through existing company sources and procedures, and was maintained in the Review Team work area. Existing filing and documer.t control procedures were utilized to establish a general file in the Design Engineering Department and the Nuclear Production Department for the review. In addition, a master file for Review materials was maintained in O- the Review Team work area.

To document the bases, methods, and criteria used for each review activity, a system of descriptive documents was developed:

• Control Review Plan - Provided the general plan, scope, and objectives for the Review.

l

• Work Plan - Provided a description on a more detailed level of l the necessary activities to accomplish the review tasks defined i

in the Review Plan and to establish the interface between the Review Team and Biotechnology.

• Review Phase Methodologies - A separate document for each review activity provided the methods, bases, and procedures for each i activity, including procedures for recording the results of each activity.

A computer data base was established to record, compile, and provide for l

easy retrieval of HEDs. An HED form (Figure 3-1).was used as the original i HED record copy and as an input form for the data base. The data base l allows sorting and retrieval of HEDs by various categories such as HED l number, component type, control board location, or HED disposition (assigned i during the Assessment Phase).

EL40110C

FILE!.D.= 05 Pagn 21 E

HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCY (HED)

(USE BLACK INK)

( 'ED SERI AL NUMBER  !. '....! (002) ORIGINATOR ! ! (003) DATE  !'. ' . .  !

I (004) PLANT SYSTEM I '. . '

(005) CONTROL BOARD NO. . . ..! (006) CONTROL BOARD DEVICE NO.'! . . . !

008)

(007) PHOTO 1. D. NO. ! . . . . . ! (PHOTO INSTRUCTIONS ............... '.' e .  !

(00s I,....,,...,, ......,,...I (010) COMPONENT TYPE:D CH E30 SWITOH O CONTROLLER O METER O CH-10250T SWITCH O ANNUNCIATOR O RECORDER O OTHER SWITCHES O LABELS O INDICATOR LIGHTS O MONITOR / STATUS LIGHTS O NAMEPLATE .

OI..,,. ...... .......... 1 (011) HED SOURCE: O HFS I . ..I O T/A  !' i.e e . . e e i . , e I (CHECK ONLY ONE) O PAM L... '.'. O OER l............. I o O l . 'l (012) PROBLEM AREA: O CONTROL ROOM WORKSPACE C COMMUNICATIONS (CHECK ONLY ONE) O ANNUNCIATOR WARNING SYSTEMS O CONTROLS O VISUAL DISPLAYS OAC D LABELS AND LOCATION AIDS O PANEL LAYOUT O CONTROL DISPLAY INTEGRATION l

al,,,...,,....,,,,,,,,,,,,,...,I i HED DESCRIPTION:

1 (013)! > > e . . e i . ......... ..ie i e e e e i e i i e e + . . , i e i e . . . i l l (015)! . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . e , i.,,.......... >>>>>!

(017) ! . . . , . . . . e i .....>> ............>>...>>ii. ....!

(0191 1.....,,.................. .............. ....,l (021) NUMBER OF ATTACHED SHEETS l REgENDATIONS:

(022il . . . . . , . . . . . . . , , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , I (024)l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I (028)I ...,,,,,,,......,,,.,,.............,,,,,,....I

Page 22 4.0 Review Phase 4.1 ,0verview The primary objective of the Review Phase was to identify HEDs in the man-machine interface in the Control Room. The activities of the Review Phase provided an examination of the design of the Control Room and the characteristics of the operator-interface to determine whether operator tasks can be effectively accomplished. The examina-tion was conducted in three major areas:

• Control Rooin Survey

• Operating Experience Review

• Task Analysis The division of the review into three major review activities ensured a comprehensive, but realistic examination of the Control Room. Each activity provided a unique, yet complimentary perspective. The Control Room Survey, for example, systematically compared all components against absolute human factors guidelines to determine HEDs. This

" pass / fail" comparison, however, did not consider operating needs, i operator experience, or component use relationships. The Task Analysis examined operator tasks to determine component use relationships, operating needs, and, because operators were partici-pants in the Task Analysis, problems from operator experience.

-Similarly, the Operatino Experience Review examined operating needs l and problems from operator experience, but unlike Task Analysis which -

emphasized emergency operations, covered all operations and, in addition, examined plant operating history for recurring problems.

4.2 Categorization of Guidelines The criteria used in each review activity for the identification of HEDs was specifically developed for each activity from a review of human factors guidelines, principally from NUREG-0700. The objective in categorizing and assigning specific guidelines to each review activity was to:

1

• Ensure that applicable human engineering guidel: .es provided l in NUREG-0700 were considered and addressed in the Duke Control Room Review.

• Assign each guideline to the review activity that would provide the most appropriate perspective and expertise.

• Eliminate unnecessary repetition in the application of the guidelines.

i i Criteria for categorizing guidelines were developed and are listed in Figures 4-1 and 4-2. Figure 4-1 gives criteria for excluding N'JREG-0700 p

O guidelines from any of the review efforts. Figure 4-2 gives criteria for

'assignaent_of guidelines to specific review efforts.

EL40110C L _ . _ . . _ ,

.l .

Page 23 The categorization was performed in two stages. The initial categori-zation was conducted at the management level by the Review Team

-Leader and the Biotechnology project manager. The initial categori-

ction was madeu 'y considering the top levels for the guideline breakdown in NUREG-0700 (down to 4-digit headings). Guidelines were allocated to one of the three review activities or deleted from further consideration.

The initial guideline categorization and allocation was presented to the team leaders of each of the three major review efforts, i.e.,

Operating Experience Review, Control Room Survey, and Task Analysis.

The team leaders for each effort examined the detailed items, as well as the top-level headings, before preparing detailed questionnaire /

checklist items for their respective review efforts.

O l

l l

l O ._

EL40110C L _ ______ _

5 g . u Page 24 T Figure 4-1

(/

\_-

~

Criteria for Guideline Exclusion

1. . Guideline addresses equipment or conditions that do not occur in Duke units (or a particular unit)..

2. Guideline is tutorial, redundant, or_ specifics are covered elsewhere.

3. Guideline is not applicable to a. Duke Control-Room operation.

4. Guideline advocates a principle which is ambiguous or which is unquanti-fiable or unobservable in the context of a Control Room Review.

5. Guideline proposed criteria for a specific design rather than principles or criteria applicable to a general design review.

6. Guideline lists detailed measurements or criteria, but functional require-ments or intent are covered in'another guideline (s).

D- m f

O

()

l EL40110C

L - .

Page 25 (A) Figure 4-2 Criteria for Guideline Assigment to Review Efforts A guideline will be addressed in the operating experience review IF operating knowledge / experience is necessary to assess the guideline (e.g., user experience or knowledge of relationships between Control Room components is needed);

AND it does not require measurement or systematic examination of Control Room components or ambient conditions against an absolute standard (or the topic

~

should not be assessed solely on that basis).

A guideline will be addressed in the Control Room Survey IF it ' requires systematic examination of Control Room components or ambient conditions against an absolute standard either quantitative or categorical

(()/ (i.e., qualitative human engineering principles must be applied objectively, systematically, and consistently to Control Room components or ambient condi-tions);

AND task data and operating knowledge are not required.

A guideline will be addressed in the task analysis IF it requires assessment against specifi: task performance requirements or task interaction requirements.

O EL40110C

s- . .

Page 26 4.3 Control Room Survey 4.3.1 Overview The objective of the Control Room Survey (CRS) was to deter-mine the extent to which Control Room equipment, components, and environment were in compliance with human engineering guidelines. The CRS included three different types of surveys:

• A Physical Survey was conducted, both on-site and using full scale mock-ups, to evaluate Control Room components and equipment. >

• An Engineering Survey was performed to evaluate the Control Room.against guidelines which could be assessed using engineering drawings, or which required special studies.

• An Environmental Survey was conducted to assess guidelines which' required measurements of environ-mental factors, such as noise, illumination, etc.

The scope of these individual surveys and the specific methods used were oriented to the type of data to be collected and the most efficient and effective methods for obtaining O the data.

Responsibility for arranging and conducting the Control Room Survey was assigned to the line organization in the Design Engineering Department. A Control Room Survey Team (CRST) was chosen and staffed by personnel familiar with Control Room / control board layout and design. The CRST worked '

closely with consultants from BioTecnnology, Inc. (BTI) to develop the survey methods and materials. The CRST also performed the surveys, documented HEDs, and other survey results.

l BTI was given responsibility for leading in the definition of l survey methods, preparing final materials, and for providing l

human factors assurance of survey results. BTI also provided training to CRST members, which included participation in two pilot surveys.

4.3.2 General Methodology I In order to provide a framework for initiating CRS detailed activities, Biotechnology prepared a draft CRS Methodology Plan. The plan defined an approach to an integrated CRS program, with both common and survey-specific methods and materials identified. This Methodology Plan, through the

. joint efforts of the Duke CRRT and CRST and Biotechnology, I was revised several times as methods and procedures became EL40110C

Page 27 q

g more well-defined, forming the basis for.the performance of the CRS.

The Methodology Plan was based on the following concepts for the CRS, worked out jointly between Biotechnology and Duke participants:

1. The methodology was to ensure that all assigned guidelines were included in the survey materials, and could be accounted for at the completion of the CRS.

2. Survey checklists were to be developed that would have a common format for all three survey types, and be equally manageable during the three types of applications.  ;

i

3. Survey conduct was to be based on application of hup:an factors principles at a higher level than the individual guidelines, without losing the intent and meaning of the individual guidelines.-

3

4. Members of the CRST who would participate in the conduct of one or more of the survey types would be directly involved in development of survey methods and materials.

I Guideline Categorization By Survey Type l The initial categorization of human factors guidelines resulted in assignment of a group of guidelines to the CRS.

This effort also established, on a preliminary basis, a e distribution of the guidelines to one or more of the type of surveys (Physical, Engineering, or Environmental). The Biotechnology survey team leader and the Duke CRST, with the participation of key personnel from the Engineering, Physical, and Environmental Survey groups, reviewed the meaning and intent of each guideline assigned to the CRST. The purpose l of the review was to determine whether the guideline could be l evaluated effectively by one or more of the three survey groups and, if so, which was the most appropriate survey group. The t, asis for each survey category assignment was the type (s) of observation or evaluation which must be made to determine compliance with the guideline, and the survey group which could most efficiently and effectively make the evalua-tion and/or collect the information.

l Some guidelines were identified by the CRRT that are based on Duke Power Company (rather than NUREG-0700) criteria for evaluation during the surveys. These were categorized in the manner described above and added to the survey master list of t

guidelines.

i O

EL40110C

i- . .

Page 28 Development of Survey Materials Although some materials needed for cor. duct of the surveys were unique to each survey type, some were common to all three surveys. In the interest of economy of preparation, as well as to reduce the need for different instructions for different survey modes, mode-specific materials were developed only when they were necessary for completion of that type of survey. ' Generic survey materials included:

• Survey topics and organization

• Conversion of guidelines to human factor principles

• Human factors principles checklists

• Procedures and materials for photographing HEDs

• Workplace Procedures for CRS Implementation Each survey type (Physical, Engineering, and Environmental) was comprised of a number of principles statements, organized l

under the following 10 major topics:

(1) Control Room Workspace

[]

()

(2) Communications Annunciators

~

(3)

(4) Controls (5) Visual Displays (6) Labels / Location Aids (7) Computers (8) Panel Layout (9) Control-Display Integration i

(10) Codes and Conventions Except for topic (10), Codes and Conventions, the topics and l their assigned topic numbers reinte to the organization of l guideline materials in NUREG-0700. This organization of l topics aided the CRST in developing human factors principles i from the NUREG-0700 guideline information and in cross-referencing cing between checklists and source documentation.

Principles Development The human engineering guidelines assigned to the CRS activity were reviewed by the CRST and consultants from BTI. These l guidelines were subdivided into three sets of guidelines, one l for each survey type - Physical, Engineering, and Environmen-tal.

The guidelines were further studied to develop statements of the human engineering principle which was the foundation for O, each guideline. The goal was to develop a principle state-ment broad enough to encompass all of the types of components EL40110C

_ ___ ~ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _

~6 . .

Page 29 O ,

or characteristics to which the guideline was intended to apply, yet sufficiently specific so that the scope and context yould be evioent to the user.

Each principle and its supporting examples and reference information was documented on a Principles Reference Sheet (PRS) (See Figure 4-3). All PRSs were reviewed by BTI to ensure suitability of guideline combinations, comprehensi-bility, and appropriateness as baseline survey information.

In addition, to ensure thoroughness of the survey, if the principle or its examples involved a " common and generic discrepancy," as defined by NRC, or an HED previously found as a result of the McGuire-1 preliminary assessment, these were coded on the PRS to provide a cross-reference to master lists of these discrepancies. When all reviews and revisions were completed, BTI prepared the PRSs in final form, to be j used as the basis for survey checklist development.

~~

Checklist Development This activity involved developing a standard format for survey checklists, applicable to all three survey types, and finalizing checklist content. BTI had lead responsibility for this effort, with review and final approval by the CRST.

j Checklist content development involved converting the state-ments of human engineering principles, contained in the O Principles Reference Sheets, into a form which was readily usable in each of the applicable survey types.

A checklist page contains a single principle statement and its e). ample (s). Space 'is provided on each checklist page to indicate whether the principle has been surveyed for the particular survey segment and, if non-compliance is found, to reference the HED number where the discrepancy is described.

Space is also provided to record brief comments (e.g.,

regarding unusual conditions) which the reviewer may wish to L

retain. The checklist format is illustrated in Figure 4-4.

As in the PRSs, if a principle or example was based on a

guideline that was considered to be a common Control Room

discrepancy (Generic HED) or included guidelines found to be l

discrepant in the McGuire preliminary assessment (McGuire HED, this was noted appropriately and cross-referenced to the source documentation.

L l

l O -

EL40110C

Page 30 i

• 4.3.3 Survey Team Training t

A two-day training session was conducted by BTI prior to the initiation of the actual CRS surveys. This training consisted of both a classroom orientation and familiarization phase, and a " hands on" practice phase.

Training materials included the prototype survey kits and other materials to be used during the surveys, examples of deficiencies found in Control Rooms, and samples of properly completed HED forms. BTI staff members answered questions about, and provided guidance for, interpretation of the human factors principles included in the checklists, and explained the contents and intended use of the survey kits.

The classroom portion of this training preceded the practice phase which was conducted during two pilot Physical Surveys described in the next section.

O)

\, '

O EL40110C

Page 31 i

4.3.4 Physical Survey The CRS Methodology Plan called for two pilot Physical Surveys, one for Catawba Unit 1 and one for Oconee Unit 1.

The primary purpose of the pilot surveys was to contir.ue the training and familiarization of Physical Survey team members beyond that achieved through classroom training. A secondary objective was to test the methods and materials developed for the surveys, and refine and revise them as needed before finalization. Pilot surveys were not " trial runs," that is, they_were actual Physical Surveys, the results of which became part of the Control Room Review.

Both pilot surveys were initiated in the mock-up facility, and completed on-site in the unit Control Room. Two BTI staff, experienced in human factors evaluation of nuclear power plant Control Rooms, worked directly with the assigned survey team for the first week in the mock-up. Thereafter, for both pilot surveys, one BTI staff member stayed with the team.

. As each pilot sur'.ey began, the BTI member worked closely with the team, providing guidance in implementation of procedures, identification of HEDs, and completion of records, i The Duke team members actually performed the surveys. As

, m team experience was gained, BTI participation became less active, reverting more to advising and mor.itoring of survey performance. During this phase, inadequacies of materials and procedures were noted for revision, and some changes were implemented in process. This role continued through the on-site portion of the survey, including review of HEDs for accuracy and adequacy.

Through this mechanism of pilot surveys, procedures and materials were refined, and all Duke CRST members designated i for participation in Physical Surveys gained in-depth experi-l ence while at the same time conducting valid surveys. All

remaining Physical Surveys were conducted by the Duke CRST with BTI providing human factors assurance of the results.

Each Physical Survey (PS) team consisted of two Duke Power

! Company engineers who were already familiar with the station l equipment, and who had participated in the development of the methods and materials. The designated team leader for each station was responsible for all necessary prearrangements and for directing the survey of that particular unit. The members of the survey team accomplished the survey and recorded HEDs. In general, one used the survey kit contain-ing the checklists and associated reference materials, and the other completed the HED forms. As each survey segment was completed, team members had the option of alternating in their roles. One or both of the team members could also act

as photographer.

! EL40110C

3 -

Page 32 Each unit Control Room was surveyed by survey objects. A survey object consisted of the application of the human factors principles in a specific topic area (e.g., controls) to a specific physical aspect of a Control Room for that unit (e.g., a major panel). Principles for each topic were numbered in the checklists in the order in which they would normally be surveyed. Each topic was evaluated for all

, portions of the unit Control. Room to which it was applicable before moving on to the next topic. This permitted maintenance of continuity of thought for each topic until the entire unit had been evaluated for that topic.

The Physical Survey of each station / unit took place in two stages. The first stage was performed at the full-scale mock-up of the unit; the second stage on-site in the Control Room. It was recognized that many topics and principles could not be fully and adequately evaluated using a sock-up, but this survey stage served two useful purposes: g

1. Conducting the first part of the survey on a reasonably high-fidelity mock-up enabled the survey team to become thoroughly familiar with the control boards (and during the pilot surveys, with the survey procedures).

.O 2. Since the mock-ups show photographs of the actual control boards, many topics and principles could be at least partially surveyed there, saving valuable time which would otherwise be required on-site in the Control i Room. This reduced the extent to which the survey team

interfered with ongoing Control Room activities.

The results of the Physical Survey were documented and l

j indentified HEDs were recorded.

l' l

L

O l

EL40110C

-1 . .

Page 33 4.3.5 Engineering Survey The general methods and materials used in the Physical Survey were also applicable to the Engineering Survey (ES), but

. there were some differences in the approach and utilization of materials.

Engineering Survey checklists, were prepared for desk-top application of survey principles. Separate topical packages were prepared for designated survey " objects," but these were defined at a higher level then in the Physical Survey. The primary difference occured at the panel level, with one checklist package provided for a unit's Main CR panels, one for the Back Panels, and one for the Local Panels, since it was determined that individual checklists need not be maintained for each panel during the Engineering Survey.

The Engineering Survey was conducted by a number of individuals

representing technical specialities within Duke Power Company.

The guidelines assigned to the ES comprise four major technical categories:

1. Control board design

2. Computer and CRT equipment design

3. Systems engineering

4. Other miscellaneous specialities.

A majority of the ES principles concern control board design issues which were handled by the Engineering Survey team 4

members, each of whom also participated as members of the Physical Survey teams. Other organizations within the Control Systems Group were called upon to provide the neces-sary expertise for application of principles within a technical specialty.

The designated team leader for the Engineering Survey was responsible for the following activities:

• Developing the ES principles

• Categorizing the ES principles into suitable technical topics

• Assigning checklist responsibility to the appro-priate disciplines in Duke Power Company

-* Coordinating the checklisting efforts.

The ES was performed by applying the checklist principles to drawings, specific &tions, and other forms of documentation that describe the Control Room features of topical interest.

EL40110C

Page 34 The results of the Engineering Survey were documented and O .

identified. HEDs were recorded.

l l

f O

l l

1 l

O EL401100 l

Page 35

• 4.3.6 Environmental Survey The Environmental Survey (EV) methodology, although generally consistent with that of the Physical and Engineering Surveys, has scme unique features. These differences are based, in part, on the guidelines addressed in the EV survey, the means necessary to assess adequacy, and certain historical aspects.

These differences are discussed in the remainder of this section.

The Environmental Survey methodology was based on making measurements and collecting data before application of the EV principles checklists. All of the unique materials require-ments were based on the data collection segment of the EV surveys. The following specialized materials were defined and developed by the EV team and reviewed by BTI, and used during the surveys:

• Data Collection Station map for each Control Room

• Temperature, Humidity, and Air Velocity Record Sheets for HVAC Measurements

• Sound Survey Ambient Noise Record Sheets p

• Sound Survey Annunciator Alarm Record Sheets

• Lighting Survey Luminance and Reflectance Record Sheets

• Lighting Survey Auxiliary Shutdown Area Illumi-nance Record Sheets.

Each Environmental Survey (EV) team consisted of two Duke employees who were familiar with the station and its equip-ment: an Industrial Hygienist from the Production Environ-mental Services of the Production Support Department and an Instrus.entation and Control Engineeer from the Design Engineer-ing Department. The survey responsibilities were divided as follows:

a. Instrumentation and Control Engineer

• Team Leader <

• Prearrangement of station visits

• Checklist and HED completion

• Data collection assistance.

b. Industrial Hygienist d - '

EL40110C

g- .

Page 36

• Lead responsibility for collecting and recording O- data

• Training of all team members in the field calibra-tion and operation of the data collection equip-ment.

, Other Duke Power Company personnel were utilized to assist in

< -data collection and recording as needed.

The Environmental Survey of each Control Room consisted of two segments: Measurements, or data collection, and Evalua-tion. In each segment, survey principles were addressed in three categories: HVAC, sound, and lighting. Each unit Control Room was surveyed by segment for ec:h category using the following general approach:

1. The Control Room was divided inte separate physical areas for the collection of er.vi"onmental data.

These areas correspond to the primary operator work stations and were referred to as Data Collection Stations (DC5s).

2. Environmental data required for each topic was collected at each DCS.

3. The collected data was recorded on the apprcpriate data record form.

4. Checklists, developed from human engineering principles, were completed using the recorded environmental data.

5. Deviations of the existing design from the human

. factors principles were identified on the checklist.

6. HEDs were written to document the identified deviations.

Environmental data for the measurement of Control Room lignting was collected by an independent consultant (Gibbs and Hill, Inc.) who was selected to perform this portion of the Environmental Survey.

A survey of the environment (HVAC, sound, and lighting) in l the Auxiliary Shutdown Area of each unit was also conducted.

Many of the environmental guidelines specified in NUREG-0700

are not applicable to the Auxiliary Shutdown Area. The CRST, i with assistance from Biotechnology, developed guidelines to l be used for a survey of this area. NUREG-0700 was used as a l basis, and appropriate standards were identifed as examples

! in each applicable principles checklist for an operating area of this type.

i EL40110C l

A -

Page 37 (O The measurements methodology for these areas also differs because of the problems of creating the conditions that would exist under the circumstances necessitating occupancy.

Survey data were collected at each Auxiliary Shutdown Panel and at each Auxiliary Feedwater Pump panel according to the follong methods:

1. HVAC Survey. Ambient temperature, humidity, differential temperature, and air velocity data were collected under normal operating conditions and recorded for reference only.

Under certain postulated conditions (e.g., Auxiliary Feedwater Pumps Operating) this area can be expected to experience larger variations of temperature and humidity than under normal operating conditions, since it would be impractical to measure these variations, projections from Duke Power Company analyses were used. These computer analyses were performed using data for heat gain from piping, motors, etc.,

located in this area. These projections were entered onto the appropriate data record form in lieu of actual measure-ments.

2. Sound Survey. Measurements of ambient noise levels were collected and recorded at each panel under normal operating conditions only.

3. Light Survey. The following data were collected and recorded by the EV team under both normal and emergency lighting system conditions:

• Illumination level

• Uniformity

• Supplemental light

• Task Area luminance ratios

• Shadowing

• Glare

• Reflectance

• Color

• Light intensity for internally illuminated devices.

The results of the Environmental Survey were documented and identified HEDs were recorded.

A V

EL40110C

Page 38 Figure 4-3

10. GENERAL CODING CONVENTIONS SHAPE AND SIZE CODING Principle 10.2: Where controls are coded by shape or size, they should be visually and tactually distinguishable.

Examples:

e The shape of continuous control knobs should be visually and tactually distinguishable from discrete control knobs.

e Controls which may be manipulated in a " blind" fashion should be visually and tactually identifiable and separated (e.g., alarm acknowledge and silence buttons).

e if size coding is used:

have a minimum of 3 different sizes

• - the same function should have the same size of control (C423) have a 1/2" miminum difference in knob diameter coding have a 0.4" minimum difference in knob thickness coding.

I Guidance: NUREG-0700, Sections 6.4.2.2.c.d,e, 6.4.4.1.b.c, Van Cott & Kinkade, Section 8.2.4 Survey Application: Physical Revision: 10-25-82 B l

l i

i L

L 7

?

3

I

.s ,

( -

Page 39 Figure 4-4 DUKE POWER COMPANY- HUMAN FACTORS SURVEY CHECKLIST N statsos.uw T. sum vEY TYPE: sumvEY MODE:

sumVEYsTATus PHYSICAL GENERAL hia uu em l Toric. sustoPac. .

! 10. GENERAL CODING f CONVENTIONS SHAPE AND SIZE CODING MEo wuMeEMs PRINelPL E:

l 10.2: Where controls are coded by shape or size, they should be visually and tactually distinguishable.

! Examples:

CR

• The shape of continuous control knob 5 Should be visually and tactually distinguishable from discreta control knobs. .,

CR . Controls which may be manipulated in a " blind" fashion should be visually and tactually identifiable and separated (e.g., alarm acknowledge and silence buttons).

. If size coding is used:

l - have a minimum of 3 different sizes;

• - the same function should have the same size of control (C423);

have a 1/2" miminum difference in knob diameter coding; have a 0.4" minimum difference in knob thickness coding.

l l

l c

l l

] COMMENTS.

LEGENo:

% y: suMVEY COMPLETE

- : hot suR VEY A BL E 7: MoRE MEVIEW NEEDED t: GENERIC HEo g :McGutME AUDITHEo 12-8-82 B

.s Page 40 4.4 Operating Experience Review 4.4.1 Overview The objective of the Operating Experience Review (OER) was to identify features of Control Room operation or design which could potentially degrade effective control of the plant during normal or emergency operations. The review focused on two primary areas, (1) an operator survey, performed with questionnaires and interviews, and (2) a review of the operating history of each plant, including an examination of generic industry problems for applicability to the Duke review.

Biotechnology, Inc., (BTI) was assigned lead responsibility for the OER. Duke line organizations assisted BTI in the research necessary to review plant and industry operating history. ,,

The Review Team arranged for the briefing of station personnel, the scheduling of operator interviews, and the distribution of questionnaires. The Review Team also assisted BTI in the questionnaire development and, jointly with BTI, reviewed the operator survey results and recorded HEDs. BTI conducted all operator interviews, administered the distribution and the

/ collection of questionnaires, and performed the data reduction

.( necessary to provide the final OER results.

4.4.2 Operating History Review The two objectives of this activity were to (1) develop guidelines for analyzing relevant operating history reports for factors which may have a significant effect on human performance, and (2) review those reports which pertain to Oconee or McGuire Nuclear Stations where human factors may have been casually related. The Catawba Station was not included in this activity because at the time of this review the station was still under construction. Biotechnology was responsible for developing the guidelines and the Duke Nuclear Safety Assurance Group was responsible for conducting the review.

Planning discussions were held between Biotechnology, the Duke Control Room review leader, and the Duke manager for nuclear safety assurance. These planning meetings included a review of the Duke Procedure for Incident Investigation and Report Preparation and the various types of documentation available for the review. The purpose of these planning discussions was to formulate a basis for what could be

" practically" expected from the available documentation of operating history. Based on these discussions, it was decided that the scope of the review would include Duke O. Incident Investigation Reports (IIRs), Station Incident Reports (SIRS), and INPO Significant Operating Event Reports EL40110C

i .

Page 41 i

f) (50ERs). It was specifically agreed that Licensee Event V Reports (LERs) submitted to the NRC need not be included in the review as these would always be covered in more detail by the IIRs or SIRS. Similarly, any LERs from other utilities would be accounted for in the INPO SERs and SOERs. Finally, it was agreed that the guidelines would make use of existing Duke procedure and policy whenever possible.

The final guidelines for the operating history review are contained in the Operating Experience Review Methodology and Procedures. Since the actual operating history reports were reviewed by safety review groups at each station who were not familiar with NUREG-0700 or the Control Room Review process, some background information was provided as part of the final guidelines. The final guidelines also represented what was considered to be a thorough approach from the human factors point of view and a practical approach from the safety assurance point of view. The operating history review took place over a period of approximately two months. The results of the review by the station safety review groups are indicated

, below.

I Operating History Review Results McGuire Oconee IIRS Reviewed 339 (4) 133 (41)

, SERS Reviewed 24 (0) 92 ( 0) l l SOERS Reviewed 11 (0) 31 ( 2) l I

Note: Potential HEDs are 4 43 Shown in Parenthesis i

4.4.3 Operator Survey i

a. Questionnaire Development and Administration The Operator Survey included activities for questionnaire

! development, station briefing, questionnaire distribution to the stations, and return of completed questionnaires.

These activities were the responsibility of Biotechnology.

l Duke station management personnel were responsible for

! auestionnaire distribution to station operations personnel l r.nd for any followup needed to have the questionnaires l completed in the allstted time.

Questionnaire Development The first step in developing the questionnaire was

, O assembling a pool of items which would be. candidates for EL40110C

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

4- . .

Page 42

% the questionnaire or interview activities. Principal sources of these items were:

• Generic questions for nuclear power plant operations which were a part of a Control Room evaluation kit developed by Biotechnology.

• Topics generated by Duke for inclusion in the operating survey.

• NUREG-0700 items allocated to the operating experience review.

• Potential HEDs from the operating history review.

These items were assembled and organized into candidates for questionnaire and interview items.

The second step was deve16 ping the specific structure and format for the questionnaire. Since problems were the focus of the effort, it was decided to format the questions in the form of problem statements and have respondents either disagree with the statement (i.e., it is not a problem) or agree with the statement and specify the degree of concern. ?t was further decided that space would be blocked out on the questionnaire form to encourage the respondent to provide specific

- ' Os details about each problem statement. The final form of the response categories is indicated below.

[ ] Not Applicable DETAILS: This space is for details such as:

[ ] False-No problem - A specific component or system

[ ] True-Minor inconvenience - A specific poor design or operational feature i [ ] True-Could affect performance - Description of a relevant example or incident

[ ] True-Could affect availability - A specific policy, procedure, or operator aid

[ ] True-Could affect safety - Suggestions for improvement

[ ] No opinion or not enough data The third step was preparing the specific questiennaire items from the candidate list developed earlier. This step went through a series of iterations until both Biotechnology and Duke were satisfied that all of the assigned items from NUREG-0700 were covered and the questionnaire items were complete and unambiguous. In effect, this iteration served the purpose of a pre-test to ensure that respondents would understand the question-naire items.

EL40110C

1 . .

Page 43 The fourth step was developing a personal data sheet for each respondent to document information about his or her job category, license status, educational level, and height and weight (to allow later development of a profile of body dimensions).

Questionnaire responoents were guaranteed anonymity, as far as Duke Power Company was concerned. Respondents returned the questionnaires directly to Biotechnology in a pre-stamped envelope. A tear-off slip was attached to the questionnaire for the respondent to provide his name for use only by Biotechnology in contacting the respondent for further clarification or information.- All questionnaire data were then processed by a code number.

Station Briefino and Questionnaire Distribution.

A briefing at each station was held to acquaint the managemerJ.

and supervisors at each station with the plan for collecting questionnaire and interview data. Briefings were held during regular station supervisors meetings to reach the greatest number of personnel.

Each supervisors meeting typically contained the superin

• tendent of operations, operating engineers, shift supervisors, O and some assistant shift supervisors--usually 12 to 15 people.

On the day the station briefing was conducted, the required number of questionnaires for distribution to station personnel were given to the station. An operating engineer was the point of contact for each station and took charge of distributing the questionnaires within the plant to the various position levels on each operating shift.

Return of Completed Questionnaires.

Questionnaires were delivered in a pre-stamped and pre-addressed envelope for direct mai m g back to Biotechnology. As the questionnaire was received at Biotechnology, the code number and respondent's name were recorded in a log and the tear-off I.D. slip was removed and kept in a secure personal file.

Any further treatment of the questionnaire was controlled by a coded questionnaire number with no indication of the respondent's name.

4.4.4 Interview Development and Administration Some operator experiences cannot be easily solicited by a questionnaire, and these items were designated for collection by interview. this activity included the following two subactivities.

(

EL40110C

Page 44 O Interview Protocol Development.

Interview protocol development was a two-step process.

First, the general approach and scope were developed. it was determined that the interview would be a loosely structured, informal interview conducted in a confidential manner on a

~

one-on-one basis with a Biotechnology human factors profes-sional. The interviewer would not tape the session but would take written notes. To support the interview, a short introduction was prepared to present to the interviewee and a looseleaf notebook containing a complete photographic mosaic of the entire Control Room, panel layout drawings, and a list of station abbreviations were used to identify specific Control Room problems or concerns. Finally, it was decided that specific items in the interview would be drawn from the preliminary analysis of the questionnaire data and the operating history review.

The second step was the identification of specific items for inclusion during the interview. Sources of specific items included:

• Items that were difficult for inclusion in the questionnaire.

i

• Areas of concern as suggested by the preliminary questionnaire results.

Os

• Incidents or problems determined from the operating history review.

• Problems with particular components, systems, or panels which would help in identifying potentially difficult operating sequences or procedures which should be included in the task analysis review.

• Areas of interest to Duke management such as workload, staffing, training, and local panel difficulties.

• Suggestions to improve operations in the Control Room.

m EL40110C

Page 45 All of these items were organized into specific categories O- with prompts or cues to stimulate discussion. The generic Control Room categories are illustrated in Figure 4-5.

Interviews.

1 A schedule was developed and coordinated between Biotechnology and Duke to conduct interviews with all three stations over approximately a one-month period. Biotechnology organized two-man interview teams to conduct the interviews at each station.

The interviews were conducted in the administration building at each station in a private room. The interviewee was given a brief overview of the Control Room design review effort and the purpose of the operating experience review activity in particular. The interviewee was assured that rything said to the Biotechnology interviewer would be kept in strict confidence. The interviewers generally guided the discussion but did not attempt to constrain the interviewees from discussing any concern they wanted to.

4.4.5 Operating Experience Review Data Reduction Because of the large amount of data obtained from the number of questionnaires which were returned (161) and interviews i

I O conducted (1PS), it was necessary to have a data reduction activity prsor to the idsntification of HEDs. Data red'uction consisted primarily of collating data by issue, compiling i

data by individual and by question, and developing generic or related concerns. It is important-to point cut that the i

results of this activity did not summarize the questionnaire or interview data but rather organized and integrated the data. Anonymity of questionnaire respondents and interviewees l was maintained and data was organized by station, category of l.~ problem, and individual code numbers.

_ Questionnaire Data Reduction.

l A computer program was developed to codify and tabulate questionnaire responses. After the questionnaires received in the mail were logged in, the data was keyed into the computer. Questions related to Control Room problems were of two types.

The first type, generic Control Room questions, required respondents to identify the level of concern they had for any question.(problem statement) and then provide written details.

The response categories and numerical codes entered into the computer were as follows:

1. No problem

2. Minor inconvenience EL40110C

Page 46

3. Could affect performance

4. Could affect availability

5. Could affect safety

6. No opinion or not enough data

7. Indication of a desire for discussion or clarification

8. (No meaning attached to this number.)

9. No response

10. Not applicable.

The items of most serious concern were coded as 5 (safety) and the least concerns were coded as 1 (no problem). Whether or not the respondent provided" details was simply coded a "yes" or "no. " The second question type was the general evaluation question. For this series of questions, respondents provided their general evaluations of certain broad issues.

Topics covered by these questions were training, plant maintenance, workload, procedures, Control Room staffing, local panels, and the auxiliary shutdcien panel.

The program generated a compilation cf the answers to each k question by all respondents at a particular station, and for each individual a compilation of responses to all the question-naire items. The final step in the data reduction was to collate the answers by question for each respondent at the station. ,

Interview Data Reduction Information obtained from the interviews was recorded in the form of notes by the interviewer, often supplemented by marked-up panel layout drawings. The interviewer tried to obtain as much specific information about the problem as possible, including the component, Control Room panel, system, and interviewee's principal concern. As soon as practicable after the interview was completed, these notes were transcribed onto an interview results form designed to be similar to the HED recording form. The next step in reducing the interview data was to collate all of the concerns raised by two or more individuals as generic concerns. The information obtained from each individual about the same problem was then written as one single generic concern and' the code number for each individual who raised that concern was included on the final form.

EL40110C

Page 47 Organization of Data Packages for HED Review.

' After the questionnaire and interview data reductions described above were completed, the results were organized into data packages for disposition and identification of HEDs. Three data packages were prepared for each station that partici-pated in the Control Room Review:

1. A distribution of questionnaire responses for all individuals who completed the questionnaire.

2. An individual data package which consisted of the results from the questionnaire and interview for each individual. In many cases, the individusi had submitted a questionnaire and had also participated in the interview, and the package contained both subsets of data.

A generic data package consisting of a compoH te of 3.

question details and a compilation of every concern raised by more than one individual. The concerns were then given a generic title and organized by problem areas.

The results of the questionnaire and interview data reduction, l and the results of the operating history review, represent potertial HEDs. Six disposition alternatives were identified:

i l 1. The problem or area of concern was beyond the scope of the Control Room Review effort or any other practical l design or operational change.

2. The problem description needed verification er clarifi-cation before disposition could be made.

l

3. The problem was not a human engineering discrepancy but did represent a legitimate area of concern and should be brought to the attention of plant management.

I

4. The potential HED should be discovered or validated during task analysis.

I l 5. The potential HED should be discovered or validated during the Control Room Survey.

6. The potential HED was a legitimate human engineering discrepancy based on operational experience and should be documented in the prescribed manner for HEDs.

The methodology for examining the results of the operating history review was essentially the same as for the results of ,

the questionnaire and interview. _

EL40110C

S.

Page 48 All potential HEDs were reviewed and finally documented as O (1) legitimate human engineering discrepancies, (2) supporting documentation for HEDs identified in the Control Room Survey and Task Analysis activities,'(3) problems brought to the

~

attention of Plant Management, or (4) as areas of concern beyond the scope of Control Room Review or any other practical design or operational change.

O O

EL40110C

5 -

Page 49

() -

Figure 4-5 GENERIC CONTROL ROOM ISSUES

• Controls

• Displays

• I&C General (Absence or Excess)

• Panel Layout

• Control-Display Integration

• Annunciator System

• Process Computers ,

• Labels

• Control Room Layout and Workspace

• Control Room Environment

• Emergency Equipment

• Communications

• Normal Operating Procedures

• Abnormal or Emergency Procedures

• Training l

• Plant Maintenance

• Local Panels

• Auxiliary Shutdown Panel

• Workload

• Staffing and Personnel in Control Room

• Suggestions to Improve Control Room Operations O

EL40110C

• -' y -y e 9 ---

+- em - 4 --ew-y 3 -- .wv-w t,--- - ,--- yy,,,,-----w- -,--e,e,w-w.------- -m+ m- e-, we-e--- - - - - - - -- , -a---,,-.---

Page 50 4.5 Task Analysis 0 4.5.1 Introduction ,

The primary objective of the Task Analysis activity was to evaluate the human engineering suitability of controls and displays to support the effective accomplishment of operator actions required during certain normal and emergency opera-tions.

The Task Analysis-activity performed a detailed investigation of selected operational sequences. The operator tasks for each sequence were identified together with the components required to perform each task. A walk-through of each task was then performed on a mock-up of the control board, and finally the components and their arrangement were analyzed for human engineering suitability %r the task involved.

This approach complemented the: Control Room Survey and Operating Experience Review by identifying HEDs which become apparent upon consideration of the way components are used.

, For example, an information item, needed for the performance of a task, might be unavailable in the Control Room. This particular inadequacy may not be picked up on the Control

, Room Survey because a non-existent display cannot be evalu-ated. It may not have been noted in the Operating Experience i

Review because the operator may have adapted to less conven-l -

ient or more indirect information sources. Task analysis l would identify this component from the analysis of the task in which it was used.

The Task Analysis activity emphasized emergency operating sequences and used the NSSS vendor Emergency Procedure Guidelines (EPGs) as a basis. The EPGs used in the task analysis activity are the Emergency Response Guidelines (ERG) of the Westinghouse Owners' Group for McGuire and Catawba, and the Abnormal-Transient Operating Guidelines (ATOG) of l Babcock and Wilcox for Oconee. In addition, normal operating sequences selected froia the results of the Operating Experience Review were evaluated.

Biotechnology, Inc. (BTI) was responsible for the development of the Task Analysis methodology, for the training of Duke

t. personnel in its application, and for the continuing review l of the procedures used and the product achieved in the Task i Analysis. The continuing Task Analysis work and the selec-tion of operational sequences for review was performed by Duke personnel assigned to task analysis teams. In training Duke participants, BTI delivered a short series of lectures on human factors to the' Control Room Review Team, conducted a workshop for participants.in the Task Analysis, and partici-pated in a pilot Task Analysis. BTI provided two members of l

its human factors staff to meet regularly with the Duke Task Analysis Teams for consultation on any necessary refinement EL40110C.

l

Page 51 of procedures, and for the systematic review of Task Analysis O results.

4.5.2 Selection and Training of Task Analysis Teams The use of subject matter experts, personnel familiar with the design or operation of a system, is important to all Task Analysis activities. It is particularly crucial to have expert knowledge in a Task Analysis of a complex system such as a nuclear power plant. To this end, the Review Team selected personnel to staff three Task Analysis Teams, one team each for McGuire, Catawba, and Oconee. Each team was composed of a Senior Reactor Operator (a certified operator in the case of Catawba, which was under construction during the Task Analysis activity) and an engineer familiar with plant system design. The three teams were under the direc-tion of an engineer experienced in plant systems design and Control Room / control board design, who served as Task Analysis

Group Leader. The Task Analysis Group Leader and the three operator members of the Task Analysis Teams were also members of the Core Review Team.

Biotechnology, Inc. (BTI) provided both human factors train-ing and Task Analysis training for team members. In addi-tion, a one-week pilot Task Analysis program was perforned.

During the pilot program, the teams performed Task Analysis under the direct supervision of the BTI Task Analysis consul-O' tants. The pilot program gave each team the opportunity to practice what had been learned in the training lectures and to be critiqued by the consultants. The program also provided input to the refinement of the final methodology and proce-dures used.

4.5.3 Scope of the Task Analysis ,

It was recognized during the Review Plen development that Task Analysis had not been formally applied to any signifi-cant extent in the power industry. Also, Task Analysis has, in general, been used only on smaller. systems, consoles, etc. , or on limited portions of larger, more complex systems or equipment. A practical application of Task Analysis to a nuclear power. plant would require a determination of where Task Analysis would be most beneficial.

Primary emphasis for the Control Room Review was placed upon improving the plant emergency response capability. Therefore,

-it was consistent to emphasize emergency operations in the Task Analysis. It was also noted that thorough systems analyses of transients and accident conditions had been performed by the NSSS vendors in their development of emer-l gency procedure guidelines (EPGs). These guidelines define the-functions allocated to the Control Room operating crew to provide effective operation and control of the plant under a Os-variety of abnormal and emergency conditions. As such, the f

EL40110C

T -

Page 52 O EPGs form a sound technical basis for the development of U plant-specific emergency procedures as well as Task Analysis.

The EPGs were chosen as the basis for the emergency opera-tions portion of the Task Analysis activity. However, due to a dif ference in format between the Westinghouse EPGs (Emer-gency Response Guidelines or ERGS) and the B&W EPGs (Abnormal Transient Operating Guidelines or ATOG) a slightly different method of operating sequence selection between the Westing-house plants (McGuire and Catawba) and the B&W plant (Oconee) was necessary. This selection process is described in the next section.

While the emphasis of the Task Analysis activity was placed on emergency operations, problem areas in normal operation were also of concern. However, normal operations constitute a diverse, open-ended set of operator tasks and combinations of those tasks. A method was needed to select a reasonable set of tasks to be analyzed. ,,

It was recognized that most plant operation time is spent performing " normal" operations. Operators inherently experi-ence problems in normal operation more than in any other mode. Operational experience would appear to provide the most effective means of determining where problems may exist during normal operations. Therefore, the results of the Operating Experience Review were used to identify problem O areas in normal operation as a basis for the selection of normal operating sequences to be analyzed.

4.5.4 General Description of Task Analysis Method The methodology for Task Analysis activity was based on methods developed and applied to the design and test of l

numerous military and industrial systems. In particular, it draws upon and adapts state-of-the-art methods and procedures developed and used for Task Analysis by the General Physics Corporation and Biotechnology, under contract to the Nuclear

( Regulatory Commission. As a result, it is compatible with the NRC Task Analysis Methodology and consistent with the guidelines for Task Analysis outlined in NUREG-0700.

The Duke Task Analysis method uses the NRC Task Analysis Methodology as a basis, but adapts it to identify HEDs by l reference to plant control board mock-ups. Briefly, the Task Analysis Methodology provides a means of transforming opera-l tional sequerces into operator task and task-element descrip-l tions, and then using this information to identify human

engineering discrepancies (HEDs) in Control Rooms. This l process consists of a series of four steps (See Figure 4-6)

1. Selection of operating sequences

2. Development of task descriptive data, _

EL40110C

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

L - .

Page 53  !

l

3. Human engineering discrepancy identification and documentation i

4. Simulator studies Step 1: Seouence Selection and Origination In order to perform a Task Analysis, information on plant operations must be arranged in the form of operating sequences (an orderly progression of operator tasks). Guidelines (ERGS) have been published in an operating sequence type of format by the Westinghouse Owner's Group. ERGS provide a ,

number of chains of consecutive operator actions, each chain

related tu particular events or occurrences. In the Task Analysis, each chain is defined as an operating sequence.

i All chains for each Westinghouse plant (McGuire and Catawba) '

were analyzed. Accordingly, there was no need to select particular ERG sequences for analysis.

For the B&W plant (Oconee), the ATOG as published by B&W was '

the source of emergency operating sequences. Five credible pathways through the successive actions and decisions within ATOG were selected. The Task Analysis used these five sets of successive occurrences as the operating sequences or scenarios for Oconee. The five pathways were selected in a way to comprise a comprehensive inventory of possible emer-J gency actions. The five pathways were selected from a large number of possible pathways through ATOG actions. While it is possible that other equally valid sequences could have been selected, the five chosen are fully credible and provide a reasonable and comprehensive exercise of Control Room l interfaces. .

In addition to emergency sequences based on ATOG and ERGS, normal operating sequences were selected for analysis after a review of the results of the Operating Experience Review.

this selection was plant specific since is was based on the problems identified through operational experience at each ,

plant.

! . Step 2: The Development of Task Descriptive Data Step 2 of Task Analysis is often referred to as task descrip-tion. Since ERG sequences are written in a different format than ATOG sequences, there is a difference in the initial stage of task description. Despite different treatments in the initial stage of analysis, all analyses arrive at the task level of describing operator action and then proceed to the element level within each task. The " bottom line" for purposes of the Task Analysis is that for all sequences, whether normal, ERG-based, or ATOG-based, the analysis will develop a listing of the interfaces (displays and controls) used by operators and an indication of the relative order in which they are employed.

l EL40110C l

.a- . .

Page S4 i

e Develo9 ment of Data from ERG-Derived Sequences.

. A Task Sequence Chart (TSC) (Figure 4-7) was completed for each ERG sequence, listing task titles in the main sequence in the order of sequence progression, along with information on the sequence and sequence step to which a branch is possible.

Development of Data from ATOG-Derived Sequences.

The Task Analysis Team for Oconee prepared an Operating Sequence Overview (050) for each selected operating sequence.

The 050 described the conditions preceding the event, the action that initiated the sequence, the progression of action during the sequence, and the final conditions upon its termination.

Following completion of the 050, a Clustered-Task Sequence Chart (CTSC) (See Figure 4-8),"which lists the tasks to be perfomed in clusters related to an occurence in the sequence was developed.

Development of Data fe,r Nomal Sequences.

The sequences for normal operations were treated the same as s ATOG-based sequences. The sequence was documented in an Operating Sequence Overview (050) and the 050 was followed by completion of a Clustered-Task Sequence Chart (CTSC).

Completion of Task Data Forms (TDFs).

A TDF was completed for each task of the operating sequences analyzed. Principally the TDF (Figure 4-9) is a detailed description of.the activities of the operator in performing the task. The task is broken down into individual actions of the operator, termed " elements" or " task elements." The description for each element indicated the operator's job category (when appropriate), his physical location, the action he takes, the component he uses, the parameter involved, i and the plant system affected by or associated with his action. Communication equipment used in performing a task was also be noted.

Step 3: Human Engineerina Discrepancy Identification Step 3 is the use of task-element descriptions, a Control Room mock-up, and Task Analysis HED Principles (see Figure 4-10) in an integrated effort to identify HEDs.

In Step 3, the Task Analysis team performed a walk-through of each task. They used the full scale mock-up to visualize exactly how each task was performed, both by itself and in i O relation to preceding and succeeding tasks. They looked for i

'd ways in which physical factors could imperie task performance.

EL40110C-i-

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

h .

Page 55  ;

The identification of HEDs was guided by the Task Analysis O ,

HED principles. As an example, the following type of problems were considered:

• Lack of particular centrols or displays needed to do the task

• Inability to read pertinent displays from the location of the operator when doing the task

• Information display inadequate to provide informa-tion of the type and accuracy needed for the task.

When an HED was identified, it was noted and subsequently reported on an HED form.

, Step 4: Simulator Studies .

. During the planning stages of the Control Room Review, the Review Team was concerned that highly time dependent or system-response dependent operator actions might be difficult to analyze using an unpaced walk-through on a static mock-up.

A provision was made in the Task Analysis Methodology to

. select sequences which appeared to require a more dynamic representation for study at the McGuire simulator.

I 'During the Task Analysis, the Task Analysis Teams did not identify any sequences which required simulation to analyze.

All sequences analyzed, both normal and emergency, were found to be amenable to walk-through on a static mock-up. A study of several selected emergency oeprating sequences, as well as some of the more dynamic normal operations was performed,

. however, to (1) confirm the Task Analysis methodology, (2)

, confirm previously ider.tified HEDs, (3) identify any new HEDs discovered during simulation.

The following sequences were studied:

l * ' Steam generator tube rupture

• Rod ejection incident l

l

• Recovery from inadvertent safety injection

• Loss of all AC power

• Startup (partial) i

• Feedwater bypass to main regulating valve

• Control of diesel generators EL40110C

Page 56 d

• Control of nuclear service wr.ter (in various i

modes)

• Control of charging and letdown systems (in various modes)

• Exercise of computer displays Each sequence was performed by a crew consisting of two operators and one engineer (all members of the Task Analysis Teams). Another engineer member of the team and two consultants from Biotechnology, Inc. served as observers. The performance of each sequence was video-taped for later playback and discussion. The previous Tack Analysis data and HEDs for the sequence were compared with the results of the simulated run during these discussions and any differences were noted.

The results of this study showed that the Task Analysis methodology was an effective tool to identify HEDs. No new HEDs were identified using simulation, but the previously identified HEDs were confirmed. The study also showed that the simulator was an excellent tool to evaluate the opera-tional impact of HEDs.

4.5.5 Human Factors Assurance h

Biotechnology, Inc. (BTI) had the lead responsibility for Human Factors Assurance within the Duke Task Analysis effort.

Human Factors Assurance equates simply to taking every action within reason to make certain that the analysis is performe.

in an understandable, thorough, and correct manner. To this end, three factors were emphasized:

1. Select the proper people for the analysis and give them the necessary training.

2. Human-engineer the analysis to make it readily undarstandable and convenient.

3. Review the product and re-instruct the team as needed.

Product review and re-instruction was carried out by BTI in a structured manner. This process involved BTI's reading of data packages for selected sequences completed by each plant team, verbal discussion of any lack of clarity or deviations from standard format, and direct participation with each plant team as they originated task descriptions. this was done during monthly visits by BTI representatives to the Duke Task Analysis Team and at BTI's home office between visits.

BTI wrote a " Task Analysis Review Memo," generally after each visit, in which they documented any problems discovered and, O if necessary, recommended procedures to prevent their recur-C rence. Review of written material focused upon consistency EL40110C

s .

Page 57 i

l across the three plant teams, consistency with the methodology and procedures, and clear communication of meaning. HED i reports were considered for these same factors and for ,

conformity with Task Analysis HED Principles, j i.

I J

4 s

l 1

I l

l l

EL40noC-

Page 58 Figure 4-6 Task Analysis Process

(~N FOR EMERGENCY POR NORMAL MOVENCES AT POR FMERGENCY SEQUENCES AT teeGutRE AND SEQUENCE AT aneGuiRE. CATAWBA g CATAwsA OCONEE & OCONEE RAMO EXPE RIEhM PLANT ERG ATOG IIEVIEW PROCEDURES f I f i f I r STEP 1:

PRE.

SEQUENCE ORGANIZED BELECT PATHS ORIGIN ATE / SELECT RO G ATION ISEOVENCES) MRME SEWENCES gg agg

_ _ _ L _. _ _

bEVELOPMENT wR gyg OF TASK CPE R ATING DESCRIPTIVE SE QUENCE DATA OVE RVIEW 1060) i f f COMPLETE COMPLETE TASK CLUSTERED TASK MOVENCE SE QUENCE CHART CHART (CTSC)

?

COMPLETE

- TASK DATA s l

l O' - - - - L -

FORM (TDF)

I f

ffEP 3: IDE NTIFY/ DOCUMENT NUMAN HEDi BY VISUALIZING DESCRIBED TASKS IN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCY M.{ K UP OCONEE/CATAwSA OCONEE /CATAwB A ENTA 1f BTEP 4: SE LECT DMULATOR aneGusRE SE QUENCES STUDIES IMcGUIRE) Ndargo T

COwet SIMULATtM STUD:E%

k IDENTIFY /

DOCUMENT ADDIT 40NAL McGUIRE HEDs I

q7- 1 m e- - . - - .

" HED REPORTS TO TASK DESCRIPTIVE ASSESSMENT PH ASE DOCUMENTATION TO OF CONTROL ROOM STORAGE AND REVIEW RETRIEVAL SYSTEM l  %

l i

i l

l l

w

@0 Sequence No. ECA-2 DUKE PO TASK SEQUENCE CHAllT (TSC)

Sequence Title loss of All AC Power COMPANY Plant, Unit #

go, g Catawba 1 1 sept 1981 TASKS IN MAIN SEQUENCE SEQUENCES / TASKS POTENTIALLY BRANCHED TO' Task Number Task Title 8["'ye , 9 Title 1 Verify reactor trip C20.1 B-la Manually trip reactor C10.1 ECA-1 1 Manually trip reactor and turbine B-1b Dispatch personnel to to restore power to AC vital buses 2 Verify turbine trip C20.2 B-2 Manually trip turbine 3a Try to restore power C20.3 to any AC emergency bus

, B-3a Em$rgencystartand load diesel B-3b Trip diesel 3b X-conn with Unit 2 power C20.3 4 Verify NC isolation C20.4

\

B-4a Close PZR PORV's me B-4b Close letdown and 75 excess letdown E*

isolation valves *$

L Form Revision: 9/18/82

• Enter only one task namely the task immediately branched to. Page.l _. of 4

DUKE POWER COMPANY i

F[ure4-8 s CLUSTERED-TASK SEQUENCE CHART (CTSC) g g g Oconee 41 seguence No. 1 Seguence Name AN n Rev.W TASKS Number TITLE A. Both Main Feedwater Pumps trip

3. All three Dnergency Feedwater Pops fail to start C. Reactor trips on high ROS I.l.a Manually trip the Reactor Presswe I.l.b Manually trip the Turbine I2.1.0 Verify Reactor Power decreasing D. Group 1 Control Rods fail to II.l.a Start HPI from BWST P 22.2.0 Verify all rods on bottom II.2.a Beginremergency boration II.3.0 Verify all Main Turbine stop Valves shut 11.4.0 Verify Intdown flow through Block Orifice only 11.5.0 Verify Feedwater runback II.6.0 Verify ICS NNI power on II.7.0 Verify Station on Startup ,

Transformer l 11.8.0 verify E.S. actuation if required i by RCS pressure II .9. 0 verify adequate Subcooling Margin II .10. 0 Determine lack of heat transfer E. P.O.R.V. opens and fails open lII.B.1.0 Determine adequate Subcooling Margin F. Operator shuts RC-4 which fails E.1 Determine P.O.R.V. status Throttled E.2 Shut valve RC-4 G. Operators trip all four Reactor III.R.2.0 Trip all Reactor Coolant Pump:

l Coolant Pumps due to Inadequate l Subcooling Margin H. Operators initiate HPI III.M.3.0 Initiate HPI I. Pressuriser becomes filled III.B.4.0 Determine if superheated conditions exist J. Feedwater re-established III.B.5.0 Determine if Feedwater is available III.B.6.0 Initiate Emergency Feedwater er Main Feedwater if available III.b.7.0 Determine if Feedwater is O adequataly re-established Form Revision:948/B2

.__._.? _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ , , _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . ~ _ _ . ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

k ' * . -  ! .

fe t

'r fm N  %*H b

2 n

/

e i

,n t s

s)s, 1 ,

,o s m (s ,

, _ o t

s i

1 n v e t d ,e.

n o

p t

o e t

C

_e r

1 8

9 n 1 6e ec t A p t e

e t r. .

S e .

1 ,i

_s n n n n n e ,

t e e e e p o, _ p p p p s -

O O O O O c

,. vo.

e n n r p r p

• pB k y k y a .

i& B BAI B BB I

l rA p p ip r i p i

- e T r i ir B -

c xk rA rk rB TB rk 2 RS TI TB TI A ,

C E ,

_ /

S)w g( N

, E P

I E

P I

E P

I E

P I

E P

I 1 1 1 1 1 a

t C

M C

M C

P C

M C

M

_ I I I I I 01 2 3 5 6

_ p 22 2 2 2 2 RR R R R R II I I I I h

h4 c

t i

c h

t dg dg dg dg t

h t

h t

h A  : w ni ni ni ni f

o . l !

S l

ILIIL !Ilg IL l l I I I I I i t _

b 6c c.

)

F O.en D

T

(

ve.,_. e.

M c s

R A B O B 1 I F r , & - r A e , A k B k T w A 1 B 1 B A o r p r p P n y > y D r k B B B B C T K A p p p p S ip A l r r ir i

r i

r i

r T l o T T T T A t T

- c x x x x x f a R o e p R R R R O r r i C s o r s s s e

s e

s t t e e

] o ip c l l l E 1 r a c 1 s f f lf f W s L_ t e - e. n i l i f r

O p it v r r r s e e

=

. y a r u e e P e l p m T V v V V o

E K a w n,

. l a

u i

T r t u

t

(

c e

t U a . n a t w

D r .

a o $ 1 I 1 M 1 C

1 C C C C

_ N M M n g M M M

1. :_ ig I I I I I o c

.. w ,a ,, .4

,, o cv

, :s t.

s t ,

3 ,

t t ee ,

n =.

ie

,, a

• r on e e .

y T T C

~ I ;

9433 AMW-3h3-)GDPilRIDlDb43

1. Are all of the controls, displays and Indicators that see seguired to perform S. If instrumentation or control capabilities are isneveileide under certain plant 1*;is task present in Wie control room?

conditions, are there ef ternate means provided for the operator to meet teek needs.

2. Are the controls, displays and indicators youped in accordance with the information and controi roquirements ei this task? 7. Are related controle and displays within functional youps, errenged in the some relative positions? For esemple

3. Are the controls, disploys and indicators labeled according to the require-monts of this task?

l 4. Con the displays and annuncletors used in this task be read occurately from A display 8 display C' display

~ ~ ~

eiewing position of the operator? Con displays tu read while operating essocieted controle? .

A, control 8, control C, control

5. Do the displays gies the operator direct, readily usetde information:

7 o Peremeter eelves with required preelslon?

M e 8. Is the displey obscured while operating its associated control?

, o Range, band, limit shown if the operator needs to know in/out of rangs/ bend, above/below limit, etc.

9. Are there any controle, control positions or displays which the operator o Teend infermetion when needed? ""'** '8' " ""Y I""*'I*"I i

o Rete of change information when needed?

{ o Forcentage information used only when appropelete? NOTE b

e Digital or snelog information used when needest if the Task Analysis Teent discovers a HED whidi l r t w Ngu PereM e Status or demand information es appropriate for the task? e - ..

knowledge to discover or would be a decrement to Task performance, they should feel free to report it even though it is nominally allocated to the

• To be noted sh for cess's known se the operster: sesk enetrels is not especs.d to Survey or Operating Emperience Review.

deierenine power source et en indicesions.

.,, .o y 8' i

s .aM d

O i

1 i

l

)

Page 63 5.0 Assessment Phase 5.1 Overview o The objective of the assessment program was to provide an organized and consistent method for determining the significance of each HED, for developing feasible solutions, and for estimating solution costs.

These evaluations were used to decide which HED solutions represented cost-effective improvements to the Control Room. Because the combined areas of nuclear safety and operator error are difficult to assess on an absolute cost / benefit basis, no well accepted cost effectiveness criteria presently exist for use in judging human factors improvements to Control Rooms. Duke Power's HED assessment program was designed to identify cost-effective improvements, using relative cost / benefit evaluations, the experience of qualified Duke operators and engineers, and the advice of human factors specialists.

The correction of a human engineering deficiency should result in an improvement to the affected Cor:;rol Room; however, the amount of benefit derived from that corraction is directly tied to the signifi-cance of the HED as it relates to the performance of the intended operating task. The HED significance can be expressed as the ratio of the likelihood (potential) that the HED will induce an operator error divided by the potential for error detection and recovery, all multiplied by the consequence to plant operation if the error is made and goes undetected. Expressed functionally:

O HED significance * "

=

n x Consequence of Error or Re o ry All three of these factors were considered in determining the signifi-cance of an HED to operator task performance. Because the benefit derived from correcting a given HED is directly proportional to the significance of that HED (as it relates to operator performance), the evaluations of potential and consequence were used to quantify the benefits in HED cost / benefit analyses. This benefit evaluation was conducted on a relative basis for all appropriate HEDs. HED signifi-cance was not judged by actual monetary benefit; rather, the signifi-cance of a specific HED was judged on a relative scale in relation to the significance of all other HEDs.

Upon completion of the relative significance evaluations, solutions were developed for HEDs determined to be deficiencies. HED solutions included physical Control Room modifications, surface enhancements to control boards, recommendations for procedure revisions or additional '

training as appropriate. Cost estimates were prepared for HED solutions.

The information resulting from the relative benefit and cost evalua-tions was used to decide which HED solutions represented cost-effective improvements to each plant.

1 O

EL40110C

J .

Page 64 5.2 General Description of Criteria / Methods

-The assessment program was divided into six phases as follows (see

, Figure 5-1):

Phase I...HED information organization.

Phase II... Screening and HED relative significance evaluation.

Phase III... Determining optimal HED solutions.

Phase IV... Cost evaluation for HED solutions.

Phase V... Deciding which HED solutions represent cost-effec-tive improvements to each Control Room.

Phase VI... Resolution of all remaining HEDs.

While the work schedules of the phases overlapped at times, the phases were distinct in function and purpose. This work was performed by the Control Room Review Team, assisted by consultants from Biotechnology.

Phase I: HED Information Drganization 3 The purpose of this phase was to organize all HEDs in preparation for s'

future evaluation. HED information contained in a computer data base, was sorted by various parareters to facilitate the review process. The majority of HED evaluations were organized and conducted on a control board by control board basis. With the use control board mock ups, this approach ensured that HED significance was evaluated and solutions were developed in an integrated manner.

Phase II: Screening and HED Relative Significance Evaluation This phase first addressed the issue of whether a given Human Engineer-ing Discrepancy (HED) actually represented a deficiency in the man machine interface. It was anticipated that in some situations, an identified HED (one based on a population sterotype violation, for example) may not have actually represented a deficiency when reviewed in a broader context (the identified component may have followed a different, yet logical plant stereotype, for example). All HEDs in this category were removed from futher assessment with brief written justification for the removal.

Some HEDs required individual assessment due to their unique nature.

The few HEDs of this type were collected in a separate, individual review category for resolution in Phase VI.

Additionally, remaining HEDs were screened to identify those where control board surface enhancement clearly represented the optimum solution. (Surface enhancement is defined as those techniques of improved labeling, demarcation, and color coding / shading which EL4011DC

f _

Page 65 require minimal or no engineering alteration.) These surface enhance-O ment HEDs were removed from further relative cost / benefit assessment and addressed in Phase VI with other remaining proposed surface enhance-

' ment solutians.

For all remaining HEDs not segregated by screening reviews, relative significance evaluations were completed. This evaluation was comprised of objective and subjective estimates of (1) the potential for an error being induced by the HED, (2) the potential for the induced error to be detected and corrected in time, and (3) the consequence of that error on plant functions, if it remains undetected. In summary, the total relative significance of an HED was quantified as the ratio of potential for error over potential for recovery, all

, multiplied by the consequence of error. The error and recovery potentials were subjectively arrived at by team consensus through the use of predetermined criteria while the consequence was determined

, from the hierarchy of systems required to maintain an acceptable

, nuclear safety margin, availability, reliability, and efficency.

Phase III: Determining Optimal HED Solutions Upon completion of the relative significance evaluations in Phase II, optimal solutions were developed. HED solutions predominantly addressed physical changes, procedural modifications, and/or training improv2ments; however, the undue reliance of training and procedure solutions was avoided. All proposed physical change solutions were

evaluated for feasibility of implementation and to assure that ,

solutions could be implemented in accordance with good human engineer-ing practice.

If during this phase it became clear that the optimal solution for a given HED was surface enhancement, the HED was removed from further formal assessment and transferred to the surface enhancement category.

This decision was adequately documented and the HED was resolved in conjunction with all other surface enhancement HEDs in Phase VI.

Phase IV: HED Solution Cost Estimating The purpose of this phase was to evaluate implementation costs associated with each HED solution. -This evaluation addressed costs associated with three distinct areas of resources most commonly i utilized for HED resolution. Those areas are: (1) engineering and l construction resources for physical changes, (2) plant operations costs for procedural changes, and (3) resources for additional training and/or simulator changes. The combined or separate evalua-tion of these three areas represents the total cost evaluation for each HED solution.

Phase V: Decision on Optimal HED Solutions to be Implemented A final subjective determination was made concerning which HED solutions should be implemented. This determination was aided by the ,

O -

EL40110C

Page 66

-previously outlined evaluations; however, the final decision was hd based primarily on the experience and qualifications of Review Team personnel. HEDs not selected for optimal solution, were addressed in

~ Phase VI.

Phase VI: Resolution of Remaining HEDs The first part of this phase represented an iteration of the solution determination / evaluation / decision phases. All HEDs not selected for optimal solution were reviewed to determine alternative approaches that represented partial solutions. These alternative approaches included revised physical change solutions, greater emphasis on surface enhancement techniques, greater use of procedural changes or training awareness, or combinations of all four.

A second part of Phase VI involved the solution of all surface enhancement related HEDs. This work was conducted under a Control Room Review policy for surface enhancement that ensures consistency.

Additionally, any surface enhancements'related to approved optimal solutions were factored into a longer ranged plan for surface enhance-ment upgrade.

The third part of this phase involved the final disposition of HEDs requiring plant management attention. These HEDs were documented and transmitted to appropriate station organizations for their use in improving awareness among operators, as well as completing certain recommendations.

o r

O EL40110C l

} ,- _

Page 67 Figure 5-1 ASSESSMENT FLOW PATH Assessment (Figure 1) Phase:

(v Sort by: Does

- Control Board HED Require I 1 Yes  ;

- Generic Concerns e Individual

- Other Assessment 7

" No I

Is Can m Best Be II Y,- y,,

RED a Solved With Surfac eficiency? Enhancement' No No Doct. ment Relative Significance II Evaluation ,

V Determine Optimum

• p III Solutions if HED Solution IV Cost Estimates V

i Cost / Benefit y Analysis lf

/

Yes E ""1 Solution Cost Effective?

No Y If 1r Detailed Resolve Remaining Resolve Surface HEDs

• Enhancement Design, Schedule, HEDs Implement O g Integrated i Activities - - - - - - - - -

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

Page 68 6.0 Implementation Phase The primary objective of the Implementation Phase is to implement modifi-cations, procedures and training as necessary to resolve significant human engineering discrepancies (HEDs) identified in the Assessment Phase.

Since the Review Team was an ad hot group especially assembled for the purpose of the Control Room Review, the Duke line organizations (princi-pally the Design Engineering, Construction, and Nuclear Production Depart-ments) will be respontible for the implementation of all corrections. The Steering Committee as a part of its management oversight function was responsible for definition and assurance of the transition of work to the line organizations.

In general, implementation work will be handled under the existing Nuclear Station Modification Program. This program is a part of the corporate Quality Assurance Program and is designed to assure the quality of design, procurement, and construction work performed in a modification to opera-ting Duke nuclear stations. A similar part of the Quality Assurance Program,-designed for plants under construction, will be used for modifi-cations to Catawba before licensing.

The Review Team assembled a package for each HED which contained the recommended correction for implementation by the line organization. Where possible, these packages were grouped by centrol board so that a " control board change package" could be implemented for a specific board to aid the coordination of physical changes, operator training, and procedure modifi-l cation.

The Review Team also provided a relative implementation priority schedule for use by the line organizations. This " schedule" gives a priority for the physical installation or implementation of a modification. It was determined by considering the significance of the HED, the time required for design and procurement work, and the time and mode of plant operation required for installation. The actual implementation date for each modification, as well as the scheduling of design and procurement work, l will be performed by the line organizations.

l l

l-l i

O

~~

EL40n0C

.,a .

Page 69 l

7.0 Future Control Room Modifications The need for a human factors review of future proposed changes affecting the Control Room was recognized during the planning stage of the Control Room Review. Reviews of this nature have, in the past, been performed in conjunction with engineering reviews on plants under construction, and

, when system changes were made to operating plants. For plants under construction, the reviews have also included the use of full scale mock-ups to obtain operator feedback on proposed control and instrumentation arrangements. However, due to (1) increasing plant complexity, (2) the increasing frequency of plant systems changes and (3) changes related to regulatory activities, an enhanced review procedure, emphasizing human factors, is needed.

. In addition, advances in equipment technology and in human factors and systems analyses, have identified the need to define standards for the design of and the changes made to the Control Room / operator interface to (1) preserve a consistent approach, (2) prov.ide for feasible enhancements, and (3) incorporate necessary modifications'with a minimum of negative impact on the operator.

The Control Room Review Plan was developed with the philosophy of using the Duke line organization as much as possible in order to upgrade human factors expertise throughout the Company. In addition, the methodologies developed for the Control Room Survey and the Task Analysis provide a foundation for the development of formal review methods and the incorpora-tion of human factor criteria in design and equipment guidelines and I O- standards.

The line organization will be responsible for implementing the necessary criteria, standards and guidelines, and for developing the necessary procedures and methods to ensure an adequate, integrated review of future modifications.

The Review Team will make recommendations to the Steering Committee at the conclusion of all Control Room Review activities concerning areas which the Team feels should be strengthened. The Steering Committee will evaluate the Review Team recommendations and, working with line crganiza-tion, prepare an overall plan for implementation by the line organization.

O EL40110C

A a s 2m_-.ma, e -,.

4 n.mk - A-a w.sa - -- - A..- 4 s I

L Appendix A l

e i

i I

i r

1 l

I l

l l

l I

f I

1 l

- - ...- - . - - - , -- -- , .-r-n -,-,--,.-e.., .m- ,- --- _ -- m--, --m_- _-_.-___-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ __- - -- -

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

l l

O  !

li I

A WORK PLAN FOR THE BIOTECHNOLOGY CONTRACT TO SUPPORT DUKE POWER COMPANY FOR:

• OPERATING EXPERIENCE REVIEW  !

• TASK ANALYSIS

• CONTROL RDOM SURVEY r l

O  :

I l

i l

l l

Biotechnology, Incorporated

~

3027 Rosemary Lane Falls Church, Virginia 22042 ,

Phone: (703) 573-3700 l l

O 4

V A WORK PLAN FOR THE BIOTECHNOLOGY CONTRACT TO SUPPORT DUKE POWER COMPANY FOR e Operating Experience Review e Task Analysis e Control Room Survey Prepared by:

Harold E. Price Harold P. Van Cott G. Richard Hatterick Approved by:

d D Harold E. Price, Project Director i

Revision 2, November 1, 1982 O

l p- REVISION LOG ,

V Revision # Date Description Pages Affected 0 7/19/82 Original issue All 1 7/30/82 Revised after (Title page) (1)

Duke review (ii) (iii) (iv)

( 2)( 3) (3a) (4)

(4a) ( 6) ( 8) (12)

(16) (17) (18) (20)

(21) (22) (23) (24)

(29) (37) (39) (40)  ;

(41) (42) (43) (44)

(45) (46) (47) (49)

., (50) (51) (52) (53)

(54)

(Page numbers 2 11/1/82 . Revised to (Title page) (i) update (ii) (iii) (iv)

( 3) (3a) (4) (4a)

( 9) (11) (13) (17)

(19) (24) (25) (28)

[

(29) (30) (31) (32)

! (33) (34) (35) (36)

L (37) (4 0) (41) (42) o (43) (44) (46) (47)

(Page numbers change from page 38 to end of report) 1 t-l 1

2 -

1 l

/ CONTENTS Page Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 1 Technical Presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Planning and Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 P-1 Conduct Planning Conference . . . . . . . . . . 6 P-2 Prepare Work Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 P-3 Prepare Training Seminar . . . . . . . . . . . . */

P-4 Present Human Factors Training Seminar . . . . . 8 P-5 Maintain Continued Project Planning and Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 P-6 Establish 0700 Guideline / Review Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Operating Experience Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 0-1 Assemble Item Pool for Operator Survey . . . . . 10 0-2 Develop Guidelines for Operating History Review . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 0-3 Review Incident Reports and Other Operational Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C4 12 0-4 I;evelop Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 0-5 Develop Interview Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . 13 0-6 Prepare Training Presentation . . . . . . . . . 14 0-7 Conduct Training Presentation . . . . . . . . . 15 0-8 Collect Questionnaire Data . . . . . . . . . . . 16 0-9 Develop Questionnaire Analysis Procedure . . . . 17 O-10 Analyze Operator Questionnaire Data . . . . . . 18 O-11 Prepare Operating Experience Review Methodology Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 O-12 Finalize Interview Format / Training . . . . . . . 19 O-13 Conduct On-Site Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . 20 0-14 Develop Interview Data Analysis Procedure . . . 21 0-15 Analyze Operator Interview Data . . . . . . . . 22 0-16 Document and Describe Human Factors Problems . . 23 0-17 Prepare Final Report and Continuing Support . . 23

~

ii (Revision 2)

__ m .. _ . _ _ _ _

f CONTENTS (Continued)

Page Task Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 T-1 Select Vendor EPGs for Analysis . . . . . . . . 25 T-2 Develop Task Analysis Methodology . . . . . . . 25 T-3 Task Analysis Training Preparation . . . . . . . 27 T-4 Conduct Task Analysis Training Workshop . . . . 27 T-5 Perform Pilot Task Analyses . . . . . . . . . . 27 T-6 Prepare Task Analysis Methodology Report . . . . 28 T-7 Selection of Other Operating Events . . . . . . 29 T-8 Conduct Written Task Analyses and Evaluate Human Engineering Suitability ,

on Unit Mockups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 T-9 Review Tasks for Simulator Studies . . . . . . . 30 T-10 Develop Methodology for Task Sequence Real-Time Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 T-ll Conduct Real-Time Simulator Studies . . . . . . 31 L T-12 Conduct Simulator Studies for Selected Event Sequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

[

l T-13 Prepare Final Report of Task Analysis Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 T-14 Provide Human Factors Assurance Review and Continuing Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Control Room Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 S-1 Review 0700 Guildeines and Establish Survey Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 S-2 Develop Physical Survey Methodology . . . . . . 33 S-3 Develop Modified Checklists and Materials 4

for the Control Room Physical Survey . . . . . . 36 i S-4 Develop and Conduct Physical Survey Team Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 S-5 Conduct Pilot Survey of Units . . . . . . . . . 38 S-6 Conduct Physical Survey of Remaining Units . . . 38 S-7 Develop Engineering Survey Methodology . . . . . 39 S-8 ' Develop Engineering Survey Materials . . . . . . 40 S-9 Develop and Conduct Engineering Survey Team Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 t O iii (Revision 2)

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

CONTENTS (Continued)

O .

Page S-10 Conduct Engineering Survey of All Units . . . . 41 S-14 Develop Environmental Survey Methodology .'. . . 41 S-15 Develop Environmental Survey Materials . . . . . 42 S-16 Conduct Environmental Survey of All Units . . . 43 S-17 Provide Human Factors Assurance Review and Continuing Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 5-18 Prepare Survey Methodology Report . . . . . . . 44 S-19 Prepare Summary Final Report . . . . . . . . . . 45 Schedule of Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Project Management and Staffing . . . ,. . . . . . . . . . . 50 i

I O

O iv (Revision 2) i

INTRODUCTION This document is a work plan which describes the activities

-for accomplishment of the control room review tasks concerned with: '

e Operating experience review e Task analysis e control room survey.

In addition, a separate effort for planning and coordination is l described.

The work plan is strictly a document guiding the work effort between Duke Power Company and Biotechnology, Inc. (BTI),

and is not a part of the Duke Control Room Review Plan. It is possible that some aspects of the work plan may later be included in the control room review plan, but that is not the  ;

-primary purpose of the work plan.

This initial plan is a result of a planning conference conducted at Duke Power Company July 12-14, 1982. Revisions and updates will- be made as necessary during the course of the project.

, The common goal of the effort described in this work plan is to identify human engineering discrepancies (NEDs). While not'specifically addressed in-this plan, we also recognize that the control room review process is part of a larger effort that includes incorporating a safety parameter display system, upgrading emergency procedures, and using post-accident monitoring instrumentation. Coordination and cooperation with these activities will be undertaken as necessary.

<~N The work plan has been prepared primarily as four flowcharts

- depicting the activities of each of the principal efforts, a narrative description for each of the activities, a schedule for all activities, and a project management and staffing plan.

The flowcharts depicting the major efforts and their activities follows. Insofar as practical, dependencies and interactions between activities are shown, although not every possible

~

interaction or feedback loop is indicated in order to keep the chart simple. The flow of activities from left to right is generally in correspondence with the time, although the relevant position of the activities on the chart does not correspond with a linear time schedule. The precise sc.hedule information must be obtained from the schedule J ehart provided later. The next part of this work plan, Tech'nical Presentation, will describe each of the activities depicted on the flowchart.

~

s l

l l-t k,) *

(Revision 1) l

s O O O PLANNING AND COORDINATION P6l lBlDlB ESTABLISH

--> GUIDE LINE/ + TO S-1, 01, T-2 REVIEW i

CATEGORIES DUKE REVIEW TEAM

} P-11 P-2l lBlDlB 101 BlB P-3l lBlDlB P4l lB1 lB P-5 l lDlB]D TRAG CONDUCT W

4 PREPARE d h -

PREPARE m PRESENT HF MAINTAIN l

AWARD PLANNING WORK TRAINING TRAINING 4 CONTINUED * .

CONFERENCE PLAN SEMINAR SEMINAR PRO T STIHF COORDINATION 1 TEAM l 1 f -

CR SURVFY TASK ANALYSIS 1

OPERATING EXPERIENCE REVIEW I

i i

t .

s.

\ i.

! 8

m

/

( D OPERATING EXPERIENCE REVIEW

=w**

o,....

,wa

. .t.,,o.,

• *LJ olois. 'UI."

c'o""lO",' o' =a

-. $,I.NE A.a. ","""*"' *"'*"'

e41 isloJo 4= t ss PRLEf ount

• Damf it Af104  %

- """U ""I Of1 STlat test NAemts PottNt:AL Hf D e ta eti Isme **' IsMe L u=d{sj-Le nel lopIn sal leb>

ID

-Asu a ,.

unsic, a* At vses

', 7 ;tt M Poot MI + 4* '""*M O C M EAION D ovar/a N g TV4VI PLAse

'oa ort aatosi y

1. SI leble TRAppes ,<1 ens 5: --~a *

• 58 " ' * '"

t k18 5f enNf5 AIR $

nA A ouisre sidene

, l olvitOP

$' 8 "'

ynOne P 2 Fmong 4

• mit Rytt e irpy

+' F4 \ '*0'OCOL s

ni _est Toh, o.m i.I n c,ueos t ent s -

'0"""*'"'*

on mi ntrun ts --

FOR OPE R AF. A OTHE R 89G Mt1ionY UPt RA fposeAt RE VIEPR gesCfDf M T DAIA REPORTS

.wi .reloTi

-* * ",'.'L ,

04I A AMAtY5f5

\

• .'ri- tIsle * '21 I=Lal= F_'1 DMa 'o"a"at * *' i =MD w

m "~~* """"

.n

• > -

• o'e ssit co,,noc,

-1>>

A...,.

mri nview

"'a t ^

oocue ..

A=o os a

+'-* 'o to"P'Lat'om 8,'"'"," m rinves ws 04 A ns eno.uaes tg us e, ,s H*

O

3 ks

P .

s -

l e S R E o KOR K .

s TSFO U l

A DT D _

I EA O _

WELY EN UD T -

I s VRMU

_ -RFSS 1 EOIT + N O

'- e G I T

l EM o Cf NU A

L E

K l

e AN f P U o 0 P [ NRl i M D 1

5 l R 1 e A.U AU N OO O 1 o E TK MSSO TC T o THG U AC 1

0 l 0 C H 0Il OI N 1Y 1

NO G E

H ES& T

' 5 TS 1

0 T

CAT TM gOU DR WR I

E RN l"s T

DLR llvTIP OEO o 3 7 LEE 4 OCVP l AH 0

1 T EPV SOE T [N AWT 1 nAEU rFRS l o g T

D s en T E

l ALR H PAO gNP ngE M

i prR S

T I n T$ '

S OlS i

l o L IY s PL i Y I 1

M As RNG O

TK AP E 1 1

0 DNO E IT R

L 5 T

RSR E AO YTSA DC ENU T L A

i PTF z i

ULEMI TEV SSES m- r N 8 K A 1 1

1 8

S A

T TSG CSN I

l e

An l

Tf NG K 1 4 ONR UYI N DLI NAA e K Y l

a Ty Ca Ug I

Y N S T CAT [

l o SA OG e T $OL l

i t

DnDI fuUA P

O,TR A

l T CsST E8 R SOT YOR T b l

e E GO P

I 6

T ALHO P

E RNEE PAMR AT P n

o i

l RI NH S

, - R ANK l OR PI s FO l

EAR I P O3T a PTW RRO LOAY T l EHLD U VT U

n. EEMI r DMSST

_ N 9 >

l o S 1

. ti Y e $GsS 0 s G j $PY 1 A O o NSELA T PI SO L

l R 1 OSD TON C OA LYO  :

l E l ELH 4 1 LNR 2 VAT r EEO - Ee E g

T SVF T D#M M O

N:

Ti R r

A L3 PP KM RO OR

/ WF

• D4vtPOD n o T

. ! ' . ' . ,l

. ,! ;j f j ,!

ab - - .

l h

- 1 B E F g E-sB,a g ase s-- >

l=iE o

$$E

!iir,5=

i 8"tj Efis-i di e E

_ g.g e'.c:g

><-p

- en y a v

g l tiig-l g o . c .-

n E

g s

9 m

JL dlI 8

s O ~

M h d. in!=!

3

'! !igi

=,r e ,

E p* m!:s: *

• w r8*!,"tr a'

i O

O H h D "

E . .

= 5 I g. . r.  !

A e g :E=g a E 1 5 E;$>:e

-8 O -a- s*is er S$

rg sa 8-==

>ssa . (;g:g =!=ars:

a E a s5ve JL h JL h

es - rs __

t t O e g ;a , gi  ; g8-Q m ., g g=

d!E a

2 sili

$EW 3

E!is  !!;gf gg to= '

5EE l o kUh 5-a l

s h

-gs 8

gs;5 w E

55 =

sceRu ,g ja z -

U

[ x g.Rgo h 55 R SES da Revision 2

TECHNICAL PRESENTATION This part of the work plan contains the technical presen-tation describing the initial work plan for accomplishing the activities of the three major efforts. The flowcharts contained in the Introduction of this work plan will be useful to'the reader in following the technical presentation and description of each activity. This flowchart identifies the major efforts of the work plan and the series of activities to accomplish each major effort. Each activity is designated on the flowchart by an alphanumeric code for ease of reference to the activity descriptions. Each activity on the flowchart is further coded in terms of responsibility for implementing that activity. This appears as the three letters in the upper right-hand corner of the boxes. The letter "D" stands for Duke, and "B" stands for Biotechnology. From left to right, the letters represent who h'as the primary responsibility, review and comment responsibility, and responsibility for preparation of the final material. The responsibilities are elaborated on in the narrative discussions f of each activity.

The -technical presentation is organized into four sections corresponding to the four efforts in the work plan. A brief overview of each effort is presented first, followed by a description of each of the activities required to accomplish l

the effort. In general, the activity descriptions will contain

( the purposei dependencies / interactions with other activities, l' approach and responsibility, and the principal product identified l

at the end of each activity.

5

] .

() Planning and Coordination Titis section of the work plan presents activities concerned with overall project planning and coordination which are not specifically associated with any of the three major efforts.

These activities will generally involve participation by the BTI Project Director, Harold E. (Smoke) Price, or the BTI major

. effort team leaders.. Certain activities have already been identified and will be discussed. Other activities which will occur as the project progresses are simply accounted

-for in Activity P-5, Maintain Continued Project Planning and Coordination. Five planning and c.cordi. nation activities have been identified and are briefly described below.

P-1 Conduct Planr.ing Conference

'Immediately upon notice of contract award tc. Biotechnology, a Planning Conference was scheduled for the week beginning p O July 12, 1982. The purpose of the conference was to discuss in more detail the' objectives, constraints, and general interaction

'of the'three major efforts: (1) Operating Experience Review (OER), (2) Task Analysis (TA), and (3) Control Room-Survey (CRS). Each of these three efforts was divided into a series

( of activities in the initial proposal. The Planning Conference l more specifically defined those activities and identified the

. inputs to and outputs / products from each activity. In addition, general responsibility for each activity was determined.

Finally, an initial schedule of all activities was determined.

Products. Duke /BTI agreement on general work plan.

l 6 (Revision 1)

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

. .P-2 Prepare Work Plan Following the Planning Conference at Duke, Biotechnology returned to their home office to prepare an initial work plan for the entire project effort. This work plan includes identi-fication of all activities in each of the three major efforts,

, laid out in the form of a flowchart indicating dependencies and interactions between activities. A narrative description of each activity is presented which generally describes the purpose, significant dependencies / interactions, the approach and responsibility (lead, review / comment, final preparation),

and finally a statement of the principal products resulting from the activity.-  :

This initial work plan has been prepared as a working document by BTI. The documented work plan will be discussed with the Duke Control Room Review Team and briefed to the Duke l Steering Committee.

p G Products. Initial Duke /BTI work plan.

l P-3 Prepare Training Seminar The purpose of_this activity is to prepare a two-day

, training seminar on human factors and the control room survey l-approach being taken by Duke and BTI, based on a seminar which BTI has already developed on " Practical Human Factors for Power Plant Evaluation and Improvement" and the initial work plan.

The seminar topics will be prepared to cover fundamentals of l

human behavior, the requirements of NUREG-0700 and other NRC guidance as interpreted by Duke /BTI in the work plan, and other specific topics to be jointly determined. -Vugraphs and 35mm slider.will be used extensively, with BTI key personnel leading the seminar topics. Interaction between the seminar leaders and participants will be encouraged.

7

- ..,,.-__.._...__._,._.__.____,_______n.

w

( Productc. Seminar agenda, handouts, and audio-visual aids.

P-4 Present Human Factors Training Seminar The human factors training seminar developed in Activity P-3 will be presented at Duke Headquarters in Charlotte over a two-day period. BTI key personnel will act as seminar leaders and present various topics using vugraphs and 35mm slides to supplement the presentation. Handouts will be available to all participants. Duke key personnel may lead some portions of the seminar describing specific activities of the work plan. The i

final content and organization of the seminar will be decided approximately two weeks before the seminar.,Approximately 15 Duke personnel are expected to attend the seminar.

1 Products. A twc-day seminar on human factors and the Duke /BTI work plan for control room reviews.

L

() P-5 Maintain Continued Project Planning and Coordination Throughout the project, BTI will maintain close and

. continued coordination with Duke and participate as appropriate in planning the specifics of various activities or tasks within y an activity. As in all complex projects, it can be expected that this initial work plan will have to be modified and additional activities or tasks will arise. For example, the following tasks have already been identified as requiring further planning and coordination:

e Orientation of B3I personnel to the Duke nuclear generating stations e A coordination meeting to resolve the human engineering discrepancy (HED) format final form l

l l .-

i. 8 (Revision 1)

.g .

() e Discussion and resolution of the extent of a data

-management system o Review and revision of the Duke control room review plan e Revision and update of the Duke /BTI work plan.

, All coordination and planning activities will be carried out by the Duke control room review leader and the BTI project director, although other personnel may participate as required.

Products. Planning, coordination, scheduling, and revision and preparation of project activities and tasks as required.

~

P-6 Establish 0700 Guideline / -

Review Categories The purposes of this activity are to:

(1) Ensure that all of the Human Engineering Guidelines provided in NUREG-0700 are considered for applicability

(}

U and addressed in the Duke Control Room Design Review if applicable; (2) Assign each guideline to the review activity that will provide the most appropriate perspective and expertise for addressing each guideline; (3) Eliminate unnecessary repetition in the application of the guidelines.

Biotechnology and Duke will jointly discuss the approach for categorizing guidelines and BTI will prepare the final procedure.

Duke and BTI will then jointly make the categorization to the Operating Experience Review, Task Analysis, or Control Room Survey. Each team leader will then incorporate the guidelines into the methodology of each of the three major efforts for identifying HEDs.

Products. Categorization procedure, categorized guidelines, allocations to review activities, and a method to maintain O

Q guideline listing.

9 (Revision 2)

A -

Operating Experience Review The objective of the operating experience review (OER) is to identify features of control room operation or design which could potentially degrade effective control of the plant during normal or emergency operations. In addition, the review may identify positive features at each station that contribute to good operator performance and could be shared with other stations. The survey will include licensed personnel and non-licensed personnel in operator training, as well as a review of relevant operating history documentation.

This section of the work plan presents the activities for developing potential HEDs from a review of operating experience.

Biotechnology will have the lead responsibility for developing questionnaires and interviews, preparing and conducting training on the use of the questionnaire interview technique at each station,. administering the questionnaires and conducting the

(, interviews, and analyzing the data to document potential human factors problems. Duke will be responsible for the review of industry and plant incident reports, but Biotechnology will provide criteria for conducting this review. Sixteen activities are proposed and are designated 0-1 through 0-16. Each activity is described below. The entire effort is scheduled for l approximately a five-month period.

l 0-1 Assemble Item Pool for Operator Survey The purpose of this activity will be to assemble a pool of items which will be candidates for the questionnaire or interview survey of Duke operating personnel. The principal source of i items will be from:

l-l

e A BTI general item list e The BTI generic operator questions from the control room evaluation kit e .A list of topics generated by Duke as indicated in their plan dated July 9, 1982 e NUREG-0700 items (identified in (Activity P-6) o Potential HEDs from the operating history review (0-3) if available.

BTI will assemble and organize the items, separate them into candidates for questionnaires and : interviews, and prepare potential questionnaire items. Each item will be a question related to control room design, procedures, communications,

. training, and other factors which affect operator performance.

Duke will review the candidate questionnaire and interview items and provide feedback. Biotechnology will then prepare the final

() items.

This activity will begin immediately following the initial planning conference.

Products. Candidate questionnaire or interview items.

0-2 Develop Guidelines for Operating History Review The purpose of this activity is to provide guidelines for analyzing operating history incident reports for factors which may have a significant effect on human performance. BTI will develop the guidelines and coordinate with Duke.

The guidelines will be developed based on what can be

" practically" expected from LERs, station incident reports,

[

\ 11 (Revision 2)

and other industry-wide reports. Biotechnology will develop

.the guidelines based on the requirements for preparing LERs and station incident reports and other related studies such

^

as NUREG/CR-1928 which is a new method of coding and sorting LER data. Biotechnology will also prepare guidelines for summerizing and' formatting any information obtained from the review. The guidelines will.be coordinated with Duke for any comments and Biotechnology will prepare the final set of guidelines for use during the actual operating history review.

Products. Guidelines for reviewing and documenting the results of the operating history review.

O-3 Review Incident Reports and Other Operational Data This activity will be conducted by Duke using the guide-l lines developed in Activity 0-2. Potential HEDs will be listed and may be useful in Activity 0-1, assembling the item pool for

• the operator survey; and Activity T-7, selecting the final tasks for the written task analysis. All potential problems will be documented whether they are part of the CRDR or not.

Products.: Lists of potential HEDs for (1) compilation and L assessment, or (2) further investigation.

~

O-4 Develop Questionnaires The purpose of this activity is to develop a questionnaire suitable for eliciting critical incidents or.significant problems from operating personnel. The items will come from the pool developed in Activity 0-1. The questionnaire items will be restricted to those items which are meaningful to the operators j_ without any explanation and which generally have clear-cut choices for answers.

L

. 12 (Revision 1) i

c .

l I

() Biotechnology will take responsibility for developing the questionnaire and instructicns for ccmpletion. Questionnaire  !

items will be written in such a way that they will not be )

l threatening.to the individual or suggest that we are trying to collect information on his personal performance. Rather, the concept will be that this is an opportunity for him to convey 1 I

operating difficulties that impact the entire operational staff.

Further, potential solutions will also be encouraged.

l A cover sheet will be designed by Biotechnology to include basic demographic, e'ducation, experience, and other kinds of data useful for the date. analysis activity. Operators will be asked to provide their names to Biotechnology in order that further inquiries may be pursued, but the operators will be assured.that their responses will remain anomymous (if they prefer) to Duke management.

g

-()

q, Duke will review the draft questionnaire form and conduct an informal pilot test to determine (1) if questions are clear and meaningful; (2) that the survey can be completed in a reasonable amount of time. Biotechnology will then prepare the final reproducible copy of the questionnaire.

Products.- Questionnaire and cover letter for survey of-operator personnel.

0-5 Develop Interview Protocol Some operator experiences cannot be easily collected by questionnaire and these will be designated for collection by 7

interview. These items, identified in Activity 0-1, will be prepared by BTI for a loosely structured informal interview

, protocol. Also, the questionnaire design and analysis will be o

L .develol'ed in such a way that the results from the questionnaire I

13 (Revision 2) ,

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

r.

2l

• t

() analysis will identify key conaiderations or issues which should be discussed during the interview. Therefore, the interview items will not be completely developed during this activity but the in'c erview protocol can be established in order to prepare a training presentation for station personnel.

The interview is anticipated to require approximately one

. hour. A representative sampling of 50% of the operations staff at each station is planned in order to include a wide range of experience and perspectives.

In developing the interview protocol, BTI will specify the number of people and the time frame we expect to be on site to do the interviewing. Duke will be responsible for setting up specific personnel to interview on specific days. Also, as was the case with the questionnaire, individuals will not be specifically identified with specific comments if they choose

() to remain anonymous. BTI will, however, keep a record of the particular interviews so that critical or follow-up information may be requested if necessary. Finally, while the essential

, interview will be scheduled for one hour, interviewers will be prepared to interact ~with operational personnel as long as constructive interchange is occurring.

Products. General concept of the interview protocol and suggested schaduling for each station.

O-6 Prepare Training Presentation

-After the questionnaires, interview protocol, and review of incident reports have been completed,.a training presentation will be prepared by BTI to describe the objective and procedure for collecting data from plant operators. The training presen-tation will be prepared to orient the operating staffs at each 14

a .

I\ station as to the overall purpose of the data collection, V the preferred schedule, the technique to be used, facilities required, and any other special requirements. The final form of-the questionnaire and interview protocol, supplemented by vugraphs, will be the basis for the training presentation.

The-presentation will be prepared to take approximately 30-45 minutes. BTI will coordinate the presentation with Duke, but BTI will be responsible for the final preparation.

Products. A 30-45 minute briefing with vugraphs and handouts.

O-7 Conduct Training Presentation A training presentation will be conducted at each station to present and discuss the objectives and needs of the data collection activity. At the same time it is anticipated that l constraints affecting data collection at each station will be identified and discussed by the station management.

The training presentation will be presented during a station supervisor's meeting in order to reach the greatest number of ,

personnel without special arrangements. It is anticipated that the superintendent of operations, operating engineers, shift supervisors, and some assistant shift supervisors would normally be present at these meetings, and some 12 to 15 people could be

! briefed at the same time. It is also anticipated that, given i appropriate notice, these meetings could probably be scheduled on successive days at McGuire, Catawba, and Oconee (Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, respectively) and thus minimize travel and logistics.

On the same day the training presentation is conducted at each station the questionnaires will be delivered for internal 15

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

~

f i

Current plans are to provide a question-station distribution.

naire for every licensed member of the operating staff or those in license training. Thus, this would include the superintendent of operations, and all other licensed personnel including shift technical advisors and assistant nuclear control operators. In addition, nuclear equipment operators in training will also be provided questionnaires. Each questionnaire will have a pre-addressed and stamped envelope for returning the questionnaire to Biotechnology offices in Virginia. This will ensure respondents of anonymity. However, BTI will keep a confidential record of 4

'all those who have submitted questionnaires so pertinent issues can be' clarified, and we can " jog the memory" of those individuals i who have not submitted their questionnaire. ,

BTI will be responsible for conducting the training presentation at each station. Duke will be responsible for j ' making arrangements at each station. Any pertinent issues or

(} points that come up during the training presentation will be summarized by BTI and included in the methodology report (Activity 0-11) . It is anticipated that the training presen-tation will take from 30 to 45 minutes, although the team will be prepared to spend one-half day at each site.

Products. Operating experience review, training presentation at McGuire, Catawba, and Oconee stations.

O-8 Collect Questionnaire Data Questionnaires should be distributed to the operators as early as possible following the training presentation l= (Activity 0-7) . Since many of the supervisory personnel will be present during the training seminar, it is expected that distribution can be facilitated. As discussed in Activity 0-4, l

the design goal will be a questionnaire that takes approximately l

O 16 (Revision 1) glP=- -e'=- * - + y er-g 9 ,.,

vd-pyw7 eyw- smy-- ,--pyn_-...g-----g >a---se.-+----y y.- m ww- - - , ,-tv-cww-w--v'-e--ur+ - - + - - - ' - - - - ' ---

'N 4 to 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> to complete, thus hopefully not presenting too great a burden on operating personnel. However, in order to provide ,

adequate time for all personnel to respond to the questionnaires, a period of three weeks has been allocated for return of the questionnaires. After approximately two weeks, some gentle reminders will be put out to those personnel who have not responded. All questionnaires will be mailed and received at the Biotechnology office in Falls Church, Virginia. Duke will take responsibility for distribution of the questionnaire and encouragement of personnel to complete and return them. BTI will be responsible for collecting, logging, and assembling all returned questionnaires.

Products. Completed questionnaires to BTI.

0-9 Develop Questionnaire Analysis Procedure Development of the questionnaire data analysis procedure can begin as soon as the questionnaires have been developed (Activity O-4). Insofar as practical, BTI will develop a numerical analysis technique in order to statistically analyze questionnaire responses. At a minimum, questionnaire responses can be tabulated and reported in terms of such variables as frequency and importance of each item according to different operator and experience variables such as type of license, years of experience, and education. In any event, all questionnaire data will be compiled by BTI to facilitate both a statistical and practical analysis. During tl.e compilation each question-l naire will be reviewed for clarity and completeness, and where necessary, follow-up inquiries will be made by BTI to the individual completing the questionnaire.

\ / 17 (Revision 2)

h- Products. Procedure for analysis for questionnaire data in

[G a reliable and consistent manner.

O-10 Analyze Operator Questionnaire Data Utilizing the procedure developed in Activity 0-9, all data from the operating experience questionnaires will be analyzed by BTI to identify potential HEDs. Both the initial identification and the analysis of human factors problems will have been carefully coded to identify specific design features, procedures, or other factors specific to each unit in a manner consistent with the HED form. Where the problems represent a consistent concern and appear to have operationalssignificance, they will be carried forward for more detailed review. The compiled questionnaire data will be reviewed by Duke for practical significance.

l fg Products. Completed data from questionnaires to Duke; j k ,) potential HEDs.

O-11 Prepare Operating Experience Review Methodology Report BioTachnology will prepare a report describing fully ,

the approach, rationale, and all facets of the methodology for conducting operating experience reviews. This report can be started after the materials have been prepared for the training i presentations (Activity 0-6). It is anticipated that the methodology report will be continually updated and refined until all data have been collected and analyzed. The report will be in a form suitable for answering any questions the NRC or Duke management may pose concerning the operating experience review

, methodology for each unit. Duke will be expected to review and

! comment on the report, and the final methodology report will be l prepared by BTI.

l L x.'fl/ 18 (Revision 1) i

A . .

(A)_

Products. Methodology report suitable for inclusion in the final report.

O-12 Finalize Interview Format / Training The interview protocol developed in Activity 0-5 and the results from the questionnaire data analysis of Activity 0-10 l will be the basis for finalizing the interview format. BTI will prepare an interview format which will be used to prompt the interview to insure that all critical items are discussed with i the operator being interviewed. Critical items will be those that evolve from the questionnaire data, or were earlier judged I 1

to be inappropriate for questionnaires but significant and worthy'of discussion.

Those BTI personnel anticipated to actually conduct the interviews on station will be trained to insure interviewer reliability and to eliminate, as far as possible, any incon-s-

sistencies in the interviewing technique. Once the interview format is established, BTI will review the content with the Duke CRDR team to insure that a standard interview should take approximately one hour.

1 I I

l BTI will also recommend an interview schedule for all I three stations. Working with Duke personnel, the schedule will be developed on a realistic basis to obtain approximately 50% of the licensed operating personnel or those in training for a license. In general, three teams will be formed to conduct interviews at each of the three stations.

BTI will be responsible for the final interview materials and arrange to have interview teams at the stations as required.

19 (Revision 2)

J ,

Productg. Final interview format and trained interviewers; schedule fot conducting approximately 125 interviews at the three

, stations.

O-13 Conduct On-Site Interviews The work plan calls for interviewing approximately 50% of the candidate personnel to obtain a representative sample of all classifications of personnel. The classification and number of persons in each classification at each site has been estimated as indicated below.

N' umber of Operators Classification OS MC CN Operating Engineers 2 2 2 l Assistant Operating Engineers 2 2 0 ,

Shift Supervisors 3 3 3

()

i Assistant Shift Supervisors 8 8 8 L Nuclear Control Operators 10 12 12

! Assistant Nuclear Control Operators 10 8 8 l Nuclear Equipment Operators

• 4 4 4 Shift Technical Advisors 3 0 0 Simulator Instructors 3 2 0 Totals 45 + 41 + 39 = 125

• Nuclear Equipment Operators in R.O. License Class.

Duke will be responsible for selecting and notifying these personnel to be interviewed and arranging for their availability.

The general interview procedure will be for a team of two experienced BTI personnel to arrange to spend several consecutive days at each station. Some interviews would be conducted at '

O 20 (Revision 1) l ,

s

() the administration building and others would be conducted at the training center. Interviewers will use the pre-prepared interview format and layout drawings and photographs of the ,

control room in order to discuss items of concern with the i

' operators. Considering logistics factors, time to review the ,

interview notes, and the fact that some interviews may last longer than an hour, it is currently anticipated that each interviewer can conduct four interviews per day. Allowing for the inevitable unforeseen contingencies, it seems reasonable that all interviews can be completed at all stations during a four-week period.

Biotechnology personnel will also transcribe and summarize the interview data prior to analysis. As was the case with the. questionnaires, all potential problems will be coded as appropriate to record on the HED forms for later analysis and

' retrieval. Duke will be provided with the interview summary j

() data for review from a practical operational viewpoint. Once again, operator anonymity will be maintained, but Biotechnology >

will keep a master reference list in order to return to certain individuals for clarification or elaboration of critical comments.

Products. Completed interviews of up to 125 operating

+

personnel.

O-14 Develop Interview Data

( Analysis Procedure i

Development of the interview data analysis procedure can begin as soon as the interview format has been established (Activity 0-12). Numerical analyses will be more difficult to perform with interview data, and it is anticipated that the i

Lo l

21 (Revision 1) l

1 .

O primary technique will be a content analysis performed by BTI.

The content analysis can then be treated numerically in order to summarize key issues and again relate them to factors such as classification, experience level, and education. Interview data will also be related to previous or antecedent question-naire items to establish consistency, reliability, and validity, where practical. In any event, all interview data will be summarized by BTI to facilitate both a numerical and practical analysis. During the summarization each interview will be reviewed for clarity and completeness and, where necessary, follow-up inquiries will be made by BTI to the individual who was interviewed.

Products. Procedure for analysis of the interview data.

O-15 Analyze Operator Interview Data

() Utilizing the procedure developed in Activity 0-14, all data from the operating experience interviews will be analyzed by BTI to identify potential HEDs. Both the initial identifi-cation and the analysis of human factors problems will have been carefully coded to identify specific design features, procedures, or other factors specific to each unit in a manner consistent with the HED form. Where the problems represent a consistent concern and appear to have operational significance, they will be carried forward for more detailed review. The summarized interview data and the raw interview data will be reviewed by l Duke for practical significance.

1 Products. Potential HEDs.

I l

22 (Revision 1)

s.J. -

O-16 O' Document and Describe Human Factors Problems ,

The purpose of this activity will be to describe in detail

-potential HEDs which have been identified and analyzed to be practically significant. All HEDs will be systematically recorded on the standardized HED report form and coded for retrieval. It is expected that a final HED format will be mutually agreed upon by Duke and BTI early in the project. In any event, a prefilled HED form will result from this activity, and it will be compiled for further action in the assessment phase or become an input for further review during the control room survey (Activity S-5) .

Products. HEDs for (1) compilation and assessment, (2) further investigation, or (3) forwarding to the station management.

O-17 Prepare Final Report and ,

Continuing Support '

. Biotechnology will prepare a final report of the operating experience review effort. The report will incorporate (or reference) the methodology report prepared in Activity 0-11 and will present the results from the operating experience review effort. The report will be in a form suitable for answering questions that the NRC or Duke management may pose concerning I the operating experience review results for each unit.

Biotechnology is also prepared to provide continuing support

. as necessary to Duke in ongoing activities related to operating experience review. Our personnel would also be available to informally interact with the NRC Division of Human Factors Safety personnel to obtain their reaction to any activity in this area.

I Products. Final report of operating experience review effort.

23 (Revision 1) l

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

As =

I Task Analysis This section of the Work Plan describes the activities needed to develop a task analysis methodology and to a'pply this methodology to the analysis of operator performance in response

-to selected emergency and normal events.

The objective of a task analysis is to identify human engineering discrepancies (HEDs) that occur due to the task demands cus a control room operator. The overall approach to be

' employed will be to perform written task analyses using generic vendor emergency procedure guidelines as a basic input, modified and expanded as necessary to be specific to the units at McGuire, Catawba, and Oconee. For Oconee, ATOGs will be used as the

' basic. input to the task analysis of its units. For McGuire and Catawba, the Westinghouse ERGS will be used as the basic input. In addition, selected normal operating procedures will

() be analyzed. These unit-specific analyses will then be used as scenarios for walk-throughs on control board mockups to determine whether or not HEDs exist in each unit control room.

HEDs-that are identified during this process will be documented for subsequent assessment and possible correction. Selected tasks that-cannot be fully evaluated using a static mockup will be studied using the Oconee or McGuire simulators.

BTI will develop the task analysis methodology, train Duke personnel in its application, participate in the development "

of three pilot. tasks analyses used for Duke personnel training, participate in task analyses of the first two to three of the total number of emergency and normal events to be analyze (, and provide human factors assurance review and continuing support on the task analyses for the remainder of the operating sequences to be analyzed. BTI will develop principles for use by Duke in Q -

24 (Revision 2)

/ ' identifying HEDs during the walk-through of task analyses and will develop criteria for determining which operating sequence ,

tasks may require simulator study.

Duke will select vendor EPGs and normal operating sequences.

for task analysis, develop control room mockups, and perform the major effort in task analysis using the mockups, and when necessary, real-time. simulation.

Fourteen activities are planned and are designated as T-1 through T-14. They will start with the development of task analysis methodology by BTI in July 1982 and continue through, the delivery by BTI of a final report on 15 April 1983. Task analysis data collection will begin on 15 September 1982 and will be complete by 11 March 1983, a total period of six months..

T-1 Select Vendor EPGs for Analysis The purpose of this activity will be to select the vendor-developed EPGs around which task analysis will be developed.

Duke Power will select all or some of the EPGs based on criteria that it develops. BTI will review the candidate list of EPGs and provide feedback. Duke will then prepare the final list which will.be the basis for subsequent task analysis. This i

activity will begin the following initial planning conference.

Products. List of EPGs for task analysis.

. T-2 Develop Task Analysis Methodology The purpose of this activity is to develop the methodology, procedures, formats, controlled vocabulary, and other items to

-be used in conducting task analyses and in applf i ng it in the context of mockups and simulators. The following specific items will-be developed:

~

25 (Revision 2)

1 ,

) 1. A task analysis methodology

2. Task analysis procedures

' 3 .- Task analysis data collection formats

4. A controlled vocabulary for use in making entries in the task analysis format

5. Generic guideline principles for the identification of HEDs in task analysis

6. Criteria for the selection of tasks for crew walk-throughs and for real-time simulation of task performance

7. Approach for follow-up to the McGuire PDA audit.

Input to 1, 2, 3, and 4 above will come from NUREG-0700 and from work on task analysis methodology done by BTI under contract to NRC. Input for 5 and 6 will come from the human

-~ factors literature.and BTI experience in task. analysis using

\m/ . real-time Simulator validation. Input for 7 will come from Duke's documentation of the McGuire PDA audit.

BTI will have major responsibility for Items 1, 2, 3, 5, and

6. Duke will review these items. Duke will have responsibility l

for expanding on a controlled vocabulary already provided by BTI and for follow-up on the McGuire PDA audit, including any methodology or procedure that may be called for. BTI will have responsibility for preparing a document that includes the items listed above.

Products. A single document containing task analysis methodology and the items associated with its application.

l I

l- 26

.. _ ~ . _

T-3 Task Analysis Training Preparation The purpose of this activity is to prepare a training workshop for training Duke staff in task analysis. This activity will be the responsibility of BTI and will be derived from material developed in T-2.

Products. Products of this activity will consist of an outline of a one-week training workshop, vugraphs, handouts, and examples for use in the training workshop.

T-4 Conduct Task Analysis ,

Training Workshop r

The purpose of this activity is to provide training for up to ten Duke personnel in task analysis methods. The workshop will be based on material developed in T-3. BTI will assume responsibility for developing the training and providing

()

instructors and training materials for the workshop which is .

l expected to be a maximum of five working days. Duke will 1

provide classroom space, vugraph projector, 35mm carousel projector, blackboard, and electric power.

! Products. The product of this activity will be Duke personnel familiar with the purpose and application of task analysis methods, procedures, and forms.

T-5 Perform Pilot Task Analyses The purpose of this activity is to provide Duke personnel who have attended the Task Analysis Workshop with hands-on experience in performing task analyses. This experience will consist of three Duke teams developing task analysis data using the methodology developed in T-2 and generic task data already developed and supplied by Westinghouse. Each team will develop t

O 27 l

, .~ . _. , , ,

-.L * *

() a different task analysis.

developing the pilots but will assemble for comparing results Teams will work independently in and for resolving differences in the application of the method-ology. It is anticipated that the completed pilots may be -

useful as inputs to the subsequent task analysis to be done under T-8.

BTI will take the lead in supervising the development of the pilot task analyses and will participate in that process in order to provide assurance of adherence to procedures, completeness, and accuracy. The pilot will include preparation of written task-analysis documentation and its use in walk-throughs-on unit mockups. Duke will provide personnel for the three pilot task analyses.

Products. Three pilot task analysis documents and HEDs identified on mockups.

O V

'T-6 Prepare Task Analysis Methodology Report The purpose of this activity is to prepare a task analysis methodology report for guidance to Duke task analysis teams in performing task analysis in T-8. This report will be based in large part on the methodology developed in T-2 modified as a reruit of its use in the Training Workshop (T-4) and the performance of the pilot task analyses (T-5). BTI will be responsible for the preparation of the methodology report.

Duke will review it. BTI will prepare the report in final copy for subsequent use by Duke Task Analysis teams.

Products. Task Analysis Methodology Report.

lO l 28 (Revision 2) o

1 .

4

() T-7 ~ Selection of Other Operating Events The purpose of this activity is to select other operating events (non-EPG events) for task analysis in order to identify HEDs that affect operator performance under normal conditions such as plant start-up. Input to this activity will come from 0-3, 0-11, or 0-15 of the Operating Experience Review.

BTI will assume responsibility for recommending and preparing the list of events to be analyzed. Duke will review the BTI list, and a final selection will be made jointly.

Products. A list of operating events to be analyzed.

T-B Conduct Written Task Analyses and Evaluate Human Engineering Suitability on Unit Mockups

() This is the most important task analysis activity. Its purpose is to prepare written task analyses for all emergency and other operating events previously selected by Duke, to ,

evaluate tha human engineering suitability of components required for the performance of tasks in each event on unit specific mockups, and to identify and document HEDs resulting from this activity.

Duke will assume responsibility for planning and supervising the preparation of the written task analyses and the evaluation on mockups.. In doing so it will use Duke task analysts trained in T-4 for all events to be analyzed. BTI will provide one

' trained task analyst to each of the three Duke analysis teams l for~the first two task analyses to be done by each Duke team.

Duke will prepare final copies of all documentation.

I l

(~'s -

V 29 (Revision 2)

k l l

1

( } Products. The products of this activity will consist of l

fully documented task analyses, mockup evaluations, and HEDs for all events selected for analysis for three Duke stations.

T-9 Review Tasks for Simulator Studies certain tasks may be identified for simulator study.

These tasks include those which must be performed within a limited time period. Tasks such as these may require evaluation in a dynamic, real-time simulator. The purpose of this activity is to review all tasks analyzed in T-B to identify those that may

! require real-time simulator studies. This review and selection activity will use criteria for selection of tasks for real-time simulation developed in T-2.

BTI will have responsibility for the development of criteria

.to dettemine tasks to be studied. Duke will use this criteria to

() review the-task analysis developed in T-B to select those tasks requiring real-time simulation.

Products.- A list of tasks to be studied by real-tine simulation.

T-10 Develop Methodology for Task l Sequence Real-Time Studies 1

The purpose of this activity is to develop a method for studying.the performance of task-sequences in a real-time simu-lation of the sequence using a plant simulator. This activity  !

will entail real-time event simulation using operator crews.

Video recording may be employed as an aid in identifying task performance problems.

I 30 (Revision 2) l L

...,s ..,_..r_, . . . . _ - , _ , , _ _ - , . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . . - , _ . _ . , . , , _ _ . - _ _ . _ , , . . _ , - . . _ . . . , _ , _ , _ _ _ _ . , _ . _ _ _

I BTI will be responsible 1or the development of this

-methodology. Duke will review it. BTI will prepare a report describing the method and its application for use by Duke.

Products. Real-Time Task Study Methodology Report.

T-11 Conduct Real-Time Simulator Studies Training -

The purpose of this activity is for BTI to train Duke task

' analysis teams in the method developed in T-10 for real-time task simulator studies. It is anticipated that this training can be provided in a classroom and nimulator.. Training materials will include the methodology report developed in T-10.

BTI will provide training instructors and training materials.

Duke task analysis teams will be trained.

Products. Dake task analysis teams trained in real-time O~ _

simulation of task performance.

T-12 Conduct Simulator Studies fer Selected Event Sequences The purpose of this activity is to study task performance on event sequences selected in T-9 for real-time simulation.

Duke will be responsible for performing and documenting the results of the studies, with BTI participating in the initial studies.

Products. Documentation of real-time studies of task performance and of the identified HEDs.

31 (Revision 2)

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

4 i

O -

T-13 Prepare Final Report of Task Analysis Activities The purpose of this activity is to document the task analysis methodology employed, the rationale for its selection, the forms and other materials used for analysis by Duke, and a summary of the results of the task analysis. BTI will assume I responsibility for preparing this report in draft form for Duke review. Following Duke review, BTI will prepare the report ir. final form. The report will not include the written task l analyses nor the HEDs reculting from the mockup task performance evaluation and real-tism simulator studies of task performance.

The latter will be documented and repor,ted by Duke and will be reviewed by BTI. I Products. Final report of task analysis methodology and summary of task analysis results.

(/ T-14 Provide Human Factors Assurance Review and Continuing Support i

The purpose of this activity is to provide human factors assurance that the written task analyses, mockup verifications and real-time studies performed by Duke conform to the method-

, ology developed in T-2 and documented in T-6 and T-10, or that ,

\

l deviations from it conform to accepted human factors practices

in performing task analysis for the purpose of identifying human engineering design discrepancies.

BTI will perform this human factors assurance function by visiting Duke analysis teams and/or reviewing Duke task analysis documentation periodically throughout Activities T-S l .and T-12 or more often at Duke's request. Should BTI identify i

(AdT 32 (Revision 2) t

-- - - , - . . ,,--,,v-,,-----,-e, , . - a. , - - - .-,,.n , , , _ ...e. ,. nn,v.,-,n-. .-.,v.-nn-,n-,n,_,, , - , ~-m-m.w- ,n-,- -

i t

problems in documentation or .nethodology, it will bring these f l

to the attention of the Duke Control Review Team Leader. BTI j

will provide such other continuing support as may be requested

by Duke Power.

t Products. Human factors assurance review and continuing i support.

s i

e i

l l

! I i

i I

I 33 (Revision 2) l

1.

Control Room Survey This section of the work plan presents the approach for ,

performing the control room survey. The objective of the control room survey task is to determine the extent to which the characteristics and features of Duke Power control rooms are in accord with applicable human factors guidelines. The survey will include the control rooms at Oconee (3 units),

McGuire (2 units), and Catawba (2 units) nuclear stations, and will be based on the guidelines contained in NUREG-0700, Section 6. The task will be conducted as specially designed survey subtasks oriented to the' type of data to be collected and the most efficient and effective methods cf obtaining the data. STI will be responsible for assisting Duke in establishing survey categories for guidelines; developing methodologies for all survey categories; reviewing the guide-lines for development of Duke-specific survey checklists; O working with Duke to develop checklists of HF principles and other survey materials; and participating with Duke in pilot surveys of units at oconee and Catawba. In addition, BTI will provide a continuing human factors assurance review and human factors assistance as needed, and provide a report of the methodology used and the success achieved in satisfying survey objectives. Sixteen activities are designated for conducting the control room survey and are designated S-1 through S-10 and S-14 through S-19. The survey task will encompass a period of approximately 9 months. Each activity is elaborated on below.

S-2 Review 0700 Guidelines and Establish Survey Categories The purpose of this activity is to ensure that all applicable guidelines are assigned to appropriate responsibility categories,.and that survey team members understand the intent 34 (Revision 2)

_ _ -_ -- - - - . {

1 . . . . .

() and purpose of each guideline. This activity will focus on three points. First will be that the items contained in the survey checklists do not unnecessarily duplicate those more appropriately addressed by the operating experience re' view effort or the taak analysis effort. Second, the items contained in the survey checklists are consistent with the design and operating policies of the Duke nuclear power stations. Third, the items are assigned to specific survey categories based on the type of information and the means of collecting it. Duke will have lead responsibility for this task, with BTI assistance throughout. BTI will provide Duke survey team members *with training and indoctrination on specific 0700 guidelines, will work with Duke on identifying appropriate items for the survey checklists, and will assist in establishing categcry assignments for each survey item.

The products of this activity are the guidelines

() Products.

interpretation sessions with survey team members, and guidelines category recommendations to the CRRT for the following categories:

operator experience review (Task 0) , task analysis (Task T),

4 control room survey (Task S). In addition, guidelines which are interpreted as being not applicable to Dukt nuclear stations will be. collected in a separate category. After the CRRT finalizes the category assignments, the guidelines for which the survey l

task has responsibility will be further categorized for physica3 survey of the control room, engineering survey, and environmental

[ survey.

l S-2 Develop Physical Survey Methodology

!- The purpose of this activity is to develop the methods and l general procedures to be used for the conduct of the physical L survey of mockups and control rooms. This activity will be

, initiated when CRRT survey / guideline categorization is complete.

35 (Revision 2)

1 t

(i specific approaches and methods will be defined which are com-patible with other survey activities and review tasks, reflect the policies and overall approach established by Duke Power, and ,

which will optimize the conduct of the physical survey portion of the control room review. BTI will develop a recommended ,

1 methodology which will ha reviewed and finalized by Duke. The methodology will be further refined or modified, as appropriate, '

following completien of each pilot physical survey (S-5) .

Products. The products of this task will be a definition of the physical survey objectives, methods, and procedures to be used during the physical survey, requirements for physical survey materials development, and general requirements for physical survey team training.

S-3 Develop Modified Checklists and Materials for the Control Room Physical Survey O The purpose of this activity is to develop the specific >

materials to be used h;r the survey team for the conduct of the physical survey. Duke will initially define the format and content of the physical survey checklist and HED recording forms, based on the agreed-upon methodology (S-2) and the preferred Duke approach. BTI will review these preliminary definitions and provide recommendations for alternative and/or additional physical survey materials. As appropriate, materials will be briefly tested with the mockups. Final approval of

. physical survey materials is the responsibility of Duke. BTI will produce and assemble the materials in a form which will support the conduct of the physical surveys.

Products. The products of this activity will include a checklist which is specific to Duke physical control room survey needs and is based on accepted human factors engineering l 36 (Revision 2) j l

f A ,

principles and data. Other products will include the CRRT-specified forms and instructions for HED recording instructions, materials for photographing HEDs, and related typical reference materials. Also included are checklists and guideline's for scheduling and conduct of physical survey site visits. All materials will be refined and modified, as appropriate, at the completion of each pilot physical survey. Additional quantities needed to support completion of the physical survey (S-6) will be produced following these modifications.

S-4 Develop and Conduct Physical Survey Team Training .

The purpose of this activity is to provide all members of the physical survey team with a good understanding of the methods, materials, and procedures for performing physical control room surveys. All BTI and Duke personnel who are designated for physical survey participation will participate in the training sessions, to be held prior to the pilot physical surveys. BTI will prepare any special instructional and familiarization materials, and will provide familiarization training using actual survey materials and control room mockups.

One training session will be held for all survey teams, products. Trained survey team members.

O 37 (Revision 2)

.2 s

S-5 Conduct Pilot Survey of Units

}

The purpose of this activity is to perform a pilot physical survey of the two types of Duke Power control units. , Goals are to establish experienced Duke survey teams, test the physical s'urvey checklists and other materials, and identify control room HEDs. The objective of the BTI effort is to provide human factors professionals to assist Duke in conducting a survey of ,

two units using the checklist and procedures developed earlier (Activities S-2 and S-3).

i BTI human factors engineering personnel will participate in both pilot surveys (Oconee-1 and Catawba-1). Pilot surveys will be initiated on the appropriate control room mockup using the survey materials developed for this type of evaluation, and then be completed in the equivalent control room.

Products. Products of the pilot surveys will be identified

) HEDs and requirements for modification / refinement of physical survey methods and materials.

S-6 Conduct Physical Survey of Remaining Units The purpose of this activity is to identify HEDs in the control rooms of units not evaluated during the pilot surveys.

Following the conduct of the pilot tests and modifications of the. control room survey procedure and checklists, the remainder of the nnits at the three stations will be surveyed. As in the pilot surveys, the initial portion of the physical survey for each control room will be performed on the appropriate control room mockup, and completed in the actual control room. It is anticipated.that this activity will.be primarily conducted by the Duke review team, but BTI personnel are expecting to provide assistance on an as-needed basis in this activity.

f%

', ]

38 (Revision 1) v r - - - - - - - _ . ep------., - . ,

,y.,.y- - --gey, .e- e e- ---e- .-*--s .---w,- - - ---ii e* --w

() Products.

identified HEDs.

The products of this activity will be the S-7 Develop Engineering Survey Methodology The purpose of this activity is to establish the methods and general procedures to be used for the conduct of the engi-neering survey of the control rooms. This activity will be initiated when survey / guideline categorization (S-1) is complete, jointly with the development of the physical survey methodology (S-2). Specific approaches and methods will be defined which are compatible with other survey activities and review tasks, reflect the policies and overall approach established by Duke Power, and which will optimize the conduct of the engineering survey pcrtion of the control room review. BTI will develop a recommended methodology which will be reviewed and finalized by Duke.

The methodology will be further refined and modified,

) if necessary, as experience in the conduct of the engineering survey (S-10) dictates.

Products.- The products of this task will be a definition of the engineering survey objectives, methods, and procedures to be used during the engineering survey, requirements for l -engineering survey materials development, and requirements--

if any--for engineering survey team training.

O-39 ** * "

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

L -

S-8 Develop Engineering Survey Materials

(}

The purpose of this activity is to develop the specific materials to be used by the survey team for the conduc.t of the engineering survey. Duke will initially define the format and content of the engineering survey checklist, HED recording forms, and other materials, based on the agreed-upon methodology (S-7) and the preferred Duke approach. BTI will review these I preliminary definitions and provide recommendations for alter-native and/or additional engineering survey materials. Final approval and production of engineering survey materials is the responsibility of Duke.

Products. 'The products of this activity will include a Duke-specific checklist, similar to that used in the physical survey (S-3) , for items to be evaluated as part of the engineering

survey. Other products will include the CRRT-specified forms l and instructions for HED recording, instruments (e. g. , forms or

) standard memos) for obtaining engineering data from other sources, and related typical reference materials. All materials will be refined and modified, as appropriate, as survey experience dictates.

S-9 Develop and Conduct Engineering Survey Team Training The purpose of this activity is to provide all members of the engineering survey team with a good understanding of the methods, materials, and procedures for performing engineering control room surveys, if needed. All Duke personnel who are '

designated for engineering survey participation will participate in the training session, to be held prior to initiation of the physical surveys. BTI will prepare any special instructional and familiarization materials, and will provide familiarization training using actual survey materials. It is possible that, O 40 (Revision 2)

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

-d . .

() since the engineering survey team members will be participating in establishing methodology (5-7) and developing materials (S-8), and may also be part of the physical survey team, special

~

l' training may not be required. If it is deemed necessary, however, it will be conducted in coordination with the physical survey team training activity (S-4) .

Products. Trained survey team members.

S-10 Conduct Engineering Survey of All Units The purpose of this activity is to identify HEDs based on engineering factors in each of the seven Duke control rooms.

This activity will be performed by Duke personnel. BTI personnel will provide assistance on an as-needed basis.

Products. The products of this effort will be identified HEDs and supporting engineering data and specifications.

S-14 Develop Environmental Survey Methodology The purpose of this activity is to develop the methods and gengral procedures to be used for the conduct of the environmental survey of the control rooms. This activity will be initiated when survey / guideline categorization is complete, jointly with the development of physical survey methodology (S-2). Specific approaches and methods will be defined which are compatible with other survey activities and review tasks, reflect the policies and overall approach established by Duke Power, and which will optimize the conduct of the environmental survey portion of the control room review. Duke will develop a recommended methodology which is compatible with environmental seasures already completed. This will be reviewed by BTI, and

(

41 (Revision 2)

s. .

() comments and recommendations will be provided, to be finalized by Duke.

The methodology will be further refined or modified, if necessary, as experience in the conduct of the environmental survey dictates.

Products. The products of this task will be a definition of the environmental survey objectives, methods, and procedures to be used during the environmental survey and requirements for environmental survey materials development.

S-15 Develop Environmental Survey Materials The purpose of this activity is to develop the specific materials to be used by the survey team for the conduct of the environmental survey. Duke will initially define the format and content of the environmental survey checklist and HED recording forms, based on the agreed-upon methodology (S-14) and the

() preferred Duke approach. BTI will review these preliminary definitions and provide recommendations for alternative and/or additional environmental survey materials. Final approval and aroduction of environmental survey materials is the responsi-h.'lity of Duke.

Products. The products of this activity will include a Duke-specific checklist, similar to that used in the physical survey, for items to be evaluated as part of the environmental survey. Other products will include the CRRT-specified forms and instructions for HED recording, instructions and materials for obtaining environmental measures and data, and related typical reference materials.

- Also included are checklists and guidelines for scheduling and conduct of environmental survey site visits.

All materials will be refined and modified, as appropriate, as survey experience dictates.

O 42 (Revision 2) l .. _.

4 A -

S-16 Conduct Environmental Survey O- of All Units The purpose of this activity is to document environmental data and identify HEDs based on environmental factors in each of the s6ven Duke control rooms. This activity will be performed by Duke or other contract personnel. BTI personnel will provide

, assistance on an as-needed basis.

Products. The products of this effort will be identified HEDs and supporting environmental data and specifications.

S-17 Provide Human Factors Assurance f Review and Continuing Support The purpose of this activity is to provide assurance that all aspects of the control room survey effort are being

?

performed in accordance with accepted human factors criteria >

and standards. Throughout the control room survey efforts, BTI

() will provide human factors assurance for all of the activities.

In particular, we anticipate sufficient interaction with the Duke control room survey teams even though the primary respon-i sibility for conducting the survey will be held by Duke. While assisting Duke in conducting the two pilot surveys, BTI staff members will independently note any BEDS they detect and determine whether such HEDs are also identified by the Duke i survey team using the approved methods and materials. This BTI activity will be secondary to their primary function of assisting and advising the Duke survey team. It is also planned that BTI human factors professionals will review HEDs from the

! control room survey efforts to determine if they are clearly j and adequately described with respect to the potential for human l

performance degradation or error.

l l

O 43 (Revision 2) l.

2 . .

() Biotechnology is also prepared to provide continuing support as necessary to Duke in ongoing activities related to  !

the control room survey. Our personnel would also be available to informally interact with the NRC Division of Human Factors Safety personnel to obtain their reaction to any activity in i this area.

Products. The products of this activity are the HEDs and other survey results which are generated during the physical, engineering, and environmental control room surveys, reviewed by human factors specialists for acceptability.

5-18 Prepare Survey Methodology Report

.The purpose of this activity is to provide the management of-Duke Power with a report on the adequacy of the control room survey methodology. BTI wall prepare a report describing fully the approach and rationale for the control room survey. The s_/ report will document the development of the Duke-specific checklists, the procedures for conducting the surveys, and the results and justification for the conclusions reached. The report will be in a form suitable for answering questions that the NRC or Duke management may pose concerning the control room survey for each unit. The report will be prepared initially based on the methodologies established in Activities S-2, S-7, and S-14, and supplemented or modified as each of the subsequent survey activities is completed. When all planned survey

-activities have been completed, the working methodology report will be prepared as a draft report for the control room review team and steering committee review. Following this review, and any needed discussions to clarify disagreements or unclear items,

-the report will be prepared in final form and submitted to Duke.

( ~

44 (Revision 2)

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

6 Products. Survey Methodology Report.

S-19 Prephre Summary Fina) Report The purpose of this activity is to document the findings of the control room survey effort. Preparation of the report will be a Duke survey team responsibility, but BTI personnel will be available to assist on an as-needed basis.

Products. Survey Final Report.

O 1

t L

i 1

45 l

[} SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES This part of the work plan presents a schedule of the activities proposed for accomplishing the four efforts'of the project:

o Planning and coordination e Operating experience review e Task analysis e Control room survey.

The chart which follows indicates calendar months and the dates of every Friday of that month; thus, an'y activity scheduled for completion during any week would be expected to be completed and delivered by hand, mail, or express on that Friday. Specific delivery dates or other commitments for specific days of the week will be documented separately in project memoranda.

A separate chart is included to indicate the travel related to project activities and schedule dates. A third chart is included in this section to summarize the schedule of activities, i

l 46

i SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES

=u AeWe. m yse, 38'W A'e' 8'8L 8't 8- 8**- J'E 88h- Reptib

! no. so.e see, 3e 98 23 38 8 13 M 23 318 iF M 1 8 ft 22 2e 81218 M 3 le 97 M St F M 28 M 4 1198 M 4 Il 98 M t 8 se it M g 33 M gr 33g gy y i

l '

P. I Conduct Planneg Conferente =

P. 2 Propese Wert Plan -

P. 3 Propers Treming Sauniner l P4 Present NF Tressing Sennner = '

,  % P. 5 demonin Centeneed Pregoct Plann=g and Ceardmotion ....... ...... ........ ...... ........

P- 0 EsteMim 0758 Godsimen/ Review Ceesgeries ........ ....... ...... ,.......,...... ,......

i - ... ...

0- 1 AssemMe lesm Peeller Operster L ,

02 Dowley Goidelness for Operating Hestery R7viser ==

0- 3 Revious facidene Reports and G Aer Operosional Date ..< .-

l 0- 4 Develes Questionnaires 2

l 0- 5 0- 8 Desseep laservious Proseced Propero Tronome Preisneesion D- F Conduct Treinmg Presenttien on $4seien = =

0O CeNect Ouestiennene Dete O9 Develep osesteennene Analysis Procedure ... .....

- 0-10 Anefyse Operecer Desse ennaire Date ****

0-Il Prepare Opersteng E operience Review U i ... Report 0 12 Fmalise laterview Formet/Treining

,, 0-13 Condert Onsite Inweviews 0 14 Develop Intervow Dese Analysis Procedure

-! 0-15 Anadyre Interviser Does O 18 Document end Describe NF PreWees 0-17 Propere Finsi nopert end Cenemong Support 6 I- 1 Solet NSSS Vender EPGs far Anelyses .. ...... ...

. T. 2 Develop Ted Analyes Meeedology A T- 3 Piepare Tromme workshop .--

J T. 4 Conduct Ted Analysis Troining -

T5 PWrform Pilot Tset Anelyes Ier EPGs -

1 T8 Propero Ted Anefysis Methodelegy floport i T. 7 Select ether operating E vents _.... ........ ....

T8 Conduce Writtoa Ted Anasyes Moctop Verification I

1 T9 Review Ted:ler leoed to Vehdoes .,,,.

T 19 Develop Meeed for Saneister Val dstion T.Il Conduct AMe enal Twk Analves f romweg """*

T 12 Vesidow Selected Events in Sanvister """*

]I T 13 Propero Feel flopert _

i T 34 hovede Homen Facters Amorrence Revisse & Centmeeg Seppert ........ ....... ........ ........ ....... ......

5I Review 0700 Gendelmes and E stablesh L , Cesegeries S- 2 Dewisp Physcal Serwy Meshedesegy _

53 Dowley Physcal Seewy Cheent sts arid Moserials _

1 S4 Dewtop and Conduct Physical Serwy Team Training S- 5 Conduct Friet Physical Serwy of 2 Units

, [ S- S Conduct Physicai serwy el Remomme Units J S- 7 Devedep Enyneering Sarwy Memedelegy ...

a g 5- O Dowley Enyneering Servey Meterises ...,

J ,j S9 Develop and Conduct Enemomme Serwy Toern Training _.

] $ 10 Conduct Engineering Serwy el AN Units .... . . . . . . . . , . . . . , . . . . ...... .....

l 5 14 5-15 Develop EprironmentalServey Develop Envirenmenal Sawy Meier .-- ,ses .

S IE Condwet tavironmentel Serwy et All Units ...... ........ ...... -...... .....=..

$ 17 Provide Homen F etter: Aservance Review and Centmeng SoPrert .. ......-................ ....- -.- - . . ~ -.

5 II Propere Sarwy Metodelegy Report j S-19 Prepare Servey Finst Repert .*-...... -

7

' l 4

l Revision 2 a

- + __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-- - .__ _ _ _ _ _

, g PROJEC'IED PROJECT TEAVEL Activity # Date # Trips # Persons $_ Days /Nichts P-1 7/12-14/82 1 3 P-5 3/2 7/19-20/82 1 1 2/1 P-S Throughout 5 l' 2/1 P-4 7/26-28/82 1 0-4,5 3 3/3 8/4-5/82 1 2 2/2 0-7 8/16-20/82 1 0-10 2 4/4 9/27-29/82 1 2 3/2 0-13A 10/4-8/82 1 0-13B 2 5/5 10/11-15/82 1 2 5/5 0-13C 10/18-22/82 1 0-13D 2 5/5 10/18-22/82 1 2 5/5 0-13E 10/24-28/82 1 0-15,16 2 5/5 11/16-18/82 1  ; 2 3/2 0-17 12/15-16/82 1 1 T-4 2/2 8/29-31/82 1 2 3/3 T-5 9/7-10/82 1 T-6 4 4/3 9/29-30/82 1 2 2/2 T-8 9/13-15/82 1 1 3/3 T-8 9/13-17/82 1 4 5/5 T-8 9/19-20/82 1 1 2/2

. T-8 9/19-23/82 1 4 5/5 T-9 2/15-16/82 1 2 2/2 s T-11 3/7-8/83 1 3 2/2 T-12 3/14-17/83 1 T-12 2 4/4 3/14-17/93 1 1 4/4 T-14 11&l2/82,1/83 3 1 2/2 T-14 11&l2/82,1/83 3 1 5-1,2 3/3 8/2-4/82 1 1 3/2 S-2,7,11,14 8/16-17/82 1 2 2/1 S- 3 ,8 9/7-8/82 1 1 2/1 S-3,8,12,15 9/20-22/82 1 2 3/2 S-3,8,12,15 10/11-14/82 1 2 3/2 5-3,13,16 11/1-2/82 1 2 2/1 S-4 11/8-10/82 1 2 S-5 3/2 11/15-19/82 1 2 5/5 S-5 11/22-12/3/82 1 1 10/10 S-5 1/3-7/83 1 2 5/5 S-5 1/10-22/83 1 1 S-6,10,13,16,17 10/10 2/22-24/83 1 1 3/2 S-6,10,13,16,17 3/7-9/83 1 1 3/2 S-6,10,13,16,17 3/21-23/83 1 1 3/2 5-6,10,13,16,17 4/4-6/83 1 1 3/2 S-17 4/25-28/83 1 2 4/3 NOTE: This table has not been kept up-to-date.

A k )

%/ 48 (Revision 1) l

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

y.

1

.I a

e

.i I l

a  :  :

a s

l

I  :  !  :

J Z "l !

,  : I  !

alll(  !  ;

J 4 i i l Q.  : I  :  :-

5  : l  :

M E

Q g

,i e

.i i

'il E B i

B l

gg

! lu i i i ' ' I r  : I i g <  : s I Q

4 lE E l  !

E \

Om O '

2 g ,

E e =

O o O

@ C gc >

a 0 kE gE .E e

,o 5*k5o' $.cE9 $5E

• '5 9 k E

*;5 O 3 E%m 3 "e>*s-o

- . e '8 m -y .w ';= ot

> 4 <t b

p c =

.c '!E 9 chc .9 .5 -eg

,e e E E. Ii

,e E E .,9 a gs] egge 2 ct E > > e& 2 E E m$ e&

E = u.

n. = u o w oo = .g w o sessss<

<<<<< eeeee ueuou E

E c LD

. N LD . *-

M b E

E

.O v N NdNd

• g w e" CD 42 N 4 W N CD... N v CD w

• OM N . h. CDO". -d N CD LD -

E N nd EN E N 4D f%' dd E N v' d voiwuesuooo =asy musume=3 meApeuw Amnes pue Sueuvey Su'u'*80 48e1 woog toJwo3 49

.a -

/~

(g] PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING The BTI project will be under the active management of ,

Harold E. (Smoke) Price, Executive Vice President of BTI and Director of the Division of Human Factors and Training.

Mr. Price will actively participate in all the project efforts as well as be the point-of-contact for coordinating BTI participation. In addition to Mr. Price, team leaders for the three principal efforts have been identified as follows:

e Operating Experience Review--H.E. (Smoke) Price e Task Analysis--H.P. Van Cott ,

e Control Room Survey--G.R. Hatterick.

Other members of the BTI staff will be used under the direction i

of the above personnel. A staffing chart follows indicating the estimated level of effort by category for each activity

~' discussed in the proposal.

! Following the chart are brief biogruphical summaries of BTI personnel and consultant personnel with experience in human factors and nuclear power plant operations and safety who may participate in the project.

()N

\

50 (Revision 1)

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

i y

SiOTECHigDLOG7 STAFFNgG CHART i'

p

~ resennet Ceargerisiand Boys I Amer- Assier fees E sos. Somer gener gemer j

pg g,,g Sesfl

,q hog s,on.or hei. ,, RA W  % Toeses

P1 Conduct rienning Censerene __ 7 s - - -

P. 2 Prepare Wert Plan __ e -

1 - j '

to~ ,

P3 Propere freining sendner

, 3 t<

1 P. 4 Present NF Tresning Seminer J i a 1 - -

a s'l

, y g a g - - - g a P. $ Rientem Ceneinsed Preiset Planning and Ceardmeilen 73 4 - - - - - ei 0- 1 Assentse seem Poes for opreser Server 4 3 '"

0- 2 Develop Go dssess for Deereeing Hestery Reviser "~h 1 L 1 e -

7 0- 3 Revie= lac. dent Reports and Cther Operesional Does t - 1 - 1 1 - -

04 Devesop osestennoire

- - - 1

_s 4 s _a A l

el 0- 0 0- 5 Deustsp latervie= Procesel Propero Treming Pressatstion lL t t -

_t i e

et is 3 ,

1 1 -

1 s 1 0- F

a. '

i

' Conduct Treimne Prsuomeseen en Seelen ji s - - - - -

e.

O- O Collect Gooseiennaire Does -

1 -

t t - at 0- 3 Develop Ouestiennese Analysis Pteesdure 1 1; t 1 -

= 0-19 Analyss Operecer Does Ovessiennene t er 3 -

3  ; ; to 0 Il Propere Operating Esperiense Rosieur IAsthodology Heyert 0-12 Finesise Interview Formes /Treming

i a- i  ; L .s e. A n --

j 0-13 Conduct On sies Interviesse 1 .

t h n r j 0 14 Develep lacervem Dees Anafysle hsesdese ie a ai 1 F 1 e t en 1 . ; e - -

0 15 Analyse Isreerven Does s. _

h _s 4

! - 0-Is secoment and Descrite MF hettues <

1 a t 1ao 0-17 Propero Finsi flopert and Continuing Support 2 4 3 1 g a s  ; t i a 4 x ni-i T. I 5essee NSSS Vender EPGs for Analyse 1 - - - - - - - 1 j gp T. 2 Deveesp Task Anssysis Methodelegy j S E <

5 1 4 1 2'I 4 p T3 Prepare Training Wertshop .1 - -

1 1 -

11 T4 Conduct Tosh Analysis Training e 4 - -

T5 e , - -

2 l Porterm Puot Tash Ans8voie for EPGs 8 8 M S i T. 8 Propero Test Anosysie "_ r ^ _., Report :6 A E

' T. F 5eiert Other Opereeiig Evente E 3 1 to 1 - - - - - - -

g TO Conduct Written Tash Analysie IIechap Verificselos s s s !r 5 1

l T. 9 Reviour Teske for fleed es vesidsee a s -

C T.It Develop meded for Swnuester Vehdeelen

- - - - - 1 T.II 3 5 - - - - - to

( Conduct Addreiense Task Anseysis Training T 12 vdideos Seescud Evenein Sinndeeien

; 2, o - -

t t t ar s

4 -

4 - - - te.

T 13 Propero Final Report s

. . - - B 1 1 1 tot T.I4 Prov.de Homen Facters Asseuses Revisse & CenelmoingIsoport I i h - - - -

1 - 11.

1 5I Reve= stos os.demm end f aew.sh : , Cee geries - a, - -

r 52 Devotes Physicel servey "_:^ _ _^_ ...

1 - <ri i - m 3 - >t I e - -

5 u

j 53 Develop Physical 5eney Chertlises and Moserisse -

'r 3 3 .' 3 16 M  %

l S. 4 Devese, and Conduct Physical Servey Team Treining 1 4 1 - J - - -

i 5- s Conduct Pises Physicas Servey et 2 Unies s s 11 -

la - - -

NF_.

58 Conduct Physical Seney of leemonas Unite 1 5 1 - 2 - - - 11 e 5- 7 Deveisp Enyneerine s erwy _r ___ ,, -

1 4 - - - 1 - d -

j j 5- 0 Deiste, En9m' eering Servey Meterials - 1 2 - - t A t I l i

1 j 5- 9 5 10 5-11 Develop one Conduct Engineering Servey Tease Training Conduct Enyneering Seney of AN Unies Devolep Operateens Adminiseresion 5ervey ". ^ _ _^ _ .,

1 1

1 -

1 1

1 5-12 Develop Operations Ade:siserosion Seney Weserises 1

, 5-13 Conduct Operetiens Admn=eeresien bevey of AN Unies

- - - - 1 1 1 81 _

J 5-14 Develop Environmeness Seney Methodelegy 1 - -

1 _- 1 - 4

)

i S IS Develop En wommentalSerwy Neterials 5-18 Conduct Environmentslsener el AN Units 1 - -

1 1 e t 4

! 5 IF Provide Mesnan Factert Asserence Review and Continuing Support 1 1 5-18 Prepare Serwy _- _ _ _ ,, Report 4_ _1 1 -_ - - _11, ,.

_& _ 7 5_ -

+ 4 (, 2 .30 5 19 Propene Servey Fines Report g g,-

g _ ,,,, _ ,

yetats j NOTE: This chart has not been updated since the original plan.

1 i

pg I

PERS@NNEL EXPERIENCED IN NUCLEAR POWER PLANT HUMAN FACTORS HFE muett As t xpt nessect

INDfvIDUAL/ OfSCW'LINE/ EMPE RIENCE CONTROL STAFFI80G & HFL 1 TetsCATE00RY POSITIO80 OPERATI800 SPECIALTY (VEARSI MooM MEvetsv5 TASK A88ALYStS C#ttEntA I

PnocEcumes l Esseneses Ptefessenal H.E. (Smotiel Prese Mession Factors Enemeer 25

• J j J Y Y Y Essentsee Esperensenes Proesudesef H.P. Van Coet, Pli.D. 7., f ..-

25

• J J l 4

Eseemstee Y Y T Inducenal i

Processense TJ. Punt Enynsoreig 25

• J ./ j Y Y Y sneet Mesmen Facters l

Pretendenet O.R. Hectoriset Enyneer 25* J Y

JY geeft Esportsnentet Processiones R.F. Peise. PInD. Peveficeerst 28 j j y Y 3esef Ediscoe6enet Proteselenal R.Pastone,Ple.O. 7 J _ _ . .- 25* J Y

Sr. 7. y - Opoeotiesse 3 Profooneemt B. Perusseere Anafyme 12 J J J Y Y Y 1 3r. .ysse Electronies l Proteamenal J.S. Sanders Esiysieorisig 19 J Y

l

$ Sr.7,y en Prefese ense Enynamnne

?., ? - .'et g j J J j

{ M.G.Sinhen.Ple.D. Y Y Y Y Sr. Preyone protese enal M.B. Geessen 8adweens8 7.1 " f ." ^ 9 J

Y JY J Y

8' **F'"'

Pre' ss.si.e.a. O.F. Terter Enysie.r 19 Ptey one Eoperinsesstel f

Prosessionsi C.R. Seeyer, PhD. ".,f"_.'., 5 j y

• O

,,, J. P. Beneerte gg 19 i t,~,ez >. - 2.':;; u 4 4 4 4 R.E.theleues h,'y S 7.8. Mafene, Pli.D. 29 E hW) _

l Q Proteselensfl freopene Pretomiesiell J.S. Kidd. Ph.D. 25*

p. k".Y

, ' -. i . '

O IPropen PWeleacionell J.H. HIII 25*

f f f

,,,',",,'I -

g C.O. Seusessieuse. Ph.D. 2S+

i f

i 4

a

l e

G l

l Duke Power Company i

l l

McGuire Nuclear Station Units 1 & 2 Control Room Review Supplement to Final Report t

k 1

s

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

t

.l 4

' 1 t '

\

I i

~

Table of Contents I I

! Section - Page 1 r i

1 1 .

1.0 Introduction 1 I

2.0 Sununary of Plant-specific Review Phase 1 J

Activities f I. G

}. 3.0 Sunntary of Assessment Activities 3 c 4.0 Implementation Schedule 6 l

-1 Appendix:

l j - A. Surface Enhancement Solution HEDs

=

' B. ~ Physical Change Solution HEDs i

i

, C. HEDs Not Corrected D. Implementation Priority Schedule i

+ +

l b

f s

t Y

I i.

,~

I

{.

t t

[~  !

. 1 r

l t ++ vv.w wenwr+. w ig.-im.ww w- -++- we.-.w.., ..+w-e-+=w,w-w-..-_.n-..m-s--,--,--+.---+---r--.-eew~---,e*----e--

Foreword The Final Report of the Duke Power Control Room Review together with this companion Supplement for McGuire Units 1 & 2 constitutes the complete "Susanary Report" as required by Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737.

i l

, , , _ . . _ _ _ _ - - = = = ~ - - - - - " - * ^ ~ ~ ' '-

1

/'~'y 1.0 Introduction

'^'

This Supplement to the Duke Power Control Room Review - Final Report describes the Assessment Phase results for the review of McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. It also describes cer-tain plant-specific items from the Review Phase of the McGuire review and presents an implementation priority schedule for HED solutions.

2.0 Summary of Plant-specific Review Phase Activities -

2.1 Control Room Survey The Control Room Survey was conducted in accordance with the Control Room Survey Methodology described in the Final Report. The Survey included the main con-trol boards and other ancillary operating panels in the Control Room, and the operating panels in the Auxiliary Shutdown Area In addition, an environmen-tal survey of both areas was performed.

2.2 Task Analysis The Task Analysis for McGuire was conducted in accord-ance with the Task Analysis Methodology as described

,-~ in the Final Report. The emergency procedures portion (s) s- /

of the Task Analysis covered all Westinghouse Emergency Response Guidelines (ERGS) listed in Table 2-1. The normal procedures portion of the Task Analysis was plant-specific..

As described in the Final Report, the normal procedures covered were selected from the results of the Operating Experience Review (OER) for McGuire, and from the ex-perience of operators on the Task Analysis Team.

Due to the specific component-related nature of many OER comments, two classes of normal operating sequences were established for Task Analysis (1) sequences which required the generation of task descriptive data to perform a valk through evaluation and (2) component-related items and other sequences for which a walk-through evaluation could be performed without the gen-eration of task descriptive data. Table 2-2 lists the normal sequences selected for Task Analysis.

In addition to these sequences, a review of the annun-ciator alarm and status light panels was also conducted.

This review was performed by reviewing the tasks gener-ally performed at each major operator work station and comparing the alarm and status indication requirements O

r_/

_ - . . - - _ _.. _ . .. . ._ _ __ e 2 l 1

s i to the existing indication. Working definitions of

); what should constitute an annunciator alarm' or sta- ,

tus panel indication were developed to aid in this

. review. These definitions are shown in Tables 2-3 and 2-4.- The Task Analysis HED Principles (contain-

- ed in the Final Report) were used with these defin-

[

itions to identify possible HEDs in the following areas:

?

o Location of indication o Arrangement within panels >

I* o Classification of indication as alarm -

or status o Redundant indicatica

. o Use of. abbreviations and' message con-i tent-i o Readibility i 2.3 Operating Experience Review (OER) l The OER was conducted by Biotechnology in accot lance with the methodology described in the Final Report.

. In' addition to specific areas concerning control board and Control Room design and arrangement, the interviews

- and questionnaires also covered the use of procedures, training, station staffing, and general station opera-

_ i tion, among other areas. _ OER comments in areas beyond the scope of the Control Room Review were documented  ;

- and transmitted to the attention of_ station management.

The Review Team requested station management to review  ;

these comments and initiate' appropriate action if re-quired. .

I 2.4 U nit 1/ Unit 2 Difference Evaluation The -McGuire Control Room is a two unit Control Room containing the main control boards for both Units 1 p and 2 in a " horseshoe" arrangement. The same type

[ - of components are used on each control board, and '

I _the arrangement of the system controls is essentially identical.

- Because of the similarity between the Unit 1 and Unic 2 control boards, the task analysis

~

and control room survey activities were conducted for Unit 1. HEDs identified during these review ,

activities also applied to Unit 2 unless y - ve- ,-e+r e e- e n---ww.e==&--e v r= e =e-+-swv**- ee- cr--w--e- e v e-- v- ~ m e m ew e en-- 4e --- - w s e '** -n e **=rw --e ce-e-mm+- e4*--e-e------'-e-*-*--m-" - - -

. 3 I a specific difference in the units existed. A compon-g'"4g

( _,/ ' ent by component comparison of the units was performed to identify any existing differences. Where differences were identified, a Survey or Task Analysis evaluation, as appropriate, was conducted to identify any specific i HEDs .for Unit 2.

' 3.0 ' Summary of Assessment Activities -

3.1' Overview _

The objectives of the Assessment Phase of the Control

. Room- Review -for McGuire were to:

o ' Determine the importance of each HED to plant operation L .

o Develop feasible solutions and estimate

-wolution costs o Select cost-effective improvements to the 3- Control Room- ,

Significance Evaluation

- Of prime importance in the Assessment Phase was the task T of establishing the significance of an HED as it relates ,

(s_ / to the performance of the intended operating task. The significance evaluation considered a combination of ;ac--

tors including the 5 -tential fer operator error, the potential for error detection and recovery, and the con-sequence of the error to plant operation and safety.

This process established a relative significance for an HED. It was recognized early that not all HEDs would

.. . require this formal significance evaluation and a selec-tive screening process was developed.

KEDs were reviewed to determine the following:

1) Is the HED a. deficiency?

' 2) Due to its unique nature, does the HED require individual study and assessment? ,

i

' 3) Can the HED be resolved with surface enhancements?

q:c . 4)L Should the .HED be resolved to maintain consistency with' control rv 4 sonventions

'or standards?

. 5) Is the HED part of a .arsi guaric n/N: HED or a duplicate fre.m anotu(v review

( ) effort?

J T' www-- g-w+-r s row w-> g +-w gy--3--em-*ww-Vg' Jw'ye- y ----yy, yy + wgg ay ye+y s%v,---w-w-y=w% g w yy y--ma-- v +e-w--e- T=-y

{

r 4

? 6) Is the HED deficiency so minor that i no physical change is needed and the

• only action required is to establish operator awareness through training?

7) Is the HED in the process of resolu-tion with an existing design change?

All HEDs not initially categorized in tne screening 7 activity were processed through the significance

? evaluation activity. The final disposition of signi-ficance evaluation of an HED was based primarily on the judgement of the Assessment Team composed of

, three Senior Reactor Operators, three Mechanical /

! Nuclear Engineers, two Electrical Engineers, and one The process was system-Human Factors Specialist.

atically applied through the use of work place pro-cedures, and standard evaluation forms.

{ Solution Development HEDs determined to be deficiencies were selected for resolution through physical control room modifications, surface enhancements to control boards, recommenda-

[ tions for procedure revisions, or additional training as appropriate. Three solution teams, each consisting of one operator and one engineer, were assisted by r engineers from Design Engineering and Human Factors

Specialists from Biotechnology in developing integrated E solutions on a control board basis. For each control board, all HE" solutions (both physical changes and i surface enhancements) were reviewed to assure that no E additional human factors deficiencies were created while solving HEDs, and to assess the impact of these corrections on operating crew effectiveness and system safety.

I HED solutions were evaluated for the feasibility of implementation by examining the as-built status of the K Guire Control Boards for any physical restraints of 1 installation, and by discussing proposed solutions with r

systems engineering personnel in the Electrical and Mechanical Divisions of Design Engineering. Proposed solutions were cost estimated by a standard menu of

? cost estimata information developed by the Review Team E

with assistance from McGuire Construction Department personnel. HEDs with more complex solutions, such as the installation of new equipment or modification of existing equipment to provide signal sources, the pro-k cessing of new signals, and cabling necessary to pro-L- vide those signals to the control room, were separately cost estimated on an individual basis with assistance k

b l-i- _ .. ..

. 5 g . from Electrical and Mechanical Division personnel

_g-w)

( from Design Engineering.

Selection of Cost-effective Improvements

?. ratio of HED significance to solution. cost was cal-culated for HEDs with an assigned significance. This ratio, similar to a benefit / cost evaluation, provided a relative ranking of HEDs from most cost-effective to least cost-effective. The Review Team reviewed the range of this _ ratio as an aid in determining which solutions represented cost-effective improvements to the Control Room.

HEDs without assigned significance, such as HEDs with surface enhancement solutions or HEDs with solutions required to maintain Control Room conventions, were subjectively reviewed as to cost-effectiveness by the Review Team to aid in the selection of cost-effective improvements.

All HEDs_where solutions were r.:t . judged to be cost-effective were reviewed in an effort to determine if alternative solutions existed. Possible alterna--

tives included revised physical solutions, more emphasis on surface enhancement techniques, the use of

[\s[/ procedures ,or -training awareness, or some combination

~

of these areas. Where an applicable alternative '

solution was selected, the HED was assigned to the appropriate category. Where no applicable alternative

. solution was identified, the HED was documented as such. ,

3.2 Summary of.Results Table 3-1 summarizes the results of the Assessment Phase. The number of HEDs in each of the final dispo-sition categories is shown.

Appendix A contains a listing of HEDs to be solved by surface enhancement techniques.

~ Appendix B contains a listing of HEDs in the physical change category.

Appendix C contains a listing of HEDs which were not solved by surface enhancement, physical changes, pro-cedure modification, enhanced training, awareness, or some combination of these methods.

\D)

_v-m--g-y-ywg i 4raym-- - y g ,- - -.- --.------.-q- - - - - - aw qeyg

6 ,

4.0. Implementation Schedule t

An implementation schedule for HED solutions will be developed. The development of this schedule will consider

.two basic criteria: -(l) the significance of the HED and (2) the complexity of the design / installation and/or material procurement for the HED solution. The method of implementation prioritization used will ensure the effective use of company resources for design and installation, consistent with HED significance.

The detailed design and installation of HED solutions will, in general, be handled by cl.e line organization under the existing Nuclear Station Modification Program.

The proposed HED solution implementation schedule (Appendix D) will be transmitted as a revision to this Supplement by March, 1984.

O V

n v

1

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - 1

Table 2-1 ,

McGuire Nuclear Station

, control Room Review

( Emergency Response Guideline Sequences for Task Analysis E-0: Reactor Trip or Safety Injection ES-0.1: Reactor Trip Recovery ES-0.2: Natural Circulation Cooldown ES-0.3: SI Termination Following Spurious Safety Injection E-1: Loss of Reactor Coolant

.ES-1.1: SI Termination Following Loss of Reactor Coolant ES-1.2: Post-LOCA Cooldown and Depressurization ES-1.3: Transfer to Cold Leg Recirculation Following Loss of Reactor Coolant i

ES-1.4: Transfer to Hot Leg Recirculation

( .

p. -q; -

E-2: Loss of Secondary Coolant ES-2.1: SI Termination Following Loss of Secondary Coolant ES-2.2: Transfer to Cold Leg Recirculation Following Loss of Secondary Coolant E-3: Steam Generator Tube Rupture ES-3.1: SI Termination Following Steam Generator Tube Rupture ES-3.2: Alternate SGTR Cooldown

'ES-3.3: SGTR with Secondary Depressurization ECA-1: Anticipated Transient Without SCRAM ECA-2: Loss of All ac Power

b '

ECA-2.1: Loss of All ac Power Recovery Without SI Required ECA-2.2: Loss of All ac Power Recovery With SI Required

Table 2-1 (Continued) m

~

'ECA-3: SGTR Contingencits T

FR-C.1: - Response to Inadequate Core Cooling

. FR-C .'2 : Response to Degraded Core Cooling

'R-C.3: ' Response .to Potential Loss of Core Cooling - ~

FR-C.4: Response to Saturated Core Cooling Conditions FR-I.1: Response'to Pressurizer Flooding

'FR-I.2: Response to Low System Inventory FR-I.3: Response to Voids in Reactor Vessel FR-H.1: Response to Loss of Secondary Heat Sink i- FR-H.2: Response to Steam Generator Overpressure

, FR-H.3: Response to Steam Genarator High Level

( 'FR-H.4: Response to Steam Generator Low Level FR-H.5: Response to Loss of Steam Generator PORVs or Condenser Dump Valves L

FR-P.1: Response to Imminent Pressurized Thermal Shock Condition FR-P.2: Response to' Anticipated Pressurized Thermal Shock Condition

+

FR-S.1: Response to_ Nuclear Power Generation FR-S.2: Response to Loss of Core Shutdown FR-Z.1: Response to High Containment Pressure FR-Z.2: Response to High Containment Sump Level i

. \m/ FR-Z.3: Response te High Containment Radiation Level ,

t

, .. . . . . , ,. ~ . - . - . -,v-, ,.~ _ ~ . , ----,-.----.v.__,-w, .,c.y ,.- . . , . , , , , . . ,-----,v-,-.m.,-- , ,,-w,_.-. . .,- , , . .

Table 2-2

. McGuire Nuclear Station

! Control Room Review

, Normal Sequences Selected for Task Analysis

1. Items which require generation of task descriptive. data to perform walk-through evaluation.

-a. CA System Operation

b. RN System Operation

c. NI -(UHI portion) System Operation

d. NI (Accumulator portion) System Operation

e. NR System Operation

f. Operations at HVAC Control Board

g. Operation of Pressurizer Relief Tank Controls

h. Operation at' Aux. Shutdown Panel

. 2. Component-related items from OER and other items which do not require

the generation of task descriptive data to analyze with a walk-through evaluation.

., a. CM/CF System Startup

'( b.- Turbine Startup

c. Operation of Moisture Separator / Reheater Controls

d. Review of Annunciators, Status Lights, and ESF Monitor Light Panels-t

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

Table 2-3 .

O)

-( McGuire Nuclear' Station Control Room Review Annunciator Alarm Criteria Alarms alert the operator (through attention-gaining methods) to system

. or component parameters which are out of design or operational limits.

An alarm (displayed on annunciator panels) alerts the operator to:

1 - Impending Technical Specification Violations

- Out-of-tolerance conditions which may lead to system

~ degradation, trips, or ESF actuation 2 - Automatic Actuation of Engineered Safety Features Automatic Actuation of Reactor Trip and/or Turbine Trip 4 - Alarms on Unmanned Local Panels 5 - Blocking or Failure of Automatic or Manual Control Room

-~

Functions

-\ J 6 - Loss of Control Room Instrumentation or Equipment 7 - Conditions Requiring Operator Action to Prevent or Recover from Component / System Degradation 2

/

o

'V ,

Table 2-4 .

~

McGuire Nuclear Station Control Room P.eview Status Light-Criteria f

Status Light Panels are used to display information to the operator to

-aid in system status. determination and/or alarm / problem diagnosis.

Status Light Panels should:

1 - Display System /Sub-system Level Status Information 2 - Not Display Component Status Unless:

a. Required for problem / alarm diagnosis

b. Not readily available at control board-mounted controls or instrumentation 3 - Not Display Redundant Information U

( -

I i

4

?

9 5

4 rm-w ww,---ww, e+-e-,--vmy,w y=-w e e g, vge- k y --- - w e w w -y- m vvr +y m v- e- w **'+yem'W"v*w-=~ev*---'-'

1 Table 3-1 ,

d MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION Control Room Review HED Assessment Disposition Number of HEDs Disposition Category 59 HEDs with assigned significance points 44 HEDs violating Control Room Conventiens 65 HEDs requiring Surface Enhancement 8 HEDs requiring Special Evaluation 222 Non-deficiencies 240 Duplicate / Supporting HEDs 25 Management Attention HEDs 14 HEDs already re. solved through NSM process 677' Total McGuire HEDs O

1 s

Appendix A McGuire Nuclear Station Control Room Review l

Surface Enhancement Solution HEDs t

(

, =

{

l l

I I

i l

i

~.--,---n-. - -.--w,,,,.,.n,n,,,,_ . . . _ . , , , _ _ _ , , , _ _ _ _ _ _ , , _ , _ , , , , _ __ _

["'N /m g

- w \

l y

%_/ .

) /

iST NUMBER LTH-Ott DUKE POWER COMPANY ANT CODE = MCG PAGE 153 LE I D = 05 MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION 10/19/83 3r a 001<08) HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCY MANAGEMENT.

HED PLANT CNTL BOARD PHOTO ID RIAL ha. ORIG DATE SYSTE CNTL DEVICE . INSTR. COMPONENT TYPE HED SO

...............................M .--..................................__...................URCE .........._... .......A........._ ........

PROBLEM ARE

-l.0003 DWG _......._....................

9/17/82 ...__..'...................__. RECORDER T/A E-0 1 LABELS AND LOCATION AIDS iSCRIPTION:

LABELS FOR HAGAN RECORDERS ARE NOT PERMANENT SEE ATTACHMENT I FOR LIST OF RECORDERS IDENTIFI ED IN MOCKUPS

! COMMENDATION: .

HEED PERHANENT TAGS CUT-iHCLUDE INSTRUMENT NUMBER, RECORDER NUMBER,AND PAPER TYPE NUMBER 5-1-0016 DWG DISPOSITION 9/17/82 CA SUENH__.DESCRIPT..IO.N:.

. . .I NSTALL_ ....._PE.RMANEN.T.

. ..... .R.ECOR.D.E.R

... LABEL.S.........-

iMC10 CE OTHER SWITCHES T/A E-0-B-7 LABELS AND LOCATION AIDS CA49 CLOSEUP OF DEVICE CA49 ISCRIPTION:

START AND STOP IS NOT PERMANENTLY LABELED COMMENDATION:

ADD START ANO STOP POSITION LABEL DISPOSITION SUENH DESCRIPTION: ENGRAVE AND INSTALL START /STOP ESCUTCHEON PLATE 5k5bbbb bbb b)hb)8b bk kMbb bk" bkMbPLkkb IF4A- INCLUDE IF4A,lF48,lF4C. T/k bP/bb5b/bb5kbLkbbLb kNb LbbkTibN kibb ISCRIPTION: AND IF40 NAMEPLATE LACKS PROPER DESCRIPTION OF ITS FUNCTION

cMrtENDAT I ON

INCLUDE "LUCT* ON NAMEPLATE DISPOSITION SUENH

.._...... ......___...__....._........ ......................I.'.T!ON: DESCR

. .......................L..NEW ENGRAVE AND INSTAL NAMEPLATE

jm {1,

) t, v v

sIST NUMBER LTH-Oll DUKE POWER COMPANY PAGE 154

• LANT CcOE = MCG MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION 10/19/83

1. 1 LE ID s 05 HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCY MANAGEMENT 1

.EY a 001<08)

HED PLANT CNTL BOARD PHOTO ID

>ERIAL NO,

~

ORIG DATE SYSTEM CNTL DEVICE INSTR. COMPONENT TYPE HED SOURCE PROBLEM AREA

. [.~bbbb bbb b)hb)hb bk kbbk bkkhPbkhk h) bP/bhbb/bk$khbkbhbb Ebb Lbbkkfbb kkbb IF4C ISCRIPTION:

NAMEPLATE L ACKS PROPER DESCRIPTION OF ITS FUNCTION SEE PHOTO WITH NED M-1-OO66 i l

dCOMMENDATION: j l

INCLUDE "SUCT" ON NAMEPLATE ,

l l

.....................................ISPOSITION D

......................................E..AND SUENH DESCRIPTION: ENGRAV

'sNSTALL NEW NAMEPLA.TE I-1-0070 DWG 9/29/82 CA IMC4 T/A OP16250102-13 LABELS AND LOCATION AIDS IF40 l

ESCRIPTION

0D0 OCALE,GR ADL'ATIONS ARE NOT CLEAR SEE PHOTO WITH M-1-0066 l 4ECOMMENDATION:

l CHANGE SCALE So CRADUATIONS ARE CLEAR AND OF LOGICAL INCREMENTS DISPOSITION SUENH DESCRIPTION: INSTALL NEW SCALE O-450 GPM

.i$i-bbhh bbb~ ~b)hb)hh bk ibb5b bbkPbkhE h)k bP)hhbb)bh5kbL bhbb bb Lbbkh[bb ibb CA47 JESCRIPTION: .

LACKS "AB" ON VALVE NUMBER (ECOMMEtIDA T I ON :

MAKE NAi1EPLATE ISA-48ABC ALSO INCLUDE COLLAR DISPOSITION SUENH DESCRIPTION: ENGRAVE AND INSTALL NEW NAMEPLATE i$k$bbhb~ bbb ~ h)hb/bb b ibb5b bEbkPLkhb k k bP)hhbb)bh kbLkbhLb kbb Lbbkhibb kibb CA48 1ESCRIPTION:

LACKS AB ON VALVE NUNDER ICOMr1END AT I ON:

MAKE NAMEPLATE ISA-49ABC ALSO INCLUDE COLLAR DISPOSITION SUETIH DESCRIPT ENGRAVE AND INSTALL NEW NAMEPLAT

.......-......................................................... ION: .---..-..........................--.E ..--..........................

F

.- ..m- . . .

./N f ]'

A.m \. J

.lST NUMBER LTH-Oll DUKE FOWER COMPANY

/ -' LANT CODE a MCG MCGulRE NUCLEAR STATION PAGE! 155 TILE ID s OS 10/19/83 L EY . s OOls0S) HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCY MANAGEMENT NED PLANT CNTL BOARD PHOTO ID

>ERIAL.NO. ORIG DATE SYSTEM CNTL DEVICE INSTR. COMPONENT TYPE HED SOURCE PROBLEM AREA 552bb95 bbb 5b/bh)b2 bV 5bb5b 2K bbkTRblLER T/k~kb2b$b~-5 ~~ ~Lk85Lb kNb Lbb TibN klbb NVS5 CLOSEUP OF'NV85 ISCRIPTION:

KNOB TOO BIG FOR LABEL UNDERNEATH IT i

cCOMMENDATION:

MAKE LARGER LABEL AND EXTEND POINTER OR CHANGE -SWITCH HANDLE TO ONE SIMILAR TO CATAWBA 1HC10 DIS

. . . . . . . . . . . . - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - . POS I T......

t-1-0096 DWG 10/07/82 1MC2 I ON...... . ....-------........T S UE NH. . . . DES....C R. .I P T. .I ONDO: NOT IMPLEMEN ....-.........--.............................--

2L NAMPLATE T/A ES-0.2-5A LABELS AND LOCATION AIDS SM53 INCLUDE SMS3 AND SM36 1ESCRIPTION:

) POSSIBLE CONFUSION WITH DEVICE SM 36 4

(ECOMt1ENDAT 10N:

, CHANGE LABEL TO READ STEAM DUMP INTLK BYP TRN A I

.l-1-0097

. . . . . . . . - DWG - . . . . 10/07/82 1MC2

.D. .I S POS I T.NAMEPLATE.I ON SUENH. . . D.ESCR I PT I ON :. . . . . . - - . . . .ENG RAVE. . A ND. . . . .I N SM96 T/A ES-0.2-5A IESCRIPTION:

] POSSlDLE CONFUSION WITH DEVICE SM 36. SEE PHOTO WITH HED M-1-OO96 t 1ECOM:1ENDAT I ON:

j CHANGE LABEL TO READ STEAM DUMP INTLK BYP TRN D

. 1-0102

.......................----.....ISPOSIT..

PAT 10/08/82 NC' ION SUENH IMC10

......---............-..-.....E..AND 2N DESCRIPTION: ENGRAV INSTALL NEW NAMEPLATE NAMEPLATE T/A ES-0.2-14F LABELS AND LOCATION AIDS NC 102 CLOSEUP OF NC 102

> OESCRIPTION:

j SWITCH tlAMEPLATE NOT CLEAR ABOUT FUNCTION OF SWITCH

}

! ICOMt1ENDATI ON:

t CHAttGE NAMEPLATE TO PORV f10DE NORM / LOW INC-34 A SELECT DISPOS

...................-....---...--............ITION SUENH...DE.SCRIPTION: ENGRAV .........- . ....--......---- E..AND INSTALL NEW NAMEPLAT

.........--.............E.....--.........-...-----.....

.I I

l t

4 1

/"'

[\ I b] ,. U ,V iST NUMBER LTH-Olt DUKE POWER COMPANY PAGE 156

'LANT CODE = MCG -

MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION 10/19/83

' l L. E ID = 05 HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCY MANAGEMENT EY = 001<08)

HED PLAho n'.fL BOARD PHOTO 10

RIAL NO. ORIO DATE SYSTEF CNTL DEVICE- INSTR. COMPONENT TYPE HED SOURCE PROBLEM AREA i$ bib 3 PEh ib)bb)h2 hb khbib hh hkkhPLkib h)k hh b h-ihF LkbELh khb Lbbkhkbh ibb NC 103 CLOSEUP OF NC 103

'SCRIPTION:

SWITCH NAMEPLATE NOT CLEAR ABOUT FUNCTION OF SWITCH ICOMMENDATION:

CHANGE NAMEPLATE TO PORV MODE NORM / LOW INC-32 B SELECT DISPOSITION SUENH DESCRIPTION: ENGRAVE AND INSTALL NEW NAMEPLATE di-bkbh bhb ib)hb)hh hh khbib hP hkkhPLkhk h)k hh b h kh kkbkLh hb Lbbkhlbh kibh NVill CLOSEUP OF NVill ZSCRIPTION:

NAMEPLATE DOES NOT PROPERLY DESCRIBE VALVE FUNCTION ECOMMENDATION:

SEE ATTACHMENT

' DISPOSITION SUENH DESCRIPTION: ENGRAVE AND INSTALL NEW NAMEPLATE

$55Ibii bhb~~ ik/bt)8h hV ihbhb hR hkhEPLkib h) kb5b h5b5h L hkLb khb Lbb hibh kibb NV93 CLOSEUP OF NV93

,ESCRIPTION:

THIRE 10 fl0 NAMEPLATE i lECOMMENDATION:

l l

DISPOSITION SUENH DESCRIPTION: INSTALL PERMANENT HAMEPLATES ON NV92,93,78,79 l $[5bihh bhb (()ib)hh hb ihbib hV hIhhPLkhb h)k kh-k h$h LEkLhkhbLbbkkibbkibb NC77 CLOSEUP OF NC77 iSCRIPTION:

NAMEPLATE DOES NOT REFLECT SWITCH FUNCTION, ALSO APPLIES TO NC94 AND NC88 i CCOMMENDATION:

CHANGE flAMEPLATES PER ATTACl#1ENTS DISPOSITION SUENH DESCRIPTION: ENGRAVE AND INSTALL NEW NAMEPLATES t

I l

A f\ f )

\

EST NUMBER LTH-Oll DUKE POWER CONPANY LANT CODE = MCG. .

MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION PAGE 157 ILE ID 3 05 HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCY MANAGEMENT 10/19/83 SY a 001<08> -

HED- PLANT . CNTL BOARD PHOTO ID CRIAL NO. ORIG DATE SYSTEM CNTL DEVICE INSTR. COMPONENT TYPE HED SOURCE' PROBLEM AREA

$5$b538 bbb 55)hb)8h KF 5kb9 bb MhTkR RN8A CLOSEUP OF RNSA T/k hbkSh5b ihb L bhth Nb LbbkTibb Eibb ~ ~~

'SCRIPTICN:

SCALE IS UNCLEAR UNABLE TO DETERMINE KF WATER LEVEL

{ COMMENDATION:

CHANGE SCALE SUCH THAT ONE CAN TELL LEVEL AND ADD ANNUNCIATOR FOR LOW POOL LEVEL DISPOSITION OUENH DESCRIPTION: PROVIDE NEW SCALE FOR KF POOL LEVEL METEl-t-5$bkhh bbb 5)bb)8h bb kMbib bb LkbELh NC45 CLOSEUP OF NC45 bhRIb5bhhbh5bhVihbkLbihPLkhb

)ESCRIPTION:

LABEL DOES NOT REFLECT ITS FUNCTION THE RECORDER IT_ CONTROLS IS LOCATED ON INC5 iECOMMENDATION:

CHANGE LABEL

.1-1. . 0177

. . . - . . DWG . . . . . . . .NC. . . - - .D. .1MC5

. . . . . .1/04/83 ...

. . - . . - - .I SPOS.

.I T. .I ON S.UE. NH.

METER

. -. DES

---

.. .... CR I P T. .I ON .: .E NG.RAV. E A.ND I N.ST.

j NC3C OER I.02.08-20 VISUAL DISPLAYS JESCRIPTION:

OVERPOWER AND OVERTEMPERATURE D/T METERS (NC3C NC3D,NC4C NC40 NC5C NC50 PERCENT DUT THE SPECIFICATIONS READ IN DEGREEE THIS REOUIRES A MATHEMATlNC6C AND NC60,) READ I CAL EONVERSION.

ECOMMENDATION:

.........................------....--.ISPOSITION SUENHD ........-........ DESCRIPTION:

1-1-0189 PAT 1/06/83 HV IMCIO INSTALL NEW EtMET AL

...E.S 0-80

....... F...........-...... --...........

LABELS Q-04.039-1 NClio LABELS AND LOCATION AIDS 1ESCRIPTION:

INV-121 CONTROLS LETDOWN FLOW WHICH IS NOT REDILY APPARENT iCOMl1END A T I ON :

RELADLE DISPOS DESCRIP

. . . . . . . . . . . . . - - . . . - _ . . . . . . . - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . .I T. .I O N-....-_..---_...-.

S UE N H TION: ENGRAVE AND INSTALL NEW NAMEPLATE 9

I I

i

fy . f) _ r%

h V

_lST NUMBER LTH-Ott DUKE POWER COMPANY PAGE 154

'LANT CODE = NCG MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION 10/19/83 lLE I D = 05 - HUMAN ENGINEE' ;NG DISCREPANCY MANAGEMENT EY a 001<08)

HED PLANT CNTL BOARD PHOTO ID ERIAL No. . ORIG .DATE SYSTEM- CNTL DEVICE INSTR. COMPONENT' TYPE HED SOURCE PROBLEM AREA

~

$i$bih8 bhh k)h5/hh kh kMCh hF hhThk T/k bP)hhbbhbb5h bkhELh hb LbbkTibh Eibh RN7

~

iSCRIPTION:

SCALE IS DlFFICULT TO READ ECOMMENDATION:

4 DISPOSITION SUENH DESCRI TION: INSTAL NEW METER SCALE

...............................................................P. ............L .................. ........ 739'-741'............................. I

- t -0258 ALK 12/06/82 GEN HFS PS10.1 CODES AND CONVENTIONS

.ESCRIPTION:

COMPONENTS THAT DO NOT CONFORM To COLOR CODE CONVENTIONS. (NRC C422,C517)

(SEE ATTACHED PAGE)

-:ECOMMEND AT I ON:

DISPOSITION SUENH DESCRIPTION: CHANGE SWI

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - . . . T. C HE. S T.O CONFO.

.. .. ...... ... RM T.O COLOR CODE. . P. A. R--.................

........... T NG 1-1-0274 ALK 12/07/82 GEN HFS PS5.1 VISUAL DISPLAYS

• ESCRIPTION:

NO UNITS ON SCALE PLATES OR UNITS NOT IN A CONSISTENT LOCATION (SEE ATTACHED SHEET)

!ECOMMENDATION:

. . . . . . . . . . . . .I P T.--...-.....................................

... ................ ..... .................. DISPOSIT ION S.UENH DESCR PLACE UNITS ON METER SCALES INTENT CONSIS

--- ION: ... ..... LOCAT..-.............

j .1-I.0281 ALK 12/07/82 GEN HFS PSS.3 VISUAL DISPLAYS I

iESCRIPTION:

SCALE AND POINTER HAS PARALLAX PROBLEMS (SEE ATTACitED SHEET) (OR ELECTRONIC DISPLAYS)

COMMENDATION:

DISPOSITION SOENH DESCRIPTION: PARTIAL NODEF - ADD ROD IDENTIFICATION STRIP

' ~ '

' ' ' " - ' ' ' ' ' ^ ' ' ' '

~!V) V- V i' IST tlUMBER LTH-Oli DUKE POWER COMPANY

'LANT CODE a MCG PAGE 159 elLE ID = 05 11CGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION 10/19/83 EY a 001<08) HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCY MANAGEMENT HED PLANT CNTL BOARD CRIO PHOTO ID

.ER .....--.................

.... I AL. .No DATE TEM SYS CNTL DEVIC

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E. . . . .I NS T R . COMPONENT TYP

..__................E..............HED SOURCE..................ROBLEM P AREA

-l-0282 ALK- 12/07/82 GEN .............................

HFS PSS.5 VISUAL DISPLAYS

'SCRIPTION:

SCALE HAS TOO HANY GRADUATIONS BETWEEN NUMBERS (SEE ATTACHED SHEET)

ECOMMENDATION:

D DESCR PARTIA

__.....................__.....__.....ISPOSITION SUENH.___.........__.........IPTION: .............L NODEF-REPLACE NETER SCALES 1-1-0283 ALK 12/07/82 ............ ......................_...._...............

HFS PS5.5 VISUAL DISPLAYS 1ESCRIPTION: .

SCALE IS NOT Nut 1BERED BY l'S,2'S,5*S (SEE ATTACHED SHEET)

ItlRC CSIS) dEcott1ENDAT10N:

D ti-1-0235 ALK __..................ISPOSITION.SUENH.

12/07/82 GEN

. . D....E ......_

S C R __I P.T. .I O N .............................

. .. .P. ART I A.L NO.DEF-REPL_ ACE. .

HFS PS5.6 VISUAL DISPLAYS DESCRIPTION:

NEGATIVE SIGNS ARE NOT SHOWN ON SCALE FOR NEGATIVE VALUES, (SEE ATTACHED SHEET)

.tECCMMENDAT I ots:

a, DISPOSITION SU D s-1-0287 ALK 12/07/82 --......................E.NH_-....ESCR GEN I PT I ON..: . PARTI AL NODEF- ADD......__.....

............__---... + AND./OR-Otl... NETER S.CALE.S HFS PS5.9 VISUAL DISPLAYS

)ESCRIPTION:

SCALES WITHOUT RANGE MARKINGS (SEE ATTACHED SilEET)

(MRC C523) iMPA A10) i ZCOMMENDAT10N:

D PARTI

.........................-... .........ISPOSITION SUENH... ...............

DESCRIPTION:....--......._....AL................--.............--

NODEF - ADD NORM OP BANDS ..... TO HE.TERS i

t i

9

Q

'b 7y f"%

C d tIST NUMBER LTH-Oll DUKE POWER COMPANY

?LANT CODE = MCO MCOUIRE' NUCLEAR STATION PAGE 160 FILE 10 = OS HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCY MANAGEMENT 10/19/83 DEY = 001<O8)

HED PLANT CNTL BOARD PHOTO 10

ERI AL No,' ORIG DATE SYSTEM CNTL DEVICE INSTR. COMPONENT TYPE HED SOURCE PROBLEM AREA

-kSbh8h ELK kb/bh hb bhb bbR b bk bb1-bk Vkhb L blSPLkYb

~

iSCRIPTION:

, RELATED DISPLAYS DO NOT HAVE CONSISTENT SCALES (SEE ATTACHED SHEET)

.ECOMMENDATION:

DISPOSIT 1-1 0292 ALK 12/07/82 ION..SUENH .

DESCR

--......--..IAL

....--------..IPTION: PART NODEF-INSTALL NE.W-.M.ETER

.--.....---,---... SCALES GEN RECORDER HFS PSS.14 VISUAL DISPLAYS JESCRIPTION:

DIFFICULT TO ASSOCIATE RECORDER PEN TO PROPER SCALE. (SEE ATTACHED SHEET) (OR TO NAMEPLATE)

(ALSO PS 5.3) 1ECOMMENDATION:

~

DI

.1-1-0307

. - - . . . . . . .ALK . . . . . .12/10/82

. . . . . . . . . .GEN . . . . . . . . ..--..

. .SPOS I T. .I ON. .SUEN.H. . . .DESCR I P -----..

. ..-- ... T. .I ON .. :.-..PA.RTI

.-. --.. AL.. NODE.F-I NSTAL.L N.EW R.E.CORDE.

l NAMCPLATE HFS PS6.1 4

LABELS AND LOCATION AIDS

)ESCRIPTION:

AUX SHUTDOWN PANEL NAf1EPLATES ARE NOT EASILY READABLE (HAS OLD-STYLE NAMEPLATES WITH 1/8" LETTERING, WHI TE LE TTERS ON BLACK BACKGROUND, CONDENSED LETTERING) (RCP MON. AND CF PNLS ALSO TECOMt1ENDAT I ON:

D

.....--.............. ...--............ISPOSIT. .--.. SUENH D ION----........ESCRIPTION:---..-. ENGRAV

..........E AND. . . . . . .I NSTALL-..

---.---- NEW. Nh1E.PL.

. .....-- . ATES--..........-......

S ANN. W- .I NDOW M-1-0308 ALK 12/10/82 GEN NAMEPLATE HFS PS6.1 LABELS AND LOCATION AIDS ESCRIPTION:

NAMEPLATE CHARACTERS ARE T30 SMALL (SEE ATTACHED SHEET) (MPA A11(1))

SCortMENDATION:

i

.................... .......--........ISPOSITION D

..... ..........--..........--.......IAL SUENH DESCRIPTION: PART NODEF-ENGRAVE

-.......--.......... WITH..LAROER CHARACTERS -.............

b l

0 i

i J

f

r i ( f t p (a%

5 t v LIST NUMBER LTH-Olt DUKE POWER COMPANY PAGE 161 PLANT CODE = MCG MCGulRE NUCLEAR STATION 10/19/83

. FILE ID = 05 HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCY MANAGEMENT XEY = 001<08)

-HED PLANT CNTL BOARD PHOTO-ID iERIAL NO SYSTEM CNTL DEVIC OR DATE

.....IG...............................E. ..... INS

.TR. COMPONENT TYPE

---

.................-_.--...................... HED SOURCE PROBLEM AREA

• -I-0309 ALK 12/10/82 ' GEN NAMEPLATES, OTHER LABELS HFS PS6.1 LABELS AND LOCATION AIDS

- i 1

ESCRIPTION:

LETTERS AND/OR NUMERALS ARE NOT ORIENTED VERT- ICALLY. I (SEE ATTACHED SHEET)

(ECOMMENDATION:

D PART

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I SPOS............---

I T I ON SUENH. . .DESCR .----.. I P T. .I ON  :

...-----.I AL..NODEF-REPLACE..

. .--. ---.... ..-. ......... VERT.I

---

CALLY ORl E.N.TED L. ABE.L 1-1-0311 ALK 12/10/82 GEN HFS PS6.2 LABELS AND LOCATION AIDS GESCRIPTION:

LACKS NAMEPLATE, ENGRAVINGS, LABELS, BUTTONS, LENSES ESCUTCHEONS,PS4.4 ETC. HED M-1-361 FOR (SEE ATTACHED SNEET) 't.LSO kEF. CONTROLS

.1ECOMMEND A T l ON :

.......................................ISPOSITION D

............... SUENH...DESCRIPT.

...... . ION:

PARTIAL

. .. . . . . . . . . .NODEF-LABEL ...................COMPONEN.

......... TS APPROPR. .I A.TELY ......................

H-1-0313 ALK 12/10/82 GEN HFS PS6.3 LABELS AND LOCATION AIDS 0ESCRIPTION:

LEGEND LABEL, ESCUTCHEON, ENGRAVING, ETC. REPEATS NAMEPLATE INFORMATION.

(SEE ATTACHED SHEET) ALSO USE OF " CONTROL," " CONTROLLER"," SELECT", OR " SELECTOR" IS UNNECES.

RECOMMENDATION:

. . . . . . . . . . . - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - . . . DISPOSI

. . . T I ON.........

S UENH. . . .D E .....--.

S CR I P..................................-----...........................

T .I ON : REMOVE REDUNDANT INFO ON NAMEPLATES, METER LEGE l .t-1-0322 ALK 12/10/82 GEN NAMEPLATE HFS PSG.9 LABELS AND LOCATION AIDS DESCRIPTION:

NAMEPLATE DOES NOT ADEOUATELY DESCRIBE FUNCTIONOF DEVICE.

(SEE ATTACitED LIST) (NRC CG3tl ECOMMENGATION:

DISPOSIT

............................... ..............IOtt SUENH DESCRIPTION: PARTRAL NODEF-ENGRAVE AND INSTALL NEW NAf1EPLATE l .

l

(, !O)  %

I Qi O)

_lST NUMBER LTH-Oll DUKE POWER COMPANY

'LANT CODE = MCG MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION PAGE 162 ILE ID = 05 HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCY MANAGEMENT 10/19/63 CY a 001<08)

HED PLANT CNTL BOARD PHOTO ID

..................___...........M ERIAL NO. ORIG DATE SYSTE C CO

__......_MPONENT

....N..TL DEVICE............ INSTR. TYPE. HED SOURCE

___..____................__..........__...P.ROBLEM AREA

-1 0324 ALK 12/10/82 GEN LABELS HFS PS6.10 LABELS AND LGOATION AIDS SCRIPTION:

LABELlHG OR ENGRAVINGS DO NOT CONTRAST WELL WITH BACKGROUND. (WORN ENGRAVINGS.ETC.)

(SEE ATTACHED SHEET) (ALSO REF. PS 4.4 - HED M-1-3G11 ICOMMENDATION:

REPLACE WORN E30 LENSES AND BUTTONS, INSTITUTE PROCEDURES TO PERIODICALLY REVIEW AND REPL ACE WORN LENSES AND BUTTONS.

DISPOSITION SUENH DESCRIPTION: PARTIAL NODEF-REPLACE WORN E30 LENSES AND BUTTO

$k5b3bh kLK kb/kb/bb bEb [kbk(b

. bFSPbbkb EEbbLEkbbLbbkTkbbkkbb

.ESCRIPTION:

ROMAN NUMERALS ARE USED TO INDICATE CHANNELS OFINSTRUMENTATION.

(SEE ATTACHED SHEET)

, !ECOMMENDATlON:

D E

. I SPOS I .T I ON SUE.NH. ..... . .DESCR. .I P T I___...__.......

ON : AND INSTAL.L..LEGE.ND

____....N. GRAVE ... .... PL_ATES

__... ..WITH.. ARABIC 1-1-0333 ALK 12/10/82 GEN CONTROLLER HFS PS4.1 CONTROLS 1ESCRIPTION:

OPERATION OF KNOB NOT OBVIOUS - NEEDS INDICATION OF DIRECTION OF OPERATION. ALSO NOT CLEAR AS TO WHAT HAPPENS WHEN KNO3 IS TURNED. (SEE ATTACHED SHEET) (MPA A14, NRC C421)

ECONttENDAT I ON :

DISPOS DESCRIPT PARTIAL NODEF

............................................ITION SUENH....__.____...__..__..

1 1 0337 ALK 12/10/82 GEN

.__............._-ADD ION: DIRECT.

__........ ION LABELS TO CONTROLLE........ .......

l ALL DEVICES HFS PS4.2 CONTROLS ESCRIPTION:

USE OF " MAN" SHOULD REFER CONTROL TO ANOTHER CONTROL DEVICE. " NAN" SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR 3

"ON", "OFF". "OPEN". "CLOSE", ETC. (SEE ATTACHED LIST) (NRC C422)

ICOMf1ENDA T I ON : >

NEED SPECIAL STUDY TO DETERMlfE WHICH " MAN" USES SHOULO BE "ON" (OR OPEN, CLOSE) AND CitANGE AS NECESSARY.

DISPOSITION SUENH DESCRIPTION: INSTALL NEW ESCUTCH i

.........................___.............___..__...........__............................ EON PLATES ..... .....................__ ...._. .___..

t 4

,m R f ~h i k U U v IST NUMBER LTH.011 -DUKE POWER COMPANY PAGE 183

• LANT CODE = MCG MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION 10/19/83

'lLE ID = 05 HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCY MANAGEMENT

EY = 001<08)

HED PLANT CNTL BOARD PHOTO ID

ERIAL No. CRIG DATE - SYSTEM CNTL DEVICE INSTR. COMPONENT TYPE HED SOURCE PROBLEM AREA

~

~

h$f$bbbb kbk kb/5b/bb bEb bHibbbbTbWiTbb

$ bhb Pbb b bbbTkbbb ESCRIPTION:

POORLY ARRANGED ESCUTCHEON PLATE. " RESET /TAVE/STM PRESS"-1ML2 SM36 (ID# G60)

ALSO HVAC - VU11,12,21,22 (IDsH31). VX9,18,(ID#H32) ALSO VP 19 (ID#M35) RCk MON PNL (ID #M52) l ECOMMENDATION:

..................................--....---.ITION DISPOS SUENH DESCRIPTION:

.. ... .....--....----..... INSTALL..NEW ..--. ESCUTCHEON

.......... ..... . PL.AT.ES l .03 G 1 ALK 12/13/82 GEN HFS PS4.4 CONTROLS

)ESCRIPTION:

CONTROL POSITIONS NOT IDENTIFIED (MISSING ESCUTCHEONS BUTTONS, LENSES NOT ENGRAVED,ETC)

(SEE ATTACHED SHEET) INCORE INSTR. CAB.(CENTER POS. FOR TOOGLE SW. NOT ID$NTIFIED) (ID # M73)

, aECOMMENDATION:

REPLACE WORN E30 LENSES AND BUTTONS INSTITUTE PROCEDURES TO PERIODICALLY REVIEW AND REPLACE WORN LENSES AND BUTTONS.

ASSESS IN PARTS-

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - . . . . . . . - - - . .D. .I SPOS..--.

I T......

.I ON. SUE.NH. . . .D.E S CR I P. T. i ori:..--- .--........ED

---

.......R.EPLACE..

.--.. WORN ESCUTCHEONS

-...--........... LE.NS 11 1-0370 ALK 12/15/82 GEN HFS PS3.1 VISUAL DISPLAYS JESCRIPTION:

SCALE UNITS ARE INCORRECT OR CONFUSING. (SEE ATTACHED SHEET)

(EC0!iMENDAT 10N:

DISPOSITION SUENH DESCRIPTION: INSTALL NEW t1ETER LEGEND PLATES

[12h$bb7b LK [b)[b)bb bbb bFbPbbkb LkbbLb bb Lbb TibH kkbb OESCRii' TION:

NAl1E PL A T E , LABEL, ENGRAVING HAS MORE THAN 3 LINES, HARD TO READ.

(SEE ATTACHED SHEET)

{COMt1ENDATION:

DISPOSITION SUENH DESCRIPTION: PART NODEF . REMOVE LABELS FROM BOTTO

.--.......................--.....---.--.........-.--....--........................--..................---.MOFV5'S .........................

F

. f% I<w n V

k (O IST NUMBER LTH-Oll DUKE POWER COMPANY

'LANT CODE-* NCG MCGulRE NUCLEAR STATION PAGE 164 ILE 10 = 05 10/19/83 EY a 001<08) HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCY MANAGEMENT HED PLANT CNTL BOARD PHOTO 10 ERIAL NO. CRIG DAT CNT

........ ..........--.E.....SYST.EM ... ..... .L..DE.VICE........ INSTR.

COMPONEN

. . . . . . . . . - - - . .. .. T .T Y. PE...--.........--. HED SOU

.--.RCE................M..

PROBLE AREA j 0375 ALK 12/16/82 EG IMC11 L79 LABELS HFS PSS.16 LABELS AND LOCATION AIDS iSCRIPTION:

MIMIC LINES OVER-LAP. SOME MIM8C STRIPS ARE MISSING (ID #L60,L81)

ECOMMENDATION:

DISPOSITION SUEN DESCRI I

......-.....................--...........----......H ...--.....PTION: . . . . . . . .NSTALL NEW...

--.......--.. M I N. .I C ST.R.........................................

.I PS

.-1-0407 ALK 1/06/83 CM IMCl3 N20 RECORDER HFS PS5.3 j CH4 VISUAL DISPLAYS

1. ESCRIPTION:

RECORDER POINTER IS UPSIDE-DOWN (BLUE PEN) ALSO IMC4, IFS

<ECOMMENDATION: .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. .I S POS I T. .I O N SU E NH D 1-1-0415 ALK 1/07/83 GEN E. .S C R I P T. .I ON. .: . .I N. .....

V. E R T. . R. ECO R D E. R. . PO I N T E.R. . . . . . . . .

LABELS HFS PS6.15 LABELS AND LOCATION AIDS 9 IESCRIPTION:

MISSING SYSTEM DEMARCATION LINES. UNIT LINE ON IMC1 (ID #L98) IR-IT SYS.,

IMCI-1MC2.1MCIO:IF-CA IID # S191 IMC11: NG-Ni SYS (ID # S231 1

ECOf111ENDAT 10N:

D

.................................--..D.ISPOSITION SUENH- . - . . . . - - - . . - . . . . . E.S CR I..-- P. T . . N. .: . -ADD

. ..I. O - . . .NEW SY

. . STEM DEMARCAT I-.--..........-........---.....-........

.....--...- ON L I NES 1-1-0430 ALK 1/24/83 GEN HFS 6.2 1

'ESCRIPTION:

j PAM INDICATION IS NOT LABELED TO DISTINGUISH IT FROM OTHER INDICATIONS ON THE CONTROL BOARDS

' COMMENDATION:

ADD HOTE TO CONTROL BOARD LAYOUT DRAulHGS TM DENOTE PAM INDICATORS AND RECORDERS.

CONTROL ROOM REVIEW TEAM SHOULD DECIDE METHOD FOR LABELING DEVICES. .

DISPOSITION SUENH DESCRIPTION: INSTALL PA

. . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . - - . . . - . . . . - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . - - . . . . . . - - . . . . . . . . . . . .M L AB E -........

L ON DO T TOM O F R ECO R D E R S A ND ME

m

[h d(.

.Q x

.lST NUMBER LTH-Oll DUKE POWER COMPANY

'LANT CODE = MCG MCGulRE NUCLEAR STATION PAGE 165

1. 1LE 10 = C5 10/19/83 EY = 001<08> HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCY MANAGEMENT HED PLANT CNTL BOARD PHOTO 10 '

.ERIAL NO. ORIG DATE SYSTEM CNTL DEVICE -lNSTR. COMPONENT TYPE HED SOURCE PROBLEM AREA Sf$bh8h kLK b/5h/hh bhN hkTkR b5/bb blFF VibbkLblSPLhb

SCRIPTION: .

METER SCALE UNITS READ DIFFENTLY FOR UNITS 1 AND 2 (SEE ATTACHED SHEET) i i

ECOMMENDATION:

SEE ATTACHED SHEET

) D INSTALL NEW METER SCAL

. . . . . . . . . . - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - . .I SPOS I T I ON SUENH. . ..-.

....--........ .DESC.R I P T I ON  :

...........--..................ES l-1-0488 ALK 5/17/83 GEN ........................................

l NAMEPLATE Ul/U2 DIFF LABELS AND LOCATION AIDS 1ESCRIPTION:

NAMEPLATES READ DIFFERENTLY FOR UNITS I AND 2 (SEE ATTACHED SHEET) i 1ECOMMENDATION:

SEE ATTACHED SHEETS

.1-1-0489

. . . . . . . . . ALK . . . . . . 5/17/83 . . . . . . . . .GEN . . . . . . . . .............

. . . .D. .I SPOS I T I ON S UEN.H.

. . .CES

....-- C.R-.I --.....

.---.-- P T I ON.. :. . . . . . . ..--.........................

. .E NGRAVE. . AND I NST. ALL.

METER U1/U2 DIFF VISUAL

• DISPLAYS 1ESCRIPTION:

METER SCALES ARE DIFFERENT FOR UNITS 1 AND 2 (SEE ATTACHED SHEET)

I tECOMMENDATION:

i SEE ATTACHED SHEET i

DISPOSITION S i

.1-1-0492 ALK 5/17/83

.....................UENH..-

KC DESCRIPTION: INSTALL N

..................---.EW........----....--..-........................--......

METER SCALES MCil NAMEPLATE Ul/U2 DIFF LABELS AND LOCATION AIDS

• ESCRIPTION:

UNIT 1 NAMEPLATES FOR KC 64 8 65 ARE ENGRAVED "KF HX OUTLET ISOL" BUT SHOULD BE "KF HX OUTLET FLOW" (UNIT 2 IS CORRECT)

ICOf1MENDA T I ON :

D ENGRAVE AND

. . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . .I SPOS I T I ON. SUENH. . . .DE S CR ......--

I P T I ON. ...: INSTALL NEW NAMEPLATES 1

I e

4 e

s I

i

f))

\v t'

kJ

) f.-%N Y

ulST NUMBER LTH-Off DUKE POWER COMPANY PAGE 166

'LANT CODE = MCG MCGulRE NUCLEAR STATION 3tLE 10 = 05 10/19/83

,EY a 001<08> HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCY MANAGEMENT HED PLANT CNTL BOARD PHOTO ID C

ERis;L NO.............RIO DATE SYSTEM CNTL DEVICE INSTR. COMPONENT TYPE HED S PR AREA 0493

................-.......-...........----....--.............................-OURCE ALK 5/17/83 EG INC11

..............OBLEM.......-..................-.

NAMEPLATE Ul/U2 DIFF LABELS ANO LOCATION AIDS EG 99 ISCRIPTION:

NAMEPLATE IS NOT CORRECT. PRESENTLY ENGRAVED " GEN BREAKER MOD-1AT", BUT SHOULD BE ENGRAVED "1A MAIN GEN BREAKER" (UNIT 2 IS CORRECT) 2 COMMENDATION:

DISPOSITION SUENH DESC ENGRAV

.. ............ ....................--..-.........-. ........RIPTION:.........--- ..E..AND INSTALL NE.W..NAME.

............. ... PLATE 1 1-0494 ALK 5/17/83 RN 1MCll NAMEPLATE Ul/U2 DIFF RN 118 LABELS AND LOCATION AIDS JESCRIPTION:

NAMEPLATE CORRECT) IS ENGRAVED "FWST PUMP I" BUT SHOULD BE ENGRAVED " UNIT 1 FWST PUMP" (UNIT 2 IS

<ECOMHENDATION:

D DESC ENGRAVE AND INS

.................---...........--......ISPOS.ITION 1-1-0512 HEP 12/14/82 SUENH-................RIPTION:

.........-------..-...-.T.ALL NEW NAME....-.........-....................

........... PLATES OER O-01-02-03 PANEL LAYOUT JESCRIPTION:

UNIT QUESTION 4 AND31UNIT 2 MAIN GENERATOR CONTROLS ARE SIDE BY SIDE AND CAN BE CONFUSED 4 4 4e SEE ALSO tECOMMENDATION:

PROVIDE AN OBVIOUS PHYSICAL SEPARATOR BETWEEN UNITS DISPOSITION SUENH DESCRIPTION: INCR

. . . . . - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - . . . . . - - . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - . . - - - - - . . - - - - - - . . . - - . . EA S E W I D T. H.

31- 1 -0G09 O F SY S ...--....

T EM DEM. A R C .--....................

A T I ON L. .l HE LTH 3/30/83 METER CER O-02 016-27 VISUAL DfSPLAYS ESCRIPTION:

THE ATTACHED DISPLAY OR METER SCALES REQUIRE CONVERSION OF THE DISPLAYED VALUE BEFORE IT CAN DE READ

? COMMENDATION:

DISPOAI PARTIAL NODEF

.............--.....................----.... ..----.ENH TION SU .................I:

DESCRIPTict

---

.......-REPLACE RECORDER SCAL.E..AND

.-...-. -- ......... NP

j"h [~

'\s \ ss/

LIST NUNBER LTH-Oli DUKE POWER COMPANY 'PAGE 167 PLANT CODE s MCG -

MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION 10/19/83 FILE 10 s 05 HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCY MANAGEMENT-.

(EY a 001<08> ,

HED PLANT CNTL BOARD -PHOTO ID JERIAL NO. ORIO DATE SYSTEM CNTL DEVICE INSTR. COMPONENT TYPE HED SOURCE PROBLEM AREA Ch-bbbb bhb 5)hh)b3 bF ibbkb bkTbR T) MMkh555b ~~~~LkBbLb Ebb LbbkTibk Ekbh IF248 ISCRIPTION:

METER SCALE GRADUATED IN UNCLEAR INCRAMENTS

.ECOMMErID AT I ON :

CHANGE SCALE TO 0-20,000 GPM WITH 1.000 GPM GRADUATIONS D INS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . .I SPOS............ I T I ON SUENa ___ _..___...______.

t _ _ DESCR I P T I ON : TALL NEW t1ETER

._.._____.... SCALE

'1-1-0671 DWG 2/15/83 ERF - GRB OTHER SWITCHES T/A MMNS-2-6 PANEL LAYOUT 3ESCRIPTION:

OPERATING RECORDER UNDER VOLTAGE BLOCKING SWI TCH IS LOCATED ON GEN RELAYI NG BOARD ANO ..

SHOULD BE ON INCI ALSO LABELING COULD BE IMPROVED 3ECOMMENDATION:

LOCATE ON INCL

. . . _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . .D. .I SPOS I T_

...._ _. .__. _I ON.SUENH. . .DESCR ......I F.Y.10N. .: .P. AR...__

. T I AL_ . " 0,0E.F- _ ..--_ I._NST. ALL_ _N.... EW

.. N.

. AME.P.LA. T. E.S. . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ . . . . . . . . _ . . . .

M-1-0678 PAT 5/10/83 GEN CR MOD SUG VISUAL DISPLAYS OESCRIPTION:

RECORDER SCALES HARD TO READ tEcottMEND AT I ON:

SUGGEST TO PLANT TO GRADUALLY REPLACE RECONDER SCALES WITH PLASTIC SCALES SIMILAR TO SCALE ON DEVICE IR-7 ON IMC-8 AS SCALES NEED REPLACING DISPOS REPLACE RECORDER SCALES WITH

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I T. .I O N S UE ....... NH. . . _ DE S_._..__

C R I P T I_........................

ON : ... ..... TRANSLUCENT SCALES 1-1-0G83 PAT 5/20/83 ASP .NETER T/A AP/5500/17-5 VISUAL DISPLAYS 7ESCRIPT10N:

fl0 NANP9W RANGE STEAM GENERATOR LEVEL NETERS ICotiMErIDAT ION:

IriSTALL NARROW RANGE METERS OR MARK WIDE RANGE METER WITH NORMAL N/R OPERATING BAND DISPOSITION SUENH DESCRIPTION: ADD N/R INFORMATION LABEL P

I I . .

l . . . . . . .

/ ,f%i (N.

t

' (< -. \h

_IST NUMBER LTH-Oli DUKE POWER COMPANY

'LANT CODE = MCG MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATicN PAGE- 168

.lLE in = 05 - 10/19/83

EY = 001<08> HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCY MANAGEMENT HED PLANT CNTL BOARD PHOTO IL

ERIAL NO.. CRIO DATE SYSTEM CNTL DEVICE INSTR. COMPONENT TYPE HED SOURCE PROBLEM AREA'

.h$bbbb Ph b)bb)hb kP L bELb T)k P)bbbb)5hSh b EkLb bb Lbb Tibb kibb

{SCRIPTION:

PZR PRESS METER HAS LEVEL ON METER SCALE dCOMMENDATION:

REMOVE ERONIOUS LABEL DISPOSITION SUENH -DESCRIPTION: INSTALL NEW METER LEGEND PLATE 8 5b$bbbb kLk' b)ib)hb bkb bbbPLkhk b5)bb biFi L bbLb bb Lbbkhlbb kkbb 1ESCRIPTION:

DIFFERENCES OF NAMEPLATES FOR EQUIVALENT UNIT 1AND 2 COMPONENTS.(SEE ATTACHED PAGES) f ECOMMEtIDAT I ON:

(SEE ATTACHtiENTS)

.................................--..D..ISPOSITIO.N. . .SUENH

,1-2-0309 DESCRIPT E

. . . . - - - . . . - . . . . .I O.-...NGRAVE N: AND- - . ..

. .I NST. ALL...............................

.NEW NAMEPLA. T.ES ALK 5/12/83 GEN METER Ul/U2 DIFF VISUAL DISPLAYS OESCRIPTION:

OlFFERENCES OF METER SCALES FOR EDulVALENT UNIT 1 AND 2 COMPONENTS.. (SEE ATTACHED PAGES)

.tECOf4!1ENDA T I ON :

(SEE ATTACHMENTS)

DISPOSITION SUENH OESCRIPTION: INSTALL NEW METER SCALES lb.bbkb

$ Lk b)hh)83 bbb bbbhRbLLbk bk)bb bkhh

~

VfbbkLbibPLkhb 9ESCRIPTION:

OlFFERENCES IN CONTROLLER SCALES BETWEEN UNITI AND 2. -(SEE ATTACHED PAGES)

ICOMt1END A T I ON :

..___.........................................DISPOSIT ION SUENH DESCRIP

............~..... TION:....... INSTALL NEW SCALES 4

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

.(- . p, -

i

'\

'(

- r.lST NUMBER LTH-Olt DUKE POWER COMPANY

• LANT CODE = MCG PAGE 169

.~lLE ID = 05 MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION 10/19/83

.TEY 001<08) . HUMAN ENGINEERING DISCREPANCY MANAGEMENT '

HED PLANT CNTL BOARD PHOTO ID ORIO DATE SYSTEM CNTL DEVI I COMPONENT T IER. .I AL NO.

.. ... ... .................._..............CE ......NSTR....._.._____......YPE................HED PROBLE SOURCE............_._........M.. AREA 1-2-0314 ALK 25/17/83 GEN RECORDER U1/U2 DIFF VISUAL DISPLAYS ESCRIPTION:

DIFFERENCES IN RECORDER SCALES BETWEEN UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 (SEE ATTACHED PAGES1 o

'l

.ECOMMENDATION:

i DISPOSI

....................__...................... TION SUE.NH.... DESCRIPTION:..............

....... . INSTALL......................................

NEW R.ECORDER SCALES _____.................

4 i

i i

i t

i 4

i, i

e 4

}

f i

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

1 4

4

. 15 0

Appendix B .

! McGuire Nuclear Station Control Room Review Physical Change Solution HEDs f

I 6

G -

i n

L P

J d

16 HED No. M-1-0001 Problem

Description:

The knobs for NIS recorder switches IR40 & IR41 are too big. This makes it dif ficult to read switch positions.

{N q,)

Solution

Description:

Install new switches for IR40 & IR41 with short shaf ts and smaller knobs.

HED No. M-1-0004 Problem

Description:

All annunciator and status light HEDs were grouped together and reviewed as a package in an annunciator study. After undergoing a thorough screening process, seven categories of HEDs merited solutions.

These seven categories are listed below:

1. Annunciators and status lights are not functionally grouped.

2. There are deviations from McGuire standard abbreviations list.

3. Some annunciators are used as status lights and some status lights are used as annunciators.

4. The color coding of annunciators creates poor contrast. Also, the

~

colot coding prioritization is not meaningful to the operators.

5. Some panels are mirror imaged.

i

6. Some new annunciators and status lights need to be added; others need to be deleted.

,s.

~ k ,,) 7. Tile engravings are inconsistent.

Solution

Description:

All annunciators and status lights were reviewed addressing the seven cate-gories previously identified. As a result, the following recommendations are made:

1. Functionally group and arrange annunciators and status lights

'with their respective systems.

2. Re-engrave tiles to meet standard abbreviation list. Revise abbreviation list as appropriate.

3. Annunciators which are status lights should be made status lights.

Similarly, status lights which are annunciators should be made status lights.

4. Annunciator color coding should be eliminated with the exceptions of the first out panel (1F01) and 1AD1 reactor and turbine trips.

5. Panels should be rearranged to eliminate the problem of mirror-imaging.

6. Several new annunciators and status lights will be added. Also, some annunciators and status lights will be deleted.

~'"'T

/ 7. Inconsistent tile engravings should be corrected.

(I B-1

17 HED No. M-1-0018 -

l Problem

Description:

The ESF Panel purpose is to provide an easy verification '

p_ of SI valve alignment during injection, post UHI, cold leg recirculation and

') hot leg recirculation phases. Due to the panel arrangemant there are inconsis-

\ ,/ tencies in the light and not lighted status associated with Phase B isolation and UHI completion status which degrades the ability to quickley verify SI valve alignment. i Solution

Description:

Improve the ESF Panel arrangement to provide easily recognized patterns of SI valve status. Review individual tile descriptions and abbreviations.

HED No, M-1-0020 Problem Descriptions ,

Existing containment pressure meters have too wide a range for reading normally expected values.

Solution

Description:

Add a narrow range containment pressure meter on MC11 near existing meters.

HED No. M-1-0034 Problem

Description:

There is no indication of subcooling margin in control rodm other than the computer.

Solution

Description:

Provide digital monitors for subcooling margin, in all four loops and incore, on MCS.

HED No. M-1-0045 Problem

Description:

When the CA storage tank is full, it is hard to read needle position.

. Solution

Description:

('~ '/ Extend the CA storage tank level meter range from 0 - 100% to 0 - 110%.

B-2

l 18 HED No. M-1-0054

() Problem

Description:

Valves CA-4 and CS-18 are required to be normally tagged out - no control or indication.

Solution

Description:

Provide power enable / disconnect switches on MC10 for CA-4 and CS-18.

HED No., M-1-0075 Problem

Description:

lA & 1R CA pump discharge pressure meter has an inverted scale.

4 Solution

Description:

Replace 15 - 3 psi transmitter'with a 3 - 15 psi transmitter so that the meter will rea' O - 2000 psi from bottom to top.

HED No. M-1-0104 Problem

Description:

Indication for letdown flow is provided on a non-linear sdale - normal value at bottom.

Solution

Description:

Provide components necessary to linearize the scale on meter NV5e on MC5.

HED No. M-1-0105 Problem

Description:

Manual loader and control switch for NV-459A are located too far apart f- g - for efficient operation.

's- Solution

Description:

Move manual loader NC-11 from MC5 to MC10. .

R-1

19 HED No. M-1-0107 (v ) Problem

Description:

Indication for NC pump seal injection flow is provided on non-linear scale-normal value at bottom.

Solution

Description:

Provide components necessary to linearize scales for meters NC7b, 10b, 24b, 27b.

HED No. M-1-0108 Problem

Description:

ND system portion of MC11 is not arranged for efficient task performance.

Solution

Description:

Rearrange components on the ND portion of MC11 as shown on solution forms.

HED No. M-1-0114 Problem

Description:

When power is returned to the valve by the power disconnect switch, the valve may move from its present position.

Solution

Description:

Rewire disconnect switch such that when the disconnect switch is in the disconnect position the valve switch will not energize the breaker contac-tors for the valve, but will still leave power on the indicator lights.

HED No. M-1-0117 Problem

Description:

lA NS pump switch is not located in the same relative position as the p_

1B NS pump switch.

( ,

) Solution

Description:

Relocate 1A pump switch in the same relative position as 13 NS pump switch.

B-4

20 l

HED No. M-1-0121 1

,r'N Problem Descriptiont *

"x) Scale range is too wide to read upper values of FWST level; there is no overlap between upper & lower range meters.

Solution

Description:

Change scale of RN5f from 160" - 500" to 0" - 500" and add a narrow range meter for 400" - 500" range.

HED No. M-1-0124

• Problem

Description:

NCdT switch is mis-labeled and does not canform to Duke conventions.

Solution

Description:

Replace switch and revise lens color and labeling to conform to Duke conventions.

HED No. M-1-0128 -

Problem

Description:

Switches on NI portion of'MC11 for certain valves which are normally -

tagged out with power removed.

Solution

Description:

Provide power enable / disconnect switches for these valves on MC11.

HED No. M-1-0129 -

Problem

Description:

Cold leg accumulator pressure and level meters are arranged by channel-

, and not by function.

()

\/

Solution

Description:

Rearrange the meters such that pressures and levels are side by side for easier comparison.

B-3

21 HED No. M-1-0132 A) i

\_ /

Problem

Description:

Control switch for ZJ-82 is located on hcl rather than with related controls on MC13.

Solution

Description:

Move device IT63 from MCl to MCl3. .

HED No. M-1-0139 .

Problem

Description:

The RN system portion of MC11 is not arranged for efficient task -

performance.

Solution

Description:

Rearrange components on the RN and RV portions of MC11 as shown on solution forms.

HED No. M-1-0141 Problem

Description:

KC system portion of MC11 is not arranged for efficient task performance.

Solution

Description:

( .

Rearrange components on the KC portion of MC11 as shown on solution t forms.

l t

l l

s HED No. M-1-0142 Problem

Description:

Control switch for NI-288A is on MC11 rather than with related controls on MC10.

(p) Solution

Description:

Move devices NI34 & 53 (power enable / disconnect) from MC11 to MC10.

B-6

22 HED No. M-1-0149

\s / Problem

Description:

Control switch for CF-124 is located on MC10 rather than with related components on MC13.

Solution

Description:

Move device IF31 from MC10' to MC13.

HED No. M-1-0152 Problem

Description:

Key activated controls in general are unnecessary.

Solution

Description:

Remove all key switches under the direct control of the control room operator.

HED No. M-1-0176 Problem

Description:

D/G power factor meters in control room and at the diesel panel are not consistent in movement.

Solution

Description:

Change local D/G panel power factor meters so that they are consistent with the ones on the main control board.

I 1

HED No. M-1-0179

Problem

Description:

Operator has no indication of glycol expansion tank level - depends on annunciator instead.

Solution

Description:

l

[ ) Provide a glycol expansion tank level meter on MC9 (0" - 75").

l \_/

l l B-7 i

23 s HED No. M-1-0183 -

7 t i

'x ,j Problem

Description:

FWST meters ar's not grouped together on MC9. -

Solution

Description:

Rearrange meters on the RN portion of MC9 such that FWST parameters are together, SNSWP parameters are together, and HX flow meters are coEether.

t HED No. M-1-0184 Problem

Description:

The knob on the rod bank selector switch is too large, it makes it difficult to determine which bank has beea selected.

Solution

Description:

Replace switch with handle and pointer that will clearly indicate which bank is selected.

HED No. M-1-0186 Problem

Description:

Scale range for RN flow to D/G A & B is too narrow for normally expected values. ~

Solution

Description:

Expand scale of RN4e & 4f on MC9 from 0 - 1000 gpm to 0 - 1500 gpm.

t l

l l

HED No. M-1-0188 Problem

Description:

Circular meters on the HVAC control board are difficult to read, l

l [

1 Solution

Description:

I \s /

Change circular meters to VX252's.

B-8

24

~

HED No. M-1-0190 '

( Problem

Description:

Operator has no indication of NV flow to the PZR spray header.

• Solution Dascription:

Install a flow element in the PZR spray line and a meter on MC5.

HED No. M-1-0192 -

Problem

Description:

Maintaining proper seal injection flow requires continual operation of NV-241.

Solution

Description:

Replace manual loader NV-lli with a manual / auto controller.

l HED No. M-1-0194 -

Problem

Description:

j Operator has 'no indication of excess letdown flow..

l .

i Solution

Description:

l Provide instrumentation as necessary for indication of excess letdown j flow on MC5 i

HED No. M-1-0219 Problem

Description:

Auxiliary Shutdown Ares lighting is poor, non-uniform, shadowed in areas, and provides glare in other areas in both normal and emergency mode lighting.

Solution

Description:

l Improve area normal and emergency lighting.

D.O

~ ,

25 HED No. M-1-0268C (m

e 1 Problem

Description:

's / Functionally related controls or displays are not grouped together.

Solution

Description:

Re-arrange and functionally group controls.

I l

HED No. M-1-0269A Problem

Description:

NC Recorders are not arranged in a logical alphabetic sequence.

Solution

Description:

Re-arrange recorders.

HED No. M-1-0272 Problem

Description:

Many spare devices are still on the contr 1 boards.

Solution

Description:

Remove all spare devices from the control boards.

HED No, M-1-0286

/roblem

Description:

Meter scales are nonlinear.

O. i Solution

Description:

t G Install components necessary to provide linear meter scales.

B-10

26 fT HED No. M-1-0331 1

\_,/ Problem

Description:

Cutler-Hammer E30 switch arrangements do not conform to Duke conventions.

Solution

Description:

Change E30 switches, lens and pushbuttons as necessarv to conform with Duke conventions.

HED No. M-1-0343C Problem

Description:

Rocary selector switch positions do not conform to Duke conventions. -

Solution

Description:

Rewire or change selector switches as necessary to conform to Duke conven- tons.

l HED No. M-1-0344 l

l Problem

Description:

l Various control switches violate Human Factors guidelines for arrange-

ment of control functions ("Open", "On" to the lef t etc.).

Solution

Description:

Roll leads change positions of associated indicating lights and re-engrave escuccheons as necessary.

I HED No. M-1-0354 Problem

Description:

There are no means of positive feedback associated with the reset and

,_s initiate pushbuttons.

l )

\_/ Solution

Description:

Install indicating lights which provide positive feedback for the reset and initiate functions.

B-11

27 HED No. M-1-0356 I9 Nj Problen

Description:

Various rotary selector switches violate Duke conventions.

Solution

Description:

Rewire switches and install escutchaons .per solution form.

NEDNo. M-1-0363 Problem

Description:

Various controllers have knobs that turn counter-clockwise to "open" a valve.

Solution

Description:

Modify the controllers such that turning the knob clockwise will open the valve.

HED No. M-1-0376 Problem

Description:

Arrangement of miscellaneous drain panel does not correspond to switch arrangement for related valves. Very difficult to associate indicator lights to proper switches.

l Solution

Description:

Re-arrange miscellaneous drain panel indicating lights and associate-switches by systems.

l l

HED No, M-1-0403B Problem

Description:

Operator is unable to decernine which group of 24 pts is currently printing on Ice Condenser recorder.

Solution

Description:

[\ Add two indicating lights on the Ice Consenser recorder to indicate

\__s 1st/2nd group of points.

B-12

O HED No. M-1-0403C Problem

Description:

Rad monitor recorders do not print clearly and do not have chan.tel cutout capability.

Solution

Description:

Replace three rad monitor recorders.

HED No. M-1-0482B Problem

Description:

Demand position is displayed for SM FORV's and~MSIV bypass resets.

Solution

Description:

Provide positive feedback instead of demand position.

^

l HED No. M-1-0482C Problem

Description:

Demand signal instead of actual valve position is displayed on the S/C PORV controllers.

Solution

Description:

Provide open/close indicating lights for the controllers.

s B-13

> j)

\

29

/~N\ HED No. H-1-0482D o

N m- / Problem

Description:

>amand signal insteai of actual valve position is displayed on the CF

. bypass valve controllers.

Solution

Description:

Provide open/close indicating lights for the controllers. . '

HED No. M-1-0486

-Problem

Description:

Recorder IR-7 on Unit 1 has its pen assignment reversed from the equivalent Unit 2 recorder.

Solution

Description:

Re-assign signals to recorder IR-7 on 1MC1 so that pen color / parameter relationship is the same as recorder IR-7 on 2MC1.

HED No. M-1-0491 Problem Description.

Configuration of control switch NV83 does not truly represent the switch function.

Solution

Description:

Replace with a switch configuration that better represents function.

1 HED No. M-1-0513 -

Problem

Description:

The NV system portion of MC10 is not arranged for efficient task -

performance.

Solution

Description:

[)

x~s Rearrange components on NV portion of MC10 as shown on solution forms.

B-14

1 30 l

HED No. M-1-0514

('

\-- Problem

Description:

NC system portion of MC10 is not arranged for efficient task performance.

Solution

Description:

Rearrange components on the NC portion of MC11 as shown on solution forms.

HED No. M-1-0516 Problem

Description:

The NI system portion of MC11 is not arranged for efficient task

. performance.

Solution

Description:

Rearrange components on the NI portion of MC11 as shown on solution {

forms and provide the system mimic as shown. ~

I  !

I Am l

HED No. M-1-0517 Problem

Description:

I The moisture separator / reheater portion of MC13 is not arrangad for i

efficient task performance.

l Solution

Description:

Rearrange components on MC13 as shown on the solution forg.s.

f HED No. M-1-0520 -

Problem

Description:

The HVAC control board is not stranged for efficient task performance.

() Solution

Description:

~

Rearrange each section of the HVAC control board as shown on solution forms.

B-15

.~. - --

HED h'. M-1-0522 Problem 7escription:

Plant assembly and evacuation alarms are in a poor location - on the end of 1MC9 Solution

Description:

Move devices RF39, 61 & 62 to 1MC1 and move device RF60 to 2MCl.

HED No. M-1-0564 Problem

Description:

Operator has no positive position indication for VQ-4.

Solution

Description:

Provide a status light to indicate VQ-4 NOT CLOSED.

HED No._, M-1-0565 Problem

Description:

D/G Remote / local control switch difficult to operate.

Solution

Description:

Replace E30 switch with a 10250T 3 position switch.

i HED No. M-1-0580 Problem

Description:

No page override in control room.

l l /~'N Solution

Description:

-(_' Add page override feature and place override button on operator's console.

j B-16 i

I . _ _ -

32 2 RED No. M-1-0587 I 7s

/

( ,)

s Problem

Description:

l The steam generator board (MC2) is not arranged for efficient task performance.

Solution

Description:

Rearrange components on MC1 and MC2, MC4 and MC10 as shown on the solution forms.

HED No. M-1-0610A Problem

Description:

The level for steam generator in wet layup can exc?.ed the available range of display capability.

Solution

Description:

Make lower tap for wet layup level the same as upper tap (or narrow range level - add computer point.

l --

HED No. M-1-0610C Problem

Description:

T-Average on computer stops reading at 530*F decreasing but T-Average

point continues to indicate.

l Solution

Description:

Change programming such that when T-Average stops reading, asterisks appear in the value column.

i 4

! \

< J' l B-17 l

33 4

HED No. M-1-0615 Problem

Description:

No hot and cold leg NC temperature indication for determining the NC system delta temperature at ASP.

Solution

Description:

Add cold leg temperature indication (hot leg already provided).

HED No. M-1-0616 Problem

Description:

1MCl3 contains several chemistry related components that are not used Sol 51$nbes$r$ption:

Move YM-188 and YM-192 to water treatment room and remove unnecessary polishing demineralizer switches.

HED No. M-1-0652 Problem

Description:

Cold leg accumulator level meters indicate only the upper 10% of full -

range. ,

Solution

Description:

Provide full-range level indication for all accumulators at a remote location outside containment.

HED No. M-1-0656 Problem

Description:

Operator does not have control of the cold leg accumulator drain p valves.

\~- Solution

Description:

Provide control switches for NI-57, 68, 79, 91, and 809 on NI portion of MCll.

~B-18

34 HED No. H-1-0657

/N Problem

Description:

k-- Operator does not have controls or indications. for NCDT, NCDT Pumps, and associated valves.

. Solution

Description:

Rearrange RL portion of MC11 and add switches, controllers, and meters for the NCDT.

.HED No. M-1-0664 Problem

Description:

There is no narrow range main steam header pressure indication.

Solution

Description:

Provide narrow range main steam header pressure indication.

• HED No. M-1-0665 Problem

Description:

Operator has no indication of NI pump recirculation flow.

Solution

Description:

Provide an NI pump-recirculation flow meter on MCll.

HED No. M-1-0666 -

Problem

Description:

Scale range on UHI surge tank pressure is too wide to accurately read -

(,_s\ normal values.

\--) Solution

Description:

Provide a narrow range UHI surge tank pressure meter on MC11 (1150 - 1300 psig).

o_,n

35 HED No. M-1-0672 _

Q. Problem

Description:

UHI surge tank pressure and level meters are arranged by channel and not by function.

Solution

Description:

Rearrange the reters such that pressures and levels are side by side for easier comparison.

HED No. M-1-0675 Problem

Description:

Heater drain tank pump controls are located on 1MC-13 instead of their associated local control panel.

Solution

Description:

Add switches for G1, G2, G3 and C1, C2, C3 heater drain pumps.co the local heater drain control panels. Leave the existing switches in the control roca. -

HED No. M-1-0676 '

Problem

Description:

Controls which..are necessary to efficiently operate the BB system are -

not provided in the control room.

i

( Solution

Description:

I Provide BB pump switches and 6 valve control switches on MC1.

HED No. M-1-0679 ,

Problem

Description:

The control room has no direct indication of which D/G panel alarm has

('~l caused the "D/G panel trouble" annunciator. *

\"'/

Solution

Description:

Provide D/G Panel alarm (those which would cause a tech spec violation or would cause a diesel trip) information en the computer, n_9n

36 HED No. H-1-0681 g)

(, Problem

Description:

Transfer switches require the operator to locate local /

remote switch in status position to identify corresponding valve status and

- then to properly align switch before transfering control to auxiliary shut-down panel.

• Solution

Description:

Replace 12 switches and change engravings. -

HED No. H-1-0682 Problem

Description:

~

No nuclear flux indication at ASP.

Solution

Description:

Add flux indication when new indication added by NUREG-1.57.

e HED No. M-1-0686 Problem

Description:

No control of charging flow at ASP.

Solution

Description:

Install manual loader for NV-238.

HED No. M-1-0687 i Problem Description; I -

Requires 2 operators to maintain VCT level.

('~\

Solution

Description:

Add VCT leve1' indication near valves for controlling VCT level.

n os

07 HED No._____ M-1-d688

'~% Problem

Description:

No manual loader for NV-459A at ASP.

Solution

Description:

Install manual loader for NV-459A.

HED No. M-1-0689 Problem

Description:

No indication of letdown pressure, flow or temperature at ASP.

Solution

Description:

Install letdown pressure, flow and temperature indication.

HED No. M-1-0691 Problem

Description:

Inconsistent grouping of related components at ASP.

! Solution

Description:

Rearrange layout of ASP switches.

l NED No. M-1-0693 Problem

Description:

o means of dumping steam to establish a cooldown from ASP.

• Solution

Description:

l l

Modify steam PORV's to allow local control other than beside the valves.

u_,,

38 HED No. M-1-0694 Problem

Description:

No control of pressurizer spray at ASP other than open/close for NV-21.

(s~s) x Solution

Description:

Modify NV-21 for throttle capability and install manual loader.

HED No. M-1-0695 Probism

Description:

No way to monitor NC pressure below 1700 psig. at ASP.

Solution

Description:

Install wide range NC pressure indication at ASP.

HID No. M-1-0698 Problem

Description:

No means of monitoring ND parameters at ASP.

Solution

Description:

Add inlet and outlet temperature indication for ND heat exchanger.

HED No. M-1-0699 Problem Descriptions Operator has no positive indication of the position of NV-840 for containment isolation.

(-) Solution

Description:

Provide OPEN/ CLOSED indication on MCS for NV-840; also provide key switch for power disconnect.

B-23

39 HED No. M-1-0700

[m)

(_,/ Problem

Description:

First-out alarms can clear with the normal acknowledge button before the first-out reset button is pressed. .

Solution

Description:

Change annunciator sequence from DSF-95 to SCFL.

HED No. M-1-0703 Problem

Description:

Access to local panels in Auxiliary Shutdown Area is restricted due to pipe hangers, supports and other equipment.

Solution

Description:

Review access in conjunction with lighting study and determine if any improvements can be made in panel access.

l HED No. M-1-0714 Problem

Description:

The range for the pressure relief tank does not meet the recommended Reg. Guide 1.97 range.

Solution

Description:

Expand the scale of the PRT temperature meter from 50 - 300*F to l 50 - 350*F.

HED No. M-2-0222 Problem

Description:

Auxiliary Shutdown Area lighting is poor, non-uniform, shadowed in areas, and provides glare in other areas in both normal and emergency mode lighting.

Solution

Description:

Improve area nor=al and emergency lighting.

5.j B-24

MED No. M-2-0315

'N Problem

Description:

%) CA storage tank level meter is shared between Unit 1 & 2. The meter is located on 1MC4.

Solution

Description:

Provide a CA storage tank level meter on 2MC4.

HED No. M-2-0318 Problem

Description:

Arrangement of meters for containment sump level, pressure and H2 concentration is different between Unit 1 and Unit 2.

Solution

Description:

Re-arrange Unit 2 meters to match Unit 1 meters. ..

HED No. M-2-0110 Problem

Description:

VS containment isolation valves are arranged differently on Unit 1 and Unit 2.

Solution

Description:

Re-arrange VS containment isolation valves per solution form.

v I

B-25

41 HED No. M-2-0322 Problem

Description:

\- Various Unit 2 controls are located on the Unit 1 side of the control room.

Solution

Description:

Move the Unit 2 controls to the Unit 2 side of the control room. ,

HED No. M-2-0323 Problem

Description:

Meter arrangement differs between Unit 1 and Unit 2 '

Solution

Description:

Re-arrange Unit 2 meters to match Unit 1 meters.

A .

HED No. M-2-0325 Problem Description.

Various escutcheon places on Unit 2 are different from Unit 1. -

Solution

Description:

Replace Unit 2 escuccheon plates per solution form.

HED No. M-2-0330 Problem

Description:

Unit #1 AB vent system Return Isolation valves are numbered 1RN299A and 1RN279B. Unit #2 AB vent system Return Isolation p valves are numbered 2RV151A and 2RV152B.

)

' Solution

Description:

Change the Unit #2 cystem identifier from RV to RN and place the switches for these valves on the RN board.

nu

42 HED No. M-2-0331 Problem

Description:

(Oj Unit 2 IDi system valves have different valve numbers from their associated Unit i valve.

Solution

Description:

Change Unit 2 IDi valve numbers to correspond with Unit 1 HM valves.

HED No. M-2-0336 Problem

Description:

There is no computer alarm acknowledge pushbutton on 2MC2.

Solution

Description:

~~

Add computer alarm acknowledge pushbutton to 2MC2.

HED No. M-2-0457 Problem

Description:

Access to local panels in Auxiliary Shutdown Area is restricted due to pipe hangers, supports and other equipment.

Solution

Description:

Review access in conjunction with lighting study and determine if any improve-ments can be made in panel access.

l l

B-27

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

O i

j J

i Appendix C i-l McGuire Nuclear Station Control Room Review t .

i HEDs Not Corrected t

i 4

i.

I 1

O a I l

I I

m a

5

+

l e

~

e d

i I

i.

I i

b i

i k

l. >

O

i. '

J HED No. M-1-0028 Problem ~

Description:

d\s, I

Train A and Train B components are in reverse order. i Solution

Description:

RearrangeI 6 meters, 4 switches,x and 2' annunciator panels so that A & B l are-in that order..  :

Justification:

The operator is looking"for consistency between the two redundant channels and is not concerned with whether he is;looking at Train A indication or

, Train B indication. Therefore, the order in which they are arranged is of i no significance.

i i

+ .

L

'HED No. M-1-0038 Problem

Description:

Four. level indications for.each steam generator are not grouped together.

~

Solution

Description:

Rearrange meters on the turret section of LHC2 so that.the four level

, channels are together.

^ Justification

. Three of the four level meters in question are grouped together, with-the fourth just above. Any rearrangement of the meters which groups allifour together would create an even more significant HED by separa-ting SM flow and CF_ flow indications, a grouping that is considered by operators to be a more important association.- ,

C-1 3

(-)

I-i -

+

r-b-%4: t,r*-eel--w **-a = *e ev- -m,. , er--ewvme-.-,- ,y, , ,,-vvw ee,-,* -re+ar-=+r -

w we -y-t-v- *w* r w - -ee . w w-es, is - y w v -w = -- w4w M,,+=r s'y c -

HED No. M-1-0095

-r% Problem

Description:

U Control knob is too big to read label underneath it.

Solution

Description:

Replace knob with a T-handle.

Juscification:

The problem of the control knob obscuring the label only happens when you are looking directly down on the handle. Replacing the knob with a differ-ent type of knob or T-handle could make the situation worse. The Review

-Team decided that the size of the knob did not impede the operator's par-formance.

Nj HED No. M-1-0118 Problem

Description:

ND & NS sump level meter is not located with associated controls.

Solution

Description:

Relocate ND & NS sump level meter from righ:: side of INC9 to the left side of -1MC9 - (~ 2 f t.) .

Justification:

There is no feasible location on the same board with the associated controls (1MC11) and the proposed relocation is not a significa tc improvement. In its present location, the meter is within a reasonable

? viewing distance and parallax is not a problem since the- viewing angle is relatively small.

[v C-2

HED No. M-1-0150 Problem

Description:

Steam generator wide range levels and level setpoints are not arranged in order on recorders SM8 and SM13 on 1MC2.

Solution

Description:

Revise recorders SM8 and SM13 sucn that S/G 1A & IB are on SM8 and S/G IC & 1D.are on SM13.

' Justification:

Steam generators 1B & 1C are on a separate safety train from steam generators 1A & 1D; therefore, the suggested rearrangement would violate the train separation principle and could not be implemented without extensive modifications to the Westinghouse process system.

U 1

C-3

HED No. M-1-0152 (Partial)

Problem

Description:

J Key-operated controls present a potential impedence to operator perform-ance.

Solution

Description:

Remove all key-operated switches under the direct control of control room operators and replace with CH 10250T rotary switches. _ .

Justification:

El) The OPC and MAINT TEST switches will not be replaced since they are integral with the vendor-supplied turbine panel.

2) The lov pressure mode selector switch for PZR FORV s will not be replaced; the kcy is an efficient means of distinguishing this switch from other rotary switches in the NC system panel.

3) Tech Specs require that the lower containment purge isolation valves be locked in position so the key-operated switches are necessary.

~

D

.[G HED'No. M-1-0159 Problem

Description:

Reading and calculating wide range 2kT is difficult due to distance between required displays.

Solution

Description:

Provide hot leg temperature and cold leg temperature on same recorder.

Justification:

.The hot leg temperature and cold leg temperature signals are channel-related such that providing the signals to the same recorder is not possible.

C-4 I/

3

IIED No. M-1-0268 (Partial)

' {g Problem

Description:

1

^' Q Functionally related controls and/or displays are not grouped together.

Solution

Description:

Rearrange components so that functional relationships are obvious.

Justification:

1) The DC B/U Vapor Extractor switch is large and distinctive and is not operated within any time constraints; therefore, moving the switch would not be a significant improvement.

2) The shutdown banks are pulled one at a' time and not as a group and once they are out the counters show an unchanging value, no matter how the banks move; the counters must be, reset to zero. Therefore, having the shutdown bank counters grouped together would not be a significant. improvement.

3) The arrangement of EMF modules by monitor number is of no importance.

The modules are clearly labeled and are as efficiently arranged as j they could be. ~

fh

(,?

HED No. M-1-0269B Problem

Description:

The NC pump monitor panel is not arranged in a logical alphabetic or L numeric sequence from left ce right or top to bottom.

l' Solution

Description:

i Rearrange the NC pump monitor panel in a logical alphabetic sequence.

Justification:

The NC pump monitor panel is located outside of the horseshoe area and is used only to verify existing NC pump alarms located inside the horseshoe; the Review Team decided therefore that rearrangement was unnecessary.

b Q,)

C~3

HED No. M-1-0270C Problem

Description:

p\~~/

- Component arrangement differs for repeated groups.

Solution

Description:

Rearrange section of lHC8 which contains Nuclear Sampling controls.

Justification:

. The only time that these valve controls are used by the operator is when directed by chemistry. These valves are grouped by valve numbers and when chemistry requests that one of the valves be operated, their request is by valve number. Therefore, the Review Team does not feel that it is necessary to rearrange this section of 1MC8.

(n) .

\_s!

'HED No. M-1-0377 Problem

Description:

The "C" fire pump does not have an ammeter dedicated to it like the rest of the 600V pumps and motors.

Solution

Description:

Add'an ammeter to the "C" fire pump.

Justification:

Since a meter indicating fire header pressure and an annunciator indi-cating pump failure to start are already provided, the Review Team decided that an ammeter would add little benefit to the operator.

A C-6

~

/ lHED No. M-1-0563 i Problem

Description:

Operators have no positive position indication for PZR spray valves INC27 and 1NC29.

Solution

Description:

Change demand lights on controllers NCSI and NC82 to actual position

. lights (OPEN/ CLOSED).

Justification:

1Due implementation of HED M-1-0190 will provide flow indication for the PZR spray header, which is an alternate means of indicating the position of the spray valves. Therefore, M-1-0563 need not be imple-

, .mented.'

\

( J-

.v f

a f

i 6

?

C-7 h.

,- . _ _ _ . , . . _ , . ~ . , - . . , . . - . . , . , , , . _ . . . _ . _ . . . _,.__, _.-.___.____.,____.., _ ,... , _ __..._.. . -._. _.,._.__ __ _,

HED No. M-1-0651 Problem

Description:

.I' Cannot monitor low range NI pump flow as when filling accumulator.

Solution

Description:

Provida-low range NI pump flow indication with signal from existing flow element in UHI fill line.

Justification:

While filling accumulator, flow is adjusted locally in the plant where

. low range flow indication does exist. Providing flow indication in the control room would not improve the operation and would be providing the control room operator with unnecessary information..

u>

HED No. M-1-0654 Problem

Description:

No indication of power mismatch signal for rod control.

Solution

Description:

Add power mismatch meter that displays power mismatch signal which goes to automatic rod position control.

Justification:

No spare card slots exist for the additional circuit card that must be added for scaling and isolation of the mismatch signal. Installation of a new process cabinet for this signal is economically unfeasible for the non-sarety rod control system.

O M

C-9 )

HED No. M-1-0669

(' ' Problem

Description:

O] Controls for ISM 73, ISM 84, 1SM90, and ISM 96 are not located with other SM components.

Solution

Description:

Provide SM isolation and containment isolation signals to the subject valves. ,

Justification:

The subject valves are in lines which are small enough that flow is limited and automatic isolation is not required. The switches them-selves are infrequently used, so they do not need to be moved.

MY

=

0 9

b'm us ' -

O I

Appendix McGuire Nucicar Station Control Rooci Review Implementation Priority Schedule _

O

_ _ _ - _ - _ - -